The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[desensitized43]

8 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

To what end? Why would we want a bunch of neoliberal puppets carrying our interests into the European Parliament, which is only relevant if we end up remaining. At which point, they become the noose.

The EU needs reform. This aint it. 

We can only reform it if we keep our seat at the table. That's the priority for now, reform is a matter for another day.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

27 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

We can only reform it if we keep our seat at the table. That's the priority for now, reform is a matter for another day.

Who's 'we' though? The Lib Dems? Are these really the people we want reforming the EU for us should we (hopefully IMO) end up remaining?

If you want to use a tactical vote to keep The Brexit Party away from the table, I can't for one second imagine that in all areas of England the best way to do that is to vote Lib Dem. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[desensitized43]

Just now, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Who's we though? The Lib Dems? Are these really the people we want reforming the EU for us should we (hopefully IMO) end up remaining?

Probably not tbh. I voted Lib Dem once to abolish tuition fees and they actively voted for the opposite. I don't like them and under normal circumstances I wouldn't vote for them, but I want to stay in. You're looking too far ahead IMO.

[ml1dch]

18 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Who's 'we' though? The Lib Dems? Are these really the people we want reforming the EU for us should we (hopefully IMO) end up remaining?

Given it is the policy of the two main parties that we shouldn't end up remaining, it becomes a moot point. 

So unless you're advocating a vote for the CUKTIGs or Greens as a preferable option, there isn't really an alternative unless you are voting outside England.

Edited May 10, 2019 by ml1dch

[dont_do_it_doug.]

4 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Probably not tbh. I voted Lib Dem once to abolish tuition fees and they actively voted for the opposite. I don't like them and under normal circumstances I wouldn't vote for them, but I want to stay in. You're looking too far ahead IMO.

I'm looking at what it would actually mean and making a judgement based upon that. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

3 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Given it is the policy of the two main parties that we shouldn't end up remaining, it becomes a moot point. 

So unless you're advocating a vote for the CUKTIGs or Greens as preferable option, there isn't really an alternative.

This is a vote to elect members to the European Parliament. Which only becomes relevant should we end up staying. They could end up shaping the next Commission, we should be voting for left leaning parties regardless of domestic policy. It is way too important for a 'protest vote'. 

I would definitely suggest the Greens are a better alternative.

Edited May 10, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[desensitized43]

6 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

This is a vote to elect members to the European Parliament. Which only becomes relevant should we end up staying. They could end up shaping the next Commission, we should be voting for left leaning parties regardless of domestic policy. It is way too important for a 'protest vote'. 

I would definitely suggest the Greens are a better alternative.

I would probably vote for them too if I felt they'd got a chance...

That probably displays a massive problem with our electoral system. We've got far too many left-leaning parties splitting the left vote and not enough right-leaning ones. Ironically that's why we're in this mess...the tories knew that if their right-leaning vote was split they'd lose.

[ml1dch]

50 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

This is a vote to elect members to the European Parliament. Which only becomes relevant should we end up staying. They could end up shaping the next Commission, we should be voting for left leaning parties regardless of domestic policy. It is way too important for a 'protest vote'. 

I would definitely suggest the Greens are a better alternative.

Yes, you're quite right. Would the Green/EFA block leading the EP be a broadly positive thing? Absolutely. 

Would it be good if everyone fell in line behind the Greens and 23rd May returned a dozen or more Green MEPs? Sure.

Is it particularly likely? No. So in a world where we could be talking about 4 Greens, 3 Lib Dems and 23 Farage Party, or 1 Green, 14 Lib Dems and 15 Farages, I'd take the second of those compositions.

My region has one of the few UK Green MEPs, I voted for her last time and may well do so again. But a Lib Dem vote isn't what I'd consider a protest vote if I decide to go that way. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by ml1dch

[peterms]

16 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm a long time lover of bad poetry, and this is a real doozy (you'll need to click the tweet but it's worth it believe me)

 

It's pretty good, but could possibly be improved by changing the last line to

"Tie a concrete block around your neck, and leap into the Silvery Tay".

[HanoiVillan]

58 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

This is a vote to elect members to the European Parliament. Which only becomes relevant should we end up staying. They could end up shaping the next Commission, we should be voting for left leaning parties regardless of domestic policy. It is way too important for a 'protest vote'. 

I would definitely suggest the Greens are a better alternative.

You're absolutely right about the importance of electing people you would actually want to represent you in the European Parliament. 

For people who believe in 'remain and reform', a vote for Labour is best (I know 'I would say that wouldn't I') but it's relevant because the largest grouping in the European Parliament selects the President, and the centre left group that Labour belong to is the only group that has a realistic chance of displacing the centre right group which is currently the largest. 

I expect a call to vote Labour will fall on deaf ears here, and fair enough. But I would encourage people to vote for the party that belongs to the grouping they would actually support in the EU Parl, whoever that is. It's not unlikely that we'll never leave at this point, and even if we do, the people who win will represent us for as long as it takes us to get out. 

[NurembergVillan]

 

 

1

Quote

At least one group of U.K. residents is flourishing in Brexit Britain: an exclusive club of billionaires.

The 15 Britons on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index have added $28 billion to their fortunes since the country voted to leave the European Union on June 23, 2016, including $18 billion so far this year. Their combined net worth now totals $109 billion.

