[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] My Better Brexit Deal Goes To Another School

surrealitycheck · December 2018

tfw priti patel suggests using food shortages as a threat

tfw priti patel says literally anything

RMS Oceanic · December 2018

I always thought Padma was the better Patel

Bogart · December 2018

I can see lots of Leave voters thinking yeah sure threaten Ireland that'll teach 'em.

Because they're morons.

DevoutlyApathetic · December 2018

I don't know about that "Negotiations didn't go well" bit. They went as everybody who wasn't deluded expected them to go. The EU literally holds all the leverage in the negotiation as by declaring they're leaving the UK has already triggered all the adjustment costs for government/business that would be the big impact to the EU. The EU already spun up their research/negotiation teams and business has started to move all their financial stuff away from London and their physical sourcing from UK locations. Meanwhile the UK needs to have like 50 different areas of trade treaties worked out or they become a third world country and start rationing insulin and other medicines.

While the Tories didn't do a good job negotiating I don't think they did a bad job given the circumstances of the negotiation. The atrocious starting position was entirely their own fault though so this is somewhat a matter of where you set the goal posts on what is included in negotiation.

pezgen · December 2018

Stellar Swift reference from this Sunday Times reporter:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1070975898260787200

japan · December 2018

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

I don't know about that "Negotiations didn't go well" bit. They went as everybody who wasn't deluded expected them to go. The EU literally holds all the leverage in the negotiation as by declaring they're leaving the UK has already triggered all the adjustment costs for government/business that would be the big impact to the EU. The EU already spun up their research/negotiation teams and business has started to move all their financial stuff away from London and their physical sourcing from UK locations. Meanwhile the UK needs to have like 50 different areas of trade treaties worked out or they become a third world country and start rationing insulin and other medicines.

While the Tories didn't do a good job negotiating I don't think they did a bad job given the circumstances of the negotiation. The atrocious starting position was entirely their own fault though so this is somewhat a matter of where you set the goal posts on what is included in negotiation.

Part of the problem with the present debate is that:
- the government did a shit job of negotiating; and
- this is the best available outcome

Are not, in fact, mutually exclusive statements, no matter how much some (looking at you, Labour) want this to be the case

klemming · December 2018

Don't we have nuclear weapons? We don't we use them to get some favourable concessions?
(God, an MP has probably suggested this, haven't they?)

surrealitycheck · December 2018

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

I always thought Padma was the better Patel

priti patel is one of those people who i remember thinking oh thats nice there are some non old white dude conservative mps then 3 seconds later oh shes a fucking lunatic

daveNYC · December 2018

pezgen wrote: »

Stellar Swift reference from this Sunday Times reporter:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1070975898260787200

Is she threatening the RoI? NI? Both?
At least cannibalism is a solution to hunger. Does she have any hot takes on what to do when the UK runs out of antibiotics?

Casual · December 2018

surrealitycheck wrote: »

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

I always thought Padma was the better Patel

priti patel is one of those people who i remember thinking oh thats nice there are some non old white dude conservative mps then 3 seconds later oh shes a fucking lunatic

Are there any Tories under 50 that aren't clown shoes? This is a topic that we keep circling around to with new political developments but it bears repeating just in case people are tempted to think not being old white and male makes you naturally wise and progressive by default, the young Tories are far worse than the old ones.

surrealitycheck · December 2018

Casual wrote: »

surrealitycheck wrote: »

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

I always thought Padma was the better Patel

priti patel is one of those people who i remember thinking oh thats nice there are some non old white dude conservative mps then 3 seconds later oh shes a fucking lunatic

Are there any Tories under 50 that aren't clown shoes? This is a topic that we keep circling around to with new political developments but it bears repeating just in case people are tempted to think not being old white and male makes you naturally wise and progressive by default, the young Tories are far worse than the old ones.

heidi allen isnt awful and has been quite consistent in trying to address some of the weaknesses of universal credit in various committees

Solar · December 2018

Priti Patel is really, really, scarily right wing

And pretty incompetent

surrealitycheck · December 2018

something interesting: mariana mazzucatto, a ucl economist who has had a lot of influence on the ippr and current labour policy, also seems to have been talking to aoc et al

https://twitter.com/MazzucatoM/status/1070586964888469504

the streams are crossing...

