UK Politics - summer edition

[ljkeane]

30 minutes ago, Notone said:

Of course they are expressing scepticism. How is an open border supposed to work? Britain wants to restrict the freedom of movement for natural persons from the EU into it's territory. So how are they gonna control emmigration, if EU citizens can freely travel to the Republic of Ireland? The most practical solution would probably be border checks on mainland Britain for travelers from the Island of Ireland, but that would also involve British citizens from Northern Ireland. How happy the DUP would be about this, and how legally sound that would be, if challenged in court, that is a question for British lawyers I guess.

What concern is that of the EU? How the UK chooses to manage it's borders and any issues arising from that after leaving the EU is it's problem.

32 minutes ago, Notone said:

On the other side, the EU has an interest to control the influx of goods from Britain (Northern Ireland) into it's territory. When Britain comes up with all those fancy new trade agreements with Disney Land, they don't want Disney Land products to be shipped into the EU through an Irish backdoor, particularly when those goods don't meet EU standards for stuff like food and consumer safety standards. E.g. those chloride chickens from the US. We're totally cool if you want those in British supermarkets, that's none of our business -  just don't you dare to ship them to us through Northern Ireland. So there will be some sort of customs check needed for goods passing from Northern Ireland (Britain) to the Republic of Ireland (EU).

And if the EU chooses to place border controls on the Northern Ireland border that's really up to them. Good luck trying to convince Ireland to do that though.

35 minutes ago, Notone said:

The UK wants to enter a trade relationship with the EU, fine. But first the current relationship between the UK and the EU must be settled. And the bill is mainly commitments made by the UK. Just beause you don'T go the gym anymore, doesn't mean you don't have to pay your membership fees.

If there's a serious question about the legality of the requirement to pay the gym membership fees and probably not a good way to enforce you paying those fees anyway you're probably not going to pay them though (or I wouldn't anyway).

If there's no incentive to pay these contributions to the EU why would you? Of course there are potential incentives but they all relate to the future relationships between the EU and the UK.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

f there's a serious question about the legality of the requirement to pay the gym membership fees and probably not a good way to enforce you paying those fees anyway you're probably not going to pay them though (or I wouldn't anyway).

If there's no incentive to pay these contributions to the EU why would you? Of course there are potential incentives but they all relate to the future relationships between the EU and the UK.

Legality is a question for the lawyers. Judging by how things have played out thus far, I have way more faith in the EU's legal position.

As for the second bit, you still want to see some goodwill with regards to a transitional deal, or some future trade deal. Dine and dash is probably not the best strategy to achieve that. Well, maybe it is in the Boris school of diplomacy, but it's most certainly not on planet earth.

[mormont]

12 hours ago, ljkeane said:

What concern is that of the EU?

Again, this is a border with the EU.

In what world, in what way, could this be seen as not the EU's concern? That's just an absurd position to take, sorry.

12 hours ago, ljkeane said:

If there's a serious question about the legality of the requirement to pay the gym membership fees and probably not a good way to enforce you paying those fees anyway you're probably not going to pay them though (or I wouldn't anyway).

But we're not quitting a gym, and the money being discussed is not simply a membership fee for services we receive. This analogy, and I know it isn't yours, is unhelpful.

If, for the sake of argument, we wanted to maintain it you'd have to imagine that we still wanted to keep going to the gym sometimes as a guest or under some other arrangement and that it isn't just about whether we can be sued. But even then it's a bad analogy. 

These are commitments we made to an international body under legitimate treaties, freely entered into. Honouring such commitments is an important part of international relations.

[Werthead]

Potentially interesting documentary on Boris Johnson on Channel 4 tonight, featuring, among other things, the sight of the British ambassador to Myanmar having to explain to Boris that quoting pro-colonialist poem The Road to Mandalay to their Burmese hosts might be regarded as insulting. Johnson appears baffled, with the ambassador having to say quite forcefully, "Not appropriate".

