UK politics 2016

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by deany, Jul 12, 2016.

  1. deany macrumors 68030


    Sep 16, 2012
    North Wales
    Thought I'd start a new thread as I'm missing the one that was closed! - thank you for everyones input.....

    The last few days have been crazy in UK politics I wonder where all this is going for us?

    I signed the petition for a 2nd referrendum and have
    just recieved the e-mail below- I guess this means PM Theresa May won't instigate A-50 before 5th September '16?

    "The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP.

    The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.

    A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.

    The Petitions Committee is a cross-party group of MPs. It is independent from Government. You can find out more about the Committee on its website:

    The Petitions team
    UK Government and Parliament"

    5.55am 13 June '16
  2. Three141 macrumors 6502


    Jan 1, 2016
    I'm not keen on the idea of a second referendum, what happens if the #remain wins, does it become best 2/3? If #brexit wins again will there be a request for a 3rd vote?

    I wanted us to remain but the leave campaign did the better job at convincing the public; now I want our government focused on safe guarding our future with a #brexit mind frame.

    With the conservatives steady Labour need to sort out their party and provide strong opposition as it's a joke at the moment.
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn


    Jul 11, 2003
  4. Three141 macrumors 6502


    Jan 1, 2016
    I thought you post was tounge in cheek and then I went to the BBC website. Wow, just wow!
    I guess it's part of 'May's plans to bring the party back together after the rift (or to keep a closer eye on him).
  5. aaronvan Suspended


    Dec 21, 2011
    República Cascadia
    Can the UK Brexit again? The markets are making new highs as the promise of stimulus and liquidity quiet market fears.
  6. deany thread starter macrumors 68030


    Sep 16, 2012
    North Wales
    Oh No, Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary I find this very worrying.
  7. zin macrumors 6502

    May 5, 2010
    United Kingdom
    There will be no second referendum and no reversal of the result of the first. People still clinging onto this need to let it go.

    May has now appointed a Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union.
  8. LizKat macrumors 601


    Aug 5, 2004
    Catskill Mountains
    I don't blame you at all for having that reaction. Your new PM probably means to keep quite the eye on him. Minders ahoy!

    Distinctly tongue in cheek: better Boris there and busy doing that, than over here advising Trump how to get a job like that after he loses the US election. :p
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4


    Nov 3, 2005
    I think it would be pretty poor if she didn't actually make a fair effort to do what the voters want. And putting a remain supporter in that post would mean that if they can't make it work then they'd be accused of not trying.

    Now she can either let them come up with a good plan (and re-unite the Tories) or they'll hang themselves (and re-unite the Tories).
  10. LizKat macrumors 601


    Aug 5, 2004
    Catskill Mountains
    So do you suppose the Queen wished May the best of luck or is that too political?
  11. deany, Jul 13, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2016

    deany thread starter macrumors 68030


    Sep 16, 2012
    North Wales
    My understanding is the Queen keeps politics at arms length, even though the Prime Minster has a weekly brief meeting with the Queen at Buckingham Palace.
    I'm sure the Queen would have wished PM Theresa May all the best for the future.

    #scepticalscribe for Prime Minster
  12. juanm macrumors 65816


    May 1, 2006
    Fury 161
    God please not that, she'd force everybody to write in Times New Roman, like we haven't got enough problems
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn


    Jul 11, 2003
    Boris Johnson is in charge of MI6.
    Boris Johnson is James Bonds boss.
  14. Scepticalscribe, Jul 13, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2016

    Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    Will comment on this below.


    I am not entirely sure.

    As (in the UK) Parliament is sovereign - rather than the people - this means that, legally, (and constitutionally), in the UK, the will of parliament trumps that of the people.

    This also means that it would be quite legal (if politically difficult to justify) if the parliament disregarded the referendum result. Do not be surprised if there is a dissolution (of Parliament) sometime in autumn as Mrs May seeks a fresh mandate - for herself in her own right in office, and - in addition, more importantly - to request the electorate to confirm, or overturn, the referendum result, and enable her to be able to negotiate subsequently with a stronger hand. This would mean that the people would have been consulted (again) - which would either confirm or overturn the referendum result, and parliament's hand would have been strengthened also with a fresh mandate. Mrs May could also seek to do this in the interests of 'clarity'.

