UK Politics : Groundhog May

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

True.

What would he want to reform that it makes sense to ask for (i.e. not state aid rules)?

The main reform people want is freedom of movement. And it is not just viable, IMO, to campaign for remain without backing freedom of movement all the way. 

It might be possible to eventually change freedom of movement considering that there is a definite backlash to it in the EU, not just in Britain. But it’s quite a longer term ish goal that won’t be achieved any time soon. 

Its possible to assuage people’s anger at immigration by better benefit reform or employment law, and trying to sell that to the public might work.

However the Brexit Betrayal narrative I fear will be too strong and easy to spread, and anyone thinking Remain will easily win  a second vote would be in for another surprise 

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

However the Brexit Betrayal narrative I fear will be too strong and easy to spread, and anyone thinking Remain will easily win  a second vote would be in for another surprise 

But we now know that whatever form Brexit might actually take, it ain't gonna be good. There will be no Unicorns.  

[Chaircat Meow]

9 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

But we now know that whatever form Brexit might actually take, it ain't gonna be good. There will be no Unicorns.  

Their leaders are already saying the deal is vassalage and slavery, despite the fact nearly all of them wanted to stay in the single market immediately prior to the referendum and some argued for a customs union. For them being betrayed by the elites and ruled by the EU is the way the world is, whatever happens they will find something to be unhappy about and accuse their countrymen of betrayal.

Pointless to try and appease them. 

[Werthead]

34 minutes ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

What would he want to reform that it makes sense to ask for (i.e. not state aid rules)?

The main reform people want is freedom of movement. And it is just not viable, IMO, to campaign for remain without backing freedom of movement all the way. 

Just implement the standard EU rules to kick people out if they haven't found a job within 3 months of arriving in the UK. Cameron could have done that in 2010, he just chose not to because it meant setting up a new system that would be bureaucratic and expensive. It still would be, but nowhere as bureaucratic and expensive as a hard Brexit.

The other things to reform would be EU expenses (I suspect if you looked at the receipts of the EU bureaucracy's expenses, it'd make the 2009 expenses scandal look like nothing). There's quite a few areas where reform of the system is possible in a meaningful way.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

This is also what Corbyn wants. Not the united Tory Party, but certainly Brexit happening under the Tory watch and the resulting shitstorm he can firmly pin on the Tories to secure a Labour victory in 2022 (or whenever). 

If the situation pans out that they do go for a second referendum, then it'll be interesting to see what the hell happens. Will Corbyn go off on holiday again or will he go all in and actually fight properly for Remain? If I was him I'd go for something snappy like "Remain and Reform", point out the problems in the EU and how Britain can tackle them from the inside etc. That's the course that Remain probably should have followed back in 2016.

Do you think Ref2.0 would / could include remain as an option? I would have thought the only referendum that respects the first one would have questions regarding the manner of Brexit, not re-litigating whether to Brexit. Of course if Ref2.0 rejects a no-deal outcome, then unless parliament can pass a Brexit deal Brexit gets put off indefinitely.

If there is an indefinite delay to Brexit because parliament is unable to pass a deal, then a party could campaign on ending the charade and canning the whole Brexit venture, and if it wins the general they have the mandate to put a final end to the process.

[Maltaran]

From the reports I’ve seen, the second referendum would most likely be Remain or May’s Deal, with Parliament ruling out No Deal beforehand.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

If I was him I'd go for something snappy like "Remain and Reform", point out the problems in the EU and how Britain can tackle them from the inside etc. That's the course that Remain probably should have followed back in 2016.

That was the exact tactic that Cameron tried in the 2016 referendum, and it didn't work. It's been tried several times, and doesn't work, largely because most Leavers don't actually have a specific problem with particular EU rules that could be tackled by reform. Most Leavers don't even understand what the EU rules even are. They have a more inchoate, general resentment of 'the EU' bred by years of myths and fictions.  

[SeanF]

At this stage, I think there are more Labour MPs who would vote against a second referendum amendment (plus Ian Austin, Frank Field, and Kelvin Hopkins) than Conservative MPs who would vote in favour.

[Heartofice]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

Just implement the standard EU rules to kick people out if they haven't found a job within 3 months of arriving in the UK. Cameron could have done that in 2010, he just chose not to because it meant setting up a new system that would be bureaucratic and expensive. It still would be, but nowhere as bureaucratic and expensive as a hard Brexit.

