Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Detritus70

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That works now, but we are in the transition, phony Brexit.

When factories shut, shelves empty and prices soar, people will blame the Government. If it is No Deal, the chaos will take Johnson down, maybe Gove after him, and whoever is next in #10 will lose to Starmer.

Then maybe we can talk about a deal with some sensible people.

But the next Tory government is just around the corner and they'll just take the wrecking ball to any agreement.
There is a large % of them who don't want to be part of the EU, no matter what. And enough of their disciples are so invested in the idea, they will never support EU membership.
It's the Stupid Ages, sadly, where self image, ideology and emotions dictate what people want, not facts or reality.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That works now, but we are in the transition, phony Brexit.

When factories shut, shelves empty and prices soar, people will blame the Government. If it is No Deal, the chaos will take Johnson down, maybe Gove after him, and whoever is next in #10 will lose to Starmer.

Then maybe we can talk about a deal with some sensible people.

On the evidence of the mass defrauding of British taxpayers by Johnson & Co. since he got into no.10, and never less so than in relation to Covid procurement, receiving less than lip service by the opposition itself, never mind by the British MSM, I'm growing ever less inclined to believe that nowadays.

Propaganda is winning in the UK. Whether through persuasion or mental exhaustion is irrelevant.

It's been mentioned by many in the thread in recent weeks and months, but it took my paying a bit more attention to my Mrs daily Facetime session with her Mum last night, besides others at the weekend (was her birthday, brief surge in videochats with other Brits), for me to fully get that point.

Brits just aren't mentioning the B-word ever, or entertaining any notion of a conversation, anger or not about it irrespective. It's grown to the point of triggering a Pavlovian mental lapse of a few seconds, before they jump to another unrelated topic.

looksee

ambro25 wrote: »

On the evidence of the mass defrauding of British taxpayers by Johnson & Co. since he got into no.10, and never less so than in relation to Covid procurement, receiving less than lip service by the opposition itself, never mind by the British MSM, I'm growing ever less inclined to believe that nowadays.

Propaganda is winning in the UK. Whether through persuasion or mental exhaustion is irrelevant.

It's been mentioned by many in the thread in recent weeks and months, but it took my paying a bit more attention to my Mrs daily Facetime session with her Mum last night, besides others at the weekend (was her birthday, brief surge in videochats with other Brits), for me to fully get that point.

Brits just aren't mentioning the B-word ever, or entertaining any notion of a conversation, anger or not about it irrespective. It's grown to the point of triggering a Pavlovian mental lapse of a few seconds, before they jump to another unrelated topic.

On the anecdotal evidence of conversation with my sister and one friend in the UK, I have to agree with this.

Peregrinus

Look, I can see why. Brexit has happened, transition will end on 31 December, signficant damage has already occurred and the damage will continue to cumulate until events happen that can reverse the impacts of Brexit which, on the most favourable view, is likely to take years.

What's the point of dwelling on this when they are facing other crises that need to be addressed, and that there is a greater shared will to address? Nothing can be acheived by continuing to pick arguments with people about Brexit, and doing so distracts attention from other matters or, worse, impairs the possiblity of common action on other matters.

Enzokk

View wrote: »

The position of the vast majority of supporters is irrelevant, it’s the position tha the party adopts that is relevant as it is the party that gets to implement policy of elected to office.What part of voting to trigger art 50 is “pro-EU”?

The Labour party described their policy as “Labour’s plan FOR Brexit” - not on Brexit, FOR Brexit.
Thad’s their own description of their policy, so you are being rather arrogant in trying to override their own opinion of their policy.

Negotiations on the FTA they were promising could have only happened AFTER the U.K. had left the EU, just as has happened with the Conservatives. Promising to hold a referendum where you are presenting the electorate with a post-exit FTA is just offering them a fait accompli to be rubber stamped. (And lest you have forgotten Labour promised a referendum on PR back in the 97 landslide but failed to deliver on that promise in thirteen years of uninterrupted power, so their promises of a Brexit referendum have to be taken with a large pinch of salt).

Lastly, your supposedly “pro-EU” party and Starmer are not advocating either rejoining the EU, or even a close FTA, even though they could easily do so, now that Brexit has already happened and the reality bears no relationship to what was promised.

