Brexit and General UK politics thread

[Imperial Overlord]

Normally the tire fire of a government under May would benefit the opposition, but Labour is coming apart at the seems themselves.

The problem with trying to thread a middle course is that you can end up looking like you stand for nothing.

[His Divine Shadow]

They have a pretty clear stance set out since last conference, soft brexit with a customs union, labor would support a 2nd referendum to stop hard brexit. Doesn't help if nobody reports it or spins it to "labour has got no stance" which has taken hold even here. It does seem very hard for even a social democrat like Corbyn to make headways in this neolib hellworld.

[Imperial Overlord]

It's been pretty clear for a long time that one of Corbyn's problems is that a substantial part of the media would rather slit their own throat than cover him fairly.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

From what I've heard, a big reason that this is becoming a Hard Brexit (or, probably, a Punitive one if Britain keeps going like this) is that the majority of the politicians Britain-side have really big money on a Hard Brexit happening.

[Crazedwraith]

Splitters! Half of TIG/Change UK Leave movement

Change UK has lost six of its 11 MPs following a disappointing performance in last month's EU elections, when it failed to get a single MEP elected.

The party announced that a new party leader, Anna Soubry, had been elected.

She said she was "deeply disappointed" that Heidi Allen, Chuka Umunna, Sarah Wollaston, Angela Smith, Luciana Berger and Gavin Shuker had left.

The departing MPs said they would be "returning to supporting each other as an independent grouping of MPs".

Change UK - formerly known as the Independent Group - was formed earlier this year by MPs who quit Labour and the Conservatives.

It pledged to push for any Brexit deal negotiated by the government to be voted on at a referendum - or "People's Vote" - in which it would campaign for the UK to remain in the EU.

But in last month's European Parliament elections, it gained only 3.4% of the vote.

A joint statement from the six outgoing members said their priority was now "to provide collegiate leadership to bring people together in the national interest".

"We know the landscape will continue to shift within the political environment and have concluded that by returning to sit as independents, we will be best placed to work cross-party and respond flexibly.

"We wish our colleagues well as they continue to build Change UK."

In a personal statement, former Labour MP Mr Umunna called for the "Remain forces" in Parliament to "work even more closely together", especially at the next general election, and urged them to "regroup and consolidate activity to maximise our impact".

"The movement built around Change UK has an important role to play in this," said Mr Umunna. "However, whilst I believe it should carry on as an organisation, I do not believe Change UK should carry on in its current form.

"This has put me in a fundamentally different place not only to other Change UK parliamentary colleagues, but also its activists and candidates who should be free to take the party in the direction they wish."

'Roll up our sleeves'
Former Conservative Ms Soubry, who has taken over from Ms Allen as leader, said she was disappointed the split had come "at such a crucial time in British politics".

"Now is not the time to walk away, but instead to roll up our sleeves and stand up for the sensible mainstream centre ground which is unrepresented in British politics today."

She said the party was "as determined to fix Britain's broken politics as we were when we left our former parties".

BBC political correspondent Ben Wright said there had "clearly been turmoil in the party's ranks for number of weeks".

"It has been obvious that there was an internal disagreement over where the party should be positioning itself, what its long term tactics should be, whether it should be cosying up to the Lib Dems or maintaining itself as an independent party," he said.

"Change UK was being squeezed by the other parties campaigning for Remain and didn't keep the momentum going that it had earlier in the year when it launched."

After the split was announced, Change UK sent an email to members, appealing for their "help and support going forward".

It added: "While British politics slips into chaos around us, now is the time to stand firm in our beliefs and champion the mainstream centre ground values we articulated when we left our former parties in the first place."

'Door is open'
The outgoing leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Vince Cable, said it was "not at all surprising" that the party had split, but his "door was always open" if they wanted to join his instead.

He told the BBC he had heard "rumours" and it would be "ideal" if the departing MPs became Lib Dems, but said: "I don't want to comment on that before there is any official announcement."

