Politics, politics, politics

[Gutter Boy]

The thing is very few people actually want a no deal brexit, what they say is that if it happens then they wouldn't be worried about it but even the ERG want a Canada style free trade deal for instance.

People always talk about economics which is of course important but many people also don't care about it either otherwise they would allow all sorts of other things like fracking, mass house building next to them etc. For many people it's a principle/ideology point of view.

As I see it we're a strong economy and will continue to be albeit with some hiccups for next few years but the EU isn't the be all and end all, it hasn't helped mass youth unemployment all over the EU for instance.

Even the absolute worse economic predictions - 8% of GDP or whatever it is. Many normal people would pay that for the prize of national self-determination. It's those who work in billions who are concerned about their profits

 

[r-u-s-x]

I know Thatcher was the driver, but she also steered the EU into becoming the police for the markets

I don't get your point, Manufacturing can occur in a free market and we could have done a lot to encourage this within the EU framework... we chose not to.

 

[ringo]

You are asking me the same questions, I can only give the same answers. I have already said what is better for the UK from the perspective of those who want a left-wing government (the Labour Party), and it's both getting rid of the Tories and getting a soft-Brexit. The road to achieving both things isn't divergent, both can be done at the same time imo.

These objectives can only be achieved through political manoeuvring; May does not want to budge on ruling out no-deal, being in a customs union, having a 2nd vote, extending Article 50, so there is no co-operating with her. The rest of Parliament will co-operate and try to force her into a better position, which is what we are seeing now.

Again, the UK Collective are not phucking up -- the government are. This government alone have conducted negotiations. And their primary objective has not been considering the country as a whole, but instead keeping their party together. As such, they've have had no wiggle-room in negotiations. That's the phuck up.

Regardless of the outcome of Brexit. This country will never elect a Labour Party led by Corbyn with a majority. Labour have no chance of gaining outright power until they ditch Corbyn and elect someone closer to centre ground. And as momentum have firm grip on Labour party at moment, that isn't going to happen any time soon.

As I said in a previous post the battle now is between Article 50 extension and no deal. Everything else is maneuvering directed at one of those two options. For example, let's say the Cooper amendment is passed, it is not binding, the government doesn't have to give it time, it can get talked out, and Brexiteers can lobby Polish and Hungarian governments to veto Article 50 extension should it be put before the 27. I'm not sure Article 50 extenders have enough time or authority to avoid no deal.

Even if the EU blink and concede ground on the backstop, Brexiteers will still vote against May's plan, she will need support of Labour party to get it through -and they will push for no-confidence and GE. I reckon we are heading for no deal. Tory infighting. New Conservative leader. Possibly GE. With Conservatives reelected with minority or thin majority.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Even the absolute worse economic predictions - 8% of GDP or whatever it is. Many normal people would pay that for the prize of national self-determination. It's those who work in billions who are concerned about their profits

Normal people - that 8% fall for those that are scraping to make ends meet is a drastic amount. Given that it will probably mean a loss of jobs for a large swath of people it will be 100% (that 8% is not shared equally across everyone) for a lot of normal people. Those who work in billions will probably be fine though.

 

[the dza]

This conversation started out of the description of Labours plans being instantly dreamland stuff, and so then described as an opening gambit toward a solution.

Quite rightly it was pointed out that time has passed. And instead of playing PR and flimflam, if Labour have a desired solution they should be pushing for it directly.

They could be rallying Parliament behind it, leading the push for change, and really taking charge of proceedings.

Instead they, according to you, are more interested in playing games, manoeuvring, and making sure the Tories get shown up.

This is the fundamental problem I have. And what you reply isnt solutions, its rhetoric.

And yes - you are right. The government have fudged up. But the UK collective pay the price. And while the Conservatives have let us down, I fail to see how the same cannot be levelled at Labour to.

The Lib Dems are toothless, I know, but at least they have had a firm stance/solution throughout. All parties should have the same conviction.

As I said, the small time flimflam really shouldnt be the priority right now. A proper vision, and solution, should be.

