|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Aren't UKIP ultra-right? I notice their new leader saying that the NHS should be dismantled, sounds pretty right wing to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Yes, I would have preferred it a lot more if the remain side had won. But I do get a bit fed up of people criticising the GBP when there is zero probability of us having to cope with an ultra-right party, which is what we might have had if we'd never had a referendum.
This is far too optimistic. I think we are still very likely to have to cope with an ultra-right party. In fact I reckon ultra-right poeple and parties in the UK have received a good shot in the arm from the result of the referendum.
Given that UKIP appear to be cheering on the Fash in Austria and France, Trump in the US and Mr Putin generally, I'd say we have a far-right party and the government is committed to it's major policy commitment.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Yes, I would have preferred it a lot more if the remain side had won. But I do get a bit fed up of people criticising the GBP when there is zero probability of us having to cope with an ultra-right party, which is what we might have had if we'd never had a referendum.
This is far too optimistic. I think we are still very likely to have to cope with an ultra-right party. In fact I reckon ultra-right poeple and parties in the UK have received a good shot in the arm from the result of the referendum.
Given that UKIP appear to be cheering on the Fash in Austria and France, Trump in the US and Mr Putin generally, I'd say we have a far-right party and the government is committed to it's major policy commitment.
Farage was always trying to prevent UKIP's right-wing populism spilling over into something much nastier, and spent quite a bit of effort keeping the worst of it in check. Some of his supporters, including councillors and MEPs were way beyond him and now that Farage isn't in charge we'll see just how nasty UKIP really is.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Farage was always trying to prevent UKIP's right-wing populism spilling over into something much nastier, and spent quite a bit of effort keeping the worst of it in check.
This seems to have been largely a tactic about plausibile deniability and maintaining a certain level of electability.
I expect there are many on the right who feel that post Trump the calculus has changed.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
At last, we can tell the Pakis to go home, and let's smash the NHS, what a relief.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Alan C: quote:
Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?
Sure. If you really really believe that the GBP were "without any clue about where we go afterwards" then I think you under-estimate them considerably.
If, when pressed, you would admit that they did have a clue, but lacked a lot of the details then I think you are too risk-averse.
My niece-in-law and family are emigrating to France to start a sort of activity centre. So if you asked if they have a clue where they're going, then yes: France to run a sort of activity centre. Do they have details beyond that: No. Could it fail: Actually I think it's quite probable. But I don't think they're being plain daft - they're taking a risk.
Of course, it you have no clear motivation in doing something risky, like leaving the EU, the issue of risk becomes a bit irrelevant. But to a lot of Brexiteers, this means a lot to them, and they find the degree of risk acceptable to achieve what they want. You don't, neither did I, but that doesn't make them plain daft.
Mind you the biggest risk never happened. Boris.
My reasons for voting remain were in no particular order:
- Countries within the UK especially Ireland, where the fact that the Republic is likely to be badly hit will add to the tensions. That is a large risk, but not primarily or exclusively economic.
- The Donald - and that one came true. That's really shorthand for Geo-political security.
- Boris. Or even worse - Gove. We escaped that.
- Yoof. Although the fact that they could get of their arse to vote tempers that a bit. They should've won it.
BTW and forgive me for being intrusive - but are you, by any chance, Scottish? If so you're opinion on the SNP would be interesting. My Scottish rellies are v. anti - solid Labour - and mention SNP in the same breath as UKIP.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C: quote:
Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?
Sure. If you really really believe that the GBP were "without any clue about where we go afterwards" then I think you under-estimate them considerably.
If, when pressed, you would admit that they did have a clue, but lacked a lot of the details then I think you are too risk-averse.
I would say that probably for the majority who voted Leave (excluding the protest voters) people did have a clue about where they wanted to go - but, there was no consensus about where to go. Some voted to leave the single market, others for greater sovereignty within the single market, some for increased controls on immigration, others for keeping Spanish fishermen out of British waters, some to have more control over the miniscule amounts the UK sends to Europe ... all sorts of different ideas about what they wanted. Though I do think there was a large vote for "just get out, and we'll sort it out afterwards".
