Brexit matters

[REVUpminster]

I'm pleased that the government has decided to position us in alignment with EU food standards. That should reduce (or avoid an increase in) the cost of food movement in either direction, and it should reduce spoilage and waste due to delays in transit. I assume it will also simplify food movements to and from Northern Ireland, and eliminate the need for "Not for EU" labelling.

It should also block off the possibility of our having to accept American food produced to their much poorer hygiene and animal welfare standards. The problem with the infamous chlorine washed chicken isn't the chlorine washing per se, it's the terrible conditions in which American poultry is kept that means they have to be disinfected to make them just about edible.

We don't have to buy American chicken. We have banned Foie gras, even if the Geese and Ducks are fattened to EU standards.

 

[JonasB]

A problem with multi-member seats would be that in the case of 2 MPs per constituency, then a very marginal constituency under FPTP might actually becomes a safe seat.

Or two safe seats might become a competitive constituency. But two MPs is a very small district, here in Sweden the smallest mainland district elects 4 MPs (Gotland elects 2 MPs, but it's hard to merge it with another district for geographical reasons), the largest elects 39 MPs.

While a lot more voters would end up with at least one MP from a party they support, the numbers of MPs elected might not be proportional to the country-wide vote for their party.

It wouldn't, but it would be a lot better than today. And there are ways to correct that. All the districts in Sweden elect a total of 310 MPs, then there are 39 leveling seats that gets distributed according to a mathematical model to make sure that the elected MPs are as proportional as possible to the nationwide vote.

We could of course add more MPs per constituency but the larger the area the less local the link to the MPs.

I have to admit that I've never been able to understand the importance of a local link to an MP. But considering the size of the UK and the fact that it has a huge parliament, there will still be a pretty local link. Apart from the Scottish highland and islands, you can still have pretty small districts.

The down side (as seen by some) is that you tend to end up with coalition governments and the talks to agree those can take weeks or months post-election.

Many would consider that a feature and not a bug.

 

[Annetts key]

The down side (as seen by some) is that you tend to end up with coalition governments and the talks to agree those can take weeks or months post-election.

We've had national parliamentary elections in the past where the party with the most MPs did not have enough MPs to form a majority government, hence there has been a coalition.

And coalition administrations happen all the time in local government.

 

[Ediswan]

We don't have to buy American chicken. We have banned Foie gras, even if the Geese and Ducks are fattened to EU standards.

Production in the UK has been banned, it can still be imported. Easy enough to find for sale if so inclined.

 

[edwin_m]

Production [of foie gras] in the UK has been banned, it can still be imported. Easy enough to find for sale if so inclined.

It's a bit different with the chicken. We can still buy food from America, but only if it complies with the applicable standards which remain aligned with the EU. Chlorinated chicken certainly doesn't.

 

[E27007]

From what I've seen it seems to be good news all round.
How Kemi Badenoch can call the fishing deal a "sell out" is ludicrous.
We currently have a deal, negotiated by Johnson, that will continue for another dozen years.
What downright hypocrisy.

A controversial twelve-year access deal for fishery , controversial and why ? Starmer was elected for five years not twelve

 

[simonw]

A controversial twelve-year access deal for fishery , controversial and why ? Starmer was elected for five years not twelve

What's your point? Governments often enter into agreements which will outlast them.

 

[Darandio]

A controversial twelve-year access deal for fishery , controversial and why ? Starmer was elected for five years not twelve

And the deal prior to that was nearly six years, again longer than a term in office. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[E27007]

If there was an annual award for "making a mountain out of a molehill", Brexit fishing would have won it hands down several years in a row.

It is not a mountain out of a molehill, the EU has so mismanaged fishing policies, over-fishing the seas and oceans under the EU remit, major depletion of important species, the EU needs a "white knight", that White Knight being UK fishing territories

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not going to be losing sleep over fishing rights considering it's such a small portion of our economy...

Particularly when there are much more important sectors that would benefit from their own bespoke deals with the EU and would do far more to help many more Brits than "taking back control of our fishing grounds" or whatever.

 

[TravelDream]

A controversial twelve-year access deal for fishery , controversial and why ? Starmer was elected for five years not twelve

It was the Johnson deal which lasted Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer.
It remains the Johnson deal, just extended.

It's perfectly normal for treaties/ laws to long outlive the governments which implemented them.

