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

Way too early to call I think, but right now I'm getting the sense that - overlooking the chaos the UK brought over themselves - more people shy away from the idea to ref a possible exit. Hearing a lot of people in my surroundings basically say: "Let's first see how it pans out for the UK, which is looking disastrous atm." Dutch politics (apart from Wilders obv) mouthed a lot of 'this is a wake-up call for us, EU must reform'. But obv remains to be seen if that can actually be achieved.

xp to Stet

"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?"

sorry to sound cynical, but if corbyn-labour's platonic ideal of effective leadership is tsipras, they're already screwed.

Sentences to make you shrivel up and die

I know, right?

Thanks. At least our sacrifice is not in vain. Xp

I think you can't stop an A50 once begun. Idea is to prevent govts stopping just to get extra time. But EU could change the rules obv

Art 50 should have been triggered immediately - it was what people voted for. There was no suggestion of 'wait for the next gov' and I don't understand how Cameron thinks we can wait til October. He should have been prepared to trigger it or call a general election.

I think you can't stop an A50 once begun. Idea is to prevent govts stopping just to get extra time. But EU could change the rules obv

right you are, the wording of the report produced by the commission in the House of Lords was unclear on what exactly was meant by "the withdrawal agreement coming into force"

XP every hour that passes without it makes it less likely it'll ever trigger imo

UKIP has a point when it complains that it got 4 million votes in the last election but only 1 seat.

Could Labour campaign specifically on a platform of PR and attract a few of those voters? And then if it wins, actually implement PR straight away? And use that going forward as a way to put together ruling coalitions?

The scenario is bogged down negotiations with the EU losing patience and 'waterboarding' the UK on trade. Disordely, but the EU will be looking to what extent they could make the UK an example should anyone think of doing something similar - but perhaps not pointing guns to heads as they did to Greece.

Does anyone know what the extent of the damage will be to the Civil Service in good detail or can anyone point me to any writing on it? Lots around 'they don't have enough negotiators'. A lot of decoupling if Scotland also decides to leave in a couple of years.

He couldn't have refused to trigger it and stay in his position - fortunately as per that comment that's doing the rounds he knows it's a poisoned chalice and will not get less poisoned in the time it takes to appoint a new leader.

Ignorant question - did Cameron have the option to just go "Welp, seeya" like Miliband did and leave Osborne (as Deputy Leader) in charge until the new leader is chosen? Or is that sort of thing okay for the opposition but frowned on in the ruling party?

XP every hour that passes without it makes it less likely it'll ever trigger imo

I think you're right there. Part of my concern is that you either obey the results or you don't. I feel you have to, but if so article 50 needs to be triggered. If the results of the referendum never come through, at the next election we could have a massive far right vote or, potentially worse, participation could drop below 50% which would be even more disastrous.

(xp to dowd there)

(xxp oh you get the idea)

Could Labour campaign specifically on a platform of PR and attract a few of those voters? And then if it wins, actually implement PR straight away? And use that going forward as a way to put together ruling coalitions?

I don't think so. Remember that in the AV referendum, it was the parts of the country most receptive to ukip where they most emphatically rejected voting change as a nefarious scheme of pointy headed rootless cosmopolitans.

Coming over here and getting multiple votes.

I think I'm going to make a tshirt that says "I voted for av"

Does anyone know what the extent of the damage will be to the Civil Service in good detail

I don't think the plans are clear enough… but it will be figuring out how to unpick and replace EU legislation for a very long time. It means little capacity for doing anything positive - years at least, some people are saying a decade. I think some depts – Treasury, HMRC, Home Office (+ HMPO) , MoJ, Defra, BIS, maybe Cabinet Office – won't be doing much else at all apart from this and keeping their day-to-day just about ticking along. Staffing problems probably real: I don't think there are enough skilled specialists -everyone is saying trade negotiators, but just EU-law types as well - to do this, so a few years of very expensive contractor hell.

