PDA

View Full Version : UK (and Irish) elections and politics



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2018, 02:10 PM
May survived yesterday; it seems the plotters don't have enough signatures yet.

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2018, 06:08 PM
48 signatures reached. No confidence ballot 6-8 pm UK time (5-7 am Aus time).

Garvinator
12-12-2018, 06:57 PM
20 MPs have publicly said that they have written to the 1922 Committee requesting a no-confidence vote. Others have probably done so but not admitted to it publicly. If that total gets to 48 that will bring on the vote. If May survives the vote it seems she is immune from internal challenge for a year (but could still be brought down by a parliamentary no-confidence vote if anyone was dastardly enough to go that route.)

Looks like vote could even be today.
Interesting how a few days makes one comment go from 'dastardly' to somewhat likely

Now that the 48 signatures has been reached, if May does survive, but only by a small margin and so that means that she can not be challenged for another year, two scenarios are possible:

1) Theresa May resigns anyway as her leadership is completely crippled. This would then mean that Tory contenders put their names forward, run offs occur until two names emerge and then those two names go to the Tory general membership for a vote. Meanwhile, the brexit clock to March 29 2019 keeps ticking.

2) May resigns or not, but given the numbers in parliament, Labour and the other opposition parties decide to call for a motion of no confidence in the Government, which if won, 'should' bring on a General Election as one side or another has to show on the floor of parliament they have the numbers to Govern. Considering this would take about two weeks to organise, that leaves 13 weeks till March 29.

And again, the brexit clock keeps ticking.

And the EU are saying no new deals, even though that can always get a bit more rubbery if there is a new Tory leader who presents No deal as a genuine alternative and the EU deal makers who are saying that we will not compromise on anything start looking at the state of affairs if we stick with our present position of not changing the agreement with had with Theresa May, if the new leader comes along and says, no deal and abiding by WTO rules is fine by us.

Then the EU is presented with two choices- re-negotiate with UK again in a hurry, or go with no deal. If I was EU, I know which one I would be choosing.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2018, 09:02 AM
May survives 200-117. Immune from internal challenge for a year.

Desmond
16-01-2019, 08:56 AM
Brexnot?

Patrick Byrom
24-01-2019, 05:23 PM
Interesting article on Brexiteer hypocrisy: (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/23/james-dyson-brexiteer-elite-brexit-rees-mogg)

Whether it’s Nigel Farage taking care to ensure two of his children can live, work and travel freely across the EU by having German passports, or Nigel Lawson, who lives in France, taking the precaution of applying for French residency, the pattern is familiar. It suggests a Brexiteer elite who believe that the pain of Brexit is for the little people. They are rich or powerful or connected enough to be insulated from the damage it will cause, making them free to sound off about its supposed benefits in the abstract – sovereignty! control! – while everyone else deals with the grim reality.

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2019, 10:23 PM
Seven Labour MPs including former leadership contender Chuka Umunna have quit the party to form what they are calling The Independent Group.

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2019, 11:28 PM
The main issues motivating the split appear to be (i) alleged anti-semitism within Labour (ii) the splitters believe Labor should do more to fight Brexit, including calling for a second vote.

Patrick Byrom
19-02-2019, 12:10 AM
The main issues motivating the split appear to be (i) alleged anti-semitism within Labour (ii) the splitters believe Labor should do more to fight Brexit, including calling for a second vote.I'm surprised that they didn't just join the LDP, half of which was originally the result of a much more serious Labour split.

Blunderbuss
19-02-2019, 11:38 AM
I'm surprised that they didn't just join the LDP, half of which was originally the result of a much more serious Labour split.

Breaking up is hard to do... (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/18/inside-labours-lonely-hearts-club-band)
"No, they weren’t going to form an alliance with the Lib Dems as the Lib Dem brand was toxic, but if any Lib Dems wanted to join them that would be OK. And they would quite like some left-of-centre Tories to join them, too..."

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2019, 09:14 PM
And now three Tories (Heidi Allen, Sarah Wollaston and Anna Soubry) have quit the Conservative Party to sit with/alongside (still establishing which) the Independent Group as has another Labour MP.

""We no longer feel we can remain in the Party of a Government whose policies and priorities are so firmly in the grip of the ERG and DUP." [etc]

(ERG = European Research Group, pro-Brexiteers led by Rees-Mogg)

Blunderbuss
15-03-2019, 08:12 AM
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-brexit-endgame-visual-guide

I hope their endgame play is better than mine!

Patrick Byrom
15-03-2019, 02:03 PM
This cartoon sums it up perfectly. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1kQmveU0AAfqOq.jpg)

Desmond
16-03-2019, 07:17 PM
This cartoon sums it up perfectly. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1kQmveU0AAfqOq.jpg)

My favourite was “the Titanic voting for the iceberg to get out of the way” (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/eu-extend-brexit-talks-complete-barnier-brussels-assurance).

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2019, 08:04 PM
John Bercow has blown up May's plan to resubmit a previously defeated Brexit deal because it, um, doesn't follow the rules against resubmitting decided motions. The parliament could dissent from his ruling or sack him if it had the numbers to do so but presumably doesn't.

What a mess.

Adamski
19-03-2019, 09:06 PM
Brexit = Br may one day eventually but who knows when exit!

Patrick Byrom
19-03-2019, 09:08 PM
John Bercow has blown up May's plan to resubmit a previously defeated Brexit deal because it, um, doesn't follow the rules against resubmitting decided motions. The parliament could dissent from his ruling or sack him if it had the numbers to do so but presumably doesn't. What a mess.Even if May wins that vote, she still has to win the vote on her actual motion. So it appears that the Brexit 'endgame' will be an adjournment - possibly forever ...

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2019, 07:51 PM
The Independent Group will become a new party called Change UK, with Heidi Allen as interim leader. The party is looking at running in the Europe election, if it happens.

Patrick Byrom
31-03-2019, 03:43 PM
The Independent Group will become a new party called Change UK, with Heidi Allen as interim leader. The party is looking at running in the Europe election, if it happens.I think that British participation in the European elections (because of a long Brexit delay) is now likely.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2019, 04:48 PM
I think that British participation in the European elections (because of a long Brexit delay) is now likely.

That is going to be such a joke. I wonder if there will be a silly result.

Blunderbuss
31-03-2019, 04:49 PM
I think that British participation in the European elections (because of a long Brexit delay) is now likely.

Gordon seems to have some thoughts of his own on this..
"I have reason to believe that the problems raised by the European election timetable can be negotiated away by indirect elections – selecting a contingent of MPs from our own parliament – and by not participating in the election of the presidents of the European commission and parliament."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/30/uk-year-extension-brexit-take-back-control

Patrick Byrom
11-04-2019, 03:58 PM
I think that British participation in the European elections (because of a long Brexit delay) is now likely.Now confirmed, with Brexit postponed until Halloween(!) - unless a Brexit deal can be agreed by the UK parliament before then.

Blunderbuss
13-04-2019, 09:40 PM
Nigel Farage has launched a new party to contest in the upcoming European election campaign. But @ByDonkeys have registered the website thebrexitparty.com where they post stuff like this…

3793

Who knows if this will pan out – but I for one hope it does.

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2019, 01:47 PM
Somehow there is both UKIP and a Brexit Party. I'm rather confused by all this.

The Tories have also started polling very badly. Surprised it has taken so long.

Blunderbuss
14-04-2019, 05:24 PM
Somehow there is both UKIP and a Brexit Party. I'm rather confused by all this.

The Tories have also started polling very badly. Surprised it has taken so long.

Yes strange times. According to Politico Farage quit UKIP because: "under Gerard Batten’s leadership ... the party’s direction has changed fundamentally," adding that Batten's "obsession" with far-right activist Tommy Robinson "and fixation with the issue of Islam makes UKIP unrecognisable to many of us."
https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-quits-ukip/

Garvinator
14-04-2019, 07:00 PM
Somehow there is both UKIP and a Brexit Party. I'm rather confused by all this.
My understanding of why Nigel Farage has quit UKIP and started Brexit Party is a little bit different to Blunderbuss, but they are probably connected.

After Leave won the Referendum in 2016 and then after both major parties in 2017 at the General Election said that they would commit to carry out the results of the Referendum, which was for the UK to leave the EU (called Brexit), Nigel Farage mainly believed his job in the UK had been done, except for being able to tell the EU parliament how wrong they had been about the Brexit result.

But as Nigel Farage left the UKIP party, it was taken over by others whose agendas did not follow the original principles that Nigel Farage and his supporters had founded UKIP on, which was to get UK completely out of the EU. That meant out of the Single market, European Court of Justice and Customs Union. And as more and more the new version of UKIP took shape, Nigel Farage and his supporters realised that the fight to keep the referendum result enacted 'remained' (pun intended).

And so with no option to go back to UKIP, Nigel had to set up another party, now called Brexit Party.

And there you have it.


The Tories have also started polling very badly. Surprised it has taken so long.
I am surprised that almost all sides numbers are not in the toilet quite frankly.

Blunderbuss
14-04-2019, 07:46 PM
...And so with no option to go back to UKIP, Nigel had to set up another party, now called Brexit Party.

And there you have it.

For me the best way to understand the new Brexit party is to read Marina Hyde article here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/nigel-farage-brexit-party-comeback-heroics

Summary - "what Nigel and co still seem to be saying with their “respectable vehicle” shtick is: appease us to keep the worse lot out."

Patrick Byrom
14-04-2019, 09:37 PM
... After Leave won the Referendum in 2016 and then after both major parties in 2017 at the General Election said that they would commit to carry out the results of the Referendum, which was for the UK to leave the EU (called Brexit), Nigel Farage mainly believed his job in the UK had been done, except for being able to tell the EU parliament how wrong they had been about the Brexit result. But as Nigel Farage left the UKIP party, it was taken over by others whose agendas did not follow the original principles that Nigel Farage and his supporters had founded UKIP on, which was to get UK completely out of the EU. That meant out of the Single market, European Court of Justice and Customs Union. And as more and more the new version of UKIP took shape, Nigel Farage and his supporters realised that the fight to keep the referendum result enacted 'remained' (pun intended). ... Whether people voting for Leave were actually voting to leave the Single Market is of course one of the issues that makes Brexit such a mess. During the campaign, people on both sides made conflicting claims. For example (https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/):

For example, Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan said during an interview in 2015 that: "To repeat, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market". That is a different stance compared to the main claims of Leave campaigners, and Mr Hannan’s wording isn’t consistent across the interview itself either. Earlier on, he said "absolutely nobody is suggesting we would give up our position in the free market in Europe". Again, because of this loose use of terminology, it’s easy to see why people would have taken different messages away after seeing this interview. On one reading, this is another case of talking about having a continued trading relationship with the EU after Brexit, as distinct from being a member of the single market. There are also examples of leave campaigners claiming the UK could adopt a position similar to Norway—which is still part of the single market while not being an EU member. Arron Banks, a founder of the Leave.EU campaign tweeted in November 2015 “Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK”.

It’s fair to say that these examples are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to claims about the single market, but it makes the case again that the discussion before the referendum wasn’t entirely consistent on the kind of relationship the UK could have with the EU after leaving.


... I am surprised that almost all sides numbers are not in the toilet quite frankly.The Conservatives have always been more divided over Europe than Labour, and they have the misfortune of currently being in government.

Blunderbuss
15-04-2019, 11:35 AM
Clear as mud yougov.co.uk polling (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/13/tories-and-labour-face-uphill-struggle-european-el)

3794

Patrick Byrom
03-05-2019, 10:41 PM
Massive swings to the pro-Remain Liberal Democrats and against the pro-Brexit Conservatives in local elections.

Blunderbuss
10-05-2019, 09:02 PM
Scotland & Wales : scotland-worlds-first-government-to-declare-a-climate-emergency (https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/scotland-worlds-first-government-to-declare-a-climate-emergency/)

UK / England : uk-parliament-declares-climate-emergency (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677)

Ireland : irish-parliament-declares-climate-emergency (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/10/irish-parliament-declares-climate-emergency)

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2019, 07:06 AM
Massive swings to the pro-Remain Liberal Democrats and against the pro-Brexit Conservatives in local elections.

You mean, the Conservative remainers in league with arch-remainer Theresa May who have sabotaged an orderly pullout from the clutches of unelected EU bureaucrats?

Patrick Byrom
11-05-2019, 10:52 AM
You mean, the Conservative remainers in league with arch-remainer Theresa May who have sabotaged an orderly pullout from the clutches of unelected EU bureaucrats?I'm still waiting for your solution to the Irish border problem :(

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2019, 10:28 AM
A Hard Sell (https://www.steynonline.com/9358/a-hard-sell)
by Mark Steyn
Steyn on Britain, 4 May 2019

Anyone who has had any truck with UK Tories over the decades knows that large numbers of them are devious, duplicitous, slimy, oleaginous, frankly repellent and utterly treacherous. But it didn't matter because, when all else failed, their selling point was competence. After less than three years of Theresa May they're now in the difficult position of having to market a not obviously winning combination of incompetence-and-betrayal.

Thursday's local elections in England were the first test of this new strategy. The Conservative Party lost over 1,300 seats. To Nigel Farage's Brexit Party? No. His month-old party was not on the ballot. To Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party? No. Labour managed to lose seats itself, and in fact its share of the vote was no higher than the Tories - 28 per cent. In effect, Theresa May managed to lose to no one. If she were facing no one on Centre Court at Wimbledon, she would still get totaled in straight sets.

The custom among metropolitan party bigwigs after a clobbering in the local or Euro votes is to say that none of these other elections matter a jot or tittle. They're just "protest votes". All that counts is the national election for the national parliament at Westminster - because that's when voters are deciding who actually governs the country. This time round there are two problems with that traditional analysis: First, the central issue for Tory electors is the party's inability to govern, in the sense of being able to effect the most consequential issue before it. And secondly this month's European elections are a literal protest vote, pure and simple. The UK wasn't even supposed to be participating, because it had announced its departure from the EU would occur in March 2019. But March came and went, and the Eurocrats, who are enjoying the implosion of Britain's reputation as a mature stable democracy, agreed to let the fainthearted secessionist stay in the club for another six months. So whichever Britons are elected to the European Parliament on May 23rd will theoretically be there not to participate in the business of the EU, but just to fill the seats until - on its fifth, seventh, twelfth, thirty-ninth vote at Westminster - Mrs May's ersatz "withdrawal agreement" finally passes the House of Commons.