    Bear in mind, too, that her majority (the parliamentary majority she inherited from Mr Cameron) is only 12 MPs; that is not a hugely comfortable margin when navigating choppy constitutional waters, and weighty international issues. The chief solace is that the opposition - as it is currently - is in no position - and would be in no position - to be able to take advantage of any sign of Government weakness (irrespective of whether it is perceived or real).

    Legally, and constitutionally, it (a dissolution of parliament and an election on the referendum in lieu of a second referendum) would be watertight, and would reinforce, confirm (or completely legally overturn) the referendum result; secondly, it would give Theresa May her own mandate as Prime Minister (which had been Gordon Brown's weakness, refusing to seek a fresh mandate in the summer of 2007), and thirdly, it would take advantage of the fact that the Labour Party will be in no position whatsoever to present itself to the electorate as a potential alternative Government, as internal annihilation, purges, demonstrations of ideological purity and witch-hunts are far preferable to actually seriously challenging the Government.

    Modest cough.

    Garamond, dear boy, Garamond, if I actually had the power to compel such things. Trust me: Times New Roman would be the least of any problems facing a new administration.

    Now: Today's (July 13) events.

    Firstly, David Cameron has left an absolute mess behind him, but did ensure that the leading Brexiteers (Mr Gove and Mr Johnson in particular were taken out when handed that poisoned chalice).

    His crack in his final remarks "I was the future once' was a particularly subtle remark, as this was what he himself had said (as the fourth Tory leader to face Tony Blair across the dispatch box) towards the end of Mr Blair's term "you were once the future" - it was one of the very few times that any Tory leader landed a hit of any description on Mr Blair, who himself was a master of the details of his brief - his legal training - (Mr Cameron wasn't always good on detail, but was good at tone and skilled at debate) and sharp with repartee.

    He departs from office having made the greatest misjudgment (in calling that referendum, fighting a poor campaign and losing it, and failing to be prepared to take responsibility for the consequences) since the Suez debacle in 1956, or since Munich, in 1938.

    Theresa May is a very different kettle of fish: I was struck by how many people said they had no idea of who she was - in terms of a reading of her character. Like Dr Merkel, and Gordon Brown, she is a clergyman's child, and I think she shares their high-minded, and serious, and hard-working mental landscape, a world of moral and political responsibility, and a profound dedication to the idea of service, in this instance, public service.

    Unlike her other opponents who put their names forward for the Tory party leadership, she held her nerve, showed good judgment, not to mention self-control, did not indulge in personal attacks (but launched a few well aimed hits), and was - not surprisingly - the last man or woman standing when the dust settled and the knives were sheathed after an orgy of blood letting and back stabbing.

    So, the first point is that obviously, she is trying to 'bridge' divides in the Conservative Party, and, for the Tories, power has always mattered more than a great many ideological dilemmas; put another way, in a battle between ideology, ideological purity and access to power and being able to wield power, most Tories most of the time will opt for power.

    And - as we have seen - they are pitiless, and quite clinically savage in despatching - or destroying - their own elite if that elite threatens their access to, and hold on, power. They have sacrificed aristocracies - their supposedly natural allies - in the past, as well as their own elites. Do not be surprised at what other compromises - or sacrifices - may be made in the interests of a pragmatic approach seeking a pragmatic outcome (such as a subtle reimagining of how the Brexit case is to be presented).

    (One of Labour's current tragedies is that the siren lure of idiotic ideological struggles are threatening to tear the party apart, as ideological purity matters more to the current Labour leadership than any sort of attempt at offering an alternative Government, in that they would rather be right than be in power, which often entails compromises).

    Precisely because binding up the wounds of the Tories will demand compromises, and governing will involve compromises, do not be surprised when pragmatism triumphs principle (which is a begetting feature of the British political landscape).

    She cannot stand Mr Gove, (a deep and bitter policy disagreement - that also became personal - that went back several years when she was Home Office Secretary and he held the position of Education Secretary) so I expect that his ministerial career will most likely be over after tomorrow.

