UK Politics: Winter of Discontent

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, Notone said:

Ah, c'mon. That's a bit harsh. She had to play tate crappy hand she was dealt by Cameron, Johnson and Farage. The only real thing you can actually blame her for was that snap election and the resulting DUP deal.

.

She had a crappy hand and dealt it awfully. But she has also been shite on absolutely everything else, not just Brexit.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 hours ago, polishgenius said:

She had a crappy hand and dealt it awfully. But she has also been shite on absolutely everything else, not just Brexit.

Yes, but that's what she gets the most criticism for.  And there still seems to be that underlying idea/delusion on the right, that she was entering the negotiation table from a position of strength, and she could've walked away with a better result, if she had just been tougher.

[polishgenius]

But the criticism she's getting here isn't from the right, it's mostly from the left, and has nothing to do with toughness: it has to do with the complete incompetence of her and her team to the point where they still haven't made it clear to anyone what they actually want, increasingly obviously because they don't understand Brexit and its ramifications at all. Additionally, with her undemocratic methods of trying to ram through what she thinks is a Brexit without talking to the country, either Pairlament or the electorate, about it.

Of course the most criticism she gets is for Brexit. It's the defining issue of the political era here.

[Eggegg]

8 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

But the criticism she's getting here isn't from the right, it's mostly from the left, and has nothing to do with toughness: it has to do with the complete incompetence of her and her team to the point where they still haven't made it clear to anyone what they actually want, increasingly obviously because they don't understand Brexit and its ramifications at all. Additionally, with her undemocratic methods of trying to ram through what she thinks is a Brexit without talking to the country, either Pairlament or the electorate, about it.

Of course the most criticism she gets is for Brexit. It's the defining issue of the political era here.

I think her methods make sense, in that if she constantly goes back and asks the country or parliament what Brexit should look like then you'll get 100 different answers and in the end you'll end up with a fudged result anyway. Ideally she would have won the election with a strong majority, and then been able to go into negotiations with a strong hand and a clear direction of where to go. Of course she totally cocked it up and we are left hanging on the whims of the DUP. 

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I think her methods make sense, in that if she constantly goes back and asks the country or parliament what Brexit should look like then you'll get 100 different answers and in the end you'll end up with a fudged result anyway.

She shouldn't constantly ask but she doesn't want to ask, or even communicate, at all. She's opposed to even negotiating a deal and then bringing it to vote before it's signed.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yes. All of that is fair enough. And as I said before, how somebody like David Davis is still in the job is beyond me (same with Johnson). Esp. with regards to the not-understanding part. I think the reality part has slowly started to sink in at number 10 (of course the Rees-Moggs, Johnsons, Goves et. al are too thick to read the writing on the wall).

And the not knowing/not understanding part is not a Tory exclusive thing. Labour's Captain Soundbite (aka Jeremy Corbyn) has nailed his flag to the same Brexit post (remember the three line whip) and is not really looking any better. Or Labour's position in general isn't anymore coherent. I mean pointing out that the Tories A Brexit that works for everyone is totally empty/void of any meaning whatsoever is fair enough. However, Labour's Jobs first Brexit isn't really any more meaningful (I hope I didn't mix the two slogans up), or do you know what exactly they want. I mean whether you have the Maybot repeating Brexit means Brexit, or Corbyn Will of the People doesn't make in practive that much of a difference. And Corbyn has also ruled out anothe referendum, because you know Will of the People. 

 

[Eggegg]

13 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

She shouldn't constantly ask but she doesn't want to ask, or even communicate, at all. She's opposed to even negotiating a deal and then bringing it to vote before it's signed.

What happens if she brings the deal to a vote and then it gets voted down? That means No deal and we go to WTO? Or does she go back to the EU, cup in hand saying 'oh sorry, could you give us a better deal, I'm not allowed to sign this'

 

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, Eggegg said:

What happens if she brings the deal to a vote and then it gets voted down? That means No deal and we go to WTO? Or does she go back to the EU, cup in hand saying 'oh sorry, could you give us a better deal, I'm not allowed to sign this'

 

Yeah, basically. The EU leaders aren't morons, they understand that she works in a democracy. I mean, there is now an incredibly tight timeframe in which to get this done but that's her fault. They don't give them two years to work in for fun and games. They should have been negotiating for well over a year now (though realistically they should probably not have been negotiating at all, there having been no need to trigger Article 50 before we got sorted what we're actually after. That should not have happened as soon as it did).

