Who should be next UK PM?

Let’s hope that whoever is in charge of the UK negotiations now going forward as a team,  that they master this level of detail, and if anyone feels sufficiently proactive, that they inform their MPs and MEPs in the interim of this detail accordingly via www.writetothem.com and request they forward on details of this order to the negotiating team and PM. No excuses thereafter if they have been informed!!! It all forms part of the factual evidence used in negotiations. 

But I doubt if the likes of labour or libdem or greens or SNP etc who are not prepared to vote for a deal against the wishes of their constituents ( where applicable), would do anything that does not meet with their political mantra, which is so frustrating given it would work against the best interests of the country and its citizens. This is also why frustrations and anger have occurred when their politicians have not been sufficiently open minded to reflect the concerns and wishes of their electorate to fight for a fair deal and not succumb to intransigence on the EUs part.

Citizens are just nobodies until it comes to the lies at election time to secure a vote. This will be a battle of egos and arrogance ending in no deal. Sod the citizens.

Spain has taken its own actions to protect existing expats and minimise effects of no deal wherever possible has it not, so worth highlighting exactly what those are Kavanagh?

Also do you know what the EU have done to minimise the effects on citizens of no deal? This is after all a two way scenario.

Ads,

Why are you blaming the EU for the fact that UK lifted the restrictions on movement from various countries?

The EU said a restriction on new members could take place for a period of up to seven years but it was up to the individual country to lay down a time limit of up to the number of years stipulated.

Blair and his lot lifted the restrictions straight away whilst other countries laid down either a few or up to the full seven years. UK could have done that but didn't. 

There has not been equality but it had nothing to do with the EU, rather the sovereign nations themselves.

Still, blaming the EU is much easier.

Boris Johnson reminds me of a slezy sea side comic that's seen better times. At any moment when he speaks i expect him  to pull a white rabbit out of his pocket. Its truely amazing that anyone takes him seriously.

He said yesterday that the people voted to leave the EU because they want to elect their own leaders.  Well the irony was lost on him that the only people to elect him as PM were a bunch of shire residing Tories.

He will not not fool the people for very long. 

Sorry Mickeyfinn

You wrong again on “shire residing Torres”, I’m afraid.

You are attempting to deceive by yet another political slogan that could be suggested is as bad as the leader you criticise!

Mariedav,

if you read the title of the chart it stipulates “Establishment of rights of nationals of each EEA member state to work in each other member state”, in other words these were the rights that the EU afforded member states.

And this is why the EU refused to alter the UK rights ( in terms of requesting a later date to allow restrictions to be extended)  when Cameron requested a change prior to the referendum vote. 

These rights were apparently part of the EU Maastricht treaty arrangements

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/eu-deal-what-david-cameron-asked-for-and-what-he-actually-got/

So all of these rights were afforded by the EU and according to the article 

“There is also no mention of the benefits changes being protected by treaty change, which some critics have warned could leave them vulnerable to challenge in the European Courts.”.....

This message was last edited by ads on 25/07/2019.

You've now gone away from your original bit. The links you are posting is for when Cameron asked for extensions to not allowing workers in or paying benefits. You were talking about the right of workers to come to a country after joining the EU.

The EU rules, in the bit you were talking about, were that a country could restrict people from coming in to work for a period of up to seven years. Some countries said 4, some 5 and some 7. A few, UK included under Blair, said come in straight away.

The restrictions on paying benefits applied to all EU countries.

Please stick to one or the other.

OK Mariedav,

Both apply.

The yearly chart relates to rights afforded by the EU. And these were unfair when you look at the actual details as already  highlighted....

 Cameron was also highlighting that the changes that the EU applied, when they subsequently allowed workers family to acccompany workers, were also unfair.

In terms of the benefits the following was observed

” It consists of a mechanism to “limit the access of union workers newly entering its labour market to in-work benefits for a total period of up to four years from the commencement of employment” if the UK, or any other member state, can show that EU migrants are “putting an excessive pressure on the proper functioning of its public services”.