You are not wrong in what you are posting but that doesn't mean it is accurate. Yes Labour had a plan for Brexit and they did plan to implement Brexit as they wanted to "respect the vote of the British people". At the same time it is not right to say that the party was for Brexit either as you should know the situation was complicate within the party.

The leadership at the time was most definitely not in favour of remaining but as pointed out it is not accurate to say the party as a result was the same. I don't know if you remember but there was always moves from leadership under Corbyn to try and limit the debate on Brexit and to have membership silenced in this matter at the party conference where they would be able to confirm where the party stood,

Labour conference votes to back party’s official policy on Brexit

Pro-EU party members and MPs had hoped delegates would support their bid for a vote on more divisive issues, including free movement and permanent membership of the single market, which polls suggest have widespread support among members.

But the party leadership was spared any potentially embarrassing split after members picked eight “contemporary motions” for debate and vote, including in areas such as social care, but not on Brexit, encouraged by the pro-Corbyn grassroots movement Momentum.

Earlier, John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, dismissed controversy over the decision to exclude Brexit from a series of debates, saying it was the decision of members, who wanted to “build a consensus” on the issue.

He said Labour delegates had chosen instead to select debates on “bread and butter issues” such as health and housing, and did not wish to divide the party over Brexit.

In 2017, with Brexit just the most important issue at the time and attempts to keep it off the table.

Labour agrees to keep options open on 'people's vote'

Senior allies of Jeremy Corbyn have questioned the rationale for a fresh Brexit referendum as delegates to the party’s conference in Liverpool agreed a statement committing Labour to keeping the option on the table.

After a gruelling five-hour meeting with the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, more than 100 delegates from trade unions and local parties drafted a two-page motion, which members in Liverpool were expected to pass on Tuesday.

The key sentence of the final draft says: “If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote.”

It adds: “If the government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from, they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.”

Campaigners were pleased with other elements of the two-page statement, including a promise to pursue “full participation in the single market”.

One year later the move was from trying to ignore it to putting the motion to the people in a vote.

Then in 2019 we are back to a more nuanced position with them eyeing a election and not trying to alienate the electorate,

What does Labour vote signify about where it stands on Brexit?

Remainers lose vote calling for anti-Brexit position – what does this mean for election stance?

What is Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit position?
The Labour leader has set out a careful position on how he would like to deal with Brexit in a strategy aimed at not alienating either leave or remain voters at an election. He would first want to win an election, then negotiate a Labour Brexit deal with Brussels relatively quickly. Within six months of the election, there would be a second referendum to choose between Labour’s deal and remaining in the EU. A special conference would decide how Labour should campaign.

So from this timeline you can see, leadership was trying to silence the party on Brexit, to not ruling out a second referendum to offering people a vote after they have negotiated their own deal. You cannot ignore that all during this time people within Corbyn's office was working against those pro-EU MP's at the same time and trying to keep Brexit as far away as possible but they were not able to do this, due to the party's membership being so vocal about their stance against Brexit.

Peregrinus

But the bottom line is that where we are now, and where we have been for some time, is that Labour wants to implement Brexit, has no plans to reverse Brexit, and is not seeking to build any kind of political support for reversing Brexit. Their only criticism of the goverment will about how Brexit should be implemented.

That makes Labour a pro-Brexit party in all ways that are meaningful. You might believe, or hope, that there are views within the Labour party that hold out the possiblity that, in time, Labour might become a pro-Rejoin party, but it is certainly not one now, and I confidently predict it will not become one in the short to medium term.

This may be depressing and disappointing, but being in denial about it will make the situation worse, not better.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the bottom line is that where we are now, and where we have been for some time, is that Labour wants to implement Brexit, has no plans to reverse Brexit, and is not seeking to build any kind of political support for reversing Brexit. Their only criticism of the goverment will about how Brexit should be implemented.

That makes Labour a pro-Brexit party in all ways that are meaningful. You might believe, or hope, that there are views within the Labour party that hold out the possiblity that, in time, Labour might become a pro-Rejoin party, but it is certainly not one now, and I confidently predict it will not become one in the short to medium term.

This may be depressing and disappointing, but being in denial about it will make the situation worse, not better.

