UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Steve steveson**

He is, notably, talking about having access to, not being in. The same words used by a number of pro leave people recently to play down the risk. Almost every country "has access to" the single market, as there are very few countries that are not able to trade with the EU at all. That is not the same as having full equality and membership of the single market. He may just be using the term in innocence, but it would also not shock me if he was knowingly using that term to be vague and seem like he is doing something, but not doing anything.

He should vote against any leave legislation. Not because of any issue with trade or the single market, but because it is both his parties stance and his constituency voted overwhelmingly to remain.

**Ketara**

So, to clarify. Jeremy Corbyn will not allow negotiations over Brexit to begin unless negotiations have been finalised and single market access guaranteed.

Yup. That sounds like a fudge to me, because it's impracticable on every level.

'So Mrs May, why haven't you guaranteed single market access?'
'Because the EU won't begin negotiations until Article 50 is triggered?'
'I'm sorry Mrs May, but that is unacceptable. I'm afraid I cannot permit you to trigger Article 50 until we know precisely what Brexit will entail, and single market access to be part of it!'
*cue collective headdesking around Commons*

**Future War Cultist**

Ketara wrote:
So, to clarify. Jeremy Corbyn will not allow negotiations over Brexit to begin unless negotiations have been finalised and single market access guaranteed.

Yup. That sounds like a fudge to me, because it's impracticable on every level.

'So Mrs May, why haven't you guaranteed single market access?'
'Because the EU won't begin negotiations until Article 50 is triggered?'
'I'm sorry Mrs May, but that is unacceptable. I'm afraid I cannot permit you to trigger Article 50 until we know precisely what Brexit will entail, and single market access to be part of it!'
*cue collective headdesking around Commons*

Yes, he's an absolute idiot.

**Frozocrone**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37872792

Not really EU related but still quite interesting.

I did read an article off the Daily Mail that India wants the UK to accept more Indian citizens post brexit before a trade deal is established...but it's the DM so...

And apparently Walkers Crisps are going up in price by 10% and is being blamed on Brexit, lol.

**Kilkrazy**

It is Brexit related.

I don't believe anything I read in the DM but the BBC article mentions that Indians aren't impressed by the current anti-immigration direction of things.

**Whirlwind**

Ketara wrote:
So, to clarify. Jeremy Corbyn will not allow negotiations over Brexit to begin unless negotiations have been finalised and single market access guaranteed.

Yup. That sounds like a fudge to me, because it's impracticable on every level.

'So Mrs May, why haven't you guaranteed single market access?'
'Because the EU won't begin negotiations until Article 50 is triggered?'
'I'm sorry Mrs May, but that is unacceptable. I'm afraid I cannot permit you to trigger Article 50 until we know precisely what Brexit will entail, and single market access to be part of it!'
*cue collective headdesking around Commons*

I don't think he said it in this way looking over the interview on Sunday Mirror (although it doesn't seem to have the full script so things might be taken out of context).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-gives-theresa-ultimatum-9204393

However he's effectively called it a "bottom line", so the minimum May should agree to (rather than saying this should be the agreed with the EU prior to implementing Article 50), and there were other items, this was his full list:-
•UK access to 500 million customers in Europe’s single market.
•No watering down of EU workplace rights.
•Guarantees on safeguarding consumers and the environment.
•Pledges on Britain picking up the tab for any EU capital investment lost by Brexit
[Source: Sunday Mirror]

None of these are unreasonable, I think it is also more clever than people are really crediting him with. Labour are very pro-EU so coming out directly in favour of all leaving is probably going to start another rebellion in the ranks. For voters it can appeal to those that support him in London/Remain areas as well as those more Brexit orientated areas in the North (see you get a free trade for cars in Sunderland to guarantee jobs, why should it just be them etc). On the other hand May is hardly going to agree to these terms (not wanting to be seen being led by Labour) but if she disagrees, A50 gets refused and it goes to a GE then Labour will be able to go to polls telling the populace that in these key areas Tories are going to make their lives worse and she'll then have to guarantee something better (or really get punished on these issues in any debates). Still we have some way to go until we get the supreme court ruling (and possibly the European Court of Justice ruling, if the Supreme court goes the governments way).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It is Brexit related.

