Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How an anti-Brexit party could be created without the need to

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How an anti-Brexit party could be created without the need to leave existing parties

It has been rehearsed many time over – the massive challenges that a new party would face simply getting off the ground.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587
    First ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587
    I find this idea every bit as dubious as my comment precedence...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587
    ... what is there in this for the main parties to allow it ?
    It would seem seriously to undermine party discipline (which might be fine from a voter's POV, but certainly isn't from the party's), and risks giving a leg up to a new party getting itself established - and possibly poaching MPs.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,948
    Labour/coop is a long established "dual party" setup.

    I think a 'European' dual party whilst doable in theory falls at the first hurdle of say disavowing the whips of one of the big two where there is a conflict between 'Labour' and 'Democrats' (Or indeed the 'Conservatives' and 'Democrats' say.
    I think candidates standing as 'Democrat & Conservative party', well they wouldn't get past the party selection.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,858
    I've just had a comment disappear. Odd.

    Anyway, the gist of it was that no, the big parties won't allow it. They won't allow joint billing with themselves, they won't allow their candidates to serve two masters, they won't want to display their splits in public (between endorsed and non-endorsed candidates), and they won't want to flag up that some of their candidates superficially have more in common with members of other parties than with their own.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    Trump says US "locked and loaded"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40901746
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972
    edited August 11
    The list of people thrashing around with completely impractical ways of trying to pretend that we are not leaving the EU gets longer by the day.

    What's more, we'll have left by the next GE (almost certainly). A 'pro-EU' party will be as irrelevant as an 'anti-Indian-independence' party would have been in 1950.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821
    Theoretically it would work. In practice most Conservatives are too deranged to consider adopting anyone who isn't ready to declare war on the EU, never mind work to deBrexit. I can't see Labour sharing candidates with parties that they don't have sufficiently tamed either.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821

    The list of people thrashing around with completely impractical ways of trying to pretend that we are not leaving the EU gets longer by the day.

    It's the silly season. Brexit is happening. It's going to be a disaster but that's no excuse for not staring the grim truth in the face.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,644

    I've just had a comment disappear. Odd.

    Anyway, the gist of it was that no, the big parties won't allow it. They won't allow joint billing with themselves, they won't allow their candidates to serve two masters, they won't want to display their splits in public (between endorsed and non-endorsed candidates), and they won't want to flag up that some of their candidates superficially have more in common with members of other parties than with their own.

    Sadly I think that's right.

    On another subject, in the "you'd need a heart of stone not to laugh" department:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/11/migrant-rescue-ship-sails-to-aid-of-stranded-far-right-activists
  • boulayboulay Posts: 46
    FPT rottenborough mentioned that Chapman wanted to charge VAT on private school fees. This is illegal under EU rules as it bans the charging of VAT on education provision. Can't have it both ways....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    More details on efforts to start a new party:

    https://forums.politicsisdead.com/topic/14-people-organising-remain-political-parties

    Seems the Just Party are already up and running.

    http://www.thejustparty.org.uk/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478

    The list of people thrashing around with completely impractical ways of trying to pretend that we are not leaving the EU gets longer by the day.

    What's more, we'll have left by the next GE (almost certainly). A 'pro-EU' party will be as irrelevant as an 'anti-Indian-independence' party would have been in 1950.

    Your second paragraph illustrates why your thinking on this issue has become so muddled. The EU and its influence on out politics isn't going away in March 2019. No matter what happens that is one thing that is an absolute certainty.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    boulay said:

    FPT rottenborough mentioned that Chapman wanted to charge VAT on private school fees. This is illegal under EU rules as it bans the charging of VAT on education provision. Can't have it both ways....

    :lol:

    Unravelling already.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,996
    There isn't much point for this with Labour, when all except a handful of our MPs and candidates are Remainers. I suppose we could sub-divide into Remainer (accepts the democratic result) and Remainer (sticks two fingers up at the voters), but there are not too many in the latter category.

    This is more an issue for the Tories, where in the case of most of their MPs I have no idea if they are Remain or Leave. In some cases they managed to campaign for both sides at different stages during the referendum campaign. Perhaps they could be more covert - describe themselves as "Conservative and Unionist" if they are pro-EU and simply as Conservative if they support Brexit.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972

    Your second paragraph illustrates why your thinking on this issue has become so muddled. The EU and its influence on out politics isn't going away in March 2019. No matter what happens that is one thing that is an absolute certainty.

    My thinking has been entirely clear, both before and after the referendum. You are right that the EU will continue to have a big influence on the UK, but the nature of the debate will change completely on leaving. In fact, it should have changed already with the invocation of Article 50, but it seems that some people are a bit slow on the uptake.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972
    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    Well, depends whether you accept that the other EU countries wouldn't agree if we announced we wanted to abandon Brexit and renounce A50.

    I suspect FR and GE would arm twist everyone into agreeing.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 878
    From a Scottish perspective, any Labour party candidate (or elected) who got into even a vague consensus with the Tories would quickly be an ex-member of the LP, and I suspect that there will be something similar in reverse in the Scottish Tories. It just would lead to a lot of abuse from the SNP. As such, in England, it would also play well into the hands of UKIP, Plaid and even the LibDems (if they played it).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398

    The list of people thrashing around with completely impractical ways of trying to pretend that we are not leaving the EU gets longer by the day.

    What's more, we'll have left by the next GE (almost certainly). A 'pro-EU' party will be as irrelevant as an 'anti-Indian-independence' party would have been in 1950.

    It's not going to be a Rejoin-EU party (at least not yet); it would be a pro-EU party! ie, one that doesn't view the EU as our enemy and the faintest whiff of cross-border joint responsibility for widget specification enforcement as an attack on our sovereignty.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398
    edited August 11

    Your second paragraph illustrates why your thinking on this issue has become so muddled. The EU and its influence on out politics isn't going away in March 2019. No matter what happens that is one thing that is an absolute certainty.

    My thinking has been entirely clear, both before and after the referendum. You are right that the EU will continue to have a big influence on the UK, but the nature of the debate will change completely on leaving. In fact, it should have changed already with the invocation of Article 50, but it seems that some people are a bit slow on the uptake.
    I don't see why it should have. To say "I want to leave the EU but stay in the single market" is perfectly sensible. Trouble is, breathe that to many Brexiters, and they want you locked up in the Tower.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 2,645
    edited August 11

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    LOL!! :D

    But yes, they did manage to organise some marches and so on earlier.

