# Farron



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 14, 2017)

News giving out that Mr Farron has chucked it in.

That is quite disappointing, his speeches and rhetoric have been sensible and thought provoking whenever he's been on the screen.

It puzzles me because his party had just shown the first signs of waking up.

Shame really he brightened up politics.


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 15, 2017)

That is only because Vince Cable is back in town. Makes a succession easy. There's nobody in his league in the LibDems.


----------



## grovesy (Jun 15, 2017)

I got the impression from his speech that he had found his religion under scrutiny was not necessary, during the election campaign.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 15, 2017)

grovesy said:


> I got the impression from his speech that he had found his religion under scrutiny was not necessary, during the election campaign.



Yes, there does seem to have been conflict re his beliefs.

Shame though.


----------



## SHORAN (Jun 15, 2017)

I am really sad that Farron has left the arena !... I heard from someone it's because they are trying to get good old Cleggy in through the back door ? 

That fills me with unbridled joy !


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 16, 2017)

Don't think so Shoran, they do want to survive as a political party. I will treasure the look on Cleggs face as the results were announced in Sheffield Hallam. The students finally got their own back


----------



## zuludog (Jun 16, 2017)

Tim Farron's speeches sensible?! You must be joking! he was just an arrogant, condescending little toad 
Surely the pros & cons of Brexit were discussed enough times before the Referendum, so how dare he tell me I didn't know what I was voting for!

He had no respect for a majority decision, and was just cynically using procedures to reverse or subvert Brexit


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 16, 2017)

Well to be fair you still don't know what you voted for because nobody has any idea what the result of negotiations will be. Whatever you voted for is now going to be tempered by what the DUP want, and nobody in the UK voted for that.


----------



## grovesy (Jun 16, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> Well to be fair you still don't know what you voted for because nobody has any idea what the result of negotiations will be. Whatever you voted for is now going to be tempered by what the DUP want, and nobody in the UK voted for that.


It was announced earlier that we are going along with Europe's agenda for the start of the negotiations.


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 16, 2017)

Aye, but that just means discussion of two things come first: the status of EU citizens in the UK, and the price of leaving. After that, nobody knows, or at least none of the English negotiators appears to know. What I suspect is that leave voters will be furious when free movement of labour is maintained. But remember, that is, as it always has been, the free movement of labour, not people with no work. Free customs will also be maintained as a price the DUP will demand.

What this has to do with the democratic wish of the people, I don't know. It's just a monumental **** up.


----------



## Northerner (Jun 17, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> Aye, but that just means discussion of two things come first: the status of EU citizens in the UK, and the price of leaving. After that, nobody knows, or at least none of the English negotiators appears to know. What I suspect is that leave voters will be furious when free movement of labour is maintained. But remember, that is, as it always has been, the free movement of labour, not people with no work. Free customs will also be maintained as a price the DUP will demand.
> 
> What this has to do with the democratic wish of the people, I don't know. It's just a monumental **** up.


I think one of the things that hasn't been addressed (by, for example, a programme like Panorama or Dispatches) is exactly what the benefits/impacts of immigration are, what are the actual numbers we need to support the economy and diverse businesses and services? It's OK people saying we need to reduce/retain immigration to/at certain levels, but where is the objective analysis as opposed to the anti/pro rhetoric? 

I'd also like to see a proper analysis of the prospect of trade deals external to the EU - I can see the restrictions the EU imposes, but how much are we losing out on, and what might we gain or lose by leaving in terms of rising GDP? The Referendum campaigns on both sides were run very badly - one side wildly optimistic, the other side entirely pessimistic, and both essentially led by the different factions of the Tories with one sided egged on by UKIP. Now we've had an election that was supposed to be about Brexit, but we're still no clearer, we received little new information - this affects the whole country, not just the Conservative/UKIP view, all should have a voice because the issue of leaving such a close relationship and unravelling 40 years of complex relationships at all levels is no clearer now. Just the simple things, like the logistics of negotiating the entire thing in 2 years - how much will that process itself cost us in terms of lost opportunity because so much of government is devoted to it? Who are our negotiators? TM will not be able to govern and at the same time spend a week out of every month negotiating, so her 'Me or Jeremy Corbyn' line was entirely deceptive throughout this campaign, but never challenged, so once again, why haven't we seen a proper explanatory programme about how things will be conducted?

I get the impression - still - that many people are under the illusion that it's as simple as changing bank accounts or power suppliers and that's because that is the simplistic message that's been issued all along  Cameron called the Referendum because he was convinced we would stay, just as May called this early election becauseshe thought she couldn't possibly lose. This is the calibre of leader we are presented with these days, and from all parties 

Rant over! Let's see those programmes Panorama and Dispatches instead of constant re-running of soundbites and gaffes, badgering and interrupting in interviews and stressing largely irrelevant points!


