UK Politics Thread

[britbox]

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?

Not without the SNP... and you would have to wonder what their terms would be. If it's a Scottish referendum then I can't see the Labour Party agreeing to that. Labour going into a coalition with anybody might be problematic with Corbyn as a leader. Maybe the SNP might work with a coalition on the same "confidence and supply" basis given to the Tories by the DUP.

 

[britbox]

Lol. I'm watching the Brexit Lords debate. Mandelson trotting out the "easiest deal in history" line I mentioned earlier.

 

[Federberg]

Not without the SNP... and you would have to wonder what their terms would be. If it's a Scottish referendum then I can't see the Labour Party agreeing to that. Labour going into a coalition with anybody might be problematic with Corbyn as a leader. Maybe the SNP might work with a coalition on the same "confidence and supply" basis given to the Tories by the DUP.

that's a fair point

 

[britbox]

that's a fair point

It's actually a huge gamble for Johnson. Could reap dividends or be an unqualified disaster.

 

[tented]

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.

That’s interesting. I assumed these choices were more clearly outlined the first time. I had been thinking they shouldn’t have a do-over, but, as Britbox pointed out, it’s not democratic to keep asking a question until you get the answer you want. But if people didn’t realize what they were voting for the first time, then a do-over might be the best option.

Thanks for responding. It’s helpful to get answers from people who have experienced the UK firsthand.

 

[britbox]

Federberg's "Do over" second referendum is basically ridiculous when you examine the questions.

It splits the Brexit vote into two... thus guaranteeing Remain winning even if most people voted for a form of Brexit.

Sure, for Remainers like Federberg then that would be the perfect solution.

The critical fact of the matter is that nobody actually knows how the UK will do when it's left the EU. Let's be honest, all treasury forecasts relating to major European decisions down the years have consistency... they've all been completely wrong.

The UK must join the ERM (it cost billions and was a disaster, ending in withdrawal), the UK needs to join the Euro (laughing my nuts off - everyone universally agrees now that would have been an unmitigated disaster), the UK will lose 800,000 jobs in 6 months purely on a Brexit vote (another nonsensical prediction)...

Brexit is a disaster? Brexit hasn't even taken place! You have these for and against arguments before the vote. Not afterwards with a massive concerted campaign to reverse the result.

Jeez, most business leaders regard Corbyn's policies as a major threat to the economy, but would the vote from a general election be overturned on that basis? Jeez, I'm starting to wonder.

You don't ignore the biggest democratic vote in recent history... you implement it. By all means, campaign to re-apply afterwards if that's your belief.

There isn't actually any public demand for a second referendum. Polls consistently show it.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg's "Do over" second referendum is basically ridiculous when you examine the questions.

It splits the Brexit vote into two... thus guaranteeing Remain winning even if most people voted for a form of Brexit.

Sure, for Remainers like Federberg then that would be the perfect solution.

The critical fact of the matter is that nobody actually knows how the UK will do when it's left the EU. Let's be honest, all treasury forecasts relating to major European decisions down the years have consistency... they've all been completely wrong.

The UK must join the ERM (it cost billions and was a disaster, ending in withdrawal), the UK needs to join the Euro (laughing my nuts off - everyone universally agrees now that would have been an unmitigated disaster), the UK will lose 800,000 jobs in 6 months purely on a Brexit vote (another nonsensical prediction)...

Brexit is a disaster? Brexit hasn't even taken place! You have these for and against arguments before the vote. Not afterwards with a massive concerted campaign to reverse the result.

Jeez, most business leaders regard Corbyn's policies as a major threat to the economy, but would the vote from a general election be overturned on that basis? Jeez, I'm starting to wonder.

You don't ignore the biggest democratic vote in recent history... you implement it. By all means, campaign to re-apply afterwards if that's your belief.

There isn't actually any public demand for a second referendum. Polls consistently show it.

Lol! In your mind leaving the EU and cancelling all trade agreements is essentially the same thing because trade is irrelevant. That is patently absurd. And I think you know it. It's a basic reality that there are 2 types of Brexit, you just don't want to accept it. As for Bojo using no deal as a threat it reminds me of this scene in Blazing Saddles... But this time we're actually living it, with otherwise intelligent people claiming it's a viable strategy..

 

[britbox]

If you seriously think a "No-deal" Brexit is about not doing trade with the EU then you're basically the same person who thinks that planes won't fly on November 1st.

