Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[bovril]

The annoying thing is I'm probably more Eurosceptic than I was in June 2016, especially after recent developments and speeches about further integration. But at the same time I'm more convinced Brexit is an attempt from fringe members of the Tories to slash regulations and workers' rights that will cause even greater divisions in society than exist now.

 

What's a guy to do. 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, bovril said:

The annoying thing is I'm probably more Eurosceptic than I was in June 2016, especially after recent developments and speeches about further integration. But at the same time I'm more convinced Brexit is an attempt from fringe members of the Tories to slash regulations and workers' rights that will cause even greater divisions in society than exist now.

 

What's a guy to do. 

Well if it is they won't last long in government, they'll be kicked out as soon as the nation goes to the polls again. People have little tolerance for this anymore.

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why just one more? Why not two more just to double make sure? Also, if Leave wins again what happens? It doesn't change the arithmetic in parliament, does it means we go with May's deal? No Deal? A deal negotiated after May has been removed and replace with a Brexiteer?

I'd imagine the Brexit mob are probably concerned as to why the vote of their original decision wasn't respected when they were told it would be, why would a single one of them trust that their vote would be respected in a second one when it already hasn't been in the first? Who is to say we don't then have a third referendum after transition as then we'll of course know even more about what it means? Maybe a fourth while the backstop remains in place, maybe a fifth for when we decide to leave the Customs Union?

 

Maybe they are mistaken in thinking that the idea of a second referendum isn't really a demonstration of democracy but a chance for people who have always got their own way to continue to do so.

No - just one more vote based on the new information at our disposal. And the only way for the people 'who have always got their own way to continue to do so' will be if the people vote for it. If the people vote to leave again, that's it - we leave, end of story.

 

Whatever, it's clear that there are only two realistic paths now: either May's deal (or an amended version thereof) is passed, or there is another referendum. Leaving without a deal is not going to happen as parliament will block it by whatever means it can.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

No - just one more vote based on the new information at our disposal. And the only way for the people 'who have always got their own way to continue to do so' will be if the people vote for it. If the people vote to leave again, that's it - we leave, end of story.

Sorry but I just don't believe it.

 

Vote to leave again and they'll be a campaign for another one, it would never stop, these people like Clegg, Lucas, Soubry and Mandelson don't stop until everyone falls into line.

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, FoxNotFox said:

I know (some in) Labour are trying to leverage this situation to orchestrate a general election but I genuinely don't know how that'd help with the Brexit situation - short of a majority voting Lib Dem!

 

Yes, sure, they could win what with the Tories so divided but divisions exist amongst the Labour ranks equally. A change of government (to Labour) would not resolves this and, tbh, I think it pretty shameless for some Labourites to suggest it could somehow. Corbyn would be as ineffectual as May, perhaps more so. At least May, you know what path she wants to take and you know she has the belligerence to follow it to the bitter end - that might or might not be a good thing, depends on your perspective. To paraphrase May, 'May is May'. With Corbyn, you just don't know. I find it difficult to get a handle on exactly what he believes (he seems to constantly couch it in caveats and terms) and I suspect he keeps his own personal beliefs and agenda obscured. Whether he believes that a great socialist state could happen or whether he simply wants a go at being PM before he shuffles off, I don't know. What I do know, with all conviction, is that I don't think I could bring myself to vote Labour with him as leader.

 

I agree that it would be a massive gamble to trigger an election at such a critical stage. Maybe Labour could secure a better deal than the Tories (Corbyn might be more ineffectual than May, but I suspect Starmer would be more effective than May, Davis or Raab). But, for starters, there's no guarantee that the EU27 would agree an Article 50 extension for that. They'd know that the election would be a lottery. It could yield a similar result to last time. It could produce a more Eurosceptic Tory Govt. I actually think it's quite likely that voters would balk at gambling on changing the PM at such a moment, so the Tories might win a majority. Even if Labour did win, chances are they'd take a while to get to grips with such complex negotiations - and extending the Brexit deadline beyond May 2019 would be a problem due to the European elections.

 

Normally, there'd be nothing wrong with the opposition seeking an election. That's what oppositions do: hold the govt to account, present themselves as an alternative govt & seek to gain power.....but this isn't a normal time, it's a crisis. There's also an argument that Labour is better off trying to influence govt policy instead, and letting the Tories own the outcome, probably a disappointing deal or a second referendum - and massive public disillusionment.

