Jump to content

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


HexMachina

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So manslaughter in Canada is kind of weird. The only thing that is actually listed for the reduction of murder to manslaughter is "Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation." Which I think is a very stupid idea. Outside of that it's just "Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter." I assume this is to allow wiggle room for the Crown.

In any event murder in Canada:

C is where we differ I believe, though it's been a while since my one legal course, and I had forgotten about the "unlawful object" bit so my interpretation of Canadian law may be wrong.

Your first part sounds like our Loss of Control defence, which would reduce a murder charge to one of Voluntary Manslaughter.

C is what we would call unlawful act/constructive manslaughter. 

 

Edit: ah, maybe worth pointing out Manslaughter has different facets here too.

i’m impressed how much criminal law my brain has managed to cling on to :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Your first part sounds like our Loss of Control defence, which would reduce a murder charge to one of Voluntary Manslaughter.

C is what we would call unlawful act/constructive manslaughter. 

 

Edit: ah, maybe worth pointing out Manslaughter has different facets here too.

i’m impressed how much criminal law my brain has managed to cling on to :P 

So am I, it's been almost a decade since I've done any legal courses, and it was a high school elective not like, university level stuff.

In any event the actual specifics of it don't really matter. I was mostly objecting to the idea that the deaths of 90% of everyone in the Americas can be considered not genocide on a technicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So am I, it's been almost a decade since I've done any legal courses, and it was a high school elective not like, university level stuff.

In any event the actual specifics of it don't really matter. I was mostly objecting to the idea that the deaths of 90% of everyone in the Americas can be considered not genocide on a technicality.

Typo? 

I see what you mean. But as i said in the first post, mass shooters is likely still murder because you would struggle to disprove they intended death and/or gbh

 

eta; sorry i think i ,misread your post. Scrilling back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Boris Johnson’s letter to the EU, mainly detailing why the WA is so bad and why we need to move on from it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-donald-tusk-19-august-2019

Short summary. We don't want it. We are committed to the GFA and no hard border, and have no solution for the problem [at least he recognizes the repoblem as such], that is the Irish border. However, we would like to have the non-existent solution to replace the backstop, because we don't like it. Surely you can see the reason behind this balanced approach, so we can [pretend to] talk about our non-solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Let's assume Corbyn steps in, asks for an extension and calls a GE. Then what? This is the bit that really puzzles me with this scenario. Chances are you get back with another hung parliament. Tories losing some seats to their right to Frogface's NUKIP, and Labour losing seats to the remain Alliance (LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, and presumably the SNP). Personally, I think with the FPTP system in the UK this actually might tilt the scales in favour of no-deal. Then Britain will have emulated the US electorally. A majority of the electorate being pro-Remain by now, being presented with no-deal, similar to Twitler winning the US Presidential election, while losing the popular vote. The (presumably) Tory lead goverment, would need to form a coalition with the DUP and Frogface. If you felt like mocking May's election with her strong and stable goverment catchphrase, then you really have seen nothing yet. On the other hand, if we get again a return of a majority of remain MPs, we are roughly in the same spot we are now. Corbyn proclaiming to be the only real person to lead such a goverment, while the LibDems and SNP do not particularly like him. The SNP is willing to cooperate with him for now to stop No-Deal, but they are hardly in it for their love for Corbyn.

