any other americans/rest of world - who find Brexit / UK politics interesting ?

[daverobev]

France isn't posturing. They are saying that *if nothing else changes* they will say no to an extension. Which is fine, but things are - hopefully - changing. After months of deadlock a load of Conservatives have been kicked out. After months of being... let's say indecisive, Labour's position has firmed somewhat (arguably they had to be indecisive so they weren't destroyed). Lib Dems are doing ok.

So, if a GE happens, or a Government of National Unity is formed, or... then things HAVE changed. Boris has not got any authority.

We can hope.

[bwall]

@lost_in_the_endless_aisle ; thanks for the link. Fascinating!

@ Kyle: My comment was made with a very narrow definition of 'war' as state sponsored violence vs. another state. No matter how large or small their stated aims were.

John Bercow: hadn't heard of him until he resigned, but I don't think I'd want to cross him. Lots of great clips of him. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJjVk4QXpQ

France and the EU in general.... why would they want to support an extension, if it looked like the result would be a politician with greater mandate that could extract even more concessions from them? The UK has whittled their bargaining power and leverage down to nothing. It's all such a clusterf***

[Kyle Schuant]

Kyle: My comment was made with a very narrow definition of 'war' as state sponsored violence vs. another state. No matter how large or small their stated aims were.

Then we've not had peace since WWII, no. We've had dozens of wars.

[bwall]

Kyle: My comment was made with a very narrow definition of 'war' as state sponsored violence vs. another state. No matter how large or small their stated aims were.

Then we've not had peace since WWII, no. We've had dozens of wars.

My point was that the EU has brought peace to it's members. No EU member state has (yet) fought a war with another member state since WWII ended.

[Kyle Schuant]

They have done so before they joined the EU, though - for example, Poland and Hungary (Warsaw Pact invasion 1956), Croatia and Slovenia (dissolution of Yugoslavia). And of course, if you're actively at war with a current member of the EU you are unlikely to have your membership application allowed; if Serbia tried to rebuild Yugoslavia by force, for example, I can't really see the EU accepting them.

So all you're really saying is, "this small group of countries who actively exclude people in conflict with them, have not had anyone in conflict with them in the last 20 years."

This reminds me of that old thing of "democracies don't go to war with each-other." When presented with examples, the person says, "oh but that's not real democracy and ends up creating such a narrow definition of democracy that all they're saying is that some half-dozen countries haven't gone to war with each-other recently.

The EU hasn't hurt things, but they're not a major factor in peace. Rising prosperity, an ageing population and the UN are far bigger contributors.

[bwall]

They have done so before they joined the EU, though - for example, Poland and Hungary (Warsaw Pact invasion 1956), Croatia and Slovenia (dissolution of Yugoslavia). And of course, if you're actively at war with a current member of the EU you are unlikely to have your membership application allowed; if Serbia tried to rebuild Yugoslavia by force, for example, I can't really see the EU accepting them.

So all you're really saying is, "this small group of countries who actively exclude people in conflict with them, have not had anyone in conflict with them in the last 20 years."

This reminds me of that old thing of "democracies don't go to war with each-other." When presented with examples, the person says, "oh but that's not real democracy and ends up creating such a narrow definition of democracy that all they're saying is that some half-dozen countries haven't gone to war with each-other recently.

The EU hasn't hurt things, but they're not a major factor in peace. Rising prosperity, an ageing population and the UN are far bigger contributors.

Of course they've had wars before they joined the EU. That's my whole point. Once a country joins the EU, the wars stop.

When was the last time that Germany and France went 75 years without a war? They fought each other in 1940, 1914, 1871, 1800-12, and 1756-63.  So, it's been at least 325 years since they've gone 75 years without fighting, probably longer.

During the entire 325 year period there was also rising prosperity and an aging population but that didn't prevent conflict. 
Russia and Ukraine also had rising prosperity, an aging population and UN membership in 2014 but that didn't prevent a war.

In fact, the Nobel Prize committee thought it also pretty remarkable that there hadn't been any wars among EU members so they granted the EU the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Nobel_Peace_Prize

[Wrenchturner]

You'd think that not going to war would be a prerequisite for an inter-state union, not necessarily the other way around.

The causation is unclear, regardless.  I also don't consider war to be much of a post-eu risk.

[Paul der Krake]

It goes much further than "no war", it's how close and interconnected the countries are.

France and Germany went at it, not once, but twice. Millions and millions of death, all within living memory. You'd think there would be at least be some resentment, but there isn't. Children learn each other's languages in school, then go on vacation there, then marry across borders. Nobody bats an eye at this.

The hatchet is buried so deep that it's totally invisible, just two generations after the largest world conflicts in recorded history. How often does that happen?

[bwall]

It goes much further than "no war", it's how close and interconnected the countries are.

France and Germany went at it, not once, but twice. Millions and millions of death, all within living memory. You'd think there would be at least be some resentment, but there isn't. Children learn each other's languages in school, then go on vacation there, then marry across borders. Nobody bats an eye at this.

The hatchet is buried so deep that it's totally invisible, just two generations after the largest world conflicts in recorded history. How often does that happen?

+1.

I met French in Germany who spoke very good German and had no desire to return to France. I met many Germans who spoke excellent French and loved to go there on vacation or had lived there for years. And every one of these peoples' fathers/grandfathers/great-grandfathers had fought the 'other' side.

I would go so far as to say there is probably more animosity towards France in their former colonies than in Germany.

[jim555]

Black Rod is not amused.

[Leisured]

Fascinating topic. I am reading this forum with popcorn; thank you Jim555 for the idea. Perhaps Her Majesty watches Parliament with popcorn.

Thank you Kris, reply 14, for the restaurant analogy, and thank you hwall, reply 51, for vids of John Bercow.

[Leisured]

I attach a vid of BoJo addressing Parliament with the speech from the movie 'Life of Brian dubbed in. The speech is 'what have the Romans ever done for us', and Brexiteers have frequently asked 'What has the EU ever done for us'. I hope the link works, but if not load YouTube and search on Life of Brian spoof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOfffyn4SWI

[Paul der Krake]

This week's episode: The Empty Lectern

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49722689

[Leisured]

Another thing i need to learn some more about, is, I keep reading references to a Uk "constitution" - but apparently it is unwritten and based on precedence ??

UK, New Zealand and Israel do not have codified constitutions. I say codified, because Acts of Parliament, over the centuries, make an informal constitution. My brother is a lawyer, and he told me that the British system is risky, because a malevolent Parliament could pass Bills which hurt the country. The UK Parliament passed a Bill at the start of WW2 which suspended elections for the duration of the War. This was not malevolent, but such a move would be impossible in a democracy which had a codified constitution.

If a malevolent Parliament passed a dubious Bill, the Monarch could refuse to assent to it. Such a move has not happened for over 200 years, but it seems possible. The Monarch wants his / her kingdom to run well, and avoid bad legislation, and avoid gridlock. In 1975, the Federal Government in Australia suffered from gridlock. Queen Elizabeth 2 rules Australia, as she does the UK, Canada and New Zealand. Her representative in Australia, the Governor General, fired the Prime Minister of the day, dissolved Parliament. and called a Federal election.

One prominent Australian politician, when interviewed on this matter, pointed out that the Queen, acting through her representative in Australian, can sack a government, but cannot appoint a new one. Only the people can do that.

[six-car-habit]

 Thanks for the links.  Finnish PM also says today that recent talks have solved nothing yet.

 Leisured - I saw a short movie on our local PBS station [ which shows a fair amount of british programming ]  a while ago , called something like " King Charles the 3rd [?]  ". Where the premise of the film was that the queen had died, Prince Charles took over, a conservative leaning parliment passed a law abridging freedom of the press + expanded possibility of goverment censoring. King Charles, breaks with historical precedent and refuses to sign his assent for the law, shuts down parliment, etc etc.

 I believe a similar suspended elections precedent also happened during WW1 , the Tories were in power then, but by about 1920, the populace was fed up with the war and post war policies, and elected the liberals instead.

[six-car-habit]

 PM's Johnsons suspension of parliment for 1+ month is now before the UK Supreme Court :

 Quote from Reuters -" "James Eadie, a lawyer for Johnson, said the ability to prorogue parliament was a matter of politics or “high policy” which was non-justiciable, meaning it was not something on which judges could rule.

It was a matter for parliament to hold the government to account, not the courts, Eadie said, arguing that lawmakers could take action themselves such as holding a vote of no-confidence in the government if they wished.

He rejected the accusation that the suspension was for an improper purpose and said the suggestion that Johnson “was operating on the basis that parliament was intended to be stymied” was untenable.

He referred to minutes of a cabinet meeting and memos from Johnson and one of his top aides before the suspension which indicated the reasoning was to prepare a new legislative agenda.

But lawyer O’Neill said the court should not treat the documents as “gospel” and, while a government would be expected to engage in high politics and not low, dishonest, dirty tricks, he said: “I’m not sure we can assume that of this government.”

The court has been told it was “remarkable” Johnson had not provided a witness statement spelling out his reasons for the prorogation, an omission even the judges queried.

“No one has come forward from your side to say this is true ... the whole truth, nothing but the truth or partly true,” Judge Nicholas Wilson said to Eadie. ""

[PDXTabs]

It was a matter for parliament to hold the government to account, not the courts, Eadie said, arguing that lawmakers could take action themselves such as holding a vote of no-confidence in the government if they wished.

Well that is true, much like the US justice department won't charge a sitting president and it is up to congress to impeach.

[Leisured]

six car habit, thank you for the tip about the short movie 'King Charles 3'. I am in Australia, and have looked in YouTube, but all that is there are trailers.

[marty998]

Curious if the fall of Thomas Cook is the first of many British dominoes to topple over the coming months.

I don't know know if the collapse of a travel company is related to Brexit, but I can probably guess making travel and trade more difficult and uncertain with your nearest neighbours surely cannot help???

[daverobev]

Curious if the fall of Thomas Cook is the first of many British dominoes to topple over the coming months.

I don't know know if the collapse of a travel company is related to Brexit, but I can probably guess making travel and trade more difficult and uncertain with your nearest neighbours surely cannot help???

Not Brexit related. TC is a mostly highstreet business, and the UK's highstreets are having a real decline lately - the UK was (last time I checked) the country where most internet shopping is done, as a percentage of total.

I mean - you're right, with the decline in the pound, more Brits are holidaying at home. But TC isn't just a UK business. Brexit certainly doesn't *help*, but other changes have caused this failure...

Edit: More at the bbc, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46452374 - change in that people don't use agents, don't use the high street, and yes, delaying because of Brexit.

[jinga nation]

Extremely interested. Have had the metaphorical champagne on ice ever since the vote passed under Cameron.
Would love to see NI joining Eire, then the combo joins the Scots in the Free United Gaelic States. Wales would be invited to join if they ditched that pansy Prince of Wales.
On the serious side, interested in the effects on the City and Financial Services sector.
BoJo the bozo... what a caricature. If you can't get on with your family, then what hope do you have of getting on with your people.

[Metalcat]

Man Corbyn is making this even more complicated...

Both party leaders are wildly unpopular, and both pro-Brexit...how does that even happen?

[daverobev]

Man Corbyn is making this even more complicated...

Both party leaders are wildly unpopular, and both pro-Brexit...how does that even happen?

Because only people of a certain proclivity vote in the party leader. What, 160k for the Conservatives? I don't know how many Labour members there are.

And it's fine - because you vote for a candidate, not a party. We just need to have more fluid parties. It is just massively frustrating how the 48% plus whatever percentage have changed their minds and didn't/couldn't vote are being told "you voted, we listened, you want to leave the EU at any cost!!!". Fffuuuuuuuu. I wish we had some sane leadership, but of course the crazies shout loudest. Well, that plus the fact you really are trying to solve the impossible - get a better outcome than the one the UK already has, which is the absolute best deal going.

