The British Politics Thread

[Furball]

Jokes aside though, there's a non-trivial risk that Brexit will trigger a resurgence of violence in Northern Ireland. Acute economic hardship that could easily be solved by uniting Ireland would be a pretty severe political shock.

I don't think it'll happen, but it's definitely not something that can be dismissed as "lol scaremongering".

In that case would the Republic want to prop you up with billions of Euros that they don't have?

 

[Furball]

wtf, the Tories beat Labour in Scotland???

Right, on this the referendum changed Scottish politics enormously. You have no idea how much the country was split in the lead up to the referendum and the actions of all the parties in the aftermath haven't exactly helped to heal the divisions. We're not at Northern Ireland levels of bampottery just yet however there has definitely been a shift towards framing politics in terms of Nationalist vs Unionist. This is partly what's hurt Labour - I've posted before on how it's Labour's core vote that has shifted the most towards the SNP, that the 4 local authority areas that returned a Yes vote in 2014 (Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire and Dundee) are all post-industrial Labour heartlands, that those same areas saw the biggest swings to the SNP in 2011, 2015 and 2016 whereas the SNP's traditional electoral heartlands in the North East were interestingly enough amongst the strongest No voters (and have shifted back towards the Conservatives in 2016.) The SNP v Labour battle is pretty much a case of Nationalist Labour vs Unionist Labour, and it's a battle where the nationalists are running riot.

Scottish politics is still dominated by the constitutional question. Will there be a 2nd referendum, or will the SNP hold to their "once in a generation" promise? What about if Britain (read: England) votes out but Scotland votes in in June? etc. etc. Frankly, although I voted Yes, I don't want a referendum right now, in my opinion the question was decisively answered: Scotland said No, move on and govern the country please. In that context, you've got a Labour leader saying that she would be happy for her own MSPs to campaign for independence in a hypothetical Indy Ref 2, who flip-flopped on whether she herself might be open to supporting independence in the future and has stated she might back independence to secure Scotland's place in the EU. Contrast that with Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader who was a central, popular figure in the No campaign and who has unambiguously opposed any plans for a 2nd referendum. It's natural that Labour lost votes to the Conservatives in a country that's still divided down Unionist and Nationalist lines to the extent we are.

There's also the fact that Labour and the SNP share similar ideological ground (in theory), so if I was to vote on who I felt would provide the most robust opposition to the SNP then I would've gone Tory. The Scottish Tories are a lot more centrist than the UK party and their leadership are a lot easier to relate to than the UK leadership. Ruth Davidsom is middle class, Edinburgh born, likes women and is from a Church of Scotland background - so it's actually quite easy for me to identify with her. Cameron et al seem to inhabit a different planet at times. There's also a chronic talent gap in the Labour party, it's quite telling that none of their heavyweights who were involved in the referendum campaign (Brown, Darling, Alexander and Murphy) sit in Edinburgh.

Gordon Brown's speech the day before the referendum was magnificent and it's the best political speech I've heard in my lifetime. But none of Scottish Labour seem to have paid any attention to the key messages delivered by Brown in that speech; they've got an identity crisis.

 

[Uppercut]

In that case would the Republic want to prop you up with billions of Euros that they don't have?

I think so, yeah. The sense of shared identity with the North is pretty strong in the South.

But look, there's zero chance of a united Ireland actually happening. It's just that it might rekindle republican sentiment and spark a return of violence.

 

[StephenZA]

https://theconversation.com/the-eu-...failure-and-dangerously-anti-democratic-59115
Interesting take on the Brexit debate. Even if I don`t totally agree with the conclusion. Particularly regarding free trade. It is already seen that any trade agreements between UK and Europe would require stipulations, agreed regulations and probably still free movement.

 

[sledger]

https://theconversation.com/the-eu-...failure-and-dangerously-anti-democratic-59115
Interesting take on the Brexit debate. Even if I don`t totally agree with the conclusion. Particularly regarding free trade. It is already seen that any trade agreements between UK and Europe would require stipulations, agreed regulations and probably still free movement.

I don't think what this article says about trade and free movement of goods/people/capital etc... is that interesting. The points it makes about the undemocratic nature of the thing are hugely salient though imo, particularly regarding the development of the main treaties. This a prime example of what I've been saying in this thread for years about how the EU is literally an huge supranational organisation that has repeatedly and unaccountably elected to give itself greater power and extend its competencies, and it amazes me that this point hasn't been picked up on and scrutinised in greater detail in the general discourse.

For me all the other related points are tangential, this is the issue that people should be talking about.

 

[StephenZA]

I don't think what this article says about trade and free movement of goods/people/capital etc... is that interesting. The points it makes about the undemocratic nature of the thing are hugely salient though imo, particularly regarding the development of the main treaties. This a prime example of what I've been saying in this thread for years about how the EU is literally an huge supranational organisation that has repeatedly and unaccountably elected to give itself greater power and extend its competencies, and it amazes me that this point hasn't been picked up on and scrutinised in greater detail in the general discourse.

For me all the other related points are tangential, this is the issue that people should be talking about.

I agree fully... the article just seems to end talking about the economics issues etc.

The problem is that people feel just as detached from their own elected officials, Westminster, as they do from the Brussels officials. And the question then becomes what would leaving the EU actually do to fix this? Economically in the long run I don`t think that staying in or leaving the EU will have a big influence. Immigration is not going to change drastically, particularly if any trade agreement with the EU insists on free movement (likely). Then there is the legal issues re the European Court of justice and the European Human Rights court that sometimes overrules the UK courts. This is an issue, but largely the law`s of the UK and Europe agree (devil is in the details though). ... ultimately I don`t see practically what the UK will gain leaving the EU (or lose for that matter in the long run). So is the EU extended/greater power any less or better the Westminster's power?

