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

[williamjm]

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Not really. She'll be well enough off and I think history's final judgement will, "Absolutely any PM trying to get through this period would have been utterly fucked, so whatever" (her record as Home Secretary will be somewhat more damning, I suspect).

The main takeway from today's antics is that Parliament will feel much more in control and will feel much more confident of being able to shoot down May's bill next week and propose something else (Norway+ and, if that fails to get through, then Brexit Ref II).

There was some speculation that some of May's Tory allies think the prospect of amendments might make the rebels more likely to back May's plan, since they might want to avoid giving opposition parties the chance to shape Brexit. Perhaps it might bring a few over, but I suspect the likes of Rees-Mogg are too stubborn and think May's plan is too far from what they want to ever back it.

[mormont]

Worth reading the Express ComRes poll published today, which confirms what we already knew: most voters know what they don't want, but they have no fucking idea what they do want when it comes to Brexit. 

https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/daily-express-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-2018/

Anyone pretending that they're speaking for the 'will of the people' is a fraud. 'The people' are confused, uninformed and lost. 

[Heartofice]

Quote

• The country is split down the middle over almost every aspect of Brexit, with one notable exception: two thirds of voters say that when Brexit is complete, “the UK should try to become the lowest tax, business-friendliest country in Europe, focused on building strong international trade links”. This is also the majority-held view across all age groups (18-34 56%, 35-54 60%, 55+ 77%) and political affiliations (including 54% of Labour voters).

This was one part where people seem to be in agreement.. which seems to go against the idea that everyone is crying out for a socialist government.

[mormont]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

This was one part where people seem to be in agreement.. which seems to go against the idea that everyone is crying out for a socialist government.

If you know anything about political polling, though, you'd disregard that finding. 

People will usually approve of low taxes and being 'business-friendly' in polls. But they will, at the same time, oppose cuts and austerity and condemn business that don't pay enough tax. IOW, this is quite a normal finding for an opinion poll using a leading question. 

[Heartofice]

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

If you know anything about political polling, though, you'd disregard that finding. 

People will usually approve of low taxes and being 'business-friendly' in polls. But they will, at the same time, oppose cuts and austerity and condemn business that don't pay enough tax. IOW, this is quite a normal finding for an opinion poll using a leading question. 

Lol, yes I doubt you'd get much traction asking ' Do you want a high tax, business unfriendly country with huge unemployment' 

We'll see if Corbyn wants to put that in his manifesto. 

[SeanF]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 9:42 PM, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 

I must say I'm surprised by the Conservatives' reaction to the proposals.  I expected that the ERG would shout a bit, but then decide that half a loaf was better than no loaf.

Assuming that the ECJ uphold the Advocate General's opinion that the A50 notification can be revoked without consequences, I expect that's what Parliament will do, if the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down.

Then, we'll elect a bunch of loons in the next round of EU elections,

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

The government has published its guide for applying for residency in the UK for EU citizens. https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

It’s making a few people at my work concerned, specifically the Norwegians whose fate is still apparently to be negotiated.

I was surprised to see it published this week, given that it is quite likely that the deal will get voted down, which could presumably change how this works.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Who summoned me here, with an empty quote?

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Assuming that the ECJ uphold the Advocate General's opinion that the A50 notification can be revoked without consequences, I expect that's what Parliament will do, if the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down.

I am not sure, but didn't his opinion also include the words good faith? So I don't think the ERG's idea, of revoking article 50 to reset the clock and trigger it again is going to fly. As in, that is not exactly good faith (rather the opposite, which was a bit of the hallmark of Davis approach during his glorious tenure as Brexit secretary)

And I don't think there's a way the UK can revoke it in good faith right now. So I think there's got to be a referendum first.

Otoh I am still somewhat surprised that there's still the idea of going full Norway floating around. If I am not mistaken the Norwegian goverment is not exactly thrilled about the idea of the UK using their club as stepping stone on their way out. That, and well, and the fact there'S not exactly too much time left to get the legal drafts ready for it either.

So you should really decide what you want (REALISTICALLY!) and get on with it. Be it in, or out. If it's out, you should really come up with a specific idea what you want as future relationship. A custom's arrangement (really Norway model) or some Canada style FTA, or the Turkey like backstop. And better don't waste years arguing with yourself about which unicorn is gonna get shot down. As the clock will be ticking down even more mercilessly at the next stage of negotiations.

