Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes it's unlikely. But not impossible. The SNP might hold their noses if means a triple lock guarantee of Independence.

And it would only be necessary if Boris looses the equivalent of 110 seats.
80 majority + SF abstentions + DUP + up to 10 from boundary changes + a handful of independents

The permutations are scary.

I dunno, they still get lambasted for letting Thatcher in...

View

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The claim was that Labour was a "full on Brexit supporting party". This is patently ridiculous. UKIP is the only party that fits that description. Even the Tories were plagued with a few remainers.

Labour had, under Corbyn committed to respecting the 2016 vote so voting to revoke Article 50 wasn't unreasonable. The public had voted for Brexit less than a year before.

Where did Labour block "all efforts by the other opposition parties to hinder Brexit?" I don't recall this at all.

The comparison with Irish parties is a false equivalence. The British system awards unchecked power to whoever wins 40-45% of the vote thus encouraging coalitions to merge awkwardly into the Labour and Conservative parties. The Irish system is fairer but that's not what prevails here.

Actually the comment was that Labour IS a "full on Brexit supporting party", not was one.

The fact that Labour may once upon a time have opposed leaving the EU is today completely irrelevant. It is what it supports today and votes for (or against) in that regard that counts.


And, in the last Parliament, there were multiple attempts by the Remain Alliance parties to stop the Conservatives’ mad rush for Brexit. Labour went out of their way to hinder those efforts by refusing to back them and that’s leaving aside the unofficially sanctioned Labour “rebels” who repeatedly voted with the Conservatives, some of them doing so more often than Johnson and the ERG did.

Lastly, it isn’t a false equivalence to compare the stance of political parties in differing countries. Either they support (or oppose) political positions when they stand for election. You seem to be labouring under the idea that Labour is somehow a pro-EU membership party that is lying to the electorate when it votes for Brexit and publicly backs that. There is absolutely no reason to believe such a conspiracy theory when the simplest explanation is that Labour has changed its position from being pro-EU to anti-EU.

View

breezy1985 wrote: »

Lib Dems or the SNP wont do any deal that puts Johnson back in. It would be toxic with their voters

As the leader of the Conservatives and the leader of Labour are both opposed to EU membership, it’s largely irrelevant to those parties which of them end up in Downing St.

The objectives (of the LDs and the SNP) have to be to get as many of their policies enacted since it is that what their voters vote for. People who want either leader of the “big two” in office, can and will just vote for those parties directly.

breezy1985

View wrote: »

As the leader of the Conservatives and the leader of Labour are both opposed to EU membership, it’s largely irrelevant to those parties which of them end up in Downing St.

The objectives (of the LDs and the SNP) have to be to get as many of their policies enacted since it is that what their voters vote for. People who want either leader of the “big two” in office, can and will just vote for those parties directly.

Thats fine in a normal political year but backing Johnson has a price with voters they wont pay. And I do mean Johnson specifically and not the Tories

Imreoir2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Remember all of those EU will throw Ireland under the bus posts, time and time again euro sceptics and Brexiteers got it wrong.

Yes, yes I do, proclaimed with the utmost self-assurance.

Funny that those posters have yet to show up to tell us how great the final deal is for the Britain, to point out how the EU collapsed (having foolishly overplayed its hand, you see), and the tire track on Ireland's limp body.

quokula

View wrote: »

Actually the comment was that Labour IS a "full on Brexit supporting party", not was one.

The fact that Labour may once upon a time have opposed leaving the EU is today completely irrelevant. It is what it supports today and votes for (or against) in that regard that counts.


And, in the last Parliament, there were multiple attempts by the Remain Alliance parties to stop the Conservatives’ mad rush for Brexit. Labour went out of their way to hinder those efforts by refusing to back them and that’s leaving aside the unofficially sanctioned Labour “rebels” who repeatedly voted with the Conservatives, some of them doing so more often than Johnson and the ERG did.

Lastly, it isn’t a false equivalence to compare the stance of political parties in differing countries. Either they support (or oppose) political positions when they stand for election. You seem to be labouring under the idea that Labour is somehow a pro-EU membership party that is lying to the electorate when it votes for Brexit and publicly backs that. There is absolutely no reason to believe such a conspiracy theory when the simplest explanation is that Labour has changed its position from being pro-EU to anti-EU.

