UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums

[A Horse Named Stranger]

A somewhat longer read. Tony Blur and his take on May's proposals and Brexit in general. For most parts I agree with him. My nitpick is, that he is being too kind to Labour and their nonsensical position. And (at least imo) it contains nothing particularly new, at least for the interested observer.

Some key bits.

Quote

They may deny this, but there is absolutely no point in Britain leaving Europe unless it is to be more competitive outside the European Single Market. It is the only Brexit which could conceivably work. But, to be attractive in those circumstances, business needs to believe it is offered advantages so overwhelming as to compensate for no longer having the right to enter European markets without friction.
 

[...]

Their ‘Clean Break’ Brexit means not only a new relationship between Britain and Europe but a new relationship between Britain and itself.

It is not anti globalisation or anti immigration. On the contrary, it sees Britain as a global player, but free to make its own decisions without the constraints of the Single Market and Customs Union.

Unlike others, I don't regard this vision as dystopian, cruel or necessarily unworkable. If Britain were prepared to follow the logic of it through to its ultimate realisation, it is at least a version of our future worth debating, though one I would profoundly disagree with as, I suspect, would the majority of British people.
 

It mimics to some degree what I said, that the Singapore on Thames model is at least a logical coherent position (unlike Labour's a custom's union model, or May's customs partnership). Although, I suspect dystopian and cruel is probably a pretty accurate describtion for this model as far as most working class Britons concerned - that's at least my beef with his position. 

[Werthead]

On 7/15/2018 at 2:29 PM, Pebble said:

well someone I think it was the BBC, did manage to find one guy in a Make America Great Again hat who was unhappy with the protests and said they were a disgrace.  this was about Lunchtime on the Friday.

So there was at least one person protesting in favour of Trump for a few mins (maybe more)

There was another group. They banged on a bus being driven by a Muslim woman in a headscarf and tried to stick a "FREE TOMMY ROBINSON" sticker to her bus before she managed to drive past them.

Cockwombles.

[williamjm]

4 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Words I never thought I'd read...

Apparently 'strong and stable leadership' now translates as 'can stay committed to a policy for up to 10 days'.

[mankytoes]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/16/68-rabbis-labour-chooses-ignore-uk-jewish-community

"Labour has argued that those examples that have been removed were already covered in the wider new code of conduct. The examples which have been removed from the IHRA definition include accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than their own nations, claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and comparing Israeli actions to those of the Nazis."

I think I'm on Labour's side here. I mean, a lot of people use Israel as a screen for their antisemitism, but a lot of defenders of Israel also deflect legitimate criticism of Israel by claiming antisemitism. 

[Werthead]

Some of the most bizarre Commons manoeuvring I can remember. JRM forming an unlikely alliance with Labour rebels to get through amendments to the government's white paper that, as far as I can tell, will prevent the EU from ever agreeing to it.

The idea of the white paper is that it was going to be the starting point for negotiations and the EU would need to negotiate some of its positions down. Tonight's votes seem to have made that impossible. In particular, JRM's amendment that makes it illegal for HMRC to collect payments on behalf of the EU unless every EU country reciprocates could be very awkward, since that bit could require a lot of fudging and negotiation.

The government has tabled a motion to end the Parliamentary session on Thursday, five days early, and go into the summer recess ahead of schedule. That's quite strange as well. There's a huge amount of business to get through still, and now they're going to have to rush it or put it on hold until September, 5-6 weeks ahead of the transition deal with the EU being negotiated.

I'm starting to wonder if the government is going to have to conclude that there is a logjam in governance that makes governing or negotiating Brexit functionally impossible, and they have to consider other action (whether that's a confidence motion, a second referendum or a general election or something else).

It seems politically impossible - and it would likely end both May and Corbyn's careers - but an argument could be made that the magnitude of Brexit and its importance to Britain for decades to come is enough to warrant some kind of national unity government being formed, like it was after the Depression, but without another election to even out the numbers I can't see that being doable, otherwise Labour rebels would just join the Tory rebels and without LibDem and Green support to push the numbers up (resulting in an even softer Brexit than May wants), May would be screwed.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

53 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The idea of the white paper is that it was going to be the starting point for negotiations and the EU would need to negotiate some of its positions down. Tonight's votes seem to have made that impossible. In particular, JRM's amendment that makes it illegal for HMRC to collect payments on behalf of the EU unless every EU country reciprocates could be very awkward, since that bit could require a lot of fudging and negotiation.

