Brexit?

[Boris]

Voter turnout of 17% apparently, 'yay' for democracy.

 

Ah, it all becomes clear now.

[coconut doug]

Wellington- catholic emancipation?

Peel- end of corn laws, police, factory act?

Disraeli - electoral reform?

RAB Butler and his education act?

Heath and entering the European Community?

Thatcher going further than Labour on grammar school abolition?

Cameron on gay marriage?

 

Those are pretty substantial reforms made at their time. Not saying the Tories are as forward thinking as some on the left, but they have undertaken some of the greatest reforms that (as you rightly say) were fought for. In some cases by having them on manifestos for election!

 

In fact, there were as many Labour MPs in the 60s were uneasy to decriminalisation of homosexuality or abortion as the Tories. Christ Wilson was reluctant to give time in Parliament to those bills due to his upbringing and social conservatism. If it wasnt for more liberal minded people like Leo Abse and Roy Jenkins, it would have struggled to get parliamentary time.

 

Progressivism as a political idea is in no way the preserve of certain parties and people. Take the SNP, a party who proclaim progressive politics but when it comes to local democracy are largely a centralising force. Or in law and order, favour expanded tagging schemes and the idea that more police = lower crime rates. Those are not always progressive things.

 

Progressive people are on all sides of the debate. There's nothing to stop the progressive voices on all sides working against reactionary politics. If I was Labour leader in Westminster I'd be calling on those in all parties to oppose the anti-immigration rhetoric of the government. Some in Labour think we should follow suit, i dare say some in the SNP too think similar things.

 

And yet from the Bill of Right and Claim of Right in the 1680s through to catholic emancipation and the Great Reform Acts of the 19th century to the Parliament Acts and the expansion of the franchise in the early and mid-20th century to an expansion of liberalism towards abortion, equal pay, workers rights, homosexuality and enshrining these things in the HRA and Equality Acts in the modern age, they've been forced to relent to the will of people. It's why we've not had revolution in Britain.

 

The fact is reform is always there to be gotten if we want it.

 

If people want it gone it will go. No party since Lloyd George has made it the key red line of their reasons for election. I want both gone. But there's been huge amounts of reform beyond that. Personally i want the Lords gone before the monarchy because that is inherently more achievable in the here and now.

 

Democracy requires a broad support for such things to happen. You cannot force the abolition of things in a democracy, that would be anti-democratic.

 

Dreadful. Absolutely dreadful. I don't agree with their stance on any of that. But lets not forget that Tories in Wales and Scotland have long sought more tax powers than Labour ever did for a long time.

 

And on legal aid, Scotland is no better. Access to justice for many now is constrained to CAB and Free Legal Advice Centres. For a decade the use of both has grown in Scotland steadily because of SLAB (Scottish Legal Aid Board) cuts. From volunteering in this sector you see the increase in numbers. Access to justice across the UK is being constrained because it's an easy cut to make for both the UK and Scottish Government's. One which no thinks of using until it's too late. It's a scandal.

 

I don't think the SNP are demonised. They are the government of Scotland and a major party at Westminster. My grief with the SNP is their record in office (I don't propose to go into that debate now).

 

You need to separate the system - people in and the of the Establishment - from the Constitution - a structure of government. Both need reformed massively in Britain. The people in parts of the Establishment, not the constitution, has helped cause the crises we face now.

 

We need to be pragmatic in our approach here. Progressives exist on all sides of the left/right, unionist/nationalist divide. Those voices need to work together across those divides reform. It worked 100 years ago and can do now. Edit: be they ordinary people or politicians.

Thanks for the history lesson. I was talking about more contemporary events, so I'm sure you'll forgive me if I have overlooked Wellington as a progressive. It appears though he did not support Jewish emancipation and so I would contend he didn't support and definitely didn't accept or understand any notions of equality. Like all of your examples it is not evidence of progressiveness, they are examples of expediency. I imagine catholic emancipation was a good way of getting Catholics onside. No need for that consideration where Jews were concerned and so no emancipation. Perhaps you are suggesting that Wellington could be anti- Semitic and progressive at the same time. 

 

Where Tories appear to be progressive it is not, as I have previously stated for altruistic motives. It is merely expedient or they are bowing to the inevitable (see Cameron and gay marriage). Just occasionally the Tories can see the direction of travel and will jump on the bandwagon, usually trying to slow it down and change it's direction. This can be exemplified in just about every policy area but their attitude the E.U. is a good one.  

