Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

Of course it’s possible, and far from me the notion that it couldn’t or shouldn’t be: the issue at hand here, is not one of sovereign capacity to amend immigration policies as time goes on and circumstances change, it is that such changes have been performed by the U.K. apparently in complete disregard of their multifarious impacts, turning hitherto-legal undocumented immigrants, some of them so for decades on end, into illegal undocumented immigrants overnight.

Reading between the lines, I gather that you are a legal practitioner, so I’m confident you’re aware of the long-settled principle of legitimate expectations, and it’s relevance in the above context.

Sure, I’m aware of the principle, but actually I don’t think it’s relevant here.

The Windrush generation are not illegal or irregular immigrants who have been led to believe that, because of their long connection with the country and their positive contribution to it, they would be left unmolested. The Windrush generation are, and always have been, completely legal. They are being victimised and even deported because of a change of procedures, under which the onus has suddenly been placed on them to prove their status, years after the circumstances and events which established it, if they are to avoid victimisation/deportation.

I think the problem here is that, historically, the UK has taken advantage of its status as an island nation to implement/police its migration policies at the borders. Because it’s an island (apart from the land border with us since 1922) there are a limited number of entry points. Entrances and exits can be checked at these points; this is relatively straightforward and efficient. Once you’re in, you’re in; it would be very difficult to apply further checks and they could not be very efficient, so not much would be achieved by trying.

This doesn’t work in continental countries with extensive land borders. Of course you can and will try to control entry and exit, but inevitably borders will be much more porous, so you can’t rely on this exclusively. Which is why most continental countries have long had systems of population registration, identity cards, etc. This goes back, I’m pretty sure, to the Napoleonic era, if not before.

(This, incidentally, is why the UK has a Common Travel Area with Ireland. It’s not just a be-nice-to-the-Irish measure; it leads to Ireland, another island nation, keeping its migration policies closely aligned with the UK, and means that people entering the UK from Ireland can generally be taken to be people entitled to enter the UK, so the integrity of the system isn’t threatened, and the UK doesn’t need internal migration controls.)

Right. What has been happening since 2014 is a move away from this approach to migration control. Island nation or not, for whatever reason - globalisation, cheap travel, sheer numbers - the UK’s borders have become more porous, and the UK’s experience - or perception, at any rate - is that implementing migration policy exclusively at the border isn’t as effective as it used to be, or as it needs to be.

So they start moving towards internal population controls. But, partly because they are in denial about the fact that they are doing this, and partly because they are Tories who believe in privatisation, a small state, etc, they don’t do this directly through state agencies; they outsource it to employers, landlords, GPs, schools, etc, etc. The police won’t ask you to produce your papers, but your doctor will; your employer will; your kids’ school will.

A couple of consequences flow from this, but a relevant one in this instance is that it’s entirely foreseeable that a policy implemented in this way will be badly implemented. Basically, you have outsourced implementation to a disconnected and disinterested bunch of people who have no stake in the policy, no overview of the policy and (mostly) haven’t bought into it. And the checks you want them to make are complex and tricky, because UK citizenship and migration law is insanely complicated. At best, they are going to apply a box-ticking, jobsworth approach which takes no account of policy objectives or rationale. So you should expect this policy to be implemented in a way which severely inconveniences (or worse) a lot of people who are not in any sense illegal or irregular migrants - in some cases, people who are not migrants at all. Which, lo, is exactly what has happened.

A second problem stems from the fact that this is such a radical change in the approach to implementing migration policy. Because of the old check-them-at-the-borders approach, the UK has a large number of migrants who are legal, but undocumented. Under the old approach, the very fact that you were in the UK was presumptive evidence of your right to be there; if you weren’t entitled, you wouldn’t have been admitted. So people mostly didn’t need to produce documentation to demonstrate their status and documentation wasn’t routinely generated or, if generated, wasn’t retained in the long term. And if you now switch to a policy of requiring regular demonstration of status, you have to address the fact that your old policy will created a large number of legitimate residents who can’t do that.

The only way to address this, I think, is with a “grandfather” clause; if you can show that you were in the UK for, say, the three years before the policy changed (2011-2014) then you are taken to be legitimate without further evidence. Sure, some illegal immigrants will benefit from this, but the overwhelming bulk of people who benefit from this will be entirely legitimate, and granting an incidental amnesty to a small cohort of illegal immigrants is a price you have to pay to avoid punishing a large number of people for the fact that you have decided to change your policy towards them.

