Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

[Guest MattP]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4869818/Ken-Clarke-urges-Remainers-staying-EU.html

 

Surprised no one posted this over the weekend.

 

Ken Clarke has given up on trying to fight to stay in the EU, saying it's now futile.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4869818/Ken-Clarke-urges-Remainers-staying-EU.html

 

Surprised no one posted this over the weekend.

 

Ken Clarke has given up on trying to fight to stay in the EU, saying it's now futile.

 

I suspect he's talking sense, as usual.

 

I think the only way that we'd end up staying in the EU now is if a large proportion of the public turned strongly against Brexit very quickly - and there's no sign of that happening.

 

There might be a late switch against Brexit in a year's time if it becomes clear that we're doing ourselves massive damage. 

But that will be too late to reverse the process, surely? Plus, the EU would be unlikely to accept such a late volte-face without demanding a heavy price, which would further antagonise British Eurosceptic opinion.

 

Surely, the main battlegrounds are now: Soft v. Hard, Tranisition v. Cliff-Edge & Democratic v. Henry VIII,  not Remain v. Leave?

 

I still think Brexit will prove to be something between a very bad idea and an utter disaster that damages the nation for decades ahead. But the focus has to be on ensuring that it is only the former and not the latter.

[Countryfox]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I suspect he's talking sense, as usual.

 

I think the only way that we'd end up staying in the EU now is if a large proportion of the public turned strongly against Brexit very quickly - and there's no sign of that happening.

 

There might be a late switch against Brexit in a year's time if it becomes clear that we're doing ourselves massive damage. 

But that will be too late to reverse the process, surely? Plus, the EU would be unlikely to accept such a late volte-face without demanding a heavy price, which would further antagonise British Eurosceptic opinion.

 

Surely, the main battlegrounds are now: Soft v. Hard, Tranisition v. Cliff-Edge & Democratic v. Henry VIII,  not Remain v. Leave?

 

I still think Brexit will prove to be something between a very bad idea and an utter disaster that damages the nation for decades ahead. But the focus has to be on ensuring that it is only the former and not the latter.

 

Henry VIII will win hands down ...   always good on the battlefield.         And Mrs CF would always prefer hard over soft ...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4869818/Ken-Clarke-urges-Remainers-staying-EU.html

 

Surprised no one posted this over the weekend.

 

Ken Clarke has given up on trying to fight to stay in the EU, saying it's now futile.

I'd imagine it wasn't posted as only eurosceptics are likely to be reading the daily mail. 

 

Don't think anybody is really fighting anymore are they? 

 

Couple of interesting quotes though:

 

‘Eurosceptic campaigners offered simplicity – It’s all Brussels’ fault... leave the EU and with one bound we are free and a brave new world will emerge. Well, that is nonsense.

 

Mr Clarke continued: ‘Our economy is in a very worrying state. We need, as soon as possible, an assurance that in trade terms our arrangements with Europe are going to carry on for some years as they are now.’

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

I suspect he's talking sense, as usual.

 

I think the only way that we'd end up staying in the EU now is if a large proportion of the public turned strongly against Brexit very quickly - and there's no sign of that happening.

 

There might be a late switch against Brexit in a year's time if it becomes clear that we're doing ourselves massive damage. 

But that will be too late to reverse the process, surely? Plus, the EU would be unlikely to accept such a late volte-face without demanding a heavy price, which would further antagonise British Eurosceptic opinion.

 

Surely, the main battlegrounds are now: Soft v. Hard, Tranisition v. Cliff-Edge & Democratic v. Henry VIII,  not Remain v. Leave?

 

I still think Brexit will prove to be something between a very bad idea and an utter disaster that damages the nation for decades ahead. But the focus has to be on ensuring that it is only the former and not the latter.

Soft v Hard in reality is now the key battle and what those terms end up meaning, naturally I'd regard any attempt to keep Britain inside the single market as an affront to the vote and I don't think the result would be satisfied if Britain was still unable to secure it's own trade deals, control it's own borders and still be subject to the ECJ - I've not met one leave voter who voted for Brexit who would geniunely think they got what they voted for if all three of those things were in force.

 

Regarding the Henry VIII powers, I'm sure we'll see some watering down in order to get the vote through, I also wish the politicians who campaigned for Remain had spent just as much time scrutinising these sort of powers when we wee giving them away rather than just scrutinising them so effectively when we want to take them back, it's far to say if they had we might not even be in this position in the first place.