Starmer, the large majority of MPs and the membership are pro-EU. That's just a fact. What people consistently ignore is Labour's Red Wall problem. They need to get those constituencies back if they are to stand any chance of regaining power. These constituencies were strongly pro-Brexit. Which is why they voted for Johnson's Brexiteer Tory party. Labour is not populated by fools. They must put forward a policy that retains Remain voters while coaxing back Leave voters. Hence their current milk and water policies. But the beating heart of Labour is pro-EU.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, I can see why. Brexit has happened, transition will end on 31 December, signficant damage has already occurred and the damage will continue to cumulate until events happen that can reverse the impacts of Brexit which, on the most favourable view, is likely to take years.

What's the point of dwelling on this when they are facing other crises that need to be addressed, and that there is a greater shared will to address? Nothing can be acheived by continuing to pick arguments with people about Brexit, and doing so distracts attention from other matters or, worse, impairs the possiblity of common action on other matters.

The point is not to dwell on it. At all.

The point is a value judgement, that the notional average Brit seems as apathetic about the foreseeable form of Brexit (no deal) today, as 4 years ago when that was derided as 'Project Fear', when the real and anticipated consequences are -by now- much more certain; and just as apathetic about the government's handling of worse and more immediate matters, like the pandemic.

There are no more 1m people protest marches like yesteryear, in fact there is no more protest.

The point is that the British public appears resolutely catatonic, wherein hopes of public dissent growing fast and precipitating a governmental about-face after 1st January, are misplaced. IMHO.

It may not be coincidental, that the EU Commission is gradually shifting from its placid and diplomatic approach to all things trade, towards a more assertive stance.

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

The point is not to dwell on it. At all.

The point is a value judgement, that the notional average Brit seems as apathetic about the foreseeable form of Brexit (no deal) today, as 4 years ago when that was derided as 'Project Fear', when the real and anticipated consequences are -by now- much more certain; and just as apathetic about the government's handling of worse and more immediate matters, like the pandemic.

The point is that the British public appears resolutely catatonic, wherein hopes of public dissent growing fast and precipitating a governmental about-face come 1st January, are misplaced.

IMHO.

Beautifully put.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

The point is not to dwell on it. At all.

The point is a value judgement, that the notional average Brit seems as apathetic about the foreseeable form of Brexit (no deal) today, as 4 years ago when that was derided as 'Project Fear', when the real and anticipated consequences are -by now- much more certain; and just as apathetic about the government's handling of worse and more immediate matters, like the pandemic.

There are no more 1m people protest marches like yesteryear, in fact there is no more protest.

The point is that the British public appears resolutely catatonic, wherein hopes of public dissent growing fast and precipitating a governmental about-face come 1st January, are misplaced.

IMHO.

I suspect it's not, or not entirely, that "the average Brit feels apathetic". Another and possibly larger factor is that the average Brit feels powerless. It has been evident for a long time that neither the fact of Brexit nor the particular shape of Brexit is at all responsive to what British people think or want. There is no point in expressing a view because it will be ignored.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the bottom line is that where we are now, and where we have been for some time, is that Labour wants to implement Brexit, has no plans to reverse Brexit, and is not seeking to build any kind of political support for reversing Brexit. Their only criticism of the goverment will about how Brexit should be implemented.

That makes Labour a pro-Brexit party in all ways that are meaningful. You might believe, or hope, that there are views within the Labour party that hold out the possiblity that, in time, Labour might become a pro-Rejoin party, but it is certainly not one now, and I confidently predict it will not become one in the short to medium term.

This may be depressing and disappointing, but being in denial about it will make the situation worse, not better.

This is because Brexit happened already. This was done on the 31st January 2020. When we discuss Brexit we are discussing the consequences of the UK having left already. There is no discussion to be had about reversing something that is done. So correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that you are saying that because Labour couldn't stop Brexit it means they are now a pro-Brexit party?

I mean we could take this further, because Labour didn't stop the Windrush scandal from happening and they haven't stopped further cases like this even now they are very much for the current "Hostile Environment" that the current government is pushing.

As for re-joining, I agree that in the short to medium term this isn't a objective. The consequences of their decision needs to be fully understood before the public will be ready to accept that they have made a major mistake. It took those eurosceptic MPs a lot of years of grinding in the background before they built up the support to enable Brexit, you suspect the case for rejoin will take just as long and the mistake will be to rush to it.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect it's not, or not entirely, that "the average Brit feels apathetic". Another and possibly larger factor is that the average Brit feels powerless. It has been evident for a long time that neither the fact of Brexit nor the particular shape of Brexit is at all responsive to what British people think or want. There is no point in expressing a view because it will be ignored.

