Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

52 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Coward. Resign and fight a bielection as an independent if you want to make a point. Even Zac Goldsmith at least he had the balls to do that.

Zac Goldsmith lost though.

 

I do agree , people voted Labour, it's not up to him to decide that they don't want a Labour MP anymore.

[The Doctor]

59 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Coward. Resign and fight a bielection as an independent if you want to make a point. Even Zac Goldsmith at least he had the balls to do that.

Then what, rejoin the party once it's changed to your liking, until you disagree with a new leader and quit again? 

 

Moderates quitting does no good for the position of maybe not turning the party into a personality cult.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Good choice of imagery from the Express, did nobody stop to think?

[Guest Kopfkino]

Also without wanting to get involved in the mural debate, would Christine Shawcroft still be in post (dealing with disciplinary) if her email hadn't leaked out. Why did it take until Wednesday evening (after it leaked) for her to be pushed out for saying blatant holocaust denial was taken out of context. 

[leicsmac]

On Brexit consequences:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/28/airbus-warns-risks-uk-exclusion-eu-space-programmes/

 

Is any progress at all being made on this?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Webbo said:

Zac Goldsmith lost though.

 

I do agree , people voted Labour, it's not up to him to decide that they don't want a Labour MP anymore.

 

7 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Then what, rejoin the party once it's changed to your liking, until you disagree with a new leader and quit again? 

 

Moderates quitting does no good for the position of maybe not turning the party into a personality cult.

 

The ones that got me were the ones - was it councillors? - last week. Left labour to join the Tories. What labour member sits there questioning whether they're actually a tory? Lib dems I could understand. Greens I could understand. But the divide between labour and tory should be wide enough even at the centre that nobody would cross.

Edited 29 March 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

 

 

The ones that got me were the ones - was it councillors? - last week. Left labour to join the Tories. What labour member sits there questioning whether they're actually a tory? Lib dems I could understand. Greens I could understand. But the divide between labour and tory should be wide enough even at the centre that nobody would cross.

He probably didn’t think he was good enough to get in the tories before.

[Webbo]

I don't want to be disingenuous here, I'm obviously delighted that there's trouble in the labour party but I remember when the MP for Grantham defected to New Labour I was disgusted. Nobody likes a turncoat.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't want to be disingenuous here, I'm obviously delighted that there's trouble in the labour party but I remember when the MP for Grantham defected to New Labour I was disgusted. Nobody likes a turncoat.

Yeah, I mean the two parties get closer and further apart over time but broadly have different and incompatible world views. 

Edited 29 March 2018 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

26 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yeah, I mean the two parties get closer and further apart over time but broadly have different and incompatible world views. 

But Labour has now gone so far left even the Communist party of Great Britain advises a vote for them and has stopped standing candidates. Imagine if the BNP said they wouldn't field candidates next time around and told their supporters to vote Tory instead. 

 

To be fair to Woodcock he stood at the last election openly saying he wouldn't vote for Corbyn to be PM and held his seat that was expected by everyone to go Tory. (Copeland next door did)

 

Attlee and Bevan were at least patriots, you'd never have found them siding against Britain time and time again or writing columns in commie newspapers up the arse of the Soviets like.

 

That's where your party is now.

 

Woodcock clearly has the backing of his constituents and it looks like from the numbers he could win as a Labour, Tory or Independent MP.

[Guest MattP]

Labour now dropping below 40% - that should only get lower as the Tories start to loosen the purse strings.

 

[Guest MattP]

The ten minute segment on the antisemitism is worth a watch from the Daily Politics yesterday. 

 

The last 60 seconds are very weird, Richard Burgon denies something despite not previously denying it, if they had a lie detector next to him I think it would have exploded Homer Simpson style.

 

 

Edited 29 March 2018 by MattP

[Carl the Llama]

Hmmm this whole antisemitism in Labour thing is getting very messy.  You have to hope that they start taking swift action on it, kicking out anybody who's clearly made fantastical claims about Zionist conspiracies in the past few years (unlikely I know).  Taking issue with the Israeli state re. the Palestinian territories is one topic and quite a serious one at that which has always been a sore spot for those on both sides of the debate, keep this up any longer and the general public won't be able to take any Labour member seriously when they try to speak in defence of Palestinians because the assumption will be that it's a cover for pushing antisemitic views and that's not good for the democratic process regardless of your views on the issue.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21461:Cambridge-Analytica-Is-Not-Alone%3A-i360-and-Data-Trust-Are-Disastrous-for-Democracy

 

Quite disturbing how far it goes

 

Edited 29 March 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

The ten minute segment on the antisemitism is worth a watch from the Daily Politics yesterday. 

