Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-calls-for-second-referendum-as-he-tells-meps-data-scandal-caused-a3855216.html

 

Sorry if this has been posted already.  According to what this guys says another referendum doesnt sound un-reasonable?

 

My only thought is the debate wouldnt improve in quality even if we had another referendum, and could we guarantee prevention of another camridge analytica influencing it in the same way?  I think we couldnt

 

The problem with the last referendum - and I presume all referendums - is the way it turns into an election campaign with two sides throwing lies at each other. 

 

I wish we had a world where the two sides could get together, agree on the similarities and differences the two approaches would have in the real world, and produce a single agreed document that set out the real choices.

 

Alas, it is all lies and underhanded use of statistics. 

Edited 6 June 2018 by Guest

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-calls-for-second-referendum-as-he-tells-meps-data-scandal-caused-a3855216.html

 

Sorry if this has been posted already.  According to what this guys says another referendum doesnt sound un-reasonable?

 

My only thought is the debate wouldnt improve in quality even if we had another referendum, and could we guarantee prevention of another camridge analytica influencing it in the same way?  I think we couldnt

 

The bottom paragraph is sadly the entire point here, and one of the key reasons why there really shouldn't be a second referendum. (Others of course include muddying the water still further and causing still more division and antipathy.)

 

Truth is, the public can't really be sure how far the democratic process has been interfered with in this way, or even if it has at all. Which sources, exactly, can be trusted and which can't, considering that everyone seems to have an agenda?

 

And all the time this results in dithering and if there is interference going on, those doing it can sit back and grin knowing that things are proceeding pretty much as planned.

[Guest]

Interesting

 

Keir Starmer's Today interview on Labour's Brexit position - Summary

Here is a summary of the main points from Sir Keir Starmer’s Today interview.

• Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said Labour would not be ordering its MPs to vote for the UK to stay in the EEA (European Economic Area) because the party was split on this issue. (See 9.12am.) This was one of the 15 amendments added to the EU withdrawal bill in the House of Lords as a result of government defeats. The government will seek to take out this amendment, and some or all of the other 15, when MPs debate the bill on Tuesday next week. Some Labour MPs want the party to vote for staying in the EEA, and believe that if Labour imposed a whip and if enough Tories rebelled, the government could lose. But Starmer said the parliamentary Labour party as a whole would not support the EEA amendment. Referring to the Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who has said the party should back it, Starmer said:

He knows, and others who are critical on this know, that this amendment does not command that support in their own party. I’ve been talking to colleagues for the last two or three weeks to gauge the views across our party. I wish I could report that we had complete unity on all amendments but we are not in that position.

[Umunna and others] know as well as I do that their own colleagues in the party are indicating they are not prepared to vote for this. The only way we can win a vote is if Labour is united and we all vote together in the same way at the same time. That’s how we can defeat the government ...

The pretence that somehow everybody in the Labour party is in the same place on this [the EEA amendment] and therefore it is winnable is a pretence. And it really doesn’t help.

• He said that Labour could achieve “a whole catalogue of victories” over the government in the debate on the EU withdrawal bill on Tuesday next week. The government was defeated on 15 votes (full list here) and will seek to overturn some or all of those defeats. Starmer suggested Labour would at least three of those votes.

The only way we can win a vote is if Labour is united and we all vote together in the same way at the same time. That’s how we can defeat the government .

I’m determined that we are going to do that on the customs union, on the meaningful vote, on the Northern Ireland no hard border amendments last week, and I hope that we can have a whole catalogue of victories against the government. I actually think the government is going to have to concede in the face of the challenge.

The customs union amendment only obliges the government to make a statement to parliament about the steps it has taken to keep the UK in the customs union (easy - “none”) and there is increasing speculation that the government will decide to accept this, on the grounds that it won’t change policy, rather than lose the vote. It could conceivably accept the Northern Ireland amendment too, which just says Brexit should not lead to a hard border with Ireland or undermine the Good Friday agreement, something the government says is policy already, although ministers fear having this written down could constrain their options. But the ‘meaningful vote’ amendment is genuinely significant; it would ensure that a vote against the withdrawal agreement in the autumn would not automatically lead to the UK leaving the EU with no deal.