Britain still abides by the Treaty of Windsor (1386) which created an alliance between England and Portugal.
It didn't cease to exist when King Richard II (King of England 1377 - 1399) was deposed from the throne. It has lasted for every prime minister from the first to the current.

 

[class ep-09]

It is not a mountain out of a molehill, the EU has so mismanaged fishing policies, over-fishing the seas and oceans under the EU remit, major depletion of important species, the EU needs a "white knight", that White Knight being UK fishing territories

EU fishing policies were introduced to limit overfishing … which UK’s fishermen liked doing very much.

Hence quotas and tight regulations.

 

[AlterEgo]

A controversial twelve-year access deal for fishery , controversial and why ? Starmer was elected for five years not twelve

0.02% of the economy but retains an oddly disproportionate place in our political culture because it involves control of the sea. The idea that governments can’t make any decisions which have implications beyond their term is a bit bizarre!

 

[E27007]

And the deal prior to that was nearly six years, again longer than a term in office. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

My point the twelve year term is anti-democratic, from where is the sacred number of twelve years derived? Which side of the parties in the negotiations? I suspect the period of twelve years is chosen to spike the political guns and handcuff the next UK Government should they be anti-EU (which I suspect will be a political party beginning with the letter R)

 

[ainsworth74]

By that reasoning surely any decision any Government makes which cannot be easily undone after it's term of office is anti-democratic? Including for instance Brexit itself!

 

[AM9]

My point the twelve year term is anti-democratic, from where is the sacred number of twelve years derived? Which side of the parties in the negotiations? I suspect the period of twelve years is chosen to spike the political guns and handcuff the next UK Government should they be anti-EU (which I suspect will be a political party beginning with the letter R)

You seem to be assuming that the UK negotiators chose the duration of the agreement in a vacuum. It is a small part of a much larger deal that we are assured will bring an overall benefit to the UK economy. The right wing press is trying to amplify the fishing part of it by stirring up island mentality insecurity of their readership.

 

[YorkshireBear]

My point the twelve year term is anti-democratic, from where is the sacred number of twelve years derived? Which side of the parties in the negotiations? I suspect the period of twelve years is chosen to spike the political guns and handcuff the next UK Government should they be anti-EU (which I suspect will be a political party beginning with the letter R)

If we took that view on everything we would soon find ourselves a third world country. You cannot plan or act in five year terms it does not work.

 

[ainsworth74]

If we took that view on everything we would soon find ourselves a third world country. You cannot plan or act in five year terms it does not work.

I'm sorry but long term planning is undemocratic so cannot be done! Ruin is the only democratic choice.

 

[edwin_m]

My point the twelve year term is anti-democratic, from where is the sacred number of twelve years derived? Which side of the parties in the negotiations? I suspect the period of twelve years is chosen to spike the political guns and handcuff the next UK Government should they be anti-EU (which I suspect will be a political party beginning with the letter R)

I guess a future government or parliament might choose to repudiate the agreement, but at a huge cost to international relations. Political short-termism and lack of continuity has caused great damage to the UK domestically, not least in rail policy.

 

[dosxuk]

My point the twelve year term is anti-democratic, from where is the sacred number of twelve years derived? Which side of the parties in the negotiations? I suspect the period of twelve years is chosen to spike the political guns and handcuff the next UK Government should they be anti-EU (which I suspect will be a political party beginning with the letter R)

Any incoming Government is allowed to renegotiate existing deals to their hearts content. If they want to change the length or terms of a deal that's already in place, all they need to do is ring up the other end and go "look, this isn't working, we need to talk". Just look at how many deals Trump has thrown in the bin in less than six months.

What making deals which outlive Parliament means is that on day one of a new Government they don't have to start from scratch, and do it quickly so the country can get back to working. If every international agreement - covering everything from passport acceptance to electrical distribution, from food standards to border recognition - had to be renegotiated every time we had a general election, the country would literally collapse and be sent back to pre-medieval times. Even North Korea would have more international agreements in place than we would.

 

[TravelDream]

My point the twelve year term is anti-democratic, from where is the sacred number of twelve years derived? Which side of the parties in the negotiations? I suspect the period of twelve years is chosen to spike the political guns and handcuff the next UK Government should they be anti-EU (which I suspect will be a political party beginning with the letter R)

This is an incredible take to be honest.

The country would never have developed and we'd still be under a agrarian feudal system if this were the case.

Long term planning is essential for any state. There are many great examples out there, but Singapore is one modern example. A resourceless backwater racked by racial riots with relatively little going for it when they got thrown out of the Malay Federation not long after getting independence from Britain. Long term vision turned them into a far wealthier place than their former colonial master.

