UK Politics: Fishing for a deal

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yeah, it's the other big British politics item. Brexit talks have reached the critical stage with the time running out, and France apparently threatening to flex its veto muscles, if they don't like what they are seeing. It would be kinda ironic, if Britain really went off into no-deal land over Fishing rights, which contributes to little to its GDP, but was still so symbolic for the shambolic process.

Also Labour being between a rock and a hard place there, with what they are supposed to do if a deal comes before parliament.

Abstain and risk no deal, or support to avoid no deal, and lose a fair bit of credibility when it comes to critizising the end product.

Decission, decissions, decission.

[argonak]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yeah, it's the other big British politics item. Brexit talks have reached the critical stage with the time running out, and France apparently threatening to flex its veto muscles, if they don't like what they are seeing. It would be kinda ironic, if Britain really went off into no-deal land over Fishing rights, which contributes to little to its GDP, but was still so symbolic for the shambolic process.

Also Labour being between a rock and a hard place there, with what they are supposed to do if a deal comes before parliament.

Abstain and risk no deal, or support to avoid no deal, and lose a fair bit of credibility when it comes to critizising the end product.

Decission, decissions, decission.

Do the tories have insufficient votes to pass it on their own?  I thought they had a majority.  If Labour votes for it then they own it too, regardless of their complaints.  Seems like voting no would be the best political move.  They're already the minority party right?  So bet on it going bad and riding that back into power.  And if it goes well somehow, they're in no worse a position than they already are.

[Werthead]

9 minutes ago, argonak said:

Do the tories have insufficient votes to pass it on their own?  I thought they had a majority.  If Labour votes for it then they own it too, regardless of their complaints.  Seems like voting no would be the best political move.  They're already the minority party right?  So bet on it going bad and riding that back into power.  And if it goes well somehow, they're in no worse a position than they already are.

The Conservative Party remains divided over Brexit. A hardcore group want No Deal so they can profit off the resulting chaos. An opposing (and now much smaller) group of moderates want a pretty solid deal so they can say job done and move on to other areas. A lot of Tories are in between and could go either way.

On paper, yes, Boris could sell a deal to most of the Parliamentary Conservative Party and win the vote. But if a significant number decide to oppose it, he could be in trouble and could lose the vote, especially given some others in the party are thinking of trying to remove him in the spring and mount a leadership challenge. They may also calculate that opposing him now, when we are mid-crisis, rather than when vaccinations are underway, might be premature and make them look opportunistic.

The LibDems and Scottish National Party will vote against a deal no matter what, so it could come down to Labour, and it puts them in a tricky position since they are trying to win back people who are traditionally pro-Labour but also pro-Brexit, and voted for the Tories in the last election. Voting to support a deal could help them with that and then put Brexit to bed. It does make it much harder for them to criticise the government's future Brexit policies though, as the government can simply turn round and say, "Well, you supported this."

[argonak]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

The Conservative Party remains divided over Brexit. A hardcore group want No Deal so they can profit off the resulting chaos. An opposing (and now much smaller) group of moderates want a pretty solid deal so they can say job done and move on to other areas. A lot of Tories are in between and could go either way.

On paper, yes, Boris could sell a deal to most of the Parliamentary Conservative Party and win the vote. But if a significant number decide to oppose it, he could be in trouble and could lose the vote, especially given some others in the party are thinking of trying to remove him in the spring and mount a leadership challenge. They may also calculate that opposing him now, when we are mid-crisis, rather than when vaccinations are underway, might be premature and make them look opportunistic.

The LibDems and Scottish National Party will vote against a deal no matter what, so it could come down to Labour, and it puts them in a tricky position since they are trying to win back people who are traditionally pro-Labour but also pro-Brexit, and voted for the Tories in the last election. Voting to support a deal could help them with that and then put Brexit to bed. It does make it much harder for them to criticise the government's future Brexit policies though, as the government can simply turn round and say, "Well, you supported this."

Wow, I wasn't aware they actually wanted a "no deal."  What benefit could they see from that?  It just means they'll have to come back to the table and negotiate again next year, except with an even weaker negotiating position.

[Which Tyler]

Personal profit for themselves and their disaster-capitalist pay-lords?

Maintenance of tax loopholes for the wealthy?

Reinstatement of surfdom?

Regaining the empire?

Fewer foreigners? Nope sorry, sorry - protecting our national identity, (as being one without dirty foreigners). Nope, sorry, I'm getting it wrong again aren't I - it's protection of our culture, (because those foreigners might do things differently). But it's absolutely not about fewer foreigners because we don't like them - there are perfectly good and valid reasons for wanting fewer foreigners, we just haven't worked out what they are yet.

[Denvek]

1 hour ago, argonak said:

Wow, I wasn't aware they actually wanted a "no deal."  What benefit could they see from that?  It just means they'll have to come back to the table and negotiate again next year, except with an even weaker negotiating position.

SOVEREIGNTY!! WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS BUT WE WANT IT!!!!

[Which Tyler]

7 minutes ago, Denvek said:

SOVEREIGNTY!! WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS BUT WE WANT IT!!!!

Good point.

Sovereignty, it's a bit like exploiting control of your own body for someone who feels it's the only thing they can control - often leading to self harm / suicide

[Chaircat Meow]

Upset.

I wanted 'UK Politics: A scotch egg served as a substantial meal, that is a substantial meal' for the title. Horse's titles are so lame. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

56 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Upset.