I do believe that the British people were denied crucial information about where the UK was aiming to position itself post Brexit. Not just the public, the government is flailing around at the moment without a clue for exactly the same reason - they've decided that a purely advisory referendum has compelled them to an action that very few in government want without the basic information of what the Leave campaign wanted in the first place.
Is that just a question of risk? Well, no. Whatever form of Brexit would have had risks - the biggest being that negotiations with the rest of the EU, and other nations, would fail to achieve the desired form of Brexit. The specific risks would be different depending on what the intention was. But, to have no plan whatsoever takes risk to a whole new level.
It's like setting out for a car journey. If I'm going to visit my mum I know I will need to fill the car with petrol, and plan to top up along the way (or, take the petrol can). I will plan to stop at particular places. I will have a clue about how long it will take. But, there are risks. A lot of road, delays which mean I stop at different places and get there late. And, there's always a small risk I won't make it at all. Those are risks, but we take them because visiting mum is a good thing and worth it. Conversely, we could just decide it's time to get the car out of the garage and drive into the wilderness, with no map or sat nav, no plan to go anywhere in particular, and a quarter tank of petrol hoping it will be enough. Add in a car full of back-seat drivers giving conflicting instructions whether to turn left or right at the junction and it's a recipe for disaster, and most would say totally stupid.
quote:
My niece-in-law and family are emigrating to France to start a sort of activity centre. So if you asked if they have a clue where they're going, then yes: France to run a sort of activity centre. Do they have details beyond that: No. Could it fail: Actually I think it's quite probable. But I don't think they're being plain daft - they're taking a risk.
Exactly, they have a plan for what they want to do. They've presumably done some preparation - learnt French, scoped out what sort of activities there is a market for, identified approximately how much it will cost to buy/rent a centre and equip it, how many staff they need - and, made sure they have a budget to cover that and some contingencies. Good luck to them. Hopefully they won't find themselves shipped back to the UK or needing to obtain work and residence visas in a couple of years.
That is only sensible. Of course, we've probably all heard stories of people who feel called by God to missionary service overseas, so take the bus to the airport with the cash in their pocket and get a ticket for the first plane they can get on. Some would call it incredible faith in God, others stupidity. But, that's effectively what this country has done. Got on the first flight out of the EU and trusting that it'll land somewhere nice.
quote:
BTW and forgive me for being intrusive - but are you, by any chance, Scottish? If so you're opinion on the SNP would be interesting. My Scottish rellies are v. anti - solid Labour - and mention SNP in the same breath as UKIP.
Actually, I'm English. Born and raised near London. But, I've lived here more than 20 years. I have a lot of time for the SNP, they've grown in political stature over the last 20 years. There is much that they have done in government that I like. I arrived here as a LibDem supporter, but any chance of voting LibDem vanished with the coalition (if I move back to England then the LibDems come back onto my radar). I also vote Green when there is a candidate - especially the top up seats for Holyrood. I keep thinking about joining the SNP, or the Greens, but never quite get around to it. It is obvious to me that much of the policy from Westminster is not fit for purpose in Scotland (actually, a lot of it makes no sense for the rest of the UK too, IMO. But then I'd never vote Tory and recently Labour have been adopting Tory policies too). I believe Scotland would be far better off independent of Westminster, within the European Union. Of course, the UK as a whole would be a lot better off staying within the EU.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?
That is a simple question. But, tied in with that is the question of "and, then go where?". Do we leave the party early to go home for an early night, go to the pub, go to a club, go to another party?
To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
I don't disagree with that , save for what follows - and this is going to be my last post on this, I promise.
Alan, you're arguing for a rational approach. The Leave side was never rational, but was purely emotional. It started with the appreciation that by and large, the UK has never accepted that it is a part of Europe in any sense. From that starting point, the catchy slogan "Let's Make Britain Great Again" was adopted. While it has absolutely no content it served its purpose of getting the Leave supporters to the polls,.
So those who campaign for Real Ale (similarly romantic and irrational), who worship every nut and bolt of Great Western locos, thought Morgans and HRGs were the only real cars after WW II (while the rest of the world wondered if they were cars at all, rather than the left-overs from a Meccano set), and all the others voted to Leave. No thought but lots of emotion. Indeed, does Boris Johnson have any capacity for thought?
