|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
Since the legislation was changed to give fixed term parliaments the PM can't just call an election when it suits their party. Presumably there would need to be a vote of no confidence or similar, which other parties may have the wisdom not to support until they've got themselves in a better position.
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
The fixed term parliament act was put in place to stop either of the Coalition partners pulling the rug from under the other one. It was very much of its time and is no longer required. Parliament enacted it and parliament can repeal it.
Labour would make themselves a laughing-stock if they tried to delay an election because of unfavourable polls - it's the opposition's raison d'etre to fight and win a general election as soon as possible.
What might frustrate attempts to call a snappie is a cross-party alliance of remainers worried about the large and very Brexit-ey Tory majority that would probably be returned.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I'd have thought the main objection to calling a snap election is that if Ms May is determined to have a plan in place to trigger Article 50 by the end of March then she simply doesn't have time to abolish the Fixed Term Parliament Act and fight an election campaign as well.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
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.
Common consent of whom? I could equally say I don't know a single person who would agree with you, including a number of socialists who would at least put him below Thatcher.
As for leave voters, why are you assuming they correlate to Tory supporters? There were a lot of safe Labour constituencies that voted to leave.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How many Labour-held leave constituencies care more about Brexit than an appearance of economic competence and having some solution to their problems?
The one I'm in for sure. Can't have a conversation about politics round here without brexit being mentioned as a good thing. And I'd wager most of the Labour seats in the old industrial areas of the Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire would be the same.
--------------------
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:
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.
Common consent of whom? I could equally say I don't know a single person who would agree with you, including a number of socialists who would at least put him below Thatcher.
As for leave voters, why are you assuming they correlate to Tory supporters? There were a lot of safe Labour constituencies that voted to leave.
I have pointed out above that the reason Labour can't come out against Brexit is that a lot of their own voters and members supported it. I referred to leave voters as they would be more likely to think well of Cameron, since he gave them the referendum that allowed them to realise their heart's desire to fuck up our international relations for a generation. But IME they all consider him an incompetent twit too.
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM? Leaving aside the wasted years of the coalition - all those grotesquely unfair cuts and all that economic stagnation for no gain whatsoever - when was the last time a PM resigned so suddenly and in such ignominious circumstances? Even Eden staggered on for a few months after Suez.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Common consent of whom? I could equally say I don't know a single person who would agree with you, including a number of socialists who would at least put him below Thatcher.
I'm sure that's not your view, and I dare say that there are socialists daft enough to believe that, but it's frankly bonkers. At the very least she was a much more effective Prime Minister than Mr Cameron. I would say of her that she was a good Prime Minister but that the human cost of her policies was, IMO, unacceptably high. Mr Cameron was a mediocre Prime Minister who achieved very little and, I suspect, will be seen to have caused great harm to the country to the end of keeping himself in office for another twelve months.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
At the very least she was a much more effective Prime Minister than Mr Cameron.
It depends on what one means by a "good Prime Minister", doesn't it? A Prime Minister who successfully builds support for his or her agenda, and enacts significant change during his or her tenure is an effective PM. You may or may not like the results, depending on how your politics aligns with the PM's.
On the other hand, a PM who spends his or her tenure fannying about, fighting pointless battles, and generally pissing away any negotiating points he or she had, whilst not actually accomplishing any significant part of his or her aims is a pretty useless PM. If you are opposed to the PM's politics, perhaps you'd like a useless one.
On these standards, Thatcher scores highly, and Cameron scores pretty low, but the only person to score negative points is probably Deputy PM Nick Clegg.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Nick Clegg was quite effective at moderating many tory policies (eg: welfare reforms) and so IMO scores positive points for effectiveness.
He scores incredibly massive negative points for abysmal PR, because he never told anyone what he was doing so we only became aware of it when he was no longer there to influence government policy. Which, for a politician, is practically unforgivable. And, more than enough to offset all the positives.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for leave voters, why are you assuming they correlate to Tory supporters? There were a lot of safe Labour constituencies that voted to leave.
