Brexit

[Fog Dude]

8 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Well, what's your definition of success, then? Socialism, I suspect?

A successful country is one with the resources (imported if necessary, in some cases) to meet the needs of its people and that does so. A country where the government is in thrall to  – or even composed of – psychopaths and vested interests, and where people can't afford food or are homeless or have limited income-based access to legal counsel and higher education, or can't achieve their potential because they're constantly worried when their next meal or pay packet or eviction notice is going to arrive, is an unsuccessful one. If you want to label guaranteeing a minimum decent standard of living for everyone 'socialism' then so be it. It should be something on which there's consensus across the political spectrum in any civilised country.

Quote

I used Singapore as an example of an ostensible meritocracy that has some pretty big flaws; it was in response to Carbomb's point about monarchies somehow queering people's thinking and how we'd be better off with meritocracies.

Well that don't make the world work.

[Chris B]

34 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

As you wish:

When Prince William married Kate Middleton in April 2011, the UK’s Association of Leading Visitor Attractions claimed it: 

Saw an additional 600,000 people come to London for the weekend, 60% from UK, 40% from overseas, spending £107m … The value to ‘brand Britain’ due to global media coverage was approximately £1 billion.

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-tourists-visit-britain-because-of-the-royal-family-88335

From the verdict on that page: "There is an absence of data as to whether tourists go to the UK specifically because of the royal family"

Yeah, overwhelming right there.

According to this, tourism has been up each year since 2010.

https://www.visitbritain.org/nation-region-county-data

And also at that time of year.

https://www.visitbritain.org/latest-quarterly-data-area

In fact, it's gone up each year, whether or not a royal wedding happened. Except for 2008-2010, which was a time period in which, for some reason, tourism was down. Which is really weird because we had a royal family those years as well.

[Brewster McCloud]

5 minutes ago, Chris B said:

From the verdict on that page: "There is an absence of data as to whether tourists go to the UK specifically because of the royal family"

Yeah, overwhelming right there.

According to this, tourism has been up each year since 2010.

https://www.visitbritain.org/nation-region-county-data

And also at that time of year.

https://www.visitbritain.org/latest-quarterly-data-area

In fact, it's gone up each year, whether or not a royal wedding happened. Except for 2008-2010, which was a time period in which, for some reason, tourism was down. Which is really weird because we had a royal family those years as well.

OK, but we don't have any data that would suggest visits would go down if the monarchy was scrapped. Tourists aren't the only reason for keeping the monarchy; you have to consider history, tradition and the fact it doesn't actually do any bloody harm. My gut tells me lots of people like visiting the UK because of the monarchy and keeping it is no bad thing. 

[Chris B]

5 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

OK, but we don't have any data that would suggest visits would go down if the monarchy was scrapped. Tourists aren't the only reason for keeping the monarchy; you have to consider history, tradition and the fact it doesn't actually do any bloody harm. My gut tells me lots of people like visiting the UK because of the monarchy and keeping it is no bad thing. 

[Joe Blog]

I can't live the buttoned-down life like you. I want it all! The terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the *blue*-noses with my cocky stride and musky odors. Oh! I'll never be the darling of the so-called "City Fathers" who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about "What's to be done with this Joe Blog"

David and Carbomb have been excellent in this thread.

[JNLister]

Actual fucking hell moment. John Bercow rules that May can't just ask for another vote on her deal unless it's significantly changed (which ain't happening any time soon.) 

So May now has to ask for a long extension and a new approach.

If I'm reading this right, the only vote that can happen now is May coming back next week and asking MPs to back whatever (long) extension the EU offers. If they say no, it's a no-deal crash on the 29th. (So they won't.)

Edited March 18, 2019 by JNLister

[Keith Houchen]

28 minutes ago, JNLister said:

Actual fucking hell moment. John Bercow rules that May can't just ask for another vote on her deal unless it's significantly changed (which ain't happening any time soon.) 

 

 

[bigfoote]

May wasn't warned about the ruling. Mutterings of proroguing for 24 hours and opening a new session of Parliament to get around it. Although HRH may have something to say about that. Not as if it's an old precedent. 1604. She pushed her luck and now Bercow has put a tiger among the budgies.