 

I think it's quite clear what Corbyn believes. He believes in ending austerity, higher spending on public services, more economic stimulus through state intervention, more redistribution etc. I have no problem with that, provided such policies are kept within sensible bounds. What I do have a problem with is his other central belief: he's an old-style Leftist who believes in "socialism in one country". Despite campaigning half-heartedly (if that!) for Labour's Remain policy, he believes in a Soft Brexit - not just because of the referendum result, but because that's his preferred option. He wants to keep the close trading relationship and social protection, but he thinks Brexit would allow him, as PM, to engage in more state intervention: higher deficit to stimulate growth and boost public spending, greater freedom to nationalise utilities etc.

 

While I do think the EU/EMU economic rules are over-restrictive on deficit/intervention, he's seriously wrong if he thinks an overnight sea change in the British economy in isolation is possible. Major reform is possible and necessary but needs to be gradual. The good news is that I'd expect him to exercise little control over policy if he ever becomes PM - and he has people around him who are more cautious, pragmatic or strategic (McDonnell, Starmer, Thornberry). I don't think Corbyn has any personal hunger for power as an expression of ego. But I do think a different sort of narcissism plays a part - he has a list of "the right policies" for equality, society, Palestine, whatever, that he wants to tick off so as to be able to pat himself on the back as a "good man". Some other leading Labour figures have more of a concept of strategy, priorities and the art of the possible - I'd expect them, not Corbyn, to control policy if Labour won power.

 

I was fine with Labour's deliberate ambiguity over Brexit until now. It made sense as they weren't in power and the electorate was divided and under-informed. Greater clarity is needed soon, though. Most Labour MPs, members and voters would support a second referendum, but an election is still (wrongly) Labour's priority because of the "socialism in one country" politics of Corbyn. I imagine that other leading Labourites know the Tories and DUP will not support a no confidence vote in the govt, so when that fails hopefully the party will lean on Corbyn to either support a second referendum or campaign for a Soft Brexit deal (with domestic measures on migrant labour if freedom of movement is accepted to stay in the single market).

 

One scenario that doesn't get mentioned: the policy of a change of PM/Govt WITHOUT an election.....unlikely but could happen under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. If a no confidence vote in the govt IS passed, then parliament has 14 days to see if another govt could win a confidence vote. In theory, I presume that could be an alternative Tory leader - or Corbyn, if he were able to do a deal not just with other opposition parties but with some Tories. I couldn't imagine that being anything other than a short-term solution, but if May's deal is defeated and her govt loses a confidence vote (unlikely, admittedly) could Tory Remainers prop Corbyn up as PM for a few months while a Soft Brexit deal is done or a referendum called?

[breadandcheese]

I think it's a mistake to think that a change in government will change the direction of negotiations. The EU took a consistent line in when negotiating Greece's bailout. Their position didn't change one bit when the Greek govt fell and Syriza, the socialist party, were elected to form a new government.

[Innovindil]

41 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

No - just one more vote based on the new information at our disposal. And the only way for the people 'who have always got their own way to continue to do so' will be if the people vote for it. If the people vote to leave again, that's it - we leave, end of story.

 

Whatever, it's clear that there are only two realistic paths now: either May's deal (or an amended version thereof) is passed, or there is another referendum. Leaving without a deal is not going to happen as parliament will block it by whatever means it can.

[Guest MattP]

A gentle reminder again of why they do this.

[Carl the Llama]

Have to say it's amusingly ironic that one of the reasons against a 2nd ref is the threat of civil unrest a remain vote would cause... given that this is coming from the people who have called remain protestors anything from hysterical to undemocratic I'm calling their bluff because obviously any losing brexiteers would be courteously diplomatic about the result.

[Guest MattP]

40 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I agree that it would be a massive gamble to trigger an election at such a critical stage. Maybe Labour could secure a better deal than the Tories (Corbyn might be more ineffectual than May, but I suspect Starmer would be more effective than May, Davis or Raab). But, for starters, there's no guarantee that the EU27 would agree an Article 50 extension for that. They'd know that the election would be a lottery. It could yield a similar result to last time. It could produce a more Eurosceptic Tory Govt. I actually think it's quite likely that voters would balk at gambling on changing the PM at such a moment, so the Tories might win a majority. Even if Labour did win, chances are they'd take a while to get to grips with such complex negotiations - and extending the Brexit deadline beyond May 2019 would be a problem due to the European elections.

 

Normally, there'd be nothing wrong with the opposition seeking an election. That's what oppositions do: hold the govt to account, present themselves as an alternative govt & seek to gain power.....but this isn't a normal time, it's a crisis. There's also an argument that Labour is better off trying to influence govt policy instead, and letting the Tories own the outcome, probably a disappointing deal or a second referendum - and massive public disillusionment.

