Jump to content
Pebble

UK Politics: Austerity has ended - More cuts to come.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That would be my pick, too. However I fail to see the where she would get the votes for that now. The DUP is never in a milion milion years gonna sign up to that. Neither is a not so insignificant part of her own party. From the opposition parties, well, nobody wants to get anything near that thing, just go get beaten with the "you sold out Britain" stick during the next GE.

The votes would come from Labour, maybe even the SNP. If no one arranges for an extension of article 50 for a 2nd referendum what choice do they have, they all claim a 'no-deal' would be like Ragnarok. I'm not saying this has to happen but I think it is the most probable outcome i.e. over 50% chance. I put a no deal at something like 35%, 2nd referendum at 10% or less (so UK has about a 5% chance of staying in the EU at this point).

 

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I think they (the Labour Remainers) are, and they have been for a while. And that's the very reason Labour is not leading in the polls, but is rather more or less on par with that clown car of a UK goverment. Again, yes, they (in htis case Corbyn and McDonnel being deluded) are. however, may I point you to Gove, Davis, Raab and all those other Torie clowns, who want to force May to go back to negotiation table to get a better deal? The same shit, different a... That goes back to the point, as in why nobody wants to touch May'S deal in parliament with a stick. Neither of the big parties has the spine to tell the electorate, there's no happy ending to this, and this is as good a deal as it gets (with the exception of Soubry). Yes, that is also surprising to me. But again, he can bluster all he wants from the opposition benches, the main act in town is the comedy drama known as the Torie goverment. So his nonsense (in contrast to the Tories') has the advantage, that it does not have to clash with an objective reality.

I am not convinced this is the reason Labour are not leading in the polls. Sentiment on the Brexit question does not seem to have shifted much (maybe a slight move to remain, but quite small).

Anyway, the majority of the Tory party are saying this is a good withdrawal agreement, and I'm inclined to think it is. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The votes would come from Labour, maybe even the SNP. If no one arranges for an extension of article 50 for a 2nd referendum what choice do they have, they all claim a 'no-deal' would be like Ragnarok. I'm not saying this has to happen but I think it is the most probable outcome i.e. over 50% chance. I put a no deal at something like 35%, 2nd referendum at 10% or less (so UK has about a 5% chance of staying in the EU at this point).

 

I am not convinced this is the reason Labour are not leading in the polls. Sentiment on the Brexit question does not seem to have shifted much (maybe a slight move to remain, but quite small).

Anyway, the majority of the Tory party are saying this is a good withdrawal agreement, and I'm inclined to think it is. 

 

It doesn’t seem terrible. The ERG were never going to get all they were asking for. I’d personally be prepared to put up with the ‘rule taking’ were it a temporary measure. The worrying aspect is the ability for the EU to veto us ever leaving the backstop. Could we end up in this supposedly temporary far worse position  forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It doesn’t seem terrible. The ERG were never going to get all they were asking for. I’d personally be prepared to put up with the ‘rule taking’ were it a temporary measure. The worrying aspect is the ability for the EU to veto us ever leaving the backstop. Could we end up in this supposedly temporary far worse position  forever?

The British government's explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the draft Brexit agreement:

Acceptable: 22%

Unacceptable: 36%

Unsure: 25%

Haven't heard anything about it: 17%

via @OpiniumResearch, 14 - 15 Nov

 

Hahaha, love the 17%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May's deal will be shot down in the first instance. The plan seems to be that the government will accept that and then run it again (perhaps with minor amendments), arguing that the only choice is between Deal or No Deal. She may also argue that the No Deal Tories could risk no Brexit altogether (by forcing MPs towards voting for a second referendum) or a Jeremy Corbyn government, or both.

The votes are there for a second referendum (although it would require almost all of those 60-odd Tory soft Remainers/Soft Brexiteers-who-would-vote-Remain-over-No Deal to vote it for it), but they hinge on the Labour front bench supporting it. Corbyn will only do that if he is convinced that there is no way to finangle a general election out of this, and it's unclear when that point might come. The timeline is a problem: both a GE and a referendum really require 30 days minimum to run, and Parliament's first vote isn't until early December. If May forces a second vote a couple of weeks later, it puts a referendum back in late January or early February, and it'll be very easy to delay and faff around to make it impossible to hold one before 29 March.

May's plan may involve pushing things down to the wire and asking everyone to back her or watch us crash out without a deal. High stakes stuff.

Corbyn, I think, would prefer us out of the EU and would even prefer May to handle it, so if it all goes tits up afterwards he can pin the blame firmly on her and sail into Downing Street on that basis, whilst right now he knows a GE would be too close to call; Labour going backwards, combined with his soft stance on Brexit, might finally be the thing that unseats him. Better to play the long game, since we know he has little enthusiasm for staying in.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Werthead said:

May's deal will be shot down in the first instance. The plan seems to be that the government will accept that and then run it again (perhaps with minor amendments), arguing that the only choice is between Deal or No Deal. She may also argue that the No Deal Tories could risk no Brexit altogether (by forcing MPs towards voting for a second referendum) or a Jeremy Corbyn government, or both.

