General British politics discussion thread

BonnieSituation · 17-07-2020 2:14am

Is the Russia report going to be released today (Friday)?

Saw it mentioned elsewhere but I thought it would have been everywhere if that was the case.

Peregrinus · 17-07-2020 3:17am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is the Russia report going to be released today (Friday)?

Saw it mentioned elsewhere but I thought it would have been everywhere if that was the case.

I think the Intelligence and Security Committee is expected to take a decision today about whether (and, presumably, when) to release it. Expectation seems to be that they will decide to release it.

PeadarCo · 17-07-2020 9:14am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem here is that we risk buying into a basically brexiter trope that sees the EU as something apart from, and even against, its member states. The EU is its member states, acting collectively and collaboratively. So if the EU has a need to communicate with citizens of a particular member state, the most appropriate and most effective way to do that should be through the member state concerned. If the member state will not communicate to its citizens about what it is doing collaboratively with other member states, the other member states are not really well-positioned to fill that gap.

I'd agree with that. The EU does have to communicate with its citizens but what can you do when member state governments use the EU as a scapegoat/punching bag. One of the big issues for UK politics has been that the 2 big parties have been lead by Brexiters over the last few years. Corbyn has historically been anti EU and he didn't exactly show much enthusiasm for the EU during the debate. Cameron was all over the place giving out about the EU before hand and then having to turn around and say how great the EU was something he hadn't any practice at and it showed in how the remainers got stuck with the tag line project fear. The referendum was very close and I would argue with better political leadership the UK would still be in the EU. But then again that requires better leadership going back years and not a sudden conversion on the announcement of a referendum. However you may never even of had the pressure to call a referendum in the first place had politicians not used the EU as a punching bag for domestic issues.

The issue for UK politics is that the measures being taken by the UK government are not in line with the views of the UK population. Even now you have a fairly even split between pros and anti EU. It will interesting to see the impact on UK politics once the costs become clear. The issue with Scotland has been well noted but it'll be interesting to see the impact in England itself once the costs hit home.

Dave0301 · 17-07-2020 9:33am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the Intelligence and Security Committee is expected to take a decision today about whether (and, presumably, when) to release it. Expectation seems to be that they will decide to release it.

They already agreed yesterday morning that it will be released before the summer recess.

Now I am not saying that this prompted Raab to make his statement about Russian interference in the 2019 election, but the timing of it is questionable.

Bercow is doing the rounds on UK media this morning sticking the boot into Chris Grayling and how No 10 have handled the appointment of chair of the ISC.

Joe_ Public · 17-07-2020 9:52am

Of course Raab knew exactly what he was doing, i think it would be a bit of an insult to the intelligence to assume otherwise. It's just pure trolling, cant think of a single compelling reason why putin would want to upstage johnson and his anti eu disciples, but it serves a purpose. Expect more where that came from in the days ahead.

CrabRevolution · 17-07-2020 10:43am

PeadarCo wrote: »

If the EU or any organisation cannot convince voters that it is a good thing voters will vote to eliminate it in the long term. The EU though is not answerable to just UK voters but voters of 27 countries. The other thing to remember for all the power the parliament has all the big decisions are still made by the heads government of the member states.The Brexit vote was a UK vote not an EU vote. If UK voters are not happy with how the EU has evolved they are free to leave as has been the case.

As the EU continues to evolve if it doesn't change in a way that satisfies its member states it will cease to exist. To survive it has to change in line with voter requirements. The post I was replying to said the issue was the voters not Corbyn. Saying your boss is stupid and calling them names is never a good idea.

You claim the EU changed too much and wasn't the same thing the UK joined, but some of the biggest UK "complaints" about the EU (Trade deals, fishing, standards etc.) are things they agreed to on day one in 1973. It's farcical to claim it took them 40 years to realise they couldn't negotiate their own trade deals anymore.

