GENERAL ELECTION 8th June

[Brian D]

The vast, vast majority of significant legislation, as opposed to regulation, passed by the EU on to individual states, actually originates at the UN,

 

 

 

 

Absolutely untrue!  When we joined the EU, because of their dictat about free trade across borders, out 38 ton GB lorries of course did not comply with the EU standard of 40 tonne lorries (axle loads were also significantly different).  Many millions of pounds were spent by the UK government strengthening bridges to cope with the (compliance) requirement to give the EU standard HGV free access to out main highway network! (sorry mate, I am a retired Chartered Civil and Structural Engineer and had to manage this process at a local level so I am not b*llsh*tting you). UK legislation imposed this IMHO (Highways Act), not regulation (as if there's a difference).  Perhaps, living abroad you may have missed some of these and other issues?

Compliance with EU legisation in all areas has been in a lot of cases tedious and un-necessary - straight bananas spring to mind!

[trisonic]

Quite refreshing to read this after our Election last year.

One thing is for sure, some people will be very happy, some will be angry and some will not care.

That’s my prediction.

 

Best, Pete.

[Mike Storey]

I'm not ashamed - I just want accountability. Actual, true, verified accounts. Everything, going back to when we joined.

 

If we owe (which I doubt) - then we should pay.

 

Brit15

 

The accounts are available, up to 2015 at least (with 2016 as provisional), on the EU's website, to an accounting standard more demanding than that used by the UK govt (as admitted both by the UK's Comptroller and by a past Govt Auditor). The data is there and is certified to within 4% or better. Where anomalies exist, it is almost entirely due to member states not having submitted their accounts regarding the use of grant funding or subsidy payments sufficiently accurately or in a timely manner. The UK is the second (or perhaps third now, as Portugal has come under scrutiny) worst offender on this matter, almost exclusively due to inadequate accounting on MAF subsidy to UK famers and fisherfolk, having been fined almost continuously since 2004 for late and incomplete submissions. If such subsidies continue in "Free Britain", may the deity, in which you may or may not believe, help them.

 

The issues at stake do not appear to relate to past net contributions (according to both the UK govt rep and the EU negotiator) but to future liabilities, based on agreements already freely entered into. Some are blindingly obvious, such as UK employees' future pensions, whilst employed at or by the EU or the Commission, (where each nation state supports its own), or matters regarding future R&D where the UK needs to indicate their desire to participate in future or not. But the elephant in the auditorium regards the fixed five year budget regime, in which the UK has previously voted agreement, which will extend beyond our membership, and the longer period investment projects, again signed up by the UK, which are already committed. Negotiation around these will require some sureness of feet which I might suggest is currently suspect, bludgeon being seen as mightier than the word, so far.

 

Whether we collectively feel the current bunch of largely unknowns prior to the Great Ref, are up to the task, or we feel a much greater degree of parliamentary accountability is necessary, is the key to this election. I do not live in hope, such is the entrenched position of so many, regardless of fact, logic or efficacy. You may say that is true of both sides. But then that points to Mrs May's statement that the country is coming together as yet another alternative fact.

[Orange Cat]

 Instead all we get is this stupid focus on having the lowest taxes possible and blaming all our ills on others rather than addressing the rather fundamental flaws in the way the our 'essential services' are organised.

 

If we abandoned that focus we wouldn't have to worry so much about how essential services are organised. The UK's public sector revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are less than 3/4 of the EU average. That's the average of all the EU members including the supposed failing economies of southern Europe and the former Soviet bloc countries in the east. We are even further behind the more comparable economies of northern Europe. It is quite enlightening to look at the comparative tables on the eurostat website and see that we actually spend much less than almost anybody else on things we are told are unaffordable. 

[Matt C]

I'm not ashamed - I just want accountability. Actual, true, verified accounts. Everything, going back to when we joined.

 

If we owe (which I doubt) - then we should pay.

 

Brit15

I'd be happy for us to pay what we owe, less the amount we would have benefited from by remaining , Just as soon as the accounts for the last 20 years are ratified and we are credited with a percentage of all payments that can't be ratified by the EUs OWN accountants

[AndrewC]

This is an unpaid party political broadcast. 

