General British Politics Thread.

[Irish David]

Being from Northern Ireland, not one person has been able to tell me how they can leave the single market and the customs union without having some form of border checks north/south or east/west. It's just a shambles.

[Salamander]

10 hours ago, Irish David said:

Being from Northern Ireland, not one person has been able to tell me how they can leave the single market and the customs union without having some form of border checks north/south or east/west. It's just a shambles.

I hope you won't mind if I ask you a question, actually.  I heard somewhere recently that the whole Brexit mess as regards the Irish border has actually resulted in young people in Northern Ireland growing less antagonistic, or perhaps just more apathetic or resigned, to the idea of Irish unification.  Is that something you get a sense of on the ground, or is it just hot air?

[Irish David]

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:32 AM, FFWF said:

I hope you won't mind if I ask you a question, actually.  I heard somewhere recently that the whole Brexit mess as regards the Irish border has actually resulted in young people in Northern Ireland growing less antagonistic, or perhaps just more apathetic or resigned, to the idea of Irish unification.  Is that something you get a sense of on the ground, or is it just hot air?

Nope I don't mind at all. It certainly has put the idea of reunification on the table, will it happen? I don't think so at this moment in time. The Republic of Ireland can't really afford to bring NI on board at the moment. The cost would be huge for the amount of legislation changes required for infrastructure, education and health. It may bring violence back on the streets and no one wants that at all.

[Kevin]

Well folks, Theresa May has survived the confidence vote. Time to wait for the next episode of this drama to play out.

[Patticus]

1 hour ago, Kevin said:

Well folks, Theresa May has survived the confidence vote. Time to wait for the next episode of this drama to play out.

Rumors abound that ten of the letters sent in that triggered this were from May supporters. Could have been a ploy to force a no confidence vote, win it and deprive the ERG of their strategy that clearly revolved around ousting May via this vote. Pretty clever maneuvering if true, but if it is true, it'd be the only clever maneuvering of the last 3 years.

[Roarey Raccoon]

Best thing to do, to my mind, is focus on principles. Doesn't matter what anyone has to say about the merits or demerits of leaving the EU, democracy is over if the referendum result isn't honoured. Don't need a deal, never voted for one in the first place. I'm absolutely disgusted with the government, with parliament in general. The fact that the EU have shown the UK nothing but contempt, despite our long years as its second biggest net contributor, is more than enough to have a brexit with no deal whatsoever. We can trade with whomever wishes to make a deal with us and not pay one more penny to that pathetic globalist institution. Of course, I don't expect to actually get what I'd prefer to see, I have next to no confidence in our politicians anymore. I'd say that the earmarking of basic patriotism and national affection as a fundamentally racist position is the greatest betrayal of the voting public seen in decades, if ever. Thoroughly pissed off with this omnishambles.

[Patticus]

On 12/16/2018 at 2:37 PM, Roarey Raccoon said:

democracy is over if the referendum result isn't honoured.

Is it, though? For one thing, the referendum wasn't legally binding, and for another, the Leave campaign was based on lies sold to an ignorant public, and violated campaign finance laws, neither of which was known before the referendum (well, the lies were, but not admitted to by Farage & co until after). In addition, today we know much more about the consequences of leaving than we did in 2016. After watching the omnishambles unfold for two long years, lead by third rate incompetents, and knowing what we know today, public opinion has inevitably shifted. It's hardly a betrayal to require multiple referendums on a matter that will so overwhelmingly color the UK's experience over the coming decades, given the likely economic fallout and pain to be suffered by the working and middle classes.

Referendums, like elections, should not be generational, but as frequent as is necessary.

Quote

The fact that the EU have shown the UK nothing but contempt, despite our long years as its second biggest net contributor, is more than enough to have a brexit with no deal whatsoever.

As compared to the contempt shown to the EU, Britain's largest trading partner by far, by conservative Brits for decades now. The EU doesn't want Brexit because it knows we are better off united than divided, and you shouldn't expect them to accede to all our demands with a smile. If they show us contempt, I feel it is well earned at this point.

Quote

We can trade with whomever wishes to make a deal with us and not pay one more penny to that pathetic globalist institution.

Except for every single EU nation, which nobody can make deals with on an individual basis; you deal with the EU as a bloc or not at all. Trade deals take many years to draw up - and we were promised a raft of them by now, by that disgraceful idiot David Davis. I've yet to see any evidence that such deals are even being contemplated yet, let alone readied for the day the divorce takes place.

