Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 06:28:10 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / UK Lulz...
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 16 16:09:23
So, Theressa May's govt appears to have just supported amendments by Brexiteer hardliners that makes her own deal ... illegal... I need some time to work through it but I think the effect of the ERG amendments is to basically make any deal of any type illegal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0

So glad to be out of the CS by October.
Rugian
Member
Mon Jul 16 17:14:37
I don't think you're allowed to make UK Lulz threads, Seb.

But yes, this is yet another hilarious development in the Brexit saga. EU negotiations are going to be glorious.

I didnt think it was possible to actually feel sorry for a politician, but after seeing everything May's been through these last few weeks, I feel she really needs a hug. There's no way she's happy with her life right now.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Mon Jul 16 17:18:25
novichok derangement syndrome is hard to endure.
Rugian
Member
Mon Jul 16 18:25:36
Nah, novichok is only, like, the ninth-worst thing that she has to deal with. Hell, it's probably the highlight of her day when it does come up.

It must be supremely fun to run a government whose only goal is to survive for another 24 hours, with no long term outlook whatsoever. It's like Running Man for politicians.

I'm not normally a "this can only mean war" type of guy, but the way things are going I give it at least a 5% chance that this saga ends with the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Although May would probably view that as a positive as she'd at least regain her parliamentary majority in the process.
Aeros
Member
Tue Jul 17 00:48:13
The more hilarious part of this is Labour does not want Theresa to go down either as it would mean they would have to do the Brexit and Corbyn would be Prime Minister.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 02:49:49
Rugian:
I rather think I am. We can do US lulz next once I've digested that farce.

Glorious? Short I think. Two words, both under five letters, if Barnier adopts Anglo saxon.

I think May might actually have had a stroke or something. Strong and stable?

The crazy thing is, she'd have won, so why not see these jokers in ERG off? I get that as legislation needed in theory she can overturn the ammendments after negotiation but that would strengthen the brexiteers position. Better to see them off now. No 10 must be completely clueless. It's like the last remnants of a govt in a bunker as the city falls to an invading power.

I hope, by the way, the manner in which novichok has been completely ignored with Boris resigning on the day that a victim died (while standing up an international conference he was hosting no less) has convinced you that it's not a devilishly clever 9 dimensional chess game by British intelligence.

Unless brexit is cancelled, I'd put odds on dissolution much much higher. UK = GB + NI. Very likely NI goes independent if a customs border either in North sea or on border with South. Yet without that, UK needs to stay in SM and CU which is "vassal state". Though of course pointed this out before the referendum as did many many others.

Aeros:
Unlikely. If there was a GE they could campaign on no brexit specificañly to escape this problem. And so likely would I think.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 02:57:03
I think the order of probability is:

New referendum
No deal brexit (will stockpile food)
Some kind of deal

Logic is:
1. Labour leadership will whip to vote against any deal to trigger an election.

2. Brexiteers will vote down any deal that doesn't get them full brexit, may hasn't got the numbers to push it through.

Either she has to kill and burry the ERG crowd and reduce them to a rump, in which case she might get enough lab support for a soft brexit plus tory MPs that give full brexit up for lost.

Or I can't see another option.

But, she's now left the opportunity to do that to the very last minute. Risky!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 17 02:58:58
This can only mean civil war.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 03:03:56
So, I think what seems more likely now (narrowly) is MPs vote down the brexit deal as neither remainers or hardcore leavers will accept it.

Instead MPs table ammendment for new referrendum legislation and mandate govt to request a50 extension. Only way for MPs to escape from impossible trap.

I think TM would then resign and new elections follow.

Nearly as likely is that this doesn't quite come together and we fall out. Any attempt to extend a50 doesn't help. So defaults back to a version of previous option.




Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 03:04:28
Nim:

We will make the Big Ender's pay!
murder
Member
Tue Jul 17 05:43:52

"No deal brexit (will stockpile food)"

I bet you used to make fun of preppers. :o)

murder
Member
Tue Jul 17 05:49:10

You would think the Brexiteers would've had this all worked out before the referendum.

They are coming off like a dog that decided to chase a car, and ended up with a mouthful of chrome and broken teeth.

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 06:56:17
Peppers have little to worry about, i don't see how the UK imports food and gets it to supermarkets without huge disruption in a no deal scenario. Got to worry about electricity and gas too.