 

Although if anybody wants to see why there is no change in public opinion regarding the EU they only need to watch the state of the union address this morning, EU army again being talked about, more powers over the finances of independent nations on tha table, even a motion to give the President even more power by combining the roles of the EU and EC leaders. Not a single one will be passed with the vote of the people either.

 

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'd imagine it wasn't posted as only eurosceptics are likely to be reading the daily mail. 

 

Don't think anybody is really fighting anymore are they?

Are there no Eurosceptics in this thread then?

 

It's pretty significant as if people like Clarke have given up there is now evidence that parliament has reached the fifth stage of grief over the result, acceptance - and the denial, anger, bargaining and depression is now in the past.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

Regarding the Henry VIII powers, I'm sure we'll see some watering down in order to get the vote through, I also wish the politicians who campaigned for Remain had spent just as much time scrutinising these sort of powers when we wee giving them away rather than just scrutinising them so effectively when we want to take them back, it's far to say if they had we might not even be in this position in the first place.

 

 

 

This is so true. The remain camp seem to be bleating on about this Henry VIII Crap but they were perfectly happy for numerous treaties to be signed with the EU in the 90s and 2000s mostly under Blair's Labour government giving our laws away to an unelected bunch of Europeans. You can't have it both ways!

 

I'm sure if Labour were doing it people wouldn't care as much because they are the kind caring party.

[Innovindil]

Wants trade deals between the eu and Australia and new Zealand started and finished within 2 years. 

 

Impossible to start and finish a trade deal between the eu and the UK in 2 years. 

 

Edited 13 September 2017 by Innovindil

[Alf Bentley]

39 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Regarding the Henry VIII powers, I'm sure we'll see some watering down in order to get the vote through, I also wish the politicians who campaigned for Remain had spent just as much time scrutinising these sort of powers when we wee giving them away rather than just scrutinising them so effectively when we want to take them back, it's far to say if they had we might not even be in this position in the first place.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

This is so true. The remain camp seem to be bleating on about this Henry VIII Crap but they were perfectly happy for numerous treaties to be signed with the EU in the 90s and 2000s mostly under Blair's Labour government giving our laws away to an unelected bunch of Europeans. You can't have it both ways!

 

I'm sure if Labour were doing it people wouldn't care as much because they are the kind caring party.

 

Let's be honest, however well Westminster had scrutinised legislation about the EU, neither of you would have been happy about the UK agreeing to powers being pooled at EU level, would you?

You're Eurosceptics so I presume you believe that democracy should be concentrated at the national (and local) level, and are hostile to such powers being exercised at EU level, however well scrutinised?

 

Or would you be happy for some powers to be exercised at EU level if there was better democratic control, @MattP?

 

With all this talk of "bleating" and "Henry VIII Crap", I get the impression that @Foxin_mad isn't bothered about democracy at all, but would be happy for the UK to be run by an elected dictator, provided he was British. 

I wouldn't be happy with Labour exercising Henry VIII powers either.  I'd expect the Tories to use such undemocratic powers to do even more things that I hated, but Corbyn with near-unlimited powers doesn't appeal either.

It does make me laugh that so much humbug was talked about "our parliament" taking back "democratic control", yet some Brexiters (and I appreciate that it's only some) clearly don't give a shit about democracy, only about nation. 

 

As for UK integration into the EU being mostly down to Labour..... 

You can blame Blair for the scale of immigration from Eastern Europe and Brown for the Lisbon Treaty (as well as crediting him for maintaining Major's policy of staying out of the Euro).

But....

- It was a Tory PM (Heath) who first took us into the Common Market

- It was a Tory PM (Thatcher) who played a crucial role in setting up the Single Market: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/margaret-thatcher-the-critical-architect-of-european-integration/

- It was a Tory PM (Major) who made EU enlargement to the East a political priority and who signed the Maastricht Treaty, making EU political integration much deeper.

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

37 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Wants trade deals between the eu and Australia and new Zealand started and finished within 2 years. 

 

Impossible to start and finish a trade deal between the eu and the UK in 2 years.

Amazing, it's almost like they don't think any of us across the English channel are paying attention.

 

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Let's be honest, however well Westminster had scrutinised legislation about the EU, neither of you would have been happy about the UK agreeing to powers being pooled at EU level, would you?

You're Eurosceptics so I presume you believe that democracy should be concentrated at the national (and local) level, and are hostile to such powers being exercised at EU level, however well scrutinised?

 

Or would you be happy for some powers to be exercised at EU level if there was better democratic control, @MattP?

@Foxin_mad

 

 

As for UK integration into the EU being mostly down to Labour..... 