    Did they just have faith that if they protested enough and made enough noise, somehow one of the big parties, or just a mass rebellion of MPs, would see off the Article 50 threat?

    The timeframe would have been very short for what they wanted to achieve, but if they'd got their backsides in serious gear, and a lot of big names had rallied to the cause, then perhaps the 2017 GE would have been their best chance of stopping Brexit. But they didn't even get themselves onto the ballot paper. Were they leaving the Lib Dems to do that for them? Mad mad mad if they thought the Lib Dems would really win that election on a Europhile wave. Instead the vast majority of votes went to parties that supported the referendum vote being respected.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    "There’s no reason why pro-brexiteers shouldn’t do the same."

    Except that by the time of the next general election, we will have Left the EU.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972
    edited August 11

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    Well, depends whether you accept that the other EU countries wouldn't agree if we announced we wanted to abandon Brexit and renounce A50.

    I suspect FR and GE would arm twist everyone into agreeing.
    There's no mechanism for doing so, even if the political will existed in the UK and in the EU. It would require ratification by 27 countries, in a timescale which is completely impossible. It just ain't gonna happen.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414
    So a 'coupon' election, if the losing side was the one handing out coupons. Got it.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Meanwhile, Buzzfeed has the results of a YouGov poll on attitudes to Europe.

    The conclusion:

    These results indicate that despite the impression given across the press and from politicians of a deeply divided nation, when voters think of the actual details of what they want from Brexit, neither group is that distinct – and generally they lean towards a harder Brexit.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The crucial moment for Remainers was immediately after the referendum, when the government (and the Brexiteers) clearly had no idea what to do. If Labour had, say, given a lead and defined the issue in those critical months we wouldn't even be talking about a 'hard Brexit' or a 'soft Brexit', it would be defined in entirely different (and probably more sensible) terms.

    Instead Labour's sensible-centrists chose to go ahead with their plan and fling themselves like lemmings at Corbyn and against the membership, giving the hard-line Brexiteers a free hand to define the referendum result however they wanted.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The Brexiteers are caught in a trap of their own design. If there's an analogy to be made with horses, bolting from the stable is not it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The crucial moment for Remainers was immediately after the referendum, when the government (and the Brexiteers) clearly had no idea what to do. If Labour had, say, given a lead and defined the issue in those critical months we wouldn't even be talking about a 'hard Brexit' or a 'soft Brexit', it would be defined in entirely different (and probably more sensible) terms.

    Instead Labour's sensible-centrists chose to go ahead with their plan and fling themselves like lemmings at Corbyn and against the membership, giving the hard-line Brexiteers a free hand to define the referendum result however they wanted.
    Yet another Leaver blaming Remainers for the crapness of the deal that they're "negotiating". Vote Leave, accept responsibility.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The crucial moment for Remainers was immediately after the referendum, when the government (and the Brexiteers) clearly had no idea what to do. If Labour had, say, given a lead and defined the issue in those critical months we wouldn't even be talking about a 'hard Brexit' or a 'soft Brexit', it would be defined in entirely different (and probably more sensible) terms.

    Instead Labour's sensible-centrists chose to go ahead with their plan and fling themselves like lemmings at Corbyn and against the membership, giving the hard-line Brexiteers a free hand to define the referendum result however they wanted.
    Yet another Leaver blaming Remainers for the crapness of the deal that they're "negotiating". Vote Leave, accept responsibility.
    Who's a Leaver?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,996
    TOPPING said:

    Your second paragraph illustrates why your thinking on this issue has become so muddled. The EU and its influence on out politics isn't going away in March 2019. No matter what happens that is one thing that is an absolute certainty.

    My thinking has been entirely clear, both before and after the referendum. You are right that the EU will continue to have a big influence on the UK, but the nature of the debate will change completely on leaving. In fact, it should have changed already with the invocation of Article 50, but it seems that some people are a bit slow on the uptake.
    I don't see why it should have. To say "I want to leave the EU but stay in the single market" is perfectly sensible. Trouble is, breathe that to many Brexiters, and they want you locked up in the Tower.
    Because that is like "I want a divorce but you can keep on shagging me".
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,412
    edited August 11

    Because that is like "I want a divorce but you can keep on shagging me".

    As pitched by Brexiteers before the vote

  • In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The crucial moment for Remainers was immediately after the referendum, when the government (and the Brexiteers) clearly had no idea what to do. If Labour had, say, given a lead and defined the issue in those critical months we wouldn't even be talking about a 'hard Brexit' or a 'soft Brexit', it would be defined in entirely different (and probably more sensible) terms.

    Instead Labour's sensible-centrists chose to go ahead with their plan and fling themselves like lemmings at Corbyn and against the membership, giving the hard-line Brexiteers a free hand to define the referendum result however they wanted.
    But Leavers assured us getting a Brexit deal would be quick and easy.

    Are you saying Remainers shouldn't have fallen for the bull promulgated by Leavers?
  • On topic, not going to happen.

    2015 was ideal for a coupon election, not now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398

    TOPPING said:

    Your second paragraph illustrates why your thinking on this issue has become so muddled. The EU and its influence on out politics isn't going away in March 2019. No matter what happens that is one thing that is an absolute certainty.

    My thinking has been entirely clear, both before and after the referendum. You are right that the EU will continue to have a big influence on the UK, but the nature of the debate will change completely on leaving. In fact, it should have changed already with the invocation of Article 50, but it seems that some people are a bit slow on the uptake.
    I don't see why it should have. To say "I want to leave the EU but stay in the single market" is perfectly sensible. Trouble is, breathe that to many Brexiters, and they want you locked up in the Tower.
    Because that is like "I want a divorce but you can keep on shagging me".
    Plenty of people get divorced and keep on shagging. Thing is, they're divorced.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    An interesting suggestion but the comparison also highlights a significant difference. The Co-op is a Labour identity. Not all Labour MPs are Co-op, but all Co-op MPs are Labour. The proposal above is for a cross-party subdivision not an intra-party divide.

