UK Politics Thread

[Federberg]

When the referendum was run, the Tories were in power... so any Brexit was going to be a Tory Brexit. Both sides committed to respect the result and implement. I'm not buying this Russian crap... it seems to have become the de facto excuse for lost votes.

The UK Government, the EU, the NHS, the CBI, FSB, most banks, the unions, the American President were all promoting remain, not to mention a 9 million pound leafleting campaign to every UK household before the hustings even began. The odds were firmly stacked in the Remain campaigns favour... and yet they still lost.

lol! You can't be that naïve. Both sides agreed to respect the result and implement Brexit. Not Tory Brexit. Jeepers mate. Talk about missing the subtleties! Quite apart from that, if you polled Tory MPs or supporters, there is no consensus for what Brexit should be. This is the fundamental problem about Brexit. There is no majority for any version. For this I blame Cameron. Quite apart from day trading for his political future, the referendum question was fundamentally flawed. He should have taken guidance from the Swiss, or some other country that has deep experience of referendums, to construct questions that provided clear and specific outcomes. Frankly after the referendum, he should just have said fk u, it's guidance only, and just carried on as normal. Instead bugger all has been done in the country for the last 3 or 4 years.

 

[Federberg]

@Federberg @britbox @JesuslookslikeBorg

What do you guys think should happen, and what do you think will happen with Brexit?

Lol! Should happen? A politician with balls to say ok... this isn't working for us. Let's revoke Article 50 and let the British government go back to the business of actually implementing policies for the betterment of the British people. Absolutely sweet f.a has been done for the last 3 or 4 years. That's what should happen!

But what will happen? Wow! That's the million pound question (or should I say dollar as there's precious little difference now as cable trends towards parity! ). Bojo tried to get a General Election for 15th October, but that was soundly rejected. MPs also voted thru a law to make 'no deal' illegal, but Bojo will need to put that in front of the Queen to sign. He may try to wriggle out of doing that, although opposing the democratic will of the people isn't really going to help his claim of being on the side of the people. There are so many paths the decision tree could follow, but one that I'm looking at is that we get another extension agreed. As soon as that happens a general election gets triggered. I don't believe any party will get a majority. Bojo's attempts to protect his rightward flank could expose him in the centre to a fatal bleed to Lib Dems. If that happens you could have a situation where the Tories have the largest party but absolutely no way to form a working majority. I'm not up on my constitutional law, but if it's obvious that a partnership between Labour and Lib Dems has a majority, then that might be what ends up happening. In that type of scenario, there's no doubt that the Lib Dems will insist that there is a 2nd referendum as part of their becoming a coalition member. That might be the only way we finally get closure. Frankly if they do a 2nd referendum they should list clear choices, i.e., no deal; hard Brexit (explained); soft Brexit (explained); no Brexit. With ranked order voting to extract a true majority view. We can't have the same question asked again, because it's painfully clear that 2 people can want Brexit but have completely opposing views about what Brexit means.

 

[britbox]

lol! You can't be that naïve. Both sides agreed to respect the result and implement Brexit. Not Tory Brexit. Jeepers mate. Talk about missing the subtleties! Quite apart from that, if you polled Tory MPs or supporters, there is no consensus for what Brexit should be. This is the fundamental problem about Brexit. There is no majority for any version. For this I blame Cameron. Quite apart from day trading for his political future, the referendum question was fundamentally flawed. He should have taken guidance from the Swiss, or some other country that has deep experience of referendums, to construct questions that provided clear and specific outcomes. Frankly after the referendum, he should just have said fk u, it's guidance only, and just carried on as normal. Instead bugger all has been done in the country for the last 3 or 4 years.

I'm not sure where you are getting your logic from here.

The Conservatives were in power. Article 50 was "supposedly" getting invoked the day after the referendum according to the official Remain campaign if Brexit was voted. It was part of the Remain campaign.

Basically, both major parties to a man (and a woman) said they would respect the vote and implement. How would Labour help implement anything other than a Tory Brexit? You're not making any sense whatsoever. How would they implement a Labour Brexit when they weren't even in power? Duh.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not sure where you are getting your logic from here.

The Conservatives were in power. Article 50 was "supposedly" getting invoked the day after the referendum according to the official Remain campaign if Brexit was voted. It was part of the Remain campaign.

