I think I'm going to revise my estimated probability of severe disruption in April to 85%... if there's no deal in the next month I'm going to stock up on 4 weeks of non-perishables and hope the south coast doesn't get turned into a lorry park for longer than that. If I'm overestimating the problems I can always use the pasta etc. over a longer timescale.
The point is mainly to avoid post currency shock price hikes and a temporary decrease in variety due to break-up of JIT supply chains, since it's unlikely people ate going to starve and if the UK goes all mad max then it'll all be stolen anyway.
I doubt that much else will be required for a short disruption - water supplies are unlikely to be interrupted since the UK is self sufficient, although power is needed to purify and pump the water.
I work in the energy industry, and interruptions to power are very unlikely unless there's an interruption to imported gas. Coal and nuclear have fuel stockpiles, but if the gas stations were unable to run then blackouts or rationing would be inevitable. The UK is now a net importer of gas with relatively low levels of storage compared to our continental neighbours. We do though have links to non-EU gas suppliers via pipelines to Norway and LNG terminals, and I know of no specific legal reason why gas imports via the EU would be disrupted.
Anyone else for stockpiling?
British Politics Guide
Re: British Politics Guide
Sal: On the rise of the SNP: Yes, the rise in vote for the SNP at Westminster followed the referendum, and was partly a catch-up of their support at Holyrood. I suspect a fair chunk were, up until that point voting on a "SNP for Holyrood, Labour for Westminster" basis under the assumption that a UK-wide party would better defend a constituency's interests at a UK-wide parliament. The interactions between Labour and the SNP, and members thereof, during the referendum redefined any potential vote switch: as the main party within Scotland itself to defend the Union at the time of the referendum, the Labour were now more clearly seen as a Unionist party than a left-wing one.
On the recent re-rise of the Tories in Scotland: Personality and support for individuals is important AFAICT, but not that of May of course. Rather that of Ruth Davidson and Nicola Sturgeon: Sturgeon was for a while the most popular politician in Scotland, and indeed Britain. This place has since been lost to Davidson. I'm not sure what people see in Davidson to be honest.
The SNP have been seen as left-wing for good while now, which has helped them get former Labour voters disappointed with New Labour. Indeed, Salmond seems to me as further left than Sturgeon. And moving to the left was the aim of the 79 group, that Salmond was part of.
On the recent re-rise of the Tories in Scotland: Personality and support for individuals is important AFAICT, but not that of May of course. Rather that of Ruth Davidson and Nicola Sturgeon: Sturgeon was for a while the most popular politician in Scotland, and indeed Britain. This place has since been lost to Davidson. I'm not sure what people see in Davidson to be honest.
The SNP have been seen as left-wing for good while now, which has helped them get former Labour voters disappointed with New Labour. Indeed, Salmond seems to me as further left than Sturgeon. And moving to the left was the aim of the 79 group, that Salmond was part of.
Re: British Politics Guide
There's been a shocking development: the Prime Minister is thought to perhaps be on the verge of being ousted!
Yes, hard to believe, I know.
It's now known that David Davis and Boris Johnson and their coteries have been explicitly lobbying MPs to call for the PM's dismissal. The number of MPs who have sent formal letters of no confidence to the 1922 committee is now up to 46, only two short of the 48 that would automatically trigger a leadership election. The Prime Minister has been summoned to appear before the committee on Wednesday* for what has been described by MPs as a "trial". The chairman of the committee, however, has, despite his theoretical impartiality, been imploring MPs to think carefully about the consequences to the country and the party of submitting letters to him. The PM's forces have at the same time been in negotiations with him to delay the automatic leadership election by a month or so, if it is called, to give her chance to conclude a brexit deal before the campaign.
The language is getting pretty heated. One MP said he'd been pressured to submit a letter on the grounds that "history would never forgive him" if he didn't stop May. Another acknowledged that ousting May would probably badly damage the party and whomever did the deed - but drew a comparison to the last time we were in a similar situation with Europe, when the Conservatives did remove Neville Chamberlain after his appeasement of Hitler, and thought that the current party had a duty to live up to that legacy now that that situation was being repeated.
Not that it's only from the hardliners. A march for a second referendum drew 670,000 protestors to Westminster, and the organisers of that march are said to have been in negotiations with soft Tories, and to have found approximately fifty Tory MPs, including five government ministers, willing to demand a "People's Vote" to stop Brexit (because merely carrying out the will of the last referendum is tyrannical and elitist, as the people have not been consulted (other than through a national referendum, obviously)).
Meanwhile, a former minister who resigned over Chequers is attempting to pass a bill that would enshrine the Prime Minister's promises of absolute, inviolable red-lines into law. This is of course seen as an act of rebellion, since everyone knows the Prime Minister is intending to renege on her promises by violating those red lines, and clearly she wasn't to have been taken literally.
