UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums

[mormont]

15 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

It's interesting you see those two things as mutually exclusive.

He said, before going on to depict multiple things as mutually exclusive.

15 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I mean, I don't think people are claiming they want to "sabotage" Brexit for the evulz, they are doing it because of self interest. Do you really trust these companies to put the people before their profit? Their primary concern is their bottom line, not the overall financial strength of the nation and the people, and only a hardcore neo-lib would think those two things are necessarily the same.

 

[polishgenius]

You've done this twice now. Why is it that when I say 'they're not trying to sabotage brexit they're just looking out for themselves' is your response 'you shouldn't believe that they're looking out for the people, it's just self-interest'? Of course it is but in this case their health depends on the health of the nation. Expecting companies to harm themselves in order to mitigate the shitty decision of the British people and Government is silly and making out that they're only not doing so to make Brexit look worse, as a lot of people are, is silly too.

[mankytoes]

56 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

He said, before going on to depict multiple things as mutually exclusive.

 

You've misunderstood, maybe I was unclear, I'm not saying those things are mutually exclusive, I'm saying they aren't necessarily the same. What's good for the profit margins of a huge corporation isn't always what's good for the common man. I'm certainly not saying it's impossible for those interests to align, but a lot of the reporting, even from lefty media, seems to assume those interests align. And I'm talking about motivations, anyways. If what is good for them is good for us I guess that's a happy side effect from their perspective, but it isn't what is driving their actions. 

Look at this case. Yes, there might be some inconveniences for existing business, but being able to make our own trade arrangements also gives us the opportunity to attract new business. So on net, it could well be a profit for the country, but not for these individual businesses. Now, if that is the case, you can't possible expect them to come out and say "well, this arrangement is going to be bad for us, but good for the country", can you? No one is going to act against their own self interest like that. 

[mormont]

I'm not sure you actually understand what these companies are even saying. Given that, I think you can't possibly understand their motivations.

[mankytoes]

Nevermind, I can't be doing with this again.

[HexMachina]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/06/theresa-may-secures-approval-from-cabinet-to-negotiate-soft-brexit

May seemingly has approval from the Cabinet to negotiate for soft Brexit. Just reading through the proposals at the moment

 

edit: autocorrect mishap

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/06/theresa-may-secures-approval-from-cabinet-to-negotiate-soft-brexit

May seemingly has approval from the Cabinet to negotiate for soft Brexit. Just reading through the proposals at the moment

 

edit: autocorrect mishap

Let me break it down.

Prologue: 

EU position: the four freedoms (of goods, services, people and capital) are inseperable. You can't have one without the other with regards to the access to single market. It's a founding principle, and what keeps the whole thing together.

UK proposal: We want the single market ala carte. Namely we want the freedom of goods (not actually want, more like desperately need it), we don't want that for labour (people), and we don't want to be in the single market for services, well, we can talk about freedom of capital I guess.

Is this proposal gonna fly? No, I don't think so. The EU have been consistently pointing out, that this is not gonna be an exercise in cherry picking. And we're not gonna blow up the single market for a third country.

In short, the UK has agreed on a have our cake and eat it position, that will be shot down instantly.

[Spockydog]

These idiots are unbelievable. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Just now, Spockydog said:

These idiots are unbelievable. 

 But at least its some kind of progress.  At least our side has finally agreed something.    even if its totally unacceptable to the EU

[Which Tyler]

3 minutes ago, Pebble said:

 But at least its some kind of progress.  At least our side has finally agreed something.    even if its totally unacceptable to the EU

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. 21 people have reluctantly agreed.

The Tory party have not agreed this (nor will they), parliament has not agreed this (and are highly unlikely to), although, saying that, the country as a whole may be broadly I'm favour (albeit is a least-bad option).

[Werthead]

Yup. That's why Johnson and Gove haven't kicked up a fuss, they know it'll be shot down by the EU and that'll strengthen their case for a hard Brexit.

[Jeor]

As an outsider (Australian) looking in, I don't understand why May doesn't just call everyone's bluff.

