Brexit thread III

1568101163

Comments

  • I think the point about Guardian readers is that they’re largely the kind of well-off socialists that want to take from those richer than themselves in order to provide for those poorer than themselves, but who resist any suggestion that their own lifestyles should be curtailed. Corbyn can be seen as the sort of socialist who might actually take some of their wealth as well, and is thus dangerous.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I think the point about Guardian readers is that they’re largely the kind of well-off socialists that want to take from those richer than themselves in order to provide for those poorer than themselves, but who resist any suggestion that their own lifestyles should be curtailed. Corbyn can be seen as the sort of socialist who might actually take some of their wealth as well, and is thus dangerous.

    Which I think would be a misplaced fear. If you want to tax the middle classes, the most efficient way to do so is by raising income tax, like the Liberal Democrats proposed. Instead, Labour wanted to raise corporation tax, the effect of which is likely to be regressive if anything, and the abolition of university tuition fees would effectively be a middle-class tax break. Nationalising the railway, likewise, assuming it has any benefit, would largely benefit richer commuters.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I thought arethosemyfeet hit the spot in saying that the Guardian is liberal in its views, hence favours Lib Dems and Blairites. Corbyn seems too left-wing for them, although I don't know if he's a socialist, well, I don't know what that means today. Some people argue that he's a classic social democrat, maybe.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Instead, Labour wanted to raise corporation tax, the effect of which is likely to be regressive if anything, and the abolition of university tuition fees would effectively be a middle-class tax break. Nationalising the railway, likewise, assuming it has any benefit, would largely benefit richer commuters.

    I think you can argue against any universal benefits along these lines -- but on the other hand experience has shown that means testing tends to end up being expensive, faulty, and generate perverse outcomes, simultaneously once something is for ''the poor" it tends to be run down and provided with the least amount of good faith.

    Corporation tax is regressive because larger companies are able to shift their profits around in ways that smaller companies are unable to - i.e its regressive in combination with other things, it isn't necessarily regressive in and of itself.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I've started a separate thread on corporation tax as it's been bugging me for a while.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    But the Guardian has been hostile to Corbyn since he became leader, and they seem to favour the Blairites. My memory is that they had orgasms over the Tiggers, but then omne animal post coitum triste sunt. (Animals feel miserable after a shag).
    I don't think Corbyn's handling of Brexit is out of character with how he handled communication before Brexit. My memory is that the Guardian gave him the benefit of the doubt after the 2017 election.
    The No Change party had only one reason for existing, aside from not being the Liberal Democrats, namely opposing Brexit. It would be natural to think that the Guardian would support them on that point. But apparently only the Green party is allowed to sincerely oppose Brexit.
    The Guardian seem rather impressed by Jess Phillips, who may be somewhat skeptical of Corbyn and his circle but doesn't seem to be anywhere close to a No Changeite.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    And on another note, here is an article from the New Statesman about Brexit.
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/everything-you-think-you-know-about-leavers-and-remainers-wrong
    Summary: Remainers feel more strongly on the subject and are less keen on compromise than Leavers are. Presented with a range of options, most Leavers prefer Remain to at least one Leave option.
    Unfortunately the party in government thinks it's more likely to pick back up the votes it's lost from the extreme Leavers than from the Remainers. Because giving the far right what they want always appeases their demands.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    But the Guardian has been hostile to Corbyn since he became leader, and they seem to favour the Blairites. My memory is that they had orgasms over the Tiggers, but then omne animal post coitum triste sunt. (Animals feel miserable after a shag).
    I don't think Corbyn's handling of Brexit is out of character with how he handled communication before Brexit. My memory is that the Guardian gave him the benefit of the doubt after the 2017 election.
    The No Change party had only one reason for existing, aside from not being the Liberal Democrats, namely opposing Brexit. It would be natural to think that the Guardian would support them on that point. But apparently only the Green party is allowed to sincerely oppose Brexit.
    The Guardian seem rather impressed by Jess Phillips, who may be somewhat skeptical of Corbyn and his circle but doesn't seem to be anywhere close to a No Changeite.

