UK Politics Thread

[Furunculus]

I think the two evils feed on each other.

Some years ago, someone pointed out the self evident fact that people choose the newspapers they read based on what they already think. So he chose to read the newspapers that he disliked - in this case as he thought how can he understand the average GP patient without reading the Daily Mail. I realised that I'd fallen into the same trap, tailoring the news I read based on what I already thought so I got reflected back at me the news through the prism of what I already thought.

Media outlets need to make money and the easiest way is giving people what they want - hence the cycle of only getting a version of events that fits with what you already think. Breaking this is extremely tough since these are for-profit organisations and they aren't going to accept massive loss of readers to be more balanced.

I try to anger-read my way through the Guardian and if I'm really wanting to get my Gen-X blood up I read the Metro - even the opinion columns. And looking at things that I might not have initially agreed with I have come to view Social Democracy is probably the ideal form of government rather than small state, individual freedom which is the view I had and was probably strongly influenced from my father.

But the Point is that this was a conscious choice to act against my innate nature.

happy to agree with that.

and i do spend way more time reading the guardian than i ever do the telegraph.
though i do recognise the problem you speak to in that you have to choose to do this - and still i never make time for the mail/mirror/express.

likewise - i deliberately follow interesting left wing people who are willing to engage and discuss (not much point following the ranters). but here too is the problem, as I use social media to get interesting people to bring the things that interest to my attention. and if my interests are heavily slanted towards technology/politics/foriegn-policy, then i am stove-piping my 'feed' to the mind-sets that are most prevalent in those areas.

still, i can't accept the notion that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion. it doesn't fit my own experience (or yours), and accepting it as a general principal is simply too dismal to the prospects for human civilisation.

[rory_20_uk]

It is a well known human trait that people in general have beliefs and then seek evidence to back up that belief. Or they will accept as self evident truths things they agree with and cross-examine things they do not, which again creates a large bias towards what their view already is.

Here's a paper that demonstrates that people stick to what they know - although I am sure that the methodology of the trial can be queried...

Another good one was two groups who had pre-existing views on the death penalty. Both groups were given the same information that argued both pro-and anti- the death penalty. After reviewing the information, both groups ended up with a view that was more entrenched in their pre-existing view, as both groups viewed the evidence that supported their view as good and pointed out the flaws in the other data.

Most people are barely sentient cattle, drifting through their existence with rarely engaging cognitive thought and generally being driven by a selection of animal drives, with those with more ability in the main using that towards venal self interest. A view that I think Lord Vetinari would firmly agree on. That the system enables a small number of mainly altruistic people to discover and create new scientific discoveries and engineering breakthroughs is mainly in spite of the system, not because of it: look at the disparity of money spent on progress rather than everything else.

[Pannonian]

It is a well known human trait that people in general have beliefs and then seek evidence to back up that belief. Or they will accept as self evident truths things they agree with and cross-examine things they do not, which again creates a large bias towards what their view already is.

Here's a paper that demonstrates that people stick to what they know - although I am sure that the methodology of the trial can be queried...

Another good one was two groups who had pre-existing views on the death penalty. Both groups were given the same information that argued both pro-and anti- the death penalty. After reviewing the information, both groups ended up with a view that was more entrenched in their pre-existing view, as both groups viewed the evidence that supported their view as good and pointed out the flaws in the other data.

Most people are barely sentient cattle, drifting through their existence with rarely engaging cognitive thought and generally being driven by a selection of animal drives, with those with more ability in the main using that towards venal self interest. A view that I think Lord Vetinari would firmly agree on. That the system enables a small number of mainly altruistic people to discover and create new scientific discoveries and engineering breakthroughs is mainly in spite of the system, not because of it: look at the disparity of money spent on progress rather than everything else.

Do you think we should be seeking to measure the effects of Brexit? If we are to look for some kind of objective assessment, we should start with a recognition that measurement would be good, and look for how to measure it. Yet the minister for Brexit benefits says that we should not look for measurements (or words to that effect).

