Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Bacchus]

Yeah, it's a full blown constitutional crisis and I don't think the party system will be left standing. But then, there is hardly anyone on the scene who could pick up the pieces, not even some Petyr Baelish-like figure doing it all out of manipulative self-interest.

Double referendum just made sense, and no-one actually forced May to keep perpetrating this idiotic 'largest democratic excercise in history' trope and keep digging herself further into a hole. I think Corbyn will come around to revoke, its not that hard for him, he can credibly say that support for leave was predicated on the Government demonstrating at least some kind of functionality in its negotiations, the commitment never was 'leave at all costs'.

Also, I dont know how no-one has yet come up with the line that the referendum result was fulfillled the day Article 50 was invoked. This is done, there is nothing else to deliver on it, the popular vote did not concern what the deal should look like, what's acceptable and what's unacceptable, and how should the consequences of revocation be dealt with, should they, for whatever reason, get out of hand.

[Krill]

The first person that argues that the referendum result was fulfilled by simply invoking Article 50 will get crucified by anyone who voted Leave and doesn't care or understand about the consequences. Which is, unfortunately, pretty much everyone in a deprived area of the UK that voted leave. I think the only person that could argue that would be a remainer Tory, who was always a remainer and not some numpty like May or Boris, that leaves to join the new party. And they'd have to have an awesomely smug antipathy towards the general population if the believed they could do that and still get elected again.

Maybe Ken Clarke could make that argument, and he wouldn't give a fuck about the consequences. Actually, he'd be a decent choice for leader in those circumstances, because no way can anyone believe he has any motive except to keep the UK upright after a unilateral revokation and then he'd step down at the next GE anyway given his age and previous experiences, so he wouldn't have to worry about how he came across.

[Krill]

I don't particularly care regarding Leave or Remain (I voted Leave, it's stated earlier in the thread so full disclosure on that). What I believe is irrelevant to this point I'm going to try and make:

I don't think May could ever deliver Brexit, even if she had not called that GE and lost a bunch of seats. I think we are starting to see the parliamentary arithmetic show that Parliament would never allow the UK to leave without a deal, which suggests to me that unless UKIP or a UKIP-lite Tory party was elected to a solid majority in addition to the referendum result, the referendum was irrelevant. They had to have the option to taking a "No Deal" to both negotiate and then act on that plan (in reality, the negotiation of the deal was only ever a smoke screen to guard the stock markets)

But all those people that voted leave are going to still vote for a party that will let them leave, even as they gradually die off. If the UK keeps a FPTP system, then either UKIP comes back, destroys the Tory party and leads to years of centrist or Labour governments, or the Tory party completely implodes, UKIP takes most of their seats and then all hell breaks loose (I imagine the current predicament would just be an chat down the pub in comparison to the full blown gang warfare that would occur in that situation). I don't think that last one can happen given the way the leave vote was spread.

But Corbyn is just not electable to so many people, and the Lib Dems are completely fucked from the coalition government. He only did so well at the last GE because the Tories shot themselves in the head with the "We'll take all your money if you have dementia" policy and taking the main hit to invoking Article 50. So if a new group does come into existence and can actually show that they function, but gets rid of the lunatics like Diane Abbott and Chris Grayling, then who knows what could happen.

Personally I'd much prefer a PR electoral system be implemented, but that will never happen, we'd stop all this shit happening again.

[Bacchus]

Yeah, May keeps trying to scare everyone with prime minister Corbyn, but I don't think anyone is trembling.

No deal can still happen. EU needs to be careful to not explicitly back Britain into a corner, as overt bullying would quite likely cause a principled reaction. Merkel understands that, but the Spanish guy clearly doesn't, and has an election coming up.

[Krill]

No Deal can happen, it is the default position as we all know. But if the EU refuses to extend Article 50 then that is greater incentive for the MPs to unilaterally revoke Article 50. A principled response? Our MPs are incapable of such: they will unilaterally revoke before they allow a No Deal IMO, and that is what it will come to.

[Gavagai]

By the way, this is the nice illustration to how Trump is a superior negotiator to May. From the outset, May made it very clear that no deal is an unacceptable option for her, no wonder she was forced into a terrible deal in the end. I bet Trump in her place would be bragging how he does not need any deal with EU at all and ended up with getting decent terms.
(Also, this whole story shows that Brexit was a right idea all along. If EU reacts that strongly to someone trying to leave the union, this is a very bad sign.)

[Krill]

By the way, this is the nice illustration to how Trump is a superior negotiator to May. From the outset, May made it very clear that no deal is an unacceptable option for her, no wonder she was forced into a terrible deal in the end. I bet Trump in her place would be bragging how he does not need any deal with EU at all and ended up with getting decent terms.
(Also, this whole story shows that Brexit was a right idea all along. If EU reacts that strongly to someone trying to leave the union, this is a very bad sign.)

Gav, this is factually in correct.

May has continued, since before Article 50, and still does, publicly state that No Deal is on the table.

It is the individual members of parliament that are stating No Deal is unacceptable, this is the Labour position, and the Scottish National Party and Lib Dems don't want to leave the EU so are doing what they can to wreck the leaving process. It's not about what May can negotiate, it's about what Parliament will ratify.

And that means Parliament are shite negotiators.

[Gavagai]

By the way, this is the nice illustration to how Trump is a superior negotiator to May. From the outset, May made it very clear that no deal is an unacceptable option for her, no wonder she was forced into a terrible deal in the end. I bet Trump in her place would be bragging how he does not need any deal with EU at all and ended up with getting decent terms.
(Also, this whole story shows that Brexit was a right idea all along. If EU reacts that strongly to someone trying to leave the union, this is a very bad sign.)

Gav, this is factually in correct.

May has continued, since before Article 50, and still does, publicly state that No Deal is on the table.

It is the individual members of parliament that are stating No Deal is unacceptable, this is the Labour position, and the Scottish National Party and Lib Dems don't want to leave the EU so are doing what they can to wreck the leaving process. It's not about what May can negotiate, it's about what Parliament will ratify.

And that means Parliament are shite negotiators.

I have not seen such statements by May at all, but I do not follow this issue particularly closely and will trust you on that one.

[Bacchus]

It's true though that May's position would have been helped by a continuous stream of exclamations of how GREAT the future of the country will be once FREEDOM is obtained from the FAILING European Union. Get to rebuild our great INDUSTRIES, striking amazing DEALS with the rest of the world. Just such a spectacular NO DEAL, maybe even prefer it, you know. Some people say we should be afraid, maybe its them who should be afraid. Maybe I should stop going to these talks, waste of time, really. My Brexit secretary is so WEAK.

[Krill]

I think if you rewrote that from the perspective of English Aristocratic "stiff upper lip"-ness you'd have something that would work on the general population.

Otherwise you see why I think they will unilaterally revoke?