UK Politics: This Country is Going to the Moggs

[Werthead]

9 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

what's chlorinated chicken?

Chicken that's been bathed in chlorine to kill off bacteria. The practice is banned in the EU - and even Russia - because it is frequently used as a get-out so that the originating farms and slaughterhouses can operate to standards far below what most consider to be humane, safe and hygienic. Food standards in the United States are far below what is considered acceptable in the UK and EU. In addition, UK farmers are furious at the idea that after Brexit the doors will be thrown open so that US superfarms - which UK farmers can't possibly compete with - will be allowed to swamp the market.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The irony being, a majority of them voted for just that.

[Spockydog]

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

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. 

Well, speaking as a 49 year old Scot who moved to London when he was 10, it's a big fucking problem to me. And to me it's not 'those' people, it's 'our' people.

You know, it occurred to me today that any post-Brexit return to Scotland for me might not actually be optional. I mean, if Scotland vote for independence, won't I then be forced to leave the country along with all the Europeans?

[SirArthur]

5 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Germans and Greek don't feel like Europeans, they feel like Germans and Greeks.

It's a good thing you tell me, how I have to feel. 

[mormont]

Ok first off:

[mod] Certain racially-charged terms are not acceptable to use even if you're not using them directly as a racist insult. No more of that. [/mod]

Now:

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

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. 

Which political theory exactly is it based on? Which books or experts are you citing?

You don't get people arguing against it largely because it's unfalsifiable. 'Governments only survive if they're based on a common people'. OK, define 'common people' in some sensible way without reference to Blur.

ETA - PULP! It was late and I was tired. I'm leaving it in so you can all laugh at me. :p

If you use woolly terms like that, you can pick and choose your examples to make your theory unfalsifiable: impossible to argue against and utterly, utterly useless and irrelevant.

[mankytoes]

27 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Well, speaking as a 49 year old Scot who moved to London when he was 10, it's a big fucking problem to me. And to me it's not 'those' people, it's 'our' people.

You know, it occurred to me today that any post-Brexit return to Scotland for me might not actually be optional. I mean, if Scotland vote for independence, won't I then be forced to leave the country along with all the Europeans?

Well, in the context of Scottish independence, it's "those" people, it's not for me to tell anyone how they wish to be governed. 

Yeah, I'm not a fan of this fear mongering stuff. I'm sure you know we are not going to be forcing Europeans to leave the country. 

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

Which political theory exactly is it based on? Which books or experts are you citing?

You don't get people arguing against it largely because it's unfalsifiable. 'Governments only survive if they're based on a common people'. OK, define 'common people' in some sensible way without reference to Blur.

ETA - PULP! It was late and I was tired. I'm leaving it in so you can all laugh at me. :p

If you use woolly terms like that, you can pick and choose your examples to make your theory unfalsifiable: impossible to argue against and utterly, utterly useless and irrelevant.

The concept of a demos? It's well established in a lot of political theory, particularly around a modern nation state. It's a while since I was reading this stuff, I'm afraid I can't give you specific books. 

I'm not saying people haven't given a total refutation, more that people haven't really had a crack at my theory (I say it's my theory because I'm not repeating it from someone else, but I'm sure others have given a similar view with more knowledge and detail). 

Well, that's a very important question in international politics. In the UN Charter, all people have the right to self determination (they don't define a people either, so maybe you'd consider this "utterly utterly useless and irrelevant"!). This is what the Falklands Islands debate comes down to- we say the Falkland Islanders are people with the right to self determination. The Argentines say they are just British colonists. Scotland got a referendum because they are considered a distinct people with their own history and culture. Though obviously, as Spocky said, we share a British culture as well, these aren't simple issues. I think the Catalans deserve a referendum for the same reason. People sometimes talk about London, or "The North", declaring independence. This would be very unlikely, even if there was a majority desire for it, because they aren't seen as "a people". 

So it's a really good question. I did find this on wikipedia- "Criteria for the definition of "people having the right of self-determination" was proposed during 2010 Kosovo case decision of the International Court of Justice:

1. traditions and culture

2. ethnicity

3. historical ties and heritage

4. language

5. religion

6. sense of identity or kinship

7. the will to constitute a people

8. common suffering"

Identity is a very slippery subject, but I don't think ignoring it is the answer. Certainly, I've seen little evidence that a large number of Europeans from any country would feel we are really "a people". Western culture is obviously a thing, but are we really closer culturally to Italy than Canada?

[Spockydog]

53 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of this fear mongering stuff. I'm sure you know we are not going to be forcing Europeans to leave the country.