That is a really skewed interpretation of what Labour did in the last Parliament. Time and again they blocked the Tories, they literally inflicted more parliamentary defeats on the government than any opposition on record, they consistently pushed to remain in the customs Union and to keep the closest ties possible, and they ultimately ran in the 2019 election on a manifesto of rerunning the referendum, which was the most anti-Brexit thing they could possibly do, given that just ignoring the referendum was never a credible option if they wanted any hope of being elected. Supporting a second referendum was ultimately what did them in, they’d have had a fighting chance if they’d just committed to brokering a closer relationship in the Brexit deal, as was their position prior to 2019.

This is a good article that really gets into the detail of how hard Labour did everything remainers could have asked for but it was never going to be good enough.

Parliament got within 6 votes of passing Ken Clarke’s proposal to retain comprehensive ties with The EU and remain in the Customs Union. We’d all be in a much better place if that had passed, but it was blocked by a coalition of hard Tory Brexiters, the DUP, the Lib Dems and the SNP. I can at least understand the SNP having zero compromise as they have Independence as their back up plan. But the Lib Dems really should have been more pragmatic as the last few years would have been very different if they’d voted in favour. It was them that led us to where we are now, not Labour who did everything in their power to soften the Brexit blow.

schmoo2k

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Add in SF abstentions and threaten the DUP with a border poll and becomes a de facto 100 seat majority.

Opinion piece in the Guardian suggests that Boris might try a snap election during the post-covid boom. ie. Before the chickens come home to roost in 2024 when borrowing is predicted to be at it's highest since WWII.

And boundary changes might give them another 10 seats. And it might be worth might be worth a dangling a carrot in front of the fooled-me-once Lib Dems. If being in govt is all that matters then if all else fails Boris could offer the SNP a referendum. Even Churchill admitted that in some circumstances I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House


Not sure how Labour gets a majority if things align for the Conservatives in the next year or two.

Is Farage's new party in Scotland going to be pro sovereignty and exiting the union I wonder?

Peregrinus

schmoo2k wrote: »

Is Farage's new party in Scotland going to be pro sovereignty and exiting the union I wonder?

It hardly matters. At the 2019 General election the Brexit Party (as it then was) secured 0.5% of the Scottish vote, and a grand total of zero seats.

They weren't around at the most recent Scottish Parliament election, but UKIP were. They didn't stand in any of the constituencies but they did compete for the regional vote, and secured 2% of the vote, and zero seats. In the local elections of 2017 UKIP secured 0.2% of the overall vote, and zero seats on any council.

So, the policies of the Reform Party on the union - or anything else - are pretty much irrelevant to Scotland.

It seems that Reform Party policies are pretty much irrelevant to the Reform Party, too. Right now they have one elected representative in Scotland, who is also head of the Scottish section of the party. She's Michelle Ballantyne, who entered the Parliament as a Conservative MSP, defected from the Conservatives and then joined Reform. The party's own policy, as set out in its manifesto for the 2019 general election, is that reprsentatives who switch parties should be recalled, so the that voters can decide if they still want to represented by them, but Ballantyne seems to have no plans to resign and offer herself for re-election.

Tell me how

I think Farage's new 'party', like previous ones will exist largely to justify his platform for personal motivations which will mostly be focused on media and speaking engagements outside of parliaments rather than within.
It is easy for media outlets to justify giving him air time as a 'Party Leader' rather than his less formal but more appropriate title of 'agitator'.

I suspect Nigels future personal motivations will be to continue to comment on the EU and their viability and to renounce the Brexit deal as a badly negotiated agreement.

Peregrinus

It's not a new party; it's the existing Brexit party with a new name.

And, if we're being picky, it's not really a "party" as conventionally understood.

Political parties are normally membership-based organisations; you join a local branch and get to participate in party processes, such as debating and adopting policy and choosing party officials.