----------



## Sally71 (Jun 17, 2017)

I find all politics interminably boring and don't take much interest in it, so probably don't understand how things work as much as I should.  But even I can see that when we leave the EU, we are going to have to renegotiate trade deals with every country we deal with, and as a small country on our own we won't have as much bargaining power as if we were in a big bloc, so prices of everything we import are not going to go down, are they.  And that's just one teeny tiny issue that we will have to deal with.

And it's all very well our leaders going in with all guns blazing and saying that they will insist on X, Y, Z, do people really think that the rest of the EU countries are going to just let us have everything we want?  I wouldn't, if I were them I'd want to make it as difficult as possible for any country who wanted to leave.

And that's why I voted to remain, the EU may have its faults but at least we know where we stand with them.  Our future now is just a massive unknown. People have all sorts of ideas on how things will turn out, and some of them may turn out to be correct, but at the moment we just don't know


----------



## Northerner (Jun 17, 2017)

Something else that has been nagging at me and no-one has appeared to ask - why was it so urgent to trigger Article 50 and set the clock ticking, and then go and waste two months of that precious time on an unnecessary election? Cameron said he would trigger it the day after and remain as leader - yet he was allowed to completely break both commitments without censure - despite the fact that he put the whole country in the worst possible position by vetoing an Exit plan before the vote?


----------



## ypauly (Jun 17, 2017)

It dawned on me the other day that Brexit doesn't actually matter, as no government can tell a future government what to do. As the last two major treaties were signed without the public getting a vote, who knows what the next to be signed is and if we get a say.

I suspect that the next Labour manifesto or maybe even conservative will have single market membership so the public can rejoin. Whichever says no to future membership the other will take the opposite stance.


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jun 17, 2017)

Also the referendum was merely advisory........


----------



## SHORAN (Jun 23, 2017)

Advisory ?.....please elaborate.


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jun 23, 2017)

Not legally binding.


----------



## SHORAN (Jun 23, 2017)

What nonsense is that ! - typical remainer  / remoaner speak!

It is simply bizarre that a government would offer a referendum that was actually not legally binding?- then not follow it through ?.... perhaps in the strictest sense of the word it wasn't actually set in stone - legally binding as you say  ?..... But that's not really the point. Morally / logically that's different... if I remember correctly I am sure the MPs voted in favour  etc...

see this

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/583346/MPs-vote-favour-EU-referendum


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jun 23, 2017)

There's no need to get your knickers in a twist! That is what is on The House of Commons website. And no, I won't be clicking the link thanks.


----------



## Steff (Jun 23, 2017)

Make your point but make it in a decent manner and with respect


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 23, 2017)

I voted leave, but not an abrupt total severance. Common sense dictates that any huge change is done by degree.
Cameron let his own megalomania get the better of him and paid the price, now we will count the cost.
Lots of people used the referendum to express their view on immigration, and had very little idea about the economic or social consequences. This is why you get UKIP and the like spouting their thinly veiled racist garbage every time Brexit crops up, it is good that they are now where they belong.
May hijacked the whole thing to use it as an electioneering opportunity, and like Cameron it blew up on her.
The referendum was not legally binding, any party could have chosen to  ignore it.
Employment Law requires minimum turnouts and sets out required margins, had those terms been applied to the referendum where would we be ?


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 23, 2017)

Erm...topic drift perhaps?


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jun 23, 2017)

Yes, it has! For what it's worth, I like Vince Cable and hope he is successful in his leadership bid.


----------



## Northerner (Jun 23, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> Erm...topic drift perhaps?


OK  Back on topic - I quite liked Tim Farron, he seemed to have a good sense of humour. He picked the wrong horse in the election though, no-one seriously thought the LibDems could gain enough power to force another vote. Vince is a good guy, despite being tarred with being in the coalition, he appears to be a pragmatist and has a lot of experience both as a businessman and an MP. I actually thought Norman Lamb might do well, but he's said he's not standing. I think there's a lot to play for actually - Labour seem to be a bit over-optimistic now, they seem to be overlooking the terrible campaign they were ranged against from the Tories, the Tories are in disarray and rudderless, so a new leader and another snap election might gain them a lot more seats.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 23, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> Erm...topic drift perhaps?



Yes it has Mike.

Cable stained himself too much in the escapade with our Tory friends but will likely win out.

Farron was honest and spoke very well. Politics has lost out.


----------

