Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I don't agree with that though.

I think people are definitely exhausted of the debate and want to move on.

Whether it's a bad decision or not is in our hands - it was always going to be bad in the short-term and the most likely outcome is that overtime we will be poorer than our neighbours. But that's not guaranteed.

And I think the legitimacy point is really key. People don't have a view on any particular deal, but I think they feel that the vote which was on the principle of should we stay or leave was legitimate and should be enacted. It has been and I think people don't want to go back and unpick that. I think Labour need to convince people that they accept the result and are not going to try to undo it (even if that's what Labour members and activists want) - which is tough for Starmer given that he did eventually back a second referendum and hinted at supporting remain.

[Sheilbh]

Does the average voter care about what Labour said in 2019?

I think so - I think it's about accepting reality. I think it's similar to the way Attlee, Thatcher or Blair had a transformative effect on our politics and the opposition didn't win until they accept the core principle of that revolution.

I think Brexit is a similar revolution, with a similar democratic legitimacy and it's a fact in our politics now. It has happened. It has changed the basis of our politics and if you're just basically counter-revolutionary and trying to reverse that shift in our politics, you'll fail.

I think if you're one of the two big parties you need to convince people that you accept it - and then you can propose your change and vision for the future. At the minute it's a given for the Tories but I think a vulnerability for Labour. That might shift in 10-20 years (I think it's unlikely, but it might) - but I'd rather not wait that long for another Labour government.

[garbon]

Does the average voter care about what Labour said in 2019?

I think so - I think it's about accepting reality. I think it's similar to the way Attlee, Thatcher or Blair had a transformative effect on our politics and the opposition didn't win until they accept the core principle of that revolution.

I think Brexit is a similar revolution, with a similar democratic legitimacy and it's a fact in our politics now. It has happened. It has changed the basis of our politics and if you're just basically counter-revolutionary and trying to reverse that shift in our politics, you'll fail.

I think if you're one of the two big parties you need to convince people that you accept it - and then you can propose your change and vision for the future. At the minute it's a given for the Tories but I think a vulnerability for Labour. That might shift in 10-20 years (I think it's unlikely, but it might) - but I'd rather not wait that long for another Labour government.

I was talking about do people really cling on to the promises made by Labour in 2019? I'm not sure that's a given.

[Sheilbh]

Oh I agree I think it's about perceptions.

In 2019 the key reasons Labour lost were Brexit and Corbyn. Labour have dealt with Corbyn, if they can also now say "Brexit happened - now we're the people to make it work" that neutralises the second line. Similarly a commitment not to agree to a second Indy Ref or to do a deal with the SNP neutralises the "coalition of chaos" line.

Fixing those issues of Labour just wanting to drag Britain back into those fights allows Labour to present its case (which I'm not sure it's worked out yet).

[garbon]

Oh I agree I think it's about perceptions.

In 2019 the key reasons Labour lost were Brexit and Corbyn. Labour have dealt with Corbyn, if they can also now say "Brexit happened - now we're the people to make it work" that neutralises the second line. Similarly a commitment not to agree to a second Indy Ref or to do a deal with the SNP neutralises the "coalition of chaos" line.

Fixing those issues of Labour just wanting to drag Britain back into those fights allows Labour to present its case (which I'm not sure it's worked out yet).

Okay, I agree with that.

[Josquius]

Rejoining the EU would obviously be a bad policy for the next parliament.
But ruling out bringing back the customs union or free movement - I don't think it'll do much do win back the neo fascists but it will greatly help eat into labours vote share from the left. It's forgotten how in many seats last election this was as much an issue as the tories gaining voters, but fptp.

I can get the logic. They figure they've got the left sewn up and just need to appeal to the nationalise the trains and hang the paedos crowd.

But this might well prove an error if the lib dems play their cards right. Then there's the rise of the greens - unlikely to gain any seats but increasingly running everywhere and meaning an instant minus 5 to 10 for labour.

If I was still registered at home things might be different but where I live now... Its a decision between a honest but mostly harmless protest with the greens or a risky and potentially impactful protest with the lib dems- they were really challenging for this seat back before 2010.

Ideal outcome for me is back to being same as last election. A labour minority government.

[Tamas]

And I think the legitimacy point is really key. People don't have a view on any particular deal, but I think they feel that the vote which was on the principle of should we stay or leave was legitimate and should be enacted

I am glad you feel like Scottish independence is settled for good. 

[crazy canuck]

It is also plausible that there is a free trade zone with sterling being used by both.

Right until Scotland seeks to join the EU. I am quite convinced the EU has no desire to create a second Northern Ireland situation with a "special relationship" border with the UK. Scotland cannot offer anything to the EU worth special treatment.

Just like Brexit, Scottish independence has very clear disadvantages and a very undefined and uncertain set of advantages.

Yes, but as pointed out by others, it is not clear that Scotland could become a member of the EU in the near future.