I don’t think, as I say, that this is a matter of legitimate expectations; this is simply a matter of not trampling on established legal rights.

I await with interest the first cases taken against the Home Office by people who have been deported from the UK, despite being British citizens, or non-citizens with a right to remain. My guess, though, is that the cases will never come to trial; they will be settled at an early stage with large compensation payments.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would you imagine that because somebody is an old Etonian, or went to a grammar school, they cannot be stupid?

I didn't say that. As it happens, I don't think any of them are stupid. Stupid or not, having a privileged background can lead to elitism, elitism can lead to arrogance and arrogance blinds.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are several options for having satellites launched commercially (including the ESA itself). You don't need an independent launch capacity in order to put up a satellite array.

The point was they'd either be relying on the EU/ESA or selection of less friendly options.

Unpossible

Enzokk wrote: »

That may be the plan now, but what was the plan before they decided to back leaving the EU? Did they not know how important the trade between Ireland and NI is for both countries? If they didn't, why not? If they did, why did they decide to vote for something that would put this at risk?

Look, I can understand some of their stance now. They are backed into a corner so tight they will probably be spat out on the other side having lost everything they held dear. They might lose their link to the UK. They may have Jeremy Corbyn in charge who could be more sympathetic to SF and a united Ireland. But anyone with two brain cells could have worked out not rocking the boat would mean the status quo remains. Is there a problem with that for them? I mean its not like Ireland will join the UK, ever, so the best they can hope for is to remain as part of the UK.

Politicians should have people below them at least to advise them, but it seems like common sense have left everyone at the moment in any political position in the UK. It's baffling to witness.

Just wondering as well, what would the votes have been had the DUP decided to back remain in NI? It would not have stopped Brexit, but what percentage would have voted Remain if all parties went for the sensible option? Also, even if they did back Remain, after the election Theresa May would have still needed to approach them for a deal to govern, but they could have actually made a difference for their own people instead of spouting threats about wanting something that cannot be given to them.

As someone else said, they probably didn't expect to win. They were just going to go against Sinn Fein and the UUP for a moral victory, and probably make some money or gain influence with groups that were pro-BREXIT.

Maybe some of them truely want a hard exit, it's been mentioned on here that their main hubs of support are not in border areas and don't see how it will affect them.

J Mysterio

Unpossible wrote: »

As someone else said, they probably didn't expect to win. They were just going to go against Sinn Fein and the UUP for a moral victory, and probably make some money or gain influence with groups that were pro-BREXIT.

Maybe some of them truely want a hard exit, it's been mentioned on here that their main hubs of support are not in border areas and don't see how it will affect them.

NI survives on huge subsidies paid to them by the EU. The NI economy is entirely dysfucntional and has a massively bloated public service. Aside from all the obvious trading issues, workers rights, movement etc. quite how any semi informed politican could possibly see leaving the EU to be in NI's interest is hard to fathom.

It's just the DUP and their essentially childish attachment to 'the mainland'. They really need go grow up and realise that they are a liability to Britain in every sense - political, economic, social - and that remaining in the EU in a bespoke arrangement kindly put in place for them, is the only logical choice.

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

NI survives on huge subsidies paid to them by the EU. The NI economy is entirely dysfucntional and has a massively bloated public service. Aside from all the obvious trading issues, workers rights, movement etc. quite how any semi informed politican could possibly see leaving the EU to be in NI's interest is hard to fathom.

It's just the DUP and their essentially childish attachment to 'the mainland'. They really need go grow up and realise that they are a liability to Britain in every sense - political, economic, social - and that remaining in the EU in a bespoke arrangement kindly put in place for them, is the only logical choice.

But even their quest to be attached to the mainland should have told them that all parties other than UKIP supported remaining in the EU. It defies belief how they thought supporting Brexit is in any way in their or NI's interest.

On the Windrush scandal, you cannot take anything this government say seriously. Yesterday Amber Rudd said she wasn't aware of targets for removals even when she was told the Commons Committee had just heard evidence of the targets that were set for regions. This morning she has come out to say, 'Amber Rudd says there were "local targets for internal performance management"'. So once again there is an attempt to shift the blame. It wasn't her fault at all, it all the fault of other departments. She wasn't told enough early enough to make a difference. Commonwealth nations wanted a meeting with the PM to discuss this but was denied due to it not being a problem only a few days ago. By now we have had 7 apologies so far from the PM and the Home Secretary for something that the PM didn't even want to discuss with the nations which this affected.

