Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

There is no justification for not supplying the reports. Hence the fact there'll be a debate about contempt of parliament. Frankly, the rule of law is more important than anything else here. I couldn't care less if the assessments get leaked, I most certainly care that a government (and it hadn't even got a bloody majority to argue it has a mandate ffs) can ride roughshod over parliament.

Bore me with this tomorrow, the match is on tonight.

[Guest Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It feels like an infantile argument.

 

There is no sensible argument for parliament not to be able to hold government to account.

 

Webbo also provided a document to back up his argument that did the exact opposite.

 

How am I supposed to have a sensible debate?

 

That it may be but that kind of thing takes this thread to new lows. One might suggest accepting Webbo isn't going to listen to any argument about those reports and just not bother; you don't have to react to everything. As I see it, there's a case for these reports being subject to committee scrutiny, but there's a case for holding them back as well. I wouldn't quite go as far as calling it a subversion of democracy.

[Guest Kopfkino]

https://www.ft.com/content/cabf22e2-d462-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9

 

 

Britain has bowed to EU demands and agreed to fully honour its financial commitments as identified by Brussels, removing one of the biggest obstacles to a Brexit divorce settlement.

 

According to several diplomats familiar with the talks, the UK would assume EU liabilities worth up to €100bn although net payments, discharged over many decades, could fall to less than half that amount.

 

Negotiators are working on how to present the settlement as a net estimate, with the UK side pressing for an implied figure of between €40-45bn once UK receipts and other deductions are taken into account. “They have promised to cover it all, we don’t care what they say their estimate is,” said one senior EU diplomat. “We’re happy to help them present it.”

Edited 28 November 2017 by Kopfkino

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

That it may be but that kind of thing takes this thread to new lows. One might suggest accepting Webbo isn't going to listen to any argument about those reports and just not bother; you don't have to react to everything. As I see it, there's a case for these reports being subject to committee scrutiny, but there's a case for holding them back as well. I wouldn't quite go as far as calling it a subversion of democracy.

It's absolutely a subversion of democracy imo.

In fact, the government are ignoring parliament so routinely it's close to a constitutional crisis.

 

I agree with JRM:

Jacob Rees-Mogg said the Government was “in serious constitutional waters if it doesn’t provide the full information”.

He said: “This is nothing to do with Brexit or party politics. 

“It is to do with the rights of the House of Commons. We will all be in opposition one day and it is important to remember that.

If you try to trample the rights of Commons in government, then when in opposition you have no means of curtailing abuses of power.”

 

Edited 28 November 2017 by Guest

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

And do you trust the anti brexit mps on the committee not to leak anything that will help their cause? I don't. 

 

If the reports should be kept from all Remainers, should they also be kept from the PM and half the cabinet? May & half her colleagues supported Remain.

Presumably, if Corbyn becomes PM, you'll want to prevent non-socialist MPs finding out about the impact of his nationalisation plans, will you?

Or maybe you just like democratic scrutiny of your opponents, but not your own side? The rules are for others, not for you...you're like the Neil Warnock of political analysis! 

 

I wonder how much truly valuable confidential info is in the reports, anyway. Foreign firms and governments will be doing their own analysis of economic prospects under various Brexit scenarios.

A lot of info is in the public domain already: trade data, WTO tariff rates, company annual reports quoting accounts, profits etc, objective analysis by academics, thinktanks etc......and much info will be educated guesswork, anyway.

There might be the odd bit of sensitive info about the plans of a particular company, perhaps, but it's not on a par with the secret location of submarines during a war.

 

If you're going to be that paranoid, info might just as easily be leaked by a cabinet member, a civil servant involved in drafting the reports or a printer.

 

Anyway, I'm off to bask in the warm glow of victory (footballing victory, not politics).

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If the reports should be kept from all Remainers, should they also be kept from the PM and half the cabinet? May & half her colleagues supported Remain.

Presumably, if Corbyn becomes PM, you'll want to prevent non-socialist MPs finding out about the impact of his nationalisation plans, will you?

Or maybe you just like democratic scrutiny of your opponents, but not your own side? The rules are for others, not for you...you're like the Neil Warnock of political analysis! 

 

I wonder how much truly valuable confidential info is in the reports, anyway. Foreign firms and governments will be doing their own analysis of economic prospects under various Brexit scenarios.

