What's May up to? General election 08/06/2017

[Carlinate]

It was a compromise of coalition and Cameron being canny. AV maintained the constituency link but I think Cameron knew it would fail.

 

You haven't answered my question though have you?

 

Why was AV offered as the alternative when PR+STV had been in use in the UK for the previous 38 years?

[I1L2T3]

Cameron and Osborne liked to gamble and gamble big.

 

It worked a few times like with AV and the Scottish referendum but it went wrong in the end.

 

May is not as prone to that, but this is a gamble. It could backfire and I think the big problem is she likes to duck out of the limelight. She's gambling that Corbyn and Farron will fill the vacuum in the media and just make themselves look so crap she doesn't have to do much. Corbyn she may be right. But Farron I'm not so sure. And Farage is knocking about too and will get very feisty if Mays Brexit looks too soft for him. Sturgeon is well...just Sturgeon.

[biotechpete]

Of course, and far from me the intention of ever taking that away from you

 

But...

...that'd be too late. See my edits above, copy-pasted now for clarity:

 

Statutorily, Article 50 has been formally triggered, so the UK wouldn't be "forced" to leave: it's already left, of its own accord, 2 years from 31 March 2017. Automatic operation of law. It can leave sooner if it wants to, by declaring 'no deal required', unilaterally and effectively leaving, and seeing the EU in the Hague ITC in due course. It can leave later, if and only if the EU27 agree. But staying in by rescinding Article 50 is not on the cards: there is no statutory mechanism for it. The UK would be very heavily dependent on the EU27's goodwill to do so. As in, over a barrel.

 

It goes back to my earlier comment: (seemingly,) the UK continuously failing to consider the "what's in it for me" question, viewed from the EU27's respective perspectives. And that failure to consider the other side's motives and goals at all times, is a cardinal sin for a 'negotiator'.

 

Brussels and the EU27 have all but washed their hands off the UK already, they're busy planning the 'next phase', freed from the UK's usual braking on all 4. Read some continental (respected) press (Le Monde, Die Zeit), it might surprise you (but not in a nice way, for a committed remainer).

 

Well I'm no constitutional lawyer, but to my mind, the wording is clear that a state continues to be a full member until the negotiations are concluded or the 2 years are up, which seems to be the basis for Kerr's supposition.

 

The rest I agree with, I read the continental press occasionally, but TBH I get so frustrated at my country and the incompetence of it's leadership that I can barely bring myself to do so.

 

I will watch with interest at the future development of the EU. Some say that the likes of Poland will not submit to a federal superstate. Will the 2 tier Euro/non-Euro system develop do you think?

[sgtkate]

Cameron and Osborne liked to gamble and gamble big.

 

It worked a few times like with AV and the Scottish referendum but it went wrong in the end.

 

May is not as prone to that, but this is a gamble. It could backfire and I think the big problem is she likes to duck out of the limelight. She's gambling that Corbyn and Farron will fill the vacuum in the media and just make themselves look so crap she doesn't have to do much. Corbyn she may be right. But Farron I'm not so sure. And Farage is knocking about too and will get very feisty if Mays Brexit looks too soft for him. Sturgeon is well...just Sturgeon.

 

I can see the SNP getting a clean sweep in Scotland, Sturgeon is the leader the UK should have, but never mind. What then? That's almost independence in a bag isn't it? By calling this GE now, I think May might well be sealing the break-up of the UK...

[biotechpete]

You haven't answered my question though have you?

 

Why was AV offered as the alternative when PR+STV had been in use in the UK for the previous 38 years?

 

The honest answer is I have no idea. AV wasn't the choice of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives wanted to maintain FPTP.

 

The explanation I can offer is the one I said. AV keeps the constituency link but PR doesn't. The conservatives wanted to maintain the constituency link. PR-STV would have required a complete redrawing of the constituencies into newer larger voting areas and because it means that more than one candidate represents an area, arguably also breaks the constituency link.

[sgtkate]

Well I'm no constitutional lawyer, but to my mind, the wording is clear that a state continues to be a full member until the negotiations are concluded or the 2 years are up, which seems to be the basis for Kerr's supposition.

 

The rest I agree with, I read the continental press occasionally, but TBH I get so frustrated at my country and the incompetence of it's leadership that I can barely bring myself to do so.

