UK Politics: This Country is Going to the Moggs

[Pebble thats Stubby]

well I justify a 2nd ref on the basis that the 1st one was so bloody close and we know leave broke some election rules and there was Russian interference.   So I'm not sure you can truly call it the will of the people.

 

[Spockydog]

10 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

But it's still true.

No it's not fucking true. If it was, the Tories wouldn't have binned the 58 or so sectorial impact assessments that told them that Brexit would destroy the British economy. You can stick your fingers in your ears as much as you want, it will not change the fact that Brexit is going to be a nation-wrecking disaster. 

[divica]

10 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Really? How many Leave voters do you know who are now calling for a second referendum (a legitimate thank you for not using the godawful "people's vote" phrase)? There are plenty of people who want out of Brexit, but they all seem to be Remainers, who have always felt that way, and they're broadly using the same arguments. I said from the start that we would still find it difficult to leave. The EU is a massive establishment, you don't just walk away from these people. 

No one voted for this specific set of circumstances, sure, but that's politics, surely we're all adults, we know that you very rarely get exactly what you want. I know the game, it's a difficult situation and I'm being flexible. But it was made very clear that if we voted out, we would leave the EU. I never heard one person on either side ever suggest we would have a second referendum if we voted Leave. I really feel like people are taking democracy for granted in thinking that you can just turn back on this and not do real damage to our political culture. 

But Project Fear didn't come true. We were told that if we voted to leave we would be facing recession and punishment budgets. There's lots of dramatic language there- "apocalyptic", "abyss", but it just sounds like the same old, no new evidence. I'd think of it like a court of law. To re-open the Brexit vote, we should require "new and compelling evidence" against our previous decision. 

So you think brexit can happen without an agreement?

Better yet. How can people vote for brexit when they don t know the conditions under which brexit may happen? You have no idea if the voters would want to leave the UE without an agreement or if they would agree with paying the UE the money... it seems really idiotic to ask people if they want to leave the UE without telling them the cost and afterwards go along with the decision without asking them if they agree to pay the price...

And you actually think brexit should happen if there isn t an agreement or if the agreement is very bad for the uk because years ago people voted exit the UE?

Ps I am not from the uk, but I just don t get how someone can be for or against the brexit if they don t know how brexit may happen... depending on the agreement it may be either the end of the uk (no agreement) or something very expensive where the uk become independent but loose their voice in the UE

[divica]

21 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

No it's not fucking true. If it was, the Tories wouldn't have binned the 58 or so sectorial impact assessments that told them that Brexit would destroy the British economy. You can stick your fingers in your ears as much as you want, it will not change the fact that Brexit is going to be a nation-wrecking disaster. 

If I may ask. Those assessments shouldn t depend on how the brexit is done?

If uk gets a good deal, bad deal or no deal with the UE it would have different impacts no?

[Spockydog]

6 minutes ago, divica said:

 

If uk gets a good deal, bad deal or no deal with the UE it would have different impacts no?

Yes, and presumably they were all terrible. Otherwise, Davis wouldn't have had to lie to Parliament about the existence of the reports, and the government would have shared the documents with the nation to prove how spiffingly excellent Brexit was going to be.

[mankytoes]

10 minutes ago, divica said:

So you think brexit can happen without an agreement?

Better yet. How can people vote for brexit when they don t know the conditions under which brexit may happen? You have no idea if the voters would want to leave the UE without an agreement or if they would agree with paying the UE the money... it seems really idiotic to ask people if they want to leave the UE without telling them the cost and afterwards go along with the decision without asking them if they agree to pay the price...

And you actually think brexit should happen if there isn t an agreement or if the agreement is very bad for the uk because years ago people voted exit the UE?

Ps I am not from the uk, but I just don t get how someone can be for or against the brexit if they don t know how brexit may happen... depending on the agreement it may be either the end of the uk (no agreement) or something very expensive where the uk become independent but loose their voice in the UE

You mean a no deal Brexit? We can, but it's not ideal. 

Well that's up to the people, right? If people weren't happy not knowing the conditions, they could have voted Remain. The thing is "the cost" is pretty subjective. Obviously we can save on all the money we net send to the EU every year. Cameron told everyone that we would be poorer as a consequence overall- it seems people didn't believe, and as I've said before, he has admitted things are better than he thought they would be. 

