UK Politics: A Partly Political Broadcast

[mormont]

So Liz has delivered the Conservative Manifesto most pointless Queen's Speech in a century: a selection of tired ideas, mostly untested and unfunded, for which there is no Parliamentary majority and likely no Parliamentary time. The centrepiece is supposed to be the old Tory trick of trying to address their own failure to fund the police, courts and jails by pointlessly tweaking the sentencing guidelines and insisting that this makes them the party of law'n'order. Seven Criminal Justice bills! They're going big on this one.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, nothing much to say on the Queen's speach. They've no expectation, or even intention, of being held to it, or having to find the money. They just want to convince disgruntled Labour voters to vote for that guy who was funny on HIGNFY 20 years ago, and to persuade disgruntled Tory voters that they're still serious on punishing criminals (except themselves, of course). Of course, there's also a significant amount of distraction, and avoiding any PMQs in the mix too.

But then, we all knew that was the case since they first started talking about a Queens speach during the Tory leadership "contest"

 

 

We don't get this sort of thing very often over here, but I'm guessing that no tears are being shed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50042406

[A Horse Named Stranger]

It wasn't a pointless QS if it layed the groundwork for May's WA to pass. As the Bercow ruling said, the Goverment should not spam parliament with the same piece of legislature in the same session. I still think/hope that was the entire point of htis excercise, and not just pissing away some time.

As for the other news link. That was presumably not the tiny British dick waving around the world from the other thread anti targ meant. I know horrible joke, about a horrible person, but it was too tempting to no make it, given that the last post of the previous thread ventured into that imagery.

[Which Tyler]

Just seen it said that British Politics is the only game you see a queen converted to a pawn in an attempt to show that you've won despite losing every exchange.

[Ser Hedge]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Just seen it said that British Politics is the only game you see a queen converted to a pawn in an attempt to show that you've won despite losing every exchange.

Absolutely brilliant! 

[Chaircat Meow]

Well, have we all heard the rumour that Corbyn has, for practical purposes, been put out of his misery and McDonnell has taken charge. Apparently the botched coup against Watson and prioritising an election before a 2nd referendum has turned McDonnell and Long-Bailey into temporary Starmer-Watson allies. Corbyn is isolated with remnants like Trickett and Lavery - the rank and file Corbynistas are angry. I feel positive about this although I suppose the reports might be exaggerated; nothing gets a headline like a coup going down ...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I doubt that's true. Isn't Long-Bailey one of the true believer in the messias?

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I doubt that's true. Isn't Long-Bailey one of the true believer in the messias?

Said she'd been on a journey or something on Sunday, was supporting a referendum before an election, or at least hinting she might (contrary to Corbyn). I imagine this about turn, if this is what it is, is down to most of the shadow cabinet realising they can't win an election at the moment. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

is down to most of the shadow cabinet realising they can't win an election at the moment. 

Anybody else feelign the urge to yell at them: "No shit, Sherlocks!"

I am not complaining that the penny finally dropped, but part of me still feels like asking, you realized this now, and not at the conference, when you passed this fudged nonsense party policy?

Again, not complaining that they might finally get their act together.

[Chaircat Meow]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anybody else feelign the urge to yell at them: "No shit, Sherlocks!"

I am not complaining that the penny finally dropped, but part of me still feels like asking, you realized this now, and not at the conference, when you passed this fudged nonsense party policy?

Again, not complaining that they might finally get their act together.

Yea, well …  As I explained in the last thread you can't necessarily escape the final Brexit decision being made via an election by having a referendum instead. If the Tories just refuse to implement a Referendum Bill Parliament votes for you would need a GNU (I assume), which is proving hard and then if the Tories + Brexit party just say they won't participate and would overturn the 'rigged referendum' in an election what do you do? And even if all these obstacles are surmountable the SNP actually want an election before any Brexit referendum and they may well betray the Remain cause at the vital moment. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yea, well …  As I explained in the last thread you can't necessarily escape the final Brexit decision being made via an election by having a referendum instead. If the Tories just refuse to implement a Referendum Bill Parliament votes for you would need a GNU (I assume), which is proving hard and then if the Tories + Brexit party just say they won't participate and would overturn the 'rigged referendum' in an election what do you do? And even if all these obstacles are surmountable the SNP actually want an election before any Brexit referendum and they may well betray the Remain cause at the vital moment. 

Didn'T I make that point about the Leave side boycotting the Referendum? I am quite sure I said something to that extent. Possibly, we both made that point and overread our respective posts.

Anyway, as for the SNP, they won't betray the remain cause. They've been very consistent and reliably remain with their votes. And I think them sabotaging a referendum in favour of an election might prove to be toxic for them electorally. But then again, I am sorta risk averse, so I wouldn't go for that election with the rather vague outlook of getting IndyRef II this way (which has to be the calculus for the SNP, if they go down that route). So they have to be aware of the risk of getting Brexit and no IndyRefII - which their voters won't appreciate.