The votes are there for a second referendum (although it would require almost all of those 60-odd Tory soft Remainers/Soft Brexiteers-who-would-vote-Remain-over-No Deal to vote it for it), but they hinge on the Labour front bench supporting it. Corbyn will only do that if he is convinced that there is no way to finangle a general election out of this, and it's unclear when that point might come. The timeline is a problem: both a GE and a referendum really require 30 days minimum to run, and Parliament's first vote isn't until early December. If May forces a second vote a couple of weeks later, it puts a referendum back in late January or early February, and it'll be very easy to delay and faff around to make it impossible to hold one before 29 March.

May's plan may involve pushing things down to the wire and asking everyone to back her or watch us crash out without a deal. High stakes stuff.

Corbyn, I think, would prefer us out of the EU and would even prefer May to handle it, so if it all goes tits up afterwards he can pin the blame firmly on her and sail into Downing Street on that basis, whilst right now he knows a GE would be too close to call; Labour going backwards, combined with his soft stance on Brexit, might finally be the thing that unseats him. Better to play the long game, since we know he has little enthusiasm for staying in.

I think you are mostly right about this, especially wrt Corbyn. If it wasn't for the far left takeover of Labour the remainers would be better placed to exploit the ERG dummy-spit. 

However, I believe a 2nd referendum will take longer than 30 days to sort out. As you sort of imply, it will also need a new government. I think the chances are very remote indeed and will depend on the EU agreeing to an extension of the article 50 timetable.

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

However, I believe a 2nd referendum will take longer than 30 days to sort out. As you sort of imply, it will also need a new government. I think the chances are very remote indeed and will depend on the EU agreeing to an extension of the article 50 timetable.

Given that even May hinted she might be prepared to consider it instead of No Deal (although most commentators seem to think that was a bluff), I would not consider it very remote, especially with the likes of JoJo now backing it. It's certainly the only option that I can see commanding a majority in Parliament (with the aforementioned caveats).

May can make it unachievable though. If she is unseated in a coup and a Hard Brexiteer gets in, they won't be able to push No Deal through Parliament either, which then makes a second referendum easier to get through. Ironically, and a few articles have pointed this out, the No Deal crew's intransigence could blow up Brexit altogether (and in a few cases, particularly BoJo, I'm wondering if that wouldn't be to their preference even if they can't say as much).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Werthead said:

Corbyn, I think, would prefer us out of the EU and would even prefer May to handle it, so if it all goes tits up afterwards he can pin the blame firmly on her and sail into Downing Street on that basis, whilst right now he knows a GE would be too close to call; Labour going backwards, combined with his soft stance on Brexit, might finally be the thing that unseats him. Better to play the long game, since we know he has little enthusiasm for staying in.

I was going to ask about Corbyn when you were saying he's angling for a General Election rather than a Referendum, I would have thought Labor is pretty happy to not be in power for this and wouldn't want to sweep into government on the expectation that they're going to fix it (because they can't) unless it was with a ringing endorsement of "Remain" which is never going to happen when he's the leader.

It's like a perfect storm of everything working out just wrong - its the perfect time for a more left leader to have stepped forward and work to undo some of the harm of austerity, but the one leader doing that is personally in favour of Brexit so can't play a real leading role in any remain campaign. The different coalitions of votes in parliament effectively make every option politically untenable - but those are all the options there are so one of them is going to have to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Werthead said:

Given that even May hinted she might be prepared to consider it instead of No Deal (although most commentators seem to think that was a bluff), I would not consider it very remote, especially with the likes of JoJo now backing it. It's certainly the only option that I can see commanding a majority in Parliament (with the aforementioned caveats).

May can make it unachievable though. If she is unseated in a coup and a Hard Brexiteer gets in, they won't be able to push No Deal through Parliament either, which then makes a second referendum easier to get through. Ironically, and a few articles have pointed this out, the No Deal crew's intransigence could blow up Brexit altogether (and in a few cases, particularly BoJo, I'm wondering if that wouldn't be to their preference even if they can't say as much).

No Deal does not have a majority in Parliament, but it's the default if they can't come up with anything else.  It would require primary legislation to revoke the Act which implemented A50.

While there may be a majority for a second referendum, I'm not sure there's a majority for any one form of second referendum.  Is it No Deal V Remain, Deal v Remain, or Deal v No Deal, or a form of multiple choice?  One gets different answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Werthead said:

Given that even May hinted she might be prepared to consider it instead of No Deal (although most commentators seem to think that was a bluff), I would not consider it very remote, especially with the likes of JoJo now backing it. It's certainly the only option that I can see commanding a majority in Parliament (with the aforementioned caveats).