 

 

11 minutes ago, Notone said:

And the not knowing/not understanding part is not a Tory exclusive thing. Labour's Captain Soundbite (aka Jeremy Corbyn) has nailed his flag to the same Brexit post (remember the three line whip) and is not really looking any better. Or Labour's position in general isn't anymore coherent. I mean pointing out that the Tories A Brexit that works for everyone is totally empty/void of any meaning whatsoever is fair enough. However, Labour's Jobs first Brexit isn't really any more meaningful (I hope I didn't mix the two slogans up), or do you know what exactly they want. I mean whether you have the Maybot repeating Brexit means Brexit, or Corbyn Will of the People doesn't make in practive that much of a difference. And Corbyn has also ruled out anothe referendum, because you know Will of the People. 

 

We don't know exactly what Corbyn wants and to be sure his position on it isn't always completely convincing, but we know that they guarantee from the off the rights of EU nationals in the UK (and thus vice-versa), that they'd negotiate on the basis of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union, and that they don't see No Deal as viable and will be willing to negotiate temporary arrangements if two years passes without a deal (as seems increasingly likely). This is all stuff we still don't know from the Tory negotiating team even after they supposedly negotiated an agreement about it. Basically Corbyn isn't needing to be brilliant about this to be vastly the more credible option at this point.

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yeah, basically. The EU leaders aren't morons, they understand that she works in a democracy. I mean, there is now an incredibly tight timeframe in which to get this done but that's her fault. They don't give them two years to work in for fun and games. They should have been negotiating for well over a year now (though realistically they should probably not have been negotiating at all, there having been no need to trigger Article 50 before we got sorted what we're actually after. That should not have happened as soon as it did).
 

Absolutely the EU aren't morons, they know that May is in a bad position and in their wildest dreams they hope that she has to go back to the people to ask if the deal is alright, because there really isn't a circumstance where it will be alright for everyone. So it simply puts the UK in a worse position and the EU in a stronger one. 

They also aren't stupid enough to allow the UK to negotiate from day one, instead they can delay that process by quibbilling over the compensation payment or any number of other issues. They have been very clever, if only they were so good at running Europe, then maybe we wouldn't be in this position

[polishgenius]

4 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

They also aren't stupid enough to allow the UK to negotiate from day one, instead they can delay that process by quibbilling over the compensation payment or any number of other issues.

Err, what? That quibbling is negotiation. The problem is that the UK hasn't been able to respond properly because either they don't know what their position is, or (as in the case of the compensation payment) they've come in with a completely ludicrous stance that is untenable to the EU side. So all the EU can really do is go 'errr, no. Go and sort your shit out'.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, polishgenius said:

We don't know exactly what Corbyn wants and to be sure his position on it isn't always completely convincing, but we know that they guarantee from the off the rights of EU nationals in the UK (and thus vice-versa), that they'd negotiate on the basis of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union, and that they don't see No Deal as viable and will be willing to negotiate temporary arrangements if two years passes without a deal (as seems increasingly likely). This is all stuff we still don't know from the Tory negotiating team even after they supposedly negotiated an agreement about it. Basically Corbyn isn't needing to be brilliant about this to be vastly the more credible option at this point.

Yes, the EU-nationals sham would've been avoided.

Wanting to remain in the customs union and single market? Really? That means freedom of movement, ECJ oversight and so on and so forth.  Do Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey know about this? (I have mentioned the Tory idiots so often, I think offering Labour's counterpart some space is fair). Judging from Hoey ramblings after the NI deal, she isn't sold on that. And wasn't Corbyn himself a leaver at heart? And what about the Will of the people. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Labour's usual stance, we will remain in the single market, but we will put strong restrictions on freedom of movement? Which is somewhat in contrast to the EU's the four freedoms are inseparable.