And, good evidence that in at least some cases there has been a massive Bregret swing. Sunderland with 61% for Leave in June now polling a complete u-turn with the majority saying that if they had the chance to vote again it would be to remain.
--------------------
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
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for leave voters, why are you assuming they correlate to Tory supporters? There were a lot of safe Labour constituencies that voted to leave.
And, good evidence that in at least some cases there has been a massive Bregret swing. Sunderland with 61% for Leave in June now polling a complete u-turn with the majority saying that if they had the chance to vote again it would be to remain.
do I need to flag why an internet poll in a newspaper which anyone in the world can vote on (which AIUI this was) is in no way "good evidence" again?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though, one wonders about how many people from outside Sunderland would bother reading the local newspaper website to know there was a poll to vote on. Which should make it better than a poll on a national newspaper with a high social media presence that would get a lot of people voting who have no particular connection to that paper.
But, ultimately no worse an exercise in determining what people think than an un-defined question in 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
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, one wonders about how many people from outside Sunderland would bother reading the local newspaper website to know there was a poll to vote on. Which should make it better than a poll on a national newspaper with a high social media presence that would get a lot of people voting who have no particular connection to that paper.
I don't know if you use twitter, but my timeline is permanently stuffed with remain campaigners sharing links and exhorting their followers to vote on every poll they can get their hands on. That and animal rights activists flooding polls on bringing back foxhunting in eg the Cornish Herald.
It's just now a thing.
Frankly, I barely take much notice of proper polling, but this sort of stuff would be laughable if it wasn't actually seriously used as ammunition for one point of view or another.
[ 11. December 2016, 12:41: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How many Labour-held leave constituencies care more about Brexit than an appearance of economic competence and having some solution to their problems?
The one I'm in for sure. Can't have a conversation about politics round here without brexit being mentioned as a good thing. And I'd wager most of the Labour seats in the old industrial areas of the Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire would be the same.
I'll agree that you can't have a conversation in a pub without Brexit being mentioned as a Good Thing, but that says more about Saloon Bar Man and his pals than it does about the merits of Brexit.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I wonder how many want a Brexit which (a) would not immediately leave them financially better off (b) does not leave extra cash for the NHS (c) does not have a significant impact on overall migration (d) increases the cost of trips to the EU and/or (e) has a personal financial cost.
I appreciate that there are different understandings of Brexit and people may think different things about each of those points, but my guess is that few who voted Leave actually wants a deal which substantially leaves things economically the same or makes things worse. There are ideologs who want it at any cost, but I don't believe that is a majority.
I also read that as young people overwhelmingly support Remain and older people Leave, if we are not to leave until 2019/2020 by that stage there may well be a majority of Remain supporters as more young Remainers get to voting age and some older Leavers die.
Which appears to be a likely mathematical calculation if not something provable without a ref by when the time comes.
[ 11. December 2016, 15:12: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I think we can account for the 17 million Leave voters by putting them into three camps (with some overlap)
One-third believing that everything wrong with the UK is due to interference from the undemocratic institutions that govern the EU.
One-third believing statements that there would be economic benefits, eg, the £350 million per day for the NHS
One-third who are, to a greater or lesser degree, xenophobic.
The first two are false (we are quite capable of fucking things up for ourselves thank you, we are no more democratic than the EU and the purported economic benefits were retracted as soon as the votes had been counted) while the third is one of those things you find pretty much everywhere: it's part of human nature to prefer people more like oneself, even if one is a tosspot, although it really doesn't benefit anyone.
eta: in May 2020 there should be an election. If it is a straight "in/out" fight, which isn't out of the question if invoking Article 50 is delayed to 2018 then the downsides of Brexit will be more obvious.
[ 11. December 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wonder how many want a Brexit which (a) would not immediately leave them financially better off (b) does not leave extra cash for the NHS (c) does not have a significant impact on overall migration (d) increases the cost of trips to the EU and/or (e) has a personal financial cost.
I appreciate that there are different understandings of Brexit and people may think different things about each of those points, but my guess is that few who voted Leave actually wants a deal which substantially leaves things economically the same or makes things worse. There are ideologs who want it at any cost, but I don't believe that is a majority.