No one would want to be Prime Minister of this mess, so why doesn't she just lay out a plan for exactly what she wants, and if her Cabinet colleagues don't like it, she can tell them to force her out or go jump. No one's going to want to be PM for these negotiations, so I don't know why she'd allow everyone else to snipe her from the sidelines.

Then again, in Australia, knifing a sitting PM is sort of a national sport, so maybe I'm thinking too much like a political hatchet man.

[Werthead]

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

As an outsider (Australian) looking in, I don't understand why May doesn't just call everyone's bluff.

No one would want to be Prime Minister of this mess, so why doesn't she just lay out a plan for exactly what she wants, and if her Cabinet colleagues don't like it, she can tell them to force her out or go jump. No one's going to want to be PM for these negotiations, so I don't know why she'd allow everyone else to snipe her from the sidelines.

Then again, in Australia, knifing a sitting PM is sort of a national sport, so maybe I'm thinking too much like a political hatchet man.

Probably paranoia that the government would collapse altogether, a general election would result and Labour would do a better job and end up in power for a generation.

The chances of that are pretty much zero, but the infinitesimal chance of it is probably enough to keep Conservative MPs from pulling the trigger.

[Jeor]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

Probably paranoia that the government would collapse altogether, a general election would result and Labour would do a better job and end up in power for a generation.

The chances of that are pretty much zero, but the infinitesimal chance of it is probably enough to keep Conservative MPs from pulling the trigger.

I doubt Labour will do a better job - it's almost impossible to do a good job in these circumstances. If the other conservative MPs aren't going to pull the trigger, then that should give May licence and authority to do what she wants and be decisive; not have to try and come up with some fudge that tries to be everything to everybody. I mean, if Boris wants to keep shooting from the sidelines, call his bluff and let him muster the votes to be the PM in charge of Brexit. Classic put up or shut up - he's got enough party-room survivalist instincts that he'd never do it.

And if a coup is pulled off by someone, I can't imagine May would feel crushed at not being PM during Brexit. It would, in fact, give her an exit line from what is really an untenable position.

Of course, I could be underestimating Theresa May. She probably does think she's the best person to oversee it and that a slow, inclusive, consensus-laden approach is the way to do it. But it doesn't look like it's working.

[mormont]

It boils down to this. The hard Brexiteers don't mind if there's no deal. Some of them genuinely believe the chaos is worth it in the long run, others feel it would be politically more advantageous for them personally. It doesn't matter. The point is, they can always call any bluff, wreck any proposal.

Yes, May could threaten to resign. But she'd more than likely have to actually do it. And she doesn't seem to want that.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

 Of course, I could be underestimating Theresa May. She probably does think she's the best person to oversee it and that a slow, inclusive, consensus-laden approach is the way to do it. But it doesn't look like it's working.

 

I think this is correct. May I think does believe she's doing the best thing for the country and has also reached the thankful conclusion that adhering closer to the EU is an economically stronger position than a hard Brexit. In fact, I think she reached that conclusion some time ago and the last few months has been about defusing the bombs in cabinet which would destroy that and clear the decks to focus on getting the deal with the EU. She has - apparently - achieved that by getting Gove (who's never met an honourable set of ideals he's not prepared to ditch in a nanosecond for a continuation of his relevance) on board, who in turn has neutered Boris, who apparently now feels isolated in cabinet and that Gove has betrayed him yet again (who saw that coming, apart from everyone?).

That's not to say the situation is now straightforward: Boris could resign from cabinet and align with Rees-Mogg instead on the back benches and that could cause May some headaches, but assuming everyone now toes the party line on joint cabinet responsibility, that's one problem dealt with.

The next issue will be the EU and apparently the tactic now is to go "just in time," based on the precedent that many important negotiations in the EU are actually done in the closing hours of any deadline even when they've had weeks to negotiate the terms, and that if Britain presents a deal that the EU says they can't work with, they may change their minds when there is no other deal on the table. This is where we'll probably see the UK government trotting out the lines from big European companies with major operations in the UK (like Airbus, Mercedes, Ikea and others), showing how the UK government has reached solutions for them and the border and given concessions and asking the EU to do the same (especially as it's more important we reach an interim continuation position for the transition period by October, not the absolute final deal). It's a high-risk tactic, but probably the only one with any real hope of success.