Sam Russell · 17-07-2020 10:54am

CrabRevolution wrote: »

You claim the EU changed too much and wasn't the same thing the UK joined, but some of the biggest UK "complaints" about the EU (Trade deals, fishing, standards etc.) are things they agreed to on day one in 1973. It's farcical to claim it took them 40 years to realise they couldn't negotiate their own trade deals anymore.

De Gaul was right all along.

PommieBast · 17-07-2020 12:18pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

The referendum was very close and I would argue with better political leadership the UK would still be in the EU. But then again that requires better leadership going back years and not a sudden conversion on the announcement of a referendum. However you may never even of had the pressure to call a referendum in the first place had politicians not used the EU as a punching bag for domestic issues.

My lasting memory was that Labour Leave leaflet that had Osbourne/Cameron and the caption "Wipe the smile off their faces". Trying to find a copy of it as it sums up the whole shortsightedness of the whole thing.

PeadarCo · 17-07-2020 2:19pm

CrabRevolution wrote: »

You claim the EU changed too much and wasn't the same thing the UK joined, but some of the biggest UK "complaints" about the EU (Trade deals, fishing, standards etc.) are things they agreed to on day one in 1973. It's farcical to claim it took them 40 years to realise they couldn't negotiate their own trade deals anymore.

I didn't argue that. It shouldn't be a controversial statement that any organisation that wants to stay in existence needs to advocate for said existence to its members/citizens/customers etc. They need show the relevant people that it benefits them

The EUs situation is complicated because its ultimately still a multi national organisation whose power comes from its members. The perception of the EU in the eyes of many Brexiters and its perception that's important the EU was some sort of evil entity that forced things on the UK. Obviously this is rubbish but that has largely been driven by domestic UK politics over decades which has ignored/not celebrated UK And EU successes and used the EU as a punching bag. Compare that the actions of Irish politicians over the years. Even in more recent years people like Phil Hogan have had their active roles well highlighted in the Irish media. Even Paschal Donohoe recent role. All this shows that Ireland is part of driving the EU. But that's down to local politics and media. Members themselves have to let people know that the EU is the nation states. Brexit ironically has been very good for the EU as a whole because its brought the important but boring stuff you wouldn't normally see into full view.

It will be interesting to see the long term impact on the UK when reality sets in. It will be interesting to see how voters punish the Tories.

View · 17-07-2020 2:22pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

While I agree with your point re British politics and the EU on a more general point every organisation changes country, company charity etc. If the EU wants to survive it has to change in a manner that suits its members.

The EU, unlike virtually every other international organisation, does regularly “change in a manner that suits its members” - those changes are what Treaties such as Lisbon, Nice etc cover.

The problem as we have seen in our referenda is that the negotiations are carried out by our government on our behalf but the average member of the public has little idea of what points the government is negotiating on, much less whether the end result of those negotiations is a good one.

PeadarCo wrote: »

The same for the Irish or any nation state(assuming no wars etc). Will every country like every change the EU makes no it won't. You can see that with some of the diverse membership options it has, Euro, non Euro, Efta etc. Same for a company that sells stuff they will make changes overtime which will keep some customers, hopefully attract new ones but will lose existing ones at the same time.

Regarding the membership options point. EFTA is not a membership option for the EU. It is a separate organisation. Also issues such as the Euro and, yes, Schengen are NOT membership options - they are just as much fundamental aims of the EU as the Customs Union/Single Market is. The only “option” related to them is one of timing - ie when a member state adopts them.

And, yes, Schengen does raise a big question mark over our EU membership since currently our government is more interested in acting as “Stormont South”, rather than as an independent EU member state.

PeadarCo wrote: »

So you are right whether a country stays as part of an organisation is down to domestic politics the changes or more importantly perceived changes within the organisation have an impact. If Scotland breaks away from the UK, it won't be as simple as Scotlands population making a purely domestic decision. The perceived actions of Westminster will have an impact. As you have pointed out it is the perceived changes in the EU from the UKs perspective that have caused some of the issue. So it's not a purely domestic issue even though I'd agree with you that the actions of the EU have been warped by domestic politicians for a combination of ideological and short term electoral gains.

