UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Fartsniffage]

We did (sorta). Anyway, a free trade agreement with us would be a great trial run for the United Kingdom as it's definitely going to need a lot more future trade agreements.

It makes you wonder what qualifies one as a trade negotiator, and why we need to borrow them.

Someone who has done it before. We don't have many. We haven't needed many in decades because we've only been contributing a few to EU trade negotiations and now we need to negotiate with over 100 countries on our own.

[Souseiseki]

The United Kingdom doesn't have enough properly experienced trade negotiators as the EU did most of the negotiation for free trade agreements on behalf of member states. And being a trade negotiator sounds like an especially complicated and specialized job as it requires a familiarity with international relations and diplomacy, economics and a recognition of what your country and the other country wants and desires out of a future trade agreement.

Small wonder why these things are years in the making.

Another problem with short term politics. Why plan for the future when you can take advantage of the short term?

Also, one would think some of the EU negotiators would be British and work for us...don't know the situation on that.

some of them may be british, but they basically work for they EU and many of them aren't particularly sympathetic to us. i mean, it's like, oh yes our own business secretary shits over our own businesses, our plan if we even have one is completely bonkers, we're massively disadvantaged but also in denial about it, they've basically destroyed my job and when the inevitable failure comes there's a non-zero chance i'll get blamed and national papers will put my personal details and a massive picture of my face on the front pages with the headline ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. can't wait to get on that bandwagon. getting a bullet train to londres as we speak.

iirc we used to have a pretty powerful european lobby but we completely destroyed it and let it atrophy into nothingness because ??????

[Costa Fierro]

The United Kingdom doesn't have enough properly experienced trade negotiators as the EU did most of the negotiation for free trade agreements on behalf of member states. And being a trade negotiator sounds like an especially complicated and specialized job as it requires a familiarity with international relations and diplomacy, economics and a recognition of what your country and the other country wants and desires out of a future trade agreement.

Small wonder why these things are years in the making.

Another problem with short term politics. Why plan for the future when you can take advantage of the short term?

Also, one would think some of the EU negotiators would be British and work for us...don't know the situation on that.

As others have said, some of them are but they're employed by the EU rather than the United Kingdom. In any case, there simply isn't enough of them hence why there's the offer from other countries who have had a lot of experience in dealing with these kinds of things.

[The Nihilistic view]

I don't remember the one about Irish Mushroom farms. So you Kind of got that wrong.

viewtopic.php?p=30343055#p30343055

i'm not sure what you expected to come from this

And there was me thinking the referendum was before the 8th of November. Silly me.

[Souseiseki]

viewtopic.php?p=30343055#p30343055

i'm not sure what you expected to come from this

And there was me thinking the referendum was before the 8th of November. Silly me.

what?

[Ostroeuropa]

incidentally once we leave the EU and the ECHR under may's glorious renaissance it would be entirely legal to ban baguettes and sauerkraut, order the destruction of all existing stocks and institute strict criminal penalties up and to including death and ironic sauerboarding punishments for repeat offenders

now, i'm not saying people did vote for brexit based on the desire for a holy crusade against sauerkraut, but it is one of the benefits we can reap from taking back control

You can prise my freshly-baked baguettes out of my cold dead hands, fascists.

...
Why did none of the pro-EU side try that speech?

Stand on a stage with a baguette, waffle off about how it's gonna go up in price and end with raising it in the air and the line "From my cold dead hands."

Would have been pretty memorable.

[Frank Zipper]

Forget the baguettes and waffles, it's the wine that is going to bother me. My children need wine.


Oh Dirty 'Maggie' May they have taken her away
And she never walk down Lime Street any more
Oh the judge he guilty found her
For robbing a homeward bounder
That dirty no good robbin' 'Maggie' May
To the port of Liverpool
They returned me to
Two pounds ten a week, that was my pay

[HMS Vanguard]

Eh?

Whatever happens we have got
The Maxim Gun, and they have not.

It's an extract from a poem by Hilaire Belloc. Personally my favourite one of his is:

I shoot the Hippopotamus
With bullets made of platinum,
Because if I use leaden ones
His hide is sure to flatten 'em.

