UK General Election 2017 Megathread

[dbgtz]

Here's an EU regulation banning olive oil in dishes at restaurants.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...restaurants-eu

I personally don't see what's unreasonable about that.
Didn't even happen according to this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ic-outcry.html and the only thing I actually found on it was to do with olive oil sold in shops.

Um no? Because you'd then be buying more products from elsewhere making a saving. If strawberries from the EU are costing £2.50 a packet and strawberries from the Gambia are costing £1.00 a packet, you don't continue buying strawberries from the EU you buy the African ones. The only areas where tariffs may raise prices will be expensive or quality goods such as Italian cycling gear and German cars like BMW. But those are luxuries anyway so a £10 tariff charge on a one-off Castelli cycling jersey worth £70 won't really make much difference on a cost of living basis.

But you've just made those numbers up so your argument is pretty pointless.

Yes so you accept that given we are leaving, it therefore makes no sense to remain in the Single Market given we'd be subject to EU rulings but have no veto on the outcomes? Even less power than we had before leaving.

I've never outright accepted we are leaving. As far as I'm concerned, anything can change in the next 2 years.
An interesting point was raised on the ITV debates though, and that is those who backed leave often advocated the "nordic model" of remaining in the single market including yourself I believe, so why are you so against that now?

What if the government is putting political interests in furthering EU integration before our own economic and national interests? As I believe it was. We simply signed up to those deals to curry favour with the European project. Why take a half-arsed deal that overall you think is "ok" when you can make your own deals which you're fully satisfied with?

In short, why accept second best for the country?

Except none of us are making these deals, and presumably the people in power are well aware of what they're doing and more than capable of knowing what they can and can't do. It's really easy to think you can get everything you want, when the reality is you can't and you need to stop believing you can.

The EU Parliament is a powerless talking shop. The power is with the Commission and the European Courts. In addition even if Britain did say elect 73 MEPs to oppose a trade deal or certain regulations, given there are 751 MEPs it counts for zilch. We could still be outvoted on what we regarded as our national interest. That's wrong and undemocratic.

I only vote for 1 mp. Counts for zilch! UNDEMOCRATIC AH! Stupid argument.
It's funny though because my relative vote "value" is higher for my MEP than MP lmao

I don't see why we should opt for second best to cater to the French or Slovakians, correct.

That's not what a compromise is.

A cost which is offset when you take into account production costs. For example it can be more economically beneficial to import a t-shirt from a Bombay factory (with transport costs and tariffs) than to buy a t-shirt made in this country.

So like I said, it isn't the 1500's and you need to stop thinking in terms of distance. Trade is past that.

It's also not the 1920s so stop mentioning the empire. Again, another stupid thing to say.
Trade is not past distance in the slightest. Lots of money and man power goes in to making cargo transport as cheap and efficient as possible.

Business is business correct, which is why many country have already begun trade talks with us. But history is history, and given our extensive imperial links with Commonwealth countries (shared language, shared culture, shared law, shared business practices) it is not surprising that the likes of New Zealand have offered us use of their trade negotiators as a kind gesture. We're closer to New Zealand, Australia and Canada than we'll ever be to France and Germany.

We just don't view ourselves as European other than geographically. We're British: Island & Global mentality, not Continental.

Nobody has begun talks with us.
You say shared language, but billions of people in the world speaks English at this point. I mean, a large part of Canada speaks French so good going there. Let's not forget the huge Asian immigration in Australia too. I'd personally argue we're far more similar to France from a historical point of view. 2 rather small European countries who basically fought to dominate the world and are basically on an even level.
You also have to recognise a lot of people in Commonwealth countries really do not like the UK, or perhaps more accurate is the British Empire which extends somewhat to the UK. It's not all roses. The only reason NZ, Aus and Canada isn't really the same is because they're basically all descendants.

Tell me what 'rights' (a popular word for benefits) you are going to lose?