Yes and no. The turnout in the 2016 referendum was 72% which is respectable and shows that people had an opinion. But I suspect that much voter apathy comes from FPTP where a party with 37% of the vote can gain a majority and, for many, being in constituencies where the same party dominates every election.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect it's not, or not entirely, that "the average Brit feels apathetic". Another and possibly larger factor is that the average Brit feels powerless. It has been evident for a long time that neither the fact of Brexit nor the particular shape of Brexit is at all responsive to what British people think or want. There is no point in expressing a view because it will be ignored.

But surely that is true of all UK politics. Because of FPTP voting, more than a third of the electorate are disenfranchised because of the voting system, where the winner in mnay constituencies is forgone, no matter who stands. No Government party has won the popular vote since 1932. (The Tory/LibDem Gov was a coalition that neither party won the popular vote, though combined they did).

What is the point in getting involved in political discussion where that is the case? Well, they do not get involved - it is pointless, and they have got used to it. Political discussion is at the level of repeating 'facts', headlines, and slogans from those national rags like the Mail, Telegraph, Express, etc.

Where they do get exercised, like the anti-Iraq war, or the anti-Brexit demonstrations, what happened? Nothing - they were ignored - so why get involved.

Edit: I see Prof M makes much the same point above.

The Raging Bile Duct

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect it's not, or not entirely, that "the average Brit feels apathetic". Another and possibly larger factor is that the average Brit feels powerless. It has been evident for a long time that neither the fact of Brexit nor the particular shape of Brexit is at all responsive to what British people think or want. There is no point in expressing a view because it will be ignored.

I don't think the problem is feeling powerless. It's that the whole thing is so divisive that British people have stopped engaging with it and talking to others about it. They're just trying to ignore it as much as possible from what I can see.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

Brits just aren't mentioning the B-word ever, or entertaining any notion of a conversation, anger or not about it irrespective. It's grown to the point of triggering a Pavlovian mental lapse of a few seconds, before they jump to another unrelated topic.

I think that is a reasonable attitude, I would not want to talk about it either if I lived there.

Remain was beaten, and badly beaten, it is demoralising. The worst of the Leave crew are running the country and crowing about it.

But starting in January, people's aversion to listening to Brexit guff will act against the Government.

There will be real world consequences, they will be very bad, and no-one is going to want to hear how they are the EUs fault, since Brexit Got Done already. Old news, move on please and address the trade chaos, the immigration problem, food and medicine supplies, closed factories, lorry parks, the Kent border etc. etc.

Sam Russell

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

When job loses accelerate (already very hard hit by Covid) and more and more people endup on a welfare system which has been cut to the bone. People might protest as they would literally have nothing else to do and nothing left to lose.

Brexit is a dead end, no amount of spin and deflection would take away from that. When more and more people have left nothing to lose they would get angrier and angrier, and unfortunately for Tories blaming EU or blaming Covid or blaming Labour who havent been in power for long time would become harder and harder.

We are not there yet, but right now the average catatonic brit is at the frog being slowly boiled stage. It wont end well.

Well, yes, but the current Gov is very partisan - benefitting their close friends, their friends, their (financial) supporters, and their voters. They will make sure cuts will affect Labour (or at least non-Tory heartlands) most.

They do not appear to be bothered how transparent their corruption is - they have funders to pay back. They rely on a comatose electorate.

Joe_ Public

Don't forget all the amazing trade deals they're going to be dazzling the UK public with, now they've released the shackles. They've just signed a "historic" deal with Ukraine with whom they have a £1.5bn annual trade total. And who needs the EU or US when forecasts predict a trade agreement with Australia will increase british exports by, wait for it, £1bn give or take. Sunny uplands all the way.

Don't think labour has or needs a brexit policy from the top right now. No deal plays best for them politically but they can't say or even hint they are thinking that, just stay out of it as much as possible and secretly will it to happen.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Don't forget all the amazing trade deals they're going to be dazzling the UK public with, now they've released the shackles. They've just signed a "historic" deal with Ukraine with whom they have a £1.5bn annual trade total. And who needs the EU or US when forecasts predict a trade agreement with Australia will increase british exports by, wait for it, £1bn give or take. Sunny uplands all the way.

