Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

Possibly a bit of good news for May & co on Gibraltar.......from the Spanish Left!

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/02/socialist-pedro-sanchez-sworn-new-spanish-pm/

 

"Talks between the outgoing Spanish government and Britain had stalled over the thorny issue of border security with Madrid demanding to police Gibraltar’s airport. Héctor Gómez, PSOE’s international relations secretary, told The Telegraph that he was expecting a “flexible” approach from Mr Sánchez’s government over Gibraltar to ensure that a positive agreement can be reached “as quickly as possible”. “We want a consensus solution that has no negative impact on the dynamics of the local populations and the daily flow of people crossing the border,” Mr Gómez said, noting the importance of Gibraltar to the economy of the towns on the Spanish side of the frontier. “We are committed to a deal that prevents the border becoming an obstacle after Brexit.”

 

Worth noting that Andalusia, the Spanish area bordering Gibraltar, has traditionally been a stronghold for PSOE (Spanish Socialists), though Podemos (alternative Left) have made inroads in recent years. I don't suppose PSOE will want to risk the jobs of their voters in Andalusia, which already has massively high unemployment, due to an impasse over Gibraltar - or a fall in tourists to the Costas (again areas with a big Socialist vote) due to a Brexit No Deal. So the Socialists might be a lot less nationalistic about Gibraltar than the outgoing PP (Conservatives) would have been. Much easier for the PP to win votes by getting nationalistic over Gibraltar.

 

Mind you, the Socialists will do well to hold together any sort of govt and get anything done. They'll need to rely on support from Podemos (Left) & Catalan and Basque nationalists.....a tough ask. I suppose sorting out the Catalan crisis will  be the priority, along with giving the impression that they're a competent, non-corrupt govt so that the Socialists do better in the next election. Cannot see them prioritising a hard line over Brexit/Gibraltar. Cannot see them taking masses of Spanish firms into public ownership, either, as some reckon is inevitable with any Socialist Govt. 

[Strokes]

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Interesting stuff. Interesting not least that a wealthy hedge fund manager feels entitled to publicly tell the elected govt who it should appoint as PM. 

 

Interesting, too, that his hedge fund seems to have gambled massively on the UK economy and stock market doing badly and interest rates rising.

As a result, his hedge fund seems to have lost 95% of its value (due to the UK economy not crashing as quickly as he and others predicted) - and is exposed to a further massive loss in June:

https://www.ft.com/content/27c53024-3da1-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

Oh I’m quite sure you’re right he has a vested interest. It seems everybody who comments on brexit has a tainted readoning for their view if you dig deep enough.

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If he wants a Brexiteer to lead the party he's funding, though I do think  he's backing the right horse. Gove has an awareness of the need for strategic, not purely ideological thinking - and the need for the Tories to appeal to people apart from Tory Brexiteers. Surely Boris is now a busted flush? People found him entertaining for a long time, but these are serious times and serious issues, so there is less appeal in having a PM who acts like a TV comedian playing for laughs. Davis and Fox just seem like a pair of dimwits - not up to the job. Like Boris, JRM has some intelligence  and some entertainment value - and unlike any of the others, apart from Gove, he does some serious thinking. But I just cannot imagine the wider public voting in a govt led by someone as personally peculiar and ideologically inflexible as him. I could see circumstances in which a Tory party led by Gove could win the next election, whenever that is.

 

However, I cannot see anyone mounting a challenge to May until the final deal is agreed (or definitely not agreed). It would surely be seen as disruptive and traitorous by Tories and the wider public if a challenge were launched while negotiations were still ongoing? If it all collapses in June or September, or if the final deal involves a lot more climbdowns, someone like Gove could "regretfully" challenge May - and might be able to hold the Tory party together.

I think he should, something has to change, May hasn’t got the right head and the balls to stand upto Juncker and Barnier. Even if she wins a challenge it gives her more clout.

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Hedge fund bod's criticism of May is a bit unfair, though. Maybe she is a bit of a cautious, fence-sitting would-be-civil-servant, but she took up a poisoned chalice. How could anyone have done more to hold a massively divided Tory party together?

The shame is that this has been the PM's main goal: to keep her party together - potentially leaving the nation in chaos within a year, given the lack of clear policies or advance planning.

 

On a personal level, I found Sajid Javid quite impressive on Marr this morning. I don't want any Tory doing well, but it was strangely refreshing to see a minister who seemed up to the job and with some ideas and priorities. Competence seems to be in short supply in this shambolic govt.

