Politics, politics, politics

[ShipOfTheseus]

On a similar theme, I feel there's a danger with Macron in France. He ran as someone who was going to be different (whatever that means) and now sits on a 23% approval rating with rioting in the streets. Beware the far-right at their next election promising "real change" because a coalition of disillusioned voters and people willing to take a gamble (poorer people) might get them elected.

Rioting is part of French political life, though, just as coups are in Turkey or assassinations are in Russia. They like taking to the streets. When push comes to shove, the French don't elect fascists. De Gaulle is as far as they go, and that was after a particularly humiliating occupation.

 

[StephenH]

I feel there's a danger with Macron in France

There is a danger with anybody in charge of France.
They are a melting pot of discontent. They make the Brits look comatose politically.

 

[SpurMeUp]

People always want "an overhaul of the stale". That's precisely why they are not to be trusted. I'm a centrist because I prefer sound, managerialist public administration to populist misrule. The "same old" may evolve slowly, but at its heart is utilitarianism and fairness. Those are what should be at the heart of government.

Empathy with the mob and with its whims, a preference for the "fresh" and the "exciting" - these are fine when it comes to crafting political messages, but as actual recipes for government and for policy-making they are sheer fudging poison.

The 1997-2010 administration was radically centrist. It did things which were surprising - like Bank of England independence. It made subtle changes like the minimum wage and tax credits that made a huge difference to fairness. It focused on improving public services in myriad ways, and especially through early interventions - in health, in education and in public safety. But it did that all within the existing fiscal envelope, at least in the first term, and without picking any major fights with business or with unions. It didn't really do anything "exciting".

You needn't fear innovation. It should build upon the existing. But make meaningful changes, in many ways like Blair did.

The problem is some parts of government do not function that well. Government costs a lot of money to run, and the outcomes for people could be better. To start we need to shine a light on these ineffective areas, and then change them. A progressive politician could use new media to look at failing parts of government, using film and peoples' feedback to affect change. Freshness is not revolution. It's blowing away the cobwebs, reinventing things that don't work/ as well as they should, saving money on the many wastful things in governent, and reinvesting in the new.

In the world around you, what stays the same? Only politics seems to hold on begrudgingly to stasis, while all around us we are using new technologies, innovating, becoming more effective. If you are looking for a reason for the rise of popularism I'd say it is as much to do with re-freshing the stale, as it is the radical policies. Yet I understand your point that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. And I'd agree. We need to build upon what was before, but not live in the past either, which political structures seem to.

 

[the dza]

Rioting is part of French political life, though, just as coups are in Turkey or assassinations are in Russia. They like taking to the streets. When push comes to shove, the French don't elect fascists. De Gaulle is as far as they go, and that was after a particularly humiliating occupation.

I hope not. If it's a choice between Macron's punchable face letting everybody down or some fascist loon, then I'd vote Macron. But frustrations that could lead to him being beaten should be acknowledged by those of us who don't want fascists let in the door. I'm not talking about immigrants either, I'm talking economic frustrations because it ultimately comes down to that. If people feel that those at the top in charge are only looking after themselves, they will eventually say "phuck you."

 

[Gutter Boy]

Thinking about it, Five Start in Italy, and Macron in France, are along those lines. But maybe they also lack true policy innovation. All well and good saying you're different, but if you deliver the same old, people will see through you.

While Corbyn has some more radical ideas, they are not really fresh at all. All seemingly based on old ideas. They say fashion comes around, but what people want is an overheaul of the stale in government. And there is a need for it. I could smash together a more exciting manifesto

I'm not sure you can compare Five Star and Macron. Five Star are left libertarians - the first electoral success for a party with post-capitalist policies like UBI and degrowth. Macron is just a red tory - a neo-liberal pro-market banker.

I agree about Corbyn though, he's just a bit too Michael Foot when he needs to be more Attlee

 

[awesome dawson]

May's not getting this through Parliament on 11 Dec is she?

Wow what a mess. I'm sure someone can see the light at the end of the tunnel but if this costs 150 billion thats a fair hit for the economy. Sad state of affairs.

 

[milo]

An interesting read, from the former pro-leave chair of the Adam Smith Institute

https://twitter.com/x/status/1069194394211942401

 

[Gutter Boy]

The problem with a third referendum (before the traditional generational gap) is that 52% of the population lose faith in democracy.

The very definition of democracy is the turnover test. Do leaders hand over power when they lose (something called the 'two turnover test' is how democracy is defined).

