Convince me that Brexit wasn't a terrible act of self-harm

[Werthead]

Quote

Sadly, I suspect Brexit will prevent any realistic hope of serious House of Lords reform in the next decade (not that there seemed to be much prospect of that anyway) because there are enough constitutional issues to deal with without adding that to the list.

The government dropped all plans for House of Lords reform last month.

[Maester of Valyria]

23 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Apparently so.

This link summarizes some facts well (though I've done my best to corroborate with other sources):
https://infacts.org/uk-needs-eu-more-than-it-needs-us/

 

Thanks for that link. I find it so fascinatingly obscene that so many politicians who are well versed in economics are choosing to ignore this evidence.

19 hours ago, Yukle said:

It's time like this that the UK should really consider having a codified constitution. As much as the EU is about "taking control" a surprisingly (and worryingly) large amount of their laws exist in common law and legal precedents.

Furthermore, if they really want to get rid of undemocratic systems, they must trash the House of Lords, which has no place in any society. It undermines their parliament. There's nothing wrong with having two chambers to parliament, but one of them should not be a house of lords.

I've given a lot of thought to my country adoption a written constitution. If I may be permitted to engage in a flowery () metaphor, so far we've done just about alright just letting our 'garden' of laws evolve over time, but now we have to dig up some of the foundations of our garden and we don't know which roots need pulling up to get it. While there are disadvantages to having a codified constitution (the USA's dependence on a 200 year old document, for instance) it would be useful for guarding civil liberties and the like, which is high up in my mind at the moment with the passage of the 'Snoopers' Charter'.

18 hours ago, williamjm said:

Sadly, I suspect Brexit will prevent any realistic hope of serious House of Lords reform in the next decade (not that there seemed to be much prospect of that anyway) because there are enough constitutional issues to deal with without adding that to the list.

Oh I wouldn't be too certain about that: if they try and delay or mitigate Brexit in any way then reform will move to the top of May's to-do list.

[williamjm]

On 30/11/2016 at 1:22 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

That's a fair point about the Lib Dems. Minor parties can often capitalise on a large disaffected voter bloc. If they are the only party that strongly campaign on an overturn Brexit platform they may end up with a larger, and potentially pivotal number of seats. But going into coalition with the Tories would probably make an unBrexit unlikely, and I suspect whatever happens Labour may find itself lacking the numbers for a cohesive coalition.

Yesterday's by-election in Richmond is an early example of the Lib Dems benefiting by beating the Eurosceptic (ex-)Conservative candidate. It was pointed out in some of the coverage that this might have been about the perfect constituency for this sort of result given that it was a London suburb which had voted heavily for Remain and had a relatively recent history of Lib Dem MPs. I think they could get similar results in some other London constituencies and other cities like Cambridge where Remain won convincingly, but we'd need to see victories in less favourable by-elections before predicting they'd win a large number of seats.

In fact it is almost certain the the Lib dems would regularly be in a king-making position if the UK has a PR system.

Funnily enough, using PR in the General Election has long been one of the Lib Dems key proposals.

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

Funnily enough, using PR in the General Election has long been one of the Lib Dems key proposals.

This is one of the things that I find most confounding. The LibDems have been all about PR so as to have coalition government for decades. In 2010 they got into a coalition government and their voters went mental and practically wiped them out, What is it they, the voters, actually want? If it's only to be in coalition with Labour, why not join Labour and exert influence from inside? It makes no sense.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Their constituency obviously did not want THAT coalition would be the kinda obvious answer. But didn't the LibDems basically take a pledge about not increasing tuition fees and then simply throw said pledge out of the window once they were in bed with the tories? That might have been another reason why their constituency went after them. So I can see how and why their constituency wiped them out.

[mormont]

Well, I suspect it was also because the PR referendum failed. Some Lib Dem voters I know felt that they traded everything for PR and then didn't get it, making the whole coalition pointless. They didn't necessarily switch at the next election, but some of them stayed home.

[Maester of Valyria]

3 hours ago, williamjm said:

Yesterday's by-election in Richmond is an early example of the Lib Dems benefiting by beating the Eurosceptic (ex-)Conservative candidate. It was pointed out in some of the coverage that this might have been about the perfect constituency for this sort of result given that it was a London suburb which had voted heavily for Remain and had a relatively recent history of Lib Dem MPs. I think they could get similar results in some other London constituencies and other cities like Cambridge where Remain won convincingly, but we'd need to see victories in less favourable by-elections before predicting they'd win a large number of seats.

The Lib-Dems benefited enormously from both Goldsmith's views on Brexit and his hideous campaign against Sadiq Khan. However outside of London those factors aren't going to count for very much. While it's good to see the Lib-Dems get slightly more effective as an opposition (seeing as Labour is in chaos and the SNP are distant) I very much doubt that they'll be able to make significant headway outside the major cities.