Blunderbuss
13-05-2019, 02:10 PM
.. Theresa May managed to lose to no one.

That's a bit harsh - calling the Lib Dems 'no one', also the Greens did well apparently!

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2019, 02:15 PM
Now seeing lots of fun polls such as this one:

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 27% (-6)
BREX: 20% (+6)
CON: 19% (-4)
LDEM: 14% (+7)
CHUK: 7% (-2)
GRN: 5% (+2)
UKIP: 3% (-2)

via @ComRes, 09 May
Chgs. w/ 16 Apr

Blunderbuss
13-05-2019, 03:27 PM
Now seeing lots of fun polls such as this one:

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 27% (-6)
BREX: 20% (+6)
CON: 19% (-4)
LDEM: 14% (+7)
CHUK: 7% (-2)
GRN: 5% (+2)
UKIP: 3% (-2)

via @ComRes, 09 May
Chgs. w/ 16 Apr


Voters in the UK see the European elections as a chance for a ‘free hit’ and because unlike general elections they use a system of proportional representation, it not unusual for fringe parties to prosper. For example, here is the 2014 results from European elections: How the UK is gearing up for likelihood of polls (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47871652)

3811

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2019, 03:41 PM
The major party polling for the European elections specifically is even worse for the majors than the one I posted above, especially the Tories.

Apparently this free-swing effect in the European elections contaminates the national polls too, but that only goes so far.

Blunderbuss
14-05-2019, 12:41 AM
Just received my postal vote for the European Parliament for the East Midlands. I have a choice of 8 parties and one independent.

1 Change UK - The Independent Group
2 Conservative and Unionist Party
3 Green Party
4 Independent Network
5 Labour Party
6 Liberal Democrat’s
7 The Brexit Party
8 UK Independence Party (UKIP)
And the Independent - Rood , Simon Louis

Each party has 5 names listed 1 to 5 but boringly all I can do is select one Party from the list of nine and marked it with a cross. No voting below the line. So I can’t put Annunziata Mary Rees-Mogg (listed 1 under the Brexit Party) last, like I could in a below the line Oz senate vote :(

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2019, 01:46 AM
New push to throw May under the bus (would they really take her down on the floor of Parliament?). Also more rumours she's about to resign. And more ridiculously bad polling.

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2019, 06:59 AM
The Brexit Party Poses an Existential Threat to the Tories (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/brexit-party-poses-an-existential-threat-to-the-tories/)
By JOHN O'SULLIVAN
National Review, 22 May 2019

It’s only about a month since Farage set up the Brexit party to protest against May’s postponement and evident betrayal of Brexit. But it has already become the party with the largest single bloc of support in this Thursday’s European elections. Polls consistently give it between 30 and 35 percent support in an election that, in most constituencies, offers voters a choice of six or more parties. That is a massive tsunami of support in which Farage is swimming. The most recent poll has the Brexit party at 37 percent and the Tories at only 7 percent.

What this also means, of course, is that the other parties are doing very badly. Most polls have the Tories falling into the doldrums of being over or under 10 percent. That’s an appalling result for a governing party. Labour hovers about in the teens and low twenties, losing some Leave supporters to the Brexit party and some Remain supporters to the Liberal Democrats. Nor is the Brexit party a purely English phenomenon, as its critics often suggest. It’s now the second-largest party in Scotland and the largest party in Wales — two countries in which the Tories have now fallen to below sea level in the polls.

Two weeks ago, in the Australian magazine Quadrant, I wrote that these shifts in party support were dramatic but in line with recent political developments:


The unexpectedly smooth and professional launch of the Brexit party which has mustered an impressive roster of candidates; Farage’s own assured performances in television interviews; the hostile public reaction to a fly-on-the-wall documentary film in which the EU’s Brexit negotiators were shown sneering at the Brits and boasting (apparently after guzzling the Sherry) that they had turned the Britain into a “colony” as they had intended from the start; fast-growing support for a “No Deal” Brexit, which was minimal a year ago; and above all, May’s betrayal of her Brexit Day promise which seems to have been a more significant turning point in popular attitudes to her and to the Tory party than anyone expected in advance.

If Farage seemed to be enjoying the Mandate of Heaven two weeks ago, heaven has become more generous since.

With only two days to go before the polls open, Farage was given three boosts that most politicians can only daydream about: a milkshake was poured over him by a bearded Leftie; the prime minister obligingly broke a major promise not to hold a second referendum on Brexit, as if to remind the voters why they were opposing her and supporting him; and an establishment quango, the Electoral Commission, having given the Brexit party a clean bill of health on its financing the week before, responded to an evidence-free demand from former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown that the party’s finances should be investigated for illegal contributions by returning to its offices two days before the election and going through its books again for several hours and finding nothing wrong — almost as if there were, you know, an establishment conspiracy against Farage, Brexit, and the party bearing its name. In fact, there’s almost a conspiracy of events to help them.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2019, 07:48 AM
Apparently all over for May.

Incidentally the 1922 Committee can change the rules and allow a second leadership ballot whenever it wants to.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2019, 09:00 AM
Daniel Hewitt
@DanielHewittITV
NEW: I understand the 1922 executive has voted tonight on whether or not to change Tory party rules to allow a new confidence vote in Theresa May. The votes have been sealed in an envelope, and if the PM hasn’t announced she’s resigned by Friday, they will open it.

Patrick Byrom
23-05-2019, 12:01 PM
So what is Farage's solution to the Irish border problem? Does he even have one? For some balance, this is a Guardian report on Farage (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/22/nigel-farage-scandals-rivals-brexit-party-european-elections) - unbelievably one of his candidates is an IRA supporter:


And so nothing sticks. Less than a fortnight ago, the Sun ran a front-page story that Farage had “legged it after his chauffeur-driven 4x4 crashed head-on with a Jag carrying a toddler”. This was not some ancient episode rehashed. The crash had happened earlier this month, involving Farage and a car carrying a 13-month-old boy. The child’s father told the paper that Farage walked off and “didn’t even bother to see if we were OK”. Farage said that he did check no one was hurt – and the story came and went.

Meanwhile, imagine Farage’s rhetorical fury if, say, Labour had adopted as a candidate someone who was a member of a party that was on record supporting the IRA’s campaign of violence, and who refused to disavow that stance, even when confronted by the father of a child murdered by an IRA bomb. And yet that’s an accurate description of Claire Fox, number one on the Brexit party list for northwest England.

Patrick Byrom
26-05-2019, 01:46 PM
Apparently all over for May. Incidentally the 1922 Committee can change the rules and allow a second leadership ballot whenever it wants to.I hope Johnson becomes PM so that he has to deal with the problems he created.

Patrick Byrom
28-05-2019, 07:29 PM
While Farage's Brexit Party has (understandably) attracted the headlines from the European elections, the parties supporting Remain easily beat the parties supporting Brexit.

Blunderbuss
30-05-2019, 12:27 PM
Boris Johnson ordered to appear in court (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48445430)

Boris Johnson has been ordered to appear in court over claims he lied by saying the UK gave the EU £350m a week.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2019, 02:51 AM
Boris Johnson ordered to appear in court (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48445430)

Boris Johnson has been ordered to appear in court over claims he lied by saying the UK gave the EU £350m a week.


Only in the UK can someone be taken to court for allegedly extravagant political claims …from this article:

It is a private prosecution launched by campaigner Marcus Ball, who crowdfunded £200,000 for the case.

A source close to Mr Johnson called the case a "politically motivated attempt to reverse Brexit".

His lawyers argued it was "a stunt".

The source close to Mr Johnson said the decision to summon him was "extraordinary" and "risks undermining our democracy".

"It is not the role of criminal law to regulate political speech," they said.

"If this case is allowed to proceed then the state, rather than the public, will be put in charge of determining the strength of arguments at elections."

The private prosecution was also criticised by Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who said it was "fundamentally ill-judged and improper".

"It is a grave error to try and use legal process to settle political questions," he told the BBC.

"The issue at hand is whether it was right to use the gross or net level of our contribution to the European Union - that is a matter of free speech and the democratic process."

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2019, 02:57 AM
While Farage's Brexit Party has (understandably) attracted the headlines from the European elections, the parties supporting Remain easily beat the parties supporting Brexit.

That's delusional, as Brandon O'Neill explains in The Brexit Surge: The Euro elections confirm that millions of people want real, radical democratic change (https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/05/27/the-brexit-surge/):


And still the establishment is in denial. Even following the stellar performance of a brand new party in the Euro elections, still the political establishment and its cheerleaders on social media are in a state of blinkered, fingers-in-ears denial about political feeling in the UK. How bad is their denial? Get this: the Brexit Party, barely six weeks old, soared to victory in the EU elections, decimated the Tories, conquered historic Labour-held territories like Bolsover and Hartlepool, and became the largest party in the entire European Parliament, and yet the No1 political trend on Twitter is… #RemainSurge.

Yes, these people, these inhabitants of the Brexitphobic echo chamber, have convinced themselves that this electoral revolt in which the Brexit Party steamrollered all the other parties is actually a victory for them. This takes self-delusion to giddy new heights.

‘This is a really strong night for Remain’, said Caroline Lucas, like a real-life version of that meme showing a dog saying ‘This is fine’ as his house burns down. ‘Tonight the Brexit Party wasn’t supported by around two-thirds of voters’, said Hilary Benn, perversely ignoring the millions of people who did vote for the Brexit Party, who vastly outnumber those who voted for his Labour Party. Alastair Campbell interpreted the election results as a mandate for a second referendum, which is almost as mad as saying Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed within 45 minutes.

In the face of this colossal culture of denial among the political and media elites, let’s reiterate some basic facts. The Brexit Party battered Labour and the Tories. It won more than five million votes. It won 31.6 per cent of the vote, which is 8.4 per cent more than the Tories and Labour combined: the Tories got 9.1 per cent (fifth place) and Labour got 14.1 per cent (third place). The Brexit Party got 28 seats, making it the largest party in the European Parliament. It won in every single region in England apart from London, speaking profoundly to the massive political and moral divide separating the capital – the heart of the political establishment – from the rest of England. It also did spectacularly well in Wales, topping the poll and winning in 19 out of 22 council areas.

As for the ‘Remain surge’ idea. Get real. The two parties that are most explicitly anti-Brexit and have expressed their searingly anti-democratic intention to overthrow the mass vote of 2016 – the Lib Dems and the Greens – won a combined vote of 29.7 per cent. That’s two per cent less than the Brexit Party got. The most poisonously elitist anti-Brexit Party – Change UK – disappeared without a trace, winning 2.8 per cent of the vote. Remember how much Change UK was talked up by the liberal media? At one point the chattering classes really did see this party as the saviour of Britain from the horrors of Brexit and yet it won a pathetic, paltry level of electoral support – 600,000 votes to the Brexit Party’s five million.

Then there are Labour and the Tories, of course, whose votes some Remainer fanatics are including in their ‘Remain surge’ thesis. Now, it is my view, and many other people’s view, that both the Tories and Labour are pursuing a Brexit so ‘soft’ that it is not Brexit at all. But everyone knows it is also entirely feasible, and likely in fact, that these parties are still winning support from Leave people. To include all Labour votes in the Remain Surge idea is just naked intellectual dishonesty.


O'Neill goes on to warn Brexit supporters not to be too complacent, because of relatively low turnout that could be the result of the incessant demonization of Brexit supporters and a feeling of futility that the Establishment will continue to override the voters’ wishes.

Patrick Byrom
31-05-2019, 10:01 AM
That's delusional, as Brandon O'Neill explains in The Brexit Surge: The Euro elections confirm that millions of people want real, radical democratic change (https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/05/27/the-brexit-surge/):

... As for the ‘Remain surge’ idea. Get real. The two parties that are most explicitly anti-Brexit and have expressed their searingly anti-democratic intention to overthrow the mass vote of 2016 – the Lib Dems and the Greens – won a combined vote of 29.7 per cent. That’s two per cent less than the Brexit Party got. The most poisonously elitist anti-Brexit Party – Change UK – disappeared without a trace, winning 2.8 per cent of the vote. Remember how much Change UK was talked up by the liberal media? At one point the chattering classes really did see this party as the saviour of Britain from the horrors of Brexit and yet it won a pathetic, paltry level of electoral support – 600,000 votes to the Brexit Party’s five million.

O'Neill fails basic maths! If the LDP and Greens got 2% less than the Brexit Party, and pro-Remain Change got 2.8%, that obviously means that the three pro-Remain parties together got more votes than the Brexit Party.

Ian Murray
01-06-2019, 09:05 PM
Britain is in crisis. So why is President Trump coming to visit? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/britain-is-in-crisis-so-why-is-president-trump-coming-to-visit/2019/05/31/e4eab7da-83ca-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.09d518bff143&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1)
Washington Post
31.5.19

Britain is in the grip of an unprecedented political meltdown, a crisis on a scale that was unthinkable even six months ago. The prime minister has resigned and is leaving office within days. Support for the two historic political parties, Labour and Conservative, is at an all-time low. ...

More than a dozen people are running open campaigns for the Conservative Party leadership, members of the Labour Party are openly fighting with one another, and the government has ceased to make decisions of any kind.

And, next week, President Trump is arriving. Why?

