Boris' dilemma

[stillrocking]

Ok. Rewind to the start of campaigning and Boris deliberately took some time to deliberate and think about which camp he was going to support. He stalled the announcement and talked about how much he had needed to think about it. In fact, he'd spent about a year dithering. This obviously suggests that he could see arguments for both sides. Fast forward to today and he refuses to acknowledge that there are any potential benefits to remaining-- and the decision is clear cut and obvious. How short does he think our memories are?! I'd respect him a lot more if he was more honest about this but is still think he was a career minded tit with no convictions at all in reality--.

Add David Cameron (we will thrive outside the EU - speech to CBI 2015 ) and Jeremy Corbyn (eurosceptic all his life) to the list. Neither side is without its careerists!

Not to mention his 180 degree about turn on the subject of Turkey.

This is worth a read - the great EU debate in which Boris Johnson takes on a certain ... Boris Johnson:

tompride.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/the-great-eu-debate-boris-johnson-vs-boris-johnson/

I have no doubt that there are leave campaigners who are sincere in their beliefs, but Boris is not one of them - he is the biggest opportunist and con man in modern British politics.

I agree to a certain extent that Cameron has been guilty of using the EU for domestic political gain, but I think he is probably sincere in his belief that remaining in the EU is best for the UK.

As for Corbyn, it would astonish me if his current position - unenthusiastic about the EU, but even more unenthusiastic about the alternative - was not sincere. It's certainly not for political gain, as it's clear that Labour would have been better off sitting out the referendum and leaving the Tories to slug it out.

If Corbyn was still on the back benches he would be voting to leave as he did in 1975 and opposing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties in the Hoc.As the overwhelming majority of his Shadow cabinet colleagues support Remain for the sake of party unity he has to offer his tepid support. This not a criticism just a reality of political life.As for the suggestion that Labour the second biggest party should not offer its views on such an important matter but 'sit it out' is bizarre .

The majority of leave people can see advantages to the EU. They are not totally adverse to global cooperation. Cameron had failed abysmally to get any kind of reform which is sad.

The benefits of a single market are not worth us giving up control of immigration, tax policy for. Even if we have to pay tariffs on goods we export to EU there will be other savings. We can have tax policies to suit our nation. We will be able to choose our laws democratically.

Saying that there will be a bonfire of employee rights is stupid. For example the U.K. Has more generous maternity leave than a lot of EU countries. Why does the remain campaign think that anti discrimation laws would be scrapped by elected MPs? Do the remain campaign really think do little of the competance of the U.K. to self govern?

In ITV debate the remain campaigners ended up making personal attacks on Boris rather than making a clear case for the advantages of remaining.

The idea that the UK does not control its tax policy is simply bizarre, or perhaps just bizarrely uninformed. EU influence over the UK's fiscal and monetary policy is very minor and is limited primarily to harmonisation of sales tax rates (minimum rate of VAT - and the UK rate is over the minimum btw).

Saying that there will be a bonfire of employee rights is stupid. For example the U.K. Has more generous maternity leave than a lot of EU countries. Why does the remain campaign think that anti discrimation laws would be scrapped by elected MPs?

This is partly the fault of Leave politicians like Priti Patel, Liam Fox and Chris Grayling, isn't it? They've all been courting the small business vote with a vow to unpick the red tape that binds employers / health and safety laws / etc. None has been more specific so of course people are going to extrapolate from what they've said.

They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Go too far, and Leave alienates a lot of voters who are employed and who would be put off by the idea that Leave was the 'nasty' side. Not far enough and all the employers who'd love to see the back of most employee rights wouldn't back them.

The U.K. Is a democracy. If MPs voted to get rid of employment rights then they would be voted out. The difference is that as a nation we would be in control of our employment laws.

If MPs voted to get rid of employment rights then they would be voted out. The difference is that as a nation we would be in control of our employment laws.

Well no, not if enough people were insulated from the changes, benefited from them or were just plain apathetic about them. Because, democracy.

Removal of some rights didn't hurt the Tories electorally in 2015.

Boris is in it for his own political ambitions and so is Corbyn

The vote isn't about either of them or Gove, DC, Farage or any celebs that feel they should lecture the public its about the future of the UK and the EU

And when Priti Patel talks about 'just halving' social and employment regulation, people will always wonder which bits she's planning to pick off.

Nothing could lower my opinion of Boris. I'be never had any respect for him anyway.

"Well no, not if enough people were insulated from the changes, benefited from them or were just plain apathetic about them. Because, democracy"

Democracy is about finding a balance between everyone's interest. It is a balance between allowing people protection from unfair treatment without making it impossible to sack a bad employee. The threat of employment tribunals can make small employers wary of taking on new staff less they make a mistake. All that the Tories did was insist on a two year period before an employee could sue for unfair dismissal that is not pregnancy related.

Our employment laws have to work for everyone. Everyone in the uk has a vote. If the Tories dismantle employment law then labour will have a landslide victory. Similarly if labour get into power and restore 1970s type powers to the unions then we will end up with a conservative government.

Usually people voting is purely self interest. In a small regional area different interests find a balance. In large geographical area it's hard for regions who have different views to the rest of the country. Even in the uk great swathes of Scotland are forced to accept policies they have not voted for. In the EU parliament the affect is more pronounced.

I find Nicola surgeon hard to understand. She wants more power for the scots to govern themselves, control their taxes etc. But she wants to give power to the EU parliament/ commission instead.

ReallyTired, I suspect a lot of people are, like em, curious about which half Priti Patel is planning to tear up.

Priti Patel can't tear up legislation on her own. Any changes to employment law have to go through parliament. If people don't like the changes to employment law then they will vote for the opposition who will reinstate any scrapped legislation.

"He stalled the announcement and talked about how much he had needed to think about it. In fact, he'd spent about a year dithering. This obviously suggests that he could see arguments for both sides."

Not necessarily. Boris was writing Eurosceptic articles as a Brussels journalist years ago. Perhaps he just wanted to wait until the right time before laying his cards on the table.

Priti Patel can't tear up legislation on her own. Any changes to employment law have to go through parliament. If people don't like the changes to employment law then they will vote for the opposition who will reinstate any scrapped legislation.

I'm glad you're so optimistic about the ability of Parliament to fully represent the views of the full electorate in a FTPT system, and the idea that all voters will back employment protections.

"I'm glad you're so optimistic about the ability of Parliament to fully represent the views of the full electorate in a FTPT system, and the idea that all voters will back employment protections."

The U.K. Decided to keep the first pass the post system in a referdum. The proportional representation debate is dead for the time being.

Maybe some employment protections cause more harm then good. Our elected representatives will decide which laws to keep and which ones to scrap. They might even introduce better employment protections. Whatever happens our parliament will decide our destiny.

The U.K. Decided to keep the first pass the post system in a referdum. The proportional representation debate is dead for the time being.

I'm aware, I voted in said referendum. The fact it was chosen over AV doesn't make FTPT any more effective at reflecting the views of more than a large minority of the electorate, and any more likely to lead to governments that are particularly responsive or representative. Just ask a UKIP or Greens voter how well the current Parliament reflects the support for their preferred parties.

FTPT system is flawed. But the alternatives aren't better either.

What we lack is a will to find areas of policy that there IS consensus on. There is no reason why, even in an adversarial FPTP system we can't have this. Obama has commented on how compromise is the dirty word in politics yet, without it we do not make progress.

This is not a failing of our method of electing, but of other political structures for example:

career politicians
an institutional setup that does not favour women or families (meaning anyone who enters has to be very self centred and inward looking)
a lack of respect for younger people in society as not having enough experience (they might not, but they bring other things to the table)
poor work/home life balance in general
a system that favours people from certain backgrounds over others

Politics in this country DOES need reform.

I would not be starting with FPTP though.

For me it is precisely statements such as 'we will tear up 50%' of a given tranche of legislation that worry me the most.

Seriously? There is nothing to vote on here. No real information on what will stay or go. Although given the track record of the leave mps, I am not left with a comfortable feeling.

It would be nice if they stopped calling anyone who says anything against leave a scaremongerer, that leaving will take us to a land of milk and honey, and give some idea of what they view as the reality.

The U.K. will be fine whatever option people pick on the 23rd June. No one has a cystal ball to be 100% sure of the best option for the uk. Choosing to leave or remain is about picking the future we want. There are no guarantees of sucess.

Thing is with immigration is that they keep saying we could have a trade deal with the eu if we left it to counter some of the economic arguments, but countries who do have to agree to abide by eu rules anyway (Switzerland, Norway and Canada) - they just have no say in them. And European countries have to agree to free movement as well (Switzerland has more eu immigrants than the uk, and they're no a member state!) so I think peoples hopes for what happens if we leave are misconceived. I'm also getting really annoyed with Boris and co making spending promises when they have absolutely no power to implement them - they're not in government themselves! They are getting away with such tripe

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/this-chart-shows-how-wrong-vote-leave-are-on-immigration-a7083476.html

Stats. More stats on immigration. Until your eyes bleed.