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Potentially interesting documentary on Boris Johnson on Channel 4 tonight, featuring, among other things, the sight of the British ambassador to Myanmar having to explain to Boris that quoting pro-colonialist poem The Road to Mandalay to their Burmese hosts might be regarded as insulting. Johnson appears baffled, with the ambassador having to say quite forcefully, "Not appropriate".

Worryingly, I saw a poll saying that Boris was the favourite to be the next Tory leader among Tory party members followed by Ruth Davidson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies. It's particularly worrying when he actually seems like the comparatively sane option compared to JRM and Davies - and while I think Davidson would be a better option she'd probably first have to manufacture a way to become a MP and I suspect there are probably too many Brexit fans in the Tory party membership to elect a leader who campaigned enthusiastically for Remain, if she has ambition to one day be leader then there may be better opportunities in the future.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

Worryingly, I saw a poll saying that Boris was the favourite to be the next Tory leader among Tory party members followed by Ruth Davidson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies. It's particularly worrying when he actually seems like the comparatively sane option compared to JRM and Davies - and while I think Davidson would be a better option she'd probably first have to manufacture a way to become a MP and I suspect there are probably too many Brexit fans in the Tory party membership to elect a leader who campaigned enthusiastically for Remain, if she has ambition to one day be leader then there may be better opportunities in the future.

Davies is a snake oil salesman, accomplished liar and cynical opportunist, but I think he's probably more competent at governance than Boris (although that's not exactly saying much). Johnson is an utter shambolic omnishambles in comparison.

The lack of quality in depth in the Conservative Party at the moment is quite startling. In the past they've had poor leaders or cabinet members but you could find quite decent MPs and members in the party, but at the moment there are slim pickings indeed.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41490174

 

Well this is fucking sick.

 

Quote

Boris Johnson has said Libyan city Sirte could be the new Dubai, adding, "all they have to do is clear the dead bodies away".

 

[Werthead]

Even accepting that ill health can happen to anyone, at any time, that was a diabolical speech by May (to add to a whole run of poor speeches) and a bizarre, funereal conference with lacklustre policy announcements and all eyes on Boris and Jacob to see what mischief they'd get up to, and Boris delivered the crassest, most jaw-dropping gaff by a British Foreign Secretary in recent years, which he should have been sacked for instantly. They also managed to piss off Florence+The Machine (hint: ask before you play someone's music at a public event).

I'm also working out if May thought wearing a picture of a member of the Communist Party (and former girlfriend of Trotsky) on her wrist was also good optics, or maybe she's planning to defect to the Labour Party and is getting her credentials ready?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

25 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Even accepting that ill health can happen to anyone, at any time, that was a diabolical speech by May (to add to a whole run of poor speeches) and a bizarre, funereal conference with lacklustre policy announcements and all eyes on Boris and Jacob to see what mischief they'd get up to, and Boris delivered the crassest, most jaw-dropping gaff by a British Foreign Secretary in recent years, which he should have been sacked for instantly. They also managed to piss off Florence+The Machine (hint: ask before you play someone's music at a public event).

I'm also working out if May thought wearing a picture of a member of the Communist Party (and former girlfriend of Trotsky) on her wrist was also good optics, or maybe she's planning to defect to the Labour Party and is getting her credentials ready?

I have to ask are you team Jacob or team Edward Boris?

So May wore a Frida Carlo picture? Anyway, after getting the silly bits out of the way.

I thought May was the dead PM walking, so no speech in the world could (have) save(d) her job, she is just there to take the Brexit backlash for the team. And BoJo is just trying very hard to get sacked, so he can get as far away from the unfolding Brexit disaster as possible in order to minimize the damages for his chances as future PM.

[polishgenius]

I honestly got the impression that most of the Tories didn't realise that what they say is going to be seen by more than just the people in the room at the conference. Particularly notable were Hammond's apology to bankers, and IDS claiming that non-married couples living together leads to crime and societal problems.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I honestly got the impression that most of the Tories didn't realise that what they say is going to be seen by more than just the people in the room at the conference. Particularly notable were Hammond's apology to bankers, and IDS claiming that non-married couples living together leads to crime and societal problems.

