Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Spockydog

UK Politics: What Goes DUP Must Come Down

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, A wilding said:

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.

Yea, what compromise do you think could have got through Parliament and held the Tory party together?

I can't think of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nothing Has Changed said:

Yea, what compromise do you think could have got through Parliament and held the Tory party together? 

With all due respect, but fuck the Tory party.

I mean, you are saying compromises that would've made it through parliament (the nations representatives) are less important than the unity of your party. Aren't conservative usually big on those country before party speeches? But you are saying the exact opposite, national interest takes a backseat here, as the Tory party just comes first.

Share this post


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

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.

Well you can basically split almost all the votes taken so far by Tory and Labour / everyone else. Labour have no intention of voting for Mays deal, seemingly ever. Tories have no intention of voting for a customs union (although a small number seem to be more interested in this). I don't think the "pandering to the ERG" has really much to do with anything.

There just seems to be very different ideas about what Brexit means amongst MPs. 

Share this post


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

With all due respect, but fuck the Tory party.

I mean, you are saying compromises that would've made it through parliament (the nations representatives) are less important than the unity of your party. Aren't conservative usually big on those country before party speeches? But you are saying the exact opposite, national interest takes a backseat here, as the Tory party just comes first.

This is how it works, the Labour party would do exactly the same; they held the first referendum precisely to avoid a split. If there was an election tomorrow and the Jizzrag secured a majority of 10 he would be in precisely the same position as May. A majority of his party would back whatever daft deal he came up with, but maybe a 100 or so Remainers would refuse to vote for it and the Tories would also refuse to vote for it, many of them simply because it was Labour's deal. If he compromised, watered it down a bit, or something, so that it could be passed with a hefty Tory vote, he would split the Labour party and become hated by a large portion of the base. If he tacked to Remain as hard as he could the same situation would arise - rebellion from the soft-Brexit wing. 

When you have what is essentially a two party system and both parties are split at least two ways it creates this vicious trilemma which means whatever proposition the frontbench puts forward will lose because the opposition + their own rebels will always outnumber the government. 

Edited by Nothing Has Changed

Share this post


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

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.

Considering what a total F up the first one was I can understand the reluctance to stage another one.

I guess one possible way forward is to put the four most Parliament-approved indicative votes to the people.  But there would need to be a plan for each one so that we knew what we were voting on.  Ideally there would also be a clear margin of victory needed - but that could result in another stalemate.  And the EU would need to grant a further extension, which they might be willing to do if there was a clear way forward.

Even then :dunno: The country is so divided, and our political system has lost all integrity, trust and credibility.  Where do we go from here (to crib from the Buffy musical ep)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK should probably take a look at Switzerland, where they have 4+ referendums each year and are very, very careful in how they word them. In fact, they nearly wrecked their relationship with the EU with a badly-worded referendum five years ago to impose immigration controls which went counter to their treaty with the EU, so they had to rework it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching Inside Europe, the documentary series, and it is quite enlightening. Cameron trying to sweet-tale Hollande by showing him the French trophies the British took off the field at Waterloo was a bit weird. Clegg threatening to pull the LibDems out of the coalition and collapse the government if the Tories didn't shut the fuck up about Europe was also rather amusing.

What was extremely interesting was that it traces a lot of the problems Cameron had with getting concessions out of the EU back to him pulling the Tories out of the EU centre-right coalition (which both Sarkozy and Merkel were members of). It suggests that if he hadn't done that, a lot of the concession discussions could have happened in that forum in private before going public in the EU, and it would have given Cameron a lot more flexibility to negotiate and get more concessions before starting formal EU talks, possibly with both Germany and France backing him (Germany pretty much dragging France along by the ear, but still). There was also a key moment when the eastern European countries told Cameron they would veto the UK applying the "emergency brake" to halt EU immigration for seven years, so Tusk went into the meeting and brow-beat them into standing down from that position, expending some considerable personal capital in the process, because Cameron assured him it would allow Remain to win the vote.

The most interesting bit is when the Czech foreign minister asks Cameron what the contingency plan is if Leave win, and Cameron admits there isn't one and he has no plans to create one because Remain will win. The Czech response was basically, "Oh shit."

Share this post


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

The most interesting bit is when the Czech foreign minister asks Cameron what the contingency plan is if Leave win, and Cameron admits there isn't one and he has no plans to create one because Remain will win. The Czech response was basically, "Oh shit."

You know all those phrases about learning from the best and all the good things come back (or be en vogue) again.

Cut to Theresa May and the other head of states asking her about her plan B if her deal falls through. "I intend to win the vote in HoC"

So she truely is Davey Boy's successor.

Share this post


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

The most interesting bit is when the Czech foreign minister asks Cameron what the contingency plan is if Leave win, and Cameron admits there isn't one and he has no plans to create one because Remain will win. The Czech response was basically, "Oh shit."

I love this series.  It really shows how the EU is based on good will and how hard everyone involved tries to make it work.  It also shows how much influence France and Germany have.