Gives a rather sobering picture of Victorian Britain that the only way we could think of interacting with wild animals in a children's book is by murdering them.

It's the circle of iife.

[Salandriagado]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38704325

I think this would be acceptable seeing as both are multiracial Anglosphere nations with similar rates of economic development and cultural similarity.

And where exactly is the United Kingdom going to get trade negotiators from?

We've got Nick Clegg!

We did (sorta). Anyway, a free trade agreement with us would be a great trial run for the United Kingdom as it's definitely going to need a lot more future trade agreements.

It makes you wonder what qualifies one as a trade negotiator, and why we need to borrow them.

Being a world expert in high level diplomatic negotiation, trade law, and economics, and knowing the details of your own country's economies, and the economy, government and society of the country being negotiated with. Experience with previous negotiations (under someone who already knows what they're doing) would be a plus too.

The United Kingdom doesn't have enough properly experienced trade negotiators as the EU did most of the negotiation for free trade agreements on behalf of member states. And being a trade negotiator sounds like an especially complicated and specialized job as it requires a familiarity with international relations and diplomacy, economics and a recognition of what your country and the other country wants and desires out of a future trade agreement.

Small wonder why these things are years in the making.

Another problem with short term politics. Why plan for the future when you can take advantage of the short term?

Also, one would think some of the EU negotiators would be British and work for us...don't know the situation on that.

They already have stable, well-paid, low-stress jobs. Why would they give that up for a worse (or at least, way more stressful) job just because the UK has decided to shit the bed?

[Hydesland]

Corbyn can do better if he acknowledges he was wrong about Venezuela and drops any remaining ties he has to sectarian groups, and comes up with a vaguely convincing excuse, such as "being Labour leader has given me a reality check of sorts".

If his position is "my views are foundationally wrong and I am a bad judge of policy and history" then what on earth claim does he have to even remain an MP let alone lead the country? He has nailed his colours to the wrong mast long ago which is why Labour under Corbyn is such an embarrassing clown show in the first place.

It's been made abundantly clear to me recently that people don't vote based on technical competency.

[Vassenor]

If his position is "my views are foundationally wrong and I am a bad judge of policy and history" then what on earth claim does he have to even remain an MP let alone lead the country? He has nailed his colours to the wrong mast long ago which is why Labour under Corbyn is such an embarrassing clown show in the first place.

It's been made abundantly clear to me recently that people don't vote based on technical competency.

People vote for whoever their paper of choice tells them to vote for.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's been made abundantly clear to me recently that people don't vote based on technical competency.

People vote for whoever their paper of choice tells them to vote for.

It's not that simple. We've seen numerous revolts against media lately. There's certain narratives people subscribe to, hit the right notes and don't piss on their in-group identifiers and you're good, use shibboleths they use, etc.

Most of the time it seems people vote based on dogwhistling for various causes now.

An incompetent guy who still knows the right issues to raise and how to talk about them in such a way as to signal support for certain blocs, is preferred to the competent guy seen to be appealing to enemies.

[South Park Labourite]

It's been made abundantly clear to me recently that people don't vote based on technical competency.

People vote for whoever their paper of choice tells them to vote for.

I read the London Evening Standard and would have voted for Sadiq if I had the vote. I read The Sunday Times and would have voted for Remain if I had the vote. Not strictly true.

[Imperializt Russia]

People vote for whoever their paper of choice tells them to vote for.

I read the London Evening Standard and would have voted for Sadiq if I had the vote. I read The Sunday Times and would have voted for Remain if I had the vote. Not strictly true.

You're politically read. You're an actual activist.

[Philjia]

It's been made abundantly clear to me recently that people don't vote based on technical competency.

People vote for whoever their paper of choice tells them to vote for.

Unless you read the i, because that would mean simultaneously voting Labour, Lib Dem, and Tory.

[South Park Labourite]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/de ... ld-9668580

Wish I could believe this if it happened, but Corbyn lacks the dignity and principles to do the decent thing and the PLP 'taking action' would make things worse.