The trouble with brexiteers is they opposed joining the EU and subsequent steps of integration but they don't appear to have realised that non joining something is asymmetric with leaving something.

It would be about as hard for oh, California or Texas or NY to leave the US as the UK to leave the EU. It's not impossible but takes time, planning and thought.

But brexiteers can't agree where they want to exit to, and some wanted the issue not brexit so never had any preference at all because they want the status quo but without the EU as a narrative element (to have their cake and eat it).

With Russian fingerprints on the scale for both elections in 2016.

What a funny way to lose the cold war.
murder
Member
Tue Jul 17 07:54:38

I bet they are much further along on their plans for passing the buck for the train wreck than they are in their plans to avoid it.

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 08:01:28
Murder:

Yup. Hence the resignations. "Awoe, Awoe, Brexit didn't fail, the UK failed Brexit. Stabbed in the back by treacherous civil servants, evil remainers in parliament, presided over by a weak prime minister bullied by Europe".

Hard brexit followed by Corbyn = UK dismantling our spooks, nukes and cyber and soft aligning with Russia.

Which is the springboard for whoever finally gets a grip to become strongly revanchist, looking to create the destabilising opportunity to recover lost ground.

Essentially the UK becomes something akin to Russia, deeply invested in seeing the West disrupted.
Rugian
Member
Tue Jul 17 08:48:49
Seb,

May only wins if backbenchers don't suddenly decide to revolt, and the Brexiteers made it clear that they were willing to break with her on this deal. By capitulating, she got her votes, reduced the probability of Boris making a "Burn the world" speech later this week, and (for now) forestalled talk of a no confidence motion.

The Chequers deal was a good start at attempting to seek a compromise, but the Brexiteers were right to blanch at the vassal state scenario. At the same time, the current plan is also unworkable as-is. This needs to change, and fast.

Fundamentally speaking, trade shouldn't be such a contentious issue, as no one opposes the basic concept of close trade relations between the UK and EU. If the EU is going to insist on playing hardball on this front, then it is all the better that you're leaving now, rather than down the line when you'd likely be further integrated into the union. It may be painful in the short term, but so are most attempts to leave an abusive partner.

I'll admit though, it is unfortunate that the US has been dropping the ball here. We should have been spending the last two years proactively negotiating a fair but favorable deal for the UK and encouraging allies to do the same. That not only hasn't happened, but it's a distinct possibility that when talks do start we're going to be sucks about the whole thing. That's a shitty way to manage the special relationship, and is a blown opportunity to give the UK a viable alternative to leverage in EU negotiations.

Second referendum is a terrible idea. Forget that it's a blatant dog whistle for Remainers who want to cancel out the will of the people and pretend like the last two years never happened (as if that was possible). Forget that it would be the ultimate betrayal to the British public and prove that your democracy is a sham. The irreparable damage it would do to the Tories vis-a-vis their base would destroy the party for at least a generation, cause a further tilt by conservatives to the far right, and almost assuredly bring about the reign of Dear Leader Corbyn. May simply cant do it.

As a certain someone once said, Brexit means Brexit. That shouldn't go unrealized simply because May's chiefs of staffs are incompetent at running a campaign.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 17 08:50:25
What are the chance of holding a new vote on this?

http://wha...on-asked-after-the-referendum/

It would either be the validation they need to gain the confidence to brexit or probable cause to pull the breaks. I think in a clusterfuck like this, it is a good idea to hold a second referendum.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 17 08:58:42
In Sweden our constitution requires that two consecutive parliaments approve any changes to the constitution. Leaving the EU I think is at least about as serious. Such an important decision with cascading effects should be validated by a second referendum. Specially when it is now obvious that no one had a plan for this, not even those that planned for it!
Rugian
Member
Tue Jul 17 09:26:05
I don't see how you can pull the breaks on Brexit. There is clearly a strong sentiment of hostility to the EU among a significant swath of the British public, which is seldom recognized by the press or mainstream parties who are firmly for the union. In 2016 it was made clear that Parliament and the media were wildly out of step with the public, and that the latter's voice could only be heard outside of those institutions.

