EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 601
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24493 Posts
On July 08 2022 18:37 Gorsameth wrote: The NI Protocol could have worked but it would require the UK government to actually help businesses prepare for, and deal with the amount of bureaucracy involved in international trade. The fact the UK is still not implementing border checks 2 years after leaving, despite border control being one of the supposed reasons for leaving just shows how unprepared they still are. May's deal would have avoided all that but was never an option, it would be not really leaving the EU and still being bound by their rules but voluntarily giving up representation during the creation of those rules. If you go for that your better off not leaving at all. It was made politically unviable due to large, influential but ultimately minority interests as much as anything else, on the mainland and over here. There’s a diminution in support for leaving into an outright flip on the EU question the harder and more fractious the post-Brexit solution gets. A significant enough portion of the populace are so emotionally bought in to Brexit, or going full sunk cost mentality that I agree May’s deal was never a particularly realistic option, I’d still argue it was a good option. As for NI we have a party that doesn’t even represent the entirety of its ostensible constituency refusing to go into government over a deal they themselves pushed over the line, and which has broad support. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 08 2022 05:43 KwarK wrote: Au contraire a golden retriever would be quite the improvement. One could only but hope that the level of support of Ukraine will not change depending on the whims of the next PM, but no matter how institutionalised you may think a policy is, the PM has definite power to change the amount of support Ukraine will recieve from UK. Though again, I can but only hope that the next PM will give as much or greater.Boris has nothing to do with the British Ukraine policy. It had been institutional MOD policy for years. We’ve been in Ukraine training them for this specific war since 2015. It would have taken considerably more strength of character than Boris has to change the established MOD manual for this eventuality. Every other possible leader will follow the same manual because a major shift in global strategy is far more work than not. This isn’t Blair taking us into Iraq on a whim, this is the overall MOD strategy of containment of Russian aggression that has been formulated with allies over the better part of a decade. A golden retriever as PM would look no different to any other candidate in this area. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
On July 08 2022 06:35 KwarK wrote: Honestly I don’t know who the current Lib Dem leader is but they’re the only party advocating for Brejoining the EU. Labour would be better than Tories but comes with added disappointment. Well, I've not heard Brejoining before but it is rather sad that Labor gave up on the EU in that regard. On July 08 2022 06:54 WombaT wrote: To a degree. There’s not a huge amount of vision, nor an especially competent execution of said vision from the Tories. And what there is is, in my opinion mostly bad. That said I don’t think this excuses Labour’s general lack of development of a coherent policy platform, and as importantly, articulating said vision to the wider populace. I’m yet to be convinced beyond them being better than the Tories. But that’s really not a high bar to clear The whole Labor vs Tories debacle reminds me of Reps vs Dems in the US quite a bit. Insofar as Labor is the lesser evil but kinda not really an ally. Know what I mean? What is everyone making of the Tory leadership contest? I'm massively surprised that so many throw their hat in the ring and doubly so that there are so many women contending. Albeit I know nothing of any of them apart from Liz Truss. From the two paragraph Guardian profiles I dislike Penny Mordaunt the least. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
Sunak may be the current leader with MPs but he will probably lose if it goes to the membership. Kemi looks to be the surprise candidate, maybe with Gove's political intrigue she can get to the final two. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
Think the battle now is Sunak vs Mordaunt for the Centre/Left and Truss/Badenoch for the Right. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On July 14 2022 03:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So how is Boris still remaining if the Polls have narrowed on the next PM? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG9DI8cC6Mo He is prime minster until there is a new prime minister, probably on September 5th. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On July 14 2022 03:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: But he said he is still staying till October lol Its not up to him. The conservative party decided September 5th new leader will be announced. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9506 Posts
On July 14 2022 03:28 Zaros wrote: First Votes are in: https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1547250700534562817 Think the battle now is Sunak vs Mordaunt for the Centre/Left and Truss/Badenoch for the Right. Please let it be Liz Truss. We need a bit of hilarious insanity after the era of serious heavyweight politicians like Johnson. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On July 14 2022 03:39 Zaros wrote: Its not up to him. The conservative party decided September 5th new leader will be announced. The Tory party cannot officially remove the PM, Boris could stay PM despite not being leader of his party. If Boris does not resign then I believe the only way to force him out is a vote of no confidence in parliament but the Tories are loathe to do that. Or they could wait for the next general election. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On July 14 2022 15:07 Melliflue wrote: The Tory party cannot officially remove the PM, Boris could stay PM despite not being leader of his party. If Boris does not resign then I believe the only way to force him out is a vote of no confidence in parliament but the Tories are loathe to do that. Or they could wait for the next general election. If he refuses to go after the party elects a new leader, I’m pretty sure the queen would intervene and sack him. But it’s not going to happen he will go, people are too paranoid. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On July 14 2022 15:17 Zaros wrote: If he refuses to go after the party elects a new leader, I’m pretty sure the queen would intervene and sack him. But it’s not going to happen he will go, people are too paranoid. But we don't know for certain. Parliament has a mechanism for telling the queen to sack the PM, which is a vote of no confidence. The queen has steadfastly remained out of politics, only doing what she is told to do. (The rules are vague though.). It would not be the first constitutional crisis triggered by Boris and people suggested the queen become involved then too, but she obviously didn't. We really need a better system. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23008 Posts
| ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On July 14 2022 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Wild to see "it depends on what the queen does" in 21st century politics These things don't matter until they do. Before Boris it was understood that politicians would behave 'gentlemanly' so questions such as 'what happens if the PM does not resign after being replaced as party leader?' were never asked. It is no different than the US not having anti-nepotism laws until JFK. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23008 Posts
On July 14 2022 15:59 Melliflue wrote: These things don't matter until they do. Before Boris it was understood that politicians would behave 'gentlemanly' so questions such as 'what happens if the PM does not resign after being replaced as party leader?' were never asked. It is no different than the US not having anti-nepotism laws until JFK. I'd say a queen making important political decisions for a country in the 21st century is distinct in a number of ways but I certainly am not suggesting the US doesn't have gaping holes in its political system as well. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On July 14 2022 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Wild to see "it depends on what the queen does" in 21st century politics It is outrageous that there are even monarchies at all in 2022. How almost all younger royals try to find ways to use their titles for financial gains and retaining absurd inherited privileges while escaping their duties tells me they should all fall before 2050. Even ceremonial policial duties of monarchs should have been long gone, but the UK still has "the House of Lords" as well! | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2601 Posts
On July 14 2022 15:30 Melliflue wrote: But we don't know for certain. Parliament has a mechanism for telling the queen to sack the PM, which is a vote of no confidence. The queen has steadfastly remained out of politics, only doing what she is told to do. (The rules are vague though.). It would not be the first constitutional crisis triggered by Boris and people suggested the queen become involved then too, but she obviously didn't. We really need a better system. Well, if you had a non-hereditary head of state like a president with similar powers, then the same thing would happen. Parliament would ask the president to sack the prime minister. The president would have no choice but to do it. The only thing different from now is the title of the person doing the sacking. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
We all saw how that works out if someone who doesn't give a shit about precedent with BoJo and Trump. | ||
| ||
