Brexit and General UK politics thread

[The Romulan Republic]

In any case, if Johnson really does try to force her hand, then how she reacts will probably be THE defining aspect of her legacy, potentially making her go down as either one of the greatest or one of the worst monarchs that Britain has ever had (and boy, has it had some standouts, in both categories).

[Tiriol]

Anyone else feel like they're living in a really bad thriller written by a neo-monarchist?

Or a story whose moral is "best to write down important laws. You never know when you'll need them. Also, monarchy is silly."

This has nothing to do with monarchy (even with an elected head of state the situation would be the same as long as the UK's legal tradition stands). But I do agree that an actual written constitution and body of law would be useful and, most importantly, sane.

[Zaune]

Besides, we're ultimately in the current mess because of a decision we made in a free and (mostly) fair referendum run by a democratically elected government.

[The Romulan Republic]

Besides, we're ultimately in the current mess because of a decision we made in a free and (mostly) fair referendum run by a democratically elected government.

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

[ray245]

Besides, we're ultimately in the current mess because of a decision we made in a free and (mostly) fair referendum run by a democratically elected government.

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

An opinion poll that can alter the likelihood of seeing a Labour government. It revealed that many of the traditional labour seats are for Brexit and deeply uncomfortable with migrants.

[AniThyng]

Besides, we're ultimately in the current mess because of a decision we made in a free and (mostly) fair referendum run by a democratically elected government.

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

Referendums are glorified opinion polls now? Is what is an isn't decidable by simple majority dependent on how it aligns with your worldview, because it doesn't get any more "democratic" than that.

There have been years for the democratically elected MPs in Westminster to deal with this by some other means and they couldn't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Besides, we're ultimately in the current mess because of a decision we made in a free and (mostly) fair referendum run by a democratically elected government.

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

Referendums are glorified opinion polls now?

Non. Binding. Resolution.

There have been years for the democratically elected MPs in Westminster to deal with this by some other means and they couldn't.

Because there are a lot of parties, none of them can command a majority, and some of them are split down the middle on Brexit.

This sort of chaos is one of the reasons I don't put that much stock in the Parliamentary system.

[AniThyng]

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

Referendums are glorified opinion polls now?

Non. Binding. Resolution.

There have been years for the democratically elected MPs in Westminster to deal with this by some other means and they couldn't.

Because there are a lot of parties, none of them can command a majority, and some of them are split down the middle on Brexit.

This sort of chaos is one of the reasons I don't put that much stock in the Parliamentary system.

I don't think any democratic system works particularly well when confronted with issues where there is no clear majority on what to do next. If this was a presidential system ala the United States even then it wouldn't necessarily have worked out because presumably a pro Brexit president would have got it done already without an indecisive parliament blocking the way.

In reality though even the strongest president is constrained by a Congress that won't back him fully.

If course if things were different and anti Brexit parties won decisive victories enough that they could back out of the referendum then we wouldn't even be having this conversation but they didn't, did they?

[ray245]

Yeah, the attitude of calling things undemocratic or ignoring the results just because it's not what you wanted isn't actually being democratic at all.

Progressivism and democracy aren't the same thing.

[Zaune]

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

Not very democratic to tell people the option that won the poll was a terrible, stupid idea and they are terrible, stupid people for voting for it. Even if it's true. And like it or not, the Leave faction might have exceeded the campaign spending rules and accepted funds from sources of questionable repute, but they didn't engage in voter supression or ballot-stuffing: A significant number of UK citizens wanted to leave the EU badly enough that they didn't care about the consequences, and still do.

[ray245]

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

Not very democratic to tell people the option that won the poll was a terrible, stupid idea and they are terrible, stupid people for voting for it. Even if it's true. And like it or not, the Leave faction might have exceeded the campaign spending rules and accepted funds from sources of questionable repute, but they didn't engage in voter supression or ballot-stuffing: A significant number of UK citizens wanted to leave the EU badly enough that they didn't care about the consequences, and still do.

I think as someone who is living in the UK, I can understand the issues a lot clearer than someone whose views of the UK might be more shaped by left-leaning and internationalist newspapers of the UK.

