Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

36 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Wtf?

Thought the same. I think he's being a double hard politically incorrect banter king.

Edited 26 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[breadandcheese]

Amber Rudd.  I can't work out if she is in a position of weakness or strength.  

 

Weakness because she is bludering all over the place with calls for her to go.

Strength because most of the issues seemingly occurred when the PM was Home Secretary, so better not to have Rudd outside the tent pissing in.

 

The state of our politics today. A government seemingly without a plan or any clear vision of what they want the country to look like, other than a few glib statements.  The opposition with a plan but one that's from cloud cuckooland, not to mention with the talk about purging its own MPs who happen to have the temerity to support a minority community against anti-semitism. Honestly, it's depressing.

Edited 26 April 2018 by breadandcheese

[Alf Bentley]

Ruth Davidson is up the duff: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43910560

 

Alex Salmond rumoured to be the prospective father. 

Edited 26 April 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Amber Rudd.  I can't work out if she is in a position of weakness or strength.  

 

Weakness because she is bludering all over the place with calls for her to go.

Strength because most of the issues seemingly occurred when the PM was Home Secretary, so better not to have Rudd outside the tent pissing in.

 

The state of our politics today. A government seemingly without a plan or any clear vision of what they want the country to look like, other than a few glib statements.  The opposition with a plan but one that's from cloud cuckooland, not to mention with the talk about purging its own MPs who happen to have the temerity to support a minority community against anti-semitism. Honestly, it's depressing.

My view exactly. How anyone can see any solution in the current Labour party is beyond me.

 

Yes the current lot are a shambles but the thought of a Corbyn led government with collapsing money markets and major job losses is absolutely terrifying. 

[Strokes]

36 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Amber Rudd.  I can't work out if she is in a position of weakness or strength.  

 

Weakness because she is bludering all over the place with calls for her to go.

Strength because most of the issues seemingly occurred when the PM was Home Secretary, so better not to have Rudd outside the tent pissing in.

 

The state of our politics today. A government seemingly without a plan or any clear vision of what they want the country to look like, other than a few glib statements.  The opposition with a plan but one that's from cloud cuckooland, not to mention with the talk about purging its own MPs who happen to have the temerity to support a minority community against anti-semitism. Honestly, it's depressing.

I don’t think Rudd will go because if she does it leaves the opposition with a clear shot at TM. 

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I don’t think Rudd will go because if she does it leaves the opposition with a clear shot at TM. 

Her weakness is her political strength. Like the PM.

[Dr The Singh]

11 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Her weakness is her political strength. Like the PM.

Amber Rudd in her day was quite a goer, with that type of endurance you can see why she would never quit

[Sharpe's Fox]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Ruth Davidson is up the duff: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43910560

 

Alex Salmond rumoured to be the prospective father. 

How she manage that? Must be a turkey baster job

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Imagine announcing the Trump visit as an urgently and much needed distraction from other domestic matters.

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

Is there a single Labour voter/member/supporter on here that can explain to me why it's a good idea to stay in the Customs Union but not the Single Market?

 

Kopf has largely answered for me. I'd have preferred to stay in the EU, never mind the SM, but the vote was to leave the EU - and free movement was a significant factor in that. Maybe it'd have been worth trying to stay in the SM and to get concessions on free movement, but it's unlikely that would have been successful. So, unless there's a major shift in the public mood, it is democratically correct and electorally necessary to accept that we're leaving the EU & SM. Sharpe's Fox is right, too, that it could be a stance that brings down the Tory govt and puts Labour in power to enact its policies - the party's purpose. I reckon Starmer has played a strategic blinder in tricky circumstances (split Lab electorate, split parliamentary party).

 

Staying in the CU is a good idea, anyway.I don't see how you could have 2 different customs regimes and avoid a hard border. The Irish border is 300+ miles long with hundreds of crossings and a lot of cross-border trade, 90% of it by small traders/farmers. How could you police that with high-tech and approved trader status? Also, how could either nation tell that goods in the back of a truck crossing the border met their own standards? If customs controls are unnecessary with 2 different customs regimes, would you eliminate all customs controls vis-à-vis France, Holland & Germany, too?

 

The case for leaving the CU also relies on confidence that Davis will be able to negotiate a good trade deal with the EU despite leaving the CU - and that Fox will be able to negotiate trade deals to replace 70+ existing external deals and make others that the EU hasn't managed to negotiate - and that the UK as a nation of 65m will be able to negotiate better deals (from a position of desperation) than the EU can as the world's richest trading bloc, with 500m people and a much wider range/weight of trade. I simply don't believe that.