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/989437982242426880

This is not entirely Amber Rudd's fault, it is mostly the fault of the PM who built and enhanced what Labour started. Labour was under the impression that they needed to be hard on immigration and they started the "hostile environment". Theresa May just focused this and pushed it to the point we have now.

The question is will someone, anyone, resign due to this? We have British Citizens being hounded for not having a document. No one is taking or even attempting to take responsibility. You have people believing they are the right person to "make this right" when they were asleep at the wheel. It's a disgrace and it is worrying as we are talking about the PM and one of her most senior ministers, who is supposed to negotiate a good Brexit deal and we have to hope we don't suffer. Robbie Fowler help us.

An Ciarraioch

It may only be symbolic, but when is the House of Commons voting on the customs amendment today? Will be interesting to see how many Tories move through the Yes lobbies.

J Mysterio

6 defeats in a week in the House of Lords for ol' May.

Lord Lisvane: “Whichever side of the Brexit argument they stand, people might reasonably believe that 'taking back control' would be under the sovereignty of parliament rather than ceding swathes of power to the Executive."

Just got me thinking of Naomi Kleins 'Shock Doctrine', an excellent book. She basically says that at times of flux, or disaster. Governments and Corporations etc. take the opportunity to grant themselves new powers/ seize land/ sign deals etc. while the population are so wrongfooted, they dont react. Thankfully some of these guys in the Lords are scrutinising and rejecting May's ridiculous proposals.

flatty

Bizarrely, I dont think they can actually do anything about it though. May can just ram it through regardless.

An Ciarraioch

Kate Hoey might as well join the DUP - apparently, the customs union debate is a Sinn Féin conspiracy!

farmchoice

i have watched the last hour of the debate in the commons, it has being overwhelming pro remain in the customs union and by and the large in the single market, with the honorable exception of ''crazy kate hoey''. mind you the house is only about a fifth full.

trellheim

The dialogue coming from David Davis would indicate that (in their mind anyway) that the Tories are getting their way

1) Agreed early on "Ireland needs to be sorted first" with Barnier etc.
2) Now, in last 6 months, with Trade on the agenda, "we can't do Ireland till Trade is sorted". - which is what they wanted all along.

This is utter hogwash. Reacted by honking loudly when Guy Verhofstadt called him on it this week.

Essentially the Foreign Office/DExEu view is that by delaying and delaying till October they will get all they want - Trade agreement without CU or SM, implying a hard border for us.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

Essentially the Foreign Office/DExEu view is that by delaying and delaying till October they will get all they want - Trade agreement without CU or SM, implying a hard border for us.

No, that is the story they are telling the backbenchers.

In fact they will delay and delay until October and then fold and accept what is on offer from the EU when it is too late for the Brexiteers to stop them.

Danzy

I think they'll go late and agree custom union.

The majority of Tory MPs are Remain and the big money behind the party is nearly all Remain.

Leave were strongest among the Working class. May will let the cards fall where they will with a warning that collapsing the Govt will handbit to Labour.

Unpossible

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, that is the story they are telling the backbenchers.

In fact they will delay and delay until October and then fold and accept what is on offer from the EU when it is too late for the Brexiteers to stop them.

Wouldn't they be relying on cross party votes then? Otherwise all the hard brexiteers have to do is stall things until its gone past the point of no return.

An Ciarraioch

Danzy wrote: »

I think they'll go late and agree custom union.

The majority of Tory MPs are Remain and the big money behind the party is nearly all Remain.

Leave were strongest among the Working class. May will let the cards fall where they will with a warning that collapsing the Govt will handbit to Labour.

And Amber Rudd puts the cat amongst the pigeons over the CU:


https://mobile.twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/989497443426455557

Enzokk

Danzy wrote: »

I think they'll go late and agree custom union.

The majority of Tory MPs are Remain and the big money behind the party is nearly all Remain.

Leave were strongest among the Working class. May will let the cards fall where they will with a warning that collapsing the Govt will handbit to Labour.

