UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[The Blaatschapen]

Is the government competent y/n

Even the one in Stormont would do a better job.

[Hurdergaryp]

Maybe we need to fire Mogg out of a cannon into France. That’s not against the Geneva conventions right?

Pretty sure biological warfare is illegal...

Would the gilets jaunes welcome him as one of their own, or would they drag him to the guillotine?

[Thermodolia]

Maybe we need to fire Mogg out of a cannon into France. That’s not against the Geneva conventions right?

Pretty sure biological warfare is illegal...

Well according to the Monty Pythonesque application of the principles of logic and etymology Mogg rhymes with Frog and the French are called Frogs so we are just sending him home

[Hurdergaryp]

Pretty sure biological warfare is illegal...

Well according to the Monty Pythonesque application of the principles of logic and etymology Mogg rhymes with Frog and the French are called Frogs so we are just sending him home

[Bear Stearns]

What if Britain's political class was never serious about Brexit and never really intended to pursue it this whole time?

[Heloin]

What if Britain's political class was never serious about Brexit and never really intended to pursue it this whole time?

Then they would have not thrown the UK into 3 years of political chaos just because a nonbinding referendum said they should do something.

[Bear Stearns]

What if Britain's political class was never serious about Brexit and never really intended to pursue it this whole time?

Then they would have not thrown the UK into 3 years of political chaos just because a nonbinding referendum said they should do something.

But they have. Because the most logical Brexit is a hard Brexit, because anything else (like having a Norway a Switzerland-style relationship) wouldn't really be a Brexit because it doesn't really change anything fundamentally about the UK's main grievances with the EU. And I think most politicians knew this the whole time.

If they were serious about Brexit (i.e. a hard Brexit), it would have happened already. All of this diddling about a "deal" was unrealistic and just wasting time.

It's either going to be a hard Brexit or a canceled Brexit.

[Fartsniffage]

Then they would have not thrown the UK into 3 years of political chaos just because a nonbinding referendum said they should do something.

But they have. Because the most logical Brexit is a hard Brexit, because anything else (like having a Norway a Switzerland-style relationship) wouldn't really be a Brexit because it doesn't really change anything fundamentally about the UK's main grievances with the EU. And I think most politicians knew this the whole time.

If they were serious about Brexit (i.e. a hard Brexit), it would have happened already. All of this diddling about a "deal" was unrealistic and just wasting time.

It's either going to be a hard Brexit or a canceled Brexit.

Did you pay attention to the leave campaign at all? A good deal with the EU was first and foremost in all of their campaigning.

[Heloin]

Then they would have not thrown the UK into 3 years of political chaos just because a nonbinding referendum said they should do something.

But they have. Because the most logical Brexit is a hard Brexit, because anything else (like having a Norway a Switzerland-style relationship) wouldn't really be a Brexit because it doesn't really change anything fundamentally about the UK's main grievances with the EU. And I think most politicians knew this the whole time.

Assuming that anyone was really thinking that far ahead about what kind of deal they wanted is giving alot of people far to much credence.

If they were serious about Brexit (i.e. a hard Brexit), it would have happened already. All of this diddling about a "deal" was unrealistic and just wasting time.

Because not everyone wanted a brexit, and of the people who wanted one not all of them wanted a hard brexit. You can't just leave an organisation you've been part of for over 40 years (counting the EEC) and not think you'll have to find out just how you're leaving it and what laws and trade agreements you're keeping or not.

It's either going to be a hard Brexit or a canceled Brexit.

May's deal is still (somehow) on the table, if barely.

[Souseiseki]

Then they would have not thrown the UK into 3 years of political chaos just because a nonbinding referendum said they should do something.

But they have. Because the most logical Brexit is a hard Brexit, because anything else (like having a Norway a Switzerland-style relationship) wouldn't really be a Brexit because it doesn't really change anything fundamentally about the UK's main grievances with the EU. And I think most politicians knew this the whole time.

If they were serious about Brexit (i.e. a hard Brexit), it would have happened already. All of this diddling about a "deal" was unrealistic and just wasting time.

It's either going to be a hard Brexit or a canceled Brexit.

EFTA would have given us the ability to make our trade deals, no EU army, out of the ever closer union and less ECJ intervention in domestic law for a start. it was the preferred option of many major leavers before the results came in. the ability to make our trade deals, the ever closer union and ECJ were specifically raised as major concerns during the campaign. the idea that any brexit but hard brexit doesn't really change anything about the EU's grievances with the EU or address any of the leave voters key concerns is either ignorance or a concentrated lie. it annoys me to no end that the leave campaign who could not shut up about these issues before, during and shortly after the referendum suddenly dropped them as key concerns and declared that a deal that addresses those concerns is not a real brexit and does not address their concerns.

additionally, there are several polls that show despite freedom of movement being a major concern a great number of brits still support when asked if they support it without using the term "freedom of movement". there's also a decent number of those that when given the choice between freedom of movement and the economic hit of leaving the single market will choose staying in the single market. this combined with other factors makes EEA/EFTA a candidate for the most popular single option of all the brexit options, and was the obvious choice as a compromise option that was capable of gaining the perhaps begrudging support of enough remain and leave supporters. it also, as covered in the above paragraph, does in fact address several of what the leave campaign had supposedly claimed were their key concerns.