Clearly, he’s not coming to town to conduct any important business, to do any deals or negotiate any treaties: There isn’t anybody to negotiate with. He might issue some threats — he reportedly plans to say he will cut off intelligence cooperation with Britain if it continues to do business with the Chinese company Huawei — but the British cabinet isn’t in a position to coordinate a response, so it hardly matters. Nor will his presence enhance the fabled, albeit somewhat shopworn, Anglo-American relationship. His last visit to Britain was a PR catastrophe. He insulted the prime minister, he embarrassed Queen Elizabeth II, and he even managed to annoy the Sun newspaper, a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid that attacked him as “Fake Schmooze.” At the time of his last visit, 77 percent of Britons disapproved of the U.S. president, and there is no reason to think those numbers have improved....

But other members of the royal family have, it seems, no choice. A state visit, as opposed to a working visit, implies extensive time spent with the queen, who is head of state, up to and including that Buckingham Palace banquet. And this, it seems, is the point.

Trump will not accomplish anything, either for the United States or for Britain. But he will achieve something that is, for him, actually more important. He will be photographed with some uniquely recognizable, world-class celebrities: the queen, Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry. They will all be there, doing their duty, because they have to. And Trump’s compulsive, narcissistic need to be the center of attention will be serviced....

The logistics of this visit, like any presidential visit, are immense. The British state will spend 18 million pounds (about $22 million) on his security; the U.S. taxpayer will spend many multiples of that sum; hundreds of hours will have been wasted on planning. And all so that one man’s fragile ego can be boosted for another day.

Blunderbuss
03-06-2019, 12:04 PM
UK are you ok? (https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/bvvmw1/uk_are_you_ok/)

3824

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2019, 10:32 PM
114 votes for Boris Johnson in the first round of the Tory MPs ballot, which eliminated McVey, Leadsom and Harper.

Next round in five days time. They keep voting until field is narrowed to two, who are then put to a membership vote.

Johnson only has to hold his vote from here to make the final two.

Blunderbuss
14-06-2019, 02:04 PM
bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48631116 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48631116)

Chuka Umunna joins the Lib Dems after quitting Change UK.

Look likely there will be one less party on the ballot paper in the UK

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2019, 09:39 PM
Round 2

126 JOHNSON
46 HUNT
41 GOVE
37 STEWART
33 JAVID
30 RAAB

Raab out (last and failed to make threshhold anyway); Javid made the threshhold exactly. Hancock withdrew after the first ballot.

Blunderbuss
20-06-2019, 01:49 PM
Round 2

126 JOHNSON
46 HUNT
41 GOVE
37 STEWART
33 JAVID
30 RAAB

Raab out (last and failed to make threshhold anyway); Javid made the threshhold exactly. Hancock withdrew after the first ballot.

And now Rory Stewart is also out.

I'm told that further members of the Shepherd family are looking in to migrating to Australia if BoJo wins!

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2019, 10:32 PM
Fourth round (from BBC politics)

• Boris Johnson 157 (+14)
• Michael Gove 61 (+10)
• Jeremy Hunt 59 (+5)

Eliminated:

• Sajid Javid 34 (-4)

Blunderbuss
21-06-2019, 07:18 AM
Final two Johnson and Hunt, as Gove is piped at the post...

Johnson 160
Hunt 77
Gove 75

Analysis by Laura Kuenssberg: -

There's no doubt that Mr Johnson is, at this stage (and there's a long way to go), widely expected to end up in Number 10.

But this result is an enormous relief to his camp, for the simple reason that they think Mr Hunt is easier to beat.

Forget any differences in style between the two challengers and their comparative talents - Jeremy Hunt voted Remain in the EU referendum.

And for many Tory members it is a priority for the next leader to have been committed to that cause, rather than a recent convert, however zealous.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2019, 09:45 AM
Gove supporters alleging tactical voting. What a surprise. System was incredibly gameable. Any candidate who couldn't get a third of the vote was always at risk of getting gamed by the leader.

Blunderbuss
18-07-2019, 01:08 PM
It seems certain that Johnson will be the UKs new PM next week. You just need to look here https://twitter.com/Doctor_Hutch/status/1149776827533156355 (https://twitter.com/Doctor_Hutch/status/1149776827533156355) to see why that's a very bad idea.

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2019, 09:11 PM
Boris Johnson wins the ballot with 66.4%. He will be sworn in tomorrow.

Desmond
23-07-2019, 09:36 PM
Australia: "Donald Trump is the biggest joke of a leader on the world stage."
UK: "Hold my beer."

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2019, 02:43 AM
Australia: "Donald Trump is the biggest joke of a leader on the world stage."
UK: "Hold my beer."

Sore loser ×2 ↑↑

Trump looks like winning by an even bigger electoral college margin because the Dems are lurching so far leftwards, and finally the UK has a leader who will implement the will of the people as expressed in the Brexit referendum. The people of the vast majority of USA counties have rejected rule by an elitist coastal class, and the people of the UK rejected rule by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.

Desmond
24-07-2019, 10:15 AM
Sore loser ×2 ↑↑

Trump looks like winning by an even bigger electoral college margin because the Dems are lurching so far leftwards, and finally the UK has a leader who will implement the will of the people as expressed in the Brexit referendum. The people of the vast majority of USA counties have rejected rule by an elitist coastal class, and the people of the UK rejected rule by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.

Errr, I didn't have a horse in this particular race, so not sure what I am meant to have lost? My comment is purely as an occasional observer of UK politics, that Johnson appears to be the comic relief of the cast. Is that wrong?

Also my understanding is, again just as an occasional observer, that his predecessor was trying to execute Brexit. Trying quite a lot actually.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2019, 10:27 PM
Word that Johnson is intending to prorogue Parliament to stop the Parliament from mucking about with what he wants to do with Brexit. Interesting to see if anyone can find a way to stop him. Prorogation is actually hard to stop because it is a royal prerogative exercised on advice directly from the government (not necessarily the parliament.)

Patrick Byrom
28-08-2019, 10:39 PM
Word that Johnson is intending to prorogue Parliament to stop the Parliament from mucking about with what he wants to do with Brexit. Interesting to see if anyone can find a way to stop him. Prorogation is actually hard to stop because it is a royal prerogative exercised on advice directly from the government (not necessarily the parliament.)Of course during the referendum Brexit was promised as a way of returning control to the British people. Now a leader that they didn't elect will be making decisions that they can't stop. While Brexit is driving the economy into recession.

antichrist
28-08-2019, 10:40 PM
Errr, I didn't have a horse in this particular race, so not sure what I am meant to have lost? My comment is purely as an occasional observer of UK politics, that Johnson appears to be the comic relief of the cast. Is that wrong?

Also my understanding is, again just as an occasional observer, that his predecessor was trying to execute Brexit. Trying quite a lot actually.

I haven't read this thread but there are allegations that the Brexit poll was sabotaged/influenced by Russia to divide Europe.

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2019, 12:39 AM
Errr, I didn't have a horse in this particular race, so not sure what I am meant to have lost? My comment is purely as an occasional observer of UK politics, that Johnson appears to be the comic relief of the cast. Is that wrong?
No. I withdraw and apologize.


Also my understanding is, again just as an occasional observer, that his predecessor was trying to execute Brexit. Trying quite a lot actually.
Theresa May was a Remainer, and seemed to be making too great concessions to the EU.

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2019, 12:50 AM
Of course during the referendum Brexit was promised as a way of returning control to the British people.
Hard to argue with that. A good majority of Britons wanted laws to be made by British elected leaders, not by Brussels bureaucrats.


Now a leader that they didn't elect will be making decisions that they can't stop. While Brexit is driving the economy into recession.
Are you sure that Brexit is the main cause? The USA's trade war with China is having a lot of effects in other countries.

A lot of the problem is due to the UK's horribly high tariffs, much worse than Trump's, for non-UK members.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2019, 11:36 AM
A good majority of Britons wanted laws to be made by British elected leaders, not by Brussels bureaucrats.

You mean a rather thin majority (51.9%) of those (72.2%) who actually voted, meaning that only 37.5% (not a majority at all) actually voted to leave.

Of course it is what it is and those who didn't vote in effect consented to whatever the rest decided. But it's simply not the case that a "majority of Britons" expressed any particular view.

Patrick Byrom
30-08-2019, 01:17 PM
You mean a rather thin majority (51.9%) of those (72.2%) who actually voted, meaning that only 37.5% (not a majority at all) actually voted to leave. Of course it is what it is and those who didn't vote in effect consented to whatever the rest decided. But it's simply not the case that a "majority of Britons" expressed any particular view.And a "majority of Britons" definitely didn't vote for a no deal Brexit, since they were repeatedly told by Johnson and others that this would never happen.

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2019, 01:31 PM
You mean a rather thin majority (51.9%) of those (72.2%) who actually voted, meaning that only 37.5% (not a majority at all) actually voted to leave.
51.89% to 48.11%, so a 3.78% margin. But then Cameron won the 2015 election by winning only 36.9% of the vote. So there was more support for Brexit than for the winning party of most elections.


Of course it is what it is and those who didn't vote in effect consented to whatever the rest decided.
That's the case with all other elections. And elections in recent history have had lower turnouts: a nadir of 59% in 2001, and rising to 61% in 2005, 65% in 2010, 66% in 2015 and 69% in 2017, but still much less than the Brexit referendum.


But it's simply not the case that a "majority of Britons" expressed any particular view.
OK then, but by that reasoning, "majority rules" hardly applies in any election in the western world.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2019, 02:39 PM
51.89% to 48.11%, so a 3.78% margin. But then Cameron won the 2015 election by winning only 36.9% of the vote. So there was more support for Brexit than for the winning party of most elections.

It's not a valid comparison as you're comparing a Yes/No vote with the primary vote of one of many parties. Had the same election been conducted under Australia's system then the two-party preferred vote for the Tories in 2015 would have been more than 52%.


That's the case with all other elections. And elections in recent history have had lower turnouts: a nadir of 59% in 2001, and rising to 61% in 2005, 65% in 2010, 66% in 2015 and 69% in 2017, but still much less than the Brexit referendum.

That's all true, and it's the same thing. Somebody has to win, but that still doesn't mean the majority of all people who could have voted supported the winner.


OK then, but by that reasoning, "majority rules" hardly applies in any election in the western world.

Nor is it realistic to expect it to in that sense.

I think this trend of outsourcing major decisions to voters unnecessarily is silly, but nonetheless a government that went to an election with a policy of doing so was so resoundingly elected that it pretty clearly would have won under a fair electoral system. And also there has been an election since where voters could have installed a No Brexit Party had there been overwhelming concern about the vagueness of it all. But it still doesn't mean there's majority support of all Britons for any course of action, even broadly.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2019, 11:34 AM
It's not a valid comparison as you're comparing a Yes/No vote with the primary vote of one of many parties. Had the same election been conducted under Australia's system then the two-party preferred vote for the Tories in 2015 would have been more than 52%.
Fair point.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2019, 03:37 AM
The Economic Discussion on Brexit That Isn't Happening (https://fee.org/articles/the-economic-discussion-on-brexit-that-isnt-happening)
Few discussions on the economic outcomes of Brexit find their way into Brexit media discourse. Why?
Graham Cunningham, FEE, 31 August 2019

Millions of words have now been expended arguing the economic case for and against Brexit. It is a sad reflection on the economic literacy of the British political class and its media commentariat that so few of these arguments have been informed either by hard economic data or any deep understanding of the British economy.

The following is not an attempt at a definitive Brexit cost/benefit analysis but rather is intended to outline some of the underexplored economic realities that might have made for a more constructive debate. (“Remain” arguments alternate with “Leave” arguments to avoid the suspicion of some covert agenda here.)

Patrick Byrom
01-09-2019, 01:30 PM
There has been plenty of discussion of the economic effects of a no-deal Brexit. The problem is that the supporters of this repeatedly claim that all the economic problems (and other issues, like the 'backstop') are imaginary. Here (https://politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/27/this-is-what-no-deal-brexit-actually-looks-like) is a detailed listings of the economic horrors awaiting it if the UK leaves without a deal.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2019, 11:32 PM
Parliament resuming tomorrow.

Tory cabinet meeting tonight, quite a bit of speculation about a possible election before Oct 31, but this would need Labor's consent.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2019, 10:06 PM
Motion to take control of the agenda will be dealt with tonight around 3:30 am AEST.

If it succeeds, debate on the anti-NoDealBrexit bill will take place tomorrow around midnight - 4 am AEST.

However, if the rebels take hold of the agenda then Johnson intends to seek an election for October 14.

Kevin Bonham
04-09-2019, 12:42 AM
Oh Johnson just lost his majority (which was a combined Conservative/DUP majority anyway). A Tory, Phillip Lee, quit the party and joined the Liberal Democrats.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2019, 04:46 AM
Oh Johnson just lost his majority (which was a combined Conservative/DUP majority anyway). A Tory, Phillip Lee, quit the party and joined the Liberal Democrats.

Mark Stein put it (https://www.steynonline.com/9713/triumph-of-the-will-grace):


As for Brexit, Boris and his opponents are now engaged in a battle for control of the calendar between now and October 31st. Today the Johnson ministry lost its majority in the House of Commons when a "Tory rebel" called Philip Lee crossed the floor and joined the Liberal Democrats. "Tory rebel" broadly translates as "establishment suck-up happy to subvert the will of the people", but it remains to be seen how many others will be willing to do what Lee did. Boris' advantage is that the many forces ranged against him in his own party and the opposition are in complete disagreement about what they actually want and even when they know what they want (no Brexit at all) are too slippery to say it. Judging from the polls, the public is beginning to pick up the whiff of evasion and shiftiness.

If the last three years have taught anything, however, it's that these "rebels" calling for "people's votes" feel largely immune from the vox populi. For a just about functioning Westminster system, the next few weeks of parliamentary jockeying could prove the most constitutionally testing since the Australian dismissal.

Patrick Byrom
04-09-2019, 10:04 AM
There's no 'will of the people', of course, in British politics, only the decisions of the Parliament. Which has voted to stop the 'no-deal' Brexit which people didn't vote for in the referendum.

Patrick Byrom
11-09-2019, 08:21 PM
The Court of Session in Scotland has ruled that Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was illegal.

