UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 289

“I invite the UK, on this first occasion at the UN after Brexit, to end the colonial anachronism of Gibraltar with an agreed solution between both countries to restore the territorial integrity of Spain and bring benefits to the people of Gibraltar and the Spanish area of Campo de Gibraltar.” These were the words of His Majesty King Felipe of Spain during his speech at the United Nations in September last year.

The King of Spain’s demands in September were met with strong criticism from many Britons. The British overseas territory was quick to fire back. A spokesperson for the territory said in the Gibraltar Chronicle: “This is not 1704 when Britain conquered Gibraltar, or 1713 when Spain ceded it by treaty forever. This is 2016, when what matters most is the right of people, however small, to determine their own future.

“It is regrettable that the mentality in official circles in Spain remains stuck in the 18th century,” the spokesman said in September.

Representatives from the British government said the day after King Felipe’s speech: “Madrid has still not come to terms with having lost Gibraltar over 300 years ago, and it’s time they realised that they are never going to get it back.”

In Spain, however, the King’s speech was received with great enthusiasm. Spain’s acting Foreign Minister, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, told the radio channel Onda Cero: “It’s a complete change of outlook that opens up new possibilities on Gibraltar not seen for a very long time. I hope the formula of co-sovereignty – to be clear, the Spanish flag on the Rock – is much closer than before,” the minister said.

Although this happened several months ago, this marks a conflict that will escalate as a result of Britain’s decision to exit out of the European Union. The fact that a sitting monarch marks himself in such a political way and as powerfully as the King Felipe did, indicate that this is a problem that the Spanish government will search for a solution that runs in Spain’s favour. At a time when much is changing in the world, this may result in the relationship between the two kingdoms being worse than ever before.

King Juan Carlos visited the UK on an official state visit in 1986, while the last time Queen Elizabeth travelled to Spain on a official state visit was in October 1988.

On March 06 2017 03:04 bardtown wrote:

The problem is that everyone can have what they want. I know that sounds strange, but the EU does not want everybody to do well out of Brexit because it sets a dangerous precedent and encourages others who would like to leave. They are therefore keen to see the UK struggle despite the fact that continuing trade/cooperation more or less as we have always done is in everyone's interests. I don't think there's any unfriendliness between Brits and Europeans, there is only political antagonism between the UK and the EU as an institution. Hopefully the mood will be much more productive once nation states are involved and not just radicals like Juncker and Verhofstadt.

On March 07 2017 05:42 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


Well I'm pro EU and the free market so it's in my interest to see that it won't fail. I think all Europeans have an obligation to support free movement within Europe and if that means competition from countries with lower wages I'm fine with that. I want my kids to be able to live and work anywhere in Europe if I have any and I'm willing to spend my tax money to help countries with worse economies inside the EU if needed.
In fact I'd much rather that Sweden spent 70 billion SEK with helping Greece and Italy taking care of refuges or just aiding struggling Greeks in general than on third world immigrants coming to Sweden who fail to integrate. But that's off topic.

In my experience most EU legislation is both fair and necessary and many EU rules protect citizens and consumers in ways that national governments can't or won't. I think we are heading for a future where the majority of the people will either work a lot less and still enjoy a good quality of life due to robots or not work at all and live in absolute misery. And I think a big part of what is going to happen is out of the control for single nations.

I think my positive outlook on the EU is partly due to having read EU law at university and also because EU despite going against the (correct wishes) of most of the countries in the union has still done a vastly superior job compared to Swedish politicians. Without more sensible voices in the EU we would be even more fucked than we already are.
Also depending on our housing bubble and how interest rates develop it might be sensible for me to move sometime in the near future...

Referendums pose general questions, from which people can (or should) not draw specific inferences. That is why we need elected representatives

EVER since the June 2016 referendum vote in Britain on membership of the European Union, there has been a battle over the terms of departure. The government, and right-wing press, are averse to there being any kind of scrutiny over the process by either the courts or Parliament. Judges who ruled that Parliament should approve the triggering of Article 50 (the technical start of negotiations over exit terms) were dubbed “enemies of the people” by the Daily Mail, a term that has since been taken up by Donald Trump.

But the referendum posed a very general question—“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”—without setting out the manner of departure. Britain could have remained a member of the single market and customs union while being outside the EU (as was suggested by some members of the Leave campaign); the Conservative manifesto of 2015 (to which the government owes its legitimacy) talked about expanding the single market, not leaving it.

There seems to be an assumption that only the government can know what the public actually wants—what might be called “the ouija-board theory of democracy” in which Theresa May, like a medium, is uniquely able to contact the spirits. And the spirits seem to be telling Mrs May—miraculously—what the hardline Brexiters in the Conservative party want her to do.

This is a very odd view of democracy on many grounds. Members of Parliament who voted against the triggering of Article 50 were criticised, even though they represented constituencies that voted Remain. Apparently they must bow to the majority will of those who are not their constituents—an idea that rather undermines the whole idea of a parliamentary opposition. How dare opposition MPs vote against anything the government proposes; the latter won the election.

The latest spat concerns a House of Lords vote to insist the Commons gets a meaningful vote on the final deal. The government wants to reverse this vote in the Commons. As one wag on Twitter put it:

So now the Commons can ‘take back control’ by voting not to give itself a vote

The logic, apparently, is that it would “undermine the government’s negotiating position” if the deal faced parliamentary scrutiny. It is an argument that would appeal to authoritarian leaders everywhere. But it is not democratic. Nor is it sensible. The leave campaign was based on a whole series of promises about the rosy prospects that faced a post-EU Britain including the idea that the EU would be eager to offer the country a good deal. It is surely right that Parliament should scrutinise whether those promises have been met. Otherwise, it is a bit like a dodgy car salesman saying “You know I said that car had no rust and a working gearbox? Turns out it doesn’t. Too late now.”

...

On March 09 2017 01:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
That's simply not true. You can't possibly claim that all 17 million voters voted for the exact same reasons. Especially given the lies that were propagated during the vote.
Theoretically general elections work because you have a representation of those who didn't vote with the majority. Following that logic with a 51.9% majority, the UK should leave the EU with the softest Brexit possible; giving the entire British population influence corresponding with the result.
Migration is not immigration. You always had control over actual immigration. I wouldn't be so confident that given a choice the EU would even accept the UK back after what its' done, it's a political, ideological and moral union not a purely economic one.

AmCham EU: "has called for Britain to recognise the limitations of any free trade deal with the US alone, and warns of the dangers posed in building barriers to trade between the UK and the wider continent."

"American investment in the UK, worth £487bn in 2015, has been largely based on the country’s EU membership and access to the single market."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/08/us-businesses-warn-uk-loss-access-eu-single-market-american-chamber-commerce

On March 08 2017 22:34 bardtown wrote:
Growth revised up (how many times is that now?) from 1.4% to 2% for 2017. Wage growth to outstrip inflation through 2020. Unemployment to fall through 2020. Borrowing to decrease. Increased science funding, especially in emergent fields. Increased education/training funding. Increased social care funding.

Thought this was a very competent budget steering in the right direction and Hammond delivered it well. Even his jabs at Corbyn hit the mark. And if all the macroeconomic predictions prove accurate then Brexit will be a real vindication of the democratic process.

On March 09 2017 09:21 Ghostcom wrote:


Wait until Brexit actually happens before you pop your champagne.

On March 09 2017 09:28 bardtown wrote:

Hence 'if all the macroeconomic predictions prove accurate'.

On March 09 2017 09:35 Ghostcom wrote:


Do you think they will? (I realize this sounds loaded, but it's not meant to be - I'm truly curious).

On March 09 2017 10:21 bardtown wrote:

Well the fact that they have already been revised up half a dozen times since the referendum shows how well the economic bodies understood the implications of Brexit up to this point. With uncertainty gradually decreasing you would expect the predictions to become more accurate, but the actual negotiations could yet yield any number of outcomes so it would be a mistake to be too confident. That said, the data up to now has been almost invariably positive considering we committed 'economic suicide' and should have been deep in recession by now.

Raises a lot of questions about the political neutrality of those bodies and their ability to assess economics relative to the ability of the population that actually make up the economy itself.

On March 09 2017 10:38 Ghostcom wrote:


Hmm, now we are back to my initial statement of don't pop the champagne just yet.

1) I fail to see how revisions now are in any way a good indication of how British economy will do after invoking article 50
2) The uncertainty hasn't really decreased has it? True, we know that there will be a Brexit, but otherwise we are just as much in the dark as we've always been right?
3) The "economic suicide" hasn't been committed yet - Britain is still reaping all the benefits of being "in" EU.