Don't think labour has or needs a brexit policy from the top right now. No deal plays best for them politically but they can't say or even hint they are thinking that, just stay out of it as much as possible and secretly will it to happen.

Exactly. As the maxim says, never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think that is a reasonable attitude, I would not want to talk about it either if I lived there.

Remain was beaten, and badly beaten, it is demoralising. The worst of the Leave crew are running the country and crowing about it.

But starting in January, people's aversion to listening to Brexit guff will act against the Government.

There will be real world consequences, they will be very bad, and no-one is going to want to hear how they are the EUs fault, since Brexit Got Done already. Old news, move on please and address the trade chaos, the immigration problem, food and medicine supplies, closed factories, lorry parks, the Kent border etc. etc.

I'm not putting much faith in that one, sorry.

4 years ago, 52% of 72% of the British electorate was sucessfully convinced that (mostly-) imaginary problems befalling the UK were the EU's fault, and that the solution to them all was 'Brexit'.

3 years on, a year ago, there was still 37% of 67% of the British electorate successfully convinced that these (still mostly-) imaginary problems befalling the UK were the EU's fault, and that the solution to them all was 'Brexit'. And that was, notwithstanding the very public s***show and revelations of the intervening 3 years.

There will be real world consequences, they will be very bad, you are right of course. But I fear still plenty enough Brits will bask in Brexiteer victimhood, stoked by Johnson's propaganda providing and reinforcing a comforting blanket of ideological vindication, and blame the amorphous 'EU' and the very real foreigners, legitimate (-for however long Patel feels like) and not.

[Edit - dunno where that red thumbs down icon came from, didn't mean to put one, so apologies for that; I blame an old iPad & fat fingers]

Imreoir2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Starmer, the large majority of MPs and the membership are pro-EU. That's just a fact. What people consistently ignore is Labour's Red Wall problem. They need to get those constituencies back if they are to stand any chance of regaining power. These constituencies were strongly pro-Brexit. Which is why they voted for Johnson's Brexiteer Tory party. Labour is not populated by fools. They must put forward a policy that retains Remain voters while coaxing back Leave voters. Hence their current milk and water policies. But the beating heart of Labour is pro-EU.

Ok, but you still have to accept that for as much as they might personally like to remain in the EU, they are not trying to do so politically. For pratical reasons Labour is now pro-Brexit and is likely to continue being pro-Brexit for a long time to come, for the reasons you have set out.

Imreoir2

Enzokk wrote: »

I mean we could take this further, because Labour didn't stop the Windrush scandal from happening and they haven't stopped further cases like this even now they are very much for the current "Hostile Environment" that the current government is pushing.

If their stated policy was to continue and not end the 'hostile environement', in what sence could they be said to be against it?

If their policy is to continue with and not end Brexit, in what sense are they against Brexit? Brexit has happened and Labour do not want to put an end to it. It is not credible to suggest that they are somehow against Brexit today.

It took those eurosceptic MPs a lot of years of grinding in the background before they built up the support to enable Brexit, you suspect the case for rejoin will take just as long and the mistake will be to rush to it.

Those eurosceptic MPs did not get to where they are over those years by supporting membership of the EU, they clearly opposed the EU and eventually got their way. Labour is not opposing Brexit. Labour has accepted that opposing Brexit is likely to lose them support and for that reason have decided to go along with Brexit. Which is what makes them a pro-Brexit party.

listermint

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm not putting much faith in that one, sorry.

4 years ago, 52% of 72% of the British electorate was sucessfully convinced that (mostly-) imaginary problems befalling the UK were the EU's fault, and that the solution to them all was 'Brexit'.

3 years on, a year ago, there was still 37% of 67% of the British electorate successfully convinced that these (still mostly-) imaginary problems befalling the UK were the EU's fault, and that the solution to them all was 'Brexit'. And that was, notwithstanding the very public s***show and revelations of the intervening 3 years.

There will be real world consequences, they will be very bad, you are right of course. But I fear still plenty enough Brits will bask in Brexiteer victimhood, stoked by Johnson's propaganda providing and reinforcing a comforting blanket of ideological vindication, and blame the amorphous 'EU' and the very real foreigners, legitimate (-for however long Patel feels like) and not.