You can't put a deal on the ballot paper without knowing what the deal is in advance.... surely you're not proposing putting May's deal on the paper? Lol. Good luck with flying that paper aeroplane.

 

[Federberg]

If you seriously think a "No-deal" Brexit is about not doing trade with the EU then you're basically the same person who thinks that planes won't fly on November 1st.

You can't put a deal on the ballot paper without knowing what the deal is in advance.... surely you're not proposing putting May's deal on the paper? Lol. Good luck with flying that paper aeroplane.

Lol! What on earth are you going on about?

 

[britbox]

Lol! What on earth are you going on about?

There isn't a deal to put on a second referendum ballot paper. Secondly, why would the public even have faith in a second referendum when the result of the first one was ignored?

 

[britbox]

This is dynamite:

 

[mrzz]

...eat that, Tarantino.

 

[tented]

This is dynamite:

Can someone be both brave and stupid?

 

[britbox]

Can someone be both brave and stupid?

There isn't any bravery there. The Labour Party are trying to play to two different galleries.

They have many voters in the North who are Leavers and then they have their metropolitan Remain vote in the south.

 

[tented]

There isn't any bravery there. The Labour Party are trying to play to two different galleries.

They have many voters in the North who are Leavers and then they have their metropolitan Remain vote in the south.

I meant brave for even going on that show, knowing this would happen. So, I guess, just stupidly sitting there talking out of both sides of her mouth. Incredible.

 

[britbox]

Bercow standing down as speaker. Either on Oct 31 or at any election that takes place before.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Parliament is not the government or executive. If they have no faith in the executive then they have the right to instigate a vote of no confidence. There are plenty of MPs who don't want to go down that route because they know they'll be voted out.

Neither are the people (i.e., people are not the government or executive). They should not have held the referendum. People elect a government so that the government can do the management job and come up with the right decision for the benefit of the people. How do you expect ordinary people to have expertise in economics needed to decide such a complex issue like Brexit?

 

[britbox]

Neither are the people (i.e., people are not the government or executive). They should not have held the referendum. People elect a government so that the government can do the management job and come up with the right decision for the benefit of the people. How do you expect ordinary people to have expertise in economics needed to decide such a complex issue like Brexit?

The people elected a party who stood on a manifesto granting a referendum on EU membership. It was the government who then granted the referendum. Now, whether you think that was an ill-conceived idea or not is something else... but the pathway to having a referendum was clear.

Let's just be clear on the economics for a moment. The narrative has formed into "catastrophic", "cliff edge", "disaster"... That isn't how economists are seeing this at all. Even the CBI who warn against leaving, and have received EU funding aren't saying this.

What the majority of economists and business leaders are predicting is short term turbulence (possibly including a recession, depending on who you listen to) and lower long term growth... but growth nevertheless.



There are also plenty of reasons to vote other than purely economical ones. If you are using knowledge of the economy as your measuring stick for allowing people a vote, then you wouldn't even hold a general election. Most people voted to leave based on sovereignty or immigration concerns.

 

[Federberg]

The people elected a party who stood on a manifesto granting a referendum on EU membership. It was the government who then granted the referendum. Now, whether you think that was an ill-conceived idea or not is something else... but the pathway to having a referendum was clear.

Let's just be clear on the economics for a moment. The narrative has formed into "catastrophic", "cliff edge", "disaster"... That isn't how economists are seeing this at all. Even the CBI who warn against leaving, and have received EU funding aren't saying this.

What the majority of economists and business leaders are predicting is short term turbulence (possibly including a recession, depending on who you listen to) and lower long term growth... but growth nevertheless.



There are also plenty of reasons to vote other than purely economical ones. If you are using knowledge of the economy as your measuring stick for allowing people a vote, then you wouldn't even hold a general election. Most people voted to leave based on sovereignty or immigration concerns.

we'll see if the supply chain disruptions are as minor as Brexiters believe. We'll see if the impact of a step function higher in tariffs with our largest trading partner is no big deal. We'll see if the damage to global trade and global confidence is a minor event. And most of all we'll see if the UK has any appreciable increase in its ability to assert it's sovereignty, rather than just be the bitch of any other trading bloc, with a massively diminished global platform. We shall see!

 

[Federberg]

Politics in the UK might be every bit as dysfunctional as in the US right now, but my goodness the democratic infrastructure and individual politicians seem to be of a higher calibre than in the US. The UK Supreme Court votes unanimously to void Bojo's prorogation. Stunning development. And quite right too!