So that's the first reason that your campaign for your approach was never going to get anywhere. The second is that any programme for negotiations put to the voters would have had little force afterwards. Let's assume that the Leave campaign had been able to work out a detailed programme to argue. What effect would that have had on the UK negotiators? Would they have been bound to follow that and go no further?
Then here's the EU line, vey simple and for the UK negotiators very worrying - no negotiations until and unless there's the Article 50 notice. Time then runs, and the EU has the upper hand. 2 years later, and the UK is out.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
[QB]
So that's the first reason that your campaign for your approach was never going to get anywhere. The second is that any programme for negotiations put to the voters would have had little force afterwards. Let's assume that the Leave campaign had been able to work out a detailed programme to argue. What effect would that have had on the UK negotiators? Would they have been bound to follow that and go no further?
Then here's the EU line, vey simple and for the UK negotiators very worrying - no negotiations until and unless there's the Article 50 notice. Time then runs, and the EU has the upper hand. 2 years later, and the UK is out.
This makes it sound like the EU could force the UK to leave after 2 years. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. 2 years is the minimum time allowed for exit negotiations who then have to be agreed by everyone.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
AIUI, it is not that the EU can ten force the UK to leave - the 2 years day is reached and the UK then automatically ceases to be a member. It is a consequence of the treaty.
[ 05. December 2016, 19:38: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
A formal limit over the negotiations period might be enforced or threatened if the negotiations got bogged down. Realpolitik suggests that a rigid enforcement is unlikely. But it feels that it will be a messy divorce.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I think there was a precedent set with Greenland. In any case, 'stopping the clock' has been used before in EU negotiations.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think there was a precedent set with Greenland. In any case, 'stopping the clock' has been used before in EU negotiations.
Again, while that may be true of negotiations, the Treaty is not something that can be altered on the run as it were. The notice is given and membership then ends on the second anniversary regardless of any negotiations. There's a difference between negotiations and status, as it were. Indeed, the parties could agree to continue negotiations after the 2 years has passed, should they choose.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
So those who campaign for Real Ale (similarly romantic and irrational)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Among the many, many reasons for loathing Mr Farage, near the top of the list is the fact that real ale will now forever be associated with UKIP.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Aye. I don't understand what's irrational about CAMRA.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Real Ale is as bad as any English beer, flat and warm. Best not drunk, may help clear blocked drains (and now add any other insults you like). The point is that CAMRA really is romantic, in the same manner as making Britain Great again in the revival of an imagined 1950s. That totally ignores the fact that economic power had swum the Atlantic by 1914 at the latest; the effect of WW I was to complete the swim and make the US a creditor rather than a debtor nation.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Real Ale is as bad as any English beer, flat and warm. Best not drunk, may help clear blocked drains (and now add any other insults you like). The point is that CAMRA really is romantic [..]
CAMRA is romantic because we should all drink the cold fizzy product of the leader of the Western World? All Hail Budweiser, King of horse toilets?
(In fairness, my adopted country makes a considerable range of tasty (and mostly cold and fizzy) beers, not just the mass-market swill. I assume you lot make something better than Fosters and Castlemaine XXXX?)
CAMRA is a campaign for beer with flavour, and character, and individuality. And taking off the rose-tinted spectacles, one of the things about character and individuality is that sometimes it's shit. If you want to drink mass-market lager and eat at MacDonalds, be my guest. Every meal you have will be exactly the same as every other meal, and you can eat it on a plastic seat sculpted to the shape of the average buttock.
I'll pass. I'll take real ale and real food over ersatz and eating-by-numbers every day. And the price I pay for that is that, every now and then, a pint of Old Man's Todger tastes like, well, you see where I'm going.
But it doesn't happen very often.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I knew that I should not have referred to CAMRA - as I had feared, that may well take away from the real substance of my post, namely that the Leave argument was devoid of any substance and fell back into simplistic sloganeering,
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Alan C: quote:
I believe Scotland would be far better off independent of Westminster, within the European Union. Of course, the UK as a whole would be a lot better off staying within the EU.
We (maybe just I) are going around in circles a bit, and maybe I should take a vow of silence on this thread for a bit. But . .