Also don't understand the logic about holding the by-elections on the same day. It splits Labour's resources into defending both whilst the Tories can focus Copeland and UKIP Stoke.

I believe we'll lose Copeland and hold Stoke, just for the record.

[South Park Labourite]

In other news, apparently we almost nuked Florida lol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38711418

(ok it was an empty warhead but the kinetic impact would had done some damage)

[Imperializt Russia]

In other news, apparently we almost nuked Florida lol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38711418

(ok it was an empty warhead but the kinetic impact would had done some damage)

This is really weird.

Surely this incident would be a really good argument in favour of upgrading Trident, as it could be argued to suggest a need for this expense.
I really don't get the SNP and Corbyn and CND being "OMG THIS WOULD HAVE CALLED THE NUCLEAR ARMS INTO QUESTION"

Wow, a missile that goes into space suffers a failure on launch, that's never happened before. It's not like rocket science is hard, or anything.

[HMS Vanguard]

If his position is "my views are foundationally wrong and I am a bad judge of policy and history" then what on earth claim does he have to even remain an MP let alone lead the country? He has nailed his colours to the wrong mast long ago which is why Labour under Corbyn is such an embarrassing clown show in the first place.

It's been made abundantly clear to me recently that people don't vote based on technical competency.

I disagree. I think perceived competence is much more important than one's specific positions, but the voters assess competence in a relatively crude way. Conceding you were wrong about socialism is devastating because it's a concession you were wrong, not because of the rights and wrongs of socialism.

Ultimately Corbyn who repudiates Corbynism is just a defendant who pleads guilty and expresses remorse, rather than fighting to the wire. Sure, he will not get as harsh a sentence, but it's not like it will put him in line to be called the bar.

[Hydesland]

It's been made abundantly clear to me recently that people don't vote based on technical competency.

I disagree. I think perceived competence is much more important than one's specific positions, but the voters assess competence in a relatively crude way. Conceding you were wrong about socialism is devastating because it's a concession you were wrong, not because of the rights and wrongs of socialism.

Ultimately Corbyn who repudiates Corbynism is just a defendant who pleads guilty and expresses remorse, rather than fighting to the wire. Sure, he will not get as harsh a sentence, but it's not like it will put him in line to be called the bar.

But I think there are other factors that are more important. Corbyn is perceived as an honest man with integrity (compared to your typical robot politician), even if he gets things wrong, that can go a long way. Even though he's private schooled and upper class, he's perceived by many as being "their guy", actually caring about the working class rather than about placating wealthy chums. I'm not saying he has a chance of winning, but if he drops associating with Venezuela and sectarianism, his admitting to being wrong will punish him, but it will at the same time further boost the image of him being honest, genuine & pragmatic.

[HMS Vanguard]

In other news, apparently we almost nuked Florida lol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38711418

(ok it was an empty warhead but the kinetic impact would had done some damage)

This is really weird.

Surely this incident would be a really good argument in favour of upgrading Trident, as it could be argued to suggest a need for this expense.
I really don't get the SNP and Corbyn and CND being "OMG THIS WOULD HAVE CALLED THE NUCLEAR ARMS INTO QUESTION"

Wow, a missile that goes into space suffers a failure on launch, that's never happened before. It's not like rocket science is hard, or anything.

On the topic of the supposed "experts" of our technocratic academia-media-bureaucratic elite, the worst thing about this article is its complete technical illiteracy. The BBC writes:

"In July - days after Mrs May had become prime minister - MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of replacing Trident."

Which is untrue. No one is talking about replacing Trident and no one voted on it. The vote was about replacing the ballistic missile submarines. The BBC has defended referring to this as "replacing Trident" in the past on the grounds that it has become common usage (which, to the extent true, is only because the BBC uses it that way), but when you are talking about a technical failure of the missile it becomes materially misleading. The story reads like the missile is old and desperately needs replacement because it barely works any more. None of which is true; these missiles just have a finite failure rate, and no one who knows anything about the topic is worried or surprised.

[HMS Vanguard]

I disagree. I think perceived competence is much more important than one's specific positions, but the voters assess competence in a relatively crude way. Conceding you were wrong about socialism is devastating because it's a concession you were wrong, not because of the rights and wrongs of socialism.