If the position then is that we crash out of the EU instead without a deal, that gives May a chance to resign honourably having tried to do her best and letting someone else - whether that's Rees-Mogg, Boris or Jezza - deal with that shitstorm.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

47 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I think this is correct. May I think does believe she's doing the best thing for the country and has also reached the thankful conclusion that adhering closer to the EU is an economically stronger position than a hard Brexit. In fact, I think she reached that conclusion some time ago and the last few months has been about defusing the bombs in cabinet which would destroy that and clear the decks to focus on getting the deal with the EU.

That may very well be true, and there's also the narrative, that she stays on out of some sense of duty towards the country (however misguided you feel she might be on that). However the problem is (at least that's my take), that Britain has and is busy negotiating Brexit with itself, thus cakeism is still prevalent. This latest May compromise looks like a starting offer, that should have been tabled almost two years ago. That was not possible, as the loony brigade of Brexiteers from both sides would have screamed bloody murder and thrown a trantrum about the great betrayal and the will of the people. So getting there really required some delicate manouvreing and external pressure in the form of reality breaking thru and business raising its voice.

57 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The next issue will be the EU and apparently the tactic now is to go "just in time," based on the precedent that many important negotiations in the EU are actually done in the closing hours of any deadline even when they've had weeks to negotiate the terms, and that if Britain presents a deal that the EU says they can't work with, they may change their minds when there is no other deal on the table.

That's the alternative explanation and maybe the negotiating strategy, but it is awfully risky and I think a terrible miscalculation. The current proposal simply looks unacceptable on its face (as mentioned above) it is a Brexit ala carte proposal and thus a threat to the single market. A bit more drastic put, to expect the EU to give up the single market for the UK, is like expecting North Korea or Russia or the US to give up on their nukes in a deal. It's very, very unlikely to happen. And frankly speaking, Brexit is atm not really the top issue for the EU. The issue of refugees and migration is atm way higher on the list. Maybe the UK should offer to take in all the refugees, that made it to Europe in exchange for the deal they want... That proposal was obviously sarcasm, but you get the idea.

 

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

This is where we'll probably see the UK government trotting out the lines from big European companies with major operations in the UK (like Airbus, Mercedes, Ikea and others), showing how the UK government has reached solutions for them and the border and given concessions and asking the EU to do the same (especially as it's more important we reach an interim continuation position for the transition period by October, not the absolute final deal).

That would be another miscalculation imho. Those companies have been pretty consistent, we value Britain as a market, but we value the integrity of the single market (and our supply chains) as a whole more. And the current proposal, if it were accepted, would be a threat to the single market and thus the EU as a whole. 

May has moved significantly from her (unrealistic) red lines, however this won't be enough. If this was the final offer, I think we would see a no deal scenario unfold. The question is, whether she can move any further without causing the Brexiteers toppling her.

[williamjm]

David Davis has just resigned, so the Cabinet agreement managed to last about 48 hours. I wonder how many more might follow him? He did seem to be sleepwalking through the Brexit negotiations so he's hardly a loss, but it could be the start of even more chaos in the Government.

[mormont]

Linkage
 

Quote

 

In his resignation letter, Mr Davis told Mrs May "the current trend of policy and tactics" was making it "look less and less likely" that the UK would leave the customs union and single market.

He said he was "unpersuaded" that the government's negotiating approach "will not just lead to further demands for concessions" from Brussels.

Mr Davis said: "The general direction of policy will leave us in at best a weak negotiating position, and possibly an inescapable one."

 

Leaving no doubt about his motives and his audience there.

Quote

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Mrs May was "incapable of delivering Brexit".

Also leaving no doubt about his motives and audience.

Gove being considered as a replacement. No, seriously.

[Which Tyler]

Okay - who had 46 hours in the sweepstake?
How long before she gets a leadership challenge?
Will anyone actually put themselves forward? Or are they all just too scared of taking on the poisoned chalice?
Will they go for a vote of no confidence and trigger another general?

Is there any chance whatsoever of emerging from the next year or so without an absolute shit fest?