 

Heath didn't take us into the European community, he took us into the European Economic Community colloquially known as the common market. You cannot have failed to notice Ukip and Tories complaining that they and the British people had never been consulted or approved of the loss of sovereignty in the subsequent social legislation. Heath's main non - economic argument for the EEC was that co-operation would reduce the likelihood of war. A noble enough aspiration but one shared by almost all  of us. At this time Socialism had some credibility and their campaign to join the EEC was justified on the grounds that the EEC was the last bastion of capitalism. There was no progressive intent whatsoever, quite the contrary.   

 

Thatcher's relative zeal for the abolition of Grammar schools may show that she was more progressive than the Labour Party but if you wanted a better example you should have mentioned student grants. These were abolished under Labour but had remained throughout the Thatcher years. No real problem though as the Labour Party merely carried what had become Tory Policy anyway. Labour and Tories hand in hand as usual. How you can cite some minor difference in emphasis over Grammar schools as an example of progressiveness in the context of widespread privatisation, tax cuts, mass unemployment etc beats me. Even if your assertion were true, to be momentarily to the left of Blair's Labour party, on a minor issue, does not make you progressive.  

 

I cannot believe you don't recognise the demonization of the SNP. Haven't you noticed the constant Nazi comments and allusions on JKB and other social media and in almost all of the print media, as well as the personal attacks?

What about all the rubbish that's made up about our badly performing health service (Davidson) and the SNP's regressive taxation (Dugdale). It may just be that they are badly advised and badly informed but it is amazing how much of this is faithfully reported as fact.

 

 Centralising things is not necessarily opposing progress.

[Cade]

Voter turnout of 17% apparently, 'yay' for democracy.

 

Voting was: Ukip 496, Lab 255, Putting Hartlepool First 155, C 41, Patients Not Profit 36, Ind 26.

Total votes cast: 1009.

That's a truly pathetic result.

[JamboX2]

Thanks for the history lesson. I was talking about more contemporary events, so I'm sure you'll forgive me if I have overlooked Wellington as a progressive. It appears though he did not support Jewish emancipation and so I would contend he didn't support and definitely didn't accept or understand any notions of equality. Like all of your examples it is not evidence of progressiveness, they are examples of expediency. I imagine catholic emancipation was a good way of getting Catholics onside. No need for that consideration where Jews were concerned and so no emancipation. Perhaps you are suggesting that Wellington could be anti- Semitic and progressive at the same time.

 

Partly true. But arguably all reform is an expediency to match modernity or to settle scores. Equally, you cannot view events history and the impact of that time through the attitudes of today. At the time, catholic emancipation was a huge result after centuries of persecution. But it was what was capable of being achieved at the time. The Great Reform Act did not get us full suffrage and should still be celebrated for breaking the damm against reform and furthering movements which followed like Chartism.

 

You're again playing a black and white game in a very grey area.

 

In your view then, what constitutes progressivism? Creation of the NHS? Or is that sullied in someway? Civil partnerships because it wasnt full marriage?

 

Where Tories appear to be progressive it is not, as I have previously stated for altruistic motives. It is merely expedient or they are bowing to the inevitable (see Cameron and gay marriage). Just occasionally the Tories can see the direction of travel and will jump on the bandwagon, usually trying to slow it down and change it's direction. This can be exemplified in just about every policy area but their attitude the E.U. is a good one.

 

I'd rather discuss progressive as an idea in the round. Afterall the great Luberal government in the 1910s was one which brought pensions, furthered state education and workers rights and suffrage. They still sent troops in against Ben Tillets miners.

 

What is progressive then? Can it be a tag used by forces who do some good or purely those who agree with your politics?

 

Heath didn't take us into the European community, he took us into the European Economic Community colloquially known as the common market.

Thanks i knew that and opted for the shorter name. ECC ok with you?

 

You cannot have failed to notice Ukip and Tories complaining that they and the British people had never been consulted or approved of the loss of sovereignty in the subsequent social legislation. Heath's main non - economic argument for the EEC was that co-operation would reduce the likelihood of war. A noble enough aspiration but one shared by almost all of us.

They did though. Through the consent at the ballot box to Thatcher who brought about the SEA. Or Major and Maastricht. Or Blair and the Social Chapter and Nice and Brown with Lisbon.