The problem with this is the vast majority of EU immigrants have jobs.. pretty low paying jobs, and tend to come over via the offer of a job. Its unlikely to cut down the numbers much (although the idea of Brexit has seemingly cut numbers already)
 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

That was the exact tactic that Cameron tried in the 2016 referendum, and it didn't work. 

Except Cameron strode over the EU suggesting he could get reform, only to be totally rebuked and came away with almost nothing, highlighting how unlikely reform, in a way the UK would prefer, was. Which totally played into the hands of the Leave campaign. 

Most Remain voters have little idea about how EU rules affect them either. People on both sides voted emotionally. 

[Maltaran]

Theresa May to offer MPs no-deal Brexit vote http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47373996

[Heartofice]

https://capx.co/the-real-centre-of-british-politics-may-not-be-where-you-think/

Apparently the centre of British Politics is socially conservative and economically left wing. Sounds about right to me. Any party focusing on those values would probably do very well. Doesn't seem to be where TIG is though, so it will probably fall on its arse.

 

Quote

I’ve heard the political gap that this segment represents jokingly referred to as being for a “fund the NHS, hang the paedophiles” party.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It might be possible to eventually change freedom of movement considering that there is a definite backlash to it in the EU, not just in Britain. But it’s quite a longer term ish goal that won’t be achieved any time soon.  

The main issue is not with FoM as such, it's more the refugees that is causing frictions within the EU.

A bit simplified, the main points of entry into the EU (for lack of a better expression) feel (justifiably) like they have to deal with it alone. Other states (Eastern Europe around Hungary and Poland) don't want to take any refugees in. Germany and France are advocating for some European allocation mechanism, so that every country has to take some of the load off from Italy, Spain and Greece. Like I said, the Eastern Europeans don't feel like it. The result is the rather shameful situations that Italy and Malta have closed off their harbors for ships that rescue refugees from drowning.

That is however not the same as freedom of movement. As has been repeated over and over again, there are already restrictions in place, likesay you have to be able to provide for yourself in your new country. Check Werthead's post.

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Except Cameron strode over the EU suggesting he could get reform, only to be totally rebuked and came away with almost nothing, highlighting how unlikely reform, in a way the UK would prefer, was. Which totally played into the hands of the Leave campaign. 

Please, Cameron wanted even more cherry picking for the UK, than it already has. The other EU leaders (quite rightly) told him to get lost when he ask for more. There was only that much British exceptionalism you can get away with. That Cameron was tonedeaf to the grumbling of the other EU members over the special treatment of the UK, that is really his problem.

 

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The main issue is not with FoM as such, it's more the refugees that is causing frictions within the EU.

The main issue with FoM in the UK was.. Freedom of Movement. Enormous numbers of immigrants in a short space of time, with threats of even more in the future with no real ability to control it. 

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Please, Cameron wanted even more cherry picking for the UK, than it already has. The other EU leaders (quite rightly) told him to get lost when he ask for more. There was only that much British exceptionalism you can get away with. That Cameron was tonedeaf to the grumbling of the other EU members over the special treatment of the UK, that is really his problem.

 

Cameron suggested he could get deals with the EU that they would never deliver, and it highlighted that reform in a way that the UK would prefer simply isn't possible. It was a big mistake by Cameron.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

37 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The main issue with FoM in the UK was.. Freedom of Movement. Enormous numbers of immigrants in a short space of time, with threats of even more in the future with no real ability to control it. 

For the UK that might be true, however you mentioned other European countries. As for the UK again, check what Werthead said, there are restrictions, just that the UK was never arsed to really enforce them.

38 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Cameron suggested he could get deals with the EU that they would never deliver, and it highlighted that reform in a way that the UK would prefer simply isn't possible. It was a big mistake by Cameron.

You say reform, we hear cherry picking. There was this quite infamous quote from some Cameron interview, in which he said: I believe it is right for us to choose the bits of Europe we like. That's not actually reform, that's just a display of British exceptionalism and cherry picking. The UK alaredy had/has so many opt outs and privileges and Cameron wanted to build on top of that. That was his idea of reform. Although, like I said, I find the use of the term reform there to be laughable.

[Jen'ari]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

https://capx.co/the-real-centre-of-british-politics-may-not-be-where-you-think/

Apparently the centre of British Politics is socially conservative and economically left wing. Sounds about right to me. Any party focusing on those values would probably do very well. Doesn't seem to be where TIG is though, so it will probably fall on its arse.

 

 

For me it’s the other way around, I’m more liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic ones. Personally I’m not against what the MPs in TIG have done at all, if one stood in the constituency that I live in I’d not rule out voting for them.