    How do the EU-phile MPs divide if Parliament is hung? If it's along party lines, then what impact has the tag had? If it's for whomever is most pro-EU, you almost* may as well form a new party.

    *This approach is likely better, from their perspective, than forming a new party due to the FPTP system. That said, the hurdle may be exaggerated because UKIP were so bloody woeful. The Greens have achieved similar MP success with far lower vote shares nationally.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,996
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Your second paragraph illustrates why your thinking on this issue has become so muddled. The EU and its influence on out politics isn't going away in March 2019. No matter what happens that is one thing that is an absolute certainty.

    My thinking has been entirely clear, both before and after the referendum. You are right that the EU will continue to have a big influence on the UK, but the nature of the debate will change completely on leaving. In fact, it should have changed already with the invocation of Article 50, but it seems that some people are a bit slow on the uptake.
    I don't see why it should have. To say "I want to leave the EU but stay in the single market" is perfectly sensible. Trouble is, breathe that to many Brexiters, and they want you locked up in the Tower.
    Because that is like "I want a divorce but you can keep on shagging me".
    Plenty of people get divorced and keep on shagging. Thing is, they're divorced.
    Clearly I live a sheltered life.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The crucial moment for Remainers was immediately after the referendum, when the government (and the Brexiteers) clearly had no idea what to do. If Labour had, say, given a lead and defined the issue in those critical months we wouldn't even be talking about a 'hard Brexit' or a 'soft Brexit', it would be defined in entirely different (and probably more sensible) terms.

    Instead Labour's sensible-centrists chose to go ahead with their plan and fling themselves like lemmings at Corbyn and against the membership, giving the hard-line Brexiteers a free hand to define the referendum result however they wanted.
    But Leavers assured us getting a Brexit deal would be quick and easy.

    Are you saying Remainers shouldn't have fallen for the bull promulgated by Leavers?
    Not sure they ever did, I'm thinking more of their bizarre priorities. Basic party discipline and they could have given the country some direction when a lead was needed, but they just couldn't wait to get Angela Eagle in.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Your second paragraph illustrates why your thinking on this issue has become so muddled. The EU and its influence on out politics isn't going away in March 2019. No matter what happens that is one thing that is an absolute certainty.

    My thinking has been entirely clear, both before and after the referendum. You are right that the EU will continue to have a big influence on the UK, but the nature of the debate will change completely on leaving. In fact, it should have changed already with the invocation of Article 50, but it seems that some people are a bit slow on the uptake.
    I don't see why it should have. To say "I want to leave the EU but stay in the single market" is perfectly sensible. Trouble is, breathe that to many Brexiters, and they want you locked up in the Tower.
    Because that is like "I want a divorce but you can keep on shagging me".
    Plenty of people get divorced and keep on shagging. Thing is, they're divorced.
    Clearly I live a sheltered life.
    Clearly.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713

    Meanwhile, Buzzfeed has the results of a YouGov poll on attitudes to Europe.

    The conclusion:

    These results indicate that despite the impression given across the press and from politicians of a deeply divided nation, when voters think of the actual details of what they want from Brexit, neither group is that distinct – and generally they lean towards a harder Brexit.

    Mencken: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
  • In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The crucial moment for Remainers was immediately after the referendum, when the government (and the Brexiteers) clearly had no idea what to do. If Labour had, say, given a lead and defined the issue in those critical months we wouldn't even be talking about a 'hard Brexit' or a 'soft Brexit', it would be defined in entirely different (and probably more sensible) terms.

    Instead Labour's sensible-centrists chose to go ahead with their plan and fling themselves like lemmings at Corbyn and against the membership, giving the hard-line Brexiteers a free hand to define the referendum result however they wanted.
    But Leavers assured us getting a Brexit deal would be quick and easy.

    Are you saying Remainers shouldn't have fallen for the bull promulgated by Leavers?
    Not sure they ever did, I'm thinking more of their bizarre priorities. Basic party discipline and they could have given the country some direction when a lead was needed, but they just couldn't wait to get Angela Eagle in.
    From last July.

    Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation.

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/17/getting-out-of-the-eu-can-be-quick-and-easy-the-uk-holds-most-of-the-cards-in-any-negotiation/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,303
    edited August 11
    Jezza's morning read not happy with the Big Society approach...

    Volunteers helping to clear uncollected waste during a long-running bin strike have been labelled a "scab army".

    The Bearded Broz, who have cleared 45 tonnes of waste in Birmingham during the six-week strike, were criticised in the socialist Morning Star.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40897114
  • paulbarkerpaulbarker Posts: 75
    The thing that I am unclear on is whether this could be done against the will of existing Parties ? I would doubt it & in that case, whats to stop the respective Leader/Head Office just deselecting The MP involved ?
    Perhaps if the moves involved dozens of MPs/Local Branches it could become a Fait Accompli but that would require a lot more guts than we have seen displayed so far.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,211
    FPT
    FF43 said:

    James Chapman is clearly having a lot of fun on holiday. There is potentially a gap in the market for a new political party. But it's not an anti-Brexit gap. The gap for a new political party is for one that makes its top priority the welfare of the British people, as opposed to Brexit delusions or a socialist fantasy.

    The gap is for an outward looking, globalist, business friendly, liberal and democratic party. Brexit is as much the symptom as the cause of the problem. The Lib Dems have two of those adjectives in their name but I don't think they are it, unless they are prepared to reposition themselves and potentially lose some of their rural bastions.

    Meanwhile, Buzzfeed has the results of a YouGov poll on attitudes to Europe.

    The conclusion:

    These results indicate that despite the impression given across the press and from politicians of a deeply divided nation, when voters think of the actual details of what they want from Brexit, neither group is that distinct – and generally they lean towards a harder Brexit.

    The pool for the internationalist party I am talking about is ca 30% of the electorate. It's s minority now but that could change.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The crucial moment for Remainers was immediately after the referendum, when the government (and the Brexiteers) clearly had no idea what to do. If Labour had, say, given a lead and defined the issue in those critical months we wouldn't even be talking about a 'hard Brexit' or a 'soft Brexit', it would be defined in entirely different (and probably more sensible) terms.

    Instead Labour's sensible-centrists chose to go ahead with their plan and fling themselves like lemmings at Corbyn and against the membership, giving the hard-line Brexiteers a free hand to define the referendum result however they wanted.
    But Leavers assured us getting a Brexit deal would be quick and easy.

