The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[Dryce]

Suggestion: A general election in which members of the ERG are deselected from running? That would break the impasse.

So you'd selectively remove just one faction?

That doesn't seem balanced and objective.

(But I'm grown up enough to know there would be howls of protest from the minority in the country who wish to inflict a very damaging no-deal Brexit on the rest of us. Democracy my ****).

My suspicion is that the biggest damage from a no-deal will be down to the lack of preparation by a UK establishment that is remain biased to the point where it couldn't envisage a no-deal as being viable in any way.

The EU is presented as a board game that has mainly ladders - whereas the non-EU board game has only snakes. It's not that simple. The truth as always - liies somewhere in between.

 

[Bellow]

So you'd selectively remove just one faction?

That doesn't seem balanced and objective.

No silly. That's for TM to do!
(It was a very tongue-in-cheek comment. But it does highlight the kind of brutality required to break the impasse. In any case, what would be the point of a GE if the HoC returns exactly as it was before?)

My suspicion is that the biggest damage from a no-deal will be down to the lack of preparation by a UK establishment that is remain biased to the point where it couldn't envisage a no-deal as being viable in any way.

The EU is presented as a board game that has mainly ladders - whereas the non-EU board game has only snakes. It's not that simple. The truth as always - liies somewhere in between.

Agreed, But contingency planning for an event that never happens is just so wasteful. As an aside, the EU appears to be better prepared for a no-deal scenario. A point not lost on those who can envisage it happening 'accidentally'.

 

[Dryce]

The bottom line will be the economy. The availability of EU workers, the export trade with Europe and the export to countries via EU facilitated deals are all under significant threat and are needed for Scotland to function as it has. These issues will have to be addressed - by whatever methods.

The availability of EU workers is a fundamental of Scottish approach to migration. I think it's a bit of a hang-up that avoids answering the question as to why so many Scots leave.

I also am coming to the conclusion that the Scottish population is understated - perhaps by as much as 10%. This also means economic measurement of the Scottish economy is being mismeasured.

There are conflicts of interest such as on fishing. The EU gives but it also takes.

And there is an almost racist anti-English/anti-Westminster aspect at work in some of the hearts and minds in Scotland which means that for some advocates it is convenient to forget that Scotland has much stronger links with England in every way than with the EU.

And EU facilitated deals. Look beyond the obvious such as fishing and consider the EU-Japan trade agreement. UK is a net loser. EU takes. UK gives. But is it accounted for anywhere by those who would advocate the EU is such a good thing. I think not. Sure the stuff that is good for the UK gets promoted. There's a lot that goes under the table in the other direction that you have to look hard at to see.

 

[Harrythedog]

Yes, but you are assuming that only Remainers might have changed their views since the referendum.

As opposed to Remainers thinking only Leavers have changed their views

 

[Dryce]

As opposed to Remainers thinking only Leavers have changed their views

I think this is where a second referendum would likely show another miscalculation by those looking for a specific outcome.

However - it's hard to get a feel for people's objective views when there is so much general dismay at parliament.

 

[markjay]

My difficulty is that on occasion I feel like Humphrey Van Weyden on Wolf Larsen's seal-hunting schooner.

I did not want Brexit, and still don't, but (as I keep pointing-out), we set the rules, we played the game, my team lost, stiff upper lip.

However... when I make references to the rules of our centuries-old democratic system, where decisions are passed by vote of MPs, MPs are elected in GE, and the PM is given a mandate to govern, etc etc etc, I often find myself set-upon by Brexiters who will have none of it - they don't care about the ancient rules, or how parliament votes - if they can't get what they want then they refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the system, often referring to it as 'the establishment' in a spin that is meant to make it sound like a self-minded organisation that has lost its legitimacy to govern and should be ignored.

Am I being gullible by saying that we must get on with Brexit, simply because this is what the Referendum results said, instead of shouting blue murder and coming-up with all sort of reasons why the Referendum should be ignored? I wonder.

 

[Dryce]

However... when I make references to the rules of our centuries-old democratic system, where decisions are passed by vote of MPs, MPs are elected in GE, and the PM is given a mandate to govern, etc etc etc, I often find myself set-upon by Brexiters who will have none of it - they don't care about the ancient rules, or how parliament votes - if they can't get what they want then they refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the system, often referring to it as 'the establishment' in a spin that is meant to make it sound like a self-minded organisation that has lost its legitimacy to govern and should be ignored.

I think you will find that they do care about how parliament votes.

The problem is that as a whole parliament has a responsibility. As a whole it is not meeting that responsibility.

