Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Don't the Tories traditionally have the highest number of gay MPs?

That's certainly my impression, but they've only recently been public.

I think the UK Parliament has the highest number of out LGBT politicians of any national legislature in the world. I did a quick count of out LGBT MPs and I think there are 25 Tory MPs (so about 7%), about 20 Labour MPs (about 10%), 10 SNP MPs (about 20%) and 1 Lib Dem MP of 11.

And there is a crazy number of gay men who work in and around Westminster either for MPs or parties.

[Josquius]

I have noticed in recent years quite a big attempt by the hard and far right to bring gay men into the fold, part of the pitchfork waving mob screaming about evil trans people, Muslims, etc... rather than a victim of the mob.
Glad to see the majority of gay guys are realising there but for the grace of the left....

[Syt]

Don't the Tories traditionally have the highest number of gay MPs?

That's certainly my impression, but they've only recently been public.

I think the UK Parliament has the highest number of out LGBT politicians of any national legislature in the world. I did a quick count of out LGBT MPs and I think there are 25 Tory MPs (so about 7%), about 20 Labour MPs (about 10%), 10 SNP MPs (about 20%) and 1 Lib Dem MP of 11.

And there is a crazy number of gay men who work in and around Westminster either for MPs or parties.

Natural result of the public schools many of these gentlemen visited?

[Josquius]

Oh. And can we not encourage the horrible "red wall" term please.
It's a pure fabrication of some guy in 2019.

Interesting times afoot however with the move to more flexible work spaces-I can see this going leftwards over all due to the influence of educated people on their homelands, though bits of London could go back to the Tories.

[Sheilbh]

Natural result of the public schools many of these gentlemen visited?

Though less than in the 80s when they were all closeted and in thrall to "The Lady", even if those closets were pretty transparent.

Like Norman St John-Stevas (who was actually one nation Tory) but went on to be Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge who was, of course a former Tory minister, who would always have a clique of (invariably handsome) students from public schools he favoured and would arrange introductions for etc. Everyone else in Cambridge apparently ended up nicknaming Emmanuel College "Mein Camp"

And there was Arthur Gore who was the House of Lords sponsor on decriminalising homosexuality in the 50s and 60s. He thought it was wrong as a principle issue but his brother was gay and committed suicide because he was being blackmailed. He supported numerous private members bills over the years to decriminalise it, including the one that eventually passed. His other great political issue was conservation and in particular protecting badgers and their habitats. He never managed to get any laws passed on that and when asked why would say "there aren't many badgers in the House of Lords."

I have noticed in recent years quite a big attempt by the hard and far right to bring gay men into the fold, part of the pitchfork waving mob screaming about evil trans people, Muslims, etc... rather than a victim of the mob.

Yeah that's definitely a thing

Glad to see the majority of gay guys are realising there but for the grace of the left....

I don't think most gays would agree with a sort of left-wing straight saviour analysis

[Josquius]

I don't think most gays would agree with a sort of left-wing straight saviour analysis

Not my analysis. More the left as a coalition of all oppressed groups watching each others back with gay people as a key part.

[Zoupa]

It's only one poll - and lots of health warnings. But this is why I think we need to start looking beyond British exceptionalism (imperial nostalgia may still apply):

French presidential election poll, second round scenario

Macron vs Le Pen

Macron: 52%
Le Pen: 48%

Harris / Jan 19-20th

It's an online poll, so make of that what you will, but previous iterations were about 55-45.

I'm not sure how true those numbers are though. Once you're actually in the real scenario, are 45-50% of people really going to vote Le Pen? I want to say I doubt it, and that those poll numbers are just a reflection of standard french annoyances.

The french left desperately needs to reform, coalesce and get its shit together.

[Sheilbh]

Not my analysis. More the left as a coalition of all oppressed groups watching each others back with gay people as a key part.

Ah sorry - misunderstood what you meant by there but for the grace of the left as a bit more straight savioury

Although I think there is a danger even with the analysis left being a coalition of oppressed groups because I think it can lead you to things like that Guardian article everyone dunked on about how of course people like Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak are Tories and a growing number of British-Indians vote Tory, because they're not oppressed and it goes back to Hindu Indians not really being oppressed by the British Empire - which is a take

It's an online poll, so make of that what you will, but previous iterations were about 55-45.

I'm not sure how true those numbers are though. Once you're actually in the real scenario, are 45-50% of people really going to vote Le Pen? I want to say I doubt it, and that those poll numbers are just a reflection of standard french annoyances.

Yeah - I don't know about online polls in France, in the UK in recent years they've been the most accurate. But I've seen it around 10 point difference which is such a shift from the last election (and we're only about 20 years from the first time the FN got into the second round).

But this is why I'd put it as Macron is still the very likely favourite. But it feels like one Canard Enchaine scandal between the rounds away from President Le Pen

The french left desperately needs to reform, coalesce and get its shit together.

I think the fragmentation and decline of the left in Old Europe (Scandinavia and Iberia as slight exceptions) is one of the most important trends in politics. I don't know if it can be saved and I don't know how it plays out in the long-run, but it seems key to explaining/understanding so much.

[Zanza]

https://www.ft.com/content/f4268da9-f4c1-4036-b387-daacf216f9b9

UK ministers rethink plans to rip up EU regulations Business secretary cancels post-Brexit review of worker's rights after Labour opposition.

Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said he believed Brexit gave the UK an opportunity to have 'higher standards' rather than cutting them © Hannah McKay/Reuters

Boris Johnson's government is shying away from a wholesale scrapping of EU regulations after ministers cancelled a post-Brexit review of workers' rights in the face of fierce Labour opposition.

The Financial Times reported this month that employee protections enshrined in EU law — including the 48-hour working week — could be torn up under the controversial proposals.

But the idea was condemned by trade unions and Labour and Downing Street confirmed on Thursday: "Any reforms would not come at the expense of the UK's high standards in areas like workers rights and the environment."

Rishi Sunak, chancellor, is leading a "better regulation" review but he has made it clear that his focus will be on improving future rules — including those covering new technologies — rather than ripping up old ones.

"This isn't about lowering standards but about raising our eyes to look at the future — making the most of new sectors, new thinking and new ways of working," Mr Sunak said this month.

In a sign of the political problems associated with scrapping existing rules — many of them EU regulations written into the UK statute book — ministers initially refused to say whether the review of workers' rights even existed.

Then they conceded the existence of the review by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis), but insisted that it would not lead to any dilution of workers' rights.

On Wednesday night business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng finally told ITV News: "The review is no longer happening within Beis."

The proposals ranged from not including overtime pay when calculating some holiday pay entitlements to ending the requirement for businesses to log employees' working hours.

Mr Kwarteng, who replaced Mr Sharma in the business post this month, said he believed Brexit gave the UK an opportunity to have "higher standards" rather than cutting them.

Mr Sunak's allies insist the better regulation review will lift burdens on business, although it is not expected to conclude in time for his March 3 Budget. EU rules will be considered as part of the review.

Regulatory work already under way includes a review of procurement rules to favour smaller companies, planning reform, a consultation on gene editing and City of London reforms including changes to listing rules to attract growing companies in sectors like digital and fintech.

But business appetite for cutting swaths of existing EU regulation is limited. "I don't get any sense from the business community that there is a drive to have a race to be Singapore-on-Thames," Rain Newton-Smith, CBI chief economist said this month.

Sajid Javid, former chancellor, announced last February a "Brexit red tape challenge" to identify rules that could be ripped up. The idea featured in Rishi Sunak's first Budget last March but the consultation was abruptly stopped last June.

"There was not much input from business or the public," one government official said, pointing out that the pandemic had become a bigger priority. Mr Sunak will absorb the exercise into his new review.

Brexiters always claimed there was a thicket of EU red tape that could be removed: Priti Patel, now home secretary, said in 2016 that scrapping EU rules could create 60,000 new jobs.

But in 2018 a CBI survey found that 18 out of 23 sectors favoured complete alignment with EU rules, many of which are now a firmly established part of the British legal framework.

Michael Heseltine, former trade secretary, said he carried out a "red tape challenge" for John Major's government in the 1990s but "the totality of the exercise was minimal".

He said: "The reality is the market knows no morality. The thing that changes it from a free-for-all to civilisation is regulation."

One of the reasons given for Brexit was that the UK would be a more nimble and effective regulator for its businesses than the EU. Even if you ignore the mountain of red tape that leaving the Single Market created, the proposals in this article are underwhelming. 

The first claim is that Brexit allows higher standards, e.g. for worker rights. That's of course wrong as the EU regulations on e.g. workers rights set a lowest common denominator, not a ceiling. Britain was always sovereign to raise standards.

The list of other reforms seems also partially unrelated to Brexit. I guess EU rules could have an impact on procurement rules and not allow favoring smsller companies.

The EU also has a luddite, very innovation-hampering policy on GMO, so that's definitely an area where Britain can diverge. That said, it does not fit at all with other Brexit effects and planned FTAs with agrigiants like US and ANZ that will massively damage UK farming.