Yeah I’m very impressed with Sajid, I definitely think he has a big future for the conservatives.

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

In fairness, just before the referendum, Nigel Farage said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain camp wins two-thirds to one-third that ends it".

I don't think there will be another referendum (and as a Remain voter/supporter I don't think there should be) but people shouldn't be called out for campaigning for another one, particularly not after the man who campaigned so vociferously to leave said a Remain vote of 52-48 would be "unfinished business".

No I agree but unless there is a huge swing in public opinion and I don’t think we are their yet. I don’t think campaigning for a second referendum is particularly in good taste. We haven’t even enacted the results of the last one and as countryfox says how long does the tit for tat go on for?

Once we have left or at least negotiations have been concluded fair enough.....

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

In fairness, just before the referendum, Nigel Farage said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain camp wins two-thirds to one-third that ends it".

I don't think there will be another referendum (and as a Remain voter/supporter I don't think there should be) but people shouldn't be called out for campaigning for another one, particularly not after the man who campaigned so vociferously to leave said a Remain vote of 52-48 would be "unfinished business".

Particularly when a clear majority now believes Brexit is the wrong move, and have done for several months now. Is it democratic to continue with something that you know no longer has popular support without asking again?

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Particularly when a clear majority now believes Brexit is the wrong move, and have done for several months now. Is it democratic to continue with something that you know no longer has popular support without asking again?

What on one poll you think it’s clear?

[Countryfox]

37 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

In fairness, just before the referendum, Nigel Farage said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain camp wins two-thirds to one-third that ends it".

I don't think there will be another referendum (and as a Remain voter/supporter I don't think there should be) but people shouldn't be called out for campaigning for another one, particularly not after the man who campaigned so vociferously to leave said a Remain vote of 52-48 would be "unfinished business".

 

Hes just another one covering his arse in case the vote went against him ..   I’d say the same to him as I did to Toddy ..  build a fookin bridge Nige ! ...

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Think we all voted for the same thing, that the only legislature enabled by the constitution to create, enact or repeal UK law is to be the UK House of Commons. What we disagree on is what those laws should be. Ain’t I right? @Strokes @Webbo @MattP

 

It’s a bit cheeky for a Tory lite labour voter, to tell us we don’t know what we voted for. 

[Countryfox]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Particularly when a clear majority now believes Brexit is the wrong move, and have done for several months now. Is it democratic to continue with something that you know no longer has popular support without asking again?

 

Jeez you just can’t leave it can you ..   how do you know that ?? ..   have I missed something? ..   have we had a secret poll of all the voting public ?? ...    it’s democratic to support the decision of the majority...  end of.

[Buce]

 

I wonder what became of Rog?

 

 

 

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I wonder what became of Rog?

 

 

 

No doubt he’ll be back soon in a different guise 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Think we all voted for the same thing, that the only legislature enabled by the constitution to create, enact or repeal UK law is to be the UK House of Commons. What we disagree on is what those laws should be. Ain’t I right? @Strokes @Webbo @MattP

 

 

That's largely true, I suppose. As I understand it, you want to take back national control so as to build "socialism in one country", a sort of Stalinist utopia. Whereas your Thatcherite bedfellows want to take back national control so as to build some sort of postmodern British Empire 2.0 based on cheap imports to help Africa (and destroy British jobs) and unprecedented British success in global export markets, presumably achieved by slashing corporate tax, public services and the living standards of "hard-working families". It really isn't a friendship built to last, is it? 

 

Would be good to know where you stand on a few issues, though:

- If May comes back with a rubbish final deal, would the Commons be justified in voting down that deal or would it be obliged to accept it as "the will of the people"?

- What should happen if the Commons does vote the deal down? Send her and Davis back to renegotiate? Call another referendum on the terms of the deal negotiated? Call a general election - and, if so, what would the Lab stance be?

- What's your stance on the Single Market and Customs Union? Out of both but try to negotiate a good deal to protect UK jobs/trade, I assume?

- If so, what should happen about the Irish border?

- As we'll definitely lose at least some of our trade with the EU, how will we offset that? If by increased global trade, as your Thatcherite mates think, which goods/services and to which countries? If through domestic investment/spending, how will that be funded without global capital causing a national economic crash?

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

No doubt he’ll be back soon in a different guise 

 

Yeah, I suppose.

 

A pity, really, I rather liked his latest incarnation.