Given what we are seeing there is no spin - it's pretty obvious. And I think there is a substantial number of those in parliament who are happier to see this current situation drag because its suits them in various ways - including thwarting the UK from departing the EU.

So yes - "self-minded organisation that has lost its legitimacy to govern" is actually quite a valid description given what we are seeing.

 

[Bellow]

The availability of EU workers is a fundamental of Scottish approach to migration. I think it's a bit of a hang-up that avoids answering the question as to why so many Scots leave.

Money. Scots leave for better paying jobs, the English come (often as not in retirement or semi-retirement) to Scotland for a better quality of life. Been that way for decades.
Scots leaving for better paid jobs though leaves the lower end of the market short of labour. That EU migrants have happily taken those jobs in for short terms has been good for Scotland but that will end soon. The EU migrant exodus has already begun - with no replacements forthcoming.

And there is an almost racist anti-English/anti-Westminster aspect at work in some of the hearts and minds in Scotland which means that for some advocates it is convenient to forget that Scotland has much stronger links with England in every way than with the EU.
.

Trading with, friendly with, and ruled by. Choose two. When choosing, let the current political incompetence colour your view.

In truth, I see more similarity with Europe than England. England has become so money orientated to the exclusion of much else it is quite disheartening. Does, say, Sweden so readily close its libraries just to save a few quid?

 

[DSM10000]

The problem was not/is not losing...it's the margin. The vote was 50:50 near as damn it...so of course there's a problem. Only leavers refuse to accept that.

It was a simple majority vote, first past the post wins.

There was always going to be a wining and a losing side, no threshold was set

52 to 48 is close but that is not a reason for overturning a clearly voiced majority opinion. Trying to find comfortable ground for both sides is seeming to be almost impossible but that is still no reason for overturning the result.

If it had been reversed I cannot see remain side being sympathetic to this argument being put forward by the opposite camp!

 

[DSM10000]

The issue that that the 16m Remainers are united in their opinion and for them there's no question of what what they wanted - no change. So there's only one 'flavour' to chose from.

But the 17m are divided and are now tearing themselves apart over whether they should have a no-deal brexit, bad-deal brexit, better-deal Brexit, or an extension.

So while there was a clear majority for Leave, there isn't now a clear majority on How To Leave.

Not the Remainers doing, strictly speaking... this was mostly self-inflicted by the Leavers. OK, with some 'help' from Remainers... but the main issue is that there isn't now a 17m-stong opinion on what the next step should be.

Mainly brought about by the intransigence of many MP"s who are happy to ignore the instructions given to them.

 

[renault12ts]

It was a simple majority vote, first past the post wins.

There was always going to be a wining and a losing side, no threshold was set

52 to 48 is close but that is not a reason for overturning a clearly voiced majority opinion. Trying to find comfortable ground for both sides is seeming to be almost impossible but that is still no reason for overturning the result.

If it had been reversed I cannot see remain side being sympathetic to this argument being put forward by the opposite camp!

52:48 is not a clearly voiced majority. 2%??

 

[Yugguy]

Then what majority would have been acceptable? Who would have decided the figure? 10%? 5%? 15%? 7.45335223356%?

 

[DSM10000]

52:48 is not a clearly voiced majority. 2%??

It is because the majority of those taking part voted Leave

If the result hab been identical numerically but reversed would be so vocal in your assertions that it is unfair?

Some General elections are won and lost on not dissimilar margins because in essence there are only two parties that can form a Government. The others are, in general,, also-rans.

It's happened, it needs to be actioned and we ALL need to accept that fact and move on together.

 

[DSM10000]

Then what majority would have been acceptable? Who would have decided the figure? 10%? 5%? 15%? 7.45335223356%?

Perhaps we should allow Scottish independence, after all it was only a relatively small margin by which it was defeated...............

 

[m80]

Manifestly untrue. You know very well that the SNP's mandate for another referendum is inextricably linked to 'material change of circumstance' ie, Brexit. No Brexit, no indy ref2.

Small point but all that happened north of the non existant border.
Cameron gave consent for a Scottish referendum, it didn't get the desired result for the SNP so they promised the Scots another referendum if there is a material change (very ambigous that).

If I remember Cameron intimated that Scotland, as with the rest of the Uk, would remain in the eu, but it wasn't his promise to give.
Just as it wasn't Sturgeons promise to give that there would be a 2nd Scottish referendum. She had no right to promise the Scots such a thing it is not within her power.
But she can ask London for permission.

 

[Dryce]

Scots leaving for better paid jobs though leaves the lower end of the market short of labour. That EU migrants have happily taken those jobs in for short terms has been good for Scotland but that will end soon. The EU migrant exodus has already begun - with no replacements forthcoming.

