British politics

Page 48 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hadn't realized that May voted to remain. That being the case, why is she so opposed to a second referendum? If the British voted to stay in the EU, May would be off the hot seat. Basically, she's being blamed for not being able to get a good deal for something she herself never wanted in the first place.

I also wonder about the distinction people are making between no deal and no Brexit. If there is no deal, surely Britain is not going to remain outside the EU, with no special privileges? Surely if there is no deal, everyone would want to return to the EU? Juncker has made it pretty clear that the deal can't be renegotiated.
 
Merckx index said:
I hadn't realized that May voted to remain. That being the case, why is she so opposed to a second referendum? If the British voted to stay in the EU, May would be off the hot seat. Basically, she's being blamed for not being able to get a good deal for something she herself never wanted in the first place.

I also wonder about the distinction people are making between no deal and no Brexit. If there is no deal, surely Britain is not going to remain outside the EU, with no special privileges? Surely if there is no deal, everyone would want to return to the EU? Juncker has made it pretty clear that the deal can't be renegotiated.
Fun isn't it. The Scots and Northern Irish were bright enough to vote remain. No idea what is going to happen next other than a no deal. The only good thing about this complete and utter mess, is that Scotland will be Independent within the next 5 years (thank you England and Wales).
 
Merckx index said:
I hadn't realized that May voted to remain. That being the case, why is she so opposed to a second referendum? If the British voted to stay in the EU, May would be off the hot seat. Basically, she's being blamed for not being able to get a good deal for something she herself never wanted in the first place.
This would require a long answer to go over the whole of the background so feel free to ask if something isn't obvious. Basically party politics lead to the referendum that no-one expected leave to win. Leave winning left the Government in an impossible position due to the amount of bollocks and lies told to the public by the leave campaign, effectively promising them something completely unachievable. This resulted in a power vacuum when Cameron threw a wobbly and took his ball home. Initially the likes of Johnson etc. seemed most likely in line to take the big seat but because this whole thing is basically born out of some Bullingdon Club grudge from decades ago between Cameron and Johnson, a load of focus was put on making them unelectable, or they realised it would be easier to criticise rather than actually achieve a deal. May decided that she'd like a go in the big seat so took on the role of negotiating something she didn't want in the first place, something everyone else was glad to let her do because it's impossible, leaving herself open to obvious attacks from this angle. She's spent the last 2 years telling everyone that she can do the impossible and her version of the impossible is the very best version. She can't turn round now and say it's all nonsense because she can't command a majority of her Government (because she called a quick election and lost the Conservatives their actual majority in Parliament and had to do deals to stay in power...) and she'll quickly be ejected. It is almost the dictionary definition of a massive cluster****.

I also wonder about the distinction people are making between no deal and no Brexit. If there is no deal, surely Britain is not going to remain outside the EU, with no special privileges? Surely if there is no deal, everyone would want to return to the EU? Juncker has made it pretty clear that the deal can't be renegotiated.
This is an incredibly sensible and logical interpretation, if the negotiations were anything like a normal negotiation. However, that's not the case. We have enacted Article 50, as such we are leaving and if we can't reach a deal we leave without one. Lots of people actually want this (yes, seriously) either because they have no idea what it really means/believe the lies/are racists (general public), or they are self-interested a***holes interested in making money/grabbing power/are racists (politicians and people with influence). We can cancel Article 50, but that would require an act of Parliament, which seems unlikely to carry the support required at the moment as most opposition politicians have no idea what to do or who to side with to sure up their seat and the Government MPs are all involved in a massive party-political fight. Leaving without a deal is even more difficult logistically because the Good Friday Agreement states that there cannot be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is where the backstop comes in. This is a much bigger issue because the current Government relies on a deal with the DUP, a Unionist Northern Irish party that will not back any deal that has different terms for the UK and NI (which any deal has to because of the border and the red lines set out by the Conservative Government at the start of the negotiations). Even the backstop will have to be voted in by Parliament, which is unlikely, and recently lead to the whole Government being held in contempt for refusing to release the legal advice they promised they would release. This advice was released and said that if the backstop comes into force it would require both the UK and the EU to agree new terms for it to end, or otherwise continue in perpetuity. The initial backstop isn't acceptable to the DUP and the legality of it makes it completely unacceptable for the people who want to leave.