 

Representative democracyallows such decisions. It was a facile argument and one which was batted aside easily should anyone have wanted to. Some did, ridiculed of course.

 

At this time Socialism had some credibility and their campaign to join the EEC was justified on the grounds that the EEC was the last bastion of capitalism. There was no progressive intent whatsoever, quite the contrary.

To not join you mean? Of course that move changed to pro over the social chapter and the protection of workers rights across borders to prevent a race to the bottom.

 

We can have socialism and a competitive economy in the 21st century.

 

Thatcher's relative zeal for the abolition of Grammar schools may show that she was more progressive than the Labour Party but if you wanted a better example you should have mentioned student grants. These were abolished under Labour but had remained throughout the Thatcher years. No real problem though as the Labour Party merely carried what had become Tory Policy anyway. Labour and Tories hand in hand as usual. How you can cite some minor difference in emphasis over Grammar schools as an example of progressiveness in the context of widespread privatisation, tax cuts, mass unemployment etc beats me.

Well, i meant as Education Secretary rather than as PM. But again, ending selectivity of education and pigeon holing children's futures is hugely progressive and liberating.

 

I equally agree with you on grants. However, it is also right to day there is a funding crisis in higher education which has been caused by more people going to uni. This creates a funding shortage as more places are provided. I personallyfavour a hypothecated graduate tax over tuition fees or the like. But grants don't exist i any part ofthe UK which is a sad endictment of the world when even free tuition is a barrier due to a lack of funding for poorer students in terms of support for life. The fact is living costs are spiralling and individual debts are now a barrier to attending further and higher education.

 

Your view is again, to me, too simplistic.

 

Even if your assertion were true, to be momentarily to the left of Blair's Labour party, on a minor issue, does not make you progressive.

 

I cannot believe you don't recognise the demonization of the SNP. Haven't you noticed the constant Nazi comments and allusions on JKB and other social media and in almost all of the print media, as well as the personal attacks?

What about all the rubbish that's made up about our badly performing health service (Davidson) and the SNP's regressive taxation (Dugdale). It may just be that they are badly advised and badly informed but it is amazing how much of this is faithfully reported as fact.

Again I'd rather discuss progressivism as an idea but there are facts and figures supporting their arguments which can be played out. The personal abuse I don't agree with and should be left in the gutter.

 

Would you rather opposition parties merely praised the current SNP government or test them on this to do better. As Dugdale did on rail fares this week and Davidson has on Named Person, which was a rushed and flawed bill as the courts noted. Opposition is to help make government govern better. Which isn't helped by phrases like "I'll take no lessons from..."

 

Centralising things is not necessarily opposing progress.

No. But it's a dilution of people power and democracy. Which isn't exactly progress either.

[aussieh]

Ireland are gonnae do quite well out of Brexit and are the fastest growing economy in Europe. Brexit proofing their budget today too.

[Cade]

The Treasury have done some sums based on Hard Brexit and reckon that GDP will shrink by between 5.4% and 9.5% and between ?38-66billion per year in taxes will be lost.

 

But......we're getting rid of the darkies so it's all rosy.

[The Comedian]

Honking patter like that is one of the reasons Remain lost.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

The Treasury have done some sums based on Hard Brexit and reckon that GDP will shrink by between 5.4% and 9.5% and between ?38-66billion per year in taxes will be lost.

 

But......we're getting rid of the darkies so it's all rosy.

 

Yet the FTSE has hit a record high today.

 

Nobody really has any idea how this is going to work out. I voted remain but ultimately, remain lost. So we have to take what's coming.

[Space Mackerel]

.

[JamboX2]

Yet the FTSE has hit a record high today.

 

Nobody really has any idea how this is going to work out. I voted remain but ultimately, remain lost. So we have to take what's coming.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but is the FTSE not rocketing because a weak ? makes foreign investors able to buy a lot of shares cheap?

 

So not necessarily a case of a well run economy but a bonanza sale on UK PLC?

[Francis Albert]

Yet the FTSE has hit a record high today.

 

Nobody really has any idea how this is going to work out. I voted remain but ultimately, remain lost. So we have to take what's coming.

I too was on the remain side but am increasingly annoyed with those who can't accept that we lost.

 

We have those serial losers Clegg and Milliband telling us that because the result was close and/or people didn't know what they were voting for Parliament should decide, or that only a so called "soft Brexit" is justified. There was a logic for voting to leave and in voting to remain. There was no logic in a "soft Brexit" where we remain bound by all the EU rules without any say in making them. I doubt that anyone voted for that.

 

A senior columnist in the Observer argued that because only 37% of the electorate voted to leave there was no mandate for leaving. His great mind misses the fact that the same sum showed only 34% voting to remain.

 

And yes the share price/dollar interaction makes conclusions difficult. But there were world wide headlines about billions being wiped out in the immediate aftermath of the vote, but virtual silence on the much greater increase since then.

 

Oh, and I still see frequent references to the likelihood of Brexit leading to the break up of the UK, although I haven't seen a shred of evidence since the vote to support the idea it has advanced the cause of Scottish independence.

[aussieh]

I too was on the remain side but am increasingly annoyed with those who can't accept that we lost.

 

We have those serial losers Clegg and Milliband telling us that because the result was close and/or people didn't know what they were voting for Parliament should decide, or that only a so called "soft Brexit" is justified. There was a logic for voting to leave and in voting to remain. There was no logic in a "soft Brexit" where we remain bound by all the EU rules without any say in making them. I doubt that anyone voted for that.

 

A senior columnist in the Observer argued that because only 37% of the electorate voted to leave there was no mandate for leaving. His great mind misses the fact that the same sum showed only 34% voting to remain.

 

And yes the share price/dollar interaction makes conclusions difficult. But there were world wide headlines about billions being wiped out in the immediate aftermath of the vote, but virtual silence on the much greater increase since then.

 

Oh, and I still see frequent references to the likelihood of Brexit leading to the break up of the UK, although I haven't seen a shred of evidence since the vote to support the idea it has advanced the cause of Scottish independence.

We just need to get on with it. What will be, will be.

[Pans Jambo]

Story.

Was in at a customers today in the south of Glasgow. They supply Tesco, Lidl & Aldi in the UK with a food product. Their business has grown to the extent that they have outgrown their factory & have bought another one across the road so they can expand.

Their preferred supplier for the fit out quoted them around ?8 million euros for the entire building that includes all the capital equiptment etc. They need to do this in order to keep up with their customers increased business however; with the arse falling out of Sterling recently they are considering putting this on hold as every day the cost increases. They would also need to employ around another 26 staff.

This is all because of Teresa May & her secret Brexit deal.

His words not mine but hard to disagree.

[Boris]

I too was on the remain side but am increasingly annoyed with those who can't accept that we lost.We have those serial losers Clegg and Milliband telling us that because the result was close and/or people didn't know what they were voting for Parliament should decide, or that only a so called "soft Brexit" is justified. There was a logic for voting to leave and in voting to remain. There was no logic in a "soft Brexit" where we remain bound by all the EU rules without any say in making them. I doubt that anyone voted for that.A senior columnist in the Observer argued that because only 37% of the electorate voted to leave there was no mandate for leaving. His great mind misses the fact that the same sum showed only 34% voting to remain.And yes the share price/dollar interaction makes conclusions difficult. But there were world wide headlines about billions being wiped out in the immediate aftermath of the vote, but virtual silence on the much greater increase since then.Oh, and I still see frequent references to the likelihood of Brexit leading to the break up of the UK, although I haven't seen a shred of evidence since the vote to support the idea it has advanced the cause of Scottish independence.

Yes, remain lost. But do you think those that voted to leave knew what they were actually voting for? ?350m per week to the nhs? Really? It's a freaking stitch up.

 

The Eu is shite, I get that. But what we have is a rudderless government using immigration as the reason for what they are doing. Hell mend them.

 

Regards Scotland, time a second referendum right and it will win because the lines have been drawn and if it is an option of independence and the great unknown, or Mays increasingly insular and xenophobic Britain, I know what I would choose and also I think what a lot of no voters may switch to.

[Francis Albert]

Yes, remain lost. But do you think those that voted to leave knew what they were actually voting for? ?350m per week to the nhs? Really? It's a freaking stitch up.

 

The Eu is shite, I get that. But what we have is a rudderless government using immigration as the reason for what they are doing. Hell mend them.

 

Regards Scotland, time a second referendum right and it will win because the lines have been drawn and if it is an option of independence and the great unknown, or Mays increasingly insular and xenophobic Britain, I know what I would choose and also I think what a lot of no voters may switch to.

Yes I think those who voted Leave knew what they were voting for. They were voting to leave, not to stay but without any vote or say (as in "Soft Brexit") in the EU. I don't think many swallowed the ?350m per week thing, just as I don't think many who voted remain thought Cameron's renegotiation with its "emergency brake" on immigration (requiring the 27 other members agreeing to trigger it) meant anything.

 

Dream on as far as Scotland is concerned.

[SwindonJambo]

.

Good point.

[hughesie27]

The ?

[Hasselhoff]

During the Brexit campaign, Sturgeon dismissed financial horror predictions as project fear but now the SNP are backing those same assertions. Total hypocrisy.

 

If Corbyn and Sturgeon had been more persuasive during the Brexit campaign, it would have been a remain. Corbyn wasn't interested, Sturgeon didn't want to appear to be condoning scare stories (until now)

 

We had a vote, the result should be adhered to. Similar to Indy.

[Hasselhoff]

https://twitter.com/jamieross7/status/785961067348422656

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but is the FTSE not rocketing because a weak ? makes foreign investors able to buy a lot of shares cheap?

 

So not necessarily a case of a well run economy but a bonanza sale on UK PLC?

 

But if that's the case, why is it that everyone panics like feck whenever the FTSE drops low?

[JamboX2]

But if that's the case, why is it that everyone panics like feck whenever the FTSE drops low?

I suppose the difference here is devalued currency means our wages are worth less. I heard a tory mp on the radio say that there was nothing to worry about and that the value was constant. Struck me as a distinct case of "the pound in your pocket" statement by Harold Wilson.

[Ibrahim Tall]

During the Brexit campaign, Sturgeon dismissed financial horror predictions as project fear but now the SNP are backing those same assertions. Total hypocrisy.

 

If Corbyn and Sturgeon had been more persuasive during the Brexit campaign, it would have been a remain. Corbyn wasn't interested, Sturgeon didn't want to appear to be condoning scare stories (until now)

 

We had a vote, the result should be adhered to. Similar to Indy.

Not sure the Sturgeon criticism is fair tbh, Scotland did vote 'remain' so Sturgeon clearly did enough in her region. Hartlepool etc was never going to remain based on the opinion of Nicola Sturgeon. That was up the local MP's or at the very least the parties represented in that area.

[Boris]

During the Brexit campaign, Sturgeon dismissed financial horror predictions as project fear but now the SNP are backing those same assertions. Total hypocrisy.

If Corbyn and Sturgeon had been more persuasive during the Brexit campaign, it would have been a remain. Corbyn wasn't interested, Sturgeon didn't want to appear to be condoning scare stories (until now)

We had a vote, the result should be adhered to. Similar to Indy.

  

Not sure the Sturgeon criticism is fair tbh, Scotland did vote 'remain' so Sturgeon clearly did enough in her region. Hartlepool etc was never going to remain based on the opinion of Nicola Sturgeon. That was up the local MP's or at the very least the parties represented in that area.

I read the other day an analysis of news coverage of the referendum. It basically said that within the msm something like 17% of coverage focuses on Labours remain campaign. So easy to say where is Corbyn, if he isn't getting the air time.

 

Essentially, the argument was an internal Tory one that we were being shown.

[coconut doug]

During the Brexit campaign, Sturgeon dismissed financial horror predictions as project fear but now the SNP are backing those same assertions. Total hypocrisy.

 

If Corbyn and Sturgeon had been more persuasive during the Brexit campaign, it would have been a remain. Corbyn wasn't interested, Sturgeon didn't want to appear to be condoning scare stories (until now)

 

We had a vote, the result should be adhered to. Similar to Indy.

I remember Nicola warning about "project fear". She was of course correct.

 

 We did end up leaving the EU because the electorate was not impressed by the project fear arguments from the likes of Osborne and Cameron. In particular Osborne's punishment budget and Cameron's world war 3 warnings come to mind. I think Nicola, like almost everybody else realised that there is a downside to Brexit and merely wanted informed debate. I'm not aware that she "dismissed financial horror predictions as project fear" other than Osborne's punishment budget which was widely described as a threat to voters. An empty threat to as Osborne obviously knew he could not continue after a vote to leave. What Nicola was saying is that if you keep making things up fewer and fewer people will believe you and you run the risk of losing the referendum. A perfectly valid point as that almost happened in the Indyref.