And Corbyn saying he can get a unicorn deal is not it. Him using that as an opening stance is locking the door after the horse has bolted, this isnt the time for it and the EU have no need to entertain it. He is wasting time. And his preoccupation with apportioning blame is just getting in the way.

If he was a real leader he would have a bigger picture perspective.

I just don't think you are as neutral as you think you are. You are for hard brexit and have only a passing criticism of May and her government, whilst every other post is "phuck Labour" or "phuck Corbyn" or words to that effect. So I'm not convinced that Labour could really do anything to satisfy you re. Brexit or anything else. I am unapologetically left-wing and as such, I support the current Labour Party in their policy aims. And I am opposed to almost everything the Tories stand for. So I think we could probably argue forever on this subject and just never agree.

 

[the dza]

Regardless of the outcome of Brexit. This country will never elect a Labour Party led by Corbyn with a majority. Labour have no chance of gaining outright power until they ditch Corbyn and elect someone closer to centre ground. And as momentum have firm grip on Labour party at moment, that isn't going to happen any time soon.

As I said in a previous post the battle now is between Article 50 extension and no deal. Everything else is maneuvering directed at one of those two options. For example, let's say the Cooper amendment is passed, it is not binding, the government doesn't have to give it time, it can get talked out, and Brexiteers can lobby Polish and Hungarian governments to veto Article 50 extension should it be put before the 27. I'm not sure Article 50 extenders have enough time or authority to avoid no deal.

Even if the EU blink and concede ground on the backstop, Brexiteers will still vote against May's plan, she will need support of Labour party to get it through -and they will push for no-confidence and GE. I reckon we are heading for no deal. Tory infighting. New Conservative leader. Possibly GE. With Conservatives reelected with minority or thin majority.

Labour are unlikely to get an outright majority at the next election, but many of their policies line up with the SNP. It's not like "coalition of chaos" can be levelled as an argument anymore, given the current Tory clusterphuck and murky deal with the DUP. A soft-brexit would be enough to keep the SNP onboard, they'd have no real argument for their own 2nd ref at that point.

Let's see where these amendments take May. She might not be bound by them, but imo she's looking for a way out and doesn't want to take responsibility for it. That's my guess. But who knows, you could be right.

 

[ringo]

The thing is very few people actually want a no deal brexit, what they say is that if it happens then they wouldn't be worried about it but even the ERG want a Canada style free trade deal for instance.

People always talk about economics which is of course important but many people also don't care about it either otherwise they would allow all sorts of other things like fracking, mass house building next to them etc. For many people it's a principle/ideology point of view.

As I see it we're a strong economy and will continue to be albeit with some hiccups for next few years but the EU isn't the be all and end all, it hasn't helped mass youth unemployment all over the EU for instance.

I think we are a lot less strong economy than we think we are. We may be a member of G7 and notionally sixth strongest economy, but I'm not sure that truly reflects shifting economic power in the global economy. We are hugely reliant on our (financial) services but everyone is after a slice of that pie, the financial world is being heavily disrupted by new technologies, I know from speaking to senior execs there are banks in Africa that have a better grasp of the future of banking than some UK banks. Personally, in an exceptionally mobile business world, I think our economic position is much more precarious than many people would think. Of course a lot of people are well aware of this - but a lot of those people have homes in many countries.

One thing that has worked in our favour is that people with money and power like to live and work in London. But London has changed for the worse in recent years - and if it has less pulling power - that will also make a big difference.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I just don't think you are as neutral as you think you are. You are for hard brexit and have only a passing criticism of May and her government, whilst every other post is "phuck Labour" or "phuck Corbyn" or words to that effect. So I'm not convinced that Labour could really do anything to satisfy you re. Brexit or anything else. I am unapologetically left-wing and as such, I support the current Labour Party in their policy aims. And I am opposed to almost everything the Tories stand for. So I think we could probably argue forever on this subject and just never agree.