If a second referendum is used as an excuse to cancel the first one, then the portion of the country that opposes the EU will end up being left in the cold. This will be seen as the establishment protecting itself at the expense of the people, and further undermine trust in the institutions of governance. Conservatives betrayed by their party will flee to UKIP or parties further to the right, and politics will be an even bigger mess than they are now. The shitstorm would be catastrophic.
murder
Member
Tue Jul 17 09:33:12

"That's a shitty way to manage the special relationship"

The way things are going, the UK or England or whatever is left won't be able to afford a "special relationship" with the US anymore.

murder
Member
Tue Jul 17 09:34:43

"As a certain someone once said, Brexit means Brexit."

It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind. The same applies to voters.

Rugian
Member
Tue Jul 17 09:36:21
That would have more weight if the opposition hasn't been calling for a second referendum since the morning after the first one.
murder
Member
Tue Jul 17 09:38:06
"In Sweden our constitution requires that two consecutive parliaments approve any changes to the constitution."

That's wise.



murder
Member
Tue Jul 17 09:44:48
Perceptions can't be a concern. First you put out the fire, then you worry about messaging and regaining trust.

The simple fact is that the Brexiteers planned for the campaign, but not the follow through. This cluster fuck is on them.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 17 09:59:26
Rugian
We have to abide by the democratic principles, if you loose vote you loose a vote and accept the results. In elections we have the benefit of doing this every 4 years. Not with referendums of this sort, which will have consequences for decades. I think that the nature of the issue and in light of the current lack of progress it is reasonable to ask, are you sure about this? It is the growing conservative in me. I don't like big changes, I'm getting old and besides, big changes often include, lots of shit no one thought of to think of! No thanks, incremental and slow all the way baby. So yes, are you really really really sure about this? It is reasonable to ask.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 18:20:21
Rugian:

Your grasp of UK politics is weak. Boris is a write off now. No threat at all.

Trade is more complex than you appear to understand. A Canadian style FTA means customs checks which we have no infrastructure to carry out. This is therefore impossible to put in place in the next 9 months (not in the next two years given the IT systems needed!)

And that's going to add time and money to import export, damaging businesses, especially complex manufactured goods (cars, aerospace etc).

It means a border in Ireland or between UK an NI.

The EU can't offer us better than other countries it has an FTA with most favoured nation clauses. So agricultural tarrifs which the dup won't wear.

So 'free trade' isn't an option. Hence customs partnership. But they just agreed to make that illegal.

So the only viable options are now EEA for the whole of the UK and vassal state or Canada dry and economic clusterfuck that makes the financial crisis look a joke. It's more OpEC oil crisis. And it will hit leave areas hardest and NI.

Neither of these options look like it can get a majority.

So by default, no deal. So all that economic dislocation happens in march. With no vat regime, no customs etc. there's likely to be big disruption to inbound and outbound trade, magnified by panic buying so real possibility under that scenario of food and petrol shortages.

So that's not an option either.

So may is now fucked.


As for new referrendum being a terrible idea because of the dammage to democracy, what do you think will happen when we leave under any circumstances? Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, we've already list 2% of GDP growth (i.e. economy is 2% smaller than it would be on trend up until the referendum), many of those in leave areas.

The referendum promises have turned out to be all lies, the electoral commission has found both leave campaigns massively over spent, and broke the law, with campaign officials referred to the police for prosecution.

On top of that Aaron Banks appears to have been having regular meetings with russian diplomats and been offered bribes in the form of business opportunities, and is ripped as a person of interest for mullers investigation in the US.

When Brexit leads to significant economic dislocation and job losses for the people who voted for it having been promised "take back control,and have oodles of money for the NHS", do you think they are going to shrug and say "doh, should have read the fine print", or are they going to take to the streets?

Politicians know very well they are fucked either way, hence they may well "hand the vomiting, shitting, screaming baby back to the parents to deal with".

Plus, demographic changes (100ks of old people died, 100ks people have turned 18) better info and higher engagement mean in a new ref, remain would likely win with a higher margin and higher turnout than leave won.

So talk of democracy being broken by a second vote is overblown. The fist ref broke democracy - as evidenced by the inability of parliament or cabinet to produce a negotiating position to take to europe.

If we can't agree amongst ourselves what we want, there's nothing for the EU to negotiate.

You are also overestimating the salience of Europe. Until the referrendum, less than 10% of voters thought it a key issue, and almost all of those were Tory or ukip voters.

