Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

37 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Have heard of reports that some people are topping up their essential British food stock for cheap now in large quantities prior to the potential negative Brexit effect.

Hope this fiasco doesn't drag on as it seems more are getting wound up by it all as each day passes.

 

An opinion....

 

Good news (1): I really don't think we'll end up with No Deal. The EU don't want it. Most MPs understand the risks and don't want it. So, no need for hoarding....though I might change my mind if we get to early March with no deal 

 

Good news (2): I reckon we'll have a Brexit divorce solution before too long: a few weeks if May's deal or a tweaked deal proceeds; a few months if we end up with an election, referendum and/or renegotiation. The EU seem determined that it is all sorted before the European Parliament elections (May 2019) as they need to know for certain whether the UK has Brexited or still needs to elect MEPs.

 

Bad news (1): If we do Brexit, negotiations over the future EU-UK relationship will be more complex than the divorce deal and will last for years: 3 years? 5 years? longer? Will probably all retreat into the background for a while, though if Brexit itself is sorted.

 

Bad news (2): Debates over nationalism v. international institutions ain't going nowhere. Arguments over the EU will continue for decades.

 

Mixed news (1): All these arguments over the EU will pale into insignificance over the next decade or two, as attention shifts to the ongoing destruction of human civilisation.

 

Mixed news (2): I'll probably be long gone by the time all this plays out - and you might only be a couple of decades behind me. 

[Buce]

I’m sure this will interest you @Alf Bentley:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46254257

[Izzy]

Thought TM spoke well at the CBI today.

 

Can't see what all the fuss is about tbh. Just get it done and move on.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Thought TM spoke well at the CBI today.

 

Can't see what all the fuss is about tbh. Just get it done and move on.

[Izzy]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

Nah, I’m just an optimist who’s happy to be proved wrong, rather than a pessimist who wants to be proved right 

[SMX11]

23 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Thought TM spoke well at the CBI today.

 

Can't see what all the fuss is about tbh. Just get it done and move on.

Have you read the document or a summary? It is like terms of peace for a defeated nation. The Conservative Party would deservingly be destroyed if it somehow passes this through.

[Guest]

Just now, SMX11 said:

Have you read the document or a summary? It is like terms of peace for a defeated nation. The Conservative Party would deservingly be destroyed if it somehow passes this through.

It is though isn't it?

 

The UK chose to join. Let the Germans run the show, then let everyone else have a say - mostly as "equals". then became unhappy when they couldn't dictate and do what they want. then let the morons decide whether to run away with their tails between their legs or fight from the inside.

 

 

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Have heard of reports that some people are topping up their essential British food stock for cheap now in large quantities prior to the potential negative Brexit effect.

Hope this fiasco doesn't drag on as it seems more are getting wound up by it all as each day passes.

Im burying tins of beans in the garden as we speak. 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

I’m sure this will interest you @Alf Bentley:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46254257

Heath lied about details of the deal especially relating to the UK fishing rights.

 

I voted to stay in because I was in favour of industry standards which what we were led to believe it was all about as after all it was just a 'common market' then but if I'd known it would decimate our fishing industry I might have voted differently

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, davieG said:

Heath lied about details of the deal especially relating to the UK fishing rights.

 

I voted to stay in because I was in favour of industry standards which what we were led to believe it was all about as after all it was just a 'common market' then but if I'd known it would decimate our fishing industry I might have voted differently

Do you really think that the EU decimated the fishing industry? Without joining the EU do you think it would be any more healthy than it is now?

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, FIF said:

Do you really think that the EU decimated the fishing industry? Without joining the EU do you think it would be any more healthy than it is now?

Yeah. I really take issue with the idea that one entity or nation-state is really much better than another when it comes to sustainable claiming of living resources, habitat destruction and general environmental protection

 

Criminal overfishing would have happened anyway, with British fishermen or others - that it happened while in the EU does nothing other than giving some parties a convenient scapegoat to suggest that somehow "their" overfishing would have been more altruistic and "right".

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah. I really take issue with the idea that one entity or nation-state is really much better than another when it comes to sustainable claiming of living resources, habitat destruction and general environmental protection

 

Criminal overfishing would have happened anyway, with British fishermen or others - that it happened while in the EU does nothing other than giving some parties a convenient scapegoat to suggest that somehow "their" overfishing would have been more altruistic and "right".