 

9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Tbf I don't think those that support staying in the/a CU are opposed to being in the SM. But staying in the SM is politically impossible because of the lack of control over immigration so from a policy point of view it has to be this way to appeal to a broader coalition of voters.

Nothing to do with good idea or bad idea. In reality, the good idea would be leave CU and stay in SM. (Of the two)

 

8 hours ago, MattP said:

But it won't. While Labour have any chance of winning an election we aren't going to the polls until 2022.

 

You might be right, but I wouldn't be so sure.

 

Doesn't your prediction assume 1 of 3 scenarios: (1) that the EU cave in and agree a fudge on the Irish border; or (2) that May insists on leaving the CU, very few Tory Remainers rebel and Parliament votes it through; or (3) May caves in, agrees to a CU of some kind, and the Hard Brexiteers accept this?

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression there's little chance of scenario (1). I think you're relying on scenario (2), but there might be more Tory Remainers prepared to rebel than you think - and fewer Labour Brexiteers ready to forego the chance to bring down the govt and get their party the chance of power at an election. Maybe scenario (3) could happen, if someone like Gove persuades the Brexiteers to accept a Soft Brexit to get the Exit over the line, with the aim of hardening it up in future years - but I wouldn't bank on the Hard Brexit crew being prepared to go along with that....and the final vote will have to effectively be a confidence vote, won't it?

 

Btw, I'm not assuming that Labour would then win any early election - indeed some on the Tory side might fancy their chances of a better result than 2017, particularly if they can agree on a quick party coup to get rid of May.

I just think you're over-estimating the likelihood of the May govt lasting until 2022.

[Kopfkino]

41 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Staying in the CU is a good idea, anyway.

 

Tbh Alf, the only way that is true is if you desperately want Brexit to fail. I dont even know, if the EU's leak this week is right, that it makes the Irish question easier. I mean, will those that support a CU not be the ones that are apolpletic at the thought of US firms competing for NHS contracts when we have no say in trade policy post Brexit. It won't bother me if they do but I'm sure those that favour staying in the CU will be most inconsolable.

 

A liberal Brexit ftw.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Daily Mail in faux outrage in attempt to pretend to readers they didn’t realise this was a possibility...

 

EU must be joking! Brussels wants British holidaymakers to pay £6 visa fee when they visit one of 27 European nations after Brexit

• Under new plans Brits will have to apply to go to European nations with a £6 fee
• The new system will apply to countries outside the European Economic Area
• Britain will be affected if the government gets its wish to exit the customs union

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5657345/British-holidaymakers-heading-Europe-face-6-visa-fee-Brexit.html#ixzz5Dow3TJLd 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Webbo]

Staying in the customs union won't solve the Irish border issue. Without aligned standards i.e. the single market there will have to be checks. Staying the customs union won't just mean that we can't make our own deals but if the EU sign a deal with say the US we'll have to accept their goods without them having to accept ours. 

 

it's blatantly an attempt to make being outside the EU so intolerable we 'll want to rejoin.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Webbo said:

Staying in the customs union won't solve the Irish border issue. Without aligned standards i.e. the single market there will have to be checks. Staying the customs union won't just mean that we can't make our own deals but if the EU sign a deal with say the US we'll have to accept their goods without them having to accept ours. 

 

it's blatantly an attempt to make being outside the EU so intolerable we 'll want to rejoin.

Straight question:

 

Often leavers say that they voted to join a common market (this may or may not apply to you) but don't like what the EU grew into. 

 

So they recognise the trade benefits but don't want the other bits. Surely being in the customs union - which will at least take some of the pain out of cross border movement of goods etc -coupled with a free trade agreement would put us pretty much back in.a place where that rather large group of people would have been happy?

[Innovindil]

Imo if we're staying in the customs union we might aswell stay in altogether. If the aim is to maintain the status quo then what's the point of leaving at all. Seems like the worst of both worlds. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Imo if we're staying in the customs union we might aswell stay in altogether. If the aim is to maintain the status quo then what's the point of leaving at all. Seems like the worst of both worlds. 

Absolutely agree. Let's stay in.

The failure here is by the leaders of vote leave who have failed even now to come up with anything approximating evidence that we'll be successful outside. If you're a leaver worried by the growing confidence of remainders and soft Brexiteers then it's the likes of Liam Fox you should be going after. Unfortunately the leave campaign is defined by the worse set of politicians imaginable - IDS, Boris, Farage, Fox, JRM - a group that could never be taken seriously on anything in normal times.