A lot of info is in the public domain already: trade data, WTO tariff rates, company annual reports quoting accounts, profits etc, objective analysis by academics, thinktanks etc......and much info will be educated guesswork, anyway.

There might be the odd bit of sensitive info about the plans of a particular company, perhaps, but it's not on a par with the secret location of submarines during a war.

 

If you're going to be that paranoid, info might just as easily be leaked by a cabinet member, a civil servant involved in drafting the reports or a printer.

 

Anyway, I'm off to bask in the warm glow of victory (footballing victory, not politics).

Presumably Corbyn won't be in negotiation with a foreign power over his nationalisation plans? 

[Carl the Llama]

 Just catching up with the scenes in here today.

 

Webs stay off the grass you've turned paranoid and started arguing against democracy ffs.  GTF you could probably stand to have a word with yourself too over your 'case' for subverting democracy (the first step is realising that's what you're arguing in defence of because clearly you don't think it is subversion and that's a bit worrying).  It's been said twice now but I'll repeat it: A large part of the Brexit argument was the desire to restore the democracy you'd perceived us to have surrendered to the EU yet now you both stand in opposition to democratic process and argue for some dystopian Chairman May scenario.  Either come out and admit to wanting an authoritarian Tory state or start asking serious questions of your world views and the clearly different standards you hold a political party to depending on the colour of their rosette.

 

Love that JRM completely stumped the madness for a few hours there, after all how do you argue with your messiah?  Well played there Toddy.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 Just catching up with the scenes in here today.

 

Webs stay off the grass you've turned paranoid and started arguing against democracy ffs.  GTF you could probably stand to have a word with yourself too over your 'case' for subverting democracy (the first step is realising that's what you're arguing in defence of because clearly you don't think it is subversion and that's a bit worrying).  It's been said twice now but I'll repeat it: A large part of the Brexit argument was the desire to restore the democracy you'd perceived us to have surrendered to the EU yet now you both stand in opposition to democratic process and argue for some dystopian Chairman May scenario.  Either come out and admit to wanting an authoritarian Tory state or start asking serious questions of your world views and the clearly different standards you hold a political party to depending on the colour of their rosette.

 

Love that JRM completely stumped the madness for a few hours there, after all how do you argue with your messiah?  Well played there Toddy.

Like you care about these papers. If this committee do get these papers they will be leaked, at least the most damaging bits, that's a certainty.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 Just catching up with the scenes in here today.

 

Webs stay off the grass you've turned paranoid and started arguing against democracy ffs.  GTF you could probably stand to have a word with yourself too over your 'case' for subverting democracy (the first step is realising that's what you're arguing in defence of because clearly you don't think it is subversion and that's a bit worrying).  It's been said twice now but I'll repeat it: A large part of the Brexit argument was the desire to restore the democracy you'd perceived us to have surrendered to the EU yet now you both stand in opposition to democratic process and argue for some dystopian Chairman May scenario.  Either come out and admit to wanting an authoritarian Tory state or start asking serious questions of your world views and the clearly different standards you hold a political party to depending on the colour of their rosette.

 

Love that JRM completely stumped the madness for a few hours there, after all how do you argue with your messiah?  Well played there Toddy.

I’m not bothered about releasing the reports, I hope we do it and it does weaken our hand. It’s the next natural step towards the no deal dream.

[Rogstanley]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 Just catching up with the scenes in here today.

 

Webs stay off the grass you've turned paranoid and started arguing against democracy ffs.  GTF you could probably stand to have a word with yourself too over your 'case' for subverting democracy (the first step is realising that's what you're arguing in defence of because clearly you don't think it is subversion and that's a bit worrying).  It's been said twice now but I'll repeat it: A large part of the Brexit argument was the desire to restore the democracy you'd perceived us to have surrendered to the EU yet now you both stand in opposition to democratic process and argue for some dystopian Chairman May scenario.  Either come out and admit to wanting an authoritarian Tory state or start asking serious questions of your world views and the clearly different standards you hold a political party to depending on the colour of their rosette.

 

Love that JRM completely stumped the madness for a few hours there, after all how do you argue with your messiah?  Well played there Toddy.

Did anyone ever *really* believe brexit was about democracy anyway? 

 

Of course it wasn’t, and this is just the latest round of obvious hypocrisy from those brexiteers. 