I also read that as young people overwhelmingly support Remain and older people Leave, if we are not to leave until 2019/2020 by that stage there may well be a majority of Remain supporters as more young Remainers get to voting age and some older Leavers die.
Which appears to be a likely mathematical calculation if not something provable without a ref by when the time comes.
Sure, but that's not going to happen in a vacuum. There will also presumably be people going in the opposite direction.
I voted Remain, primarily motivated by fear of the unknown rather than because of any particular pro-EU sentiment. In the past 6 months, my firm has had to work flat out to work out how we deal with the new reality and to be honest I've quite enjoyed it. It's scary but there are really interesting possibilities too. I'm actually being won over to it - so soft Remainers might end up switching sides just as much as the soft/protest Brexiters. I have to say if there was another referendum tomorrow I'd be more minded to give Leave a chance than I was in June.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I think we can account for the 17 million Leave voters by putting them into three camps (with some overlap)
One-third believing that everything wrong with the UK is due to interference from the undemocratic institutions that govern the EU.
One-third believing statements that there would be economic benefits, eg, the £350 million per day for the NHS
One-third who are, to a greater or lesser degree, xenophobic.
The first two are false (we are quite capable of fucking things up for ourselves thank you, we are no more democratic than the EU and the purported economic benefits were retracted as soon as the votes had been counted) while the third is one of those things you find pretty much everywhere: it's part of human nature to prefer people more like oneself, even if one is a tosspot, although it really doesn't benefit anyone.
4 camps I think - the 4th being the people that would quite like the idea of some sort of alliance, but think the one we've got is utterly incapable of reform and are so exasperated with the whole thing that they'd rather walk away on balance. That's probably the one I'm closest to, and have got closer to it since the referendum. I wouldn't put myself in any of the 3 camps you suggest.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I voted Remain, primarily motivated by fear of the unknown rather than because of any particular pro-EU sentiment. In the past 6 months, my firm has had to work flat out to work out how we deal with the new reality and to be honest I've quite enjoyed it. It's scary but there are really interesting possibilities too. I'm actually being won over to it - so soft Remainers might end up switching sides just as much as the soft/protest Brexiters. I have to say if there was another referendum tomorrow I'd be more minded to give Leave a chance than I was in June.
I think is highly unlikely that voters understand more today about what Brexit actually means than they did in June. But then see suppose many voted in a daft way in June, there is no telling what they'd do now - vote Leave just for the lols I suppose.
I have to say that I do wonder about the tailspin which Brexit has caused the EU and whether it is even possible for the thing to climb out. I honestly don't know if I would vote Remain today, both because the EU looks increasingly irreparably damaged and because the UK should have to face up to the consequences of what we've done.
There maybe little economic British interest in remaining in the union that we've already holed below the waterline.
If that's not totally mindblowing, I don't know what is.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
My current theory is that Brexit is going to force the EU to reform in such a way that the UK is going to be desperate to be a part of it again, and yet will have squandered the political capital to be able to do so.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Rejoining will only be possible once we have a new generation of politicians who aren't worried about what the right-wing press says, and a new generation of voters who are prepare to back them if that seems to be in our best interests. We may also need a new generation of EU politicians who are prepared to let bygones be bygones. If that happens at all it will be in 20 years' time or so, and God knows what state the world will be in by then.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I expect the 2020 election will return a significant number of explicitly pro-EU MPs. I predict more than 20 LibDems, over 50 SNP, probably a Green or two, and some Labour and Conservative pro-EU MPs. That will result in a similar number, if not more, to the number of MPs wanting to Leave elected in 2015. Which, if that number of MPs was enough to pass a bill for an in/out referendum it should be enough for a rejoin referendum - though, I hope that they do it properly and have the extensive Parliamentary discussion, then with Parliamentary approval determine the terms for readmission and all the rest of the work needed before putting it to the people.