The idea of making arrangements, then having referendums to confirm them, just doesn't seem practically possible. Referendums take time and money to set up, and negotiations have to move quickly. We do not have a culture of referendums, we have only had three UK wide referendums in our history. 

The way I see it, we voted for Brexit, and the Conservatives were voted in as largest party, so it's up to them to complete the process. I didn't vote for them and it's not my ideal situation, but that's the democratic mandate we have. 

We are not a direct democracy, or we would still have had the death penalty for decades. People are being very pick and choosy about how we view democracy, regarding where their interests lie. 

45 minutes ago, Pebble said:

well I justify a 2nd ref on the basis that the 1st one was so bloody close and we know leave broke some election rules and there was Russian interference.   So I'm not sure you can truly call it the will of the people.

Well with it being close, that is definitely something that could have been foreseen. There have been other referendums where there are certain thresholds, like the 1979 Scottish devolution one where you needed 40% of the total electorate. 

Certainly the referendum wasn't managed well, and I think our inexperience with them worked. The government spent 9 million on sending everyone pro-Remain propaganda, which "didn't count" towards the £7 million total each side was allowed, so I definitely think they had the advantage overall, when Leave have been condemned for overspending by half a million.

We've had so much dodgy campaigning in general elections, and we've never had a do-over. 

[divica]

24 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Yes, and presumably they were all terrible. Otherwise, Davis wouldn't have had to lie to Parliament about the existence of the reports, and the government would have shared the documents with the nation to prove how spiffingly excellent Brexit was going to be.

I don t get that. The Uk are a great country. You don t need the brexit, you want it. If it is that bad why hide it and be responsable for whatever may happen? It is political suicide...

 

in adition, with a good deal besides paying boatloads of money to the UE what would change negatively for the UK

[Spockydog]

10 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

You mean a no deal Brexit? We can, but it's not ideal. 

Well that's up to the people, right? If people weren't happy not knowing the conditions, they could have voted Remain. 

I wonder how many people voted Leave based on the spurious assertion that countries would be falling over themselves to set up trade deals with us, that we would be able to dictate the terms of our departure, that we would cherry pick which EU membership benefits we would hang on to. Lies, all of it. Anyone who claims this vote was democratic is deluded. 

[divica]

15 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

You mean a no deal Brexit? We can, but it's not ideal. 

Well that's up to the people, right? If people weren't happy not knowing the conditions, they could have voted Remain. The thing is "the cost" is pretty subjective. Obviously we can save on all the money we net send to the EU every year. Cameron told everyone that we would be poorer as a consequence overall- it seems people didn't believe, and as I've said before, he has admitted things are better than he thought they would be. 

The idea of making arrangements, then having referendums to confirm them, just doesn't seem practically possible. Referendums take time and money to set up, and negotiations have to move quickly. We do not have a culture of referendums, we have only had three UK wide referendums in our history. 

The way I see it, we voted for Brexit, and the Conservatives were voted in as largest party, so it's up to them to complete the process. I didn't vote for them and it's not my ideal situation, but that's the democratic mandate we have. 

We are not a direct democracy, or we would still have had the death penalty for decades. People are being very pick and choosy about how we view democracy, regarding where their interests lie. 

 

Come on. A no deal brexit is crazy people talk. You are willing to bankrupt your country and risk the way of life of millions of people for brexit? And not forget that a no deal brexit will have a huge impact on the value of british pound so you are really playing with fire.

And then you are talking about fast negotiations but the brexit negotiation has lasted years... and you talk as if people understood the consequences that brexit may have and were ok with it. You can t just assume that who voted for brexit wants brexit no matter the price and consequences. It is very different to vote on a no deal brexit or a decent brexit. Having a referendum to confirm that people really want the brexit knowing exactly the risks and what it will cost them seems more a question of good sense than anything else  taking into account the importance of the decision

[mankytoes]

39 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I wonder how many people voted Leave based on the spurious assertion that countries would be falling over themselves to set up trade deals with us, that we would be able to dictate the terms of our departure, that we would cherry pick which EU membership benefits we would hang on to. Lies, all of it. Anyone who claims this vote was democratic is deluded. 

Or how many voted Remain because they were told if they didn't there would be a punishment budget? It's interesting how happy people are to turn a blind eye to  Tory dishonesty when it suits their purposes. 