    Philip Hammond is a safe pair of hands, and moving him to Chancellor makes sense, as he will be an ally. Meanwhile, the defenestration of George Osborne was swift and pitiless; he had been David Cameron's closest ally, and a mentor of sorts to Michael Gove. It also signals a change in direction - in tone, and, I suspect, some content, in fiscal policy, chiming in with Mrs May's preference for a 'one nation' Tory party, (hearkening back to Benjamin Disraeli, and, a more recent example whom Mrs May actually approvingly mentioned while she was in Birmingham, a man considered - with good reason - to be a local hero in that city, the 'radical' Joseph Chamberlain), inclusive of all, - or not beholden to a tiny elite, and a party with a somewhat more moral approach to the social consequences of the perils of enabling unfettered capitalism.

    The appointment of Boris Johnson to the Foreign Office initially horrified me as I cannot stand the man, believing him to be irresponsible, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, reckless, and consumed by narcissistic ambition.

    However, I think it is clever both tactically and strategically.

    Tactically, it means that Mr Johnson (who is famously, as we have already seen, every bit as disloyal, disingenuous, and duplicitous as Mr Gove - remember, Mr Johnson betrayed Mr Cameron with a text message sent five minutes before he addressed a press conference to a scrum of journalists already assembled outside his home when he announced that he planned to support the "leave" campaign), is bound to the Government.

    It means now that as he will be serving in Government, he cannot play the role of spokesperson for discontented and disgruntled Brexiteers, - he cannot place himself at the head of and cast himself as the voice of - disruptive and disloyal discontent - which he most undoubtedly would have done to Mr Cameron, had the latter remained on as PM and Mr Johnson continued on the backbenches.

    He will be tied to Government, and the policies they enact, and will be very closely linked with any (let us say, negotiating) disasters that ensue as a consequence. In other words, this is a way of making sure that he cannot complain or criticise, that he will be complicit - and be seen to be so - for Government policy and Government actions - and that he is being made to take some degree of responsibility for his actions.

    Strategically, in other words, he has been handed a poisoned chalice. He has been both silenced (as a critic), and made complicit in one swoop. He has also been given enough rope to self-destruct, which is another possibility that cannot be ruled out.

    He is being de-fanged, and his much vaunted charisma - such as it is - will be deployed to Britain's advantage, or his bluff will be called. On the topic of charisma, Mrs May will be quite happy to allow Mr Johnson the limelight, and the soundbites. For one thing, it will keep the attention of the idiotic media on him, (not her) and - more to the point - he will take much of whatever flak is going. As we have seen, Mr Johnson does not like to be disliked, and has been used to a very easy ride from the media until now - but she (serious, and reserved, and considered to lack charisma, but she has other merits, intelligence, seriousness of purpose, and a functioning ethical core) will have overall charge of the direction of policy. Especially foreign policy.

    Moreover, charisma and grounded good judgment can be a very good political partnership, if they work well, and if they don't, well, Mr Johnson can always be asked to resign or be fired; I expect Theresa May to have the character and indifference to cheap popularity to fire someone such as Mr Johnson if the situation calls for it. Moreover, it also indicates to me that he will not be the main driver of foreign policy, and that the power & prestige of the FCO as one of the 'great offices of state' will suffer a bit of a hit.

    (Expect Amber Rudd in the Home Office and Philip Hammond as Chancellor to be quite influential in this Government).

    Boris is being handed an impossible brief, and made to take responsibility for it. His reputation will take a further hit if things go wrong; precisely because he will be in he limelight, - and he won't be able to resist being in the limelight - he will will end up having to take some of the blame and responsibility for whatever outcomes occur.

    The other thing (apart from 'the compassionate Conservatives' that Mrs May was trying to portray in her genuinely impressive remarks) worth noting is that Mrs May stressed the full name of the Conservative Party - the Conservative and Unionist Party. She will fight to preserve the United Kingdom; elements of Brexit may need to be radically re-imagined in the light of that, because, as Scotland has made clear, (Nicola Sturgeon in an interview as recently as the past two days) the main aim of Scotland is to remain in the EU.

    This one has a long way to go, yet.
  15. LizKat macrumors 601


    Aug 5, 2004
    Catskill Mountains
    @Scepticalscribe, your post was wonderful....

