UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[Trumptonium1]

It's the fucking retarded ERG that are blocking things.

Invective aside, we knew that already. They're pushing as hard as possible for a No Deal because it'll be good for their foreign investments.

Which ones are those pray tell?

Also are you blaming Heidi Allen for having shares in Airbus, or is that ok because you like Remain?

[Tybra]

Prime Minister Theresa May has suffered a fresh defeat in a Commons vote on her Brexit strategy by 303 to 258.

Poor May, she could probably use a hug right now.

Seriously though I'm becoming utterly confused by Brexit, I've got no idea what the next step's are or what Parliament or May's government actually wants outside of unicorns. Is she still going to negotiate with the EU or seek an extension (which she likely won't get). At this point i'm getting worried she'll just drive over the cliff edge and blame the EU for not giving her what she wants.

[Trumptonium1]

So in the last 24 hours:

• Kate Hoey filmed making a speech in front of a portrait of Margaret Thatcher and invokes her name as someone to aspire to ("One can only wonder how MT would react to these [Tusk & Verhofstadt] comments")
• Anna Soubry praising left-wing Labour pro-EU politicians as "good colleagues"
• Financial Times confirms from leaks that Luciana Berger and Chris Leslie are talking to other Labour MPs about leaving the Labour Party and creating a new pro-EU centrist party with Lib Dems (up to 30 MPs)
• Richard Harrington suggests that his fellow Tory MPs in ERG are not Conservatives, and should instead join Farage's new Brexit Party to which Jacob Rees-Mogg smirks, raises eyebrows and nods (up to 60 MPs)

This article looks truer by the day.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/ ... ns-parties

[Dumb Ideologies]

So in the last 24 hours:

• Kate Hoey filmed making a speech in front of a portrait of Margaret Thatcher and invokes her name as someone to aspire to ("One can only wonder how MT would react to these [Tusk & Verhofstadt] comments")
• Anna Soubry praising left-wing Labour pro-EU politicians as "good colleagues"
• Financial Times confirms from leaks that Luciana Berger and Chris Leslie are talking to other Labour MPs about leaving the Labour Party and creating a new pro-EU centrist party with Lib Dems (up to 30 MPs)
• Richard Harrington suggests that his fellow Tory MPs in ERG are not Conservatives, and should instead join Farage's new Brexit Party to which Jacob Rees-Mogg smirks, raises eyebrows and nods (up to 60 MPs)

This article looks truer by the day.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/ ... ns-parties

Theoretically these realignments might make sense but the logic of FPTP very much works against new parties.

[Trumptonium1]

So in the last 24 hours:

• Kate Hoey filmed making a speech in front of a portrait of Margaret Thatcher and invokes her name as someone to aspire to ("One can only wonder how MT would react to these [Tusk & Verhofstadt] comments")
• Anna Soubry praising left-wing Labour pro-EU politicians as "good colleagues"
• Financial Times confirms from leaks that Luciana Berger and Chris Leslie are talking to other Labour MPs about leaving the Labour Party and creating a new pro-EU centrist party with Lib Dems (up to 30 MPs)
• Richard Harrington suggests that his fellow Tory MPs in ERG are not Conservatives, and should instead join Farage's new Brexit Party to which Jacob Rees-Mogg smirks, raises eyebrows and nods (up to 60 MPs)

This article looks truer by the day.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/ ... ns-parties

Theoretically these realignments might make sense but the logic of FPTP very much works against new parties.

To be fair, most of these Labour MPs wanting to quit are in the south, which voted Remain anyway, particularly London. FPTP wouldn't be an issue. I think only one ERG MP leads a Remain constituency (funnily, it's Rees-Mogg) but I'm less inclined to agree Tory voters would be prepared to support a different party.

---

I didn't watch any TV today or stay up to date with Twitterati but it appears BBC PoliticsLive already did a section on this
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/ ... 3526404098
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/ ... 8405285888

[Souseiseki]

https://twitter.com/WYP_PC/status/1096062648490381313

And judging by his Twitter, the move (which, as stated, is unrelated to Raspberry Pi: besides, they apparently opened their first UK store just a few days ago!) plausibly spawned out of him having developed a Remainer stance, although we'll probably not know for sure.

Not to mention that currently tariffs on his circuit boards are 0%.