I have no idea what happens if we leave with no deal, as we will then require a hard border which is illegal according to the Good Friday Agreement. As such, no deal might actually mean we leave but sign up to everything the EU says, effectively Brexit in name only.


It really is the most stupid situation you could possibly imagine.
 
Mrs May to be a lame duck PM - but no one in their right mind wants the job until Brexit's sorted out.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-13/u-k-s-may-fires-starting-pistol-for-next-tory-leadership-race?srnd=premium-europe
Theresa May has for the first time publicly conceded her days are numbered as U.K. prime minister.

“In my heart, I’d love to lead the Conservative Party to the next general election,” she said as she arrived for a European summit in Brussels. “But I think it’s right that the party feels it would prefer to go into that election with a new leader.”

The fact itself is not new. May conceded to colleagues on Wednesday that she knows they want someone else in charge for the next national vote -- currently due in 2022. Her promise to stand down helped win a formal confidence vote later that day which threatened to oust her.
Labour to keep pushing - but do they want a new election with Brexit still up in the air?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/13/labour-plan-to-throw-kitchen-sink-to-force-may-into-brexit-vote
“There must be no more dither and delay, or attempts to run down the clock in an attempt to deny parliament alternative options,” Corbyn said on Thursday.

“People and businesses need certainty. The prime minister should put her deal before parliament next week in our country’s interest,” he said, adding that there was “no time to waste”.
 
Oops!
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/foreign-office-funds-2m-infowars-13707574
A secret UK Government-funded infowars unit based in Scotland sent out social media posts attacking Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

On the surface, the cryptically named Institute for Statecraft is a small charity operating from an old Victorian mill in Fife.

But explosive leaked documents passed to the Sunday Mail reveal the organisation’s Integrity Initiative is funded with £2million of Foreign Office cash and run by military intelligence specialists.

The “think tank” is supposed to counter Russian online propaganda by forming “clusters” of friendly journalists and “key influencers” throughout Europe who use social media to hit back against disinformation.

But our investigation has found worrying evidence the shadowy programme’s official Twitter account has been used to attack Corbyn, the Labour Party and their officials.

One tweet quotes a newspaper article calling Corbyn a “useful idiot”, that goes on to state: “His open visceral anti-Westernism helped the Kremlin cause, as surely as if he had been secretly peddling Westminster tittle-tattle for money.”

A message from the UK Government-funded organisation promotes an article that states: “Unlike Galloway (former MP George Galloway) Corbyn does not scream conspiracy, he implies it,” while another added: “It’s time for the Corbyn left to confront its Putin problem.”

A further message refers to an “alleged British Corbyn supporter” who “wants to vote for Putin”.
 
Re: Re:

Robert5091 said:
Robert5091 said:
https://www.thenation.com/article/britain-brexit-crisis-eu/
Indeed, the government’s own reports show that every version of leaving the EU harms the UK economy; the differences are only ones of degree. Such damage will hit hardest exactly the section of the population least able to afford it.
So who exactly gains by Brexit?
Well the "Masters of the Universe" in the City, want Brexit to make bets come good.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/10/hedge-funds-make-big-bets-against-post-brexit-uk-economy
A pair of hedge funds owned by prominent Brexit supporters have made significant bets against companies exposed to the British consumer including big high street names.

Odey Asset Management, part-owned by Crispin Odey, and Marshall Wace, part-owned by Sir Paul Marshall, have declared short positions against consumer-exposed companies, including retailers, estate agents and banks, equivalent to £149m and £572m respectively – as rising political uncertainty threatens the economy.

The retail sector is facing particular scrutiny from short sellers, who in effect wager significant sums on certain shares falling in value. Uncertainty among consumers, with the Brexit process reaching a crunch point, comes at a time when retailers are already struggling to adjust to the move from physical shops to online.
IIRC the City, the banks, the financial world, was all very anti Brexit, so your attempt to find the "rich bad guys vs good poor guys" narrative here, feels pretty ridiculous.

King Boonen said:
[quote="Merckx index":2jr0037v] Leave winning left the Government in an impossible position due to the amount of bollocks and lies told to the public by the leave campaign, effectively promising them something completely unachievable.
[/quote]

Lets address this claim, "leave only one because of lies". One hear's this a lot, still, even 2 years after the fact and its pretty incredible.

Every election since the history of elections has involved lies and people being lied too. Yet I never heard this complaint so much.