 

That was one of the craziest ideas May's come up with (and was as close a reason for outright disissal as you can get) anyway. Apart from the sheer amount of bureaucracy needed to make it theoretically work, that idea is outright bizarre. Just step back for a moment and think about it, what that suggestion actually entails. It basically says, that a third state (in this case the UK) is enforcing the customs laws of the EU and collecting the customs payment on the EUs behalf - and vice versa. Taking back control works both ways afterall. JRM amendment would effectively force the EU to join the bureaucracy bonanza and give away control over british custom procedures. Ok, practically it would probably cut down British expenses for Brexit a bit. You really have to appreciate the sheer crazyness of that proposal for a moment.

53 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The government has tabled a motion to end the Parliamentary session on Thursday, five days early, and go into the summer recess ahead of schedule. That's quite strange as well. There's a huge amount of business to get through still, and now they're going to have to rush it or put it on hold until September, 5-6 weeks ahead of the transition deal with the EU being negotiated.

 

Like I said, it's gonna end up as hard Brexit anyway, so they might as well bugger off to their holliday in France now, and let that car crash happen later on. On a practical side, goverment staffers will be busy trying to negotiate a deal anyway, which is an administrative/goverment function, so for the negotiation itself you don't need parliament - and the further the MPs are away, the less likely they are to give strong and stable statements to the telegraph or sun.

53 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 I'm starting to wonder if the government is going to have to conclude that there is a logjam in governance that makes governing or negotiating Brexit functionally impossible, and they have to consider other action (whether that's a confidence motion, a second referendum or a general election or something else).

 

I really don't think there's enough to time left for this, unless you have a deal hammered out, and it's either accept deal, rescind article 50 or hard Brexit/WTO for a referendum. Given that both May and Corbyn have both rejected a new referendum, I'd put that down as a remainer's pipedream.

53 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 It seems politically impossible - and it would likely end both May and Corbyn's careers - but an argument could be made that the magnitude of Brexit and its importance to Britain for decades to come is enough to warrant some kind of national unity government being formed, like it was after the Depression, but without another election to even out the numbers I can't see that being doable, otherwise Labour rebels would just join the Tory rebels and without LibDem and Green support to push the numbers up (resulting in an even softer Brexit than May wants), May would be screwed.

I don't see this happening either. Tory rebels have thus far always backed down at the prospect of PM Corbyn. And Corbyn is opportunistic on that issue, he waits for the Tories to implode to rule over charred bones and ashes, as this is the will of the people. With regards to the Tory rebels I have to make an exception for Soubry, who has thus far shown no sign whatsoever that she is willing to play along in this Tory Brexit psycho drama.

[mormont]

On 7/13/2018 at 1:21 PM, SeanF said:

No government would want a trade deal with the US on the terms that Trump would offer, which would include:-

1. Taking steps to reduce our substantial trade surplus with the US

2. Full access to US agribusinesses, requiring us to lower standards on animal welfare

3. Exclusive jurisdiction for US courts in case of disputes

4. Part-privatisation of the NHS.

None of this is a runner.

No government should agree to these things, I agree, but I fear that this one might.

On 7/13/2018 at 1:26 PM, SeanF said:

 I expect that in any case, the EU would require pretty clear commitments that the UK would never again vote to leave, as a condition for agreeing to revoke A.50.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. Seems plucked out of the air, frankly.

10 hours ago, mankytoes said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/16/68-rabbis-labour-chooses-ignore-uk-jewish-community

"Labour has argued that those examples that have been removed were already covered in the wider new code of conduct. The examples which have been removed from the IHRA definition include accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than their own nations, claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and comparing Israeli actions to those of the Nazis."

I think I'm on Labour's side here. I mean, a lot of people use Israel as a screen for their antisemitism, but a lot of defenders of Israel also deflect legitimate criticism of Israel by claiming antisemitism. 

This is appalling and if you're on the Labour party's side here, you're on the wrong side.

The position that these things are 'already covered' is mealy-mouthed nonsense. Why amend an internationally agreed standard definition to remove them if this doesn't actually have any effect? Of course, it does have an effect: it sends a message that the party are not willing to completely accept that definition and will not stick closely to it. A little anti-semitism is apparently OK by Jeremy.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

No government should agree to these things, I agree, but I fear that this one might.

 

I think there are ideologues in government who would like to implement such things.  I just think it would be electorally suicidal.