I think the quote above gets near the problem of pursuing a vision in the face of risk.
I can't see how you could hope that the Scottish people would ever be in a position to have a referendum to leave the UK where the subsequent accession to the EU was known to be at the very least highly likely, and preferably certain, no matter how committed the SNP would be to it. You must know that everyone would downplay this possibility, especially those countries which have similar situations, like Catalonia in Spain (not even to mention Belgium(s)).
If this is true, you either give up the vision or go with it despite a considerable risk. Which is what was done by those who believe UK would be far better off independent of Brussels, within a remaining close relationship with the EU.
I think I may have sort of said this before. I believe that it is better that the EU stay in the EU and Scotland in the UK, but I fully understand those with a different view who are prepared to see it realised despite the inevitable risk.
BTW. Here's a real referendum question.
"Do you approve the text of the Constitutional Law on 'Provisions for exceeding the equal bicameralism, reducing the number of MPs, the containment of operating costs of the institutions, the suppression of the CNEL and the revision of Title V of Part II of the Constitution' approved by Parliament and published in the Official Gazette n° 88 of 15 April 2016?" (c) Matteo Renzi 2016
[ 06. December 2016, 08:25: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C: quote:
I believe Scotland would be far better off independent of Westminster, within the European Union. Of course, the UK as a whole would be a lot better off staying within the EU.
We (maybe just I) are going around in circles a bit, and maybe I should take a vow of silence on this thread for a bit. But . .
I think the quote above gets near the problem of pursuing a vision in the face of risk.
I can't see how you could hope that the Scottish people would ever be in a position to have a referendum to leave the UK where the subsequent accession to the EU was known to be at the very least highly likely, and preferably certain, no matter how committed the SNP would be to it. You must know that everyone would downplay this possibility, especially those countries which have similar situations, like Catalonia in Spain (not even to mention Belgium(s)).
Which is why the independence White Paper was for independence from Westminster with the aspiration to retain membership of the EU (or, plan B to seek re-admission if the existing membership could not be continued). I don't think anyone pretended that there was any certainty. Generally "Project Fear" overplayed the risks to the point of saying it wouldn't happen, and the Yes campaign probably painted it as an easier process than it would be.
quote:
I believe that it is better that the EU stay in the EU
Yes, that would seem to be a good idea.
quote:
BTW. Here's a real referendum question.
"Do you approve the text of the Constitutional Law on 'Provisions for exceeding the equal bicameralism, reducing the number of MPs, the containment of operating costs of the institutions, the suppression of the CNEL and the revision of Title V of Part II of the Constitution' approved by Parliament and published in the Official Gazette n° 88 of 15 April 2016?" (c) Matteo Renzi 2016
Absolutely. A "yes or no" question that relates to a particular Act of Parliament, that has already been extensively discussed and passed by Parliament, seeking approval of the electorate. That's how to organise a referendum.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Ho ho. I corrected my EU in EU slogan, but somehow it didn't get through.
Mind you, would Cameron have won that referendum?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A formal limit over the negotiations period might be enforced or threatened if the negotiations got bogged down. Realpolitik suggests that a rigid enforcement is unlikely. But it feels that it will be a messy divorce.
That appears likely. The EU's chief negotiator has set a date of October 2018 for the conclusion of negotiations, and also warned against "Cherry picking" on issues like the single market.
Supreme Court or not, the government is going to have an uphill struggle getting any kind of deal.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
It'll be interesting to see how much energy the government has left once it has surmounted that hill. It still might try and sneak an Election first.
I notice we are still getting the odd Theresa crowd pleaser coming from the radio news. Will the Brexit mob be a soft touch for a Tory victory next Spring she wonders.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Boris for Trump's Secretary of State?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
No cat among the pigeons delivered by the people of Sleaford. Even doubling their share of the vote wasn't enough for the LibDems to make an impact - though, a turn out almost half that of the general election was also very disappointing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
A by-election in December is a recipe for low turnout.