-----------------
To give a quick recap while we're at it: everything has now been agreed with the EU, we're told, except for a few minor questions, which may end in no deal being made. The minor questions include membership of the customs union and single market, and the Irish Border Question.
As you hopefully by now, the Irish Border Question has never been answered, because it's unanswerable. So the PM's attitude, as it is with all difficult questions, is that we should avoid trying to answer it for now, and assume it'll be answered one day. The EU does not like this. So we are constructing a seriesof 'backstops':
- the UK will leave the customs union and the single market and everything, becoming completely independent of the EU
- however, we won't do that until the irish border question has been solved, which isn't an issue because that could happen at any moment, as soon as a Technology is invented that makes the problem go away
- so instead, the PM wants us to, hypothetically (if the magic of Technology hasn't worked by March), as a 'backstop', negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would basically keep the whole of the UK subject to EU regulations, only it wouldn't be the current customs union it would be a new and better one. And it would only be temporary - as soon as Technology happens, we'll be leaving and Regaining Our Sovereignty
- however! The EU point out that since we've left it so late before making this suggestion, and we've taken two years to agree to nothing at all, we clearly don't have time to negotiate an all-new customs union by March. The UK say that doesn't matter - we'll leave under our terms now and work something out with the EU when the fancy takes us. The EU don't accept this, because they say it's theoretically possible we'll never actually agree the new deal, in which case, boom, hard border in Ireland. To prevent the hard border in Ireland, they say we need an actual legally-binding clause in the withdrawal agreement in march, and the only thing that we have time to negotiate by then is the simple idea of keeping northern ireland in the UK, the 'backstop to the backstop'.
- but, recognising that this is politically difficult, the EU have also offered a concession: they'll let us remain subject to EU regulations within the EU zones in our 'transitional' period indefinitely while we work out the new arrangements. The PM says that we should instead enter an 'implementation' period, which will be 'time-limited'. The phrase 'time-limited' is proving tricky, because, as critics have pointed out, everything in the universe is time-limited, and the PM will not commit to there being any actual definite end-date to this period.
So, to recap the recap, we're looking at multiple phases:
1. we sign the withdrawal agreement in March, but continue to for all intents and purposes remain within the EU for an indefinite but 'time-limited' period, while we invent the Technology. So no Hard Border.
2. we also, as part of the legally-binding withdrawal agreement, promise that if this time-limited period ends before the New Arrangements can begin, there will still be no Hard Border, because Northern Ireland will just remain in the EU zone of control while the rest of the UK leaves. So, no Hard Border.
3. we will then negotiate a new, temporary, customs union with the EU. This will last until Technology. This customs union will ensure there is no Hard Border.
4. ... ?
5. As a result of Step 4, Technology will have solved the irish border question. Either northern ireland or the whole of the UK, depending, then leaves the EU agreements and becomes a free-trading independent nation with favourable trade deals with the EU (eg there'll be free trade for UK goods and financial services, but not for EU goods, or people).
Now, there are several ways to see this.
On the first point, Remainers see this as like being the EU, but worse. Brexiteers have dubbed this "Hotel California Brexit" - because we checked out at the time we liked, but we can still never leave. The PM says this will be time-limited. Brexiteers say it can't be, because if it were, we might have to move on to stage 2, and because the PM knows she can't move on to stage 2, that's why she's refused to commit to Hotel California lasting for only a definite limited time, as opposed to her preferred option of an indefinite, but theoretically probably non-infinite, time. So Brexiteers think that in practice this will last forever, ensuring Softest Possible Brexit.
Then there's stage 2. Stage 2 is what critics of the PM have termed "the dissolution of the United Kingdom". Northern Ireland will remain under Brussels rule, despite having had no say in Brexit (they voted against) or in the agreement of this agreement (they oppose it), or in the formulation of EU rules (because we've taken them out of the EU). Northern Irish citizens will effectively become a separate class, subject to border checks inside the UK. Northern Ireland does not like this idea. Since the government relies on the DUP, that means it cannot currently happen. Moreover, Scotland does not like this idea either, for the opposite reason: if Northern Ireland, which voted Remain, is allowed to stay in the EU and benefit from the customs unit, why the hell does Scotland have to be dragged out of the customs union against its will? The PM, however, says that the problems with stage 2 aren't real problems, because stage 2 will never happen. It's just a legally-binding obligation she'll have entered us all into. Stage 2 is like, for example, offering your house as collateral to buy lottery tickets: it doesn't matter if the bank theoretically will have the legal right to repossess your house, because obviously by that point you'll have won the lottery so what's the problem? In reality, she says, we'll move seamlessly into stage 3, and nothing could go wrong.
