Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[bovril]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The fact that the meaning is so easily attached when it comes from Thornberry makes it even more naive, though, really. 

 

Let's say Tommy Robinson uploads a photo of a bunch of women in burkas stood queuing for the job centre, he could add literally zero text but the assumption would still be he was sneering and people would lose their shit over it. 

 

It would be "one interpretation" that he was being offensive but cmon, there's about a 99.9% chance it would be the correct interpretation just as Thornberry probably didn't think "oh, I just loved the lighting of the shot and the way the van was framed in the backdrop against the flags." 

Fair enough. I didn't really know much about her at the time and yes it was incredibly naive. When I first saw it with the caption I thought it was more of a comment on the nature of electioneering and trying to reach out to 'the man on the street', but perhaps I'm attributing too much intelligence and nuance to her.

 

Don't agree with your TM comparison either. Big difference between tweeting photos of people and inanimate objects. We're not Americans, it's just a flag ffs. 

Edited 27 September 2018 by bovril

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I suspect that it mainly depends what Labour means by its "test" on migration, which is worded very vaguely.

If it means that Labour would insist on ending freedom of movement, I'd agree with you. There's as little chance of the EU allowing SM benefits without freedom of movement as there is of them agreeing to May's different cake agenda.

 

However, if the EU and a hypothetical Labour Govt adopted a flexible approach to immigration, it might unblock the impasse. Agreement on the other 5 tests would be possible if an agreement on migration were possible, I think.

It's politically impossible for the EU to allow an opt-out from freedom of movement - and politically impossible for Labour not to address the immigration issue.

But what if the UK signs up to freedom of movement but the EU allows a temporary, partial restriction for several years (there are precedents) and Labour legislates on the issue in the UK forcing employers to seek British job applicants, carrying out more employment inspections etc?

 

It's interesting that the test on migration is worded so vaguely. Doesn't say "no freedom of movement", only "fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities".

 

If the migration issue could be resolved, SM/CU benefits might be feasible, though we'd be giving up our seat at the table and would still presumably be accepting European Court rulings. A lot of people would be unhappy about that, but I'm not sure it's a deal-breaker in the same way that freedom of movement / immigration is....

 

The other surprising thing about those Six Tests: there's nothing about a UK Govt having the right to nationalise utilities, to run a deficit/debt greater than that allowed under EMU or to invest more in industry. I assumed this was part of the reason for Corbyn's Euroscepticism: feeling that EU membership prevented such economic intervention. Presumably he's been persuaded that he could negotiate a Soft Brexit deal that would allow Labour to pursue such policies or that current EU rules aren't a major obstacle.

 

To some extent, Labour is already better placed to do a divorce deal as they're open to "a Customs Union", which would address the Irish border issue - the most urgent obstacle - while the Tories are not.

If that issue can be resolved, that unlocks the transition period to December 2020 - and there's every prospect of the immediate deal on future EU-UK relations being a fudge outlining broad intentions, to be negotiated over the next 2 years.

 

Of course, there'll probably never be a Corbyn-led govt, so this is all irrelevant and it's what happens in the Tory party that matters! 

Didn't Cameron fail to get immigration concessions hence the referendum? 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

23 minutes ago, bovril said:

how on earth was it "racist"? I don't understand why she felt the need to tweet it, but equally not sure quite why everyone lost their shit about it. I thought it was quite a good provincial England kind of shot.

Funniest bit was when they interviewed the guy and he actually turned out to be the cliched white van man.

I am just being facetious, I could not really care less but many do! 

 

Surely they have a point it is a bit racist to stereotype in a negative way a particular type of demographic/groups of people (i.e. white working class men who drive wans, smoke, drink and hang flags out of their council house).

 

I am sure if some member of the right or a Tory made a comment about Taxi drivers, bus drivers and part of their identity the PC brigade would be all over it. 

Edited 27 September 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

Fair enough. I didn't really know much about her at the time and yes it was incredibly naive. When I first saw it with the caption I thought it was more of a comment on the nature of electioneering and trying to reach out to 'the man on the street', but perhaps I'm attributing too much intelligence and nuance to her.