Remain voters swinging to Lib Dems, albeit not in large enough numbers to have much impact (they were the only party to increase their numbers, although given their abysmal showing in 2015, the only way was up),. otherwise a general verdict of "in Theresa May we trust". A bad night for UKIP, who lost votes and came a poor second and a really bad night for Labour who look likely to shed such swing voters as they retained in 2015 to the Tories, Leave voters to UKIP and Remain voters to the Lib Dems.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU's chief negotiator[/URL] has set a date of October 2018 for the conclusion of negotiations, and also warned against "Cherry picking" on issues like the single market.
Supreme Court or not, the government is going to have an uphill struggle getting any kind of deal.
And it seems they aren't interested in a transitional deal anyway (and believe they know the needs of business better than the business community) :
http://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/807156000394395648
Article is paywalled, but going via the twitter link seems to work.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No cat among the pigeons delivered by the people of Sleaford. Even doubling their share of the vote wasn't enough for the LibDems to make an impact - though, a turn out almost half that of the general election was also very disappointing.
A really disappointing result. The people of England have given up. Brexit will go through after all. The banks will leave the City and we'll have no income. Low productivity will keep foreign investors away and we'll have to sell our labour cheap and slash corporation tax to have any income whatsoever. If the millionaires won't accept higher taxes, the rest of us will be on starvation wages within a few years. Forget a lost decade - we're heading for far worse than that.
But I mustn't say these things because I'm just talking the country down.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No cat among the pigeons delivered by the people of Sleaford. Even doubling their share of the vote wasn't enough for the LibDems to make an impact - though, a turn out almost half that of the general election was also very disappointing.
A really disappointing result. The people of England have given up. Brexit will go through after all. The banks will leave the City and we'll have no income. Low productivity will keep foreign investors away and we'll have to sell our labour cheap and slash corporation tax to have any income whatsoever. If the millionaires won't accept higher taxes, the rest of us will be on starvation wages within a few years. Forget a lost decade - we're heading for far worse than that.
But I mustn't say these things because I'm just talking the country down.
I'm looking on the brightside. Now that Farage has gone UKIP look utterly broken, not to mention pointless. They were always going to get votes in Lincolnshire: it's that kind of place. The LibDems and Labour now have two years to show that they have something better to offer.
Labour don't have a pro- or anti-Brexit position whereas the LibDem position is resolutely anti-Brexit, so they have a better chance of putting something in place, and can add that to the "Things would have been a damn sight worse between 2010 and 2015 without us" line, which is more apparent as the days go by.
Frankly I don't see Brexit happening. Davis, Fox and Johnson will fall on their swords (I think Boris must have been shown a yellow card by now). The government then comes up against the most serious problem, namely that the talent pool is desperately shallow.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's not a surprising result. This is prime Brexit country - I can look out my window, and the nearest Remain area is Norwich, across acres and acres of red, white and blue English men and women.
Labour are in danger of being squeezed. The Lib Dems could attract Remain voters, and obviously Tories will vote Tory, and UKIP will attract those who think it's not good enough. Labour has a more nuanced, or perhaps confused, position, but this is tricky in a polarized situation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Labour are the only party without a strong narrative on Brexit - the Tories have "we're getting on with implementing the will of The People", UKIP have "we'll make sure it happens", and the Lib Dems have "it's a terrible mistake".
Labour have to finesse their position to avoid losing the metropolitan lefties if they come out in favour, or the working class core vote if they come out against. "We're going to hold the government to account but then back them anyway" isn't a great vote winner. Until Brexit moves off the top of the agenda (and how many years will that be?) Labour are going to have problems getting heard.
I don't think Sleaford tells us anything much, it's solid Tory country. The Lib Dems will be disappointed not to have scored another big shock, but they can take comfort that their recovery seems to be continuing.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The Tories have a kind of Schrödinger's Brexit at the moment, as nobody knows what it is, including them. This has an advantage, as they can keep spinning it out, appearing to hold the keys to the kingdom, yet it is also full of hazard in the long term, as when it actually becomes real, some people will be disappointed.
Labour are in a bad position. They seem caught between leaning towards UKIP, immigration is bad for our white people, and leaning towards LibDems, we need soft Brexit. I think Starmer looks articulate and competent, but that ain't enough.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The Tories have a kind of Schrödinger's Brexit at the moment, as nobody knows what it is, including them. This has an advantage, as they can keep spinning it out, appearing to hold the keys to the kingdom, yet it is also full of hazard in the long term, as when it actually becomes real, some people will be disappointed.
Labour are in a bad position. They seem caught between leaning towards UKIP, immigration is bad for our white people, and leaning towards LibDems, we need soft Brexit. I think Starmer looks articulate and competent, but that ain't enough.
The two main parties are in similar positions but in one case it's obvious and in the other it's only apparent. Both are divided over Brexit, both have weak leadership, neither really has a coherent plan and both are torn between sections of their base which want radically different outcomes (embittered but comparatively wealthy boomers vs. the City in the Tories case, metropolitan lefties vs. working class northerners in Labour's). The difference is that Mrs May has hit upon the expedient of governing through enigmatic slogans that would do credit to Ambassador Kosh - Brexit means Brexit, We want a red, white and blue Brexit, We will meet in Red 3 at the hour of scampering.
This is all fine, as far as it goes, but cometh the hour of negotiating Mr Rubber is going to have to make the acquaintance of Mr Road. When the negotiations begin in earnest they will happen against the backdrop of withering commentary as the gulf between aspiration and reality hits home on the one hand, and Mr Farage, and the Tory Leavers on the other, operating as a kind of Greek chorus crying out "Woe! Woe! I See Brexit Betrayed". At which point her commanding lead in the polls will look distinctly less commanding, I should imagine.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
But who will the lead be over, Callan?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, good analysis. If I was her, I would time an election (if she can engineer one), before the heady fumes of coulda woulda shoulda Brexit have dispelled. But I would think that she will win anyway, even if the hard-liners go over to UKIP.
I think Labour could hammer at issues like the cuts and the NHS, and the dangers of hard Brexit, but I don't know if they can withstand the hysteria over Brexit. The shouts of 'traitor' are going to get louder.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Labour may be trying to keep their hands out of the blood as far as being pro or anti Brexit is concerned, then they can be in a position to benefit from any backlash. Seems to be about the only option open to them anyway, also one not open to the Tories. As Callan says, being in the driving seat the Tories will eventually have to decide which road to take.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
It's almost as though Labour members and friends voted for the guy with no leadership skills, without the confidence of his MPs, and without a consistent position on Europe, in place of the guy who wanted Labour to lobby unambiguously for Britain to remain or rejoin the EU.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Also I noticed that the Richmond Labour Party has more members than actually voted for their candidate ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also I noticed that the Richmond Labour Party has more members than actually voted for their candidate ...
I don't think we can read too much into that, the usual by-election caveats apply. Labour members may have lent their votes in order to register a protest against Brexit in this well-heeled pro remain area. If they defect permanently here and elsewhere then Labour clearly has a problem, but we need more evidence before we can say that is happening.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also I noticed that the Richmond Labour Party has more members than actually voted for their candidate ...
I don't think we can read too much into that, the usual by-election caveats apply. Labour members may have lent their votes in order to register a protest against Brexit in this well-heeled pro remain area. If they defect permanently here and elsewhere then Labour clearly has a problem, but we need more evidence before we can say that is happening.
Add to which that the local MP ran a horrible campaign against Sadiq Khan in the Mayoral Election. It's understandable if people put giving Zac Goldsmith a kicking ahead of voting against Sarah Olney.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Wot? Voting for the triangulating neoliberal Tory-cuts-enablers on the grounds of electability? Surely the Corbynistas are above such ideological compromises ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
All that Labour can do right now is wait out this period of collective insanity. I think that opposing Brexit would be suicidal, especially in some areas.
If some ex-Labour voters think that voting Tory/UKIP/Brexit will bring them prosperity or whatever, then they have to test that out.
2020 is a long way off, and we don't know what will have happened, to Brexit, to the Tories, or to Labour. I can't see any alternative.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I have just discovered that my speech-to-text software transcribes "Brexit" as "breaks it".
(It often seems to be some sort of Delphic oracle).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
The latest YouGov poll makes good reading for the LibDems:
CON 42%, LAB 25%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, GRN 4%
Fieldwork was done shortly after the Richmond Park result, so they probably got a boost from that, but they are trending up. If they can start consistently polling ahead of UKIP, that will be significant IMO - the main anti-Brexit party beating the main pro-Brexit party. Indeed, if you include the Greens as an anti-Brexit party, we are already there.