UK left-wing politics might side with the working class, but that does not mean a vast majority of the working class embraced the more internationalist aspect of Left-Wing party. The UK right wing parties know this really really well.

They know that the UK's working class can be rather nationalistic in many of their social attitudes. They are using Brexit as a way to steal votes from traditional labour areas.

This is akin to the US Nixon's Southern strategy by capturing the support of the Southern states that had long been voting Democrats. It was used as an attempt to break up the powerful coalition of interest formed by FDR during the great depression.

The most stupid thing progressive can do is to fall into the trap of thinking calling a sizable portion of the electorate as dumb and evil can stop them from voting for issues that might be against their interest.

The British working class, especially in the North has been angry with what's happened to them for years. They have not received a fair share of the benefits of being inside the EU. But instead of getting upset with the Tories and the Brexiters for imposing austerity, the Tories successfully manage to exploit the relative insular culture of the Northern working class and drumming up and turning it into a case of EU migrants against the English working class.

So telling them off for being evil for voting for Brexit when most of them have difficulties finding jobs is not going to change their minds. Some of them are now in a purely vindicative mood that feel they might as well let the internationalist progressive cities like London fall to economic ruin. It's not a view shared by everyone, but that is a view of a number of people that did voted for the Brexit..

What they are voting for is "If I had to suffer, let the rest of the country suffer as well".


That is the core underlying appeal why a number of working class wants to vote for Brexit. To them, they would see more internationalist progressive as an enemy as oppose to their allies. They would hate the type of comments TRR wrote and would want to bring people like TRR down with them as well.

Wanting Brexit at all cost is how they feel they are in control over their lives. It's their way of saying "fuck you" to all those that they see as being elitist and internationalist who lived in the South, and especially in London.

The Scots aren't for Brexit as much because it's their way of saying "Fuck you" to the English in their South.

[Zaune]

You're not wrong, but damn it, what are we supposed to do? Play along and throw people like you out of the country because we need to appease the racist vote?

[ray245]

You're not wrong, but damn it, what are we supposed to do? Play along and throw people like you out of the country because we need to appease the racist vote?

There's a number of strategies.

1. Build a new coalition. Labour were electable because they manage to base their power on the support of the Northern former industrial heartlands. As Tories moved North, Labour can move South and extend their control over the areas that are more acceptable of being internationalist and etc. But the fundamental policies of Labour might have to shift, with the New Labour faction extending more control over the party to make it more appealing to the middle. It might work if the younger generation of voters become too fed up with the Tories for supporting a no-deal Brexit, and sufficient number of more centrist Tories defect to the New Labour camp, Lib Dems and etc.

2. Build an election and governing campaign that REALLY REALLY tries REALLY REALLY fucking hard to make sure the "Northern powerhouse TM" rhetoric that has been brought up by both Labour, coalition and Tory parties over the last decade ACTUALLY FUCKING happen. No cutting off corners or being scared of making it a reality because of the massive cost-overruns and etc. You need extremely strong political willpower to push it through, but it is absolutely essential if you want to win back the support of the North, and allow people to be more accepting of internationalism and etc.


That means all the money that's been taxed from the richer south goes into a massive investment program across the North, going into funding of schools, welfare programs, and etc. You need to ensure people truly believe that going to school and being educated is actually going to translate into job prospects and financial safety for the working-class. For those that are having massive difficulties finding jobs, you need to ensure there is either sufficient job opportunities and actual educational opportunities at all levels, including more job re-training programs for the people that have lost their jobs and their old jobs are displaced by technology advances. You cannot ask someone who used to work in a factory to magically become a banker( or other jobs in the service economy if they don't want to be bankers) overnight with no job retraining opportunities. That's the fundamental mistake made by the Thatcher and New Labour, in which they assume people can switch from working in the coal mines to being bankers almost overnight. Or you need give even more funding to vocational colleges like in Germany, and not make university the only acceptable qualification to have a job interview. And you need to fundamentally break up the conception that working as an electrician or a plumber makes someone socially inferior for being a working-class ( Thanks English class system!)