And thank Cod for that.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Im burying tins of beans in the garden as we speak. 

 

Wrong time of year, mate. 

 

Wait till Spring and add a good dollop of well-rotted horse manure. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

I’m sure this will interest you @Alf Bentley:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46254257

 

Thanks. Very interesting. I wasn't aware of the circumstances behind Heath's 1971 vote to join the EEC. I can just about remember the 1975 referendum happening, but not 1971, when I was still in short trousers (literally).

 

But, as the final paragraph points out, there are differences between 1971 and 2018. The numbers are different, too. Heath had a majority so, even with 39 Tory MPs defying him, he only needed a handful of Labour MPs to get his legislation through (although 69 Labourites supported him, giving him a 100+ majority). Even if the DUP were to abstain now, May pretty much needs a Labour/Opposition defector for every Tory MP who opposes her. At the moment, she seem to have a lot more Tory opponents than Labour supporters. That could change, but she needs a big shift.

 

If Labour MPs were convinced that it was a binary choice between May's deal and No Deal, she'd have a good chance. But most of them don't believe that No Deal will happen - and see potential alternatives to May's deal, be that a referendum, an election or renegotiation of a Norway-type deal.

 

If May has a chance of winning the support of a lot of MPs currently opposing her, she might have more hope in her own ranks. The ERG seem to be making a pig's ear of their tactics if they're struggling even to muster the 48 letters to trigger a confidence vote. If so, JRM and Baker are going to look pretty stupid, having called for a leadership challenge only to find they don't have the troops to even fight the battle, never mind win it! That doesn't mean that the Brexiteer MPs will support May's deal, of course. Many of them may be holding fire as they believe that May would win a confidence vote, but may still intend to reject her deal. On the other hand, if they're wavering for fear of seeing the govt fall or losing Brexit altogether, perhaps May will be able to win a number of them over to support her deal. JRM and the 25+ Tory MPs who have publicly lambasted the deal and submitted no-confidence letters would look pretty silly if they ended up voting for it.

 

May seems much better prepared tactically: winning the plaudits of business/CBI today; ongoing negotiations over future relationship & meeting with Juncker....would be no surprise if the EU are prepared to throw in a late sweetener to help her win the parliamentary vote, even if it's only non-binding promises about the future relationship.

 

Everyone involved will also have to be second-guessing what the electorate is likely to get most angry about - nationally and in their own constituencies. Even if No Deal caused only half the problems anticipated, the anger could be unbelievable. That said, a lot of people are already pretty disillusioned with May's deal, given the unrealistic public expectations that have been raised.....while renegotiation of an ultra-Soft Brexit or the calling of a referendum would also generate much anger in some places (and much joy elsewhere).

 

While I can see May shaving some votes off the margin of her parliamentary defeat - and personally she's handling this as well as anyone can handle an impossible  situation - I still cannot see her attracting enough votes, particularly Labour votes, to get her deal through. If she made it a free vote for Tory MPs, I presume Corbyn would be under no obligation to do likewise. He sees this as a step on the road to an early election, as we know, so I presume Labour would still impose a 3-line whip.... 

 

7 minutes ago, davieG said:

Heath lied about details of the deal especially relating to the UK fishing rights.

 

I voted to stay in because I was in favour of industry standards which what we were led to believe it was all about as after all it was just a 'common market' then but if I'd known it would decimate our fishing industry I might have voted differently

 

The vote to stay in was under Wilson in 1975. Are you saying that it took a few years for Heath's lies to become apparent? Just curious as this was before my time.

 

I'm also curious as to why our fishing industry means so much to you, Davie. Many other traditional industries have been decimated since the 1970s, some replaced by new industries and others by decline and insecurity.

The 1970s seem like a different world now with vast numbers employed in coal-mining, steel, shipbuilding, British-owned car factories etc. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Im burying tins of beans in the garden as we speak. 

 

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Wrong time of year, mate. 

 

Wait till Spring and add a good dollop of well-rotted horse manure. 

 

Strokes' avatar suggests that his dog is fully equipped to assist in this task.

