Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

Wow, the independent rrally aren't sitting on the fence!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tories-nasty-vision-queens-speech-may-corbyn-new-youthful-britain-rising-a7815401.html?cmpid=facebook-post

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Wow, the independent rrally aren't sitting on the fence!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tories-nasty-vision-queens-speech-may-corbyn-new-youthful-britain-rising-a7815401.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Proper triggered 

[Strokes]

59 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yet more evidence of epic government economic failure. 

 

Britons' savings at record low as household incomes drop, says ONS

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/30/britons-savings-at-record-low-as-household-incomes-drop-says-ons

See having a great economy isn't working for the people, so why do you use it to beat brexit with a stick?

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I watched This Week and didn't see anyone "torn to pieces". Neil was pressing Kendall, trying to expose Labour divisions and she had the sense to resist the temptation to blab on about her disagreements with the leadership.

Shame Umunna didn't do the same. That might be an argument for This Week to hire pundits who are retired politicians (like Portillo, even Alan Johnson to a lesser extent) but I didn't see blood on the carpet.

 

IF the public mood turns against Brexit (and it might not), then Labour will definitely be in a difficult position. Not only because Corbyn & co are Eurosceptics and most MPs are Remainers. There's also the little matter that most of the membership - including a large proportion of Corbyn fans - are strongly pro-Remain. I get the impression that a lot of Corbynistas are still unaware of his Euroscepticism. Who backs down or compromises under that scenario, I don't know....but for now it's the Tories who have to work out a stance and to deal with whatever fallout results from Brexit negotiations.

 

On the other side, Hammond & many Tory MPs might favour Soft Brexit or even Remain, but most of the Tory membership is still strongly Hard Brexit, I presume. Certainly many backbenchers are. There could be a serious Tory civil war if someone like Hammond tried to keep us in the Single Market.

I thought that was the angriest I've seen Andrew on This Week and he's never shouted at Kendall in the way he did, she couldn't answer his question and as he said "stop answering questions I havent asked you" - I thought she wa absolutely hopeless and it reflects the position of the Labour moderates now, they probably have to admit they have lost. Either form a new party of accept that you are now in a Labour party that wants to come out of the single market.

 

I agree that many Corbynistas are still unaware that he's a strong Eurosceptic, I think some of them probably do know it but don't want to believe it so they pretend otherwise as not to kill the dream, imagine what they'll be like when they find out Merkel voted against gay marriage yesterday?

 

I'm sure Hammond would like to see a soft Brexit deep down, most chancellors would as it will make his job a lot easier short term, with the vast majority of Tories wanting a hard Brexit though it's an impossible.

 

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I only watched the last 15 minutes, but got the opposite impression. There seemed to be a loud, vocal Rightist, or at least Eurosceptic element in the crowd - lots of shouting at the more left-wing panelists or anyone saying anything nuanced about the EU.

 

Based on what I saw, the Economist woman was good, as was Stella Creasey (a very capable politician - not just on media, but in parliament as yesterday's Tory U-turn over N. Ireland showed). The woman from The Canary was better than I was expecting but nothing special. Liam Fox seemed flat - maybe a lot on his mind. Nick Ferrari was fairly articulate but annoying in constantly talking over other panelists - a loudmouth, even if he's an LCFC fan (just seen that on his Wiki profile).

Thanks for this, I watched it again after reading your post and the audience did turn, by the end it was more right wing booing than left wing whooping, did the Corbynistas just leave after the first question? Maybe the right wingers in the audience have had enough and are now going to start shouting as well, I hope they do. I thought the woman from The Canary was hideous - the bit where she claimed the Grenfall victims were killed because they were poor and were immigrants was a pretty low thing to say even for someone representing a website like hers.

 

I didn't know Ferrari was a City fan? Even better. I love the guy already and now even more.

 

54 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Time for some simon jenkins. I know even mattp has had good words to say of him in the past.

 

Soft Brexit is the only sane option. This is no time for partisan politics

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/30/soft-brexit-sane-option-partisan-politics

I don't remember ever good words about him.

 

I don't see how soft Brexit can now be achieved barring a huge change in public opinion that isn't going to happen until it takes effect, aside from 50 Labour backbenchers and a handful of Tories there is no desire for a soft Brexit, The Conservatives are at least publicly still committed to seeing us leave the single market and the Labout front bench is so insistent on it now they are sacking people who vote to stay in it, it's starting to look very much like a hard Brexit is the only option.