The “perception” point is a good one but again the fault with that lies at member state level. Virtually every one of the changes at EU level that have happened since we joined the ECs/EU were set out - and agreed to by us - in the first “summit” (of Heads of State) that we (and the U.K.) attended in Dec 72 (ie prior to joining). We (and the U.K.) knew the overall plan for what was coming, so arguments about those being a sudden surprise are completely bogus.

In the case of the U.K., the problem has never been about the changes to the ECs/EU per se, but more about an irrational hatred of all things European by a significant chunk of the Brexit supporters. Even an agreement to abolish the EU in its entirety would have left a sizeable chunk of them complaining that it didn’t go far enough.

View · 17-07-2020 2:26pm

Hermy wrote: »

Referenda are entirely a domestic issue and it is not for the EU to convince the electorate of a member state which way to vote.

This is absolutely correct.

The EU Treaties explicitly state that the EU is founded on the principle of representative democracy (not direct democracy).

Any calling of a referendum is a political decision taken at member state level and is arguably a violation of the representative democracy principle.

PeadarCo · 17-07-2020 6:53pm

View wrote: »

The EU, unlike virtually every other international organisation, does regularly “change in a manner that suits its members” - those changes are what Treaties such as Lisbon, Nice etc cover.

The problem as we have seen in our referenda is that the negotiations are carried out by our government on our behalf but the average member of the public has little idea of what points the government is negotiating on, much less whether the end result of those negotiations is a good one.

Regarding the membership options point. EFTA is not a membership option for the EU. It is a separate organisation. Also issues such as the Euro and, yes, Schengen are NOT membership options - they are just as much fundamental aims of the EU as the Customs Union/Single Market is. The only “option” related to them is one of timing - ie when a member state adopts them.

And, yes, Schengen does raise a big question mark over our EU membership since currently our government is more interested in acting as “Stormont South”, rather than as an independent EU member state.

The “perception” point is a good one but again the fault with that lies at member state level. Virtually every one of the changes at EU level that have happened since we joined the ECs/EU were set out - and agreed to by us - in the first “summit” (of Heads of State) that we (and the U.K.) attended in Dec 72 (ie prior to joining). We (and the U.K.) knew the overall plan for what was coming, so arguments about those being a sudden surprise are completely bogus.

In the case of the U.K., the problem has never been about the changes to the ECs/EU per se, but more about an irrational hatred of all things European by a significant chunk of the Brexit supporters. Even an agreement to abolish the EU in its entirety would have left a sizeable chunk of them complaining that it didn’t go far enough.

For some bizarre reason you seem to think I am arguing in favour of Brexiters. I'm not however you do have to look at and try and understand why they succeeded. We have many politicians in Ireland to throw out the exact same rubbish. Many of the arguments/tactics used in the Brexit referendum were also used to some sucess in Irish referenda that related to EU treaties.

In relation to the various treatises they are exactly my point. In terms of UK politicians they did not take responsibility for the UKs acceptance of them similar to Irish politicians for at least FG, FF and Labour? They didn't. This where perception comes in. Successive UK governments not only agreed to the changes but would also have had a big say in how these treaties were formulated. However they were portrayed as EU dictates that were being imposed instead of agreements that UK governments not only supported but were actively involved in the creation of.

Even in current negotiations look at how the EU has been portrayed by UK politicians. My biggest criticism of Corbyn and Labour is that they did dam all to challenge these perceptions. Perceptions are important remember the Backstop was a major EU concession but was portrayed as the EU trying to control the UK.