Jazz · December 2018

surrealitycheck wrote: »

Casual wrote: »

surrealitycheck wrote: »

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

I always thought Padma was the better Patel

priti patel is one of those people who i remember thinking oh thats nice there are some non old white dude conservative mps then 3 seconds later oh shes a fucking lunatic

Are there any Tories under 50 that aren't clown shoes? This is a topic that we keep circling around to with new political developments but it bears repeating just in case people are tempted to think not being old white and male makes you naturally wise and progressive by default, the young Tories are far worse than the old ones.

heidi allen isnt awful and has been quite consistent in trying to address some of the weaknesses of universal credit in various committees

Justine Greening is generally okay too.

There's definitely a handful of exceptions to the rule, but they do seem to make the rule itself even more glaringly obvious.

shryke · December 2018

Mc zany wrote: »

JusticeforPluto wrote: »

I'm sorry Britain, I really don't get this. I know the US isn't much better but why is your government pushing to leave when they clearly don't have a clue? Why was article 50 invoked when you didn't have a plan? Instead of leave or stay, shouldn't the debate have been about a specific leave plan versus staying? You know, to prevent vauge promises that can't be kept?

in summary,

There have been a large element MPs (of both parties) that has wanted to leave the EU for the last forty years but there was little public support for it so they had to keep quiet.

Then the financial crisis of 2008 happened, unfortunately, this made a lot of people worse off and it caused a lot of anger towards the "rich". Who they saw as the cause and against the government, who were forced to help the banking sector. There was also the Syrian crisis, which brought a lot of refugees to the EU. This alarmed some people in the UK as they thought that Britain was being flooded. Giving rise to nationalist and anti-immigrant feeling. None of these things were new in the UK but they were stronger now than they had been since the seventies.

This was the chance the anti EU groups was waiting for and they had little trouble harnessing this anger for their own ends. A political party was on the rise. UKIP were seen as the "respectable" party for anti-immigration and managed to gain a lot of support. This caused panic in the government, especially the tories. UKIP had not yet won an election but they were taking votes away from the conservatives and the tories were worried about losing power.

While UKIP was a seperate party, they had plently of allies within the conservatives. Fearing a split, the prime minister did a deal. Where he would call a referendum on the EU question if they won the election. In the first of many miscalculations, the prime minister assumed there would be ahung parliment and the referendum would not happen. Anyway, the referendum happened and the rest is history.

However it didn't really solve anything. The anti EU segment of the government almost immediately pushed to start the process of leaving, citing the will of the people. Fearing a split, the government involved article 50 before they were ready. Negotiations with the EU did not go well with sticking points on almost every policy. Forcing the government to accept a fairly bad deal for the UK and nowhere near what they were hoping for.

Now the government has backed itself into a wall and pretty much anything it does will make someone unhappy.

I think the more direct answer to the question being asked though is that after Leave won Cameron, being a feckless idiot who skated to power on pure privilege and who had planned all along for Remain to win and for that to shut the UKIPers the fuck up, basically walked away from the mess he'd made (as the rich and privileged are wont to do). And of course since the rest of the party either also thought that Remain would win and were just using the campaign to seize power or were delusional morons with no real policy ideas on the subject, there was no plan. Then the rest of the Tories either panicked at the thought of how UKIP would eat them alive if they backed down now or thinking this was a great opportunity to seize power, pushed the Brexit bill through still without having formed any plan. And Labour of course, being led by a old-fart who never left the 1960s, jumped on board too.

surrealitycheck · December 2018

enjoying this particular spicy norwegian take:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146

when glorious premier corbyn takes over and i get 1000 years gulag im not even going to be angry

Werewolf2000ad · December 2018

This whole thing is going to end up like the end of Spec Ops: The Line, with one person left alive in a country full of corpses and the imaginary voice in their head screaming "None of this would have happened if you had just STOPPED!"

