Brexit thread III

1356751

Comments

  • Gee D wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    But surely Brussels dictates what happens in the UK?
    I know it was said in jest, but that's the sort of lie that got us into this mess in the first place.

    I'd say that what got you into this mess in the first place was the decision in 1973 to join, followed by the vote a couple of years later to remain.
    Well, it's trivially obvious that if the UK had never joined the EEC in 1973 (or, subsequently since I suspect that if we hadn't then some time in the subsequent decades we would have joined) then we wouldn't now be in the situation of trying to work out if we want to leave the EU and if so how. But, I'm not sure how that's a useful observation, given that the UK is a member of the EU.

    It's also the case that a very small number of people see benefit to themselves if the UK leaves the EU; some will make themselves even richer, others gain political power, others still see an illusory gain from reducing the number of "non-British" (as they'd term them) people from our streets. To that end, that small but powerful cabal spun a web of lies to gain support from people who wouldn't gain, indeed would likely lose out. Those lies include statements that the UK has significantly lost sovereignty to Brussels, with the EU dictating what the UK does - rather than the UK sovereignty extending to the EU, with EU legislation having the support of the UK, with the UK able to significantly control the processes of developing EU legislation. There were also lies about the financial costs of EU membership, which brings far more investment into the UK economy than the peanuts the UK government spends. Or, that immigration is a problem (except perhaps the problem of too many restrictions on immigration). Plenty more examples could be given.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    (Off the main topic)

    Looking at the map on this page (scroll down a bit), I was rather taken aback at the differing levels of economic development within the UK and France in particular, looking by region. I realised London and Paris were clearly outliers in their respective countries, but I did not realise the regions were that magnitude lower.

    Am I reading this incorrectly, and missing something I should not be? A blunt look makes it seem "obvious" why people are angry and feel hard done by (not that I would say the EU was necessarily the cause...) I suppose on the flipside, does it show how much financial support regions in the UK received, and how much you may "lose"?
  • No, you're not missing anything. The UK regions have been suffering disproportionately under austerity and subsequent Tory policies - cutting social security after killing off the unions and manufacturing industries. There has been a lot of EU funding into the regions - Wales, North East, Scotland, but there are questions as to how well that top down support actually works in practice.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 6
    Climacus wrote: »
    (Off the main topic)

    Looking at the map on this page (scroll down a bit), I was rather taken aback at the differing levels of economic development within the UK and France in particular, looking by region.

    London has an economic output comparable to Norway, whereas much of the rest of the UK is more comparable to Southern Italy. The difference between the UK and France is that France tends to have had a more redistributist approach that makes inequality lower after tax/social spending.

    There's a lack of coherent industrial/economic policy in the UK. The Blair/Brown governments ameliorated the consequences somewhat via various in work benefits and increases in social/health spending, but never really made the case for what they were doing.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    But surely Brussels dictates what happens in the UK?
    I know it was said in jest, but that's the sort of lie that got us into this mess in the first place.

    I'd say that what got you into this mess in the first place was the decision in 1973 to join, followed by the vote a couple of years later to remain.
    Well, it's trivially obvious that if the UK had never joined the EEC in 1973 (or, subsequently since I suspect that if we hadn't then some time in the subsequent decades we would have joined) then we wouldn't now be in the situation of trying to work out if we want to leave the EU and if so how. But, I'm not sure how that's a useful observation, given that the UK is a member of the EU.

    I agree entirely with your second paragraph (not quoted).

    Where the decision in 1973, and then the vote in the referendum, are relevant is that the deal was sold on the basis that all that was involved was joining a free trade area, much the same as EFTA (which had been dominated by the UK). What was involved was joining into mainland Europe, recognising that the UK was in fact part of Europe. It's the rebellion against that (spurred along by the lack of any apparent benefit to much of the UK) that is the driver behind Brexit; the hankering for a great Great Britain*.

