UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums

[mormont]

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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. 

I'm not sure that difference is as marked as you imagine. At any rate, in either case that statement is not consistent with an assertion that this is an issue that should cut across party lines.

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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.

Corbyn's position on this issue is frankly craven, cynical, mealy-mouthed, and insincere:  the sort of thing you would condemn in any other politician. He has not done one thing that deserves respect in relation to Brexit. He knows what he's doing, and it is not what he professes to be in favour of doing. He goes in the pile of politicians who looked at the biggest political issue of our times and said 'how can I use this to benefit me?'

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I do not feel certain we won't get a good deal, no.

Realistically, we won't. That is 100% certain. If you are in denial about that, unfortunately that does not affect the certainty.

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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.

Other than the fact that they have consistently all pulled together on this one?

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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". 

I have no idea why you think I implied that. I didn't.

The EU have consistently tried to reach a deal with us, in any case. They don't want to be in this negotiation, but they are participating anyway. The problem is that, for internal political reasons, the Tory party keep switching positions, attacking their negotiating partners, and stalling in the desperate hope that something will turn up to allow them to deliver on promises they've made that simply cannot be fulfilled.

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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. 

Who said we have to be 'dominated here'? This is a straw man.

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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

That would be the stupidest tactic I can imagine. I am guessing you haven't much experience of negotiating deals in the real world?

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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

This is flippant, and does not answer my question. Having a safeguard against a bad deal is a good thing. Why is this good thing outweighed by the supposedly stronger negotiating position of having the government be the only arbiters of whether the deal is good? Please explain.

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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. 

What if his personal interest coincides with mine, or the majority of the population?

Why should we proceed, without evidence, on the assumption that it doesn't?

16 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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. 

It's dismissed as a soundbite because that's how it's been used. Not as a sincere invocation of democracy, but to silence dissent and falsely claim support for positions that were not voted on in the referendum.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

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?

 

Let's try this again (I know, it's an excercise in futility). If there's anything you don't understand, just say so.

Airbus needs frictionless trade for their production model. That means zero hold up at the customs. Do you understand that? It's not being nasty, trying to force any policy, it's a mere fact. If you have a problem understanding that bit, I again recommend do to some internet search  on Just-in-Time manufacturing, spoiler the supply chain is extremely sensitive and crucial. Airbus is not even producing/assembling a full plane in the UK. They are merely producing the wings in Wales, who then get send for the plane assamebly to Toulouse (France) and Hamburg (Germany). 

Now then, do you understand that? 

Now then, what is Brexit doing? Depending on what Brexit is being delivered, the access to the single market is disrupted, which means custom checks, and hold ups. Which is a nightmare scenario for Airbus, as time is indeed money for them. I mean, when Airbus planes can't be delivered in time, because they are waiting for the wings to arrive from Britain, is bad business for Airbus, that is something we can agree on? In  reality parts and components get shipped around a lot more, which makes it more complicated.  And hold ups can add up. This particularly true for car manufacturers, too.

Do you understand that bit?

Now then, what is Airbus realisticallly supposed to do? Investing and expanding their operations in a country, that hasn't addressed their concerns and needs? It's even worse, as London has really provided no details for them, and they need some details to make plans. Now. then Airbus has published emergency plans, that involves them leaving, if the access to the single market, and thus their supply chain is being disrupted. Again, the writing was on the wall for this to happen. They are not threatening to leave over taxrates or so, but because Brexit is directly messing with their business/production model. Well, I suppose Airbus could've more or less quietely prepared to leave the country without notice, I suppose that's what you wanted them to do? They could've talked to the goverment in London first, before their plans got public? They did just that, just that Downing Street was not particularly convincing in those talks.

 

And that is just a part of Airbus problems, the other part is the certification of airplane parts and components in post-Brexit Britain.

 

[mankytoes]

 

50 minutes ago, Notone said:

Let's try this again (I know, it's an excercise in futility). If there's anything you don't understand, just say so.

Airbus needs frictionless trade for their production model. That means zero hold up at the customs. Do you understand that? It's not being nasty, trying to force any policy, it's a mere fact. If you have a problem understanding that bit, I again recommend do to some internet search  on Just-in-Time manufacturing, spoiler the supply chain is extremely sensitive and crucial. Airbus is not even producing/assembling a full plane in the UK. They are merely producing the wings in Wales, who then get send for the plane assamebly to Toulouse (France) and Hamburg (Germany). 

Now then, do you understand that? 