The Tories have been on 40+ for nearly 2 months now, which is stunning given the almighty mess they've made of governing the country, but this surely represents a ceiling for them from which the only way is down.
Pretty dire for Labour, and no doubt there'll be the usual "Labour unelectable under Corbyn, yada yada", but if Owen Who had won the leadership, Labour would have come out strongly against Brexit, which would not be a good move given that 70% of Labour-held constituencies voted to leave. The problems with Brexit will become all too apparent over the next year or so, and then the Tory's aura of all-seeing competence will start to fade.
Conversely if Labour came out for Brexit they'd lose the metropolitan vote and people would doubt their sincerity. Getting out of this hole will take patience and guile, qualities which are in rather short supply in today's Labour party.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
the main anti-Brexit party beating the main pro-Brexit party. Indeed, if you include the Greens as an anti-Brexit party, we are already there.
And, the SNP who already have a larger parliamentary presence than the LibDems and Greens combined.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories have been on 40+ for nearly 2 months now, which is stunning given the almighty mess they've made of governing the country
The almighty mess you think they've made of governing the country. Obviously a lot of people disagree with you on that point. Don't mistake your opinions for facts.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories have been on 40+ for nearly 2 months now, which is stunning given the almighty mess they've made of governing the country
The almighty mess you think they've made of governing the country. Obviously a lot of people disagree with you on that point. Don't mistake your opinions for facts.
David Cameron was by common consent one of the worst Prime Ministers of modern times, if not ever. I certainly don't know anyone who has a good word to say about him, or Osborne or their misguided austerity policies. And yes, I know quite a few leave voters.
Mrs May has managed to make herself quite popular by not being Cameron, by not saying anything about Brexit beyond obscure Delphic slogans, and by deploying the occasional dead cat (see grammar schools). As said in posts passim , once she has to decide what sort of Brexit to pursue, the fragile coalitions that are the Tory party and the Brexit vote will start to fragment.
I think that the Tory lead is soft, consisting largely of a new leader bump assisted by an opposition in disarray. At the moment a plurality of people regards the current government as the least worst option, but it is not well-loved.
I'm sure her inner circle are screaming at her to go for an early election.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories have been on 40+ for nearly 2 months now, which is stunning given the almighty mess they've made of governing the country
The almighty mess you think they've made of governing the country. Obviously a lot of people disagree with you on that point. Don't mistake your opinions for facts.
The cornerstone of the Cameron's Prime Ministership was George Osborn's "Austerity" policies which were designed to reduce the deficit. The basis was to get people back to work, but all that did was create a lot of part-time, zero-hours and casual jobs, which was exactly the work that EU migrants snapped up! Moreover, it didn't cut the deficit at all, because the tax revenue on those jobs was minimal, and the persistent revisions to Osborn's projections (it'll all be sorted in five years time, repeat annually at every Autumn Statement) were rumbled such that Philip Hammond consignedit to the Round File (you know, the tin one in the corner of the office) before he even sat down.
The only reason the Tories are on 40+ is that UKIP has collapsed, Labour is in the doldrums and the LibDems are still tarred with the Coalition brush. Against that background the Tories should be on 60+.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Pretty dire for Labour, and no doubt there'll be the usual "Labour unelectable under Corbyn, yada yada", but if Owen Who had won the leadership, Labour would have come out strongly against Brexit, which would not be a good move given that 70% of Labour-held constituencies voted to leave.
How many Labour-held leave constituencies care more about Brexit than an appearance of economic competence and having some solution to their problems?
I can believe that Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells puts Brexit in his top three political issues that determines how he votes. But he's voting Tory or UKIP whatever happens.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The Tories won't even mention the word Election until well into the New Year. At the moment there is voter fatigue after the referendum and general bewilderment over events in America.
There are though two massive incentives for TM to go to the Country in 2017
1/ No one really knows how ugly the EU pullout will look come 2020
2/ Labour is in depleted condition and the Electorate simply don't know what to make of JC.
Put like that she'd be plain stupid not to pull a quickie. The Omens are way too uncertain for any politician to try and play around.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