No details are provided on what “excessive pressure” means, but a note on the mechanism says it will be tabled on the understanding that "it can and will be used" by the UK and the UK will do so "in full expectation of obtaining approval". However the control of the brake appears to remain firmly in the hands of the Commission who must be "notified" by any member state that they believe they are eligible” 

Regarding the brake.... “The brake will be in place for a maximum of seven years, rather than the 13 years Mr Cameron is thought to have wanted - but the EU has agreed it would be "justified" to trigger it without delay after the referendum if the UK votes to stay in the EU.

Note the words...after the referendum. 

So both scenarios were controlled by the EU and have had their subsequent impact on UK citizens living in the UK, given the EU’s failure to recognise that there were excessive pressures on the proper functioning of the UK public services. 

This message was last edited by ads on 25/07/2019.

Ads. The Shires are where the majority of Tory members inhabit. London is not a Tory stronghold. Nor is it a political slogan it's a fact. Not sure your geographical knowledge of UK politics extends to wherever you live. Wherever that may be?

Mickeyfinn

Your implication that citizens choice to leave was only restricted to the shire counties is wrong, so please don’t try and twist words.

The leave vote has come from all regional areas and across political spectrums, which I’m sure you must be aware of by now.

leaving with no deal is the choice of wee right wing englander nut jobs in the tory shires outwith London. It's not the choice of the British people...as the tories will find out when they can't dodge a general election any longer....but they know that already and don't care. It's a cynical exercise in manipulating the hard of thinking by spivs and chancers in the tory party who'll make millions from the disaster that will impoverish working class Brits

Any no deal will only happen if the EU continue with an intransigent approach to negotiations, part of which relates to a backstop that compromises the peace process.... so if you are worried about this why don’t you write of your concerns to your MEP representatives and ask that they deliver a mutually acceptable deal based upon the democratic vote that they were supposed to have respected.

Enough of the political mantra that only further alienates those who voted to leave across all political spectrums.

 To imply that this is purely a Conservative leave vote or right wing orientated leave vote does a disservice to those who now subsequently have little regard for politicians from all persuasions who fail to listen to citizens concerns and respect their democratic vote.

where have you been...the backstop means nothing to these arseholes. They'll sell out ireland as they will Scotland to make money. The backstop was a good excuse for them and if it's gone it will make no difference to them at all

Too many political overtones I’m afraid which many consider is a power ploy, with little concern for the genuine issues that relate to the EU’s decision making and unaccountable control mechanisms that demonstrate federal state control, which many do not consider to be in UK citizens best interests.

Its for the UK citizens to make their own politicians accountable within a UK electoral system, not be at the behest of an unaccountable political elite that sadly appear to have little regard to recognise when citizens have been scapegoated by their actions ( or inactions). 

Ads You don't read my posts you only seek to relentlessly get across your points of criticism. I wonder why? Is that your instructions? To contribute to undermining Liberty via social media?

My reference to Tory shires are the tiny minority of people who elected Johnson. Tory party members as opposed to to entire nation in an election. Nothing to do with the leave vote. Exactly the same as BJ, Farage and Co allege about the unelected EU. Hypocrisy rules. Johnson has no legitimacy until he submits himself to an election

Reading the post's on this forum...I have come to the conclusion that no matter what the UK does to better it's self it will be wrong ...so I think the posters on hear that are full of it  have made the right decision by moving out of the UK ..as we seem to be doing alright without you lot.

I completely understand your frustration Windtalker but equally I am not comfortable with further divisive talk as there is the need to come together to resolve the Brexit scenario for all our sakes.

Having said that I personally find it sad that when factual evidence is presented that it is immediately dismissed out of hand without a willingness to look for solutions. Political talk is cheap and what is required is concerted action to follow through the democratic vote but in such a way, wherever possible, as to be of benefit for all UK citizens whether they be either side of the channel. 