The Brexit party is not like this; it has only three members — Farage himself, and two party officials appointed by Farage. (And it only has these because UK electoral law requires a political party to have at least 2 members.) Everyone else is just a "registered supporter"; they sign up to pay money to the party but have no say in policy or strategy, and no involvement in party decision-making. The assets of the party are held by a company called The Brexit Party Limited (it hasn't got around to changing its name yet). The majority of the shares in that company are held by Farage, who has the right to appoint and remove its directors.

rock22

Enzokk wrote: »

Nuance. If you don't want to get it I don't think it will help to try and explain it. I don't know how you are trying to blame the opposition for the decisions of the ruling party.

I think you are the one 'who does not get it'

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Add in SF abstentions and threaten the DUP with a border poll and becomes a de facto 100 seat majority.

Opinion piece in the Guardian suggests that Boris might try a snap election during the post-covid boom. ie. Before the chickens come home to roost in 2024 when borrowing is predicted to be at it's highest since WWII.

And boundary changes might give them another 10 seats. And it might be worth might be worth a dangling a carrot in front of the fooled-me-once Lib Dems. If being in govt is all that matters then if all else fails Boris could offer the SNP a referendum. Even Churchill admitted that in some circumstances I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House


Not sure how Labour gets a majority if things align for the Conservatives in the next year or two.

And yet any election before 2024 will have to face the fact that this government was in charge of the pandemic that was woefully managed and more than 100 000 will have died from since. Add in the amount of money wasted during the pandemic to their chums and the free schools meal debacle, I don't see Johnson going for an election before 2024.

I also don't see Johnson staying until then either so his successor may want a new election, but how do you justify it with a 80 seat majority to a public that will be in the aftermath of Covid and in the middle of Brexit? "Here, go vote for us, we mismanaged Covid so you are suffering a bit more and pushed through Brexit at the same time to increase the suffering. We aren't happy that you will have to decide in 2 years time, so go now and vote for us again!".

I think that is more wishful thinking from the piece, not actually what they think will happen. I think Labour would love it to go up against this rabble. They may not win a majority, but they will win seats back.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
- John Philpott Curran , London 1790

Labour effectively stood aside on Brexit. The purity of a theoretically possible hard left win in an election was all that mattered. Despite the difficult of attracting the centre or splitting the vote with the Lib Dems if they moved too far left.

Corbyn's appearance on The Last Leg showed his heart wasn't in the 7/10 and the margin was so small that any other Labour leader should have been able to thwart Tory plans instead of handing over complete control of Brexit.
Labour could have done what Cameron should have done, insisted on the public choosing what type of deal they wanted.

Instead of getting rid of EU rules on state aid and keeping Johnny Foreigner out of the jobs market like they wanted, Labour now live in a country where EU workers rights and wages are being eroded.

Again, Labour is in opposition. I don't see anyone talking about IDS backing the Iraq War or sharing responsibility with Blair. But his votes against would have meant that Blair lost the backing of parliament to go to war.

Do you think it is a good idea to oppose Brexit, exactly 10 days after it started? With the knowledge how it cost votes less than 15 months ago. I asked View this but he didn't answer it.

quokula wrote: »

That is a really skewed interpretation of what Labour did in the last Parliament. Time and again they blocked the Tories, they literally inflicted more parliamentary defeats on the government than any opposition on record, they consistently pushed to remain in the customs Union and to keep the closest ties possible, and they ultimately ran in the 2019 election on a manifesto of rerunning the referendum, which was the most anti-Brexit thing they could possibly do, given that just ignoring the referendum was never a credible option if they wanted any hope of being elected. Supporting a second referendum was ultimately what did them in, they’d have had a fighting chance if they’d just committed to brokering a closer relationship in the Brexit deal, as was their position prior to 2019.

This is a good article that really gets into the detail of how hard Labour did everything remainers could have asked for but it was never going to be good enough.

Parliament got within 6 votes of passing Ken Clarke’s proposal to retain comprehensive ties with The EU and remain in the Customs Union. We’d all be in a much better place if that had passed, but it was blocked by a coalition of hard Tory Brexiters, the DUP, the Lib Dems and the SNP. I can at least understand the SNP having zero compromise as they have Independence as their back up plan. But the Lib Dems really should have been more pragmatic as the last few years would have been very different if they’d voted in favour. It was them that led us to where we are now, not Labour who did everything in their power to soften the Brexit blow.

