Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Spockydog

UK Politics: What Goes DUP Must Come Down

Recommended Posts

Can anyone explain how a fresh election to resolve Brexit would be perfectly democratic, but a 2nd referendum on Brexit undemocratic?

The irony of course being that a 2nd referendum would actually give a clear course to follow, while an election may very well end in a similar mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A GE absolutely will end in another mess, the only thing it will solve is her not going to back on her word not to hold a 2nd referendum (she'll just go back on her word not to hold a snap election... again, and to not lead the Tories through another election, so she'll only be breaking her word twice with a new GE, rather than o CE on a 2nd ref).

The "advantage" is that it will force labour to put their cards on the table for what they want to do with Brexit - the plan is that labour would split nearly as badly as the Tories would with a GE.

 

So nothing whatsoever to do with governing, or what's good for the country try, and entirely to do with party politics, though this time aimed at splitting the opponents, rather than purely Tory infighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mays words hinted that she thought that the current Parliament had reached the limit of what it could achieve, it being so utterly split, and that it couldn't move on a realistic way forward in its current form. Was she hinting at a GE? I don't know. I think it would be a pretty daft idea, much like the last GE was a daft idea led by Tory motivations. More than likely it would simply result in a hung parliament or tiny majority for one side or the other and nothing would be be solved. 

 

Share this post


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

New Zealand somehow negotiate trade agreements... and our national GDP is less than one twelfth of yours. We also don't have massive shortages of cancer medicine, because while we don't have free trade agreements with various places (hell, up until about twenty years ago, we only had an agreement with Australia), we still trade anyway. We still trade with the EU (and UK), despite facing tariffs and checks. We've only had a FTA with China since 2008, and it wasn't as if we were dirt poor before then.

In this case, the key is giving time for business models to adapt to the end of frictionless trade. Will this hurt? Yes. But a business with two years to prepare can actually prepare, because they know what they're facing - and one can adapt prior fiscal and monetary policy to compensate for the shock, along with state-support once Brexit has taken place.

(There's also the obvious point about replacement agreements - and the UK has been negotiating those - but an upfront clarity about what Brexit would actually entail would reduce the fundamental problem of uncertainty).

Being a little bit involved in that process as part of my job, I'll tell you now, it takes a helluva lot longer than 2 years to negotiate comprehensive trade deals with a single market. It would be an impossible task for the UK to negotiate agreements with all markets with which the EU has agreements with terms that are similar to that of the EU. The UK came to us looking for some help, as it had no competency with trade negotiation 2 years ago. Thinking the UK could have started out with the idea of not doing any kind of negotiated exit with the EU and it could be all fine and dandy with trade agreements in place after 2 years is a crazy fantasy.

The Brits came to us asking for help getting lamb into the USA pretty recently. My response was, our help extends only so far, we're not going to actively assist you to compete into our second biggest lamb market. At the same time to risk pissing off the US domestic lamb sector with whom it's taken a long time to get them from being openly hostile to us to being cautiously cooperative, and even then, it's only the progressive players who like talking to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The Brits came to us asking for help getting lamb into the USA pretty recently. My response was, our help extends only so far, we're not going to actively assist you to compete into our second biggest lamb market. At the same time to risk pissing off the US domestic lamb sector with whom it's taken a long time to get them from being openly hostile to us to being cautiously cooperative, and even then, it's only the progressive players who like talking to us.

But, but, but the commonwealth...

Share this post


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

Mays words hinted that she thought that the current Parliament had reached the limit of what it could achieve, it being so utterly split, and that it couldn't move on a realistic way forward in its current form. Was she hinting at a GE? I don't know. I think it would be a pretty daft idea, much like the last GE was a daft idea led by Tory motivations. More than likely it would simply result in a hung parliament or tiny majority for one side or the other and nothing would be be solved. 

 

It's hard to argue with her diagnosis of the problem, but the idea that this can actually be fixed by a general election is laughable. I'm not even sure how Parliament can be fixed other than finding a permanent solution to the Brexit question and actually moving on from that, which... Is also pretty much impossible? No deal = Parliament stuck with all the fall out for the foreseeable future, revoke = Brexiters white anting and causing chaos for the foreseeable future and no party seems to have enough of one faction to ignore the other.

