Oh, okay. An elderly person being ill for weeks at a time is rarely a sign for optimism.
McHrozni
- Status
Oh, okay. An elderly person being ill for weeks at a time is rarely a sign for optimism.
McHrozni
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Did I say it was? I was just correcting your erroneous impression that she hadn't been seen in public for three weeks. Obviously she could go at any time, but that's been true for the last twenty years. Her mother made it to 102. Having said that I doubt she'll last that long, mostly because Prince Philip will almost certainly die first, and I don't expect her to outlive him by much.
Suicide of the UK, not necessarily of the Tory party. That's where their allegiances are supposed to lie, not their party (reality is often different obviously). The recent 'ideas' coming from Tories are synonymous with suicide: "changing the economic system", "becoming an offshore tax heaven", "becoming a new Singapore".
What works for a city-state perched at the major straits for Asian trade doesn't necessarily work for a large country with ten times the population. Furthermore, it doesn't work for a large country that sits right next to a whole host of interconnected countries who also compete for precisely those same customers. Singapore ascended because it had a highly skilled and motivated workforce and high end infrastructure in a region of the world which had a major skill gap and a lack of infrastructure at the time. This is a far cry from what Britain faces. Furthermore, Singapore is a city. Many cities in Europe and elsewhere could compete with Singapore or raw statistics, but few countries could. UK isn't a city-state.
It definitely could, although it takes time to do so and gives ample opportunity for lobbyists to do their work. It is in the interests of British businesses to stay in the EEA at least. They're the constituency that can contribute significant campaign funds. Even Tories can't just ignore that.
Of course the effort is hampered by a lack of functioning opposition. Still, with time, that could be resolved. UK won't have a functioning opposition next week, but it could have a functioning opposition in three months. Remain side needs time, and courts are a good way to obtain that.
Who knows, maybe there will be a ruling requiring all four parliaments of UK to give their consent to leave EEA. There is a case to be made for that, because Brexit will impact some of the devolved areas. Suits and appeals could take a while, thus buying time. That doesn't mean the time will be used well of course. There is no guarantee for success, just scenarios that make a failure less certain.
There is no use in wallowing in self-pity.
Another possibility: ask for a referendum on membership in EEA, repeatedly. The government will of course deny it, but it could begin to damage their claim on legitimacy of Brexit.
I disagree...
If there's some kind of short-lived post Brexit bounce (the pound crashing will briefly make exports more affordable before the import-related inflation takes hold) then she can claim credit and surge to victory.
If it's all still a bit of a muddle then she can claim that "we need to see this through for the good of the country", just the soft of guff that the English electorate are suckers for.
If it's looking bad then she can just blame foreigners, wrap herself in the Union Jack, say that we ought not to change tack in our hour of need and sail to victory on a wave of "Dunkirk Spirit" (which as any fule kno was an excellent example of a rapid withdrawal from Europe followed five years later by a glorious victory (and a decade and a half of privation and poverty).
No, what I'm talking about is that if Brexit isn't concluded by the time the new British general election takes place, it is an opportunity for the opposition and Bremain side to scuttle the project. It's not a sure thing, but it is a pretty decent shot Theresa would do well to avoid. That's what I mean by time not being on her side, her position as PM is guaranteed only until the next election, if Brexit is not concluded until then there is a possibility of it being scuttled or that someone else will claim the credit for everything that is good, and blame her for everything that is bad about Brexit. This would be sadly ironic and well-deserved I might add.
McHrozni
May is now seemingly conceding that if we are to put an end to free movement, then Hard Brexit is the only way, and she's going for it. Independent report.
The money quote:
If the UK had voted 52-48 to remain you can bet that Theresa May would never be pushing towards a hard Remain. There would be no embracing of the Euro, no joining the Schengen Zone. But the Prime Minister seems hell bent on ripping up everything we share with the European Union no matter how damaging that is to the UK.
The referendum gave a mandate to leave the EU, and nothing more. It did so by a thin margin. Brexitards tend to pretend they have some sort of overwhelming public support for their plans. This is extremely far from the truth.
McHrozni
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,375
Nice to see Jeneatte Charles still picking up a bit of occasional work
That's all true but the problem is that Hard Brexit (and indeed super-hard IMO because she also wants out of the Council of Europe so she can get the death penalty back) is what Theresa May wanted all along. There is no functioning opposition in England and even thought the majority of Conservative MPs were pro-Remain, they are so craven that they will not take a position against her.
Despite there being a thin margin in favour of Brexit and despite there being no consensus on the nature of that Brexit (I'm not sure that enough of the 52% who voted for Brexit (i.e. 96%+) arein favour of a Hard Brexi), that's we're almost certain to end up with.