Yes, they will cede to a customs union to get the transition deal in October. Then the EU will inform the UK that while customs checks for tariffs will not be needed, there will need to be infrastructure to check that goods are in compliance to standards of the single market. Then the next year and a bit will follow the same lines until the UK is "forced" into staying in the single market as well because they guaranteed there will be no infrastructure on the Irish border and they also said there will be no border in the Irish Sea.

Member states of a customs union can maintain all sorts of regulations – such as health standards, agricultural controls and minimum product standards – and goods entering the market need to be checked for compliance with these. This is exactly what customs officers along the Northern Irish border were doing until the single market emerged in 1993.

Only in a single market are such standards harmonised or mutually recognised on a comprehensive basis – without the need for customs checks. This is why it was possible to abolish systematic customs checks along the border in 1993.

Would staying in a customs union after Brexit avoid a hard border with Ireland?

Edited to add: In the end the UK, to appease the backbenchers, will not be in the customs union but they will be in a customs union with the EU. They will also not be in the single market but in an arrangement where the standards of the single market is recognised and the rules of the SM is obeyed. They will not be in the European Union, but they will have formed a separate union with the EU. They basically will not be in the EU, but they will be in the EU.

An Ciarraioch

CU motion passed after Government declines to oppose it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/apr/26/labour-says-amber-rudd-must-face-mps-to-explain-why-she-denied-deportation-targets-exist-politics-live

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Let's have less of the one-liners and Twitter dumps please.

Hurrache

Well it was bizarre given the context of where the DUP are at in northern Ireland and the UK when it comes to Brexit.

Sometimes a one line description re an off the wall tweet from a government party is all that's needed. Not everything needs in depth analysis.

Here's the tweet in case anyone is wondering. Where are the DUP trying to position themselves?

https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/989510178423832577?s=19

BonnieSituation

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Let's have less of the one-liners and Twitter dumps please.

<snip - please dont argue moderation on thread>

An Ciarraioch

The Taoiseach gives a speech in Belgium, suggests talks could halt in June unless a Border solution is finalised by then:

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/taoiseach-will-put-a-stop-to-the-eu-uk-withdrawal-agreement-unless-progress-on-the-border-by-june-36848617.html

briany

I'm having a harder and harder time understanding the UK's mentality re: Northern Ireland's position. They've already exhausted, and/or have seen ruled-out, proposals for a solution on the border question, yet they're continuing to negotiate other parts of the withdrawal treaty, knowing that these cannot come to fruition without a solution on the former.

That's like someone shopping for a Lamborghini with no money in their bank account, and bad credit, hoping that they'll somehow win the lotto before they go down to the dealership.

What exactly are the political pundits suggesting the UK is going to say to the EU/Ireland/Northern Ireland, come the deadline date?

First Up

briany wrote: »

I'm having a harder and harder time understanding the UK's mentality re: Northern Ireland's position. They've already exhausted, and/or have seen ruled-out, proposals for a solution on the border question, yet they're continuing to negotiate other parts of the withdrawal treaty, knowing that these cannot come to fruition without a solution on the former.

That's like someone shopping for a Lamborghini with no money in their bank account, and bad credit, hoping that they'll somehow win the lotto before they go down to the dealership.

What exactly are the political pundits suggesting the UK is going to say to the EU/Ireland/Northern Ireland, come the deadline date?

I doubt NI featured in 99.99% of Brexit voters' thoughts. It isn't in the top 10 issues for the average MP either.

For Brexiteers, if NI is too hard, I'd guess most would cut it loose without a 2nd thought.

Parliament can't be that cavalier of course so it will be interesting to watch.

But I have no doubt there's a "UK mentality" that wouldn't mind cutting it loose and leaving us with the consequences.

flutered

briany wrote: »

I'm having a harder and harder time understanding the UK's mentality re: Northern Ireland's position. They've already exhausted, and/or have seen ruled-out, proposals for a solution on the border question, yet they're continuing to negotiate other parts of the withdrawal treaty, knowing that these cannot come to fruition without a solution on the former.

That's like someone shopping for a Lamborghini with no money in their bank account, and bad credit, hoping that they'll somehow win the lotto before they go down to the dealership.