Stage 3, Remainers are probably mildly OK with, though it's still EU-but-worse. Brexiteers, however, think that this is basically the same as stage 1. They think the PM will be either unwilling or unable to sign any deal with the EU that isn't just staying in the existing customs union but probably worse. They, again, think that the 'temporary' situation will not be temporary. They think the EU just won't agree to move to stage 5 - it'll say Technology hasn't happened yet. That means that the PM won't be able to leave stage 3 without going back to stage 2, which isn't acceptable. The PM, however, sees this as a brief period before we move to stage 4.
On stage 4, there are conflicting views. The Brexiteer view is that there is no stage 4 - we're British damnit, Technology will simply appear when we need it, what's the problem? We'll just go straight to stage 5, if the EU lets us (which they won't). The Remainer view is also that there is no stage 4, because there's no known way to get from stage 3 to stage 5.
Once we get to stage 5, Remainers will be unhappy. But Brexiteers will be happy. However, Brexiteers are still unhappy, because they think the whole system has been created to make it impossible to get to stage 5. Why don't we just make the EU accept our preferred terms and conditions? What's all this 'negotiation' for? The EU aren't negotiating in good faith, because they haven't accepted our terms.
It's unclear how this can be resolved.
-----------------------
*small note: the committee is a party committee, and so, unlike "standing committees" and "select committees" of the house of commons, it does not have the legal power to subpoena people. However, as the body that is in charge of the trapdoor under the prime minister's feet, its commands are pretty close to law for her, at least so long as she has a noose around her neck.
Incidentally, subpoena power is an issue that's been poking into the news occasionally recently. Traditionally, when Parliament summons you, you come running, but recently some people, particularly businessmen, have been refusing to appear before Parliament. This makes for interesting legal discussions: parliamentary subpoenas aren't things that can be enforced through the courts or the police. Traditionally, they didn't have to be: Parliament has the right to investigate, arrest and even imprison people whenever it feels like it, without resorting to the court system that exists to help them out. Parliament, after all, is sovereign. However, precisely because it's so powerful, it's hardly ever been challenged, which means it's hardly ever used its powers to compell or punish witnesses, which means it's now constitutionally unclear whether they still exist or not. Of course, Parliament could make it clear it had those powers if it wanted to - but it would be reluctant to do so, as it would look sort of tyrannical. On the other hand, if it continues not to enforce its subpoenas, they become toothless, which means parliament loses one of its best tools to investigate issues.
Yes, hard to believe, I know.
It's now known that David Davis and Boris Johnson and their coteries have been explicitly lobbying MPs to call for the PM's dismissal. The number of MPs who have sent formal letters of no confidence to the 1922 committee is now up to 46, only two short of the 48 that would automatically trigger a leadership election. The Prime Minister has been summoned to appear before the committee on Wednesday* for what has been described by MPs as a "trial". The chairman of the committee, however, has, despite his theoretical impartiality, been imploring MPs to think carefully about the consequences to the country and the party of submitting letters to him. The PM's forces have at the same time been in negotiations with him to delay the automatic leadership election by a month or so, if it is called, to give her chance to conclude a brexit deal before the campaign.
The language is getting pretty heated. One MP said he'd been pressured to submit a letter on the grounds that "history would never forgive him" if he didn't stop May. Another acknowledged that ousting May would probably badly damage the party and whomever did the deed - but drew a comparison to the last time we were in a similar situation with Europe, when the Conservatives did remove Neville Chamberlain after his appeasement of Hitler, and thought that the current party had a duty to live up to that legacy now that that situation was being repeated.
Not that it's only from the hardliners. A march for a second referendum drew 670,000 protestors to Westminster, and the organisers of that march are said to have been in negotiations with soft Tories, and to have found approximately fifty Tory MPs, including five government ministers, willing to demand a "People's Vote" to stop Brexit (because merely carrying out the will of the last referendum is tyrannical and elitist, as the people have not been consulted (other than through a national referendum, obviously)).
Meanwhile, a former minister who resigned over Chequers is attempting to pass a bill that would enshrine the Prime Minister's promises of absolute, inviolable red-lines into law. This is of course seen as an act of rebellion, since everyone knows the Prime Minister is intending to renege on her promises by violating those red lines, and clearly she wasn't to have been taken literally.
-----------------
To give a quick recap while we're at it: everything has now been agreed with the EU, we're told, except for a few minor questions, which may end in no deal being made. The minor questions include membership of the customs union and single market, and the Irish Border Question.