    *Incidentally, Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, one of history's little curiosities.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    ... It's the rebellion against that (spurred along by the lack of any apparent benefit to much of the UK) that is the driver behind Brexit; the hankering for a great Great Britain ...
    I'm not so sure about that. I doubt that many of the people who voted Leave gave a stuff about how "great" Britain was perceived to be. It seems to me that many people were taken in by the promises made by the Leave campaign, which seemed to tap into disaffection about immigration (fuelled by rags like the Daily Express and Daily Mail), leading in turn to the alarming rise of far-right parties and the legitimising of their odious policies.
    Gee D wrote: »
    ... Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain ...
    No, but it is part of the United Kingdom, and could be affected in a devastating way by the whole debacle.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The whole of the UK will be devastated with the debacle. It will be much worse than it need be, simply with the choice of May or Corbyn running it. I can see the next deadline drawing closer and closer with the Commons still not supporting the negotiated deal and not agreeing on any other policy either. A weak, ineffective and incompetent government and the Opposition looking no better.

    AIUI, a lot of the Leave vote in Northern England was based on disaffection with the EU which was blamed for losses in employment opportunities and the consequences of the general drop in central government expenditure on infrastructure and social services. The unemployment was contrasted with the good old days (which never existed as they are fondly believed to have done) and with a UK that told the world what to do. That latter had gone a century ago.
  • Actually, despite being a considerably leftier sort of state, France is not good at redistribution.

    Witness billionaires finding hundreds of millions of euros down the back of the sofa to restore Notre Dame, while the gilets jaunes protest about not being able to make it to the end of the month.

    /tangent
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Where the decision in 1973, and then the vote in the referendum, are relevant is that the deal was sold on the basis that all that was involved was joining a free trade area, much the same as EFTA (which had been dominated by the UK).

    I know this is popular myth in certain circles, but ISTR we discussed this in the previous thread and someone (possibly Alan?) explained why this was not the case? In any event there are a number of pages online that go over this, this particular one is fairly partisan, but includes images of the speeches and columns from the time:

    https://medium.com/@UKIPNFKN/uk-voters-knew-the-1975-referendum-was-about-both-an-economic-political-union-with-the-rest-of-2f565b972cd6
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thank you - I shall go through it tomorrow. My chief source of information was The Economist to which I was then subscribing.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    In relation to any Tory/Labour deal, I don't see how you can get round the possible undoing of it by a new PM, say Johnson. How can Labour do a deal with people who are famous for reneging? If Corbyn agrees to this, he will be known as Ramsay MacCorbyn forever.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    In relation to any Tory/Labour deal, I don't see how you can get round the possible undoing of it by a new PM, say Johnson. How can Labour do a deal with people who are famous for reneging? If Corbyn agrees to this, he will be known as Ramsay MacCorbyn forever.

    I think commentary on this issue generally is long on speculation and short on facts -- all we know so far is that the government and opposition are speaking to each other.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Surely Boris has completely destroyed his credibility as a responsible member of any government, national or local?
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I thought Johnson is still favourite among Tories to become PM, although Corbyn was ahead of him recently.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    No, Gove seems to be favourite.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    No, Gove seems to be favourite.

    I'd say that while Gove gets a lot of press, Hunt is favourite - his is the name regularly trotted out by 'serious' columnists connected with the Tory party as a statesmanlike safe pair of hands.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    If he gets in he will privatise the NHS, he has even published a book on how to achieve it.
  • No, Gove seems to be favourite.

    I'd say that while Gove gets a lot of press, Hunt is favourite - his is the name regularly trotted out by 'serious' columnists connected with the Tory party as a statesmanlike safe pair of hands.
    If Hunt gets classed as a "safe pair of hands" we'll be in real trouble if someone else gets the job.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    edited May 6
    So much confusion for Labour voters. I hear those such as Tony Robinson, who has resigned over the non-action over the 2nd referendum, then those who say that Labour is sticking to conference policy, then those who say Corbyn is desperate to to get Brexit through. I doubt if a Tory/Labour deal is about to happen. Ah well, in the Euro elections, I will vote Labour, certainly not Tigger, who basically want to stop a Labour government.

    This is me. Whilst the Tiggers are spot on about Brexit, their rank hypocrisy and opportunism is appalling. I remain a Labour member but I keep thinking about it.* However in the upcoming election, I think I will vote Green.

    With respect to the local elections, there is no doubt that most people vote on national rather than local issues. This is by turns, sensible and insane. The insane part, @Alan Cresswell explained really well on the last page. Most council seats are decided by a few dozen votes. An organised person who wanted to campaign on a particular issue stands a good chance of getting elected.

    Conversely, there are 2 good and 1 moderate reason why voting on national issues makes sense.