2 hours ago, Hereward said:

This is one of the things that I find most confounding. The LibDems have been all about PR so as to have coalition government for decades. In 2010 they got into a coalition government and their voters went mental and practically wiped them out, What is it they, the voters, actually want? If it's only to be in coalition with Labour, why not join Labour and exert influence from inside? It makes no sense.

It was the tuition fees: many of the people who voted for the Lib-Dems in 2010 were younger voters tired of the two-party system. When they went back on their fees promise many of their key supporters felt the loss deeply and personally (in their wallets as well as their hearts). The party is poison for the next decade at least.

@mormont the referendum certainly didn't help their case, although it was for AV, not PR.

[Werthead]

Quote

It was the tuition fees: many of the people who voted for the Lib-Dems in 2010 were younger voters tired of the two-party system. When they went back on their fees promise many of their key supporters felt the loss deeply and personally (in their wallets as well as their hearts). The party is poison for the next decade at least.

I have some sympathy for the Lib Dems in this position. They knew that coalition politics meant horse-trading and giving some things up in returning for getting others. Clearly, in the aftermath of the economic crisis, the Tories were never going to abolish tuition fees (their base would have revolted at the message of "massive austerity and cuts to everyone except students"). If the Lib Dems had made that a red line, the coalition would have fallen apart, and if it had triggered a second general election, the Tories could have blamed the Lib Dems for not doing the deal and that could also have wiped the Lib Dems out.

The problem is that the Lib Dems appear to has assumed that giving up 1 or 2 key manifesto pledges was okay if they kept other ones and kept the Tories reigned in from going balls-out mental for austerity, and they did kind of do that. I don't think they appreciated the fact that the tuition fees pledge was their only real pledge that cut through all the BS and resonated with large numbers of people though, and by giving it up easily they did give the impression of selling out for power.

Quote

If it's only to be in coalition with Labour, why not join Labour and exert influence from inside? It makes no sense.

That's the problem the left has in the UK, it's too easily divided by factionalism. The Conservative Party has unified some pretty far-apart wings on different issues and maintained cohesiveness despite some deep-seated differences. Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens could come together on a centre-left platform (and probably maintain an alliance with the SNP on non-Scottish issues) without too much difficulty if they could just get along.

Quote

the referendum certainly didn't help their case, although it was for AV, not PR.

The referendum was pretty much a non-issue for those not following politics. People were not excited by it or interested in it, and most people I spoke to didn't really understand PR, let alone what the hell AV meant. I was actually surprised turnout was as high as it was.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Be that is it may, even as a junior partner you don't break key promises to your constituency for power. The way the LibDems around Clegg toured the campuses, it was fairly obvious who a big chunk of his supporters were. And they did draw a very bright red line during the election campaign on that issue. The correct response in coalition talks for the LibDems to avoid the wipeout would have been, sorry guys, the tuition fees are non-negotiable, if you want our votes for Downing Street. You can accept it, or we can talk with Labour about a coaliton, or you can have talks with Labour about a coalition.

Of course that would have put the question to the Tories, what they would have been willing to do for Downing Street.

[williamjm]

9 hours ago, Notone said:

Be that is it may, even as a junior partner you don't break key promises to your constituency for power. The way the LibDems around Clegg toured the campuses, it was fairly obvious who a big chunk of his supporters were. And they did draw a very bright red line during the election campaign on that issue. The correct response in coalition talks for the LibDems to avoid the wipeout would have been, sorry guys, the tuition fees are non-negotiable, if you want our votes for Downing Street. You can accept it, or we can talk with Labour about a coaliton, or you can have talks with Labour about a coalition.

I wonder if there would have been less criticism if they had at least managed to stop the tuition fees being tripled. Keeping them at the same level would still break their promise to abolish them, but at least they'd have some defence because they'd be able to argue they'd stopped the Tories raising fees.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Possibly. It might have cost them a few votes, but it's a big difference to just falling over backwards to please the Tories and their base. And in that hypothetical situation Werthead's argument with the economy and horse trading might have caught some traction. To just submit to the Tories wishes on that issue was a blue print for disaster for the LibDems imo.

[Maester of Valyria]

On 03/12/2016 at 0:54 AM, Werthead said:

I have some sympathy for the Lib Dems in this position. They knew that coalition politics meant horse-trading and giving some things up in returning for getting others. Clearly, in the aftermath of the economic crisis, the Tories were never going to abolish tuition fees (their base would have revolted at the message of "massive austerity and cuts to everyone except students"). If the Lib Dems had made that a red line, the coalition would have fallen apart, and if it had triggered a second general election, the Tories could have blamed the Lib Dems for not doing the deal and that could also have wiped the Lib Dems out.