So I think Labour hasn't exactly sorted out their position either. Of course they can afford that vagueness, since they are not in charge, so they can tactically lean back and beat the Tories with the Brexit stick.

[polishgenius]

6 minutes ago, Notone said:

 

So I think Labour hasn't exactly sorted out their position either. Of course they can afford that vagueness, since they are not in charge, so they can tactically lean back and beat the Tories with the Brexit stick.

Obviously. I don't think they're fantastic either, on this. But I am absolutely confident that we'd have gotten less of a shambles from them than what we've been offered by May and Davis.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Notone said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Labour's usual stance, we will remain in the single market, but we will put strong restrictions on freedom of movement?

Yeah. Well, it's Corbyn's usual stance. And yeah, that's incompatible with what the EU want. So they might have to concede on that. Or they might negotiate something. But this is the point I am making: you know where they stand on this. You can tell me, at least a little bit, what they're claiming to aim for, and where you think they're going to fail or their position is weak. Because they have a position.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Notone said:

Do Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey know about this? (I have mentioned the Tory idiots so often, I think offering Labour's counterpart some space is fair).

I'm not sure it's an exact equivalence to compare a relatively fringe Labour member and someone who isn't even an MP anymore to the core of the Tories' negotiating team. Every party is going to have voices that disagree with the overall direction. Corbyn himself was one. It would be weird if they didn't, and because of Corbyn's past in particular that is one of Labour's issues, on more than just Brexit, that they need to negotiate the outlying voices carefully, but 'Labour aren't perfect' isn't a reason to let May off the hook.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, polishgenius said:

Yeah. Well, it's Corbyn's usual stance. And yeah, that's incompatible with what the EU want. So they might have to concede on that. Or they might negotiate something. But this is the point I am making: you know where they stand on this. You can tell me, at least a little bit, what they're claiming to aim for, and where you think they're going to fail or their position is weak. Because they have a position.

Yes, that's why I used the term of Labour's have our pie and eat version of Brexit. Let's (reasonably) assume the EU is not willing to give ground on that principle.That puts Labour pretty much in the same position the Tories are in. They start from an for the EU unacceptable position, and now have fun to work something out that work with the will of the people. Then Labour would have to make wild assumptions what the Leave voters actually wanted, and end of Freedom of Movement appears to be the answer to that.

That's why I think Labour wouldn't look much better, were they in charge. They just have the luxury to hackle from their seats while that Tory farce is happening on center stage. Yes, it is a somewhat reasonable assumption they can't possibly look any worse than May and Davis, that's however a very low bar, and that's why I would also prefer some clarity over their tactical vagueness (wasn't that actually an euphemism used by Davis to describe the lack of a clear UK position - anyway, you get my point).

10 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I'm not sure it's an exact equivalence to compare a relatively fringe Labour member and someone who isn't even an MP anymore to the core of the Tories' negotiating team. Every party is going to have voices that disagree with the overall direction. Corbyn himself was one. It would be weird if they didn't, and because of Corbyn's past in particular that is one of Labour's issues, on more than just Brexit, that they need to negotiate the outlying voices carefully, but 'Labour aren't perfect' isn't a reason to let May off the hook.

I used those two, as they are the first names that came to mind. However, I wonder how fringe Hoey would be. She was part of that Labour leave idiot brigade (and also a minister under Blair if I am not mistaken, correct me if my memory is wrong on that one), since Leave won, I think it's a fair assumption that at least some of the Labour Leavers would have found their way to the cabinet table. But it doesn't really matter, whether she'd be frontbench Labour or Reese-Mogg Labour.

Yes, of course you shouldn't let May and her merry gang off the hook. However I think pointing out that the major opposition party doesn't look very convincing either and to demand that they sort their mess out is a legit criticism.