 

EDIT to add: Options now look like extension to Art 50, new vote with the offer of a second referendum on it's acceptance, a miracle, and a rocking horse taking a dump and wiping it's arse on the front benches.

Edited March 18, 2019 by bigfoote

[Loki]

The Speaker is one of HRH's key advisors, if he suggests to the Queen that this is an attempt to circumvent Parliament she'll refuse - as Parliament is sovereign.  Even May isn't stupid enough to allow herself to be slapped down by Brenda.

Parliament could change the rules to allow the same bill to be brought twice (as Alex Burghart MP pointed out) but that'd take a majority in the House, and those have been in short supply for the government.

If she attaches a referendum to the motion, that would pass Bercow's sniff test AND Labour would back it.  So it's either that or she's going to accept her place in history as the woman who crashes the UK out of Europe, and out of its place on the world stage.

EDIT: re Article 50 extension, I genuinely think it's too late for that, plus you'll be damn sure the EU will want concessions in return.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Loki

[bigfoote]

We might swing a 3 month deal with EU, just to get the paperwork in order, but with a firm agreement of no more extensions. As for May getting anything through the Speaker, let alone a majority, she may have to retire to the other House posthaste.

[Dead Mike]

Labour will oppose the SO24 debate on the A50 letter. Parliament have an opportunity to take control of this & avoid chaos & Corbyn says 'No'. Because he's a useless prick & is as much of a hardcore Brexiter as Rees Mogg & Co. Labour enabling avoidable job losses, nice one.

 

EDIT - McDonnell now saying they'll support it?!?!? Arse/Elbow?

Edited March 20, 2019 by Dead Mike

[Factotum]

Yes Labour will support it. I think that was reported they wouldn't, but with anything until an official line comes out its best to just take anything with a pinch of salt.

Anyway, McDonnell seems a lot clearer in his approach than Corbyn on everything.

[David]

On 3/18/2019 at 10:56 PM, Loki said:

re Article 50 extension, I genuinely think it's too late for that, plus you'll be damn sure the EU will want concessions in return.

I think it's in everyone's best interests that the time needed to sort this mess out is granted. The EU doesn't stand to benefit from the UK reaching the deadline with no deal in place, in fact the collateral damage that the EU27 would suffer should be enough for them to want this sorted out, no matter how long it takes. It's easy for us in the UK to see this as a case of the UK against the EU, as though the EU is some sort of closely-knit homogeneous entity.

That's not the case. 

We're already seeing the global economy slow, we're seeing issues between the US and China which are affecting everyone on a global scale, we're seeing Germany look to create a national fund to thwart foreign investment in certain key companies, we've got both Greece and Cyprus pushing for Turkey's EU membership bid to remain on-track, we've got the current war of words between the Greek SYRIZA government and the EU on the matter of refugees who are caught in the middle of the EU's reluctance to take more refugees, leaving Greece to deal with the influx.

In short, the EU has other matters needing attending besides the British situation. 

Any kind of badly-designed exit deal, or even worse a no deal exit, would be troublesome for both sides, not just the UK. It's not what either side should want, and I think after we get through all the usual political posturing and soundbites we'll see an extension put into place with no real concessions required on either side.

This should have been a process planned out over years, not quickly put in place and done without thought. If anyone has watched this unfold and still has any faith in our politicians and leading political parties as a whole then I honestly don't know what to say. 

It's not just those who voted to leave the EU in the referendum who have been badly let down by those elected to represent us, it's everyone. 

[Loki]

1 minute ago, David said:

Greece and Cyprus pushing for Turkey's EU membership bid to remain on-track

Off topic, but the historical complexities of that make my head spin.

[David]

Just now, Loki said:

Off topic, but the historical complexities of that make my head spin.

Join the club. This is one of the few situations where I actually have sympathy for the EU as a whole, because I honestly can't see an easy way out of that situation. Also, no matter which way it goes there'll be political forces throughout Europe poised to use the situation to their own ends.