 

 

Vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party. 

 

We've tried the rest, so why the hell not. 

[Kris]

The election does matter and I do care who wins, but I also accept that the party I want to win may not. It they don't, I will be disappointed, but I will accept result.

[Horsetan]

This is an unpaid party political broadcast.

 

 

Vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party. ....

You know it makes sense.

[jjb1970]

One thing I would say, whoever you want to support, whatever issues are serious for you, however much you dislike politicians, I'd urge everybody to consider the issues and to go and vote.

 

Unfortunately it seems apparent that to many this is becoming a de-facto confirmatory referendum on a single issue, Brexit. We will be voting for MPs, those MPs will collectively form a government and that government will administer almost everything that matters in public life for the next five years from health to defence to social security to public finances to law and order and lots more. This should not be a re-run of the Brexit referendum but I understand that since Brexit is an almost existential question it will obscure all others.

 

Personally I'm violating my own warning above by voting for a party which is unashamedly pro-European. Maybe Brexit is decided, but by voting for a pro-European party I at least register my disquiet at the current direction of our exit process and if enough others do so we may get a softer Brexit and hopefully a choice on whether or not we like the final deal or even if we'd rather stay than leave on the terms offered. But that's just me.

[Guest]

I woke up in a hotel room in Spain on the morning of the Brexit result. As someone who is planning a full-time move there in July 2019 (yes, my timing could be better, couldn't it?) you can imagine my feelings. As jjb1970 quite rightly says (above) we should consider all issues when voting, but Brexit is just too big a piece of dirt to sweep under the carpet.

I've made up my mind with regard to the general election, and I've surprised even myself.

Resigned to the probable result? Yes. Hopeful that things may change? Not very.

Personally, I've just become a bit disillusioned. Whatever happens will not be for the benefit of the masses but just for the benefit of those empowered to bring about change. That's politics all over, isn't it?

[Joseph_Pestell]

If I was the new Tory MP in Copeland (my constituency), I would be rather p*ssed off to have to do it all again after only two months!

 

As a voter, I have only just got rid of all the last lot of election lies, sorry leaflets. I think I will emigrate for the next 50 days.

He will be even more p****d off if usual electoral maths applies and he is out of a job on 9 June.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the opening gambit on the EU side that they want to negotiate a divorce settlement (ie payment) before they'd negotiate anything else? 

 

I don't see that as protecting your rights, whereas Mother Theresa has said all along that agreement on residents' rights  is something we'd like to settle as quickly as practical and something that both sides SHOULD be able to negotiate on whilst other trade and free-movement discussions are ongoing.

This notion of a "divorce settlement" highlights all that is wrong with the EU. It is run by bureaucrats who have no interest in presentation. If they had presented their case better during Cameron's negotiations (and if he had known how to help them do that), we would not be here. Calling this a divorce settlement just plays into the hands of their opponents.

 

It is nothing like a divorce settlement. It is accounting for various existing commitments that will overrun the date at which we leave. And it works both ways. We will owe the EU some money and some will be owed by the EU to us. It is primarily a business exercise not a negotiation. Negotiation is about our relationship with the 27 EU countries (and the EEA members) post-Brexit.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm not ashamed - I just want accountability. Actual, true, verified accounts. Everything, going back to when we joined.

 

If we owe (which I doubt) - then we should pay.

 

Brit15

 

I entirely agree. Unfortunately, accountancy has never been a strong point of the EU Commission with its accounts not having passed audit for many years.

[PhilH]

Surely there are more issues here than Brexit? Safeguarding the NHS is at the top of my agenda, the party in whose hands that will be safest will get my vote whoever that will be.

 

BUT...what they promise pre election and deliver post election are usually two different things so sorting out wheat from chaff is going to be difficult I fear.

[Joseph_Pestell]

On this forum and in BBC vox-pops, the overwhelming impression given is that most people do not want this election. That is strangely at odds with everyone that I have met over the last few days who greatly approve of Mrs May's decision to hold this election.

