Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:22 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1287 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 33  Next

Which way will you vote?
Conservative 31%  31%  [ 38 ]
Labour 5%  5%  [ 6 ]
Liberal Democrats 27%  27%  [ 33 ]
UKIP 4%  4%  [ 5 ]
Scottish National Party 3%  3%  [ 4 ]
Greens 2%  2%  [ 3 ]
Democratic Unionist Party 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
Plaid Cymru 5%  5%  [ 6 ]
Sinn Fein 12%  12%  [ 15 ]
Gavin Henson/Other 10%  10%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 124
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
Can ee clear up soft/hard brexit, to leave the European Union we have to leave the single market, the customs union and ECJ rulings and free movement. I'm not sure which bit of leaving the union people thought brexit was.

Hard brexit would I spose be WTO rules and a pact with Russia .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:21 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:13 pm
Posts: 990
International [bribe] Aid budget


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7843
Location: Bucks
Chuckles1188 wrote:
TranceNRG wrote:
theo wrote:
I still have no idea who will be the Conservative candidate for Richmond Park assuming Zac G won't come back into the fold.

Though I have no doubt LD will win the seat.


I think the results will be closer this time around and Conservatives could potentially win it back if they have a good candidate. Remember Zac was a strong leaver and running as an independent he still managed to get about 18.5K votes compared to Sarah Olney. I don't think Brexit will be an as big an issue as it was last year plus Olney doesn't' seem very bright either.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/l ... election/#


Zac was only running as an independent nominally, and he was the incumbent. I would chalk this post up to wishful thinking

While Zac was obviously nominally independent, he couldn't access the Tory voter database. This is supposedly a factor that can be a major boost to a campaign.

That said, Richmond Park strikes me as one of those seats that the Lib Dems will be able to cling to for dear life for a couple of parliaments now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17245
bimboman wrote:
Hard brexit would I spose be WTO rules and a pact with Russia .


and Trump + Le Pen, revive that lovely WW2 alliance of ours


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 pm
Posts: 2970
Location: dublin
openclashXX wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Hard brexit would I spose be WTO rules and a pact with Russia .


and bubblefart + Le Pen, revive that lovely WW2 alliance of ours


#glorydays


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
openclashXX wrote:
again, highly unscientific, but on my Facebook feed over the past few days I've seen a fair few (until now relatively quiet) Labour supporters reappear posting exactly that sort of anti-Tory stuff that MW highlighted

for instance I've seen this re-shared a fair bit:

Image



You feel labour came up with the meme before the policy. Why on earth the tax payer should buy my children food is quite beyond me btw.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
Hawk97 wrote:
Corbyn has started pretty well. Really hammering the zero-hour contract stuff and unfair employment. Hit people where they feel it the most - their wallets.



Oh dear lord,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
openclashXX wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Hard to take that chart seriously when it predicts that an 83 seat loss for Labour would leave them on 149 seats


am I missing something or is 149 + 83 = 232?


It is, but Labour don't have 232 seats


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7843
Location: Bucks
Chuckles1188 wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Hard to take that chart seriously when it predicts that an 83 seat loss for Labour would leave them on 149 seats


am I missing something or is 149 + 83 = 232?


It is, but Labour don't have 232 seats

Is the 232 notional from the last election, taking out a deputy speaker, Kauffman and Copeland?

*disclaimer, I don't really know


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17245
Chuckles1188 wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Hard to take that chart seriously when it predicts that an 83 seat loss for Labour would leave them on 149 seats


am I missing something or is 149 + 83 = 232?


It is, but Labour don't have 232 seats


they won 232 in 2015 :? which is exactly what that table said


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12997
Location: West of Londinium
Saint wrote:
Any and all of them are potentially moveable (with the possible exception of the ECJ - unless you are inside the EU then there is no reason for you to either want or need to be bound by ECJ rulings). That's the whole point of negotiation - you want to present the all as completely immovable in order to extract the maximum possible benefit from the other side.