Patrick Byrom
24-09-2019, 09:40 PM
And now the Supreme Court has also ruled it illegal! (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/uk-supreme-court-ruling-key-issues-behind-judges-decision-boris-johnson-suspension-parliament)


The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable”, and subject to the law. Giving the judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.” They then ruled that the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.” Lady Hale added: “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.”

In the most striking part of its ruling, the court said the speakers in both the Commons and Lords can now reconvene both houses immediately. The judges upheld the court of session’s ruling that prorogation was void. They also stated that the privy council’s decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament was also “unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed.” In effect, Baroness Hale said, “parliament has not been prorogued”.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2019, 01:37 AM
And now the Supreme Court has also ruled it illegal! (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/uk-supreme-court-ruling-key-issues-behind-judges-decision-boris-johnson-suspension-parliament)


The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable”, and subject to the law. Giving the judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.” They then ruled that the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.” Lady Hale added: “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.”

In the most striking part of its ruling, the court said the speakers in both the Commons and Lords can now reconvene both houses immediately. The judges upheld the court of session’s ruling that prorogation was void. They also stated that the privy council’s decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament was also “unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed.” In effect, Baroness Hale said, “parliament has not been prorogued”.

The UK fortunately doesn't have the American abomination of judicial review. Sir Peter Marshall, former Assistant Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, argues Supreme Court: on Shaky Ground (https://briefingsforbrexit.com/supreme-court-on-shaky-ground):


Sir Peter Marshall argues that the Supreme Court were unconvincing in stating that their judgement was not about Brexit. The Court ignores the reasons why no deal is still an issue including the difficulties made for the PM by parliament and the way in which Brussels has played fast and loose with its own rules. The use of judicial power to try to thwart the biggest vote in British history represents an outrageous intrusion into politics by eleven individuals none of whom we can vote out.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2019, 01:39 AM
'Spineless disgrace - let me tell them TRUTH' Geoffrey Cox in OUTSTANDING rant in Commons
GEOFFREY COX launched into an explosive attack against Parliament in the House of Commons, raging it is a "disgrace” and questioning their “moral right to sit”.
By PAUL WITHERS, Express, 25 Sep 2019

Geoffrey Cox’s six great points in the Commons:


“The time is coming when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas."
"This spineless gang on the frontbench have not got the guts to put an election motion into providence because most of them do not want their leader in power."
"This cowardly Parliament should have the courage to face the electorate, but it won’t. It won’t because so many of them are really about preventing us leaving the European Union."
"Denying the electorate the chance of having its say this Parliament is a dead Parliament. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches."
“They could vote no confidence at any time, but they are too cowardly."
”Twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide whether they should sit in their seats while they block 17.4 million votes - this Parliament is a disgrace."

Patrick Byrom
02-10-2019, 12:20 PM
The UK fortunately doesn't have the American abomination of judicial review. Sir Peter Marshall, former Assistant Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, argues Supreme Court: on Shaky Ground (https://briefingsforbrexit.com/supreme-court-on-shaky-ground):

Sir Peter Marshall argues that the Supreme Court were unconvincing in stating that their judgement was not about Brexit. The Court ignores the reasons why no deal is still an issue including the difficulties made for the PM by parliament and the way in which Brussels has played fast and loose with its own rules. The use of judicial power to try to thwart the biggest vote in British history represents an outrageous intrusion into politics by eleven individuals none of whom we can vote out.How does allowing Parliament to sit "thwart the biggest vote in British history"? Anyway, a referendum in Britain has no authority unless it is recognised by Parliament.

Kevin Bonham
18-10-2019, 04:22 PM
The EU has approved a deal on Brexit but Johnson has to get it through parliament in a very unusual Saturday sitting. Yesterday the UK House of Commons passed (only just, 287-275) a procedural motion that allows for it to amend the deal rather than just having a yes/no vote, a possible amendment being making it conditional on a confirming referendum.

antichrist
18-10-2019, 07:15 PM
Being a late starter here so not sure what has been discussed but didn't the Russians also interfere in the Brexit referendum?

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2019, 10:44 PM
Could be an election in December, though it will take all night our time to get through all the motions and posturing. Dec 12 is the government's preferred date but may well be moved to Dec 11 or Dec 9 to appease other parties.

However there is also the prospect of attempts to amend the motion to allow 16-17 year olds to vote.

Kevin Bonham
30-10-2019, 03:34 PM
However there is also the prospect of attempts to amend the motion to allow 16-17 year olds to vote.

This amendment wasn't accepted for debate (they have to be ruthless with amendments as it takes c. 15 mins for a division) and the motion was approved 438-20 so there will be an election on December 12.

Amusingly after all the early election attempts that couldn't get a plurality let alone the required two-thirds, this one only required a plurality but actually got two-thirds!

Blunderbuss
01-11-2019, 03:01 PM
... so there will be an election on December 12. ...

A lot of talk about tactical voting in the UK election - why-tactical-voting-is-the-talk-of-the-uk-s-upcoming-general-election (https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/31/why-tactical-voting-is-the-talk-of-the-uk-s-upcoming-general-election)

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2019, 10:25 AM
A lot of talk about tactical voting in the UK election - why-tactical-voting-is-the-talk-of-the-uk-s-upcoming-general-election (https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/31/why-tactical-voting-is-the-talk-of-the-uk-s-upcoming-general-election)

Tactical voting is a bug not a feature of FPP.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2019, 12:54 PM
Nigel Farage is on track to securing a landslide for the Tories, as a shock poll in Grimsby shows (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-grimsby-tory-landslide-labour-general-election-a9213846.html)
The time has come, then, to imagine Boris Johnson not just winning, but winning big, and what a full five-year term under him would mean
Sean O'Grady, Independent, 22 Nov 2019

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2019, 04:10 PM
Poll added for anyone interested.

Blunderbuss
03-12-2019, 10:46 AM
My guess is the Tories will win the most seats but not an overall majority. I'm not sure they'll be able to govern given they are the only party not willing to put the final Brexit deal to another public vote. Having said that, despite Boris having sold them out, it is just possible that the DUP will come back on board if only to avoid a Corbyn minority government.

Mind you given @murpharoo 30nov2019 (https://twitter.com/murpharoo/status/1200525153525878784) I guess anything could happen.

Patrick Byrom
10-12-2019, 04:00 PM
My guess is the Tories will win the most seats but not an overall majority. I'm not sure they'll be able to govern given they are the only party not willing to put the final Brexit deal to another public vote. Having said that, despite Boris having sold them out, it is just possible that the DUP will come back on board if only to avoid a Corbyn minority government.I'm certain Labour won't have a majority. But whether the Tories win a majority depends on the number of people who vote tactically under the FPP voting system - which is anybody's guess!

Blunderbuss
11-12-2019, 12:16 PM
Interesting fake news spread by social media story brewing in the UK...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/world/europe/sick-uk-boy-boris-johnson.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/world/europe/sick-uk-boy-boris-johnson.html)


In an interview, Mr. Mitchinson said, “I’ve never experienced anything quite like this where there is a coordinated, relentless attacking of the message.”

“We’re living in strange times,” he added, “where for whatever reason people are drawn to social media messages and come to trust them more than they trust their local newspaper who they have had a trusted relationship with probably all their lives.”

By Tuesday night, the paper had published its own response, with a blazing headline on the front page: “Don’t Be Fooled By Fake News.”

Plus this last night on the BBC: @ToryFibs (https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1204535324103364608) linking the source (tenuously) back to the Health Secretary.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2019, 01:30 PM
Wiesenthal Center names UK’s Corbyn top anti-Semite of 2019 (https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-group-names-uks-corbyn-top-anti-semite-of-2019)
Ahead of Thursday’s British elections, Labour chief placed above US synagogue killer on group’s annual list; rabbi warns electing him would make UK a ‘pariah’
By TOI STAFF, Times of Israel, 8 December 2019

Jewish groups and others have rung alarm bells over the prospect of Corbyn’s promotion to 10 Downing Street with increasing distress as the December 12 British election has approached, accusing him of allowing a massive rise in anti-Semitism within the ranks of the party and of being anti-Semitic himself.

“‘No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party,” Rabbi Marvin Hier, the head of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, told the British Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html).

“If Jeremy Corbyn wins, he will make Britain a pariah on the world stage,” Hier said. “To have a person seeking the highest office who ignored anti-Semitism for years, who did everything in his power to encourage it is shocking.”

Much of the worry over Corbyn is spurred by revelations about his record that have emerged since he became Labour leader. These include him describing Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”; defending an anti-Semitic mural in East London; and a seeming willingness to associate with alleged anti-Semites, terrorists, and Holocaust-deniers.

Blunderbuss
11-12-2019, 01:54 PM
Different take on Corbyn and antisemitism here @davidgraeber 4 Dec 2019 (https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1201950245804027904)

Blunderbuss
11-12-2019, 01:58 PM
And then this @johnmcdonnellMP 10 Dec 2019 (https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1204525710683058177) :)

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2019, 12:22 PM
I've voted for small Tory majority in the poll, which is what most of the election models have at present, but medium Tory majority is almost as likely if the polls are anywhere near accurate.

UK polls and the UK election system are such rubbish that anything from a Labour minority government to an enormous Tory majority shouldn't be surprising.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2019, 08:34 AM
Tories 368 in the exit poll so they will probably get over 350. The exit poll has been very accurate in recent elections.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2019, 01:03 PM
Tories 368 in the exit poll so they will probably get over 350. The exit poll has been very accurate in recent elections.

So "Medium Conservative majority" that no one picked.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2019, 01:11 PM
The revised projection is 357.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2019, 01:32 PM
The revised projection is 357.

Congrats! You were the closest of the three poll entrants.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2019, 02:07 PM
Now revised again to 365.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2019, 10:06 PM
With one to go the Tories won 364 [edit: they won it, so 365.]

Interesting events of the night:

* Lib Dem leader loses seat to SNP by 149 votes
* Labour escapes in two seats because of Brexit/Tory vote splitting
* Tories win Kensington (where the Grenfell disaster occurred) by 0.3% over split Labour and Lib Dem candidates. A ridiculous first past the post result.
* Former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson had a very narrow escape having promised to skinnydip in Loch Ness if the SNP won 50 or more seats. After being projected to 55 in the exit poll they fell short on 48.

UK opinion polls were pretty accurate this time.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2019, 06:37 AM
Saw this report:

Sterling is trading at $1.3474, more than 2.4% higher, while the FTSE 100 is up 1.8%, as Boris Johnson returned to Downing Street with a big parliamentary majority. The "huge great stonking mandate" likely means backing for his Brexit deal and the departure from the EU by the end of next month. While that reduces a significant amount of Brexit uncertainty, the U.K. could still have a hard exit from the single market and customs union at the end of 2020 if the two sides cannot strike a trade agreement.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2019, 09:46 AM
Embrace Unilateral Free Trade with the UK — Right Now (https://mises.org/wire/embrace-unilateral-free-trade-uk-%E2%80%94-right-now)
Ryan McMaken, Mises.org, 13 Dec 2019

With the issue of UK independence from the EU, the issue of trade between the UK and the outside world beyond Europe now appears to be much more of an urgent reality.

Trade with the EU has long been a hobby horse of the Remainers, who claim that the UK must remain inside the EU or the UK's exporters will be cut off from outside markets.

This has never been a very plausible argument because if the EU were to simply cut the UK out of European trade, the cost of living for people in EU member states would go up considerably. It can't be assumed the UK would have no leverage in such a case. Moreover, as Peter Lilley, former Secreatry of State for Trade and Industry pointed out, it is likely that paying an EU tariff would be less costly to the UK than continuing the pay the enormous sums required of British taxpayers to remain EU members.

Moreover, because membership in the EU requires member states adhere to the EU's trade restrictions on non-EU states, the UK is restricted in its own trade with outsiders, such as the US, China. That is, EU membership means Parliament is not free to unilaterally lower trade barriers with the US, Canada, or South American states (for example).

Trump announced: "Britain and the United States will now be free to strike a massive new Trade Deal after BREXIT. This deal has the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative than any deal that could be made with the E.U."

Trump's tweets are often little more than gaslighting and posturing, so it one can't say what the actual significance of this announcement is.

But the fact is the United States government doesn't need a trade "deal" with the United Kingdom. Nor does it need the president to negotiate with the UK government or issue any executive orders. All that needs to happen is for the Congress to pass legislation stating there will be no tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions imposed on imports from the UK. The end.

After all, what is the argument against this?

Patrick Byrom
14-12-2019, 10:47 AM
Embrace Unilateral Free Trade with the UK — Right Now (https://mises.org/wire/embrace-unilateral-free-trade-uk-%E2%80%94-right-now) Ryan McMaken, Mises.org, 13 Dec 2019
... But the fact is the United States government doesn't need a trade "deal" with the United Kingdom. Nor does it need the president to negotiate with the UK government or issue any executive orders. All that needs to happen is for the Congress to pass legislation stating there will be no tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions imposed on imports from the UK. The end. After all, what is the argument against this? … Donald Trump - he's opposed to free trade deals, so the Republicans would never support it :)

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2019, 11:58 AM
Donald Trump - he's opposed to free trade deals, so the Republicans would never support it :)

He might with the UK. Hope so anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2019, 12:03 PM
The fall of Labour’s ‘Red Wall’ is a moment to celebrate (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-fall-of-labours-red-wall-is-a-moment-to-celebrate/)
Brendan O'Neill, Spectator (UK), 13 December 2019

The ‘red wall’ has fallen. Brick by brick. Almost every bit of it. Seats held by Labour for decades have been seized by the Tories. To me, this is the most exciting thing in this extraordinary election. It feels almost revolutionary. Working people have smashed years and years of tradition and laid to waste the nauseating, paternalistic idea that they would vote for a donkey so long as it was wearing a red rosette.

The ‘red wall’ results are staggering. In Bolsover, held by Dennis Skinner since 1970, the Tories now have a 5,000+ majority. Former mining towns like Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield — Tony Blair’s old seat — fell to the Tories.