[rory_20_uk]

Do you think we should be seeking to measure the effects of Brexit? If we are to look for some kind of objective assessment, we should start with a recognition that measurement would be good, and look for how to measure it. Yet the minister for Brexit benefits says that we should not look for measurements (or words to that effect).

Is there a historic case where things are measured? Privatisation under Thatcher? Any major defence spending? Any major foreign policy? Increasing number of University placements? PFI in the NHS? HS2? CrossRail? COVID plans? I can't think of a single one.

I have the seemingly unusual view that any project should follow PRINCE2 principles. So yes there should be outcomes before you start, a plan and then deliverables measured against the end. I'm all for projects to have metrics and accountability, but why oh why are you focused on this one and no others...?

With many if not all projects the difficulty is what exactly was the objective in the first place. and what control group is to be used to measure this against.

[Furunculus]

As both a Prince2 and AgilePM (DSDM) practitioner i'd suggest the latter as the more appropriate methodology.

Preciselybecause Agile development is designed to deal with a solution that is not fully known yet... ;)

[Pannonian]

Is there a historic case where things are measured? Privatisation under Thatcher? Any major defence spending? Any major foreign policy? Increasing number of University placements? PFI in the NHS? HS2? CrossRail? COVID plans? I can't think of a single one.

I have the seemingly unusual view that any project should follow PRINCE2 principles. So yes there should be outcomes before you start, a plan and then deliverables measured against the end. I'm all for projects to have metrics and accountability, but why oh why are you focused on this one and no others...?

With many if not all projects the difficulty is what exactly was the objective in the first place. and what control group is to be used to measure this against.

I know that major policies under the last Labour government were measured. Whether you agree with the metrics or not, they were measured. And there were a lot of complaints from those undergoing such assessment. And the metrics weren't set out to be biased, as in some cases the measurements didn't come out as expected, and indeed came out after Labour had been ousted.

I'm focused on this, because I found it extraordinary that a minister said that such a major policy issue should not be measured. When the raison d'etre of his ministry, that of finding Brexit opportunities, should have measurement as its very basis.

[Pannonian]

Another minister has cancelled a meeting with a Commons committee. The third this month. Kwasi Kwarteng this time, after Priti Patel and Dominic Raab. Does Parliamentary scrutiny mean anything, or is this another custom that's been thrown into the void by this government?

[Montmorency]

What the fuck this is hardcore brainwashing
https://twitter.com/benphillips76/st...68004233314306 [VIDEO]

[Pannonian]

What the fuck this is hardcore brainwashing
https://twitter.com/benphillips76/st...68004233314306 [VIDEO]

There are lots, and lots, of different arguments, from different angles, for localising economies as much as possible, reduce energy use as much as possible, etc. Instead, we've cut ourselves off from our nearest trading partners in favour of "Global Britain".

[rory_20_uk]

There are lots, and lots, of different arguments, from different angles, for localising economies as much as possible, reduce energy use as much as possible, etc. Instead, we've cut ourselves off from our nearest trading partners in favour of "Global Britain".

I don't think Monty was asking for other examples of brainwashing. But by now I'm not surprised.

The EU cut themselves off from us as the UK would be happy with free trade by itself but then why would countries want to be in the EU? The EU demand the four pillars, we didn't. Are there other organisations that demand membership and following rules at the risk of economic loss?

Trade by ship is extremely fuel efficient which is probably why so many countries have outsourced manufacturing to countries such as China. And the EU is starting to import a lot more LNG from far away - a fair bit is currently via UK pipelines since we have terminals whilst the EU thought fuel security meant Russia.

In COVID, the EU really showed how united they are when things get bad with several countries refusing to export to other members of the EU - so to think that just as their physically close then we have security is a myth. The UK is no better - we've told others that we'll prioritise domestic gas supply if required; Germany is doing its bit by almost deciding to not turn off nuclear power plants due to what happened to Japan who happen to be on an active earthquake zone. Teamwork!

It's amazing how remainers first tried to depict those that wanted to leave as Xenophobes. Since Global Britain there's been a smooth repositioning to how it just bad whilst quietly dropping these earlier claims.