    The moderate one is that local parties feed national ones. If you support a party nationally, voting for it locally is how you grow future candidates and local party organisations that are vital in tight national campaigns.

    The good reasons are this:
    1) local authorities in the UK have very little power. This is due to a number of factors, particularly various bits of legislation and regulations handed down by Westminster and crucially, money. The majority of local government funding comes from the centre and thus the decisions that most effect schools or social care etc. are only to a very limited extent made by local councils.

    The second is circular but is true because it's true. The media and more importantly the parties all treat local elections as a national opinion poll and hence the most effective way to influence national governments between general elections is by how you vote in a local election. It is ridiculous but it is true. Combine that with the first reason (lack of local real power) and arguably a sane voter should vote locally on national issues. This is even more true for people who don't live in marginal constituencies.

    Of course, the above just shows how broken our democracy really is.
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Rather than a vote to "get on with it", that looks very much more like a vote to "take a breather and check this is really what we want".

    I don't think the two are mutually incompatible - if politicians agreed on a PV, they would at least be coalescing around a possible course of action, instead of just faffing, reiterating the same old arguments, and voting no to things.

    Again, I think it is ERG spin to say 'get on with it' means 'leave without a deal' rather than 'make your sodding minds up'.

    This is key and shows deep disingenuous behaviour on the part of the ERG (Quelle surprise) and ignorance of the part of voters. A significant chunk of the population want Brexit over and understand No Deal to mean the UK can move on to the things they really care about. The opposite is true; No Deal means a decade of negotiations with virtually no power for the UK side and all the other UK issues made more challenging by the ensuing economic shock.

    It is a simple fact that most of the UK population are not politically engaged but just want to get on with their lives. Many of these people think they want no Deal but really don't. And I don't care if that's patronising, it's still true. This is why propaganda works. On all of us. We are all vulnerable to it in areas where we don't personally know the details.

    AFZ

    *For me it's partly driven by a belief that one can do more from the inside. (One example). I continue to participate in the internal party campaign to convince the leadership to be more pro-Remain. If remainers keep leaving the party this won't happen. I think that the only realistic pathway to stopping Brexit involves the Labour party.
  • Ah well, in the Euro elections, I will vote Labour, certainly not Tigger, who basically want to stop a Labour government.

    This is me. Whilst the Tiggers are spot on about Brexit, their rank hypocrisy and opportunism is appalling. I remain a Labour member but I keep thinking about it.* However in the upcoming election, I think I will vote Green.
    We were out delivering election leaflets this evening, and one retired gentleman stopped us to ask what we were delivering. Having explained that we're asking for votes in the coming European election and his rant about the current idiots in Westminster said he'd always voted Labour, as his father before him, but he'd give "our lot a try" this time.

  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Thank you for the comments on that map I linked to, and the information around distribution of funds; greatly appreciated.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    There is a certain black humour in the EU extension being largely devoted as yet to a Tory leadership contest. There must be a meaning to life, but it is sucked into oblivion by such antics.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Blackford (SNP), quite amusing, as he often is, "May is so incompetent that she can't even resign properly".
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Sorry for 3rd post, but already there is a ton of comments about Johnson as PM, obviously it's love/hate for many Tories. Another chapter in the Tory psychodrama, will it ever end.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    There is a certain black humour in the EU extension being largely devoted as yet to a Tory leadership contest. There must be a meaning to life, but it is sucked into oblivion by such antics.

    It also means that the next vote has no chance of passing. May is essentially a lame duck from now on, there's even less chance that the negotiations between the two parties will succeed, and its highly likely that the next vote will see a r ash of cabinet resignations as people position themselves for a role in the next administration and decide at what point to go out in the grandest style possible -- before they become 'A Random Bankbench MP'.
  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    If I were in TM's position, I would, before she loses the fourth vote, tell the Tories that she will resign the premiership and recommend the Queen to invite the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to form a government.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 16
    I have a vague recollection that Boris is largely loathed within the parliamentary party, popular as he is with the more idiotic end of the Tory rank and file.

    OTOH I read he's 4 to 1 to be the next PM in some odds tracker thingumibob somewhere (so Mrs Backslider tells me) so I'm currently deciding between France, Scandinavia, Wales (and campaigning for independence) and career alcoholism.