I suspect that free movement of people is very much moveable, under a free movement of labour guise, likely in return for some sort of free trade agreement; whether customs union, zero tariff single market access or something. At a guess there will be some sort of fee/contribution paid to the EU, that will be lower than we have at the moment, but greater than a big fat zero.

The trouble is that absolutely none of these are achievable right now - they are anathema to the hard Brexiteers in her own party, and aren't even close to the cuckoo-land requirements that the opposition parties have laid down as pre-requisites for them to support the final agreement.

Now then the question comes down to exactly what will be negotiated and what will the final deal look like. That's the big unknowable at the moment, unless you're on the inside of the negotiating team. A basic tenet of negotiation is that you never let the other side know what you would be happy to accept as your final position, because all they will do is take you right to that point and then try to extract their pound of flesh beyond that. This is one of many reasons why all the noise about debating every position in the HoC has been completely pointless - in order to extract the best possible result, the last thing you want to do is debate your negotiating position publically.

Okay now I see why we're confusing each other as you are talking about a softer brexit with regards to a future trade deal after we leave. Whereas I'm reading into the narrative from some quarters that May could perhaps do an about face on single market membership, customs union, ECJ etc Which I don't think is remotely conceivable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6086
croyals wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
TranceNRG wrote:
theo wrote:
I still have no idea who will be the Conservative candidate for Richmond Park assuming Zac G won't come back into the fold.

Though I have no doubt LD will win the seat.


I think the results will be closer this time around and Conservatives could potentially win it back if they have a good candidate. Remember Zac was a strong leaver and running as an independent he still managed to get about 18.5K votes compared to Sarah Olney. I don't think Brexit will be an as big an issue as it was last year plus Olney doesn't' seem very bright either.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/l ... election/#


Zac was only running as an independent nominally, and he was the incumbent. I would chalk this post up to wishful thinking

While Zac was obviously nominally independent, he couldn't access the Tory voter database. This is supposedly a factor that can be a major boost to a campaign.

That said, Richmond Park strikes me as one of those seats that the Lib Dems will be able to cling to for dear life for a couple of parliaments now.


The one factor that will only become apparent after voting is closed is the desire of voters to turn out to cast a vote. If LD voters are leavers and pissed off with the majority of the media totally disregarding both their views and their right to hold a contrary view, they might have a 10-15% advantage in turn out, which could make all the difference. Other factors that might also contribute to this include being pissed off with yet another election and a view that there is no point voting because Conservatives will have a landslide.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
openclashXX wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Hard to take that chart seriously when it predicts that an 83 seat loss for Labour would leave them on 149 seats


am I missing something or is 149 + 83 = 232?


It is, but Labour don't have 232 seats


they won 232 in 2015 :? which is exactly what that table said


Yes, but the table then predicts the number of seats Labour will be left with assuming that the 2015 figure is their starting point, which it isn't, which was my point all along


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13023
tiddle wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mullet 2 wrote:
Image


Hard to take that chart seriously when it predicts that an 83 seat loss for Labour would leave them on 149 seats


what else would it leave them on?


They have 229 seats. They haven't factored in the post Brexit by-elections in their calculations, like Chuckles does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
Silly me for thinking that an attempt to predict how many seats a party will end up with ought to factor in how many seats they already have


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 pm
Posts: 2970
Location: dublin
eldanielfire wrote:
tiddle wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mullet 2 wrote:
Image


Hard to take that chart seriously when it predicts that an 83 seat loss for Labour would leave them on 149 seats


what else would it leave them on?


They have 229 seats. They haven't factored in the post Brexit by-elections in their calculations, like Chuckles does.


It's the predicted change between elections. Looks fine to me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
tiddle wrote:
It's the predicted change between elections. Looks fine to me


There's a column labeled "predicted seats" right there


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13005
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
Can ee clear up soft/hard brexit, to leave the European Union we have to leave the single market, the customs union and ECJ rulings and free movement. I'm not sure which bit of leaving the union people thought brexit was.

