Westminstenders: Sleaze. The Return.

[RedToothBrush]

The Brexit Agreement is still not signed. The EU are still pissed off with our bad attitude and how we managed to a have better deal on AstraZeneca's vaccines which they don't seem to like anyway.

The Ireland / NI border is still a mess. Both politically and economically. This is apparently something that wasn't discussed pre referedum, with regular Westminstenders suffering from collective delusions over remembering differently and reading madeup stories which just happen to be dated prior to the referendum. Its a sign of how good fake news has got.

The lying architect of Vote Leave is complaining about the lying of Vote Leave's biggest champion and cheerleader, countered with the pm who cheated on his ex wife multiple times and ran off with a younger woman accusing his former aid of being deeply sexist.

The government is embroiled in numerous accusations of lining its own pockets following the brexit power grab by the right wing of the party. Which of course wasn't a worry pre referendum. As of course accountability generally.

In keeping with taking a lead on the world stage, we have seen through our promises to cut back on overseas aid, instead preferring to spend money on trading. This is well represented by our purchasing of 10million AZ vaccines from India with not much sign of sending aid to help with the unfolding humanitarian crisis there.

Our post Brexit foreign policy looks muddled at best. The new world order is a big confusing. We dont mind trading with regimes which have human rights abuses... As long as they are countries which are smaller than us and we can exploit. We don't particularly like China atm because we aren't getting much out of the shitting on others. Plus its not really proving a great opportunity for Westerners to line their pockets like other dodgy regimes because its generally closed to outsiders and this is even more true in covid times.

But don't worry, we will soon be able to go abroad again on our covid passports. The 17th May beckons when the penny will drop that efforts to integrate medical records with passport data which apparently border agencies are working on, isn't ready yet and that doesn't matter because other countries won't be ready to let us in yet, especially since we are outside the EU and EEA and we haven't been great at talking to them. And we probably will still have to quarantine on return anyway. (End of June is still optimistic but more realistic).

We've still to impose customs checks yet because we didn't want to do it in April in case that meant the shops would be empty when they reopened. So we still have that joy to look forward to. Great for EU exporters. Less great for uk exporters. For now.

Of course we have the May Council elections to look forward to, in which it will become apparent just how fucking useless and invisible Keir Starmer is and how Labour policies are not connecting with voters in spite of all of the above. Mainly due to navel gazing and an inability to get beyond their social circle. Any good ideas they do have are promptly nicked by the Tories.

Post Brexit talk of reviewing the Monarchy are also growing in steam...

If we look back it feels like the sleaziness of the early nineties has returned but with no prospect of joining the Eu, no John Smith or Smiling Tony to inspire, no coming Cool Brittania to cheer us up. Just sleaze tolerated and accepted, rather than rejected. And one massive debt than had been largely repaid.

Its hard to see where we go from here. We seem bewildered by geography and confused by technology. Unwilling to invest in science and no longer aligned with the right people to collaborate effectively.

Instead we are more pre occupied with in fighting.

As a friend said to me this week, they had started to watch alternative news channels to British based ones because she felt we had become so inward looking. She felt like our mentality was increasing like the US which simply was unaware of events and ideas beyond our borders. I think its a comment that has so much ressonnance.

Looks like there will be another Indy supporting majority in Holyrood but that the SNP will fall short of an overall majority - although that is still a possibility. Not surprising though in a Parliament designed never to have a single party with an overall majority. The so far 3 extra seats that they've won will probably be counterbalanced by losing the List seats that they have in those regions.

There will still again be an Indy supporting majority though, as the Scottish Greens also support Independence.

(For the political geeks: the reason the SNP won an overall majority in 2011 was because they "broke" the d'Hondt system: they just missed out on loads of constituency seats so were therefore overrepresented in the list seats. Now that the SNP are winning almost all the constituency seats, it makes it very difficult for them to win list seats ).

I cannot see the Independence issue going away in Scotland. The results of this election appear to be further highlighting the differences between Scotland and England. The English appear to like Tory Governments whereas the Scots prefer something different.

On the thread about Hartlepool a number of commentators were making comments about how they had had self serving Labour local government for decades and people had had enough. The same self serving behaviour is exhibited by Tory councils, but so far, the English electorate seem happy enough with that.

The Norway example is a good one, no I didn't miss it. I'm honestly not aware enough of the details to comment sensibly beyond a general awareness that we had an agreement before and now we don't. Other nations will of course exercise their sovereignty and so they should. We apparently don't have a "quota" deal with Norway this year, this is regrettable.

Agree with the posts on Scotland, I suspect the SNP being denied an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament means that it becomes more credible to deny their request for a referendum immediately but it certainly isn't going away.

I suspect the SNP being denied an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament means that it becomes more credible to deny their request for a referendum immediately

Fundamentally disagree with you there. Which bit of the Scottish Greens also support Independence (and Indyref2), so there will be an explicit majority for Indyref2 in the Scottish Parliament, do people find so difficult to understand?