Since his business sold 11 of 15 million units in the UK, it seems he is particularly vulnerable for, say, a tariff of 200% once he moves production abroad, which should be the aim of the government in the XIX GATT schedule, which would decimate it. (19.5 million of 25 million revenue)

It would be a reasonable course of action given that he has benefited from paying zero tax by nature of being a charitable organisation. They also avoid tax by spending a large amount on royalties to the parent organisation.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... download=0

Mr David Cleevely is nothing more than a poundland tax avoider, who wasn't prosecuted for misuse of charity status for political purposes precisely because the establishment which should prosecute him is pro-remain.

200% tariff on circuit boards is fucking ridiculous lmao please don't tell me this is the no-EU sovereign paradise we were promised

who wasn't prosecuted for misuse of charity status for political purposes precisely because the establishment which should prosecute him is pro-remain

???????????????????

[The Blaatschapen]

So in the last 24 hours:

• Kate Hoey filmed making a speech in front of a portrait of Margaret Thatcher and invokes her name as someone to aspire to ("One can only wonder how MT would react to these [Tusk & Verhofstadt] comments")
• Anna Soubry praising left-wing Labour pro-EU politicians as "good colleagues"
• Financial Times confirms from leaks that Luciana Berger and Chris Leslie are talking to other Labour MPs about leaving the Labour Party and creating a new pro-EU centrist party with Lib Dems (up to 30 MPs)
• Richard Harrington suggests that his fellow Tory MPs in ERG are not Conservatives, and should instead join Farage's new Brexit Party to which Jacob Rees-Mogg smirks, raises eyebrows and nods (up to 60 MPs)

This article looks truer by the day.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/ ... ns-parties

Theoretically these realignments might make sense but the logic of FPTP very much works against new parties.

"logic"

[Hurdergaryp]

Theoretically these realignments might make sense but the logic of FPTP very much works against new parties.

"logic"

Moar guillotines!

[The Blaatschapen]

"logic"

Moar guillotines!

They're not French.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Theoretically these realignments might make sense but the logic of FPTP very much works against new parties.

"logic"

I won't have a damned contintental besmirch the good name of our electoral system!

[The Blaatschapen]

"logic"

I won't have a damned contintental besmirch the good name of our electoral system!

When did it get a good name?

[Hurdergaryp]

I won't have a damned contintental besmirch the good name of our electoral system!

When did it get a good name?

It's the same system as used by the Americans, isn't it? Yeah, it could stand a bit of modernization.

[The Blaatschapen]

When did it get a good name?

It's the same system as used by the Americans, isn't it? Yeah, it could stand a bit of modernization.

Not quite...
Similar (both are FPTP variants) but not the same. I'll leave it to one of the British to point out the exact differences.

[Trumptonium1]

Not to mention that currently tariffs on his circuit boards are 0%.

Since his business sold 11 of 15 million units in the UK, it seems he is particularly vulnerable for, say, a tariff of 200% once he moves production abroad, which should be the aim of the government in the XIX GATT schedule, which would decimate it. (19.5 million of 25 million revenue)

It would be a reasonable course of action given that he has benefited from paying zero tax by nature of being a charitable organisation. They also avoid tax by spending a large amount on royalties to the parent organisation.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... download=0

Mr David Cleevely is nothing more than a poundland tax avoider, who wasn't prosecuted for misuse of charity status for political purposes precisely because the establishment which should prosecute him is pro-remain.

200% tariff on circuit boards is fucking ridiculous lmao please don't tell me this is the no-EU sovereign paradise we were promised

Yes it is. More space for UK companies to set up and compete. Raspberry Pi doesn't even have a patent, it's a charity.

[Novus America]

So in the last 24 hours:

• Kate Hoey filmed making a speech in front of a portrait of Margaret Thatcher and invokes her name as someone to aspire to ("One can only wonder how MT would react to these [Tusk & Verhofstadt] comments")
• Anna Soubry praising left-wing Labour pro-EU politicians as "good colleagues"
• Financial Times confirms from leaks that Luciana Berger and Chris Leslie are talking to other Labour MPs about leaving the Labour Party and creating a new pro-EU centrist party with Lib Dems (up to 30 MPs)
• Richard Harrington suggests that his fellow Tory MPs in ERG are not Conservatives, and should instead join Farage's new Brexit Party to which Jacob Rees-Mogg smirks, raises eyebrows and nods (up to 60 MPs)

This article looks truer by the day.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/ ... ns-parties

Theoretically these realignments might make sense but the logic of FPTP very much works against new parties.

Why the heck do you need a new pro-EU centrist party?
You already have the Liberal Democrats.

Would make much mire sense for those 30 MPs to join the Lib Dems instead of trying and failing to create another entirely redundant party.

[Novus America]

Prime Minister Theresa May has suffered a fresh defeat in a Commons vote on her Brexit strategy by 303 to 258.