[Webbo]

Why do the remainers want these papers released and why do they think the govt is unwilling to release them?

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Like you care about these papers. If this committee do get these papers they will be leaked, at least the most damaging bits, that's a certainty.

We all know that's what you're afraid of there's no need to repeat it.  Instead of telling us the same thing again how about stopping and reflecting on what you're really asking for here?  Would you be equally eager to see a Corbyn-led government resist democratic oversight?  You wouldn't.  If you want to live in a democracy start behaving like it.

 

Just now, Webbo said:

Why do the remainers want these papers released and why do they think the govt is unwilling to release them?

I don't want to see them but I do want the necessary parties to.  I think they're unwilling to release them because they eschew accountability at every possible juncture.  It's admirably socialist.

 

Just now, Strokes said:

I’m not bothered about releasing the reports, I hope we do it and it does weaken our hand. It’s the next natural step towards the no deal dream.

I'd just like to see democracy in action. 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

I'd just like to see democracy in action. 

Me too, I think too many politicians are scared to say what they really think and many are playing smoke and mirrors and it’s not good at all for democracy. So many need to just man up and go against brexit openly if that’s what they think.

We didn’t have an honest debate before and we certainly aren’t now, €45bil is ridiculous and with no deal agreed, this government has to go.

[Guest Kopfkino]

18 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 Just catching up with the scenes in here today.

 

Webs stay off the grass you've turned paranoid and started arguing against democracy ffs.  GTF you could probably stand to have a word with yourself too over your 'case' for subverting democracy (the first step is realising that's what you're arguing in defence of because clearly you don't think it is subversion and that's a bit worrying).  It's been said twice now but I'll repeat it: A large part of the Brexit argument was the desire to restore the democracy you'd perceived us to have surrendered to the EU yet now you both stand in opposition to democratic process and argue for some dystopian Chairman May scenario.  Either come out and admit to wanting an authoritarian Tory state or start asking serious questions of your world views and the clearly different standards you hold a political party to depending on the colour of their rosette.

 

Love that JRM completely stumped the madness for a few hours there, after all how do you argue with your messiah?  Well played there Toddy.

 

I am of the opinion that, at this stage of negotiations, it isn't in national interests for such reports to be out there, in much the same manner as matters of national security. Of course thats if they even exist, and actually that's where my own personal concern would be, if they don't exist in any detailed form then it was blatant lies in the first place and a worrying lack of preparation. Anyway, you're right, parliament voted on it so it is subversion to hold the reports back. It also has little to do with the 'colour of the rosette', this incessant desire to make everything party political in here is rather grating. 

 

None of my argument for Brexit was to restore democracy, certainly did not want Brexit to empower Westminster and Whitehall further, if anything it was to better enable the citizens of this country to escape the shackles of centralised political influence. 

 

I also think it was more the football that 'stumped the madness' rather than anything JRM has to say. 

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I am of the opinion that, at this stage of negotiations, it isn't in national interests for such reports to be out there, in much the same manner as matters of national security. Of course thats if they even exist, and actually that's where my own personal concern would be, if they don't exist in any detailed form then it was blatant lies in the first place and a worrying lack of preparation. Anyway, you're right, parliament voted on it so it is subversion to hold the reports back. It also has little to do with the 'colour of the rosette', this incessant desire to make everything party political in here is rather grating. 

 

None of my argument for Brexit was to restore democracy, certainly did not want Brexit to empower Westminster and Whitehall further, if anything it was to better enable the citizens of this country to escape the shackles of centralised political influence. 

 

I also think it was more the football that 'stumped the madness' rather than anything JRM has to say. 

I didn't make it party political though, if you're tired of the whole one side against the other bullshit then you can start by making your voice one that doesn't reinforce that status quo.  If you want power to the people stop arguing for their representatives to be blinded.

[Strokes]

Whatever happened to no deal being better than a bad deal hey Theresa? You just agreed to a bad deal you old bag.

[Carl the Llama]

30 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Did anyone ever *really* believe brexit was about democracy anyway? 

 

Of course it wasn’t, and this is just the latest round of obvious hypocrisy from those brexiteers. 

I only ever believed Brexit was about being racist bigots as I've said many times.

[Strokes]

You could subside WTO terms for about seven years for €45bil, how is that better than no deal. Burn the witch.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I only ever believed Brexit was about being racist bigots as I've said many times.