If someone is not strong academically, they should not be ashamed of seeking vocational diplomas and etc. So if a rich kid aren't academically gifted, they shouldn't be embarrassed about being a "mere" electrician nor should an opportunity to allow a academically strong working class kid from having the opportunities and the support to get an uni education. I know the German education system is not perfect, but it is a lot better than the current English system that primarily privilege those who had the privilege of being in an environment to qualify for Uni and earn a degree.


3. Hell, give people of working-class background free European language lessons that helps them move to Europe ( if UK somehow stays in the EU or re-joins the EU) or other languages that enabled them to work across the world. One of the fundamental problems of UK being in the UK is that while many Europeans are able to take advantage of the freedom of movement to move to the UK ( because they are either taught English to a high standards in schools as a second or third language), the same opportunities is not there for many people in the UK, especially for the English working class. Job opening in France? Good luck moving there if you are an English working class that speaks no French, even if the job does not require a degree. The same applies to many other parts of the EU as well.

Freedom of movement means nothing if there are many "soft" and unspoken barriers of entry for the working-class, especially those from English-speaking countries. The people who can basically just pluck up and move to almost everywhere in the world are people who usually have extremely good academic qualification, able to speak a number of languages, or have a variety of social support networks that helps people settle into a new and foreign country. Those things often do exist for many migrants from developing countries. Someone who came from China, the Middle East, Pakistan and and India to the UK can find a number of social support, networks and etc from people who have the same descent as them that makes it massively easier for them to assimilate into their new country. And the fact that many of such migrants who later became naturalised British or are 2nd generation British tend to have working-class background is doing a lot to help newer migrants even of working class settle in the UK. They can hear about job opportunities they might otherwise not know of and etc.

The same sort of social networks also applies for many people from the EU. Even small little things like a Polish supermarket helps people get adjusted to the UK. If you are a working-class from Poland, those sort of "soft" support are utterly crucial and essential. But the same sort of "soft" support doesn't really exist for the English working-class in most of Europe. Those English social networks do exist in various parts of Europe, but they very often tend to be for the benefits of the middle and upper-class, people who had a degree, had the chance and environment to learn a foreign language well and etc. A new factory job in France that someone from Northern England is able to apply? He'll never know about it because it would never be advertised in English and there's no social support network in France that will inform the Northern English working-class person to just go ahead and try and apply for the job.

There's no social support network that helps a working-class English learn French slowly and provide the human connection and support that are fundamental to anyone adjusting to a new environment.


I do see tremendous value in internationalism, but if we are to develop a truly internationalist society that really do allow freedom of movement to anyone regardless of their ethnicity, background and etc, then major pan-national blocs like the EU needs to do a whole lot more. Freedom of movement needs to be truly open to people of all background, and not just the people who have the benefits of a good education and the privilege of earning good qualifications

I'm basically ranting and no serious politician in the UK will consider 2 and 3 seriously, because the political and financial cost involved. It's extremely hard to win an election mandate by imposing those policies because the richer electorate will not accept how long and expensive such programs will take, and how such a mandate can fundamentally threaten their wealth and social position. The UK is a society that is still fundamentally revolving around the class system. Class, more than race is the big issue in the UK. I seriously doubt any British politician or party have the ability to resolve this issue in my lifetime, but I think such policies can resolve some of the issues that caused Brexit to happened.

[ray245]

Boris is now threatening de-selection against rebels from his own party. Which is beneficial to the anti-no-deal supporters because they can say if Boris can't even command the loyalty of his own party, then he has no right to be the PM.

The downside is he might threaten to have a snap election that might deal UK with no government on the 31st of October, so he can win an election and not be "directly" responsible for crashing out of the UK with no deal.

[B5B7]

Besides, we're ultimately in the current mess because of a decision we made in a free and (mostly) fair referendum run by a democratically elected government.

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

Referendums are glorified opinion polls now? Is what is an isn't decidable by simple majority dependent on how it aligns with your worldview, because it doesn't get any more "democratic" than that.