Yeah but the party in opposition didn't get their policies enacted so they are culpable. They also decided to ensure no-deal doesn't happen which would destroy the country and therefor share the responsibility of promising an EU election, enacting the legislation for the election, not safeguarding the vote, promising to honor the vote no matter what, deciding when to enact article 50, negotiating the WA and then the deal and then finally the deal itself. They share all of this because they are the adults in the room and made sure no-deal will not happen.

Enzokk

rock22 wrote: »

I think you are the one 'who does not get it'

So you think they are a Brexit party now? Please show me examples where Labour supported Brexit and where Starmer specifically supported Brexit, other than the vote to ensure no-deal doesn't happen.

Because that is the nuanced vote that the poster seems to be focusing on. I get people are upset that he didn't give them a little hope. But Brexit is done and Starmer will do well to ensure he doesn't talk about Brexit ever again because it is a loser for Labour.

L1011

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Remember all of those EU will throw Ireland under the bus posts, time and time again euro sceptics and Brexiteers got it wrong.

I also remember a very upset (even before it happened) poster insisting that Johnson would not "let down" the DUP

Lumen

Labour has tied itself in knots over Brexit but this is and always has been a Tory project.

No Labour government would ever had held a referendum on leaving the EU. The Tories decided to call it, were in power at the time and have been so continuously since.

There should be no doubt over whose fault is this outcome

rock22

Enzokk wrote: »

So you think they are a Brexit party now? Please show me examples where Labour supported Brexit and where Starmer specifically supported Brexit, other than the vote to ensure no-deal doesn't happen.

Because that is the nuanced vote that the poster seems to be focusing on. I get people are upset that he didn't give them a little hope. But Brexit is done and Starmer will do well to ensure he doesn't talk about Brexit ever again because it is a loser for Labour.

Labour has been either anti EU ( EEC) or ambivalent since Britain joined the EU.

Under Corbyn, they had opportunities to go back to the people for a decision on the type of brexit, when it was clear the Tories were going for a very hard brexit.

Starmer was asked by Marr specifically about commitment Labour made to soften Brexit , in particular to reverse the decision of freedom of movement and he is now saying he will not stand by those election commitments. He made it clear that Labour would work with the current deal.

The opposition is always hampered by lack of power. But it can set out an alternative vision and future to the government. He has failed to do that in terms of Brexit. So it is impossible to draw any other conclusion other than that Labour are happy out of the EU and will not take any action which might lead to a reversal of Brexit.

If they are not a Brexit party they are most certainly are not an Anti-Brexit party.

Enzokk

So let's take this point by point,

rock22 wrote: »

Labour has been either anti EU ( EEC) or ambivalent since Britain joined the EU.

So by your logic the Tories are pro-EU as they were the party to lobby to join the EU. I don't think you are being serious here, you are struggling uphill if you are going to be arguing that Labour is anti-EU because they were opposed in the 1970's.

rock22 wrote: »

Under Corbyn, they had opportunities to go back to the people for a decision on the type of brexit, when it was clear the Tories were going for a very hard brexit.

Care to site these opportunities where they could go back to the people (general election, what other way is there to go to the people) on what type of Brexit they wanted?

rock22 wrote: »

Starmer was asked by Marr specifically about commitment Labour made to soften Brexit , in particular to reverse the decision of freedom of movement and he is now saying he will not stand by those election commitments. He made it clear that Labour would work with the current deal.

Because, and I will repeat this again and again, it had been 10 days since Brexit when he was asked. How can you comment on a policy in 4 years time for a decision that is just starting to play out.

Walk with me here, if it goes badly for the UK then it is easy, Labour will go back to the EU for a better deal with more integration. They get their chance to shape the relationship with the EU. As the facts change I get to change my mind and all that. They have not sabotaged the post Brexit relationship by opposing it from day one. Give it a chance to fail on its own.

rock22 wrote: »

The opposition is always hampered by lack of power. But it can set out an alternative vision and future to the government. He has failed to do that in terms of Brexit. So it is impossible to draw any other conclusion other than that Labour are happy out of the EU and will not take any action which might lead to a reversal of Brexit.