WotanAnubis · December 2018

Solar wrote: »

Priti Patel is really, really, scarily right wing

And pretty incompetent

I mean, she just threatened Ireland with another famine.

I think it kind of goes without saying.

CroakerBC · December 2018

shryke wrote: »

Mc zany wrote: »

JusticeforPluto wrote: »

I'm sorry Britain, I really don't get this. I know the US isn't much better but why is your government pushing to leave when they clearly don't have a clue? Why was article 50 invoked when you didn't have a plan? Instead of leave or stay, shouldn't the debate have been about a specific leave plan versus staying? You know, to prevent vauge promises that can't be kept?

in summary,

There have been a large element MPs (of both parties) that has wanted to leave the EU for the last forty years but there was little public support for it so they had to keep quiet.

Then the financial crisis of 2008 happened, unfortunately, this made a lot of people worse off and it caused a lot of anger towards the "rich". Who they saw as the cause and against the government, who were forced to help the banking sector. There was also the Syrian crisis, which brought a lot of refugees to the EU. This alarmed some people in the UK as they thought that Britain was being flooded. Giving rise to nationalist and anti-immigrant feeling. None of these things were new in the UK but they were stronger now than they had been since the seventies.

This was the chance the anti EU groups was waiting for and they had little trouble harnessing this anger for their own ends. A political party was on the rise. UKIP were seen as the "respectable" party for anti-immigration and managed to gain a lot of support. This caused panic in the government, especially the tories. UKIP had not yet won an election but they were taking votes away from the conservatives and the tories were worried about losing power.

While UKIP was a seperate party, they had plently of allies within the conservatives. Fearing a split, the prime minister did a deal. Where he would call a referendum on the EU question if they won the election. In the first of many miscalculations, the prime minister assumed there would be ahung parliment and the referendum would not happen. Anyway, the referendum happened and the rest is history.

However it didn't really solve anything. The anti EU segment of the government almost immediately pushed to start the process of leaving, citing the will of the people. Fearing a split, the government involved article 50 before they were ready. Negotiations with the EU did not go well with sticking points on almost every policy. Forcing the government to accept a fairly bad deal for the UK and nowhere near what they were hoping for.

Now the government has backed itself into a wall and pretty much anything it does will make someone unhappy.

I think the more direct answer to the question being asked though is that after Leave won Cameron, being a feckless idiot who skated to power on pure privilege and who had planned all along for Remain to win and for that to shut the UKIPers the fuck up, basically walked away from the mess he'd made (as the rich and privileged are wont to do). And of course since the rest of the party either also thought that Remain would win and were just using the campaign to seize power or were delusional morons with no real policy ideas on the subject, there was no plan. Then the rest of the Tories either panicked at the thought of how UKIP would eat them alive if they backed down now or thinking this was a great opportunity to seize power, pushed the Brexit bill through still without having formed any plan. And Labour of course, being led by a old-fart who never left the 1960s, jumped on board too.

To be entirely fair, if I'd ballsed up trying to avoid a modest shitshow so very badly that I was now in charge of an enormous shitshow that could only get worse, and I knew it, I would also have walked, nay run, away.

Fencingsax · December 2018

CroakerBC wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

Mc zany wrote: »

JusticeforPluto wrote: »

I'm sorry Britain, I really don't get this. I know the US isn't much better but why is your government pushing to leave when they clearly don't have a clue? Why was article 50 invoked when you didn't have a plan? Instead of leave or stay, shouldn't the debate have been about a specific leave plan versus staying? You know, to prevent vauge promises that can't be kept?

in summary,

There have been a large element MPs (of both parties) that has wanted to leave the EU for the last forty years but there was little public support for it so they had to keep quiet.