I wanted 'UK Politics: A scotch egg served as a substantial meal, that is a substantial meal' for the title. Horse's titles are so lame. 

So they are basically puns, which are by definition lame.

I still reserve the right to call PETA over animal abuse.

[Fragile Bird]

We talked about the hierarchy list for the vaccine in the last thread. There hasn’t been a list like that released here in Canada, but the federal government and the provinces are in discussion and the current speculation is that people living in LTC homes, medical personnel and people over the age of 70 are at the top of the list. After that, the discussion in the media is suggesting the next tier will be essential personnel, including grocery store workers and teachers, not the next age bracket down from 70. It will be interesting to see here things go compared to the UK.

[Chaircat Meow]

On 12/4/2020 at 4:16 PM, Werthead said:

The Conservative Party remains divided over Brexit. A hardcore group want No Deal so they can profit off the resulting chaos. An opposing (and now much smaller) group of moderates want a pretty solid deal so they can say job done and move on to other areas. A lot of Tories are in between and could go either way.

How? Do we have examples of Tory MPs with business interests and a way for them to benefit via them from Brexit?

[Spockydog]

Why not ask yourself why JRM has moved his hedgefund businesses to Dublin, eh?

[Spockydog]

Oh lookie, here's another Tory cunt betting against the UK economy.

Brexiter hedge fund chief's bets against UK economy fail to pay off

Quote

 

Odey Asset Management has declared £149m of short positions against UK shops, banks, estate agents and property companies.

However, the fund has performed strongly in recent months, as the pound has fallen further and the share prices of a number of British businesses Odey bet against have collapsed.

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

@karaddin Posted about this in UK, but I’m pos
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/06/keira-bell-lawyer-warns-on-internet-coverage-of-transgender-issues
“The promotion of transgender issues on social media should be subject to safeguarding measures, according to the lawyer for a woman who brought last week’s landmark case against England’s only NHS gender identity development service (GID”

This is terrible if the government tries to censure these issues more trans people will die.

There’s also a free speech component of this.

Unfortunately this ruling will embolden Transphobes.

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

@karaddin Posted about this in UK, but I’m pos
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/06/keira-bell-lawyer-warns-on-internet-coverage-of-transgender-issues
“The promotion of transgender issues on social media should be subject to safeguarding measures, according to the lawyer for a woman who brought last week’s landmark case against England’s only NHS gender identity development service (GID”

This is terrible if the government tries to censure these issues more trans people will die.

There’s also a free speech component of this.

Unfortunately this ruling will embolden Transphobes.

Targetting in this way would be abhorrent, that being said, all social media should be subject to safeguarding measures. 

[Maltaran]

Sounds like they want to bring back Section 28 but for trans people.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Why not ask yourself why JRM has moved his hedgefund businesses to Dublin, eh?

Ok, so I thought you'd bring up Mogg and Odey.

On Mogg

1. JRM does not even have a hedgefund business, He did work as an emerging markets asset manager and still gets a dividend from the company (Somerset Asset Management) as he is a shareholder, I believe. Kindly explain how you make money out of Brexit by investing in emerging markets, especially with the long-term growth strategy Somerset say they use. or don't bother, just take it from me: you can't.

2. Regulations which existed before Brexit mean a lot of asset managers register their funds in Dublin or Luxembourg, while carrying out the work (i.e locating the main office) in London, or Paris, or wherever. Totally normal arrangement used by British, European, Japanese asset managers. 

So there is nothing in this. It is just utter ignorance of the way asset management works. 

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Oh lookie, here's another Tory cunt betting against the UK economy.

Brexiter hedge fund chief's bets against UK economy fail to pay off

 

On Odey

Odey does run a hedgefund and he is trying to make money out of falling UK share prices and currency fluctuations, yeah. That said, that is what hedgefunds do, take risky bets on a variety of asset classes, using exotic techniques. It is a stretch to say that's why he is in favour of a no deal: he's literally been doing the same thing every year he runs his fund, Brexit or no Brexit, waiting for big drops in currency/equities and trying to make money. And it wouldn't help him if the economy tanked long-term, as he also bets on certain assets rising.

So there is a grain of truth when it comes to Odey but you have to wildly exaggerate this to get to the position where you can believe the Tories in favour of no deal, most of whom are not rich enough to invest in hedge funds, have this as any kind of primary motivation. 

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Maltaran said:

Sounds like they want to bring back Section 28 but for trans people.

Yep.

Theres no true tolerance from hard transphobes in terms of trans people. Because Trans people existence is inappropriate for children to know in the transphobes eyes, so they can’t be shown to exist.

Anywhere.

[Liffguard]

4 hours ago, Maltaran said:

Sounds like they want to bring back Section 28 but for trans people.

Yep. Every single argument deployed against trans people today was being used word-for-word against gay people thirty years ago. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

41 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Yep. Every single argument deployed against trans people today was being used word-for-word against gay people thirty years ago. 

It should be noted the solicitor working  on it literally helped in pushing for a law to make the age of consent in terms of same-sex relations higher than heterosexual relations.

He and the people who back him probably would pursue something like this against gay people in the future.

Their homophobia has not cooled. It’s intensified. 
I’m pretty sure they’re envious of places like Saudi Arabia which allow executing gays, or Uganda where vigilante killings are practically approved by the government.

It’s essential people remember this, because they are trying very hard to drive a wedge between the LGBT community. And some LGB folks are willing to go along with them through pretending trans people are the biggest threat to gay rights instead of the people who’d literally see them, tortured, imprisoned and/or killed for being gay.