The alternative version was roundly rejected 13 months ago. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Let us not forget how we got here,

2015 - Tory vote share - 36.8%
UKIP - 12.8%

There has been a festering of anti-EU noises from the papers building this wave that led us here. The crest of it was 2016 and the Brexit vote but it has been building all that time. The crashing of the wave has just happened and it will take years for the rejoin movement to build their case. It will be a slow and painful process, but it should not be rushed. Those wanting Starmer to proclaim a softer vision 10 days after the start of it is rushing it.

So by not trying to change anything right now, Starmer is deflecting all of the blame off him and Labour and piling it on the Tories. This is not a twitter clip moment, but it should pay off in the long term.

rock22 wrote: »

If they are not a Brexit party they are most certainly are not an Anti-Brexit party.

There is no more anti-Brexit or pro-Brexit. It has happened and it is time to move on, which is also what his answers tried to do. There will be discussions about the future relationship of the UK with the EU, but that is years away for the parties. The people that are still thinking in terms of pro-Brexit is stuck in the past a little, IMO. It is time to focus on how the UK gets out of this mess, and you don't do that by alienating the very voters you have been accused of neglecting for years.

ancapailldorcha

rock22 wrote: »

Labour has been either anti EU ( EEC) or ambivalent since Britain joined the EU.

Under Corbyn, they had opportunities to go back to the people for a decision on the type of brexit, when it was clear the Tories were going for a very hard brexit.

Starmer was asked by Marr specifically about commitment Labour made to soften Brexit , in particular to reverse the decision of freedom of movement and he is now saying he will not stand by those election commitments. He made it clear that Labour would work with the current deal.

The opposition is always hampered by lack of power. But it can set out an alternative vision and future to the government. He has failed to do that in terms of Brexit. So it is impossible to draw any other conclusion other than that Labour are happy out of the EU and will not take any action which might lead to a reversal of Brexit.

If they are not a Brexit party they are most certainly are not an Anti-Brexit party.

Again, I'd disagree. I don't think there's a win for them to keep this debate open in its current form. Not nearly enough people here want to keep free movement and those that do aren't likely to vote Tory.

For Labour to have a better chance than a snowball in a furnace in 2024, they need to remove the Brexit element of the debate as they've been pitifully weak there since before the referendum thanks to the disastrous tenure of Jeremy Corbyn. Under him, remainers suspected him of being a Brexiter while Brexiters thought he was a remainer. Worst of both worlds and it's baffling that he was able to pull that off.

Strategically, they need the red wall voters to swing back and they need Scotland. Since Scotland is gone, they'll need to flip some seats in the south. Not impossible, especially if Brexit sticks to the Tories in a bad way but much harder than it would have been without the SNP taking Scotland.

You were asked to show examples of Labour supporting Brexit. You cite chances to support a People's Vote. In 2017, article 50 had not been triggered and in 2019 it was Labour policy.

The problem with the British left is that it obsesses with remaining ideologically pure and eschewing compromise. That's not how you get elected. We had Corbynites demonising centrists for undermining the party pre-Starmer and now we have same people demonising Starmer who a year ago were calling for unity.

Labour need a narrative for 2024. That means holding the government to account over covid and, if the public mood is dissatisfied with the relationship with Brussels, possibly renegotiating with them but there's no sense in talking about that until it's something the population would be amenable to.

beerguts

Let's get back on topic and stop the 'Labour should have done this or that'.

BBC has a good little story regarding the impact on small businesses that have customers in Europe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-55593308

The individual that said she is going to write to her MP as if the UK parliament has the power to change aspects of this new trading arrangement on a whim shows how deluded the average Brit

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem with the British left is that it obsesses with remaining ideologically pure and eschewing compromise.

The same could be said about the British Right. The problem is with the political system (FPTP), not either party. Just look at current administration - all those on the right who would have compromised or taken a centrist stance have been purged, from within prior to the last election, or by the voters when they stood up to be counted.

Again I would say that the very fact that we, on this thread, have nothing better/more dramatic to discuss this week, than good ol' Labour vs. Tory headbutting means that Johnson's gamble paid off: Brexit is done and the sky didn't fall on anyone's head (or at least not that anyone other than a few truckers and Scottish fishermen and eel-exporters would notice).