[Pannonian]

I don't think Monty was asking for other examples of brainwashing. But by now I'm not surprised.

The EU cut themselves off from us as the UK would be happy with free trade by itself but then why would countries want to be in the EU? The EU demand the four pillars, we didn't. Are there other organisations that demand membership and following rules at the risk of economic loss?

Trade by ship is extremely fuel efficient which is probably why so many countries have outsourced manufacturing to countries such as China. And the EU is starting to import a lot more LNG from far away - a fair bit is currently via UK pipelines since we have terminals whilst the EU thought fuel security meant Russia.

In COVID, the EU really showed how united they are when things get bad with several countries refusing to export to other members of the EU - so to think that just as their physically close then we have security is a myth. The UK is no better - we've told others that we'll prioritise domestic gas supply if required; Germany is doing its bit by almost deciding to not turn off nuclear power plants due to what happened to Japan who happen to be on an active earthquake zone. Teamwork!

It's amazing how remainers first tried to depict those that wanted to leave as Xenophobes. Since Global Britain there's been a smooth repositioning to how it just bad whilst quietly dropping these earlier claims.

If you read Furunculus's posts you'll see arguments made for Global Britain. I've long been an advocate for localisation. I want us to reduce energy use as much as possible. Recycle as much as possible. Have as much expertise locally as possible. Trade with the nearest partners in order to keep energy use to a minimum.

Farmers are complaining that the Australian trade deal (that Parliament have not been allowed to debate, contrary to earlier promises) gives Australian farmers leeway for not complying with UK regulations for produce. Can anyone explain how this is a good thing? Why are we giving farmers on the other side of the world advantages that may drive our local producers out of the market?

[Pannonian]

Apparently someone who lives abroad and pledges money and support for the Conservative Party can decide who my next PM will be, but I don't have the same power. For some reason I don't think this is right.

[rory_20_uk]

Apparently someone who lives abroad and pledges money and support for the Conservative Party can decide who my next PM will be, but I don't have the same power. For some reason I don't think this is right.

Same outrage when Blair handed over to Brown? It's the crappy system we have had since the 1960's - back in the Good Old Days the MPs just chose the person they wanted behind closed doors.

Perhaps we should have a President like Italy does who chooses someone to form the next government. Of course, Technically the Monarchy does this, it being her PM. But her 70 years of "leadership" hasn't extended to doing anything to help how the country is run.

The Powers that Be would rather things go back to the civilised pseudo-democracy we live under where we have a preferred team and one vote every 5 years to choose someone who might stick to a loose selection of non-legally binding wishes.

[Pannonian]

Same outrage when Blair handed over to Brown? It's the crappy system we have had since the 1960's - back in the Good Old Days the MPs just chose the person they wanted behind closed doors.

Perhaps we should have a President like Italy does who chooses someone to form the next government. Of course, Technically the Monarchy does this, it being her PM. But her 70 years of "leadership" hasn't extended to doing anything to help how the country is run.

The Powers that Be would rather things go back to the civilised pseudo-democracy we live under where we have a preferred team and one vote every 5 years to choose someone who might stick to a loose selection of non-legally binding wishes.

"Membership of Conservatives Abroad is open to all who live abroad and pledge support for the UK Conservative Party. You do not have to be a voter or a UK citizen...

You are entitled to all the benefits of party membership, including participation in the Conservative Policy Forum, attendance at party conferences and a vote in the election of the party leader."

I remember arguments being made about sovereignty and so on.

[rory_20_uk]

"Membership of Conservatives Abroad is open to all who live abroad and pledge support for the UK Conservative Party. You do not have to be a voter or a UK citizen...

You are entitled to all the benefits of party membership, including participation in the Conservative Policy Forum, attendance at party conferences and a vote in the election of the party leader."

I remember arguments being made about sovereignty and so on.

And if there was a referendum on this issue I would vote.

The choice is between two MPs who were voted on by UK people.

[Pannonian]

And if there was a referendum on this issue I would vote.

The choice is between two MPs who were voted on by UK people.