 

I think it's quite clear what Corbyn believes. He believes in ending austerity, higher spending on public services, more economic stimulus through state intervention, more redistribution etc. I have no problem with that, provided such policies are kept within sensible bounds. What I do have a problem with is his other central belief: he's an old-style Leftist who believes in "socialism in one country". Despite campaigning half-heartedly (if that!) for Labour's Remain policy, he believes in a Soft Brexit - not just because of the referendum result, but because that's his preferred option. He wants to keep the close trading relationship and social protection, but he thinks Brexit would allow him, as PM, to engage in more state intervention: higher deficit to stimulate growth and boost public spending, greater freedom to nationalise utilities etc.

 

While I do think the EU/EMU economic rules are over-restrictive on deficit/intervention, he's seriously wrong if he thinks an overnight sea change in the British economy in isolation is possible. Major reform is possible and necessary but needs to be gradual. The good news is that I'd expect him to exercise little control over policy if he ever becomes PM - and he has people around him who are more cautious, pragmatic or strategic (McDonnell, Starmer, Thornberry). I don't think Corbyn has any personal hunger for power as an expression of ego. But I do think a different sort of narcissism plays a part - he has a list of "the right policies" for equality, society, Palestine, whatever, that he wants to tick off so as to be able to pat himself on the back as a "good man". Some other leading Labour figures have more of a concept of strategy, priorities and the art of the possible - I'd expect them, not Corbyn, to control policy if Labour won power.

 

I was fine with Labour's deliberate ambiguity over Brexit until now. It made sense as they weren't in power and the electorate was divided and under-informed. Greater clarity is needed soon, though. Most Labour MPs, members and voters would support a second referendum, but an election is still (wrongly) Labour's priority because of the "socialism in one country" politics of Corbyn. I imagine that other leading Labourites know the Tories and DUP will not support a no confidence vote in the govt, so when that fails hopefully the party will lean on Corbyn to either support a second referendum or campaign for a Soft Brexit deal (with domestic measures on migrant labour if freedom of movement is accepted to stay in the single market).

 

One scenario that doesn't get mentioned: the policy of a change of PM/Govt WITHOUT an election.....unlikely but could happen under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. If a no confidence vote in the govt IS passed, then parliament has 14 days to see if another govt could win a confidence vote. In theory, I presume that could be an alternative Tory leader - or Corbyn, if he were able to do a deal not just with other opposition parties but with some Tories. I couldn't imagine that being anything other than a short-term solution, but if May's deal is defeated and her govt loses a confidence vote (unlikely, admittedly) could Tory Remainers prop Corbyn up as PM for a few months while a Soft Brexit deal is done or a referendum called?

Given Labour ruled out no deal I'm not really sure why it would even be a negotiation, surely if the EU know that's the position they can put together a document and just say that's it or just altar anything Labour put forward to suit themselves - after all, they have to agree on it as walking away isn't an option.

 

The last part of this post is interesting, if that were to happen they would immediately become independents rather than Tory remainers I'm sure - I have no idea how a soft Brexit gets through without the agreement of the PM.

 

Which is weird of course given parliament voted against the customs union amendments a few months ago but nothing seems to matter anymore. 

[reynard]

5 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Quite. Whatever Brexit we do end up getting, it's not going to be the one millions of people thought they were going to get.

Largely because they had completely unrealistic expectations and seemed to largely ignore the fact that is itsn't just the Uk negotiating. The EU has been forced into a position it didn't seek and as such holds just about all the key cards in this negotiation.

[Guest MattP]

This is why a second referendum can only happen under Labour, it would be complete suicide for the Tories.

 

Best bet for May might be to deny them an election, force them into coming out for a second referendum and then call an election after they have done it and let them fight all the Midland/Northern marginals on that.

[Charl91]

I'd much prefer remain, but at this point I'd even take May's deal. Least then the Brexiters will be happy (after all, they knew what they were voting for!) and we can just get on with our lives.

[lifted*fox]

 

[lifted*fox]

The tories have already committed suicide.

 

They long kicked the stool out from under themselves and they're currently hanging limp waiting to be cut down. 

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

This is why a second referendum can only happen under Labour, it would be complete suicide for the Tories.

 

Best bet for May might be to deny them an election, force them into coming out for a second referendum and then call an election after they have done it and let them fight all the Midland/Northern marginals on that.

Matt, I ain't got time for this shit, just finish this Brexit shit and make Dianne Abott in charge before I fooking die of old age.