[Sheilbh]

I am glad you feel like Scottish independence is settled for good. 

I don't think there's any case for another indy ref in the foreseeable - and I agree with the government's metric: there'll be another referendum when there looks like there's a majority for "yes" or a majority who want another referendum. Neither of those are true right now.

Nothing is settled for good ever. But for Brexit to be an issue again the continuity Remainers/Re-joiners need to make a political case and argument that wins support and is able to bring pressure on the system - like the SNP do, like UKIP did. Until then, it's settled.

[Josquius]

It is also plausible that there is a free trade zone with sterling being used by both.

Right until Scotland seeks to join the EU. I am quite convinced the EU has no desire to create a second Northern Ireland situation with a "special relationship" border with the UK. Scotland cannot offer anything to the EU worth special treatment.

Just like Brexit, Scottish independence has very clear disadvantages and a very undefined and uncertain set of advantages.

Yes, but as pointed out by others, it is not clear that Scotland could become a member of the EU in the near future.

I don't see any decent reason why Scotland couldn't meet the requirements very quickly.
And its not like they instantly become independent the day after the vote - I'd say its likely if they should vote for independence this takes quite a while to come off as they make sure they're ready for the EU (and for the future UK relationship)

[crazy canuck]

It is also plausible that there is a free trade zone with sterling being used by both.

Right until Scotland seeks to join the EU. I am quite convinced the EU has no desire to create a second Northern Ireland situation with a "special relationship" border with the UK. Scotland cannot offer anything to the EU worth special treatment.

Just like Brexit, Scottish independence has very clear disadvantages and a very undefined and uncertain set of advantages.

Yes, but as pointed out by others, it is not clear that Scotland could become a member of the EU in the near future.

I don't see any decent reason why Scotland couldn't meet the requirements very quickly.
And its not like they instantly become independent the day after the vote - I'd say its likely if they should vote for independence this takes quite a while to come off as they make sure they're ready for the EU (and for the future UK relationship)

Wouldn't they face the flip side of the same problem as Northern Ireland - how does their economy function if not still closely trading with the UK, and how do they do that while part of the EU.

[Sheilbh]

Wouldn't they face the flip side of the same problem as Northern Ireland - how does their economy function if not still closely trading with the UK, and how do they do that while part of the EU.

The Northern Irish economy is doing pretty well (it's second only to London in terms of growth since Brexit/the pandemic started). As a nation it's the fastest growing in the UK because it's still in the single market.

In part that's also because large chunks of the Protocol haven't been applied, so there's lower impact on trade with GB. They're basically fully in both markets. But even with implementation of the Protocol (tbc what that looks like), they should get the best of both worlds which would not be available for Scotland. And it shouldn't be there's no comparable issue in Scotland around the importance of north-south and east-west ties - joining the EU would be a choice to prioritise that trade.

The problems in Northern Ireland aren't really economic (though everyone wants some adjustments etc), they're about people's identity.

[crazy canuck]

So basically they are doing well because they get the best of both worlds.  But if the protocol was ever applied it would be different.

[Sheilbh]

So basically they are doing well because they get the best of both worlds.  But if the protocol was ever applied it would be different.

Sort of - I mean I think the Protocol is a good solution that will give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds.

Currently, they're doing well - in part because the Protocol hasn't been fully implemented. The bits that would have highest impact haven't been implemented. But there's already papers on if there's a huge step change in the Northern Irish economy here.

So you still get the odd story in the Northern Irish press like the shipment of vegetarian burgers that got turned back at the Irish Sea because of a spelling error on the vet's form. And no-one wants it implemented "in full" as it was in January 2021 (even Sinn Fein or the Alliance support the Protocol with "flexibility" and pro-protocol businesspeople complain about the level of bureaucracy now). But even the EU isn't talking about implementing it "in full" as envisaged in January 2021 - not least because they've assessed that there is relatively low risk of goods leaking into the single market.

The basic business, pro-Protocol position is - it's here to stay and could be positive if the parties make it work with flexibility and mitigations etc. What would probably happen is sourcing more inputs through the single market (and there's already signs that is happening).

Also it mainly matters for goods, while services would just benefit a lot from being in both markets and UK companies are investing in Northern Ireland which is really positive. Also exporting into GB isn't really that affected - unless you try to re-enter.

Overall it can work in a really positive way. But it requires agreement on how to implement it and I think everyone accepts that in some way or other. I think retail is really key because it's the bit that matters for people's identity - can I buy the same brand I always have and that I can get in Manchester, or do I need to move to a new brand from Dublin? But a lot of the business issues from January 2021 have already been fixed in one way or another.

[Sheilbh]

Four separate MPs have now (anonymously) come forward and said they were groped by Pincher in the last ten years

Obviously he needs to stand down. But I keep saying it but there's a huge, huge cultural problem at Westminster. I mean if he's groping fellow MPs imagine what he's like with party activists, parliamentary staff or anyone else where there's more of a power difference.