    Are you saying Remainers shouldn't have fallen for the bull promulgated by Leavers?
    Not sure they ever did, I'm thinking more of their bizarre priorities. Basic party discipline and they could have given the country some direction when a lead was needed, but they just couldn't wait to get Angela Eagle in.
    From last July.

    Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation.

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/17/getting-out-of-the-eu-can-be-quick-and-easy-the-uk-holds-most-of-the-cards-in-any-negotiation/
    I meant I wasn't sure Remainers ever did fall for it. it's the fact that they should have known how important the post-referendum period would be (regardless of what the vote was), and that Labour's MPs chose to remove themselves from the field for the duration.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,198
    Mr Smithson - you're saying that the things that you want are some sort of pain-free addition to any candidate's manifesto. I find it very hard to believe that there are politicians out there who find themselves constrained by electoral law and who are gagging to support forbidden ideas.

    The LD's are far more electable than you think (even you).
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    The crucial moment for Remainers was immediately after the referendum, when the government (and the Brexiteers) clearly had no idea what to do. If Labour had, say, given a lead and defined the issue in those critical months we wouldn't even be talking about a 'hard Brexit' or a 'soft Brexit', it would be defined in entirely different (and probably more sensible) terms.

    Instead Labour's sensible-centrists chose to go ahead with their plan and fling themselves like lemmings at Corbyn and against the membership, giving the hard-line Brexiteers a free hand to define the referendum result however they wanted.
    But Leavers assured us getting a Brexit deal would be quick and easy.

    Are you saying Remainers shouldn't have fallen for the bull promulgated by Leavers?
    Not sure they ever did, I'm thinking more of their bizarre priorities. Basic party discipline and they could have given the country some direction when a lead was needed, but they just couldn't wait to get Angela Eagle in.
    From last July.

    Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation.

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/17/getting-out-of-the-eu-can-be-quick-and-easy-the-uk-holds-most-of-the-cards-in-any-negotiation/
    I meant I wasn't sure Remainers ever did fall for it. it's the fact that they should have known how important the post-referendum period would be (regardless of what the vote was), and that Labour's MPs chose to remove themselves from the field for the duration.
    And, as ever, the standard maxim applies: if you don't work to make things better, what will happen? Other people will make things worse.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,849
    Many Remain voters now largely agree that Brexit should mean the UK taking full control over its borders, leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and paying only a small "divorce bill" to the EU, according to major new academic research.

    A groundbreaking project by the London School of Economics and Oxford University surveying more than 20,000 people – which BuzzFeed News has seen exclusively ahead of its official publication – reveals that when the British public are asked in detail what they want from the negotiations, there is more support for harder Brexit options because Leavers and a significant number of Remainers back them.


    https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/remain-and-leave-voters-are-surprisingly-united-on-backing?utm_term=.oj8dL0dY2w#.nhJ70O7gm3
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414
    edited August 11

    Jezza's morning read not happy with the Big Society approach...

    Volunteers helping to clear uncollected waste during a long-running bin strike have been labelled a "scab army".

    The Bearded Broz, who have cleared 45 tonnes of waste in Birmingham during the six-week strike, were criticised in the socialist Morning Star.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40897114

    The lady in the article saying they're 'scabs with a good heart' is probably right. Good for them for volunteering to keep their streets cleaned for a couple of weeks. Unfortunate that it's simultaneously undermining a legitimate strike over job cuts, which could lead to long-term harm for the service if they go ahead.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,858

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    Well, depends whether you accept that the other EU countries wouldn't agree if we announced we wanted to abandon Brexit and renounce A50.

    I suspect FR and GE would arm twist everyone into agreeing.
    There's no mechanism for doing so, even if the political will existed in the UK and in the EU. It would require ratification by 27 countries, in a timescale which is completely impossible. It just ain't gonna happen.
    There is a mechanism: the European Council could agree to 'delay' Brexit by some very long period - 100 years, say - and then tidy up the details in the next Treaty.

    But that's theoretical. No-one from the UK government is going to ask for it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Herdson, it'd also be politically interesting for the next election.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Jezza's morning read not happy with the Big Society approach...

    Volunteers helping to clear uncollected waste during a long-running bin strike have been labelled a "scab army".

    The Bearded Broz, who have cleared 45 tonnes of waste in Birmingham during the six-week strike, were criticised in the socialist Morning Star.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40897114

    The lady in the article saying they're 'scabs with a good heart' is probably right. Good for them for volunteering to keep their streets cleaned for a couple of weeks. Unfortunate that it's simultaneously undermining a legitimate strike over job cuts, which could lead to long-term harm for the service if they go ahead.
    If there's 45 tonnes of waste in the streets in summer (even so poor a summer as we're currently having), that is not legitimate. It not only makes life unpleasant for but is actively harmful to thousands of people who have absolutely no power to resolve the dispute.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    Jezza's morning read not happy with the Big Society approach...

    Volunteers helping to clear uncollected waste during a long-running bin strike have been labelled a "scab army".

    The Bearded Broz, who have cleared 45 tonnes of waste in Birmingham during the six-week strike, were criticised in the socialist Morning Star.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40897114

    The lady in the article saying they're 'scabs with a good heart' is probably right. Good for them for volunteering to keep their streets cleaned for a couple of weeks. Unfortunate that it's simultaneously undermining a legitimate strike over job cuts, which could lead to long-term harm for the service if they go ahead.
    If there's 45 tonnes of waste in the streets in summer (even so poor a summer as we're currently having), that is not legitimate. It not only makes life unpleasant for but is actively harmful to thousands of people who have absolutely no power to resolve the dispute.
    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,858

    Mr. Herdson, it'd also be politically interesting for the next election.

    It would probably *prompt* an election were the government to request such an extension.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Jezza's morning read not happy with the Big Society approach...

    Volunteers helping to clear uncollected waste during a long-running bin strike have been labelled a "scab army".