[mormont]

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think there are ideologues in government who would like to implement such things.  I just think it would be electorally suicidal.

I'm not so sure. I think that there are enough Tory MPs willing to risk it. Their voters won't be hurt by these things: they're insulated by money. They can buy safe food, private healthcare, etc.

[mankytoes]

8 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

This is appalling and if you're on the Labour party's side here, you're on the wrong side.

The position that these things are 'already covered' is mealy-mouthed nonsense. Why amend an internationally agreed standard definition to remove them if this doesn't actually have any effect? Of course, it does have an effect: it sends a message that the party are not willing to completely accept that definition and will not stick closely to it. A little anti-semitism is apparently OK by Jeremy.

It's the middle one I have the most problem with. I mean I'm Jewish enough to live in Israel, but the general formation would be considered "racist" by most western standards. I mean, if any white majority country conducted itself in this kind of way, they would be completely shunned by all but the far right. 

I'm not saying there isn't a valid argument the other way, the formation of Israel was hardly under usual circumstances. But I definitely don't think everyone who considers Israel inherently racist is an antisemite. I mean Liberia's constitution is racist as well, so I guess I'm racist against black people for saying that too? 

In the UK, many prominent Jews or part Jews are highly critical of Israel. I have a half Jewish friend who I've heard make the Israel/Nazi comparison often. Personally I think that is something to be avoided, but I don't think he says that out of self hatred. 

Note that all three clauses mentioned relate to Israel, not to Jews or Judaism generally. This internationally accepted definition seems at least partly designed to defend Israel. There have always been voices within Judaism that are highly critical of Israel, and I've always found this idea that it's all down to internalised antisemitism very weak. 

Don't get me wrong, I've argued with loads of Labour supporters about their tolerance of antisemitic groups like Hamas. There is some real denial about antisemitism in Palestine especially. But this is an over the top definition that doesn't reflect reality.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

I mean Liberia's constitution is racist as well, so I guess I'm racist against black people for saying that too? 

He went there.

You're not actually engaging with my argument, nor are you agreeing with the Labour party. I'll remind you that their official position on this middle statement is that it is anti-Semitic and is covered by their existing policy on anti-Semitism. They just, for some unspecified reason, want to remove it from the list of examples. If you can offer an explanation for that, do so: but it can't be 'this shouldn't be considered anti-Semitic' because that one is specifically ruled out by the party itself.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, La Albearceleste said:

He went there.

You're not actually engaging with my argument, nor are you agreeing with the Labour party. I'll remind you that their official position on this middle statement is that it is anti-Semitic and is covered by their existing policy on anti-Semitism. They just, for some unspecified reason, want to remove it from the list of examples. If you can offer an explanation for that, do so: but it can't be 'this shouldn't be considered anti-Semitic' because that one is specifically ruled out by the party itself.

Well it isn't always easy to, when your arguments consist of doing things like quoting me and saying "he went there". If you're going to quote me, at least make some kind of argument. It's pretty ballsy to then criticise my arguments. 

Ok, then I don't agree with the Labour Party. It should be removed because it is a criticism of Israel, not of Jews. 

[mormont]

11 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Well it isn't always easy to, when your arguments consist of doing things like quoting me and saying "he went there".

The argument I'm referring to is pretty clearly stated.

11 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

The position that these things are 'already covered' is mealy-mouthed nonsense. Why amend an internationally agreed standard definition to remove them if this doesn't actually have any effect? Of course, it does have an effect: it sends a message that the party are not willing to completely accept that definition and will not stick closely to it.

By contrast, the remark you quote above is a comment, not an argument, and nobody asked you to engage with it. To cite it as an excuse for not engaging with the argument above is just weak nonsense.

11 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

It's pretty ballsy to then criticise my arguments.  

It's not really. Easy, but not ballsy.

11 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Ok, then I don't agree with the Labour Party. It should be removed because it is a criticism of Israel, not of Jews. 

And unfortunately, this is the most common way to mask genuine anti-Semitism.

It's a truly thorny issue that political parties have to grapple with - how to allow legitimate political criticism of the actions of the state of Israel without allowing those to be used as a smokescreen or dog-whistle. The answer, however, is not and cannot be to issue a free pass so long as people are careful to say 'Israel' instead of 'Jews'. And I say that as someone who has made strong criticisms of the actions of the state of Israel.

