Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

A strategy for Remain to win

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3533
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232249

Postby ursaminortaur » June 26th, 2019, 11:40 pm

BobbyD wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:Labour got a lot larger share of the English vote than the Tories in 1997 and 2001. They did get a smaller share of that vote than the Conservatives in 2005 but it was pretty close (and as you stated they still managed to get 92 more seats in England).


That to me is the outrage, not a mitigating factor...

Labour .......286 .....0 -37 -37 .....8,043461 ....35.4 ....-6.0
Conservative 194 ...+32 -3 +29 .....8,116,005 ....35.7 ....+0.5

-http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

72,544 votes less, 92 seats more.

Either way if the claim is that Blair had more English votes in each of his election victories it simply isn't true.

It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for the Libs who got 5.2 million votes and only 47 seats...


Our FPTP system rewards a certain amount of geographic concentration of votes. If you come second in a lot of places all those votes are wasted.
That system though informs how people vote so if it was changed to a more proportional voting system then the percentages voting for the Conservatives, Labour and other parties would change since people would be less likely to consider voting for other parties as a wasted vote.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1684
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232251

Postby SteMiS » June 26th, 2019, 11:55 pm

BobbyD wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:Labour got a lot larger share of the English vote than the Tories in 1997 and 2001. They did get a smaller share of that vote than the Conservatives in 2005 but it was pretty close (and as you stated they still managed to get 92 more seats in England).


That to me is the outrage, not a mitigating factor...

Labour .......286 .....0 -37 -37 .....8,043461 ....35.4 ....-6.0
Conservative 194 ...+32 -3 +29 .....8,116,005 ....35.7 ....+0.5

-http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

72,544 votes less, 92 seats more.

You think that is bad; in 2010, in the North East of England, Labour got 44% of the vote and 86% of the seats. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats each got 24% of the vote (i.e more together than Labour) but only 7% each of the seats.

BobbyD wrote:Either way if the claim is that Blair had more English votes in each of his election victories it simply isn't true.

Who has made that claim?

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4482
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 208 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232255

Postby BobbyD » June 27th, 2019, 12:56 am

ursaminortaur wrote:Our FPTP system rewards a certain amount of geographic concentration of votes. If you come second in a lot of places all those votes are wasted.


How many other elections can you name where a party won the popular vote in England and lost the seat count, let alone lost it so dramatically?

FPTP naturally leads to high vote wastage, but this result was extraordinary in its disproportionality.

SteMiS wrote:You think that is bad; in 2010, in the North East of England, Labour got 44% of the vote and 86% of the seats. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats each got 24% of the vote (i.e more together than Labour) but only 7% each of the seats.


I don't think it's either or, but you would expect regional vote wastages to cancel out to some degree, with wasted Tory votes in Labour areas trading off with wasted Labour votes in Tory areas. Smaller areas are prone to more extreme results, and Labour had almost twice as many votes as the party in second and the party in third. Whilst not of much consolation to a NE Tory that result isn't actually surprising, but for it to happen across 21 million voters in 480 seats to 2 parties whose votes split 35.7:35.4 is incredible.

SteMiS wrote:
BobbyD wrote:Either way if the claim is that Blair had more English votes in each of his election victories it simply isn't true.

Who has made that claim?


You'll recall my request for clarification

BobbyD wrote:
SteMiS wrote:This was already debunked little more than a week ago. Blair won all his general elections carrying a majority in England.


A majority of what?

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3533
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232257

Postby ursaminortaur » June 27th, 2019, 3:36 am

BobbyD wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:Our FPTP system rewards a certain amount of geographic concentration of votes. If you come second in a lot of places all those votes are wasted.


How many other elections can you name where a party won the popular vote in England and lost the seat count, let alone lost it so dramatically? {/quote]

1950 - the disparity in percentage of the votes was far greater than in 2005 though the difference in seats was much smaller.

Conservatives : 43.8% versus Labour : 46.1% of the vote in England but the Conservatives got 253 seats whereas Labour got 251 in England.

1951 - Share of the vote in England was a tie with both Conservatives and Labour having 48.8% share of the vote in England but the Conservatives got 271 seats to Labour's 233 seats in England. In the UK as a whole the Conservatives got 321 seats versus Labour's 295 but Labour won the popular vote.

There are probably others.

FPTP is not a proportional system so winning the popular vote or the margin of such a win is not directly correlated with the number of seats gained.

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4482
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 208 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232258

Postby BobbyD » June 27th, 2019, 4:34 am

ursaminortaur wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:Our FPTP system rewards a certain amount of geographic concentration of votes. If you come second in a lot of places all those votes are wasted.


How many other elections can you name where a party won the popular vote in England and lost the seat count, let alone lost it so dramatically? {/quote]

1950 - the disparity in percentage of the votes was far greater than in 2005 though the difference in seats was much smaller.

Conservatives : 43.8% versus Labour : 46.1% of the vote in England but the Conservatives got 253 seats whereas Labour got 251 in England.