[purpleronnie]

Blimey watching newsnight John Mcdonnell is really pissed off with the tories. 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Have to say it's amusingly ironic that one of the reasons against a 2nd ref is the threat of civil unrest a remain vote would cause... given that this is coming from the people who have called remain protestors anything from hysterical to undemocratic I'm calling their bluff because obviously any losing brexiteers would be courteously diplomatic about the result.

FWIW I do think there could be civil unrest in such a scenario...but then as I mentioned above I think that's a possibility in pretty much every scenario going forward, now.

 

I'll also repeat the question: does anyone have any convincing argument whatsoever about any course of action that won't lead to potential trouble from here?

[fuchsntf]

17 hours ago, FoxNotFox said:

I know (some in) Labour are trying to leverage this situation to orchestrate a general election but I genuinely don't know how that'd help with the Brexit situation - short of a majority voting Lib Dem!

 

Yes, sure, they could win what with the Tories so divided but divisions exist amongst the Labour ranks equally. A change of government (to Labour) would not resolves this and, tbh, I think it pretty shameless for some Labourites to suggest it could somehow. Corbyn would be as ineffectual as May, perhaps more so. At least May, you know what path she wants to take and you know she has the belligerence to follow it to the bitter end - that might or might not be a good thing, depends on your perspective. To paraphrase May, 'May is May'. With Corbyn, you just don't know. I find it difficult to get a handle on exactly what he believes (he seems to constantly couch it in caveats and terms) and I suspect he keeps his own personal beliefs and agenda obscured. Whether he believes that a great socialist state could happen or whether he simply wants a go at being PM before he shuffles off, I don't know. What I do know, with all conviction, is that I don't think I could bring myself to vote Labour with him as leader.

couldn't agree more.!! 

 

I would of been a Labour voter,if still in the UK. Blair let the socialist down on the home-front,and it was  his govt,that lost control over immigration,

which the Tories haven't improved on...>  Just another mute point,that no politicians picked up on has a top point of or for Brexit <

Like many I am not racist,or against immigration,but we/UK needs better control and organisation of numbers!!!

While also handling the refugee crisis.

 

Nobody is out there fighting to break the Customs- union package.It seems remainers in reality have won,but worse off for it.

It seems to me T.May and the Clan , with  the whole shindig,with  both sides,and the EU were just playing  patty-cake, and throwing out hot air,

to wind down the so called Negotiation-years. Where  the feck are the wishes of the Electorate for Brexit been acted on???

 

Again to repeat,I was in the remainer  camp,but there was no decent Government opposition,no real leader fighting that cause,or

In time of need,pushing for cross-party involvement!! and Nobody trying to keep Brexit on an honest path on the  electorate basic wishes!!

Labour again have failed,to produce a worthy leader,the nearest was when the wrong brother stepped down..

The amusing part of it,is Tories have been in utter chaos,but it seems the oppositions dire wish is to prove only  ,

who can be the best in the chaotic-stakes.

 

We are not talking about same party politicians,disagreeing with various  policies,that's democracy!!

Chaos is when nothing is getting done,either on the home front or Foreign affairs,and major issues are left wanting!!

 

 

Edited 22 November 2018 by fuchsntf

[Guest MattP]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'll also repeat the question: does anyone have any convincing argument whatsoever about any course of action that won't lead to potential trouble from here?

Implementing the result of the referendum.

[Guest]

On 20/11/2018 at 20:25, fuchsntf said:

Just out of interest,why is it taking so long.???

 

.Here in Germany,my English young aquaintences,within 1-2 yrs.My English Son-in-law,took 18 months

Myself,I took it,because of duel Nationality being  on the table,My German citizenship,took 16 months...ok I am over 60,so after

15yrs,in Germany,a certain acceptance is on the table,my Wife is German,so there were no tests needed.My children though of duel parents,are firstly German,but have German and English Birth-certificates...

 

Forgot to add,my younger cousin,took on French-British duel Nationality...many years ago.Took him 3yrs.

 

 

French Bureaucracy. So many "foreigners" asking for French nationality. Underfunded service. Lazy slow workers ....

 

21 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Every time I see Jacob Rees-Mogg I am reminded of Monty Python’s Upper Class Twit of the Year.

I always see Wymsey (and he's blocked).

 

Obviously if I was allowed to vote - which I wasn't even though I'm a British Citizen (and only a British citizen) living in the EU - I would have voted Remain but I honestly feel that the referendum result must be upheld. Having a second would be ludicrous. I understand that people didn't "understand" what the real arguments were - tough shit - you should have made sure you did and then you should have ousted all the lying politicians and parties who made false promises and led you along for there own reasons. 