You can blame Blair for the scale of immigration from Eastern Europe and Brown for the Lisbon Treaty (as well as crediting him for maintaining Major's policy of staying out of the Euro).

But....

- It was a Tory PM (Heath) who first took us into the Common Market

- It was a Tory PM (Thatcher) who played a crucial role in setting up the Single Market: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/margaret-thatcher-the-critical-architect-of-european-integration/

- It was a Tory PM (Major) who made EU enlargement to the East a political priority and who signed the Maastricht Treaty, making EU political integration much deeper.

No I wouldn't, I don't believe in Europe as a political union in any way, shape or form and don't want any part of it, I believe individual countries should have the total right to control the things that they want to.

 

The common market was a good idea, the single market was a good idea - I can't level any criticism at Thatcher and Heath, how were they supposed to know what the project would turn into? It became a bad idea as soon as a central power wanted to start to take control of decisions over single nations. Major, Brown and Blair can take the blame for that if it's anyone from our parliament (and of course Brown the credit for keeping us out the Euro).

 

P.S Big up Ed Argar today for his PMQ contribution, I'm not sure Charnwood does have "the greatest countryside in the World" but I enjoyed him saying it none the less.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

With all this talk of "bleating" and "Henry VIII Crap", I get the impression that @Foxin_mad isn't bothered about democracy at all, but would be happy for the UK to be run by an elected dictator, provided he was British. 

I wouldn't be happy with Labour exercising Henry VIII powers either.  I'd expect the Tories to use such undemocratic powers to do even more things that I hated, but Corbyn with near-unlimited powers doesn't appeal either.

It does make me laugh that so much humbug was talked about "our parliament" taking back "democratic control", yet some Brexiters (and I appreciate that it's only some) clearly don't give a shit about democracy, only about nation. 

 

As for UK integration into the EU being mostly down to Labour..... 

You can blame Blair for the scale of immigration from Eastern Europe and Brown for the Lisbon Treaty (as well as crediting him for maintaining Major's policy of staying out of the Euro).

But....

- It was a Tory PM (Heath) who first took us into the Common Market

- It was a Tory PM (Thatcher) who played a crucial role in setting up the Single Market: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/margaret-thatcher-the-critical-architect-of-european-integration/

- It was a Tory PM (Major) who made EU enlargement to the East a political priority and who signed the Maastricht Treaty, making EU political integration much deeper.

 

 

 

I'm not saying its correct I am saying that I don't remember anyone asking questions of us signing the Lisbon Treaty for example which ceded a large number of unnecessary sovereign powers to the EU and in my believe is the reason why we are eventually going to end up out of the single market and out of Europe which I personally think is/will be bad. Remember the Tories tried to get a referendum held on it, and Labour 'forced it through' without anyone knowing the true facts on what we have given up.

 

A European trading block is great and I fully support, the ideas of Heath, Thatcher are they way Europe should work. The idea that there should be a European state is very bad. The EU is an unelected behemoth that needs serious reform and modernisation. The EU should be more of a partnership between countries retaining their sovereignty and not the supreme ruler that it seems to want to be. They need to learn how to compromise, it very much seems a case of their way or no way, they need to accept they have fundamental flaws in their treaties, and they need to look at free movement between countries with huge economic disparity - it can not work! before they can do that they need to look at ways of improving living standards in those countries and the question is why countries with such huge disparities were allowed to enter in the first place.

 

Major agreeing to enlarge the EU to the east is probably one of the biggest failings ever, the entry of countries with such huge differences in living standards was always going to cause massive problems. It is possible to have free movement between countries with broadly similar living standards, but you put a country with the living standards of Romania in and allow free movement, where will the flow of people go? and you cant blame them either!

Edited 13 September 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Buce]

3 hours ago, Countryfox said:

   And Mrs CF would always prefer hard over soft ...

 

Never mind, CF - I'm sure she likes your personality... 

[Guest MattP]

DUP will vote with Labour on the motions of NHS pay and free tuition fees.

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

DUP will vote with Labour on the motions of NHS pay and free tuition fees.

 

So either the government backs down and tries to avoid the votes or the tory party as a government is going to be in an extremely difficult position....

 

Labour starting to dominate the domestic agenda now. Away from Brexit the Tories have scrapped their whole manifesto and is being forced on the retreat by watering down labour policy - the shitty pay rises offered yesterday for example. 

Edited 13 September 2017 by Guest

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

DUP will vote with Labour on the motions of NHS pay and free tuition fees.