 

Don't agree with your TM comparison either. Big difference between tweeting photos of people and inanimate objects. We're not Americans, it's just a flag ffs. 

 

It wasn't just a flag though, was it, it was someone's home. 

 

I'm not saying it was crime of the century, if it was anyone other than a politician it'd be shrugged off as a bit of good old British piss taking. 

 

Frankie Boyle posts the picture with the caption "WHAT A CHAV TWAT LOL" and everyone pisses themselves laughing, the owner of the house probably even laughs and boasts that he got roasted by Frankie Boyle. 

 

It was a bit of a faux pas and tbf I'm surprised people still remember it, it's like an episode of The Thick of It tbh. 

 

But still, it's not quite nothing and clearly she was never going to get away with it. 

[bovril]

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

I am just being facetious, I could not really care less but many do! 

 

Surely they have a poing it is a bit racist to stereotype in a negative way a particular type of demographic/groups of people (i.e. white working class men who drive wans, smoke, drink and hang flags out of their council house).

 

I am sure if some member of the right or a Tory made a comment about Taxi drivers, bus drivers and part of their identity the PC brigade would be all over it. 

But it wasn't a comment, it was a photo. If a Tory went campaigning in an inner city and took a self-aware photo of, say, a corner shop with a Polish flag outside captioned "on the campaign trail" I'd still think it was quite good. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

But it wasn't a comment, it was a photo. If a Tory went campaigning in an inner city and took a self-aware photo of, say, a corner shop with a Polish flag outside captioned "on the campaign trail" I'd still think it was quite good. 

She Captioned it 'Image from Rochester' though? Surely some meaning in those words given what party was involved there and the perception they generate of their so called voter base.

 

If a right winger took a picture of a town predominately of another religion and posted a stereotypical picture I am quite sure people would be up in arms, again needlessly but this is the world in which we live! 

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, davieG said:

Didn't Cameron fail to get immigration concessions hence the referendum? 

 

My brain doesn't remember that long ago, but this link suggests his immigration demands (partly achieved) concentrated on benefits/tax credits for migrants: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

 

That might mean that he knew he had no chance of getting freedom of movement concessions. So, the EU might refuse to compromise on that. But all EU members initially had the option to delay freedom of movement. It was just that the UK under Blair, plus Ireland and Denmark (?) didn't take up that option. So there is a precedent.

 

Also, the situation is a bit different now. Back then, the EU probably thought it unlikely that the UK would vote Leave. Now, they know that Brexit is imminent and that a chaotic Brexit and/or difficult future relationship will damage them, even if it damages the UK more.

 

First time I've looked at Labour's "Six Tests" properly. They might never be of any importance.....but could suddenly become very important if Parliament doesn't approve a deal - and I currently see more chance of the EU and UK reaching an agreement than of Parliament managing to approve anything (including No Deal).

 

Edited 27 September 2018 by Alf Bentley

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

She Captioned it 'Image from Rochester' though? Surely some meaning in those words given what party was involved there and the perception they generate of their so called voter base.

 

If a right winger took a picture of a town predominately of another religion and posted a stereotypical picture I am quite sure people would be up in arms, again needlessly but this is the world in which we live! 

Yeah probably. Social media has turned us all into women on the rag. 

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

First time I've looked at Labour's "Six Tests" properly. They might never be of any importance.....but could suddenly become very important if Parliament doesn't approve a deal - and I currently see more chance of the EU and UK reaching an agreement than of Parliament managing to approve anything (including No Deal).

The six tests are just basically there so Labour can vote it down, some of them mean nothing concrete and to even get close to them you would have to stay in the single market.

Even Barry Gardner admitted they were "bollocks" anyway - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/10/labour-minister-barry-gardiner-sorry-good-friday-agreement-shibboleth

 

Quote

 

Labour has said that the party’s international trade secretary spokesman, Barry Gardiner, “fully supports” the party’s Brexit policy, after it emerged that he had described one of Keir Starmer’s six tests for judging the final deal as “bollocks”.

Shortly after Gardiner apologised for claiming the Good Friday agreement was a “shibboleth”, whose importance was being exaggerated, a fresh recording emerged of the same private meeting in Brussels.