[mankytoes]

 

20 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

The argument I'm referring to is pretty clearly stated.

By contrast, the remark you quote above is a comment, not an argument, and nobody asked you to engage with it. To cite it as an excuse for not engaging with the argument above is just weak nonsense.

It's not really. Easy, but not ballsy.

Why do you need to write all this? You're a moderator, but you seem to try and divert every debate into petty insults.

20 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

And unfortunately, this is the most common way to mask genuine anti-Semitism.

It's a truly thorny issue that political parties have to grapple with - how to allow legitimate political criticism of the actions of the state of Israel without allowing those to be used as a smokescreen or dog-whistle. The answer, however, is not and cannot be to issue a free pass so long as people are careful to say 'Israel' instead of 'Jews'. And I say that as someone who has made strong criticisms of the actions of the state of Israel.

I agree. But the definition that is currently accepted is that it's inherently antisemitic to say the state of Israel is a racist endeavor. That's what I don't accept. Using the term antisemitic when the behaviour might not be only weakens the effect of the word.

Well that's why you need to look at each case, and not issue blanket bans. It's contextual. We know that Corbyn has shown sympathy to groups like Hamas. That's where a lot of this comes from. People are broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, as I am, and they can easily get sucked in to turning a blind eye to behaviour which is racism, pure and simple. 

If you've repeatedly publicly strongly criticised Israel, you will have been called an antisemite. 

[williamjm]

22 hours ago, Werthead said:

I'm starting to wonder if the government is going to have to conclude that there is a logjam in governance that makes governing or negotiating Brexit functionally impossible, and they have to consider other action (whether that's a confidence motion, a second referendum or a general election or something else).

Allegedly the Tory whips were suggesting today's Customs Union vote was effectively a confidence motion to try to dissuade the rebels. Despite that a dozen Tory MPs voted against it and it only passed due to Labour Brexiters, which suggests it's both wings of her party that are losing confidence in her.

It does show how short-term the thinking seems to be in Government that they cave to the Brexiters demands one day and then seemed shocked when the incensed Remainers retaliate the next day and defeat the Government on one amendment and come close on another. May would probably be better off sticking to one side or the other rather than apparently trying to make them both equally unhappy with her.

[mormont]

14 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Why do you need to write all this?

Why are you complaining about someone responding to your own comments in kind?

14 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I agree. But the definition that is currently accepted is that it's inherently antisemitic to say the state of Israel is a racist endeavor.

The definition being discussed is this one:

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

Quote

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

It goes on to say:

Quote

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: [...] Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

(Emphasis mine.)

It also says:

Quote

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

So no, I don't think you're correct about this. This is given as an example, one that is explicitly prefaced by 'could include' (implying that it is not necessarily always so), plus a statement explicitly recognising the possibility of legitimate political criticism of Israel. The definition seems to me to adequately recognise the importance of context.

This still gets us no closer to any plausible reason to omit these examples, other than the one I suggested - as a signal to those who can't perceive their own anti-Semitism.

[mankytoes]

Good point, well argued, I see what you mean with the use of "could" there. I'll concede on the comparison of Israels and Nazis and of people's first loyalty being to Israel. 

The only one that really sticks out to me there is- 

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

I don't think that's a generally antisemitic thing to say, because almost always when we're talking about self determination, we're talking about a cultural group living in an area, or who have been recently been displaced, deserving autonomy, like the Kurds or Tibetans. That is not what Israel is, Israel is people claiming land based on an ancient right to it, and that is pretty unique. 

Applying general rules to international politics is difficult because there are just too many exceptions. And the creation and establishment of Israel was certainly born of particularly unusual circumstances that means it isn't easy to just say "well in this case, x happened". But to try and present it as a simple case of a people expressing their right to self determination, like, say, the independence of Vietnam from France, is miles from the truth. 

[Jeor]

9 hours ago, williamjm said:

May would probably be better off sticking to one side or the other rather than apparently trying to make them both equally unhappy with her.

Yes, I think May needs to make the bold move of choosing one side (which seems to be soft Brexit) and then daring the hard Brexiteers to topple her. If they do, they'll be left with the mess. Politically speaking, it would also force Labour to pick a side rather than be able to snipe from both ends.

In an ideal world, if the referendum could be done again, it probably should have been a choice between Remain and Hard Brexit. The Soft Brexit is essentially a worse deal than Remain and shouldn't have been seen to be an option. It allowed the Brexiteers to profit from a "have your cake and eat it too" line as they could cherrypick from the Soft and Hard Brexits depending on their audience.