Hard brexit would I spose be WTO rules and a pact with Russia .


There's the rub isn't it? The Brexit campaigners seemed to provide a number of different option as to what it meant, depending on who you listened to; even the Remain side weren't consistent when it came to trying to shoot them down.

If it was absolutely clear what Brexit meant to everybody then we wouldn't have the clusterfuck that we have today


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13005
Location: South Oxfordshire
Chuckles1188 wrote:
tiddle wrote:
It's the predicted change between elections. Looks fine to me


There's a column labeled "predicted seats" right there


It gives three columns of interest:

1 - What they won in 2015
2 - What the net change would be
3 - What that translates to in predicted seats

Now if they lost a seat between then and now, then that's part of the net change. Your point is only valid if they have a column for "Seats right now"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
Saint wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
tiddle wrote:
It's the predicted change between elections. Looks fine to me


There's a column labeled "predicted seats" right there


It gives three columns of interest:

1 - What they won in 2015
2 - What the net change would be
3 - What that translates to in predicted seats

Now if they lost a seat between then and now, then that's part of the net change. Your point is only valid if they have a column for "Seats right now"


If they had a column for seats right now then my point would explicitly not be valid. They have a column labelled "pred seats". Is it genuinely more likely that they meant by that "what that translates to in predicted seats" than "our prediction of what the final number of seats will be"? I think not

In any event a calculation based on a poll conducted before any meaningful campaigning has taken place is of nominal value at best. Even when the people who create it can be bothered to check what the actual number of seats each party has is


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 pm
Posts: 2970
Location: dublin
Chuckles1188 wrote:
tiddle wrote:
It's the predicted change between elections. Looks fine to me


There's a column labeled "predicted seats" right there


Ah, I get what you mean


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13023
All this debate to determine the exact way we say Labour are f**k.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13005
Location: South Oxfordshire
Gospel wrote:
Saint wrote:
Any and all of them are potentially moveable (with the possible exception of the ECJ - unless you are inside the EU then there is no reason for you to either want or need to be bound by ECJ rulings). That's the whole point of negotiation - you want to present the all as completely immovable in order to extract the maximum possible benefit from the other side.

I suspect that free movement of people is very much moveable, under a free movement of labour guise, likely in return for some sort of free trade agreement; whether customs union, zero tariff single market access or something. At a guess there will be some sort of fee/contribution paid to the EU, that will be lower than we have at the moment, but greater than a big fat zero.

The trouble is that absolutely none of these are achievable right now - they are anathema to the hard Brexiteers in her own party, and aren't even close to the cuckoo-land requirements that the opposition parties have laid down as pre-requisites for them to support the final agreement.

Now then the question comes down to exactly what will be negotiated and what will the final deal look like. That's the big unknowable at the moment, unless you're on the inside of the negotiating team. A basic tenet of negotiation is that you never let the other side know what you would be happy to accept as your final position, because all they will do is take you right to that point and then try to extract their pound of flesh beyond that. This is one of many reasons why all the noise about debating every position in the HoC has been completely pointless - in order to extract the best possible result, the last thing you want to do is debate your negotiating position publically.

Okay now I see why we're confusing each other as you are talking about a softer brexit with regards to a future trade deal after we leave. Whereas I'm reading into the narrative from some quarters that May could perhaps do an about face on single market membership, customs union, ECJ etc Which I don't think is remotely conceivable.


I don't think a complete about face is possible because then it really isn't Brexit

I do think that some version of something that might look a lot like the single market or the customs union (but very blatantly with names that aren't the same as those) is on the table - in return for some sort of freedom of labour (which probably won't have "freedom of" in the name) and a cash fee. And we will have Brexit, but with preferential access in return for the softening of our red line positions currently.