European Commissioners were appointed by national governments elected by their people: we didn't have sovereignty.
European laws were voted on by Members of the European Parliament who were directly elected by their country's people: we didn't have sovereignty.
People living abroad who don't have to have UK voting rights to vote on our next PM: the choice is between two MPs who were voted on by UK people.

The laws decided by the first two cases don't decide much of my everyday life. The individual chosen by the third case decides how much tax I pay, what laws I have to follow, and much of my life besides.

[rory_20_uk]

European Commissioners were appointed by national governments elected by their people: we didn't have sovereignty.
European laws were voted on by Members of the European Parliament who were directly elected by their country's people: we didn't have sovereignty.
People living abroad who don't have to have UK voting rights to vote on our next PM: the choice is between two MPs who were voted on by UK people.

The laws decided by the first two cases don't decide much of my everyday life. The individual chosen by the third case decides how much tax I pay, what laws I have to follow, and much of my life besides.

So let's limit it as far as possible - no need for an extra layer is there?

[Pannonian]

So let's limit it as far as possible - no need for an extra layer is there?

If you want to limit it, why do you excuse foreigners with no stake in the UK voting for the PM whose power exceeds that of any other chief executive of any developed country?

If you haven't noticed, our chief executive has been reducing the number of layers of lawmaking, by centralising power and reducing accountability. To the point where the PM doesn't bother answering questions truthfully in the Commons any more, and ministers don't bother turning up to committees to answer questions, and they delay business so they can get things done while Parliament is in recess and unable to scrutinise their actions. Our government is one layer: the PM's office. As seen in the Lady Mone affair, where the civil service was overruled by a PM dispensing a 150m+ contract to a company with zero track record or expertise.

Edit: Hang on, her hubby's company got 200m+ of contracts, not just 150m.

[Montmorency]

I don't think Monty was asking for other examples of brainwashing. But by now I'm not surprised.

The EU cut themselves off from us as the UK would be happy with free trade by itself but then why would countries want to be in the EU? The EU demand the four pillars, we didn't. Are there other organisations that demand membership and following rules at the risk of economic loss?

All trade deals require mutual cession of some prerogatives - look at German primary energy companes invoking investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS*) arbitration to sue the Netherlands for discriminating against fossil fuels. The reality is that both parties seek particular favorable conditions in relation to one another, and it is not incumbent upon the EU states to be unilaterally altruistic in a competitive environment of global capitalism. All that said, what do you have against the current EU-UK free trade agreement?

*ISDS breadth was also a big sticking point in both left and right dissent in the US against joining TPP. I recall that when the TPP was formed anyway without the US, as the CPTPP, it dropped some US government-favored provisions, for example in the weakening of ISDS components, to which Chile, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, and Vietnam received further special treatment. I don't know what conditions the UK seeks in its application to CPTPP. But almost all nations, through one agreement or another, are subject to various forms and layers of ISDS obligations. For the record, the existence and application of significant ISDS clauses in international relations tends to be deeply offensive to my politics.

Note that ISDS is justifiably beginning to be treated in a manner respondent to its nature as one of the worst possible circumscriptions of state sovereignty (though most so for weaker states as these things always go):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Already we see a recent trend of States moving away from ISDS. In the USMCA that succeeds the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada is notably absent from Chapter 14 on ISDS. (See definition of “Annex Party” in Annex 14-D of Chapter 14). The EU is looking to reform existing ISDS mechanisms through the creation of a multilateral investment court to preside over disputes arising from future bilateral EU investment agreements. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (“RCEP”) that is currently the world’s largest FTA excludes any ISDS dispute settlement mechanism under Chapter 10 that deals with investments. In addition, the Biden administration has made clear that the United States would not be returning to the CPTPP anytime soon.
[...]
One of the main pushbacks against ISDS has been its use by private companies to sue States for the impacts of public policies that result in limiting profit margins. In this regard, the recent release of the new Canadian Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement Model on 13 May 2021 reflects a shift from older investment and trade treaties that focused primarily on achieving economic prosperity, to a “new” generation of treaties that tend to provide comprehensive frameworks that reflect national (and international) agendas for promoting sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, and human rights, while also expressly addressing how this may interact with the interests of private businesses.