Basically, both major parties to a man (and a woman) said they would respect the vote and implement. How would Labour help implement anything other than a Tory Brexit? You're not making any sense whatsoever. How would they implement a Labour Brexit when they weren't even in power? Duh.

come on mate, don't act like you're this ignorant. There is no Tory Brexit, or Labour Brexit, give over! . Within each party there are competing strands of Brexit. I repeat, it's not as simple as you make out. The remain campaign was largely run by Cameron, it was perfectly rational for him to give the impression that the referendum would have the force to trigger Article 50, however he, legally, didn't have to do anything. That's the difference between a campaign promise and constitutional law. As with all other actors no one had really given much thought to what implementing Brexit actually meant. FFS no one even considered the Irish until after the fact. Don't try to assign rationality to what was a complete balls up from start to finish

 

[britbox]

come on mate, don't act like you're this ignorant. There is no Tory Brexit, or Labour Brexit, give over! . Within each party there are competing strands of Brexit. I repeat, it's not as simple as you make out. The remain campaign was largely run by Cameron, it was perfectly rational for him to give the impression that the referendum would have the force to trigger Article 50, however he, legally, didn't have to do anything. That's the difference between a campaign promise and constitutional law. As with all other actors no one had really given much thought to what implementing Brexit actually meant. FFS no one even considered the Irish until after the fact. Don't try to assign rationality to what was a complete balls up from start to finish

Well, there lies the evidence of disingenuous comments from the Labour Party and mirrored by certain elements within the Conservative Party.

A Tory Brexit was a term coined by Labour and they said they would not support it. There was no other kind of Brexit in that context. They weren't in power. It was party politics at it's finest. After lying to the public.

This is the same person who worked with Letwin to fricken block Brexit after getting elected on this manifesto.

 

[Federberg]

Well, there lies the evidence of disingenuous comments from the Labour Party and mirrored by certain elements within the Conservative Party.

A Tory Brexit was a term coined by Labour and they said they would not support it. There was no other kind of Brexit in that context. They weren't in power. It was party politics at it's finest. After lying to the public.

This is the same person who worked with Letwin to fricken block Brexit after getting elected on this manifesto.

If you’re only now telling me you believe what politicians say I have no useful response

All you have to do is monitor the machinations in parliament to know there are multiple strands of Brexit. This can’t be a new revelation to you

 

[britbox]

If you’re only now telling me you believe what politicians say I have no useful response

All you have to do is monitor the machinations in parliament to know there are multiple strands of Brexit. This can’t be a new revelation to you

Buddy, when you have a supposedly once in a generation vote with a record turnout, combined with both sides guaranteeing that the outcome will be carried, then this goes beyond party politics.

Overturning that vote would be an affront to democracy. A crippling one that will last a long time. Like I said, it would render the UK little more than a banana republic... or should that be banana constitutional monarchy

 

[Federberg]

Buddy, when you have a supposedly once in a generation vote with a record turnout, combined with both sides guaranteeing that the outcome will be carried, then this goes beyond party politics.

Overturning that vote would be an affront to democracy. A crippling one that will last a long time. Like I said, it would render the UK little more than a banana republic... or should that be banana constitutional monarchy

There you go again with your hyperbole. It’s never been clear to me that a 52 - 48 referendum win has the mandate to throw the U.K. out of the EU. Talk about tyranny of the small majority! A good portion of the electorate didn’t have the first clue about the implications of their vote. Yes it’s beyond party politics, so let’s ditch this trope that it would be undemocratic to check back with voters and confirm what they want. Utter BS to claim that vote was definitive and you know it

 

[britbox]

There you go again with your hyperbole. It’s never been clear to me that a 52 - 48 referendum win has the mandate to throw the U.K. out of the EU. Talk about tyranny of the small majority! A good portion of the electorate didn’t have the first clue about the implications of their vote. Yes it’s beyond party politics, so let’s ditch this trope that it would be undemocratic to check back with voters and confirm what they want. Utter BS to claim that vote was definitive and you know it

The vote was definitive. The terms were made clear. Which bit don't you understand about winning a vote?

A good portion of the electorate have little idea on a lot of things pal, but all votes cast are equal. That's the way democracy works. It's not a perfect system, but show me a better one. What it does rely on though, is the consent of the loser... which clearly doesn't feature in your line of thinking... or many others.