And i find it pretty pathetic, because it implies a) that you know why people voted the way they did, which is the kind of patronising elitism that has turned many away from the modern left. How do you know why people voted why they did. They clearly have vastly different attitudes and opinions to you. It fits so well with the main archetype that surrounded Brexit, which was the shock of the political class, at just how much they distanced themselves from the average person. Who they now portray as stupid.

Which makes sense as "leave only won because of lies" also of course implies b) that the people that voted for Brexit are stupid or at least enough of them are stupid to fall for the bad lies of the bad guys.

And worst of all it implies c) that your candidates don't lie, they are morally superior because your tribe is superior and the other tribe is evil. People seem to really believe that their side of this election was fair, or that when in the past their candidates won elections, they were good and above politics and moral but now the forces of Sauron have taken back politics.

I used to hear this argument, 2 years ago, from friends and relations in their early 20's, some of whom didnt even know what "MEP" stands for but they just knew that the bad guys were racists, old, cheated, lied etc.

But now we hear it increasingly from politicians or activists on forums and its silly.

Maybe leave won because that's simply what a majority of the people wanted?
Ah but then the world wouldn't be so conveniently black and white I guess
 
KB, thanks for the explanation. I knew some of this background, but not all of it. I have a couple of questions, for you or anyone else who knows more about this than I do:

1. The referendum is not legally binding, is it? I understand why the party in power feels it has to honor it, but if they decided they simply couldn't, there would be nothing stopping them from switching their positions, would there?

2. Is the hard border the only issue causing opposition to the deal? I find this ironic, because--correct me if I'm wrong--I don't recall a lot of talk about this, from either side, during the campaign leading up to the referendum. Were any of the remainers saying, if you vote to leave, what will you do about the Irish border? I thought at the time most of the debate was how Brexit would affect the British economy. If somehow the border issue could be resolved, is there anything else about the deal May negotiated that is standing away of a vote by Parliament supporting Brexit?
 
Re:

roundabout said:
I don't see where he wrote "leave only won because of lies", quotation marks included
Yeah, I specifically didn’t write that and have never claimed it either.


If that’s an angle you want to discuss Hitch that’s fine, but I’m afraid my post has nothing to do with it.
 
MI, no problem. There’s loads more that could be written, I tried to be as brief and on point as possible.


To answer your questions:

1. You are correct, it wasn’t. This was raised when leave won by many people as referendums on constitutional change usually require much higher indicators of concensus. So yes, they can just change their mind. However, Article 50 was carried out via an act or Parliament so that is legally binding. To stop the process the Government would have to carry a majority in a Commons vote, something that now seems impossible on either side with both main parties split into several factions wanting different outcomes.


2. I don’t remember much talk about it either. I think it came up but very few people in power seemed to think leave would actually win and campaigning against leave was pretty dire. I’m unsure if there are any other issues with the deal in Parliament. We are now in a position where it probably doesn’t matter what the deal is, people would vote it down in an attempt to get May out. I’ve heard people on both sides saying it isn’t good enough but I’ve not heard specifically why. We’re now at the point where any deal proposed would fail as the positions are too far apart to all be met and the added party politicking confuses it even more.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
I thought at the time most of the debate was how Brexit would affect the British economy.
ah.

The affect on the British economy was what remain side focused on.

Since most of the media, celebrities big companies and government are people who voted for remain, this is probably what many will have heard the most.

Leave people were more focused on the political aspect - distrust of the EU system, distrust of the erosion of power to Brussels. Almost every argument I heard from Leave thinkers, writers, or people I met, put primary emphasis on that.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
roundabout said:
I don't see where he wrote "leave only won because of lies", quotation marks included
Yeah, I specifically didn’t write that and have never claimed it either.


If that’s an angle you want to discuss Hitch that’s fine, but I’m afraid my post has nothing to do with it.
I felt your claim that "Leave winning left the Government in an impossible position due to the amount of bollocks and lies told to the public by the leave campaign, effectively promising them something completely unachievable" - fell into the leave only won because of lies category.

If not then I backtrack slightly. Your post still clearly does imply people voted for leave because of lies since why else would it leave the government in a bad position?