What is disconcerting is when you get some who purposefully try to undermine factual evidence for their own political ideological beliefs, or seek to retain the status quo without any willingness to recognise a need for reform where required, regardless of the impact on citizens who become pawns in their desire for a federal state, which ironically undermines accountability.

Citizens need to be able to make their politicians accountable, no matter what their political persuasion, so time will tell in that regard if the current UK Govt will recognise failings where applicable and work to resolve them. But to exclude recognition of failings from the EU during this last decade and beyond, is to bury one’s head in the sand, which serves no purpose for those who have been scapegoated in the process. 

We really need a Govt now who will not only deliver Brexit according to the democratic referendum vote, but also address real issues back at home and in so doing improve the lives of those who actually live in the UK, protect wherever possible UK citizens rights abroad, whilst also look to re-establishing a good trading relationship with our friends and neighbours over the channel. 

Is that too much to hope for in this day and age?

We still will retain the power to make our own politicians accountable back at home if they do not address the issues relating to a fair society, but a society that benefits from realistic growth strategies, good investment, regulatory structures in place to counter abuse, realistic control  of debt, thereby protecting not only our infrastructure and social systems but also raising living standards to the benefit of all.

It will take time to heal the divisions, but so long as citizens from all persuasions keep a close eye on the need to keep educating of the realities ( whether good or bad) and be willing to make our politicians accountable for their actions in that process, then hopefully we can make progress.

We do need to retain self belief and optimism however, and stop this constant negativity and disbelief in any ability to make good, which  resolves little in the longer term.

The UK voted to leave the EU over 3 years ago, nothing of any great worth was ever said about the pro's and con's of leaving the EU before this vote, plenty was said about the dangers of leaving the EU after the vote came in to leave, bit late then I would have thought. Maybe if the UK had spent a year before the actual voting to explain the possibily of the  dangers we could encounter, we might have had a rethink on the issue, but no it never entered the men in black that the UK would be so 'Stupid' as to want to leave.

Now it would seem the UK is going to be put on top of the world thanks to Boris, do you really think windtalker that borrowing, what is it that's said, 28 Billion ££££'s, to put the UK back to being great is how you run things, by getting into a bigger debt then we already have, if it actually happens that is.

I seem to remember, can't remember who, someone else telling us they also were going to increase the police force, that didn't happen either, Boris is going to up the police by 20,000 recruits, who pays for that, us the council tax payers, should we mention this or not? I think it would have been better if Boris had said 5,000 or 10,000, more believable that it could happen.

You say we seem to be doing all right, but as we are, and are still in the EU have we been doing all right because of this, after all the EU has cost us heaps of money, we got over that, the EU has put untold rules on us and we got over that, the EU said the UK cant do this that or the other, again we got over that.

I voted out, wish I hadn't now, and any UK person with property in Spain, if the cap fits, should have voted stay in, did you?

Every one of us knows 100% what it's been like to be in the EU...Not one of us knows what it could be like to be out, people telling us the downside of being in, like Farage are wealthy, if you believe they really care what happens then more the fool you.

ads - Perhaps your "factual evidence" as you put it would be more believable if it did not solely support the leave campaign. The factual part of a story is the part that really happened the evidence is that which makes the facts acceptable. You produce neither.

Britain joined the EU as a way to avoid its economic decline. The UK’s per capita GDP relative to the EU founding members’ declined steadily from 1945 to 1972

I remember the UK before the country joined the EU. It was a disaster. Remember all those rust buckets BMC cars produced in Cowley that fell apart after a year. Vauxhalls didn't last beyond a winter. Industrial strife everywhere, Sterling on the floor, IMF bailouts. The nation was bankrupt. Even asking for a mortgage would be treated with derision. Of course, subsequent generations are unaware of all that they have enjoyed the years of prosperity membership of the EU has produced. 

It will soon be evident history does actually repeat itself.