What exactly are the political pundits suggesting the UK is going to say to the EU/Ireland/Northern Ireland, come the deadline date?

which is now incidently only eight weeks away, they are going to have to come up with something fast, something which thanks to red lines and the dup cannot be concived

flutered

EdgeCase wrote: »

Just looking through their degrees and qualifications on wikipedia. Mostly just fairly normal 2nd class honours BAs in English, Classics and so on from Oxford etc.

I could fully understand someone with a classics / languages background who was educated in an elite bubble having little grasp of economic reality.

However, David Davis has a pretty heavy weight CV in business and does not come from that kind of elite bubble. It's surprising he's not a lot more pragmatic.

Karen Bradley also stands out as being educated in what seems to be a community school and then going on to do a B.Sc. in Maths in Imperial College.

their problem is, that they have no perception of reality

briany

First Up wrote: »

I doubt NI featured in 99.99% of Brexit voters' thoughts. It isn't in the top 10 issues for the average MP either.

For Brexiteers, if NI is too hard, I'd guess most would cut it loose without a 2nd thought.

Parliament can't be that cavalier of course so it will be interesting to watch.

But I have no doubt there's a "UK mentality" that wouldn't mind cutting it loose and leaving us with the consequences.

When you say, "cutting it loose", I assume you mean agreeing to leave NI within the customs union and putting the border in the Irish sea. They cannot legally boot NI out of the union without proper due process (e.g. referenda), AFAIK.

Capt'n Midnight

More bad news for UK retail sector. Imports are more expensive and consumer confidence isn't great. Interest rates not getting lower either so don't expect people to have more spare cash.

Discount retailer Poundworld is looking at closing about 100 of its 355 stores, putting up to 1,500 jobs at risk.

Poundworld is considering the move under an insolvency process called a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

....
A number of retailers have chosen to go through a CVA, including New Look and Carpetright while last week House of Fraser said it was considering this measure as part of a number of options.

Earlier this year, both Toys R Us UK and electronics chain Maplin went into administration.

Here Smyths Toys to buy Toys 'R' Us in Germany, Austria, Switzerland

First Up

briany wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I doubt NI featured in 99.99% of Brexit voters' thoughts.  It isn't in the top 10 issues for the average MP either.

For Brexiteers, if NI is too hard, I'd guess most would cut it loose without a 2nd thought.

Parliament can't be that cavalier of course so it will be interesting to watch.

But I have no doubt there's a "UK mentality" that wouldn't mind cutting it loose and leaving us with the consequences.

When you say, "cutting it loose", I assume you mean agreeing to leave NI within the customs union and putting the border in the Irish sea. They cannot legally boot NI out of the union without proper due process (e.g. referenda), AFAIK.

I think the typical Brexit voter (older, less educated and, lets face it, a but dim) wouldn't bother with such details.  Their Britain is England and the bits of Scotland and Wales where the Spitfires took off and that that don't talk funny or wear skirts.  They just want rid of all the complicated stuff - "just get aaaht" as one moron put it in a vox pop a while back.  
Put something as complex and important as the EU to a popular vote and that's what you get.  A referendum on NI leaving the UK? I know what the mainland would say and to hell with the consequences.

LeinsterDub

briany wrote: »

When you say, "cutting it loose", I assume you mean agreeing to leave NI within the customs union and putting the border in the Irish sea. They cannot legally boot NI out of the union without proper due process (e.g. referenda), AFAIK.

I believe the GFA protects the constitutional status of the North, however as the Windrush and aspects of brexit have shown the rule of law in the UK is becoming worryingly stretched.

BonnieSituation

I have a friend that would have regular contact with civil servants and politicians in Ireland, Britain and Europe and they sent me this today:

At a meeting with staff from the [incredibly important UK Ministry] on [SOMETHING really pressing] post-Brexit and they had this idea for a new Treaty, sounds great etc. When asked how has Brussels reacted on the Treaty plan, they basically said "oh well we haven’t told them yet, will do that next year"

The surprising has stopped being surprising. Given how things have gone this week and how the Express (and their ilk) have responded to the "treacherous" House of Lords, one would think that if you knew anything of how politics works and were a rabid brexiteer you would be panicked at the hamfistedness of this.

---

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Taoiseach gives a speech in Belgium, suggests talks could halt in June unless a Border solution is finalised by then:

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/taoiseach-will-put-a-stop-to-the-eu-uk-withdrawal-agreement-unless-progress-on-the-border-by-june-36848617.html

I'm really looking forward to the JRM response to it. Was hoping there would be more online by now.