Sir Vince added: "I don't want to gloat over their failure. It was a failure, but we have got to move on and I want to be positive about it.

"I am simply acknowledging the fact they have tried this project, they are brave people, they broke away from their parties and they deserve credit for that, but setting up a new centre party in the British centre doesn't work."

[EnterpriseSovereign]

You can bet the Brexit Bullshitter Bunch are loving this.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

You can bet the Brexit Bullshitter Bunch are loving this.

Given that the guys behind Brexit have been under MI-5 investigation a while back...

[Juubi Karakuchi]

You can bet the Brexit Bullshitter Bunch are loving this.

Given that the guys behind Brexit have been under MI-5 investigation a while back...

At some point on 5th June, the European Parliament gave Nigel Farage 24 hours to appear before it and explain certain expenses covered by Aaron Banks, which he subsequently faled to declare. He refused to go, and I have heard nothing since. That could potentially get interesting.

An interesting report from the Independent in the meantime;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 46191.html

Labour will not win general election unless it backs second Brexit referendum, poll analysis suggests

Exclusive: Jeremy Corbyn’s party is losing three times as many supporters to rivals who back Remain as to Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party

Andrew Woodcock
Political Editor @andywoodcock
3 hours ago
51 comments

Labour will be unable to win a majority in a general election unless it changes its stance on a second referendum, new analysis of polling suggests.

Jeremy Corbyn’s party stands to lose more than 40 per cent of voters who backed Labour in 2017, with support overwhelmingly switching to Remain-backing parties.

The figures come as one of Labour’s shadow Brexit ministers, Jenny Chapman, swung behind a Final Say referendum, having previously been a staunch opponent.

Ms Chapman said she was convinced there was now no alternative way to resolve the crisis. Asked if the Labour leader should announce a shift in policy straight away, she told the BBC: “I think so – I think it should be now.”

The party is braced to lose the Peterborough constituency to Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party in a by-election on Thursday, which is expected to see Liberal Democrats benefit from Remain switchers frustrated by the lack of clarity in Mr Corbyn’s stance.

Despite calls from senior shadow cabinet members, including deputy leader Tom Watson, to throw the party’s weight behind a second referendum on any Brexit deal, Mr Corbyn has stuck to the policy of supporting a people’s vote only if Labour cannot obtain its preferred EU withdrawal outcome or a general election. And he has kept the party’s campaign focus on issues like austerity, health and public services rather than Europe.

Applying polling responses from more than 15,000 voters over the past month to individual constituencies, data analysis company Focaldata found that Labour would be the biggest party in the new parliament, but might lose more than 40 per cent of its 2017 support.

According to the figures, Jeremy Corbyn’s party would be left well short of a majority and forced to rely on some sort of deal with Remain-backing Liberal Democrats and nationalist parties to form a government, making a Final Say poll all but inevitable.

Focaldata’s analysis for Best for Britain and the Hope Not Hate campaign found that 42 per cent of those who backed Labour in 2017 would desert the party in a new general election, with the vast bulk (30 per cent) going to Remain-backing parties like the Lib Dems, 2 per cent to the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru and 10 per cent to the Brexit Party.

Tories would lose more than half of the voters who backed Theresa May in the last general election, with 37 per cent going to Farage’s party, 8 per cent to the Lib Dems and 2 per cent each to Labour and the Greens.

Labour would take 24.8 per cent of the vote, ahead of the Brexit Party on 22.9 per cent, with the Tories trailing in third with 21.7 and Lib Dems on 17.6.

On these figures, Mr Corbyn could find himself at the head of a 251-strong Labour contingent in the Commons, as the largest single party but far from the 326 MPs needed for an absolute majority.

With the Brexit Party taking 135 seats and Tories 132 under these calculations, Lib Dems on 53 and the SNP enjoying a near clean-sweep of 55 out of 59 constituencies north of the border, Mr Corbyn may be forced to seek an anti-Brexit alliance of some form to have any hope of governing.