But listing rules and planning reform where never under the auspices of the EU as far as I know. The UK could just have done that without Brexit.

Lastly the article's statement on EU regulations now being part of the British legal framework is completely untrue. Not a single EU regulation is now part of the British legal framework as they all necessitate membership in the EU regulatory authorities and jurisdiction of the CJEU, which was the hardest British red line in negotiations.

[Zanza]

And I think that is why it's possible that this agreement is actually the peak of EU-UK relations now. I don't think we'll be in constant negotiations to improve things because Remainers have failed (even after Brexit and people now perceiving it negatively) to institutionalise in UK politics. The only way that changes is if they in effect take over the Labour Party.

I think you are correct in saying that the TCA will be the high point in UK-EU relations for some time. The relations already got worse since on vaccines or the diplomatic status of the EU embassy. And there are lots of things that can fan the flames and little interest on either side to improve the relations.

But I don't think you are right that negotiations will stop anytime soon. There is a new institutional framework in the TCA and there is massive pressure on both sides to talk about the many issues Brexit created. That will not go away, no matter the amount of wishful thinking by Brexiteers.

[Zanza]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/samantha-camerons-business-hit-brexit-23399889

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour about how her firm Ceffin was coping with Brexit, aristocrat Mrs Cameron [wife of David Cameron] revealed there were supply chain problems caused by "a mixture of Covid and Brexit".

She said: "Until they sort out some of the, I hope, teething issues, definitely trading with the EU – if you're bringing goods into the country from outside the UK, and then trying to sell them back into Europe – that currently is challenging and difficult."

Someone should tell her that business model is dead due to the policy of her husband. Nothing to do with Covid, 100% pure Brexit. She should rather move her distribution hub to the EU (Or Northern Ireland) as HMG is now officially suggesting.

[viper37]

It's only one poll - and lots of health warnings. But this is why I think we need to start looking beyond British exceptionalism (imperial nostalgia may still apply):

French presidential election poll, second round scenario

Macron vs Le Pen

Macron: 52%
Le Pen: 48%

Harris / Jan 19-20th

It's an online poll, so make of that what you will, but previous iterations were about 55-45.

I'm not sure how true those numbers are though. Once you're actually in the real scenario, are 45-50% of people really going to vote Le Pen? I want to say I doubt it, and that those poll numbers are just a reflection of standard french annoyances.

I think these numbers are high because a lot of people are pissed off at Macron for the pandemic management.  20-25% of French hate him for having a curfew and restrictions, the rest because he's not strict enough.

The french left desperately needs to reform, coalesce and get its shit together.

I don't think that's possible.  Unless they are helped by a foreign government, or unless there's an occupation of the country by a foreign power, it won't happen.
Farce à part, the left can't get together.  For all your talks about solidarity, you're always finding way to expel moderates who don't pass your purity tests. Whatever the flavour of the week might be.

[Sheilbh]

One of the reasons given for Brexit was that the UK would be a more nimble and effective regulator for its businesses than the EU. Even if you ignore the mountain of red tape that leaving the Single Market created, the proposals in this article are underwhelming. 

The first claim is that Brexit allows higher standards, e.g. for worker rights. That's of course wrong as the EU regulations on e.g. workers rights set a lowest common denominator, not a ceiling. Britain was always sovereign to raise standards.

The list of other reforms seems also partially unrelated to Brexit. I guess EU rules could have an impact on procurement rules and not allow favoring smsller companies.

The EU also has a luddite, very innovation-hampering policy on GMO, so that's definitely an area where Britain can diverge. That said, it does not fit at all with other Brexit effects and planned FTAs with agrigiants like US and ANZ that will massively damage UK farming.

But listing rules and planning reform where never under the auspices of the EU as far as I know. The UK could just have done that without Brexit.

Yeah - listing rules are definitely European, I don't know about planning. Procurement would be hugely impacted by Brexit/EU law as well.

And some EU rules are ceilings not floors - I think the technical term is minimum v maximum harmonisation. Minimum harmonisation basically means there's a floor, maximum harmonisation means there is only a small area where member states can diverge. I think the UK has generally tended to "goldplate" minimum harmonisation laws - and this has often been a criticism about the people who moan about EU law. Normally they weren't moaning about EU law, they were moaning about UK law that went above and beyond EU law And we've had about 20 "better regulation commissions" in the last 20 years, so plus ca change.

A lot of the Brexiters and Tories generally think the advantage of Brexit will be in de-regulating. But that's politically difficult (I think impossible) and Boris Johnson, despite Brexit, isn't a politician who likes confrontation or "bad news" so he won't do it. For them Brexit will remain an untapped opportunity until they find a Thatcher.

