UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I hope everyone who identifies with the political left is concerned about big international corporations trying to determine our politics, and not just supporting the corporations because it's useful to them on this occasion

Putting the cart before the horse here, are we?

People who opposed Brexit from all the political spectrum (from the left to the moderate right) opposed Brexit, because of the economic consequences, among the Airbus potentially pulling out of Britain, or at the very least not making new investments.  The reasons are not tariffs, it's the soon-to-be not so frictionless anymore trade between the EU (suppliers) and the UK. Car manufacturers and Airbus both use a just-in-time manufacturing model (google it, if don't know what ti means). A hold up at the customs is freaking expensive ofr them, as it means essentially shutting down production, because the parts are not there in time. Your attempt to spin it as big companies to determine politics, is mixing cause (Brexit, and the UK's goverment unwillingness/inability to come up with a workable solution for them) and effect - with aircraft parts there's also the small problem with certification, which ultimately ends up with oversight of the ECJ (bigger topic mutual recognition of standards).

You are either a fool or disingenious if you ignore those "minor problems".

[polishgenius]

55 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

 

I hope everyone who identifies with the political left is concerned about big international corporations trying to determine our politics, and not just supporting the corporations because it's useful to them on this occasion. Obviously, we need to consider any real issues about trade and preserving jobs, but we can't let them bully us- because if we do, they will. 

One of the reasons I was against Brexit was that the EU was protecting us from the naked Tory desire to sign up to a Transatlantic Trade Treaty that would give corporations much greater freedom to bully nations than they already have. That doesn't make the corporations being worried about a crashing economy wrong.

[Werthead]

Nigel Farage yesterday: "Brexit done badly will leave us in a worse position than we were in before, Brexit on its own isn't some magic cure."

Nigel Farage, June 2016 (on Andrew Marr): "So the worst case scenario economically is better than where we are today."

[Werthead]

50,000 people protesting in London in favour of a second referendum on the terms of withdrawal, as government declares it is ready to walk away with no deal.

What's interesting about this is that we can't just crash out of the EU and say, "Yo! WTO fo life!", we actually have to integrate that with the WTO and coordinate things with them and both government and businesses need months (preferably a couple of years) to put those plans in place. Apparently zero planning has been done by the Brexit department for a no-deal scenario because they'd been repeatedly told there will be a deal.

This is why the matter has exploded right now, since if we are going to go out without a deal in February 2019, we need to start planning that, at the latest, yesterday.

I also wonder if declaring there'll be no deal would result in Theresa May pressing the self-destruct button and calling a snap general election, because who the hell wants to be in charge of organising that?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

49 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I also wonder if declaring there'll be no deal would result in Theresa May pressing the self-destruct button and calling a snap general election, because who the hell wants to be in charge of organising that?

I take "Jeremy Corbyn" for 500 Alex.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

50,000 people protesting in London in favour of a second referendum on the terms of withdrawal, as government declares it is ready to walk away with no deal.

What's interesting about this is that we can't just crash out of the EU and say, "Yo! WTO fo life!", we actually have to integrate that with the WTO and coordinate things with them and both government and businesses need months (preferably a couple of years) to put those plans in place. Apparently zero planning has been done by the Brexit department for a no-deal scenario because they'd been repeatedly told there will be a deal.

Hell, you just have to go back to yesterday, and the government are deflecting questions about Airbus moving away if there's no deal by replying that there will definitely, absolutely be a deal.

24 hours later: 'we're not bluffing about no deal'.

[mankytoes]

5 hours ago, Notone said:

Putting the cart before the horse here, are we?