I saw a decent post about this, I'll try to dig it up (but I've read too much over the last few days)

just struck me that HMPO will not be able to deal with the demand spike when they announce a new non-European passport in 2018.

Drones will sort out everyone there, one way or another.

Just out of passing interest: is it the habit, in the Civil Service, to pronounce HMPO as "humpo"?

round after round of redundencies in the past few years will have helped - how much does it cost to recruit people? and how much will it have cost to pay off the people they'll be brought in to replace?

A lot depends on the stance that Angela Merkel takes as well - it sounds like she'll be less hawkish than Juncker, but is also unlikely to allow single market access without free movement. The Leave campaign was such a weird consensus of usually conflicting interests (free-market fundamentalists, garden variety Little England Tories, sovereignty wonks, socialists, fascists, anxious or angry working class voters, morons etc) that it's extremely likely to break up if the basic point of leaving the EU is achieved. Free movement is an issue for some of those people but clearly not all of them.

you either obey the results or you don't. I feel you have to
I don't think you do, honestly. Few of the other EU referendums have been obeyed in their countries either -- and although the ill-informed voters didn't know it was advisory, it *was* an advisory referendum.

I also think that a halfway competent politician could use the combination of the total retraction of the Leave campaign's platform and the immediate proof that Project Fear was telling the truth to say "the Leave side was lied to, and people should have another say in the cold light of day".

As for the upset millions that will be left behind, they are unfortunately with us whatever happens: No sane EU exit can be conducted that will deliver what they think they voted for, and especially not while keeping the country together. So we have to deal with them whatever choices we make about the EU.

xp
yeah the redundancies mean there isn't much spare capacity
and actual recruitment is v v slow (and so tightly bound that rates are unattractive) - i'm guessing but I think it'll be contractors on shocking day rates.

Halfway competent politicians a bit loose on the ground though - there was one who was trying to draw the sting by pointing out immigration is not the enemy, can't remember what happened to the old chap...

oh well - we can afford it xpost

also thin on the ground, which is actually a phrase.

and although the ill-informed voters didn't know it was advisory, it *was* an advisory referendum.

I hear you, but then what exactly is the advice this referendum has given, other than leave EU?

"I don't think you do, honestly. Few of the other EU referendums have been obeyed in their countries either -- and although the ill-informed voters didn't know it was advisory, it *was* an advisory referendum."

i'm not sure stabbing the voters in the back is the most effective way to disprove the "stab in the back" theory.

The only alternative to not stabbing them in the back is cutting our own throats though.

^^^ excellent post by stet up there. Exactly how I'm feeling right now.

Oddly, I never me anyone, pro or anti, who didn't complain about how long it had gone on for. It could have happens in May along with the regional elections, but of some reason that wasn't long enough. That extra time drove lots of people to a frustrated position. Still not clear why it had to wait - if people were waiting for an opinion to be formed why even have the referendum. It's meant to gauge th support for an idea, not create or diminish support.

(Obv drunk - I'll leave it there.)

as someone who has experienced what bnp/NF/ukip supporters can do, i dont esp welcome a red ukip, nor do i want labour to reject immigration. but i would welcome any left wing govt who attempts to understand, address, and placate the anger of their former voters (though perhaps many of these former labour voters are too far gone now, or were always scum in the first place), without necessarily emboldening their racism. this is what labour should do.

JC has been making the right noises - this is about cuts and this non-recession we have been in since '08. Their anger needs to be re-directed the moment it gets into racism.

https://imgur.com/gallery/dhwPLtv

https://twitter.com/emmakennedy/status/747759988161060865

JC has been making the right noises - this is about cuts and this non-recession we have been in since '08. Their anger needs to be re-directed the moment it gets into racism.

He is making the right noises. If the result of the referendum is anything to go by then he isn't getting the right people to listen to him.