Starmer, the party’s Brexit spokesman, has repeatedly demanded that any deal achieves “the exact same benefits” as the current relationship with the European Union. It was one of six tests set a year ago, just before article 50 was triggered, setting the negotiations in progress.

Gardiner is recorded ridiculing the proposal. “It’s bollocks. Always has been bollocks” – and goes on to dismiss the whole strategy of the six tests.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

The six tests are just basically there so Labour can vote it down, some of them mean nothing concrete and to even get close to them you would have to stay in the single market.

Even Barry Gardner admitted they were "bollocks" anyway - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/10/labour-minister-barry-gardiner-sorry-good-friday-agreement-shibboleth

 

 

I agree that the Six Tests are incredibly vague - and that Corbyn's main aim is to get into govt (nothing wrong with that).

They might become more significant if we end up with an election or referendum, though, as Labour would have to clarify its Brexit stance.

 

Don't you find it interesting that there's no commitment to end freedom of movement? I'm surprised ERG/UKIP types haven't made more of that.

Likewise, isn't it surprising that there's no commitment to ensure the UK is free to make its own interventionist economic policy? I'm surprised that Momentum types haven't made more that.

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Don't you find it interesting that there's no commitment to end freedom of movement? I'm surprised ERG/UKIP types haven't made more of that.

Likewise, isn't it surprising that there's no commitment to ensure the UK is free to make its own interventionist economic policy? I'm surprised that Momentum types haven't made more that.

Not really, I don't think even the Labour party would dare to suggest they can end FoM and get the same benefits of full single market membership.

Sadly, what the Labour party is doing now does make a lot of political sense, sit back and pretend you can do something even if you really know it's impossible, it's working as they are somehow managing to hold together the leave and remain voters, I hope that will change and they will come up with something concrete but there is no need to do it.

[Alf Bentley]

48 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not really, I don't think even the Labour party would dare to suggest they can end FoM and get the same benefits of full single market membership.

Sadly, what the Labour party is doing now does make a lot of political sense, sit back and pretend you can do something even if you really know it's impossible, it's working as they are somehow managing to hold together the leave and remain voters, I hope that will change and they will come up with something concrete but there is no need to do it.

 

Fair comment. I suppose one of the few advantages of being in opposition is that you only have to commit yourself after the govt has done so, if at all.

 

As @deep blue pointed out earlier, both parties have spent 2 years fudging the issue so as to keep their divided parties together, rather than promoting clear realistic policies.

I'd argue that there's a bit more onus on the govt rather than the opposition to adopt realistic policies, but the criticism is applicable to both.

 

Well, the shit's going to hit the fan shortly, isn't it? For the Tories first, but maybe for Labour soon after.

 

The Tory Govt & MPs (& DUP allies) will have to decide what, if anything, to vote through Parliament in Oct/Nov or whether to risk an election, a referendum or No Deal - always assuming they don't replace May or switch to a Canada-plus policy that solves the Irish border issue before then.

 

Depending on what the Tories decide to do and whether they achieve it, Labour may face a big dilemma. If the Govt somehow manages to get a deal agreed by the EU and passed by parliament, or persuades its Remainer wing to accept No Deal (unlikely), there's not much Labour can do. If there's an election, Labour might be able to persist with a flexible policy - "we'll try to do a better deal, according to our 6 Tests, but will call a referendum if that fails". A referendum would be trickier, particularly if Remain was an option. Though they could always repeat their "Remain in a reformed EU" stance from 2016, but call for the govt to tackle freedom of movement as part of that "reform". 

 

 

[Guest Markyblue]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Not really, I don't think even the Labour party would dare to suggest they can end FoM and get the same benefits of full single market membership.

Sadly, what the Labour party is doing now does make a lot of political sense, sit back and pretend you can do something even if you really know it's impossible, it's working as they are somehow managing to hold together the leave and remain voters, I hope that will change and they will come up with something concrete but there is no need to do it.

Labour holding on to remain and leave voters will end once /if a general election is called, then the have cake and eat it scenario will end. Same for torys but Labour has alot more to lose in the Midlands and North. 

[Alf Bentley]

I didn't see this article about Emily Thornberry and her brother back in 2014: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/28/emily-thornberry--van-driver-brother-ben

Her brother's a builder, though his vans are red, not white, it seems. 

 

She's had an unusual life trajectory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Thornberry

Her Dad was an international lawyer (who went on to become a UN high-flyer) but he buggered off to the US when she was 7 so she grew up with her single mother (a teacher) and brothers in a council house.

Then from Kent Uni she became a human rights lawyer working for Michael Mansfield, and married a bloke who's now a senior judge and a knight. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-45652464

 

Genuinely interested in opinions on this.

[lifted*fox]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-45652464

 

Genuinely interested in opinions on this.

 

Quote

"It's a strange society that massively rewards those responsible for causing more climate change while putting those trying to stop it in jail," he said.

 

That's about all there is to it, imo. 

 

Climate change needs to stop NOW - without fail; otherwise there won't be a planet left to live on. 

 

Why the article seems to think it's ironic that they came down to use the toilet / had to go back to work I don't know. These men used their free time to protest something that is going to negatively affect all of us.

 

They should be applauded not locked up ffs.  

[Guest MattP]

48 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

As @deep blueepending on what the Tories decide to do and whether they achieve it, Labour may face a big dilemma. If the Govt somehow manages to get a deal agreed by the EU and passed by parliament, or persuades its Remainer wing to accept No Deal (unlikely), there's not much Labour can do. If there's an election, Labour might be able to persist with a flexible policy - "we'll try to do a better deal, according to our 6 Tests, but will call a referendum if that fails". A referendum would be trickier, particularly if Remain was an option. Though they could always repeat their "Remain in a reformed EU" stance from 2016, but call for the govt to tackle freedom of movement as part of that "reform". 

I still think an election is a long way away, before we got to that we would surely be going through a change of Prime Minister and a different approach to a new negotiation. We'll probably learn a lot more after conference next week.

 

I'm not sure the argument of reforming the EU holds up anymore, people have called for that for twenty years now and there is just no desire or serious chance if it happening. Certainly not to the four pillars.

 

My money is still on some sort of deal being done - as per usual right at the last minute after all the brinkmanship has occured.

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-45652464

 

Genuinely interested in opinions on this.

In a civilised society you campaign to change laws you don't like, you can't just stop everyone else going about their business because you disagree with something and think you are right. 

 

We would have absolutely chaos if the law wasn't applied to protestors.

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-45652464

 

Genuinely interested in opinions on this.

They broke the law, they got sent to jail. Not sure what opinions are needed. 

 

They knew exactly what they were doing and the consequences of such actions. Whether you agree with fracking or not seems irrelevant. This isn't the way to go about bringing change. 

[lifted*fox]

yet history is absolutely littered with examples where protests have made people sit up and notice and change things for the better - in many situations where campaigning 'the right way' hasn't worked / has gone unnoticed. 

 

it was non-violent. a 15 month jail sentence for ordinary working people who felt the need to draw attention to something important is not just. 

 

you might have failed to notice but campaigning quietly by the book isn't having any affect on fracking going ahead.

 

cool though - we'll just wait until the planet is ****ed for our kids, no worries. 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I still think an election is a long way away, before we got to that we would surely be going through a change of Prime Minister and a different approach to a new negotiation. We'll probably learn a lot more after conference next week.

 

I'm not sure the argument of reforming the EU holds up anymore, people have called for that for twenty years now and there is just no desire or serious chance if it happening. Certainly not to the four pillars.

 

My money is still on some sort of deal being done - as per usual right at the last minute after all the brinkmanship has occured.

 

You might be right about the final outcome. Certainly events at the Tory conference next week should tell us a lot (unless the parliamentary numbers are likely to be very tight - quite possible).

Changing the PM at this stage, with negotiations still live, would be a massive risk. The public might take a very dim view of that....though it would be more of an option if the negotiations collapsed.

 

I just cannot see a UK-EU deal that both the ERG and the Tory Remainers are likely to vote for. Despite the difficulties, an EU-UK deal looks much more feasible than a parliamentary vote for anything!

 

That could potentially leave one or other faction choosing between No Deal, an amendment proposing a referendum or bringing down the govt for an election.

The ERG might be ready to risk No Deal, but would the rest of Parliament allow that to happen? If the proposed deal was a Canada-type deal, would the Tory Remainers stomach that, risk No Deal or trigger an election/referendum?

 

Irish border remains the most urgent issue, anyway. The rest can probably be fudged and negotiated in detail over the next 2 years, apart from the divorce bill and EU/UK citizens abroad, which shouldn't be an obstacle. 

 

[Innovindil]

26 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

yet history is absolutely littered with examples where protests have made people sit up and notice and change things for the better - in many situations where campaigning 'the right way' hasn't worked / has gone unnoticed. 

 

it was non-violent. a 15 month jail sentence for ordinary working people who felt the need to draw attention to something important is not just. 

 

you might have failed to notice but campaigning quietly by the book isn't having any affect on fracking going ahead.

 

cool though - we'll just wait until the planet is ****ed for our kids, no worries. 

 

 

Don't really care what history is littered with. If some randoms busted into my workplace and cost my company money because they didn't agree with what we were doing, even though what we were doing is absolutely legal, then I would expect there to be consequences. A jail term is sufficient. 

 

You're letting your own feelings towards fracking cloud your judgement. 

 

As for the campaigning not having an affect, then clearly, not enough people agree. Not hard to understand. 

[lifted*fox]

irrespective of people's feelings and efforts to campaign, sometimes the right way doesn't get things done because money, greed, corporation and power steam-roll the unjust through anyway.

 

what an absolutely ludicrous argument that taking a stand against legal but immoral things hasn't done the world any good. 

 

women in your family have freedoms because of the actions of women like Emily Davidson and the suffragettes - were their methods of protest quiet campaigning? no. did they change things for the better, yes.

 

i'm sure people were put out by their actions too but it was for the greater good, in the end. 

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

irrespective of people's feelings and efforts to campaign, sometimes the right way doesn't get things done because money, greed, corporation and power steam-roll the unjust through anyway.

 

what an absolutely ludicrous argument that taking a stand against legal but immoral things hasn't done the world any good. 

 

women in your family have freedoms because of the actions of women like Emily Davidson and the suffragettes - were their methods of protest quiet campaigning? no. did they change things for the better, yes.

 

i'm sure people were put out by their actions too but it was for the greater good, in the end. 

Arguing inside your own head I fear. I have said no such thing. 

 

I haven't said don't take a stand, I'm saying don't break the law to make your stand. You don't get to personally pick and choose what the consequences of breaking the law are and to suggest otherwise is quite frankly bizarre. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

In a civilised society you campaign to change laws you don't like, you can't just stop everyone else going about their business because you disagree with something and think you are right. 

 

We would have absolutely chaos if the law wasn't applied to protestors.

 

29 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Don't really care what history is littered with. If some randoms busted into my workplace and cost my company money because they didn't agree with what we were doing, even though what we were doing is absolutely legal, then I would expect there to be consequences. A jail term is sufficient. 

 

You're letting your own feelings towards fracking cloud your judgement. 

 

As for the campaigning not having an affect, then clearly, not enough people agree. Not hard to understand. 

 

15 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

irrespective of people's feelings and efforts to campaign, sometimes the right way doesn't get things done because money, greed, corporation and power steam-roll the unjust through anyway.

 

what an absolutely ludicrous argument that taking a stand against legal but immoral things hasn't done the world any good. 

 

women in your family have freedoms because of the actions of women like Emily Davidson and the suffragettes - were their methods of protest quiet campaigning? no. did they change things for the better, yes.

 

i'm sure people were put out by their actions too but it was for the greater good, in the end. 

Interesting debate, to be sure.

 

In an ideal world everyone would realise what an environmental headache fracking is and actually have some regard for the future rather than wanting to get a quick buck now...however right now the law is indeed pretty clear on that score. I just hope that others won't have to be jailed before such protests are rendered unnecessary

 

However, I don't like the idea that the law is infallible - it's written and codified by human opinion, after all. A lot of very nasty things done in the past were "legal" in the eyes of the legislature carrying them out.