[Alf Bentley]

50 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Jeez you just can’t leave it can you ..   how do you know that ?? ..   have I missed something? ..   have we had a secret poll of all the voting public ?? ...    it’s democratic to support the decision of the majority...  end of.

 

As a Remainer (with reservations), I agree that the recent shift in polls towards a narrow Remain majority is not yet grounds enough to reconsider the Leave vote.

 

It's absolutely justified to dispute the terms of Brexit as all we did was vote to Leave the EU, with no route map as to how. People who want to campaign for another referendum are entitled to do so, just as Farage & Co did when there was an established majority for staying in the EU. But I disagree with the idea of another referendum now. We don't view an elected govt as invalid just because it has been behind in the polls for a few months. It would risk disillusionment with the democratic process and could even risk violence in the streets if a second referendum were called now.

 

But IF May/Davis come back with a rubbish final deal or no deal at all, and IF there is much greater opposition to that, then the situation changes for me. This is a massive decision that will affect the nation for decades ahead. Come September, if we  are presented with a deal that a large majority of people are unhappy with - or we are set to crash out with no deal and people are mainly unhappy with that - then there WILL be grounds for another vote.  Once the final deal or non-deal is confirmed, if say 70%+ of the public were opposed to it, then there'd need to be some means of reconsidering it - either parliament sending the govt back to renegotiate (if possible) or a referendum allowing people to vote to reverse the Leave vote and stay in the EU - or to proceed and Leave on the terms negotiated (if any).

 

IF May/Davis come back with a deal or non-deal that doesn't cause much shift in public opinion (i.e. support for Leave or only narrow support for Remain, like now), then the only dispute should be over the terms - via Parliament and an election, if need be, not a referendum. 

[Izzy]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, I suppose.

 

A pity, really, I rather liked his latest incarnation.

I thought he posted some good stuff but his hate for May and the Tories was a bit relentless.

 

We clashed a lot but generally it was harmless bantz. 

 

An interesting fella to say the very least!!

[Nick]

24 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I thought he posted some good stuff but his hate for May and the Tories was a bit relentless.

 

We clashed a lot but generally it was harmless bantz. 

 

An interesting fella to say the very least!!

Has he died?

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Has he died?

Nah, I think Moose is immortal 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

What on one poll you think it’s clear?

 

12 hours ago, toddybad said:

Bigger lead for remain than leave won by in 2016.

 

Whilst I take Alf's point that it would need to be after the deal is reached, that is the idea and it needs to be legislated for now.

 

Whilst I won't deny wanting a referendum as it might overturn Brexit, I still can't see that there is any legitimate argument for leavers in saying that because they won the kat vote there isn't allowed to be any more democracy until theur wishes are carried out.

 

This is too big an issue, and the country is too divided, to not ensure there is a democratic mandate for the precise deal we get offered.

 

Besides, from the leaver perspective, you'll still have swathes of North England voting leave so if you win again it will end the argument and the continued bickering. It would be good if we could have a big win for one side or other or I fear problems are ahead.

[Strokes]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

Bigger lead for remain than leave won by in 2016.

 

Whilst I take Alf's point that it would need to be after the deal is reached, that is the idea and it needs to be legislated for now.

 

Whilst I won't deny wanting a referendum as it might overturn Brexit, I still can't see that there is any legitimate argument for leavers in saying that because they won the kat vote there isn't allowed to be any more democracy until theur wishes are carried out.

 

This is too big an issue, and the country is too divided, to not ensure there is a democratic mandate for the precise deal we get offered.

 

Besides, from the leaver perspective, you'll still have swathes of North England voting leave so if you win again it will end the argument and the continued bickering. It would be good if we could have a big win for one side or other or I fear problems are ahead.

The polls on the day of the referendum had similar looks and that ended up being wrong. With that poll leave could still win within the margin of error and it’s completely discounting other polls that suggest its much tighter than that. It’s still much too close for any government to think the nation has changed its mind and if you’re honest you know it too....

[Strokes]

21 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Has he died?

Gone too Oman I think....

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's largely true, I suppose. As I understand it, you want to take back national control so as to build "socialism in one country", a sort of Stalinist utopia. Whereas your Thatcherite bedfellows want to take back national control so as to build some sort of postmodern British Empire 2.0 based on cheap imports to help Africa (and destroy British jobs) and unprecedented British success in global export markets, presumably achieved by slashing corporate tax, public services and the living standards of "hard-working families". It really isn't a friendship built to last, is it? 