[Edit - dunno where that red thumbs down icon came from, didn't mean to put one, so apologies for that; I blame an old iPad & fat fingers]

If anything it does show that the stats are declining. And they are not increasing.

All polls now indicate Brexit was not a good choice and there's takey backeys from the numbers.


So it stands to reason it will blow up in the Tories face.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm not putting much faith in that one, sorry.

4 years ago, 52% of 72% of the British electorate was sucessfully convinced that (mostly-) imaginary problems befalling the UK were the EU's fault, and that the solution to them all was 'Brexit'.

3 years on, a year ago, there was still 37% of 67% of the British electorate successfully convinced that these (still mostly-) imaginary problems befalling the UK were the EU's fault, and that the solution to them all was 'Brexit'. And that was, notwithstanding the very public s***show and revelations of the intervening 3 years.

There will be real world consequences, they will be very bad, you are right of course. But I fear still plenty enough Brits will bask in Brexiteer victimhood, stoked by Johnson's propaganda providing and reinforcing a comforting blanket of ideological vindication, and blame the amorphous 'EU' and the very real foreigners, legitimate (-for however long Patel feels like) and not.

[Edit - dunno where that red thumbs down icon came from, didn't mean to put one, so apologies for that; I blame an old iPad & fat fingers]

The flaw in your argument here is that you've cited examples from years ago.

I understand what you're getting at, of course I do but the pandemic swayed me to the other side of this one. I expected that they'd keep blaming the EU but the way they've bungled the Covid situation has me thinking otherwise. They've stopped talking about Brexit. It's basically seen as done here outside the remain, broadsheet-reading and podcast-listening demographics.

Now, we're seeing various predictions from the aforementioned remain side beginning to resemble reality. Businesses leaving, skilled workers heading to the continent and the lorry parks in Kent. HM government has done everything it can to appear duplicitous (the IM bill) and toxic (Patel's absurd obsession with xenophia). This is on full display to the whole world. Westminster is taking back control.

Of course, the underpinning problem is that it's far too late. The time for simple logistical issues with a deal such as translating the documents for the EU member states to vote on is running out. The problem with the Conservative party amassing troubling amounts of executive power is that it's going to be responsible when the sh*t hits the fan. It'll be too late for the rest of the country but hopefully the Brexiters will get over the fact that they won.

CelticRambler

What strikes me about the abstentionism of both the (supposedly) opposition parties in England, and the English electorate in general, is not their head-in-the-sand attitude to Brexit itself, but that there is no talk - absolutely none - about reforming the electoral system to provide better representation of the "will of the people."

This is why I think Scotland won't be long in disassociating itself from the Sassenachs, and I now can see Wales following suit sooner rather than later. From Canterbury to Carlisle, there's a seeming acceptance by the English electorate that what happens in Westminster is irrelevant to their lives, and they have no real interest in being represented - unlike their Celtic kingdom-mates whose regional governments have shown that PR can be more than some kind of a European fantasy.

What remains of both Labour and the Tories is essentially two English parties born out of this tradition of doing what they want regardless of the electorate's wishes, so it's hardly surprising that their attitude to the "where are we now/where do we want to be?" discussions with the EU are stalled at the infantile them-and-us stage that has for so long characterised their own domestic politics.

ancapailldorcha

CelticRambler wrote: »

What strikes me about the abstentionism of both the (supposedly) opposition parties in England, and the English electorate in general, is not their head-in-the-sand attitude to Brexit itself, but that there is no talk - absolutely none - about reforming the electoral system to provide better representation of the "will of the people."

This is why I think Scotland won't be long in disassociating itself from the Sassenachs, and I now can see Wales following suit sooner rather than later. From Canterbury to Carlisle, there's a seeming acceptance by the English electorate that what happens in Westminster is irrelevant to their lives, and they have no real interest in being represented - unlike their Celtic kingdom-mates whose regional governments have shown that PR can be more than some kind of a European fantasy.

What remains of both Labour and the Tories is essentially two English parties born out of this tradition of doing what they want regardless of the electorate's wishes, so it's hardly surprising that their attitude to the "where are we now/where do we want to be?" discussions with the EU are stalled at the infantile them-and-us stage that has for so long characterised their own domestic politics.