 

What is your definition of a soft Brexit?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Does anybody want a soft one of anything?

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Strokes said:

See having a great economy isn't working for the people, so why do you use it to beat brexit with a stick?

We haven't got a great economy. We've got a failure to adequately run the economy so that money is directed to the right places. This is down to the british government and brexit isn't going to solve that problem. 

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

We haven't got a great economy. We've got a failure to adequately run the economy so that money is directed to the right places. This is down to the british government and brexit isn't going to solve that problem. 

Large economy then. You constantly tell us countries with smaller economies than ours have better living standards. Then go on to tell us if we leave the EU the economy will shrink and it will be a disaster. 

[Captain...]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I don't see how soft Brexit can now be achieved barring a huge change in public opinion that isn't going to happen

 

I don't know about that, Creasy and the women from the economist were both talking about opinion polls on Brexit changing. I found this:

 

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/uk-poll-results/

 

2 polls there showing it is 50/50 with the latest survation poll saying 45% in hindsight think it was wrong and 44% saying right to leave the EU.

 

There are a lot of very noisy Brexit supporters and noisy remainers but the reality is we are still split down the middle as a nation.

 

I had made my peace with Brexit but the more details that come out and the state of negotiations I can just see no good coming from it.

[James.]

I think the cold hard reality of the sheer amount of work that needs to be done (spoke to a civil servant friend working on Brexit and he tells me it is practically an impossible workload in renegotiating every facet of our interactions with other countries) as well as the short term economic reality will gradually feed into the nation's consciousness and could make for interesting times to come.

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

I thought that was the angriest I've seen Andrew on This Week and he's never shouted at Kendall in the way he did, she couldn't answer his question and as he said "stop answering questions I havent asked you" - I thought she wa absolutely hopeless and it reflects the position of the Labour moderates now, they probably have to admit they have lost. Either form a new party of accept that you are now in a Labour party that wants to come out of the single market.

 

I agree that many Corbynistas are still unaware that he's a strong Eurosceptic, I think some of them probably do know it but don't want to believe it so they pretend otherwise as not to kill the dream, imagine what they'll be like when they find out Merkel voted against gay marriage yesterday?

 

I'm sure Hammond would like to see a soft Brexit deep down, most chancellors would as it will make his job a lot easier short term, with the vast majority of Tories wanting a hard Brexit though it's an impossible.

 

Thanks for this, I watched it again after reading your post and the audience did turn, by the end it was more right wing booing than left wing whooping, did the Corbynistas just leave after the first question? Maybe the right wingers in the audience have had enough and are now going to start shouting as well, I hope they do. I thought the woman from The Canary was hideous - the bit where she claimed the Grenfall victims were killed because they were poor and were immigrants was a pretty low thing to say even for someone representing a website like hers.

 

I didn't know Ferrari was a City fan? Even better. I love the guy already and now even more.

 

I don't remember ever good words about him.

 

I don't see how soft Brexit can now be achieved barring a huge change in public opinion that isn't going to happen until it takes effect, aside from 50 Labour backbenchers and a handful of Tories there is no desire for a soft Brexit, The Conservatives are at least publicly still committed to seeing us leave the single market and the Labout front bench is so insistent on it now they are sacking people who vote to stay in it, it's starting to look very much like a hard Brexit is the only option.

 

What is your definition of a soft Brexit?

Tbh i'm mostly concerned about tariff free trade. Whether we're in or out of the single market is irrelevant if trade is tariff free. For me that's a soft option. As trade becomes less free brexit becomes harder in my view.

 

I do think though that you seen to be running a one man campaign to convince everybody that MPs are for a hard brexit. We all know the current votes are so whipped that real views aren't coming through in the results. There clearly is a coalition of MPs from all sides talking to each other about how to stay in the single market. How many that is and whether there is any prospect of success i have no idea but almost every journalist seems to know of its existence so it's not being hidden.  With the government in an extremely weak position it will be interesting how things play out if tariff free trade begins to look like it is becoming unachievable with the government's stance on immigration etc. I tend to think that the vast majority of mps would be against not putting the economy first given how they campaigned during the referendum.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Tbh i'm mostly concerned about tariff free trade. Whether we're in or out of the single market is irrelevant if trade is tariff free. For me that's a soft option. As trade becomes less free brexit becomes harder in my view.

