UK Politics: Post-May Edition

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

It could well be that this 'reported' comment by May could be hogwash. I'm quite sure there will be a large campaign via the media now to force her out, we will be seeing lots of little things like this to really push home the idea that she needs to go. ( Not that its really needed, its incredible she's still there) 

Hard to say.  Both Jeremy Corbyn and Arlene Foster are examples of politicians whose positions looked untenable, but who clung on like limpets, and turned things around.

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

No Conservative MPs will vote against the Queen's Speech.  They'd automatically be expelled from the party.

What if May pushed to include a bunch of extreme DUP demands without consulting the backbenchers? If there's a mass revolt you can't expel everyone; I'd think.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just now, Fez said:

What if May pushed to include a bunch of extreme DUP demands without consulting the backbenchers? If there's a mass revolt you can't expel everyone; I'd think.

I suppose they could abstain instead...

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, Fez said:

What if May pushed to include a bunch of extreme DUP demands without consulting the backbenchers? If there's a mass revolt you can't expel everyone; I'd think.

The DUP aren't my favourite party (I'd only vote DUP to keep out Sinn Fein) but their leaders are rational, and they know the parameters within which they can negotiate.  They won't demand anything that the Conservatives can't abide.

[Werthead]

 

Quote

What if May pushed to include a bunch of extreme DUP demands without consulting the backbenchers? If there's a mass revolt you can't expel everyone; I'd think.

The situation is a bit bizarre. May doesn't really need the DUP, because they vote Conservative on just about everything anyway, and certainly will be there in lockstep on Brexit since their key demand - no hard border with the RoI - is something the Tories were leaning towards anyway.

At this point saying screw it to a "formal informal" deal and just doing the minority government thing is a valid option. The DUP are unlikely to topple the Tory government just for the hell of it.

[Slick Mongoose]

14 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

At this point saying screw it to a "formal informal" deal and just doing the minority government thing is a valid option. The DUP are unlikely to topple the Tory government just for the hell of it.

If the DUP don't get something in exchange for their support, will they ever get anything from the Tories in the future?

[Werthead]

3 minutes ago, Slick Mongoose said:

If the DUP don't get something in exchange for their support, will they ever get anything from the Tories in the future?

That depends on the situation. To be honest, Westminster should really not be sticking its nose into Northern Irish politics at all, it doesn't really understand it and it could blow the situation up just through sheer ignorance of the local situation on the ground.

The other point is that May is going to this trouble to get the DUP on board and, thanks to devolution, the DUP can't even vote on most domestic legislation at all. So having them around is handy for Brexit and some aspects of foreign policy and unnecessary for most domestic stuff (where the Tories should have a majority, since presumably the SNP can't vote them down either, although I haven't checked the maths on that). 

[Lordsteve666]

Can someone who is more knowledgeable than me explain why exactly there is always talk of an expensive "divorce settlement" so to speak for leaving the EU?

I get that there might be certain things that we got as befits that were to be paid for long term and we still owe x amount for them. But is there any actually situation where apart from paying for previously acquired things we'd need to pay them?

I just don't understand the reasoning properly, the way that some parts of the media portray it is looks more like a hostage release fee than anything legally required due to paying up contracts.

[The guy from the Vale]

The UK formerly agreed to participating in the EU's budget, which lasts until 2020, if I recall correctly. The "divorce settlement" (not my favorite term...) is the question how to deal with that contribution, seeing how the UK will most probably not be a EU member in 2020. Many of these funds have already been allocated, so the UK reneging on their promises would mean a critical funding shortage for various EU programmes.

 

ETA: so, yes, it's more about not wanting to pay your contract fees because you cancelled your contract in question early.

[Hereward]

It's not only that. The EU wants us to pay for the exceedingly generous pensions of EU bureaucrats, a share of the EU's borrowing and debt, though that is is to make up for the derisory payments of the non-contributors rather than the second biggest contributor, particularly the bailouts for Ireland, Greece etc.  The 100bn figure also relies on the position that the UK is liable for the liabilities, but has no call on the assets.

[Lordsteve666]

18 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

The UK formerly agreed to participating in the EU's budget, which lasts until 2020, if I recall correctly. The "divorce settlement" (not my favorite term...) is the question how to deal with that contribution, seeing how the UK will most probably not be a EU member in 2020. Many of these funds have already been allocated, so the UK reneging on their promises would mean a critical funding shortage for various EU programmes.

 

ETA: so, yes, it's more about not wanting to pay your contract fees because you cancelled your contract in question early.

Thank you for that explanation, makes sense as i though it would.

So essentially we were in contract for certain assets, funding etc. We needed to pay for those. To pullout early means we possibly used certain benefits that we haven't yet paid for in full. Hence the settlement fee.
So essentially like pulling out of a phone or TV contract early.

 

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

The other point is that May is going to this trouble to get the DUP on board and, thanks to devolution, the DUP can't even vote on most domestic legislation at all. So having them around is handy for Brexit and some aspects of foreign policy and unnecessary for most domestic stuff (where the Tories should have a majority, since presumably the SNP can't vote them down either, although I haven't checked the maths on that). 

I think if it's something only English MPs will vote on then the Tories will have a comfortable majority, they have 297 out of 533.

[Hereward]

21 minutes ago, Lordsteve666 said:

Thank you for that explanation, makes sense as i though it would.

So essentially we were in contract for certain assets, funding etc. We needed to pay for those. To pullout early means we possibly used certain benefits that we haven't yet paid for in full. Hence the settlement fee.
So essentially like pulling out of a phone or TV contract early.

 

It seems reasonable to me that if we have to pay as if were a member, we should continue to get the benefits of being a member during this period.

[Lordsteve666]

1 minute ago, Hereward said:

It seems reasonable to me that if we have to pay as if were a member, we should continue to get the benefits of being a member during this period.

Yes. If you must pay out the rest of the contact then the benefits you pay for should also be available too.

[all swedes are racist]

7 hours ago, Fez said:

Apparently that's routine for them; they do it so they can obtain staff allowances and expenses (which supposedly DUP is demanding be eliminated for MPs that don't take their seats). Though I have seen more and more speculation that they may even take their seats as well, especially if it looks like Corbyn's alternative Queen's Speech could get a few Conservative defections.

Seems like an extreme longshot though.

ah, did not know that. the articles i read led me to believe this was more out of the ordinary. i'm learning all sorts of good stuff here

[Hereward]

Christ, I miss John Major. And that's a sentence I would never have thought I'd have uttered. Now, I hate myself.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

It seems reasonable to me that if we have to pay as if were a member, we should continue to get the benefits of being a member during this period.

The current EU budget runs from 2014 to 2020. The UK having activated article 50 in March 2017, it will get the benefits of that budget until March 2019 at least. While it's fair to ask for a rebate/cut (for the least year of the EU budget), it is not to demand that the UK stop contributing while continuing to get the benefits for a couple more years.
Basically, from what I understand, May wants to stop UK contributions during the two-year negotiation period. From a European perspective, it's a rather daring demand. Objectively speaking, it's a terrible negotiating position if you want a modicum of goodwill from the other side.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The current EU budget runs from 2014 to 2020. The UK having activated article 50 in March 2017, it will get the benefits of that budget until March 2019 at least. While it's fair to ask for a rebate/cut (for the least year of the EU budget), it is not to demand that the UK stop contributing while continuing to get the benefits for a couple more years.
Basically, from what I understand, May wants to stop UK contributions during the two-year negotiation period. From a European perspective, it's a rather daring demand. Objectively speaking, it's a terrible negotiating position if you want a modicum of goodwill from the other side.

Are we expecting any good will from the EU? They've outright said they need to punish us for leaving, that they will not give us a good deal or it will give others the idea of following us. There is no goodwill there. You need to bargain hard to get what you want, you don't just concede your position before going in or give things up easily or there will be nothing on your side to fight for. 

Having said that, after the election chaos our position appears even weaker, all the more reason to not just give everything up.

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Are we expecting any good will from the EU? They've outright said they need to punish us for leaving, that they will not give us a good deal or it will give others the idea of following us. There is no goodwill there.

I don't think it's that clear-cut.
Yes, there have been some nasty declarations here and there, but most of them seemed to be about warning the UK that there would be no "free" access to the free market in the wake of Brexit, that the UK would have to assume the consequences of its decision to leave the EU, and that there would be "a price to pay" (F.Hollande).
There have also been more conciliatory declarations, like Donald Tusk saying "the EU will not punish the UK, because Brexit is “punishment enough”" or -more recently- Macron saying he "will be tough, but without seeking to punish the UK."
It seems to me that the EU position is rather clear: there will be consequences (there has to be), but beyond the fact that the UK can't easily be granted access to the free market, it is in everyone's best interests to reach a good trade deal. Let's bear in mind that the EU has shown every intention of reaching a deal ; it is May who has repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal."
I think it's only possible to say there is no goodwill from the EU if you think the UK has a right to access the free market even without being part of the EU, and/or if you think the UK is in such a good negotiating position that it can afford to do without a deal.
But technically, so far, May is the one who said she was willing to do without a deal. I don't think there has been any declaration by a major EU politician saying they didn't want a deal.

5 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

You need to bargain hard to get what you want, you don't just concede your position before going in or give things up easily or there will be nothing on your side to fight for.

I understand the strategy, but it only works if you're negotiating from a position of strength to begin with.
From where I'm sitting, everyone actually wants a deal, the angry rhetoric coming from European politicians is more bark than bite, and even May can't possibly be foolish enough to not do her best to get a deal.
The problem is that taking "tough" positions in public can backfire. May may be pandering to her base by talking big, but she's also angering Europeans. At some point, once the rhetoric will have cooled down, everyone will need to save face. The EU starting position is actually quite reasonable, and I can think of many ways to turn it into a decent deal for the UK. May's inflammatory rethoric on the other hand only makes it harder for everyone to compromise.
In a nutshell: I don't agree that you need to bargain hard to get what you want. It's much smarter to figure out what everyone agrees on, and work the differences from there. But disagreeing on everything from the start can only work if you're in a position of considerable strength.
I think May gambled that the EU countries wouldn't be able to have a united front in the negotiations and that playing tough would pay out. It's not working so far.

 

[kiko]

16 hours ago, Hereward said:

It seems reasonable to me that if we have to pay as if were a member, we should continue to get the benefits of being a member during this period.

Benefits and duties, I would think. As far as I can follow your line of thinking, you want to couple the sticking to the fiscal commitments with keeping all of the benefits. I feel that would warrant a way to compensate the EU for pulling out of the non-fiscal obligations. I could imagine a kind of severance package for those who are no longer able to enjoy the 4 freedoms, people and companies and whoever else may have a case.