Printable View
See what Furunculus has been touting though. A system in place that's completely incompatible with the EU, so as to prevent any drawing back of Brexit. So that even if the voters change their mind, future governments will be unable to. How is that protecting the UK from EU legislation? At least EU membership had the mechanism of article 50 allowing withdrawal. What Furunculus favours is an equivalent of EU membership, but without even that mechanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
We should base all future UK laws on their compatibility with the EU? How odd. If voters were to change their mind, should we then have further votes every 10 years or so to ensure they don't change their minds again? Should all countries in the EU not all have a similar mechanism to ensure that this remains the will of the people?
Perhaps we could focus on every other trade group on the planet since they all are trade pacts without the additional baggage.
~:smoking:
Or alternatively, maybe those who are anti-EU should live up to their principles and apply their arguments across the board. If it's a bad thing to be shackled to other countries inside the EU, why is it a good thing to be shackled to other countries outside the EU, as Furunculus and the theorists he follows advocates? He's said that he'll be voting Tory to ensure this happens, until such a point that it's irreversible.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
What i actually said is that i had voted for an explicitly anti-brexit party, right in the middle of the nastiest domestic element of the brexit argument:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053827005
Quote:
I have voted Lib-Dem dem in 2017, may well do so again if the tories persist in showing a lack of 'grip'.
What i actually did is recognise the enormously destructive influence of Continuity-Remain in perpetually sabotaging any prospect of a coherent negotiating stance in a foreign policy problem, how these people still exist 'inside the system', and how CPTPP would force them to openly acknowledge the costs in their 'sensible' concessions rather mislead people into a fait-accompli of deep regulatory alignment and political integration:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053827015
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053827013Quote:
Of course labour could abrogate CPTPP, parliament is sovereign, but it would pay a political price to do so and would need to make its compromises with the EU openly. Good, the Social Chapter was a disaster in my opinion (both for me and for you), and I don't want a repeat of that.
Quote:
by attempting to re-integrate to areas of the EU that really make no sense from a power/autonomy PoV.
like fetishising the customs union, when 85% of regulation that impacts on inspection disruption comes from the single market not the customs union. customs-unions became a demand on top of the EEA model because we had to 'think of the peace process in NI'. power politics is ugly.
like attempting to gain single market access while pretending that the flanking-policies the EU will demand don't exist, which will bleed into management of growth industries like AI, data, energy, banking, gmo, biotech.
to put it at its most fundamental: to leave the EU but keep the 'precautionary principle' as the regulatory method, stunting the very industries above that would most benefit from 'demonstrable harm'!
joining CPTPP locks in many of these british 'preferences', as it will be politically difficult for labour to sell-the-pass to europe when negotiating to reintegrate (on tough terms - "yes, but only if you also do this..."), without becoming non-compliant with CPTPP. according to sam lowe CPTPP does not entirely preclude a SPS agreement on trade in food goods, but CPTPP will limit its reach into the anti-competitive behaviour the EU requires in basing its decision making on (subjective) safety rather than (objective) risk.
You don't actually listen to what people say to you, Rory has in the very text you quote answered the question you then go on to pose:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It is the very essence of what we call 'dialogue' to listen to what people say, and respond on the basis of what they said.Quote:
Perhaps we could focus on every other trade group on the planet since they all are trade pacts without the additional baggage.
I too have answered this very same question at your behest in the last week or so:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053827015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
this perpetual fight to interpret opposing views in the least charitable light must be exhausting for you. i have to confess the burden of correcting you - with a quote, a corrective explanation, a link to the original post, and a quote of the relevant text in that post - is more than i feel should be necessary in regular debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You lot are now sounding as polarized as "us'ns" on this side of the pond. And nearly as bereft of effective governance.
It might well sound that way, but far less in the UK are as psudo-religious about who they support as in the USA - and if anything the number is dropping; that Boris's approval ratings had something like a 50 point drop demonstrates that we are mainly free of the "fake news" / "alternate facts" schtick - almost everyone is of the view there were parties had in and around Number 10 and that the excuses are pathetic; in or out of the EU is probably somewhat different but interestingly this equally spit the main parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
In terms of government and its effectiveness, due to the PM having all the power, things do happen as effectively as they've done for decades.
~:smoking:
Rory, I take your points.
And pseudo-religious is sadly all too apt a label. There are roughly 35.7 million registered Republican voters as of December 2021, and a poll conducted over the last month estimates that 53% of them want him to run in 2024. I cannot fathom a logical reason for a conservative thinker to support this man at this juncture of history. I really think Trump was "annointed" by Limbaugh and literally millions of my fellow Americans still see halos and hear seraphim when they view him.
Stunning.
As Rory said, it is not as bad as it appears on the surface:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrup...ceptions_Index
Society fundamentally functions, we just get to see a magnified view of the disagreements.
I find it hilarious that it's a drunken party that brings down a government. It's not actual problems, it's a drunken party, something everyone does once in a while.
it will indeed be hilarious, if the navel-gazing fascination of the media does indeed bring down the government, but it is yet to be seen that it does.
as someone who works in marketing told me: "we used an outside garden for work meetings throughout the lockdown, because it was safer. and yes, it did involve drinks."
if this sentiment is common, and people remember they voted for the anti-manager - after their experience with the hyper-managerial May - then the general electoral sentiment might be: "who cares?"