 

If Corbyn and Sturgeon had been more persuasive then perhaps we could have remained but what chance did they have against a hostile press. Actually studies (link here) http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/blame-corbyn-what-about-theresa-mays.html show that Corbyn worked very hard with 123 appearances and that his satisfaction level was much higher than the media approved leader of the Labour campaign, Alan Johnson. Corbyn called it right for me when he gave the EU 7 out of 10. An honest appraisal but a characteristic not widely enough appreciated by our electorate.

 

The real problem was Boris Johnson and the image portrayed of him by a fawning press. Do you remember the scrum outside his house as they grovelled around him trying to find out which side he was going to be on. BBC reporters deferentially calling him sir and hanging on his every word as if he was anything other than the duplicitous buffoon he appears to be. What an indictment of the British public that they should be persuaded by this chancer who didn't even support the position he was taking. Nevertheless the newspapers and TV did their best to attach gravitas and authority to him and support the incoherent rubbish he spouted. ?350million a week for the NHS he claimed and many believed him. You didn't need to be Michael Gove to know he didn't have the qualities to be Prime Minister but he's popular in England and he is one big reason why leave won. 42% of Tories voted to remain whilst 63% of Labour voters and 62% of Scots the figure for SNP supporters being much higher but you want to blame Corbyn and Nicola..

 

Nicola was right to warn of project fear's potential backlash, after all it happened. She is also right to warn of future financial difficulties. This is not in any way hypocritical. The fears are real and the warnings based on fact and expert opinion. Prices are going up, jobs lost, currency collapsing and confidence weakened and investment slashed. Should we just accept the further decline of our country (Scotland or UK) on the basis that the people have decided, even though they voted on many false premises. We seem to have no discernible strategy for the future apart from listing foreign workers, recommisioning the Royal Yacht and encouraging people to demonstrate outside the Russian Embassy and more austerity obviously.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

  

I read the other day an analysis of news coverage of the referendum. It basically said that within the msm something like 17% of coverage focuses on Labours remain campaign. So easy to say where is Corbyn, if he isn't getting the air time.

 

Essentially, the argument was an internal Tory one that we were being shown.

 

Anyone with eyes could see that Corbyn tried to do nothing for as long as possible

[coconut doug]

Anyone with eyes could see that Corbyn tried to do nothing for as long as possible

123 appearances around the country speaking in favour of remain, more than anybody else in remain apparently.

[Auld Reekin']

123 appearances around the country speaking in favour of remain, more than anybody else in remain apparently.

 

The one time I saw him do so, on TV, he was utterly unconvincing and didn't seem to have any belief in the lines he was reciting: it was as if he was in a competition to see how many "um"s, "er"s, and other hesitations he could introduce into each sentence. His body-language also suggested he was very uncomfortable with the message he was supposed to be delivering. 

 

I could travel around the country appearing in 1,230 or 12,300 venues - not that anyone would want to attend, very wisely - and extol the virtues of:

• unrestricted, free-market, economics;
• the complete deregulation of the banking and finance industries;
• the necessity for further huge pay-rises for the top brokers and dealers within the City of London;
• multinational corporations paying even less UK tax than they have been doing;
• TTIP;
• genetically-modified food;
• the absolute necessity for the United Kingdom to remain united, no matter how greatly circumstances change;
• what a wonderful leader Margaret Thatcher was and the many fantastic achievements during her time as PM;
• why we should harden-up and speed-up Brexit and thus the removal of as many EU workers from the UK as soon as possible;
• how great it is to have The Rangers in the SPL;
• how wonderful it is to be a h1b5 supporter.

 

I could, but I doubt I'd manage to persuade a single person to adopt "my" position on any of these matters...

[Space Mackerel]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but is the FTSE not rocketing because a weak ? makes foreign investors able to buy a lot of shares cheap?

 

So not necessarily a case of a well run economy but a bonanza sale on UK PLC?

It because all these British/foreign companies are paid in dollars or whatever and because of the plummeting pound, their profits etc are worth more.

[Space Mackerel]

Anyone with eyes could see that Corbyn tried to do nothing for as long as possible

What's your basis for this argument?

[Cade]

Maybot trying to calm the markets by contradicting herself during PMQ's today:

Firstly by stating that the government is going to follow the British people's wish to leave the EU but she was going to do a great deal for access to the single market.

Then immediately saying that the British people also wanted the free movement of people stopped.

 

The two things are mutually exclusive you daft old bag.