[mormont]

14 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Who summoned me here, with an empty quote?

I am not sure, but didn't his opinion also include the words good faith? So I don't think the ERG's idea, of revoking article 50 to reset the clock and trigger it again is going to fly. As in, that is not exactly good faith (rather the opposite, which was a bit of the hallmark of Davis approach during his glorious tenure as Brexit secretary)

And I don't think there's a way the UK can revoke it in good faith right now. So I think there's got to be a referendum first.

Otoh I am still somewhat surprised that there's still the idea of going full Norway floating around. If I am not mistaken the Norwegian goverment is not exactly thrilled about the idea of the UK using their club as stepping stone on their way out. That, and well, and the fact there'S not exactly too much time left to get the legal drafts ready for it either.

So you should really decide what you want (REALISTICALLY!) and get on with it. Be it in, or out. If it's out, you should really come up with a specific idea what you want as future relationship. A custom's arrangement (really Norway model) or some Canada style FTA, or the Turkey like backstop. And better don't waste years arguing with yourself about which unicorn is gonna get shot down. As the clock will be ticking down even more mercilessly at the next stage of negotiations.

I think it's fair to say that at no point in this entire process - and I'm going back at least twenty years - have leavers ever decided or even given serious thought to what it is they want, other than 'not to be in the EU'. It's only now that they finally have to that this has even surfaced on their radar as an issue. 

The idea that they can now unite behind any vision of Brexit, realistic or not, is itself a unicorn. 

Whatever his other flaws, Corbyn was right when he said the other day:

Quote

Just like her predecessor, who called a referendum without preparing for the eventuality of a Leave vote, the Prime Minister has seen these negotiations only as an exercise in the internal management of the Conservative Party. And she didn’t even manage that.

Of course, he was saying this to make the case for his own unicorn, but nevertheless, it's true.

[Heartofice]

14 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So you should really decide what you want (REALISTICALLY!) and get on with it. Be it in, or out. If it's out, you should really come up with a specific idea what you want as future relationship. A custom's arrangement (really Norway model) or some Canada style FTA, or the Turkey like backstop. And better don't waste years arguing with yourself about which unicorn is gonna get shot down. As the clock will be ticking down even more mercilessly at the next stage of negotiations.

To be fair, when the country is as split as it is on what it wants, then there really is no answer to that question. In some ways May's solution is the answer... the fact that its an awful answer kind of sums up the situation.

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

To be fair, when the country is as split as it is on what it wants, then there really is no answer to that question. In some ways May's solution is the answer... the fact that its an awful answer kind of sums up the situation.

How is May's solution the answer when it can't command majority support and isn't what the country wants either?

This really is the gist of the government's current case - 'no option has majority support so this plan is the answer'. It amounts to 'they're all unpopular so you might as well pick this one'. It ignores the reality that the same argument can be made for literally any other option on the table. 

[Heartofice]

Just now, mormont said:

How is May's solution the answer when it can't command majority support and isn't what the country wants either?

This really is the gist of the government's current case - 'no option has majority support so this plan is the answer'. It amounts to 'they're all unpopular so you might as well pick this one'. It ignores the reality that the same argument can be made for literally any other option on the table. 

Well yes, exactly. Its such a mish-mash and watered down version of what different groups are calling for that it answers nothing at all and is universally hated. I don't know whether there is a solution that could command majority support. 

There is no chance this will get through Parliament anyway. But whatever amendments get added to it will not make it any better as far as I can tell. There is still the possibility of revoking article 50, and I think that is more and more likely as time goes on, though Grieve says that won't happen without a second referendum (or "People Vote" pffft!).

I'm going more and more  into the 'Brexit won't even happen' mindset every day now. Its the only way to get through the day.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

I think it's fair to say that at no point in this entire process - and I'm going back at least twenty years - have leavers ever decided or even given serious thought to what it is they want, other than 'not to be in the EU'. It's only now that they finally have to that this has even surfaced on their radar as an issue. 

Well, I've read the analogy of Brexiteers being the dogs who caught the car and are now clueless what to do with it a good while ago. Anyway, that doesn't make a stark reality going away.

2 hours ago, mormont said:

The idea that they can now unite behind any vision of Brexit, realistic or not, is itself a unicorn. 

They pretty much have to. If they ever intend to get out of the backstop (if May's deal somehow survives Westminster), unless crash and burn is the desired outcome (assuming that Brexit is still to proceed).