According to the analysis, prominent Tories like defence secretary Penny Mordaunt, work and pensions secretary, Amber Rudd, and communities secretary, James Brokenshire, could all lose their seats, while leadership favourite Boris Johnson’s Uxbridge and Ruislip would become a marginal.

Best for Britain chief operating officer Naomi Smith said: “The consequences of Labour’s ambivalent policy towards a Final Say on Brexit looks set to hurt them further. They’re expected to lose almost half of their 2017 vote share, according to our analysis.

“The Labour leadership now needs to pick a side, and with them losing three times as many votes to Remain parties as they are to the Brexit Party, it is obvious which position they should take if they want to be in government.”
Nigel Farage says the Brexit Party could ‘stun everybody’ in a general election

The chief executive of Hope Not Hate, Nick Lowles, said: “This poll reveals a quite shocking surge in a hardline right-wing Brexit Party, led by a divisive and dangerous politician in Nigel Farage.

“We are onto very, very dangerous ground and every mainstream party needs to think very carefully about how to avoid these results coming to pass.”

Mr Lowles said Labour was “bleeding votes” to parties which have taken a clear anti-Brexit stance.

“Labour will lose seats in areas that voted Leave if they continue to lose the support of Labour Remain voters,” he said. “It’s counter-intuitive but it’s the reality.

“The evidence is clear – from this poll, and the recent election results – if Labour wants to win a majority at the next election, it needs to move to keep its Remain voters on board.”

Focaldata collected vote intention data from 15,231 national poll respondents between 17 and 30 May, using a technique called MRP to estimate opinion in each UK constituency.

This would seem to confirm what I've suspected for a long time. Labour will suffer if it picks a side either way, but choosing Remain will be the lesser evil. It might deny Labour an election victory, but it would put the party on a firmer base for the future; considering that younger demographics overwhelmingly support Remain.

[mr friendly guy]

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnso ... s-11738084

Boris Johnson: I won't pay £39bn unless EU gives Britain better exit terms
The leadership campaign frontrunner claims he would refuse to pay the promised £39bn unless better Brexit terms are on offer.
By Lucia Binding, news reporter

Sunday 9 June 2019 09:00, UK

Mr Johnson said the £39bn settlement would only be paid when there is "greater clarity" about the way forward.

"I always thought it was extraordinary that we should agree to write the entire cheque before having a final deal," he said.

"In getting a good deal, money is a great solvent and a great lubricant."

That's going to go down well with Brussells.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

That's going to go down well with Brussells.

... that is going to make Brussels go for a punitive Brexit I swear!

[Vendetta]

That's going to go down well with Brussells.

I believe their position on the matter is that no trade negotiations will be possible until the bills are paid.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's going to go down well with Brussells.

... that is going to make Brussels go for a punitive Brexit I swear!

Honestly, while the ordinary people in Britain who had no part in supporting this madness have my sympathy, I'm inclined to say the EU should make Britain pay. Fucking neo-fascist separatists trying to make the world more divided. If it were up to me, I'd prefer to use Sherman's March as the model for how to treat those who back separatist positions for trivial or bigoted reasons, but since that probably isn't a viable option for the EU against Britain, I'll settle for hurting them at the bank.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

That's going to go down well with Brussells.

... that is going to make Brussels go for a punitive Brexit I swear!

Honestly, while the ordinary people in Britain who had no part in supporting this madness have my sympathy, I'm inclined to say the EU should make Britain pay. Fucking neo-fascist separatists trying to make the world more divided. If it were up to me, I'd prefer to use Sherman's March as the model for how to treat those who back separatist positions for trivial or bigoted reasons, but since that probably isn't a viable option for the EU against Britain, I'll settle for hurting them at the bank.