As you hopefully by now, the Irish Border Question has never been answered, because it's unanswerable. So the PM's attitude, as it is with all difficult questions, is that we should avoid trying to answer it for now, and assume it'll be answered one day. The EU does not like this. So we are constructing a seriesof 'backstops':
- the UK will leave the customs union and the single market and everything, becoming completely independent of the EU
- however, we won't do that until the irish border question has been solved, which isn't an issue because that could happen at any moment, as soon as a Technology is invented that makes the problem go away
- so instead, the PM wants us to, hypothetically (if the magic of Technology hasn't worked by March), as a 'backstop', negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would basically keep the whole of the UK subject to EU regulations, only it wouldn't be the current customs union it would be a new and better one. And it would only be temporary - as soon as Technology happens, we'll be leaving and Regaining Our Sovereignty
- however! The EU point out that since we've left it so late before making this suggestion, and we've taken two years to agree to nothing at all, we clearly don't have time to negotiate an all-new customs union by March. The UK say that doesn't matter - we'll leave under our terms now and work something out with the EU when the fancy takes us. The EU don't accept this, because they say it's theoretically possible we'll never actually agree the new deal, in which case, boom, hard border in Ireland. To prevent the hard border in Ireland, they say we need an actual legally-binding clause in the withdrawal agreement in march, and the only thing that we have time to negotiate by then is the simple idea of keeping northern ireland in the UK, the 'backstop to the backstop'.
- but, recognising that this is politically difficult, the EU have also offered a concession: they'll let us remain subject to EU regulations within the EU zones in our 'transitional' period indefinitely while we work out the new arrangements. The PM says that we should instead enter an 'implementation' period, which will be 'time-limited'. The phrase 'time-limited' is proving tricky, because, as critics have pointed out, everything in the universe is time-limited, and the PM will not commit to there being any actual definite end-date to this period.
So, to recap the recap, we're looking at multiple phases:
1. we sign the withdrawal agreement in March, but continue to for all intents and purposes remain within the EU for an indefinite but 'time-limited' period, while we invent the Technology. So no Hard Border.
2. we also, as part of the legally-binding withdrawal agreement, promise that if this time-limited period ends before the New Arrangements can begin, there will still be no Hard Border, because Northern Ireland will just remain in the EU zone of control while the rest of the UK leaves. So, no Hard Border.
3. we will then negotiate a new, temporary, customs union with the EU. This will last until Technology. This customs union will ensure there is no Hard Border.
4. ... ?
5. As a result of Step 4, Technology will have solved the irish border question. Either northern ireland or the whole of the UK, depending, then leaves the EU agreements and becomes a free-trading independent nation with favourable trade deals with the EU (eg there'll be free trade for UK goods and financial services, but not for EU goods, or people).
Now, there are several ways to see this.
On the first point, Remainers see this as like being the EU, but worse. Brexiteers have dubbed this "Hotel California Brexit" - because we checked out at the time we liked, but we can still never leave. The PM says this will be time-limited. Brexiteers say it can't be, because if it were, we might have to move on to stage 2, and because the PM knows she can't move on to stage 2, that's why she's refused to commit to Hotel California lasting for only a definite limited time, as opposed to her preferred option of an indefinite, but theoretically probably non-infinite, time. So Brexiteers think that in practice this will last forever, ensuring Softest Possible Brexit.
Then there's stage 2. Stage 2 is what critics of the PM have termed "the dissolution of the United Kingdom". Northern Ireland will remain under Brussels rule, despite having had no say in Brexit (they voted against) or in the agreement of this agreement (they oppose it), or in the formulation of EU rules (because we've taken them out of the EU). Northern Irish citizens will effectively become a separate class, subject to border checks inside the UK. Northern Ireland does not like this idea. Since the government relies on the DUP, that means it cannot currently happen. Moreover, Scotland does not like this idea either, for the opposite reason: if Northern Ireland, which voted Remain, is allowed to stay in the EU and benefit from the customs unit, why the hell does Scotland have to be dragged out of the customs union against its will? The PM, however, says that the problems with stage 2 aren't real problems, because stage 2 will never happen. It's just a legally-binding obligation she'll have entered us all into. Stage 2 is like, for example, offering your house as collateral to buy lottery tickets: it doesn't matter if the bank theoretically will have the legal right to repossess your house, because obviously by that point you'll have won the lottery so what's the problem? In reality, she says, we'll move seamlessly into stage 3, and nothing could go wrong.
Stage 3, Remainers are probably mildly OK with, though it's still EU-but-worse. Brexiteers, however, think that this is basically the same as stage 1. They think the PM will be either unwilling or unable to sign any deal with the EU that isn't just staying in the existing customs union but probably worse. They, again, think that the 'temporary' situation will not be temporary. They think the EU just won't agree to move to stage 5 - it'll say Technology hasn't happened yet. That means that the PM won't be able to leave stage 3 without going back to stage 2, which isn't acceptable. The PM, however, sees this as a brief period before we move to stage 4.