Poor May, she could probably use a hug right now.

Seriously though I'm becoming utterly confused by Brexit, I've got no idea what the next step's are or what Parliament or May's government actually wants outside of unicorns. Is she still going to negotiate with the EU or seek an extension (which she likely won't get). At this point i'm getting worried she'll just drive over the cliff edge and blame the EU for not giving her what she wants.

Not really that bad for her at all.
The vote is completely non binding.
Parliament is just (again) saying “we hate what you are doing but want to keep you in power to keep doing it anyways because we a scumbag cowards who have only criticism and no solutions”.

So she can just carry on doing whatever the hell she is doing (I have no idea what it is).
MPs can then scream to make their constituents happy, but not actually take any responsibility because apparently Parliament wants no responsibility and just wants to dump the blame on her (despite the entirely illogical nature of the fact that as the elected head of Parliament, whatever she does is in fact Parliament’s fault).
I guess the MPs are (probably correctly) hoping the vast majority of voters are too ill informed to see through the ruse.

[Souseiseki]

200% tariff on circuit boards is fucking ridiculous lmao please don't tell me this is the no-EU sovereign paradise we were promised

Yes it is. More space for UK companies to set up and compete. Raspberry Pi doesn't even have a patent, it's a charity.

the UK is not going to compete with shenzhen. all it will do is harm UK businesses and drive up prices for consumer goods. it is silly and it should be dropped unless you're willing to go all the way, which i am most certain you are not.

>the tories want to prop up an noncompetitive manufacturing industry by kneecapping free trade

what a world

[Ostroeuropa]

Court case emerged in which it appears every side is going to be twats except the plaintiff.

A transgender man has accessed funding and a fertility clinic reserved for women, and has asked to be the childs father on the birth certificate now that they are pregnant.

The judge is flipping out over it and saying "But you're a man! You can't have access to that!" and whining to the government about it and how the clinic acknowledged this was a man and let him access the treatment anyway, despite the law forbidding it.

So we're about to witness a clash of legal misandry and transphobia, which will win?

Interestingly the side of nonsense at this moment appears to be the non-transphobic side given that their entire argument revolves around the notion that this is in fact a man and so shouldn't be entitled to access this healthcare thing.

Which side will the government come down on?

Will it be something sensible like saying "Not allowing men access was fucked in the first place"? Will it be something transphobic like "Nuh uh! Thats a woman so its fine!", will it be misandrist with flavorings of transphobia where they contort themselves and be like "Well if you're a transman that's different, you're not like OTHER men, so it's fine."

Place your bets.

[Souseiseki]

i must admit that is absolutely hilarious. like a hypothetical a troll might make up to test the limits of the law except it's actually happening.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Court case emerged in which it appears every side is going to be twats except the plaintiff.

A transgender man has accessed funding and a fertility clinic reserved for women, and has asked to be the childs father on the birth certificate now that they are pregnant.

The judge is flipping out over it and saying "But you're a man! You can't have access to that!" and whining to the government about it and how the clinic acknowledged this was a man and let him access the treatment anyway, despite the law forbidding it.

So we're about to witness a clash of legal misandry and transphobia, which will win?

Interestingly the side of nonsense at this moment appears to be the non-transphobic side given that their entire argument revolves around the notion that this is in fact a man and so shouldn't be entitled to access this healthcare thing.

Which side will the government come down on?

Will it be something sensible like saying "Not allowing men access was fucked in the first place"? Will it be something transphobic like "Nuh uh! Thats a woman so its fine!", will it be misandrist with flavorings of transphobia where they contort themselves and be like "Well if you're a transman that's different, you're not like OTHER men, so it's fine."

Place your bets.

This seems like a tad of a clusterfuck.

More than a tad actually.

[Ostroeuropa]

i must admit that is absolutely hilarious. like a hypothetical a troll might make up to test the limits of the law except it's actually happening.

There is nothing excluding the possibility that this man is in fact, a troll.

Court case emerged in which it appears every side is going to be twats except the plaintiff.

A transgender man has accessed funding and a fertility clinic reserved for women, and has asked to be the childs father on the birth certificate now that they are pregnant.

The judge is flipping out over it and saying "But you're a man! You can't have access to that!" and whining to the government about it and how the clinic acknowledged this was a man and let him access the treatment anyway, despite the law forbidding it.

So we're about to witness a clash of legal misandry and transphobia, which will win?

Interestingly the side of nonsense at this moment appears to be the non-transphobic side given that their entire argument revolves around the notion that this is in fact a man and so shouldn't be entitled to access this healthcare thing.

