Westministenders: The Only Election That Matters - The Tory One

[RedToothBrush]

Fallout from the Euro Elections makes for interesting reading for the leadership hopefuls.

Its not a clear cut as some make out. There is still a case for a deal. The trouble is passing it through parliament. And there is no time to do that. Nor no will.

Any new leader's priority isn't going to be a deal. Its going to be avoiding a General Election. And thats going to be hard.

We are also realistically facing the prospect of another extension which France is likely to block leading to no deal or no deal.

Or a 2nd Referendum.

A 2nd Referendum might be the only way to avoid a General Election. And that will still have no deal on the ballot. Of that you can be sure.

Peter Foster of the Telegraph remarked this morning that in fact the only way to a deal now, might well be via no deal, because of all the routes we have exhausted through incompetence. And that will come at a very high price.

TheNumberfaker

That's where the (real) idea behind 'loser's consent' come in (not the 'suck it up, snowflake' Farage version ) - the government following a 'remain' win would need to address the many, varied 'leave' concerns (so, emergency brake on immigration, funding for local councils to improve housing stocks, etc, etc).

I notice Trump has taken it up on himself to punish Mexico with trade tariffs. Apparently you don’t need the WTO anymore. Just make it up yourself.

God only knows what this Government will sign us up to with them.

Funny you mean like do their job addressing very real concerns this country has.

Basilpots

Yes I do! The job that various Tory and Labour govs should have been doing over the last 20+ years, rather than just enjoying the 'fruits' of GDP growth that the EU enabled without giving 2 hoots about the social costs.

...and the chances of them doing that funny are absolutely zero.

Basil The USA may wreck the WTO this year

Not a good time to choose to rely on it.

Trump keeps blocking the reapointment of judges and by the end of 2019 here will be too few judges for the WTO appeals court to sit.

Once this court goes, it will be survival of the strongest:
That's the USA, the EU / EEA, China and probably India.

The UK, having lost most of its trade deals and with its economy crashing, will suffer even more without the WTO court

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-wto/u-s-blocks-wto-judge-reappointment-as-dispute-settlement-crisis-looms-idUSKCN1LC19O

More a WTF than WTO then

louise The chances of any improvements after No Deal for ordinary people are non-existent

Instead of more money for public services, there will be much less, as the economy crases
Benefits will be cut or axed altogether, e.g. I expect WTC to go
Probably the sacred cow of public pensions will slashed; state pensions too

Of course some of the rich will have windfalls from hedge funds, buying up crashed businesses, repossessed properties etc
and the govt will be desperate for the wealthy from China & Russia to buy up the remains of the UK

Scotland will try to flee, maybe NI soon too.
Possibly England will agree; possibly instead there will be bloody repression - the Troubles Squared

Even immigration may not fall in total, just that from the EU

• because many people fleeing from slavery and mass murder in N Africa or the Middle East would still be desperate to come to a land without ID where they speak English

Bigchoc, not sure why you are answering me with doom laden predictions about "no deal?" Whether they are accurate or not, I have repeatedly said on here I've never advocated for a "no deal"

Never heard of the term “loser’s consent before”, thanks. May sure didn’t try to get it in summer 2016!

Isn't that exactly why she's been trying to get a deal through Parliament for ages though, to court the "loser's consent??"

Never heard of the term “loser’s consent before”, thanks. May sure didn’t try to get it in summer 2016!

It may not have been Farage that coined it (highly unlikely) but I've heard him use it.

It's actually quite a good phrase - it pretty much sums up how democracy should work, and why the UK hasn't previously descended into civil war even though we ended up with the party in power having a slim majority.

There are a lot of concepts that are (once again, "mysteriously") absent from UK civics lessons. Another being that of the "social contract" (my version) whereby a citizen subject willingly gives up some of their freedoms (such as the freedom to bear arms) in exchange for the state taking over the role of protection. Which (b)lee/ads into the idea of "policing by consent" whereby the population allows the police to operate in teh understanding that vigilante justice is not conducive to an ordered society.