On stage 4, there are conflicting views. The Brexiteer view is that there is no stage 4 - we're British damnit, Technology will simply appear when we need it, what's the problem? We'll just go straight to stage 5, if the EU lets us (which they won't). The Remainer view is also that there is no stage 4, because there's no known way to get from stage 3 to stage 5.
Once we get to stage 5, Remainers will be unhappy. But Brexiteers will be happy. However, Brexiteers are still unhappy, because they think the whole system has been created to make it impossible to get to stage 5. Why don't we just make the EU accept our preferred terms and conditions? What's all this 'negotiation' for? The EU aren't negotiating in good faith, because they haven't accepted our terms.
It's unclear how this can be resolved.
-----------------------
*small note: the committee is a party committee, and so, unlike "standing committees" and "select committees" of the house of commons, it does not have the legal power to subpoena people. However, as the body that is in charge of the trapdoor under the prime minister's feet, its commands are pretty close to law for her, at least so long as she has a noose around her neck.
Incidentally, subpoena power is an issue that's been poking into the news occasionally recently. Traditionally, when Parliament summons you, you come running, but recently some people, particularly businessmen, have been refusing to appear before Parliament. This makes for interesting legal discussions: parliamentary subpoenas aren't things that can be enforced through the courts or the police. Traditionally, they didn't have to be: Parliament has the right to investigate, arrest and even imprison people whenever it feels like it, without resorting to the court system that exists to help them out. Parliament, after all, is sovereign. However, precisely because it's so powerful, it's hardly ever been challenged, which means it's hardly ever used its powers to compell or punish witnesses, which means it's now constitutionally unclear whether they still exist or not. Of course, Parliament could make it clear it had those powers if it wanted to - but it would be reluctant to do so, as it would look sort of tyrannical. On the other hand, if it continues not to enforce its subpoenas, they become toothless, which means parliament loses one of its best tools to investigate issues.
-
chris_notts
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:35 pm
Re: British Politics Guide
It's clear that TM has created one huge mess by her inability to do anything but kick cans down the road. I really believe she has to rank in the top two or three worst prime ministers of the UK in the 20th century, and probably the 19th as well.
The indecisive outcome of the last election wasn't entirely her fault, but the constant decisions to place short term tactical and party political goals over the well-bring of the country are entirely hers. We would have been better off following and preparing for either non-suicidal strategy actually potentially on offer (Norway / SM max, FTA with special status for Northern Ireland) and forcing a decision earlier than the run down the clock and cross our fingers strategy that seems to be TM's only trick.
I know that there's littke time now for anything new, and getting rid of TM now would most likely make things worse rather than better, but I would derive a lot of personal satisfaction from seeing her kicked out of 10 Downing street, Parliament, the Conservative party, and public life. Here's hoping that as many of those happen as soon as possible.
The indecisive outcome of the last election wasn't entirely her fault, but the constant decisions to place short term tactical and party political goals over the well-bring of the country are entirely hers. We would have been better off following and preparing for either non-suicidal strategy actually potentially on offer (Norway / SM max, FTA with special status for Northern Ireland) and forcing a decision earlier than the run down the clock and cross our fingers strategy that seems to be TM's only trick.
I know that there's littke time now for anything new, and getting rid of TM now would most likely make things worse rather than better, but I would derive a lot of personal satisfaction from seeing her kicked out of 10 Downing street, Parliament, the Conservative party, and public life. Here's hoping that as many of those happen as soon as possible.
Re: British Politics Guide
I think everyone would. It's tricky, though, because a loss for May would be a win for whichever of the bastards around her decides to do her in. When Sajid Javid is your best hope for a non-insane, non-inept leader, you're not in a good place. I'd really like to see all of them get their comeuppance.chris_notts wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:03 pm I would derive a lot of personal satisfaction from seeing her kicked out of 10 Downing street, Parliament, the Conservative party, and public life. Here's hoping that as many of those happen as soon as possible.
But the only way that happens is them losing an election to Labour. And then we'd have a government of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott. And ye gods, that could have us praying for the return of the Tories.
[I'm not inherently opposed to a McDonnellesque swing to the left - I think the media ridiculously exaggerates both how dangerous left-wing policies would be, and also just how left-wing the policies they're proposing actually are (though admittedly this last conference did bump them a bit to the left). The problem is: are those the people I'd trust to implement radical reforms in a way that wasn't cretinously awful? Further question: do I think that Labour could actually hold together under the pressure of power? Unfortunately, I think the answer may be no to both. The current government is so bad that if my vote counted in the slightest I'd still vote Labour (if we're going to be terribly run, at least let's try being terribly run in a different direction for once). But it's not a prospect to fill me with much joy or hope...]