The thing is - it's not the lower end of the market that is the strategic problem for the economy.

Consider. Free university education. Get a good degree. Leave. Nothing to pay back. No taxes paid in Scotland.

This is not new. When I graduated I was one of only two in my final year who stayed north of the border. Some will come back. But a significant number leave.

All of my employer's business in the last 10 years is with SE England or US. Nothing local. Big conglomorates get the local work in Scotland. It would make more sense if we were located in SE England or in USA.

Trading with, friendly with, and ruled by. Choose two. When choosing, let the current political incompetence colour your view.

Holyrood is a more civil talking shop - but - and it's a big 'but' - it's untested and tends to shy away from responsibility. Baby boxes, child smacking, speed cameras, road transport projects, getting annoyed with Abelio all allow them to think they are kept busy and productive while they ignore the real responsibilties.

My observation is that Holyrood is a bit more sinister than Westminster in terms of secrecy and keeping stuff from the public. The European advice court case fiasco running up to the Indyref was not a one off when it comes to the Scottish government witholding the truth from the Scottish people - and a sign of a possibly deeper malaise.

In truth, I see more similarity with Europe than England. England has become so money orientated to the exclusion of much else it is quite disheartening. Does, say, Sweden so readily close its libraries just to save a few quid?

I see zero similarity with France - or Germany - or Italy -or the Netherlands. I don't want Scotland to be like Ireland (lovely place, lovely people, but some mindset issues).

We have pitifully little in common with Europe compared with England. We just happen to be in an island household where England annoys us as the dominant occupant and we get more angry and abrasive with family than we would be with friends and colleagues across the water.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Flyinspanner]

The fault was Cameron not setting some caveats into the process.

Something so monumental should have had “minimums” set to make it binding. - so we have been left with approx 1/3 of the electorate driving a decision.

Cameron only set out on this course as a political expediency as he didn’t want to lose votes to UKIP, and to prop up the cracks within the Tory party.
He arrogantly thought there would be a strong remain vote.
Boris lied to all about the £350m per week which would come to the NHS. (And don’t forget how much he wanted the top job)

When the vote went against Cameron, he ran away. ( Foolish, arrogant, Coward.)
Boris went went into hiding for 3 days and didn’t step up to take control, as he knew it was a poisoned chalice. (Self serving coward)

May got left holding the handbag, and instead of engaging cross party/businesses/unions to actually get concensous on what the UK needed and wanted, has blindly gone on pursuing a course that even her own party hate. (But there are many, like Rees Mogg who say one thing whilst doing the opposite for themselves as it financially benefits them).
Brexit ministers have been 10 a penny, promising much....then resigning (maybe as the awful truth dawned).

The past 2 years have been a travesty of mismanagement, and poor leadership. (On both sides of the house).
I really can’t fathom how mps are calling for some super deal, when we were really in no position to demand it, :- we want to leave, the other 27 states would rather we stayed, but are they going to bend over backwards to suit us?

The whole shower in Westminster should hold their heads in shame, we can’t even demand an extension that suits us now, if it wasn’t so serious it would make for a brilliant series of Yes Minister.

Hopefully one day our descendants will be able to look back and laugh, but I fear a great disservice has been done to the UK, and our standing on the world stage.

 

[Bellow]

The thing is - it's not the lower end of the market that is the strategic problem for the economy.

Consider. Free university education. Get a good degree. Leave. Nothing to pay back. No taxes paid in Scotland.

Just picking up on the above. Not disputing your point, but the lower end is important too as it supports higher paid (administrative, skilled, etc) jobs above. We can't afford to lose any of it.

The whisky industry - by way of an example - supports a lot of skilled engineering jobs. Food processing also - and there more than anywhere the EU migrants have been vital.

 

[leef44]

Then what majority would have been acceptable? Who would have decided the figure? 10%? 5%? 15%? 7.45335223356%?

Some remainers believed it should have been a 75% majority threshold. In other words, Leavers have to get 75.1% of the votes to have it their way while Remainers only need 25.1% of votes to have it their way.

 

[flowrider]

Take it from a Scot living in Scotland: indy refs ended in 2014 and only resurfaced because of Brexit.
That the SNP (and many many Scots) still want independence is true but the 2014 referendum result is respected and there would be no talk of another ref for some time were it not for Brexit removing Scotland against its wish from the EU.

I doubt that the real potential damage to the Scottish economy by Brexit is appreciated by those outside Scotland. Or the absolute crisis that is upon the UK in this debacle. Plenty name-calling but no solutions. Only ardent voices to hand back complete control to a Parliament they hold in utter contempt. Debacle sells it short.

SNP wants independance from the UK but not from the EU