I could pick any general election ever held in this country and find spurious assertions. In fact, I'm confident I could do that with any major election ever held. It's part of politics, and say what you like about the public, but they do not generally hold political figures in high regard, and do not blindly believe what they are told. Sure, people will repeat crap politicians come out with, but they're nearly always just picking the quotes that support their pre-existing views. 

You could use this logic to claim any vote isn't democratic, and I don't believe for a second you'd be saying the vote wasn't democratic if you had gotten your way. And you may think I have the same thought process, but I know I don't, because I did not expect Leave to win, and I had already planned my "lets move on and make the best of a bad situation" speech. 

13 minutes ago, divica said:

Come on. A no deal brexit is crazy people talk. You are willing to bankrupt your country and risk the way of life of millions of people for brexit? And not forget that a no deal brexit will have a huge impact on the value of british pound so you are really playing with fire.

And then you are talking about fast negotiations but the brexit negotiation has lasted years... and you talk as if people understood the consequences that brexit may have and were ok with it. You can t just assume that who voted for brexit wants brexit no matter the price and consequences. It is very different to vote on a no deal brexit or a decent brexit. Having a referendum to confirm that people really want the brexit knowing exactly the risks and what it will cost them seems more a question of good sense than anything else  taking into account the importance of the decision

No, I don't think it is realistic to think that leaving will bankrupt the country, and I don't think anyone respected has asserted that. I do think that remaining in the EU is a bigger risk to the way of life for the British people, because I do not regard the EU as an entity that will be stable in the long term. I don't know where you're from, but here we aren't seeing much focus on the absolute nightmare the EU is having over Poland and Hungary, but it is very clear they are not set up to deal with these types of right wing government. 

I don't want no deal. But if you take no deal off the table, there is little reason for the EU to give us anything. Would you go in to any negotiation and say "whatever happens, I want to be clear that I will definitely accept your final offer"?

And people will totally understand the consequences if we have a second referendum? I see no way that people can "know exactly the risks". You're talking about perfectly predicting the future. We have seen time and time again that politicians, independent experts and the general public are nowhere near capable of doing that. Did you predict the European debt crisis? I didn't, and few people did. Can we be sure something like that won't happen again in the next couple of years? Of course not. So Remainers can make all these promises about a better life in the EU, but these are totally empty. 

[Spockydog]

I'm done trying to reason with loons and racists, people whose hatred of immigrants is so strong that they are willng to see their country destroyed in order to keep it white. Because let's be honest, that's what Brexit is all about.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

No, what I'm saying is it's odd for remainers to justify a second referendum on how terribly things are going, when things are going better than they predicted. 

These are two different 'things', though. The things that are going 'better than predicted' are that the amount of economic damage is not as great as feared. The things that are 'going terribly' are the prospects for a successful negotiated exit deal, without which a good deal more economic and political damage lies in store. 

You're comparing apples and oranges there.

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Well that's up to the people, right? If people weren't happy not knowing the conditions, they could have voted Remain.

Well, here we get to the heart of the issue, which is something I've talked about before. The single biggest blunder of the referendum, possibly of the last thirty years in politics, was that David Cameron - and this still stuns me when I think about it - held a referendum about leaving the EU without bothering to produce a white paper or other official document about what that meant: what the process would be, how long it would take, whether there would be a transitional period, how long that would last, what the economic and political impact would be, and so on. 

Honestly, all of the stuff we've heard about since - Article 50, WTO terms, all of it - these are concepts voters needed to be familiar with before the vote. It was a breathtaking dereliction of duty by Cameron's government. 

The upshot is that most voters, on both sides, had no idea what the conditions would be. Voters were asked to take a leap in the dark. Sure, it's on our own heads if we decided to do so. But that's no argument for pressing ahead come what may. 

[mankytoes]

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

These are two different 'things', though. The things that are going 'better than predicted' are that the amount of economic damage is not as great as feared. The things that are 'going terribly' are the prospects for a successful negotiated exit deal, without which a good deal more economic and political damage lies in store. 

You're comparing apples and oranges there.

Well, here we get to the heart of the issue, which is something I've talked about before. The single biggest blunder of the referendum, possibly of the last thirty years in politics, was that David Cameron - and this still stuns me when I think about it - held a referendum about leaving the EU without bothering to produce a white paper or other official document about what that meant: what the process would be, how long it would take, whether there would be a transitional period, how long that would last, what the economic and political impact would be, and so on. 