I don't believe anything I read in the DM but the BBC article mentions that Indians aren't impressed by the current anti-immigration direction of things.

Some of the quotes are quite telling from this BBC article such as:-

For the life of me, I cannot see why the Indians would be prepared to offer concessions on services in bilateral talks with the UK which they were not prepared to offer in return for access to the EU as a whole,"

So they may not be that interested in a trade deal if they can't access the EU anyway. And also:-

The impression Britain is giving to countries such as India is 'we want your business but we don't want your people'," is how a former advisor to the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, put it in an Indian newspaper.

When I quoted that to a top British diplomat he squirmed in discomfort.

"The government is going to have to find a way to articulate its policy more clearly," was his "diplomatic" suggestion.

So they are still trying to have their cake and eat it, and it appears that other diplomats know this.

**Ketara**

Whirlwind wrote:

However he's effectively called it a "bottom line", so the minimum May should agree to (rather than saying this should be the agreed with the EU prior to implementing Article 50),

But that's equally nonsensical, because May cannot agree to anything (not being in control of the negotiations, the EU is another involved party). She doesn't know what the EU's actual red lines are (as opposed to the press distributed ones), she doesn't know what there's leeway on, and she certainly doesn't know whether she's going to have to sacrifice one of those points to ensure another one.

There's is literally no way that May can guarantee anything prior to negotiations. What's more, if she ties herself down to ticking Mr Corbyn's list, she will effectively have no negotiating position, because it will be common knowledge from day 1.

Either way is absolutely nonsensical and impossible. It's a fudge designed to try and make himself look like he's doing something and taking a stand in some way when all he's doing is throwing an egg at the metaphorical house and running away. All it will likely result in, if it ever came to fruition, he got his way and May agreed to it, is a hard brexit.

Which makes me wonder if that is his intent.

**Whirlwind**

Frozocrone wrote:

And apparently Walkers Crisps are going up in price by 10% and is being blamed on Brexit, lol.

Not really a surprise. I've talked about this before but with a reduced £ foreign companies can buy British potatoes much more cheaply than before pushing up the overall internal market prices. On top of this you'll have food oil prices increasing as well as haulage prices (and there is a lot 'air' in packets of crisps so there is less capacity for packaging them more efficiently!)

This is the one thing people are missing with inflation. The CPI covers the average of 20 items (I think) covering food to flight costs. The problem is for those on the lowest wages a lot of these items aren't really in the weekly basket (these being food, fuel, heating, and twice a year clothing, {I'm probably missing something!]). Therefore the 'in the pocket' inflation could be much higher than the official figures suggest especially for those on the lowest incomes and couldn't give two toots about flight price changes. I think the government should really come out with an 'Essential Price Index' but they probably won't because it wouldn't be pleasant reading.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

However he's effectively called it a "bottom line", so the minimum May should agree to (rather than saying this should be the agreed with the EU prior to implementing Article 50),

But that's equally nonsensical

Since when is politics sensible? Also I'm not sure keeping the strategic vision of each others hand before negotiations so tight is such a good thing. It can drive rumour, gossip and misinformation that can cause more difficulties than it solves. They just need to prepare a strategic vision document first (and so should the EU) so that both sides can really understand what they would like to get out of any agreement (not that all are likely to be possible).

I think JC is driving for an election; I think he is hoping this might bring out the divide in the Tory party over the EU (as they would still have to write their manifesto). If you assume May brings A50 to the table in March and it gets refused you are looking at probably Autumn 17 election at the earliest (there probably wouldn't be time to do it before the recess). The uncertainty will cause the £ to drop even further and at that point inflation on essentials is likely be much higher. I guess he is hoping that all the confusion and rocky economy will result in a 'stable Labour vote' (or losing some to UKIP but not enough to change the result in FPTP system). That Tories start losing seats to LD in pro-EU areas and possibly UKIP in pro-Brexit areas resulting in a hung parliament. Then the negotiations would start...