It also shows up how appalling the Tories are.  Every Tory that appears in the programmes basically treats every emergency with "Sorry guys, not our problem, what can we get out of this?"  They are so embarrassing.  There is no commitment from the UK reps to making the EU work or helping other member states.

Re the above example from Wert: everyone was horrified by the referendum and the reason behind it.  Everyone in the programme (Hague, Osborne, not Cameron unfortunately - he was writing his memoirs) was very honest about it being about keeping the Tory party together.  Cameron told Tusk as much :bang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

Yea, what compromise do you think could have got through Parliament and held the Tory party together?

I can't think of one.

There aren't any now, but had the compromise process started 3 years ago, or even 2, then I don't think it would have been too hard. A temporary, very soft Brexit to get us outside the EU whilst negotiating future relationship, and with other countries would have been a fairly easy sell IF consensus had been attempted before causing any bad blood, and had come in the form of multi-lateral talks without whipping, and resulted in cross-party negotiating teams. I'm also pretty sure the EU would have said a pretty quick "yes" to that.

 

Of course, it's way too late now, and it's at the point now where a lot of people seem to have completely forgotten than most remainers begrudgingly accepted the result, and were willing to work in a spirit of cooperation in the early stages. It's May's policy of ignoring anyone who isn't herself that has caused this extreme polarisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

There aren't any now, but had the compromise process started 3 years ago, or even 2, then I don't think it would have been too hard. A temporary, very soft Brexit to get us outside the EU whilst negotiating future relationship, and with other countries would have been a fairly easy sell IF consensus had been attempted before causing any bad blood, and had come in the form of multi-lateral talks without whipping, and resulted in cross-party negotiating teams. I'm also pretty sure the EU would have said a pretty quick "yes" to that.

 

Of course, it's way too late now, and it's at the point now where a lot of people seem to have completely forgotten than most remainers begrudgingly accepted the result, and were willing to work in a spirit of cooperation in the early stages. It's May's policy of ignoring anyone who isn't herself that has caused this extreme polarisation.

That's what she's done; she secured a two year transition period, with the possibility of extension, to agree the future relationship. 

Share this post


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

But, but, but the commonwealth...

You buggers left us, preferring to chase pretty French skirt and hot German sausage, than be loyal to your homely colonials. And of course talking to us about lamb, specifically, is particularly ironic, since the UK joining the EEC / EU is what helped to collapse our sheep industry and forced us to find alternative markets like the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

That's what she's done; she secured a two year transition period, with the possibility of extension, to agree the future relationship. 

Not really.

Her WA isn't a soft brexit.

At no point did she try to gain a consensus position

At no point did she negotiate in good faith

At no point did she show any interest in crossing party lines

 

What she did was spend 3 years pissing any good will up the wall, and actively trying to avoid parliamentary input whatsoever, and trying to force through a fairly hard working agreement using "divide and conquer" rather than "build consensus"

Share this post


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

Not really.

Her WA isn't a soft brexit.

At no point did she try to gain a consensus position

At no point did she negotiate in good faith

At no point did she show any interest in crossing party lines 

 

What she did was spend 3 years pissing any good will up the wall, and actively trying to avoid parliamentary input whatsoever, and trying to force through a fairly hard working agreement using "divide and conquer" rather than "build consensus"

Look, I don't really what this compromise is you are suggesting; I suspect it is a unicorn. You said she should have negotiated a very soft temporary Brexit while the future relationship was hammered out: she did and its in the withdrawal agreement. So she met that condition you asked for.

You're also asking for a more general consensus and I am still going to ask, around what … what is this consensus position? You do realise Labour's red lines do not represent deeply held convictions but are there to set Labour apart from the Tories, ensure we get the blame and keep the two wings of Labour together, right. What exactly are Labour even moaning about; they want a customs union and we've got one: the backstop. They want to guarantee workers' rights why don't you win a bloody election, isn't that what they're for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Did you read the post you quoted?

 

Her WA isn't a soft brexit.

At no point did she try to gain a consensus position

At no point did she negotiate in good faith

At no point did she show any interest in crossing party line

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Did you read the post you quoted?

 

Her WA isn't a soft brexit.

At no point did she try to gain a consensus position

At no point did she negotiate in good faith 

At no point did she show any interest in crossing party line

This is just fluff though, you can't tell me what this compromise would look like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fuck this shit. Imma start my own political party. The People's Party. I mean, how difficult can it be? 

I'm only half joking.

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


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

Fuck this shit. Imma start my own political party. The People's Party. I mean, how difficult can it be? 

I'm only half joking.

That's just becoming another part of the problem, not the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Fuck this shit. Imma start my own political party. The People's Party. I mean, how difficult can it be? 

I'm only half joking.

Can I be your Shadow Transport Minister? I know sod all about it, but I've taken a bus recently which surely makes me more qualified than Failing Greyling.

Share this post


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

×