Having that said, I don't think neither side is looking too good with that circus. Let's face it, both sides are playing a game of chicken with no-deal. Both sides calculating that the other will given in to avoid no-deal. Swinson said, even with all the LibDems voting for Corbyn, he would still lack votes to get elected, as in CHUK (without Chuka, or the Soubry bunch) will not vote for him, Grieve and the other Tory rebells will not vote for him, and that's not even accounting for the few brain dead Labour Leavers like the Red Kipper Kate Hoey not voting for Corbyn, because they really want Brexit to happen. FWIW, I think this game of chicken has a high probability to end with a head-on colission. For Corbyn Brexit is that inconvenience that stops him from talking about austerity, and he is at best indifferent to the whole thing, so will he blink? No, idea. On the other side we have the group of MPs who flat out despise Corbyn for one reason or another and are not willing to vote him in, will they be willing to hold their noses and vote for him? Again, no idea. Also, I have no idea how many Long-Baileys (which is Labour's answer to McVey in terms of stupid, I believe) there are, but I hope there are not enough to insist that Corbyn is bigger than Jesus, or Brexit. FWIW, I believe caretaker PM should be whoever commands a majority in parliament. I don't really care whether that's Corbyn, Clarke, Harman, or Caroline Lucas for all I care. Corbyn can stomp with his feet all day long and insist he is heading the biggest opposition party, it doesn't matter if he can't command a majority in the HoC. This would be a temporary goverment of unity, and Corbyn is obviously not a unifying figure.

On an unrelated note, I see people are still taking time off from their well paid goverment position at the Mail to engage into troll feeding.

The main argument against allowing a no-deal is that it is claimed by everyone who doesn't want a no-deal that this is not what people voted for in the referendum. They were sold a bill of goods with the false campaigning of the Brexiteers. Well, in a GE where Brexit is THE issue and everyone knows no-deal is absolutely on the cards, if the hard Brexit people win a majority it will almost certainly mean that this is what the people are willing to accept. FPTP is not an ideal way of measuring the national mood, but I would expect that if the general populous really is afraid of no-deal then the group of parties guaranteeing to end any possibility of no-deal (or guaranteeing to have a people's vote) should get a big enough swing to secure a majority.

Personally I think a people's vote should precede any GE, since that is the unfiltered will of the people. But a GE first isn't a total outrage, especially when there is a clear choice in front of the country.

Realistically, who can command a majority in Parliament to become PM after the VONC? Are you potentially looking at a Conservative remainer / soft Brexiter coming out of left field (from outside the rebel Cons and thus a party loyalist) suddenly grabbing a large hunk of the Tories and getting a majority that way, thus largely bypassing Labour? Whatever the majority is if it's not the Labour Leader it will almost certainly have to be made up with only a small number of Labour MPs. So securing a majority without a whole bunch of Tories coming over will be pretty much impossible.

I can only see the Labor nut jobs being able to kill a VONC, not being able to block a caretaker govt. If the VONC passes, those MPs won't be the ones to determine whether a caretaker govt can be formed. Arguably they will probably be more likely to back Corbyn, who at least is recognised as Brexit-curious and is their leader. A successful VONC does not annoint a PM, and the caretaker govt doesn't have to be made up of the parties that voted in favour of the motion. The reality will really hit when the VONC passes and there is only 2 weeks to avert disaster and not 2 months. That will focus the minds of everyone concerned. Until there's an actual successful VONC everything is just theoretical bluster and posturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I see Boris is using the traditional British negotiating tactic of repeating himself slowly and loudly until those bloody foreigners understand him.

He is currently being unsuccessful as he isn't waving his arms around enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The main argument against allowing a no-deal is that it is claimed by everyone who doesn't want a no-deal that this is not what people voted for in the referendum. They were sold a bill of goods with the false campaigning of the Brexiteers. Well, in a GE where Brexit is THE issue and everyone knows no-deal is absolutely on the cards, if the hard Brexit people win a majority it will almost certainly mean that this is what the people are willing to accept. FPTP is not an ideal way of measuring the national mood, but I would expect that if the general populous really is afraid of no-deal then the group of parties guaranteeing to end any possibility of no-deal (or guaranteeing to have a people's vote) should get a big enough swing to secure a majority. 

That is attributing rationality to British politics, that seems to have left some time ago.