Honestly, all of the stuff we've heard about since - Article 50, WTO terms, all of it - these are concepts voters needed to be familiar with before the vote. It was a breathtaking dereliction of duty by Cameron's government. 

The upshot is that most voters, on both sides, had no idea what the conditions would be. Voters were asked to take a leap in the dark. Sure, it's on our own heads if we decided to do so. But that's no argument for pressing ahead come what may. 

Obviously it's very hard to say with any certainty whether there has been "economic damage" or not, because you're comparing with a hypothetical situation where we voted the other way. I always said this was a long term thing. We might not gain in five years, but I think we will be generally happy with our decision in twenty. 

I guess David Cameron knew he'd either win the referendum, in which case that paper would be irrelevant, or he'd lose, in which case he would quit, so it wouldn't be his problem. He didn't give a shit about the political rights of people regarding constitutional change, it was purely a party political issue to him. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

28 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Obviously it's very hard to say with any certainty whether there has been "economic damage" or not, because you're comparing with a hypothetical situation where we voted the other way. I always said this was a long term thing. We might not gain in five years, but I think we will be generally happy with our decision in twenty. 

Oh FFS. I know I am arguing against a very thick wall here, but for what it's worth.

But some newspaper reports.

Economic Damage Assessment

Another example?

Even the Tory Telegraph has to report it.

53 minutes ago, mormont said:

Honestly, all of the stuff we've heard about since - Article 50, WTO terms, all of it - these are concepts voters needed to be familiar with before the vote. It was a breathtaking dereliction of duty by Cameron's government.  

Even the politicians in charge do not fully seem to grasp what WTO terms actually means as of right now, or they are denying it. Well, I hope WTO terms are great does not become the new EU will agree to chequers. Or this will get real ugly, real quick.

 

[Spockydog]

You know, I'd love to hear someone like Mankytoes tell us what they still hope to achieve with Brexit. Why they are still ploughing on with it, despite all the damage it's going to cause. Because no one, at least no one with an ounce of credibility, is arguing that we are going to be financially better off because of it, hence the widespread derision at Theresa May's mention of the mythical Brexit Dividend.

 

 

[Which Tyler]

If I were European*, I'd be baffled by us and our drama.

First, we vote out. That's fine, that's okay, that's our prerogative.

Then the leader who made the referendum happen resigns. None of the people involved in Leave make a competent run for leader and we end up with someone who was very solidly Remain in charge. Does she have policy? Does the party have a policy? Apparently not, from her panicked attempts to avoid answering direct questions.

She denies that any general election is needed and that the will of the people is known. She then waits until March to trigger Article 50 to set the count down going, before calling a General Election to take up 2 months of this as apparently she wants the British people to provide her with a mandate for her Brexit plan, which apparently the other parties oppose. Few details actually emerge about her Brexit plan and fewer details still about the opposition's. And oddly, no questions are really asked about this and the elction comes and goes without Brexit really being any kind of an issue.

We then get a weaker government, now with 22 months to negotiate, who still are refusing to answer questions about what the official plan is. The opposition push, but they won't really answer questions about their position on it either, for fear of having to actually take one. Regardless of that, Parliament has become so divided and weakly run, that everyone ends up arguing with each other for the next 13 months about what we actually plan to do. And because the two parties are so polarised, there's no hope of MPs working together and forming cross-party consensuses on things, as anyone going outside of party lines is now denounced in the press as a traitor. And asking MPs opinions wouldn't be helpful as the majority of them want to Remain, but don't want to vote for it because of the putative public uproar. You'd've thought an electorate that wanted Brexit would've elected Brexit-wanting MPs, but because no-one really made an issue of it in the election, that didn't really happen.

We're technically negotiating with the EU as we argue with ourselves, but without an official position on what we actually want from the negotiations. Mostly our negotiating style involves loudly announcing that we cannot and will not do something, with accompanying bluster from various MPs, before agreeing to do it. Most contentious issues are kicked down the line for later in the name of not bringing down the government by making them have a policy on something.

Finally, in July 2018, we release actual policy. There is a plan, agreed by the government, stating what we want and what our actual aims are. It's contradictory in places, some of it is impossible, most of it is things that we've already been told won't be agreed, and some bits actually go against things already previously agreed. But at least the UK government has finally decided what they actually wa... oh good, half of them are resigning.