Across the country the working classes have abandoned Labour, because Labour abandoned them. It sneered at their vote for Brexit; it looked down its nose at their cultural values; it called them racist and xenophobic for being critical of the European Union and concerned about mass immigration.

Labour embraced an agenda of identity politics over community values, EU neoliberalism over British patriotism, and radical virtue-signalling over the ideals of family, work and togetherness. And its working-class base said no, no, no.

This is a warning to the entire political class. Do not take voters for granted. Do not insult them. Do not demean their democratic voice. Because, whatever you might say to the contrary, they have minds of their own, and they will soon make up their mind that you are a patronising git who may no longer represent their community.

Nobody should mourn the collapse of the red wall — it is one of the best things to happen in the political life of this country for decades.

Patrick Byrom
14-12-2019, 12:06 PM
He might with the UK. Hope so anyway.The same Trump who promised to rip up NAFTA :)

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2019, 12:12 PM
The same Trump who promised to rip up NAFTA :)

The article I posted showed that the usual protectionist arguments don't apply to the UK. E.g. UK workers won't undercut USA workers, and UK is not going to go to war with the USA.

Patrick Byrom
14-12-2019, 12:20 PM
A reality check about Brexit (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/johnson-brexit-trade-deal-canada-plus.html):


Saying Brexit will be done however, is a bit of an overstatement. The prime minister has promised that when the U.K. formally exits the EU on Jan. 31, the country can move on to other priorities and “let the healing begin” after a brutal couple of years in politics. The pound surged on the election result—a sign that investors are finally glad to just know what’s going to happen. But there’s still a lot more Brexit to come.

Not much is going to actually change on Jan. 31. The U.K. will enter an 11-month “transition period” during which it will continue to abide by EU rules, though it will no longer have a say in setting them. During this period, it will negotiate a new post-Brexit trade deal with the EU. If there’s no deal by the end of that period, Britain will trade with the EU like any other member of the World Trade Organization: Yes, that’s right—there could still be a “no-deal Brexit.”

That prospect seems unlikely at this point, but the process probably won’t be as smooth as Johnson and his allies have promised. The prime minister wants to negotiate what has been awkwardly called “super Canada plus” agreement. This would be modeled on the 2016 Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, which eliminates 98 percent of tariffs on goods traded between the EU and Canada. The model is attractive to Brexiteers because it’s a pure trade deal rather than a political alignment and would allow the U.K. to sign trade deals with other countries. (Donald Trump has already promised Johnson a “massive” one.)

But CETA also took the two sides seven years to negotiate, not 11 months. The whole thing was almost completely derailed in 2016 because of objections from Belgium’s French-speaking Wallonia region. The agreement is still only provisionally in place, as it has not been ratified by all 28—soon to be 27—EU members. Italy’s government has threatened to scupper the deal over what it sees as threats to the protected status of specialty Italian food products like Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese and Prosciutto di Parma ham. Europe, as always, is gonna Europe.


Half of the UK's trade is with the EU, but less than 10% of the EU's trade is with the UK (treating the UK as outside the EU, which it isn't yet, of course). The UK will be desperate for a deal, but the EU won't be too concerned.

Patrick Byrom
14-12-2019, 12:37 PM
The article I posted showed that the usual protectionist arguments don't apply to the UK. E.g. UK workers won't undercut USA workers, ... So you're saying that goods from the UK will be more expensive than those produced in the US (and in Mexico and China, obviously)? So the UK won't be able to increase exports to the US - and it will have lost the advantage of providing a gateway to the EU for US businesses. Great job, Boris :)

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2019, 02:06 PM
So you're saying that goods from the UK will be more expensive than those produced in the US (and in Mexico and China, obviously)? So the UK won't be able to increase exports to the US - and it will have lost the advantage of providing a gateway to the EU for US businesses. Great job, Boris :)

Good grief, no, I was pointing out that many of the usual protectionist arguments won't work. But a free trade agreement between UK and US would help both countries. It's just the normal comparative advantage principle.

Patrick Byrom
14-12-2019, 02:33 PM
... But a free trade agreement between UK and US would help both countries. It's just the normal comparative advantage principle.Not according to the experts (https://www.ft.com/content/40d74c90-85e5-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453): "A 2018 cross-Whitehall study of the costs and benefits of Brexit estimated that a US free trade agreement would increase UK GDP by only 0.2 per cent after 15 years, a tiny fraction of the 2 to 8 per cent costs of Brexit during that time."

And I'm sure the former Labour voters who voted for Johnson will be overjoyed when he opens the NHS to US drug companies under a free trade deal, and prices for their essential medicines go through the roof!

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2019, 06:29 PM
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2019/12/uk-2019-win-for-polls-and-tories.html

UK 2019: Win For Polls And Tories, A Shocker For The Left And Centre

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2019, 04:06 AM
Not according to the experts (https://www.ft.com/content/40d74c90-85e5-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453): "A 2018 cross-Whitehall study of the costs and benefits of Brexit estimated that a US free trade agreement would increase UK GDP by only 0.2 per cent after 15 years, a tiny fraction of the 2 to 8 per cent costs of Brexit during that time."
The same paper says (https://www.ft.com/content/3ed38590-5493-11e9-8b71-f5b0066105fe):


Mr Trump campaigned on overturning the postwar global trade architecture, which he argued has devastated the American working class. Now the administration is moving ahead with Britain and Japan, potentially transforming the free-trade environment.

Although uncertainty about Brexit persists, London remains eager to prioritise a US-UK free trade agreement when it eventually leaves the EU. In October last year, Robert Lighthizer, the US trade representative, notified Congress of the administration’s intention to open trade negotiations with Britain. And this year, the UK and the US agreed to continue the “mutual recognition agreement” that ensures their goods meet appropriate regulatory standards in each market. This covers about £12.8bn of trade in sectors ranging from pharmaceuticals to telecoms equipment.

Coupled with similar agreements the UK has signed with Australia and New Zealand, the US deal shows Britain is entirely capable of negotiating its own trade pacts. The Brexit negotiations are the outlier, as the UK has followed the US in running into seemingly insurmountable resistance from the EU.

It's bizarre that you would prefer the bureaucratic protectionist cartel of the EU.


And I'm sure the former Labour voters who voted for Johnson will be overjoyed when he opens the NHS to US drug companies under a free trade deal, and prices for their essential medicines go through the roof!
Why? There is no obligation to buy expensive things.

Ian Murray
15-12-2019, 07:20 AM
Why? There is no obligation to buy expensive things.

When the terms of an FTA prevent NHS subsidies, UK consumers would be forced to pay Big Pharma prices, or go without. Australia is embroiled in similar provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/gleeson-big-pharma-is-the-real-winner-in-tpp-plan/6538860) and its offspring the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, (http://aftinet.org.au/cms/sites/default/files/20190501%20RCEP%20Briefing%20Web%20version_3.pdf) threatening subsidised medicines under our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The terms of the agreements are secret, so the public is kept in the dark.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2019, 09:43 AM
Is this the end for Labour? (https://unherd.com/2019/12/is-this-the-end-for-labour/)
It would be too easy to pin the blame for the election calamity on Corbyn
Paul Embery (firefighter, trade union activist, pro-Brexit campaigner and 'Blue Labour' thinker)
13 December 2019

So there we have it. It turns out that the British working-class was not, in the end, willing to throw its weight behind a London-centric, youth-obsessed, middle-class party that preached the gospels of liberal cosmopolitanism and class war. Who’d have thought it?

Well, me for a start. And plenty of others who had been loyal to the party over many years and desperately wanted to see a Labour government, only to be dismissed as ‘reactionaries’ who held a ‘nostalgic’ view of the working-class.

But the woke liberals and Toytown revolutionaries who now dominate the party didn’t listen to us. They truly thought that ‘one more heave’ would bring victory. They believed that constantly hammering on about economic inequality would be enough to get Labour over the line. In doing so, they made a major miscalculation: they failed to grasp that working-class voters desire something more than just economic security; they want cultural security too.

They want politicians to respect their way of life, and their sense of place and belonging; to elevate real-world concepts such as work, family and community over nebulous constructs like ‘diversity’, ‘equality’ and ‘inclusivity’. By immersing itself in the destructive creed of identity politics and championing policies such as open borders, Labour placed itself on a completely different wavelength to millions across provincial Britain without whose support it simply could not win power. In the end, Labour was losing a cultural war that it didn’t even realise it was fighting.

So where now? If Labour is to again be the party of the working-class — and there must now be serious doubts that it ever will — it must undergo radical surgery. It must somehow rediscover the spirit of the early Labour tradition that spoke to workers’ patriotic and communitarian instincts, and offered them a natural home. It must exploit that sweet spot in British politics that marries demands for economic justice with those for cultural stability. It must move heaven and earth to reconnect with voters in Britain’s hard-pressed post-industrial and coastal towns who looked on bewildered as their communities were subjected to intense economic and cultural change, and felt that Labour was indifferent to their plight. It must rekindle a politics of belonging built around shared values and common cultural bonds. And, crucially, it must be unremittingly post-liberal in perspective and policy development.

But, to achieve any of that, Labour must stop treating the traditional working-class as though they were some kind of embarrassing elderly relative. It must learn to respect those who, for example, voted for Brexit, oppose large-scale immigration, want to see a tough and effective justice system, feel proud to be British, support the reassertion of the role of the family at the centre of society, prefer a welfare system to be based around reciprocity – something for something – rather than universal entitlement, believe in the nation state, and do not obsess about multiculturalism or trans rights.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2019, 09:54 AM
When the terms of an FTA prevent NHS subsidies, UK consumers would be forced to pay Big Pharma prices, or go without. Australia is embroiled in similar provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/gleeson-big-pharma-is-the-real-winner-in-tpp-plan/6538860) and its offspring the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, (http://aftinet.org.au/cms/sites/default/files/20190501%20RCEP%20Briefing%20Web%20version_3.pdf) threatening subsidised medicines under our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Drugs are expensive in the USA because of big government: about $648 million to get any drug to market through FDA hoop (https://www.managedcaremag.com/news/20170914/costs-bring-drug-market-remain-dispute)s, and that's a conservative estimate. No drugs will be produced if companies can't recoup their government-imposed costs. And in other cases, Big Pharma and Big Government are in cahoots, e.g. “Perhaps most frustrating is that insulin has become so expensive because of government policy (https://www.fdareview.org/2019/02/20/let-competition-not-politicians-bring-insulin-prices-down/)” because it prevents market competition.


The terms of the agreements are secret, so the public is kept in the dark.
Typical government.

I thought that you praised Gough Whitlam for reducing tariffs, a good first step toward free trade.

Ian Murray
15-12-2019, 10:29 AM
Drugs are expensive in the USA because of big government: about $648 million to get any drug to market through FDA hoop (https://www.managedcaremag.com/news/20170914/costs-bring-drug-market-remain-dispute)s, and that's a conservative estimate. No drugs will be produced if companies can't recoup their government-imposed costs.

They enjoy a 20-year patent monopoly once on the market, allowing them to charge any price they fancy until generics become available. Recovering costs is no problem at all.


And in other cases, Big Pharma and Big Government are in cahoots, e.g. “Perhaps most frustrating is that insulin has become so expensive because of government policy (https://www.fdareview.org/2019/02/20/let-competition-not-politicians-bring-insulin-prices-down/)” because it prevents market competition.

Big Pharma is not forced to manipulate recombinant RNA techniques to extend their patents


Typical government.

Beyond government - the Australian Parliament is denied access


I thought that you praised Gough Whitlam for reducing tariffs, a good first step toward free trade.

I'm all for abolishing tariffs to bring costs down. Using FTAs to raise prices is another matter entirely

Patrick Byrom
15-12-2019, 12:53 PM
The same paper says (https://www.ft.com/content/3ed38590-5493-11e9-8b71-f5b0066105fe): ...

It's bizarre that you would prefer the bureaucratic protectionist cartel of the EU.Nothing to do with my point that a USUK free trade agreement will make no significant difference to the UK. And it's also nothing to do with preferring the EU - the simple fact is that the UK desperately needs a trade agreement with the EU, because the EU is its next-door neighbour and main trading partner.


Why? There is no obligation to buy expensive things.Like insulin? People in the US are literally dying (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47491964) because they can't afford this essential medicine: "The most famous case, perhaps, was 26-year-old Alec Smith, who died in 2017 less than a month after he aged out of his mother's health insurance plan. Despite working full-time making more than minimum wage, he could not afford to buy new insurance or pay the $1,000 a month for insulin without it."

Patrick Byrom
15-12-2019, 01:06 PM
... And in other cases, Big Pharma and Big Government are in cahoots, e.g. “Perhaps most frustrating is that insulin has become so expensive because of government policy (https://www.fdareview.org/2019/02/20/let-competition-not-politicians-bring-insulin-prices-down/)” because it prevents market competition.If the price of insulin in the US is due to a lack of market competition, why is insulin so much cheaper when its cost is set directly by the government under the 'socialist' NHS, and there is no market competition?

None of this affects my argument that a USUK FTA would be a disaster for diabetics in the UK.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2019, 01:21 PM
If the price of insulin in the US is due to a lack of market competition, why is insulin so much cheaper when its cost is set directly by the government under the 'socialist' NHS, and there is no market competition?
The opposite of socialized medicine of the UK is not the cronyist system that makes insulin too pricy, but market competition.

So how many new drugs is the UK producing?


None of this affects my argument that a USUK FTA would be a disaster for diabetics in the UK.
Why? Are you against free trade?

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2019, 01:33 PM
They enjoy a 20-year patent monopoly once on the market, allowing them to charge any price they fancy until generics become available. Recovering costs is no problem at all.
The FDA costs must be passed on to the customers.


Big Pharma is not forced to manipulate recombinant RNA techniques to extend their patents
They should not be protected from competition by Big Government. Big Government is also the reason that Americans are verboten to get cheaper insulin from Canada, and why Mylan is the only company allowed to make something like an EpiPen so could jack up prices.


I'm all for abolishing tariffs to bring costs down.
Good.