I can understand BJ being obtuse and stubborn but I can't understand more intelligent posters

We apparently don't have a "quota" deal with Norway this year, this is regrettable.

How does being 'regrettable' square with the oft made claim that when we are out of the EU we will make our own deals? The implication that countries would be queuing up to do so.

So far all the easiest trade deals in history seem to be much more elusive than promised. I have to admit I am at loss to know why Brexiters aren't more annoyed.

Prettybird I'm not sure we disagree as fundamentally as you think tbh. That there will be a "pro Indy" majority in the new Scottish Parliament is now looking clear. It looks like the SNP will have fallen just short of securing one by themselves. I'd thought the chance had gone last night but apparently there still is a slim one, so says Lewis Goodall on the Beeb.

The questions that follow (on which we will disagree) are does this create a mandate for a new referendum? (yes IMO), and second does it create one now? (possibly yes, possibly no IMO)

In 2014 Scotland was told that this was a "once in a generation" decision, i.e. it would be around 25 years before the question was put again.

The big problem with keeping to that, is that it would be to deny Scots their right to national self determination in the face of the new mandate...which would be totally wrong, even if that mandate is less powerful as a result of 2021 than it could possibly be. I suggested it was "easier" for Westminster to deny a request for a referndum now, not that it would be wise.

Louise

Just to be clear: the SNP has not said that it wants to hold an Indyref immediately - it responsibly wants to concentrate on the pandemic and the recovery from the economic consequences.

There was a pro-Indy majority in the last Parliament but Nicola to the annoyance of some of the SNP supporters didn't make the formal request during the lifetime of the last Parliament as they SNP hadn't explicitly run on holding Indyref2 in the last Holyrood elections (unlike the Conservatives who were the ones who tried to make a thing of opposing Indyref2 in that election campaign)

In terms of "once in a generation" - what is a generation? Should someone who is now in 1st year at Uni but was in P5 in 2014, not be be allowed to have a say until they are into their mid 30s?

If you fail to get a "once in a lifetime" job (or other opportunity), but then subsequently it comes up again, do you say, "No, I can't go for it because I had my chance and failed"?

And anyway, as far as I am concerned, a "generation" in political terms is a maximum of 5 years, as that is the lifetime of a Parliament. Anything can change after a Parliament, which is the whole point of elections.

At a push, I'd accept a gap of 10 years (which would take us to 2024 - about right, post Covid ) as that is what the GFA mandates for minimum periods between unification referendums.

My view is that BJ will back down and allow the Indyref2 as he doesn't want the Scottish Government's right to make its own decision to hold a legal one tested in the courts. It's also in Nicola's interests for him to delay it as the longer he does so, the more the desire for Independence will grow - and she doesn't actually want to hold it until she is confident of winning it by at least 60% for such a major constitutional change.

Contrast that with the 52:48 win for Brexit, with only 2 of the 4 countries in the UK actually voting marginally for it

Interesting post that pretty thank you. I think the "once in a generation" thing is something Westminster will try and hold the SNP to, unwisely in my opinion. Not because I wish to see Scottish Indy, I don't, but denying people their right to determine their future is wrong.

Someone on the Beeb (can't remember who) yesterday was saying the response could be the opposite, i.e. yes you can have your new ref but you have to have it soon. I think that's an enormously risky strategy from the POV of someone who wants to see the union continue. Sounds like Boris is going to say "no" anyway.

Agree that the longer you deny it, the appetite will grow. Personally I'd be in favour of setting a date soon, but that date being a long way off, though that would be in danger of disrespecting the mandate. I'm thinking like the time gap between biding for the Olympics and hosting it, to allow for proper contingency planning for either outcome, (fanciful I know)

In 2014 Scotland was told that this was a "once in a generation" decision, i.e. it would be around 25 years before the question was put again.

How valid is that statement, even if it's true, which I am not sure that it is?

We were told the UK Referendum was advisory, but it's been implemented as thought it was a binding referendum for a hard Brexit.

and she doesn't actually want to hold it until she is confident of winning it by at least 60% for such a major constitutional change.

Which is wise, such a major change needs to carry the majority of the population with it. I dare say that Johnson or his successor would decry this, but he would be on shaky ground having declared that 52% was overwhelming.

In terms of "once in a generation" - what is a generation? Should someone who is now in 1st year at Uni but was in P5 in 2014, not be be allowed to have a say until they are into their mid 30s?

As indeed happened with my late DF's generation. He was not able to vote until he was 28 as a result of the war interrupting the patterns of General elections.

Just as an aside the SNP spokeswoman on the BBC news channel right now has seemingly been taken over by the Mysterons (green circles)

Taking back control latest...

I don't think it would be sensible for the EU to cut off gas and electricity supplies if we still had the same incumbents in Downing Street. We know exactly how it would play out. Nasty EU bullying us.

I was more amused to read this comment from Chris Grey:

Separately, the UK also chose to leave the 1964 London Fisheries Convention (causing problems for fishing around Guernsey, Alderney and Sark which have been more quietly dealt with by agreeing an extension of the interim arrangements with the EU).