Assuming the idiocy of the current government hasn't totally wrecked the EU (though, to be honest, if the EU is that fragile it would have broken in 2008 with the economic crash and the problems faced by Greece and other nations, or over Syrian refugees) I can see a strong movement to rejoin having ascendency by 2030. I hope to live long enough to see the UK back in 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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I voted Remain, primarily motivated by fear of the unknown rather than because of any particular pro-EU sentiment. In the past 6 months, my firm has had to work flat out to work out how we deal with the new reality and to be honest I've quite enjoyed it. It's scary but there are really interesting possibilities too. I'm actually being won over to it - so soft Remainers might end up switching sides just as much as the soft/protest Brexiters. I have to say if there was another referendum tomorrow I'd be more minded to give Leave a chance than I was in June.
FWIW my thoughts are similar, although I would probably still vote remain. The things which have struck me are:
1. Many of the economic reasons why we should stay are also reasons for thinking the EU will make a deal. Many of the reasons for thinking the EU won't make a deal are also reasons for feeling sceptical about it.
2. I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU, and in this I think I reflect a lot even of the Remain camp. Since we're told that the EU is about more than economics, ISTM more honest for Britain to be out of it, and better for the EU to be able to pursue its non-economic objectives without being held back by a bunch of moaning Brits.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Rejoining will only be possible once we have a new generation of politicians who aren't worried about what the right-wing press says, and a new generation of voters who are prepare to back them if that seems to be in our best interests. We may also need a new generation of EU politicians who are prepared to let bygones be bygones. If that happens at all it will be in 20 years' time or so, and God knows what state the world will be in by then.
Rejoining will only be possible if the UK is able to satisfy the rest of Europe that there has been a proper change of heart and mind, that the UK accepts that as a part of the EU it will not be entitled always to special deals or treatment, but rather is prepared to work with the other members.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU, and in this I think I reflect a lot even of the Remain camp.
Whereas, for me the non-economic are more important - though the importance of the EU to reducing poverty among other nations in Europe is important as well.
The benefits of European cooperation in science and technology. The richness of cultures across Europe, and the benefits of sharing those cultures through other EU nationals coming to the UK and UK citizens moving elsewhere in Europe. Cooperation in security and policing. Our common recognition of human rights. That I admire the German government for being open to refugees, and ashamed of our borders closed to people in need. That Scandinavian welfare systems are something we should be emulating, rather than letting more and more people slide into poverty and reliance on food banks.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
1. Many of the economic reasons why we should stay are also reasons for thinking the EU will make a deal. Many of the reasons for thinking the EU won't make a deal are also reasons for feeling sceptical about it.
I think for me the reasons for feeling sceptical about the EU's ability to make a deal are the same reasons that the fears of Federalism are overblown and silly.
Conversely, a deal that 10% worse than the current deal would be a good deal, but would still leave the UK severely out of pocket (currently the cost of the deal we have is essentially 100m a week, and 10% of the current deal is a figure quite a bit bigger than that).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
My current theory is that Brexit is going to force the EU to reform in such a way that the UK is going to be desperate to be a part of it again
Most of the current travails of the EU are a manifestation of the general secular (in the economic sense) crisis that is hitting developed economies across the globe.
[ 11. December 2016, 22:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Ricardus: quote:
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU...
You think international cooperation is a bad thing? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Oh, and what Alan said.
[ 12. December 2016, 07:48: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Rocinante: quote:
The fixed term parliament act was put in place to stop either of the Coalition partners pulling the rug from under the other one. It was very much of its time and is no longer required. Parliament enacted it and parliament can repeal it.
According to an article in the Indie (do we trust it?) May does not have to touch the Act. All that is required is for Parliament to pass an Bill saying, sort of, "notwithstanding the Single P Act . . blah blah . . the next election will be on xx/xx/2017 due to <various reasons>", on the basis that the other parties would not oppose it, which I think is correct.
This means that the Act really would be saying, the party of the day cannot spring an Election at will without the consent of parliament. Which has some limited use.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Chris Styles: quote:
the fears of Federalism are overblown and silly.
I think you may well be right, but if so, I'd be interested in your take on how to make the Euro work. I rather agree with St. Angela, that if the Euro crumbles, the EU goes with it, and so the determination to save the Euro is identical to the determination to save the EU.