In a way, it's almost reassuring (almost) that this thread has morphed into a tangent of the British Politics thread while the exciting stuff has now moved to the Ireland in the Single Market thread, and maybe the Scottish Independence thread. I reckon that's a perfect metaphor for the post-Brexit Britain - the rest of Europe getting on without them, the Scots making a concerted effort to plough their own furrow, and the English noisily squabbling amongst each other to no great effect.

PeadarCo

beerguts wrote: »

Let's get back on topic and stop the 'Labour should have done this or that'.

BBC has a good little story regarding the impact on small businesses that have customers in Europe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-55593308

The individual that said she is going to write to her MP as if the UK parliament has the power to change aspects of this new trading arrangement on a whim shows how deluded the average Brit

Well to be fair, her MP can. Just push for a renegotiation of the deal with the EU that leads to the UK becoming more integrated with the EU and obviously everything that comes with that. If the UK is to move back closer to the EU long term, people in the UK have to support it. For anyone who wants the UK to have a closer relationship with the EU this is exactly what people need to do, put pressure on politicians and remind them of the benefits of the EU.

johnnyskeleton

CelticRambler wrote: »

Again I would say that the very fact that we, on this thread, have nothing better/more dramatic to discuss this week, than good ol' Labour vs. Tory headbutting means that Johnson's gamble paid off: Brexit is done and the sky didn't fall on anyone's head (or at least not that anyone other than a few truckers and Scottish fishermen and eel-exporters would notice).

Well this is true but perhaps it is worthwhile looking at how Brexit has impacted the UK overall, now that its done.

Sterling down ~30% on the Euro and ~20% ob the dollar.
1.6tn dollars of London based funds moved abroad c.10%
UK GDP growth and exports reduced pre covid
UK GDP growth and exports less likely to recover as easily post covid
Problems for small traders in UK
Massive boon for investors hedge funds and connected businessmen
UK prestiege and influence down dramatically
UK government has spent 4 years on Brexit and little else
UK government now rudderless
UK still tied to EU regulations and broad trading framework
UK managed to roll over some but not all trade deals on similar but not equal terms
UK is currently negotiating, but hasnt reached, trade agreements with US and Australia
UK seems intent on provoking China

Overall, I give Brexit a 4 out of 10. I can see what they were trying to do, but it didnt work out for them.

ancapailldorcha

CelticRambler wrote: »

The same could be said about the British Right. The problem is with the political system (FPTP), not either party. Just look at current administration - all those on the right who would have compromised or taken a centrist stance have been purged, from within prior to the last election, or by the voters when they stood up to be counted.

Again I would say that the very fact that we, on this thread, have nothing better/more dramatic to discuss this week, than good ol' Labour vs. Tory headbutting means that Johnson's gamble paid off: Brexit is done and the sky didn't fall on anyone's head (or at least not that anyone other than a few truckers and Scottish fishermen and eel-exporters would notice).

In a way, it's almost reassuring (almost) that this thread has morphed into a tangent of the British Politics thread while the exciting stuff has now moved to the Ireland in the Single Market thread, and maybe the Scottish Independence thread. I reckon that's a perfect metaphor for the post-Brexit Britain - the rest of Europe getting on without them, the Scots making a concerted effort to plough their own furrow, and the English noisily squabbling amongst each other to no great effect.

I disagree slightly with your opening assertion. The right of British politics may be fractious but nowhere near to the degree it is with the left. The Tories are much better at biting their tongues and showing solidarity with the leadership than Labour are and that's a real issue.

I won't go into the FPTP stuff as it's been done to death here and elsewhere but I do agree with the rest of your post.

Lemming

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

They could feel like they have nothing to lose, feelings don’t have to match facts or reality as we seen with brexit

Unilaterally ceding is a pretty dramatic - and dare I say traumatic - thing to do for all concerned. It is recklessly high-stakes brinksmanship, with the added spectre of nasty and unintended consequences due to punitive economic/legal/political actions and/or rash deployment of policing or military forces with harsh/poor/unclear/divisive orders of engagement.