 

Would be good to know where you stand on a few issues, though:

- If May comes back with a rubbish final deal, would the Commons be justified in voting down that deal or would it be obliged to accept it as "the will of the people"?

- What should happen if the Commons does vote the deal down? Send her and Davis back to renegotiate? Call another referendum on the terms of the deal negotiated? Call a general election - and, if so, what would the Lab stance be?

- What's your stance on the Single Market and Customs Union? Out of both but try to negotiate a good deal to protect UK jobs/trade, I assume?

- If so, what should happen about the Irish border?

- As we'll definitely lose at least some of our trade with the EU, how will we offset that? If by increased global trade, as your Thatcherite mates think, which goods/services and to which countries? If through domestic investment/spending, how will that be funded without global capital causing a national economic crash?

What do you think to the (in my opinion likely scenario) that May delivers a shit deal too Parliament and the remainiacs vote it down. What do you think the EU do next? I don’t think they will re-negotiate at this point and will send May back as a take it or leave it, where does that leave your thinking? Is there any thoughts that no deal is better than a bad deal?

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The polls on the day of the referendum had similar looks and that ended up being wrong. With that poll leave could still win within the margin of error and it’s completely discounting other polls that suggest its much tighter than that. It’s still much too close for any government to think the nation has changed its mind and if you’re honest you know it too....

Yeah it is. I don't deny that. It's really of secondary importance though. Even if a variant of leave (by which I mean either accept the deal and leave or reject and leave) was to win a second ref I think it would help to end the turmoil across the political scene.

 

Let's be honest, atm there is disharmony in society and parliament regarding Brexit. There's no way I'll stop railing against it based on the 1.9% swing from neutrality that we saw in the referendum. Particularly given, and this is where I'd say you know it, that nobody really know what they were voting for. Whilst you can talk up sovereignty as the be all and end all now, we both know that leave campaigners were saying very different things before the ref than they are now. 

 

Let's be honest, I'm calling for it mainly because I'd like to see us remain. But a knock on would be that a leave win would end the debate. The only reason a leaves has to deny a ref is fear of losing it.

Edited 3 June 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What do you think to the (in my opinion likely scenario) that May delivers a shit deal too Parliament and the remainiacs vote it down. What do you think the EU do next? I don’t think they will re-negotiate at this point and will send May back as a take it or leave it, where does that leave your thinking? Is there any thoughts that no deal is better than a bad deal?

There is no possible deal that would be anywhere near as bad as no deal.

[Strokes]

47 minutes ago, toddybad said:

There is no possible deal that would be anywhere near as bad as no deal.

Any deal imo 

 

49 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yeah it is. I don't deny that. It's really of secondary importance though. Even if a variant of leave (by which I mean either accept the deal and leave or reject and leave) was to win a second ref I think it would help to end the turmoil across the political scene.

 

Let's be honest, atm there is disharmony in society and parliament regarding Brexit. There's no way I'll stop railing against it based on the 1.9% swing from neutrality that we saw in the referendum. Particularly given, and this is where I'd say you know it, that nobody really know what they were voting for. Whilst you can talk up sovereignty as the be all and end all now, we both know that leave campaigners were saying very different things before the ref than they are now. 

 

Let's be honest, I'm calling for it mainly because I'd like to see us remain. But a knock on would be that a leave win would end the debate. The only reason a leaves has to deny a ref is fear of losing it.

 

The margin of error could easily be the other way, we could be looking at only 40% Leave.

Of course we fear losing a second ref, some of us have been waiting for this moment for decades and would at least like to leave before we ask are you sure.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

What do you think to the (in my opinion likely scenario) that May delivers a shit deal too Parliament and the remainiacs vote it down. What do you think the EU do next? I don’t think they will re-negotiate at this point and will send May back as a take it or leave it, where does that leave your thinking? Is there any thoughts that no deal is better than a bad deal?

 

