Jump to content
Pebble

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

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The issue with a second referendum is that if Remain win narrowly, can Leave demand two-out-of-three?

Well, no. That's not the issue. A second referendum would be on a different question, that of whether to approve an actual concrete deal, so unless Leave could make some case for a third referendum this doesn't arise.

Though let's not kid ourselves. Leading Leavers will never give up, no matter if they lose a second referendum 90-10, because their motivation isn't money, or the terms of membership, or anything else. They just find foreigners icky. They have this weird sense of English exceptionalism and expect the world to be constantly grateful that England exists. And it is England. They've made that very clear. We know they're happy to give up Ireland and Scotland, and I have no doubt they'd hand over Wales, if it meant leaving the EU.

There are issues with a second referendum in principle and in practice, but these could be overcome. The question would need to be clear and the details set out. A three-option referendum could not work. In particular, there would need to be a clear, agreed position on what happened if Remain won, because 'as you were' is frankly not a given. Both the EU and the UK may feel some things need to change in light of everything that's happened. Time is a huge issue: there simply isn't any at present, and the EU would need to agree to waive the existing timetable more or less completely. The goodwill simply might not be there for that.

But 'best two out of three' isn't one of the issues, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A second referendum even if it votes for "Leave with no deal" is such a better state of affairs than the current one, since then there is no doubt about the will of the people demanding it. 

Share this post


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

Well, no. That's not the issue. A second referendum would be on a different question, that of whether to approve an actual concrete deal, so unless Leave could make some case for a third referendum this doesn't arise.

Though let's not kid ourselves. Leading Leavers will never give up, no matter if they lose a second referendum 90-10, because their motivation isn't money, or the terms of membership, or anything else. They just find foreigners icky. They have this weird sense of English exceptionalism and expect the world to be constantly grateful that England exists. And it is England. They've made that very clear. We know they're happy to give up Ireland and Scotland, and I have no doubt they'd hand over Wales, if it meant leaving the EU.

There are issues with a second referendum in principle and in practice, but these could be overcome. The question would need to be clear and the details set out. A three-option referendum could not work. In particular, there would need to be a clear, agreed position on what happened if Remain won, because 'as you were' is frankly not a given. Both the EU and the UK may feel some things need to change in light of everything that's happened. Time is a huge issue: there simply isn't any at present, and the EU would need to agree to waive the existing timetable more or less completely. The goodwill simply might not be there for that.

But 'best two out of three' isn't one of the issues, no.

Speaking for myself, I value Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland being part of the UK, as well as supporting Brexit.

Share this post


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

Speaking for myself, I value Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland being part of the UK, as well as supporting Brexit.

Unless you're a 'leading Leaver', that's nice, but irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mormont said:

Time is a huge issue: there simply isn't any at present, and the EU would need to agree to waive the existing timetable more or less completely. The goodwill simply might not be there for that.

I think the goodwill on the EU side is there. There was this statement some time ago, the EU would grant an extension of the process (or put it on hold temporarily) under two conditions. A second referendum. Or a hypothetical GE with Labour under Umunna (or somebody else) campaigning on remain. Binning the whole process is still a much more desirable outcome than Brexit afterall.

Anyway, like I said, it will be more interesting to see what happens, once May signs up to the Backstop for Ireland.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The issue with a second referendum is that if Remain win narrowly, can Leave demand two-out-of-three?

Since it would be the third referendum, no :P

That said, if Remain won narrowly, the argument would be to remain in the EU and then work to reform it rather than leaving to spite ourselves. More of a pain would be Remain winning by 51% or something and UKIP making a comeback yada yada yada.

Share this post


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

Phillip Green is the racist pervert. Awesome. 

Allegedly.

And Peter Hain is the guy who feels it's his bounden duty to let us all know, even though two of the people who signed NDAs didn't want Green named, and even though a court was due to rule on the issue. Grandstanding, pure and simple.

Share this post


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

More of a pain would be Remain winning by 51% or something and UKIP making a comeback yada yada yada.

That argument I found almost as annoying as Labour's non-existent Brexit policy and people defending it.

I mean, think about it. You are suggeting, we give them what they want, so that they fulfilled their purpose and become obsolete.  That's like saying, let's just shoot all the folks of colour to make the KKK go away.

Share this post


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

That argument I found almost as annoying as Labour's non-existent Brexit policy and people defending it.

I mean, think about it. You are suggeting, we give them what they want, so that they fulfilled their purpose and become obsolete.  That's like saying, let's just shoot all the folks of colour to make the KKK go away.

