General Election June 8

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... -remain-eu

I think it will be a softer Brexit under the new parliament which now has a pro soft Brexit majority thanks to all those Labour/UKIP Leave voters going for Corbyn.

They deserve it. Should have voted May in with a strong mandate for hard brexit.

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... -remain-eu

I think it will be a softer Brexit under the new parliament which now has a pro soft Brexit majority thanks to all those Labour/UKIP Leave voters going for Corbyn.

They deserve it. Should have voted May in with a strong mandate for hard brexit.

I agree with the article. The only two sensible choices are a hard brexit or staying in the EU. "Soft Brexit" is the worst of all worlds.

I strongly suspect the UK is not going to leave the EU.

I'll take remaining in the EU as a price for getting rid of the tories and putting a socialist in 10 Downing Street.

And surely those euroskeptic tory MPs must know this. They must know that as soon as brexit doesn't involve the ending of free movement of people, the game is up. The deal the EU will offer us cannot possibly be as attractive as staying in the EU as a full member, and this will become very obvious - and probably quite soon. So for the euroskeptic tory MPs, this is a critical moment - they will be desperately trying to find a way to save brexit, but I am not sure it can be done.

[Little John]

Remaining in the EU will not be countenanced by the EU given the trouble the UK has caused them. They will offer a shitty Soft Brexit an an example to others.

[johnhemming2]

Personally I don't think we will end up staying in the EU. The EEA is a possible. Macron has said we can stay if we wish to.

[UndercoverElephant]

Remaining in the EU will not be countenanced by the EU given the trouble the UK has caused them.

On the contrary, both France and Germany have indicated, today, that the door remains open.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 88616.html

I don't believe they can legally prevent the UK staying. What they could theoretically do is offer an exception whereby we stay in the single market but don't have freedom of movement, in order to encourage us to leave, but I don't think it is likely.

[Lord Beria3]

For me, the EEA is a better option to staying in the EU.

Plus, for Tories, it is more about returning powers to Parliament not about immigration (that is very much of a working class Labour electorate problem).

Even the Tory Brexiteers waited till the end of the referendum campaign before switching to immigration. Having read Tim Shipman's book on Brexit, it seems to me that Tory Eurosceptics will accept, with gritted teeth, a soft Brexit which brings back partial control of our sovereignty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... no-brexit/

Like others, I have floated the Norwegian option as a half-way house for five to ten years. The European Economic Area allows to Britain to retake farming and fisheries, and to remove itself from the EU's widening competence of foreign, policy, defence, justice, and home affairs.

It would give Britain access to the EU single market without being a member of the customs union, which we should avoid like the plague. Outside the customs union the UK could negotiate trade deals with the US, China, India, Japan and others over time. To remain in the union - the latest media fashion - is completely wrong-headed. It would leave the UK trapped inside the EU trade net.

The elegance of the EEA is that if we wish to withdraw later, we could do so in less traumatic circumstances than withdrawal from the EU today under the cliff-edge clause of Article 50.

It would become progressively easier to break free entirely - if desired - as trade deals stacked up. This would create some implicit leverage. Britain would probably have just as much effective say over EU market legislation as it does now under qualified majority voting, where it has no veto.

Outside the customs union, the UK would have to comply with rules of origin codes to prevent China, the US, or any other third country, using our market a duty-free back-door into the EU market. Companies already do this routinely to comply with NAFTA rules in North America. It amounts to no more than a minor friction for large firms using modern software.

The EEA option greatly reduces the reach of the European Court (ECJ), and certainly stops euro-judges creeping into all areas of law through the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ECJ would still have sway (through the EFTA court) over market matters but this would be tightly focused.

I do not wish to rehearse the argument over whether you can control free movement in the EEA. Clearly there is a bias towards free flows, but some controls are possible. There is already a precedent for Australian-style quotas. Liechtenstein does exactly that. I have no problem with this.

The EEA/Norway soft Brexit option strikes me as the best option under the circumstances, something that the majority of Labour and Tory MP's can sign up to.

Whether May agrees to it is another matter. I'm afraid hard Brexit and absolute control of our borders is probably gone now because of this general election.

Those Labour voting Leave supporters will be embittered but it will be a direct consequence of voting Labour.

[PS_RalphW]

Farron resigns after LibDem peer resigns over Farron's views on Homosexuality.

Will anyone notice?

[UndercoverElephant]

For me, the EEA is a better option to staying in the EU.

Even with a £100bn "divorce bill"?