 

[Federberg]

The vote was definitive. The terms were made clear. Which bit don't you understand about winning a vote?

A good portion of the electorate have little idea on a lot of things pal, but all votes cast are equal. That's the way democracy works. It's not a perfect system, but show me a better one. What it does rely on though, is the consent of the loser... which clearly doesn't feature in your line of thinking... or many others.

the vote does not stipulate that brexit has to be done even if it impoverish's the country for a generation. It cracks me up how brexiter's always try to sound so self righteous about democracy. By that argument there should never have been a referendum in the first place because there was one in the early 70s! But of course that's absurd. Things changed, events occurred and voters determined that a different path was justified. Given the monumental changes implied by a no deal Brexit: severe economic disruption; huge diminution of Britain's global political power; possible break up of the Union... you know... minor things like that. It is not unreasonable to ask the question to the electorate... "Is this really what you want". The idea that doing so would be undemocratic is one of the biggest piles of manure I've ever heard. Who woulda thunk it! It would be undemocratic to put it to the vote

 

[Federberg]

Take it from me. A Remainer, who always had a healthy scepticism of the EU project. Particularly the Brussels elite. If there was a vote with clear parameters, not some crap to elicit a specific outcome. Something honest that lays out factually what the real options are. And folks still voted to leave? I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. What I do object to is a referendum where blatant lies were told, and a large chunk of voters made choices that had nothing to do with the referendum question itself (a question which was utterly flawed in its construction) should be considered the final word. There is a world of difference between Brexit and no deal. It amazes me you don't seem to understand that

 

[britbox]

Of course it's undemocratic. Your "plan" is essentially what many predicted all along. The wrong answer was given. Ask the question again.

Blatant lies were told? Didn't you just laugh a few posts ago and tell me not to believe a word any politician says?

Don't go down the blatant lies route... having a second referendum will prove the biggest blatant lie of them all... we will respect the outcome... yeah sure.

 

[Federberg]

Of course it's undemocratic. Your "plan" is essentially what many predicted all along. The wrong answer was given. Ask the question again.

Blatant lies were told? Didn't you just laugh a few posts ago and tell me not to believe a word any politician says?

Don't go down the blatant lies route... having a second referendum will prove the biggest blatant lie of them all... we will respect the outcome... yeah sure.

well it sounds like we agree on one thing. Referendums are stupid! At the end of the day this will have to be sorted out in a general election. It seems inevitable that there'll be one by the end of the year. Bojo effectively cut one of his balls off by expelling 20 MPs. I mean... the fkwit already lost his majority, has never won a vote in parliament and then goes ahead and expells the relative of Britains greatest ever Prime Minister and two former Chancellors. If I read this in Viz I would shake my head and ask what will they come up with next!

 

[britbox]

Some crap to elicit a specific outcome?

Let's think about that for a minute.

Most Brexiteers thought the UK would leave the EU and negotiate a reasonable trade deal? Can we agree, so far?

Sure, there was some hyperbole about the easiest trade deal in history etc. There was some crap spoken on both campaigns... including a ton of crap by Cameron, Osbourne and the Remain campaign.

Now, Theresa May set up the Brexit Office and filled it with Brexiteers. Good job so far Mrs May. Get people in there who believe in the project. Steve Baker said in talks with Tusk, they had basically tacitly agreed on an outline framework of a free trade agreement along the lines of a Canada ++++ arrangement.

So, things are running along in the right direction. What Baker also said was when they first took up office, they met the Civil Service who asked what kind of Brexit they wanted to pursue. They said out and as close to FTA as possible. Baker said heads in the Civil Service just dropped - they didn't want to leave.

Remember "Hard" and "Soft" Brexits were terms coined by Remainers. Osbourne is credited with it. Prior to that we just had Brexit.

Meanwhile, May (a Remainer) in cahoots with the Civil Service, brings back her own Brexit "Package". This is "the Brexit I want". She'd bypassed the Brexit Office and effectively done her own negotiation.

That's when all the Brexiteers resigned at Chequers. Theresa May is the architect of this Brexit mess.

So the specific outcome, hasn't been engineered by Brexiteers - we are here because of Remainers. As this dragged out, other Remainers became emboldened. We've had Tony Blair and various others scurrying around Europe undermining the whole Brexit process.