Re: British Politics Guide
In the case of a new election, there might also be a hung Parliament. In which case, if the Lib Dems end up being good negotiators, there might... ... ... ...wait, did I just write the words "if the Lib Dems end up being good negotiators"? Ok, wait, there might be a small problem with what I was about to say.
-
chris_notts
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:35 pm
Re: British Politics Guide
I think quoting Ayn Rand, patron saint of libertarian special snowflakes everywhere, should automatically disqualify you from all forms of public office, personally. There are some kinds of stupid that just aren't curable.Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:16 pm I think everyone would. It's tricky, though, because a loss for May would be a win for whichever of the bastards around her decides to do her in. When Sajid Javid is your best hope for a non-insane, non-inept leader, you're not in a good place. I'd really like to see all of them get their comeuppance.
For those who don't know, Sajid is a self-confessed fan and reads the Fountainhead every year. Incidentally, is Ayn Rand becoming more popular on this side of the pond? I know her books have long been incredibly popular among certain sections of the US voting population, but my perception is that she is much less of an influence over here and most people don't even know who she is.
I agree, I'm very much in favour of a swing to the left, and I think that a lot of the Corbyn hysteria is massively over-blown. But I do agree that the quality of leadership amd policy making isn't amazing. The problem is that a better Corbyn wasn't on offer in the last two Labour leadership elections.[I'm not inherently opposed to a McDonnellesque swing to the left - I think the media ridiculously exaggerates both how dangerous left-wing policies would be, and also just how left-wing the policies they're proposing actually are (though admittedly this last conference did bump them a bit to the left). The problem is: are those the people I'd trust to implement radical reforms in a way that wasn't cretinously awful?
To take one example of a bizarre policy choice: the 10% worker ownership idea. By proposing it they instantly started people talking about asset confiscation and capital flight. If they'd just proposed copying the German works council model, they could have said a) we're giving workers much more control, b) we're not confiscating anything, and c) the model has been implemented in Germany, the powerhouse of Europe, for years so clearly it isn't such a disaster.
Re: British Politics Guide
My problem with Corbyn is his international policy, his lack of ability (regardless of willingness, I think he might be actually willing) to discipline/kick out anti-semites and that he is better an ideologue than a statesman. I actually like most of his domestic policies, and would prefer him to May, but I think I would prefer some people from New Labour over him even though I don't like their domestic policies.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť
kårroť
Re: British Politics Guide
I happen to know some people who know some people who are ardent conservatives. Ayn Rand's never had the general publicity here that she's had in the US, but apparently she's been a cult classic for a certain hard-right politico set for decades. I suspect a lot of the recent Tory intakes, who tend to be much more radically right-wing, are at least second-hand fans.chris_notts wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:56 pm For those who don't know, Sajid is a self-confessed fan and reads the Fountainhead every year. Incidentally, is Ayn Rand becoming more popular on this side of the pond? I know her books have long been incredibly popular among certain sections of the US voting population, but my perception is that she is much less of an influence over here and most people don't even know who she is.
In other news: the 1922 committee has wholeheartedly supported the PM. So she'll be around now for at least another week.
Re: British Politics Guide
Oh, there's an interesting thing happening, incidentally.
Over the weekend, there was a fuss about an unnamed businessman who'se been sexually assaulting people. Allegedly. Nobody, officially, knows who it is, but they'd been accused by at least five women, and now up to six. The problem is, all the women have agreed not to discuss the accusations publically, in exchange for cash. Which, I guess, is their right. But at the weekend, the courts ruled that this also meant that the perpetrator couldn't be accused by anyone else either: there was a major newspaper investigation, but because the investigation was based on the allegations covered by NDAs - allegations that were therefore themselves illegal - the newspapers were prohibited from printing it. Because the right to buy a victim's silence is more important than the ability of the free media, or indeed the police, to investigate criminal acts.
But here's the interesting bit: apparently an MP is saying that, if the victims want, they'll name the perpetrator. This is possible because of something called parliamentary privilege. It's basically a constitutional convention in which MPs look at the law, assess the law, and then say "fuck you, law, I'm an MP, so you don't apply to me." Specifically, an MP speaking in the House of Commons cannot be prosecuted for their remarks. This means that MPs are free to violate the official secrets act (as when the previously-top-secret existence of the BT tower, a 177m tower open to the public in the middle of London, was revealed to Parliament by Kate Hoey only 31 years after its construction), or to flagrantly ignore judicial injunctions (as when Paul Farrelly exposed the existence of superinjunctions in 2009*). They're also free to ignore NDAs (theirs or anyone else's). Technically, this privilege does not extend to journalists, and there have been attempts to prevent journalists from reporting on what's been said in Parliament, but so far as we know the gaggers have backed down every time. The fact that parliamentary proceedings are a) recorded in detail in the publically-available Hansard journal, and b) televised live, means that once an MP says something it's really hard to hide. Needless to say, there have been discussions about removing parliamentary privilege from the constitution, as it undermines the thing the country is founded on: ensuring secrecy for the private affairs of the super-rich.