May can make it unachievable though. If she is unseated in a coup and a Hard Brexiteer gets in, they won't be able to push No Deal through Parliament either, which then makes a second referendum easier to get through. Ironically, and a few articles have pointed this out, the No Deal crew's intransigence could blow up Brexit altogether (and in a few cases, particularly BoJo, I'm wondering if that wouldn't be to their preference even if they can't say as much).

There will always be people who want  100% of nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Chorley, Times Ted Box, on the farcical Brexit blitherings of Jez.

 

Labour’s position is they would getter a better deal in three months than the government has managed in two years by asking more nicely, but if they needed longer they could use the transition period to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement that must be agreed for the transition period to come into effect, and he doesn’t like the Brexit deal agreed by Brussels, because it doesn’t provide the exact same benefits of EU membership which he disliked because of state aid and competition rules, but remaining is not necessarily better than leaving with no deal at all, and the outcome of the referendum must be respected but all options remain on the table, but a second referendum is not an option for today but could be tomorrow, and if it was Corbyn doesn’t even know how he would vote.

Link

Also, apparently, McVey became so aggressive and hysterical at the marathon Cabinet meeting other ministers thought they might have to call in the police. 

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SeanF said:

While there may be a majority for a second referendum, I'm not sure there's a majority for any one form of second referendum.  Is it No Deal V Remain, Deal v Remain, or Deal v No Deal, or a form of multiple choice?  One gets different answers.

It would have to be Remain vs No Deal. Anything else is either way too complex to boil down to a referendum question, and if we get a semi-reasonable deal then it's already covered by the 2016 referendum question, so rolling back on it may be democratically dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

It would have to be Remain vs No Deal. Anything else is either way too complex to boil down to a referendum question, and if we get a semi-reasonable deal then it's already covered by the 2016 referendum question, so rolling back on it may be democratically dubious.

Um, but isn't that what we have?

If there were to be a 2nd referendum I'd be inclined to think it would work the other way round; May deal vs Remain. Its legitimacy would presumably come in because Mogg, BoJo and so on have said May's deal is like 'slavery/vassalage' and so is not worth having. Parliament would simply not allow the option of the public voting for a no-deal because they disagree with it. 

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Matt Chorley, Times Ted Box, on the farcical Brexit blitherings of Jez.

 

Labour’s position is they would getter a better deal in three months than the government has managed in two years by asking more nicely, but if they needed longer they could use the transition period to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement that must be agreed for the transition period to come into effect, and he doesn’t like the Brexit deal agreed by Brussels, because it doesn’t provide the exact same benefits of EU membership which he disliked because of state aid and competition rules, but remaining is not necessarily better than leaving with no deal at all, and the outcome of the referendum must be respected but all options remain on the table, but a second referendum is not an option for today but could be tomorrow, and if it was Corbyn doesn’t even know how he would vote. 

Link

Also, apparently, McVey became so aggressive and hysterical at the marathon Cabinet meeting other ministers thought they might have to call in the police. 

Also, water is wet. That Labour has no coherent Brexit policy either, and is trying to sell nonsensical red unicorns (in contrast to blue Tory Unicorns, that seem to be on the verge of extinction by now, and are only on display at the ERG Zoo of fantastic creatures), that is not exactly new. I am pretty sure, that I (as a non-Brit) have been preaching this to the choir here for 2 or more Brexit/British politics threads. But again, that is a conclusion any politically interested observer of average intelligence could draw.

ANd that'S a big part of Labour's polling woes (imho), while Corbyn and McDonnel try to charm that mythical Labour voting leaver, they are continuously flipping off existing Labour remainers. The problem is, that a not so insignificant part of Labour's Momentum grassroots tend to overlook his EU nonsense, because he will end austerity (and bring back the choochoo trains).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Um, but isn't that what we have?

Only if it passes Parliament 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DUP have ordered their MPs to abstain on the next several votes as a warning to May that they are considering tearing up their confidence and supply arrangement.

Presumably if they do that, they'll no doubt return what has been spent so far of the £1 billion bribe they were paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of McVey. But nameless sources stating 'hysterical woman' makes my blood boil. It's such a cheap and lazy way of trying to make someone look foolish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Also, apparently, McVey became so aggressive and hysterical at the marathon Cabinet meeting other ministers thought they might have to call in the police. 

Headline is the "hysterical" woman, while apparently a man shouting at her to shut up in a meeting is acceptable and normal? That's some quality journalism... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm no fan of McVey. But nameless sources stating 'hysterical woman' makes my blood boil. It's such a cheap and lazy way of trying to make someone look foolish. 

It does seem like a particularly harsh attack, especially seeing as she seems to be in the company of colleagues who don't seem to act in rational adult ways either.

But then I wonder who leaked this story.. and why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×