A third referendum now would be seen like a third world dictator like Mugabe losing an election, spending 2 years pretending to transfer power to the opposition, then deciding a re-run of the election would be better. The likely outcomes of frustrating democracy like this are large scale disengagement from mainstream politics and civil disobedience.

We all know about the EU's previous abuses on this in Holland and Ireland in 2005 and 2008.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

The problem with a third referendum (before the traditional generational gap) is that 52% of the population lose faith in democracy.

The very definition of democracy is the turnover test. Do leaders hand over power when they lose (something called the 'two turnover test' is how democracy is defined).

A third referendum now would be seen like a third world dictator like Mugabe losing an election, spending 2 years pretending to transfer power to the opposition, then deciding a re-run of the election would be better. The likely outcomes of frustrating democracy are disengagement from mainstream politics and civil disobedience.

We all know about the EU's previous abuses on this in Holland and Ireland in 2005 and 2008.

Voting is anti-democratic. Ignorance is strength. What was the third paradoxical slogan, again? War is peace? Brexit means Brexit? I forget.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Voting is anti-democratic. Ignorance is strength. What was the third paradoxical slogan, again? War is peace? Brexit means Brexit? I forget.

If such regular voting is so good, would you accept it being written into law that we could have an annual in-out referendum, with an out voting having immediate effect? Or will Europhobes only be allowed our 'best 3 out of 5' 4th referendum in 40 years' time?

 

[Gutter Boy]

An interesting read, from the former pro-leave chair of the Adam Smith Institute

https://twitter.com/x/status/1069194394211942401

"I am very pro-immigration, and I care about (my) prosperity through any means"

If the princes of neo-liberalism are concerned that Brexit will reign in their excesses, isn't that a good thing?

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

If such regular voting is so good, would you accept it being written into law that we could have an annual in-out referendum, with an out voting having immediate effect? Or will Europhobes only be allowed our 'best 3 out of 5' 4th referendum in 40 years' time?

Fine with that if "out" is articulated in a meaningful way. Voters might get a bit annoyed with regularly turning out to state the bleeding obvious, though.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Fine with that if "out" is articulated in a meaningful way. Voters might get a bit annoyed with regularly turning out to state the bleeding obvious, though.

No one should get bored with deciding whether the regime that holds the most power over your life, has done enough to deserve consent or not.

 

[glorygloryeze]

The desire was articulated in a very meaningful way; via the ballot box.
It was the mechanism of actually dealing with being out of the EU that has been botched imo.

All the talk about 'being prepared' for a no-deal scenario should have been some of the very first things done rather than in the last few months before the March 2019 deadline. Making practical and real steps for the 'what if' no-deal scenario would have meant we are a) more prepared, b) EU would think we are REALLY serious about it and c) they prepare accordingly and perhaps we'd not have such a botched deal from the "a no deal is better than a bad deal, but now actually this bad deal is better than no deal" merchant...

Oh well..

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The UK faces a "constitutional crisis" if Theresa May does not publish the full legal advice on her Brexit deal on Monday, Labour has warned.

The PM says the advice is confidential, but some MPs think ministers do not want to admit it says the UK could be indefinitely tied to EU customs rules.

Sam Gyimah, who quit the government on Friday, said releasing the advice was "key to restoring trust in politics".

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox will make a statement about it later.

He is set to publish a reduced version of the legal advice - despite calls from MPs from all parties to publish a full version.

MPs say this will not not respect a binding Commons vote last month, which required the government to lay before Parliament "any legal advice in full".

His statement to the House of Commons will be followed by five days of debate on the proposed Brexit deal.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid has dismissed speculation that the final vote on Mrs May's deal - due on 11 December - could be delayed, saying he didn't think there was "any chance" of that.

The BBC's deputy political editor John Pienaar said that, as it stood, it looked like Mrs May was facing a "heavy defeat" and, should this happen, no-one could be sure what might follow.

Legal issues to the fore
Ahead of the five days of debate on the deal, which begin on Tuesday, Labour is planning to join forces with other parties, including the DUP, which keeps Mrs May in power, to initiate contempt of Parliament proceedings unless the government backs down on publishing the full legal advice.

Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer told Sky News: "If they don't produce the advice... this will be a collision course between the government and Parliament."

His shadow cabinet colleague Barry Gardiner told the BBC's Andrew Marr show the prime minister faced a "very serious constitutional crisis" if she refused, and the only answer was a general election.