The only alternative to not stabbing them in the back is cutting our own throats though.

telling "them" and "us" there, but srsly, you can't articulate this position without defending some kind of privileged class that can ignore democratic votes when it doesn't suit. blame Cameron or whoever, sure, but nobody noticed "Advisory" in big letters anywhere on the ballot paper

That's what advisory literally means - a result that can be ignored. If Leave wants to argue that all its voters were well-informed and knew what they were getting into it can't simultaneously cry that they didn't know it wasn't binding

nobody noticed "Advisory" but then most people didn't notice "Won't reduce immigration or precipitate immediate repatriation of anyone that *you* think isn't British or just shouldn't be here"

If it looks like the government is ignoring this then the fury will be so intense that the Leave share of the vote may be even larger next time round. This just isn't a rational thing. They will keep banging the drum louder and louder until Britain eventually does leave.

Yes, this is why I think getting us out of this hole requires a politician who can explain why they're not getting what they want -- viz, 1. You were lied to, 2. It's obviously much more dangerous than you were told and then say 3. Given this are you sure? If so vote for a pro-Leave party at this here general election.

I think there's a good order of difference between questioning the validity of people's reasons for voting for a cause and questioning their belief that a national referendum conducted in the same way as other political elections might be legally binding

There's no 'other' there - this wasn't an election.

"The only alternative to not stabbing them in the back is cutting our own throats though.

― stet"

honestly, a lot of the damage has been done already. the metaphor i'd go for is that the majority of voters have stabbed britain in the face. i can't say for sure that this won't prove fatal to britain, and certainly i understand the desire for self-preservation, but i do think there needs to be an understanding of the cost. failing to honor the results of this referendum would not just be a stab in the back to the voters, but to global democracy, which is already being pretty sorely threatened everywhere.

right now, there is a man running for president of the united states, and he is getting up and cheering britain, and he is saying that this is what he wants america to be like. and those of us with the slightest bit of sense in our heads, we are horrified, because here's somebody openly proclaiming that, if elected, he will immediately turn the entirety of the most powerful country in the world into a disaster area. a guy like that doesn't have particularly strong chances of winning the presidency.

now, say the british political leadership declares they will not honor the results of the referendum. suddenly this guy is saying that the powers that be can't be trusted to respect the will of the people, and he's got incontrovertible evidence. suddenly this guy is looking a lot more electable.

that's not even getting into what the long-term effects for british government would be. there's no point in temporarily limiting the effects of the bleeding when mr. "you're not laughing now" is waiting in the wings to pull the band-aid off again.

it's ok, if we just say "it wasn't a real vote" long enough everybody will be chill

The voters, sure. For the Leave campaign leaders, it's inexcusable.

They should have been talking about it all the time, getting lots of cast-iron guarantees it would be honoured etc etc. But of course they were shambolic dissemblers who didn't want it to happen either, so eh.

xp gd points rushomancy. This is why everyone everywhere is saying "we must leave, the people have spoken" even though they're clearly all giving themselves space to not walk away at all.

Nobody will ever say they're not honouring the referendum. They'll say they are clarifying it, or re-iterating support for it now the many details are known. A referendum can't bind a whole new government elected on an explicit no-exit manifesto either.

The only person this could truly have bound has *already* ignored it, and quit instead of implementing it. The only people left who could still be strongly bound are Johnson/Gove, should either of them become leaders and not dissolve the govt.

the weight of the lies here, on all sides, is truly colossal. all of the promises the leave campaigners made were lies. cameron's promise to invoke article 50 if Leave won was a lie. at this point i'd be hard-pressed to find a single honest statement made by anybody over the length of the campaign.

and that's the throat-cutting. all of these lies are being exposed, and nobody trusts britain right now. so you're facing four months of prolonged agony until the next election, because there is nobody in power who is willing to fulfill the democratically expressed will of the people or to honor their promises. maybe at this point you should start considering just turning over absolute rule of the country to the queen.

corbyn was only six out of 10 for remain but said he was seven(!)

Will any Labour MP stand for leader with an unambiguous pledge to keep Britain in the EU? I think they might beat Corbyn if that happens.

lol that would make Corbyn the pragmatic electable one facing a challenge from an ideologue sure to be soundly rejected in middle england