Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Twinkletoes89]

This is just May using the jingoistic "great" Britain bullshit to cover the fact that their negotiation strategy does not exist and their public aims are completely unrealistic and unreasonable.

But with the crappy media on side, and a complete disregard for what the referendum actually gave a mandate for, she can freely talk as if she's Churchill or Thatcher about how "great"  we are as if that guarantees us everything we could ever want. 

Plus she's a completely unelected Prime Minister so the Democratic deficit argument rings very hollow when she raises it. And UKIP are a complete bunch of charlatans following the same pathetic strategy that only works because of the disproportionate amount of airtime and column inches they receive in the name of "balance"

[Brian Shanahan]

Update:

Labour's leader is wavering to force a line-vote but it doesn't matter because unless he forces a line-vote the other way Brexit will still be able to get over 50%. I'm not sure what's going to happen but the betting odds for Brexit winning are still @ ~80%.

May's speech suggests "hard" Brexit but it's still just talk.

I think there's two ways to explain her speech (at least I can think of):

1. It's just talk and she's taking a hard-line opening stance to get the biggest amount of pie possible.

2. The government had informal talks and EU chose to go full-retard: ie Refusing to grant an emergency brake while allowing UK to stay in EU. If this happened it would make UKIP's secondary "democratic-defect" argument strong enough to win on it's own and the EU doing that proves that it's untenable in the long-run so it's actually in the establishment's interest to Brexit to get it over with.

I'll go with #2 just to piss people off and show that it was already over the second Leave won by a single vote: Cannot hold a second referendum because of 'voting until you get it right'--if one vote is good enough to get in then one vote is good enough to leave, cannot hold elections because Brexit would win them for reasons I've written in earlier posts and cannot "soft" Brexit because doing that would defeat the entire point of doing it.      

You're reading the Brexit negotiations badly wrong, for pretty much the same reasons May (a closet brexiteer) is. Firstly the EU for reasons of keeping the EU together has to take a hard line, and the very best deal the UK will get, and that's dependant on them being super cooperative (something the UK has never previously done), is Norway, i.e. sign up to all the laws, pay a subvention and you get free access. Otherwise nothing. The second reason is a simple economic fact, the UK needs access to the EU, but while it'd it be nice for the EU to have the same access to the UK it is not needed. The only advantage the UK brings to the table is financial services and the banks are already preparing to shift to Frankfurt, whereas the UK does 61% of it's trade with the EU and certain sections of its economy will keel over without EU help, for example British farmers are barely surviving now with CAP payments and EU agricultural protectionism. What happens when those two props are stripped away?

Looking at the UK's negotiating position it is akin to a man coming up to a poker table and staking his house on a bluff when he's not being dealt into the game.

[MJW (ya that one)]

I do agree with you that the EU needs to take a hard stance and the UK's position is very weak. However, it's possible to push too hard. ie my "emergency break" thing (see post #421 explaining why it's a bit too much). This would explain why May suddenly pushed for hard Brexit at this time and Labour isn't taking a party-line vote against her (they would have some idea of what's going on due to the 'shadow cabinet').

However, you explanation of May being a closet Brexiteer would also work. May delaying her speech to this point makes it harder for Labour to react and the it's leader might have thought that Article 50 is going to be triggered no matter what, there was nothing to fight for, and wanted to be on the winning side (there's something to fight for "hard" vs "soft" and he just messed up).

I think it depends if May is a closet Brexiteer or not. If she is then #2 is much more likely then the EU going full retard. If she isn't #2 isn't possible which would leave #1. So what makes you think that May is a closet Brexiteer?

[Twinkletoes89]

May isn't a closet brexiteer, she's just so desperate to cling on to power with a tiny majority that she's prepared to sacrifice the country for it.

[MJW (ya that one)]

This is just May using the jingoistic "great" Britain bullshit to cover the fact that their negotiation strategy does not exist and their public aims are completely unrealistic and unreasonable.

But with the crappy media on side, and a complete disregard for what the referendum actually gave a mandate for, she can freely talk as if she's Churchill or Thatcher about how "great"  we are as if that guarantees us everything we could ever want. 

Plus she's a completely unelected Prime Minister so the Democratic deficit argument rings very hollow when she raises it. And UKIP are a complete bunch of charlatans following the same pathetic strategy that only works because of the disproportionate amount of airtime and column inches they receive in the name of "balance"

I missed this

If Brain is right then this post is right. A closet Brexiteer hijacked the government and new elections should have been called to prevent a possible hijacking.

If I'm right then EU has forced May's hand into hard brexit. UK doesn't need new elections because hard brexit would happen anyway (Labour even thought of taking a party-line for hard brexit as their leader acted after May). They now have a strategy of hard brexit.