The other side, which I'd fall on, is that if we are to make any benefits out of Brexit it isn't through de-regulation but because a nation state can be more nimble and responsive than an organisation of 27 member states. So the vaccines are an example - part of the reason the UK can approve it more quickly is there's one regulator looking at things. And under this argument you focus on the things the country does well and double down on them and develop the best, most forward-thinking regulations in those areas (which may not be light touch but would be certain). So we are good at certain areas of tech (especially AI), higher education and research, culture, financial and professional services - the problem there is that for cultural reasons the government hates most of those sectors because they're stuffed to the gills with Remoaners

And even then it probably won't be enough. The MHRA used to win about 1/3 of contracts from the EMA to do reviews etc - which it can no longer apply for - and, as Stephen Bush pointed, the question from the vaccine is possibly are we more likely to have given up the regular, stable income for the ability to use our skills (research especially) in response to a once in a lifetime event.

So instead we'll probably get an internicine war between Tories over de-regulation because most of them don't have any idea what to do with Brexit except for that.

Lastly the article's statement on EU regulations now being part of the British legal framework is completely untrue. Not a single EU regulation is now part of the British legal framework as they all necessitate membership in the EU regulatory authorities and jurisdiction of the CJEU, which was the hardest British red line in negotiations.

The EU regulations are now part of UK law (including CJEU jurisprudence until 31 December 2020). Of course they're now British regulations

So in my area we have "UK GDPR" which has some minor changes (it doesn't make much sense to refer to "Union law" anymore), but it's substantially the same. An interesting area will be the extent to which the UK courts still look at Europe on these points. We're not like the US, UK courts are very comfortable looking at other jurisdictions especially if they have a similar legal framework. So the UK courts often look at Australia or Singapore on contract law because we have very similar common law principles in that area. Here we'll have very similar regulations and I feel like the courts would probably consider CJEU or European regulators interpreting the same text to be very persuasive. I can only imagine the heart attacks this'll cause when it first happens on something serious.

We actually already have a ruling in the High Court that suggests a possible divergence in that area from the EU approach (on a technical DP point) and it spent a lot of time looking at CJEU rulings and European guidance (but technically it was heard during the transition period so that makes sense).

[Sheilbh]

European Commission spokesman really calming things down in Northern Ireland:

The EU Commission - or at least - those around President von der Leyen are on the defensive. Responding to ongoing criticism of their #covid vaccine programme and of dragging in the Brexit Deal on Ireland into the  fray. Von der Leyen spks said "Only the Pope is infallible." /1

(DUP founder Ian Paisley in the European Parliament when JPII is giving a speech )

Edit: God I hate the online left sometimes I'm now seeing that Labour's push for border controls and mandatory quarantine is racist and quasi-fascist. It's a pandemic lads and they're calling for this in the face of government dilatoriness plus new "surge testing" in response to South African variant popping up in Surrey

[Sheilbh]

Prominent SNP MP has been fired from the front-bench - she's recognisable because she was one of the people who kept suing the government during the Brexit process

But there's a lot going on here - transgender rights, hardline v moderate on Indy Ref 2, ongoing fallout of the Salmond inquiry.

Edit: I suspect a lot of it is a proxy war for Salmond v Sturgeon loyalists and that may possibly map onto positions on a referendum too - Salmond is very smart politically and may well be pushing his people for a referendum regardless of legality to make life very difficult for Sturgeon.

This is part of the reason I'm not sure what happens with the SNP if they don't win a majority in May or get to hold a referendum. It feels like there's lots of fault-lines in the party. And as mentioned in the other thread Scotland is doing badly at the vaccine roll-out - reportedly over 50% of doses available are still in storage and not being used and Scotland (5.5 million) is routinely below Wales (3 million) and occasionally (1.8 million) in the daily stats:

Joanna Cherry sacked from SNP frontbench at Westminster
QC had clashed with ex-deputy leader Kirsty Blackman over party's policies on transgender rights

Joanna Cherry was elected to the national executive late last year as one of the most senior figures in a slate of SNP activists involved with the Common Weal group. Photograph: PJR News/Alamy
Severin Carrell Scotland editor
@severincarrell
Mon 1 Feb 2021 19.41 GMT

Joanna Cherry, one of Nicola Sturgeon's fiercest internal critics, has been sacked from the Scottish National party's frontbench at Westminster after a public feud with its former deputy leader last week.

Cherry, an advocate and queen's counsel, announced on Twitter that she had been sacked as the party's spokesperson for home affairs in a reshuffle of the SNP's Commons frontbench, and immediately hit out at her Westminster colleagues and party leadership over its strategy on independence.