**Herzlos**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Skullhammer wrote:
Well thats the end of labour.....

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-05/corbyn-labour-will-block-article-50-if-theresa-may-cannot-guarantee-single-market-access/

Staying in the single market means that we're still in the EU, putting up with their rules and paying for it in the process only this time we won't have a say in it. It'll leave us in an even worse position than what we're in now. So again, Corbyn's idea is half baked.

Is is another worry of mine. Vested interests will, deliberately or otherwise, sabotage the brexit process.

Yup, but for just under half the population it's the best outcome we can see.

**SirDonlad**

You want to undermine the democracy of our country so you get the result you want? pffft.

I went to see friends and family near london yesterday and found myself in a room full of people who voted 'remain' - When the article 50 thing was brought up nearly all of them agreed that although they want to keep us in the EU, that ignoring a referendum result is possibly the most dangerous thing the government could possibly do.
Many reasons were given, but all were agreed that a vote needs to be respected.

It's very 'EU' to ignore voting results you don't like - i recon we should deport those who can't accept it. The EU will take 'em!

**Howard A Treesong**

That half isn't in the labour heartlands though, most of Wales and Northern England constituencies convincingly voted leave. The remqin vote was heavily buoyed by london areas. If the referendum had been held on a first past the post constituencies basis it would have been overwhelmingly for leave, something that MPs in these areas will have to think about. Many across the country already feel that London is treated differently from the rest of the UK, a referendum result thrown out which was only as close as it was because of a concentration in London and the South East will only further that feeling of double standards.

Further, the government's own information leaflet made it quite clear the result would be enacted. That was the understanding of the referendum. If they were going to throw out an unwanted result they shouldn't have offered the referendum in the first place, or made it clearer that a certain margin in favour of leaving was required.

**Compel**

There are groups amongst those looking for Brexit that would say to India "yes we agree it should easier for people from India and the Commonwealth to come here" - It wouldn't surprise me if that is one of Theresa Mays goals too.

There's differences between wishing to put more controls on immigration than wanting to stop it, which is a regular strawman seen.

If all immigration and emigration can be quantified beforehand as opposed to going "um... Europe... We dunno how many" it would allow the greatest planning of services and Commonwealth and global migrants would get more of a fair shake.

**Whirlwind**

SirDonlad wrote:
You want to undermine the democracy of our country so you get the result you want? pffft.

I went to see friends and family near london yesterday and found myself in a room full of people who voted 'remain' - When the article 50 thing was brought up nearly all of them agreed that although they want to keep us in the EU, that ignoring a referendum result is possibly the most dangerous thing the government could possibly do.
Many reasons were given, but all were agreed that a vote needs to be respected.

It's very 'EU' to ignore voting results you don't like - i recon we should deport those who can't accept it. The EU will take 'em!

I think it's more likely that we will heading down the direction a second referendum on the issue. There's a number of reasons that could cause this:-

(a) Lack of uniformity as what people that voted Brexit wanted (some want no restricted immigration and reduced alleged red tape and others vice versa); whereas there is a lot more uniformity as to what Remainers want
(b) Lack of information on what people were actually voting for in a Brexit
(c) A game of politics that was pretty low by the end of it all (not quite as bad as the US election though!)

So I still think we may end up with a three choice referendum (Stay in, accept the deal, go WTO); assuming we don't have a GE where the party that gets in power basically states categorically in their manifesto that they would stay in (and lets not forget that would still be a democratic mandate).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Compel wrote:
There are groups amongst those looking for Brexit that would say to India "yes we agree it should easier for people from India and the Commonwealth to come here" - It wouldn't surprise me if that is one of Theresa Mays goals too.

As pointed out in the quote earlier. They want access to the EU as a whole, not just the UK., they see the negotiations as a way round the EU requirements (i.e. we have free trade with the EU and India has free trade with the UK). That gives them a route to the EU via an intermediary. Of course that is something that EU would also resist as it reduces their negotiating position for their own trade deals.