How many years is the UK going to be isolated and floundering while it comes to terms with the WTO's rules, now that they apply to it too?

Quote

I'd say that the earmarking of basic patriotism and national affection as a fundamentally racist position is the greatest betrayal of the voting public seen in decades, if ever.

There's patriotism and national affection, and then there's racist nationalism of the sort espoused by Farage and co, which rose dramatically in the years following the last economic crash. The latter has stained the former, like curry sauce stains everything it touches, and it has become difficult to separate the two.

[Roarey Raccoon]

2 hours ago, Patticus said:

Is it, though?.... etcetc

Yeah. Kinda the point of votes. If you can invalidate the result of one vote you can invalidate them all under the same terms. If it isn't honored, the concept of referendums is fucked. Very simple concept, mate. Stop looking for dishonest means to argue for getting what you want, it is childish.

As for the racism stuff, I don't buy any of it. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about race, if people want to play that card over and over to demonise others they can do so, but I'm not listening to it. It's boring. The patriotic thing to do is to honor the decision the public have made. Simple as that, no essays required. 

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

If you can invalidate the result of one vote you can invalidate them all under the same terms.

That would actually be consistent with the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy; nothing is final, and nothing can bind Parliament. Technically Parliament can invalidate whatever it so pleases. The only restriction on it is custom. The referendum was non-binding, and it will always be non-binding unless the UK gets rid of parliamentary sovereignty.

Considering the British state has not done away with voting rights, free speech, and all that good stuff despite a technical power to do so, I don't think it follows that not honoring a referendum will lead to anything nasty. The British Constitution has subtle brilliance in that, recognizing all constitutions only have power because people agree they have power, it avoids being hard to change.

If the UK public wished to call for another vote on the referendum, it is absolutely valid to call another one. I would note this is a principle enshrined in constitutions around the world, that referenda, constitutional amendments, etc. are not valid unless they are approved in two separate votes. This is a recognition of how many factors can influence a vote immediately preceding the vote, so having two votes mitigates this risk. Consider how many close elections possibly would have changed with a do-over; indeed, a lot of referendum questions have failed on their second try. If anything, multiple votes honors democracy, because it gives the public multiple chances to voice their opinion, ensuring the final course of action is the right one.

Now sure, one could go the rugged individualist approach and put the burden on the masses to get the decision right the first time but... that runs contrary to how very flawed a lot of human beings are. When it comes to managing a state, it seems a good idea to build in protections against popular miscalculations.

And if not honoring the referendum is that big of a deal? Politicians can be voted out. Democracy is not dead until the masses lose the power of altering the legislature.

[Roarey Raccoon]

10 hours ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

That would actually be consistent with the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy; nothing is final, and nothing can bind Parliament. 

Technically? Cameron made it clear, repeatedly, that the result of the vote would be final and binding. The referendum saw the largest turnout perhaps in all of Britain's democratic history and the leave vote won by a margin of more than a million. If this is not binding, if this vote can be handwaved away, then our democracy means precisely nothing. Would you be making this argument if remain had won? 

Let's say we had a second referendum, let's say remain won that one. On what grounds should all the people who voted leave in the first referendum honour the results of the second one? Why honour the results of any votes if the biggest decision the public has made in practically more than a century, with the passion to turn out to vote being stronger than on any other referendum or general election, can be brushed off? 

You couldn't get more "technically" binding. Nobody on the remain side would accept this shit if it was the other way around. I didn't vote leave either, but if you can't stick to principles just because you don't get what you want all the time, then you don't have principles at all. Disgraceful. 

[Tani Coyote]

11 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

Technically? Cameron made it clear, repeatedly, that the result of the vote would be final and binding.

Cameron's also gone. Sucks for the Leave folks, but that's the truth. If he wanted to make sure the vote was honored, he should have stayed on board.

11 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

If this is not binding, if this vote can be handwaved away, then our democracy means precisely nothing.

You not too recently had a general election where the Conservatives saw their seats shrink to a point they had to form a majority with a party with terrorist ties. Your democracy still has plenty of meaning with or without this referendum.

You want to talk referenda, the fact the British people voted against the Government should speak for something. While Labour timidly calls for continuing to pursue Brexit in its official documents, they're arguing for Brexit Lite, where Britain keeps all the benefits of the EU but can claim it is no longer in it (lol).

11 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

Would you be making this argument if remain had won? 

Possibly? Though that's not disrupting the status quo so I don't think the situation is comparable. Indeed, it isn't. In systems that do two rounds of voting for big policies, there's only a second round to change the status quo, not to keep it. It's a mechanic built to prevent rapid change.