 

All very patriotic, like the "Dig for Victory" grow-your-own campaign during WW2. 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

Do you really think that the EU decimated the fishing industry? Without joining the EU do you think it would be any more healthy than it is now?

It decimated the UK fishing industry.

[davieG]

35 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks. Very interesting. I wasn't aware of the circumstances behind Heath's 1971 vote to join the EEC. I can just about remember the 1975 referendum happening, but not 1971, when I was still in short trousers (literally).

 

But, as the final paragraph points out, there are differences between 1971 and 2018. The numbers are different, too. Heath had a majority so, even with 39 Tory MPs defying him, he only needed a handful of Labour MPs to get his legislation through (although 69 Labourites supported him, giving him a 100+ majority). Even if the DUP were to abstain now, May pretty much needs a Labour/Opposition defector for every Tory MP who opposes her. At the moment, she seem to have a lot more Tory opponents than Labour supporters. That could change, but she needs a big shift.

 

If Labour MPs were convinced that it was a binary choice between May's deal and No Deal, she'd have a good chance. But most of them don't believe that No Deal will happen - and see potential alternatives to May's deal, be that a referendum, an election or renegotiation of a Norway-type deal.

 

If May has a chance of winning the support of a lot of MPs currently opposing her, she might have more hope in her own ranks. The ERG seem to be making a pig's ear of their tactics if they're struggling even to muster the 48 letters to trigger a confidence vote. If so, JRM and Baker are going to look pretty stupid, having called for a leadership challenge only to find they don't have the troops to even fight the battle, never mind win it! That doesn't mean that the Brexiteer MPs will support May's deal, of course. Many of them may be holding fire as they believe that May would win a confidence vote, but may still intend to reject her deal. On the other hand, if they're wavering for fear of seeing the govt fall or losing Brexit altogether, perhaps May will be able to win a number of them over to support her deal. JRM and the 25+ Tory MPs who have publicly lambasted the deal and submitted no-confidence letters would look pretty silly if they ended up voting for it.

 

May seems much better prepared tactically: winning the plaudits of business/CBI today; ongoing negotiations over future relationship & meeting with Juncker....would be no surprise if the EU are prepared to throw in a late sweetener to help her win the parliamentary vote, even if it's only non-binding promises about the future relationship.

 

Everyone involved will also have to be second-guessing what the electorate is likely to get most angry about - nationally and in their own constituencies. Even if No Deal caused only half the problems anticipated, the anger could be unbelievable. That said, a lot of people are already pretty disillusioned with May's deal, given the unrealistic public expectations that have been raised.....while renegotiation of an ultra-Soft Brexit or the calling of a referendum would also generate much anger in some places (and much joy elsewhere).

 

While I can see May shaving some votes off the margin of her parliamentary defeat - and personally she's handling this as well as anyone can handle an impossible  situation - I still cannot see her attracting enough votes, particularly Labour votes, to get her deal through. If she made it a free vote for Tory MPs, I presume Corbyn would be under no obligation to do likewise. He sees this as a step on the road to an early election, as we know, so I presume Labour would still impose a 3-line whip.... 

 

 

The vote to stay in was under Wilson in 1975. Are you saying that it took a few years for Heath's lies to become apparent? Just curious as this was before my time.

 

I'm also curious as to why our fishing industry means so much to you, Davie. Many other traditional industries have been decimated since the 1970s, some replaced by new industries and others by decline and insecurity.

The 1970s seem like a different world now with vast numbers employed in coal-mining, steel, shipbuilding, British-owned car factories etc. 

It was but we were still not aware of the impact it would have as far as I was led to believe it was about standardisation to make trade easier. 

Heath told everyone that our fishing rights would remain the same knowing quite well that after a number of years they woul be restricted.

 

 

As for the fishing industry not particularly but many of those other industry were due to our inability to adapt to the new competition from abroad. With the fishing our rights to our fishing grounds were severely reduce to allow other Common Market countries equal access, therefore to avoid overfishing due to all the additional foreign boats quotas were introduced thus causing a massive reduction in our fishing fleets.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, davieG said:

It decimated the UK fishing industry.

John Redwood would agree: http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/06/16/how-joining-the-eu-led-to-a-big-decline-in-uk-industry/

 

I just think with the over fishing of the time and the appearance of ever bigger trawlers the decimation of the industry was going to happen anyway. It could even be argued that the EU has helped to stop what could have been the end of Fishing. 

