Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Here's what I think is a more realistic chain of logic.

 

1) May comes back from Brussels with her red lines gone again.

 

2) She appeals to Labour MP's to pass it through parliament to avoid No Deal or the ERG voting it down.

 

3) That happens.

 

4) Hard Brexiteers replace May and start planning for the 2022 election.

 

Soubry was floating the idea of the national unity gov on Radio 4 (strangely seeming to think she would be in it as well) - I've not watched Newsnight yet, I just don't see this as a realistic option though, I mean surely for a change of that size the country would have to go back to the polls anyway and at the minute that would return a Labour minority government, they aren't going to then invite Tory remainers into it to govern, they'll set about implementing their manifesto (probably aided by the SNP in the hope of tearing the country to shreds) in whichever way they can. I still don't see a General Election though, unless the Tories actually want to get rid of this problem, which judging by the behaviour of the current government probably can't be ruled out.

 

People just wouldn't have the tolerance for this, it's not a time of war, it's basically a disagreement on trade policy.

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, davieG said:

Can't see anyway agreement on the makeup could be reached on this.

 

Your chain of logic sounds quite possible, too, Matt. One issue, though: even if parliament approves a Soft Brexit deal and the Tories replace May, the whole Brexit saga will still be ongoing. Under your scenario, presumably May would be deposed almost immediately - yet we're not even due to leave the EU until late March, would still presumably have the transition period after that and negotiations would still be ongoing over the future EU-UK relationship, even if basic principles are agreed by October. How would that work, with a Hard Brexit Tory leadership running a minority govt with more than half their MPs opposing any hardening of the deal.....would a Hard Brexit leadership meekly implement a Soft Brexit deal and wait for 2022?

 

I cannot see a national unity govt lasting for a full term, Davie. But maybe as a short-term solution if the current govt cannot command a majority for ANY Brexit deal or no deal? Particularly, if a lot of MPs on both sides are wary of calling another election - not only because the outcome would be unpredictable and possibly indecisive, but also because, as Matt says, the public might punish them simply for calling another election rather than resolving the problem. There's also my point that, at this stage, another election or referendum could cause significant public disorder, including violence on the streets.

 

It seems possible that there could be a national unity govt of limited duration (a few months? 1-2 years?) with a limited mission: to legislate for a Soft Brexit and maybe do a limited number of other things that could be agreed (e.g. the Tories already plan to increase NHS spending, so something could be agreed in that sphere). That could involve Tory Remainers/Soft Brexiteers, Labour moderates, plus 1 or 2 Lib Dems or SNP. I imagine the interim PM would have to be a Tory (largest party - and even the Tory moderates wouldn't hand over power to Corbyn rather than risk an election).

 

But such an alliance could conceivably even involve Corbyn (as deputy PM?). Because we need to remember that, although both parties are divided, they're not divided in the same way vis-à-vis their party membership. The Tory moderates would be acting against the will of their party membership (so would presumably either be sacrificing their careers or splitting the party), but the Labour party membership is overwhelmingly pro-Remain or Soft Brexit - Corbyn is in a minority there, so might be persuaded to join a national unity govt for a Soft Brexit rather than risk an impasse leading to the cliff edge. He might prefer to trigger an election.....but then many of his MPs might join a national unity govt anyway, splitting the Labour Party.

 

I don't necessarily think a national unity govt will happen, but I wouldn't rule it out. Logically, something pretty dramatic will happen to break the logjam. It's just unclear what that will be yet....

Edited 18 July 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Your chain of logic sounds quite possible, too, Matt. One issue, though: even if parliament approves a Soft Brexit deal and the Tories replace May, the whole Brexit saga will still be ongoing. Under your scenario, presumably May would be deposed almost immediately - yet we're not even due to leave the EU until late March, would still presumably have the transition period after that and negotiations would still be ongoing over the future EU-UK relationship, even if basic principles are agreed by October. How would that work, with a Hard Brexit Tory leadership running a minority govt with more than half their MPs opposing any hardening of the deal.....would a Hard Brexit leadership meekly implement a Soft Brexit deal and wait for 2022?