11 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

Let's say we had a second referendum, let's say remain won that one. On what grounds should all the people who voted leave in the first referendum honour the results of the second one?

Later decisions overrule prior ones. It's the central principle of law.

As for why they should honor it: Parliament has the guns, not them. If the Leave camp was that angry, they would need to voice their preference in general elections.

11 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

Why honour the results of any votes if the biggest decision the public has made in practically more than a century, with the passion to turn out to vote being stronger than on any other referendum or general election, can be brushed off? 

It's not my fault the people who voted Leave will show up to a referendum but not a general election, where actual power brokers are chosen. This is a particularly acute mishap considering Parliament's decision is what matters.

11 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

You couldn't get more "technically" binding.

Nothing is binding on a sovereign parliament. If parliament displeases you, change it. If that's not enough, you draw up a new governing document abolishing parliamentary sovereignty.

Whatever you do, just don't make your Constitution like ours.

11 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

Nobody on the remain side would accept this shit if it was the other way around.

Changing the status quo is fundamentally different from keeping it. Particularly when there's a ton of misinformation going around. This is a false equivalence.

11 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

I didn't vote leave either, but if you can't stick to principles just because you don't get what you want all the time, then you don't have principles at all. Disgraceful. 

My principle is to accept legal customs, because those are what actually structure our societies.

The British constitution has firmly established parliamentary sovereignty. If the Leave camp are angry at the fact parliamentary sovereignty, a system they would accept in any other situation, does not serve their whims... am I the one is unprincipled, or are they?

I absolutely loathe Donald Trump. I despise the Electoral College. I still accept that, under the terms of our governing documents, he is the President of the United States and has the constitutional powers that come with it. 

[Roarey Raccoon]

3 hours ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

Cameron's also gone... 

Sorry, not doing the whole boatload of quotes thing. You've said nothing of substance here beyond the assertion that Parliament is sovereign, and thus can overrule anything, including a referendum. Could try just saying that, hey? Parliamentary sovereignty is with regards to the law. Is there a law which grants that national referenda results can be dishonered if some elitist sacks of shit decide that the public is too stupid, and thus voted "wrong"? The PM, Cameron and May, both made clear that Brexit would be honored. You don't want it, so you are scrambling to justify your own stance, to actually, unironically, justify betraying the British public in their decision. 

Later decisions overrule prior ones in law, yes, no shit. Not in the outcomes of votes. You don't set up a national referendum tackling the most important decision the nation has to make since WW2 and then decide to not honour it if you don't like what the result is. That isn't how democracy works. It isn't what the government outlined. It isn't what the British law outlines. You are arguing for a path to authoritarianism and you don't even know it. Perhaps the greatest irony is that you think you're better informed than over half the voting public, informed enough to betray a nations people rather than see an outcome you don't want. Patently ridiculous. 

There is no budging on this for someone with a sense of honour and integrity. The government are public servants, not public masters. We lose that, we lose everything. It appears the concept of having a spine is on the wane these days. For shame. I mean that in earnest. 

[Patticus]

16 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

Later decisions overrule prior ones in law, yes, no shit. Not in the outcomes of votes. You don't set up a national referendum tackling the most important decision the nation has to make since WW2 and then decide to not honour it if you don't like what the result is.

The best results being a shrinking economy and a likely recession, and at worst, Rees-Mogg et al using the economic crisis to force the UK into a trade deal with Trump (Washington becoming the new Brussels) that'll let them bring in corporate America to asset strip the nation and make them billions, while they swan off to their fancy mainland European getaways, well away from the growing numbers of food banks. The NHS is already in critical danger from the lack of EU staff, there's talk of months of delays for incoming trade at Dover, god only knows if international flights will be happening, the army might be called out to distribute medicine or food, and I know there are a lot of other likely consequences I'm not remembering.

It already looks like an huge clusterfuck in the making.

Why would you want that? In what ways will you and the UK benefit from this separation?

Quote

There is no budging on this for someone with a sense of honour and integrity. The government are public servants, not public masters.

We elect politicians not only to obey the will of the people, but also to make decisions on our behalf on matters that we the people very often do not have even the faintest clue about. The EU is one such complicated beast - can you define without Googling what the differences between the Council of Europe and the European Council are? I can't. How many average citizens could? Doubtful more than a couple of percent of the voting population could, and most of them would probably be academics or politicians.