We didn't see that trumpeted in the tabloids, did we? Another area where Brexit is not done and not settled.

Post Brexit, 52% is a resounding emphatic majority for changes of generational magnitude.

If the SNP get more that 52% it's impossible to deny it's a majority for independence.

To give Sturgeon her due, she doesn't think that way. She'd rather have the 60% to demonstrate that it is indeed resounding.

Not that I think she'd accept a threshold being put into the vote though - the Scots had their fingers burnt by that in 1979.

Interesting fact: Malta only voted to confirm the constitutional change that would result in their independence from the UK by 54:46, back in the early 60s. Yet, as far as I am aware, no one there wants to return to being "UK".

If the SNP get more that 52% it's impossible to deny it's a majority for independence.

I am pretty sure Derxa wouldn't agree, but it's a trick that Sturgeon won't miss, I can be pretty sure of that.

But what I meant was that Sturgeon won't miss the trick of asking Johnson why a 60% vote for Independence is not overwhelming when 52% was.

Good point

We heard an awful lot about the Will of the People. Sturgeon's latest comments show that she is already onto it.

“For any Westminster politician who tries to stand in the way of that, I would say two things: firstly you’re not picking a fight with the SNP, you’re picking a fight with the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. Secondly, you will not succeed.

“The only people who can decide the future of Scotland are the Scottish people – no Westminster politician can or should stand in the way of that.”

Ridiculous post by Prettybird, there. A "once in a lifetime job" is just an expression to emphasise that such an opportunity is unlikely to arise again.
And a "generation" isn't 5 years, obviously. The SNP didn't say that the independence referendum would be "the only one we'll hold in this Parliament", did they? It's commonly defined as being the period of time between being born and giving birth to children. Roughly 25 to 30 years.

It's ridiculous because you don't agree. Perhaps we should only hold elections every 25 years then?

A political life time is probably ten years max. Most PMs have an average tenure of 5 years.

Exactly Peregrina

I think it noteworthy that GEs were suspended for the duration of WW2 but as soon as the victory was secured in Europe a GE was called. The war wasn't over, there was still fighting going on in the Far East.

That was after a ten year span. After which period there is a sufficient turn over of the electorate to make the voting population quite different.

Suppose we only had elections every twenty five years, and you had just missed one at 18. Would you really think it legitimate to have to wait until you were 33 before you had another opportunity? Meanwhile you were now being represented by people who won their support when a good number of the electorate had been in their 50s when they last cast their vote and are now late seventies and 80 year olds.

We are seeing limits on our expression of "sovereignty" yes because of the size of the EU, but also because we have been insufficinently vigorous in defending it for around 40 years. That's the cause of the problems, changing that does not happen overnight and we are now seeing the first signs of it happening.

@LouiseCollins28
There is a fundamental tension between the need to trade and the concept of sovereignty, that you don't seem to be grasping.

Do you honestly not understand what regulation is, or its reach and importance? It's about nuclear materials, chemicals including those found in food and beverages and paints, baby formula and children's toys, pharmaceuticals and quality standards, air travel and transportation safety, orderly and honest banking and investment systems...

Do you want a society whose byword is 'consumer beware!'? A return to the age of the robber barons?

The UK is not free to deregulate across the board, no matter what country or trading bloc she wishes to trade with. Regulation is a fact of life that Brexiteers are going to have to come to terms with. In the process they are going to have to pick apart what exactly their concept of sovereignty means, and to understand that the place it comes from and the place we live in now are fundamentally different worlds.

Meanwhile, Tory supporters can't see the appropriation of power and the return to despotism - the end of popular sovereignty - going on under their own noses, with the bypassing and even the outright wrecking of the permanent, independent civil service, the concentration of legislative and executive power in the Cabinet and the PM. There was a lot more to that presidential style press conference room in Downing Street than Tories (or anyone else in the UK) seemed to understand.

Math I well understand that there is a tension between the need to trade and the concept of sovereignty. Regulation in all the areas you list is important, and I agree, it's a fact of life. Also important is who makes the rules and to whom are those people accountable.

If British businesses want to trade into another jurisdiction then it follows that those businesses need to follow the rules of the destination of their good/services. Equally, anyone wanting to trade into Britain should be following Britain's rules. That they currently don't have to for some things is evidence of government failure.

In some areas (perhaps many) our own rules are wrong IMO and need to be changed anyway. Which materials it is legal to use in building someone's home being a tragic and topical example.

The UK isn't ever going to be free to "deregulate across the board", that is reality in a global trading environment, I agree there too. To my way of thinking what the rules say is secondary to who makes them, and who can change them.

A non UK medical regulator, telling the NHS that it cannot administer certain vaccines to under 40s while our own medical regulator had determined this practice to be safe, as an example, would be wrong IMO.

A non UK medical regulator,

As members it wasn't non UK. We were a part of it.

It is likely to be the case now, unless we suddenly re-develop our pharmaceutical industry. The chances of our developing all the drugs we need are virtually zero.

Do you have a problem with importing drugs from the US even though you had no input their regulations?