[ants]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yea, well …  As I explained in the last thread you can't necessarily escape the final Brexit decision being made via an election by having a referendum instead. If the Tories just refuse to implement a Referendum Bill Parliament votes for you would need a GNU (I assume), which is proving hard and then if the Tories + Brexit party just say they won't participate and would overturn the 'rigged referendum' in an election what do you do? And even if all these obstacles are surmountable the SNP actually want an election before any Brexit referendum and they may well betray the Remain cause at the vital moment. 

Isn’t it only hard because Corbyn won’t budge on being PM?

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

We don't get this sort of thing very often over here, but I'm guessing that no tears are being shed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50042406

I guess not, but since there isn't a death penalty in the UK every criminal, no matter how heinous the crime, needs to be protected from "prison justice". Of course if he was shivved for nicking someone's stash, that's slightly different.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yea, well …  As I explained in the last thread you can't necessarily escape the final Brexit decision being made via an election by having a referendum instead. If the Tories just refuse to implement a Referendum Bill Parliament votes for you would need a GNU (I assume), which is proving hard and then if the Tories + Brexit party just say they won't participate and would overturn the 'rigged referendum' in an election what do you do? And even if all these obstacles are surmountable the SNP actually want an election before any Brexit referendum and they may well betray the Remain cause at the vital moment. 

Surely if there's a Brexit deal put before parliament this week, then amendment can be proposed, which can include that any the deal, if passed by the House, will be put to a referendum vs remain and that an extension to Brexit will be requested until said referendum takes place. There is no need for a separate Bill, and if that amendment to the Brexit vote passes Boris would have to vote down his own deal to prevent a referrendum from happening.

The Brexiteers can't boycott a referendum, because they need to show confidence that any referendum would still give the same result as 2016, and boycotting just projects the impression they think the'll lose, so their only tactic is to undermine its legitimacy. They might say it's pointless, but they will have to participate to maintain that air of confidence that they still hold the will of the majority. Remainers will simply call Brexiteers chickens endlessly by saying they are only boycotting because they know they will lose even if they campaign hard for Brexit. And the thing is, remainers might well be wrong in this. A Johnson deal could indeed command a majority and if it was campaigned for with united enthusiasm by all Brexiters it could do the job and ultimately be good for the social wellbeing of the country.

I was thinking in my pre-sleep stupor last night that maybe, just maybe, Johnson has played everyone and got what he wanted and will come out a hero who fought against all the odds to achieve ehat the country voted for in 2016, and secure at least another whole term as PM. He starts off being all "leave with or without a deal on 31 Oct" to scare remainers and soft Brexiters into actually legislating to prevent no-deal rather than passing meaningless indicative votes. That bascially shuts down no-dealers' aspirations (despite all sorts of proposed shenanigans to get around the Benn Act), behind closed doors the message was "we're not leaving without a deal on 31 Oct". Johnson is then able to go to the EU and Ireland and (after proposing some non-starters to keep the hard liners happy) propose a solution to Northern Ireland that Ireland and the EU can get behind. And while that solution is not anything like what the ERG and DUP want, they are backed into a corner because this deal is the only viable exit from the EU by 31 Oct a date to which every hardcore leaver has hitched their wagon, lead to that hard deadline by Boris himself. The deal is also palatable to soft Brexiters, and in particular the Tory rebels, and enough Labour leavers to get a majority.

It's possible he could deliver Brexit by losing every vote except for the one that matters. And he forced every side to come to a compromise because they all genuinely feared that their worst case scenario could happen.

[Werthead]

Quote

Anyway, as for the SNP, they won't betray the remain cause. They've been very consistent and reliably remain with their votes. And I think them sabotaging a referendum in favour of an election might prove to be toxic for them electorally. But then again, I am sorta risk averse, so I wouldn't go for that election with the rather vague outlook of getting IndyRef II this way (which has to be the calculus for the SNP, if they go down that route). So they have to be aware of the risk of getting Brexit and no IndyRefII - which their voters won't appreciate.

This is presumably the calculation that the SNP have been making repeatedly: a hard Brexit might give them much more firepower for IndyRef 2, but it might also inflict tremendous pain on Scotland for x number of years. There's also the opposite danger - if extremely remote - that somehow Brexit ends up being successful and Scotland benefits from being part of the UK and out of the EU (maybe less likely things have happened) and the SNP lose the opportunity that way. And if there's a reasonably soft Brexit and there is not much of a discernible difference between the standard of living in and out of the EU, then the Brexit bounce they'd get for independence might dissipate.

On that basis the SNP do seem to have made the far more rational (and less cynical) calculation that campaigning hard to keep Britain as a whole in the EU is the right thing to do, and they can re-address independence further down the line. Even just the BS that Scotland has been put through in the last five years (repeatedly sidelined during the debate, for example, despite its pro-Remain majority) might be enough to cause some people to change their mind and campaign for independence even if the UK ends up staying in the EU.