The opposition hasn't been calling for a we referendum. Labour have repeatedly ruled it out much to corbyns fan based chargrin.

Btw, you know Fiona Hill (one of Mays chiefs of staff during the campaign) is now Trumps Russia lead. Har Har har. Your fucked.

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 18:21:28
Murder:

At some point all UK politicians came to believe perceptions are all that matters.

Our leaders are addicted to bluffing.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 18:26:32
I have a very hard time deciding between EEA and no-deal or Canada.

I think my preference is no deal or Canada but that's basically because I can see potential for change after that, and in the end me and mine will likely be ok.

That change though requires we team up with disrupters to shake up the geopolitical order though. So... Not great.

But EEA is a trap. We would face the same challenge of not being able to leave, not being able to control our economy or regulatory environment, and I can't see why the EU would ever take us back as full members. So basically, if we do that we are forever stuck.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 17 18:35:01
Also, this is pretty much what I said would happen during the ref campaign if leave won.
Pillz
Member
Tue Jul 17 19:15:54
Seb just reversed his entire position for the past 15 months and says it's what he said to begin with.

Lol
Rugian
Member
Tue Jul 17 19:50:24
Seb,

The only thing that's weak is May's ability to predict whether she'll still be PM after the next 24 hours. I'm very glad to see that she managed to survive today thanks to four rouge Labour votes and Tim Farron being a no-show, but this is clearly an unsustainable government at work here.

Boris Johnson doesn't need to be a PM contender to be a threat, he just needs to be able to convince a handful of MPs to make the jump to oblivion.

I never said that an agreement on trade wouldn't be complex, but the obstacles you posted were complications, not insurmountable differences. These are issues to be that can alternatively be negotiated around or compensated for as a matter of national policy. Let's not confuse incompetence with impossibility.

I think anyone with a brain would have understood from the start that there would have been at least a short term cost to leaving the EU. I still don't think that the "absolute doom" scenario is a foregone conclusion so much as an example of fatalism in a transitional period where the future economic outlook is still essentially an unknown.

Of course, this ignores the more basic problem, which is what the EU itself is turning into: an increasingly political union that, for all of the UK's objections, is trending towards increased federalization in the long term. The EU, not the UK, ultimately broke the contract on what previous generations of voters understood it would be. Add this to the fact that the UK had a bit of ambivalence in even accepting an economic union in the first place, and it becomes obvious that the organization does not represent the future for Great Britain.

Corbyn hasn't called for a second referendum, but opponents of Brexit absolutely have.

I have to admit I started seeing red after reading the part about "RUSSIANS DID IT," but to address your and nimatzo's point, I find it amusing how Europe consistently comes up with the narrative that public referendums should be subjected to do overs or ignored outright, but only when the result was that the EU happened to lose the vote. Typically referendums are not subject to this level of scrutiny and indifference to the outcome.

I don't buy the argument that the will of the people should be ignored because Theresa May is an objectively terrible Prime Minster. Nor do I buy the shameless position that you should be able to hold re-votes every couple of years to see if enough old people have died off in the interim. Hey, I bet a bunch of Tory voters have died in the last year - maybe snap elections are warranted to see if Corbyn can finally convince enough dumb college students to make him Dear Leader?

This doesn't even take into account the fact that governments throughout Europe have been reacting to the populism of 2016 by progressively tilting towards ever-more managed elections that are designed to heavily favor the establishment. Hey, let's use state apparatus to silence opposition medi-...er, fake news, and convince social media companies to ban opposition adver-...er, Russian trolls. The UK may not be as bad as say, Germany, whose media organizations basically exist as propaganda outlets for the government, but it's undeniable that GB is caught up in this trend. Frankly, I'm not convinced that you're capable of running a democratic election at this point.

At the end of the day, you can accept that the UK is leaving the EU, or you can become just the latest example of how the entire system is a sham and you're going to be staying in the union no matter how people vote. If you're going to do the latter though, you may as well drop the charade and get rid of elections and referendums altogether.

I didn't know about Fiona Hill. Up until now I thought she was a dumbass, but since Trump apparently has confidence in her she must actually be a genius.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 01:54:13
Pillz:

Position isn't the same as prediction.

I said in the referendum that leaving was stupid, because it would be economicaly catastrophic, it would threaten the integrity of the UK especially Ireland and thus run the risk of re-openining the troubles, and that being in any kind of soft brexit would leave us worse off in terms of control, and that Europe would prioritise it's legal integrity over any industrial interests.

All of which are now demonstrably true.

My position is "fuck, this is a dumb idea, let's not do it".

If that isn't an option, it's probably hard leave and then a twenty year journey to rejoin a tradeblock. Likely candidates being Europe on worse terms than now, NAFTA which doesn't cover services and if it did will mean accepting us regulatory frameworks (and that honestly can't begin until trump leaves office and the US decides it cares about trade).

This might be marginally better than EEA forever.

But it will mean we have destroyed all our soft power, crippled our economy, ruined both our reputation for and culture of good governance.

To achieve in all cases, a worse outcome.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 02:18:08
Rugian:

Right and what you are missing is BoJo hasn't even got a handful of followers right now. His advisors are leaving him. Basically, his stint in FO has convinced most that he's not fit for office, his public approval is rock bottom, and brexiteers think he really only cares about himself. Jumping *after* supporting and clearly only because he feared David Davis was stealing a march on him put the last mail in the coffin. Right now he's in the wilderness.


Re trade, you are making the same mistake as the brexiteers who have found these not to be minor details but insoluble. The EU isn't a sovereign state that can cut political deals. It's a legal regime with very little flexibility. That's the constraint of binding 27 countries together. If you in pick a bit, the whole thing unravels.

You say "anyone with a brain", the problem is the brexit campaign explicitly promised only good things and no risk of bad things. Money would be available instantly. Growth would go up. Deals would be cut very quickly.

So, who is going to stand up in front of 100,000 jobless in Sunderland or wherever that voted for leave, found it lost them their job, and tell them:

"sorry thickos, anyone with half a brain could see I wasn't telling the whole truth. Don't worry. The country will be better off in a decade, but between then and now, were going to have to cut back on unemployment benefit now your employer amongst others is no longer here to pay tax and theres no job for you. Oh and cost of livings going up because the pounds going down. Ok, I'm back off to London now. Cheerio."

That's totally not going to cause a political crisis over democracy. This is literally how you end up with dictatorships.

"The EU, not the UK, ultimately broke the contract on what previous generations of voters understood it would be."

Firstly that simply isn't true. If you go back and read McMillan, Wilson's and heath's speeches they are clear it's a political project. Secondly, we had a fucck load of optouts that protected us from the nuttier bits. Finally, the single market was a UK initiative, and this is the source of the bulk of the need for the ECJ- a single market needs a common legal framework. It was *Thatcher's* govt that pushed the single market.

If you don't see Russia had an interest and is meddling in our politics then you are blind. The point is not that this would never ever happen (things need to be close for this to work), the point is you can't scream "integrity of democracy is at stake" when the leave campaigns over spent the spending limits by somewhere between 10% to 20%, engaged in criminal breaches of election law, and appear to have got some of that money from foreign powers.

Politics is about legitimacy - and the issue here is why should the now 55% of voters who want to remain accept a vote held two years ago which is tainted, where the organisers admit their campaign was based on a knowingly false prospectus? When said referendum was explicitly called in law by parliament as advisory unlike any of the ten or so previous ones we've had?


Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 02:24:56
Whatever happens now, there's going to be a crisis in UK democracy.

On the one hand if we leave under any option now on the table, many leave voters will be economicaly ruined. They will not be getting what they were led to believe and they will totally lose faith in democratic government as a result. Plus lots of other bad stuff discussed. And remain voters will be being dragged out of the EU based on a referendum blatantly lacking in legitimacy.

If we remain, after a new referendum, the public will be exercising a democratic choice to change its mind armed with new facts and spending nearly three years testing the proposal of the last referendum and finding it totally unworkable.

As Nim points out, many democracies require a two stage process for such major changes.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 18 02:37:55
I work quite a lot with people and institutions across EU member states within structures regulated by the commission. And brexit effects that work of course, we just do not know if, how and in what capacity Brits will continue such co-op, and neither do they and they can’t even tells us when they can tell us anything, because they don’t know. And these are test and research institutes, laboratories, notified bodies etc. You want to hope that such work transcendes this, but who knows.