Now this does not require federalism, but it does require closer integration, and I cannot see it working without a common EU fiscal policy and pooled debts, as a minimum. Stiglitz is well worth reading on this, as he is a strong EU supporter.
So as a minimum you will end up with a closely integrated Eurozone, which will effectively be the "real" EU, with a wider grouping (currently only envisaged as Denmark and UK), as a sort of EEA plus.
I agree that the UK will not be forced to join, but I strongly suspect that there will be a lot of pressure so do to, and given that Blair would have joined (to get the EU presidency?) if he could have, I do not think it paranoid at all to think that a UK PM, given the right sort of arm-twisting, would also join, so we could well end up in a closer union, even if not formally federal.
So if you say that this is all pie-in-the-sky and that countries like Hungary, Poland et al will never sign up for that, and possible will permanently extend there period of adjusting to the Euro so that it never happens, then you could be right.
But in that case, I think the Euro fails and the EU is changed beyond recognition. And maybe we would then rejoin, and we could be welcomed - whilst va fanculo (if I may quote the logo of the 5 star movement), is also quote possible.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM?
I think he was ultimately unremarkable. Certainly not one of the best, but by no means one of the worst either.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It depends on what one means by a "good Prime Minister", doesn't it?
Ay, there's the rub!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Ricardus:
quote:
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU
That beautifully sums up the attitude of Britain to the EU yet also reveals just how far down the rabbit hole of insularity that Britain has fallen. More and more it is possible to see the whole affair as the UK's 'Make Britain great again' moment. It's that people don't see it that makes it so utterly remarkable.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Chris Styles: quote:
the fears of Federalism are overblown and silly.
I think you may well be right, but if so
The context was one where people seemed to be saying "The EU is a mess, they can't get themselves organised, if they can't get a deal organised that will prove how dysfunctional they are". So one can't take that line and at the same warn of an irresistible move towards federalism.
quote:
[qb]
I'd be interested in your take on how to make the Euro work. I rather agree with St. Angela, that if the Euro crumbles, the EU goes with it, and so the determination to save the Euro is identical to the determination to save the EU.
I think Stiglitz is correct, but Merkel is wrong. Anything can happen, but the Euro could survive amongst a super core of central European countries+France that remain tightly integrated economically (and in time maybe fiscally).
quote:
I agree that the UK will not be forced to join, but I strongly suspect that there will be a lot of pressure so do to, and given that Blair would have joined (to get the EU presidency?)
Advocating Brexit to avoid this is a rather extreme over-reaction (I'll avoid falling over by shooting off my leg!)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
That beautifully sums up the attitude of Britain to the EU yet also reveals just how far down the rabbit hole of insularity that Britain has fallen. More and more it is possible to see the whole affair as the UK's 'Make Britain great again' moment. It's that people don't see it that makes it so utterly remarkable.
It has always been the position of the UK that the EU only matters from what can be gotten from it, not from what we're putting in "for the greater good", hence even the Remain arguments were (and often still are) framed in terms of what the UK wins/loses.
Unfortunately I think that's pretty much the British attitude to the world these days; trading and other international relationships only exist to make us, our lives, our economy, better and stuff everyone else.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Yes, and that is incredibly sad. I'm just not sure where that sense of desperation has come from to drive it to such an extent. It can't all be from a sense of a decaying empire; surely Britain has gotten over that by this stage?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Yes, and that is incredibly sad. I'm just not sure where that sense of desperation has come from to drive it to such an extent. It can't all be from a sense of a decaying empire; surely Britain has gotten over that by this stage?
It's about privilege. The UK ruled the waves (allegedly) at one point, won two World Wars etc. Latterly we're part of the G8, on the UN security council in NATO and so on.
On most sensible measures we'd not be in many/any of those positions today, so the power that we have is largely inherited from the empire era.
Anyway, that's all added up to us having a superiority complex. The world needs us to succeed, therefore we can cast off the EU nonsense and rise victorious to our true place as masters of the universe.
If that sounds racist, that's because it is.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It can't all be from a sense of a decaying empire; surely Britain has gotten over that by this stage?