Using FTAs to raise prices is another matter entirely
The point of free trade is to reduce costs. And it will if the governments get out of the way. The only FTA we need is: we will not charge any tariffs, and we will not enforce any government-imposed monopolies.

Patrick Byrom
15-12-2019, 02:20 PM
The opposite of socialized medicine of the UK is not the cronyist system that makes insulin too pricy, but market competition.We know that socialised medicine is able to provide diabetics with affordable insulin and save their lives. Please specify a real example of a first world country with a pure free market system that is able to provide cheaper insulin. If you can't, then we should obviously stick with the socialist system that already works and saves lives.


So how many new drugs is the UK producing?Insulin is a naturally occurring substance.


Why? Are you against free trade?I'm against people dying just because they can't afford basic medicine. If this is the result of a USUK FTA, which will have almost no economic benefit for the UK anyway, then I'm against it.

Ian Murray
15-12-2019, 10:02 PM
The FDA costs must be passed on to the customers.

Using the link you provided as an example, the price of treatment for a type 1 diabetic is $1300 a month, $15600 pa. There are 1.25 million (https://www.healthline.com/health/diabetes/facts-statistics-infographic#3) type 1 diabetics in the US, so sales revenue there is $19.5 billion pa. FDA costs are recouped in the first 12 days.


They should not be protected from competition by Big Government. Big Government is also the reason that Americans are verboten to get cheaper insulin from Canada, and why Mylan is the only company allowed to make something like an EpiPen so could jack up prices.

Consumers (sick people, keep in mind) need to be protected against tricks-of-the-trade (https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/202/6/costs-australian-taxpayers-pharmaceutical-monopolies-and-proposals-extend-them) to extend patents beyond the 20-year standard to maintain high prices

pax
15-12-2019, 11:56 PM
Some of the hot takes on this election result are terrible. It was neither a comprehensive rejection of leftwing politics, not an overwhelming endorsement of Brexit. In fact, had a rational transferable voting system been in place, we could well be looking at a minority Corbyn government.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/media-centre/press-releases/general-election-how-the-2019-election-results-could-have-looked-with-proportional-representation/

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2019, 06:55 AM
Rita Panahi:

“Brits went to the polls and told the hard-left, institutionally anti-Semitic, Brexit-blocking, identity politics-obsessed, climate change hysterics of the Labour Party – led by terrorist-sympathising socialist simpleton Jeremy Corbyn – to get stuffed.”

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2019, 07:00 AM
Some of the hot takes on this election result are terrible. It was neither a comprehensive rejection of leftwing politics, not an overwhelming endorsement of Brexit. In fact, had a rational transferable voting system been in place, we could well be looking at a minority Corbyn government.

STV is a better system, but I'm suspicious that the result would have been different. After all, voters would not vote the same way, but would change their behaviour to respond to the system. And politicians campaign to maximize their chances under the voting system in place; under a different system, they would have campaigned differently. The Brexit Party would not have pulled out of challenging strong conservatives to avoid splitting the vote, for example.

Ian Murray
16-12-2019, 07:14 AM
Rita Panahi:

“Brits went to the polls and told the hard-left, institutionally anti-Semitic, Brexit-blocking, identity politics-obsessed, climate change hysterics of the Labour Party – led by terrorist-sympathising socialist simpleton Jeremy Corbyn – to get stuffed.”

According to the rabid right. In fact the Tories got 43.6% of the votes to win 57.8% of the seats.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2019, 07:34 AM
According to the rabid right. In fact the Tories got 43.6% of the votes to win 57.8% of the seats.

Labour got only 32.1%, a big swing down by a loss of 7.9 pp, and loss of seats they had held for decades. These aren't rabid right figures!

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2019, 10:33 AM
Some of the hot takes on this election result are terrible. It was neither a comprehensive rejection of leftwing politics, not an overwhelming endorsement of Brexit. In fact, had a rational transferable voting system been in place, we could well be looking at a minority Corbyn government.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/media-centre/press-releases/general-election-how-the-2019-election-results-could-have-looked-with-proportional-representation/

Proportional voting and transferable voting are not necessarily the same. For instance the Australian House of Reps has transferable votes but isn't proportional, while New Zealand's MMP system is proportional (with a few distortions) but votes are not transferable (a lot of European PR systems are similar). The Australian Senate is proportional at state level and votes are transferable, but isn't proportional at federal level. The NSW and SA upper houses are examples of systems that are truly proportional with truly transferable voting and no Group Ticket Voting pollutants.

Under transferable-vote single seat systems as in the Australian House of Reps, or the Alternative Vote system proposed in the 2011 referendum (the equivalent of Optional Preferential Voting) the Tories would have still won and would very probably have still won a majority, but under compulsory preferencing I think it would have been a much smaller majority (say maybe 345 seats instead of 365). They probably would have won the 2PP about 52-48.

In my view the fact that a PR system could (given the same vote shares) have produced a coalition government led by Corbyn's Labour is an argument against proportional representation in lower houses and an argument that it is not as straightforwardly rational as its advocates claim. That's not to say PR is wrong, just that PR and single-seat preferential voting have competing merits and there isn't necessarily a clear right answer between them. (I like the idea of having single-seat with preferences in lower houses and PR in an upper house.) Under PR systems the 2PP-losing party can end up heading a government because a minor party with a diverse support base casts its vote on the formation of government as a block. Winston Peters' decision in New Zealand is a good example of this; whoever he backed he would be selling out some of the voters who voted for him. Of course one can counter-argue that if minor party supporters under PR really want a particular party to govern then they should vote for that party, but that means that PR requires tactical voting just as first past the post does.

The one thing preferential voting and proportional representation supporters can agree on is that first past the post is rubbish, but just because the Tories might have lost in one non-FPP system does not mean they would have lost in all of them, even if the votes cast were the same. Which they wouldn't have been anyway under PR as the BXP vote would have been much higher as CF points out (probably not only at the Tories' expense either) - still, a Labour-led coalition might have happened under such a system.

Patrick Byrom
16-12-2019, 12:43 PM
Some of the hot takes on this election result are terrible. It was neither a comprehensive rejection of leftwing politics, ... Johnson promised a massive expansion of the socialist NHS. He is also promising that Britain will be carbon neutral by 2050. So an overwhelming majority of the voters clearly supported left-wing policies.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2019, 02:36 AM
Johnson promised a massive expansion of the socialist NHS. He is also promising that Britain will be carbon neutral by 2050. So an overwhelming majority of the voters clearly supported left-wing policies.

Johnson is not that conservative, I agree. You might also be right that the traditional Labour voters who voted for him were voting on Brexit alone, without abandoning the traditional Labour policies that favour the working classes, if not the radical leftist PC nonsense.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2019, 02:46 AM
The then UK Prime Minister David Cameron presented a relatively rational defence for FPP (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8485118/David-Cameron-why-keeping-first-past-the-post-is-vital-for-democracy.html) in 2011, which included having a go at Australia's PV.* Since no voting system is perfect, one can make a case for one by highlighting the flaws of rivals and ignoring its own problems. PV has a quirk in that it counts the remaining preferences starting with the lowest first preference votes:


If you vote for a mainstream candidate who comes top in the first round, your other preferences will never be counted.

But if you vote for a fringe candidate who gets knocked out early, your other votes will be counted.

That means the second, third, even fourth votes of someone who supports the Monster Raving Looney Party can count as much as the first vote of someone who supports a mainstream party. That is unfair and undemocratic.

Do you want elections that are – as Churchill put it – “determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”?

There have been times in Australia where this produces an arguably unfair result. But the more glaring and common fault of FPP is the spoiler effect of third parties, i.e. they hurt the major party ideologically closer to them.

Some of the other arguments are silly, e.g. complexity of PV (not for any voter who can count up to ~10) and efficiency (it's even more efficient to dispense with elections).

*Cameron had a whinge about Australia's how-to-vote cards, which are not an essential part of PV, but also not bad either—see Dr Bonham's discussion Fraser Anning, How-To-Vote Cards And Bad Electoral Reform Proposals (https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2019/04/fraser-anning-how-to-vote-cards-and-bad.html) and discussion below the article.

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2019, 10:27 AM
One further problem with Cameron's argument is that there are plenty of voters who care more about preventing a certain party from winning than supporting a given party. For these voters their strongest concern is that a given party not win. But under FPP they have to decide which party has the best chance of beating that party, and this can be very difficult. In the seat of Kensington, the Tories defeated Labour by 0.3% with the Lib Dems a distant third. Some major publications including the Guardian had encouraged left-wing voters to vote tactically for the Lib Dems who they claimed were the best chance to beat the Tories in that seat. The effect of tactical voting recommendations in this election was large, so it's very likely that Labour voters mistakenly voting tactically for the Lib Dems caused the Tories to win the seat. (Tactical voting scenarios do arise in preferential voting, for instance in the Wentworth by-election, but very rarely.)

As for saying that a vote for a Monster Raving Loony candidate is "worthless", that's just snobbery. The voter may have a genuine and extremely well justified belief that the remaining candidates are rubbish and a MRL vote is the best and funniest way to express this. Under preferential voting, the main way in which voting for a joke party is "loony" disappears anyway as a vote for them is no longer wasted. People who become involved in or support joke parties are often politically informed, perhaps more so than the average major party voter, whose vote could be cast for good reasons or completely irrational ones.

Cameron's argument about How To Vote cards also misses their purpose. The main purpose of How To Vote cards is to reduce the informal vote among voters who have low political or English language literacy. How To Vote card preference swapping - which is mostly ineffectual anyway - is just a sideshow.

But Australian experts tried saying all this stuff in 2011 and UK voters weren't interested, so those on the left especially who voted to keep this system are now stuck with it.

Patrick Byrom
18-12-2019, 10:12 PM
Saw this report:
Sterling is trading at $1.3474, more than 2.4% higher, while the FTSE 100 is up 1.8%, as Boris Johnson returned to Downing Street with a big parliamentary majority. The "huge great stonking mandate" likely means backing for his Brexit deal and the departure from the EU by the end of next month. While that reduces a significant amount of Brexit uncertainty, the U.K. could still have a hard exit from the single market and customs union at the end of 2020 if the two sides cannot strike a trade agreement.That didn't last long (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/17/pound-slides-to-pre-election-levels-in-wake-of-bid-to-outlaw-brexit-extension):

The pound has given up the gains made since the general election after Boris Johnson said he would write Britain’s exit from the EU next year into law without an extension in the transition period. Sterling tumbled by about two cents against the dollar and the euro on the international money markets, as the decision to enshrine time-limited Brexit negotiations into law caught investors by surprise.Brexit may have won the election for Johnson, but it also carries significant risks for him and the Tory party.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 02:57 AM
But Australian experts tried saying all this stuff in 2011 and UK voters weren't interested, so those on the left especially who voted to keep this system are now stuck with it.

Similarly, the Yanks will bitch about the two-party system but will still bitterly cling to FPP which makes this result inevitable (at least in the USA with no strong regional parties like the SNP).

Cameron also makes assertions that some outcomes are bad, and assumed that his readers will disagree without evidence:


Under AV, the person who comes third in people’s first preferences can end up coming first in the race.

It makes winners of losers and losers of winners.

The result could be a Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn’t really object to either.

Umm, yes, and this is a bad thing, why?

Alternatively, one could state this as: PV usually produces a winner who was the first or second choice of the majority. FPP can often produce someone who was the first choice of a minority but was despised by the majority. E.g. a popular position can attract more than one candidate, so split the vote, so the single candidate for the unpopular position wins. Arguably this happened in the GOP primary of 2016: the popular position (Anyone but Trump!) had several candidates, so the one originally unpopular with the majority (Trump) got through.

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2019, 04:51 PM
Similarly, the Yanks will bitch about the two-party system but will still bitterly cling to FPP which makes this result inevitable (at least in the USA with no strong regional parties like the SNP).

Cameron also makes assertions that some outcomes are bad, and assumed that his readers will disagree without evidence:

[INDENT]Under AV, the person who comes third in people’s first preferences can end up coming first in the race.

As happened in my electorate of Clark, then Denison, in 2010. Labor had held the seat for 23 years and was taking it for granted as safe, and preselected a weak candidate who was clearly not up to the task. Andrew Wilkie was elected from third place on primaries. Wilkie has since become so popular in the seat that this year he was not even taken to preferences.

Capablanca-Fan
24-01-2020, 04:46 AM
So much for Brexit disaster! UK economy set to TROUNCE eurozone, IMF report says (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1231206/brexit-news-uk-economic-growth-depends-on-orderly-brexit-imf-predictions-boris)
BRITAIN’S economy is set to power ahead after Brexit, outpacing the eurozone and other major European countries, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said.
By LAURA O'CALLAGHAN, Express, 21 Jan 2020

[Well, obvious clickbait heading, but then the Remainders were always touting gloom and doom if the UK broke free of its European overlords.]

The findings of two studies published by the the body show the UK is on track for two years of growth and is anticipated to outperform Germany, France and Italy. The economy is expected to expand by 1.4 percent this year and by 1.5 percent in 2021, it said. It marks an optimistic outlook for the UK’s post-Brexit future after last year’s growth was recorded at 1.3 percent.

But the predictions are based on the condition that an orderly Brexit will take place on January 31 and trade talks with Brussels will play out well.

Boris Johnson is due to take the country out of the bloc in just 10 days, with Brexit voters across the UK set to celebrate the historic moment at 11pm UK time (midnight Brussels time).

Following the exit, British and EU negotiators will gather to thrash out a free trade deal before the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020.

The Washington-based IMF published its forecasts ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which kicks off on Tuesday.

Former Conservative MEP David Bannerman said: “UK to outgrow Eurozone this year and next, says the formerly anti-Brexit IMF and becomes 4th most attractive place to invest in world - very positive news.”

Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said: “UK economy to outgrow eurozone. Maybe the people were wiser than the experts after all.”