It is however unlikely that the UK will be allowed to have any ”Notified bodies” (impartial third parties) to assess the different EU product regulation/directives and certify products (CE marking), since NB’s must be in memberstates. So all harmonised products (regulated/mandatory marking) must be assessed by NB’s outside UK. Or? That isn’t an unimportant questions with no consequence for those currently holding Notified body status in the UK.

This is all from a selfish pov, untangled from the rest of Brexit, we have always hoped that some parts are ”holy” and will be salavaged. But this work cannot be decoupled from the EU single market, it is an integral part of it...
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 03:02:01
This will of the people business is a bit disingenuous. At best it was the will of 52% of the electorate that turned up on the day, to answer a question that said nothing about what future relationship we wanted with Europe.

Nobody really knows exactly what outcome they want, particularly due to the egregious lies the leave campaign told. So the 48% largely don't feel reconciled to the result.

And to the extent the vote is an indication of the will of the people, there's no guarantee that's the will of the people now.

This is why we have representative democracy. The people don't have a collective will. Society is composed of individuals and factions of ever shifting views on many subjects, whose differing views and interests must be settled by compromise, hence the sovereign role of parliament (not the executive) as the forum for thrashing out such compromises.

David Cameron's attempt to use a referendum to settle the issue has failed. It has exacerbated it. Theresa May is weak not simply because she herself is temperamentally unsuited to the position of pm, but because her party and parliament cannot agree a common position on how to leave in a way that fulfills the mandate in a way that would genuinely satisfy the voters on that day in June two years ago.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 03:02:45
If there genuinely was a "will of the people", clear and unambiguous, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 03:14:12
Nim:

Very few people seem to understand that kind of point fully.

"If you want to be outside of EU law, you can't be in a regulatory framework. If you are not in a regulatory framework, we can't assure your goods and services are safe at point of production, so it must be done on entry. Which means border inspections whether you are in an FTA or Customs Union. Which means: shipping becomes slower and more expensive, not just because of checks but because e.g. a pallet of goods traveling from Italy to UK via France needs to organise goods destined for the EU and goods destined for the UK to minimise checks.
Also it means the infrastructure and staff need to be built and employed to do these checks. And these need to be paid for. Minimum implementation time 2-5 years.

Etc. Etc.

Those with a less systems based view think these are surmountable minor details. I.e. there is a back room deal where we basically go "yeah but our bodies have been fine up till now so why the need for all this bureaucracy". The flip side is that position amounts to "we are going to stop obeying the law, but just trust us that we won't commit a crime" while saying to the UK voters "hey, all those regulations, all that red tape - those EU laws we have now, were going to have a bonfire of red tape".

And if the EU accepted this for a non member, why would members agree to ECJ jurisdiction over themselves if "just trust us" is viable? This is a recipie for mass cheating and toddlers toys covered in lead paint.

The mutual recognition plan was a nice idea but no way it would be acceptable without tangible legal controls to provide assurance.
And ironically it proves the UK govt does trust Brussels regs to deliver public goods.

All of this is screamingly obvious to anyone with "half a brain".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 18 04:00:00
”Those with a less systems based view think”

Sigh...Unfortunatly I think this is the meta battle we are all entangled in, the systemizers vs the self sufficient. Sentiments and worries I have heard before. Some things are just impossible or utterly suboptimal if we all are going to make up our own standards of systems in varying sizes and quality. If you think about it, several discussions with sam adams have revolved around these modes of thinking, specifically systems of human organization and management. The same archetypes. As with many things the questions isn’t either/or, it is adaptiv or maladaptive.

The back deal mentality is quite astonishing given that rather trivial things have take 10+ years to harmonize, but yea sure EU will provide a sweet and quick deal for the UK brexiters.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 18 04:23:29
>>All of this is screamingly obvious to anyone with "half a brain".<<

I think it is obvious to people who work in and with systems, It is knowledge based. Even a person with less than half a brain (dumb), could likely appreciate the difficulty if they just had knowledge. Beurucracy is ment to be slow and rigid to provide predictability and stability. Yes that also has down sides,

The problem is that explaining this does not scale well or disseminate well in a political landscape. You actually need experience, full brain people are victims of bias as well. The bias here, that systems/the collective intrinsically stand in opposition to individual freedom.

Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 05:43:12
Nim:

But do they really stand on the way of freedom?

Does a person in Loughborough really have more control on his economic destiny via their MP in parliaments influence on UK regulation that may not be recognised anywhere else than they do via their MP in parliament, UK govt, and MEP on EU legislation that sets a global agenda?

I don't really see it.

Particularly when the main benefits of leaving are portrayed as ripping up all the rules that protect such people from exploitation, unsafe working environments, food and products.

Sure, there's some protectionism inherent in EU regs that free trade advocates don't like. But the public appetite - particularly among leave voters - is probably for more of those, not less.

Brexit is undeliverable because it is fundamentally a dumb and unrealistic proposition, with no coherent idea of what to do with the supposed freedom from EU laws that would make a matetial improvement. Which is surely the point here. And the govt is weak because there is no way to turn brexit into a coherent strategy or political retail offer other than brexit as an end in itself.

Hence "brexit is brexit".

I find the line about political crisis in legitimacy from new referendum hollow. We are in a crisis already - parliament is unable to agree a coherent position after two years and an general election. The country cannot be governed because what they have been instructed to do - to eat cake and have it still - is impossible. And eating the cake (hard brexit) and having it still (soft brexit) are both deeply undesirable to a majority of the population as a proposition on their own.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 06:58:12
BTW, appreciate you were not saying they do, I mean "is it really that much of a mindset shift to see they don't stand in the way of individual liberty"
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 18 07:40:00
Well it is a complicated answer. Clearly the collective effort stands in the way of some individual freedom. But there is no individual freedom without a collective to uphold them. When issues like these are reduced to their most primitive arguments it often takes the form of two opposing principles that can not be reconciled. Sometimes that is true, but I honestly do not believe individual freedom and collective effort are one those.

I think if you work in a system and you are a systems person you will be aware of the flaws in that system, and I often point out flaws, but I often still believe in the system. The EU is flawed, the UN is flawed, democracy is flawed, news media is flawed. Deep flaws that have only emerged over time and in dealing with new and unforseen obstacles (probably the internet is a big one). I rarely think revolutionary change is good, even though I am fully aware of how rigid and difficult to change flawed systems can be. You can’t plan a revolution, they just happen and basically you have a new set of problems, inherit some of the old problems and the novelty fools you.

I think we are ultimately better off taking small steps to improve and major changes only after long sober and clear analysis. The EU is not a deeply flawed and incorrigible system we have to abandon, yet I hope that Brexit, regardless of outcome, signals something to the rest of the EU, so that it can become better.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 18 08:07:24
>>BTW, appreciate you were not saying they do, I mean "is it really that much of a mindset shift to see they don't stand in the way of individual liberty"<<

I think so, I don’t think it is intuitive. It requires some experience and clear thinking, but also a realization that seemingly opposing principles can be nested within each other, were one is not possible without the other. This, partly is to blame on how politicians and media talk and report on issues, the simplistic ”good” vs ”bad” in 5 min segments between two 3 minute commercials (aweful format). Polarising and deeply emotion provoking language to win an argument or an elections and well yea yea we will deal with the train wreck later.

I think I heard Farage explain that they didn’t want to get technical before the referendum because basically people are too stupid. Sure Nigel, but you can always count on people having enough emotional response.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 18 08:42:49
I wonder how much of our current political and social issues comes from this fact. As political and social problems became more complex the primary format remained short and constrained. What will you say or do during the 5 minutes on BBC/CNN/FOX? The prelude (because honestly that is what you have time for) to the details of your plan or something that invokes emotions? When was the last time someone had a 2 hour interview with a politician, live? Never? How intelligent can a discussion/debate be in 15 minutes? Do you know how easy it is to bullshit for 15 minutes? This is the format that politics has adapted to. And those TV "debates", they are probably even more heinous. Sit these mother fuckers down for 4 2.5 hours sessions, LIVE with a good and prepared journalist. Let them bullshit their way out of that.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 09:31:13
Nim:

"This is why we can't have nice things" eh? :-/

I don't know if it was the same, but Dominic Cummings account of his refusal to get into plans for how to leave and what the future direction of the UK and it's relationship to Europe would be (More protectionist? More open?) and his rationale for that hits the nail on the head for me.

