UK Politics: A Farcical Aquatic Ceremony

[john]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

The really, really tragic thing is that I'd probably prefer Gove. He's awful, but at least he hasn't been actively attacking human rights for the last few years.

May is more objectionable as a person but Gove's politics are more objectionable, imo

1 hour ago, VarysTheSpider said:

I don't know, I mean, this must be one of the worst days of his life. Gove and May zero'd in on him so fast and effectively that his head must still be ringing. I doubt he'll consider running for the leadership again in a hurry.

yeah, I'd posted that just after the announcement.  It does now seem more like he's been hung out to dry.  Which is even more sad in a way than the labour implosion since they're all boyhood chums.  Still surely the tories wont let one of their most popular figures linger long on the sidelines.

[Slick Mongoose]

60,000 new Labour members in the last week. Maybe the whole thing is just a fundraising exercise?

[DaveSumm]

So this is truly going to happen, isn't it? Boris is going to put the entire country in a nosedive for his own personal benefit, abort the plan cos he doesn't fancy it right now........then we're all gonna fucking forget and elect him in 2020. I thought I was past despair, but right now, I really despair at this country. I'm with Heseltine on this one. 

[Slick Mongoose]

7 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

So this is truly going to happen, isn't it? Boris is going to put the entire country in a nosedive for his own personal benefit, abort the plan cos he doesn't fancy it right now........then we're all gonna fucking forget and elect him in 2020. I thought I was past despair, but right now, I really despair at this country. I'm with Heseltine on this one. 

The public may have short memories but the Tory MP's seem to hate him - Apparently most of his support came from Gove's side. I can't see him getting enough MP support for another leadership bid next time. Maybe if leaving the EU turns out to be an economic masterstroke?

[Fragile Bird]

42 minutes ago, HobbsTuna said:

Eh? That's a rather ... bold statement for the nation that came up with the point system to rate potential immigrants and sort them after usefulness. 

Did you mean, asylum seekers? 'Cause that's not particularly impressive either. I mean I give full marks here to Canada for not murder-burning it's way through half a continent and leaving the results for others to clean up (looking at you here, Heroes-Incoperated TM America and Proud Albion) but it was noticeably below OECD average in 2013 and that was before the huge flood wave started.

 

 

 

Yeah, not impressed with that list, a snapshot of 2013.  If you want to be impressed with numbers, try the countries surrounding Syria, like Lebanon, where there's 208 refugees for every 1000 natives, almost 1 for every 4 citizens.  Canada has been taking in refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade now, usually between 20,000 and 25,000 a year, under a right-wing Conservative government.  The new Liberal government immediately took in 25,000 Syrian refugees between January and the end of February, as soon as they were elected, and there's another 10 months left. 

If you take a look at the list of countries with the most refugees, you're looking at countries in Africa and the Middle East.  The European countries that make the top 30 are Sweden (9th), Norway (19th), Switzerland (22nd), and Austria (29th).  And the Swiss won't be giving them citizenship any time soon, whereas Canada puts refugees on the citizenship track from day 1, and Austria has shut the door, even to people just passing through.  Sweden has 1 refugee for every 153 natives, Norway has 1 for every 103, a far better number than Sweden, with Switzerland right behind at 1 for every 112.  Canada was at 1 out of every 224, not a bad number, considering France was at 1 for every 246, the UK was at 1 for every 526, the US 1 for every 1212  (though in fairness, the US has been absorbing a huge number of undocumented immigrants).  Those numbers are of course totally out of date with the surge in Syrian refugees, including the number for Canada. And I would point out that European nations are faced with the fact refugees show up at their doorstep, because they can walk there.  North America is far away

So, far below the OECD average?  I don't think so.  Especially with that list showing Poland above Canada.  Poland has double the population of Canada - they did not take in 50,000 refugees last year.  They were asked by the EU to take 7,000 and then announced after the Paris attacks that they will take no refugees at all.

Numbers come from these 2 lists: http://ccrweb.ca/en/how-generous-is-canada and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

As for the point system for immigration?  It seemed fair when created, considering Canada had huge unemployment and massive debt.

[Shryke]

7 hours ago, England's Finest said:

I imagine they're all squabbling amongst themselves as to who gets the honour of getting thrashed by Corbyn.... It was going to be Angela Eagle, but she can't even carry her own constituency party.

In all seriousness, they're still hoping he resigns. Labour councillors have been going at him today.

The problem for Labour is the open process they have is vulnerable to being swamped by committed hardliners like those behind Corbyn. So he potentially can't be forced out even though he can lack the support of the party structure itself.

Stuff I'm reading the past few days seems to indicate that disconnect between his people and the rest of Labour has been ongoing since the start. 

[The Anti-Targ]

I would think a person as smart, apparently, as Boris Johnson would know that being PM during the divorce proceedings is a poisoned chalice and that it's much better to let someone else take the fall for not actually achieving any real benefits from leaving the EU, and potentially overseeing the break up of the UK, and then swoop in and take over as leader after the shit has already hit the fan and been splattered all over the wall.

You surely have to be some kind of political masochist to want to be PM right now. 

[Gneisenau]

isn't it better to have Boris than May or Gove ? Boris likes playing with fire, but seems to actually realize its danger, whereas I get the impression people like May and Gove are fully committed to an EU pull out.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I would think a person as smart, apparently, as Boris Johnson would know that being PM during the divorce proceedings is a poisoned chalice and that it's much better to let someone else take the fall for not actually achieving any real benefits from leaving the EU, and potentially overseeing the break up of the UK, and then swoop in and take over as leader after the shit has already hit the fan and been splattered all over the wall.