[breadandcheese]

7 hours ago, Webbo said:

Staying in the customs union won't solve the Irish border issue. Without aligned standards i.e. the single market there will have to be checks. Staying the customs union won't just mean that we can't make our own deals but if the EU sign a deal with say the US we'll have to accept their goods without them having to accept ours. 

 

it's blatantly an attempt to make being outside the EU so intolerable we 'll want to rejoin.

Absolutely. This was always the EU's plan as they're facing an existential crisis. They do not want the UK to thrive outside the EU. This is a divorce and these are ridiculously costly, which is why I voted to remain.

 

The whole thing with the Irish border is a confusing one in that it is the EU's external border so it's for them to police the border of the customs union and stop goods being smuggled in. We could leave it to them.

 

The approach of the EU does lead to the unthinkable question of at what point do we treat them as a hostile power? This is not something I want to see but already, we're seeing them looking to steal areas of our economic prosperity, destabilise the union of the UK and even potentially shut us out of Galileo, which has implications for our security.

 

 

Edited 27 April 2018 by breadandcheese

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

 

 

 

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Straight question:

 

Often leavers say that they voted to join a common market (this may or may not apply to you) but don't like what the EU grew into. 

 

So they recognise the trade benefits but don't want the other bits. Surely being in the customs union - which will at least take some of the pain out of cross border movement of goods etc -coupled with a free trade agreement would put us pretty much back in.a place where that rather large group of people would have been happy?

The Common Market isn't available anymore and the benefits of it seen to be over rated now. The EU is declining as share of world trade. Being on our own means a more flexible approach with a slimmer decision making apparatus.

 

there's not much of a single market in services which is most of our economy,tariffs worldwide have been reduced massively since we joined, add the billions we pay every year and there isn't much of an advantage being in.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

Absolutely. This was always the EU's plan as they're facing an existential crisis. They do not want the UK to thrive outside the EU. This is a divorce and these are ridiculously costly, which is why I voted to remain.

 

The whole thing with the Irish border is a confusing one in that it is the EU's external border so it's for them to police the border of the customs union and stop goods being smuggled in. We could leave it to them.

 

The approach of the EU does lead to the unthinkable question of at what point do we treat them as a hostile power? This is not something I want to see but already, we're seeing them looking to steal areas of our economic prosperity, destabilise the union of the UK and even potentially shut us out of Galileo, which has implications for our security.

 

 

This Galileo thing is a disgrace. They're saying that they can't trust us with security secrets but they expect us to defend them with our armed services.

 

Tbh I beginning to wish we'd just walk away.

[Alf Bentley]

11 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Tbh Alf, the only way that is true is if you desperately want Brexit to fail. I dont even know, if the EU's leak this week is right, that it makes the Irish question easier. I mean, will those that support a CU not be the ones that are apolpletic at the thought of US firms competing for NHS contracts when we have no say in trade policy post Brexit. It won't bother me if they do but I'm sure those that favour staying in the CU will be most inconsolable.

 

A liberal Brexit ftw.

 

9 hours ago, Webbo said:

Staying in the customs union won't solve the Irish border issue. Without aligned standards i.e. the single market there will have to be checks. Staying the customs union won't just mean that we can't make our own deals but if the EU sign a deal with say the US we'll have to accept their goods without them having to accept ours. 

 

it's blatantly an attempt to make being outside the EU so intolerable we 'll want to rejoin.

 

Some strange assumptions appearing here, notably that a free trade agreement allowing US firms to obtain NHS contracts is more likely via a customs union with the EU than via a Tory govt ideologically committed to privatisation and outsourcing - and desperate for new trade agreements after Brexit. TTIP has been parked on a very slow back-burner, if not in the freezer. Whereas, after a Hard Brexit, the Tory Govt will be keen to sign new trade agreements, with the US an obvious candidate. Given our newfound trade isolation and much smaller economy, the US - particularly under an "America First" President like Trump - will be better positioned to pressurise the UK into unwanted compromises, than to pressurise the EU. Anyway, Trump would probably be pushing at an open door with the Tories as they favour introducing such "private sector efficiency improvements", outsourcing etc.