I think that's actually an excellent question, to which the answer is no. Without taking this off down a tangent I think that there are two things lurking at the back of the British national consciousness above all others - the First World War and the end of Empire. The two things are linked but separate.
I'm of the view that in the history of how empires end none has ever been closed down with quite so little obvious psychological damage to the ex-power (on the surface). Yes, there was massive unpleasantness in various colonies, but the British national nervous breakdown never happened, nor did the final cataclysmic vanquishing battle nor the barbarians arrival within the gates. Unlike the Romans, Greeks, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Byzantium, and pretty well any other empire you care to mention.
For a long time the lack of an outbreak of national hysteria from which we can then all move on has been seen as a good thing, but to be honest I'm not so sure. I think the whole period since 1945 has been spent like Wyle E Coyote running on past the top of the cliff, just no one's ever looked down.
The "British" are not over it, because they've never yet got to the point as a nation of thinking there's anything to be over.
[ 12. December 2016, 10:16: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think the whole period since 1945 has been spent like Wyle E Coyote running on past the top of the cliff, just no one's ever looked down.
The "British" are not over it, because they've never yet got to the point as a nation of thinking there's anything to be over.
I'd agree with much of this; and would add it was helped along by a number of conceits about the UKs position in the world (the UK 'playing the Greeks to the US Rome' and so on).
And the problem with this kind of postponement is that the eventual reckoning occurs when people have a very tenuous connection with the actual facts of Empire.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus: quote:
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU...
You think international cooperation is a bad thing?
Oh, and what Alan said.
I'm referring to the idea that the EU is a vehicle for European brotherhood and peace. (If we are just saying that the EU allows us to arrest criminals or collaborate on science projects more efficiently, those are I think still economic arguments.)
Not that I think European peace and brotherhood are bad things, but I think equating them with a particular human institution has unfortunate consequences. Specifically:
1. The euro - there seems to be a widespread view among economists of both the right and the left that it won't work in its current form without creating additional structures. But the politicians went for it anyway because it's a powerful symbol of the aforesaid peace and brotherhood.
2. It replaces French or German nationalism with European nationalism. Evidence: nobody cared particularly about screwing non-European economies by dumping CAP surpluses.
3. It leads to Euroscepticism being treated as immoral instead of just misguided.
4. There is a lot of hypocrisy about it anyway - the Greek crisis and the refugee crisis saw plenty of members acting in a nationalistic way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unfortunately I think that's pretty much the British attitude to the world these days; trading and other international relationships only exist to make us, our lives, our economy, better and stuff everyone else.
Well, yes. That seems almost tautological to me.
Of course, every other country in the world has the same attitude as well. Unless you can think of a country* that freely, knowingly and deliberately chooses to enter into trading relationships that will make it worse off (and if so, can we make that country the first one we do business with after Brexit please ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )?
.
*= and don't say an EU country. Every one of them is in the EU because they think membership will be better for their lives and economy.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM?
I think he was ultimately unremarkable.
But wasn't the EU membership referendum Cameron's own cunning plan? Seems pretty remarkable to me.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Unless you can think of a country* that freely, knowingly and deliberately chooses to enter into trading relationships that will make it worse off
It depends a bit on terms of reference. Most countries will have some form of trade restrictions based on criteria other than simple economics. Laws that make it illegal to import goods produced by child or slave labour - increasing costs to the consumer. Laws that prevent sale of some technology to certain states, arms or technology that might have nuclear applications for example, reducing potential profits for relevant businesses.
And, individuals within nations often accept higher costs for ethical reasons - fair trade, for example.
--------------------
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
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unfortunately I think that's pretty much the British attitude to the world these days; trading and other international relationships only exist to make us, our lives, our economy, better and stuff everyone else.
Well, yes. That seems almost tautological to me.
Of course, every other country in the world has the same attitude as well. Unless you can think of a country* that freely, knowingly and deliberately chooses to enter into trading relationships that will make it worse off (and if so, can we make that country the first one we do business with after Brexit please )?
.
*= and don't say an EU country. Every one of them is in the EU because they think membership will be better for their lives and economy.