I understand your feelings, but there's no point. The EU has made its position perfectly clear, and acted entirely within its own rules. I suspect that one of its major concerns has been to ensure that it cannot be reasonably blamed for the consequences of a Hard Brexit; at least not without major anti-EU bias anyway, and there's little they can do about that. To actively punish Britain would be to give Brexiter propaganda a fig-leaf of credence, and for no meaningful gain. Britain will do a fine job of ruining itself on its own without the EU dirtying its hands.

[Crazedwraith]

That's going to go down well with Brussells.

... that is going to make Brussels go for a punitive Brexit I swear!

Honestly, while the ordinary people in Britain who had no part in supporting this madness have my sympathy, I'm inclined to say the EU should make Britain pay. Fucking neo-fascist separatists trying to make the world more divided. If it were up to me, I'd prefer to use Sherman's March as the model for how to treat those who back separatist positions for trivial or bigoted reasons, but since that probably isn't a viable option for the EU against Britain, I'll settle for hurting them at the bank.

Despite your little figleaf at the start your attitude is contemptible.

How many people have to suffer for not following your politics for you to be happy? The people that suffer will never be the people ultimately responsible.

[The Romulan Republic]

... that is going to make Brussels go for a punitive Brexit I swear!

Honestly, while the ordinary people in Britain who had no part in supporting this madness have my sympathy, I'm inclined to say the EU should make Britain pay. Fucking neo-fascist separatists trying to make the world more divided. If it were up to me, I'd prefer to use Sherman's March as the model for how to treat those who back separatist positions for trivial or bigoted reasons, but since that probably isn't a viable option for the EU against Britain, I'll settle for hurting them at the bank.

Despite your little figleaf at the start your attitude is contemptible.

I have no need for a "figleaf". I meant what I said, start to finish, (well, okay, maybe not the Sherman's March bit), and I stand by it, without apology.

It sucks that the British people have a shitty fascist-lite government. It really, really sucks that there will be consequences for that, some of which will hurt innocent people. It also sucked for the Americans who were hurt by the government shutdown, but that had to happen because the only way to avoid it was to concede to Trump's ethnic cleansing campaign. So yeah, it sucks that Britain has a sack of human excrement for a government, and that that will result in innocent people getting hurt. But there do need to be consequences for this xenophobic, divisive idiocy.

If showing Britain mercy is a more practical course for the EU, then fine. But if they should choose to pursue a punitive response as a deterrent to such idiocy in the future, I'd find it hard to fault them.

[Crazedwraith]

Honestly, while the ordinary people in Britain who had no part in supporting this madness have my sympathy, I'm inclined to say the EU should make Britain pay. Fucking neo-fascist separatists trying to make the world more divided. If it were up to me, I'd prefer to use Sherman's March as the model for how to treat those who back separatist positions for trivial or bigoted reasons, but since that probably isn't a viable option for the EU against Britain, I'll settle for hurting them at the bank.

Despite your little figleaf at the start your attitude is contemptible.

I have no need for a "figleaf". I meant what I said, start to finish, (well, okay, maybe not the Sherman's March bit), and I stand by it, without apology

It sucks that the British people have a shitty fascist-lite government. It really, really sucks that there will be consequences for that, some of which will hurt innocent people. It also sucked for the Americans who were hurt by the government shutdown, but that had to happen because the only way to avoid it was to concede to Trump's ethnic cleansing campaign. So yeah, it sucks that Britain has a sack of human excrement for a government, and that that will result in innocent people getting hurt. But there do need to be consequences for this xenophobic, divisive idiocy.

If showing Britain mercy is a more practical course for the EU, then fine. But if they should choose to pursue a punitive response as a deterrent to such idiocy in the future, I'd find it hard to fault them.

I simply don't believe you. Saying 'I sympathise' is easy, actually being sympathetic is harder.