We have the Tories lieing to themselves and the electorate about the consequences of no-deal. As in it will all be fine. Then we have Labour who woud presumably end up campaigning on some sort of Corbyn Brexit. As in, he would get that sweetheart deal the Tories couldn't, because. I mean, the latest from Comedy Central, aka Corbyn's POlitburo: Labour cold very well stay neutral during a second Brexit referendum. Brexit is the biggest political issue and challenge for the UK for the last 50 years or so. And the wannabe Caretaker PM wants to continue with his handwringing and wonders why there are so many remainers that don't consider him trustworthy. So, if he wants to stay neutral on Brexit during a second referendum, how do you position yourself during a GE campaign on Brexit? And no, this isn't just a rhethorical quesiton, as I've no idea how that is gonna work. What your position on BRexit? We want to end the dangerous ideologically driven austerity policy, that has harmed this country under the Tory goverment. Yeah, but what's your position on Brexit? We will have another referendum. What's your position? There'll be another referendum. Yeah, but what's your preferred outcome? We will have another referendum to have the British people have their voices heard. Continue ad nauseam,

Now then the problem with FPTP is that the Remain vote is far more fractured than the leave vote, and then as mentioend above, we also have the whatever party, aka what used to be the Labour party. While the Leave vote is pretty consolidated around the two parties on the right and far right. I said two parties, as I think oldkip is pretty dead, and it's really just the Tories and NUKIP.

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Personally I think a people's vote should precede any GE, since that is the unfiltered will of the people. But a GE first isn't a total outrage, especially when there is a clear choice in front of the country. 

No, it's not a total outrage, but I don't think it solves anything. I think we'd end up roughly where we are now.

 

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Realistically, who can command a majority in Parliament to become PM after the VONC? Are you potentially looking at a Conservative remainer / soft Brexiter coming out of left field (from outside the rebel Cons and thus a party loyalist) suddenly grabbing a large hunk of the Tories and getting a majority that way, thus largely bypassing Labour? Whatever the majority is if it's not the Labour Leader it will almost certainly have to be made up with only a small number of Labour MPs. So securing a majority without a whole bunch of Tories coming over will be pretty much impossible.

No, like I said, I think Clarke and Harman or whoever could command majority, if Corbyn decided it's not about him becoming PM. I ahve very little hope for him to stop this farcial game of chicken he is right now playing with parliament. I mean, right now, he'd need all the remain MPs to vote for him, while he continues with his constructive indifference approach towards Brexit itself.

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I can only see the Labor nut jobs being able to kill a VONC, not being able to block a caretaker govt. If the VONC passes, those MPs won't be the ones to determine whether a caretaker govt can be formed. Arguably they will probably be more likely to back Corbyn, who at least is recognised as Brexit-curious and is their leader. A successful VONC does not annoint a PM, and the caretaker govt doesn't have to be made up of the parties that voted in favour of the motion. The reality will really hit when the VONC passes and there is only 2 weeks to avert disaster and not 2 months. That will focus the minds of everyone concerned. Until there's an actual successful VONC everything is just theoretical bluster and posturing.

Again, Corbyn needs the votes from across the house to get a tiny majority. And he is not likely to get them. That's why he has resorted tot his political game of chicken with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Again, Corbyn needs the votes from across the house to get a tiny majority. And he is not likely to get them. That's why he has resorted tot his political game of chicken with them.

I agree with this.  But I wonder if we are not putting the cart before the horse. 

It is likely the UK government will try to time any negotiations with the EU to obstruct action by Parliament in early September.  This is the real import of the timing of the letter to Tusk ( its contents are boilerplate). 

It's already being recognized that any negotiations are likely to be a sham - but they serve the twin purpose of demonstrating a good faith attempt (for those inclined to trust Boris or just punt difficult decisions as much as possible) and running out the clock.  The greater the delay, the more justification Boris has to make his private pleas to Tory MPs to not destroy the Tory party, waste the enormous sums being spent on no-deal preparation and force him to go to the country. 

Corbyn's determination to always do the wrong thing at the wrong moment is the gift that keeps on giving.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I agree with this.  But I wonder if we are not putting the cart before the horse. 

It is likely the UK government will try to time any negotiations with the EU to obstruct action by Parliament in early September.  This is the real import of the timing of the letter to Tusk ( its contents are boilerplate). 