There have been years for the democratically elected MPs in Westminster to deal with this by some other means and they couldn't.

Yes, the UK referendum was a glorified opinion poll. How a narrow margin can be considered a win is ridiculous, this isn't a sports contest where a narrow margin is a win.
In Australia there are stricter rules:

To pass a referendum, the bill must ordinarily achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states (i.e., 4 out of 6 states). In circumstances where a state is affected by a referendum, a majority of voters in that state must also agree to the change. This is often referred to as a "triple majority".

If had something similar in UK where had to also get a 2/3 majority of counties (or even just over half) I bet Brexit would have failed.
Cameron dumped the issue on the electorate without sufficient time being given for proper debate. It was simply a Conservative Party power play that backfired on him. He should not have involved the nation in what was an internal party matter of his leadership; creating an ongoing mess that is damaging the UK.

[The Romulan Republic]

Cameron fucked the UK like a pig. I hope history remembers him as a traitor. And a pig fucker.

[ray245]

Cameron fucked the UK like a pig. I hope history remembers him as a traitor. And a pig fucker.

Can you stop acting in a overly dramatic manner? He fucked things up. But trying to call him a traitor makes actual traitors look a lot more acceptable than it actually is.

Let's not forget major leftwing leaders like Jeremy Corbyn and even the famous Tony Benn had been pushing for Brexit as well.

[ray245]

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

Referendums are glorified opinion polls now? Is what is an isn't decidable by simple majority dependent on how it aligns with your worldview, because it doesn't get any more "democratic" than that.

There have been years for the democratically elected MPs in Westminster to deal with this by some other means and they couldn't.

Yes, the UK referendum was a glorified opinion poll. How a narrow margin can be considered a win is ridiculous, this isn't a sports contest where a narrow margin is a win.
In Australia there are stricter rules:

To pass a referendum, the bill must ordinarily achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states (i.e., 4 out of 6 states). In circumstances where a state is affected by a referendum, a majority of voters in that state must also agree to the change. This is often referred to as a "triple majority".

If had something similar in UK where had to also get a 2/3 majority of counties (or even just over half) I bet Brexit would have failed.
Cameron dumped the issue on the electorate without sufficient time being given for proper debate. It was simply a Conservative Party power play that backfired on him. He should not have involved the nation in what was an internal party matter of his leadership; creating an ongoing mess that is damaging the UK.

Even if it does require the 2/3 majority to pass, it still would have benefited the Tories. Because despite their hoo-hah about Brexit, I don't think there's any serious support among the established leaders of the Tory party for Brexit. (before Boris and his ilks took over). Theresa May and David Cameron were both firmly in the remain camp to begin with. Their main goal was to make Brexit a big enough political issue, and have a nationwide referendum that shows support for Brexit is a lot more popular than what people would think.

That way, it opens up the Tory party to develop an Northern strategy that could drum up about how Labour is ignoring the views of their key support base without actually leaving the EU. They wanted to divide and conquer the Labour areas.

Instead they accidentally divided the whole country.

[AniThyng]

The fairness of it can be debated, although I should note that the referendum was always non-binding. I would question whether "democracy" requires the deliberate destruction of one's own nation in response to a simple majority in what amounts to a glorified opinion poll.

Referendums are glorified opinion polls now? Is what is an isn't decidable by simple majority dependent on how it aligns with your worldview, because it doesn't get any more "democratic" than that.

There have been years for the democratically elected MPs in Westminster to deal with this by some other means and they couldn't.

Yes, the UK referendum was a glorified opinion poll. How a narrow margin can be considered a win is ridiculous, this isn't a sports contest where a narrow margin is a win.
In Australia there are stricter rules:

To pass a referendum, the bill must ordinarily achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states (i.e., 4 out of 6 states). In circumstances where a state is affected by a referendum, a majority of voters in that state must also agree to the change. This is often referred to as a "triple majority".

If had something similar in UK where had to also get a 2/3 majority of counties (or even just over half) I bet Brexit would have failed.
Cameron dumped the issue on the electorate without sufficient time being given for proper debate. It was simply a Conservative Party power play that backfired on him. He should not have involved the nation in what was an internal party matter of his leadership; creating an ongoing mess that is damaging the UK.