[Francis Albert]

Maybot trying to calm the markets by contradicting herself during PMQ's today:

Firstly by stating that the government is going to follow the British people's wish to leave the EU but she was going to do a great deal for access to the single market.

Then immediately saying that the British people also wanted the free movement of people stopped.

 

The two things are mutually exclusive you daft old bag.

It's a negotiating position. She is hardly going to say she is going to do a crap deal.

 

And the two things are not in fact mutually exclusive. Leichtenstein has access to the single market while applying much tighter immigration controls (proportionate to size) than any controls Britain would seek to impose.

 

Of course it's just Leichtenstein and of course I am not saying we will get the same deal, just that it is not quite the sacred and inviolable principle that May's counterparts are describing in their own opening negotiating positions.

 

Canada I believe also has a deal for access to the EU market, without any obligation to have open borders with the EU.

[Cade]

It's a negotiating position. She is hardly going to say she is going to do a crap deal.

 

And the two things are not in fact mutually exclusive. Leichtenstein has access to the single market while applying much tighter immigration controls (proportionate to size) than any controls Britain would seek to impose.

 

Of course it's just Leichtenstein and of course I am not saying we will get the same deal, just that it is not quite the sacred and inviolable principle that May's counterparts are describing in their own opening negotiating positions.

 

Canada I believe also has a deal for access to the EU market, without any obligation to have open borders with the EU.

Those are outsiders making independent deals with the EU (those deals took many, many years to form).

 

We're insiders wanting out but keeping full access to the market i.e. having our cake and eating it. Not going to happen.

[aussieh]

During the Brexit campaign, Sturgeon dismissed financial horror predictions as project fear but now the SNP are backing those same assertions. Total hypocrisy.

 

If Corbyn and Sturgeon had been more persuasive during the Brexit campaign, it would have been a remain. Corbyn wasn't interested, Sturgeon didn't want to appear to be condoning scare stories (until now)

 

We had a vote, the result should be adhered to. Similar to Indy.

What are talking about?

The FM bagged a 62% remain vote.

[Francis Albert]

Those are outsiders making independent deals with the EU (those deals took many, many years to form).

 

We're insiders wanting out but keeping full access to the market i.e. having our cake and eating it. Not going to happen.

I didn't say it was. But before the negotiations even start I wouldn't in her position prejudge the outcome. And May did not say "full access" did she? Assuming your quote or paraphrase of what she said was accurate.

[Space Mackerel]

It's a negotiating position. She is hardly going to say she is going to do a crap deal.

 

And the two things are not in fact mutually exclusive. Leichtenstein has access to the single market while applying much tighter immigration controls (proportionate to size) than any controls Britain would seek to impose.

 

Of course it's just Leichtenstein and of course I am not saying we will get the same deal, just that it is not quite the sacred and inviolable principle that May's counterparts are describing in their own opening negotiating positions.

 

Canada I believe also has a deal for access to the EU market, without any obligation to have open borders with the EU.

Canada can trade goods but not services.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hasselhoff]

What are talking about?

The FM bagged a 62% remain vote.

If the whole of Scotland had voted remain it would have been a remain. The turnout in Scotland was only 67%. All Scottish MPs were pro remain, Sturgeon can't take credit for that. It was Ruth Davidson who was at the O2 speaking for remain not Sturgeon.

[jack D and coke]

If the whole of Scotland had voted remain it would have been a remain. The turnout in Scotland was only 67%. All Scottish MPs were pro remain, Sturgeon can't take credit for that. It was Ruth Davidson who was at the O2 speaking for remain not Sturgeon.

You're not seriously suggesting Ruth Davidson got Scotland to vote remain? All SNP voters almost to a man will be remain. Mainly because they are drone like followers of what the snp tell them but nevertheless.

Ruth Davidson is a throbber of a woman.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

You're not seriously suggesting Ruth Davidson got Scotland to vote remain? All SNP voters almost to a man will be remain. Mainly because they are drone like followers of what the snp tell them but nevertheless.

Ruth Davidson is a throbber of a woman.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Im not sure you are correct pal, quite a lot of SNP voters put a cross down on Leave. I was quite surprised.

 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/06/so-just-how-united-are-the-snp-on-europe/ 

[Francis Albert]

Canada can trade goods but not services.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So as I say it is not an inviolable or sacrosanct principle that free trade and free movement of people are inextricably linked.