People who opposed Brexit from all the political spectrum (from the left to the moderate right) opposed Brexit, because of the economic consequences, among the Airbus potentially pulling out of Britain, or at the very least not making new investments.  The reasons are not tariffs, it's the soon-to-be not so frictionless anymore trade between the EU (suppliers) and the UK. Car manufacturers and Airbus both use a just-in-time manufacturing model (google it, if don't know what ti means). A hold up at the customs is freaking expensive ofr them, as it means essentially shutting down production, because the parts are not there in time. Your attempt to spin it as big companies to determine politics, is mixing cause (Brexit, and the UK's goverment unwillingness/inability to come up with a workable solution for them) and effect - with aircraft parts there's also the small problem with certification, which ultimately ends up with oversight of the ECJ (bigger topic mutual recognition of standards).

You are either a fool or disingenious if you ignore those "minor problems".

I don't disagree with your concerns, but I'm not really sure how it's a reply to what I wrote, or in what way I'm "putting the care before the horse". Or who you are quoting as saying they're "minor problems". Did you mean to quote me there?

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

50,000 people protesting in London in favour of a second referendum on the terms of withdrawal, as government declares it is ready to walk away with no deal.

What's interesting about this is that we can't just crash out of the EU and say, "Yo! WTO fo life!", we actually have to integrate that with the WTO and coordinate things with them and both government and businesses need months (preferably a couple of years) to put those plans in place. Apparently zero planning has been done by the Brexit department for a no-deal scenario because they'd been repeatedly told there will be a deal.

This is why the matter has exploded right now, since if we are going to go out without a deal in February 2019, we need to start planning that, at the latest, yesterday.

I also wonder if declaring there'll be no deal would result in Theresa May pressing the self-destruct button and calling a snap general election, because who the hell wants to be in charge of organising that?

You at least get the principle of why it's terrible to go into any negotiation of any kind saying "whatever happens, I am going to take a deal of some kind, I absolutely rule out that I will walk away, no matter how bad your offer", right? 

I definitely don't want no deal, but it's common sense not to rule it out. Imagine if the EU made that commitment? 

5 hours ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

One of the reasons I was against Brexit was that the EU was protecting us from the naked Tory desire to sign up to a Transatlantic Trade Treaty that would give corporations much greater freedom to bully nations than they already have. That doesn't make the corporations being worried about a crashing economy wrong.

Huh, the Transatlantic Trade and International Partnership I read about was specifically an EU/USA proposal, but I don't know enough about it to really get into the details. Either way, I'm not convinced they really are worried about our economy, just their bottom line. 

[polishgenius]

26 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Either way, I'm not convinced they really are worried about our economy, just their bottom line.

They are absolutely worried about their bottom line. But their bottom line is not divorced from the economy. They aren't tanking the British economy because they want us to stay in Europe.

And yes, TTIP was an EU/US proposal that needed confirmation from all the nations which David Cameron was enthusiastically cheerleading but which other nations were concerned that it eroded to much regulation of corporations and gave them too much free reign and power, and which therefore failed to happen.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

You at least get the principle of why it's terrible to go into any negotiation of any kind saying "whatever happens, I am going to take a deal of some kind, I absolutely rule out that I will walk away, no matter how bad your offer", right? 

Do you get the principle of why it's terrible to go into any negotiation saying you'll definitely reach a deal, only to turn around and say you'll walk away without one, then swing between these two positions willy-nilly, while accusing the other side of bad faith and insisting on options that they have already ruled out, all because the people directing the negotiations are more interested in surviving another week in their jobs than in reaching a deal that is in both parties' interests?

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Do you get the principle of why it's terrible to go into any negotiation saying you'll definitely reach a deal, only to turn around and say you'll walk away without one, then swing between these two positions willy-nilly, while accusing the other side of bad faith and insisting on options that they have already ruled out, all because the people directing the negotiations are more interested in surviving another week in their jobs than in reaching a deal that is in both parties' interests?

Mormont, the guy you're arguing with read the cover jacket of Art of the Deal.

I think he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

[mankytoes]

35 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Do you get the principle of why it's terrible to go into any negotiation saying you'll definitely reach a deal, only to turn around and say you'll walk away without one, then swing between these two positions willy-nilly, while accusing the other side of bad faith and insisting on options that they have already ruled out, all because the people directing the negotiations are more interested in surviving another week in their jobs than in reaching a deal that is in both parties' interests?