After implying that she would continue criticising party leaders from her new position on the party's ruling national executive, Cherry tweeted: "Westminster is increasingly irrelevant to Scotland's constitutional future and the SNP would do well to radically rethink our strategy."

Later on Monday the MP said she had contacted police after receiving "a vicious threat from a man to my personal safety". She added: "The matter has been reported to Police Scotland and I'm somewhere safe. Thank you for all the lovely messages of support."

Cherry was elected to the national executive late last year as one of the most senior figures in a slate of SNP activists involved in the Common Weal group, many of them angry at Sturgeon's cautious approach to staging a second referendum and critical of the first minister's stance on transgender rights.

Cherry, a supporter of "gender critical" campaigners, also has close links to the Women's Pledge grouping of SNP activists who won seats on the national executive and other party committees. They argue that the Scottish government's measures to strengthen the rights and protections for trans people have eroded rights for women.

Cherry clashed last week with Kirsty Blackman, the SNP's former deputy leader at Westminster, over the SNP's policies on trans rights, in what many observers believe is a proxy war between supporters of Alex Salmond and Sturgeon loyalists.

It was not the first time the two had disagreed on the subject on social media. Blackman, who quit as Commons deputy leader last year and is now an economy spokesperson, said on Twitter in December that trans people and their supporters were leaving the SNP because of Cherry's behaviour and that of senior party figures, and said: "Things have moved on since the 80s."

Cherry responded that she had done nothing to set back the rights of trans people. The MP, herself a lesbian, accused Blackman of breaching the SNP's code of conduct with her tweet, adding: "I'll ignore the ageism as I wouldn't expect a privileged young straight woman to know what it was like for lesbians in the 80s."

On Thursday night, Sturgeon broadcast a video on Twitter, in her role as SNP leader, insisting that transphobia had no place in her party. She confirmed that there had been a number of resignations by younger party members critical of the perception the Scottish government has been diluting pro-trans measures in recent legislation.

Cherry was blocked last year from standing against Angus Robertson – the SNP's former Westminster leader and a Sturgeon loyalist – to be the party's candidate in Edinburgh Central for this May's Holyrood elections, after the party's then national executive passed a new rule.

In a move widely seen as an attack on Cherry, it became a requirement for a sitting MP standing for Holyrood to post a £10,000 bond to cover the costs of a byelection in their vacated Westminster seat. The party also introduced a policy banning MPs sitting simultaneously as MSPs. Cherry said the bond was unaffordable, and did not stand for nomination.

Internal conflict in the SNP has become far more intense after Salmond's allegations that officials close to Sturgeon tried to orchestrate government and police investigations into sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Officials working for Sturgeon and her husband, Peter Murrell, the chief executive of the SNP, have been accused by Salmond of secretly conspiring on WhatsApp to push one potential witness against him into testifying with allegations that Sturgeon has dismissed as unfounded.

Murrell has denied on oath there was any such conspiracy, but on Monday evening refused a request to testify again before the Holyrood committee investigating the Scottish government's botched investigation into two claims of sexual harassment against Salmond.

Salmond has been invited to give evidence in person to the Holyrood committee on 7 February, with Sturgeon scheduled to appear the following week. The hearings are likely to have a critical bearing on the SNP's May election campaign.

Cherry was a prominent figure in the court battles in 2019 against the UK government's Brexit policies, and particularly its failure to consult MPs, joining in the cross-party legal challenges orchestrated by Jolyon Maugham's Good Law Project.

Edit: Incidentally the Scottish record on vaccines does seem to be hurting the Scottish government. It's really interesting (as with the EU issues around vaccines) because I think it shows how we don't objectively measure things but only really care about relatives. So the SNP have not been hurt at all and, in fact, enjoyed a bounce through most of covid because of a perception they'd done "well" at managing it - in reality Scotland (last time I checked) had the third highest death rate in Europe behind Belgium and (crucially) England.

Similarly I don't think the pressure in Europe is anywhere near as bad on vaccines if the UK isn't next door (especially after Brexit) vaccinating more quickly. If the UK was a disaster (hard as that is to imagine ) I don't think it would be as much of an issue that EU states were rolling out vaccines more slowly than Israel (small, densely populated, deal with Pfizer, exceptional) or the US (see Sandra Gallina - who has responsible for negotiating vaccine procurement today: "When we are trying to constantly compare with the US we should not have any complex. We are boosting production. I'm not jealous of what Biden is doing because in actual fact the situation here in Europe is, may I say, better").