Yes, it makes it easier to make the case for leave, but surely only at the expense of undermining the legitimacy of the referendum as a means for settling this supposedly critically divisive issue.

A fundamental inability to reconcile various factions in society either through compromise or a decisive majority that the minority accepts - which is where we are now - is precisely what a political crisis is. Some people might be angrier once a decision is made, but give none of the decisions made will correspond to what they thought the proposition was, so they will be angry anyway, a majority of remainers and brexiteers alike will therefore not see the process as legitimising the outcome we actually stand to achieve, whatever some lawyerly person may or may not claim.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 18 10:22:41
"Yes, it makes it easier to make the case for leave, but surely only at the expense of undermining the legitimacy of the referendum as a means for settling this supposedly critically divisive issue."

Yes it undermines everything. The very thing you have set out to do. Reality is that you NEED the other 50% when the vote is cast and in roughly 50% of people you have evoked emotions of disgust, dismay and horror for an entire campaign. And all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 18 10:27:22
Seb
The problem as you point out is viewing 50+1 as democracy in practice. Its not. There are all kinds of check and balances that are bypassed by referenda. Hence it not being part of democratic political theory since the Greeks stopped using bits of clay to ostracise rogue politicians back in the day.

Stop doing those would be my recommendation for any and all countries.

I still see a Norwegian outcome packaged as something else.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 18 10:55:15
Jergul:

I think it is now least likely. By which I mean we are looking at:
New referendum, no deal and then any deal (eea/Canada combined) as each having close to 30% probability.

EEA might be illegal now, and well established in public as "not brexit" so runs many of the political risks of remain but without the cover of a new referrendum. May cannot now spin this as anything other than a climbdown and will need to revoke an existing law she just made in order to make it so. There's also no majority in the house for it as remainders hate it and would feel it so close to remain as to push for actual remain.

Canada is unimplementable and economically catastrophic, and would break GFA and therefore likely the UK.

The net effect of this week's clear dividing line and crystallization of options for a deal to either EEA or Canada therefore makes both less likely by entrenching support for the alternative and so no deal or referendum more likely.

Consider: if EEA is put down, Labour, remainers and hard core brexiteers will vote against to trigger an election, trigger referendum, create conditions fir a 'proper brexit'

Equally: if a Canada deal is put forward,
Labour will vote against to trigger an election, remainers will reject it in principle, and many many MPs that would vote for soft brexit will reject it as they understand the consequences and know they will be punished by the electorate.

So no deal because it's the default if we (UK) don't agree which we want and chart a new path, new referendum as the only way to resolve the issue that lets MP off the hook.

Pillz
Member
Wed Jul 18 14:52:30
New referendum because politicians can't implement the people's will because they don't want to.

Lol
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 19 04:20:06
Pillz:

It's not the people's will though is it, which is why the politicians cannot implement it.

The people's will is to leave the EU, have no border between the south and north of Ireland, continue to benefit from frictionless trade, while also being able to strike free trade deals, make no contribution to the EU, have no additional costs in replicating functions like, e.g. air safety and medicine safety that have been outsourced to the EU, and spend £350m a week more on the NHS, while not increasing borrowing - and expect growth to increase.

That was the pile of shite they were sold.

And politicians know very well if they simply leave the EU, and then: the opposite of all those things happen, then they will be lined up against the wall and shot metaphorically speaking. Or perhaps not, who knows. Certainly many will be out of a job and Corbyn will be PM.

So, you can keep chanting "will of the people" as much as you like. But if it genuinely was, MPs would be easily able to support it.

Remember, our MP's are far more personally dependent on their salaries as MPs than your congressmen and senators tend to be, and our independent constitutional boundaries mean there is far, far more swing in our electoral system.

The buggers can be and often are kicked out.

Seb
Member
Thu Jul 19 04:20:42
Sorry, just remembered, your the Canadian nationalist aren't you, not a yank?
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 19 11:23:41
Seb
Canada does have a first past post system, but little gerrymandering (though federal zones were tweaked a cycle or so ago). They are trying to introduce a proportionate system in BC if memory serves.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Jul 19 11:27:40
Home Secretary under fire for suggesting Corbyn has ‘a problem with Jews’

http://www.rt.com/uk/433720-javid-corbyn-anti-semitism/
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share