I'll answer your second hypothetical question, but don't think it will apply. I cannot imagine how any bad deal could possibly be worse than no deal. If there was no deal, we'd have no agreement covering the 3m EU citizens in the UK or the 1m UK citizens in the EU - what would happen to them after March 2019? We'd presumably be in international legal dispute with the EU over the provisionally agreed divorce payment (with the ECJ/ICJ presiding?). We'd presumably have a hard border in Ireland, with all the disruption and risks that entails. We'd be out of countless pan-European institutions that we find useful (security, arrest warrants, education/research, food safety etc.). We'd presumably be trading on WTO terms, with tariffs and non-tariff barriers - with the EU and with dozens of other nations worldwide with which it had free trade agreements. By that stage, we would have NO global trade agreements to replace those lost agreements. We'd have to legislate on EU immigration by March - and legislate on how to fill vacancies in sectors where we rely on EU workers, including skilled professions. We'd have 6 months to establish the physical infrastructure at ports and the I.T. infrastructure to handle a massive (fivefold?) increase in customs documentation - a completely impossible task in 6 months, on both counts. The City of London would presumably survive due to its expertise, but take a big hit. I'd anticipate massive disruption on every level: economic, social, logistical.... This, in turn, would leave employers, particularly international firms, having to make future plans much quicker than if there's a deal - with at least some of them moving some/all production abroad or going bust (domestic employers dependent on supply chain). No Deal = the biggest disaster for this country since WW2. Hard to predict what would happen next - some sort of social meltdown? Even a bad deal (e.g. agreement on UK/EU citizens & divorce payment, hard border/botch-job in Ireland, out of CU & SM, no trade deal but transition period to Dec 2020) would be infinitely better than No Deal.

 

I'm sure you won't foresee that disastrous outcome from No Deal - and I might well be wrong about some of it. But I do see No Deal as massively high-risk, potentially utterly disastrous. Guess we'll have to wait and see....

 

Part of the reason why I don't think that scenario will unfold is because it would cause a lot of damage to the EU. Much more damage to us, but quite a lot to them, too.

 

I presume that, by the time any deal goes to Parliament (and to the EU Council & Parliament), it will be clear whether it is "take it or leave it" or not. Some Remainiac MPs (or Brexshit MPs, depending on the deal) would presumably vote differently depending on whether or not it was "take it or leave it". Why would the EU insist on a harsh deal and make it "take it or leave it", risking a cliff-edge Brexit that will damage everyone? I can understand some Brexiteers wanting that, but my assumption is that the EU would like the UK to stay as close to the EU as possible - and preferably to remain in the EU. Political calculations will be ongoing on every side, but the EU might insist on a harsh deal in the hope that the UK turns against leaving the CU/SM or even against leaving the EU. This could happen by various means: e.g. govt climbdown, change of govt, parliamentary vote to stay in CU/SM or change in general public mood leading to a second referendum.

 

This whole situation seems a lot more fluid and uncertain than most people think. For a start, various amendments are still pending in Parliament aren't they - to allow the Commons a final say on the negotiated deal, to force the govt to negotiate a customs union, to join the EEA, to incorporate the Good Friday Agreement into the deal etc? I've no idea which, if any, of those will be passed by the Commons (all passed by the Lords)....but that will affect processes after any agreement, and the calculations of the EU beforehand.

 

If there is some "take it or leave it" scenario, then might it not be the Brexiteers who vote down such a deal: e.g. if May climbs down on customs arrangements to keep the Irish border open and/or if there's no meaningful progress on a future EU/UK trade deal. Wouldn't the Brexiteers opt for a cliff-edge Brexit in that case? The assumption is that Labour wouldn't ally with the Tory Right, but they might do so to bring down May's govt and force an election. Is that any less likely than the new alliance between you and Sharpe's Fox? 

 

There are so many players in this big poker game, I find it impossible to predict what will happen in the next couple of months, never mind by the October deadline or March 2019. There's also the fact that the divorce deal has to be approved by 20 out of 27 EU members accounting for 65% of EU population - while any future EU/UK trade deal can be vetoed by a single EU nation.

 

Here are some of the players/factors that could tilt the game one way or another (and I've doubtless forgotten some): the EU collectively; individual EU nations (e.g. Fr/Ger/Ire/Sp/Pol); votes in UK parliament; decisions of UK govt; political calculations by different Tory factions; calculations of Labour or its factions; stance of DUP; number of MPs prepared to vote against the whip - and whether whips calculate this correctly; any shifts in UK public opinion; developments in UK economy; developments in EU economy (esp. re. the EU/US trade war); events in EU (e.g. instability in Italy & Spain - even Germany).......and, of course, the closer we get to March 2019, the higher the stakes for everyone, but especially us. If we end up in a No Deal scenario in, say, October, what state of readiness would anyone, but particularly the UK be in by March 2019? The clock is ticking for everyone - but particularly for us.

 

Remain > Soft Brexit > Hard Brexit deal with transition period > Hard Brexit deal without transition period > No Deal scenario now > No Deal in October > No Deal at last minute. 

[Guest]

Have to say that Alf's by far the best poster on this thread.

Can't argue with any of the above.