Adamski
24-01-2020, 07:17 PM
I found the NZL MMP quasi-proportional representation system far too complex. So did most voters I knew there.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2020, 03:59 AM
I found the NZL MMP quasi-proportional representation system far too complex. So did most voters I knew there.

It's not the complexity I have a problem with, although too many voters still don't realize that the party vote is much more important than the individual vote. The main problem is that you don't know what coalitions will be formed until after the elections. Arguably, the more conservative voters for Winston Peters' mob didn't expect him to jump in bed with Labour. Under FPP, and to some extent PV, the disparate strands have already formed coalitions into the two major parties, so you know the coalitions in advance.

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2020, 09:28 AM
I find quite a few people in Australian political discussions wish we had MMP because it is more proportional, and would also support it for the UK for the same reason, but apart from being vaguely proportional I think it is a very flawed system. It's only proportional for parties that get over the threshhold, so if you support a party that definitely won't get over the threshhold then voting for them as a party vote is a wasted vote (which makes it hard for new parties to build votes). If your party might or might not get over the threshhold then you have a difficult tactical decision about whether to vote for them or to cast your party vote for a less preferred party - this is the same as the tactical voting problem in FPP and voters shouldn't have to make such decisions. The threshhold is quite high, making it possible to get distorted results where the wrong side wins because a couple of flank parties on the other side missed the threshhold. The electorate vote is a bit of a joke because in some cases both the candidates are list candidates and will win anyway, but the bigger problem with it is that parties can distort proportionality by throwing a seat to some stooge party which has no support outside one electorate. Thus in one case United Future had a share of the balance of power off 0.22% of the national vote.

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2020, 11:00 AM
... So much for Brexit disaster! UK economy set to TROUNCE eurozone, IMF report says (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1231206/brexit-news-uk-economic-growth-depends-on-orderly-brexit-imf-predictions-boris) ...
The findings of two studies published by the the body show the UK is on track for two years of growth and is anticipated to outperform Germany, France and Italy. The economy is expected to expand by 1.4 percent this year and by 1.5 percent in 2021, it said. It marks an optimistic outlook for the UK’s post-Brexit future after last year’s growth was recorded at 1.3 percent. But the predictions are based on the condition that an orderly Brexit will take place on January 31 and trade talks with Brussels will play out well. … Those predictions show that the UK will grow at the same rate as it is currently growing - wow! And even that depends on an orderly Brexit and successful trade talks. Don't forget that there is still a 12 month transition period, during which the UK effectively remains in the EU.

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2020, 11:10 AM
I find quite a few people in Australian political discussions wish we had MMP because it is more proportional, and would also support it for the UK for the same reason, but apart from being vaguely proportional I think it is a very flawed system. ... I never understood why NZ didn't adopt preferential voting. MMP appears to be no less complicated, and obviously doesn't have the advantages of pure proportional voting.

Capablanca-Fan
26-01-2020, 12:24 PM
Those predictions show that the UK will grow at the same rate as it is currently growing - wow! And even that depends on an orderly Brexit and successful trade talks. Don't forget that there is still a 12 month transition period, during which the UK effectively remains in the EU.
Even if you are right, this is far from the economic catastrophe that the Remainder Eurosuckups bleated was going to happen.

Capablanca-Fan
26-01-2020, 12:59 PM
I never understood why NZ didn't adopt preferential voting.
Me neither. I suppose Kiwis aren't as rational as Aussies. I have lived for extended periods under FPP, MMP, and PV, and I think PV is the best of the three.


MMP appears to be no less complicated, and obviously doesn't have the advantages of pure proportional voting.
I think it's more complicated. I agree with all of KB's criticisms of MMP. Moreover, MMP has the serious flaw that it is not preferential even in the broader sense of any system that allows a ranked choice (what Australians call PV is only one type of preferential voting system).

Patrick Byrom
29-01-2020, 12:42 PM
The Labour leadership election is decided by a preferential vote, even though the party is (presumably) opposed to using it in general elections.

Adamski
29-01-2020, 09:57 PM
Lots of good point's in the last day. I also favour true preferential voting.

Garvinator
30-01-2020, 01:16 AM
Lots of good point's in the last day. I also favour true preferential voting.
What do you mean by 'true preferential voting'?

Capablanca-Fan
30-01-2020, 05:12 AM
What do you mean by 'true preferential voting'?

I presume the Aussie type, which in some places is called "Instant Runoff Voting" or "Ranked Choice Voting".

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2020, 10:20 AM
Brexit Day: Britain to leave EU, marking end to years-long fight to deliver on 2016 vote (https://www.foxnews.com/world/brexit-day-britain-leaves-european-union)
Adam Shaw | Fox News

Britain on Friday will formally leave the European Union, ending an intense nearly four years of political fighting over Brexit since Brits voted to leave the bloc that has consumed British politics and saw the ouster of two prime ministers.

Britain will formally leave at 11 p.m. U.K. time (6 p.m. ET) and Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to address the public about an hour before the departure time. Elsewhere throughout the country, the day will be marked by celebrations and some mourning from those opposed to the move. But in typically British fashion, the celebrations are expected to be muted.

Some of those celebrations have already occurred. MEP Nigel Farage and fellow members of the Brexit Party waved British flags on Wednesday in the E.U. Parliament chamber, while pro-Remain MEPs were seen mourning the coming departure.

The 2016 vote to leave the E.U. in a one-off referendum sent shockwaves throughout the globe and is frequently cited as a groundbreaking populist moment that previewed President Trump's victory months later in the U.S. general election.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBMvZRf9Scs

Patrick Byrom
01-02-2020, 11:45 AM
Your extract from that article fails to mention another effect of Brexit - other groups in Europe who were campaigning to leave the EU have gone very quiet after realising what a bad idea Brexit has been.

Ian Murray
01-02-2020, 11:51 AM
Brexit Day: Britain to leave EU, marking end to years-long fight to deliver on 2016 vote

With more of a whimper than a bang

Desmond
01-02-2020, 01:29 PM
Megxit was rather more interesting.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2020, 03:24 PM
With more of a whimper than a bang

I thought Farage and his colleagues had fun in that meeting. That humourless bossy Irish bint is precisely the reason that the UK has had a gutsfill of being ordered around by Eurocratic nobodies.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2020, 03:54 PM
Your extract from that article fails to mention another effect of Brexit - other groups in Europe who were campaigning to leave the EU have gone very quiet after realising what a bad idea Brexit has been.

How dare people want self-determination.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2020, 05:01 PM
Calm down. Trump won’t be President—and Britain won’t leave the EU (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/06/calm-down-trump-wont-be-president-and-britain-wont-leave-eu)
The nightmare of a Trump presidency and a Brexit vote ain’t gonna happen, says Ian Leslie. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
New Stateman, 7 JUNE 2016

Patrick Byrom
01-02-2020, 05:11 PM
How dare people want self-determination.Like the Scots, you mean - who are still flying the EU flag!

Desmond
01-02-2020, 05:56 PM
How dare people want self-determination.

I think they're in for a year of paying taxes to the EU and not voting, from what I heard.

Patrick Byrom
01-02-2020, 06:18 PM
I think they're in for a year of paying taxes to the EU and not voting, from what I heard.Exactly. This is what Farage and Capablanca-Fan are actually celebrating (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/britain-has-left-the-eu-what-happens-now-guide-negotiations):


Has the UK actually left then?
Yes. The UK has ceased to be a member of the EU. British citizens are no longer EU citizens; there are no British MEPs or commissioner; British ministers will play no further part in EU lawmaking; no British prime minister will attend EU summits. The change is legal and constitutional.

Why does it feel like nothing has changed?
Because the UK has entered an 11-month transition period during which pretty much everything will stay as it was while a future relationship is negotiated with the EU. Until at least the end of December 2020, the UK will remain in the EU’s single market and customs union and continue paying into its budget; people, goods, capital and services will continue to move freely across the bloc - including the UK - as before. Most people in Britain will not notice any difference to their daily lives.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2020, 04:54 AM
Like the Scots, you mean - who are still flying the EU flag!

They had a chance to vote for independence from the rest of the UK in the referendum, and they voted to stay.

The Brits voted to leave the Eurinal. Why should Brits support unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats telling them what to do?

antichrist
02-02-2020, 06:10 AM
They had a chance to vote for independence from the rest of the UK in the referendum, and they voted to stay.

The Brits voted to leave the Eurinal. Why should Brits support unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats telling them what to do?

That was same argument used when New England area was campaigning for a new state separate from NSW in about 1962. Maybe stretching from Newcastle to Qld border. What type of anarchist are you Capa Fan?

Patrick Byrom
02-02-2020, 12:32 PM
They had a chance to vote for independence from the rest of the UK in the referendum, and they voted to stay.That was before Brexit, of course. And surely you're not arguing that referendum decisions can't be overturned :)


The Brits voted to leave the Eurinal. Why should Brits support unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats telling them what to do?If they want to trade with the EU on favourable terms, they have no choice.

Patrick Byrom
02-02-2020, 12:41 PM
That was same argument used when New England area was campaigning for a new state separate from NSW in about 1962. Maybe stretching from Newcastle to Qld border. What type of anarchist are you Capa Fan?This is the fatal flaw in the nationalist arguments that Trump and Capablanca-Fan support. If Britain should be independent of the EU, why shouldn't Scotland be independent of Britain?

antichrist
02-02-2020, 12:58 PM
This is the fatal flaw in the nationalist arguments that Trump and Capablanca-Fan support. If Britain should be independent of the EU, why shouldn't Scotland be independent of Britain?

If the Scottish independence vote was of Kelts only then maybe it would have passed.

Ian Murray
02-02-2020, 01:14 PM
If the Scottish independence vote was of Kelts only then maybe it would have passed.

Kilts or Celts?

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2020, 01:51 PM
That was before Brexit, of course. And surely you're not arguing that referendum decisions can't be overturned :)
I don't have any problems if they have another referendum and vote to leave the UK.


If they want to trade with the EU on favourable terms, they have no choice.
So you admit that the Eurinal is a bullying protectionist cartel.


This is the fatal flaw in the nationalist arguments that Trump and Capablanca-Fan support. If Britain should be independent of the EU, why shouldn't Scotland be independent of Britain?
It's not a fatal flaw, because I would have no problem if Scotland wanted independence. Or Wales for that matter.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2020, 01:56 PM
Kilts or Celts?

Perhaps he pronounces "Celts" as "Kelts', an acceptable pronounciation in modern English, and in keeping with the Greek and Latin roots.

Patrick Byrom
02-02-2020, 02:14 PM
So you admit that the Eurinal is a bullying protectionist cartel.The EU has a right to regulate its imports - just as Australia and the US do. If the UK wants to have lower food standards than the EU, then it has to accept that it may not be able to export to the EU without restrictions.


It's not a fatal flaw, because I would have no problem if Scotland wanted independence. Or Wales for that matter.So you think Johnson should allow the referendum on Scottish independence which he is currently blocking?

And presumably you had no problem with the Confederate states seceding from the US, and believe that Lincoln was wrong to try and stop them? Don't they have a right to self-determination?

Patrick Byrom
02-02-2020, 02:20 PM
Perhaps he pronounces "Celts" as "Kelts', an acceptable pronounciation in modern English, and in keeping with the Greek and Latin roots.Apart from the football club, I believe that the pronunciation is always 'keltic' - but it's always spelt with "c", of course.

antichrist
02-02-2020, 02:56 PM
Apart from the football club, I believe that the pronunciation is always 'keltic' - but it's always spelt with "c", of course.


I have just saved my reputation in the Stars Heaven thread (please read) and now I have to dig myself out of another hole. Kelt was the first similar word that appeared on auto dictionary and being a good Oz close enough is good enough. It doesn't matter if the whiskee is Scotch or Celtic as long as it catches the devil.

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2020, 04:26 AM
The EU has a right to regulate its imports — just as Australia and the US do. If the UK wants to have lower food standards than the EU, then it has to accept that it may not be able to export to the EU without restrictions.
A lot of those standards are really protectionist and have nothing to do with health.


So you think Johnson should allow the referendum on Scottish independence which he is currently blocking?
Yes.


And presumably you had no problem with the Confederate states seceding from the US, and believe that Lincoln was wrong to try and stop them? Don't they have a right to self-determination?
What, I'm supposed to adjudicate on every secessionist movement in history, including the Confederates who made it crystal clear that they wanted to preserve enslavement of black people?

I could turn this around and ask if you object to every secessionist movement, e.g. the American revolution itself? Was Australia wrong to have a referendum on whether we should become a Republic?

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2020, 04:30 AM
Apart from the football club, I believe that the pronunciation is always ‘keltic’—but it's always spelt with "c", of course.
I pronounce it ‘keltic’ too. The classical Latin c was always pronounced as a k, and so was the Old English c and so is the current Welsh c.

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2020, 11:10 AM
A lot of those standards are really protectionist and have nothing to do with health.The people of the EU have a right to decide their own food standards.


What, I'm supposed to adjudicate on every secessionist movement in history, including the Confederates who made it crystal clear that they wanted to preserve enslavement of black people? I could turn this around and ask if you object to every secessionist movement, e.g. the American revolution itself? Was Australia wrong to have a referendum on whether we should become a Republic?Australia becoming a republic isn't secession. Britain has always had its own head of state, even when it was part of the EU. And America never voluntarily joined with Britain, as Britain did with the EU.

But I've never argued that Britain can't leave the EU. My concern was that the British people had been misled about the costs and benefits of doing so. You're the cheerleader for nationalism.

So now that I've answered your questions, can you answer mine - did the Confederate states have a right to Conexit?

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2020, 12:06 PM
The people of the EU have a right to decide their own food standards.
It's not about standards, but about their protectionist cartel.


Australia becoming a republic isn't secession.
It's analogous. And if we wanted to break from the Queen, we had a right to. We just didn't want to, just like the Scots.


Britain has always had its own head of state, even when it was part of the EU. And America never voluntarily joined with Britain, as Britain did with the EU.
The American colonies were part of the British. Hence Paul Revere didn't say "The British are coming," because they all considered themselves British. Rather, he more likely said, "The regulars are coming"—regulars = British soldiers. And the American issue was laws being imposed on them by people they couldn't vote out. No wonder many Americans support Brexit.