David Davis (ex Brexit office) said all the final agreements would be done at the death. All major agreements with the EU sare. He expected most of the agreements to get finalised in the last three months. Of course, bypassed by May, he also quit.

When May lost her majority, the Remainers in parliament became emboldened. Parliament took control. Can you imagine conducting a negotiation where all your preparatory work and strategy are on fucking television before you sit down at the negotiating table? What an utter farce.

No way, the EU moves on anything until you have Government committed to Brexit and has a majority to carry it's own bag.

Ironically, for everyone saying Brexiteers didn't know what they voting for, the polls haven't fluctuated much. The Brexiteer poll share isn't much different than it was before the referendum.

What they didn't know they were voting for, were inept politicians who lied through their back teeth.

 

[britbox]

well it sounds like we agree on one thing. Referendums are stupid! At the end of the day this will have to be sorted out in a general election. It seems inevitable that there'll be one by the end of the year. Bojo effectively cut one of his balls off by expelling 20 MPs. I mean... the fkwit already lost his majority, has never won a vote in parliament and then goes ahead and expells the relative of Britains greatest ever Prime Minister and two former Chancellors. If I read this in Viz I would shake my head and ask what will they come up with next!

Referendums are stupid. But the genie is out of the bottle. On the face of it, withdrawing the whip from those MPs is stupid and I thought Boris' performance in the House was pretty poor yesterday. Nearly as bad as Savid Javid's speech.

However, I think this has been game-planned as part of a wider strategy... obviously, the opposition are game-planning too but they are a more fractured unit and don't have the benefit of being the executive.

 

[Federberg]

that's your view thru your brexit tinted glasses. I'm unimpressed.

As for Bojo having a deeper strategy... look.. I think Boris is a smart guy. Unprincipled with no core absolutely. But he's not proven to me yet that he has the skills for leading. This is entirely different from scheming to become PM, he was successful at that in the end, albeit with circumstances going his way. So far his mendacity and bullying nature haven't filled me with confidence that he has the ability to get the job done. I remain open minded on the issue. But if he wants to shore up his authority he'll need those MPs back in the fold. I'm not sure Boris has the stuff to convince a titan like Ken Clarke that he won't screw the pooch. We shall see

 

[britbox]

Give me your view on what happened with the Brexit Office and Theresa May? I think it's a fair commentary on proceedings.

May was a Remainer, Olly Robbins was a Remainer and the Civil Service was in favour of Remain. They were the ones negotiating to Leave. The Brexiteers all resigned. It's not rose-tinted mate, it's actually what transpired.

 

[Federberg]

FFS his own brother has just abandoned him. Lord save us from these terrible leaders.

PS, mate I have to tell you re-litigating the events surrounding the Brexit referendum are as interesting to me as having my balls shaved. The point is that each side has a different perception of the same events

 

[britbox]

that's your view thru your brexit tinted glasses. I'm unimpressed.

As for Bojo having a deeper strategy... look.. I think Boris is a smart guy. Unprincipled with no core absolutely. But he's not proven to me yet that he has the skills for leading. This is entirely different from scheming to become PM, he was successful at that in the end, albeit with circumstances going his way. So far his mendacity and bullying nature haven't filled me with confidence that he has the ability to get the job done. I remain open minded on the issue. But if he wants to shore up his authority he'll need those MPs back in the fold. I'm not sure Boris has the stuff to convince a titan like Ken Clarke that he won't screw the pooch. We shall see

All roads lead to a General Election. Maybe a via a Vote of No-confidence... All these spending commitments clearly indicate that's where we're going. If Boris does win a majority, then rest assured - order will be restored. He'll have got rid of his dissenters.

Now, the bigger question is DOES Boris win a majority in a GE, and what will happen with Brexit prior to it.

Fascinating stuff. Game of Thrones on speed.

 

[Federberg]

All roads lead to a General Election. Maybe a via a Vote of No-confidence... All these spending commitments clearly indicate that's where we're going. If Boris does win a majority, then rest assured - order will be restored. He'll have got rid of his dissenters.

Now, the bigger question is DOES Boris win a majority in a GE, and what will happen with Brexit prior to it.

Fascinating stuff. Game of Thrones on speed.

I'm thinking no one wins a majority but the Conservatives have the largest party. The question is... will the combo of Lib Dems and Labour have a majority?