Your wrong about UKIP. They would naturally get 10% of votes without media help of "balance". Their voters are also located in districts that tend to be competitive. They were able to put the Tories under so much pressure to induce the referendum in the first place. Also, everyone is dependent on the media anyway. UKIP deserves a gold star for embracing this. Edit: Also UKIP suggested having elections after they won because everyone now views the PM as someone who's elected.

[MJW (ya that one)]

May isn't a closet brexiteer, she's just so desperate to cling on to power with a tiny majority that she's prepared to sacrifice the country for it.

Cross-post.

This would work too and doesn't need any real evidence to back it up (you cannot see into someone's mind). This is very possible and substantially lowers the chance the EU went full retard.
Edit: 90%-->45% Giving her a blank check for Brexit would be very good for her.

[Brian Shanahan]

May isn't a closet brexiteer, she's just so desperate to cling on to power with a tiny majority that she's prepared to sacrifice the country for it.

Oh she's a brexiteer all right. She didn't campaign at all during the referndum, and as Home secretary was very critical of all things EU. She's just (barely) cleverer than Bozza and Oiky, so knew enough to realise that either result, being seen to support Brexit was bad for her leadership prospects.

Plus her pronouncements since becoming PM are not those of a woman pretending, they're the words of a true believer.

@MJW at the moment it is the UK that have gone full retard, they know the EU has a red line in the four freedoms. Yet still they try and push hard for full single market access without reciprocal freedom of movement or full signing up to regulations. Frankly if the EU gives anything up from their current position it breaks up, because everbody will want the swwet deal the UK got where they get all benefits without the obligations.

Look, the UK are in a very bad position, they've no great exports to trade to the world, they've an economy based on financial services that is both dependant on free access to the EU (London's the EU's offshore tax haven) and able to up sticks at a moment's notice. The negotiators are so far beyond the bend that they're listening to the lying words of a man who doesn't give two shits about them. If the EU needs to tread carefully, then the UK has long gone past the point of no return in terms of getting anything.

What'll happen is that Article 50 will be triggered, the EU side will lay out their position (again), the UK will try to bully their way into a better deal, the EU refuse, the UK throw their toys out of the pram and full break will happen. After about ten years a much castened UK goverment will come back looking for Norway status and might get it, but with extra strings attached.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Brain, because TT's explanation explains what happened without the EU going full retard, I'm not interested in arguing anymore. I cannot put serious effort against you when there's less then a 50% chance of my theory being true.

[Mardoc]

@MJW at the moment it is the UK that have gone full retard, they know the EU has a red line in the four freedoms. Yet still they try and push hard for full single market access without reciprocal freedom of movement or full signing up to regulations. Frankly if the EU gives anything up from their current position it breaks up, because everbody will want the swwet deal the UK got where they get all benefits without the obligations.

Look, the UK are in a very bad position, they've no great exports to trade to the world, they've an economy based on financial services that is both dependant on free access to the EU (London's the EU's offshore tax haven) and able to up sticks at a moment's notice. The negotiators are so far beyond the bend that they're listening to the lying words of a man who doesn't give two shits about them. If the EU needs to tread carefully, then the UK has long gone past the point of no return in terms of getting anything.

What'll happen is that Article 50 will be triggered, the EU side will lay out their position (again), the UK will try to bully their way into a better deal, the EU refuse, the UK throw their toys out of the pram and full break will happen. After about ten years a much castened UK goverment will come back looking for Norway status and might get it, but with extra strings attached.

I don't really understand what you mean by things like 'requires access' and 'gets nothing' and 'a man coming up to a poker table and staking his house on a bluff ' and 'whereas the UK does 61% of it's trade with the EU and certain sections of its economy will keel over'.  I can't imagine the EU actually imposing sanctions; as best I can tell, the only sanctions they have are on Russia, and those are a special case due to Ukraine.  Seems to me that the way to bet is that the UK ends up with a trade deal with the EU that's similar to Japan, India, Brazil, or Korea (other non-EU economies of similar size).  Size of economy should be a decent proxy for negotiating strength, after all.

Definitely none of those four are required to contribute to the EU budget directly, or accept free movement of persons, so the only way the UK would be different is whatever "spite" the EU feels they need to impose on a leaving country pour encourager les autres.

So the UK ends up with some tariffs, has to go through Customs.  Either they end up doing a little less profit on their trade, or the Pound falls to make up for the tariffs.   Trade shrinks a bit.  They either have to replace the various EU subsidies for industries, or do without.   I understand that the UK was a slight net contributor to the EU, so they ought to have budget room to replace the subsidies; it'll be more a question of whether the government chooses to replace them or spend the money elsewhere.

All in all, the net effect will be that the UK and EU both get a little bit poorer, by an amount that's small enough that it doesn't change anyone's mind because it can be argued either way.  Same as a million other economic arguments that are never resolved because too many other factors changed at the same time as what you're arguing about.  Life goes on.

[MJW (ya that one)]

As expected the government lost, 8-3. If Labour doesn't takes party line May wins, if it does May probably wins (after calling new elections).