 

Co-incidentally, I spent most of yesterday evening in a meeting about merger of two organisations. Even the though the business logic behind merger is impeccable, there are a significant number of folk who seem to be opposed to it and the negotiations seem to be every bit as difficult as Brexit. It highlights the old saying that all business is much the same but some has more zeros after it. ("It's a perfectly ordinary bankruptcy. It just has more zeros involved").

[Nearholmer]

Marvellous that this thread has survived!

 

MS said: "That the "country is coming together, but not parliament" is, to say the very least, a questionable statement, and a very good example of non-evidence based assertion, or in the words of Trump's people, an alternative fact."

 

I so thoroughly agree. I can't see the slightest evidence that the rift that was opened (or perhaps simply made visible) by the referendum has been healed in any way, shape or form - there are clearly two, roughly equally-sized, clusters of opinion in this country about what the future should look like, and it feels as if the clusters might be moving further apart, rather than closer together. The Daily Beast attitude, which caricatures everyone who isn't an ardent Brexiteer as some sort of traitor doesn't exactly help, either.

 

The purpose of the election is very obviously to give Mrs May as much freedom for action in the negotiations and aftermath as she can possibly secure, whether that be freedom from the more wild and woolly elements of her own party, or freedom from moderation by those who speak for the 48%, and my gut feel is that it will achieve that ........ however, I shall vote the other way, because I fear a sort of "tyranny of the majority", where all doubts, caveats etc are temporarily snowploughed aside, creating yet more division in the longer term.

 

Kevin

[Andy Y]

Marvellous that this thread has survived!

 

 

 

By the skin of its teeth as I've just removed some content.

[hayfield]

You are wrong.

There said it.

It is a fairly widely known custom that when you close an account you pay off what you owe. Corner shop, bank or whoever.

Is that so hard to grasp.

It has nothing to do with the negotiations.

The UK has to pay into the EU funds so that it can in turn pay me.

That is very much a case of protecting me and my family.

We were also told that all legislation would be incorporated into UK law.

That has now been watered down to possibly exclude secondary legislation.

One guess as to which set of legislation part of my pension comes under. 

Is it becoming clearer why I have cause for concern?

If you believe that using people as pawns is acceptable. Then so be it.

Fortunately most of our recent PMs have been made of better stuff.

Bernard

 

 

 

I expect

 

 

Bernard

 

When you leave a club of course you pay what you owe, but not what you might have spent/contributed to in the future

 

If you paid a debenture it is returned, think of all the EU buildings that have been built within the EU whilst we have been a member, are they going to repay us ?

 

As for pensions,when you leave one company for another your pension is preserved, if you have a UK pension then we must continue to pay it, if however you have an EU pension its their responsibility

 

From what I understand the Tories have stated they wish for EU nationals still here to remain, providing the EU treats our citizens living in the EU the same. We must protect the UK citizens whether home or abroad

 

As far as legislation is concerned my understanding is the proposal is all EU legislation is to be incorporated into UK law and amended as and when bills are altered in normal parliamentary activity

[pete_mcfarlane]

 The ridiculous and cringe inducing over reaction to the Gibraltar issue in sections of the UK press and Michael Howard's comments (which in fairness were made to sound much worse/sillier by being taken out of context) have obscured the fact that the EU were the ones using an opportunity to use people who have nothing to do with Brexit (Gibraltar doesn't vote in UK Parliamentary elections and voted overwhelmingly to remain) as bargaining chips.

I did find the reaction to Michael Howard's comments rather odd. Ultimately, all he did was point out that we'd use force in self defense against any Spanish military adventures, as we did in 1982, which then got presented as some kind of demand for war with Spain. This in turn generated all sorts of fantasy scenarios where the entire World turns against us for attacking Spain. You'd be forgiven for thinking we'd just nuked Madrid, given how hysterical some of this was. 

 

The main benefit of all this was highlighting how little some people understand about World affairs. I saw it suggested that Spain would crush our tiny armed forces with their much larger military, as if it was still 1588 instead of 2017. We'd apparently have all sorts of UN security council resolutions and sanctions passed against us (so no understanding of our ability to veto stuff we don't like, which is a fairly fundamental part of how the security council works).

 

It was one of those occasions where somebody opened a portal in to the alternate dimension where the far left lives, and we got to briefly glimpse their take on things. 