My point about the EFTA is that there a various classes of EU membership/association. However the bigger the trade deal/big the integration with the EU the more a country has to share power with the other states that make up the EU. If you look at Norway, Turkey, Canada and Ireland for example each country has a different relationship with the EU. Ireland being part of the EU and the other countries having a more limited dealings with the EU to different degrees. All options available to the UK but you can't have your cake and eat it as the Tories have demanded. This perception that the EU has punished the UK for not giving in to this has dominated the UK media or at least from my limited view point.

To bring in back to UK politics. The UK is a very divided country and this will have consequences when the costs hit home. I still don't see Labour the main opposition party calling the Tories out for their clueless and wishful thinking. Corbyn was mute, his policy indistinguishable from Teresa May's. It will be interesting to see how the poorer areas of England react when Brexit hits home. The sooner UK and especially English politicians are honest about the compromises that the UK is faced with the better. Otherwise they are storing up a large amount of disgruntled voters regardless of the outcome of negotiations.

O'Neill · 18-07-2020 1:35pm

To make a more general point, i've never seen anything like this before. I've always hated the Tories but I can at least admit that they adhere to democracy and rule of law...this lot however. Probably up there with one of the most corrupt Governments in the UK in decades. I don't know what's more amazing, how corrupt they are or how brazen they are because they know they're getting away with it, very sad times.

Sam Russell · 18-07-2020 2:01pm

The lock down on Leicester was put onto the expensive Leicester area, but they have released a large are of it - the Tory voting areas, but kept it in the Labour and LibDem voting areas. Coincidence?

The majority for the Tories is reduced to 78 following the Grayling failing to get the chair of the security committee. They removed the whip from there own candidate - can you believe that?

Capt'n Midnight · 19-07-2020 12:29pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The majority for the Tories is reduced to 78 following the Grayling failing to get the chair of the security committee. They removed the whip from there own candidate - can you believe that?

Yes.

They could deselect 21 more MP's like they did last September.

And another 21.

And another 21 after that.

And another 21 because SF won't be showing up for the votes.

And they'd still have the option of buying off the DUP with a billion or two.

At which point their majority would only be a little smaller than the Lib Dems, who might be desperate enough to go into coalition with them again.

It's unlikely but not impossible that Boris could lose 100 MP's and still be PM.

Sam Russell · 19-07-2020 1:05pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes.

They could deselect 21 more MP's like they did last September.

And another 21.

And another 21 after that.

And another 21 because SF won't be showing up for the votes.

And they'd still have the option of buying off the DUP with a billion or two.

At which point their majority would only be a little smaller than the Lib Dems, who might be desperate enough to go into coalition with them again.

It's unlikely but not impossible that Boris could lose 100 MP's and still be PM.

Long before that, the knives would be out. I suspect poor showing in May in Scotland will see the heave* start. He has surrounded him with low flyers and low lifes, so it is only a matter of time before incompetence or infidelity gets him.

*(Of course, they do not do heaves, just knives in the back or just straight to the heart).

Sam Russell · 03-08-2020 6:01pm

Just to add the old corruption element.

Cummings old mates appear to have their trotters into the golden trough.

£3 million contract awarded without tenders to PR company closely associated to Tory grandees and Cummings.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/03/topham-guerin-pr-firm-covid-19-contract-conservative-party

Joe_ Public · 03-08-2020 6:54pm

I see where Robert Jenrick - covid rule breaker and planning law breaker - will be introducing new regulations this week that will make it even easier for his tory fat cat developer pals to bypass planning red tape and cream off even bigger profits.

And knighthoods for Russians, hard brexiteers, family relatives and anyone else owed a bung.

They're laughing at the public, outright plain mocking them to their faces.

Sam Russell · 03-08-2020 8:40pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I see where Robert Jenrick - covid rule breaker and planning law breaker - will be introducing new regulations this week that will make it even easier for his tory fat cat developer pals to bypass planning red tape and cream off even bigger profits.

And knighthoods for Russians, hard brexiteers, family relatives and anyone else owed a bung.

They're laughing at the public, outright plain mocking them to their faces.