 

I do think though that you seen to be running a one man campaign to convince everybody that MPs are for a hard brexit. We all know the current votes are so whipped that real views aren't coming through in the results. There clearly is a coalition of MPs from all sides talking to each other about how to stay in the single market. How many that is and whether there is any prospect of success i have no idea but almost every journalist seems to know of its existence so it's not being hidden.  With the government in an extremely weak position it will be interesting how things play out if tariff free trade begins to look like it is becoming unachievable with the government's stance on immigration etc. I tend to think that the vast majority of mps would be against not putting the economy first given how they campaigned during the referendum.

One man campaign? I'm just reflective the evidence and the results we have.

 

You seem to be totally deluded on this, parliament is consistently now voting for Hard Brexit and you seemed convinced that means they don't want it, if there is secret cross party talks to keep us in the single market they aren't making a very good job of it. Chukka Umanna was supposed to be the man leading those and he just lost an amendment by 221 votes!

 

Politicians often do things they don't like because of public opinion, you really think the Tories want to spend more money like they are now going to? Of course they don't, but they are going to have to do it as people are sick of the alternative.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 

Thanks for this, I watched it again after reading your post and the audience did turn, by the end it was more right wing booing than left wing whooping, did the Corbynistas just leave after the first question? Maybe the right wingers in the audience have had enough and are now going to start shouting as well, I hope they do.

 

 

I don't see how soft Brexit can now be achieved barring a huge change in public opinion that isn't going to happen until it takes effect, aside from 50 Labour backbenchers and a handful of Tories there is no desire for a soft Brexit, The Conservatives are at least publicly still committed to seeing us leave the single market and the Labout front bench is so insistent on it now they are sacking people who vote to stay in it, it's starting to look very much like a hard Brexit is the only option.

 

What is your definition of a soft Brexit?

 

Re. Question Time: After your comment, I went to I-Player to watch the first 10 minutes - and you were right, there was a lot of lefty cheering, then the Right got more vocal later on. I presume they all stayed for the duration, but got fired up by different topics. Politics really has got very polarized now - and the polarization isn't always based on a lot of knowledge on either side. Call me an elitist but I'd prefer less shouting and cheering and more thought on all sides. I'm just expecting it to get worse, though, as Brexit proceeds - particularly if there are serious problems with the economy, public services, terrorism, racist attacks or whatever. I genuinely hope that I'm wrong about that.

 

I think you're under-estimating the prospects for a Soft Brexit. A huge change in public opinion could easily happen within the next year or so, if the economy hits the skids, companies start relocating out of the UK, sectors dependent on European workers suffer labour shortages, the Brexit negotiations are going badly and no alternative trade deals are on the immediate horizon.  A lot of voters could seriously start to fear for their future. I'm not saying that it definitely will happen. Even if all those adverse events happen, there could just as easily be a real backlash again the EU and/or foreigners in general (particularly if there are more terrorist attacks).....indeed, given the polarization, part of the public could turn against Brexit and part could turn against the EU and/or foreigners. Alternatively, the economy might prosper, the Brexit negotiations might go well and trade deals might materialise.....but I think that's by far the least likely scenario (and I'm not a natural pessimist).

 

If the Tories do change course and opt for Soft Brexit, that would make life more difficult for Labour, assuming there's no very early second election.  Divisions will emerge in the Tory Party whatever route they take. But if they stick with Hard Brexit, leaving the Customs Union, distancing themselves from the Single Market and watering down EU regulations, Labour will be able to unite to oppose that. If the Tories made the Single Market a higher priority than immigration control, Labour could be split down the middle (MPs, membership and voters).

 

I don't know how @toddybad defines Soft Brexit, but I'd say: staying in the Customs Union, maintaining a close relationship with the Single Market (or even remaining members), making immigration control less of a priority (while not ignoring it) and focusing on protecting jobs, living standards and employment rights. That's not on the cards right now, but could be if a lot of the bad stuff starts happening. It wouldn't even surprise me if we ended up staying in the EU under those circumstances.....though I wouldn't be surprised by an upsurge of the Far Right or major social unrest either. We're at the start of an 18-month+ rollercoaster ride, I think. The one thing I'm certain of is that there'll be a lot of political turbulence.