The Scottish powers-that-be would need overwhelming popular support for such a move to begin with; they only now _might_ have popular support for an orderly ceding via referendum, never mind unilaterally doing so. Hence I said I don't think there are any Scottish political parties that have the balls for such a move.

SNP could resort to the very same tactics as Brexiteers did, any heavy handed punitive responses from England would just further help them

The Tory party are the gift that keeps on giving regards optics for the SNP; nothing remotely heavy handed is required.

The way Brexit is panning out thus far, the Tories could all go absent for a few months and still keep on giving to the SNP. All these predictions of "oh, it'll be sorted in a few months" aren't going to wash; and indeed are not washing as it stands. For example, the cycling industry is facing some seriously bad times in the UK. Indigenous manufacturers are getting shafted royally due to rules of origin which they have very little control or power over, and contrary to popular believe about "oh just make stuff in the UK", reality doesn't work like that. So we see things like bikes seeing 20%+ markups for local sales; god forbid selling back into the EU again. The upshot now being less sales for those brands, both at home and even more so abroad.

Edit: in the above regard, Labour are right to not want to talk about Brexit at this point; the "people" need to be shown cold, harsh reality at this point in order to understand that they were a) lied to wholesale and b) Brexit was/is/forever-shall-be a crock of sh1t.

bob mcbob

Peregrinus wrote: »

It hardly matters. At the 2019 General election the Brexit Party (as it then was) secured 0.5% of the Scottish vote, and a grand total of zero seats.

They weren't around at the most recent Scottish Parliament election, but UKIP were. They didn't stand in any of the constituencies but they did compete for the regional vote, and secured 2% of the vote, and zero seats. In the local elections of 2017 UKIP secured 0.2% of the overall vote, and zero seats on any council.

So, the policies of the Reform Party on the union - or anything else - are pretty much irrelevant to Scotland.

It seems that Reform Party policies are pretty much irrelevant to the Reform Party, too. Right now they have one elected representative in Scotland, who is also head of the Scottish section of the party. She's Michelle Ballantyne, who entered the Parliament as a Conservative MSP, defected from the Conservatives and then joined Reform. The party's own policy, as set out in its manifesto for the 2019 general election, is that reprsentatives who switch parties should be recalled, so the that voters can decide if they still want to represented by them, but Ballantyne seems to have no plans to resign and offer herself for re-election.

My view on this is that the shambles of the Brexit deal and aftermath means that the Tories in Scotland will be decimated at the next election at least (it maybe terminal). So the Reform party is there to pick up the votes of the Scottish Tories.

ancapailldorcha

Off topic posts deleted.

Sam Russell

bob mcbob wrote: »

My view on this is that the shambles of the Brexit deal and aftermath means that the Tories in Scotland will be decimated at the next election at least (it maybe terminal). So the Reform party is there to pick up the votes of the Scottish Tories.

I doubt that the disillusioned Tories would vote for Farage - why? - he has nothing to offer them. They will just not vote.

bob mcbob

Sam Russell wrote: »

I doubt that the disillusioned Tories would vote for Farage - why? - he has nothing to offer them. They will just not vote.

The leader of Reform in Scotland is Michelle Ballantyne - ex Tory MSP and at one point challenged for leadership of the Scottish Tories. She will be the focus in Scotland, Farage will not feature much in Scotland as he is toxic

Quin_Dub

bob mcbob wrote: »

The leader of Reform in Scotland is Michelle Ballantyne - ex Tory MSP and at one point challenged for leadership of the Scottish Tories. She will be the focus in Scotland, Farage will not feature much in Scotland as he is toxic

It's worth pointing out that Nigel Farage has never won an election when his name is on the ballot , despite trying repeatedly.

Dymo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that Nigel Farage has never won an election when his name is on the ballot , despite trying repeatedly.

Not totally true he won European elections

UK Parliament elections
1994 by-election Not elected
1997 general election Not elected
2001 general election Not elected
2005 general election Not elected
2006 by-election Not elected
2010 general election Not elected
2015 general election Not elected

European Parliament elections
1994 European election Not elected
1999 European election Elected
2004 European election Elected
2009 European election Elected
2014 European election Elected
2019 European election Elected