Now then, what is Brexit doing? Depending on what Brexit is being delivered, the access to the single market is disrupted, which means custom checks, and hold ups. Which is a nightmare scenario for Airbus, as time is indeed money for them. I mean, when Airbus planes can't be delivered in time, because they are waiting for the wings to arrive from Britain, is bad business for Airbus, that is something we can agree on? In  reality parts and components get shipped around a lot more, which makes it more complicated.  And hold ups can add up. This particularly true for car manufacturers, too.

Do you understand that bit?

Now then, what is Airbus realisticallly supposed to do? Investing and expanding their operations in a country, that hasn't addressed their concerns and needs? It's even worse, as London has really provided no details for them, and they need some details to make plans. Now. then Airbus has published emergency plans, that involves them leaving, if the access to the single market, and thus their supply chain is being disrupted. Again, the writing was on the wall for this to happen. They are not threatening to leave over taxrates or so, but because Brexit is directly messing with their business/production model. Well, I suppose Airbus could've more or less quietely prepared to leave the country without notice, I suppose that's what you wanted them to do? They could've talked to the goverment in London first, before their plans got public? They did just that, just that Downing Street was not particularly convincing in those talks.

 

And that is just a part of Airbus problems, the other part is the certification of airplane parts and components in post-Brexit Britain.

 

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

 

My point is more general (which is why I didn't mention Airbus specifically, but talked about corporations).

[Werthead]

The UK haulage industry is getting in on the act. They've been asking for government clarity on Brexit for months, given the vast number of lorries passing back and forth across the Channel. Under EU regulations, goods vehicles can only enter the European Union with a third-party licence. An indefinite number of licences can be granted as part of a trade deal or EET membership, so no problems there, but if not, a finite number of licences has to be agreed upon.

If Britain departs the EU without a deal and trades under WTO rules, then Britain would get a baseline number of licences given out by the EU to everyone who wants to trade with them. This number of licences stands at 103. There were over 300,000 truck movements from the UK into the EU last year. Licences can cover more than one journey (as I understand it), but certainly not thousands.

So, within days of a no-deal Brexit being enacted, Britain would exhaust its licences to send lorries into the EU and the system would grind to a halt.

The Freight Transport Association has mentioned this problem to the government several times and apparently they keep forgetting it's even a thing, and have been dismissive of it when it's been raised:

 

Quote

 

"The thing that really upsets our members is when a lot of these concerns are just dismissed by politicians as trivial or insignificant," he said.

"They either don't understand what they're talking about, which I suspect is the case, or they've got no basis for saying it."

 

So, that's encouraging.

Quote

 

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. 

 

That's true from the other side as well. Why were Tim Martin and James Dyson so keen on Brexit happening on a date that was just before new EU laws would be passed to expose tax loopholes and close down ways of hiding profits from governments?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

If Britain departs the EU without a deal and trades under WTO rules, then Britain would get a baseline number of licences given out by the EU to everyone who wants to trade with them. This number of licences stands at 103. There were over 300,000 truck movements from the UK into the EU last year. Licences can cover more than one journey (as I understand it), but certainly not thousands.

So, within days of a no-deal Brexit being enacted, Britain would exhaust its licences to send lorries into the EU and the system would grind to a halt.

Days? If it were indeed 103 licenses, then the plural looks awfully optimistic.

Anyway, even if there were sufficient licenses that would also be a downgrade from the status quo. As they have to apply for licenses and fill out the required paperwork. Then they have to exit their vehicle and walk to the customs office and show their paperwork, when they enter the EU. Given the 300k movements a year, which  boils down to 800+ crossings a day, well, please pick a number and wait till you are called up.

On the other hand, saw tv piece a while ago (a hauling company and what impact the brexit had on their business), most companies have started to take business elsewhere anyway, which resulted in less tours to the uk for their drivers. So it will probably be less than 300k truck movement annually.

[Which Tyler]

On the plus sides of we kick out our remnant manufacturing industry, then we won't need as many haulage licences

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I wonder if those haulage licences include crossings by the channel tunnel rail?

Where I work we have our own rail link to the tunnel which may mean I stop working for a car manufacturing company since we are likely to move operations to Europe if tariffs happen.  But does mean we might turn the land into a massive distribution center as we load / unload trains and lorries possibly getting round the haulage license limits?

[Werthead]

Government: "Unfortunately we can't afford to spend £1 billion on a tidal lagoon for Swansea, a cutting-edge, world-first renewable energy innovation (of the kind we keep telling everyone we'll need post-Brexit) that would provide cheap electricity for the city."

Everyone in the UK: "But you found £1 billion to bribe the DUP in a grubby and cynical attempt to cling onto power?"