It's worth remembering, that the seperation is the supposedly much, much, easier part of the Brexit negotiations, the tricky part will be the future relations, so next 3-4 years (which won't be enough anyway) in this process. And the way, the UK has handled the easy part, is not really inspiring too much confidence. If the UK is again to bicker amongst itself what fantasy they are chasing, there won't be a future deal in place in time. And the backstop will be in place for a decade (at the very least).

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

though Grieve says that won't happen without a second referendum (or "People Vote" pffft!).

How else do you suppose you can democratically legitimize revoking article 50? The last referendum has been blown up to such an enormous size (will of the people, it must proceed) with both major parties having had that in their last manifesto, that you'd think it's the Lord's gospel carved in stone. Personally, I find it problematic from a democratic perspective to just say after two years, ah, you know what, forget about it.  So at this point, I think, you kinda have to return it to the plebs and hope they changed their mind. If they haven't, well then (as harsh as it sounds), godspeed. Maybe the dog has managed to obtain a driver'S license.

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

How else do you suppose you can democratically legitimize revoking article 50? The last referendum has been blown up to such an enormous size (will of the people, it must proceed) with both major parties having had that in their last manifesto, that you'd think it's the Lord's gospel carved in stone. Personally, I find it problematic from a democratic perspective to just say after two years, ah, you know what, forget about it.  So at this point, I think, you kinda have to return it to the plebs and hope they changed their mind. If they haven't, well then (as harsh as it sounds), godspeed. Maybe the dog has managed to obtain a driver'S license.

I suspect the plan all along was to have a second referendum to get us to cancel Brexit.  The question needs to be 'We've balls'd this Brexit stuff right up, how just how incompetent do you think we are: Somewhat / Very / Completely'
The answer determining what level of backtracking we do. 

[SeanF]

17 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Who summoned me here, with an empty quote?

I am not sure, but didn't his opinion also include the words good faith? So I don't think the ERG's idea, of revoking article 50 to reset the clock and trigger it again is going to fly. As in, that is not exactly good faith (rather the opposite, which was a bit of the hallmark of Davis approach during his glorious tenure as Brexit secretary)

And I don't think there's a way the UK can revoke it in good faith right now. So I think there's got to be a referendum first.

Otoh I am still somewhat surprised that there's still the idea of going full Norway floating around. If I am not mistaken the Norwegian goverment is not exactly thrilled about the idea of the UK using their club as stepping stone on their way out. That, and well, and the fact there'S not exactly too much time left to get the legal drafts ready for it either.

So you should really decide what you want (REALISTICALLY!) and get on with it. Be it in, or out. If it's out, you should really come up with a specific idea what you want as future relationship. A custom's arrangement (really Norway model) or some Canada style FTA, or the Turkey like backstop. And better don't waste years arguing with yourself about which unicorn is gonna get shot down. As the clock will be ticking down even more mercilessly at the next stage of negotiations.

The  only requirement is that revocation of A50 is in accordance with the UK's constitutional requirements, which would means an Act of Parliament.

 

37 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well, I've read the analogy of Brexiteers being the dogs who caught the car and are now clueless what to do with it a good while ago. Anyway, that doesn't make a stark reality going away.

They pretty much have to. If they ever intend to get out of the backstop (if May's deal somehow survives Westminster), unless crash and burn is the desired outcome (assuming that Brexit is still to proceed).

It's worth remembering, that the seperation is the supposedly much, much, easier part of the Brexit negotiations, the tricky part will be the future relations, so next 3-4 years (which won't be enough anyway) in this process. And the way, the UK has handled the easy part, is not really inspiring too much confidence. If the UK is again to bicker amongst itself what fantasy they are chasing, there won't be a future deal in place in time. And the backstop will be in place for a decade (at the very least).

How else do you suppose you can democratically legitimize revoking article 50? The last referendum has been blown up to such an enormous size (will of the people, it must proceed) with both major parties having had that in their last manifesto, that you'd think it's the Lord's gospel carved in stone. Personally, I find it problematic from a democratic perspective to just say after two years, ah, you know what, forget about it.  So at this point, I think, you kinda have to return it to the plebs and hope they changed their mind. If they haven't, well then (as harsh as it sounds), godspeed. Maybe the dog has managed to obtain a driver'S license.

If MPs simply put to the public a question "Do you want to revoke A50?"  they'll probably get the response "What part of Leave don't you understand"?