But leaving that aside, how is the EU punishing Britain economically going to work? Because it's not going to serve as a warning to anyone if the EU is seen as the cause, it will simply enflame eurosceptic rhetoric and make them actually right, so really brilliant idea there.

And how would this be different from Trump throwing the US's economic bulk around and trying to get say Mexico take a tougher line of immigration, aside from the fact you agree with one aim and not the other?

[The Romulan Republic]

Despite your little figleaf at the start your attitude is contemptible.

I have no need for a "figleaf". I meant what I said, start to finish, (well, okay, maybe not the Sherman's March bit), and I stand by it, without apology

It sucks that the British people have a shitty fascist-lite government. It really, really sucks that there will be consequences for that, some of which will hurt innocent people. It also sucked for the Americans who were hurt by the government shutdown, but that had to happen because the only way to avoid it was to concede to Trump's ethnic cleansing campaign. So yeah, it sucks that Britain has a sack of human excrement for a government, and that that will result in innocent people getting hurt. But there do need to be consequences for this xenophobic, divisive idiocy.

If showing Britain mercy is a more practical course for the EU, then fine. But if they should choose to pursue a punitive response as a deterrent to such idiocy in the future, I'd find it hard to fault them.

I simply don't believe you. Saying 'I sympathise' is easy, actually being sympathetic is harder.

Indeed. But you know who I feel the most sympathy for? The refugees and immigrants the Brexiters want to keep out of the country at all costs (we all know what the main impetus behind Brexit is). Then random British people who are being fucked by their own government for the sake of this bigotry. And at the very, very bottom, the fucksticks who think this is a good idea.

But leaving that aside, how is the EU punishing Britain economically going to work? Because it's not going to serve as a warning to anyone if the EU is seen as the cause, it will simply enflame eurosceptic rhetoric and make them actually right, so really brilliant idea there.

No, they'd still be wrong, because the Brexiters would have brought it entirely on themselves.

Also, I doubt the serious "euroskeptics" are going to change their position regardless. They just see scary foreigners, and that's all there is to it.

And how would this be different from Trump throwing the US's economic bulk around and trying to get say Mexico take a tougher line of immigration, aside from the fact you agree with one aim and not the other?

Aside from the fact that one aim is blatantly racist and the other isn't, you mean? Well, that's a pretty big difference. But there's also the fact that there's a greater power disparity between the US and Mexico than between Britain and the EU, and that Mexico did not go out of its way to fuck the US over first.

[mr friendly guy]

TRR attitude is similar to some Westerners who insists on punishing foreign governments we don't like and damn the consequences to the civilian population even though we are supposedly wanting to help the civilians.

This is the first time I have seen attitude applied to a western country, and while I disagree with the sentiment, I must say it's refreshing for someone applied the standard consistently.

Please don't let me stop you guys fighting. It's an interesting discussion.

[Jub]

But leaving that aside, how is the EU punishing Britain economically going to work? Because it's not going to serve as a warning to anyone if the EU is seen as the cause, it will simply enflame eurosceptic rhetoric and make them actually right, so really brilliant idea there.

Is the EU doing exactly what they said they would before this whole Brexit nonsense even got rolling really punishing Britain though? It seems to me like following the procedure that literally everybody involved already knew about and which any even remotely informed Brexiter had to know would be a consequence of leaving. This is more Britain sticking their own hand into a forge and crying because the EU refuses to stop pumping the bellows.

[Crazedwraith]

But leaving that aside, how is the EU punishing Britain economically going to work? Because it's not going to serve as a warning to anyone if the EU is seen as the cause, it will simply enflame eurosceptic rhetoric and make them actually right, so really brilliant idea there.

Is the EU doing exactly what they said they would before this whole Brexit nonsense even got rolling really punishing Britain though? It seems to me like following the procedure that literally everybody involved already knew about and which any even remotely informed Brexiter had to know would be a consequence of leaving. This is more Britain sticking their own hand into a forge and crying because the EU refuses to stop pumping the bellows.