You got me, I just wanted to see Andrej and Octavian cry.

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I didn't make it party political though, if you're tired of the whole one side against the other bullshit then you can start by making your voice one that doesn't reinforce that status quo.  If you want power to the people stop arguing for their representatives to be blinded.

 

come out and admit to wanting an authoritarian Tory state

 

Seems party political to me. I have little interest in which party is doing this, more that it is being done. But of course, as we see on here all the time, you can't defend the government, or support any of its policies, or have points of similar ideology, without being called a tory. We're actually at a stage where, if you dare support to principal of lowering the deficit, you're an apostle of Osborne or a blind follower, but say 'invest for growth' at least 5 times a day and all is fine, simple as that, problem solved, definitely not just swallowed every interview John McDonnell has done 2017. But to make it not one side against the other, I have to oppose the status quo for the sake of opposing it.

 

That completely relies on the assumption that I believe that the power of the people is satisfied by having some people sit in a chamber, which I don't. 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

You could subside WTO terms for about seven years for €45bil, how is that better than no deal. Burn the witch.

None of this would have happened under Jezza:  We'd have signed off on a glorious Brexit bill months ago, taxing us all at a flat 99% above the first 11k earned per year to pay for it and throwing any dissidents into the gulags where they belong (not Webbo or GTF mind you, they don't mind democracy being squashed so they'd probably end up at our glorious Jezza's right hand with DJ MacD),

[Carl the Llama]

19 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 

 

Seems party political to me. I have little interest in which party is doing this, more that it is being done. But of course, as we see on here all the time, you can't defend the government, or support any of its policies, or have points of similar ideology, without being called a tory. We're actually at a stage where, if you dare support to principal of lowering the deficit, you're an apostle of Osborne or a blind follower, but say 'invest for growth' at least 5 times a day and all is fine, simple as that, problem solved, definitely not just swallowed every interview John McDonnell has done 2017. But to make it not one side against the other, I have to oppose the status quo for the sake of opposing it.

 

That completely relies on the assumption that I believe that the power of the people is satisfied by having some people sit in a chamber, which I don't. 

You've got me.  Commenting on your obvious bias means I'm making a party political statement.

 

You can say all you like about being unfairly maligned as a Tory but if you frequently come down hard on anything red and argue in favour of anything blue - even to the detriment of our democratic process like you've been doing today - then to any outside observer you have an obvious inherent bias.  I think you honestly believe in your benevolent impartiality but to give you an analogy it's like how the many virtue-signalling lefties seem to honestly believe they're actively fighting for profound causes when in reality they're just making a comment on facebook that their friends will read and nobody else will care about and it won't affect anything, believing a thing to be so doesn't make it so, doing the thing makes it so.  If you want to stop people being under the impression that you're strongly pro-conservative then stop making the noises of a person who is, I'm not trying to insult you by suggesting you're pro-Tory but if that upsets you I'm sorry but I'm at a bit of a loss because I'm not really able to come to any other conclusion based on your general approach to this thread that I've seen.

Edited 29 November 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

You've got me.  Commenting on your obvious bias means I'm making a party political statement.

 

You can say all you like about being unfairly maligned as a Tory but if you frequently come down hard on anything red and argue in favour of anything blue - even to the detriment of our democratic process like you've been doing today - then to any outside observer you have an obvious inherent bias.  I think you honestly believe in your benevolent impartiality but to give you an analogy it's like how the many virtue-signalling lefties seem to honestly believe they're actively fighting for profound causes when in reality they're just making a comment on facebook that their friends will read and nobody else will care about and it won't affect anything, believing a thing to be so doesn't make it so, doing the thing makes it so.  If you want to stop people being under the impression that you're strongly pro-conservative then stop making the noises of a person who is, I'm not trying to insult you by suggesting you're pro-Tory but if that upsets you I'm sorry but I'm at a bit of a loss because I'm not really able to come to any other conclusion based on your general approach to this thread that I've seen.

 

It's makes no difference to me what perceptions are, I just find its necessity to people's responses here boring and dumb. Given that 90% of this thread consists of bashing ' our supposed 'austerity'/the economy and Brexit, two things I happen to a)believe in and b)to which I'm closer to the government than the Labour Party, it's pretty difficult to not come across that way. If creating a binary situation and labelling people based on that feels useful to people, then so be it. I personally see absolutely no value in it, but its presence doesn't offend me, I just despair at its asphyxiation of discussion.