I do agree that it was unwise to have staked it on a simple majority, but on the other hand, no one argues that say, the American Presidency should only go to someone who can command 2/3 of the popular vote, merely 50%+1.

[ray245]

And now Boris has lost his majority.

[The Romulan Republic]

And now Boris has lost his majority.

Well, there's the first good news I've heard out of the UK in a while.

[Bedlam]

And now Boris has lost his majority.

Well, there's the first good news I've heard out of the UK in a while.

Maybe, it might just lead to a general election which will just add another month or two of political chaos up until Britexit fay.

If we're lucky Boris might not have the support needed to get an election although politically it's tricky for the opposition to vote against that option. Corbin wants Britexit but doesn't want to be in the driving seat when it happens but voting against a general election basically says I want the conservatives to stay in power which will turn a lot of supporters against him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I'm growing increasingly disenchanted with Corbin as well. It seems like he wants to torpedo Britain for his ideology just like the Cons.

He's better than them in a lot of other ways, but he's awful in this one.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well this is gonna be fun: Source: BBC Online

Tory rebels and opposition MPs have defeated the government in the first stage of their attempt to pass a law designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

The Commons voted 328 to 301 to take control of the agenda, meaning they can bring forward a bill seeking to delay the UK's exit date.

In response, Boris Johnson said he would bring forward a motion for an early general election.

Jeremy Corbyn said the bill should be passed before an election was held.

In total 21 Tory MPs, including a number of ex-cabinet ministers, joined opposition parties to defeat the government.

The government warned in advance that it would remove the whip - effectively expel - any MPs who chose to vote against it.

LIVE: MPs poised to bring bill to stop no-deal Brexit
Everything you need to know about Brexit
PM 'approved Parliament shutdown in mid-August'

The prime minister said the MPs' bill would "hand control" of Brexit negotiations to the EU and bring "more dither, more delay, more confusion".

He told MPs he had no choice but to press ahead with efforts to call an October election, adding: "The people of this country will have to choose."

The result means the MPs will be able to take control of Commons business on Wednesday.

That will give them the chance to introduce a cross-party bill which would force the prime minister to ask for Brexit to be delayed until 31 January, unless MPs approve a new deal, or vote in favour of a no-deal exit, by 19 October.

The anti-Brexit alliance wins their vote by a surprising margin (328 to 301) to take control of the Commons tomorrow and probably introduce a bill blocking and/or delaying Brexit and Boris has said he's going to bring forward a motion for a snap election.

As much as I think Brexit is a bad idea and it's going to be an utter shitstorm (when it could have been a lot less messy), right now, in this moment, I just want this over with, one way or another! I am fed up with Brexit being the only sodding issue talked about in Westminster because people fucked about for, what, three years without actually figuring out how to leave.

Hell, a lot of the technical stuff is already done and dusted! We sorted out European-wide air traffic control and overflight permissions, we're staying in Euratom and (IIRC) CERN and a shitload of other technical things. We basically sorted everything that wasn't "political" ages ago!

Gods damn it. At this point I would almost be happy if HM told Parliament to fuck off and ruled directly, or, hell, Oliver fucking Cromwell rising from the grave and resuming his job as Lord Protector, because Westminster is a colossal waste of space and time.

I like the idea of democracy, I really do. I consider it my duty as a citizen of the UK/subject of HM the Queen to vote, not a right, because that's what mum and dad taught me. But these last few months have strained that patience to the fucking limit.

Rant over.

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing is, that's part of what the fascists want. By sabotaging democracy, they want to make it so dysfunctional that people decide we need a "Strong ruler" to "get things done" without all that messy democracy. A role the fascists are happy to claim that they fill, despite being the ones who sabotaged democracy in the first place.

Its the same con Republicans pull with government spending over here. They deliberately sabotage the government, then use its "inefficiency" as an argument for why everything should be privatized and taxes cut. Break the system, then use that as a justification for why the system should be broken.