    Helen Lewis, who is deputy editor of The New Statesman, had some tweet up today that caught my eye and made me laugh, even if it's us around the globe who may catch the short straw and have to deal with visits from Boris. Lewis called May's posting of Boris "a sublime act of trolling"... :D


    Lewis' piece in the Times was this

    In the essay, Lewis went on far more about the party than about May herself, although she certainly identified some of the challenges May will face and detailed some of the ways May seems prepared to take them on.


    Moreover, Britain’s exit from the European Union will now be overseen by someone who advocated staying inside it, albeit tepidly. Ms. May’s reassuring sound bite about her commitment to Brexit was aimed at her own colleagues, many of whom are virulent euroskeptics.

    The greatest threat she faces comes from them. The only possible alternative government would be led by the Labour Party, which has been hopelessly divided over its future since the election of a left-wing outsider as leader last year.

    That kind of disarray would be impossible among the Conservatives. They are democratic Darwinists: Any wounded creature, or even one who no longer smells like a winner, is swiftly and mercilessly dispatched. That ruthlessness brings with it a remarkable ability to regenerate. Once the bloodshed is over, the party swiftly regroups and gets back to the thing it cares most about: being in charge.
    And another:

    Ms. May will inevitably be compared with Margaret Thatcher, the Conservatives’ last female leader. But a better reference point might be Germany’s Angela Merkel: hard-working, pragmatic, sober to the point of dullness. The endless references to Ms. May’s shoes — she has a taste for leopard print and kitten heels — are only partly attributable to sexism. They also reflect that she has few other personal quirks.

    A vicar’s daughter who has been married for 36 years, she appeals to the Conservatives’ middle-class, traditionally minded base. But in a speech on July 11, she mentioned subjects not usually championed by the right: police racism, high energy bills, the gender pay gap, the way financially secure older homeowners have prospered at the expense of the young.

    In 2002, when she was the party’s chairwoman, Ms. May warned her colleagues that they were seen as “the nasty party.” She now plans to chase the votes of working-class white voters and ethnic minorities who are socially conservative but have a historic dislike of the Conservatives. She has won praise from some in Britain’s black community for confronting police racism in a scorching speech in 2014, and curbing the use of stop-and-search. She voted for same-sex marriage in 2013.​
  16. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    OK, I restate this here because it is a more fitting thread:

    Is it really the right time to spend 200 billion on nukes?
  17. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Dec 7, 2010
    You mean the Brexit minister who didn't know that EU countries are no allowed to make independent trade deals with non EU countries?
  18. skunk, Jul 14, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016

    skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan
    There is no right time to spend 200 billion on nukes.
  19. VulchR macrumors 68020


    Jun 8, 2009
    I think May is beneath contempt, but that is just me. I believe that she is ushering the prominent Brexiters into a reductio ad absurdum. When it becomes apparent that their ludicrous claims and chutzpah about the UK being able to control immigration and still have EU trade deals is all hot air, their political careers will be over. In any case, the UK has lost a great deal of prestige and international standing in this debacle, and it may take a generation to undo the damage.
  20. Plutonius macrumors 604


    Feb 22, 2003
    New Hampshire, USA
    At least he will not be heading the brexit negotiations with the other countries.
  21. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    It would actually be over something like 20 years, but it seems the subs would not even be built in the UK but in USA.
  22. LizKat macrumors 601


    Aug 5, 2004
    Catskill Mountains
    So far her appointees seem to have classically shopworn talking points that are about pretty soon having a plan in place that will blah blah blah

    For example the redoubtable Phillip Hammond, newly minted at Treasury:

    “The important point is not how long it takes to ratify the detailed treaty. It’s how long it takes us to get to an agreement on what the principal terms of that agreement are. And I would hope we can do that sooner rather than later,” he said.

    but the piece was based on a bbc interview anyway I believe

    (the wsj is behind paywell but fwiw at the moment having summer sale, half off sub prices, so i you like to keep track what the 1% think of anything including Donald Trump... go for it)
  23. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    WSJ is owned by Murdoch. Give your money to the FT.
  24. impulse462 macrumors 68000


    Jun 3, 2009
    what about spending that money for he NHS like they said they would?
  25. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
    But, does the FT speak for the US 1% ?

Share This Page