Are the Tories going to tear themselves apart?

kabayiri

Moby wrote: »

How many referendums should we pencil in regarding Europe. Should we have one every ten years? Imo you vote in a govmt to make decisions such as this....that's the democracy bit! As I said Cameron didn't impose a referendum because he cared about the British people having a say....he was worried about UKIP's effect on his own power base!

Were you just as vehemently opposed to the Scottish Independence referendum?

It would be hard to justify allowing one referendum for self determination, but not another.

Moby

kabayiri wrote: »

Were you just as vehemently opposed to the Scottish Independence referendum?

It would be hard to justify allowing one referendum for self determination, but not another.

We have had a previous referendum on the EU. I repeat should we pencil them in future every 10 years, or 20 years or 30 years depending on events? Are we going to be continually seen by the Germans and French as so whinging and semi detached. We are losing influence at the top tables that matter because of our attitude to Europe!

michaels

I don't see there being another referendum on Europe - we will be too integrated in 30 years time for leaving to make sense as a concept.

.string.

michaels wrote: »

I don't see there being another referendum on Europe - we will be too integrated in 30 years time for leaving to make sense as a concept.

I don't think it makes sense now, but leaving that aside, and using a different analogy, in 30 years time the UK will probably be happily sitting on it's conservatory extension, enjoying the goodies that membership brings without having to enter the building and sleep with them all.

The whole scare story about "Ever-closer Union" is busted. It is not going to happen (actually cant happen) without the majority consent of the British People.

kinger101

Well, the stay option has an opt-out of ever-closer union. Which wasn't actually defined so people tended interpret it to support their own agenda. Pro-EU tend to tell the Europsceptics it's merely symbolic, and refers to people rather than nations. The problem with that argument in my mind is that the Eurozone probably do need to step closer toward federalism, and should have done so before they entered into a currency union. So the Euro essentially created a two-tier EU.

I think Cameron forcing the European Council to say what this meant, and getting the opt out, was a significant achievement.

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

Besides IDS Michael Howard is in favour of Brexit. He was Tory leader before Cameron.

Yet when he actually was Tory leader, he held no such view. And no leader of any major party has been pro-Brexit since we joined. Foot in 1983 led a party that was pro-Brexit but he personally was not.

Odd, that. It's almost as though being pro-Brexit is a position you adopt when you don't have to campaign for election on it or live with the results.

IDS resigned due to his Govmts welfare policies and being controlled by the Treasury. He made this clear yesterday.

Nah. He resigned because he's a serial barrack-room troublemaker. It's what he does.

The Falklands victory got Thatcher re-elected not her economic policies.She was tanking in the polls and then events took over.

Nope. Labour lost its poll lead in early 1982, before the Falklands.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983

Foot's Labour were always going to be toast regardless. Maybe the election would have been in 1984 rather than 1983. It's exactly because they tried to tell themselves they only lost because of the Falklands that they spent another 14 years in Opposition.

Naaaah............. they have in no way chosen the time and place for this spat.

I don't say they chose it; I say they don't have to care when or whether it happens because they're nailed on in 2020 like Jesus at Easter.

Your characterisation of Corbyn is not the person I recognise having met him on occasion.

It's based on what he has said and believes.

Well you define them as riff raff but that dismisses the views of huge swathes of people.

Neither has a coherent view of the world. The SNP, a party supposedly seeking independence for Scotland, desperately tried not to hold the referendum at all, and had prepared no answers to obvious and foreseeable questions about life under independence, such as what the currency would be and what oil price they had assumed. It no longer wants independence and plainly hasn't wanted it ever since the slogan "independence in Europe" saw the light of day.

I believe the SNP, UKIP, Plaid Cymru, Greens should have a say in Govmt proportional to their vote level.

So do I. That's why I oppose PR.

Mistermeaner

The disability cuts (that weren't cuts) are not be implemented and there's a headline about no other cuts to welfare (not read story)

Why are the Tory government who were voiced in with a mandate to reduce spending and reduce taxes being such p u ss ies about doing it.

I like Cameron and Osbourne but they aren't half making a meal of this. Reversing the changes makes them look soft.

Grow a pair dammit

wotsthat

Funny how the media drives the news.

Total government spending £750bn and we had a couple of days on the £500m sugar tax and now we're on the £1.1bn/ year pip changes.

kinger101

Mistermeaner wrote: »

The disability cuts (that weren't cuts) are not be implemented

I think the 370,000 people who were due to lose £3,500 per year (according to the IFS) might disagree with you on that statement.

michaels

kinger101 wrote: »

I think the 370,000 people who were due to lose £3,500 per year (according to the IFS) might disagree with you on that statement.

I have no idea - total spend appears to be up, I'm assuming total disabled are not rising faster than population so are disabled better or worse off real terms than say 2010?