It's already being recognized that any negotiations are likely to be a sham - but they serve the twin purpose of demonstrating a good faith attempt (for those inclined to trust Boris or just punt difficult decisions as much as possible) and running out the clock.  The greater the delay, the more justification Boris has to make his private pleas to Tory MPs to not destroy the Tory party, waste the enormous sums being spent on no-deal preparation and force him to go to the country. 

Corbyn's determination to always do the wrong thing at the wrong moment is the gift that keeps on giving.  

 

Tusk knows this of course - which is why he replied to that letter with a straight bat.

I think it likely, but there's no guarantee that the EU will reopen negotiations if Theresa's red line are withdrawn. There's no possibility whatsoever that they'll be reopened by Johnson adding red lines of his own on top of the existing ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Tusk knows this of course - which is why he replied to that letter with a straight bat.

I think it likely, but there's no guarantee that the EU will reopen negotiations if Theresa's red line are withdrawn. There's no possibility whatsoever that they'll be reopened by Johnson adding red lines of his own on top of the existing ones.

You don't think there will be negotiations in which each party agrees not to insist on preconditions? I tend to think they will go through the motions because both UK/EU have a vested interest in showing they have done everything possible to reach a deal before the cliff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I think it likely, but there's no guarantee that the EU will reopen negotiations if Theresa's red line are withdrawn.

I don't think so. The WA is what it is, and it will stay this way. It took them years to hammer this one out. The The red lines will get interesting again during the next phase of negotiations, which deals with the questions where are we gonna end up wrt to the EU-UK relationship. If the the silly red lines drop (if it's one by one again, it will take longer), you might end up with some sort of Norway-like deal (I'll leave out the silly +/- thing), or EU membership lite if you will. That won't really remove the Irish sea check, but might take out some of the toxicity.  But the Brexiter's howling about it being worse than membership, and the UK ending up living by the rules made by the EU will stay (to whcih the obvious reply is d'uh). And remainers will be equically unhappy, because it's not as good membership (again d'uh). So that begs the question, what is the desired outcome of new negotiations, as any deal will be worse than membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I don't think so. The WA is what it is, and it will stay this way. It took them years to hammer this one out. The The red lines will get interesting again during the next phase of negotiations, which deals with the questions where are we gonna end up wrt to the EU-UK relationship. If the the silly red lines drop (if it's one by one again, it will take longer), you might end up with some sort of Norway-like deal (I'll leave out the silly +/- thing), or EU membership lite if you will. That won't really remove the Irish sea check, but might take out some of the toxicity.  But the Brexiter's howling about it being worse than membership, and the UK ending up living by the rules made by the EU will stay (to whcih the obvious reply is d'uh). And remainers will be equically unhappy, because it's not as good membership (again d'uh). So that begs the question, what is the desired outcome of new negotiations, as any deal will be worse than membership.

Much of the commentary is pointing out that the letter to Tusk made a point of disclaiming regulatory alignment with the EU.  Boris has spoken previously about not being a "vassal state" or "rule-taker" so that is clearly his intent.  The problem is he would also like free access to the EU market, which the EU will not grant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 

No, like I said, I think Clarke and Harman or whoever could command majority, if Corbyn decided it's not about him becoming PM. I ahve very little hope for him to stop this farcial game of chicken he is right now playing with parliament. I mean, right now, he'd need all the remain MPs to vote for him, while he continues with his constructive indifference approach towards Brexit itself.

 

I assume they are remainer Labour MPs? What makes you think the Labour pro-brexit rebels will back either of them for PM? And then there is the Corbyn faction some of whom may well feel aggrieved in Corbyn's behalf that he was forced to do what no Labour leader should be forced to do. So there may be a larger bloc of Labour MPs unwilling to vote for someone other than Corbyn for PM tan the Labour Bloc unwilling to vote for Corbyn. Consider that Corbyn is probably ending his career as Labour leader if he lets someone else from Labour be the PM, that's a far bigger personal ask of him than telling him to stop being pathetic and let someone else be king for a day.