[ants]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

This is presumably the calculation that the SNP have been making repeatedly: a hard Brexit might give them much more firepower for IndyRef 2, but it might also inflict tremendous pain on Scotland for x number of years. There's also the opposite danger - if extremely remote - that somehow Brexit ends up being successful and Scotland benefits from being part of the UK and out of the EU (maybe less likely things have happened) and the SNP lose the opportunity that way. And if there's a reasonably soft Brexit and there is not much of a discernible difference between the standard of living in and out of the EU, then the Brexit bounce they'd get for independence might dissipate.

On that basis the SNP do seem to have made the far more rational (and less cynical) calculation that campaigning hard to keep Britain as a whole in the EU is the right thing to do, and they can re-address independence further down the line. Even just the BS that Scotland has been put through in the last five years (repeatedly sidelined during the debate, for example, despite its pro-Remain majority) might be enough to cause some people to change their mind and campaign for independence even if the UK ends up staying in the EU.

The SNP would also be looking at the whole Northern Ireland issue, and surely be aware that the border issues would be the same if they break away from an independent England and join the EU.  If they manage to separate from England, life is much much simpler if both parties are within the EU. 

Campaigning for a referendum where the opposition would be pointing out freedom of movement into England and Wales would end and a hard border across the island would be required would surely be a pretty hard fight unless Brexit had caused significant hardship.  

[The Anti-Targ]

Does the monarch really have no say at all in what he/she will say and whether he/she will say anything at all?

Aside from saying, new session, new stab at Brexit she should have said "Yo, Parliament is re-opened, see you in a month or so when you have a functioning govt with a majority that has a shit show of passing a legislative agenda. Peace out!" Because that's pretty much the reality of the situation. She should be speaking reality not party political aspirations if they win the next election.

I guess Boris could claim that when he delivers Brexit his rebelious ex-Tories will come back to the fold and he'll have a majority once more, to see out the parliamentary term and deliver on that agenda.

[mormont]

No, the Queen's Speech is literally written for her and handed to her and she has no say over its contents. It is in practice the Prime Minister's speech, for which the monarch is a mere mouthpiece. All part of the wonders of the constitutional monarchy. 

As for the SNP: so the thing that gets forgotten is that, like any political party, the SNP has its moderates and it also has its fringe nuts. SNP moderates have been in charge for so long, and have been so successful, that this gets overlooked because the fringe nuts either shut up or get marginalised. 

Now, the SNP moderates do not want a hard border with England, as noted above by ants. Their ideal model of independence was, for many years, that after a referendum Scotland leaves the UK but not the EU and shifts, essentially, to a looser relationship with rUK, retaining things like free travel and free trade. This is not just a case of not scaring voters, though it has that advantage: it's genuinely the relationship the moderates want. 

But Brexit screwed that up, of course. So the SNP moderates genuinely don't want the UK to leave. They don't want a hard border with England but they do want to be in the EU, and that means the UK remaining in the EU, and they will work to get that. Of course, the price is legal recognition of a second Scottish independence referendum. 

And that referendum has to happen, because the fringe nuts have been rumbling a bit recently - there was some talk of UDI in the papers last week again, ahead of the SNP conference. (UDI, if you don't know, is the idea that after winning a majority of seats in Scotland in a Westminster election, the SNP simply unilaterally declare independence. If this strikes you as completely impractical, legally baseless and democratically dubious, I wouldn't disagree, but it was SNP policy for a long time.) The fringe folks are also quite reactionary in social terms, and they've been testing the boundaries on issues like gender recognition and abortion, with varying degrees of success. And they are less keen on the EU in any case. 

I suspect these idiots wouldn't care about a hard border. The more influence they have, the less the SNP can be relied on to ride to the rescue on Brexit, I'm afraid.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/uk-turkey-arms-sales-syria-kurds-germany-france-netherlands-eu-embargo-a9155536.html

UK refuses to join France, Germany and Netherlands in halting arms sales to Turkey

EU leaders ‘condemn’ Turkey action against Kurds in strong terms

The British government has refused to join its allies in halting arms sales to Turkey over the country’s military operation against Kurdish forces in Syria.

EU foreign ministers unanimously agreed on Monday to “condemn” Turkey’s military action, arguing that it “seriously undermines the stability and the security of the whole region” and was harming civilians.

But the bloc stopped short of agreeing to an EU-wide arms embargo against Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government, instead issuing a relatively toothless pledge for “strong” arms export control on a country-by-country basis.

 

Article Continues...

[Which Tyler]

So Garage has never accepted Russian money, and has never even met the Russian ambassador.

In unrelated news, here's a press release from the Russian ambassador following his meeting with Garage: https://rusemb.org.uk/press/1286

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So Barnier has basically told the UK to put up (with Irish Sea Border and provide legal draft texts) or shut up (about getting a deal done) by midnight.

Usually I'd say, this is going to be interested now that push comes to shove, but here I am fairly sure it will just mean, the talks will collapse. As in the concession required from Johnson would never be acceptable to the DUP, and the ERG would vote them down equally dutifully. So I'd get my popcorn ready for the fingerpointing and blame game.

Well, 10 to 11 hours left (depending whether it's midnight CET or GMT).