Then the financial crisis of 2008 happened, unfortunately, this made a lot of people worse off and it caused a lot of anger towards the "rich". Who they saw as the cause and against the government, who were forced to help the banking sector. There was also the Syrian crisis, which brought a lot of refugees to the EU. This alarmed some people in the UK as they thought that Britain was being flooded. Giving rise to nationalist and anti-immigrant feeling. None of these things were new in the UK but they were stronger now than they had been since the seventies.

This was the chance the anti EU groups was waiting for and they had little trouble harnessing this anger for their own ends. A political party was on the rise. UKIP were seen as the "respectable" party for anti-immigration and managed to gain a lot of support. This caused panic in the government, especially the tories. UKIP had not yet won an election but they were taking votes away from the conservatives and the tories were worried about losing power.

While UKIP was a seperate party, they had plently of allies within the conservatives. Fearing a split, the prime minister did a deal. Where he would call a referendum on the EU question if they won the election. In the first of many miscalculations, the prime minister assumed there would be ahung parliment and the referendum would not happen. Anyway, the referendum happened and the rest is history.

However it didn't really solve anything. The anti EU segment of the government almost immediately pushed to start the process of leaving, citing the will of the people. Fearing a split, the government involved article 50 before they were ready. Negotiations with the EU did not go well with sticking points on almost every policy. Forcing the government to accept a fairly bad deal for the UK and nowhere near what they were hoping for.

Now the government has backed itself into a wall and pretty much anything it does will make someone unhappy.

I think the more direct answer to the question being asked though is that after Leave won Cameron, being a feckless idiot who skated to power on pure privilege and who had planned all along for Remain to win and for that to shut the UKIPers the fuck up, basically walked away from the mess he'd made (as the rich and privileged are wont to do). And of course since the rest of the party either also thought that Remain would win and were just using the campaign to seize power or were delusional morons with no real policy ideas on the subject, there was no plan. Then the rest of the Tories either panicked at the thought of how UKIP would eat them alive if they backed down now or thinking this was a great opportunity to seize power, pushed the Brexit bill through still without having formed any plan. And Labour of course, being led by a old-fart who never left the 1960s, jumped on board too.

To be entirely fair, if I'd ballsed up trying to avoid a modest shitshow so very badly that I was now in charge of an enormous shitshow that could only get worse, and I knew it, I would also have walked, nay run, away.

I mean, he could have shown a spine and said "Referendum too close, we need decisive public decision, we aren't doing this" or somewhat less spine "right. Put together the research teams and see you again in 20 years".

hippofant · December 2018

surrealitycheck wrote: »

enjoying this particular spicy norwegian take:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146

when glorious premier corbyn takes over and i get 1000 years gulag im not even going to be angry

Um, what, why did they quote that part and not the part where, referring to the UK joining EFTA, she said, "It's kind of like having an abusive partner spike the drinks and inviting to a Christmas party, and think that this will go well."

Werewolf2000ad · December 2018

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1071102537745469440

Yes, I can't think of any reason the DUP wouldn't want to work with Jeremy "mates with the IRA" Corbyn. At least it's going to be funny watching the Corbynites try to figure out how to pivot to "working with the DUP is good, actually" after constantly condemning the Tories for it ever since the election.

HerrCron · December 2018

It took me a bit to realise that Faisal Islam was saying "This is Tweet 1 out of 10", and not just passing judgement on Corbyn's performance.

tynic · December 2018

Werewolf2000ad wrote: »

At least it's going to be funny watching the Corbynites try to figure out how to pivot to "working with the DUP is good, actually" after constantly condemning the Tories for it ever since the election.

Seriously. There's Realpolitik, and then there's "you represent everything we hate and are a bunch of dipshits to boot, but lets flirt like it means something."