[Nearholmer]

Andy,

 

Ah ...... so you have.

 

I chose "marvellous" for both of its meanings.

 

K

[Mark Dickerson]

Like we care.....

 

I suspect most on here know my thoughts on the BBC.

"Ministers refused to say whether the costly 'triple lock' on pensions will be retained" might allow one to speculate on the contents of a manifesto though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4426736/Tory-manifesto-guarantee-end-free-movement.html#ixzz4emP1vJgX

 

That's the stinking sabotaging snowflake libtard talking-the-country-down Daily Mail there. (Although kudos for saying there will be a triple lock on something else at the top of the article. Really clever.)

 

I have now seen two party leaders "addressing the masses" so far, and already the uniform party placards, the glassy stares and weak smiles of the "spontaneous demonstrations of support" have got to me. It's only made worse when it's some poor workplace's staff sat down and dutifully quiet - and this will go on for weeks until a single off-message person gets through to represent Kettering Woman or whatever core demographic they're touting this time. Even the circus of leadership debates appear threatened.

 

At this rate I may have to take possible international tensions into account, turn against the species and side with the Ants. Things are looking good for them...

[The Stationmaster]

The only problem with that sort of second referendum is it would put all the negotiating cards in the EUs hands. They could offer us a really bad deal knowing it would be rejected in the second referendum and we would remain - which is what they want.

The only truly fair second referendum would be a two stage one. Do you accept the deal. If no then do you want to remain or do you want to leave on WTO rules.

Otherwise you are pretty much guaranteed never to leave.

 

I'm sort of hoping this election will help decide one way or another which way we go. It is now pretty clear what the current governments Brexit policy is.

If you think it is too hard, vote for someone else and force them to rethink.

If they get a substantially increased majority then maybe the public are broadly behind their approach and this version of Brexit is the right one.

 

However there is a slight problem with that because an increase in their majority (or a decrease) might not necessarily indicate feelings or opinions about leaving the EU but could also be influenced by all sorts of other factors.  People will vote along all sorts of lines for different candidates for widely varying reasons.  For example unless there is a change of candidate from a particular party in our constituency - a sort of modern equivalent of a  rotten borough with a foregone conclusion of a result - I can either vote for a different party which reflects a certain viewpoint (and ignore its other shortcomings) or I can spoil my ballot paper.  

 

One of those options might, or might not, express my view on leaving the EU - but won't make a ha'porth of difference in the Commons because that candidate won't get in on sheer 'rotten borough' maths.  Spoiling my ballot paper with rude comments about another candidate will give me considerable personal satisfaction and might well place me alongside many other local residents but again probably won't affect the outcome.  As it happens that particular candidate - if he stands - has already 'changed his mind' regarding EU membership at least once!

 

In other words the choices I, and no doubt many others, face at the ballot box are far greater than simple vote on Article 50 approval and for that reason I think the election will lead to some unexpected consequences - probably with some starker lines of political division in the Commons rather than 'everyone getting behind leaving the EU'.

[4630]

 

 

As far as legislation is concerned my understanding is the proposal is all EU legislation is to be incorporated into UK law and amended as and when bills are altered in normal parliamentary activity

 

 

Broadly, yes, but I think you'll find that the Government is actually reserving the right to use Statutory Instruments (SI) to amend UK law, without recourse to parliament, or giving any indication as to the likely scope that it will apply SIs.  

 

See sections 3.7 to 3.25 in this document;  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-great-repeal-bill-white-paper/legislating-for-the-united-kingdoms-withdrawal-from-the-european-union

 

It all depends how much you trust our politicians to use this very wide sweeping power in the long-term national interest rather than their own short-term political interest. 

[Nearholmer]

In an ideal world this election wouldn't be a sort of referendum re-run, but about what sort of UK we DO want, having already decided, by a narrow margin, what we DON'T want (to be in the EU).

 

For the avoidance of doubt: we do not live in an ideal world.

 

K

[Joseph_Pestell]

Yes, we always get the mantra from politicians that a General Election means that we all support the whole of their agenda/manifesto. But it's obviously more complicated than that and we certainly should not read too much into the result about what sort of Brexit people want.