I should say when I say rights, I mean that in a "that's what they call them" sense. I don't believe anybody has the right to anything. Perhaps the better word is luxury. I think a lot of safety in food is going to go out the window and, at least if this government remains, I can see a lot of workers "rights" go down the pot as far as job security is concerned. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's all going to be gutted immediately, but small things will be grinded at, so to speak. My biggest concern in all of this is that science will suffer. Also, while this isn't really related to the EU and more a current Conservative government, I think they will absolutely ruin schools and hospitals as they currently are.

I'm going to be fair actually and say it's more a lack of trust in a Conservative government to retain the status quo (or improve).

[dbgtz]

Conservative broken pledges fully sourced:
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/PDFs...20promises.pdf

found it interesting, especially at the fact it's sourced.

Also Sky News apparently barred from the Conservatives campaign.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sky-ne...-tories-2017-5

[-:Undertaker:-]

I personally don't see what's unreasonable about that.
Didn't even happen according to this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ic-outcry.html and the only thing I actually found on it was to do with olive oil sold in shops.

The point isn't whether you agree with European regulations or not, the point is that this country should have the ability to change and live under the regulations it chooses by a government it chooses. Not to have regulations 'locked in' via a supranational government based in a foreign capital. If you want a regulation or want to abolish a regulation, then argue for it at election time - but don't go over the electorate's head via the European Commission and Courts and impose it.

But you've just made those numbers up so your argument is pretty pointless.

Of course. It's a hypothetical. We haven't left yet...

I've never outright accepted we are leaving. As far as I'm concerned, anything can change in the next 2 years.

It really is time for you to accept it. It's happening. What exactly can change in two years to invalidate the result?

An interesting point was raised on the ITV debates though, and that is those who backed leave often advocated the "nordic model" of remaining in the single market including yourself I believe, so why are you so against that now?

I did argue this option to you all I remember well. Why? Because if you'll recall we were discussing the European Union's political ambitions of becoming a federal sovereign state, and I made the point to you all supporting Remain that, if you were really against a federal Europe and more powers going to Brussels then the obvious option and true option for your side would've been to advocate leaving the EU and joining EFTA along the lines of Norway and Switzerland.

Instead, you ignore me and tried pretending - as did the official campaign - that David Cameron had somehow halted the process of ever closer union and transformed the EU without any treaty change. You had your chance, and blew it.

Except none of us are making these deals, and presumably the people in power are well aware of what they're doing and more than capable of knowing what they can and can't do. It's really easy to think you can get everything you want, when the reality is you can't and you need to stop believing you can.

If the people in power are capable of knowing what they can and cannot do and are all powerful and all knowing beings compared to us mere mortals then surely you must support this government taking us out of the EU and the SM and CU. I mean, they're in power and must know what they're doing? Or does expert advice only count when it's pro-EU?

I only vote for 1 mp. Counts for zilch! UNDEMOCRATIC AH! Stupid argument.

It's funny though because my relative vote "value" is higher for my MEP than MP lmao

You vote for an MP in an election in your country which has a demos. There exists a British people with a common culture and common political culture and therefore there can be a democracy. The EU has no such thing. For example, if Liverpool Riverside outvotes Islington North in a parliamentary vote, there isn't controversy about the result because in a demos we accept that although we have differences there's a commonality between us.

In the EU there exists no demos so it is simply viewed as one country overruling another country.

That's not what a compromise is.

Correct, it was pure cowardice and lack of confidence that this country cannot make its own trade deals.

It's also not the 1920s so stop mentioning the empire. Again, another stupid thing to say.

Trade is not past distance in the slightest. Lots of money and man power goes in to making cargo transport as cheap and efficient as possible.

Distance is irrelevant with trade and with every passing year becomes more so. Most of the clothes on your back and mine are from the other side of the world made in a factory in Peking. It's a wonderful thing. Embrace it.

Nobody has begun talks with us.