The former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the public "have the full right to know" the legal advice and the debate in the Commons should "properly be informed" by it.

Mr Gyimah said the government had a duty to "level with the public".

But former solicitor general and Tory peer Lord Garnier told the programme it was a "matter of convention" that the advice was not disclosed, adding that it was government policy under attack and not the legal advice.

According to the Sunday Times, Mr Cox told ministers in a letter the only way out of the Northern Irish "backstop" agreement would be to sign a new trade deal, a process which could take years.

Brexit-supporting MPs say it could mean an open-ended commitment for the UK, forcing it to remain in the EU's customs union while details of the deal are being worked out.

Downing Street has not responded to claims by the Daily Telegraph that a letter from Mrs May's chief Brexit adviser, Olly Robbins, warned her it was a "bad outcome" with no legal "guarantee" Britain would be able to exit the mechanism.

Boris Johnson, who resigned from government over the PM's Brexit vision, described the arrangement in his weekly Daily Telegraph column as "a great steel trap that is about to clamp its jaws around our hind limbs and prevent our escape".

The DUP's Sammy Wilson said it was important for MPs to know exactly what they are voting for and the implications for Northern Ireland.

'Fight of her life'
The Commons debate on Theresa May's deal is due to get under way on Tuesday, with the prime minister facing the fight of her political life to get MPs to back the deal in a vote on 11 December.

Ministers insist they can persuade enough of them to change their mind because, they claim, the alternative is a no-deal Brexit or "no Brexit at all".

Mr Javid told BBC Radio 4's Today the agreement on the terms of the UK's exit and its future relations with the EU was "never going to be perfect" but it was the "right deal for the country".

The agreement, he insisted, delivered on the 2016 referendum result by bringing "a complete end" to EU free movement in the UK and replacing it with a skills-based immigration regime that would reduce inward migration to more "sustainable" levels while "meeting the demands of British industry".

But he conceded it was "very unlikely" MPs would see the details of what the UK's post-Brexit immigration system might look like before they vote, as the plans were still be worked through and people being consulted.

Meanwhile, as campaigners continue to push for a further referendum, an e-petition urging the government to rule that option out, will be debated by MPs from 16:30 GMT.





brick, meet fan

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Boris' article:

Yes, of course the public is entitled to see the legal advice from the Attorney General to the Prime Minister. It is a scandal that this is currently being withheld.

You will recall that, when she was in opposition, the present Prime Minister wrote to the Labour government and complained of their failure to publish the Attorney General’s advice on the Iraq war. She was right then – and how much more wrong and absurd is her position now, when you consider that this legal question is more important even than the Iraq war.

This is about our democracy. This is about the future right of the people of this country to have a say in their own laws. At stake in this deal is the ancient and vital ability of the British people to use elections to dismiss their rulers.

It is outrageous that the public should be prevented from knowing the full legal implications of this appalling deal – when it is their rights, their freedoms, their hard-won suffrage, that are about to be bartered away. It is no use the Government claiming that this advice is protected by “client privilege”.

It is the people who pay the Attorney General’s wages. It is the sovereign people of this country who are the client. And they deserve to know exactly how this country risks being turned into a client state. I hope and expect the full text of the Attorney General’s advice to be published before the vote on December 11.

But in case the Government continues to brazen it out, let me tell you roughly what that advice says – namely, what every lawyer can see: that this 175-page backstop is a great steel trap that is about to clamp its jaws around our hind limbs and prevent our escape.


It is an instrument of blackmail designed (with the connivance of the Treasury and No 10) to disable us in any future negotiation and to keep us as effective captives of the EU: in the customs union and the single market, but with no say over either our own trading policy or a myriad of laws that we will have to enforce in this country.

We won’t be able to do any serious free-trade deals. We won’t have taken back control of our laws. We will be handing over £39 billion for the privilege of being out of the EU, but substantially run by the EU. Whatever we do, and no matter how much we struggle, we will feel the teeth of the trap biting deeper into our flesh.

We will be powerless to get out of this backstop trap until every country in the EU has decided they have got what they want – and, even then, that may not be enough.

The Spanish will blackmail us over Gibraltar. The French will demand more of our fish – as Macron has made clear. All the net recipient countries will want to see some more of UK taxpayers’ money. The Germans will want us to make concessions on immigration; and so it will go on. It is hard to think of any occasion in the past 500 years when this country has been forced to accept such degrading terms from the powers of continental Europe.