Yes, I'm no apologist for this government, I certainly didn't vote for them. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that because they aren't doing a great job, we should have this vote, which is clearly a bad idea, and would make failure to reach a deal more likely, not less likely. 

But lets at least hold the EU to the same standard- it would be a failure on both sides to reach a deal. 

31 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Mormont, the guy you're arguing with read the cover jacket of Art of the Deal.

I think he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

Smug off. 

[BigFatCoward]

I'm pretty sure that as soon as you use the phrase 'I'm not bluffing' everyone knows that you are, and furthermore knows that you don't have a clue how the game is played. 

[mormont]

15 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Yes, I'm no apologist for this government

Only to the extent that you are an apologist for Brexit.

15 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that because they aren't doing a great job, we should have this vote, which is clearly a bad idea, and would make failure to reach a deal more likely, not less likely. 

On the other hand, it's just plain false to suggest that this vote is solely about whether the government are doing a great job at reaching a deal.

15 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

But lets at least hold the EU to the same standard- it would be a failure on both sides to reach a deal.

That's right. Just the other day, I went to buy a car. I offered him 10% of the asking price and he told me to get lost. What a failure on his part that was.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

You at least get the principle of why it's terrible to go into any negotiation of any kind saying "whatever happens, I am going to take a deal of some kind, I absolutely rule out that I will walk away, no matter how bad your offer", right? 

 I definitely don't want no deal, but it's common sense not to rule it out. Imagine if the EU made that commitment? 

 

But in essence we have to rule it out, because it would destroy large sections of our economy and cause immense and untold harm to our country for at least a generation to come (if not more).

That's not the same thing as saying we have to accept whatever the EU says no matter what, but it does at least confirm that we will reach a deal, whether that takes a year or five years or ten years, with a transitional arrangement (basically maintenance of the status quo) in the meantime.

What constantly baffles me is why people want the EU to roll over and give us everything we ask for when they hold 90% of the bargaining power and cards in this situation.

[Derfel Cadarn]

20 hours ago, williamjm said:

I was reading this story about the upcoming Heathrow vote and Boris' courageous decision to be out of the country at time:

 

 

I'm finding it very difficult to comprehend that rather weird quote. I could probably think of some things Boris is the living embodiment of, but 'global Britain' wouldn't be high on the list.

 

 

This quote, on the other hand, is one I have no problem believing.

I find I don't really have a strong opinion on Heathrow expansion, but there's obviously strong feeling on both sides. I am a bit surprised that Theresa May actually seems to be on the verge of actually making a decision about something, although I doubt that means we'll be seeing any leadership on Brexit issues anytime soon.

It has got a fair bit of attention, although perhaps not as much as it should.

Re the Russian involvement: To be fair, when you've just shot yourself in the foot and are about to blow off your knee-cap through sheer incompetence, do you really care who gave you the bullets?

[mankytoes]

4 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

Only to the extent that you are an apologist for Brexit.

On the other hand, it's just plain false to suggest that this vote is solely about whether the government are doing a great job at reaching a deal.

That's right. Just the other day, I went to buy a car. I offered him 10% of the asking price and he told me to get lost. What a failure on his part that was.

Well, I'm a supporter of Brexit. You'd hope anyone following this at all would understand the Leave/Remain argument is very different to the left/Tory one, in both the issues and the people on either side. 

Agreed. As far as I can tell, the main motivation for the second vote is that people want to stop Brexit, or at least minimise it as much as possible, while understanding people won't accept being told simply "you got it wrong, we're going to ignore you and do what we think is right". Do you trust all of these remain MPs to go ahead and back Brexit if we get a good deal? I don't think they have any intention, at least a good amount of them. 

I really hope you are just winding me up, and you don't honestly think that's a fair reflection of what I said. 