Yes they have.

https://order-order.com/2016/07/29/b...lobal-markets/

The Government only recently hosted the first ever Commonwealth Trade Summit in London, a clear sign that our old Empire is rallying round and we're renewing those bonds. A lot of opportunity finally being realised.

http://www.cweic.org/event/commonwea...sters-meeting/

You say shared language, but billions of people in the world speaks English at this point. I mean, a large part of Canada speaks French so good going there. Let's not forget the huge Asian immigration in Australia too. I'd personally argue we're far more similar to France from a historical point of view. 2 rather small European countries who basically fought to dominate the world and are basically on an even level.

I say shared language because we do share a language. Britain has left a strong legacy across huge swathes of the world not just with language but how we conduct our law, our outlook on trading and business, our institutions and so on.

And Britain and France aren't small. Not sure how you come to conclusion we're more similar to France than the Commonwealth realm countries when we don't share a language, have been at war many times against one another, different religion, big national rivalry, very different outlooks on economics and have totally different political systems and cultures.

You also have to recognise a lot of people in Commonwealth countries really do not like the UK, or perhaps more accurate is the British Empire which extends somewhat to the UK. It's not all roses. The only reason NZ, Aus and Canada isn't really the same is because they're basically all descendants.

If the British Empire is so unpopular in the former colonies as other empires then I doubt very much that they would choose to remain in an organisation which is basically the continuation of the former Empire, The Commonwealth.

I should say when I say rights, I mean that in a "that's what they call them" sense. I don't believe anybody has the right to anything. Perhaps the better word is luxury. I think a lot of safety in food is going to go out the window and, at least if this government remains, I can see a lot of workers "rights" go down the pot as far as job security is concerned. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's all going to be gutted immediately, but small things will be grinded at, so to speak. My biggest concern in all of this is that science will suffer. Also, while this isn't really related to the EU and more a current Conservative government, I think they will absolutely ruin schools and hospitals as they currently are.

I'm going to be fair actually and say it's more a lack of trust in a Conservative government to retain the status quo (or improve).

If you dislike a government elected here then your aim should be to argue for that governments removal via the ballot box at election time. That's what I do. I don't expect a supranational organisation which I did not elect and cannot remove to impose policies I like and lock them in as to prevent my political opponents achieving their aims.

I would rather live in a Corbyn-ran independent Britain for 100 years than a Conservative-ran European Union for 20 years. This is about sovereignty and democracy and the right of Britons to choose their own destiny. It's my birthright.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Good quote by Benn I just found then alluding to what I was saying about democratic legitimacy.

In 1991, Benn reiterated his opposition to the European Commission and highlighted an alleged democratic deficit in the institution, saying: "Some people genuinely believe that we shall never get social justice from the British Government, but we shall get it from Jacques Delors. They believe that a good king is better than a bad Parliament. I have never taken that view."

Amen to that.

[dbgtz]

The point isn't whether you agree with European regulations or not, the point is that this country should have the ability to change and live under the regulations it chooses by a government it chooses. Not to have regulations 'locked in' via a supranational government based in a foreign capital. If you want a regulation or want to abolish a regulation, then argue for it at election time - but don't go over the electorate's head via the European Commission and Courts and impose it.

But that still doesn't dismiss you linked me to a regulation that was seems to have never been implemented lmao. And again, we still have a say in the matter. None of this was ever forced upon us.

On top of all of this, decent regulations are harder to implement in a smaller market.

Of course. It's a hypothetical. We haven't left yet...

Except you could get some actual figures on costs if you wanted, rather than pull them out of thin air.

It really is time for you to accept it. It's happening. What exactly can change in two years to invalidate the result?

Would you have sat back and accept it if you lost? No.
An obvious but unlikely example that could change things is a massive case of fraud that nullifies the result.

I did argue this option to you all I remember well. Why? Because if you'll recall we were discussing the European Union's political ambitions of becoming a federal sovereign state, and I made the point to you all supporting Remain that, if you were really against a federal Europe and more powers going to Brussels then the obvious option and true option for your side would've been to advocate leaving the EU and joining EFTA along the lines of Norway and Switzerland.