    "somewhat sceptical"?! She fucking hates Corbyn, and that is why the Guardian is so pally with her. The main unifying factor of the ex-Labour Tiggers was being anti-Corbyn.

    The Guardian shut up briefly after the 2017 election because 40%+ rather knocked the stuffing out of their favoured electability argument, but once they found new sticks to beat Corbyn with they were back at it.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Jess Phillips, oh no. Expletive expletive deleted.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited June 11
    Hmm. "Labour seeks to block no deal":
    The party plans to force a vote on Wednesday which would give MPs control of the timetable on 25 June.

    Labour says if the motion passes, MPs will be able to introduce legislation on that day to avoid a no-deal scenario at the end of October.

    Given the absence of a majority to date for anything, what is this planned legislation and how is it expected to pass?

    Can somebody make them write out "No Deal is the default option" 50,000 times whilst watching Groundhog Day? It can't be less productive than anything that's happened since March 29. Which is over two months ago now :scream:
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Apropos No Deal, On Friday I heard a Minister envisage Exiting after 31 October 2019. I really cannot say anything else.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    Eutychus, revoking article 50 remains unilaterally available, if the commons makes no deal impossible - and nothing else is achieved - and it’s 24hrs before an immovable deadline, that option remains.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Hmm. "Labour seeks to block no deal":
    The party plans to force a vote on Wednesday which would give MPs control of the timetable on 25 June.

    Labour says if the motion passes, MPs will be able to introduce legislation on that day to avoid a no-deal scenario at the end of October.

    Given the absence of a majority to date for anything, what is this planned legislation and how is it expected to pass?

    Can somebody make them write out "No Deal is the default option" 50,000 times whilst watching Groundhog Day? It can't be less productive than anything that's happened since March 29. Which is over two months ago now :scream:

    As @Doublethink said, it's actually really easy to do; for example:

    "If on the 30th of October, no Withdrawal Agreement has been agreed with the EU and passed by Parliament and a further extension is not agreed, then the UK shall revoke A50"

    The irony being that the Labour party did not support such a motion when the SNP tabled it. But IIRC it came close to passing and almost certainly would if Labour whip for it.

    AFZ
  • As @Doublethink said, it's actually really easy to do; for example:

    "If on the 30th of October, no Withdrawal Agreement has been agreed with the EU and passed by Parliament and a further extension is not agreed, then the UK shall revoke A50"

    Even if such a motion passed, wouldn't it take another one to do the revoking?
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    As @Doublethink said, it's actually really easy to do; for example:

    "If on the 30th of October, no Withdrawal Agreement has been agreed with the EU and passed by Parliament and a further extension is not agreed, then the UK shall revoke A50"

    Even if such a motion passed, wouldn't it take another one to do the revoking?

    I don't think so; I am no lawyer but

    As I understand it, the mechanism would be for the Prime Minister to write a letter to the President of the European Council. If Parliament had passed a Bill or binding motion such as above then it would force the Prime Minister to do so.

    AFZ
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Although on current form I think it's more likely that the intended legislation is 'the Prime Minister is obliged to petition the EU for a further extension'.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    "If on the 30th of October, no Withdrawal Agreement has been agreed with the EU and passed by Parliament and a further extension is not agreed, then the UK shall revoke A50"

    Oh yes please.

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    And if the then Prime Minister refuses to do so?
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    And if the then Prime Minister refuses to do so?

    Locking them in the Queen Elizabeth Tower and putting a pen in their hand. Alternatively the privy council "advises" the Queen to sack the PM and appoint another. In other words, strap yourselves in because we're in full-on constitutional crisis territory.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    And if the then Prime Minister refuses to do so?

    Locking them in the Queen Elizabeth Tower and putting a pen in their hand. Alternatively the privy council "advises" the Queen to sack the PM and appoint another. In other words, strap yourselves in because we're in full-on constitutional crisis territory.

    I doubt it - more fudge is much more likely.

  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Eirenist wrote: »
    And if the then Prime Minister refuses to do so?

    Locking them in the Queen Elizabeth Tower and putting a pen in their hand. Alternatively the privy council "advises" the Queen to sack the PM and appoint another. In other words, strap yourselves in because we're in full-on constitutional crisis territory.

    I doubt it - more fudge is much more likely.

    Would that differ from the situation in Australia 45 years ago when the Governor-General (John Kerr) sacked the Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam)?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    A friend of mine posted a Guardian article in which the writer spoke to an MEP (not British) who said Brexit is dead. When pushed he said that the original ideals behind Brexit no longer mean much. It has essentially been take over by the Conservative leadership contenders. Delivering Brexit has become more important than the reasons for the result of the vote. It has become an entity in and of itself.
  • Also, Brexit may be undeliverable. The Tory candidates seem to be fantasizing about fresh negotiations, which the EU has ruled out, or no deal, and here there are never any details about tariffs, border documentation, just in time delivery, etc. Of course, Stewart is being more candid about the "fairy stories", so he has no chance.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    A friend of mine posted a Guardian article in which the writer spoke to an MEP (not British) who said Brexit is dead.
    Can shitpiles die?
  • Hugal wrote: »
    A friend of mine posted a Guardian article in which the writer spoke to an MEP (not British) who said Brexit is dead. When pushed he said that the original ideals behind Brexit no longer mean much. It has essentially been take over by the Conservative leadership contenders. Delivering Brexit has become more important than the reasons for the result of the vote. It has become an entity in and of itself.

    That Brexit would fail was always an inevitability. The 2 questions that remain are unchanged though:
    1. Is anyone brave enough to stop it as the failure is clear for all to see except those that don't want to?
    2. Who will be blamed for the failure?

    AFZ
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    If it does get stopped, article 50 revoked - what then?
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    A friend of mine posted a Guardian article in which the writer spoke to an MEP (not British) who said Brexit is dead. When pushed he said that the original ideals behind Brexit no longer mean much. It has essentially been take over by the Conservative leadership contenders. Delivering Brexit has become more important than the reasons for the result of the vote. It has become an entity in and of itself.

    That Brexit would fail was always an inevitability. The 2 questions that remain are unchanged though:
    1. Is anyone brave enough to stop it as the failure is clear for all to see except those that don't want to?
    2. Who will be blamed for the failure?

    AFZ

    1. No.
    2. The EU will get the blame for everything. The MSM, Brexiteers, social media and the Radio 2 phone-in rabble will see to that.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    If it does get stopped, article 50 revoked - what then?

    Well, firstly, they will be an immediate economic boost which due to ending of uncertainty and held-off investment*

    The hard core brexiteers will scream blue murder but that is actually a small price to pay. They are much smaller in number than they claim. Most of the country just want to move on.

    AFZ

    *there will still be long term costs but they'll be a relative (and much needed) boost
  • The other risk of revoking A50 is that the major parties will most likely lose a bunch of seats at the next general election to the Brexit Party, who based on recent elections would be able to leverage the "betrayal" narrative to great effect. And for all that people here call the Tories hard right fascistic bastards, having Farage and his odious ilk in parliament - especially if they held the balance of power in a hung parliament - would be even worse.
  • The other risk of revoking A50 is that the major parties will most likely lose a bunch of seats at the next general election to the Brexit Party, who based on recent elections would be able to leverage the "betrayal" narrative to great effect. And for all that people here call the Tories hard right fascistic bastards, having Farage and his odious ilk in parliament - especially if they held the balance of power in a hung parliament - would be even worse.

    You don't defeat fascists by appeasing them.

    AFZ
  • Giving them an free pass into the corridors of power doesn't strike me as a great tactic either.
  • Woah, I might be agreeing with @Marvin the Martian.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    edited June 12
    Giving them an free pass into the corridors of power doesn't strike me as a great tactic either.

    Revocation of A50 without a public vote is not desirable. It is however better than No Deal.

    Moreover I think you overstate the depth of Farage's support.

    Let's put it like this: which is better:

    A divided country, angry Brexit supporters and economic crisis

    Or

    A divided country, angry Brexit supporters and economic growth and rising incomes?

    Because, actually that is the dichotomy. All the rest is noise.

    AFZ
  • Plenty of media saying that the EU negotiating team is being disbanded, so prospects for further negotiations look dim. Of course, it's not impossible, for example, with a Labour govt, that a new team could be assembled. More important, the Tories now are not dealing with real life, but a fantastic simulacrum of it, so they can make stuff up and the media mainly go along with it. You would think that at some point, reality will break in.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Lets look at the Brexiteers: Many are middle aged, Colonel Bonkers (ret'd) and his batman, ex-Cpl Mad. Others are football thugs, like "Tommy Robinson". They will be good for a lot of noise and a few rucks but I do not think they have have the stamina or organization to mount any kind of a campaign should Brexit go belly-up.

    A few months of unpleasantnesss, some ill-advised retaliation, some infiltration by Mr Plod leading to a split between the old geezers and the yobs will be followed by some convictions and things will settle down, if we all keep calm.
  • @sionisais - that would be my assessment too. And I am certain that appeasing the Brexit extremists will be far worse in the long run.

    In other news; the Opposition Motion to take control of Business on 25th June in order to introduce a bill to make revocation rather than No Deal the default has just been defeated.

    As I have been saying over on the Next Prime Minister thread, The Conservative Party is the problem. With some noble exceptions (particularly Dominic Grieve today) they are self-serving bastards who think that wrecking the country is a small price to pay to keep the Tories in power... I always thought that Bevan went too far; I'm starting to wonder.

    AFZ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It's been said that the past is a foreign country. I can't shake the impression that Brexiters take this literally and are expecting to establish a bilateral trade agreement with The Past to make up for lost EU trade.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Nice thoughts, but I fear you're all being a bit over-optimistic.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    I still don’t understand why, given the conservatives - even with their agreement with the DUP - *do not have a majority* - have an automatic right to form the government after the person originally appointed prime minister has resigned.

    The government under May at the beginning of this term had a working majority - *it does not now*.

    It seems to me unconstitutional therefore, that they can now assert the right to pick the prime minister.
  • If the prospective new PM can't command the confidence of the House of Commons then we'll find out soon enough. I don't know how they go about appointing a PM when it's unclear whether they can command that confidence. Can the Queen appoint on a "sale or return" basis?
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    edited June 12
    The government under May at the beginning of this term had a working majority - *it does not now*.
    If/as they can't command the house, and are making a thing about it. I think it would be 'reasonable' of the Queen to give the others a chance (they can't directly succeed either). I don't know if she could rely on May (unwillingly) or Lucas to get a hold-a-re-election coalition.

    I think though tonight showed they can squeeze through enough to make that not work either.
  • This is why I think a GE in the autumn is quite likely. Especially if Johnson wins the leadership election. A Vote of No Confidence could easily win in that situation.

    October 31st is terrifyingly close really.

    AFZ
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited June 12
    Giving them an free pass into the corridors of power doesn't strike me as a great tactic either.

    Revocation of A50 without a public vote is not desirable. It is however better than No Deal.

    Moreover I think you overstate the depth of Farage's support.

    Let's put it like this: which is better:

    A divided country, angry Brexit supporters and economic crisis

    Or

    A divided country, angry Brexit supporters and economic growth and rising incomes?

    Because, actually that is the dichotomy. All the rest is noise.

    AFZ

    Well, that dichotomy, as expressed, assumes that respecting a democratic vote has no value in itself. That is, as I read your post, you see overturning the referendum result without a second vote as bad insofar as it would make people angry, whereas I would see it as wrong in principle.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Arethosemyfeet: I don't know how they go about appointing a PM when it's unclear whether they can command that confidence. Can the Queen appoint on a "sale or return" basis?