[The Anti-Targ]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

That was the exact tactic that Cameron tried in the 2016 referendum, and it didn't work. It's been tried several times, and doesn't work, largely because most Leavers don't actually have a specific problem with particular EU rules that could be tackled by reform. Most Leavers don't even understand what the EU rules even are. They have a more inchoate, general resentment of 'the EU' bred by years of myths and fictions.  

I wonder if Corbyn is among them. I keep hearing reports that he's a long-standing and well known Euro-skeptic. Has he advanced coherent reasoning for being such?

 

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The problem with this is the vast majority of EU immigrants have jobs.. pretty low paying jobs, and tend to come over via the offer of a job. Its unlikely to cut down the numbers much (although the idea of Brexit has seemingly cut numbers already)
 

 

But the thing is, you don't need to actually kick out all that many people, you just need to repeat loudly and often that Continentals who don't find work will be sent packing and will not end up sucking on the hard working British taxpayer's welfare teat. And you need the occasional headline of the govt kicking out a family with young kids. If the govt is hardline enough to kick kids out of the country it must be doing its job, right?

[Chaircat Meow]

57 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder if Corbyn is among them. I keep hearing reports that he's a long-standing and well known Euro-skeptic. Has he advanced coherent reasoning for being such?

Of course not, he's Jeremy Corbyn; he doesn't do coherent reasoning. His anti-EU views, when expressed, are bizarre and straight out of the loony left play book.

Anyway, looks like Ian Dunt may have sussed out May's plan. I'm not sure I agree that this is her plan in the sense it is a conscious design because I think she survives day by day and hasn't gamed everything out. However, it looks like we have to decide whether to take part in the EP elections by early May. If we haven't then 1 July becomes a cliff edge. She's currently saying voting in the EP elections would be a betrayal of democracy or something, so any extension she wants will be short, with a crash out date of 1 July. I do wonder though if the EU would force a longer extension (as Olly Robbins suggested), on the correct grounds three months is just pointless.

Anyway, this is why reports are that the ERG are not that worried about the extension, they think this gives time to accelerate no deal preparations and that there will just be another cliff edge coming along soon where they will get another shot at no deal. 

This does of course mean they will be unlikely to vote for the deal on 12 March though so the 2nd ref also has a shot. There is more support in Parliament for a 2nd ref than the deal at the moment. To get the ref through we need about an extra thirty or so mps, now that Corbyn has sort of come on board, to swing behind it. The deal needs about 100. However, I think some of the opposition to a deal will be softer than opposition to a ref. 

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I understood Labour's stance correctly (then it doesn't make sense, so I probably udnerstood it correctly).

Labour will move for a second referendum if May's deal gets accepted by parliament.

Makes sense from party politics perspective. As in, ok, we can let the electorate tell May to f... off again.

But what it doesn't say is, that Labour will support a second referendum if May's deal gets rejected.

Which is the bit I am trying to make sense of. And it really doesn't, so I assume since this Corbyn'sLabour party, is indeed the party line right now.

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I understood Labour's stance correctly (then it doesn't make sense, so I probably udnerstood it correctly).

Labour will move for a second referendum if May's deal gets accepted by parliament.

Makes sense from party politics perspective. As in, ok, we can let the electorate tell May to f... off again.

But what it doesn't say is, that Labour will support a second referendum if May's deal gets rejected.

Which is the bit I am trying to make sense of. And it really doesn't, so I assume since this Corbyn'sLabour party, is indeed the party line right now.

This is unclear. Labour hasn't pinned down, as far as I know, the exact way it intends to support a 2nd (or 3rd, if you prefer) referendum. Corbyn did state the plan in a particularly demented way in the HoC but others have stated it rather more clearly (such as Starmer and Thornberry). And even Corbyn's outline was sort of a version of the Kyle amendment, and all the usual suspects were furious with him (Burgon, Milne etc) so not plausible to say nothing has changed here. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Thornberry's tweet isn't exactly based on a sound logical reality either.

 

I mean I wasn't aware Labour had negotiated an alternative deal with the EU. So not really sure how May could technically speaking accept Labour's deal.

Let's assume she means, May accepts, that she has to go to Brussels and get a permanent customs union into the declaration for the future relationship. Of course, that won't be legally binding, as the part about the future relationship just isn't. That's not even talking baout the EU considering Labour's CU a better starting point for negotiations, and not the final destination. But anyway, let's assume May does as she is told and gets that bit into the non-binding future relationship bit, will Labour then support the WA? Note that one remains more or less untouched, and is legally binding.