    The Bearded Broz, who have cleared 45 tonnes of waste in Birmingham during the six-week strike, were criticised in the socialist Morning Star.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40897114

    The lady in the article saying they're 'scabs with a good heart' is probably right. Good for them for volunteering to keep their streets cleaned for a couple of weeks. Unfortunate that it's simultaneously undermining a legitimate strike over job cuts, which could lead to long-term harm for the service if they go ahead.
    If there's 45 tonnes of waste in the streets in summer (even so poor a summer as we're currently having), that is not legitimate. It not only makes life unpleasant for but is actively harmful to thousands of people who have absolutely no power to resolve the dispute.
    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.
    Pressure. Wow.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,211

    Meanwhile, Buzzfeed has the results of a YouGov poll on attitudes to Europe.

    The conclusion:

    These results indicate that despite the impression given across the press and from politicians of a deeply divided nation, when voters think of the actual details of what they want from Brexit, neither group is that distinct – and generally they lean towards a harder Brexit.

    The stark difference between Remainers and Leavers in the polls is that only a tiny percentage of Leave voters think Britain will be worse off economically after Brexit while only a tiny percentage of Remain voters think it WON'T be. Brexit being a price worth paying is a nonsense to Leavers because they don't actually think there is a price to be paid for Brexit. . Equally they take a hard line on the issues surrounding Brexit because they don't think there are any trade offs to be made. None of these things have any economic implications whatever so you can get low immigration, no ECJ, no payments to the EU free of cost.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. 43, bracketing all Leave voters together makes things easier but also less true to life.

    Except for leaving the customs union, I've said repeatedly I'm open to arguments on the best way to leave the EU. Not claiming to be representative of anyone other than myself, but the idea all Leave voters have the same view is as silly as claiming all Remain voters love the EU or want to adopt the euro.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    Jezza's morning read not happy with the Big Society approach...

    Volunteers helping to clear uncollected waste during a long-running bin strike have been labelled a "scab army".

    The Bearded Broz, who have cleared 45 tonnes of waste in Birmingham during the six-week strike, were criticised in the socialist Morning Star.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40897114

    The lady in the article saying they're 'scabs with a good heart' is probably right. Good for them for volunteering to keep their streets cleaned for a couple of weeks. Unfortunate that it's simultaneously undermining a legitimate strike over job cuts, which could lead to long-term harm for the service if they go ahead.
    If there's 45 tonnes of waste in the streets in summer (even so poor a summer as we're currently having), that is not legitimate. It not only makes life unpleasant for but is actively harmful to thousands of people who have absolutely no power to resolve the dispute.
    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.
    Pressure. Wow.
    Wow? The council has a responsibility to the people who elect it, the union to the workers it represents. If the council has pushed refuse workers to vote 90% in favour of a strike, it's clearly failing to do right by its community. Why shouldn't a community put pressure on its elected representatives to do right by them? What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972

    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.

    So you think that the banks should get together and refuse to let you access your money from time to time, just so that you value their services properly?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?

    Pointless. Ineffective.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,244
    You could end up with the following election candidates in a constituency

    Labour/New European
    Conservative/New European
    Liberal Democrat/New European
    Green/New European
    UKIP
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,501
    Latest German poll:

    CDU: 40%
    SPD: 24%
    Greens: 8%
    Left: 8%
    FDP: 8%
    AfD: 8%
    Others: 4%

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    FF43 said:

    Meanwhile, Buzzfeed has the results of a YouGov poll on attitudes to Europe.

    The conclusion:

    These results indicate that despite the impression given across the press and from politicians of a deeply divided nation, when voters think of the actual details of what they want from Brexit, neither group is that distinct – and generally they lean towards a harder Brexit.

    The stark difference between Remainers and Leavers in the polls is that only a tiny percentage of Leave voters think Britain will be worse off economically after Brexit while only a tiny percentage of Remain voters think it WON'T be. Brexit being a price worth paying is a nonsense to Leavers because they don't actually think there is a price to be paid for Brexit. . Equally they take a hard line on the issues surrounding Brexit because they don't think there are any trade offs to be made. None of these things have any economic implications whatever so you can get low immigration, no ECJ, no payments to the EU free of cost.
    Is there now a "settled view" on Brexit that we are leaving the EU's control?
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.

    So you think that the banks should get together and refuse to let you access your money from time to time, just so that you value their services properly?
    The relationship between a bank and its customers is clearly not the same as between a union and an employer. Looking at reality rather than hypotheticals, Unite members in Birmingham are exercising their legal right to strike, talking about safety issues and avoiding pay cuts for the lowest paid. They've clearly indicated they're willing to discuss the demands of the council and meet them half-way. If the strike continues, I think it's the council's fault for trying to ride roughshod over them.

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,360
    Is the national living wage starting to cause more problems than Brexit at the moment.Especially in the retail sector with Asda Sainsbury's Tesco Wilkos announcing job cuts.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414
    edited August 11

    What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?

    Pointless. Ineffective.
    It's a shame the old Chartist demand for the ability to immediately recall representatives wasn't taken up. Seems to me like we have a situation where 1) the union is doing a pretty good job of representing the will of its members, the whole point of its existence; 2) the council is doing a crap job of representing the will of its electorate, the whole point of its existence.

    Maybe if there were better mechanisms of accountability the council would be 'getting round the table' etc. rather than trying to bully its workforce and allowing these strikes to continue...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972
    edited August 11

    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.

    So you think that the banks should get together and refuse to let you access your money from time to time, just so that you value their services properly?
    The relationship between a bank and its customers is clearly not the same as between a union and an employer. Looking at reality rather than hypotheticals, Unite members in Birmingham are exercising their legal right to strike, talking about safety issues and avoiding pay cuts for the lowest paid. They've clearly indicated they're willing to discuss the demands of the council and meet them half-way. If the strike continues, I think it's the council's fault for trying to ride roughshod over them.

    But you seemed to think there was some kind of virtue in causing discomfort, in order to be appreciated by the customers of the services. So I don't see why the same fine moral purpose wouldn't apply to a temporary withdrawal of service by the high street banks (whose services tend to be taken completely for granted), perhaps in an attempt to extort higher charges - exactly what strikers try to do.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125

    In hindsight, the most odd thing about the continuity Remainers is that they have waited until after Article 50 was triggered before trying to stop Brexit. The Stable Door Party would be the most appropriate name.