If you read Furunculus's posts you'll see arguments made for Global Britain. I've long been an advocate for localisation. I want us to reduce energy use as much as possible. Recycle as much as possible. Have as much expertise locally as possible. Trade with the nearest partners in order to keep energy use to a minimum.

Farmers are complaining that the Australian trade deal (that Parliament have not been allowed to debate, contrary to earlier promises) gives Australian farmers leeway for not complying with UK regulations for produce. Can anyone explain how this is a good thing? Why are we giving farmers on the other side of the world advantages that may drive our local producers out of the market?

Localism is not resilient. Localism created a dramatic Communist-style shortage of infant formula in the United States this year, among other examples. Historically, de facto (agrarian) localism has implied routine mass starvation. Resiliency is built through deliberate, but expensive, local duplication of targeted industries or outputs. Such duplication could be engineered most efficiently along para-trade international collaboration (which is why it will never happen, though it should).

[Pannonian]

All trade deals require mutual cession of some prerogatives - look at German primary energy companes invoking investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS*) arbitration to sue the Netherlands for discriminating against fossil fuels. The reality is that both parties seek particular favorable conditions in relation to one another, and it is not incumbent upon the EU states to be unilaterally altruistic in a competitive environment of global capitalism. All that said, what do you have against the current EU-UK free trade agreement?

*ISDS breadth was also a big sticking point in both left and right dissent in the US against joining TPP. I recall that when the TPP was formed anyway without the US, as the CPTPP, it dropped some US government-favored provisions, for example in the weakening of ISDS components, to which Chile, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, and Vietnam received further special treatment. I don't know what conditions the UK seeks in its application to CPTPP. But almost all nations, through one agreement or another, are subject to various forms and layers of ISDS obligations. For the record, the existence and application of significant ISDS clauses in international relations tends to be deeply offensive to my politics.

Note that ISDS is justifiably beginning to be treated in a manner respondent to its nature as one of the worst possible circumscriptions of state sovereignty (though most so for weaker states as these things always go):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Already we see a recent trend of States moving away from ISDS. In the USMCA that succeeds the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada is notably absent from Chapter 14 on ISDS. (See definition of “Annex Party” in Annex 14-D of Chapter 14). The EU is looking to reform existing ISDS mechanisms through the creation of a multilateral investment court to preside over disputes arising from future bilateral EU investment agreements. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (“RCEP”) that is currently the world’s largest FTA excludes any ISDS dispute settlement mechanism under Chapter 10 that deals with investments. In addition, the Biden administration has made clear that the United States would not be returning to the CPTPP anytime soon.
[...]
One of the main pushbacks against ISDS has been its use by private companies to sue States for the impacts of public policies that result in limiting profit margins. In this regard, the recent release of the new Canadian Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement Model on 13 May 2021 reflects a shift from older investment and trade treaties that focused primarily on achieving economic prosperity, to a “new” generation of treaties that tend to provide comprehensive frameworks that reflect national (and international) agendas for promoting sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, and human rights, while also expressly addressing how this may interact with the interests of private businesses.

Localism is not resilient. Localism created a dramatic Communist-style shortage of infant formula in the United States this year, among other examples. Historically, de facto (agrarian) localism has implied routine mass starvation. Resiliency is built through deliberate, but expensive, local duplication of targeted industries or outputs. Such duplication could be engineered most efficiently along para-trade international collaboration (which is why it will never happen, though it should).

That's why I want a local-focused, but duplicated chain of supply, so there is a local supply of resources and skills, then there is a wider supply of the same (with access to more specialist skills), then a wider still supply of the same (with access to yet more specialist stuff), and so on. The Minford economy envisages doing away altogether with certain sectors of the economy like agriculture, fishing, and anything else that doesn't show up on spreadsheets as sufficiently profitable. That's the economic model that Furunculus has been advocating as the end goal of Brexit. We won't need such industries because we can rely on the global market. We don't need the more local trade partners either (the EU, which directly borders us) because we can rely on the global market.