So deceiving Parliament should have no consequences?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Sure, and if 'politics' decrees his position is untenable then i will wave goodbye without a tear.
But, i do agree with Edzy that it will indeed be amusing if its a few parties that brought him down, and i do wonder whether the offence itself will really bother people.
The offense is more offensive to people as it is something everyone can understand. Almost everyone has had to cancel parties, whereas many of the other things governments do is rather technical and somewhat unreal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
~:smoking:
Sure, that might be the case.
I merely point out the example i have actually had personally, as opposed to the hyper-frothing we get in social media, and wonder if our expectation of what will actually happen will be wrongly coloured by the latter.
So popularity overrides the constitution, or what semblance of a constitution we have. It used to be that a minister caught in a direct lie would be expected to step down, with a Yes Prime Minister episode dedicated to exactly this subject, where the protagonist's offence was far less clear than this. The few formal checks and balances that we have are that the PM has to face up to PM's questions, and that if the PM deceives Parliament, then their position is no longer tenable. If this is no longer the case, why have Parliament at all? Why not just electors as in the US system, with the combo head of state/head of executive elected every few years and then untouchable for their term with no need for accountability. No need for an Official Opposition as the PM won't need to answer questions, since democracy has made their support clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Let's see what Sue Gray's report has to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If he has lied to parliament i imagine there will be sifgnificant presure for him to step down, and i will support it.
Including at least a couple of MPs who've had relatives die without the opportunity to be there for them. The Labour MP sat in the car park as his mum died, which was as close as he was allowed to get. I think the DUP MP had to explain to his mother in law why she had to die alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes, it should, but as things stand, the past 5 years or so have shown us that what we consider actions that should have sanctions are not sanctioned. Or are sanctioned but only mildly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Drunken revelry should not be the reason a government goes down. The decisions taken should be the only judge, the performances, not the fact that you're having a booze party.
EDIT: To be more specific - people are upset because of the actual party in itself, rather than the lockdown measures.
People are upset because of the hypocrisy, where people who make the rules don't follow them, while people who didn't make the rules followed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
DUP's Jim Shannon breaks down over mother in law who 'died alone' from Covid
Afzal Khan's mother died and he was not allowed to hold her hand, while it is alleged the government held various 'gatherings'.
Which, unfortunately, proves my point. People are upset because someone government mandated broke lockdown measures and of course, the ugly optics of enforcing harsh measures and then not following them. Which is entirely understandable and a very fair point.
Why is it such an uproar, particularly now? To an outsider that is subscribed to a dozen paying international news outlets, the constant bombardment of stories about the drunken booze parties is bizarre. There's a bazillion other important issues that deserve an uproar, such as the breakdown of relations with the EU, bad trade relations, shortages of medical equipment, fuel shortages when you had to bring the Army in, wealth disparity, acrimonious political divide, Scotland threatening to break away, Ireland talking again of Troubles... issues which have a huge impact in both societal level and personal level.
That deserves an uproar, a constant one even, these are heavy heavy issues which both sides should care about.
And yet... we're talking about a booze party. And the fact that they sent for more wine. Which many other people have done, breaking the rules as well. Endless scores of politicians have broken rules and very few have been in the constant news over a party like this.
Please, I am all open to hearing ideas and opinions, because to me - as an outsider, but one who is glued to international & national politics 24/7 and who even works in politics in a way - it is odd. I feel like I'm not fully understand.ing
Answering questions in Parliament is supposed to be the most effective check on the power of the government, with ministers (particularly the PM) required to answer questions. They are expected to tell the truth, and if they lie, they are expected to step down. That's supposed to be the sunlight into the power of government. If ministers (particularly the PM) can avoid questions (which Johnson did aplenty during his initial pre-election stint), or lie without consequence, there are no checks on government.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
As it is, the person doing the inquiry has had her remit set by the PM, and reports to the PM before the PM releases the report at his discretion. Any inquiries as to whether or not a minister has deceived Parliament has to go through the PM. The head of the police force overlooking all this is the daughter of the PM's tutor. The individual police officer in charge of the Met's investigation is the brother of the health minister.
If we take away consequences from PMQs as well, what checks are there on government?
And this is where, again, I agree with you 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If there are no strong checks and balances between branches of government, then democracy in that country is flawed and not working properly. If you take away the consequences, then what's the point, if someone can do as they please. But why is the question barrage directed with this drunken party in mind, and not with Ireland talking of Troubles again (to give an example)? Brexit is an extremely polarising topic, so we can ignore that for a second, but talks of Troubles starting again should make both sides of the backbench shudder and yell in horror.
Let's go through the list:Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
The breakdown of relations with the EU - for a relationship to break down requires both parties to cause it to do so. Half the country blames the EU and the other half the UK for doing it in the first place. This has been going on since the vote.
Bad trade relations - these also require two parties to agree.