**welshhoppo**

The whole uncontrolled immigration from the EU is the thing that seems to be causing a lot of issues. A lot of being would be happier if we could bring in skilled foreigners from around the world, like doctors or other specialists. As opposed to people from the EU who are not skilled in those areas. Having a set amount from the EU will help that. One year 1 person might immigrate from Europe, the next 1 million might.

And a lot of the old Labour heartlands have been ruined by the loss of their natural industries. It is easy to blame "cheap foreign labour" for those losses.

Plus Corbyn is a massive Euroskeptic leading a pro EU party. Not an easy place to be.

**reds8n**

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/794876532799848448

pro-tip : If you’re Leader of the Opposition and you think it’s harassment for the media to ask if you want a general election, maybe pick another fething job.

**Whirlwind**

welshhoppo wrote:
The whole uncontrolled immigration from the EU is the thing that seems to be causing a lot of issues. A lot of being would be happier if we could bring in skilled foreigners from around the world, like doctors or other specialists. As opposed to people from the EU who are not skilled in those areas.

You only want such a system where the Country has *minimal* ability to provide these skills though which the UK really isn't the situation the UK is in. Otherwise the consequences are worse than having free immigration. If you have a global system where only skilled people are encouraged/allowed in then it encourages business behaviour of only employing them. There is then little incentive to undertake skill growth of the UK populace to get them to the top of the profession if all you need to do is argue the case with government that there is a skills shortage in an area. It is a lot more expensive to train an individual in the UK to progress from school to a heart surgeon, engineering expert etc (especially as they can leave when they want) than it is to hire someone from somewhere else. Eventually that leaves you in a situation where you are reliant on the immigration skills market (and market prices) with a lower skilled worker base made up by UK residents. What you want is an open system where the UK populace (both national and from migration) can develop so they become a worldwide resource.

Having a set amount from the EU will help that. One year 1 person might immigrate from Europe, the next 1 million might.

We've never had such a large variance like this though. Net immigration has been slowly increasing but not at such variable levels that it can't be planned for.

**A Town Called Malus**

welshhoppo wrote:
The whole uncontrolled immigration from the EU is the thing that seems to be causing a lot of issues. A lot of being would be happier if we could bring in skilled foreigners from around the world, like doctors or other specialists. As opposed to people from the EU who are not skilled in those areas. Having a set amount from the EU will help that. One year 1 person might immigrate from Europe, the next 1 million might.

And a lot of the old Labour heartlands have been ruined by the loss of their natural industries. It is easy to blame "cheap foreign labour" for those losses.

Plus Corbyn is a massive Euroskeptic leading a pro EU party. Not an easy place to be.

We can bring in skilled immigrants from around the world any time we want. The only barrier to that is politicians arguing for idiotic arbitrary limits on the number of immigrants per year.

**Skullhammer**

Labour might survive as mcdonald has come out to say labour wont oppose atrical 50 now......

I really wish they would make there minds up.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-06/labour-u-turn-on-brexit-vote-as-watson-says-the-party-will-support-may-in-brexit-vote/

**Ketara**

Once again, Corbyn demonstrates that his office only talk to five people, aka Mcdonnell, Abbott, and his own aides. Meanwhile, everyone else is out of the loop and unable to contact him. The more things change...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Skullhammer wrote:
Labour might survive as mcdonald has come out to say labour wont oppose atrical 50 now......

I really wish they would make there minds up.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-06/labour-u-turn-on-brexit-vote-as-watson-says-the-party-will-support-may-in-brexit-vote/

Oh, the Grand old Duke of York
He had 10,000 men
He marched them to the top of the hill
and he marched them down again!

Pretty much sums up Labour these days....

**Crispy78**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Skullhammer wrote:
Labour might survive as mcdonald has come out to say labour wont oppose atrical 50 now......

I really wish they would make there minds up.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-06/labour-u-turn-on-brexit-vote-as-watson-says-the-party-will-support-may-in-brexit-vote/

Oh, the Grand old Duke of York
He had 10,000 men
He marched them to the top of the hill
and he marched them down again!