*injunctions prevent you from saying something publically. Superinjunctions, which you can get if you're really rich, make sure nobody can contest this, because as well as making it illegal to report the news, they make it illegal to report the fact that you've been prohibited from reporting something, and even the fact that there was a court case at all. The idea is that if nobody knows you've been silenced - and nobody knows why you've suddenly gone to jail for trying to get the word out - nobody can help you. They're mostly used by rich men to hush up their affairs and assaults, though they're also used by criminal companies (or companies who would be criminals if they didn't have money) to silence all those nasty dead-poor-people stories**.
Of course, the fact an MP could blow the whistle is a flaw in the system, as is the possibility that a lawyer might find a loophole in the superinjunction, so now there are hyperinjunctions - where, if you're rich enough, you can make it illegal for your victims to seek help from their MP or to consult a lawyer. Progress!
**the case that revealed superinjunctions to the public was the Trafigura case. In this particular case, the issue was Trafigura's policy of illegally exporting toxic waste from the Netherlands (it wasn't from there originally) and secretly dumping it around residential areas in Cote d'Ivoire, fully knowing how dangerous it was, and killing at least 17 people and injuring 30,000 others; the case was not related to Trafigura's illegal export of oil from Iraq in defiance of UN sanctions, or the explosion of a tank of toxic waste in Norway, or the company's involvement in illegal price fixing in Malta, or their policy of selling substandard, polluted fuel to African countries despite the enormous health consequences, or the fact that they're the leading conduit for oil from Russia to avoid international sanctions. Coincidentally, the former Leader of the House of Lords is one of their non-executive directors.
Over the weekend, there was a fuss about an unnamed businessman who'se been sexually assaulting people. Allegedly. Nobody, officially, knows who it is, but they'd been accused by at least five women, and now up to six. The problem is, all the women have agreed not to discuss the accusations publically, in exchange for cash. Which, I guess, is their right. But at the weekend, the courts ruled that this also meant that the perpetrator couldn't be accused by anyone else either: there was a major newspaper investigation, but because the investigation was based on the allegations covered by NDAs - allegations that were therefore themselves illegal - the newspapers were prohibited from printing it. Because the right to buy a victim's silence is more important than the ability of the free media, or indeed the police, to investigate criminal acts.
But here's the interesting bit: apparently an MP is saying that, if the victims want, they'll name the perpetrator. This is possible because of something called parliamentary privilege. It's basically a constitutional convention in which MPs look at the law, assess the law, and then say "fuck you, law, I'm an MP, so you don't apply to me." Specifically, an MP speaking in the House of Commons cannot be prosecuted for their remarks. This means that MPs are free to violate the official secrets act (as when the previously-top-secret existence of the BT tower, a 177m tower open to the public in the middle of London, was revealed to Parliament by Kate Hoey only 31 years after its construction), or to flagrantly ignore judicial injunctions (as when Paul Farrelly exposed the existence of superinjunctions in 2009*). They're also free to ignore NDAs (theirs or anyone else's). Technically, this privilege does not extend to journalists, and there have been attempts to prevent journalists from reporting on what's been said in Parliament, but so far as we know the gaggers have backed down every time. The fact that parliamentary proceedings are a) recorded in detail in the publically-available Hansard journal, and b) televised live, means that once an MP says something it's really hard to hide. Needless to say, there have been discussions about removing parliamentary privilege from the constitution, as it undermines the thing the country is founded on: ensuring secrecy for the private affairs of the super-rich.
*injunctions prevent you from saying something publically. Superinjunctions, which you can get if you're really rich, make sure nobody can contest this, because as well as making it illegal to report the news, they make it illegal to report the fact that you've been prohibited from reporting something, and even the fact that there was a court case at all. The idea is that if nobody knows you've been silenced - and nobody knows why you've suddenly gone to jail for trying to get the word out - nobody can help you. They're mostly used by rich men to hush up their affairs and assaults, though they're also used by criminal companies (or companies who would be criminals if they didn't have money) to silence all those nasty dead-poor-people stories**.
Of course, the fact an MP could blow the whistle is a flaw in the system, as is the possibility that a lawyer might find a loophole in the superinjunction, so now there are hyperinjunctions - where, if you're rich enough, you can make it illegal for your victims to seek help from their MP or to consult a lawyer. Progress!