Really? This is what Rees-Mogg, High Priest of Brexit, has to say about it: 

‘I do not believe there should be any special terms for EU migrants. Once we have left the EU there will be no legal basis to treat them differently from migrants from non-EU countries.’

And I know you claim not to care what this clown says, but if the Brexiters win, this is likely the man who will shape much of the post-Brexit political landscape.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I was listening to a podcast that touched on the Brexit negotiations. It left me feeling that the UK and the EU are at a total impasse because May wants only goods to move freely between borders while Tusk wants that plus people, capital and services. If that is correct, what happens if neither side will back down nor resign to allow a new party to negotiate (so basically just May)? Will the UK just have to eat a hard Brexit and nuke their economy? 

[The guy from the Vale]

Not quite. The EU (and hence, Tusk) would prefer to have good relations with the UK, but needs to protect the integrity of its four freedoms. Allowing the UK to cherrypick which of these freedoms to apply and which not  to would mean that every ssingle country in the EU would leave, trying to cherrypick the one or two freedoms they profit from while discarding the others. This would doom the EU in an instant. Therefore, the EU position in these negotiation is (and has been for two years now,) that the UK can have whatever Brexit they like - as long as the don't cherrypick which of the freedoms to keep. In fact, that has been a consistent pattern for the EU when dealing with partners like Switzerland or Norway for decades now, and Brits who thought they'd get preferential treatmnt from the EU after just snubbing it were delusional.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

19 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I was listening to a podcast that touched on the Brexit negotiations. It left me feeling that the UK and the EU are at a total impasse because May wants only goods to move freely between borders while Tusk wants that plus people, capital and services. If that is correct, what happens if neither side will back down nor resign to allow a new party to negotiate (so basically just May)? Will the UK just have to eat a hard Brexit and nuke their economy? 

Partly. The real impasse is closer tied to the Irish border.

May offered that free flow of goods partly because the UK somehow also has to/avoid a hard border in Ireland, which is basically legally recquired when the free movement of goods is no more.

The EU position has always been, the single market consists of the four freedoms (good, persons, capital and services), and they can't seperated, that's not up for discussons. You can't have one without the others. (No cherry picking etc.). And a hard border on the IRish Island is non-starter if you want a deal.

And now May has to square that with a) the peldge that there shall not be a hard border in Ireland b) there shall not be a border/seperate rules/markets between the different parts of the UK (namely Northern Ireland and the British Island) and c) her intetion to leave the customs Union/single market.

Try to come up with a solution, that achieves all the things May wants, and is acceptable for the EU (integrity of the single market).

Add to that, that there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the UK's part. They are complaining about the legalistic approach of the EU, and treat this thing as political negotiations. Which it isn't from the EU's perspective. The EU is bound by its own legal framework/rules. So all the talk of finding a creative solution/approaches is just pointless. So the four freedoms are indeed not up for discussions. And neither is the jurisdiction of the ECJ for EU laws.

So to go back to your question, will the UK have to nuke their economy? Depends, what kind of Brexit they want. Membership of the Single Market (the so called Norway option) solves a lot of problems with regards to the IRish border, and it is legally possible to go there for the EU. But that's really tossing out objective c) leaving the single market/customs Union (not to mention it also puts an end to that let's end the rule of the ECJ). The other possible outcome is to accept a border in the IRish sea (and thus accept a different market) for Northern IReland, than for the rest of the UK. So that'S that for her aim b) there shall not be a border/seperate rules/markets between the different parts of the UK. Well, then there's always the option of the hard border in Ireland, which means crashing out, or as you put it nuke their own economy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Much appreciate the breakdown. This is largely what was discussed on the podcast, but it was from an American point of view which is less helpful and they never touched on the aftermath of what would happen if the gridlock couldn't be broken. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Meanwhile Labour has indeed managed to fudge the issue on a second referendum. And their announcement to vote down any deal whatsoever (as no deal will offer the exact same benefits as membership), the EU has reacted accordingly.

[Blue Roses]

Labour conference was more like an episode of Citizen Smith. 

[mormont]

So far as I can see this is turning into a game of chicken, or at least that's the way the Labour leadership are treating it. While May insists that it's her deal or no deal, Corbyn's hope is that, if a deal is voted down, May will flinch from the awfulness of that no-deal scenario, ask for more time from the EU and get it. But they also think that if May doesn't do that, her government will shortly collapse and they can win the ensuing election. 

Given that the one thing that the Tories have treated as absolutely sacrosanct is the March 29 leaving date, it's a high stakes gamble. 

[Spockydog]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

Given that the one thing that the Tories have treated as absolutely sacrosanct is the March 29 leaving date, it's a high stakes gamble. 