Britain has a future of being a low-wage, low rights, high polluting economy acting as a tax-haven off the coast of Europe. In order to afford all of this, we'll have to dismantle the NHS and our welfare safety net for everyone but the "Triple-locked" pensioners. Project Brexit will then be complete for the likes of Bamford and Dyson for whom it was designed
That's all true but the problem is that Hard Brexit (and indeed super-hard IMO because she also wants out of the Council of Europe so she can get the death penalty back) is what Theresa May wanted all along. There is no functioning opposition in England and even thought the majority of Conservative MPs were pro-Remain, they are so craven that they will not take a position against her.
Despite there being a thin margin in favour of Brexit and despite there being no consensus on the nature of that Brexit (I'm not sure that enough of the 52% who voted for Brexit (i.e. 96%+) arein favour of a Hard Brexi), that's we're almost certain to end up with.
Britain has a future of being a low-wage, low rights, high polluting economy acting as a tax-haven off the coast of Europe. In order to afford all of this, we'll have to dismantle the NHS and our welfare safety net for everyone but the "Triple-locked" pensioners. Project Brexit will then be complete for the likes of Bamford and Dyson for whom it was designed
Don't be so negative. The fact there is little functioning opposition has a silver lining: there is less motivation for Tories to stand together. A strong Labor willing to pounce on Tories would strongly entice them to stand together against the onslaught that awaited them otherwise.
The fact they don't have an external enemy to rally against increases the likelihood of internal divisions arising. Tory majority is not all-powerful, all it takes is six MPs who refuse to go along with the plan - call it ten to account for UKIP and other such vermin. This looks achievable, and Theresa is giving them plentiful reasons to vote against her.
A revolt from within the Tory party would really throw the spanner in her works. All it takes is a revolt from less than 3% of their sitting MPs. It is something hard lobbying should be able to achieve. Once the initial revolt is over it would be expected for the number to rise quickly. Parliamentary censure and deselection for elections are useful against a handful of rebels, they can't be used to effectively fight a revolt of fifty MPs. It takes some bravery to risk your career over this, but they're oath-bound to do it, honestly. It is doable if you don't despair.
McHrozni
Last edited:
The thing is, IMO Conservatives (and tbh the vast majority of politicians of whatever hue) don't care about the wellbeing of the country so much as:
- Their own immediate wellbeing and re-election
- Seeing their own political dogma being implemented
It's the same reason why Corbyn is pursuing his own course. He doesn't care about national wellbeing (if he did he'd be attempting to form a broad coalition of SNP, LibDem, Labour and Remain Tories to fight Brexit), instead he's choosing to live out his 6th form fantasies instead.
MPs don't care if the country takes a big hit and in the case of most Conservatives, anything with a blue rosette would win their constituency.
Money plays a much smaller part in UK politics than it does in the US. For a start there are strict spending limits during elections, the party "machines" are much smaller and in any case the sums involved are orders of magnitude smaller.
A small number of pro-Brexit donors can provide plenty of finance in the short to medium term and that's all they need.
Oh, for sure the legal angles to block and/or frustrate Brexit will, and should, be pursued but IMO it's almost certain that they will fail. The government will simply legislate around them and/or ignore them.
Theresa May will announce Hard Brexit tomorrow. I wouldn't be shocked if she triggers Article 50 to put the Remainers on the back foot.
They can and will, and they don't care about the legitimacy of Brexit and more specifically Hard Brexit because it's irreversible and they have got their way.
It's an opportunity but it simply will not happen. The Conservative party will wrap themselves in the Union Jack and portray any pro-Remain vote as being unpatriotic. The English electorate are suckers for that kind of **** and will vote them in.
The SNP will likely do equally well as the last time in Scotland, but as a regional party they wield little power in the UK as a whole.
IMO Labour will be savaged at the next election because of their pathetic leadership and ambiguous policies. UKIP will win dozens of seats in Labour's Northern heartland from Labour and Labour will be as relevant politically in the second quarter of the 21st century as the Liberals were in the second quarter of the 20th.
The LibDems will do very well by their standards but still end up with fewer seats than the SNP.
Moreover this may set off more trouble up north. Sturgeon is voicing thoughts about another Independence referendum. In the event of a "soft Brexit" I don't think she'd risk another one, but a clean-break hard Brexit is a different matter altogether.
And there are local government elections coming up too, which will provide an excellent insight into what support the various parties have on the ground.
And there are local government elections coming up too, which will provide an excellent insight into what support the various parties have on the ground.
Your analysis is sound but I think it fails to take into account the following:
Right now as far as Conservative MPs are concerned, the opposition is largely irrelevant. If you are a sitting Conservative MP IMO your only barriers to re-election are:
- dropping dead (or being otherwise unavailable for election)
- being de-selected
- being ousted by UKIP
The last two can be avoided by being strongly pro-Brexit regardless of your own views on the subject. IMO the revolt will not happen
A fair number of Labour MPs are already, or will have to become pro-Brexit. UKIP has targeted the lumpen proletariat in the North and other traditional Labour areas as the next recipients of their mixture of jingoism and xenophobia. It's a heady mix and Trump has already demonstrated how effective it can be. Those Labour MPs will have to become pro-Brexit to keep their seats.
In any case, the government will ensure that there is as little opportunity to rebel. I think it's very unlikely that anything relating to Brexit will ever come close to having a vote. There may be a debate but no vote, and if there is a vote, IMO it will not be binding on the government (ironically).
I'd love there to be a united front against Brexit but the recent absence of contradictory noises from the Conservative Party means that they have clearly decided that continuing in government is more important that the good of the country
(and who can blame them, it's a job after all)If May is shot of the "troublesome Scots" that strengthens the position from an English perspective. It also ensures a Conservative government for England in perpetuity.
I can see her allowing an independence referendum...
That is certainly one argument, but for good reason it has never been decisive in the counsels of state of the UK. The blow to British prestige resulting from a "loss" of Scotland would have devastating consequences, particularly if it turns out to be yet another of the multitude of woes inflicted upon the UK by its ill-starred association with the EU and its predecessors. How Johnnie Foreigner would laugh! No, unthinkable.If May is shot of the "troublesome Scots" that strengthens the position from an English perspective. It also ensures a Conservative government for England in perpetuity.
I can see her allowing an independence referendum...
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
If May is shot of the "troublesome Scots" that strengthens the position from an English perspective. It also ensures a Conservative government for England in perpetuity.
I can see her allowing an independence referendum...
If May goes down as the PM that broke up the UK then she might oust Call Me Dave for the title of biggest self-inflicted wound in history.
In Scotland, very much so, even by name, until recent times. Wiki.
The Unionist Party, referred to as the Scottish Unionist Party outside Scotland, was the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965. Use of the terms Unionist and Tory, as opposed to Conservative, is a consequence of the Scottish Unionists eschewing the name Conservative until 1965.
So any peril to the union has existential consequences for the Conservatives that outshine the allure of immediate electoral advantage. But we don't as yet know what the effects of a simultaneous initiation of Art 50 and confirmation of a clean break will be for the British Union or anything else. "Interesting", we can probably predict with confidence.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The trouble is that Mrs. May is only really interested in financial services and football, and Strictly Come Dancing, and London and the Home Counties, and supporting the banks and remuneration committees. Meanwhile we have to put up with all her cuts and closures to the police stations and prisons and convalescent homes. She isn't medically qualified, and neither is Jeremy Hunt. Added to which we have her desire to topple Assad in Syria and unquestioning support for Israeli expansion, and Saudi Arabia. She needs some comprehensive vision and wide and practical experience, and intelligent administration.
Nope, if she was then Brexit would have been quietly knocked on the head. Instead she's dogmatically wedded to the idea of a "Hard Brexit" despite the likely damage to the financial services industry.
evidence ?
Apart from Ed Balls has she ever mentioned it ?
Well that's just Conservative policy since ever...
Nope, see my earlier comments about financial services
How would that effect her judgement with regard to police stations and prisons ?
Since when has being medically qualified been a prerequisite for making decisions about the administration of the NHS ? I worked in the NHS for a while and it was often said that doctors made terrible managers.
I think most people would like to see Assad replace by someone less "dictatory".
Evidence of unquestioning support ?
Evidence of unquestioning support ?
Perhaps but I'm not sure it's going to align with your wishes...
Evidence of this?
She is dogmatically wedded to the idea of control over immigration. The EU is dogmatically wedded to their interpretation of free movement, and the inter-connectedness of the 4 freedoms. It is the confluence of these, and a refusal to compromise on both sides that will give us a Hard Brexit.
I'm not sure what polling has been done to confirm the role of immigration in the Brexit vote, but politicians (of all parties) seem to be agreed on its importance.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
It isn't a dogma if it was one of the principle it was funded upon. Which is the case for EU.
You may as well use dogma as pejorative term for everything and anything which has a socio economical contract. Which makes it lose its sense to "dogmatism".
A dogma on the other hand is precisely well chosen on the idea that immigration was the sole pusher for the brexit vote, and such an important point that anything else including economy can suffer. While it was a top thematic, it was not the sole one, and neither the EU immigration make the whole of the UK immigration - the Uk could reduce severely its non EU immigration first for example.
- Status