• He said that his private talks with EU negotiators led him to believe that Brussels was willing to offer the UK a deal that would allow it keep most of the benefits of being in the single market without being in the EEA. When it was put to him that what Labour was proposing in its amendment amounted to “cakeism” (wanting to have one’s cake and eat it), he replied:

What the EU negotiators have said time and time again is, if the red lines change, the prime minister’s red lines, there’s a different negotiation to be had. In my discussions with them obviously in confidence, and I’m not going to betray that confidence, it is clear that what they mean by that is that, if we signal that we want a close economic relationship with the EU going forward, there is a conversation and negotiation to be had and it will involve some of the tools in the Norway-style toolbox.

He also insisted that the ‘have cake and eat it’ criticism had been wrongly made of Labour policy before.

When I first announced that we should have transitional measures on the same terms as now, which I did last summer, everybody said that’s just ‘cake and eat it’. It is now accepted as the only sensible basis for transition. When we set out our position on the customs union three or four months ago, everyone said, ‘Well, that’s cake and eat it.’ Now the government knows that if that proposition is going to be put to a vote, it’s going to lose it. So we will take this a little bit with a pinch of salt.

[Guest MattP]

Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said Labour would not be ordering its MPs to vote for the UK to stay in the EEA (European Economic Area) because the party was split on this issue. 

 

I knew Corbyn was important to Brexit but my word, he's actually managed to kill the Customs Union amendment right when it looked like parliament was going to be ready for vote for it, a genius.

 

What a man, he has to stay until 2022.

[Guest Kopfkino]

I think this is the most cake so far

 

 

[Guest MattP]

 

Not even serious.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Isn't that what the Tory Scum want too?

 

And have been told they cant have by EU! 

 

They will never allow that its 'the best of both worlds' 'having your cake and eating it etc'

 

If only dealing with the EU were that easy, we might not be in a Brexit situation anyway.

 

Its almost like Labour are making up bullshit so they can accept a crap deal and say 'well yes we tried to get this this and this and they said no!' do they honestly think we are that thick! 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Isn't that what the Tory Scum want too?

 

And have been told they cant have by EU! 

 

They will never allow that its 'the best of both worlds' 'having your cake and eating it etc'

 

If only dealing with the EU were that easy, we might not be in a Brexit situation anyway.

 

Its almost like Labour are making up bullshit so they can accept a crap deal and say 'well yes we tried to get this this and this and they said no!' do they honestly think we are that thick! 

 

 

 

 

The difference is labour won't have the tory red lines so there's more room for negotiating - freedom of movement is back on the table, for example.

[Guest Kopfkino]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The difference is labour won't have the tory red lines so there's more room for negotiating - freedom of movement is back on the table, for example.

 

Does FoM mean you can defy the laws of a customs union?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

8 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Does FoM mean you can defy the laws of a customs union?

Were going to a have a big red customs union, not just for the few but for the many hard working folk of this nation. This will be a fairer, better, redder customs union than ever before. 

 

*Belt out Red Flag whilst saluting comrade Corbyn*

 

Then a rendition of

 

*Oh Jeremy Corbyn*

[Guest]

 

The next week is going to be fraught within the labour party imo 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Does FoM mean you can defy the laws of a customs union?

No but it means the EU will be more amenable to offering is a sensible Brexit.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

No but it means the EU will be more amenable to offering is a sensible Brexit.

But it goes against everything that the North and Midlands Labour heartlands voted for.

 

On the positive if they every action this and negotiate to allow FOM they Labour will be unelectable in former loyal tribal strongholds.

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

The next week is going to be fraught within the labour party imo 

It won't, as usual. The moderates will whine a bit and then take it. Corbyn has them right where he wants them.

[Buce]

28 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

But it goes against everything that the North and Midlands Labour heartlands voted for.

 

On the positive if they every action this and negotiate to allow FOM they Labour will be unelectable in former loyal tribal strongholds.

1

 

You clearly missed the article I posted a few days ago.

 

Figures showed that to be a myth and in fact, it is the Tories who are vulnerable in 80 pro-remain seats.

Edited 6 June 2018 by Buce

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

But it goes against everything that the North and Midlands Labour heartlands voted for.

 

On the positive if they every action this and negotiate to allow FOM they Labour will be unelectable in former loyal tribal strongholds.

I mean, if you want to massively oversimplify everything it might. But then the Tories are making themselves unelectable in cities. We've seen at general and local elections that there is no simple picture for current voting intentions though I will say that Brexit is dominating atm. Once it's done though im less than convinced anybody can predict what happens to voting.

[Strokes]

30 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You clearly missed the article I posted a few days ago.