Never mind, the EU engage with this plan and point out that it's not something that can be agreed to. We appear to treat this No with surprise, despite that fact that it really can't be, and continue to barrack for it, declaring that it is the only route forward and the only deal possible. This is despite the fact that it no longer appears to be possible on the UK side, as there don't appear to be votes enough to get it through Parliament, so it is irrelevant if the EU says yes or no, as the UK is now saying no to its own plan. Again.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that they've turned to cake-related pranks.

 

 

* Let's face it;"European" in this instance really does include the vast majority of Brit.s

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, that's all very nice and idealistic. Well done. But I really have to question whether any of it is worth destroying the nation over. Or are you still clinging onto the notion that Brexit will not lead to the irrevocable break up of the Union?

 

I'd say it's actually anti-idealistic, the EU is the idealistic thing. I think my idea is really based on solid political theory and study of how political projects tend to succeed or fail historically. The thing that has got me is that I've never had anyone really argue against it. 

You tend to use scary sounding but kind of obscure terms like "destroy the nation". In what sense? The second question makes me think you're referring to Scottish independence or Irish unification (I assume you don't think Welsh independence is likely any time soon). As I say, I'm not a nationalist, and if those people choose that course through a fair vote, if that's the true will of their people, that's not a problem to me. 

But if you're asking me if I think Brexit makes that inevitable, then the answer is no. Honestly, I think the Scottish have always been a separate people to the English historically, we have this union and I do have a British identity, albeit a secondary one, but if it was clearly in their economic interest, I think they would be independent. Obviously Northern Ireland is horribly complex, but again Ireland has only been split for about a hundred years, we shouldn't think of it as some sort of permanent natural state of things, if it could be achieved in a positive way I think Irish unification would be a good thing. 

[Werthead]

18 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I mean last time we were very explicitly told what we voted for would happen

Well, we weren't really. We were offered the choice of in or out, but there was no definition of what "leave" or "remain" meant. That's one of the reasons we're in this mess now.

 

Quote

 

I'm done trying to reason with loons and racists, people whose hatred of immigrants is so strong that they are willng to see their country destroyed in order to keep it white. Because let's be honest, that's what Brexit is all about.

 

Certainly that was a factor, which is of course hilarious because the majority of immigrants from Europe are white and with the EU immigration restrained we may see more immigration from other countries where people are decidedly more obviously "foreign". There does seem to be a (hopefully minuscule) number of Brexit voters who seemed to confuse "freedom of movement with the EU" with "immigration from everywhere" and believed that because of the vote there won't be anyone getting into the country at all.

Quote

 

Even the politicians in charge do not fully seem to grasp what WTO terms actually means as of right now, or they are denying it. Well, I hope WTO terms are great does not become the new EU will agree to chequers. Or this will get real ugly, real quick.

 

WTO terms are pretty bad. Some of the Brexiteers have been saying we can unilaterally have free trade rules with the EU to maintain current conditions, which is true, but they keep quiet about the fact that under WTO rules you can't pick and choose which rules to apply to which government. If you choose to do one thing, you have to do it for everyone. So if we let EU goods into the country tariff-free we have to automatically do the same for everyone, from all countries. We'll be hip-deep in chlorinated chicken before you could take a breath.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

31 minutes ago, Werthead said:

WTO terms are pretty bad. Some of the Brexiteers have been saying we can unilaterally have free trade rules with the EU to maintain current conditions, which is true, but they keep quiet about the fact that under WTO rules you can't pick and choose which rules to apply to which government. If you choose to do one thing, you have to do it for everyone. So if we let EU goods into the country tariff-free we have to automatically do the same for everyone, from all countries. We'll be hip-deep in chlorinated chicken before you could take a breath.

I am fully aware of that, that's why I said, it could get real ugly, real quick.

And even that bit about keeping the same rules with the EU unilaterally is not accurate. You can set your import tariffs to 0, however you can't set tariffs on exports to zero, as the UK is not in charge of the import tariffs of other nations/trading blocks (likesay the EU). And there's a bunch of other real ugly stuff concerning rules of origin for manufactured goods (not that the UK would be able to export much under those circumstances anyway). And the real ugly mess starts with all the other european agencies and agreements the UK crashes out of.  If that comes to pass, we might as well start to set up care packages for our UK boarders (and hope they don't get held up at the customs).

[lokisnow]

what's chlorinated chicken?