Which side will the government come down on?

Will it be something sensible like saying "Not allowing men access was fucked in the first place"? Will it be something transphobic like "Nuh uh! Thats a woman so its fine!", will it be misandrist with flavorings of transphobia where they contort themselves and be like "Well if you're a transman that's different, you're not like OTHER men, so it's fine."

Place your bets.

This seems like a tad of a clusterfuck.

More than a tad actually.

It's really simply solved. It's just a matter of rolling back a privilege women enjoy.

Apparently it's also causing a blue screen of death for the law because of the legal ramifications of a child with no legal birth mother, not even a deceased one, which is why the Judge is freaking out, which says a lot about how sexist our systems are that they can't process this notion. A plan was put forth by civil servants to class them as a "male mother" but for some reason this was "Impractical" and so they're at a loss for how to proceed.

It's something you'd assume would have been dealt with by gay adoption, but apparently not. It will be the first child in the UK without a legal mother of some kind at some point.

EDIT:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... donor.html

The HFEA, which has chosen to not be involved in the High Court case, was not present in court yesterday.

(Human fertilization and embryology authority.).

LOLOLOLOL
"fts, you guys figure it out."

TT says forcing him to register as the child’s ‘mother’ breaches his human right to respect for private and family life.

(Daily mail not being transphobic. There is hope.).

TT was born a biological woman but received a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which allows him to classify as a trans man.

Daily Mail actually better than the telegraph for once, which says "Born a woman".

Current UK law states that fertility treatment is only currently accessible to women.

;(

‘It is a matter of concern that…the clinic treated TT whilst openly regarding him as a man,’ Sir Andrew said speaking to lawyers representing the Department of Health.

"Wahhhhhhhhhh!"

[The Free Joy State]

It's the same system as used by the Americans, isn't it? Yeah, it could stand a bit of modernization.

Not quite...
Similar (both are FPTP variants) but not the same. I'll leave it to one of the British to point out the exact differences.

Britain has a straight FPTP system -- one person, one vote. The country is divided into constituencies; the candidate with the most votes in the constituency takes the seat and -- in a General election -- the party that holds the most seats at the end of the election holds the majority to form a government.

America has an electoral college, rather than a straightforward FPTP. I'm more shady on that (because it seems strange that someone can win the popular vote and not win in the election... but...). I think that -- in that system -- the President is ultimately decided by the electoral college, which has a very small number of people deciding. (edited to add: I think they use FPTP for State elections -- but you'd better ask an American).

EDIT: This explains the difference between UK and US elections pretty neatly.

[Thermodolia]

It's the same system as used by the Americans, isn't it? Yeah, it could stand a bit of modernization.

Not quite...
Similar (both are FPTP variants) but not the same. I'll leave it to one of the British to point out the exact differences.

They are both garbage. Just one is more garbage than the other.

[Thermodolia]

Not quite...
Similar (both are FPTP variants) but not the same. I'll leave it to one of the British to point out the exact differences.

Britain has a straight FPTP system -- one person, one vote. The country is divided into constituencies; the candidate with the most votes in the constituency takes the seat and -- in a General election -- the party that holds the most seats at the end of the election holds the majority to form a government.

America has an electoral college, rather than a straightforward FPTP. I'm more shady on that (because it seems strange that someone can win the popular vote and not win in the election... but...). I think that -- in that system -- the President is ultimately decided by the electoral college, which has a very small number of people deciding. (edited to add: I think they use FPTP for State elections -- but you'd better ask an American).

EDIT: This explains the difference between UK and US elections pretty neatly.

The US also has a straightish FPTP System for the legislature. I say straightish because technically each state is able to choose their own voting system. So there’s an IRVish voting system in a few states and then you have the two round system in place in my home state of Georgia

[Vassenor]

Not quite...
Similar (both are FPTP variants) but not the same. I'll leave it to one of the British to point out the exact differences.

Britain has a straight FPTP system -- one person, one vote. The country is divided into constituencies; the candidate with the most votes in the constituency takes the seat and -- in a General election -- the party that holds the most seats at the end of the election holds the majority to form a government.

America has an electoral college, rather than a straightforward FPTP. I'm more shady on that (because it seems strange that someone can win the popular vote and not win in the election... but...). I think that -- in that system -- the President is ultimately decided by the electoral college, which has a very small number of people deciding. (edited to add: I think they use FPTP for State elections -- but you'd better ask an American).

EDIT: This explains the difference between UK and US elections pretty neatly.

It is still possible to become PM when your party loses the popular vote the way Trump did - Churchill won his only election victory that way.