[Furunculus]

If you read Furunculus's posts you'll see arguments made for Global Britain. I've long been an advocate for localisation. I want us to reduce energy use as much as possible. Recycle as much as possible. Have as much expertise locally as possible. Trade with the nearest partners in order to keep energy use to a minimum.

There is a significant difference between 'global britain' as a foreign policy outlook and globalism as a economic model that distorts national politics.

After all, globalism in the narrow economic sense was alive and well in the blair+brown/cameron+osborne era of british politics.

The Minford economy envisages doing away altogether with certain sectors of the economy like agriculture, fishing, and anything else that doesn't show up on spreadsheets as sufficiently profitable. That's the economic model that Furunculus has been advocating as the end goal of Brexit. We won't need such industries because we can rely on the global market. We don't need the more local trade partners either (the EU, which directly borders us) because we can rely on the global market.

It's not really true that I want the Minford model:

1. I was happy that the right solution for brexit would involve compromise, as the result of 53/48 wasn't a mandate for anything else. We can of course debate endlessly over what is appropriate compromise and what is capitulation of core national interests. We have not got the Minford model, and I would not consider that compromise. As per the red-wall collapse in 2019 the UK has been governed as a Social Democracy.

2. I did accept that a Minford style hard (pure?) brexit would be a workable model, i.e. it would keep Britain a rich and prosperous nation. I did this to acknowledge that we don't get to negotiate the EU's part for them, and that if unreasonable they would seek capitulation of core national interests. I supported Chequers, but hard brexit was always a necessary fallback if an appropriate compromise could not be reached.

[Pannonian]

Classic UK policing. The leader of the opposition and his deputy were sent questionnaires for possible lockdown breaches, a process initiated by a Tory MP and national newspaper (and a Russian agent as well). They dutifully filled in the forms as required, despite this being clearly a politically motivated smear as described by a former head of Durham police.

Meanwhile, there is evidence of the prime minister breaching lockdown at a time when rules were rather more severe. The Met police knew of this, but did not require the PM to fill in questionnaires as should have been required. Thus he was not investigated for such.

Reminds me of the Commons committee that concluded that no evidence could be found of the Tory government colluding with Russian interests because those who should have been investigating had been told to look away. This Tory government is corrupt AF, and the police too. With a media that propagates their BS. There is zero accountability.

[Furunculus]

There is a significant difference between 'global britain' as a foreign policy outlook and globalism as a economic model that distorts national politics.

After all, globalism in the narrow economic sense was alive and well in the blair+brown/cameron+osborne era of british politics.

It's not really true that I want the Minford model:

1. I was happy that the right solution for brexit would involve compromise, as the result of 53/48 wasn't a mandate for anything else. We can of course debate endlessly over what is appropriate compromise and what is capitulation of core national interests. We have not got the Minford model, and I would not consider that compromise. As per the red-wall collapse in 2019 the UK has been governed as a Social Democracy.

2. I did accept that a Minford style hard (pure?) brexit would be a workable model, i.e. it would keep Britain a rich and prosperous nation. I did this to acknowledge that we don't get to negotiate the EU's part for them, and that if unreasonable they would seek capitulation of core national interests. I supported Chequers, but hard brexit was always a necessary fallback if an appropriate compromise could not be reached.

Gently pointing out that i spend a lot of time responding to misconceptions over what I actually want/believe - only to hear a howling void by way of acceptance of this correction, a pause, and then onto the next re-tread of the same misconception.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053795098

sure, i would be content with that as my natural preference, but please recall that i have always said that i recognized that the result wss not decisive enough to justify this 'dream' and that i was happy to maintain britain closely aligned as a (low end) social democracy rather than a market economy (like canada/oz).

im the very heart and soul of compromise. ;)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053792539

...But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay...

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
p.s. Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?