I am not biased, believe me. Im completely neutral in so much as I cant stand any of them, I think they are all a shameful waste of space, and should be replaced with people of actual conviction, vision and drive.

Couldnt give a fudge if its Conservative, Labour, Monster Raving...

I dont oppose all Labour ideals. Nor do I support them. Same with the Conservatives. Neither swing enough that I actively support to make me want to sign up to their colours.

Ideologically I should really be a Lib Dem I think, as somewhere in between, but they are so wet its impossible to get behind them.

I dont absolve the Tories of anything. They have fudged up, they arent doing anything to fix it, they are essentially the problem at this time*.

This is where my issue with Labour comes though. They are the opposition and should be doing much more to force solutions. Instead they are actively passive and it drives me mad.

And Corbyn? He is, IMO, just a terrible leader. And as the head of the party he cops more ire than the underlings do.



*Where do you draw the line? This government picks up issues from the last, who pick up issues from the one before...

Incidentally, if I have a particular problem with Labour it was three fold.
1) Blair turning politics into PR - we still havent recovered from it
2) The war in Iraq. fudging disgrace.
3) Labour just exploding the welfare state and creating benefits as a lifestyle choice (also something we cant recover from)

Otherwise, right now - I just think they should be better opposition.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Let's see where these amendments take May. She might not be bound by them, but imo she's looking for a way out and doesn't want to take responsibility for it. That's my guess. But who knows, you could be right.

Been saying this for ages.

Work a way around to a second referendum, get a remain vote, it all goes away.

Get out of jail free card.

And yet - she seems bone headedly determined to force her deal through. Though she does also seem like the only one at this point.

 

[the dza]

Been saying this for ages.

Work a way around to a second referendum, get a remain vote, it all goes away.

Get out of jail free card.

And yet - she seems bone headedly determined to force her deal through. Though she does also seem like the only one at this point.

Could just be theatre. I understand why, she wants to keep the "leave-means-leave" vote, as losing it could cost the Tories the next election (imo). So if she just acts as stubborn as possible then caves to Parliament at the last minute, she might be able to appeal to those voters and say "hey, I really phucking tried but in the end, what could I do?"

I will now remove my tinfoil hat.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't get your point, Manufacturing can occur in a free market and we could have done a lot to encourage this within the EU framework... we chose not to.

No - a free market encourages industries that benefit from risk and uncertainty (financial services). Manufacturing needs long term industrial strategies, which the free market fundamentally works against.

 

[ringo]

No - a free market encourages industries that benefit from risk and uncertainty (financial services). Manufacturing needs long term industrial strategies, which the free market fundamentally works against.

I don't think this is strictly true. Manufacturing can thrive in a free market - it just becomes stateless and globalized. Company A fragments its value chain depending on costs and available skills. In the past that has meant outsourcing to low cost providers in emerging economies. More recently, with AI and automation, (and threatened tarrifs) the trend is onshoring, bringing bits of the value chain back to host countries closer to consumers.

I'm not saying that free market economics and trade liberalisation is good for host countries and the societies that live in them. It's pretty good for business owners, though. Including those who own manufacturing businesses.

 

[r-u-s-x]

No - a free market encourages industries that benefit from risk and uncertainty (financial services). Manufacturing needs long term industrial strategies, which the free market fundamentally works against.

you can invest in infrastructure, you can invest in training, you can invest in innovation etc all within EU rules. Long term strategy does not have to go against EU rules, you are chosing to equate the two.

...and the US is the second biggest manufacturer.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Could just be theatre. I understand why, she wants to keep the "leave-means-leave" vote, as losing it could cost the Tories the next election (imo). So if she just acts as stubborn as possible then caves to Parliament at the last minute, she might be able to appeal to those voters and say "hey, I really phucking tried but in the end, what could I do?"

I will now remove my tinfoil hat.

Possible. Though I actually believe she is so fixated on her deal, its actually exactly what it looks like.

Plan being, right now, to take it so near the wire parliament loses its nerve and votes her deal in in the face of no other solution.