Two Brexiteers are responsible for most of the gains. Jim Ratcliffe and James Dyson have added a combined $20 billion since the vote, according to the ranking, with Ratcliffe displacing Hugh Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, as Britain’s richest person. That compares to the estimated 39 billion pounds ($51 billion) the U.K. would need to settle its liabilities with the European Union.

The growth in their fortunes contrasts with the U.K.’s wider economic stagnation since the vote. In February, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said the economy was suffering amid the “fog of Brexit,” as the bank downgraded its view on growth for this year and next. While the labor market remains strong, businesses are cutting spending, fearing an economic slowdown could turn into a severe recession if the U.K. ends up leaving the EU without a deal to cushion the blow.

Britain’s richest have been able to navigate such uncertainties. It helps that they are an increasingly footloose breed. More than half the British entrepreneurs on the Bloomberg ranking are no longer U.K. residents.

In February, the Sunday Times reported that Ratcliffe, 66, was examining ways to structure his fortune to save as much as 4 billion pounds in taxes, including possibly moving to Monaco.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-10/richest-brits-gain-28-billion-since-brexit-even-as-economy-ails

Anyone who reads something like this and thinks Brexit isn't a massive **** stitch-up needs to go for a long walk and not stop until they reach Greenland.

[chrisp65]

Change.

They're the ones that want to keep things as they are, yeah?

 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

For people who believe in 'remain and reform', a vote for Labour is best....

...I expect a call to vote Labour will fall on deaf ears here, and fair enough

Labour is a pro Brexit party. Remain is not their policy or objective. Voting for them would IMO be monumentally dumb, for a remainer, in a EU election. Their (ludicrous and non-credible) policy is a "jobs first" Brexit. Labour is currently working with the tories to get a mutually agreeable leave deal over the line.

Not directed at you but the angry tramps of Corbyn's cult saying similar things - it's like listening to a sheep burp. Of no credibility whatsoever. I stress not aimed at you, you're smarter than those numpties by a mile.

[chrisp65]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

For people who believe in 'remain and reform', a vote for Labour is best

Could you show me where it says that on any Labour literature?

It could be that their official website is wrong, but that currently says they want Brexit.

[HanoiVillan]

'Remain and reform' consists of two parts, 'remain' and 'reform', which are not dependent on each other. We could remain and the EU could reform, or we could remain and it could not. Or we could leave and it could reform, or we could leave and it could not. 

The question of whether and when we leave the EU will be decided by domestic politics. The outcome of the European elections will not change the composition of Parliament, and while it might cause a couple of weeks of bad headlines for various people the essential dynamics of Brexit in Westminster are unlikely to change as a result. 

The question of whether the EU will be reformed will primarily be decided by national leaders and politicians in Brussels, not least among them the single most powerful politician in the EU, the President of the Commission, who is effectively chosen by the largest trans-national group sitting in the Parliament. The President chooses the Commission and in reality controls the entire policy agenda of the EU as an organisation. It's an important job, and who does it matters. Therefore, your vote matters. 

The D'Hondt electoral system favours larger parties. In terms of the UK delegation, that likely means that the Brexit Party and Labour will be most favoured, followed by the Conservatives. Two of those parties belong to horrible trans-national groupings in the European Parliament, and one of them belongs to the mainstream centre-left grouping. That's the one that should be having some input into the selection of the next President of the Commission. 

Of course, you're free to disagree with these reasons, or to choose other reasons as more important. There are perfectly plausible reasons to do something different with your vote. But this point is not crazy, or absurd, or ridiculous. It's just one important point to bear in mind about the reality of how policy is formulated in the EU, and where political power resides there. 

One question you can ask is 'why bother reforming if you're not going to remain?' Another question, one that perhaps matters to some left-of-centre voters in the UK, is 'what price do we put on remaining, if we know we can never reform it?'

[blandy]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

'Remain and reform' consists of two parts, 'remain' and 'reform', which are not dependent on each other.

We can’t reform if we leave. Reform is totally dependent on remaining. Labour is pro leave. Leave - no reform. Remain - opportunity to reform. 

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

We can’t reform if we leave. Reform is totally dependent on remaining. Labour is pro leave. Leave - no reform. Remain - opportunity to reform. 

No it isn't. We could leave, and other countries could change it, in a way that we would have benefitted from had we remained a member. 

[HanoiVillan]

Loudly proclaiming that 'Labour are leave', and saying that Labour voters are voting for Brexit, seems unlikely to be a very successful message in the wake of the poll, since 'leave' if it is so defined could finish with 65-70% of the vote:

from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48227459

[chrisp65]

Why does Labour's official website say they are a Brexit party?

 

[peterms]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Labour is a pro Brexit party. 

Labour is a party that is divided on Brexit, among voters, members, and elected representatives,  as you well know.

Also, it mostly doesn't see Brexit as a yes/no, right/wrong, good/bad issue.  It's a possible means to an end, not an end in itself,  which means the daft challenges about "Are you for or against?" as posed by dicks like John Humphrys, are meaningless. 

For others, the zealots, the ideologues, the EU is a matter of faith, and this applies to zealots both of leave and remain persuasion.