Instead, you ignore me and tried pretending - as did the official campaign - that David Cameron had somehow halted the process of ever closer union and transformed the EU without any treaty change. You had your chance, and blew it.

Except we weren't really involved that heavily in the integration going ahead. You talked about a Nordic model without essentially realising we had our own decent little agreement. Essentially paying the same as what we would do in some kind of EFTA deal, but with a voice. No Euro, no Schengen, no EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and a rather casual acceptance of "area of freedom, security and justice", whatever that fully means.

If the people in power are capable of knowing what they can and cannot do and are all powerful and all knowing beings compared to us mere mortals then surely you must support this government taking us out of the EU and the SM and CU. I mean, they're in power and must know what they're doing? Or does expert advice only count when it's pro-EU?

If you read what I actually said, I never said they were doing the right thing, rather they just know what they can and can't do as far as policy is concerned. This whole general election is essentially down to this as far as I can tell. Theresa May knows she won't be able to push through her version of Brexit, whatever that may be, under her current majority. They know they won't be able to say no to Brexit without killing a huge chunk of support they have and essentially splitting the party up.
Let's not kid ourselves here either, a lot of the higher end Conservative MPs who even pushed for Brexit (Boris and Gove basically) never expected to win.

I never even implied any of them were experts.

You vote for an MP in an election in your country which has a demos. There exists a British people with a common culture and common political culture and therefore there can be a democracy. The EU has no such thing. For example, if Liverpool Riverside outvotes Islington North in a parliamentary vote, there isn't controversy about the result because in a demos we accept that although we have differences there's a commonality between us.

In the EU there exists no demos so it is simply viewed as one country overruling another country.

I won't bother talking too much about FPTP again, but a FPTP system with more than 2 choices is hardly democratic.

Let's talk about this so called common culture, which is a simply untrue as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to go too deep into this, but simply look at internal "conflict" and look at your own views of people outside your world and tell me how much you really have in common with them.
Hell we don't even have a common political culture given the dodgy devolution that has gone down. Then look at places like the City of London, too. This is inside your head.

Correct, it was pure cowardice and lack of confidence that this country cannot make its own trade deals.

I don't understand how this relates to what I said.

Distance is irrelevant with trade and with every passing year becomes more so. Most of the clothes on your back and mine are from the other side of the world made in a factory in Peking. It's a wonderful thing. Embrace it.

Distance is not irrelevant, stop talking out your arse. You do not work in the supply chain and have done no supply chain work.

Yes they have.

https://order-order.com/2016/07/29/b...lobal-markets/

The Government only recently hosted the first ever Commonwealth Trade Summit in London, a clear sign that our old Empire is rallying round and we're renewing those bonds. A lot of opportunity finally being realised.

http://www.cweic.org/event/commonwea...sters-meeting/

The bias on that first site is unreal. Either way, listing a bunch of countries isn't exactly proof of anything. There's no words from officials or any sources at all. I could just make a website and type anything, doesn't make it true.
The latter link also doesn't prove anything about trade deals either.

I say shared language because we do share a language. Britain has left a strong legacy across huge swathes of the world not just with language but how we conduct our law, our outlook on trading and business, our institutions and so on.

And Britain and France aren't small. Not sure how you come to conclusion we're more similar to France than the Commonwealth realm countries when we don't share a language, have been at war many times against one another, different religion, big national rivalry, very different outlooks on economics and have totally different political systems and cultures.

Geographically small & historically similar. Haven't been to war with France since 1815. Religion should be canned anyway. Rivalry, and competition, isn't inherently a bad thing unless you have given up on your free market ideals? Anyway this could just keep circling so I cba to type anymore since it's a fairly irrelevant point.

If the British Empire is so unpopular in the former colonies as other empires then I doubt very much that they would choose to remain in an organisation which is basically the continuation of the former Empire, The Commonwealth.

Unpopular by the people, not governments.

If you dislike a government elected here then your aim should be to argue for that governments removal via the ballot box at election time. That's what I do. I don't expect a supranational organisation which I did not elect and cannot remove to impose policies I like and lock them in as to prevent my political opponents achieving their aims.

I would rather live in a Corbyn-ran independent Britain for 100 years than a Conservative-ran European Union for 20 years. This is about sovereignty and democracy and the right of Britons to choose their own destiny. It's my birthright.

Except people like you advocate a system that makes it hard to vote out governments. Your idea of democracy is laughable at best.
But you can remove them. In the form of MEPs, but also our EU commissioner is, well was, put forward by the government of the time.

I did not elect this government, so maybe I should just leave!!

[hungryfront]

Also even in those "statistics", 50% of people still support remain and 45% support leave. The names are misleading.

I just wish we stayed so we could change to the Euro and open all our borders. See how the right like "hard" remain and the "will of the people".

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[lemons]

Also even in those "statistics", 50% of people still support remain and 45% support leave. The names are misleading.

I just wish we stayed so we could change to the Euro and open all our borders. See how the right like "hard" remain and the "will of the people".

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

ummm even with those who voted remain the euro and open borders are not popular at all!

the will of the people was last years referendum not a yougov poll

[FlyingJesus]

Guardian put out an article pretending to compare manifestos (although it's literally just "Conservatives are LIARS and Labour will do everything they promised no doubt") and ooooops they've made the claim that Conservatives are planning to spend less on the NHS despite the actual figure being 8bn per year not per term, putting their total at 10bn above what Labour pledges. But hey who needs facts especially when you don't even open comments on the page

Also apparently Lib Dems want to hold a 2nd referendum... AFTER they've made the Brexit deal? I know they're a joke but what the hell

[dbgtz]

Guardian put out an article pretending to compare manifestos (although it's literally just "Conservatives are LIARS and Labour will do everything they promised no doubt") and ooooops they've made the claim that Conservatives are planning to spend less on the NHS despite the actual figure being 8bn per year not per term, putting their total at 10bn above what Labour pledges. But hey who needs facts especially when you don't even open comments on the page

Also apparently Lib Dems want to hold a 2nd referendum... AFTER they've made the Brexit deal? I know they're a joke but what the hell

Where did you get 8 billion a year? It literally says:

First, we will increase NHS spending by a minimum of £8 billion in real terms over the next five years, delivering an increase in real funding per head of the population for every year of the parliament

That's not the same as an increase of £8 billion every year for the next 5 years, rather it will be £8 billion more in 5 years time. It would, by their own wording, be a gradual increase which is probably more ~£24 billion in total if it's a linear increase to £8 billion, £6 billion less than Labour.

You might find this interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...esto_costings/
Only compares Labour and Conservatives which is a bit boring, but informative nonetheless.

also @-:Undertaker:-; in response to

It really is time for you to accept it. It's happening. What exactly can change in two years to invalidate the result?

this just popped up: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7745216.html

I doubt it will come to anything but still interesting to read.

[FlyingJesus]

Even if that were how it pans out, the Guardian is still suggesting that 8bn is the total vs 30bn, which is entirely disingenuous. For it to be 24bn total extra and still hit the 8bn target that suggests only 4bn extra each year before that, which wouldn't make any sense and is all speculation in any case like most of this thread and this election as a whole. In the same vein you could suggest that Labour would only raise it by 10p each year until the 5th year and then hold an election to get out of paying the rest, it's all guesswork.

Seeing a lot of people from both sides being completely hypocritical around social media and the news... Young Labour voters spout off about hating old people and wanting the rich to get given less money then act appalled when the Conservatives pledge to not give huge benefits to old rich people who don't need it, and on the flipside got Conservatives making fun of the the claims for stopping tax avoidance and then putting the exact same thing in their own manifesto. Whole thing is a mess and is essentially a slanging match that's going to boil down to how much you like the leaders, no matter how much they both deny that being the case