---

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I believe the GFA protects the constitutional status of the North, however as the Windrush and aspects of brexit have shown the rule of law in the UK is becoming worryingly stretched.

The main thrust of the GFA for Unionists was its protection of the North's status within the Uk by consent. But mere weeks ago the Agreement had outlived its usefulness.

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I have a friend that would have regular contact with civil servants and politicians in Ireland, Britain and Europe and they sent me this today:



The surprising has stopped being surprising. Given how things have gone this week and how the Express (and their ilk) have responded to the "treacherous" House of Lords, one would think that if you knew anything of how politics works and were a rabid brexiteer you would be panicked at the hamfistedness of this.

---




I'm really looking forward to the JRM response to it. Was hoping there would be more online by now.

JRM would be delighted. It would prove that he is right when he says that Britain should tell the EU to foxtrot oscar and crash out via a hard Brexit.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

JRM would be delighted. It would prove that he is right when he says that Britain should tell the EU to foxtrot oscar and crash out via a hard Brexit.

The longer this charade continues the more I want them to Foxtrot Oscar and eat the tonne coming their way.

It was all well and goo but it does feel like the strop has gone one far too long and the adults need to come back and take over.

When you want GW Bush and Gordon Brown back you know you're in dangerous times.

--

The morning should be better for further outrage I bet.

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The longer this charade continues the more I want them to Foxtrot Oscar and eat the tonne coming their way.

It was all well and goo but it does feel like the strop has gone one far too long and the adults need to come back and take over.

When you want GW Bush and Gordon Brown back you know you're in dangerous times.

--

The morning should be better for further outrage I bet.

Brexit has its origins in internal Tory politics. The outrage will continue as they use Ireland and the EU as sticks to beat each other with. JRM doesn't give a fiddlers about Norn Iron or pesky borders, he's a Little Englander to his marrow. Norn Iron is just something he can use against Tory Remainers and to keep May in line. Preserving England as it was between the wars is what he is about. The fact that his version of England died after WW2 is lost on him. He's informed by his Old Etonian elitist arrogance. Neither a hard, soft or no Brexit will impact on his lifestyle so it's easy to pursue a foolish and impossible fantasy. It's a selfish and myopic indulgence.

Bit cynical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Brexit has its origins in internal Tory politics. The outrage will continue as they use Ireland and the EU as sticks to beat each other with. JRM doesn't give a fiddlers about Norn Iron or pesky borders, he's a Little Englander to his marrow. Norn Iron is just something he can use against Tory Remainers and to keep May in line. Preserving England as it was between the wars is what he is about. The fact that his version of England died after WW2 is lost on him. He's informed by his Old Etonian elitist arrogance. Neither a hard, soft or no Brexit will impact on his lifestyle so it's easy to pursue a foolish and impossible fantasy. It's a selfish and myopic indulgence.

Goes a lot further back than current Tory policy tbh. Labour's Tony Ben (friend and mentor of Corbyn) was arguing against entering the then EEC back in the 70s and personally advocated exit from the EU right up to his death a few years ago.

Professor Moriarty

Bit cynical wrote: »

Goes a lot further back than current Tory policy tbh. Labour's Tony Ben (friend and mentor of Corbyn) was arguing against entering the then EEC back in the 70s and personally advocated exit from the EU right up to his death a few years ago.

Indeed but Labour was never as divided on Europe as the Tories to the point where they had to call a referendum to satisfy a significant and hard core eurosceptic rump whilst simultaneously trying to fend off a growing eurosceptic party on their flank which was eating away at their support. Eurosceptism was never the corrosive acid in Labour that it was and is in the Tory party.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

I think the typical Brexit voter (older, less educated and, lets face it, a but dim) wouldn't bother with such details.  Their Britain is England and the bits of Scotland and Wales where the Spitfires took off and that that don't talk funny or wear skirts.  They just want rid of all the complicated stuff

This reminds me of when Britain First used this picture of a Spitfire



Needless to say it belonged to Polish Ace Jan Eugeniusz Ludwig Zumbach

This stuff was always complicated.

Lemming

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Brexit has its origins in internal Tory politics. The outrage will continue as they use Ireland and the EU as sticks to beat each other with. JRM doesn't give a fiddlers about Norn Iron or pesky borders, he's a Little Englander to his marrow. Norn Iron is just something he can use against Tory Remainers and to keep May in line.