The problem is that the Lib Dems appear to has assumed that giving up 1 or 2 key manifesto pledges was okay if they kept other ones and kept the Tories reigned in from going balls-out mental for austerity, and they did kind of do that. I don't think they appreciated the fact that the tuition fees pledge was their only real pledge that cut through all the BS and resonated with large numbers of people though, and by giving it up easily they did give the impression of selling out for power.

That's the problem the left has in the UK, it's too easily divided by factionalism. The Conservative Party has unified some pretty far-apart wings on different issues and maintained cohesiveness despite some deep-seated differences. Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens could come together on a centre-left platform (and probably maintain an alliance with the SNP on non-Scottish issues) without too much difficulty if they could just get along.

The referendum was pretty much a non-issue for those not following politics. People were not excited by it or interested in it, and most people I spoke to didn't really understand PR, let alone what the hell AV meant. I was actually surprised turnout was as high as it was.

I do too, but as you say the tuition fees were their key pledge, and abandoning that left all the electorate, not just Lib Dem supporters or students, feeling that they could never trust Clegg or his party again. I do feel that if they had made it a red line, the Tories would have managed to make it work. Even if it had triggered another election, the LibDems would probably have done quite well by claiming they were the only party that was willing to lose power if it meant retaining their principles.

It was only after the 2015 election when we realised just how much the Lib Dems had been restraining the Tories all this time.

Ah, the fabled 'Progressive Alliance'. I'd probably vote for it, but it's a shame Corbyn is too stuck in fairyland to realise it's necessary if the Conservatives are ever going to be replaced.

Oh, I completely agree. The government managed to completely suppress mass public interest in it.

On 03/12/2016 at 7:59 AM, Notone said:

The correct response in coalition talks for the LibDems to avoid the wipeout would have been, sorry guys, the tuition fees are non-negotiable, if you want our votes for Downing Street. You can accept it, or we can talk with Labour about a coaliton, or you can have talks with Labour about a coalition.

See, this is what they should have done. Although, that last bit though...

 

[Cubarey]

"Even if it had triggered another election, the LibDems would probably have done quite well by claiming they were the only party that was willing to lose power if it meant retaining their principles. "

 

And after 90 years in the Wilderness you really thinks that they would have stuck to their "principles" if it cost them the ability to govern? Plus, if they had joine Labour or made anaother election necessary do you really think that they would of faired any better. Thewy had announced that they would under no circumstances join Labour and fretting away the ability to govern would not of gone over well with their supporters. It's great to see how in hindsight their decisions destroyed the party but I think it's rather like Monday quarterbacking to argue taht they should have known better at the time.

[Cubarey]

On the Posted Topic"

 

Well with the defeat of the the Italian referendum the resignation of the Rinzo government and the likely tourmoil in the Italian and EU banking system which will likely occur having voted for Brexit likely shield the British banking and financial system from the tourmoil that will likely envelope the european banking system. Now if the European banking system fails and the Euro collapses the UK  (and the rest of the world (will still be hit with the repurcussions but the UK will likely be able to shield itself from a more "moderate" event like the collapse of the Italian banks and their bailout by the EU).

[Pebble thats Stubby]

considering we never joined the Euro Currency, and really did not pay out to bail out Greece because of it. I don't think the UK would have paid that much to prop up of Italian banks, even without the Brexit vote.   Also we have not Brexited yet...

[Cubarey]

1 minute ago, Pebbles said:

considering we never joined the Euro Currency, and really did not pay out to bail out Greece because of it. I don't think the UK would have paid that much to prop up of Italian banks, even without the Brexit vote.   Also we have not Brexited yet...

You were not part of the Euro but your financial system was seen to be intimately tied to the continental system. Bank runs, and Financial collapses often have very little to do with reality they have to so with perception and he effects of hurd mentality. The fact that the Uk has voted to leave the UK means that the markets will acknowledge that there will be no pressure placed on the UK to pay for part of the baliout which was not true prior to Brexit. Whatever, the reality the perception was that if things really got bad in Europe the EU would demand that the UK pay for part of the baiout and that the UK government would acquisess. As i said it's not about the unreality of the assumption but that it existed that would have led the UK Financial system to take a much greater hit then it is now seemed likely to take.

[Maester of Valyria]

5 hours ago, Cubarey said:

"Even if it had triggered another election, the LibDems would probably have done quite well by claiming they were the only party that was willing to lose power if it meant retaining their principles. "

 

And after 90 years in the Wilderness you really thinks that they would have stuck to their "principles" if it cost them the ability to govern? Plus, if they had joine Labour or made anaother election necessary do you really think that they would of faired any better. Thewy had announced that they would under no circumstances join Labour and fretting away the ability to govern would not of gone over well with their supporters. It's great to see how in hindsight their decisions destroyed the party but I think it's rather like Monday quarterbacking to argue taht they should have known better at the time.

