UK Politics: A Farcical Aquatic Ceremony

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, scotcat said:

Basically? Yes. We're not at the point yet where we're leaving the UK, though it very well could come. 

I honestly don't know how we can stay in the UK after this - we voted clearly to remain within the EU, which puts us directly at odds with Westminster.  If we get dragged out of the EU against our will, it likely will cause big problems.  What people tend to forget is that we are not merely a 'region' of the UK - we are a country.  

I seem to remember we had a referendum where we decided to remain part of the UK and to thereby accept UK wide decisions on matters not devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

edit: also, you are not at odds with 'Westminster.' The UK Parliament clearly wants to Remain as well. The UK electorate though does not.

[Zoë Sumra]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I seem to remember we had a referendum where we decided to remain part of the UK and to thereby accept UK wide decisions on matters not devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

That's the issue - current constitutional law debate on whether or not EU membership is a devolved matter.

[Chaircat Meow]

Just now, Zoë Sumra said:

That's the issue - current constitutional law debate on whether or not EU membership is a devolved matter.

Nah, it's not.

[Altherion]

38 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

We already know that the UK was going to take a hit to it's credit rating, but S&P just made it official and downgraded your credit from Triple A to Double Aplus, with a Negative outlook.

I'm not sure why they even bother to do this. Just like the US, the UK borrows in its own currency which means that they can always print more. They made a big fuss about this when the US had its rating downgraded in the battle over the debt, but in the long term, it didn't matter at all. I suspect it will matter even less here (the government of the UK is not quite as dysfunctional as the American one).

22 minutes ago, Notone said:

Cameron: "We won't invoke Article 50 before we negotiated terms."

Rest of Europe: "There won't and can't be any negotiations before Britain invokes Article 50."  

Well, that's one way of putting it off forever.

21 minutes ago, England's Finest said:

I think the remain campaign have massively understated the economic consequences of leaving.

Economic consequences for whom? In the current system, most of the wealth is controlled by a fairly small number of individuals. When you say "the economy", you are referring mostly to the fortunes of these people. Some rich parasites will undoubtedly lose some money, but I suspect that for most people, that's more of a benefit. Now, one may suppose that they will decide to squeeze the working class harder... but with a bit more thought, they weren't squeezing them harder before not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they can't. The worst of it will probably be borne by the middle class, but these appear to voted mostly for Remain.

[Slick Mongoose]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Economic consequences for whom? In the current system, most of the wealth is controlled by a fairly small number of individuals. When you say "the economy", you are referring mostly to the fortunes of these people. Some rich parasites will undoubtedly lose some money, but I suspect that for most people, that's more of a benefit. Now, one may suppose that they will decide to squeeze the working class harder... but with a bit more thought, they weren't squeezing them harder before not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they can't. The worst of it will probably be borne by the middle class, but these appear to voted mostly for Remain.

This is absurd. A recession doesn't hurt the rich , it hurts the poor.

The weak pound will already hurt the poor in the short term as the costs of imported goods rise (e.g. fuel).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, I respectfully disagree.

You should consider rethinking your stance on this. One of the main reasons we don't have the same problems here in the states that Europe is having is specifically because we don't isolate Muslims communities. 

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

4 hours ago, Andrés Garcia said:

You make some good points. I'm fervently against the EU, but for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with immigration. In fact, I'm an open border kind of guy. I just think that democracies should be very local and small. People should vote on things that directly affect them. They should be able to feel the influence of their vote to a larger degree. Their representatives, in so far as they need any, should not be too removed geographically, socially, and economically speaking. I want our strategy for getting rid of nation states to be directed downwards rather than upwards. I therefore believe that any development towards big supranational states, modern empires in effect, is dangerous and not in line with the ideals I associate with democracy. These are very strong values that I have that I can't put to the side just to spite some bigoted assholes.

 

I just want to say that whilst I quite strongly disagree with your viewpoint of smaller localised political groupings being superior I respect that you are holding a consistent reasonable view on the matter and admire the clarity with which you put forth your points on the issue of whether countries should be larger or smaller, which is an incredibly important question but one which is almost never directly addressed.

[Fragile Bird]

23 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I'm not sure why they even bother to do this. Just like the US, the UK borrows in its own currency which means that they can always print more. They made a big fuss about this when the US had its rating downgraded in the battle over the debt, but in the long term, it didn't matter at all. I suspect it will matter even less here (the government of the UK is not quite as dysfunctional as the American one).

I'm a bit at sea about this answer.