    Well yes, that was the time to stop Brexit.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,948


    But you seemed to think there was some kind of virtue in causing discomfort, in order to be appreciated by the customers of the services. So I don't see why the same fine moral purpose wouldn't apply to a temporary withdrawal of service by the high street banks (whose services tend to be taken completely for granted), perhaps in an attempt to extort higher charges - exactly what strikers try to do.

    I'd move banks, except I'm with alot of them as it is !
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,996

    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.

    So you think that the banks should get together and refuse to let you access your money from time to time, just so that you value their services properly?
    The relationship between a bank and its customers is clearly not the same as between a union and an employer. Looking at reality rather than hypotheticals, Unite members in Birmingham are exercising their legal right to strike, talking about safety issues and avoiding pay cuts for the lowest paid. They've clearly indicated they're willing to discuss the demands of the council and meet them half-way. If the strike continues, I think it's the council's fault for trying to ride roughshod over them.

    But you seemed to think there was some kind of virtue in causing discomfort, in order to be appreciated by the customers of the services. So I don't see why the same fine moral purpose wouldn't apply to a temporary withdrawal of service by the high street banks (whose services tend to be taken completely for granted), perhaps in an attempt to extort higher charges - exactly what strikers try to do.
    So that is why rail companies cancel trains - so that the passengers appreciate the service all the more when it does actually run.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125

    Jezza's morning read not happy with the Big Society approach...

    Volunteers helping to clear uncollected waste during a long-running bin strike have been labelled a "scab army".

    The Bearded Broz, who have cleared 45 tonnes of waste in Birmingham during the six-week strike, were criticised in the socialist Morning Star.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40897114

    The lady in the article saying they're 'scabs with a good heart' is probably right. Good for them for volunteering to keep their streets cleaned for a couple of weeks. Unfortunate that it's simultaneously undermining a legitimate strike over job cuts, which could lead to long-term harm for the service if they go ahead.
    If Luton dustmen went on strike, I think I'd also want to get rid of the rubbish, rather than letting it pile up in the street.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,858

    Jezza's morning read not happy with the Big Society approach...

    Volunteers helping to clear uncollected waste during a long-running bin strike have been labelled a "scab army".

    The Bearded Broz, who have cleared 45 tonnes of waste in Birmingham during the six-week strike, were criticised in the socialist Morning Star.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40897114

    The lady in the article saying they're 'scabs with a good heart' is probably right. Good for them for volunteering to keep their streets cleaned for a couple of weeks. Unfortunate that it's simultaneously undermining a legitimate strike over job cuts, which could lead to long-term harm for the service if they go ahead.
    If there's 45 tonnes of waste in the streets in summer (even so poor a summer as we're currently having), that is not legitimate. It not only makes life unpleasant for but is actively harmful to thousands of people who have absolutely no power to resolve the dispute.
    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.
    Pressure. Wow.
    Wow? The council has a responsibility to the people who elect it, the union to the workers it represents. If the council has pushed refuse workers to vote 90% in favour of a strike, it's clearly failing to do right by its community. Why shouldn't a community put pressure on its elected representatives to do right by them? What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?
    If it were left to the 'man in the street' to determine the resolution of the strike, they'd probably sack the binmen wholesale (which would be illegal but that's beside the point).
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.

    So you think that the banks should get together and refuse to let you access your money from time to time, just so that you value their services properly?
    The relationship between a bank and its customers is clearly not the same as between a union and an employer. Looking at reality rather than hypotheticals, Unite members in Birmingham are exercising their legal right to strike, talking about safety issues and avoiding pay cuts for the lowest paid. They've clearly indicated they're willing to discuss the demands of the council and meet them half-way. If the strike continues, I think it's the council's fault for trying to ride roughshod over them.

    But that's not what you said. You seemed to think there was some kind of virtue in causing discomfort, in order to be appreciated by the customers of the services. So I don't see why the same fine moral purpose wouldn't apply to a temporary withdrawal of service by the high street banks (whose services tend to be taken completely for granted), perhaps in an attempt to extort higher charges - exactly what strikers try to do.
    'Virtue' and 'moral purpose' in economics belong to the 16th century. What I said was 'valued'. If a high-street bank thought it could gain by withdrawing its services, if it could do so legally and according to contract, there wouldn't be any moral obligation for it not to. It would just be a struggle of interests.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?

    Pointless. Ineffective.
    It's a shame the old Chartist demand for the ability to immediately recall representatives wasn't taken up. Seems to me like we have a situation where 1) the union is doing a pretty good job of representing the will of its members, the whole point of its existence; 2) the council is doing a crap job of representing the will of its electorate, the whole point of its existence.

    Maybe if there were better mechanisms of accountability the council would be 'getting round the table' etc. rather than trying to bully its workforce and allowing these strikes to continue...
    You're blaming the council for the union choosing to strike?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,530
    AndyJS said:

    Latest German poll:

    CDU: 40%
    SPD: 24%
    Greens: 8%
    Left: 8%
    FDP: 8%
    AfD: 8%
    Others: 4%

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

    Merkel, you beauty ! [ a little bit of exaggeration there ]
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,501
    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    Latest German poll:

    CDU: 40%
    SPD: 24%
    Greens: 8%
    Left: 8%
    FDP: 8%
    AfD: 8%
    Others: 4%

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

    Merkel, you beauty ! [ a little bit of exaggeration there ]
    Looks like the Free Democrats could once again go from having no MPs to being in government. I think that's happened before at least once.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?

    Pointless. Ineffective.
    It's a shame the old Chartist demand for the ability to immediately recall representatives wasn't taken up. Seems to me like we have a situation where 1) the union is doing a pretty good job of representing the will of its members, the whole point of its existence; 2) the council is doing a crap job of representing the will of its electorate, the whole point of its existence.

    Maybe if there were better mechanisms of accountability the council would be 'getting round the table' etc. rather than trying to bully its workforce and allowing these strikes to continue...
    You're blaming the council for the union choosing to strike?
    Yes, 90% of the council workers balloted didn't vote for a strike for no reason. The union is just representing the will of its members.
  • From a LinkedIn contact:

    It's interesting that the EU is offering a ring-fenced member state residency to UK nationals there but wishes the UK to offer UK residency across the whole UK to EU citizens located in the UK. The nature of the EU is clearly malleable. They're a purported negotiating counterparty, talking of exit payments and trade deals, when that's advantageous, but when it isn't, the EU rather conveniently becomes a collection of local states. Which is it to be?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Ms. Aforethought, indeed. The same way the EU has collective liabilities which means the UK must pay, but not collective assets, of which we are due our share.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?

    Pointless. Ineffective.
    It's a shame the old Chartist demand for the ability to immediately recall representatives wasn't taken up. Seems to me like we have a situation where 1) the union is doing a pretty good job of representing the will of its members, the whole point of its existence; 2) the council is doing a crap job of representing the will of its electorate, the whole point of its existence.

    Maybe if there were better mechanisms of accountability the council would be 'getting round the table' etc. rather than trying to bully its workforce and allowing these strikes to continue...
    You're blaming the council for the union choosing to strike?
    Yes
    :lol:
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972

    So that is why rail companies cancel trains - so that the passengers appreciate the service all the more when it does actually run.

    Yes, that must be the reason. As a fairly frequent customer of Southern Rail, I think it works - I certainly appreciate the occasions when the train exists and runs on schedule!
  • Ms. Aforethought, indeed. The same way the EU has collective liabilities which means the UK must pay, but not collective assets, of which we are due our share.

    ...I don't notice much pressure being put on the EU to change its direction to accommodate UK wishes. Nor are there signs of change. The Cameron deal was effectively a rebuff - and the UK public realised that. Even on the way out the EU's main focus so far is more money. The UK had no war debt write-off in the last century and repaid everything. German had its debt written off in 1953. France had Marshall Aid. It has taken the UK a long time to build back up. Now this has happened it is being asked to fund a dream without having its views taken into account. From outside the UK can still decide to defend the EU in times of trouble if it wishes to do so. I suspect it often will. But it will be taken less for granted.

    MIFID 2 is profoundly against the interests of Britain's finance industry, but was imposed by the financial industry experts of places like Estonia and Hungary. Would Britain be able to damage the German car industry similarly, one wonders?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587

    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.

    So you think that the banks should get together and refuse to let you access your money from time to time, just so that you value their services properly?
    The relationship between a bank and its customers is clearly not the same as between a union and an employer. Looking at reality rather than hypotheticals, Unite members in Birmingham are exercising their legal right to strike, talking about safety issues and avoiding pay cuts for the lowest paid. They've clearly indicated they're willing to discuss the demands of the council and meet them half-way. If the strike continues, I think it's the council's fault for trying to ride roughshod over them.

    But that's not what you said. You seemed to think there was some kind of virtue in causing discomfort, in order to be appreciated by the customers of the services. So I don't see why the same fine moral purpose wouldn't apply to a temporary withdrawal of service by the high street banks (whose services tend to be taken completely for granted), perhaps in an attempt to extort higher charges - exactly what strikers try to do.
    'Virtue' and 'moral purpose' in economics belong to the 16th century. What I said was 'valued'. If a high-street bank thought it could gain by withdrawing its services, if it could do so legally and according to contract, there wouldn't be any moral obligation for it not to. It would just be a struggle of interests.
    And where does the concept of 'scab' belong ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587
    @Alice_Aforethought, FPT

    I was needlessly rude there, Nigel - please accept my apologies. I didn't mean to be and I do try not to be….

    No offence taken, Alice.
    I'm sure we can return to the discussion in due course.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 174
    boulay said:

    FPT rottenborough mentioned that Chapman wanted to charge VAT on private school fees. This is illegal under EU rules as it bans the charging of VAT on education provision. Can't have it both ways....

    He can because it is not illegal under EU rules. The education exemption only applies to "bodies governed by public law having such as their aim or by other organisations recognised by the Member State concerned as having similar objects". Private schools are not governed by public law as they do not get most of their funding from the state. So all the government has to do is decide not to recognise private schools as having similar objects and they can charge VAT.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 174

    boulay said:

    FPT rottenborough mentioned that Chapman wanted to charge VAT on private school fees. This is illegal under EU rules as it bans the charging of VAT on education provision. Can't have it both ways....

    He can because it is not illegal under EU rules. The education exemption only applies to "bodies governed by public law having such as their aim or by other organisations recognised by the Member State concerned as having similar objects". Private schools are not governed by public law as they do not get most of their funding from the state. So all the government has to do is decide not to recognise private schools as having similar objects and they can charge VAT.
    Just to add, independent schools already pay VAT on supplies. If they were recognised by the government as having similar objects as per the VAT directive, independent schools would not pay VAT on goods and services closely related to the supply of education. It therefore appears there is no legal obstacle to the imposition of VAT on school fees.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    boulay said:

    FPT rottenborough mentioned that Chapman wanted to charge VAT on private school fees. This is illegal under EU rules as it bans the charging of VAT on education provision. Can't have it both ways....

    He can because it is not illegal under EU rules. The education exemption only applies to "bodies governed by public law having such as their aim or by other organisations recognised by the Member State concerned as having similar objects". Private schools are not governed by public law as they do not get most of their funding from the state. So all the government has to do is decide not to recognise private schools as having similar objects and they can charge VAT.
    Just to add, independent schools already pay VAT on supplies.
    All businesses pay VAT on their taxable purchases...
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414

    What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?

    Pointless. Ineffective.
    It's a shame the old Chartist demand for the ability to immediately recall representatives wasn't taken up. Seems to me like we have a situation where 1) the union is doing a pretty good job of representing the will of its members, the whole point of its existence; 2) the council is doing a crap job of representing the will of its electorate, the whole point of its existence.

    Maybe if there were better mechanisms of accountability the council would be 'getting round the table' etc. rather than trying to bully its workforce and allowing these strikes to continue...
    You're blaming the council for the union choosing to strike?
    Yes
    :lol:
    Do you have any experience of strikes? Nobody will vote for a strike for no reason. In this instance, the council has presented refuse workers with a 'list of demands' to make the service cheaper, including some that the workers find unacceptable.