[Werthead]

Quote

Yeah, basically. The EU leaders aren't morons, they understand that she works in a democracy. I mean, there is now an incredibly tight timeframe in which to get this done but that's her fault. They don't give them two years to work in for fun and games. They should have been negotiating for well over a year now (though realistically they should probably not have been negotiating at all, there having been no need to trigger Article 50 before we got sorted what we're actually after. That should not have happened as soon as it did).

It's vital to remember that in April 2019 new tax enforcement rules come into force across the European Union. The reason for Brexit having to take place in March 2019 is that many of the high-earning supporters of Brexit are going to have to stump up a lot of money they've been hiding in offshore tax havens to the British government and people if we're still in the EU after that date.

Tim Martin and James Dyson's support for Brexit, even a hard Brexit as long as we get out before the end of March 2019, makes a lot more sense when viewed from this context.

It's also worth remembering that the EU negotiators do not give one flying fuck about the mandate or lack of it of the British government. They were willing to throw May some semantic bones to avoid another general election or leadership contest (which would have delayed their timetable by months, inconveniencing them), but the EU's position would be immovably the same whether they were dealing with a minority PM or the head of the biggest majority in British history. The EU (population 450 million, GDP £14.57 trillion) is simply going to lay down terms and we (population 65 million, GDP £2.63 trillion) are going to accept them, no argument as we are negotiating from a position of overwhelming inferiority and weakness.

 

Quote

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Labour's usual stance, we will remain in the single market, but we will put strong restrictions on freedom of movement? Which is somewhat in contrast to the EU's the four freedoms are inseparable.

As has often been pointed out, free movement of people does not mean "letting everyone in forever". In fact, you can put stipulations on that free movement including people having to leave after x months if they haven't found employment and preventing them from claiming any benefits for x number of years. The problem is that this requires an extra level of bureaucracy that was eliminated when free movement came in (one of its sold benefits). Allowing visa-free travel and freedom to work in other countries is not the same thing as allowing everyone to go anywhere in the EU under all circumstances.

Obviously it was very important that the Eurosceptics didn't let people know about this so they lied about the only way of being able to enforce the borders was by leaving the EU altogether, which was not and never has been the case.

Labour's position seems to be simply enforcing the rules that were available previously as full members of the European Union.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

As has often been pointed out, free movement of people does not mean "letting everyone in forever". In fact, you can put stipulations on that free movement including people having to leave after x months if they haven't found employment and preventing them from claiming any benefits for x number of years. The problem is that this requires an extra level of bureaucracy that was eliminated when free movement came in (one of its sold benefits). Allowing visa-free travel and freedom to work in other countries is not the same thing as allowing everyone to go anywhere in the EU under all circumstances.

Your point being? None of that is controversial.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Obviously it was very important that the Eurosceptics didn't let people know about this so they lied about the only way of being able to enforce the borders was by leaving the EU altogether, which was not and never has been the case.

Again, no argument on my part.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Labour's position seems to be simply enforcing the rules that were available previously as full members of the European Union.

Is it though? That would be a perfectly reasonable position for stopping the Brexit process and to revoke article 50, but I don't think that's what their official position is. Their official position seems to be: will of the people, the UK will leave the EU (no questions or second referendum asked), then the UK will by some miracle negotiate single market membership, while putting some further restrictions on FoM in place.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Given the lack of progress unless May is involved personally, I have to wonder if Davis has spent the last year or so at the table with his fingers in his ears whistling The Great Escape theme at increasing volumes in the hopes his EU counterparts simply give in.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Sir Nicholas Clegg?

For services to the restoration of two party politics?

[Eggegg]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Sir Nicholas Clegg?

For services to the restoration of two party politics?

Of course he got one. He was of great service to the Tories, and also very helpful in nearly destroying the Lib Dems.

I do pity him a little bit however.. well I did, I don't now.

[Werthead]

On 28/12/2017 at 0:45 PM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Sir Nicholas Clegg?

For services to the restoration of two party politics?

I think it was more for the, "Actually, we fucking regret it now, we'd rather have the Coalition back and not be in this shitstorm," angle.

[Werthead]

The government and industry justifications for monstrous rail fare increases should always be accompanied by a laughter track.