What is certain is that there is no way that settlement could get through parliament as it's comprised currently and with the positions laid out by the opposition parties, who appear to be demanding complete single market access, ECJ, and every other benefit of the EU as the bare minimum before they will even start to consider voting in favour of this. The lunatic fringe of the parliamentary conservative party currently have the whip hand because the opposition have essentially handed it to them; so I find it incredibly ironic that they then cry foul when May calls an election to try and remove that power from them to enable some serious discussion to take place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13005
Location: South Oxfordshire
Just watching a clip of Tim Farron on the campaign trail. He really does come across as an angry little man who knows that no-one is listening to him


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
Saint wrote:
Just watching a clip of Tim Farron on the campaign trail. He really does come across as an angry little man who knows that no-one is listening to him


It's hard to dress reality up all that much, as a general rule


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
Incidentally, has anyone been following DogFuckingGate?

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10731
Location: Indiana
openclashXX wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
sturginho wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
May is keeping the 0.7% international aid pledge.

The Mail must be fuming?


tbf I'm not a fan of the Mail but I genuinely can't understand what this foreign aid budget is for. it's roughly £12bn on foreign aid when the NHS is posting deficits of £2-3bn a year


So the UK can keep its UN Security Council seat by painting itself as a more important player on the world scene?


what's Russia's foreign aid budget? :lol:


Russia like the U.S. and China are clearly important world states to global security. You're going to have a tougher argument for modern-day Britain and France.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Can ee clear up soft/hard brexit, to leave the European Union we have to leave the single market, the customs union and ECJ rulings and free movement. I'm not sure which bit of leaving the union people thought brexit was.

Hard brexit would I spose be WTO rules and a pact with Russia .


There's the rub isn't it? The Brexit campaigners seemed to provide a number of different option as to what it meant, depending on who you listened to; even the Remain side weren't consistent when it came to trying to shoot them down.

If it was absolutely clear what Brexit meant to everybody then we wouldn't have the clusterfuck that we have today



The message about leaving the single market, customs union were clearly made by remainers time and time over. The fact that people might regret decisions or want to rerun the campaign is not the fault of the campaigns. You could easily argue this is why the decision was too complex for a referendum but if you get over that I am still at a loss to think what leaving actually meant , it meant leaving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Saint wrote:
Just watching a clip of Tim Farron on the campaign trail. He really does come across as an angry little man who knows that no-one is listening to him


It's hard to dress reality up all that much, as a general rule



What's the reality ? That no one is listening ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
So if leaving means leaving could we not reasonably say that the expectation should be that Britain unmoors itself from the Atlantic coast and buggers off to Tahiti?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13005
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Can ee clear up soft/hard brexit, to leave the European Union we have to leave the single market, the customs union and ECJ rulings and free movement. I'm not sure which bit of leaving the union people thought brexit was.

Hard brexit would I spose be WTO rules and a pact with Russia .


There's the rub isn't it? The Brexit campaigners seemed to provide a number of different option as to what it meant, depending on who you listened to; even the Remain side weren't consistent when it came to trying to shoot them down.

If it was absolutely clear what Brexit meant to everybody then we wouldn't have the clusterfuck that we have today



The message about leaving the single market, customs union were clearly made by remainers time and time over. The fact that people might regret decisions or want to rerun the campaign is not the fault of the campaigns. You could easily argue this is why the decision was too complex for a referendum but if you get over that I am still at a loss to think what leaving actually meant , it meant leaving.


I would agree, if you add the word "some" in front of remainers. Even then it comes down to exactly who do you choose to believe........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Saint wrote:
Just watching a clip of Tim Farron on the campaign trail. He really does come across as an angry little man who knows that no-one is listening to him


It's hard to dress reality up all that much, as a general rule



What's the reality ? That no one is listening ?