Hey, a liberal can dream!

Of course this is all moot now, so we are all free to speculate over what could and would have happened. Although we should not let it distract us from the challenges ahead.

5 hours ago, Cubarey said:

Well with the defeat of the the Italian referendum the resignation of the Rinzo government and the likely tourmoil in the Italian and EU banking system which will likely occur having voted for Brexit likely shield the British banking and financial system from the tourmoil that will likely envelope the european banking system. Now if the European banking system fails and the Euro collapses the UK  (and the rest of the world (will still be hit with the repurcussions but the UK will likely be able to shield itself from a more "moderate" event like the collapse of the Italian banks and their bailout by the EU).

It's still all bad news for us. Even in the eventual event of the hardest of hard Brexits the UK and European economies shall remain interlinked for at least the next two and a bit years. If the Italian referendum does lead to another Eurozone meltdown it will likely be within this time period. Not to mention that our financial services sector is deeply dependent of Europe and we would be incredibly exposed in the event of a Euro crisis (let alone the collapse of the single currency - people don't realise how bad that would be: it would be up there with 2008 at least).

4 hours ago, Pebbles said:

considering we never joined the Euro Currency, and really did not pay out to bail out Greece because of it. I don't think the UK would have paid that much to prop up of Italian banks, even without the Brexit vote.   Also we have not Brexited yet...

Yep: we have/had an opt out from contributing to future bail out funds. Another fact overlooked completely during the campaign...

 

[Yukle]

5 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

Yep: we have/had an opt out from contributing to future bail out funds. Another fact overlooked completely during the campaign...

And another thing that Nigel Farage dismissed as unimportant. It doesn't matter, apparently, that all of the Leave Campaign's central messages, like, "STOP THE REGULATIONZ," and, "FUND THE NHS," weren't true because they got what they wanted.

Except, since Farage is a complete coward and has ducked for cover once the vote happened, I don't think, in the end, that he did want it. Neither did his children, who went to the UK embassy quick-smart to get dual-citizenship and be allowed to keep their EU passports. Must suck to be Nigel Farage now: his wife and children will still be able to travel freely but he won't.

[mankytoes]

15 hours ago, Yukle said:

And another thing that Nigel Farage dismissed as unimportant. It doesn't matter, apparently, that all of the Leave Campaign's central messages, like, "STOP THE REGULATIONZ," and, "FUND THE NHS," weren't true because they got what they wanted.

Except, since Farage is a complete coward and has ducked for cover once the vote happened, I don't think, in the end, that he did want it. Neither did his children, who went to the UK embassy quick-smart to get dual-citizenship and be allowed to keep their EU passports. Must suck to be Nigel Farage now: his wife and children will still be able to travel freely but he won't.

I don't really understand this argument. As much as I dislike Nigel Farage, he was never going to be in power. So why would he have to "duck for cover"? This wasn't an election, the winning campaign don't get to run the country, or make terms. "Fund the NHS" is true, and if leaving saves us money and makes the economy stronger and more efficient, we will be able to better fund it.

[Maester of Valyria]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I don't really understand this argument. As much as I dislike Nigel Farage, he was never going to be in power. So why would he have to "duck for cover"? This wasn't an election, the winning campaign don't get to run the country, or make terms. "Fund the NHS" is true, and if leaving saves us money and makes the economy stronger and more efficient, we will be able to better fund it.

Put simply, the NHS pledges and the other abandoned promises were what won the referendum for Leave. It is incredibly disingenuous for the government that came about because of the Leave vote to claim that they do not have a democratic mandate for, for instance, increasing the budget of the NHS by £350m/week, and then to claim that they have a mandate for any one 'sort' of Brexit.

I also take issue with your last sentence: it has been repeatedly shown that leaving will not, in the short to medium term (ie up to a decade from now) strengthen the economy. Almost every economic expert (I know you've 'had enough of' them) is united on this, including Mark Carney and Philip Hammond. Falls in employment leads to reduction in tax revenue leads to decreases in public spending and increases in borrowing. It's basic economics.

Not to mention that Theresa May has been very clear about there not being any extra funding for the NHS until 2020.

 

17 hours ago, Yukle said:

Except, since Farage is a complete coward and has ducked for cover once the vote happened, I don't think, in the end, that he did want it. Neither did his children, who went to the UK embassy quick-smart to get dual-citizenship and be allowed to keep their EU passports. Must suck to be Nigel Farage now: his wife and children will still be able to travel freely but he won't.

Oh he didn't want it: the whole thing was a publicity stunt to get more attention for his party. I'd hazard that most of the prominent leavers were actually pro-Remain: just look at Boris and Gove's faces the night the results came in.