 

If you want riots then riot about that, not about a vote that you made (or didn't).

 

If this was France it wouldn't have even got this far. The extremeist French population would already have been blockading everywhere and burning tyres and pouring shit on representatives lawns and generally making life hell for normal people. During which they would have lost sight of the original aim of their demonstrations and simply railed against everything and everyone.

[Buce]

Growth hormones and gestation crates: the bacon we'll buy with a US trade deal

Trade deal would open door to meat containing banned growth promoters, from pigs kept in conditions banned in UK, industry leaders warn

 

The US meat lobby is “salivating” at the prospect of flooding the UK with bacon and pork produced using practices that would currently be illegal in the UK, a top food expert has warned.

Gestation crates and the chemical growth hormone ractopamine – both banned in the UK – are regularly used in the US pig industry, which achieves the lowest costs of production in the world. Any future trade deal which includes accepting US pork could potentially have a disastrous impact on the UK’s pig industry as well as diluting our welfare standards, say both industry and campaigners.

Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Tim Lang, from City University, said the British public needed to “wake up” to the dangers of animal welfare being rolled back as the UK prepares to leave the EU.

 

“[The US] secretary of state for commerce has already made it clear EU standards must go if the UK wants trade deals. Did voters really want leaving the EU to mean taking us out of a powerful and – by global standards – progressive trade block, and into the clutches of US big food?”

In the US, the chemical ractopamine is fed to the majority of pigs as a growth promoter. There is evidence that it causes lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath in farm animals and its use has been banned in the EU since 1996.

A sow stall or gestation crate is a metal enclosure that holds the pig in a confined space during pregnancy. It is too small to allow the animal to turn around. It is legal in all but nine US states, none of which are major pig producers, and is used ostensibly to prevent larger pigs from taking food from smaller ones and to enable farmers to keep productivity higher.

However, the practice has been criticised for restricting the ability of animals to move or carry out natural behaviours such as rooting, and the UK was one of the first countries in the EU to ban its use in 1999.

“The British public may not be aware how pig farming has been changed by the growth in free-range and end of sow stalls,” said Lang. “There are now tracts of East Anglia with open-air pigs. Campaigns have recalibrated the norms of pig farming. It’s not perfect yet but, wow, is it different from 50 years ago.”

The UK’s decision to take a global lead in banning crates saw a collapse in the numbers of UK pig farmers. Cheap bacon from countries that had not introduced a ban flooded into the UK, via retailers and the food service sector. UK pig meat imports from Denmark rose by 50% and from Germany by 400% between 1997-2007, according to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.

Pig farmers say the influx of meat produced to lower standards from US farms would lead to a drop in wholesale prices, once again undercutting UK producers. “Our costs are vastly inflated by standards. [Unlike US pig farmers] we’re not allowed to use hormones, ractopamine or keep pigs in stalls,” said Norfolk-based Rob Mutimer, who keeps 700 outdoor sows, producing about 15,000 pigs a year.

Animal welfare campaigners said the import of “cheap, inhumanely produced US pork” could see calls for UK welfare standards to be lowered and also make it more difficult to improve UK farm animal welfare standards in the future. However, the National Pig Association told the Guardian that UK producers had no interest in lowering standards to match imports.

“Having an animal that can never turn around or interact with other animals is unacceptable. I thought we had moved on as a society and that was no longer acceptable. It’s wrong to imprison them this way,” said Mutimer.

US farmers said opposition to the use of ractopamine and sow crates was “pseudo-science” and not “commercially reasonable”. “We’re not going to produce to perception. The food in the US is the safest and probably the best in the world,” said Nick Giordano, vice president and counsel for the National Pork Producers Council.

“The UK has to decide whether it’s really leaving the EU or not. The rest of the world does not subscribe to the nanny state approach. We expect the UK to accept our product without equivocation. Americans eat it, so it’s good enough for our friends across the pond,” he added.

The environment secretary, Michael Gove, has said the UK would not drop its standards on animal welfare in agreeing any US trade deal. But Lang said he had little faith the UK would be able to resist the pressure to sign a deal.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Implementing the result of the referendum.

I imagine you typing this behind a massive scarface-esque desk flanked by heavies.

[Innovindil]

At least we've moved on from chickens. 

[FoxNotFox]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

If this was France it wouldn't have even got this far. The extremeist French population would already have been blockading everywhere and burning tyres and pouring shit on representatives lawns and generally making life hell for normal people. During which they would have lost sight of the original aim of their demonstrations and simply railed against everything and everyone.

 

'Gilets jaunes'  getting you down?!