You got the joke, well done!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5027
The original dividing line between hard and soft brexit was WTO v Swiss/norwegian model (EEA/EFTA)
They are still different.
As May wants a bespoke it is technically neither, but is still tending towards Swiss/Norwegian.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37708
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
Someone on Twitter just now:

Quote:
Today in my notifications: one Leaver and one Remainer, each not voting Labour because of its position on Brexit.


Jeremy Corbyn really is gifted. I think I might confer upon him my much-coveted "Midas of Shite" award


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Can ee clear up soft/hard brexit, to leave the European Union we have to leave the single market, the customs union and ECJ rulings and free movement. I'm not sure which bit of leaving the union people thought brexit was.

Hard brexit would I spose be WTO rules and a pact with Russia .


There's the rub isn't it? The Brexit campaigners seemed to provide a number of different option as to what it meant, depending on who you listened to; even the Remain side weren't consistent when it came to trying to shoot them down.

If it was absolutely clear what Brexit meant to everybody then we wouldn't have the clusterfuck that we have today



The message about leaving the single market, customs union were clearly made by remainers time and time over. The fact that people might regret decisions or want to rerun the campaign is not the fault of the campaigns. You could easily argue this is why the decision was too complex for a referendum but if you get over that I am still at a loss to think what leaving actually meant , it meant leaving.


I would agree, if you add the word "some" in front of remainers. Even then it comes down to exactly who do you choose to believe........

Well that was the mild starting point on much of remain, it went in to Osborne Amageddon. I was and voted remain regarding the customs union (much more than the single market), but it really is done now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
Leinster in London wrote:
The original dividing line between hard and soft brexit was WTO v Swiss/norwegian model (EEA/EFTA)
They are still different.
As May wants a bespoke it is technically neither, but is still tending towards Swiss/Norwegian.



Reluctant remainer position would be Swiss model really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 179
Location: Newport, Gwent
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Someone on Twitter just now:

Quote:
Today in my notifications: one Leaver and one Remainer, each not voting Labour because of its position on Brexit.


Jeremy Corbyn really is gifted. I think I might confer upon him my much-coveted "Midas of Shite" award


I think that has more to do with the British voting public being pants-on-head retarded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7843
Location: Bucks
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Someone on Twitter just now:

Quote:
Today in my notifications: one Leaver and one Remainer, each not voting Labour because of its position on Brexit.


Jeremy Corbyn really is gifted. I think I might confer upon him my much-coveted "Midas of Shite" award

By going for 100% they end up with 0%. Will be interesting to see where Labour's floor is, looks like the metropolitan Corbynistas could be on the Tim Farron magical mystery tour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
croyals wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Someone on Twitter just now:

Quote:
Today in my notifications: one Leaver and one Remainer, each not voting Labour because of its position on Brexit.


Jeremy Corbyn really is gifted. I think I might confer upon him my much-coveted "Midas of Shite" award

By going for 100% they end up with 0%. Will be interesting to see where Labour's floor is, looks like the metropolitan Corbynistas could be on the Tim Farron magical mystery tour.



Problem is the leadership isn't remain and the party aren't anywhere near brexit. Who'd have thought Europe would split Labour more than the Tories.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13005
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
The original dividing line between hard and soft brexit was WTO v Swiss/norwegian model (EEA/EFTA)
They are still different.
As May wants a bespoke it is technically neither, but is still tending towards Swiss/Norwegian.



Reluctant remainer position would be Swiss model really.


I must have missed that option on the ballot paper


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1287 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 33  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Achahoish, backrow, Bing [Bot], Brumby_in_Vic, crouchy, DOB, dr dre2, FravBront, Google Adsense [Bot], handyman, hp18, HurricaneWasp, KenSkehan, Man In Black, Mr Mike, Mullet 2, Newby1, paneer, P in VG, Plato'sCave, Sandstorm, Stevus55, Teenage_hooker, unseenwork, Wilson's Toffee, Yourmother, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group