 

 

The vote on tuition fees actually really annoys me. It's clearly public posturing because if they actually wanted to help students past and present they'd force something through on the interest payments. An extra 750 quid in tuition fees is nothing compared to the 6.1% interest charged on top of 50k debt. Bringing that down massively helps current and past students far more. 

[Innovindil]

Wonder if they offer free tuition fees if I'll be able to get my £18k back paid. 

 

Would be a nice Xmas bonus tbf. 

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So either the government backs down and tries to avoid the votes or the tory party as a government is going to be in an extremely difficult position....

 

Labour starting to dominate the domestic agenda now. Away from Brexit the Tories have scrapped their whole manifesto and is being forced on the retreat by watering down labour policy - the shitty pay rises offered yesterday for example. 

Pure postering but the government should be OK in a vote, the Lib Dems won't vote for it and that means it won't pass the house, the Tories do need to be careful though, if they go this fantasy land of saying they can pay for everything Labour will just promise more anyway, there is no end to what Corbyn would offer up, it's not a road they can go down.

 

You should have seen the Labour woman on the Daily Politics today, Tracy Brabin, she was asked how much a 5%! wage rise would cost for the public sector and and she said 40billion a year! (actually 9.5billion) - the funniest thing about it was she still seemed to genuinely think the country could do this, just whack 40billion a year onto the public finances - they just don't even care anymore, they aren't even bothering to try and account for anything.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Pure postering but the government should be OK in a vote, the Lib Dems won't vote for it and that means it won't pass the house, the Tories do need to be careful though, if they go this fantasy land of saying they can pay for everything Labour will just promise more anyway, there is no end to what Corbyn would offer up, it's not a road they can go down.

 

You should have seen the Labour woman on the Daily Politics today, Tracy Brabin, she was asked how much a 5%! wage rise would cost for the public sector and and she said 40billion a year! (actually 9.5billion) - the funniest thing about it was she still seemed to genuinely think the country could do this, just whack 40billion a year onto the public finances - they just don't even care anymore, they aren't even bothering to try and account for anything.

I think you need to differentiate between somebody clearly out of their depth on a tv programme and official party policy. Brabin may indeed have made herself look stupid but that is hardly the same as the party itself not trying to even account for anything. 

 

If they had any sense labour would do some serious work on getting the sums to add up before the next election and get those sums verified through independent bodies. You might not like the politics but they could raise taxation to give them clear water to implement their policies. 

 

What makes you say the lib dems won't vote with them?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

The vote on tuition fees actually really annoys me. It's clearly public posturing because if they actually wanted to help students past and present they'd force something through on the interest payments. An extra 750 quid in tuition fees is nothing compared to the 6.1% interest charged on top of 50k debt. Bringing that down massively helps current and past students far more. 

Agree re interest payments. How anybody thought thst policy was fine to implement at all beggars belief.

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think you need to differentiate between somebody clearly out of their depth on a tv programme and official party policy. Brabin may indeed have made herself look stupid but that is hardly the same as the party itself not trying to even account for anything. 

 

If they had any sense labour would do some serious work on getting the sums to add up before the next election and get those sums verified through independent bodies. You might not like the politics but they could raise taxation to give them clear water to implement their policies. 

 

What makes you say the lib dems won't vote with them?

Better be raising them taxes to about 90% then. Don't think a couple of percentage points will pay for all these unicorns. 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think you need to differentiate between somebody clearly out of their depth on a tv programme and official party policy. Brabin may indeed have made herself look stupid but that is hardly the same as the party itself not trying to even account for anything. 

 

If they had any sense labour would do some serious work on getting the sums to add up before the next election and get those sums verified through independent bodies. You might not like the politics but they could raise taxation to give them clear water to implement their policies. 

 

What makes you say the lib dems won't vote with them?

The Lib Dems during the election campaign stated numerous times that whilst they would love to support free tuition fees they realise the country simply cannot afford them at the current time. - I haven't heard any change in that policy that I am aware of.

 

You'll be turning down the support of the DUP anyway won't you? I thought you wanted absolutely nothing to do with them in any way, shape or form?

[Alf Bentley]

49 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I'm not saying its correct I am saying that I don't remember anyone asking questions of us signing the Lisbon Treaty for example which ceded a large number of unnecessary sovereign powers to the EU and in my believe is the reason why we are eventually going to end up out of the single market and out of Europe which I personally think is/will be bad. Remember the Tories tried to get a referendum held on it, and Labour 'forced it through' without anyone knowing the true facts on what we have given up.