The majority of the voting public are uninformed and ignorant about the EU on a good day, but with the right-wing Tory/Murdoch press spreading lies and misinformation about it for decades -- the EU has an A-Z list of myths about itself, many of which were peddled by the British press -- and that effort intensifying in the run-up to election day, those days are scarcely to be found, meaning that the British voting public are buying the shit the right-wing press are feeding them, if not immediately, then certainly over time.

It's not a subject I would ever trust the public to have a say on. Not without passing an EU knowledge exam first, to make sure they actually know what they're voting on - not merely what they think they're voting for, like "are sovrintee."

Disturbing. Deeply worrisome stuff.

[Roarey Raccoon]

14 hours ago, Patticus said:

The best results being a shrinking economy and a likely recession, and at worst, Rees-Mogg et al using the economic crisis to force the UK into a trade deal with Trump (Washington becoming the new Brussels) that'll let them bring in corporate America to asset strip the nation and make them billions, while they swan off to their fancy mainland European getaways, well away from the growing numbers of food banks. 

Irrelevant. That's if you were even correct in your ability to predict the future. It is obviously inevitable there will be some suffering after Brexit, but no recession is permanent. Britain is the 5th largest economy, we have a wonderful nation, in a multitude of ways, with great people. Your trouble is you think so many of them are morons who don't know the right way to think. You believe your perspective is the most sensible one, which is what we all do, which is why we have votes. There's no right or wrong answer to the question of the UK leaving the EU, just a question of what individual voters want, what they believe is best based on their perspective, their needs and their experience. 

What you need to grow up and realise is that nobody in politics has any of the required knowledge or experience to know what is best for entire nations, millions of people. Anybody who has the arrogance to believe they possess that wisdom is a threat to everyone around them if they have power. That's why we have bloody democracies, with the public voting as individuals. The public made their decision and no it isn't stupid, or misinformed, it just isn't what you want and, like all decisions, it will have some negative consequences. Turns out, people value national sovereignty, and notice when they are being fucked, and folks like you have decided in your great wisdom that they're a bunch of racist, bigoted dullards who couldn't find their arse in the dark. How understanding of you. 

The government is authorised to act on our behalf, as it must be, but this doesn't apply to referenda. When this was announced, did the government say: "You have a choice to make, the outcome of which will be final, but should you vote the way we don't want you to, we may have to ignore your decision because it might be a bit drastic to do it." 

The fucking excuse-making remainer drivel in here is absolutely laughable. You could have accepted the public decision of your fellow citizens and looked on the bright side. Could have spent time looking for how to make the best of our new situation. Or you could spend time crying about the decision, pointing out how we're all fucking doomed and everybody who got us here is either a scumbag or a moron. Excellent idea, that last one. Really strong, bold, brave and wise. 

[Patticus]

5 hours ago, Roarey Raccoon said:

Irrelevant. That's if you were even correct in your ability to predict the future.

Governments and economists publish forecasts all the time, and we place our trust in their accuracy.  I'm only going by what they've been saying, in addition to those elements of the press not wedded to Brexit.

Why should we all have to "accept" the Leavers, after their campaign's lies and malfeasance have been exposed? What exactly should compel the almost half of voters who did not vote Leave (lest ye forget that the Leave win was razor thin) to suddenly lie down and accept it, particularly after years of incompetent "negotiating," knowing what we know now, and understanding that many of our worst fears look for all intents and purposes on the verge of realization? If Farage, Hannan and co are allowed to spread lies about the EU while abusing its expenses policies for decades, if the right-wing British press is permitted to lie to the public for decades about the EU, sure as shit the rest of us can, should and absolutely will have carte blanche to raise merry hell over what we see as the most horrifying, devastating vote in recent political history.

The public narrowly made its decision based on the lies and misinformation of anti-EU propagandists, heaped upon many years of anti-EU propaganda from the right-wing press, which filled a knowledge vacuum left by an incompetently run Remain campaign, and previously, the abject failure of the center and the left to educate the public on what the EU actually is and does. For example, this lead to farmers nationwide voting directly against their own interests by voting Leave, only to find out later just how financially ruinous to themselves their votes would actually be, leading to their clamoring to ensure their own government might fill that void itself.

A matter this important should not go to a referendum only once, it should be at least twice - the initial vote, and then a second, third etc when we know what's actually about to happen. It's incredibly dangerous to jump out of a plane without double checking your gear, so too is it the case for jumping out of the EU.

[Kevin]

The Brexit deal is dead, boys!

Update: Jeremy Corbyn has put forward a Motion of No Confidence. Looks like May’s days as PM are numbered. 