^ originally posted in August 2018 - if you chase the links back through the numerous re-quotes ^

[Pannonian]

"As far as I am aware, no Government business was discussed", said Johnson about his unmonitored meeting with Lebedev, a former KGB agent (NB. Putin says there are no former KGB agents). The ordinary person might say such and have it passed as a "Nothing happened" explanation. However, this is the guy who passed off the partygate investigation with "as far as he is aware, the police have not found anything else untoward" when the police didn't actually investigate him in order to find anything, so it rather points to the caveat doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting. He should answer questions, under oath, as to what went on at that meeting, for the sake of national security.

And this guy wants to be secretary general of NATO.

[rory_20_uk]

And you heard the only answer he would give, oath or otherwise, and it is not actionable.

He's gone. Hopefully soon we'll get a PM willing to create meaningful guard rails.

[Pannonian]

And you heard the only answer he would give, oath or otherwise, and it is not actionable.

He's gone. Hopefully soon we'll get a PM willing to create meaningful guard rails.

I'm not a skilled interrogator. The Commons committees are rather better at it than I am. He revealed, in one of the hearings, that he did indeed meet up with Alexander Lebedev. I'd like them to press him further on that, on oath, so he can't just lie his way out of it as he's done with everything else.

A PM willing to create meaningful guard rails is not mutually exclusive with finding out what Johnson did at Lebedev's party, away from government officials. If this had happened during the Cold War, I doubt people would be so willing to let it go.

[Pannonian]

The Attorney General has banned government lawyers from telling ministers that their policies are unlawful, The Telegraph can reveal.

In the wake of the row over the Rwanda asylum plan, guidance was sent from Suella Braverman to lawyers last week stating that they should refrain from dismissing policies as unlawful and instead give a percentage chance that they may be challenged.

It is the culmination of more than a year of growing tensions, with policy advisors viewing lawyers as overly cautious. They perceive them to be getting in the way of the Government’s policy agenda instead of thinking creatively to push through ideas.

Lawyers, who are now describing it as the “U-word”, have hit back at the policy, describing it as an affront. "It calls into question our ability to hold the Government to account. What exactly is our role now?" one said. Others warned that ministers risked breaching international law and, in turn, the ministerial code.

The issue has come to a head at the Home Office. One government source said: “If we come and say we want something, they come back and say it is unlawful and we think there is a 70 per cent chance of losing. They don’t go: ‘Well, there is a 30 per cent chance a judge would find it lawful so we should go for it. There will be some who say it is unlawful because of x, y, z reasons rather than: ‘How can we make a legal argument that it is lawful’?”

I was taught in history how England became a country based on the rule of law. It's no longer the case. Now it's what the Tory government can get away with, and a democratic mandate legitimises everything.

[rory_20_uk]

I was taught in history how England became a country based on the rule of law. It's no longer the case. Now it's what the Tory government can get away with, and a democratic mandate legitimises everything.

Yes you were taught that. And apparently you didn't really analyse the reality. From the Enclosure Acts which removed about 70%+ of the entire country which was common land to the wealthy, to the destruction of the Scottish Clans to farm more profitable sheep to the Industrial Revolution where people became an expensible commodity.

All was lawful - and the laws were there to codify the behaviour of the wealthy against the rest.

The UK went to war 20 years ago based on lies. Under Labour. The person most responsible has since been Knighted.

Drop your tired prejudices and acknowledge reality.

[rory_20_uk]

Duplicate.

[Pannonian]

Yes you were taught that. And apparently you didn't really analyse the reality. From the Enclosure Acts which removed about 70%+ of the entire country which was common land to the wealthy, to the destruction of the Scottish Clans to farm more profitable sheep to the Industrial Revolution where people became an expensible commodity.

All was lawful - and the laws were there to codify the behaviour of the wealthy against the rest.

The UK went to war 20 years ago based on lies. Under Labour. The person most responsible has since been Knighted.

Drop your tired prejudices and acknowledge reality.

Iraq happened 20 years ago in another country. Suella Braverman is redefining what is happening now and in the future in the UK. One of them is more relevant than the other.

Not that I supported Iraq back then. I was against every one of Blair's foreign adventures.