But if you don't believe that remain was honest and leave played unfair and that leave people are just idiots who were conned to vote against their Interests, then I take back what I said.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
King Boonen said:
roundabout said:
I don't see where he wrote "leave only won because of lies", quotation marks included
Yeah, I specifically didn’t write that and have never claimed it either.


If that’s an angle you want to discuss Hitch that’s fine, but I’m afraid my post has nothing to do with it.
I felt your claim that "Leave winning left the Government in an impossible position due to the amount of bollocks and lies told to the public by the leave campaign, effectively promising them something completely unachievable" - fell into the leave only won because of lies category.
No, they're two different things. Politicians lie all the time, or tell mis-truths if we are being generous.This occurs with every Government etc.

If not then I backtrack slightly. Your post still clearly does imply people voted for leave because of lies since why else would it leave the government in a bad position?
Not really. If you assume people only voted leave because of what they were told then yes, that follows, but people voted leave for a massive variety of reasons and I wouldn't want to clump them all under one heading. Obviously many did vote based on what they were told, same on the remain side who are now waiting for economic Armageddon that hasn't happened yet but should be coming soon apparently...

But if you don't believe that remain was honest and leave played unfair and that leave people are just idiots who were conned to vote against their Interests, then I take back what I said.
I'm not sure that what I believe the losing side did is relevant to be honest. Remain lost, leave is now the driving force behind negotiations and policy so that is where the scrutiny is.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
as someone interested in most things british - and always resistant to the msm spin - i tried to form my own opinion on brexit by reading a relatively independent and semi academic sources. here are 2 if a little dated. perhaps too much reading for most...

cfr backgrounder
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-brexit-means

a british govt official source on procedures and issues
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504216/The_process_for_withdrawing_from_the_EU_print_ready.pdf
 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/18/brexit-cabinet-meets-to-discuss-ramping-up-plans-for-no-deal
All government departments must fully implement their emergency no-deal Brexit contingency plans, cabinet ministers have agreed.

No 10 confirmed on Tuesday that cabinet ministers would “ramp up” no-deal planning, and that the departments would be expected to make it their main priority.

Downing Street said it would send advice on preparing for no deal to all UK businesses and suggested they should begin implementing their own contingency plans as they saw fit.

Citizens will also be informed how to prepare, including information on a “range of channels” that could include TV adverts and social media.

Cabinet ministers agreed to allocate money from a £2bn contingency fund to departments such as the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

HMRC will prepare a 100-page pack for all UK businesses on preparing for no deal, involving about 80,000 emails to businesses.
So it's time for the old "stiff upper lip" and check your spam filter for important emails. Chin up!
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Merckx index said:
I thought at the time most of the debate was how Brexit would affect the British economy.

Leave people were more focused on the political aspect - distrust of the EU system, distrust of the erosion of power to Brussels. Almost every argument I heard from Leave thinkers, writers, or people I met, put primary emphasis on that.
Don't forget immigration. The word leave voters tend to swerve when asked if it was a motive behind their vote.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Robert5091 said:
Robert5091 said:
https://www.thenation.com/article/britain-brexit-crisis-eu/
Indeed, the government’s own reports show that every version of leaving the EU harms the UK economy; the differences are only ones of degree. Such damage will hit hardest exactly the section of the population least able to afford it.
So who exactly gains by Brexit?
Well the "Masters of the Universe" in the City, want Brexit to make bets come good.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/10/hedge-funds-make-big-bets-against-post-brexit-uk-economy
A pair of hedge funds owned by prominent Brexit supporters have made significant bets against companies exposed to the British consumer including big high street names.

Odey Asset Management, part-owned by Crispin Odey, and Marshall Wace, part-owned by Sir Paul Marshall, have declared short positions against consumer-exposed companies, including retailers, estate agents and banks, equivalent to £149m and £572m respectively – as rising political uncertainty threatens the economy.

The retail sector is facing particular scrutiny from short sellers, who in effect wager significant sums on certain shares falling in value. Uncertainty among consumers, with the Brexit process reaching a crunch point, comes at a time when retailers are already struggling to adjust to the move from physical shops to online.
IIRC the City, the banks, the financial world, was all very anti Brexit, so your attempt to find the "rich bad guys vs good poor guys" narrative here, feels pretty ridiculous.

King Boonen said:
[quote="Merckx index":zbqwygwm] Leave winning left the Government in an impossible position due to the amount of bollocks and lies told to the public by the leave campaign, effectively promising them something completely unachievable.
Lets address this claim, "leave only one because of lies". One hear's this a lot, still, even 2 years after the fact and its pretty incredible.