Not knighthoods, but peerages - that is a seat in the upper house - the House of Lords, so they can vote on laws of the land.

Corruption that knows no bounds.

Joe_ Public · 03-08-2020 9:17pm

It's corruption with two fingers raised, no accountability or even anticipation of it. And real scary thing is if this is what they feel so comfortable doing in plain sight, what must they be getting up to in the shadows?

Sam Russell · 03-08-2020 9:24pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's corruption with two fingers raised, no accountability or even anticipation of it. And real scary thing is if this is what they feel so comfortable doing in plain sight, what must they be getting up to in the shadows?

Well, a Tory MP has been charged with rape. He still retains the Tory party whip.

Peregrinus · 04-08-2020 2:54am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, a Tory MP has been charged with rape. He still retains the Tory party whip.

He has been arrested. He has not been charged. The Chief Whiop's position is that he will not make a decision about what to do with him until the police investigation is complete, which will be when either (a) the guy is charged, or (b) the investigation into him is closed with no charges being laid.

Sam Russell · 04-08-2020 9:28am

Peregrinus wrote: »

He has been arrested. He has not been charged. The Chief Whiop's position is that he will not make a decision about what to do with him until the police investigation is complete, which will be when either (a) the guy is charged, or (b) the investigation into him is closed with no charges being laid.

Fair point.

Until he is convicted, he is assumed to be not guilty - well at least not of this.

In this jurisdiction, his name or identity would not be released, nor that of the complainant.

Peregrinus · 04-08-2020 9:50am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Fair point.

Until he is convicted, he is assumed to be not guilty - well at least not of this.

In this jurisdiction, his name or identity would not be released, nor that of the complainant.

I suspect they wouldn't wait for a conviction. Once charges are laid, the party would want to distance itself.

For comparison, Tory MP Charlie Elphicke had the whip withdrawn when complaints about him were first referred to the police, but it was restored to him a year later when his vote was needed in connection with a motion of confidence in Teresa May. When he was later charged with sexual assault the whip was again withdrawn.

He was convicted last week; he will be sentenced in September. I think the expectation will be that, unless he appeals the conviction, he will resign from Parliament, especially if he receives a custodial sentence.

Sam Russell · 04-08-2020 10:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect they wouldn't wait for a conviction. Once charges are laid, the party would want to distance itself.

For comparison, Tory MP Charlie Elphicke had the whip withdrawn when complaints about him were first referred to the police, but it was restored to him a year later when his vote was needed in connection with a motion of confidence in Teresa May. When he was later charged with sexual assault the whip was again withdrawn.

He was convicted last week; he will be sentenced in September. I think the expectation will be that, unless he appeals the conviction, he will resign from Parliament, especially if he receives a custodial sentence.

They used to say scandals on the Labour side were nearly always financial while those on the Tory side were usually sexual in nature.

Now it appears that financial scandals on the Tory side are so ingrained and normalised that they are ignored by the Tory press. No mention of lucrative Gov contracts being awarded without due diligence to friends of No. 10 and advisers to the Leave campaign.

Maybe it was ever thus. Perhaps the demise of the 'News of the World' has meant such sexual scandals find no traction in the general media anymore.

ancapailldorcha · 04-08-2020 10:51am

Sam Russell wrote: »

They used to say scandals on the Labour side were nearly always financial while those on the Tory side were usually sexual in nature.

Now it appears that financial scandals on the Tory side are so ingrained and normalised that they are ignored by the Tory press. No mention of lucrative Gov contracts being awarded without due diligence to friends of No. 10 and advisers to the Leave campaign.

Interesting observation.

The current conservative government has locked itself into a position where it's promoting people based entirely on loyalty to Brexit. I think the fiasco where Chris Grayling somehow managed to lose a rigged election sums it up perfectly.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Maybe it was ever thus. Perhaps the demise of the 'News of the World' has meant such sexual scandals find no traction in the general media anymore.