 

[Teoskaven]

Gotta love the judge/scrutiner/whatever on how over the top he sounded to try emitting the sentence.
OOOORDAAAAH-

But anyway, what does this mean now for the UK governament and the position of the state in reguards to the EU?

[Salamander]

Depends on how the motion of no confidence goes tomorrow, I would imagine.  I'm dubious about it actually passing, but how close it gets I think will be extremely significant in whether Parliament is emboldened to seize the legislative reins.  Theresa May seems intent on some kind of suicide march to get her deal through, by running down the clock to the last minute so that MPs will have no choice but to vote for her deal or a possibly even more unpopular no deal; it's less a question of whether she'll come to her senses as whether they'll let her get away with it.

[SoniClub]

I find it astounding the amount of leavers who have changed their tune, now claiming they 'didn't vote for a deal.' How in the internet age we can be so forgetful is beyond me. This was not the rhetoric they were spouting at the time of the referendum. I guess only some of us are allowed to change our minds.

There is an awful lot of lauding of principles at the moment, as if that wasn't the problem that got us here in the first place: go back to 2016, or even now for that matter, and ask 20 people what Brexit actually means: you will not get a consensus. 

I'm far more concerned about the actual reality of what the UK leaving the EU will look like, rather than the supposedly untouchable principle of following a contrived referendum that merely showed how split the nation (and the union, less we forget Scotland and Northern Ireland's clear opposition) is on the issue. When people shout 17 million, I shout 16 million right back at them. I cannot understand how people see this very slim majority as a sacrosanct mandate to radically change the fabric of our country's economic, political and judicial frameworks, especially when there isn't even a remotely clear understanding of what the outcome will be, or what we are even doing it for in the first place. (The EU, by definition, is a democratic organisation. The EU does not prevent us from putting tighter restrictions on European migration, it is the government that has not implemented these. It is absolutely disingenuous to suppose that leaving guarantees fabulous new opportunities as a small island vs. the position of being in the largest single market economy in the world. The list goes on...) 

The idea that democracy is somehow destroyed if we have another vote, more often than not, simply reads to me as leavers worried the public no longer support Brexit. They know it was a laughably close margin for such a monumental decision; they know it was won on misinformation and on the back of a decades long propaganda campaign by the gutter press; they know it is so much more difficult to convince people to vote for something once you have a reality on the table, and not just a vague concept. 

The whole thing is an utter shambles and I'm livid with politicians clinging to the result of a referendum that they never should have sanctioned in the first place. When the Scottish independence referendum was held, there was a clear plan published before the vote of how the Scottish government would go about becoming independent if the public decided to leave the union. The referendum question we were faced with in 2016 was ridiculous from the beginning, in that the remain campaign were tasked with competing against an undefined, seemingly limitless concept. They could only wield their measly facts or the supposedly reassuring adage of 'keeping things how they are'. It was an up-hill battle: life is not good under this government for many, particularly the working class. For many, a vote for leave was an act of rebellion against the government and the status-quo. 

It's funny, I watched a video the other day of people's reactions after the vote in 2016, and a guy who had voted leave reasoned that, "I mean, surely they'd have it all figured out and stuff, they wouldn't have asked us if not." 

Oh you'd think Barry, you'd think. 

[Kevin]

May has survived the confidence vote 306 MPs in favor 325 MP against. It’s now back to square one.

[Kevin]

So May’s Brexit deal got rejected again. Poor thing can barely speak due to having lost her voice. Now it’s a vote for a no-deal Brexit. 

[Salamander]

To be clear, as I've found the coverage to be rather ambiguous, it's to be a vote on whether or not to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

[Kevin]

No deal Brexit is rejected on a very close vote of 312-308. 

[Salamander]

What's interesting is that that vote was for an amendment to the motion that was the main event of the evening, strengthening the degree to which it rejected no-deal:

 

[Covskin]

Even more than that:

Original Vote was to rule out "no deal" specifically on 29th March. May said she'd vote to rule out no deal, but offered MPs a free vote.

Amendment is added to rule out "no deal" ever.

May scrambles, now plans to vote against the idea of ruling out no deal despite putting forward the original vote, and tries to enforce the 3-line whip to make the rest of the Party fall in line. Not only does she lose, even Cabinet members abstain rather than support!

Then May's best plan is to offer a 3rd vote on her crappy deal that's already been rejected twice, and even hinted that if she loses again she'll just putit up for a fourth andmaybe even fifth time!

It's farcical.