I don't disagree with what the EU is actually doing nor did I call it punitive. What I was objecting to was TRR's hypothetical punishing brexit.

[Zaune]

From my point of view as one of the many people likely to suffer direct negative consequences as a result of Brexit... I think TRR is probably right. The current British government has spent the past decade enthusiastically killing off its own citizens in uncertain but alarmingly high numbers to the point where it's possible we wouldn't really notice economic sanctions at street level, and I can't really blame them for wanting to limit the ability of the potentially aggressive hard-right strongman regime we're in danger of deteriorating into to bankroll a major military buildup.

[AniThyng]

TRR attitude is similar to some Westerners who insists on punishing foreign governments we don't like and damn the consequences to the civilian population even though we are supposedly wanting to help the civilians.

This is the first time I have seen attitude applied to a western country, and while I disagree with the sentiment, I must say it's refreshing for someone applied the standard consistently.

Please don't let me stop you guys fighting. It's an interesting discussion.

So what happens to the refugees and immigrants that are already in Britain when this punishment comes down. Sounds like fun for their kids...

[Zaune]

So what happens to the refugees and immigrants that are already in Britain when this punishment comes down.

Nothing the "we need HARD MEN to make HARD DECISIONS" lobby wouldn't have done to them anyway.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Honestly, while the ordinary people in Britain who had no part in supporting this madness have my sympathy, I'm inclined to say the EU should make Britain pay. Fucking neo-fascist separatists trying to make the world more divided. If it were up to me, I'd prefer to use Sherman's March as the model for how to treat those who back separatist positions for trivial or bigoted reasons, but since that probably isn't a viable option for the EU against Britain, I'll settle for hurting them at the bank.

Here's the thing, it is only going to be worse from here on in... and making me scream into the sky about 'MY SETTING IS NOT SOMETHING TO COPY REALITY!' every so often.

Then again, given everything we've seen so far... we're going to have xenophobia rising pretty hard for the next few decades, especially when we still haven't removed the mentality of 'work to play' from the populous. Remember, historically the situation becomes extremely xenophobic when people can't live or have families. That is why many unions have some level of xenophobia backed into them, as more often than not the companies would use immigrants (and, in the case of the US once the Quotas were instituted because everyone that was a moderate knew the situation that was boiling, African-Americans) to depress wages in the short and near-mid term (not months but decades/generations in the scale we're talking here).

From my point of view as one of the many people likely to suffer direct negative consequences as a result of Brexit... I think TRR is probably right. The current British government has spent the past decade enthusiastically killing off its own citizens in uncertain but alarmingly high numbers to the point where it's possible we wouldn't really notice economic sanctions at street level, and I can't really blame them for wanting to limit the ability of the potentially aggressive hard-right strongman regime we're in danger of deteriorating into to bankroll a major military buildup.

... and people say getting rid of the Queen's power was a good thing when the reality is that they've just removed the only failsafe that would avoid that possibility.

[The Romulan Republic]

You forget perhaps that Parliament was originally introduced as a check on the excesses of the monarch's power.

But hell, we might just get to the point where I'd be rooting for Liz the Second (or, perhaps, Charles or William by the time it really hits the fan) to take charge. Fuck hereditary monarchy. But fuck fascism even more.

Your point about the ties between economic hardship and xenophobia/authoritarianism is of course well-founded, but the fear of immigrants taking the jobs seems rather dated now. These days, its robots taking the jobs you've got to worry about more. Of course, many people don't realize that, in part because the Right-wing capitalists are actively scapegoating brown people and foreigners to pit the poor against each other while they remain in power. Classic divide and conquer.

The solution is likewise obvious, at least to me: we need universal basic income. Ultimately, we need the ability to feed yourself and your family, and to have four sturdy walls and a roof over your head, to be enshrined as constitutional rights, just as much as equality under the law, freedom of belief and expression, the right to vote or a fair trial.