But I've never argued that Britain can't leave the EU. My concern was that the British people had been misled about the costs and benefits of doing so.
Have they really? What about being misled by the Remainders about how it is righ t and just for Brussels bureaucrats to impose laws on the UK but without accountability? And how the sky didn't fall after all?


You're the cheerleader for nationalism.
And? I'm actually a cheerleader for individualism > localism > nationalism > globalism. You're a cheerleader for an all-powerful State.


So now that I've answered your questions, can you answer mine - did the Confederate states have a right to Conexit?
Probably not, but that would depend on the conditions of the union.

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2020, 12:29 PM
The American colonies were part of the British. Hence Paul Revere didn't say "The British are coming," because they all considered themselves British. Rather, he more likely said, "The regulars are coming"—regulars = British soldiers. And the American issue was laws being imposed on them by people they couldn't vote out. No wonder many Americans support Brexit.The British were represented in the European Parliament (unlike the American colonists in the British Parliament) - Nigel Farage was one of their MEPs. And Britain had a say in other decision-making bodies. It seems your support for Brexit is based on a misunderstanding :)


Have they really? What about being misled by the Remainders about how it is righ t and just for Brussels bureaucrats to impose laws on the UK but without accountability?See above.


... You're a cheerleader for an all-powerful State.You're confusing me with Michael!


Probably not, but that would depend on the conditions of the union.So you're arguing that even if voters in the Confederate states overwhelmingly voted to secede, they couldn't do so? What happened to your support for "localism"?

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2020, 12:52 PM
The British were represented in the European Parliament (unlike the American colonists in the British Parliament) - Nigel Farage was one of their MEPs. And Britain had a say in other decision-making bodies. It seems your support for Brexit is based on a misunderstanding :)
No, Brussels bureaucrats made rules, and the European Parliament was subject to the bureaucracy. So the English people had no way to make them accountable.


You're confusing me with Michael!
What are you on about now? He strikes me as having a healthy degree of skepticism of state power, considering where he comes from.


So you're arguing that even if voters in the Confederate states overwhelmingly voted to secede, they couldn't do so? What happened to your support for "localism"?
Only if blacks were allowed to vote! The secessionists were in a minority if the votes of black slaves had been allowed to be added to the votes of Southern Unionists.

West Virginia seceded from Virginia.

antichrist
03-02-2020, 01:10 PM
Could the blacks vote to set up their own state as well?

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2020, 06:50 PM
No, Brussels bureaucrats made rules, and the European Parliament was subject to the bureaucracy. So the English people had no way to make them accountable.Rubbish! The EU Parliament is not subject to the bureaucracy (http://hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/learning/module-1-understanding-eu-institutions/the-european-parliament/the-powers-of-the-european-parliament/). And you seem to have forgotten about the Council of Ministers, on which Britain was also represented (of course).


What are you on about now? He strikes me as having a healthy degree of skepticism of state power, considering where he comes from.Really :(


China is not a Totalitarian Dictatorship. Every political system has pros and cons. If you look at contemporary China, it is very far from being Totolitarian, having 1 or effectively 2 (e.g. USA) political parties makes no real difference. And as far as economic efficiency is concerned - just consider where China was in pre Deng's times (when the economic reforms started) and where it is now.


Only if blacks were allowed to vote! The secessionists were in a minority if the votes of black slaves had been allowed to be added to the votes of Southern Unionists.While you're assuming that most black men would have voted, and most would have voted against secession, it's still a good point. However, the fact is that under the electoral system at the time, black people didn't have the vote, so it's also purely hypothetical. I think that Brexit should have required a supermajority, but that's equally hpothetical now.

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2020, 06:52 PM
Could the blacks vote to set up their own state as well?They did - Liberia was founded by former slaves (hence the name).

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2020, 09:59 PM
Here is a description of the EU legislative procedure (https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en):

The European Parliament and the Council review proposals by the Commission and propose amendments. If the Council and the Parliament cannot agree upon amendments, a second reading takes place. In the second reading, the Parliament and Council can again propose amendments. Parliament has the power to block the proposed legislation if it cannot agree with the Council. If the two institutions agree on amendments, the proposed legislation can be adopted. If they cannot agree, a conciliation committee tries to find a solution. Both the Council and the Parliament can block the legislative proposal at this final reading.
So both the Parliament and Council of Ministers can amend or block legislation. Britain was represented on both.

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2020, 10:15 PM
Sajid Javid has quit as chancellor, apparently after the PM said he wasn't allowed to have his own special advisors and had to sack them all and replace them with advisors picked by Number 10.

Ireland has elected a parliament with no party holding even a quarter of the seats, after Sinn Féin greatly increased their vote. A government will probably be formed eventually.

Blunderbuss
26-08-2020, 11:27 PM
Emily Thornberry isn't sure Tony Abbott is the right man to represent the UK as a trade envoy...


"I just find this appointment absolutely staggering,” Thornberry said. “On a personal level, I am disgusted that Boris Johnson thinks this offensive, leering, cantankerous, climate change-denying, Trump-worshipping misogynist is the right person to represent our country overseas."

Patrick Byrom
30-08-2020, 06:54 PM
Not all leaders are doing well in the pandemic (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/29/boris-johnson-faces-tory-wrath-as-party-slumps-in-shock-poll):

“Since Boris Johnson became prime minister the Tories typically had a double digit lead, peaking in March/April this year when they were seen to be handling the pandemic and lockdown fairly well while Labour changed leader. In the five months since that peak, the lead has gradually declined from 26% to 0% now.”

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2021, 03:27 AM
Britain’s Brexit Triumph (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/britain-brexit-triumph/)
By THE EDITORS, National Review, 31 Dec 2020

Four and a half years after the momentous vote in June 2016, Brexit is finally and fully accomplished with a U.K.–EU trade deal that sailed through Parliament 521 to 73.

It’s over.

The economic uncertainty about the United Kingdom’s “future relationship” with the nascent super-state is finished. The bottom line is that the U.K. will continue trading relatively freely with the European Union, avoiding the economic disruption that would come by falling back on WTO rules in a disorderly exit. Trade will be done through the mechanism of the new trade agreement with agreed-upon provisions for regulations and retaliatory tariffs. Like all sovereign nations, the U.K. can now go about making its own trading arrangements in the world, while keeping faith with its existing covenants.

It’s over.

The hysteria that accompanied resistance to Brexit is vanquished. Polite opinion denounced Brexit as an irrational act of national self-harm. The campaign against Brexit before and after the vote predicted imminent economic calamity, leaving the country permanently poorer (former chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne). The United Kingdom could lose access to vital medicines and pharmaceutical companies, and would take a step backward in science (Vox). Trade would stop, and ships would be halted in the ports, while food meant for Britons rotted. The City of London’s place as a world financial capital would be destroyed. Outside the European Union, it would be rash to assume that the United Kingdom would avoid another European War (Prime Minister David Cameron). The Guardian will surely keep us updated on whether its 2019 predictions of post-Brexit “chip shortages,” pogroms against Poles, and mass starvation come about.

The illusion that the European Union is an inevitable and irresistible future has been put to rest. The United Kingdom is now free of the burdensome political project of “more Europe.” That means the United Kingdom is not subject to the European Court of Justice, an institution founded (in part) by Nazi jurists such as Hans Peter Ipsen, which privileged “ever closer union” above democracy and the rule of law. It is not subject to a Commission led by political failures, recently dispatched from office by democratic verdicts in their own nations. The United Kingdom is free of its financial contributions, which fund the sprawling eurocrat bureaucracy and which pay for the suppression of political dissent in recalcitrant member states.

Brexit was difficult and treacherous. And, its proponents should be honest that it cost more than a few fish. It revealed stark divisions in British life, and aggravated fissures within the Union itself. But now as a free, sovereign, and independent power, the Johnson government is in a better position to repair those divisions, and the people of the United Kingdom are in a better position to hold to account the authorities that govern them.

Sovereignty and democracy go together in the modern world. Self-government is not over, and never should be.

Patrick Byrom
03-01-2021, 11:31 AM
And the British people are not too happy about it (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/02/poll-predicts-a-uk-general-election-now-would-wipe-out-tory-majority):

The public are deeply unhappy with the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the Brexit negotiations, a damning new poll suggests. The poll predicts that if a general election were held tomorrow neither the Conservatives nor Labour would win an outright majority. Disturbingly for Boris Johnson, the survey says the Conservatives would lose 81 seats, wiping out the 80-seat majority they won in December 2019. ...

Desmond
03-01-2021, 08:19 PM
Britain’s Brexit Triumph (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/britain-brexit-triumph/)
By THE EDITORS, National Review, 31 Dec 2020Brexiteers may have forgotten their Sir Humphrey.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

Garvinator
04-01-2021, 05:24 PM
And the British people are not too happy about it (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/02/poll-predicts-a-uk-general-election-now-would-wipe-out-tory-majority):

The public are deeply unhappy with the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the Brexit negotiations, a damning new poll suggests. The poll predicts that if a general election were held tomorrow neither the Conservatives nor Labour would win an outright majority. Disturbingly for Boris Johnson, the survey says the Conservatives would lose 81 seats, wiping out the 80-seat majority they won in December 2019. ...

The only commentary I make regarding this poll is that we have seen in the last few years how accurate polling has been, or sometimes, more accurately, pundit predictions from that polling has been.

But from that article, talk about burying the lead: Right at the end of the article:


Tory supporters were quick to point out on social media that the survey period ended before news of the Brexit deal was announced and claim there is evidence of a swingback to the Conservatives in the few days since.

If the poll is meant to be representative of Brexit support in the community, how can it truly measure this Brexit deal support when the poll is conducted before the full details of the Brexit deal have been released and discussed?

Patrick Byrom
04-01-2021, 06:45 PM
... If the poll is meant to be representative of Brexit support in the community, how can it truly measure this Brexit deal support when the poll is conducted before the full details of the Brexit deal have been released and discussed?The article did refer to "Brexit negotiations" and "the government's handling ... of Brexit", rather than the Brexit deal itself.

Patrick Byrom
26-01-2021, 09:14 PM
Trade after Brexit is not going well (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/18/brexiters-damage-horse-racing-fishing-haulage-industry-chaos):

All these losses to a host of smaller industries mount up fast. But look at the Sunday Times report on the crisis in a car industry that’s worth £42bn in exports, employing 823,000 people, where car-part delays are halting production at some factories. Yet still, most economically deadly is the unseen slipping away of invisibles, where that 80% of the economy in services is already leaking tax revenues. Bloomberg keeps up its grim recording of no likely progress: “City of London’s plight laid bare as Brexit deal hopes fade,” it reports.

Capablanca-Fan
24-02-2021, 06:43 AM
How Brexit Helped the UK Win Europe's Vaccination Race in a Landslide (https://fee.org/articles/how-brexit-helped-the-uk-win-europes-vaccination-race-in-a-landslide)
The UK has the third fastest vaccination rate in the world. Within Europe, the UK takes the top spot—and it’s not even close.
Sarah Lilly, FEE, 23 Feb 2021

After a year of lockdowns, vaccinations are finally making their way into the arms of eager citizens around the globe. The speed of that progress differs greatly between nations, however. The UK is doing quite well with the third fastest vaccination rate in the world, behind only Israel and the UAE. Within Europe, the UK takes the top spot… and it’s not even close.

The UK’s relative speed is no accident. The nation was the first to approve both the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (on December 2) and the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine (on December 30). The Moderna vaccine was approved the first week in January.

European Union Malfeasance
Contrast this impressive rollout with the European Union, where member states aren’t even vaccinating at half the rate of the UK. Even Germany, which often is given props for efficiency, is vaccinating at a quarter of the UK’s rate.

One reason for the slow vaccine distribution is the delay in approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the regulatory agency that approves and recommends to the European Commission that a medicine can be marketed across the EU as well as in the European Economic Area. The EMA was nearly three weeks behind the UK in its Pfizer-BioNTech approval and only approved the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine on January 29 (a full month behind the UK). One of the reasons for this delay is due to the EU’s requirement that the drug label be printed in 24 languages.

Centralized Control and the Knowledge Problem
Back during the Brexit negotiations, “remain” voters and progressive publications warned that leaving the European Medicines Agency was going to endanger the lives of UK citizens. They could not fathom that a sovereign UK could make its own medical decisions without an official EU decree. But now, the dismal fruits of centralized decision making in the EU have demonstrated just how wrong they were.

The fatal flaw for the EU can be best explained by Friedrich Hayek’s “knowledge problem (https://fee.org/articles/why-most-fell-for-the-lockdowns-while-a-few-stood-for-liberty/)”. The main idea is that problems are best addressed when solutions are ‘dispersed’ among individual people, or in this case, dispersed among individual countries within Europe and the private industries within them. Decentralized solutions are preferable because they leverage the distributed knowledge of producers and consumers, rather than relying on a single central planner who is necessarily ill-informed about the supply and demand of scarce resources.

The UK ‘dispersed’ or decentralized their vaccine process exceptionally well by way of two means. First, by regaining their autonomy from the EU, thus keeping all decision making in house. And second, by largely deferring to market experts rather than alleged government experts.

There were a lot of grave predictions made when the UK decided to leave the EU and restore its independence and self-governance. This EU vaccine fiasco has undoubtedly proven those skeptics wrong.

Patrick Byrom
24-02-2021, 09:59 AM
So the EU is vaccinating at about the same rate that Australia is. Maybe that's because the death toll in the UK is much greater than in either the EU or Australia. And the article never explains why remaining in the EU would have prevented the UK from vaccinating at its current rate.

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2021, 05:06 PM
UK Labour walloped in Hartlepool by-election. Can't explain it just by reference to absence of Brexit Party since there was a 9% swing against Labour. Second case in four years of Labour losing a by-election to the government, normally a rare event.