[Lord Beria3]

For me, the EEA is a better option to staying in the EU.

Even with a £100bn "divorce bill"?

Worst case scenario, and we can't bring down the divorce bill to half that or less, then yes, because remaining a long-term member of the EU would mean yearly net contributions into the EU coffers of billions anyway.*

Remaining in the EU is a long-term marriage bill anyway. At least with the EEA option we will get back some sovereignty which is priceless in my opinion.

* In an era of President Trump, some in Europe maybe wise to be friendly to Britain as we are the only major military power left other then France. Trump has questioned NATO so making an enemy of Britain would be strategically foolish, particularly for those close to the Russian border.

[Snail]

Farron resigns after LibDem peer resigns over Farron's views on Homosexuality.

Will anyone notice?

He always came across as a really good local MP. His leadership was disappointing. Maybe he can go back and concentrate again on his local constituency.

[Blue Peter]

Worst case scenario, and we can't bring down the divorce bill to half that or less, then yes, because remaining a long-term member of the EU would mean yearly net contributions into the EU coffers of billions anyway.*

I'd be interested to see a costing of replicating all the regulatory bodies etc. which we get from our membership of the EU,


Peter.

[adam2]

Worst case scenario, and we can't bring down the divorce bill to half that or less, then yes, because remaining a long-term member of the EU would mean yearly net contributions into the EU coffers of billions anyway.*

I'd be interested to see a costing of replicating all the regulatory bodies etc. which we get from our membership of the EU,


Peter.

I think that one of the objects of leaving the EU was to avoid what many consider as over regulation, and NOT to replicate all the EU regulatory bodies.

[johnhemming2]

Different people had different objectives.

[Little John]

As an atheist, I am going to make an exception in this case and pray to God this is true:

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/15/told-y ... /#comments

Theresa May unforgivably used the Grenfell Tower tragedy as cover for her inability to reach an agreement with the DUP’s Arlene Foster, by claiming the further delay in the announcement of a deal was because of the terrible fire.

Foster flew home to Northern Ireland and the Tories claimed juniors were hashing out the final details.

But this morning, the Conservatives are spreading word to their activists to prepare for a new General Election – which can only mean there is no deal, or at best a slim and receding prospect of one.

Arch-Tory site Guido Fawkes gave the game away:

https://order-order.com/2017/06/15/cchq ... -election/

[UndercoverElephant]

Extra-ordinary article written by some butt-hurting right-winger about Corbyn. Check out the comments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-bl ... 13344.html

From the reactions to the General Election on Friday morning, you’d think Labour had won. Unbelievably, several prominent Labour politicians, including the main loser himself, Jeremy Corbyn, suggested they had. In interviews he called it an “incredible result” and said it was “pretty clear who won the election”. “We’ve changed the face of British politics,” he said. It’s time for his critics within the Labour Party to make themselves heard.

As I discussed in my previous piece, Corbyn doesn’t seem to have a very good sense of history. If he did, he might not have forced his old-school socialism on the Labour Party. In fact, if he had a better sense of history, he might not have formed those political views to begin with. And if he had a better sense of history, he might show more humility than he recently has, since both James Callaghan and Neil Kinnock managed to take more seats than he did, and both had the grace and self-awareness to admit defeat and resign.

The childish I-told-you-so attitude Corbyn has shown since the results came in on Friday only proves further that he is completely inappropriate for the party and completely incompetent as a leader.

[snip]

And his previous piece?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-bl ... 97226.html

The Tories were supposed to win by a landslide. But since she called the election, Theresa May’s lead over Labour has tumbled. Some pollsters put her lead at just four points. Though a healthy Tory majority is still on the cards, Labour look set to win more of the vote than they did under Ed Miliband in 2015. And that’s bad, but not for the reason you might think.

I love the Labour Party, and I’ve been a member for 25 years. And I sincerely hope, with all my heart, not only that we lose today, but that we lose catastrophically. I say this because I worry a close defeat will leave Jeremy Corbyn and his baying Corbynistas in control of my beloved party. Corbyn, who won leadership by a huge mandate in 2015, has already weathered centrist opposition and said that he won’t step down after the election no matter what happens. A narrow defeat will only embolden him, and prove in his idealistic, unrealistic eyes that he’s the right man to take Labour forward. But if Labour lose catastrophically—not just badly, but to the point that it damages the party in its current form—there’s a chance of Corbyn walking.

But what’s a “catastrophic” loss?

[snip]

Ouch!