I think the biggest obstacle to reforming the voting system here is the fact that both parties are the beneficiaries. The 2011 referendum was rejected and attained a turnout of just over 47% IIRC. The result for the Lib Dems was annihilation at the 2015 election though you could factor in things like austerity and tuition fees.

I can see the Scots going independent within the next decade. How, with the Tories running the show I don't know but suppressing an independence movement they afforded a referendum to in 2014 will play very badly in the EU and elsewhere. It's not a good look to be suppressing democracy. It'll only strengthen Ms. Sturgeon's hand and help her cover over any faults or mistakes her party makes in Holyrood.

Wales, though? No chance. It might have a separatist movement, a language and its own cultural identity but politically it's an extension of England. It was conquered by Edward I in the late thirteenth century while Scotland was independent for centuries after that, only having its Parliament incorporated into that of England in the 1707 Act of Union.

Professor Moriarty

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Ok, but you still have to accept that for as much as they might personally like to remain in the EU, they are not trying to do so politically. For pratical reasons Labour is now pro-Brexit and is likely to continue being pro-Brexit for a long time to come, for the reasons you have set out.

Agreed. But my initial point remains, which was in response to the assertion that Labour are a pro-Brexit party, the large majority of Labour MPs and members are not pro-Brexit. Starmer's Labour is now operating according to real politik and rightly so. They need the Red Wall back before they can begin the pro-EU fight against Tory populism in the form of hard Brexiteerism.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

What strikes me about the abstentionism of both the (supposedly) opposition parties in England, and the English electorate in general, is not their head-in-the-sand attitude to Brexit itself, but that there is no talk - absolutely none - about reforming the electoral system to provide better representation of the "will of the people."

This is why I think Scotland won't be long in disassociating itself from the Sassenachs, and I now can see Wales following suit sooner rather than later. From Canterbury to Carlisle, there's a seeming acceptance by the English electorate that what happens in Westminster is irrelevant to their lives, and they have no real interest in being represented - unlike their Celtic kingdom-mates whose regional governments have shown that PR can be more than some kind of a European fantasy.

What remains of both Labour and the Tories is essentially two English parties born out of this tradition of doing what they want regardless of the electorate's wishes, so it's hardly surprising that their attitude to the "where are we now/where do we want to be?" discussions with the EU are stalled at the infantile them-and-us stage that has for so long characterised their own domestic politics.

In the context of FPTP, in reality, it is not in either party's interest to let other parties get a foot in the door.

Imreoir2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Agreed. But my initial point remains, which was in response to the assertion that Labour are a pro-Brexit party, the large majority of Labour MPs and members are not pro-Brexit. Starmer's Labour is now operating according to real politik and rightly so. They need the Red Wall back before they can begin the pro-EU fight against Tory populism in the form of hard Brexiteerism.

At best you can argue that Labour are reluctantly pro-Brexit for pragmatic reasons, but they are now pro-Brexit by any standard.
You assume that they will at some point in the future begin a pro-EU fight. That is not a given, if it happens we can call them pro-EU, untill then we can't.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Agreed. But my initial point remains, which was in response to the assertion that Labour are a pro-Brexit party, the large majority of Labour MPs and members are not pro-Brexit. Starmer's Labour is now operating according to real politik and rightly so. They need the Red Wall back before they can begin the pro-EU fight against Tory populism in the form of hard Brexiteerism.

I think all politicians in the UK are terrified of saying anything that will annoy Leave voters but I predict all of that will change rapidly in the next two years or so when Brexit collapses in on itself and is exposed as the disaster and mistake it always was.

The next 2-3 years in Britain are going to be far more interesting to watch than the last three.

Professor Moriarty

Imreoir2 wrote: »

At best you can argue that Labour are reluctantly pro-Brexit for pragmatic reasons, but they are now pro-Brexit by any standard.
You assume that they will at some point in the future begin a pro-EU fight. That is not a given, if it happens we can call them pro-EU, untill then we can't.

I would fundamentally disagree. The MPs and membership haven't suddenly done a 180 degree turn and become pro-Brexit. Labour is being deliberately vague because it suits them to sit on the sideline and let this Brexiteer Tory party shoot themselves repeatedly in the foot. Thankfully, Corbyn is gone and they can now be political for the right reasons. For me, in the context of getting the Red Wall back and Labour re-elected, Starmer is playing a blinder on Brexit by putting all the responsibility back on Johnson.