 

Figures showed that to be a myth and in fact, it is the Tories who are vulnerable in 80 pro-remain seats.

 

That research was done by George soros’s anti brexit campaign group, I’d steer clear of stats produced by them tbh.

[Guest MattP]

31 minutes ago, Buce said:

You clearly missed the article I posted a few days ago.

 

Figures showed that to be a myth and in fact, it is the Tories who are vulnerable in 80 pro-remain seats.

 

Tories are vulnerable in 80 remain seats? That's surely absolute nonsense?

 

I missed the article can you post it, to get upto that figure you would have to be getting into seats like Uxbridge and Maidenhead themselves.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

That research was done by George soros’s anti brexit campaign group, I’d steer clear of stats produced by them tbh.

That makes sense now

[Buce]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Tories are vulnerable in 80 remain seats? That's surely absolute nonsense?

 

I missed the article can you post it, to get upto that figure you would have to be getting into seats like Uxbridge and Maidenhead themselves.

 

I don't have the time, Matt, but you'll find it if you trawl back a few pages - it wasn't more than a few days ago.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That research was done by George soros’s anti brexit campaign group, I’d steer clear of stats produced by them tbh.

 

Make of it what you will, mate.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

56 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You clearly missed the article I posted a few days ago.

 

Figures showed that to be a myth and in fact, it is the Tories who are vulnerable in 80 pro-remain seats.

 

 

45 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I mean, if you want to massively oversimplify everything it might. But then the Tories are making themselves unelectable in cities. We've seen at general and local elections that there is no simple picture for current voting intentions though I will say that Brexit is dominating atm. Once it's done though im less than convinced anybody can predict what happens to voting.

I am sure there is no hard and fast rule. I know for instance around this area which has been a Labour stronghold for decades people are getting seriously fed up with the Labour party, they represent a middle class Islington elite not proper working class midland/northerners. Labour are much more relevant in trendy boroughs of London than in some of their traditional strongholds.

[Alf Bentley]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

Tories are vulnerable in 80 remain seats? That's surely absolute nonsense?

 

I missed the article can you post it, to get upto that figure you would have to be getting into seats like Uxbridge and Maidenhead themselves.

 

No way is Maidenhead vulnerable given May's massive majority, but Boris now only has a 5000 majority (5.4% lead) in Uxbridge. Particularly if the Heathrow expansion goes ahead and he agrees not to openly oppose it, he could easily be vulnerable if there was any significant swing to Labour. No sign of that in the polls yet, but events could change that.

 

80 vulnerable Remain seats seemed high to me, too, but I was only thinking about Tory-Lab marginals. There are also the seats the Tories won off the SNP and a few Tory/LD marginals in the SE & large cities (maybe even the SW if UK fishing interests are not well protected in any deal).

 

I can't be arsed searching for the list of Tory Remain seats, but here's a list of Lab target marginals: http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Surprising to see that there are as many as 80 seats where Labour is less than 5000 votes behind (5% swing).

Admittedly, about 1/4 of them are SNP/Plaid seats and a fair few are Leave-voting seats held narrowly by the Tories.

 

Polling could change in either direction in the coming months, but it's surprising to see how open the next election could be. Labour needs less of a swing than I thought to win a majority.

 

One conclusion from that: if the Brexit Tories want to dump May and have an election, they probably need to do it soon (unless Brexit is an immediate roaring success). Though they'd still have the option of changing leader without an election before 2022.

[breadandcheese]

Am I the only one who doesn't think there's much of a difference between the government and Labour in their position on brexit? 

 

The PM may have given a tough speech of no deal is better than a bad deal, but she will take a deal and that will be one where we end up in the customs union.  At the moment, I get the impression that it is about managing a process to soften up the country and present it as a great deal.  Labour, despite protestations and verbal gymnastics of being a member of a customs union rather than the customs union, are doing the same.

 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Am I the only one who doesn't think there's much of a difference between the government and Labour in their position on brexit? 

 

The PM may have given a tough speech of no deal is better than a bad deal, but she will take a deal and that will be one where we end up in the customs union.  At the moment, I get the impression that it is about managing a process to soften up the country and present it as a great deal.  Labour, despite protestations and verbal gymnastics of being a member of a customs union rather than the customs union, are doing the same.

 

 

Most politicians, like most economists, like most businessmen, see Brexit for the bad idea that it is; they are only going through with it because they haven't got the balls to ignore the 'will of the people'.