I still think a 2nd referendum does by far the best job at finding a path forward, and it needs to be very clear on where it leads so if the vote says leave with no deal you can at least proceed with a clear mandate. Ie yes the British people choose major economic pain in exchange for greater sovereignty. The problem with the last vote is it didn't say this due to all the lies and bullshit about what could be achieved - you don't find out if people support that equation when you're telling them there won't be any economic pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Which Tyler said:

FTFY

No, talk about the Empire is not PC. At least that's what I figured from watching that nonsense from afar. So usually Brexiteers talk about the commonwealth (while thinking about the Empire).

You have to speak Brexiteer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

No, talk about the Empire is not PC. At least that's what I figured from watching that nonsense from afar. So usually Brexiteers talk about the commonwealth (while thinking about the Empire).

You have to speak Brexiteer.

Meh.

It's like using the word "fascist" instead of "alt-right" they may prefer the term, but they mean the same f***ing thing; and whilst I granted them benefit of the doubt, they've burned all that up over the last 3 years. (Of course, this is just in relation to those like JRM or my MP who do think this way, yes I know "not all Brexiteers" but it is valid)

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely correct though, The term alt right is not a term for fascist, its relabeling of (neo-)Nazis.

Althought that Nazi rebranding annoys me more, as in the Media plays ball by picking up that term, while those Commonwealth enthusiasts are just so utterly laughable, that I find it much more amusing to use the term commonwealth from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, karaddin said:

It's hard to argue with [May's] diagnosis of the problem, ..

However the problem is entirely down to her.

She tried to ram through her own personal hard Brexit through parliament without being willing to listen to anyone (other then the ERG) or to make the slightest compromise. After going right to the wire and bending the unwritten constitution of the UK to breaking point, she has finally come to the belated realisation that she can't get it through, but has left no time for any alternative solution to be found.

Naturally, with her blinkered viewpoint she thinks "the current parliament has reached the limit of what it can achieve", except that when she says "Parliament" she means the government she is leading - as an autocrat at heart she thinks that Parliament is just there to rubberstamp her decisions.

 

Share this post


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

as an autocrat at heart she thinks that Parliament is just there to rubberstamp her decisions.

I almost agree.

As an autocrat, she thinks parliament is there to make people think they have a voice, but that it's for the executive to make decisions with no obligation to consult with parliament at all of they don't wish to.

See the supreme court case that enforced parliament getting any say whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s entirely down to her. It’s pretty clear there isn’t a singular vision of Brexit going in the house, the indicative votes showed how split we are.

She should have included other parties earlier but it’s not clear there was ever a consensus on anything 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's on her that she's not even trying for another referendum. The one way that might actually improve on the current situation regardless of outcome but she's too selfishly focused on internal party interests to care about what's best for the nation. So she just keeps playing chicken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The indicative votes gave a feel for the general mood in parliament. Using them as a starting point, a moderate PM could probably have forged something that a majority could get behind, if only grudgingly, given the year or so to hammer it out that May has now squandered. A capable and flexible PM, one willing to take on or just ignore the irreconcilables in the ERG, might well have achieved that,

Edited by A wilding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, karaddin said:

It's on her that she's not even trying for another referendum. The one way that might actually improve on the current situation regardless of outcome but she's too selfishly focused on internal party interests to care about what's best for the nation. So she just keeps playing chicken.

That chicken seems to have snuffed it. It has shed it's mortal coil and gone to chicken heaven. It is an ex chicken...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I should be clear that my feelings on the lack of good outcomes rests entirely on the other alternative PMs not looking to be any better at getting out of this hole

Share this post


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

The indicative votes gave a feel for the general mood in parliament. Using them as a starting point, a moderate PM could probably have forged something that a majority could get behind, if only grudgingly, given the year or so to hammer it out that May has now squandered. A capable and flexible PM, one willing to take on or just ignore the irreconcilables in the ERG, might well have achieved that,

I don’t really know what that compromise even is. The two sides are too far apart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There are more than two sides here, even with the polarisation May has now caused. (In my opinion her pandering to the ERG has just encouraged them into even more extreme positions, resulting in an understandable backlash the other way from people appalled by them.)

Edit to add: though I personally am happy that she has ensured that Remain is now back on the table.

Edited by A wilding

Share this post


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

×