Trade is not a zero-sum game. You trade with people who have something you need in exchange for you having something they need. If you abuse the relationship, your trading partner becomes impoverished and unable to deliver the goods you needs. Trade needs to be a win-win.
The reason to be part of a trading bloc like the EU is to make that trade easier, so that all parties can get what they need at a lower cost. This combative mentality does not help us to understand the nature of trade.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
My current theory is that Brexit is going to force the EU to reform in such a way that the UK is going to be desperate to be a part of it again, and yet will have squandered the political capital to be able to do so.
When the pound started to slide I did think - for a very, very brief moment - 'did I do the right thing by voting Leave?'. And then it occurred to me: no senior EU official has, so far I can tell, resigned or offered to resign* as a result of the loss of confidence in the institution by one of its leading members. All of the five (?) Presidents are still in place and instead of thinking that the loss of the world's fifth-largest economy and the EU's leading military power from the organisation is a great tragedy, they instead appear to be bunkering down claiming that states that leave won't be able to survive.
Because of this, I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that the EU will reform. Which does sadly reinforce my belief that we were right to leave.
*Aside from Britain's EU Commissioner
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Lol; the examples just keep coming.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
My current theory is that Brexit is going to force the EU to reform in such a way that the UK is going to be desperate to be a part of it again, and yet will have squandered the political capital to be able to do so.
When the pound started to slide I did think - for a very, very brief moment - 'did I do the right thing by voting Leave?'. And then it occurred to me: no senior EU official has, so far I can tell, resigned or offered to resign* as a result of the loss of confidence in the institution by one of its leading members. All of the five (?) Presidents are still in place and instead of thinking that the loss of the world's fifth-largest economy and the EU's leading military power from the organisation is a great tragedy, they instead appear to be bunkering down claiming that states that leave won't be able to survive.
Because of this, I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that the EU will reform. Which does sadly reinforce my belief that we were right to leave.
*Aside from Britain's EU Commissioner
I haven't heard about resignations of Britain's UKIP MEPs either. They didn't do much when they were there and now that the vote has gone their way, what is left for them? Apart from the EU gravy train which they have consumed and complained about in equal measure.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I haven't heard about resignations of Britain's UKIP MEPs either. They didn't do much when they were there and now that the vote has gone their way, what is left for them? Apart from the EU gravy train which they have consumed and complained about in equal measure.
They're there to represent their constituents in the European Parliament and will remain there, as with all other British MEPs, until such time as Britain is no longer an EU member. Whether they do a good job while there is of course a different matter, but I don't see how that relates to my original point.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Whether they do a good job while there is of course a different matter, but I don't see how that relates to my original point.
I think your original point owes more to the dynamics described by mr cheesy, fletcher christian and betjemaniac above than anything represented by the EU. (and also fundamentally misunderstands how the commitment of the UK to the EU was seen by the rEU).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that the EU will reform.
Which pre-supposes that the EU needs to reform. The old maxim is "if it's not broken, don't fix it".
There are some rough edges which could benefit from tinkering - the progress in reducing "throw back" in fisheries has been a good start, but there are still problems there, as an example. There are stresses resulting from external circumstances - the 2008 economic crash and the Syrian refugees and general illegal immigration among them. The EU probably needs to review it's response and identify how to deal with these issues better.
But, what fundamentally needs reforming? Does the three-fold power structure which balances the needs for some central beaurocracy and legislation with the sovereignty of each nation work? I would say it does pretty well - though maybe a small adjustment in the relative power of each leg might be needed (maybe more power to Parliament and Council at the expense of the Commission) but that's tinkering not reform. The common market works quite well providing the freedom of movement is not restricted and the regional development funding to balance different regions in the markets is maintained. The EU funding of science and technology from "blue skies" through to market has been an outstanding success. The Euro was (and is) a logical progression of the common market (preventing currency fluctuations in different regions from skewing the market), but may have been better if implemented more slowly rather than rushing to include nations which hadn't achieved the necessary economic resilience.
But, that's all tinkering rather than outright reform.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