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Yes, I think May needs to make the bold move of choosing one side (which seems to be soft Brexit) and then daring the hard Brexiteers to topple her. If they do, they'll be left with the mess. Politically speaking, it would also force Labour to pick a side rather than be able to snipe from both ends.

In an ideal world, if the referendum could be done again, it probably should have been a choice between Remain and Hard Brexit. The Soft Brexit is essentially a worse deal than Remain and shouldn't have been seen to be an option. It allowed the Brexiteers to profit from a "have your cake and eat it too" line as they could cherrypick from the Soft and Hard Brexits depending on their audience.

I expect that a deal will be struck with the EU, but I would also expect Labour MPs to be whipped to vote against it (Labour will claim they could have got a much better deal).  Some of the ERG will team up with Labour to vote against, so I think it would turn on how many Labour MPs vote with the government or abstain, and whether parties like the SNP abstain, or vote against.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

19 hours ago, williamjm said:

Allegedly the Tory whips were suggesting today's Customs Union vote was effectively a confidence motion to try to dissuade the rebels. Despite that a dozen Tory MPs voted against it and it only passed due to Labour Brexiters, which suggests it's both wings of her party that are losing confidence in her.

 

Yep, that vote was closer than I would've expected. However what I find curious was the reasoning of one of the Labour leaver (I think it was Mann) why he voted against the single market amendment. I think he said something along the lines, that the single market amendment would reduce the chances that reach a [good] deal, which would keep the supply chains intact and save manufacturing jobs around the country. Did I say curious, I meant non-sensical.

19 hours ago, williamjm said:

 It does show how short-term the thinking seems to be in Government that they cave to the Brexiters demands one day and then seemed shocked when the incensed Remainers retaliate the next day and defeat the Government on one amendment and come close on another. May would probably be better off sticking to one side or the other rather than apparently trying to make them both equally unhappy with her.

Well, you can blame the goverment, and May and Davis in particular for not putting together a Brexit position for 18 months or so. May didn't want to face down the JRM loons, and Davis was happily incompetent and or satisifed with letting the clock run down without putting any work into Brexit.

Either way, May was happy to kick the inevitable confrontation between remainers and leavers within her party into the long grass. Now she just ran out of grass.

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

I expect that a deal will be struck with the EU, but I would also expect Labour MPs to be whipped to vote against it (Labour will claim they could have got a much better deal).

Really? That expectation is based on what exactly? I hope it's not some misguided sense of British exceptionalism, that will lead the EU to bend over backwards to give the UK what it wants, just because... Anyway, the Whitepaper (the first real Brexit position of the British Goverment) was already dead on arrival as it was, JRM and his ERG managed to add amendments to it, that effectivley put it out of its misery. After that show of strength by the Moggles, how do you think May will be able to put together a palatable deal for the EU? Whether Labour would shoot down a deal is a rather academic question at this point Ithink.

And the UK still hasn't come up with a solution with regards to the Irish border (at least none that isn't based on magical thinking (technical solutions that don't exist, or JRM's Eixit fantsasy)), and the agreed backstop is apparently still unacceptable for any PM. 

Anyway, as I can see where this will be going, let me (or rather FT) shoot down the blame game (it's EU's fault if there's a border on the Irish Island) before it starts.

Here was a not working link in the original post, So just a short summary then.

What happened if the UK just kept the border open? Under WTO rules this will result effectively mean no customs or tariffs on anything from anywhere. WTO rules have a preferred state approach, if you waive customs and tariffs on goods from one WTO member, you have to waive it on all. So if you let goods flow freely between the Republic and the North, you create a free entry point to the British marketss for sub-standard goods (likesay Chinese electronics and machines, or US agriculture goods), and you also strip British farmer's of any protection whatsoever and they have to compete in a "perfect" market with Australian sheep meat, or US or Brazilian beef. 

The EU would be in the same position, so it's inconceivable that they will leave the door open. Some EU rules of origins are not gonna cut it, as that would open the door to smuggling and forgery (remember one of the previous threads, when we talked about the EU can't allow the UK to pimp out single market access through the backdoor?). 

So according to WTO rules, there'll have to be a border and customs check (unless there's a bespoke FTA in place), it's a mere legal fact of life. 

On more pleasent news, is Labour really finally geetting rid of that kipper Hoey?