Earlier during the week he was crowing on about how it would be 'racist' to grant EU nationals rights above non-EU citizens post-brexit because they [EU] are "predominantly white". He couldn't give less of a flying fvck; it's a simple case of "any rock will do" with which to try and bash the other guy with.

He's informed by his Old Etonian elitist arrogance. Neither a hard, soft or no Brexit will impact on his lifestyle so it's easy to pursue a foolish and impossible fantasy. It's a selfish and myopic indulgence.

Don't forget that he is also informed by his stake in Somerset capital standing to earn a slice of the estimated £5bn+ from the vulture fall-out if Brexit proceeds. How he can be allowed to sit in parliament with such a clear conflict of issues is beyond parody ...

Professor Moriarty

Lemming wrote: »

Earlier during the week he was crowing on about how it would be 'racist' to grant EU nationals rights above non-EU citizens post-brexit because they [EU] are "predominantly white". He couldn't give less of a flying fvck; it's a simple case of "any rock will do" with which to try and bash the other guy with.



Don't forget that he is also informed by his stake in Somerset capital standing to earn a slice of the estimated £5bn+ from the vulture fall-out if Brexit proceeds. How he can be allowed to sit in parliament with such a clear conflict of issues is beyond parody ...

Here's a tough one: Who is the bookies' favourite to be the next British Prime Minister? Hint: His first name is Jacob.

Capt'n Midnight

Lemming wrote: »

Earlier during the week he was crowing on about how it would be 'racist' to grant EU nationals rights above non-EU citizens post-brexit because they [EU] are "predominantly white".

wtf

How do we pass this snippet to those Brexit voters ?

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's a tough one: Who is the bookies' favourite to be the next British Prime Minister? Hint: His first name is Jacob.

I'm shocked to see that this is the case. What a sorry state of affairs. The whole field is a shambles really.

Zubeneschamali

You can see why May is still in place when these are the other options.

Peregrinus

The essential problem is that while the Tory parliamentary party can ditch the leader, they can't choose the new leader; that goes to a ballot of party members.

A majority of the parliamentary party are Remainers and would favour a much softer Brexit than the one May has chosen to pursue, but (it's thought that) a majority of the rank-and-file membership lean towards Leave. Thus remainers are slow to ditch May, despite everything about her, for fear of getting, well, JRM or the like. The result is that May remains in post, despite almost certainly not enjoying the confidence of the parliamentary party, and despite pursuing policies which they believe not to be in the interests of country or party.

Curiously, Labour has a very similar problem, and for similar reasons; Corbyn does not enjoy the support of the parliamentary party and they could cause a leadership spill, but they won't because he does enjoy the confidence of the rank-and-file membership, and would win the ensuing leadership election.

Leaving aside the specific merits and demerits of Brexit, I think it's notable that right now the UK is suffering from a severe dearth of effective political leadership, and I wonder to what extent this is an outcome of the Catch-22 that both parties have walked themselves into. Essentially, they have adopted a presidential model of choosing a leader, but it's a parliamentary leadership role that they are seeking to fill. So the selection mechanism is not well-adapted to choosing a leader who is fitted to the role.

Larbre34

I hope it happens, it'll trigger the departure of moderate tories and the creation of the new centrist party in the UK.

What will be left behind, a backward looking relic of times long disappeared, headed by a the bunch of cosseted twits, JRM, Redwood, Michael Fabricant, Gove, Johnson, Penny Mordaunt, IDS et al. Anyone who votes for them gets what they deserve.

Ive always been convinced May is a Trojan horse, her objective to march Brexit up to the top of the mountain and expose its realities from the inside. This strategy will result in her destruction but i didnt expect it for another 6 months. She is perhaps being overtaken by the uncharacteristic speed of the EU in shutting down every avenue taken by her Govt in their 'cake and eat it approach.

Lemming

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's a tough one: Who is the bookies' favourite to be the next British Prime Minister? Hint: His first name is Jacob.