 

There is a lot of cant among the moaning remainers about the "free movement of people" as though constraining it was some sort of crime against civilised society. In practice there are huge barriers to "free movement" and the principle benefits a small, mainly relatively wealthy and privileged minority. First of course business, but also in practice mainly young people  with no ties of elderly relatives and children and who are relatively highly skilled. And it means the poorer regions are deprived of those people, making them relatively poorer still. While the wealthy regions solve some of their problems of an aging and shrinking workforce.

 

It may make sense for the richer regions but save me from the "it's ruined our future" bleating of the (relatively) privileged.

[jack D and coke]

Im not sure you are correct pal, quite a lot of SNP voters put a cross down on Leave. I was quite surprised.

 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/06/so-just-how-united-are-the-snp-on-europe/

Always shades of grey ma pal...Sure there will be snp voters who voted No and will vote No in any indyref 2 but most people I know who have now became facebook politicians since the first indyref and are rabid nats repeat their policies with drone like monotony. I've listened to the daftest people I know tell me leaving Europe is bad but they can't tell me why. Bit like your facebook thing yesterday when the guy was asking the leave voter to give him a good reason for his leave vote[emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

Always shades of grey ma pal...Sure there will be snp voters who voted No and will vote No in any indyref 2 but most people I know who have now became facebook politicians since the first indyref and are rabid nats repeat their policies with drone like monotony. I've listened to the daftest people I know tell me leaving Europe is bad but they can't tell me why. Bit like your facebook thing yesterday when the guy was asking the leave voter to give him a good reason for his leave vote[emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You are that man on the radio show though 

[jack D and coke]

You are that man on the radio show though

If only you saw the irony in your indy/brexit arguments I'd agree pal[emoji6]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seymour M Hersh]

You're not seriously suggesting Ruth Davidson got Scotland to vote remain? All SNP voters almost to a man will be remain. Mainly because they are drone like followers of what the snp tell them but nevertheless.

Ruth Davidson is a throbber of a woman.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Apart from the 400,000 who voted leave.

[Francis Albert]

Im not sure you are correct pal, quite a lot of SNP voters put a cross down on Leave. I was quite surprised.

 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/06/so-just-how-united-are-the-snp-on-europe/ 

Maybe the guiding principle of some SNP voters is that nations should be independent and sovereign.

 

And maybe others voted tactically in the (so far seemingly misjudged) belief that a Leave vote would give a big boost to support for Scottish independence.

[Space Mackerel]

Maybe the guiding principle of some SNP voters is that nations should be independent and sovereign.

 

And maybe others voted tactically in the (so far seemingly misjudged) belief that a Leave vote would give a big boost to support for Scottish independence.

Report in The Scotsman today saying 1 in 10 have changed sides for indyref2 should it happen. Being The Scotsman and the Unionst rag that it is now, I will take it with a pinch of salt.

 

I believe thats enough to overturn the result in favour of a Yes. 

[Space Mackerel]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/poll-one-in-10-swayed-to-back-independence-by-brexit-vote-1-4256734

[Space Mackerel]

If only you saw the irony in your indy/brexit arguments I'd agree pal[emoji6]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sad sad state of affairs when guid working class Scottish guys bum up the ultra right-wing Tory elite and their pals   

[jack D and coke]

Report in The Scotsman today saying 1 in 10 have changed sides for indyref2 should it happen. Being The Scotsman and the Unionst rag that it is now, I will take it with a pinch of salt.

 

I believe thats enough to overturn the result in favour of a Yes.

Hmm I'm not so sure pal...The doom mongering would go into overdrive this time. Hard borders, trade deals being years in the making, Scotland becoming the Bangladesh or Europe (although tbf labour used that when the oil production was at its peak) you name it.

Brexit, imo anyway makes it much less likely.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jack D and coke]

Sad sad state of affairs when guid working class Scottish guys bum up the ultra right-wing Tory elite and their pals

Surely you can't mean me mush??[emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

Hmm I'm not so sure pal...The doom mongering would go into overdrive this time. Hard borders, trade deals being years in the making, Scotland becoming the Bangladesh or Europe (although tbf labour used that when the oil production was at its peak) you name it.

Brexit, imo anyway makes it much less likely.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You're seriously suggesting Project Fear mk2 is the only hope of avoiding a Yes vote?

 

Bangladesh of Europe?

These hard borders? Are they going up between NI and the South?