And it is all so unnecessary. We can do so much better – if only we could collectively recover our nerve. As so many of us have pointed out, the alternative is there – vibrant, viable and staring us in the face. We need to bank what is sensible in the Withdrawal Agreement, such as the provisions for citizens.


We need to excise the current backstop and replace it with a simple statement of what is agreed in London, Dublin and Brussels – that under no circumstances should there be a “hard border” in Northern Ireland. We should note that both sides accept that there are technical solutions that will allow both for frictionless trade and for any checks to take place away from the border, and that we have time now to implement those solutions.

We should agree to spend the next two years negotiating a new free‑trade agreement, and withhold payment of at least half the £39 billion until that deal is complete. Of course we will be told that this is impossible – that without a backstop there can be no deal.

This is self-defeating nonsense. We have not even tried to negotiate a Super‑Canada option – even though the EU Commission made such an offer in March; and that is because we are so paralysed with nerves that we have been effectively conspiring to remain both in the customs union and the single market.


We must vote this deal down, and if we do we will find that there is plenty of time to get back to the original Lancaster House vision of last year. There is plenty of time – right to the end of 2020 at least – to do a Super‑Canada deal.


And even if this for some reason should prove impossible (which I don’t believe) then we should look again at the so-called “no-deal” scenario.

Even if we could not get a new Withdrawal Agreement by March, and we were forced to leave without an agreement, it would be a challenge – but a challenge that is eminently manageable. We on this side of the Channel have it in our power simply to continue with the current arrangements – zero tariffs and quotas, and no checks – until the new deal is done. And so do our friends on the other side, and if they are sensible they will.

It might be that some other World Trade Organisation member might complain. But that would take years to get before a panel in Geneva. Again, we have time on our side.

In the past few days the veterans of Project Fear have been out in force – and when you hear them say that this country will run out of drinking water and Mars Bars, remember that they said we would lose 500,000 jobs just for voting Leave. We have in fact gained 800,000 jobs.


I don’t believe it will be necessary, but no deal should hold no terrors for us. I confidently predict that we will still have drinking water and Mars Bars – and we can have our freedom, too.

 

[the dza]

Listening to Hilary Benn talking on Sky News earlier, I think I'm going back to my first thoughts after the referendum result, in that all roads lead to Norway (or Norway +). Parliament doesn't really want a 2nd referendum and I suspect the country at large doesn't. Norway (or Norway +) would get through Parliament. It's the Plan B (with May's deal a Plan A that never was). Parliament is going to take over this thing, I think (hope).

 

[monkeybarry]

If such regular voting is so good, would you accept it being written into law that we could have an annual in-out referendum, with an out voting having immediate effect? Or will Europhobes only be allowed our 'best 3 out of 5' 4th referendum in 40 years' time?

Clearly not. But political action, including elections and referdum, should be flexible enough to respond to change in public mood or general events.

Let's remember politics is about Governance, not bragging rights.

A result that was very close to 50/50 at the start, after three years has resulted in a scenario that doesn't please the people that voted for it, looks bad (or at least questionable) for the country and offers little positive for anyone else.

To push forward under this climate would be irresponsible and undemocratic.
Parliamentary vote first, as is correct due process.
But if that fails, we have to go back to the people and ask the question - "you asked us to negotiate an exit from the EU. We have tried and reached a point that parliament (IE, the officials you elected) have rejected it.
What would you like us to do now?"

 

[Gutter Boy]

Listening to Hilary Benn talking on Sky News earlier, I think I'm going back to my first thoughts after the referendum result, in that all roads lead to Norway (or Norway +). Parliament doesn't really want a 2nd referendum and I suspect the country at large doesn't. Norway (or Norway +) would get through Parliament. It's the Plan B (with May's deal a Plan A that never was). Parliament is going to take over this thing, I think (hope).

I could just about pallet EFTA at the moment, but mainly because it's so much easier to leave than the EU. All it needs is a simple 12 months' notice. So it would be easier to drive Brexit 2.0 from there than the Withdrawal Agreement

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Listening to Hilary Benn talking on Sky News earlier, I think I'm going back to my first thoughts after the referendum result, in that all roads lead to Norway (or Norway +). Parliament doesn't really want a 2nd referendum and I suspect the country at large doesn't. Norway (or Norway +) would get through Parliament. It's the Plan B (with May's deal a Plan A that never was). Parliament is going to take over this thing, I think (hope).

You dont think they'd prefer a second referendum, remain vote, and "lets forget it ever happened"?

I do.