If we leave the EU on the 29th of March, I will eat my keyboard.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

So far as I can see this is turning into a game of chicken, or at least that's the way the Labour leadership are treating it. While May insists that it's her deal or no deal, Corbyn's hope is that, if a deal is voted down, May will flinch from the awfulness of that no-deal scenario, ask for more time from the EU and get it. But they also think that if May doesn't do that, her government will shortly collapse and they can win the ensuing election. 

Playing a game of chicken was also somehow part of May's Brexit strategy, just that Barnier didn't blink. Anyway.

Where I think this whole idea will start to fall apart is simply: The UK needs more time to... do what exactly? I'll again quote Barnier by saying, we don't need more time, we need political decissions. So I really don't see the appeal of an extension for the EU to re-open negotiations with a somewhat unwilling partner. Maybe you do?

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

Given that the one thing that the Tories have treated as absolutely sacrosanct is the March 29 leaving date, it's a high stakes gamble.  

That is a somewhat generous reading. To me this is just a "we will get the better deal" strategy Labour has been beating on about. Look, the EU rejected May's Blue Unicorn deal, because there are no Blue Unicorns. But we will come home with a Red Unicorn...

[mormont]

13 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Playing a game of chicken was also somehow part of May's Brexit strategy, just that Barnier didn't blink. Anyway.

Where I think this whole idea will start to fall apart is simply: The UK needs more time to... do what exactly? I'll again quote Barnier by saying, we don't need more time, we need political decissions. So I really don't see the appeal of an extension for the EU to re-open negotiations with a somewhat unwilling partner. Maybe you do?

Well, clearly the Tories need about another two decade extension so that someone can invent all the fancy technology they keep saying will solve all the issues. :p

But seriously, more time allows for more decisions, because things change. Events happen. Polls shift. Policies change. And, the thinking goes when I've seen this discussed, having looked into the abyss of a no-deal would help some of those shifts to occur. Is that pie in the sky? Sure, a bit. But so is every other approach on the table. 

 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

Well, clearly the Tories need about another two decade extension so that someone can invent all the fancy technology they keep saying will solve all the issues. :p

But seriously, more time allows for more decisions, because things change. Events happen. Polls shift. Policies change. And, the thinking goes when I've seen this discussed, having looked into the abyss of a no-deal would help some of those shifts to occur. Is that pie in the sky? Sure, a bit. But so is every other approach on the table.

Maybe but that also seems like the UK would just be kicking the can down the road to be dealt with by a barely older future UK.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

But seriously, more time allows for more decisions, because things change. Events happen. Polls shift. Policies change.

That sounds like desperately trying to grasp for straws (sorry, don't mean to sound rude or anything).

I mean iirc the EU has hinted that two scenarios could give an extension. Another referendum or a GE with a Labour heavily campaigning on remain (under likesay Chuka Umunna). I mean, you just need to look at McDonnel to see, that's not what Labour's on about.

But Labour's position reads differently. It reads more like, we send May back to negotiation table to demand... cake (same benefits as membership).

So the more time to negotiate the existence of a red unicorn is really just a waste of time (as harsh as it sounds). And I think, this was just Labour really making sure that there won't be a deal in place. I mean if May comes home with some kind of deal (really any deal) and she recquires the the votes of Labour to ratify it, what would be the point of new negotiations, she can't come home with a deal that ever gets thru Westminster if Labour votes everything down.

If she tries to satisfy the ERG her moderate Tories (and probably the DUP (if it involves NI remain in the CU)) will shoot it down. She bends too hard towards a soft Brexit, the ERG will shoot it down, and she will probably need the Labour votes, that Labour has ruled out giving her.

That's at least my reading of the situation.

[mormont]

15 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Maybe but that also seems like the UK would just be kicking the can down the road to be dealt with by a barely older future UK.

When faced with an irreconcilable crisis, politicians generally hungrily seek out any opportunity to kick the can down the road for however long they can. They're remarkably inventive at finding ways not to take tough decisions, even if the stalling doesn't seem likely to do any good. In fact, one can characterise most of May's strategy since becoming leader as 'kick the can down the road and hope like hell something turns up'. So if there's really a way to do that, then it will be attractive.

Except... as noted previously, the one thing the Tories all seem to agree on when it comes to Brexit is that the March date is absolutely sacrosanct. Nobody in that party agrees on what the transition should look like, what our future relationship should be, how to get a good deal, or anything else, but they all accept as holy writ that whatever's happening, it happens on that date. some have speculated on the reasons for that, but it does seem to be a fact. 

Everyone knows that something's got to give. I don't necessarily think it will be the March date. But my reading is that Labour think it might be. And if it isn't, they can live with that.