Every election since the history of elections has involved lies and people being lied too. Yet I never heard this complaint so much.

And i find it pretty pathetic, because it implies a) that you know why people voted the way they did, which is the kind of patronising elitism that has turned many away from the modern left. How do you know why people voted why they did. They clearly have vastly different attitudes and opinions to you. It fits so well with the main archetype that surrounded Brexit, which was the shock of the political class, at just how much they distanced themselves from the average person. Who they now portray as stupid.

Which makes sense as "leave only won because of lies" also of course implies b) that the people that voted for Brexit are stupid or at least enough of them are stupid to fall for the bad lies of the bad guys.

And worst of all it implies c) that your candidates don't lie, they are morally superior because your tribe is superior and the other tribe is evil. People seem to really believe that their side of this election was fair, or that when in the past their candidates won elections, they were good and above politics and moral but now the forces of Sauron have taken back politics.

I used to hear this argument, 2 years ago, from friends and relations in their early 20's, some of whom didnt even know what "MEP" stands for but they just knew that the bad guys were racists, old, cheated, lied etc.

But now we hear it increasingly from politicians or activists on forums and its silly.

Maybe leave won because that's simply what a majority of the people wanted?
Ah but then the world wouldn't be so conveniently black and white I guess[/quote]

Several comments on this.

Firstly the remark about people turning away from "modern left" because they are patronising is irrelevant. The Remain campaign has nothing to do with the Left. It is a cross-party issue. This is why we are in political stasis.

We DO know who voted, which way they voted, and the reasons they gave. There are two comments to be made about this. Firstly there is a correlation between educational achievement and voting patterns. We know that Remain voters havs a higher level of education. There may be some truth in the accusation that Leave voters are thick!

However you are absolutely correct when you imply that telling Leave voters that they are stupid will not win them over. The problem for the Remain campaign is to promote a message that is stronger than the seductive and emotive lies and promises made to them by the fly-by-night charlatan politicians of Vote Leave.


Secondly, it is unequivocal that Leave voters based their votes on an unprovable hypothesis, namely that the UK would somehow be "better" out of the EU. "Better" has still not been defined by Leave voters or advocates.

Remain voters knew exactly what they were voting for, because they were voting for the status quo.

From what I can see of Leave voters reasoning, it is largely based on emotion rather than rational thought (hardly surprising given that they are less educated). We are still seeing these emotive arguments, even now..."the EU are taking the piss and trying to bully us etc. "

There is a contradiction at the heart of the Leave economic argument, that we will secure better trade deals outside of the EU. You cannot say this when we have favourable trading arrangements within the EU for trading with EU countries AND the majority of our trade is with EU members.

My view? I think Leave voters identified a legitimate grievance....but they are blaming it on the wrong people.

The huge irony is that it is EU law which helps prevent the less-advantaged members of UK society be exploited by employers in terms of wages, conditions, health and safety and environmental protection.
 
What was offered by the Leave campaign in 2016 was left deliberately vague, as this allowed it to encompass so many different opinions. Remain had a clear outcome; Leave didn't. Polls still show that what people would like is what Johnson et al. keep offering, or at least claiming to support: a deal which keeps all the benefits of the EU, along with the ability to trade outside the EU, total sovereignty and border controls. This is obviously the best option, but at the same time obviously impossible. So that leaves the question: are these people incorrigible optimists, delusional or just quite pragmatic (it isn't clear from the poll whether they understand it is impossible). It also shows, like KB mentioned, how the government was done for from the beginning. The promises from johnson and gove were unattainable - even they knew this. The current deal gives up most political sovereignty, takes control of immigration, allows for international trade, effectively pre-empts a united Ireland, includes a big payment and leaves the future economic relationship with the EU unclear. Is this what Brexit was voted for? Or is a no-deal brexit, economic harm and all, closer to it?

A second referendum is simply logical - but Leavers are (rightly) against it: if it's a 3-way vote and then a run off, then the Remain option is almost certain to be on the final ballot. If it's no-deal vs remain, then remain wins. If it's remain vs may's deal, then the likes of Mogg and Farage lose again, as May's deal is nowhere near what they desired. The political system is stuck, immobile, in this loop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY