UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 457

On January 15 2019 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why would Theresa May say something that sounds like clickbait? I am going to need a source for that.

On December 24 2018 03:32 KwarK wrote:
No, Old Labour has always opposed the EU on the grounds that free movement of goods and the prevention of government intervention to subsidize domestic industry has crippled the socialist government's ability to provide full employment. Old Labour has been absolutely consistent in their opposition to the EU and their reasons for it. They don't believe in free trade zones, they think they're a neo-liberal project that sets the workers in competition with each other for the benefit of the capitalist class.

You can't come at this without a background in British politics and who Old Labour/New Labour are and what they stand for. The EU is a Thatcherite project, and Old Labour want zero part of it. If the British government can't create employment by subsidizing an industry to make it more competitive, or protect an industry by imposing tariffs on foreign imports, Old Labour oppose it. It's not about racism, or movement of people, or globalism vs nationalism. It's about the commitment of the party of the trade unions to full employment. It's about the government controlling the markets for the benefit of the people.

The EU cannot coexist with the economic policies of Old Labour. It's why they opposed it under Thatcher. It's why they opposed it under Major. It's why they oppose it now. Old Labour and the EU cannot be reconciled in any form.

Also the idea that it'd be really bad politics for Labour to be Remain while having a Brexit leader doesn't make it any less likely, this is just what Labour do. It's what they did all through the 80s and 90s. It's why the Tories won in 87 and 92. Labour just like to go to war with themselves, have weird public fights, and allow the Tories to govern through displays of public incompetence. This is just a return to the baseline for British politics, an incompetent Conservative government watching as Labour once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Conservatives are just as split, although not as publicly, between "One-nation conservatism" and "liberal conservatism". One-nation focuses on traditionalism, paternalism, and protections to benefit the common man. God and family stuff. Protects traditional industries, tries to preserve "British" culture at the expense of others. Liberal conservatism is more interested in classical liberalism, deregulation of markets and people, non interference in peoples' lives, trickle down economics, and so forth. Rees-Mogg is a One-nation conservative. Cameron is a Liberal conservative. The liberal conservatives were the dominant faction through the 70s-00s and brought the UK into the EU as a free trade liberalization project. Then New Labour seized all their political ground when Blair decided to agree with them on all the main issues, go further than them on privatization, and basically fuck up the country so the Tories repositioned themselves to focus on their traditionalist base. This is most obvious with the 2001 William Hague campaign to keep the pound, which the Tories chose to define themselves around. Cameron took the party back to Thatcherism, but tried to be nice about it, basically trying to outblair Blair, and we were back to having two pro-EU parties, each of which had significant anti-EU sentiment within them. In an attempt to rally the anti-EU faction to his flag Cameron promised them a referendum for their votes, planning to double cross them and campaign to remain (just as he had done with the Lib Dems on FPTP and the Scots on their referendum). That backfired so he noped out.

If you're reading this and thinking "but that doesn't make any sense, how can you even run a country like that" then congratulations, you understand the situation. Tories were the pro-EU party while Labour were the anti-EU party because they opposed free trade. Then Labour decided they were going to be the pro-EU party and so the Tories decided that they had to be the anti-EU party because someone had to, and also that they opposed free movement of people. Then both parties decided to be the pro-EU party for a bit which left all these anti-EU voters up for grabs as they felt neither party represented them. Then both parties decided to compete for the anti-EU voters, while still trying to be pro-EU parties, and everything went to shit.

There is no party in the UK that can pass a Brexit bill. There is no party in the UK for the EU to negotiate with. The system has broken down entirely.

On January 15 2019 03:50 pmh wrote:
May warns that the uk might fall apart if brexit deal doesn't get through.
This seems really far fetched to me,as in impossible. Is there any realistic change of that happening or is may just trying to put some pressure?

On January 15 2019 20:54 ahswtini wrote:
The great irony is that the DUP's (largest pro-UK party in northern ireland, and who are "propping up" Theresa May's government) stubbornness over the backstop is increasing the likelihood of a no deal brexit. And a no deal brexit makes the prospect of a united Ireland much more likely. So the party whose core principle is to ensure NI remains part of the UK is driving it in the other direction.

On January 15 2019 22:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't we unilaterally leave the EU in March? Unless the EU kindly gives us an indefinite extension?

Meanwhile I just watched the BBC news. They are interviewing some random people and one of them says," the way I see it we are going over to the EU and appeasing them. The way I see it, they should be going to us and appeasing us." The sheer bloody cheek of it.

On January 15 2019 22:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't we unilaterally leave the EU in March? Unless the EU kindly gives us an indefinite extension?

Meanwhile I just watched the BBC news. They are interviewing some random people and one of them says," the way I see it we are going over to the EU and appeasing them. The way I see it, they should be going to us and appeasing us." The sheer bloody cheek of it.

On January 15 2019 21:12 schaf wrote:
How does no deal increase the likelihood of reunification? I'm under the impression that treating NI different from the rest of UK would go more in that direction. No deal is just a go ahead for terrorists, isn't it?

On January 16 2019 00:15 ahswtini wrote:

No deal (with no backstop) means the return of a hard border between north and south. Such a situation would be practically untenable in modern times. Before Ireland and the UK joined the then-EEC in 1973, there was the Common Travel Area, which allowed citizens of both countries to travel freely with no passport requirement. But, at the border, checkpoints were present for customs purposes. I don't know how movement of people will be affected in the event of a no deal, and how compatible the CTA is with the EU.

I've always been of the belief that if NI had a special arrangement, it could have the best of both worlds.

Theresa May’s political weakness was brutally exposed to Brussels on Monday as an agreement struck between Britain and the EU to solve the problem of the Irish border and move to the next phase of Brexit talks was torpedoed by a last-minute telephone call with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party.

Confidence early on Monday that an agreement was within reach came to nothing when, during a working lunch with the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, May was forced to pause discussions to take a call from Arlene Foster.

The unionist leader, whose party currently provides the Tories with a working majority in the Commons, told the British prime minister that she could not support Downing Street’s planned commitment to keep Northern Ireland aligned with EU laws.