Now what I can understand is an identity/culture issue. Many British people do not feel part of Europe (not all, but enough), think of themselves as a separate island, and they want to keep that identity. Can they do that within the EU or will Britain lose that? Who knows?

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think what this article says about trade and free movement of goods/people/capital etc... is that interesting. The points it makes about the undemocratic nature of the thing are hugely salient though imo, particularly regarding the development of the main treaties. This a prime example of what I've been saying in this thread for years about how the EU is literally an huge supranational organisation that has repeatedly and unaccountably elected to give itself greater power and extend its competencies, and it amazes me that this point hasn't been picked up on and scrutinised in greater detail in the general discourse.

For me all the other related points are tangential, this is the issue that people should be talking about.

Heh, this is an incredibly abstract thing to be at the centre of the debate. Can hardly blame people for first asking "will I lose my job?"

 

[sledger]

I don't think it's abstract at all; it's fundamental. It is the issue that is at the root of absolutely everything else that is in any way related to the discussion. It might not be the thing at the forefront of the minds of plenty of people, but to suggest it's abstract is simply untrue.

 

[Uppercut]

Maybe abstract is the wrong word, although it is definitely abstract in comparison to the prospect of losing your job. Maybe inductive? It's a criticism of process rather than outcomes, and people are more interested in outcomes.

 

[sledger]

Maybe. I guess my point is tied to the fact that I think making objective judgments about something based exclusively on outcomes or results is a fundamentally poor idea.

 

[StephenZA]

This is scaremongering on another scale...
https://theconversation.com/leicest...membership-is-so-important-for-football-58071

Your football club may start sucking because of Brexit. Vote to stay in!

 

[Uppercut]

'Scaremongering' needs to go on the banned list. It's been wheeled out as a response to literally every article that has ever suggested a negative impact of Brexit on anything, like a catch-all excuse to avoid engaging with any argument remotely sympathetic to Remain. Brexiteer equivalent of Corbynites calling everything a 'smear'.

 

[Uppercut]

Maybe. I guess my point is tied to the fact that I think making objective judgments about something based exclusively on outcomes or results is a fundamentally poor idea.

Well this is obviously true, but there's always a balance between process and outcomes. I would object at the point where countries lost the right to leave the EU. As long as we have that, it's not really taking away any sovereignty- it's just a club that we can freely choose whether to be a part of, with a set of rules we need to comply with if we decide to remain in it. That being so, to me it's more or less a cost-benefit question.

 

[StephenZA]

'Scaremongering' needs to go on the banned list. It's been wheeled out as a response to literally every article that has ever suggested a negative impact of Brexit on anything, like a catch-all excuse to avoid engaging with any argument remotely sympathetic to Remain. Brexiteer equivalent of Corbynites calling everything a 'smear'.

I can understand the sentiment, but its not so much the discussion as the way its being presented. Practically, on the day of the referendum if exit was to happen it is not instantaneous. It not even legally binding until ratified by parliament. And even once that has happened, they are not going to round up all EU immigrants and deport them! There will be a long transitional phase. But every time you read an article the implications are of an immediate national disaster if the exit occurs. That is not a discussion of negative impact, that is "scaremongering",a tactic to make something sound far worse than it will be, even if negative. About the only definitive immediate big impact may be economically as markets shift around during uncertainty.

Regardless, I just don`t think its going to happen. Although it is sad that what is an important debate is not really happening just mud slinging from both sides.

 

[sledger]

It's also likely that any non-UK nationals would also be able to rely on the Human Rights Act 1998/European Convention on Human Rights to block their purported deportation anyway - something that the article appears to be oblivious of. Though of course this is subject to the govt not doing away with these things too.

 

[sledger]

Well this is obviously true, but there's always a balance between process and outcomes. I would object at the point where countries lost the right to leave the EU. As long as we have that, it's not really taking away any sovereignty- it's just a club that we can freely choose whether to be a part of, with a set of rules we need to comply with if we decide to remain in it. That being so, to me it's more or less a cost-benefit question.

I agree that processes and outcomes should both be factored in to the making of any objective assessment about more or less anything, but reducing matters which have massively important political/ideological/philosophical questions regarding governance and state administration at their heart to a cost/benefit level of analysis strikes me as an idea premised on strong utilitarian logic which as a matter of principle I don't think I could ever accept.

 

[Pothas]

As far as I am concerned the sovereignty thing has been so massively over blown, I understand it is a fundemental issue for some but on most key public policy issues we still have control.

 

[sledger]

It's not necessarily a sovereignty thing though, not in terms of a decline of Parliamentary sovereignty anyway. That's just a corrolary of the EU unnacountably expanding its powers and conpetencies.

 

[Pothas]

Still seems a pretty academic point to me.

 

[sledger]

But I really don't think it is. The idea of a a massive all-encompassing state authority which has repeatedly voted itself more power against the consent or wishes of its constituent members, to the extent that now almost all major decisions are made by un-elected bureaucrats, just seems to fly in the face of pretty much any widely accepted theory of democratic governance. Essentially all the resultant problems which people bring up about the EU stem from this point, which is why, for me, discussing them without looking at the underlying foundation is to well and truly put the cart before the horse. I'd suggest this is also true irrespective of whether you are ultimately in favour of the EU or opposed to it. I really can't see how you can have a debate about laws, systems of government, regulation etc... without starting with questions like "what is X for?", "what is its rationale?", "how has it manifested in practice and is it fit for purpose?" etc... To do otherwise is to just dance around the circle.