 

Just on the democracy thing, I'm not going to defend 'democracy' given that the vote probably wouldn't have passed had the government taken it seriously. Yes it contravenes parliamentary procedure, something which should be respected, but I can't cry foul over democracy when the outcome in likelihood could be different had whips not sent people home for the night. Not that I'm defending the actions, more I don't really care about them.

Edited 29 November 2017 by Kopfkino

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Strokes said:

Me too, I think too many politicians are scared to say what they really think and many are playing smoke and mirrors and it’s not good at all for democracy. So many need to just man up and go against brexit openly if that’s what they think.

We didn’t have an honest debate before and we certainly aren’t now, €45bil is ridiculous and with no deal agreed, this government has to go.

It's likely the case that neither side were honest in the lead up to the referendum vote which is rather depressing.

 

As I said earlier, this is likely to be the very information we all need before the vote.

 

Who knows? Perhaps this information is so important it might have turned me into a leaver or you a remainer? Perhaps it isn't.

 

Re the £45bil, firstly it's likely a lot more. Secondly, it's just a number. This idea that £20b is okay but £40b is too much - how do you quantify it? We're just paying what we owe.

 

5 hours ago, Strokes said:

Whatever happened to no deal being better than a bad deal hey Theresa? You just agreed to a bad deal you old bag.

No deal was never better. It's been obvious in everything the government's been doing. Fox and Redwood think it is. I'm not convinced Gove and Boris even wanted to win the vote (judged on their faces the morning after) but now have no option but to cheerlead the hard Brexit optIon. TM voted remain. The interesting one is Davis who had always been a leaver but (from the newspaper  nods and winks) who it seems recognises that no deal is a terrible idea - was it easy to complain about the EU before leaving it was a likely scenario David?

 

At some point you should question why you're so sure no deal is safe as houses given that the entire establishment believes it is going to hurt us massively. I heard an interview with the former head of the WTO who was explaining that we wouldn't be able to get deals as good as those we currently have across the globe outside the EU because of the smaller scale of our economy.

 

4 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 

 

Seems party political to me. I have little interest in which party is doing this, more that it is being done. But of course, as we see on here all the time, you can't defend the government, or support any of its policies, or have points of similar ideology, without being called a tory. We're actually at a stage where, if you dare support to principal of lowering the deficit, you're an apostle of Osborne or a blind follower, but say 'invest for growth' at least 5 times a day and all is fine, simple as that, problem solved, definitely not just swallowed every interview John McDonnell has done 2017. But to make it not one side against the other, I have to oppose the status quo for the sake of opposing it.

 

That completely relies on the assumption that I believe that the power of the people is satisfied by having some people sit in a chamber, which I don't. 

I'd love a non party political debate but because some people won't budge an inch on their views it leads me to reciprocate, which is a shame.

 

3 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It's makes no difference to me what perceptions are, I just find its necessity to people's responses here boring and dumb. Given that 90% of this thread consists of bashing ' our supposed 'austerity'/the economy and Brexit, two things I happen to a)believe in and b)to which I'm closer to the government than the Labour Party, it's pretty difficult to not come across that way. If creating a binary situation and labelling people based on that feels useful to people, then so be it. I personally see absolutely no value in it, but its presence doesn't offend me, I just despair at its asphyxiation of discussion.

 

Just on the democracy thing, I'm not going to defend 'democracy' given that the vote probably wouldn't have passed had the government taken it seriously. Yes it contravenes parliamentary procedure, something which should be respected, but I can't cry foul over democracy when the outcome in likelihood could be different had whips not sent people home for the night. Not that I'm defending the actions, more I don't really care about them.

The way the government has been failing to vote and then ignoring the results is just about within the rules of parliament (the other times they've tried it) but is really, really poor (though has been done by previous governments). Quite amusing to see them miscalculate their charade.

Edited 29 November 2017 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I agree that the report should be released. If there are negative impacts that the report highlights that we don't know then we should know.

 

The best case scenario would have been that such a report was released before the vote so that everyone could have been correctly informed. JRM is correct this is about upholding the legitimacy of our constitution. Doing something like this sets a dangerous precedent IMO.