 

However I know almost nothing of the industry or the circumstances so will accept what you say.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

It was but we were still not aware of the impact it would have as far as I was led to believe it was about standardisation to make trade easier. 

Heath told everyone that our fishing rights would remain the same knowing quite well that after a number of years they woul be restricted.

 

 

As for the fishing industry not particularly but many of those other industry were due to our inability to adapt to the new competition from abroad. With the fishing our rights to our fishing grounds were severely reduce to allow other Common Market countries equal access, therefore to avoid overfishing due to all the additional foreign boats quotas were introduced thus causing a massive reduction in our fishing fleets.

5

Again, I doubt that not applying the EU restrictions would have stopped British overfishing anyway and those restrictions themsleves have also been ineffective anyway, given the decline in fish numbers in various waters.

 

It's not like a fishing fleet from one place and then one from another have different ideas about sustainability, do they? - not when they consider their livelihoods more important.

[davieG]

1 minute ago, FIF said:

John Redwood would agree: http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/06/16/how-joining-the-eu-led-to-a-big-decline-in-uk-industry/

 

I just think with the over fishing of the time and the appearance of ever bigger trawlers the decimation of the industry was going to happen anyway. It could even be argued that the EU has helped to stop what could have been the end of Fishing. 

 

However I know almost nothing of the industry or the circumstances so will accept what you say.

Well we’ll never know if conservation action would have been implemented by a British government but even if it had we would have had sole rights to our own fishing grounds without the need to share them with the then Commom Market and later on a much enlarged EU.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Well we’ll never know if conservation action would have been implemented by a British government but even if it had we would have had sole rights to our own fishing grounds without the need to share them with the then Commom Market and later on a much enlarged EU.

2

Does that really matter if the end result is the same either way?

[davieG]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Again, I doubt that not applying the EU restrictions would have stopped British overfishing anyway and those restrictions themsleves have also been ineffective anyway, given the decline in fish numbers in various waters.

 

It's not like a fishing fleet from one place and then one from another have different ideas about sustainability, do they? - not when they consider their livelihoods more important.

Restrictions or not the biggest impact was having to share our fishing grounds with rest of the EU.

[davieG]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Does that really matter if the end result is the same either way?

Well the result is obviously more severe with having to share with the rest of the EU.

[Captain...]

13 minutes ago, davieG said:

It decimated the UK fishing industry.

I don't know much on fishing so I've read three  articles on the subject, one was from the Daily Express which the entire content seemed to be one woman shouting about something on question time.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/926096/BBC-Question-Time-Brexit-European-Union-fishing-industry-Ken-Clarke-debate

 

One from the Guardian explaining the CFP and how Westminster is as responsible for the issues as the EU. Reading about how it was developed in a fair way based on existing quantities and how the impact has been positive in restoring fish stocks, but climate change is affecting the migratory patterns of fish and screwing up quotas.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/06/ukip-british-fishing-westminster-brussels-brexit

 

Another one from the FT explaining how Brexit will probably make things worse for the UK fishing industry.

https://www.ft.com/content/84f51c84-5fe2-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895

 

So I'm none the wiser.

[Captain...]

18 minutes ago, FIF said:

John Redwood would agree: http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/06/16/how-joining-the-eu-led-to-a-big-decline-in-uk-industry/

 

I just think with the over fishing of the time and the appearance of ever bigger trawlers the decimation of the industry was going to happen anyway. It could even be argued that the EU has helped to stop what could have been the end of Fishing. 

 

However I know almost nothing of the industry or the circumstances so will accept what you say.

Redwood's assertion is that our fishing industry has dropped from over 1,000,000 to 600,000 tonnes. I've not found data to support that, I have seen that our numbers have gone down, not to 600,000. But so have the numbers for Germany and France. Is it not that we are just catching fewer fish to maintain sustainability?

 

The other things he claim about our Steel, Aluminium and cement industries are surely as a result of a decline of our manufacturing industry and outsourcing everything to China.

 

The EU has been used as a bogey man for ages but most of the issues are internal and come back to successive UK governments.

 

 

Edited 19 November 2018 by Captain...