the fact of the matter is that the government could have delivered a soft brexit with a lot more ease than the current path. the political isolation of remainers by the government and leave figureheads after the vote effectively handicapped the deal by taking all compromise options off the table and ensuring it would be borderline impossible to secure a deal by garnering support among remainers later down the line. the fractured nature of leave wherein everyone had their own personal idea of brexit they wanted fulfilled produced a set of mutually incompatible red lines that could never be met. the government playing up the idea that those red lines represented the key concerns of leavers and dropping any one of them represented a betrayal of brexit and democracy prevented any wiggle room for creating a deal that could pass parliament, the EU and the public. leave fucked it, and no amount of trying to blame remainers will ever change that.

[Ifreann]

With the British government in Full Shambles, LÉ James Joyce has sailed up the Thames.

That's just a coincidence, or perhaps a happy little accident.

Fear not, Britons, your liberation is at hand!

[Fartsniffage]

That's just a coincidence, or perhaps a happy little accident.

Fear not, Britons, your liberation is at hand!

A patrol craft in the Thames and 5 bombs in the post. Ireland is taking us over. *cowers*

[Heloin]

That's just a coincidence, or perhaps a happy little accident.

Fear not, Britons, your liberation is at hand!

Everyone knew this day would come. The Irish Conquest Unification of the British Isles has begun.

[Bombadil]

Fear not, Britons, your liberation is at hand!

Everyone knew this day would come. The Irish Conquest Unification of the British Isles has begun.

Well we can all blame Ollie Cromwell for the mess we're in anyway so it's a fitting conclusion.

[Ifreann]

Fear not, Britons, your liberation is at hand!

A patrol craft in the Thames and 5 bombs in the post. Ireland is taking us over. *cowers*

A patrol craft equipped to celebrate St. Patrick's Day! There'll be no stoppin' us!

[Dooom35796821595]

A patrol craft in the Thames and 5 bombs in the post. Ireland is taking us over. *cowers*

A patrol craft equipped to celebrate St. Patrick's Day! There'll be no stoppin' us!

So filled to the hull with Irish beer?

[Neu Leonstein]

But they have. Because the most logical Brexit is a hard Brexit, because anything else (like having a Norway a Switzerland-style relationship) wouldn't really be a Brexit because it doesn't really change anything fundamentally about the UK's main grievances with the EU. And I think most politicians knew this the whole time.

If they were serious about Brexit (i.e. a hard Brexit), it would have happened already. All of this diddling about a "deal" was unrealistic and just wasting time.

It's either going to be a hard Brexit or a canceled Brexit.

This is an example of how catchphrase terms (e.g. 'hard' and 'soft' Brexit) end up confusing people who can't be arsed to keep track of the detail. This is not about 'hard' Brexit vs 'soft' Brexit. That debate was effectively ended two years ago, when the UK government set its red lines that ruled out the soft version (i.e. EEA membership or something close to it). Labour has only in recent weeks floated the possibility of reopening the debate with its acknowledgement that single market membership would be something they might push for. But that's irrelevant for the current debate unless there's another election.

This is about whether or not the UK goes from EU membership to hard Brexit with an adjustment period or not. That's it. The ERG utopian Brexiteer crowd have egged each other on until now even a couple of years of adjustment to help everyone prepare for the post-Brexit world is considered a betrayal. And because pretty much all MPs and 90% of popular news media don't understand any of the details involved in Brexit, they haven't noticed that it's the goalposts of the ERG crowd that have moved, rather than the government or the EU.

The Ireland issue is not even really something specific to the withdrawal agreement or the backstop. The only way you wouldn't have to think about Ireland is if there was the softest of Brexits. Since that's been excluded, a hard Brexit necessitates the question of where to put the border no matter when or how it happens. The EU said 'how about the water between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?' The UK commentariat went apoplectic about how this was all a plot for Ireland to annex NI and May made a big speech in parliament about how no national leader could ever agree to their country being partitioned like that.

So back to the drawing board they went, and the backstop in its current form was devised as 'there won't be a border until we've figured out how to avoid putting one somewhere', i.e. the UK can remain in the customs area during the withdrawal period to avoid the need for checks to be done anywhere. This was contrary to the EU's initial position, which saw not having a border as a way for the UK to keep benefits of membership without being a member. But now the UK commentariat is again apoplectic about how this is all a plot to sneakily keep the UK in the EU forever. Nevermind that it would be the EU that would put a stop to this - they want the UK out of the Single Market and the Customs Union if it refuses to implement the Four Freedoms (including Free Movement). The backstop is for NI to stay in, not for the UK as a whole to stay in.

Ok, so if no withdrawal period arrangement is satisfactory, what would happen? Still gotta have a border somewhere... just sooner than if there was a withdrawal period. Thankfully now we know, because in its sneaky publication of 'no deal' plans a couple of days ago, the UK government actually said that if there was no deal, they would put the border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain after all. If they'd been happy with that six months ago, the backstop in its current form would never have been needed to be devised.