**the case that revealed superinjunctions to the public was the Trafigura case. In this particular case, the issue was Trafigura's policy of illegally exporting toxic waste from the Netherlands (it wasn't from there originally) and secretly dumping it around residential areas in Cote d'Ivoire, fully knowing how dangerous it was, and killing at least 17 people and injuring 30,000 others; the case was not related to Trafigura's illegal export of oil from Iraq in defiance of UN sanctions, or the explosion of a tank of toxic waste in Norway, or the company's involvement in illegal price fixing in Malta, or their policy of selling substandard, polluted fuel to African countries despite the enormous health consequences, or the fact that they're the leading conduit for oil from Russia to avoid international sanctions. Coincidentally, the former Leader of the House of Lords is one of their non-executive directors.
Re: British Politics Guide
Has anyone ever thought about contesting these super- and hyperinjunctions in the European Court of Human Rights? (In case anyone is wondering, no, that shouldn't be affected by Brexit, since the European Convention on Human Rights is separate from the EU (or at least it was the last time I checked), and so far, May doesn't seem to want to leave it.)
Re: British Politics Guide
Is anyone else reminded of the disappearing acts in 1984 when they hear of super- and hyper- injunctions?
-
chris_notts
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:35 pm
Re: British Politics Guide
All I can say is that the world is a scary, scary place...Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:12 pm I happen to know some people who know some people who are ardent conservatives. Ayn Rand's never had the general publicity here that she's had in the US, but apparently she's been a cult classic for a certain hard-right politico set for decades. I suspect a lot of the recent Tory intakes, who tend to be much more radically right-wing, are at least second-hand fans.
Re: British Politics Guide
About Ayn Rand: it reminds me of this comic, in which Rand says her books "outsell [Nietzsche's] books by a factor of twenty". Only in the U.S.A. is this even remotely true: here, nobody has ever heard of her (her books haven't even been translated), while you'll find most of Nietzche's works in any decent book store or library.
How come non-disclosure agreements seem to apply even to people who haven't signed them in the first place??
This stuff about injunctions seems scary, even taking into account Salmoneus's usual exaggerations.
How come non-disclosure agreements seem to apply even to people who haven't signed them in the first place??
This stuff about injunctions seems scary, even taking into account Salmoneus's usual exaggerations.
Re: British Politics Guide
Where did you get this idea? The fountainhead was translated into French by Jane Fillon back in 1945, "The virtue of selfishness" by Marc Meunier in 1993, and Atlas shrugged by Sophie Bastide-Foltz in 2013. I found all three available new on Amazon.fr. The first is even being sold in a commemorative edition ("Les 75 ans du livre culte").
-
zompist
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2682
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:46 am
- Location: Right here, probably
- Contact:
Re: British Politics Guide
Somewhere I have a picture of a copy of La Nuit du 16 janvier, Ayn Rand's hopefully only play, in a Paris bookstore. My high school put it on (in English, sadly). If you're going to read just one Rand book, and that's a policy better only than reading zero, make it this one. It's short and has a clever gimmick (the audience is the jury for a trial).
Re: British Politics Guide
Well, nobody's heard of her in France indeed. There have been earlier translations - though as far as I know, there hadn't been reprinted for years. Now things are a little different -- people have a greater exposure to American culture, and we even have a handful of libertarians now.
On the culture shock departement, I remember reading an early French review of the Moon is a Harsh Mistress that managed to completely miss the point; the reviewer had managed to interpret the book as a description of a future when everyone is communist: the Loonies were Trotskyites, and Earth Stalinian.
Last edited by Ares Land on Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: British Politics Guide
Haven't you had them for a while? Like, say, Frédéric Bastiat?Ars Lande wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:17 pmWell, nobody's heard of her in France indeed. There have been earlier translations - though as far as I know, there hadn't been reprinted for years. Now things are a little different -- people have a greater exposure to American culture, and we even have a handful of libertarian now.
Wow.On the culture shock departement, I remember reading an early French review of the Moon is a Harsh Mistress that managed to completely miss the point; the reviewer had managed to interpret the book as a description of a future when everyone is communist: the Loonies were Trotskyites, and Earth Stalinian.
Re: British Politics Guide
Also Macron
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť
kårroť
Re: British Politics Guide
I'm not sure Bastiat counts as a libertarian. He was way too sensible for that
Besides, as far as I know, he's been pretty much forgotten as a statesman; also, his works date to the 19th century -- an entirely different country
There's always be a "libéral" current in French politics that could get along with a libertarian, I guess. But I don't believe we've a had a French Milton Friedman. Yet.