 

The last 60 seconds are very weird, Richard Burgon denies something despite not previously denying it, if they had a lie detector next to him I think it would have exploded Homer Simpson style.

 

 

That they had to decide whether or not to show it is worrying. Can't remember - did they show Charlie Hebdo Mo cartoons?!

[Carl the Llama]

11 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

That they had to decide whether or not to show it is worrying. Can't remember - did they show Charlie Hebdo Mo cartoons?!

Dunno if the BBC did but I agree it's dumb, how can you have an informed discussion without seeing the subject matter?

 

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21461:Cambridge-Analytica-Is-Not-Alone%3A-i360-and-Data-Trust-Are-Disastrous-for-Democracy

 

Quite disturbing how far it goes

 

Terrifying even.

[urban.spaceman]

58 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Dunno if the BBC did but I agree it's dumb, how can you have an informed discussion without seeing the subject matter?

 

Exactly. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21461:Cambridge-Analytica-Is-Not-Alone%3A-i360-and-Data-Trust-Are-Disastrous-for-Democracy

 

Quite disturbing how far it goes

 

I actually think this all deserves its own thread now, I'll put one together.

[Alf Bentley]

18 hours ago, MattP said:

John Woodcock set to resign the whip according to Polhome.

 

Think this week has finally been the tipping point for some of the moderate Labour MP's.

 

Swap yer Woodcock & Hoey for Clarke & Soubry. 

 

The parties should agree one of those spy swaps, where captured secret agents are swapped on the bridge between North and South Korea or somewhere. 

[Guest MattP]

29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Swap yer Woodcock & Hoey for Clarke & Soubry. 

 

The parties should agree one of those spy swaps, where captured secret agents are swapped on the bridge between North and South Korea or somewhere. 

I'd snap your hand off! Throw in Nicky Morgan for you lot and we'll take John Mann as well.

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

That they had to decide whether or not to show it is worrying. Can't remember - did they show Charlie Hebdo Mo cartoons?!

They didn't.

 

I don't think even the BBC News channels or Sky showed the Charlie Hebdo or Danish Cartoons either. Probably for reasons of self-preservation as much as offence. They can show this because they aren't scared to do so, no chance of a Jew marching into BBC HQ with a gun and shooting anyone because of it.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I'd snap your hand off! Throw in Nicky Morgan for you lot and we'll take John Mann as well.

 

Bargain! Will deliver the boorish lout, postage-free.

 

I'd also suggest Frank Field for Sarah Wollaston, but Field does seem to have some ability, so I'd hesitate on that one...

[Sampson]

This whole debate on anti-semetism has gotten silly for me. I'm no Corbyn fan at all and think a lot of his politics is opportunitic and naive, but he just made a mistake by admiring a picture thinking it was anti-capitalist. I do think the artist is probably anti-Semitic and reading some of his comments is probably some "Jewish illuminati" conspiracy type nutter. But you don't have to care or know about a piece of art's intention to appreciate it. You can certainly get something out of a piece of art which wasn't intended and can certainly appreciate art by bad people or out of context.

 

I do think the main reason he always speaks out against Israel and in favour of Palestine and never the other way round is because Israel is the baby of the West and therefore Corbyn will always seem to take the non-Western side but that doesn't make him anti-Semitic. I think it makes him very naive and unfit to be the leader of a Western nation but I don't think he's anti-Semitic at all.

Edited 29 March 2018 by Sampson

[Guest]

Whatever end outcome you want it should worry us all that our government don't seem to be taking these concerns seriously enough (though May's recent comments seemed to open the door for another climbdown)

 

Former EU legal chief says UK may need to revoke article 50 because current Brexit timetable too short

Jean-Claude Piris, the former head of the EU’s legal service, was also speaking at the UK in a Changing Europe event this morning. He said that negotiating phase one of Brexit was “the easy part” and that he did not know how the UK and the EU would be able to reach agreement on all the remaining issues in just seven months. The UK might have to consider revoking article 50, ie, staying in the EU beyond 29 March 2019, he argued.