What in heaven's name does borrowing in it's own currency have to do with the credit rating?  Credit rating will determine the interest rate you pay.  It may mean that you won't have a liquidity crisis, but it won't change the interest rate you pay.  It will prevent you from being trapped with a falling currency while paying off debt in US dollars, but if the pound were to fall substantially some lenders might only lend in a stronger currency in the future.  Very unlikely, I would think.

And no, no country wants to just 'print more money'.  That's why the UK is issuing bonds and buying them back, now holding about 30% of bonds, just the way the USA did in response to the 2008 financial crisis.

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Isis said:

What the actual fuck are you talking about? What nationality do you think people who were born in NI are then? What passport do you think they hold? 

'Great Britain' is a chunk of land that comprises England, Scotland and Wales. 'United Kingdom' is a sovereign state that comprises the island of Great Britain and its constituent nations, and Northern Ireland. They're often used interchangeably, but these are the definitions. I believe the poster was making a semantic point, not commenting on how any of its population may or may not self identify.

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, SamanthaofHodorsfield said:

I don't think it was so much the remain camp understating the consequences; more that they did, were accused of scaremongering and dooms-daying and then dismissed by the leave camp.

True, although I think it's fair to say both sides (and probably the vast majority of the public) underestimated how huge this story would become. Which is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous; the most dramatic impact the UK may have on the world in our lifetimes was engineered by two campaigns that resembled something an Apprentice candidate cooked up to not get fired by Alan Sugar that week.

[polishgenius]

8 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

 I believe the poster was making a semantic point, not commenting on how any of its population may or may not self identify.

Okay, but the semantic point was wrong, since 'Britain', and certainly 'British', are also a short-hand form of saying the United Kingdom.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, DjourouLoveMe? said:

Okay, but the semantic point was wrong, since 'Britain', and certainly 'British', are also a short-hand form of saying the United Kingdom.

Britain is a term that dates back at least to the Romans. People from the U.S. self-identify as Americans, but that doesn't mean that North and South America stop being America. 

[polishgenius]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Britain is a term that dates back at least to the Romans. People from the U.S. self-identify as Americans, but that doesn't mean that North and South America stop being America. 

 

That doesn't contradict anything me or Isis said.

[James Arryn]

Just now, DjourouLoveMe? said:

 

That doesn't contradict anything me or Isis said.

I meant to write an addendum confessing that fact.

[polishgenius]

Fair cop.

[ElizabethB.]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You should consider rethinking your stance on this. One of the main reasons we don't have the same problems here in the states that Europe is having is specifically because we don't isolate Muslims communities. 

This is why globalism failed. 

Not because half of earth's  population is too stupid for the other half to find use for other half's brains to make a dish of, it is because now their stupidity is on the internet for all to see. 

And it is all the wrong kind of stupid to want to deal with. 

[Werthead]

23 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Neither does the claim the EU is more democratic than any country with FPTP but that didn't stop you saying it.

FPTP allowed the Conservative Party to take control of this country and institute substantial and even damaging reforms and decisions (including this one) with 35% of the vote. That would not have been possible under proportional representation. So that's a pretty fair statement.

Quote

As I read it, the general idea was to leave the single market, end freedom of movement and suggest to the EU it might be best to not mutually dynamite our industries.

Actually, both sides need to stop fucking around with post-fact definitions. The only question on the ballot paper was "Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union?" And we've said yes to that. Migration, the single market, movement of capital and continued access to the Eurovision Song Contest were not even mentioned on the piece of paper.

Britain voting to leave the European Union and then instituting a deal which is mechanically near-identical to remaining in the European Union is actually perfectly permissable under those terms. Perhaps not tremendously honest or moral, but there's nothing to stop it happening.

Quote

And while he may not have expected Cameron to leave him with all of the cleanup, he's not actually a moron, he will have been aware from the moment he declared for Leave that if it wins he'll have a task on his hands.

I actually disagree on this point. I think that Boris had a script and a plan, and that plan was for as follows:

1. Boris joins the Leave campaign and takes charge.
2. Leave loses.
3. Boris and Cameron hug it out, Cameron either gives Boris a Cabinet post immediately (as part of a reconciliation movement) or waits a year and then does it.
4. Boris spends 2-3 years in Cabinet loyally supporting Cameron, talking him up, saying what a great guy he is and hints that Cameron should be a shoe-in for a peerage on leaving office.
5. In 2019 there is a leadership election which Boris handily wins (maybe even unopposed). Assuming George Osborne's Economic Plan is still working, Britain should also just be reaching the point where it can actually start spending money on public services again.
6. In 2020 Boris leads the Conservative Party to victory, promising tax cuts and free spuds for pensioners and all sorts of things, maybe hinting at a second EU referendum if the result as close the first time around.
7. The Glorious Age of Boris, the Chosen One, begins.