Edited 30 June 2017 by Alf Bentley

[Guest MattP]

Don't disagree with much of that at all, certainly on seeing more thinking than shouting but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, sadly. I agree there is a chance that the public could turn but I don't realistically see it happening so soon, purely because the impact of Brexit will surely only happen after the conclusion of the deal, companies now know the desire is to leave the single market, I still expect the government to try and help them with a continued cutting of corporation tax and we'll probably end up paying to have some decent access to the single market. I wouldn't rule anything out but I just can't envisage such a strong swing towards staying.

 

Imagine if Corbyn had campaigned to leave? The vote would probably have been 60-40.

 

Weirdly, whilst we fret a lot of the people who were warning of the impending doom are now backtracking, Gurria is the latest one today.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/823107/Brexit-OECD-living-standards-European-Union-Jose-Angel-Gurria

 

 

Quote

 

José Ángel Gurría, 67, is the Secretary General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and had previously stated that the UK leaving the European Union (EU) would have “substantial negative consequences” on people’s living standards.

However the respected Mexican economist has now changed his mind, saying that he thought Brexit would have very little impact.

Speaking in Paris at the launch of the OECD’s report on migration he said that the quality of life in the UK “will probably remain to a very great extent as it is today”.

He said: “The quality of life (in Britain after leaving the EU), you know, will probably remain to a very great extent as it is today, because the values will remain the same.

“There may be some things that change. We do not know to what extent – it’s very early.”

Mr Gurría stated: “Since the decision was taken, I think what we all have to do is make sure the process proceeds as smoothly and as seamlessly as possible, with the least disruption and the least costs.”

 

 

The most amazing thing about this week in politics is after the absolute disaster of a campaign the Tories still have snuck through what they wanted and Labour still appear to be a hugely divided party.

[leicsmac]

18 hours ago, KingGTF said:

@leicsmac I'll be as brief as possible 

 

A functioning free market gives people freedom whereby they would not be subject to exertion of power or coercion. The idea can't be stolen because the role of the government is to uphold property rights and ensure that citizens are protected from crimes against them or their property. The government also upholds the contracts between us. The government does not "legislate" beyond what upholds the freedoms of individuals so there is no chance for cronyism, there's no political game to play, there is no chance for bigger firms to lobby government. Friedman said "When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player". The only way to "silence the creator" would be to buy the rights to his idea and fairly compensating the individual for that. Society wouldn't lose out because the buyer will only buy if it deems the idea to have value and will therefore carry the idea to extract the value for itself, possibly acting to increase the value. 

 

But the difference with here is that in a system of free markets the 'fittest' create something for the benefit of actors in that system. I don't know of any other system in nature that has done that anywhere near as successfully as a free market. Think of all the market driven medical advancements that has enabled us to save people who are quite literally 'unfit', to the point that we now have more people alive than have ever lived before. Actually, the market allows the 'weakest' to not just survive but thrive thanks to wealth creation. And the thing that underlines it and makes it possible is the protection of private property rights. Might doesn't give you rights. Herbert Spencer once said "far from being, as some have alleged, an advocacy of the claims of the strong against the weak, is much more an insistence that the weak shall be guarded against the strong." 

 

So actually, the free market contrasts the Darwinian view of competition where others are your enemy. The view of competition in that setting would be that one actor gains at another expense through the seizure of property. In a free market, the fittest is the one that's best able to serve society and therefore help the weakest. If you think about it, competition arises because we are free to choose who we cooperate with, competition is cooperation. The incentive is to serve others as by serving others you increase your own income. Resources are scarce no matter what system you choose to employ but the free market forces us to satisfy ourselves by benefitting others rather than harming. As soon as the state intervenes, someone is harmed. Competition within the free market is the positive creation of new wealth and price mechanisms prevent us genuinely competing for the same resource.

 

I absolutely believe the only way to solve our future energy crisis and prevent further climate change harm is through the free markets. The problem is that government (Trump and the coal industry for example) obstruct it. There's one heck of an incentive to solve the problem because there's a lot of money to be made from it. I had a very drunken argument about this one time (don't normally go near this kind of topic when drunk but I was being goaded probs cos I took his monies during poker). I won't go into the discussion myself but here are a couple of articles I have saved. Granted they don't create a solution/if you join the dots you see that it's about further incentivising someone to step forward to solve the problem, it's interesting for the discussion, I guess nobody actually knows on any side. I actually think this is an issue akin to national security where 'government' has to be involved but it will always be ruined by politics. Anyway Forbes (debatable whether Friedman would have said that but discussion is still interesting), Mises, Niskanen, Last.

 

 

 

 

You make some pretty good points here, as you have before.

 

However...as others have pointed out, the idea of a perfectly free market is based on a theoretically flawless system that doesn't necessarily work in practice given human nature. Again, I find it amusing that many of the advocates of a totally free market who are keen to not tackle other problems because of 'human nature' seem to overlook its influence on this particular matter.

 

I would also still take issue with your assertion that a totally free market system isn't a style of Darwinian competition: if of two busneses providing the same product, if one thrives and the other fails, how is that not competition? I agree that the consumer is free to choose what company they do business with and that's a good thing, but I'm not sure how you can deny that different business aren't competing against each other for that right and so one of them will invariably lose, with all the consequences regarding the people within that business as consumers that entails. Co-operation only exists between the consumer and the successful businesses - everyone else is left at the wayside (including, and this is important, people a part of failed businesses who are themselves consumers but no longer have much material wealth so have much fewer options as a result). The system inherently lends itself to wealth and therefore social inequality - I'm thinking historical and present data is pretty clear on that matter.

 

Regarding resources, energy and climate change...there's another key point here. A free market system is geared solely to benefit the individual (or small group of invididuals) involved, over the short term only (at most, say a human lifetime). Such a system does not take into account events that could take place over a longer timeframe (such as resource extraction or climate change) and so lends itself to the idea that acquiring material value for yourself and those around you is fine  as long as the consequences are not felt until after you are dead. What, after all, in a free market, is the sense of investing in something that you yourself are not going to see a return from in your lifetime?

 

Of course the free market is only one manifestation of such short-term thinking, but it does display how such thinking exists and how it could, in the long term, be extremely dangerous if, for instance, due to mankind overlooks a bigger problem until its too late to stop.

 

Interesting articles you gave there - Friedmans idea of a carbon market is practically interesting, and Hayek skewers the reticence some people have towards scientific progress superbly, as well as that article stating pretty clearly how difficult it is to put a price/value on the atmosphere, while stating that it pretty clearly needs to happen. (IMO, such things are beyond monetary value anyway - what use is money when there's no economy or much civilisation left?) The V & C article however falls into the same trap I described above - assuming that people will deal with the problem when it likely won't affect them in their lifetime
and by the time it does it will likely be too late - they will simply rationalise their own poor choices because the problem is to them abstract. The Mises article proposed solution (strict property rights) doesn't work now and sadly will not likely work in the future because, as the article itself mentions, it's largely ineffective due to corruption within the system and the absence of a legal system that gives perfect verdicts.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Don't disagree with much of that at all, certainly on seeing more thinking than shouting but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, sadly. I agree there is a chance that the public could turn but I don't realistically see it happening so soon, purely because the impact of Brexit will surely only happen after the conclusion of the deal, companies now know the desire is to leave the single market, I still expect the government to try and help them with a continued cutting of corporation tax and we'll probably end up paying to have some decent access to the single market. I wouldn't rule anything out but I just can't envisage such a strong swing towards staying.

 

Imagine if Corbyn had campaigned to leave? The vote would probably have been 60-40.

 

Weirdly, whilst we fret a lot of the people who were warning of the impending doom are now backtracking, Gurria is the latest one today.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/823107/Brexit-OECD-living-standards-European-Union-Jose-Angel-Gurria

 

 

 

The most amazing thing about this week in politics is after the absolute disaster of a campaign the Tories still have snuck through what they wanted and Labour still appear to be a hugely divided party.

The whole Brexit/GE has caused divisions in the country and in the parties that is deeply set in and wont go away regardless of anything.

 

Its such an unstable situation now that both parties at any point could be having a leadership battle, the DUP deal could fall apart losing the governments majority voting power, another GE could be called, Brexit negotiations could bury the nation or revive it and there doesn't appear to be an end anywhere near in site.

 

The best thing would be for May to step down and an actual strong leader take over and get on with the job rather than spending 90% of their time looking over their shoulder and for Ummana, Clegg and any other c*nt that's been cast aside to form a new party to replace Labour as the main opposition.

 

I've said it before, no matter how well liked he is, Corbyn will never win an election.  He doesn't have the range of political views to win over enough staunch Tory seats.