And on the last point, a week is a long time in politics and we are four years away from that election.
There are a whole myriad of things that could happen in that time. And I wouldn't rule out any of the three biggest parties, or indeed none of them, winning the next GE or indeed a coalition government.

 

[Harpo]

I wouldn't rule out any of the three biggest parties, or indeed none of them, winning the next GE or indeed a coalition government.

Quite. At the moment, possibly only the Lib dems are without any major threats. Labour has to win back support, Reform has to avoid being a shotshow in local authorities and the Tories have to survive.

 

[TravelDream]

Quite. At the moment, possibly only the Lib dems are without any major threats. Labour has to win back support, Reform has to avoid being a shotshow in local authorities and the Tories have to survive.

It's one of those weird things that people seem to think Reform is a dead certainty.

Just 12 months ago Labour won a massive majority. Four years is a lot longer.

The Tories could see a resurgence - though it's unlikely under the current leader in my opinion.
The Lib Dems are now very fortunate we have FPTP (first past the post) as their vote has become very concentrated in certain areas and they could easily add similar seats on current polling numbers.

FPTP is really designed for a two party system. How it works with multiple major parties is very challenging to project.

Though I have to say, I find the thought of a Reform win to be quite worrying in terms of Britain's international standing as they are likely to go Trump-ish simply reneging on deals Britain had signed up for and was committed to.
I hope this agreement has some teeth with significant penalties for each side to reduce the risk of this.

 

[E27007]

EU fishing policies were introduced to limit overfishing … which UK’s fishermen liked doing very much.

Hence quotas and tight regulations.

Sorry, please look at the situation from the other end of your telescope, the EU has messed up fishery sustainability, dismiss thoughts of quotas and tight regulation, the experts report the Med is extremely over-fished, reports write the EU experts give Brussels an annual quota for the allowable sustainable catch of the waters, a figure which is ignored by the bureaucrats who then permit exceedance of quotas and promote over-fishing.
If UK waters are overfished and the Eu waters not, then for what reason do the EU make such a big issue over access to our fishing grounds?

 

[thenorthern]

Burnham seems to be having a shaky stance on the EU. Strange given in 2019 before the 2019 election he hinted he would campaign to leave if there was a second referendum

The pro-EU Mr Burnham told last year’s Labour Party conference he wanted the UK to rejoin the bloc.


“I hope it happens in my lifetime,” he told delegates. “I believe in the unions of all kinds. The Union of the UK. The European Union and the benefits it brought this country. Trade unions? People prosper more when they're part of unions. That’s my belief, and I'll say it clearly.”

On Saturday night, when asked are you in favour of rejoining the EU, he told ITV: “I’ve said in the long-term there is a case for that, but I'm not advocating that in this byelection.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tarmer-labour-leadership-brexit-b2977856.html

Whether we should rejoin the EU or not is a matter for another thread.

However campaigning on a platform to rejoin the EU is unlikely to go down well in Makerfield. The area voted 65% to 35% leave. Even if the majority of the public did want to rejoin the EU like some polls suggest it's highly unlikely a majority in Makerfield would vote to rejoin the EU. Alienating half of the voters is never a good idea.

 

[styles]

Burnham seems to be having a shaky stance on the EU. Strange given in 2019 before the 2019 election he hinted he would campaign to leave if there was a second referendum



Whether we should rejoin the EU or not is a matter for another thread.

However campaigning on a platform to rejoin the EU is unlikely to go down well in Makerfield. The area voted 65% to 35% leave. Even if the majority of the public did want to rejoin the EU like some polls suggest it's highly unlikely a majority in Makerfield would vote to rejoin the EU. Alienating half of the voters is never a good idea.

To me that seems like a mostly consistent stance - he believes in the EU but doesn't believe that trying to rejoin in the space of a few years of leaving is the way forwards. He said in 2018 he would only back a second referendum as a last resort in the case of a no deal outcome for the negotiations.

Quite a few Remain-leaning politicians have taken this stance.

I'm inclined to agree really. I'm all for rejoining the EU, but it is going to sow even further division at a time when Labour is effectively needing a uniting leader and one who can effectively fend of Greens and Reform.

 

[thenorthern]

To me that seems like a mostly consistent stance - he believes in the EU but doesn't believe that trying to rejoin in the space of a few years of leaving is the way forwards. He said in 2018 he would only back a second referendum as a last resort in the case of a no deal outcome for the negotiations.