Ultimately Corbyn who repudiates Corbynism is just a defendant who pleads guilty and expresses remorse, rather than fighting to the wire. Sure, he will not get as harsh a sentence, but it's not like it will put him in line to be called the bar.

But I think there are other factors that are more important. Corbyn is perceived as an honest man with integrity (compared to your typical robot politician), even if he gets things wrong, that can go a long way. Even though he's private schooled and upper class, he's perceived by many as being "their guy", actually caring about the working class rather than about placating wealthy chums. I'm not saying he has a chance of winning, but if he drops associating with Venezuela and sectarianism, his admitting to being wrong will punish him, but it will at the same time further boost the image of him being honest, genuine & pragmatic.

It can go a long way if you admit that you are wrong about some small point or specific policy. That would be a card he could play to, for instance, come out in favour of Trident, or for war with Islamic state (just examples, not saying he should). He can't repudiate the ideology which justified his entry into politics, his entire career of nearly 40 years, and the vast majority of his supporters' decision to elect him leader in the first place. He has made a career saying, basically, "if you do it like Chavez rather than like Lenin, everything will be fine". But actually it's the same old story.

[Hydesland]

But I think there are other factors that are more important. Corbyn is perceived as an honest man with integrity (compared to your typical robot politician), even if he gets things wrong, that can go a long way. Even though he's private schooled and upper class, he's perceived by many as being "their guy", actually caring about the working class rather than about placating wealthy chums. I'm not saying he has a chance of winning, but if he drops associating with Venezuela and sectarianism, his admitting to being wrong will punish him, but it will at the same time further boost the image of him being honest, genuine & pragmatic.

It can go a long way if you admit that you are wrong about some small point or specific policy. That would be a card he could play to, for instance, come out in favour of Trident, or for war with Islamic state (just examples, not saying he should). He can't repudiate the ideology which justified his entry into politics, his entire career of nearly 40 years, and the vast majority of his supporters' decision to elect him leader in the first place. He has made a career saying, basically, "if you do it like Chavez rather than like Lenin, everything will be fine". But actually it's the same old story.

I don't think he has to repudiate his core principles. He can just say "I underestimated the level of corruption that arose in Venezuela" or something like that. I mean it's not clear to me whether Corbyn is an actual socialist or just a left leaning social democrat, but it's possible to be a socialist while still accepting Venezuela is bad, and it's certainly possible to be a social democrat and do so.

[HMS Vanguard]

It can go a long way if you admit that you are wrong about some small point or specific policy. That would be a card he could play to, for instance, come out in favour of Trident, or for war with Islamic state (just examples, not saying he should). He can't repudiate the ideology which justified his entry into politics, his entire career of nearly 40 years, and the vast majority of his supporters' decision to elect him leader in the first place. He has made a career saying, basically, "if you do it like Chavez rather than like Lenin, everything will be fine". But actually it's the same old story.

I don't think he has to repudiate his core principles. He can just say "I underestimated the level of corruption that arose in Venezuela" or something like that.

But that's a lame faux-repudiation. It's yet another No True Scotsman/better luck next time that has literally become a joke already. And which still makes him look like an idiot for not taking a close look at the people at the start, when he told everyone this time it's different.

[Hydesland]

I don't think he has to repudiate his core principles. He can just say "I underestimated the level of corruption that arose in Venezuela" or something like that.

But that's a lame faux-repudiation. It's yet another No True Scotsman/better luck next time that has literally become a joke already. And which still makes him look like an idiot for not taking a close look at the people at the start, when he told everyone this time it's different.

Well nobody is expecting it will convince everyone, but it I think it will put some left leaning people who are still very wary of Venezuelan style planning at ease. Also, while he's certainly made vague claims about how Venezuela has shown the world an "alternative" to "neo-liberal dogmatism" etc.. I'm not sure if he's actually ever given detailed endorsement about the entire Venezuelan approach, which would make things more awkward than just the platitudes he's made so far that I'm aware of, unless you're aware of some writings/speeches of his I haven't seen?