Piris recently set out this argument in an article for Prospect. Here’s an extract. Piris says that, even if the UK and the EU can agree a withdrawal agreement by the autumn, it will contain unresolved issues (making it what Emily Thornberry described yesterday as a ‘blah, blah, blah’ divorce). He goes on:

Experts in negotiations of similar agreements think that the 21 month transition, even after informal discussions from now until March 2019, will not be enough for this [resolving all the outstanding issues]. Their advice is to extend the 21 month period by at least two years, or make it renewable. However, this is not legally possible. The agreed transition period does not provide for any renewal. Article 50 is a single-barrelled gun. The EU will not have the legal power to extend the transition period after Brexit.

A failure to have an FTA [free trade agreement] agreed and signed in such a short time, necessary to permit its provisional application, would thus not be surprising. This would entail a cliff edge on 1st January 2021. Again, there is no reason for optimism. The economic consequences would be severe. Political effects could be graver still and long-lasting. As written recently by a Danish diplomat “Britain’s global role depends on being a European power. This could be coming to an end—fast.”

Is there a way out? Yes. The British parliament could find a way. Legally, on 29th March 2017, Britain decided to “notify the European Council of its intention” to leave the EU. Legally, nothing prevents Britain, in accordance with its constitutional requirements, from changing its intention and withdrawing article 50. The current situation would prevail. The UK would remain an EU member State, with its current opt outs.

Is that unrealistic? It is up to the British parliament and people to decide. They are better informed today on what Brexit means than they were in June 2016.

 

Adding to this is an interesting piece giving some idea of the back room deals being done by the rival factions in parliament.

 

MPs and peers flex muscles as countdown to meaningful vote begins

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/29/mps-and-peers-flex-muscles-as-countdown-to-meaningful-vote-begins?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Innovindil]

33 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Whatever end outcome you want it should worry us all that our government don't seem to be taking these concerns seriously enough (though May's recent comments seemed to open the door for another climbdown)

 

Former EU legal chief says UK may need to revoke article 50 because current Brexit timetable too short

Jean-Claude Piris, the former head of the EU’s legal service, was also speaking at the UK in a Changing Europe event this morning. He said that negotiating phase one of Brexit was “the easy part” and that he did not know how the UK and the EU would be able to reach agreement on all the remaining issues in just seven months. The UK might have to consider revoking article 50, ie, staying in the EU beyond 29 March 2019, he argued.

Piris recently set out this argument in an article for Prospect. Here’s an extract. Piris says that, even if the UK and the EU can agree a withdrawal agreement by the autumn, it will contain unresolved issues (making it what Emily Thornberry described yesterday as a ‘blah, blah, blah’ divorce). He goes on:

Experts in negotiations of similar agreements think that the 21 month transition, even after informal discussions from now until March 2019, will not be enough for this [resolving all the outstanding issues]. Their advice is to extend the 21 month period by at least two years, or make it renewable. However, this is not legally possible. The agreed transition period does not provide for any renewal. Article 50 is a single-barrelled gun. The EU will not have the legal power to extend the transition period after Brexit.

A failure to have an FTA [free trade agreement] agreed and signed in such a short time, necessary to permit its provisional application, would thus not be surprising. This would entail a cliff edge on 1st January 2021. Again, there is no reason for optimism. The economic consequences would be severe. Political effects could be graver still and long-lasting. As written recently by a Danish diplomat “Britain’s global role depends on being a European power. This could be coming to an end—fast.”

Is there a way out? Yes. The British parliament could find a way. Legally, on 29th March 2017, Britain decided to “notify the European Council of its intention” to leave the EU. Legally, nothing prevents Britain, in accordance with its constitutional requirements, from changing its intention and withdrawing article 50. The current situation would prevail. The UK would remain an EU member State, with its current opt outs.

Is that unrealistic? It is up to the British parliament and people to decide. They are better informed today on what Brexit means than they were in June 2016.

 

Adding to this is an interesting piece giving some idea of the back room deals being done by the rival factions in parliament.

 

MPs and peers flex muscles as countdown to meaningful vote begins

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/29/mps-and-peers-flex-muscles-as-countdown-to-meaningful-vote-begins?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Did that "can you revoke article 50" question ever get answered? Honestly can't remember.