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

But in essence we have to rule it out, because it would destroy large sections of our economy and cause immense and untold harm to our country for at least a generation to come (if not more).

That's not the same thing as saying we have to accept whatever the EU says no matter what, but it does at least confirm that we will reach a deal, whether that takes a year or five years or ten years, with a transitional arrangement (basically maintenance of the status quo) in the meantime.

What constantly baffles me is why people want the EU to roll over and give us everything we ask for when they hold 90% of the bargaining power and cards in this situation.

You don't have to reveal all your intentions publicly. This is a big problem with trying to do negotiations while having an open democracy. To go back to the car shopping analogy, lets say I'm car shopping, and I absolutely have to buy a car in the next hour. The last thing I want to do is indicate this to the car salesman. 

I feel people are underplaying this country. Reading that, you wouldn't think that you were talking about the world's fifth largest economy, you would think you were talking about a tiny political irrelevancy who are begging cap in hand with the EU. People talk about Brits having an inflated sense of our global power, but I think they are stuck in the past, even amongst the right I don't get a sense that many people really believe we're on a level with the USA or China. I think it's more common for people to underestimate our global strength. 

One thing is very clear. If we set up a position where we say we will have a vote on the deal with the EU, with the option of remaining after all, we're massively weakening our own position. Honestly, I don't see if happening, and I'm not sure the likes of Chuka do either (I should note I quite like Chuka generally), I think they're politically manoeuvring. 

[Werthead]

 

Quote

You don't have to reveal all your intentions publicly. This is a big problem with trying to do negotiations while having an open democracy. To go back to the car shopping analogy, lets say I'm car shopping, and I absolutely have to buy a car in the next hour. The last thing I want to do is indicate this to the car salesman. 

The car shopping analogy is inane and irrelevant. If you don't get the car deal you want, you get a taxi or bus home and go on with your life. You don't lost a large chunk of your income and your negotiating power on the world stage.

All of the intentions are publicly out there already, we have a tight deadline which has already been agreed (four months from now) and we know the points of contention. We've made our pitches on those points and had them pretty much all rejected as unworkable by the other side, and we don't have any better ideas to come back with. It's possible some of those rejections were hasty (the Irish border problem is massively complicated but not as insurmountable as perhaps the EU are making out) and we can go back to talk about those, but for the most part the British negotiating position has been "we want all the good things from being in the EU but none of the responsibilities," which the EU clearly finds unacceptable (and baffling). There's no secret negotiations, no "gotcha!" proposal we can pull out which will magically make the whole thing just work.

Quote

I feel people are underplaying this country. Reading that, you wouldn't think that you were talking about the world's fifth largest economy, you would think you were talking about a tiny political irrelevancy who are begging cap in hand with the EU. People talk about Brits having an inflated sense of our global power, but I think they are stuck in the past, even amongst the right I don't get a sense that many people really believe we're on a level with the USA or China. I think it's more common for people to underestimate our global strength. 

Britain's status as the world's fifth largest economy is down to our service sector, particularly international banking and finance. This sector stands to be weakened by Brexit if we are not to retain our passporting services (which we won't) and exemptions are not worked out for London in how it trades into the EU (which don't appear likely). The service sector is the engine of the rest of the economy, if that falters everything else starts creaking to a halt (which is why Britain was particularly vulnerable to the 2008 crash). Britain's position as the world's fifth largest economy is down in large part to our membership of the EU; no longer being in the EU will see that position drop. France is poised to overtake us anyway (and is already way ahead, along with many other EU countries, in productivity) and India and Brazil were going to leapfrog over us in a few years regardless of Brexit.

Since Britain no longer manufactures very much of use - and the little we do, like planes and cars, are also Brexit-dependent - that doesn't really leave us much to go on after Brexit, apart from becoming an exploited tax haven. Things like tourism are not going to pick up the slack.