Writ large, part of the problems that have emerged in recent times have been caused by successive governments abandoning their side in that contract. And it is a contract. Which is all fine an dandy, but you can't then be surprised when people make allowances accordingly. Just off the top of my head, the number of crimes that simply don't get reported because people know - rightly or wrongly - that quite aside from the fact it won't actually result in any restorative action, the entire process is an intrusive ballache.

(and that's before you realise that rape victims are advised not to seek therapy as notes from sessions can be used by the CPS in subsequent cases).

LouiseCollins28

She's been trying to get her deal through parliament for ages because the Gina Miller court case told her she had to! There was nothing in May's behaviour since the referendum that could be interpreted as trying to court the 'losing' side, alas.

It may not have been Farage that coined it (highly unlikely) but I've heard him use it.

It's been a common discussion point for a long time on twitter: controversial and disruptive political policies require wide public support, not just the support of those who already agree with you.

Farage means something quite different though: he means that losers should shut up. It's basically just a slightly posh way of saying "you lost, get over it".

This misses the point that consent can by definition only be given willingly.

She can’t get her WA+PD through Parliament because the “winners” hate it even more than the “losers”!

Isn't that exactly why she's been trying to get a deal through Parliament for ages though, to court the "loser's consent??"

No.

Isn't that exactly why she's been trying to get a deal through Parliament for ages though, to court the "loser's consent??"

This is a completely wrong reading of what May did.

She took the hardest possible version of Brexit, the very bottom rung on the Barnier ladder (just above no-deal) and tried to force it through. There was never any attempt to compromise or any willingness to reach across the aisle.

It is only possible to see the May deal as a compromise if you've had your Overton window yanked painfully to the right. In 2016, May's deal would have been seen as the hardest of hard Brexits. Now we're asked to believe it's a soft Brexit compromise. I don't think so.

Funny she held Brexit "deal" talks with the Labour Party! She's also tried very hard to get a deal through. If she weren't bothered about "losers consent" surely she wouldn't have done either of those things.

Always pleased to be told that I am "wrong" not just that I have a different opinion from another poster

Funny she held Brexit "deal" talks with the Labour Party!

No she didn't (unless you know what was said, in which case please enlighten the country and us).

What she did do was call Labour in so she could tell them why they had to do as she said, and called it "compromise".

The quote about making a wasteland and calling it a peace seems to fit.

Anyway, what might have been "discussed" or not is irrelevant since May was unable to take any Labour party ideas back to her own party.

Also it happening at the end of the process, not the beginning rather underscores it was simple posturing.

She held talks with Labour after failing to pass her bill several times and after the EU had said that they wouldn't change the WA. If that's reaching across the aisle then you have a funny definition of compromise.

May, just like her successor will, realised far, far too late that Brexit is disastrous for the UK and those who push it through will be damned in our country's history.

Hence all the back tracking after invoking A50 and her red lines...both of which were done only to placate the erg (70 people??)

70 independently wealthy disaster capitalist people.

Coercion vitiates consent.

LouiseCollins28
Not sure that you can necessarily lump the Labour Party in with the 'losers', as they are still officially 'pro Brexit', and I would point out these talks came after she failed to leave the EU, rather than at the start of the process.

I reiterate: TM had no choice but to get a deal through parliament (which she'd have done had her extreme right wingers not torpedoed it) by law. It wasn't to get agreement from Remainers.

I would disagree with a PP, though - her deal wasn't necessarily a hard Brexit - the PD is so woolly that it covers everything from a 'WTO-only (for GB)' to 'Brexit in name only' outcome...hence the Labour 'Blind Brexit' complaint.

{ "you lost, get over it".}
Anyone seen 'Surferjet' recently?

And yet 'Our Treeza' has been saying #close working relationship' kind of stuff for ages, spoiling it by having cabinet members using very undiplomatic language with all and sundry, particularly those that we will need to be very nice to in the not too distant future. Bit like that part in 'Pretty Woman' when 'The Gere' suggests the shop assistants do a bit more 'sucking up'.