    Edit - Mrs Backslider says "hide in a hole somewhere and pretend it isn't happening"
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Can someone clue me in as to who the "Tiggers" are?
  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    I'm guessing that "Tiggers" refers to members of The Independent Group of MP's (TIG).
  • stetson wrote: »
    Can someone clue me in as to who the "Tiggers" are?
    Those MPs and their supporters who bounced out of Labour and Conservative parties to form The Independent Group (TIG), now rebranded ChangeUK. With their candidates for the Euro Election bouncing to the LibDems now.

    The wonderful thing about tiggers ...
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 16
    Ah, thanks, Hyatt and Creswell. They're the ones who were pro-Europe and complaining about anti-semitism in Labour, right?
  • The ChangeUK group are the disaffected jumping on a bandwagon without real policies or much of an idea. Those MPs who decided that they had to go their individualistic way but have to be part of a party to be electable, so cobbled together this mess.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    The ChangeUK group are the disaffected jumping on a bandwagon without real policies or much of an idea.

    The two policies they revealed so far was water privatization and national service.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 16
    There's an article in the Torygraph asking why it all went so badly wrong for Change UK. They currently look opportunistic with pretty poor timing. Particularly with the MEP candidate in Scotland stepping down to support the LibDems.

    Interesting that Chuka Umunna has put his name to this one when he was initially a candidate for the Labour leadership at the beginning of the last campaign - before withdrawing in 2015.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I thought some of them were driven by animus against Corbyn. I suppose that might motivate people, but it's negative. What are they for? Dilute Toryism? Also the centre ground looks crowded.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Dilute Toryism the s what got New Labour in.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Dilute Toryism the s what got New Labour in.

    I don't think that means the Tiggers will get in. Autres temps, autres moeurs. Other days, other ways.
  • An..n..d the negotiations between the Tories and Labour have broken down, with Theresa May planning to represent her Brexit plan to Parliament again w/c 3 June, for the fourth time. When she's already promised to resign after that vote. I guess the result of the EU elections might have some impact and the vote next week is important.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    Indeed. I voted yesterday (postal).
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    An..n..d the negotiations between the Tories and Labour have broken down

    Which is entirely predictable, as she is now a lame duck PM, and can't guarantee anything post her succession.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    Which is basically what Corbyn’s letter says.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Can anyone see a credible path to anything other than No Deal in October?

    I can't, and I desperately hope I'm wrong.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    For many of us that wouldn't matter but for some in the Leave constituency this is an important thing - Brexit can be shown to have failed in its own terms.

    Now is the moment.

    Is the Labour leadership up to it? That is the question.

    AFZ
  • I suspect they will wait for the results of the EU elections - as big swings away from Conservative and Labour into Remain parties will support a People's Vote. If that swing happens, and we don't have huge swings to the Brexit party and UKIP.

    But that hasn't happened here. Local council elections, the Green party only fielded one local candidate in real white van man country, in an area that voted 70% to leave. The Green candidate won, to everyone's surprise, including his. UKIP and the far right did much worse than they have in previous years.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    TBH, given the current polling for the Brexit Party and Farage's success at channelling inchoate rage, I'm surprised that Continuity Remain still think that a PV is a good idea.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    For many of us that wouldn't matter but for some in the Leave constituency this is an important thing - Brexit can be shown to have failed in its own terms.

    Now is the moment.

    Is the Labour leadership up to it? That is the question.

    But even if Labour swung 100% behind a PV, with every single MP advocating passionately for one in the House of Commons, how would that cause a PV to happen? The government would still need to propose the legislation, and I see no evidence that either May or any of her probable successors would be willing to do so.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Can anyone see a credible path to anything other than No Deal in October?

    I can't, and I desperately hope I'm wrong.

    Not a hope in Hell.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I'm afraid that you're right - and the EU will see that the efforts of European leaders to give the UK time to sort things out have been wasted. Come 30 October, the Commons will still be debating a series of measures and finding no majority for any.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Delay is not waste for the EU. It keeps the money coming in. It's all such a shame, but enlightened liberal technocracy cannot survive unenlightened democracy.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Delay is not waste for the EU. It keeps the money coming in. It's all such a shame, but enlightened liberal technocracy cannot survive unenlightened democracy.

    I wonder - we’ll see in time.

    I think you could be right :cry:

Sign In or Register to comment.