I said it would be irritating, not that it wouldn't be a price worth paying. It would, but the angsting about the EU would continue. Remain would need to win by a big margin (at least 60-65%) to shut these people up for another generation or two.

Share this post


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

I said it would be irritating, not that it wouldn't be a price worth paying. It would, but the angsting about the EU would continue. Remain would need to win by a big margin (at least 60-65%) to shut these people up for another generation or two.

Nothing will shut them up, they didn't shut up for 40 years. 
But i really don't care. Why should we be dictated to by ERG headbangers and Kippers?
 

A peoples vote is the only sensible way out of this mess. The logic of a new vote is that we have to have some means of thinking again when a referendum results in a colossally bad course of action, with fraudulent narrow majority gained by lies and law breaking. Without that facility, our democratic system is vulnerable forever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Phillip Green is the racist pervert. Awesome. 

 

21 hours ago, mormont said:

Allegedly.

And Peter Hain is the guy who feels it's his bounden duty to let us all know, even though two of the people who signed NDAs didn't want Green named, and even though a court was due to rule on the issue. Grandstanding, pure and simple.

This was not a wise move by Lord Hain.  It turns out that he's a consultant to the solicitors who are acting for Sir Philip Green.  the Daily Telegraph.  Their PI Insurer will have a fit.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

 

This was not a wise move by Lord Hain.  It turns out that he's a consultant to the solicitors who are acting for Sir Philip Green.  the Daily Telegraph.  Their PI Insurer will have a fit.

Both the lawyers and Hain have put out statements saying they didn't tell him anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyer and ex Tory Attorney General Dominic Grieve had me swearing at the radio on the way home tonight. He was pontificating about Hain undermining the rule of law that allows anyone to go to court to assert their rights - in this case to silence people you have threatened/bribed into signing NDAs.
 
 Not "anyone" you berk Grieve. Only the 0.1% (which you are so much a part of that you forget anyone else exists) who can afford the legal fees to do so. :tantrum:
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Lawyer and ex Tory Attorney General Dominic Grieve had me swearing at the radio on the way home tonight. He was pontificating about Hain undermining the rule of law that allows anyone to go to court to assert their rights - in this case to silence people you have threatened/bribed into signing NDAs.
 
 Not "anyone" you berk Grieve. Only the 0.1% (which you are so much a part of that you forget anyone else exists) who can afford the legal fees to do so. :tantrum:

I totally agree on access to law being limited by cash. However... in this case, the people challenging Green were the Telegraph, who are absolutely part of the 0.1% themselves and not short of a bob or two.

It takes a lot to make me agree with Grieve. But Hain is completely in the wrong here. Again, two of the subjects of the NDAs did not want the Telegraph to publish, and the injunction granted was only temporary. There was no reason to break the injunction at this time. Hain was either ignorant of the details of the case, or he was gloryhunting. I'm not sure which would be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not so much how deep the Telegraph's pockets are, more that the wealthy think they should have the right to stop the media reporting on their activities.

Whether Hain was right or wrong, it felt that Grieve was more or less openly proclaiming that the purpose of law is to maintain the privileges of the wealthy and powerful, while apparently thinking that no one could possibly object to that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother made the point too that by outing him early, Hain may have prevented a precedent being set if the eventual decision did end up being that the Telegraph were allowed to publish.

Share this post


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

It is not so much how deep the Telegraph's pockets are, more that the wealthy think they should have the right to stop the media reporting on their activities.

The issue is a bit more complex than that, though. It's not like the superinjunction situation, where the legal restriction is specifically aimed at the media to prevent reporting. NDAs in these situations are designed to protect the company, and its office holders, sure: but they also include protections for the employee. For example, it's common for them to include a reference from the employer agreed with the employee, meaning the employer can't (in theory) blackball or badmouth the employee as a troublemaker or even mention the dispute to a future employer.

That can be valuable to an employee, which is presumably one reason why two of the employees didn't want the Telegraph story published. Their interests need to be balanced against the public interest in the story. That is a job for the courts. Not a random, unelected parliamentarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A wilding said:

It is not so much how deep the Telegraph's pockets are, more that the wealthy think they should have the right to stop the media reporting on their activities.

Whether Hain was right or wrong, it felt that Grieve was more or less openly proclaiming that the purpose of law is to maintain the privileges of the wealthy and powerful, while apparently thinking that no one could possibly object to that.

 

I think the fact that it was a temporary injunction is important here. Why did Hain feel it necessary to name Green now, instead of waiting for the courts to make a final decision? 

Share this post


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

×