Whilst I am not surprised, as has been pointed out, no one person (or bookies) chooses the party leader. That's put to an internal vote. But in any case, I'm not so sure that JRM is a front-runner for credible candidate. Also look at it this way: why would he want to put himself in the hot-seat when he's able to manipulate it from the backbenches with little risk or comeback on himself? He's got the best of both worlds right now; a media that laps him up because he's such a divisive and odious figure a la Farage, a PM who is in fear of him & his ERG lot, the ability to say whatever he likes and not really get challenged on it because he's on the back-benches not front-row, and all the same he's able to steer the front-row just by act of f@rting, never mind anything else. Being on the backbenches allows him to be absolutely single-minded & uncompromising. As soon as he sits in the leaders chair things get significantly less straight-forward.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

So the selection mechanism is not well-adapted to choosing a leader who is fitted to the role.

In Labour's case, the problem is not that Corbyn is unsuited to lead the Labour party, it is that many of Labour's MPs don't represent the Labour Party of today, they represent Blair's "New Labour" bash unions/invade Iraq/deport immigrants Tory Lite party.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In Labour's case, the problem is not that Corbyn is unsuited to lead the Labour party, it is that many of Labour's MPs don't represent the Labour Party of today, they represent Blair's "New Labour" bash unions/invade Iraq/deport immigrants Tory Lite party.

Sure. But I don't need to take either a Corbynite or an anti-Corbynite position myself to observe that a Corbynite leader of an anti-Corbynite parliamentary party is, um, going to find it difficult to be an effective leader. What I'm suggesting is that the recently-adopted models for selecting leaders in both Labour and Tory parties is not well-suited to the requirements of the British constitution, and the role parties play in it, and British politics is suffering as a result.

I'm offering this as (part of) a reason why British politics is so extraordinarily dysfunctional at the moment. And I say this as - cards on the table! - someone who would in many respects be quite attracted to Corbyn, and to Corbynite positions (though not with respect to Brexit).

And I have a quibble when you say that "MPs don't represent the Labour Party of the day". MPs aren't supposed to represent the Labour party; the MPs are the Labour party, at least so far as Parliament is concerned. They may not represent the rank-and-file membership of the party branches but, then, they are not supposed to. In so far as MPs are representatives, they are not repfresentatives of either the local or the national party; they are representatives of the voters.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But I don't need to take either a Corbynite or an anti-Corbynite position myself to observe that a Corbynite leader of an anti-Corbynite parliamentary party is, um, going to find it difficult to be an effective leader.

The alternative is to appoint a Blairite as leader. They might be very effective at leading the Parliamentary party and even at governing the country just as Blair was, but utterly ineffective at implementing Labours policies and ideals such as not killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The alternative is to appoint a Blairite as leader. They might be very effective at leading the Parliamentary party and even at governing the country just as Blair was, but utterly ineffective at implementing Labours policies and ideals such as not killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Or actually winning enough votes to actually govern. You have to win first before you can govern, and it seems to me that a lot of the Labour backbenchers who are so opposed to Corbyn likes being in opposition. They were all behind Milliband and see how that turned out for the party.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The alternative is to appoint a Blairite as leader. They might be very effective at leading the Parliamentary party and even at governing the country just as Blair was, but utterly ineffective at implementing Labours policies and ideals such as not killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Presumably, if the leader was selected by the Parliament party, rather than by the rank-and-file, they would have a Blairite leader. Or, at any rate, a somewhat more Blairite leader than Corbyn, if not full-throttle Blairite. (Not everybody who opposes Corbyn would be an enthusiast for Blair.)

The other alternative, of course, would be to have a more Corbynite parliamentary party, which could be achieved by nominating more Corbynite candidates. But of course that would involve a horrible degree of bloodletting, with sitting MPs being deselected.

The third alternative is for Corbyn to develop a leadership style under which he can convincingly present himself as someone who can provide effective leadership to a broad-church party. Easier said than done, I grant you, but it looks to me like the only way forward.

At the moment, it seems to me, Labour have the worst of both worlds. The Tory party is just astonishingly badly led, deeply divided, utterly dysfunctional and its handling of Brexit, the biggest issue facing the UK for generation, for the past four years has been a shambolic parade of ineptitude, incompetence, misjudgment, dishonesty and folly. And yet Labour couldn't beat them at least year's election. So, while the country isn't yet suffering directly from ineffectively leadership in the Labour party, because Labour isn't in power, I suggest the Labour party itself certainly is, if only because they couldn't win an election when up against what must be the most dismal incarnation ever of the Tory party.