Though, given how the last vote went, it would be one hell of a swing to pull that off.

 

[the dza]

Possible. Though I actually believe she is so fixated on her deal, its actually exactly what it looks like.

Plan being, right now, to take it so near the wire parliament loses its nerve and votes her deal in in the face of no other solution.

Though, given how the last vote went, it would be one hell of a swing to pull that off.

Agree, it's tough to see how she gets that many to change their mind. If no-deal is the real alternative to May's deal, then the ERG and DUP will vote it down again as they would rather leave on WTO terms (though possibly for different reasons). And I don't think enough Labour politicians would back it, even if more would than before.

If she gets it through without ERG support, it might not be the worst thing imo -- avoids no deal and would make the more ardent 'leave' Tory voters/politicians so angry that it'd split the Tory Party, or at the very least drive many voters to UKIP. Then Labour would be in government and negotiate the future arrangement and end up with a soft-brexit. I'd take that, personally. Whether it'd end up that way, who phucking knows?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Agree, it's tough to see how she gets that many to change their mind. If no-deal is the real alternative to May's deal, then the ERG and DUP will vote it down again as they would rather leave on WTO terms (though possibly for different reasons). And I don't think enough Labour politicians would back it, even if more would than before.

If she gets it through without ERG support, it might not be the worst thing imo -- avoids no deal and would make the more ardent 'leave' Tory voters/politicians so angry that it'd split the Tory Party, or at the very least drive many voters to UKIP. Then Labour would be in government and negotiate the future arrangement and end up with a soft-brexit. I'd take that, personally. Whether it'd end up that way, who phucking knows?

I really dont see the point in soft brexit. Why even bother? The only way it makes sense to me is in the GB utopia of it being the first step to a full exit, and buys us time to get everything straight.

Cant help feeling that its more likey soft brexit is the end of the line though.

WTO terms IS no deal, isnt it?

 

[the dza]

I really dont see the point in soft brexit. Why even bother? The only way it makes sense to me is in the GB utopia of it being the first step to a full exit, and buys us time to get everything straight.

Cant help feeling that its more likey soft brexit is the end of the line though.

WTO terms IS no deal, isnt it?

Yeah.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't think this is strictly true. Manufacturing can thrive in a free market - it just becomes stateless and globalized. Company A fragments its value chain depending on costs and available skills. In the past that has meant outsourcing to low cost providers in emerging economies. More recently, with AI and automation, (and threatened tarrifs) the trend is onshoring, bringing bits of the value chain back to host countries closer to consumers.

I'm not saying that free market economics and trade liberalisation is good for host countries and the societies that live in them. It's pretty good for business owners, though. Including those who own manufacturing businesses.

The last paragraph is it though. It works for shareholders, not society

If companies have no roots, they really are just mining workers until they spot a slightly better seam somewhere else, then bugger off.

 

[Gutter Boy]

you can invest in infrastructure, you can invest in training, you can invest in innovation etc all within EU rules. Long term strategy does not have to go against EU rules, you are chosing to equate the two.

...and the US is the second biggest manufacturer.

Who invests though? Not companies, because they just buy-in ready made from abroad. And not governments because they've outsourced all their business to companies.

Infrastructure is much more than people too. It's transport, buildings, underwriting loans. The way to alleviate concern about Nissan pulling out or the tariffs for importing from Germany is for the government to relaunch Rover.

 

[P.D.]

I think the fear now is that no deal won't happen and if the hard brexiteers don't back something then they run the risk of a soft brexit or referendum, beyond the backstop most of them think 95% of the other stuff is OK.

I don't think it will happen but if they put a limit of say 5 years on it as Poland suggested then the deal would go through, there's also Labour people like Snell who have hinted they'd back a revised deal like that particularly as there will be a small change to put in more protection for environment regulations and workers rights.

The scary thing is this deal is only for 20 months, imagine how tough it will be to get the next deal though. In my view Tories should get behind it and focus their efforts on the next deal.