    Conventions change, but as I understand it when Mrs May visits the Queen to surrender her seals of office Her Majesty will formally inquire as to whom she should call in her stead. That person is one who can sustain the Queen's government in Parliament i.e. commands a majority in the House of Commons. When Harold MacMillan resigned in 1963, the Queen called, on the recommendation of MacMillan, Lord Home, (then a member of the House of Lords), but he refused to kiss hands to accept the appointment because he was not sure of his position in the Commons. Only when he had the assurance of majority backing in the lower house was his appointment confirmed. The upshot was that on become PM Lord Home resigned his peerage and fought a by-election in Kinross and West Perthshire in order to become a member of the House of Commons. Consequently, for a short period he was PM, though a member of neither House of Parliament. I guess that's the UK version of "sale or return."

    Gordon Brown was much criticised for his delay in resigning following the election of 2010. He was, however, behaving correctly, because the outcome was not decisive, and while it was highly unlikely Labour would be sustained in office it was not until the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had concluded their pact was it clear who the Queen should ask to form a new administration.

    [There have been cases where a party has formed a government without a party majority or a formal coalition. In 1924, Labour had the second largest number of seats, and in 1929-31 was the largest party but did not have a majority. The Liberals, however, indicated they would vote supply i.e. support the budget, which permitted Labour to form minority governments. Removal of that backing, however, forced those governments to collapse].
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Giving them an free pass into the corridors of power doesn't strike me as a great tactic either.

    Revocation of A50 without a public vote is not desirable. It is however better than No Deal.

    Moreover I think you overstate the depth of Farage's support.

    Let's put it like this: which is better:

    A divided country, angry Brexit supporters and economic crisis

    Or

    A divided country, angry Brexit supporters and economic growth and rising incomes?

    Because, actually that is the dichotomy. All the rest is noise.

    AFZ

    Well, that dichotomy, as expressed, assumes that respecting a democratic vote has no value in itself. That is, as I read your post, you see overturning the referendum result without a second vote as bad insofar as it would make people angry, whereas I would see it as wrong in principle.

    I see your point but I disagree - not with the principle - but with the notion that revoking A50 is 'overturning' the referendum.

    There is a lot wrong with the referendum and I am sure that in time the levels of illegality and Russian influence will become clear but that's actually beside the point.

    The problem is that there is no definition of what Leaving actually means. The best we have is from the campaign where Leave promised repeatedly a Deal of some sort.

    There is no way to honour the democracy, it is impossible. Moreover, given that we live in a Parliamentary democracy, and Parliament is Sovereign (I'm sure Leave said something about that); Parliament's duty is to do what's right.

    It's not that I think that respecting the democratic vote has no value; it's that I think that the idea that leaving with No Deal equates to respecting the vote is just silly.

    AFZ
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I wouldn't equate them in an x=y sense but no-deal falls within the range of ways to leave while revoking doesn't.

    A much better way to leave would be to agree the deal that's available.

    I think there's an element of disingenuousness among politicians who conflate things that are impossible in themselves (e.g. maintaining an independent trade policy and an open border in Ireland) and things which are perfectly possible but that they have decided not to do, e.g. vote for the WA. In other words, if it comes down to a choice between no-deal and no Brexit, that's because politicians have engineered that choice, not because they're the only possible outcomes.
  • A rose by any other name...

    Leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal are fundamentally different things. Just because they both involve the word 'leaving' does not mean they actually have much in common.

    The argument that 'we have to do this because it's what people voted for' only has validity if it's what people actually voted for.

    And the reason why this binary choice is potentially facing us is because Leavers, having won the referendum, have spent the past 3 years redefining what 'leave' means.

    If I give you a turnip and call it a rose, it's still not a rose.

    AFZ
  • It's one thing to respect the public will, quite another to tie that in a particular way to a particular vote. All the polling suggests that any specific version of leave would lose to remain in a referendum. That's why leavers don't want the question to be asked.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    A rose by any other name...

    Leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal are fundamentally different things. Just because they both involve the word 'leaving' does not mean they actually have much in common.

    Insofar as there was any kind of manifesto, I believe both Vote Leave and Leave.EU mentioned leaving with a deal.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    @The easiest deal in the world', we were told. But those nasty Eurocrats sabotaged it . . .
Sign In or Register to comment.