I think Boris discounted the chances of Leave actually winning because he didn't honestly believe in the cause himself (as said previously, him being the opposite of Jezzer) and he thought the economic case was extremely weak, hence why he's been backpedalling on the economic argument like a lunatic today.

[Chaircat Meow]

20 minutes ago, Werthead said:

FPTP allowed the Conservative Party to take control of this country and institute substantial and even damaging reforms and decisions (including this one) with 35% of the vote. That would not have been possible under proportional representation. So that's a pretty fair statement.

Actually, both sides need to stop fucking around with post-fact definitions. The only question on the ballot paper was "Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union?" And we've said yes to that. Migration, the single market, movement of capital and continued access to the Eurovision Song Contest were not even mentioned on the piece of paper.

Britain voting to leave the European Union and then instituting a deal which is mechanically near-identical to remaining in the European Union is actually perfectly permissable under those terms. Perhaps not tremendously honest or moral, but there's nothing to stop it happening.

I actually disagree on this point. I think that Boris had a script and a plan, and that plan was for as follows:

1. Boris joins the Leave campaign and takes charge.
2. Leave loses.
3. Boris and Cameron hug it out, Cameron either gives Boris a Cabinet post immediately (as part of a reconciliation movement) or waits a year and then does it.
4. Boris spends 2-3 years in Cabinet loyally supporting Cameron, talking him up, saying what a great guy he is and hints that Cameron should be a shoe-in for a peerage on leaving office.
5. In 2019 there is a leadership election which Boris handily wins (maybe even unopposed). Assuming George Osborne's Economic Plan is still working, Britain should also just be reaching the point where it can actually start spending money on public services again.
6. In 2020 Boris leads the Conservative Party to victory, promising tax cuts and free spuds for pensioners and all sorts of things, maybe hinting at a second EU referendum if the result as close the first time around.
7. The Glorious Age of Boris, the Chosen One, begins.

I think Boris discounted the chances of Leave actually winning because he didn't honestly believe in the cause himself (as said previously, him being the opposite of Jezzer) and he thought the economic case was extremely weak, hence why he's been backpedalling on the economic argument like a lunatic today.

Your first point is absurd. The UK is less democratic than the EU because you don't like the Tories. Boo-hoo for you.

On 2nd point: I actually said, on this thread, that remaining in the singe market and keeping freedom of movement would be the way Parliament would try to counter the Brexit vote. But you are right it would be neither honest or moral because it is pretty clear people voted to be able to limit immigration from the EU.

An EEA style deal may hand northern England to Nigel Farage and destroy the Labour party (assuming they back the EEA deal) and the credibility of all the political class. 

But, like I said, this is where the new battle lines will be drawn and maybe this is what Boris will try and do. If so I do not think he will have much joy of his premiership. 

[Andrés Garcia]

4 hours ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

 

I just want to say that whilst I quite strongly disagree with your viewpoint of smaller localised political groupings being superior I respect that you are holding a consistent reasonable view on the matter and admire the clarity with which you put forth your points on the issue of whether countries should be larger or smaller, which is an incredibly important question but one which is almost never directly addressed.

I appreciate that and I agree: discussions about different forms of democracy and their scope is not discussed enough. We tend to always go to the status quo and believe that anything else is just impossible.

[The guy from the Vale]

11 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Your first point is absurd. The UK is less democratic than the EU because you don't like the Tories. Boo-hoo for you.

On 2nd point: I actually said, on this thread, that remaining in the singe market and keeping freedom of movement would be the way Parliament would try to counter the Brexit vote. But you are right it would be neither honest or moral because it is pretty clear people voted to be able to limit immigration from the EU.

An EEA style deal may hand northern England to Nigel Farage and destroy the Labour party (assuming they back the EEA deal) and the credibility of all the political class. 

But, like I said, this is where the new battle lines will be drawn and maybe this is what Boris will try and do. If so I do not think he will have much joy of his premiership. 

No, the point is not absurd. A party getting a majority of seats based on getting 35% of the vote is impossible in the EU parliament. It's the situation in the UK, though. And it doesn't matter which party it is, Tories, Labour, Lib Dems,...