    Unite is arguing that the council is trying to pass the consequences of its own mismanagement of the service onto its lowest paid employees, who it represents, and have refused to engage in meaningful talks about changes to the service. The refuse workers haven't gone on strike to gain anything, but only to 'not lose as much'.
  • TPFRTPFR Posts: 1
    I don't think anyone has ever suggested the problem is a legal one. It's simply that to be an official candidate for a party you have to be a member of that party and all political parties have rules that automatically exclude anyone who joins another party. The Labour Party constitution has a provision for sister parties but obviously no Conservative would stand for a party that was affiliated to the Labour Party. The Labour constitution puts it like this:
    "A member of the party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules."
    The Conservative one puts it like this:
    " Membership of the Conservative Party is not compatible with Membership of or association with
    any other registered political party."
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. TPFR, welcome to pb.com.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414
    Nigelb said:

    If strikes didn't cause discomfort, workers wouldn't be valued for what they do when they're not on strike. The community can put pressure on their elected representatives to resolve the dispute.

    So you think that the banks should get together and refuse to let you access your money from time to time, just so that you value their services properly?
    The relationship between a bank and its customers is clearly not the same as between a union and an employer. Looking at reality rather than hypotheticals, Unite members in Birmingham are exercising their legal right to strike, talking about safety issues and avoiding pay cuts for the lowest paid. They've clearly indicated they're willing to discuss the demands of the council and meet them half-way. If the strike continues, I think it's the council's fault for trying to ride roughshod over them.

    But that's not what you said. You seemed to think there was some kind of virtue in causing discomfort, in order to be appreciated by the customers of the services. So I don't see why the same fine moral purpose wouldn't apply to a temporary withdrawal of service by the high street banks (whose services tend to be taken completely for granted), perhaps in an attempt to extort higher charges - exactly what strikers try to do.
    'Virtue' and 'moral purpose' in economics belong to the 16th century. What I said was 'valued'. If a high-street bank thought it could gain by withdrawing its services, if it could do so legally and according to contract, there wouldn't be any moral obligation for it not to. It would just be a struggle of interests.
    And where does the concept of 'scab' belong ?
    In Birmingham 2017, clearly.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,530
    AndyJS said:

    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    Latest German poll:

    CDU: 40%
    SPD: 24%
    Greens: 8%
    Left: 8%
    FDP: 8%
    AfD: 8%
    Others: 4%

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

    Merkel, you beauty ! [ a little bit of exaggeration there ]
    Looks like the Free Democrats could once again go from having no MPs to being in government. I think that's happened before at least once.
    Are the Left now considered coalition "partners" ? They weren't for many years. In the UK, the Left and the Greens will have similar supporters.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    What else do you call it when you do petitions and fire off emails at your representatives?

    Pointless. Ineffective.
    It's a shame the old Chartist demand for the ability to immediately recall representatives wasn't taken up. Seems to me like we have a situation where 1) the union is doing a pretty good job of representing the will of its members, the whole point of its existence; 2) the council is doing a crap job of representing the will of its electorate, the whole point of its existence.

    Maybe if there were better mechanisms of accountability the council would be 'getting round the table' etc. rather than trying to bully its workforce and allowing these strikes to continue...
    You're blaming the council for the union choosing to strike?
    Yes
    :lol:
    Do you have any experience of strikes?
    Yes, the fucking RMT and ASLEF making my life miserable at least twice a year for the past twenty years even though I have no way of affecting their disputes (translation: "we want more money") and I can't even take my business elsewhere.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375

    boulay said:

    FPT rottenborough mentioned that Chapman wanted to charge VAT on private school fees. This is illegal under EU rules as it bans the charging of VAT on education provision. Can't have it both ways....

    He can because it is not illegal under EU rules. The education exemption only applies to "bodies governed by public law having such as their aim or by other organisations recognised by the Member State concerned as having similar objects". Private schools are not governed by public law as they do not get most of their funding from the state. So all the government has to do is decide not to recognise private schools as having similar objects and they can charge VAT.
    Just to add, independent schools already pay VAT on supplies.
    All businesses pay VAT on their taxable purchases...
    As charities I think they can recoup that.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 174

    boulay said:

    FPT rottenborough mentioned that Chapman wanted to charge VAT on private school fees. This is illegal under EU rules as it bans the charging of VAT on education provision. Can't have it both ways....

    He can because it is not illegal under EU rules. The education exemption only applies to "bodies governed by public law having such as their aim or by other organisations recognised by the Member State concerned as having similar objects". Private schools are not governed by public law as they do not get most of their funding from the state. So all the government has to do is decide not to recognise private schools as having similar objects and they can charge VAT.
    Just to add, independent schools already pay VAT on supplies.
    All businesses pay VAT on their taxable purchases...
    A comment that misses the point completely.

    If the government agreed that private schools have similar objects to public bodies providing education to children and young people they would be forced to make supplies to private schools exempt, regardless of whether or not the private school is a business, because that is what the VAT directive says. The fact that private schools have to pay VAT on supplies shows that the government do not regard them has having similar objects and therefore the government can charge VAT on school fees.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,501
    This Twitter feed is making for interesting reading at the moment:

    https://twitter.com/jameschappers
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,501
    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    Latest German poll:

    CDU: 40%
    SPD: 24%
    Greens: 8%
    Left: 8%
    FDP: 8%
    AfD: 8%
    Others: 4%

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

    Merkel, you beauty ! [ a little bit of exaggeration there ]
    Looks like the Free Democrats could once again go from having no MPs to being in government. I think that's happened before at least once.
    Are the Left now considered coalition "partners" ? They weren't for many years. In the UK, the Left and the Greens will have similar supporters.
    I don't think so.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,644
    edited August 11
    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    Latest German poll:

    CDU: 40%
    SPD: 24%
    Greens: 8%
    Left: 8%
    FDP: 8%
    AfD: 8%
    Others: 4%

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

    Merkel, you beauty ! [ a little bit of exaggeration there ]
    Looks like the Free Democrats could once again go from having no MPs to being in government. I think that's happened before at least once.
    Are the Left now considered coalition "partners" ? They weren't for many years. In the UK, the Left and the Greens will have similar supporters.
    Yes, potentially. Schulz (SPD) has said he doesn't rule it out (unlike his predecessor). But as the figures show (which are similar to most recent polls), a CDU-FDP coalition is as Andy says much the most likely outcome.

    The figures would actually be very similar to last time, except that the FDP and AfD would pop over the 5% threshold that the both narrowly missed last time. Refugee crisis? Euro crisis? Brexit? German voters say "meh".
This discussion has been closed.