 

I will watch with interest at the future development of the EU. Some say that the likes of Poland will not submit to a federal superstate. Will the 2 tier Euro/non-Euro system develop do you think?

 

Poland's current government are staunchly anti-EU...however, they are MASSIVELY unpopular now after trying to limit media freedoms and change the constitution meaning that a far more pro-EU and liberal government is highly likely to be the next leaders on Poland from 2019 and this party used to have Donald Tusk as their leader so you can see where this is going...so I'd say come 2019 Poland would be in favour of a federal Europe, but a lot can change in 2 years.

[L00b]

Well I'm no constitutional lawyer, but to my mind, the wording is clear that a state continues to be a full member until the negotiations are concluded

I've no issue with that understanding at all, but...

or the 2 years are up, which seems to be the basis for Kerr's supposition.

...unless a possible outcome for the negotiations is "we stay in as before" (which begs the question: how could status quo ante conceivably be achieved?), then my question to Lord Kerr would be "so, how do you stop the ticking clock?"

 

Because that's what "staying in by cancelling Article 50" is about, pragmatically: there is nothing in the TEU or TFEU under which Article 50, once triggered, can be 'untrigerred'. Once the A50 clock ticks, it ticks to the end, extended or not, and at the end, the A50 depositor is out. That's Article 50 (close to-) verbatim, and the reason why much has been discussed about the UK 'defaulting to' WTO MFN trading terms in case of no deal (by the time the 2 year is up, or before).

I will watch with interest at the future development of the EU. Some say that the likes of Poland will not submit to a federal superstate. Will the 2 tier Euro/non-Euro system develop do you think?

It will and, as I posted long before the referendum actually took place (at the time Cameron haggled, February 2016 IIRC), the UK could have headed that splinter group. Very successfully so.

 

Alas.

Edited April 19, 2017 by L00b

[biotechpete]

Poland's current government are staunchly anti-EU...however, they are MASSIVELY unpopular now after trying to limit media freedoms and change the constitution meaning that a far more pro-EU and liberal government is highly likely to be the next leaders on Poland from 2019 and this party used to have Donald Tusk as their leader so you can see where this is going...so I'd say come 2019 Poland would be in favour of a federal Europe, but a lot can change in 2 years.

 

Perhaps this is a bit off topic for this thread, but Poland are not the only ones outside the Euro. Further integration is necessary for the Eurozone, but not useful for any of those outside it.

[Carlinate]

The honest answer is I have no idea. AV wasn't the choice of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives wanted to maintain FPTP.

 

The explanation I can offer is the one I said. AV keeps the constituency link but PR doesn't. The conservatives wanted to maintain the constituency link. PR-STV would have required a complete redrawing of the constituencies into newer larger voting areas and because it means that more than one candidate represents an area, arguably also breaks the constituency link.

 

Well in my opinion it was a lot simpler than that.

 

The government wanted to retain FPTP because it suits them and so they rigged the game.

 

Trying to argue the merits of FPTP against PR is impossible. PR is the most democratic system as yet devised whilst FPTP hasn't managed to return a British government with even 50% of votes cast since the war.

 

The main political parties ( other than the Liberals ) want to carry on as before because that's how they found themselves in power.

 

The PR system would defeat the FPTP system in any discussion of their merits listened to by a rational person.

 

The AV system on the other hand has flaws which could be highlighted to persuade people to retain the status quo.

 

It was a simple case of politicians looking out for their own self interest and to hell with democracy and fairness.

 

What's new?

[biotechpete]

Well in my opinion it was a lot simpler than that.

 

The government wanted to retain FPTP because it suits them and so they rigged the game.

 

Trying to argue the merits of FPTP against PR is impossible. PR is the most democratic system as yet devised whilst FPTP hasn't managed to return a British government with even 50% of votes cast since the war.

 

The main political parties ( other than the Liberals ) want to carry on as before because that's how they found themselves in power.

 

The PR system would defeat the FPTP system in any discussion of their merits listened to by a rational person.

 

The AV system on the other hand has flaws which could be highlighted to persuade people to retain the status quo.

 

It was a simple case of politicians looking out for their own self interest and to hell with democracy and fairness.

 

What's new?

 

It's difficult to say what the government wanted, it was a coalition. I'm pretty sure Clegg wanted PR. It suited the Conservatives sure, that's why they wanted to keep it.