Jump to content

UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it


HexMachina

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

If we had more engineers in the House of Commons, I'm sure the outcome would be different! There are currently 7 "architects, engineers, and surveyors" in the HoC (not sure why three separate professions have been classed together). 

Steve Baker is an engineer I believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I mean, why would anyone even want to leave the EU. It's inconceivable. 

Because they got duped into believing that there are only costs to being in the EU and no benefits (or few benefits, that are in no way worth the cost).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Thanks. Dominic Grieve is a voice in the wilderness. 

Mark Elliott has a good explanation up today of the legal basis for Parliament to stop no deal: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/08/08/can-parliament-prevent-a-no-deal-brexit/

It's just a profoundly sad moment to be British.  Trump and Pompeo's bullshit notwithstanding, Congress is unlikely to ratify any trade deal with the UK in this current anti-trade climate.  Just look at the uncertain fate of USMCA. 

Grieve has perhaps made a No Deal Brexit more likely, through his determination to prevent any kind of Brexit at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Everything about Brexit is a horrible mess - the media, the lies, the referendum, the snap election, the nonexistent plan, the negotiations, the deadlocked parliament, the opposition and Boris Johnson's haircut.

I wonder, however, if the legislative work around Article 50 isn't the very worst of it all. It gave the government a carte blanche to interpret Brexit, which it did horribly. It had no failsafe mechanism to make sure the UK didn't leave without a deal. It did not require any additional referendum on the final deal. It was triggered far too early, without anyone having an idea what the withdrawal agreement, let alone the future relationship with the EU, should look like. 

Was it really that inconceivable that the government would, within 2 years, fail to negotiate a deal that would get parliamentary approval? Was it really a smart move to let the default result be a no-deal Brexit?

I'm an engineer, and we often analyse potential risks using failure mode and effects analysis. This is basically a fancy way of asking the question "what could possibly go wrong?". I feel that, before plunging ahead with what is possibly the most important change of the UK's status in the world since the last world war, it would have been prudent to ask that question. 

The rules are the rules.  The only way of leaving the EU is by triggering A.50.   That sets the clock ticking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm slowly convincing myself that Corbyn wants no-deal Brexit to happen, so long as the Tories can be entirely blamed for it. When that happen he probably calculated that this changes the electoral landscape in Labour's favour for possibly a generation. And if Labour can actually bring the UK back to some kind of prosperity it could last for longer than a generation. All it requires is for the current generation to be a sacrificial lamb. So he's in it mostly for the power grab and to shore up the fortunes of his own party. Something that Tories have been rightly accused of, but many people assumed Labour wasn't the same. I think Labour (or at least the Corbyn faction in Labour) is the same. Party first, country second.

Corbyn and some proportion of the left have always wanted Brexit. They prefer that it's not Brexit at any cost, but having failed to win the snap election to manage Brexit themselves they'll take whatever Brexit comes so long as all the blood is on Conservative hands.

Indirectly Corbyn and his ilk believe the country will benefit because securing Labour more terms in govt than the Cons into the future is better for the country. But it's still a party first attitude.

I think no-Deal is really what you have to resign yourselves to now, and just watch from the sidelines to see who wins the blame game to get an idea of who is going to be controlling the aftermath, and hopefully a recovery within your lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Corbyn and some proportion of the left have always wanted Brexit. 

Well, yes. It was standard for the British Left up until the late 1980s.

(In Corbyn's mind, I think it's less about playing the blame game, and more about what sort of policies he could pursue without Brussels.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Well, yes. It was standard for the British Left up until the late 1980s.

(In Corbyn's mind, I think it's less about playing the blame game, and more about what sort of policies he could pursue without Brussels.)

Yes, but he won't be able to pursue any policies if he's not in power, and to get in power he needs to make sure the Torioes wear all the blame for a no-deal Brexit, all while he's beavering away in the shadows helping to make no-deal happen by not doing the things that will ensure it doesn't happen.

It's an outrage that politicians of varying stripes are playing with people's lives to position themselves to run the show after the disaster strikes. It's that whole king of the ashes thing actually playing out for real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm slowly convincing myself that Corbyn wants no-deal Brexit to happen, so long as the Tories can be entirely blamed for it.

But then, we've known that (and why) he wants out of the EU for decades, and for years that he stil does, but with the Tories taking the blame.

 

As for reasonings, I don't think it's "party first" so much as it is dogma. He wants to nationalise further than (he thinks) the EU would allow him to; or at least, to an extent that is much easier from outside the EU.

Of course he knows the economy, and business in general will be hard (and that he'd rather blame his opponents for that) in part, that's a necessary part of the plan. You don't get to make sweeping reforms when the populace are happy with the status quo. He's seen from Tory privisation schemes that first you bring an industry to the brink of ruin, and ride in as the saviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last quarter results show negative growth for the first time since 2012. If the same thing happens next quarter, the UK will be in technical recession before Brexit even happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

If we had more engineers in the House of Commons, I'm sure the outcome would be different! There are currently 7 "architects, engineers, and surveyors" in the HoC (not sure why three separate professions have been classed together). 