How many Tory MPs need to come over to the coalition to overcome the Labour pro-Brexit Bloc who might oppose both the VONC and any coalition with a remainer as PM? If that's more than enough to give a +1 majority for a coalition then you might have the path to a solution. Can the Labour Caucus revolt against Corbyn and sack him as Leader?

The other calculation remainers need to make is whether they think Corbyn is willing to let the UK wind up with a no-deal Brexit. It's not much good playing chicken with someone who you think might actually be willing to smash into you, because you will have to be the person to swerve. I guess then that means you have to perform well enough that your friends agree that you held your nerve for long enough not to look like a coward. If he puts up a VONC and it doesn't pass, he gets to say he did his bit, but the Tory rebels lost their nerve and showed themselves for the cowards they are, choosing to stay loyal to a PM they despise than be loyal to the country. Corbyn might cry buckets of crocodile tears on 31 Oct, but there will still be a path to No.10 for Labour. They are more likely to prevent a no-deal with him as PM, than with him remaining the Leader of the opposition for the next 2 and a bit months, sitting on the sidelines decrying the evil of BoJo and watching the UK crash out of the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except he's asking the Tory rebels to commit political suicide, and isn't willing to budget himself one bit.  Its called a negotiation, but its not something Corbyn has been willing to do.  Or maybe he actually wants it to fail.

On a secondary note, I don't get this "Corbyn is just in to do two things" (stop no-deal and call a GE).  That's rubbish.  He would be Prime Minister for a month (or more) while the GE is organised and then run.  He would be running the government.  To pretend that this would entail nothing more than two decisions is a little bit naive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really a negotiation if there is no middle ground where everyone compromises on something and everyone comes out feeling like they got a reasonable deal. The whole success or failure of the anti no-deal venture rests upon someone(s) being willing to, in all likelihood, commit political suicide. Not much of a basis to create goodwill or trust.

In the game of thrones you win or you die, there's no middle ground...hmmm that sounds awfully familiar.

There is literally nothing Corbyn (and his faction) can do as PM in the space of a month. Especially if the membership of the coalition refuses to give him a parliamentary mandate to do anything other take those 2 actions. He can't pass any laws and he can't put any meaningful policies or regulations in place. The process of promulgating regulations (which does not require a vote in parliament) is a several months process that begins with policy analysis, discussion documents and regulatory impact statements, draft regulation, public consultation (of at least 2 months) and then issuing the regulation. If you can do all that in 6 months good luck. He could do emergency regulations but those would be immediately subject to judicial review and could not be implemented until the review was completed, by which time the GE will have been held and a new govt formed (with luck). 

Plus almost all of the time he's PM he will be in campaign mode, and there will be 5 weeks of campaigning in which parliament is dissolved. He won't really have a month of being in power. He will have whatever time the coalition agrees as necessary to secure an extension and set a date for a GE. I imagine any coalition agreement will require the GE to be called more or less immediately after the EU confirms the A50 extension, and I think the EU will grant the extension, on the basis there will be a GE, immediately upon request. 

At a guess I would say after the new coalition has been formed, give a week for the A50 extension to be requested and granted, and then a week for the GE to be called and parliament dissolved. If the coalition partners don't have that in writing as part of the coalition agreement they are complete fools and deserve whatever stunts Corbyn might be able to pull while he's PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ants said:

On a secondary note, I don't get this "Corbyn is just in to do two things" (stop no-deal and call a GE).  That's rubbish.  He would be Prime Minister for a month (or more) while the GE is organised and then run.  He would be running the government.  To pretend that this would entail nothing more than two decisions is a little bit naive.  

It'd be what we here term a Caretaker Government. Basically, signing stuff to keep the lights on, but not actually changing anything in the interim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem that any Tories for Corbyn would have is that they would not just be ending their political careers, but also ending lifelong friendships.  That last point is often overlooked, when people wonder why MP's won't just switch to their side.

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...