[Which Tyler]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

Government: "Unfortunately we can't afford to spend £1 billion on a tidal lagoon for Swansea, a cutting-edge, world-first renewable energy innovation (of the kind we keep telling everyone we'll need post-Brexit) that would provide cheap electricity for the city."

Everyone in the UK: "But you found £1 billion to bribe the DUP in a grubby and cynical attempt to cling onto power?"

Didn't the guy who carried out the assessment say that it would have been passed if it was proposed for NI rather than Wales?

[lessthanluke]

39 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Didn't the guy who carried out the assessment say that it would have been passed if it was proposed for NI rather than Wales?

Well that's no surprise. No one in the government gives a single fuck about Wales.

[Spockydog]

6 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

Well that's no surprise. No one in the government gives a single fuck about Wales anyone but themselves.

Fixed that for you.

[lessthanluke]

14 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Fixed that for you.

Meh.

[Which Tyler]

 

2 hours ago, lessthanluke said:

Well that's no surprise. No one in the government gives a single fuck about Wales; anywhere beyond the Home Counties; anywhere outside of London; themselves.

An alternative FTFY.

Even Londoners think they get largely ignored; and they get a hell of a lot more attention that anywhere outside of the M25

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The Welsh are just too impatient. They should've delayed the project and just waited for the Brexit dividend. 

As we talked about Airbus and their supply chain worries. It's hardly surprising car manufacturers have similar concerns. I was surprised they have kept more or less quiet for this long. Anyway, insert Labour job's first Brexit joke here. Key words: Carplant in Vauxhall, Vauxhall MP Hoey. Oh, and Will of the people of course.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Boris Johnson, statesman of our times:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44618154

Coming just days after he fucked off to afghanistan to avoid the Heathrow vote

 

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Boris Johnson, statesman of our times:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44618154

It is an unusual choice of slogan for a Conservative politician. It's not only a weird thing for him to say, even if he was going to say it surely a group of European diplomats aren't the best audience.

Coming just days after he fucked off to afghanistan to avoid the Heathrow vote

I can't remember any other cabinet minister who seems so blatantly contemptuous of following the Government's line. He's hardly the first minister to disagree with their government, but usually they at least try to pretend publicly that they agree.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, williamjm said:

I can't remember any other cabinet minister who seems so blatantly contemptuous of following the Government's line. He's hardly the first minister to disagree with their government, but usually they at least try to pretend publicly that they agree.

Ah, but what Johnson, among others, has twigged is that on the right at least, this is the age of the anti-politician. Even if you are in government, you must always be contemptuous of government. The more establishment you are, the more you must complain about the elites. Disagreeing with government policy is a feature. So long as you can do it with no cost to yourself, of course.

[john]

Johnson’s weird degree of notability seems to give him cause to believe, with some justification, that he can do whatever the fuck he wants.  When Gavin Williamson or Liz Truss refuse to toe the line they seem more like sulky children.

At this point we might need a Dog Day Afternoon scenario where somebody takes the cabinet hostage and forces them to argue out a Brexit solution to a firm conclusion.

[mankytoes]

4 hours ago, williamjm said:

It is an unusual choice of slogan for a Conservative politician. It's not only a weird thing for him to say, even if he was going to say it surely a group of European diplomats aren't the best audience.

 

I can't remember any other cabinet minister who seems so blatantly contemptuous of following the Government's line. He's hardly the first minister to disagree with their government, but usually they at least try to pretend publicly that they agree.

I can't think of anything that is less (modern) Tory to say. 

It does feel like, whatever one's political allegiance, he's a contemptible fucker, putting himself before the party or country. I guess the idea from a PR perspective (always a very high priority for brand Boris) is that he's an honest chap who speaks his mind, unlike the rest of the party shills. Either he's the honest face of government or a back bench martyr (if he ever does get sacked). There's certainly something very Trumpian in being particularly careful about cultivating an image about being an honest person while actually acting in a particularly unprincipled way. 

I think a lot of people on the left subscribe to the "they're all as bad as each other" principle, more or less (I test this by regularly asking people which Tory they'd like in charge, and most are unable to answer), but I really would rather see any of them in ahead of Boris, I think it would be a terrible thing for this country for him to get the top job.

[williamjm]

4 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

It does feel like, whatever one's political allegiance, he's a contemptible fucker, putting himself before the party or country. I guess the idea from a PR perspective (always a very high priority for brand Boris) is that he's an honest chap who speaks his mind, unlike the rest of the party shills. Either he's the honest face of government or a back bench martyr (if he ever does get sacked). There's certainly something very Trumpian in being particularly careful about cultivating an image about being an honest person while actually acting in a particularly unprincipled way.

It does feel like Boris is getting more Trump-like by the day.