We won't become a total irrelevancy after Brexit. Despite monstrous cuts, we still have one of the world's biggest-funded militaries, we still have nuclear weapons, we still do a lot better than many countries at things like international aid and peacekeeping, we have some innovation in the tech sector, but we do face a serious danger of dropping from being a global leading power (well, in the top ten at least) to a mid-ranking one.

Quote

One thing is very clear. If we set up a position where we say we will have a vote on the deal with the EU, with the option of remaining after all, we're massively weakening our own position. Honestly, I don't see if happening, and I'm not sure the likes of Chuka do either (I should note I quite like Chuka generally), I think they're politically manoeuvring.

This sounds suspiciously like dick-waving. We have to appear strong and stable, tough and firm, we can't back down as we'd look silly. No, actually, when it comes to the lives, wellbeing and incomes of tens of millions of people in this country, I'd be perfectly happy with Britain backing down and having to eat humble pie over it for a few decades.

The democratic ramifications of that would be huge, though. Like it or not, 52% of the lemmings did vote to jump off the cliff with no idea of what's underneath it and that needs to be appreciated. We should also consider the situation where dodgy far-right groups took control of countries like France and Germany and started moving the EU in a very disturbing direction which we needed to bail on ASAP, and on this example countries would find themselves almost trapped in the group with no easy way of leaving. But that's not the case right now, and Britain's position as a global power is enhanced by its membership of the EU (especially with the USA apparently abandoning its traditional responsibilities and leadership role). Our membership also enhances the EU as well, of course, but to nothing like the same degree.

[mormont]

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Well, I'm a supporter of Brexit. You'd hope anyone following this at all would understand the Leave/Remain argument is very different to the left/Tory one, in both the issues and the people on either side. 

You'd hope so, yes. And yet:

19 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I hope everyone who identifies with the political left is concerned about big international corporations trying to determine our politics, and not just supporting the corporations because it's useful to them on this occasion. Obviously, we need to consider any real issues about trade and preserving jobs, but we can't let them bully us- because if we do, they will. 

This was your counter to the Airbus thing. Appeal to left loyalty. 

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Do you trust all of these remain MPs to go ahead and back Brexit if we get a good deal?

That doesn't really matter, does it?

If a deal is truly a good deal, it should easily win a majority in the Commons, If it can't do that, there's no argument for saying it's a good deal.

But in any case, you and I both know there will not be a good deal, so the point is moot.

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I really hope you are just winding me up, and you don't honestly think that's a fair reflection of what I said. 

The point is that a failure to reach a deal cannot always be blamed on both sides. If one side is being unrealistic and behaving in bad faith, the other side cannot be criticised for failing to reach a deal.

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

You don't have to reveal all your intentions publicly. This is a big problem with trying to do negotiations while having an open democracy. To go back to the car shopping analogy, lets say I'm car shopping, and I absolutely have to buy a car in the next hour. The last thing I want to do is indicate this to the car salesman.

In this analogy, though, we chose that deadline ourselves and publicly announced it (again, for no better reason than that the people in charge wanted to appease a section of their support and so survive a little longer in their jobs). So the analogy here requires us to have declared this loudly and unprompted as we walked into the showroom.

And, showing the limits of analogies, the salesman here does not actually want to have to sell us a car at all. The only reason we need to reach a deal with the EU, with or without a deadline, is that we have demanded to leave.

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I feel people are underplaying this country. Reading that, you wouldn't think that you were talking about the world's fifth largest economy, you would think you were talking about a tiny political irrelevancy who are begging cap in hand with the EU.

We do have a large economy. But even without us, the EU's economy is much, much larger. We are not the dominant party in this negotiation, and that is just a fact.

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

One thing is very clear. If we set up a position where we say we will have a vote on the deal with the EU, with the option of remaining after all, we're massively weakening our own position.

Why?

And why is it not worth weakening our own position?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I don't disagree with your concerns, but I'm not really sure how it's a reply to what I wrote, or in what way I'm "putting the care before the horse". Or who you are quoting as saying they're "minor problems". Did you mean to quote me there?