 

It's true that leaving the SM but staying in the/a CU wouldn't necessarily eliminate all need for border controls, but it would reduce them - and reduce economic disruption, lost trade, lost jobs etc. If controls were limited to product standards to satisfy SM regs, it would be worth exploring whether that could be done away from the border....though this article casts doubt on that:  http://theconversation.com/would-staying-in-a-customs-union-after-brexit-avoid-a-hard-border-with-ireland-92485

 

Certainly, I'd prefer to stay in the SM. I just recognise that any govt has to pay attention to how immigration concerns influenced the referendum result. OK, you're persuading me - maybe it would be better for Labour to commit to staying in the SM soon, but to do that in tandem with a range of strong policies to prevent abuse of cheap labour: strong legal action against employers who only recruit abroad, beefed-up labour inspections to prevent low pay/conditions, legislation to force employers to advertise jobs locally, measures to make unskilled work more attractive to Brits (better pay/conditions/hours, investment in public transport to rural areas and at unsociable hours, where there would be demand etc.).

 

Neither of you suggest alternative ways of avoiding a hard border and the risk of a return to violence. So, I assume that you just think it a risk worth taking for the holy grail of your ideologically-driven neo-liberal project? Webbo, you at least remember what "the Troubles" were like - almost nightly news reports of bombs and shootings in Ulster; bloody outrages in GB; 3500 dead, 47,500+ injured. Maybe a hard border wouldn't cause violence again, and blame would still attach to those who got involved. But it's easy to see how violence by a tiny minority could spiral into something much bigger, given continued mistrust between communities in N. Ireland. Accepting a hard border would be like throwing a lit match into a roomful of inflammable furniture and crossing your fingers, hoping that you didn't cause an inferno. Is your political experiment really worth such a risk?

 

Also, why the insistence on zero compromise from the Brexit side? You have a mandate to leave the EU and arguably some mandate for action on immigration, but no mandate for anything else. Yet there's so much insistence on the most extreme Brexit possible. Imagine if Remain had won 52%-48% and the response had been: "right, we're going for more and more federalism, joining the Euro....we won the referendum and you Brexitmoaners have to shut up with your moaning"?

 

No, Kopf, I genuinely don't want Brexit to fail. After all, unless I emigrate I have to carry on living here - and the success/failure of Brexit is set to play a big part in what sort of life my daughter has. I've accepted that, barring a miraculous shift in public mood, it will happen. I just believe that staying close to the EU will minimise what could be very severe damage to the economy, society and life in the country I come from and live in.

 

Must work now....we'll all find out soon enough, as I reckon the shit's going to hit the fan within months, one way or another.

Edited 27 April 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

This Galileo thing is a disgrace. They're saying that they can't trust us with security secrets but they expect us to defend them with our armed services.

 

Tbh I beginning to wish we'd just walk away.

Defend them from what? Is Europe under attack?

 

We're leaving the EU so they don't want us having access to sensitive EU-related information. How is that unreasonable?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

This Galileo thing is a disgrace. They're saying that they can't trust us with security secrets but they expect us to defend them with our armed services.

 

Tbh I beginning to wish we'd just walk away.

What a bizarre argument. Your other arguments at least can be argued but this one? You want to leave the EU but expect them to still treat us as a member when it comes to their security clearances? This is exactly the sort of issue that hasn't been thought through by leavers. Of course they'll treat us as a third country.

Edited 27 April 2018 by Guest

[DJ Barry Hammond]

9 hours ago, Webbo said:

Staying in the customs union won't solve the Irish border issue. Without aligned standards i.e. the single market there will have to be checks. Staying the customs union won't just mean that we can't make our own deals but if the EU sign a deal with say the US we'll have to accept their goods without them having to accept ours. 

 

it's blatantly an attempt to make being outside the EU so intolerable we 'll want to rejoin.

 

Or never leave. 

[breadandcheese]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Defend them from what? Is Europe under attack?

 

We're leaving the EU so they don't want us having access to sensitive EU-related information. How is that unreasonable?

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

What a bizarre argument. Your other arguments at least can be argued but this one? You want to ledge the EU but expect them to still treat us as a member when it comes to their security clearances? This is exactly the sort of issue that hasn't been thought through by leavers. Of course they'll treat us as a third country.

 

Our European neighbours rely heavily on GCHQ.  It is one of the foremost intelligence services in the world and is comfortably the best in Europe.  We share a lot with our allies across the Channel.

 

If we share sensitive information with them, it is only fair and correct that we are able to use the Galileo programme alongside the EU, especially as we contribute to it.  For me, this is a non-Brexit issue that shouldn't be part of any negotiations, in the same way that sharing intelligence from GCHQ shouldn't be either.  It is a very dangerous negotiating road to go down by the EU, if they start putting security measures on the table.

Edited 27 April 2018 by breadandcheese