Pretty much sums up Labour these days....

http://newsthump.com/2015/01/05/duke-of-york-strenuously-denies-he-had-ten-thousand-men/

**Whirlwind**

Skullhammer wrote:
Labour might survive as mcdonald has come out to say labour wont oppose atrical 50 now......

I really wish they would make there minds up.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-06/labour-u-turn-on-brexit-vote-as-watson-says-the-party-will-support-may-in-brexit-vote/

You've got to wonder whether they just make up their policies on a day by day basis or which side of the bed they get out of. I whole heartedly retract my comments about that JC might have made a clever decision earlier; he still doesn't have a clue if he is not only confusing the electorate but his own MPs as well. Must be fun being his press staff...lol

**Ketara**

Whirlwind wrote:
Skullhammer wrote:
Labour might survive as mcdonald has come out to say labour wont oppose atrical 50 now......

I really wish they would make there minds up.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-06/labour-u-turn-on-brexit-vote-as-watson-says-the-party-will-support-may-in-brexit-vote/

You've got to wonder whether they just make up their policies on a day by day basis or which side of the bed they get out of. I whole heartedly retract my comments about that JC might have made a clever decision earlier; he still doesn't have a clue if he is not only confusing the electorate but his own MPs as well. Must be fun being his press staff...lol

It's been a frequent complaint of both people out of favour, and those who were in favour for a brief time then left it, that he barely talks to anyone and can't be gotten hold of at crucial moments. There'll be a crucial political development and he'll be off on his allotment for the day, or be getting cheered at one of his rallies. They're left trying to predict what he'll say. Or, he'll say something half baked and politically suicidal, and then spend the next day looking stubborn whilst his supporters try and do damage control. Then he'll grudgingly 'clarify' (aka change) his previous statement.

If you're not one of the favoured five, it's hard to even get him on the telephone apparently. Which is utter madness for the leader of the opposition.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

With regard to the High Court ruling on Article 50, it seems the judges are blameless after all...

I've been doing some reading over the weekend and it seems that Parliament had the power to recall the government on this, could have done so at any time, and choose not too. Parliament could have passed a vote/motion.

Under the bill of rights 1689, Parliament is sovereign....

Bottom line: Parliament was either too lazy, or feeble, or scared, to actually do something about the Royal Prerogative, and in essence, and this is what the judges were saying, Parliament should have done their job, and not relied on the High Court to bail them out!

**reds8n**

Gove writing in the Times today.

That's Gove criticising someone else over dishonesty and lack of detailed knowledge.

irony -- RIP 2016.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

reds8n wrote:

Gove writing in the Times today.

That's Gove criticising someone else over dishonesty and lack of detailed knowledge.

irony -- RIP 2016.

If you're attacking Gove for being dishonest during the Bojo bid for the Tory leadership, then in my book, that wasn't dishonesty, that was doing Britain a great service.

He should have got the George Cross for that!

**reds8n**

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/theresa-may-can-ignore-the-scottish-parliament-on-brexit-say?utm_term=.sxp4jyZp7&bftwuk#.bprJqalQ3

Scottish Parliament Won’t Be Able To Block Brexit, Lawyers Say
The prime minister can trigger Article 50 even if the Scottish parliament votes against it, constitutional experts have told BuzzFeed News.

Theresa May is free to ignore the will of the Scottish parliament if it refuses to give its consent to the triggering of Article 50, experts in constitutional law have told BuzzFeed News.
On Thursday, the high court of England and Wales ruled that the prime minister must win the backing of the Westminster parliament before her government can begin the two-year process of leaving the European Union.
The UK government act to trigger Article 50 would also affect Scottish law, in which case the Scottish parliament would usually have to give its consent to such an act in a vote known as a legislative consent motion.
First minister Nicola Sturgeon previously argued this would allow Holyrood to effectively block Brexit, but constitutional lawyers have said the prime minister is under no legal obligation to respect the wishes of the Scottish parliament if it refuses to give its consent.
Professor Alan Page, a professor in public law at Dundee University, said Holyrood withholding its consent would have no legal effect, leaving open the prospect of a constitutional crisis between the two parliaments and the fuelling of calls for a second independence referendum.
“If consent is required, it’s reasonable to suppose the Scottish parliament would withhold its consent,” Page told BuzzFeed News. “All the parties in the Scottish parliament are opposed to Brexit, except the Conservatives, so there would most likely be a Holyrood majority.
“But, at the end of the day, that wouldn’t change anything. The Scottish parliament could underline its political opposition to the proposals, but that would not affect the legal position assuming the act successfully goes through Westminster.”