Yes and no I think. Ordinarily, a government wouldn't choose to restrict itself to such a small pool of people but this doesn't seem to be an ordinary government. People are selected for love of Brexit and pliancy with regards to the PM and Dominic Cummings. Some of these people, like Sunak can present themselves well but for the most part they seem to be gaffe-prone mainly old men who, when they humiliate themselves can't be discarded as there's only so many people in the pool to draw from.

Joe_ Public · 04-08-2020 10:58am

If this was any other profession, would this mp be treated differently? If a teacher/doctor/civil servant would somebody under suspicion of rape be allowed to carry on as normal? Is this just a rule for mps or specifically tory mps? Obviously there is a separate unofficial code of conduct for tory mps where stuff like antisemitism is deemed of little consequence so maybe it's the same here too.

Peregrinus · 05-08-2020 4:31am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If this was any other profession, would this mp be treated differently? If a teacher/doctor/civil servant would somebody under suspicion of rape be allowed to carry on as normal? Is this just a rule for mps or specifically tory mps? Obviously there is a separate unofficial code of conduct for tory mps where stuff like antisemitism is deemed of little consequence so maybe it's the same here too.

The guy has been elected MP by the constituents of Whereeveritis, and that situation won't change unless he either resigns or is removed by law. There can be no question of him being removed by law unless he is actually convicted; so far he hasn't even been charged.

Separately, there's the matter of his connection with the Conservative Party. They could expel him from the party and/or withdraw the whip. Neither of these things would prevent him from sitting, speaking, voting, etc as an MP; he just wouldn't be a Tory MP. Expelling him from the party might minimise embarrasment to the party, though. But it would also identify him publicly, and I can see how if the police/prosecution authorities haven't identified him the Tory party wouldn't want to be the first to do so.

As already mentioned, when Tory MP Robert Elphicke was accused of sexual assault he was expelled from the party. (His name was already in the public arena at that point.) He was, however, later readmitted when it became politically expedient to do so, and had to be expelled a second time when he was convicted. All in all, doing it this way probably caused the party more embarrassment than if they had deferred taking any action until he was convicted or, at least, charged. It may be that experience which has persuaded them that, in fact, it is wiser to let the legal processes take their course and then react to them.

Joe_ Public · 05-08-2020 10:21am

Elphicke said on Twitter: “The party tipped off the press before telling me of my suspension. I am not aware of what the alleged claims are and deny any wrongdoing.”

Charlie Elphickes name was only in the public domain because his own party put it out there. And then they suspended him.

So the question is why they are acting differently in this case? That they restored the whip to Elphicke in lieu of a critical vote merely tells us how morally bankrupt the party is, but we know that already anyway.

One excuse trotted out by the chief whip was we're worried if we name him that it would identify the accuser. The accuser has stated publicly she is happy to have him named so that excuse doesnt run at all.

Maybe there should be a general rule across society that nobody in any profession should face penalty or identification unless formally charged with an offence. But as it is, i dont see why an exception should be made for the individual in this case.

View · 05-08-2020 3:53pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Elphicke said on Twitter: “The party tipped off the press before telling me of my suspension. I am not aware of what the alleged claims are and deny any wrongdoing.”

Charlie Elphickes name was only in the public domain because his own party put it out there. And then they suspended him.

So the question is why they are acting differently in this case? That they restored the whip to Elphicke in lieu of a critical vote merely tells us how morally bankrupt the party is, but we know that already anyway.

One excuse trotted out by the chief whip was we're worried if we name him that it would identify the accuser. The accuser has stated publicly she is happy to have him named so that excuse doesnt run at all.

Maybe there should be a general rule across society that nobody in any profession should face penalty or identification unless formally charged with an offence. But as it is, i dont see why an exception should be made for the individual in this case.

They are probably acting differently because the MP concerned is a Brexiter and the Brexiters in charge of the party won’t hang one of their own out to dry.

General British politics discussion thread

Comments