17 hours ago, Werthead said:

It was reply to your claim, that Airbus is trying to determine our politics. And I said that is not what is actually happening. The UK is actually forcing Airbus hand this time. And I explained to you why those (not so) minor problems are a huge deal for Airbus (and also car manufacturers). Alas, I fear trying to explain that to you was a total waste of my time, as you will go on about will of the people, Brexit betrayal, and whatever other soundbites you could quote.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, La Albearceleste said:

1.This was your counter to the Airbus thing. Appeal to left loyalty. 

2. If a deal is truly a good deal, it should easily win a majority in the Commons, If it can't do that, there's no argument for saying it's a good deal.

But in any case, you and I both know there will not be a good deal, so the point is moot.

3. The point is that a failure to reach a deal cannot always be blamed on both sides. If one side is being unrealistic and behaving in bad faith, the other side cannot be criticised for failing to reach a deal.

In this analogy, though, we chose that deadline ourselves and publicly announced it (again, for no better reason than that the people in charge wanted to appease a section of their support and so survive a little longer in their jobs). So the analogy here requires us to have declared this loudly and unprompted as we walked into the showroom.

And, showing the limits of analogies, the salesman here does not actually want to have to sell us a car at all. The only reason we need to reach a deal with the EU, with or without a deadline, is that we have demanded to leave.

4. We do have a large economy. But even without us, the EU's economy is much, much larger. We are not the dominant party in this negotiation, and that is just a fact.

5. Why?

6. And why is it not worth weakening our own position?

1. I'm not appealing to "left loyalty" (I don't even think I support that idea, certainly not as an absolute), I'm appealing to leftist values, there's a very important difference. 

2. And I think it will pass, largely down to Corbyn, and I respect him a lot for what he's done on this issue. I do not feel certain we won't get a good deal, no. I might not have great faith in our leadership, but lets not forget why we voted out in the first place- EU leadership has generally been pretty shambolic, I see no evidence that they're suddenly going to be able to all pull together on this one. As usual, the nations will throw their weight in as individuals, and they don't want to fuck up their link with an important trading partner.

3. You would hope so, but all the rhetoric from our side seems to be that it's purely down to us. As you imply, this seems counter to the basic logic of a "deal". 

4. No, but our economy is more unified. The EU is not a nation state like we are- it's still evident that this is a collection of countries trying to get the best deal for themselves, not a single entity. We aren't the "dominant party" but that doesn't mean we have to be dominated here. 

5. Because that just give the EU the motivation to give us a terrible deal, so we say no, and thus remain. 

6. I'm not trying to be flippant, but because it's better to be in a stronger position than a weaker one?

35 minutes ago, Notone said:

It was reply to your claim, that Airbus is trying to determine our politics. And I said that is not what is actually happening. The UK is actually forcing Airbus hand this time. And I explained to you why those (not so) minor problems are a huge deal for Airbus (and also car manufacturers). Alas, I fear trying to explain that to you was a total waste of my time, as you will go on about will of the people, Brexit betrayal, and whatever other soundbites you could quote.

Airbus are trying to determine our politics, of course they are, that's obviously why they made that statement. You gave quite a good argument as to what their legitimate concerns might be. Then you had a dig at me and made up some quotes because... this is politics and that's what people do?

My point is more general (which is why I didn't mention Airbus specifically, but talked about corporations). It's like Richard Branson, saying it's vital we remain (and hoping we forget how pro-Euro he used to be) because it's in our interest. Now is Richard Branson really concerned about the country as a whole, or him and his business? That's an important question, because Richard Branson's personal interest is probably different to yours, or mine, or the majority of the population. 

People like this idea that a political decision is either "wrong" or "right", but reality is more complicated, many decisions help some groups while hurting others. Perhaps most people actually voted "right", if we're talking about their own self interest, in the referendum. 

It's a little depressing that anyone living in a democracy would dismiss the idea of the will of the people as a soundbite, though.