You surely have to be some kind of political masochist to want to be PM right now. 

Exactly, Johnson isn't stupid enough to be the one to take us out of Europe and destroy the UK as an entity. Who'd want that in their CV?!

He'll bide his time, wait for people to screw everything up and come in promising to sort it all out. Which might happen as you'll more than likely have a few years of total chaos before things get back to normal. If he's around when that happens he'll look like a god. 

Tories will likely be in power forever now, the Labour party is melting down, and is almost a relic of a bygone age.. 'Labour' as in those who work, is a terms that doesn't make a lot of sense any more.

[James Arryn]

13 hours ago, Maltrouane Fellaini said:

Crabb (and Javid, who seems to be his chief supporter) are the "working class from a council estate" kind of Tories who make the party look more diverse. However, Crabb's past association with a group that supports ex-gay therapy is rather worrying.

Maybe he can sell the idea that he's not really against gays, he just thinks the UK should be able to control how many gays they have, so as to prevent the gays from stealing straight jobs and making normal un-gay people feel abnormal in their own land. This might even help make Britain great again. But not in an anti-gay way, though he'll admit that a fringe minority of the make Britain un-gay and Great actually are anti-gay, of course, and that's sad, but shouldn't be used to characterize the right kinds of gay control measures as anti-gay themselves.

[mormont]

It's notable that Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson - a moderate, personally popular Tory and not incidentally an out gay woman - is supporting Stephen Crabb and even describes him as a 'political soulmate'.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-tory-leader-ruth-davidson-10678698

[Nevarfeather]

Well it's Day 7 in the Big Brexit House

If this is 'taking back control' i'd hate to see what 'loosing control' looks like

The choices for Tory Leader are bad or worse, but I guess it's ever been that way hasn't it. 
But with an inevitable remain leader taking us out of EU - what on earth does that mean?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On June 29, 2016 at 10:06 PM, theguyfromtheVale said:

But to change your US president, you also need an electoral college majority.

Look, all of this boils down to the fact that the EU has too little power, not too much. Because there's no office like the US presidency in Europe, and deliberately so (because it would weaken the member states). I'd be in favor of strengthening those structures too. But that proposal never had a majority, and the UK was one of the countries pressing hardest against further integration.

How much power do you think the EU should have with respect to its memember States?  Would the existing situation be improved if the EU had the power to invade the UK and prevent it from leaving the EU by force?

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Tories will likely be in power forever now, the Labour party is melting down, and is almost a relic of a bygone age.. 'Labour' as in those who work, is a terms that doesn't make a lot of sense any more.

That seems rather unlikely. The UK is still a functioning democracy which means eventually it will sort itself out into at least 2 viable national parties. Maybe that ends up being two off-shoots of the Tories, one that absorbs the UKIP and one that absorbs Labour, but the result of that would still be that there's a national party at least a bit more leftwing than the current government.

Or maybe the parties keep breaking down and there's never a majority government again after this one, just coalitions. Either way, I don't see the UK ending up like post-WWII Japan or Mexico and being a democracy but having a single party in power for 50+ years.

[The guy from the Vale]

Scot,

I think the EU's main problem is that much legislation has to be passed by all member states unanimously. That means veto powers for everybody. I'm not opposed to a majority, or even a qualified majority, of member states having to agree to legislation (although that still gives each Maltese far more power than ever German). But as things stand now, all the power rests with the member states, while all the responsibility is attributed to the EU by their governments. That's an unsustainable situation. Giving the EU its own powers (including powers of taxation and, yes, its own military too) and strengthening the European Parliament against the Council and the Commission would help alleviate this.

I know this is unlikely to happen (although Brexit makes it a tiny bit more likely), and I'm against using that military power against member states that wish to leave; a common military would go a long way towards establishing a common policy.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Scot,

I think the EU's main problem is that much legislation has to be passed by all member states unanimously. That means veto powers for everybody. I'm not opposed to a majority, or even a qualified majority, of member states having to agree to legislation (although that still gives each Maltese far more power than ever German). But as things stand now, all the power rests with the member states, while all the responsibility is attributed to the EU by their governments. That's an unsustainable situation. Giving the EU its own powers (including powers of taxation and, yes, its own military too) and strengthening the European Parliament against the Council and the Commission would help alleviate this.

I know this is unlikely to happen (although Brexit makes it a tiny bit more likely), and I'm against using that military power against member states that wish to leave; a common military would go a long way towards establishing a common policy.

 

TGFTV,

Would a common military take control of French nuclear weapons?  Wouldn't a common military give the EU an incentive to use force as a leverage to enforce its edicts?

[The guy from the Vale]

Scot,

That's not an issue for the UK. It would be an issue for other members, true... but that's what constitutions would be for (another thing the EU desperately needs...)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Scot,

That's not an issue for the UK. It would be an issue for other members, true... but that's what constitutions would be for (another thing the EU desperately needs...)

TGFTV,

Not now.  But would France give up control of its nuclear weapons to the government of the EU if it creates an EU military force.  Would the EU need to join NATO?

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, a majority of EU member states are part of NATO, so I see no reason for the EU military not to join NATO (or replace NATO and ally with the US in more general terms, although I do have some issues with the way the US has handled military matters in my lifetime...). A few are neutral though, so this is not the easiest issue to resolve, I admit. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Boris probably fancies himself as a modern day Churchill, jumping from disaster to disaster and surviving by the skin of his teeth, until 'cometh the hour, cometh the man'