 

A European trading block is great and I fully support, the ideas of Heath, Thatcher are they way Europe should work. The idea that there should be a European state is very bad. The EU is an unelected behemoth that needs serious reform and modernisation. The EU should be more of a partnership between countries retaining their sovereignty and not the supreme ruler that it seems to want to be. They need to learn how to compromise, it very much seems a case of their way or no way, they need to accept they have fundamental flaws in their treaties, and they need to look at free movement between countries with huge economic disparity - it can not work! before they can do that they need to look at ways of improving living standards in those countries and the question is why countries with such huge disparities were allowed to enter in the first place.

 

Major agreeing to enlarge the EU to the east is probably one of the biggest failings ever, the entry of countries with such huge differences in living standards was always going to cause massive problems. It is possible to have free movement between countries with broadly similar living standards, but you put a country with the living standards of Romania in and allow free movement, where will the flow of people go? and you cant blame them either!

 

The EU should certainly increase its democratic accountability so that the public feel that they have more of a connection and a say in EU policies.

That's easier said than done in an organisation encompassing 28 nations and 510m people (for now!) - but it needs to happen, even assuming the UK leaves.

 

Despite misgivings about the EU's flaws, the underlying reason why I'm pro-EU is the power of big capital and big finance. That means that the public needs a sufficiently strong political institution to protect our interests against the overweening power of globally mobile capital - and a medium-sized nation state is no longer big enough. 

 

Post-Brexit, if big capital and big finance are not extracting as much profit out of the UK as they could elsewhere, they'll eventually go elsewhere, with potentially devastating effects on the British economy, living standards and social fabric. Out of self-preservation, any future EU trade deal will have to be less beneficial to the UK - with tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and some loss of cooperation, reducing UK profitability for big capital and big finance.

 

To avoid seeing investment dry up and corporations drift abroad, we'll need something else to attract them. Maybe we'll rapidly innovate and develop new areas of expertise or will achieve a sudden increase in productivity. We certainly won't do it by "cutting EU red tape" as we're going to be creating a massive amount of extra red tape, both internally (customs procedures etc) and for trade with the EU. At the moment there are very few economic sectors in which we are global leaders (and we're about to do serious damage to one of them - finance). Maybe, as the Brexiteers hope, we'll do great new deals with the USA, Japan, India, China or whoever - better deals than the EU can do. But why would those countries offer a better deal to a struggling, rather isolated nation state/market of 65m people than it would to a continental bloc/market of 440m people, one with a lot more products/expertise that they want?

 

Post-Brexit, once new UK-EU trade arrangements are in place with tariff and non-tariff barriers making trade less profitable and domestic demand stagnating, there is one obvious and immediate way of protecting the profitability of big corporations and financiers investing in the UK - and it's one that Theresa May has already floated. It's the low-tax, low-regulation Britain option. There'd be no need to suddenly improve productivity or innovation. We could slash corporate tax and have a bonfire of regulations "hindering business" (more easily done with Henry VIII powers). Of course, to avoid mushrooming public-sector debt that would need to be counter-balanced by large increases in personal taxation and/or further large cuts in public spending, with obvious consequences for living standards and social harmony. The obvious post-Brexit economic model for the UK is one based on low pay, a shift in tax from capital to people, cut-price "employment safety", more "flexible" working hours/terms to cut labour costs, the elimination of environmental regulations etc.

 

Basically, the most obvious future strategy for the UK (possibly the only one in the short-term) is for the UK to shaft its own people so as to undercut costs across the Channel in order to protect corporate profitability and keep the big global corporations and financiers sweet. Maybe something better will turn up during negotiations or after Brexit but, if not, that presages a truly grim future for our nation - one that could predominate for the rest of my life and half my daughter's. That doesn't feel good at all.

 

Still, at least I've got my Irish/EU passport through now, so my options remain open if the shit does hit the fan.... 

 

 

.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Better be raising them taxes to about 90% then. Don't think a couple of percentage points will pay for all these unicorns. 

Feel free to set out the costings to show it can't be done. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Lib Dems during the election campaign stated numerous times that whilst they would love to support free tuition fees they realise the country simply cannot afford them at the current time. - I haven't heard any change in that policy that I am aware of.

 

You'll be turning down the support of the DUP anyway won't you? I thought you wanted absolutely nothing to do with them in any way, shape or form?

Not going to need to. Hilariously, the tories are abstaining. Can't even support their own position as a government 

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Feel free to set out the costings to show it can't be done. 

Unfortunately I'm not an MP. I'm still waiting for Labour to show it can be done.