Holyrood has only refused consent to a Westminster act once, in a protest against changes to the benefit system in 2011. The procedure is intended to make sure that Westminster doesn’t override the rule of Holyrood, but in fact there’s nothing legally to stop the UK parliament from making laws on devolved matters.
Professor James Chalmers from the University of Glasgow told BuzzFeed News the UK government could go ahead with triggering Article 50 without asking the Scottish parliament for consent, as a referendum result is outside the normal circumstances covered by consent motions.
However, if it does come to a Holyrood consent vote, Chalmers said: “It’s just a convention, [and] not actually enforceable in the courts. It wouldn’t get you as far as a blocking power; even if Westminster should ask for consent it always has the power to go ahead without it.”
In its efforts to prevent a hard Brexit from happening, the Scottish government is likely to add its voice to the argument against the UK government when it appeals Thursday’s ruling in the supreme court in the months to come.
Sturgeon hinted on Thursday that her MPs in Westminster would vote to block Article 50, saying: “SNP MPs in the House of Commons will certainly not vote for anything that undermines the will or the interests of the Scottish people.”
The party’s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, has told BuzzFeed News he’s working with MPs from other parties to block Brexit in parliament.

huh.

so...

can't see that going down well North o' the ~~wall~~ border.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I'm not surprised at that article. Scotland is legally part of the UK, and the Westminster parliament is sovereign. It could scrap the Scottish Parliament tomorrow if it wanted too.

From a legal viewpoint, I have no problems whatsoever with that.

But, we're talking politics here

Westminster laying down the law like that only helps the independence cause.

**BaronIveagh**

reds8n wrote:

huh.

so...

can't see that going down well North o' the ~~wall~~ border.

Scotland's issue with Brexit is getting bigger, nastier, and hairier (considering they voted Remain, though, you have to admit that Edinburgh is responding to the will o the Scottish People) according to the Scottish press. From the sound of things, a second referendum at this point would most likely pass.

**Whirlwind**

reds8n wrote:

Gove writing in the Times today.

That's Gove criticising someone else over dishonesty and lack of detailed knowledge.

irony -- RIP 2016.

Can you not take the whole article replace all references to "Trump" with "Gove" and presidency with prime minister.

Maybe ask him where that £350m a week is going to be spent or his views on experts ...

“I’m glad these organisations aren’t on my side,” he said. “I think people in this country have had enough of experts.”

That is obviously not being 'cavalier about the truth'

Or maybe we should ask him about the policy detail for Brexit during the referendum

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not surprised at that article. Scotland is legally part of the UK, and the Westminster parliament is sovereign. It could scrap the Scottish Parliament tomorrow if it wanted too.

From a legal viewpoint, I have no problems whatsoever with that.

But, we're talking politics here

Westminster laying down the law like that only helps the independence cause.

The real issue here is probably not whether the UK parliament has the right to issue A50, but rather what rights it removes from the Scottish people. If the UK has devolved certain powers to Scottish parliament that would be affected by issuing A50 then they might have an argument to say they can't until they remove that power again. For example the Scottish parliament has devolved powers for agricultural, fishing and forestry. They could hence argue that by issuing A50 that the UK government is overstretching its bounds because it no longer has the power to change these (which it inevitably will do). Either the UK government would then have to de-devolve these pieces of legislation which at that point you might as well hand Scotland it's independence (and I might go up there to help them out if it keeps them and me in the EU!)