 

Unless both things happen, I can only see the shitstorm getting worse.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

One man campaign? I'm just reflective the evidence and the results we have.

 

You seem to be totally deluded on this, parliament is consistently now voting for Hard Brexit and you seemed convinced that means they don't want it, if there is secret cross party talks to keep us in the single market they aren't making a very good job of it. Chukka Umanna was supposed to be the man leading those and he just lost an amendment by 221 votes!

 

Politicians often do things they don't like because of public opinion, you really think the Tories want to spend more money like they are now going to? Of course they don't, but they are going to have to do it as people are sick of the alternative.

As i said, i think you're fighting a delusional one man campaign. Just prior the referendum this is the spread of mp positions. You don't seriously believe all those remainders have being hard brexiteers (even allowing for GE mp churn):

 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

As i said, i think you're fighting a delusional one man campaign. Just prior the referendum this is the spread of mp positions. You don't seriously believe all those remainders have being hard brexiteers (even allowing for GE mp churn):

 

 

The pre-referendum positions mean nothing now. 

 

Look at the evidence ie the votes.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

The pre-referendum positions mean nothing now. 

 

Look at the evidence ie the votes.

MPs appear to agree that brexit should happen given the democratic vote last year. That didn't specify the type of brexit though. The only vote which has mentioned this in detail was this week and clearly tory mps voted against the labour amendment who actually agree with its aim to ensure the tories won - hammond and morgan, for example. It's patently obvious that there is no majority of mps desperate for a hard brexit and i don't believe you're stupid enough to really believe otherwise. Which leads me to wonder why you're sticking to this notion that everybody supports hard brexit when there is no evidence of any vote ever having been cast for such a thing. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

The pre-referendum positions mean nothing now. 

 

Look at the evidence ie the votes.

 

The votes in Parliament don't really tell us much. If there are MP's that want a change of course on Brexit, they're better served by waiting until a firmer picture of what we might get comes out.

 

At the moment, everything is still up in the air. Give it 8-9 months worth of negotiations with all the briefings that will go both direct to camera and the ones behind closed doors, then we'll see how MP's and the public really feel.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

MPs appear to agree that brexit should happen given the democratic vote last year. That didn't specify the type of brexit though. The only vote which has mentioned this in detail was this week and clearly tory mps voted against the labour amendment who actually agree with its aim to ensure the tories won - hammond and morgan, for example. It's patently obvious that there is no majority of mps desperate for a hard brexit and i don't believe you're stupid enough to really believe otherwise. Which leads me to wonder why you're sticking to this notion that everybody supports hard brexit when there is no evidence of any vote ever having been cast for such a thing. 

I've never said everyone supports Hard Brexit. 

 

But a 220 majority to leave the single market in parliament shows exactly which way the wind is currently blowing.

 

I have no idea how you are dissolving this information and coming to the conclusion it means we are staying in.

 

Corbyn is now sacking people who vote to stay in it. Wake up and look at what is happening. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

advocating for another referendum makes more sense than people actually wanting to leave the EU but remain in the single market

 

[Buce]

 

'EU States start to examine whether UK is likely to reverse Brexit':

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/30/eu-states-examine-whether-uk-likely-reverse-brexit

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Going well so far, 1/8th of the negotiating time up. Handshakes all round on plenty of agreements...  

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, MattP said:

I've never said everyone supports Hard Brexit. 

 

But a 220 majority to leave the single market in parliament shows exactly which way the wind is currently blowing.

 

I have no idea how you are dissolving this information and coming to the conclusion it means we are staying in.

 

Corbyn is now sacking people who vote to stay in it. Wake up and look at what is happening. 

I've never said we're staying in, I've said some mps want to but the majority appear to favour a softer brexit. As i made clear earlier, soft brexit includes being outside thr single market with a tariff free trade deal imo. David Davis has said on numerous occassions that the tories want to see a trade agreement with all of the benefits of the single market. The labour position was very similar and added that they would consider the trade settlement (ie tariff free) above anything else. Neither of these, in my view, is shouting for a hard brexit. The caveat i would add is that the tory position has been confused several times by TM talking about no deal and immigration controls being more important than free trade or customs etc. This is the hard brexit talk i fear but which i have seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest has significant support in parliament.

[Sharpe's Fox]

IoI who'd vote remain tho my sides