 

I cannot see a national unity govt lasting for a full term, Davie. But maybe as a short-term solution if the current govt cannot command a majority for ANY Brexit deal or no deal? Particularly, if a lot of MPs on both sides are wary of calling another election - not only because the outcome would be unpredictable and possibly indecisive, but also because, as Matt says, the public might punish them simply for calling another election rather than resolving the problem. There's also my point that, at this stage, another election or referendum could cause significant public disorder, including violence on the streets.

 

It seems possible that there could be a national unity govt of limited duration (a few months? 1-2 years?) with a limited mission: to legislate for a Soft Brexit and maybe do a limited number of other things that could be agreed (e.g. the Tories already plan to increase NHS spending, so something could be agreed in that sphere). That could involve Tory Remainers/Soft Brexiteers, Labour moderates, plus 1 or 2 Lib Dems or SNP. I imagine the interim PM would have to be a Tory (largest party - and even the Tory moderates wouldn't hand over power to Corbyn rather than risk an election).

 

But such an alliance could conceivably even involve Corbyn (as deputy PM?). Because we need to remember that, although both parties are divided, they're not divided in the same way vis-à-vis their party membership. The Tory moderates would be acting against the will of their party membership (so would presumably either be sacrificing their careers or splitting the party), but the Labour party membership is overwhelmingly pro-Remain or Soft Brexit - Corbyn is in a minority there, so might be persuaded to join a national unity govt for a Soft Brexit rather than risk an impasse leading to the cliff edge. He might prefer to trigger an election.....but then many of his MPs might join a national unity govt anyway, splitting the Labour Party.

 

I don't necessarily think a national unity govt will happen, but I wouldn't rule it out. Logically, something pretty dramatic will happen to break the logjam. It's just unclear what that will be yet....

 

I don’t think we have the time left for the formation of a national Unity government, it would take too much orchestrating in such a short time span tbh.

Buckle up because I think we are heading for a no deal scenario.

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t think we have the time left for the formation of a national Unity government, it would take too much orchestrating in such a short time span tbh.

Buckle up because I think we are heading for a no deal scenario.

 

If a national unity govt were to happen, I wouldn't expect it now - more likely in October, if everything comes to a head and there's no majority for anything in parliament.

 

We certainly need to buckle up as it's about to get increasingly dramatic. I hope you're wrong about No Deal, obviously, and think you are. I cannot see the current parliament accepting a No Deal scenario.

It's conceivable that an election could deliver a parliament that would support No Deal - even that a second referendum could support it. It's also conceivable that you're right and I'm wrong.....but that's an unlikely scenario. 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If a national unity govt were to happen, I wouldn't expect it now - more likely in October, if everything comes to a head and there's no majority for anything in parliament.

 

We certainly need to buckle up as it's about to get increasingly dramatic. I hope you're wrong about No Deal, obviously, and think you are. I cannot see the current parliament accepting a No Deal scenario.

It's conceivable that an election could deliver a parliament that would support No Deal - even that a second referendum could support it. It's also conceivable that you're right and I'm wrong.....but that's an unlikely scenario. 

Times are a changing.......

 

[Guest MattP]

27 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Your chain of logic sounds quite possible, too, Matt. One issue, though: even if parliament approves a Soft Brexit deal and the Tories replace May, the whole Brexit saga will still be ongoing. Under your scenario, presumably May would be deposed almost immediately - yet we're not even due to leave the EU until late March, would still presumably have the transition period after that and negotiations would still be ongoing over the future EU-UK relationship, even if basic principles are agreed by October. How would that work, with a Hard Brexit Tory leadership running a minority govt with more than half their MPs opposing any hardening of the deal.....would a Hard Brexit leadership meekly implement a Soft Brexit deal and wait for 2022?

 

I think the Brexit saga will be with us for the rest of our lifetimes, anything that is this divisive is going to be. The passionate Remainers aren't going to stop campaigning to rejoin and vice veras, the only thing that can rid us of it is the whole project collapsing so it becomes irrelevent to the domestic political debate.

I think people are getting a bit carried away with the disposal of May, they still haven't reached the number of letters to even get a challenge, let alone get the 160 odd MP's they would need to vote against and remove her, it will happen before the next election I know, but the the Hard Brexiteers are just going to remove her at any point doesn't seem as likely as many think.

 

Your last point for me is the most likely, I think the Hard Brexiteers might even fall behind the Gove logic eventually, get the legal Brexit done and then change process through election and government.

[Carl the Llama]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If a national unity govt were to happen, I wouldn't expect it now - more likely in October, if everything comes to a head and there's no majority for anything in parliament.

 

We certainly need to buckle up as it's about to get increasingly dramatic. I hope you're wrong about No Deal, obviously, and think you are. I cannot see the current parliament accepting a No Deal scenario.

It's conceivable that an election could deliver a parliament that would support No Deal - even that a second referendum could support it. It's also conceivable that you're right and I'm wrong.....but that's an unlikely scenario. 

Way I see it right now is we're going to get to the edge of the cliff with the deal in the wings being than the Norway model, essentially making us a vassal state to the EU, at which point the govt will be forced to decide between a clean break or revoking the A50 declaration.  In such a scenario I think the former is the easier decision for our spineless, corrupt political class to make. Dark days ahead.

Edited 18 July 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Way I see it right now is we're going to get to the edge of the cliff with the deal in the wings being than the Finnish model, essentially making us a vassal state to the EU, at which point the govt will be forced to decide between a clean break or revoking the A50 declaration.  In such a scenario I think the former is the easier decision for our spineless, corrupt political class to make. Dark days ahead.

If that happens, can we revoke then put it back in the next day?

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

If that happens, can we revoke then put it back in the next day?

I think you'd need to hold a vote on such a rash decision first.

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think people are getting a bit carried away with the disposal of May, they still haven't reached the number of letters to even get a challenge, let alone get the 160 odd MP's they would need to vote against and remove her, it will happen before the next election I know, but the the Hard Brexiteers are just going to remove her at any point doesn't seem as likely as many think.

 

Your last point for me is the most likely, I think the Hard Brexiteers might even fall behind the Gove logic eventually, get the legal Brexit done and then change process through election and government.

 

Yes, while the Hard Brexiteers probably have the numbers to trigger a confidence vote in May, they don't have the numbers to win such a vote so as to depose her or trigger a leadership election.

But with support from other groups of MPs, they could make a more meaningful challenge - and there seemed to be MPs beyond the Hard Brexit crew expressing open dissatisfaction with May recently.

Unless she somehow pulls a deal from her hat that commands satisfaction across most of the party (highly unlikely), she could be gone in October, I reckon.

 

Yes, the Gove strategy - accept Soft Brexit for now, try to harden it up in future via elections - is a distinct possibility. But wouldn't the election of a Hard Brexit leader instead of May make that LESS feasible as most Hard Brexiteers surely won't accept such a compromise, particularly with "their own leader" in power? Unless Gove himself became leader and convinced them....?

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Way I see it right now is we're going to get to the edge of the cliff with the deal in the wings being than the Finnish model, essentially making us a vassal state to the EU, at which point the govt will be forced to decide between a clean break or revoking the A50 declaration.  In such a scenario I think the former is the easier decision for our spineless, corrupt political class to make. Dark days ahead.

 

The Finnish model?!? 

 

I've heard of the Norwegian, Canadian, Swiss, even Albanian model....but not the Finnish model. They're full EU members, aren't they, the Finns?!

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The Finnish model?!? 

 

I've heard of the Norwegian, Canadian, Swiss, even Albanian model....but not the Finnish model. They're full EU members, aren't they, the Finns?!

Yeah I’m pretty sure they are, they have the euro as well I think.

[Carl the Llama]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The Finnish model?!? 

 

I've heard of the Norwegian, Canadian, Swiss, even Albanian model....but not the Finnish model. They're full EU members, aren't they, the Finns?!

Yep sorry was thinking of Norway  Scandinavian countries, they're all the same aren't they? 

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah I’m pretty sure they are, they have the euro as well I think.

 

In that case, I think we should reject Canada+++ and opt for the Finnish Model---.....Full EU membership without the Euro. 

[Strokes]

51 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yep sorry was thinking of Norway  Scandinavian countries, they're all the same aren't they? 

Bloody racist remainers....

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If a national unity govt were to happen, I wouldn't expect it now - more likely in October, if everything comes to a head and there's no majority for anything in parliament.

 

We certainly need to buckle up as it's about to get increasingly dramatic. I hope you're wrong about No Deal, obviously, and think you are. I cannot see the current parliament accepting a No Deal scenario.

It's conceivable that an election could deliver a parliament that would support No Deal - even that a second referendum could support it. It's also conceivable that you're right and I'm wrong.....but that's an unlikely scenario. 

I've given up predicting anything after the tory remainers failed to show up last night. That was the one big chance to put country first and end the threat of no deal. At the moment it looks likely that no deal will be agreed or if it is it won't pass the house. And obviously MPs voted away their rights to take charge at that point which was ridiculous. Taking back control by failing to take control....

[Buce]

59 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yep sorry was thinking of Norway  Scandinavian countries, they're all the same aren't they? 

 

Finland isn’t even Scandinavia! 

[Kopfkino]

EEA has been about the only feasible option for a while now, being as we can't do Switzerland. At least in the short-term anyway. Gives us a good starting point, fulfils most of the referendum 'promises', and will be able to go further later. Not entirely sure why the government has refused it actually. This 'Rule Britannia' idea that Brexit must be all things now and instantly is plain daft. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

The whole thing is daft. How much time and effort has been wasted over this nonsense. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

The whole thing is daft. How much time and effort has been wasted over this nonsense. 

That's the most galling thing for me. It's ridiculous.

[Bellend Sebastian]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

In that case, I think we should reject Canada+++ and opt for the Finnish Model---.....Full EU membership without the Euro. 

I think we should crash out with no deal but then ask if we can have the Euro.

 

That'll wrongfoot 'em!

[Beechey]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

EEA has been about the only feasible option for a while now, being as we can't do Switzerland. At least in the short-term anyway. Gives us a good starting point, fulfils most of the referendum 'promises', and will be able to go further later. Not entirely sure why the government has refused it actually. This 'Rule Britannia' idea that Brexit must be all things now and instantly is plain daft. 

With EEA you'd need to accept free movement, be a member of the Single Market as well as continue contributing to the EU budget. What kind of promises does that really fulfil? The only thing it removes is the Customs Union membership, which is the main sticking point because of the border with the Republic of Ireland.

 

No "off the shelf" options are suitable.

 

For the record however, I agree. The idea it must happen immediately is silly.

Edited 18 July 2018 by Beechey

[Sharpe's Fox]

Quote

Dairy products 'may become luxuries' after UK leaves EU

Reliance on EU butter, cheese and yoghurt means sharp price rises, says milk producer Arla

 

 

From Maggie Thatcher: Milk Snatcher to Theresa the Cheese Stealer

Edited 18 July 2018 by Sharpe's Fox

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Finland isn’t even Scandinavia! 

Is it not? Lol oops. I thought the Scandis was all 3 up there plus Denmark?

[Carl the Llama]

@Buce *Ahem* have a read of this me old mucker:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia

1-0 as they say.

 

PS. I'm taking back that rep I gave you for correcting my error.

Edited 18 July 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

With EEA you'd need to accept free movement, be a member of the Single Market as well as continue contributing to the EU budget. What kind of promises does that really fulfil? The only thing it removes is the Customs Union membership, which is the main sticking point because of the border with the Republic of Ireland.

 

No "off the shelf" options are suitable.

 

For the record however, I agree. The idea it must happen immediately is silly.

 

The one that was on the ballot paper. We weren't asked to grade on a scale of one to ten how distant we'd like to be from the EU, just whether we wanted to be in or out.

 

Whatever happens now there's going to be shitloads of disappointed and angry people who won't get whatever they thought (or were told) they were voting for. The whole thing was an ill-thought out mess before we'd even gone to the polls.