Some of the things the Tories said at this conference, and not just Boris, were pretty ludicrous. As I said, this was a conference held under an air of dejection and defeat, and did not inspire confidence for the next several years.

 

Quote

 

I have to ask are you team Jacob or team Edward Boris?

 

Either would be horrific. We have to leave behind the haha, weren't they good on Have I Got News For You, #topbants attitude and look at them as serious leadership candidates (which they are, somehow). Boris is not a total idiot (although he does far better when he doesn't have to even remotely do anything off the cuff) but he has no sense of honour, morals or honesty, is tone-deaf to the audience around him, has a blinkered view of history and he is profoundly unable to grasp what people outside of his immediate set experience in life. His biggest problem is, despite occasionally doing a half-good speech, he is unable to think on his feet or react to rapidly-changing circumstances (although May isn't good at this either). This is a profound weakness given the situation in the world today.

Jacob I think is perhaps a bit smarter than he lets on and is aware that he has built a brand on his hail fellow, well met routine. He is far more capable than Boris of reacting off the cuff and doesn't appear to be the same kind of backstabbing arsehole (although he's not been put in a position to have much of an opportunity so far), but his policies are archaic, at best. The notion of him having to sit down with Trump and Putin to discuss world affairs does not appear to be compatible with reality.

The current crop of top Tories is thin gruel at best, but Hammond is probably the best out of a bad bunch. Unfortunately, as a hard-nosed realist he's not going to be too popular with the Brexit crew. Fox might also be relatively acceptable. But Jesus Christ the rest of them? Hopeless. I think the Tories may only now be realising that with Cameron, insipid as he could be, they at least had someone with a decent ability to speak, to come up with ideas and follow through, and was at least semi-credible on the world stage.

[mormont]

Hey, I'm all in when you say that Boris is a backstabbing bastard with extensive experience of both back stabbing and bastarding. But on the former count, at least, Liam Fox simply leaves Boris in the dust. He also shares Boris' vacillation and inability to read a room or react to changing circumstances. 'Relatively' acceptable being the key word, I know, but Fox is right down there in the oiliest part of the muddy puddle that is the Tories' talent pool.

Trying to rate the likes of Davis, Fox, Rees-Mogg, Johnson et al as leaders is like trying to decide which garden slug would make the best wedding breakfast. In no sane world should it even be a question.

The shambles of May's speech was just rubbing in the entirety of UK politics at the moment. As bad as I predicted Brexit would be, it is turning out worse. Can you imagine how the talks are going to go if we have to interrupt them for a Tory leadership contest?

[Rippounet]

On 23/09/2017 at 11:37 PM, ljkeane said:

The UK signed off on EU budgets and agreed to make a contribution while the intention was for the UK to remain in the EU and benefit from those expenditures. That the UK would continue to pay into the EU budget while not receiving any benefit from it really isn't a given.

If I understand correctly, most of that money is for the 2017-2019 period, while the UK will still get all the benefits of EU membership.
In other words, I believe it is incorrect to say that the EU is asking the UK to pay its contribution without getting any benefits. As long as Brexit isn't effective (i.e. until March 2019), the UK gets all the benefits of its EU membership.
To use the gym analogy, it seems that this is the same as taking a gym membership in January and then refusing to pay the the yearly fee because you know you'll be leaving the gym before December.
Referring to it as a "divorce bill" is part of the problem. From what I understand it's not that. It's closer to "paying your share of the rent as long as you haven't actually moved out of the house." Anyone doing that can expect the negotiations about the kids' custody to be difficult.
Of course, it's only fair that the UK gets some kind of discount. And the Tories have made decent propositions in that direction. Which goes to show, imho, that they are well aware that this is not a "divorce bill." Which is why I find the expression somewhat troubling. Is this coming from the British media?
 

[Werthead]

Sky News are theorising that May's speech was plagiarised from The West Wing. Hmm.

Also, METAPHOR.

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

Hey, I'm all in when you say that Boris is a backstabbing bastard with extensive experience of both back stabbing and bastarding. But on the former count, at least, Liam Fox simply leaves Boris in the dust. He also shares Boris' vacillation and inability to read a room or react to changing circumstances. 'Relatively' acceptable being the key word, I know, but Fox is right down there in the oiliest part of the muddy puddle that is the Tories' talent pool.

Trying to rate the likes of Davis, Fox, Rees-Mogg, Johnson et al as leaders is like trying to decide which garden slug would make the best wedding breakfast. In no sane world should it even be a question.

The shambles of May's speech was just rubbing in the entirety of UK politics at the moment. As bad as I predicted Brexit would be, it is turning out worse. Can you imagine how the talks are going to go if we have to interrupt them for a Tory leadership contest?

The word "omnishambles" was invented for this very occurrence I believe.

[polishgenius]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Sky News are theorising that May's speech was plagiarised from The West Wing. Hmm.

I mean, that line was definitely lifted from TWW.
To the rage of my brother because that's his favourite fictional speech ever and Theresa May is probably his least favourite person in the world right now.

It's not quite as cringeworthy as when Miliband and his team tried a 'let Miliband be Miliband' thing, but at least that was in private!

 

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The word "omnishambles" was invented for this very occurrence I believe.

I think it's not a coincidence that Iannucci has found himself unable to satirise modern politics directly any longer and has found himself reaching back to The Death of Stalin.

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

I'm also working out if May thought wearing a picture of a member of the Communist Party (and former girlfriend of Trotsky) on her wrist was also good optics, or maybe she's planning to defect to the Labour Party and is getting her credentials ready?

Maybe she's been a deep cover agent the whole time, sent to destroy the Tories from within? That would explain a few things about how badly everything is going.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Jacob I think is perhaps a bit smarter than he lets on and is aware that he has built a brand on his hail fellow, well met routine. He is far more capable than Boris of reacting off the cuff and doesn't appear to be the same kind of backstabbing arsehole (although he's not been put in a position to have much of an opportunity so far), but his policies are archaic, at best. The notion of him having to sit down with Trump and Putin to discuss world affairs does not appear to be compatible with reality.

I did like Frankie Boyle's recent description of Rees-Mogg as being a composite figure formed from the nightmares of 18th Century mill workers.

Given how poor a selection the top Tories offer I wonder what the chances are of someone relatively obscure coming through just by fighting a half-decent campaign?

[Denvek]

7 hours ago, williamjm said:

Given how poor a selection the top Tories offer I wonder what the chances are of someone relatively obscure coming through just by fighting a half-decent campaign?

Not being some anyone's heard of does sound like it would be a massive advantage.

[mormont]

7 hours ago, williamjm said:

Given how poor a selection the top Tories offer I wonder what the chances are of someone relatively obscure coming through just by fighting a half-decent campaign?

Nearly nil, I would say. Any backbench Tory you haven't heard of was likely selected by a local party stuffed with the very people who are now muttering about 'backsliding' on Brexit, who talk about 'ungrateful colonials' without irony, and who think Rees-Mogg is a bit of a moderate.

[Which Tyler]

15 hours ago, Notone said:

I thought May was the dead PM walking, so no speech in the world could (have) save(d) her job, she is just there to take the Brexit backlash for the team. And BoJo is just trying very hard to get sacked, so he can get as far away from the unfolding Brexit disaster as possible in order to minimize the damages for his chances as future PM.

You use the word "thought" there as if you've changed your mind on that. If so, that would be a very silly thing to do.

[Maltaran]

5 hours ago, Denvek said:

Not being some anyone's heard of does sound like it would be a massive advantage.

That covers half the current Cabinet