Shortages of medical equipment - yes, I agree that this one is very odd across the whole of the West. I think it is because it is both the incompetence of Civil Servants as well as politicians which means they're covering each other's back and making it out to be a completely unforeseeable, global issue, as opposed to out of date emergency supplies and incompetence.
Fuel shortages when you had to bring the Army in - Fuel in the UK is in the hands of private companies. So sending the Army in was solving a problem caused by private enterprise (apparently fuel stations are on average 40% full of fuel as that is most efficient)
Wealth disparity - not new and the wealthy continuously blame the poor for not trying hard enough or just ignoring it. Making it the middle class vs the poor as opposed to who has the bulk of the money
Acrimonious political divide - given the chamber in the Commons is two sword lengths apart, this isn't new.
Scotland threatening to break away - don't they always? I wish they would. Who cares?
Ireland talking again of Troubles - Terrorists talking about starting terrorism again. I'm not sure how that's the governments fault.
Most of the list are big picture, technical things that are generally long term, extremely complex and have no clear sides with no one party having complete agency. Holding boozy parties is short term, very simple, has clear sides and one party has compete agency and chose to break the very rules they set which also affected many other people.
~:smoking:
Democracy in the UK was never really intended for all, no more than it was in the USA or Athens - so it is working exactly as it is supposed to with as a rule a vote every 5 years or so to demonstrate how we are all enfranchised as well as some other figureheads we can choose to mix things up a bit. Those with the leavers to power have the invisible leavers which work now as they did a few hundred years ago. True, those with the power has morphed over time, but it steadfastly remains outside the grasp of most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
"The Troubles" starting again would be a group of criminals choosing to commit terrorist acts - if there was a hard border across Ireland the checkpoints would be attacked - phrased as if that would be the fault of the UK for building them. Or more broadly two groups with diametrically opposing views since the Unionists would also start killing people - mainly the British as well for leaving them. I think - what passes for logic in the minds of irish terrorists isn't clear.
Rather than the terrorists being castigated by the EU, USA etc as y'know they're Terrorists for some reason (oh yes - votes) the USA tends to almost look fondly at this plucky bunch of killers and the EU seems to just ignore it all together.
Elsewhere and previously such situations have been "solved" by drawing a line and then forcibly deporting all the people from the area (Greece and Turkey in 1919 and Germany post WW2) If the end game is that Norther Ireland returns to the welcoming bosom of the rest of Ireland then that's fine with me, especially if the Unionists start planting bombs in Dublin rather than the IRA in London and Manchester.
So, apart from yelling in horror, what can back benchers or indeed the government do regarding a group of Terrorists? Send in the SAS?
~:smoking:
Lol.Quote:
(Rory) Stewart recalled his unsuccessful campaign to be Tory leader while speaking to GMB, and said he would tell voters on doorsteps not to support Johnson because “he’s completely incapable of focusing on detail, that he will be a terrible prime minister”.
However, Stewart added: “The answer was always, ‘yes, but he can win, he’s very popular’.”
He continued: “And I think the time has come in British politics to reconsider that and accept that maybe there are things that matter apart from your ability to win elections.
“And one of those things is can you run the country well.
“Maybe people should vote for politicians who might not get such huge majorities but can actually do a good job of running things.
“Lying is a very, very bad thing in a leader because you can’t get the civil service or anyone to get behind your policies.”
The problem with Rory's argument is that we had already experienced the hyper-managerial eficiency of May and her dynamic duo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Which was not an insignificant accomplishment, and not an insignificant factor in her own leadership victory. People were genuinely quite impressed that she had survived and thrived in the home office for five+ years, a dept that is famously branded "the death of political ambition". Her tenure in the Home Office faced a number of difficult social problems, that almost always result in unpopular policy the Minister then has to own.
But managerial efficiency - being on top of the detail - was not a solution to the problem of brexit.
The problem was simply too massive for any one person to be 'on top of', and the divides too large for a mere manager to paper over.
This is why you have Chairman, to manage the social temperature of the 'organisation', and for better or worse that is what people hoped boris might achieve in the ruins of May's failure.
And, as an explicitly 'not a detail person' he had built a reputation in london as an effective delegator who brought in good people and gave their head to get on and do what he wanted them to do.
None of the above speaks to boris's wider suitability for the job of prime-minister, but the idea it just needed a "focus on detail" manager has been tested to destruction.
With all the excuses of "Lets' wait for Sue Gray's report", her report is now delayed, and the Met have asked her to make minimal reference to the events in Downing Street. Yup, her report into the goings on should make minimal reference to what she's supposed to be reporting on, and we shouldn't draw any conclusions until this delayed, minimal report comes out.
They're not even pretending to follow the rules any more. Still, they win elections, which is all you need in a democracy.
with the quoted text above and the the suggestion that "they're note even pretending to follow the rules any more" you seem to be drawing a direct inference between me and a conspiracy in the the deep-state to pervert the course of justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
i'm flattered, but i'm really a nobody, and the truth might be a lot more prosaic:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/...endent-report/
https://twitter.com/BarristersHorse/...98083272675330
in contrast to the implication above, i did in fact say:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053827306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus