Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

I was thinking the same thing the other day. Has the quality of MPs declined with a shift to a more presidential style of government?

Jeremy Hunt talking about a second referendum post-negotiation, and that's a theme with a few people. But I'm curious about what the referendum would ask. Eg, what is option 2? Because the consequences of a second loss could be devastating based on that option

but if negotiations can't start til article 50 and article 50 can't be reversed then what would be the point of a second vote except to check that we're all unhappy with the way things have turned out?

Article 50 can be reversed, or at least there's nothing in it to say that it can't, and apparently EU treaty law can be treated "flexibly", i.e. can be fudged

Jeremy Hunt talking about a second referendum post-negotiation, and that's a theme with a few people.

would this even be possible now that junker has prevented all EU/MEP communications prior to Art50.

surely once we trigger Art50, then a second ref is pointless ?

xpost !

Yeah it was a clever move by Juncker that.

Possibly the worst ever time for "Don't worry, the EU will make more exceptions for the UK".

I actually don't think there's anything wrong with asking people, once they've looked over the precipice, whether they REALLY want to jump off it. But there seem to be a worrying number of people in this country who think they've voted to basically end immigration, and the boost that going back on the result could offer the far right is terrifying.

Entrusting the negotiations to someone who can negotiate properly with Brussels strikes me as the least worst option, but I don't know who that is. It's not Johnson, it's not Corbyn, it's certainly not Hunt, and it's probably not some wet-behind-the-ears Blairite either. The problem is that Labour have broadly speaking only promoted or selected yes-men for an entire generation and the paucity of imagination is there for all to see, and everyone knows what the problems with the Tories are.

There has to be an election before anything begins, that much is certain, the issue is too important to be left to Conservative Party members alone.

Interesting point - the deal negotiated with Cameron is already off the table after the referendum.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf

lol is it?? loooooool if so

i mean i guess it would have to be..

Entrusting the negotiations to someone who can negotiate properly with Brussels strikes me as the least worst option, but I don't know who that is. It's not Johnson, it's not Corbyn, it's certainly not Hunt, and it's probably not some wet-behind-the-ears Blairite either. The problem is that Labour have broadly speaking only promoted or selected yes-men for an entire generation and the paucity of imagination is there for all to see, and everyone knows what the problems with the Tories are.

Yvette Cooper was talking about a cross-party panel yesterday and you could arguably build a reasonably credible negotiating team with her, Javid, Osborne and a few others but it won't deliver what the leave voters wanted and will look like a massive stitch-up when it doesn't.

Melanie Philips defending Corbyn in the Times.

no one in the "corbyn must go!!!!" brigade EVER answers "so who is your choice of replacement?"

Sentences to make you shrivel up and die

xpost

Boris "too tired" after his weekend of cricket to write proper column yesterday. Now having to tell the right wing that he will block freedom of movement. May is going to eat him up.

(This free market but no free movement plan is so weird. Does nobody understand what that means? Goods and money can flow but not labour, so massive wage disparities, job exodus to the cheaper countries etc etc. I thought these guys were meant to be capitalists? I guess racism comes first)

hey it worked for NAFTA

oh yeah except it didn't work for NAFTA at all

Cooper rules out free movement and effectively EEA, another awesome Labour leader candidate. Next.

no one in the "corbyn must go!!!!" brigade EVER answers "so who is your choice of replacement?"

I've asked this in a friendly way (I was smiling) of a few people out of genuine curiosity - nothing

its funny on my facebook feed how gleeful and petty many supposed labour supporters are about wanting corbyn out (yet dont have any better ideas, they just want to punish him, never mind what sort of void that might leave, esp at a point where we dont really have the luxury of ten other great candidates), talking about labour being a cult, not a party, people going OMG WTF about the idea that he voted brexit, etc etc. nihilism is sweeping this country, on all fronts.

The problem is that both Corbyn and his MPs have a mandate (as much as anyone does any more, which probably doesn't mean very much) and those mandates are from different and largely conflicting groups of people, this three-way disconnect between members, parliamentarians and the people they claim to represent. All parties except maybe Corbyn are continuing to ignore that structural issue and something's got to give.

I suspect what will happen is that, as last time, the ballot paper will be flooded with Blairites saying exactly the same thing with one another and Corbyn will end up winning, which will be hilarious but may also split the party. Even if MPs leave en-masse, it's quite difficult to just set up a new party when you have no sources of funding and no donors behind you (assuming the unions stick with Jeremy).

If it's a straight fight between Corbyn and one other candidate, the other candidate will probably win unless they're an obvious no-hoper.

Who would ppl's choice be if say Corbyn suddenly quit politics tomorrow? Is there literally nobody else in the entire PLP that the membership would accept as a leader?

Where by "ppl" I meant Corbynites I think

no sources of funding and no donors behind you (assuming the unions stick with Jeremy).

they'd have the JML guy and...mick hucknall?

Who would ppl's choice be if say Corbyn suddenly quit politics tomorrow?

McDonnell surely

(yeah, if ppl = corbyn support)

A few who have campaigned/pro-Corbyn have certainly lost their nerve. Its understandable but the words 'we don't have a way of forward' or such-like are never far away.

Dan Jarvis or someone who 'understands people's concerns over immigration' is not a way forward. Immigrants and otherwise are being abused and beaten - its not a game. Corbyn's stand on this issue has been important.

xp: I think they are plannig on one candidate against JC - would be stupid otherwise. Don't get a sense that Corbyn would be beaten. Only hope is if he is kept off the ballot but I expect a legal challenge on this if so.

Expecting the party to split.

McDonnell would not get on the ballot.

got to admit I was thinking (or stupidly hoping for) something along the lines of Owen Jones' plan myself - Corbyn for 2-3 years hauling things slowly to the left, then stepping aside for a younger left labour leader who stands a better chance of winning.

there feels a twisted inevitability to a lot of this now it's set in motion that was difficult to imagine even a week ago

If Corbyn is on the ballot, it'll be a single candidate I think, and will be accompanied by explicit threats from MPs, perhaps a majority, to leave the party if Corbyn is re-elected, effectively blackmailing the membership.

"xp: I think they are plannig on one candidate against JC - would be stupid otherwise."

i'm not persuaded by the argument that labour would avoid a particular course of action because it "would be stupid".

has corbyn actually been explicit about migration since friday? all i saw was broad stuff about being anti racist, and the rise in incidents over the weekend, not actually spelling it out wrt immigration. i welcome that tbh, but he still needs to balance that with something that would endear him to those who voted leave. broad pleas for unity will not do that. he needs to acknowledge that anger.

got to admit I was thinking (or stupidly hoping for) something along the lines of Owen Jones' plan myself - Corbyn for 2-3 years hauling things slowly to the left, then stepping aside for a younger left labour leader who stands a better chance of winning.

It's an ok plan, but the PLP were never going to allow it to happen.

"xp: I think they are plannig on one candidate against JC - would be stupid otherwise."

i'm not persuaded by the argument that labour would avoid a particular course of action because it "would be stupid".

― hypnic jerk (rushomancy), Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:42 PM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lolololol tru dat

I think its what many like Owen Jones might've thought. Corbz as cleanser of Blair-poison, get someone like Tsipras-like ('young', 'dynamic', that kind of bollocks) in the next 2-3 yrs. Unfortunately young dynamic Cameron-Osborne have so screwed it up he finds himself on the ballot for the gen election. Labour have NEVER EVER wanted to win with JC at the helm. Much more frightening than a Tory majority. They looked into their hearts, don't you see?

Ultimately the lack of talented MPs has always been a problem for Corbyn. A leader can direct or provide some cover of charisma or something softer (that's what I get from Atlee, say) but there has to be something around that. They have reached out to others to provide some kind of Economic plan to counter the politics of austerity but events dear boy. Plus the right couldn't stop leaks and the undermining of JC.

Suicide it is.

One of you folks half answered me (appreciated it), but is there any national/international matter that can't be put up for referendum? Can voters break treaties, go to war, etc.? If anything the political chaos makes perfect sense to me, it's the nature/scope of the vote that still boggles. How did the referendum get on the ballot to begin with? What is the process to put something up to a vote? How long does that process take? Can someone simply put a second exit vote on another ballot? Is there a waiting period? Is Cameron dragging his heals on Article 50 out of caution or spite? Could another PM with more support in just, say, a year and a half, campaign to *rejoin* the EU? Or at this point is the 17 million or however many that voted to exit a large enough block that to go counter to their wayward will would be to court greater disaster?

I'd vote for sadiq khan. more realistically, anyone (burnham) who would have a chance to unite the party is too decent to run against corbyn

josh there is no constitution and no rules in the UK and basically no check on govt power, just some sense of precedent, hence some ppl calling it an 'elected dictatorship'

all i saw was broad stuff about being anti racist, and the rise in incidents over the weekend, not actually spelling it out wrt immigration. i welcome that tbh, but he still needs to balance that with something that would endear him to those who voted leave. broad pleas for unity will not do that. he needs to acknowledge that anger.

The 'no upper limit on immigration' before the campaign infuriated a lot of idiots in the remain.

"I welcome that, but"...its the way to Red UKIP my friend. You might get your chance soon.

xp = Burnham has ruled himself out hasn't he, expressed as not taking part against "a coup". Anyhow, might have had enough from last time. Ran an awful campaign.

I can't imagine greater disaster right now, short of the Leave being so outraged at the betrayal they put Farage in power. Which, given his records on elections, I strongly doubt. Britain is clearly full of clowns, but this current fix is more Abilene Paradox than earnest clownery, I think.

The Swiss and others will put anything up for referendum; the Germans won't, not least because of their experience when someone wanted to merge the roles of Chancellor and President. In the UK, the govt can call a referendum on anything it wants whenever it wants. It's easier than calling an election, these days.

Another PM or party could totally campaign to rejoin; I think the plan people are gravitating towards is to not leave and then campaign on staying in. xxp

xp exactly, too much of a party man to have any truck with this shit

most Labour MPs supposedly furious at Burnham's refusal to resign, see it as motivated by cynical self-interest (ie so he can stay popular with the membership for his Manchester mayoral bid or possibly even Lab leadership) rather than a genuine belief that Corbyn can win or that keeping him is a good course of action for party

Yeah, I reckoned that was all about the Mayoral bid too

The only one who gives the air of competence is Cooper and she was resoundingly rejected even before the recent immigration stuff.

Burnham essentially seems quite nice and has a degree of support but doesn't seem to have any kind of credibility within the PLP as a capable political mind.

yeah, that's how I took Burnham's stand. And as a two-time loser, he must have lost the taste for that particular fight a bit. Sensible, imo.

Cooper's competence might start to look appealing tho'

He's definitely won my vote to be the Labour mayoral candidate.

it'll be angela eagle won't it?