It's more likely they'd try to load the question by giving the public a choice between Remian or accepting a deal that MP's are strongly opposed to.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

They pretty much have to.

Doesn't mean they can or will.

Brexit is kind of like that moment in a cartoon when Wile E Coyote runs off the cliff. We are now at the moment where he realises that he's going to fall, and desperately tries to save himself, but can't. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I suspect the plan all along was to have a second referendum to get us to cancel Brexit.  The question needs to be 'We've balls'd this Brexit stuff right up, how just how incompetent do you think we are: Somewhat / Very / Completely'

Nope. This form of quesiton implies, there was any such thing as a succesful Brexit, and a better on deal on offer, if the UK had just played its hand right. Which is fighting the referendum on Brexiteers terms, again.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

If MPs simply put to the public a question "Do you want to revoke A50?"  they'll probably get the response "What part of Leave don't you understand"?

Like I said, godspeed then. The British public got a glimpse behind the curtain, if they still insist on marching over the cliff, then it can't be helped.

I mean, if places like that town in Wales with that Airbus plant (too lazy to look up the town's name), vote again to leave, despite knowing that Airbus will move operations to the continent in that case, then there's really very little to be done. Or to coing a phrase, you can't fix stupid. I suppose, Toyota won't remain quiet this time around either. So the same can be applied to leave central Southampton.

 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nope. This form of quesiton implies, there was any such thing as a succesful Brexit, and a better on deal on offer, if the UK had just played its hand right. Which is fighting the referendum on Brexiteers terms, again.

I'm not sure I would ever use the word successful, but if you wanted to leave the EU and do it in the least painful way, that sets you up for a better future, its difficult to imagine a worse way of accomplishing that than we've seen so far. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Heartofice said:

I'm not sure I would ever use the word successful, but if you wanted to leave the EU and do it in the least painful way, that sets you up for a better future, its difficult to imagine a worse way of accomplishing that than we've seen so far. 

That's the entire point of Brexit. THere's two simple truths, which BRexiters simply seem to fail to understand. You can't be treated better outside by the club, then a member inside the club. And, that out means out (somebody explain that Corbyn when he talks about a customs partnership with the EU, in which he wants to have influence over the EU trade policies).

Then you have to define what you mean by least painful? Economically, that would be Norway (putting aside Norway's objection to it). But then again, why would you trade away a position as one of the leading rule makers in the club, to become a mere rule taker? That cannot be sold on a political level. Or in a sane world, it couldn't be sold, I should say.

If you are in it for lofty concepts like sovereignty (putting aside the fact, that every international treaty (including FTAs) trades away part of the sovereignty) or freedom (of whatever imaginary shackles Brussels has put on the proud Britania), then you have to accept that it will wreck the economy. If you are willing to pay that price, again, godspeed. That you will likely be free of protections for workers, the enviroment and other stuff you may like, that is part of the new found freedom.

It'S really either, or.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That's the entire point of Brexit. THere's two simple truths, which BRexiters simply seem to fail to understand. You can't be treated better outside by the club, then a member inside the club. And, that out means out (somebody explain that Corbyn when he talks about a customs partnership with the EU, in which he wants to have influence over the EU trade policies).

Then you have to define what you mean by least painful? Economically, that would be Norway (putting aside Norway's objection to it). But then again, why would you trade away a position as one of the leading rule makers in the club, to become a mere rule taker? That cannot be sold on a political level. Or in a sane world, it couldn't be sold, I should say.

If you are in it for lofty concepts like sovereignty (putting aside the fact, that every international treaty (including FTAs) trades away part of the sovereignty) or freedom (of whatever imaginary shackles Brussels has put on the proud Britania), then you have to accept that it will wreck the economy. If you are willing to pay that price, again, godspeed. That you will likely be free of protections for workers, the enviroment and other stuff you may like, that is part of the new found freedom.

It'S really either, or.

You can't have an arrangement that gives you all the benefits of EU membership and none of the costs.

But, you can take the view that the costs of membership outweigh the benefits (which is my view).  The EU is not just about harmonising widget standards, or lowering roaming charges (in which case, membership would not be an issue).  But, it is about creating a new State, which I want no part of, and feel no attachment towards.   From my point of view, EFTA/EEA membership would be preferable to the present situation., as indeed is the kind of relationship envisaged in the Political Declaration.