Quite a few Remain-leaning politicians have taken this stance.

I'm inclined to agree really. I'm all for rejoining the EU, but it is going to sow even further division at a time when Labour is effectively needing a uniting leader and one who can effectively fend of Greens and Reform.

Before we left in 2019 he said he would probably campaign to leave in a second referendum. That wasn't him just accepting the results of the 2016 vote this was him saying he would probably campaign to leave. There is a link to the article below.

As far as I know he was the only senior Labour politician I can think of who has campaigned for remain in 2016 but by 2019 would now back leave in a second referendum. Jeremy Hunt from the Conservatives also said the same in 2019 that he would back leave in a hypothetical second referendum.

Andy Burnham says he would campaign to Leave in a second referendum - if Labour secured a new Brexit deal

The Mayor of Greater Manchester said he thought leaving with a deal would be in the 'public interest'

Andy Burnham would campaign to leave the EU in a second referendum - if Labour secured a new Brexit deal.

Greater Manchester's mayor said he believes it would be in the 'public interest' to back a deal to help 'the country move forward'.

The former Labour MP for Leigh said politicians would face a backlash from the public if they did not respect the result of the 2016 vote.

His comments were immediately seized upon tonight by the opposition Lib Dems who claimed Mr Burnham had exposed himself as a 'Leaver and far more bothered about keeping his own job than protecting the millions of jobs at risk from leaving the EU.'

In an interview on ITV's 'Calling Peston' podcast, Mr Burnham was asked whether he would campaign to Leave or Remain in the event Labour wins the election and calls a second EU referendum.

"It would depend on the type of deal that is done," he said.

"If it was a Labour deal, I think it's possible that I would probably go for the deal... what I'm picking up, in my former constituency for example, is huge anger at the political class.

"I'm not sure this is fully understood in Westminster. https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ews/andy-burnham-says-would-campaign-17321227

 

[styles]

Before we left in 2019 he said he would probably campaign to leave in a second referendum. That wasn't him just accepting the results of the 2016 vote this was him saying he would probably campaign to leave. There is a link to the article below.

As far as I know he was the only senior Labour politician I can think of who has campaigned for remain in 2016 but by 2019 would now back leave in a second referendum. Jeremy Hunt from the Conservatives also said the same in 2019 that he would back leave in a hypothetical second referendum.

The bit of the article that you've quoted seems to match what I was saying though?

He said he would support leave if a deal came through, and it's because the public would give backlash if they didn't respect the first referendum result.

That seems an entirely consistent and logical position to me. Starmer is also a Remainer, but instead he explicitly campaigned for a second referendum to overturn the first one, then U-turned as PM candidate saying now is not the right time.

 

[thenorthern]

The bit of the article that you've quoted seems to match what I was saying though?

He said he would support leave if a deal came through, and it's because the public would give backlash if they didn't respect the first referendum result.

That seems an entirely consistent and logical position to me. Starmer is also a Remainer, but instead he explicitly campaigned for a second referendum to overturn the first one, then U-turned as PM candidate saying now is not the right time.

Sort of, Starmer has (finally) accepted the results of the 2016 vote and the 2019 election. He probably still wants the country to rejoin the EU but as Sir Robert Peel put it Starmer has accepted "a final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question".

Burnham on the other hand seems to have u turned then u turned again then u turned again. He wanted to remain, then he said he would back leave in a second vote, then he suggested we should rejoin and now he is saying there may be a case in the long term.

 

[edwin_m]

Sort of, Starmer has (finally) accepted the results of the 2016 vote and the 2019 election. He probably still wants the country to rejoin the EU but as Sir Robert Peel put it Starmer has accepted "a final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question".

Burnham on the other hand seems to have u turned then u turned again then u turned again. He wanted to remain, then he said he would back leave in a second vote, then he suggested we should rejoin and now he is saying there may be a case in the long term.

Majority opinion had already turned against Brexit by the time it happened, and is likely to shift further in that direction as the predominantly older Leave voters die off and younger and predominantly pro-Europe voters join the electorate. However, this shift isn't yet overwhelming and many people don't want to re-open the wounds the process caused, or see other problems as more important. It's a tricky issue for Labour because there is probably still a significant pro-Leave faction in Red Wall constituencies such as Makerfield, but many other voters recognise the economic value of at least getting closer to Europe as Starmer has been slowly and quietly doing.