Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

The YouTube algorithm has decided I really like watch just stop oil people being dragged off roads by fed up Brits.

And I have to admit it's right question for brit lawyers (all two of you ) if someone were to spray stink spray or ammonium carbonate on the ground, not the protesters, is that illegal?

[Sheilbh]

What?

But I think that could be common assault (not sure on those chemicals) because the protesters would suffer (or have reason to fear) unlawful harm and it was intentional or reckless but it covers punches that fail to connect (or, the Simpsons option of me walking towards you punching the air and you not getting out the way ) as well as, say, spitting in the direction of someone even if they're not specifically targeting an individual.

[HVC]

What?

I watched a few and a row and had intrusive thoughts I figured since it wasn't actively harmful, just annoying it might get a pass. I mean I nixed my first thought which were car mounted cow catchers

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66804798

A day or two olds news but a big political happening of the moment is labour announcing an actual sensible policy to asylum seekers.

Hopefully they'll go in hard on how the tories are all about impractical performative cruelty rather than actual practical solutions.

As expected however the tories are all over the word EU even being mentioned. After recent years I'm worried but hopefully people aren't so thick as to fail to realise we can't just pretend Europe doesn't exist.

What is the problem that this policy would be a practical solution to?

[Jacob]

What is the problem that this policy would be a practical solution to?

That people risk their lives - and die - chancing dangerous maritime crossings in unsafe vessels.

[Sheilbh]

That people risk their lives - and die - chancing dangerous maritime crossings in unsafe vessels.

Yes and also it's gone from under 2,000 in 2019 to around 40-50,000 people a year in the last few years (although I think it's half that for 2023, so far). Although it is, thankfully far less fatal than the Med because it's a much shorter journey and I think the Channel is maybe less risky (people swim it for charity) - since 1999 there have been under 400 estimated deaths, while the Med (I think especially central Med aiming at Italy) has something like 3,000 deaths per year. The particularly grim thing is that obviously to get to the Channel, many have already made the Med crossing.

At one point a few years ago I would have said it's not really an issue. When you're talking almost 1,000 people a week, it clearly is (although I'm still baffled by the government's decision to focus on it so much when there's really no obvious solution - it feels like they're just drawing attention to inevitable failure).

[Josquius]

It's an issue. But it's not the issue the loony brigade think it is.
For them it's illegal immigration and huge numbers of schrodingers immigrant coming in that is the problem.
The real one is of course asylum seekers being forced to risk their lives just to claim and criminal gangs profiting off this.

[HVC]

Anyone recommend building (sea) wall yet?

[Sheilbh]

Anyone recommend building (sea) wall yet?

In a weird way I honestly think that's part of it. As a small island I think many people basically think it should be very easy to control who is coming in and find explanations that it's not fairly unconvincing.

[Admiral Yi]

That people risk their lives - and die - chancing dangerous maritime crossings in unsafe vessels.

If this is the "real" problem then why in the world doesn't Labour propose giving free ferry tickets to anyone in France who wants to claim asylum?  Or even just waive passport and visa requirements?

It appears to me this proposal is designed more to square the circle of holding onto voters who want to waive asylum seekers in and those who are squeamish about unfettered immigration.

[Josquius]

That people risk their lives - and die - chancing dangerous maritime crossings in unsafe vessels.

If this is the "real" problem then why in the world doesn't Labour propose giving free ferry tickets to anyone in France who wants to claim asylum?  Or even just waive passport and visa requirements?

It appears to me this proposal is designed more to square the circle of holding onto voters who want to waive asylum seekers in and those who are squeamish about unfettered immigration.

Isn't the part about applications from abroad doing just this?

Nobody* wants pure open borders waive asylum seekers in.

*non literal. There are nuts who believe anything.

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't the part about applications from abroad doing just this?

I can't find what you're talking about.

[Sheilbh]

Just saw, via the Economist's Britain columnist, the story of a street in a village who successfully organised a campaign to stop "ugly" poles being put up in their street now complaining that they have worse broadband than the rest of the village

Meanwhile in order to meet our current net zero targets, which Sunak is reportedly about to water down (ironically bringing us in line with the EU ), we need to build as much power infrastructure in the next 7 years as we've built in the last 30. And the current average time to build new power infrastructure projects is 14 years

Separately Court of Appeal has found for campaigners against Sizewell nuclear plant overturning the High Court. From my understanding it's basically that the environmental impact of building a permanent water supply next to the plant should have been a part of Sizewell's (45,000 pages long) environmental impact assessment and not separate (as I think they're separate planning applications). I'd imagine the government and EDF will appeal.

But especially given Labour's very strong position and net zero, plus Starmer's focus on growth, I feel like they need to be really radical (particularly on energy infrastructure) and I'm not sure they're fully ready for that fight.

Meanwhile the Lib Dem's are planning to drop their support for a house building target. Although they claim to want far more council housing. We already, in international terms, have quite a lot of social housing so I'm not convinced by their "property ownership for me, renting from the council for you" solution - although I suppose their base is the already existing property owners so...

[Josquius]

The tories rolling back on the emvironment is an interesting one. I fear it might well serve them well too, gaining votes for them and boosting the green vote in response.
Such a perfect tory policy too. Short term political victories over the survival of civilization.

[Sheilbh]

Again - rolling back to the position of the EU. I think it'll be a disaster.

Number 10 is already surprised by the strength of pushback from backbenchers and business. Tory MPs who are most pro-Johnson are now cheering Sunak for delaying targets set by Johnson and that he refers to (with Ukraine) as his big legacy - I wouldn't be surprised if (not for the first time) he leaves his cheerleaders stranded and attacks Sunak over this in his column.

Plus all the polls show people want more not less action over climate. Also purely politically the people Sunak appeals to most are basically continuity Cameroons - well to do, fairly liberal "Blue wall" voters who like austerity AND gay marriage. I suspect they'll be the ones most annoyed by this while voters who don't like Sunak won't be convinced.

Of course even if we stick with the current targets, unless we add more capacity to the grid in the next seven years than we have in the last thirty, it's meaningless anyway. It's this trend of empty legalism - putting binding targets in law, "enshrining" rights in law, changing constitutions to add new protections (Ireland and children spring to mind). What's absent is any legislative content that would make things happen. It's like online activism - the sugar rush of doing something without a mechanism for actually doing anything.