Ok, that post didn't come across as I intended it. "Trust me, I'm an engineer!" :P 

20 hours ago, SeanF said:

The rules are the rules.  The only way of leaving the EU is by triggering A.50.   That sets the clock ticking.

Yes, and that's pretty dumb in itself, isn't it? The EU is by no means blameless in this mess. Forcing May to trigger Article 50 before even starting the negotiations was, in hindsight, a mistake. It made it more difficult for everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Ok, that post didn't come across as I intended it. "Trust me, I'm an engineer!" :P 

Yes, and that's pretty dumb in itself, isn't it? The EU is by no means blameless in this mess. Forcing May to trigger Article 50 before even starting the negotiations was, in hindsight, a mistake. It made it more difficult for everyone. 

Lord Kerr has said that he drafted A. 50, in such a way that no member State would ever want to tigger it.  As so often, this is another clever man who has outwitted himself (Dominic Grieve is another)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Lord Kerr has said that he drafted A. 50, in such a way that no member State would ever want to tigger it.  As so often, this is another clever man who has outwitted himself (Dominic Grieve is another)

 

23 hours ago, SeanF said:

Grieve has perhaps made a No Deal Brexit more likely, through his determination to prevent any kind of Brexit at all.

How so? He wasn't the reason the Withdrawal Agreement was defeated in the House.  I don't buy this idea that the Remainers are now suddenly responsible for delivering the outcome of a political project they sincerely oppose.  It's for the Brexiteers (the majority) to deliver no-deal Brexit.  I just don't buy that you should accede to someone else's bad idea in order to mitigate its results.  That's essentially the Paul Ryan/John Kelly/Gary Cohn defence in working for Trump.  Mind you, you can fairly criticize Grieve for standing as a Tory in 2017 on a platform he didn't agree with. 

5 hours ago, Raja said:

Hello fwiends - Is there a uk politics podcast that y'all can recommend? Like a weekly show or something?

The Economist has a podcast that's quite good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunt's week in review. Mostly what we concluded here already, and it lacks the usual outrage and anger.

Quote

[...]

The most important factor is commitment. There are far too many politicians who oppose no-deal, but oppose other things more - especially Corbyn becoming prime minister, or, on the other side, Corbyn not becoming prime minister. As long as that's the case, they'll fail.

There really is nothing more serious than stopping no-deal. It's not about the immediate impact - traffic jams and gaps on the supermarket shelves and the like. It's about the long term: a permanently weaker country, poorer, angrier, isolated. There's really nothing more important than preventing that. It is the dismantlement of modern Britain, a retreat into self-imposed exile.

Politicians have the summer to recognise the flexibility and commitment required of them next month. They should do so urgently. It's all eminently winnable. History won't be kind to them if they fail.

His conclusion and basically the key bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2019 at 7:51 PM, Gaston de Foix said:

Mark Elliott has a good explanation up today of the legal basis for Parliament to stop no deal: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/08/08/can-parliament-prevent-a-no-deal-brexit/

Thank you, this is a very good summary(and confirmation of what was discussed here). The obvious conclusion is that a repeat of Cooper-Letwin from the March go-around would really be the most sensible option to stop a no-deal in October. Of course, that is not a guarantee as it is then upto the EU to agree, but still a safer option than bringing down the government and hoping to form a government of national unity within 14 days with the sole purpose of then doing the same thing (putting in a request for Brexit extension) anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Dunt's week in review. Mostly what we concluded here already, and it lacks the usual outrage and anger.

His conclusion and basically the key bits.

I liked this bit:

"There's plenty of options. Remainers seem a bit lost in a strange kind of defeatism this summer, as if they're certain they've already been outmanoeuvred. But look at the people they are admitting defeat to: A Cabinet made up of the worst collection of political non-entities ever witnessed at the height of British politics. A special adviser who seems perpetually indignant at the world in a manner that suggests he is really trying to work through some deep-seated personal problems. A prime minister who floats around on a bad-smelling bubble of arrogance and indifference. They're hopeless. It's like thinking you'll be defeated at chess by a field mouse."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boris definitely going for the 'Tories are the party of law and order' vote.

Trouble is there are not 20,000 people that want to work for the police. There is nobody to train them and nowhere to put them even if we do get them (you wouldn't beleive the trouble I'm having trying to get a room and lockers for 7 new staff I'm getting). 

No idea about the prison places promise but I imagine it's a lot of headlines with no consideration for the logistical difficulties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-emergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit

it’s ok everybody. We can stop Brexit, the answer all along was: Women. Why didn’t we think of that.

Quote

“Why women? Because I believe women have shown they can bring a different perspective to crises, are able to reach out to those they disagree with and cooperate to find solutions,” she wrote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...