What makes me most angry is that there are immigration restricting rules we could use but we've chosen not to. Nothing strikes me more that this is a nonsense than that - if immigration of leechers was the problem, we could've implemented an ID card system so that we know who is in the UK, and who isn't working, and who should be told to leave. They do it in other countries. (Big IF of course, fact is most immigrant EU citizens are working just fine and no need or reason to send them back - at least not the reasons being touted).

[bwall]

Well, that plus the fact you really are trying to solve the impossible - get a better outcome than the one the UK already has, which is the absolute best deal going.

+1

What possible motivation is there for the EU to provide a better deal outside the EU than inside the EU? It defies logic. If it were better outside the EU, then every country would leave the EU and there would be no more EU.

There are high levels of motivation for the EU to make Brexit as painful as possible to serve as a cautionary tale to other countries who wish to exit. To be fair, a painful Brexit could also serve as a warning NOT to join the EU. Yet, Albania, Ukraine, Serbia/Kosovo, Bosnia, N. Macedonia and Turkey all still want in.
Switzerland (longstanding historical neutrality), Norway (gobs and gobs of oil) and Iceland (no idea) have never wanted to join and that will presumably not change.

[ChpBstrd]

Man Corbyn is making this even more complicated...

Both party leaders are wildly unpopular, and both pro-Brexit...how does that even happen?

1) Most people don’t vote.
2) Those who do vote don’t consider it the solemn selection of the most effective leader in the country who can guide the nation to successful outcomes, or at least their own self interest. They vote as a way of expressing emotions. Voting has become a tantrum, as have our politicians.

The coming hard times will either resolve both problems or be the end of Western democracy.

[cerat0n1a]

Man Corbyn is making this even more complicated...

Both party leaders are wildly unpopular, and both pro-Brexit...how does that even happen?

1) Most people don’t vote.

Most people in Britain do vote.

The irony with the party leaders is that Corbyn has had 40+ years of consistent opposition to the European Union, but his party membership and voters are mostly in favour of the EU. Johnson supported Brexit because he saw it as a path to becoming PM, has no actual attachment to the cause and didn't really want to win the referendum. Both are having to pretend things they don't really believe. Anybody who is competent and/or popular wants to become PM after this all gets resolved.

Anyway, turns out we do have a constitution of sorts after all. Who knew?

[jim555]

So Boris lied to the Queen.  When does he go to the Tower?

[daverobev]

So Boris lied to the Queen.  When does he go to the Tower?

Civil, not Criminal.

[ChpBstrd]

Man Corbyn is making this even more complicated...

Both party leaders are wildly unpopular, and both pro-Brexit...how does that even happen?

1) Most people don’t vote.

Most people in Britain do vote.

The irony with the party leaders is that Corbyn has had 40+ years of consistent opposition to the European Union, but his party membership and voters are mostly in favour of the EU. Johnson supported Brexit because he saw it as a path to becoming PM, has no actual attachment to the cause and didn't really want to win the referendum. Both are having to pretend things they don't really believe. Anybody who is competent and/or popular wants to become PM after this all gets resolved.

Anyway, turns out we do have a constitution of sorts after all. Who knew?

If your hypothesis is correct, expect parliament to settle on an extension request so that a second referendum can be organized. Boris will howl but may have to go along.

UK stock have been rising since Boris’ battle began and would soar if a second referendum were announced. According to the options on EWU (a UK ETF sold in the US) the market predicts only a 25% chance of UK stocks hitting near their August lows by November first. I take that 25% as the risk of Brexit occurring, which the market considered a near certainty back in August, plus the risk of an unrelated downturn. I am seriously considering buying a bear put spread for 25 cents on the dollar, as I think the risk of downside is closer to 50%.

[cerat0n1a]

UK stock have been rising since Boris’ battle began and would soar if a second referendum were announced.

The FTSE-100 is mostly composed of multi-national companies that earn their money outside the UK (~70% of FTSE-100 earnings are ex-UK.) So, all else being equal, when the pound goes down, the index goes up and vice-versa. Johnson's defeat today has seen the pound go up and the FTSE-100 fall. Agree that the probability of Brexit happening is much higher than 25%, not sure that the market would necessarily react in the way you describe. The index is significantly higher today than it was before the referendum.