In short: the issue is not between a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit. It's not even about the modalities of the backstop. It's that the ERG keeps pushing further and further towards autarky, and May is so terrified of disunity within the Conservative Party that she keeps throwing out her own plans to maintain the fig leaf that the party isn't irreparably damaged already. That is why the UK never had a consistent negotiating position and was never able to put together proposals that were detailed and real-life workable enough to form the basis of a withdrawal period or a future relationship.

[The Archregimancy]

Usually it means that the MP gets the chop. But in this case the sheer numbers of MPs is so extreme that it could bring down the government. May's hands are tied, as forcing the issue would be falling on her sword.

So the government rebelled against itself.

But it can't win, nor lose.

What is this even?!

It's quite simple.

The government tabled a motion, and offered its MPs a free vote on that motion.

A government MP (with support from other MPs, though not all from the government party) tabled an amendment to that motion.

The government MP was then pressured to withdraw the amendment to the government motion.

The government MP tried to withdraw the amendment.

The other supporting MPs refused to withdraw the amendment, so the amendment went through to a vote.

Despite now being opposed by both the government MP who'd originally tabled the motion and the government, the amendment was passed.

Because the amendment passed, the government was now opposed to its own motion.

The government then tried to force its own MPs to vote against the government motion.

Despite being opposed by the very government that had proposed the government motion, the amended motion then passed by a larger majority than had passed the initial amendment.

The government then refused to sack the ministers and MPs who had defied the government by voting for the government motion.

So the government is unable to defeat itself, while individual MPs are winning votes they'd wanted to lose.

Surely anyone with a basic grasp of the rules of cricket can follow that?

[The Archregimancy]

<snip>

In short: the issue is not between a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit. It's not even about the modalities of the backstop. It's that the ERG keeps pushing further and further towards autarky, and May is so terrified of disunity within the Conservative Party that she keeps throwing out her own plans to maintain the fig leaf that the party isn't irreparably damaged already. That is why the UK never had a consistent negotiating position and was never able to put together proposals that were detailed and real-life workable enough to form the basis of a withdrawal period or a future relationship.

I don't hand out discussion praise lightly, but that was one of the best summaries of the situation we're in that I've read on any media platform.

[Bombadil]

Surely anyone with a basic grasp of the rules of cricket can follow that?

Michael Vaughn sent out a tweet asking if anyone could explain in cricketing terms given it was all now so complicated.. and received various answers.. mostly along the lines of entering your second innings at lunch time on the 5th day 1400 runs behind, putting it to a vote whether to play for a slow draw or go all out for a win, then smashing all your bats up and now you're 4 runs for 9 wickets down and still 4 hours to play..

[The Archregimancy]

A patrol craft in the Thames and 5 bombs in the post. Ireland is taking us over. *cowers*

A patrol craft equipped to celebrate St. Patrick's Day! There'll be no stoppin' us!

St Patrick wasn't Irish, of course.

He was British.

No, seriously; he was the Romano-British son of a provincial official in the closing years of Roman Britain. He was kidnapped by Irish pirates and sold into slavery when he was in his teens.

After six years he escaped, and returned to his family in Britain. It was only after receiving a vision that he decided to return to Ireland.


So St. Patrick was British, St. George was a Hellenistic Middle Easterner, and St. Andrew was a Levantine Jew.

This means that the only patron saint of these islands who was actually from the country of which he's patron is... St. David.

Wales, your time has come at last.


Anyway, enough of my yakkin'; this is what happens when I finally get free wifi on my morning commute.

[The Blaatschapen]

So the government rebelled against itself.

But it can't win, nor lose.

What is this even?!

It's quite simple.

The government tabled a motion, and offered its MPs a free vote on that motion.

A government MP (with support from other MPs, though not all from the government party) tabled an amendment to that motion.

The government MP was then pressured to withdraw the amendment to the government motion.

The government MP tried to withdraw the amendment.

The other supporting MPs refused to withdraw the amendment, so the amendment went through to a vote.

Despite now being opposed by both the government MP who'd originally tabled the motion and the government, the amendment was passed.

Because the amendment passed, the government was now opposed to its own motion.

The government then tried to force its own MPs to vote against the government motion.

Despite being opposed by the very government that had proposed the government motion, the amended motion then passed by a larger majority than had passed the initial amendment.

The government then refused to sack the ministers and MPs who had defied the government by voting for the government motion.

So the government is unable to defeat itself, while individual MPs are winning votes they'd wanted to lose.

Surely anyone with a basic grasp of the rules of cricket can follow that?

I've actually read a cricket book once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguins_Stopped_Play

[Ifreann]

A patrol craft equipped to celebrate St. Patrick's Day! There'll be no stoppin' us!

So filled to the hull with Irish beer?

We could hose down Parliament with Guinness. It couldn't hurt.

[Vassenor]

So the Express is taking things with typical good grace.

[The Blaatschapen]

So filled to the hull with Irish beer?

We could hose down Parliament with Guinness. It couldn't hurt.

By now, I think the only things that hurt Parliament are garlic and silver bullets.