1951 - Share of the vote in England was a tie with both Conservatives and Labour having 48.8% share of the vote in England but the Conservatives got 271 seats to Labour's 233 seats in England. In the UK as a whole the Conservatives got 321 seats versus Labour's 295 but Labour won the popular vote.

There are probably others.


Ten a penny then...

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3519
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 2551 times
Been thanked: 830 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232268

Postby dspp » June 27th, 2019, 8:15 am

Wizard wrote:
Sundance13 wrote:
Wizard wrote:My bold.

I think there is a discussion to be had here. Ahead of a more detailed discussion my starting point is that I have no issue with Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. On the face of it there would be a financial case for it being beneficial for those left in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-45275988



I’ve no issue if the Scots, Irish, Welsh or English wish to leave the U.K., but the point is Brexit is increasing the probability that we’ll see a breakup of the Union in the next few years, because the evidence shows it is driving increased public support for such outcomes and providing a plausible rationale for nationalists pushing for independence.

Without Brexit I expect the U.K. would be fine for at least another decade, as the Scots in particular would struggle to justify a new vote & support would likely be little changed vs. 2014.

But surely, if the majority of English voters would prefer to be out of the EU and would accept Scotland leaving the UK as a price, and the majority of Scots would prefer to be part of the EU and would accept leaving the UK as the price it is a perfectly reasonable outcome. Sure it may not be what everone wants but I have yet to hear anyone come up with an answer everyone agrees to.


If Brexiteers are so sure that is what the demos wants, then perhaps they ought have a referendum proposing that England leaves the UK, leaving the union of Scotland/Wales/NI within the EU and putting England outside it. Why do you think the Brexity English types might not want to be so honest .... ?
- dspp

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1684
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232271

Postby SteMiS » June 27th, 2019, 8:38 am

BobbyD wrote:
SteMiS wrote:You think that is bad; in 2010, in the North East of England, Labour got 44% of the vote and 86% of the seats. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats each got 24% of the vote (i.e more together than Labour) but only 7% each of the seats.


I don't think it's either or, but you would expect regional vote wastages to cancel out to some degree, with wasted Tory votes in Labour areas trading off with wasted Labour votes in Tory areas. Smaller areas are prone to more extreme results, and Labour had almost twice as many votes as the party in second and the party in third. Whilst not of much consolation to a NE Tory that result isn't actually surprising, but for it to happen across 21 million voters in 480 seats to 2 parties whose votes split 35.7:35.4 is incredible.

It's not much consolation because the result is that the North East speaks almost exclusively with a Labour vote, is seen and treated as almost exclusively a Labour area. That's despite the fact that Labour only gets about half the votes. The other half are basically unrepresented, there is no real North East voice in the Conservative Party and no-one has any real political incentive to to do anything for the region.

BobbyD wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
BobbyD wrote:Either way if the claim is that Blair had more English votes in each of his election victories it simply isn't true.

Who has made that claim?

You'll recall my request for clarification
BobbyD wrote:
SteMiS wrote:This was already debunked little more than a week ago. Blair won all his general elections carrying a majority in England.

A majority of what?

Seats obviously. The context of the discussion was that without Scotland Labour would be unable to win an election. You win an election by getting the most seats. Without Scotland Labour would still have won in the 3 elections under Blair because it got a majority (of seats) in England. When people talk about parties winning/having a majority, they mean 'seats'.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2517
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 436 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232305

Postby Wizard » June 27th, 2019, 10:43 am

dspp wrote:
Wizard wrote:
Sundance13 wrote:

I’ve no issue if the Scots, Irish, Welsh or English wish to leave the U.K., but the point is Brexit is increasing the probability that we’ll see a breakup of the Union in the next few years, because the evidence shows it is driving increased public support for such outcomes and providing a plausible rationale for nationalists pushing for independence.

Without Brexit I expect the U.K. would be fine for at least another decade, as the Scots in particular would struggle to justify a new vote & support would likely be little changed vs. 2014.

But surely, if the majority of English voters would prefer to be out of the EU and would accept Scotland leaving the UK as a price, and the majority of Scots would prefer to be part of the EU and would accept leaving the UK as the price it is a perfectly reasonable outcome. Sure it may not be what everone wants but I have yet to hear anyone come up with an answer everyone agrees to.


If Brexiteers are so sure that is what the demos wants, then perhaps they ought have a referendum proposing that England leaves the UK, leaving the union of Scotland/Wales/NI within the EU and putting England outside it. Why do you think the Brexity English types might not want to be so honest .... ?
- dspp

First, I do not and never have claimed to speak for "Brexiteers", I suspect the fact I do not favour a no deal Brexit at this time puts me out of step with many if not most others who want to leave the EU. Second, I am not sure of it, that is why I used the word IF in my post. I see no point trying to start an argument about it, I was merely speculating that IF the views of various groups of voters were as I described a split of the UK would not be an unreasonable outcome.

I agree in the situation I describe your suggestion is another possible route (though based on 2016 referendum voting I think Wales voted out, so they may go with England). However, I have no idea whether it would be possible under UK law, International law or EU rules. Is it legally possible?

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3533
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232310

Postby ursaminortaur » June 27th, 2019, 11:28 am

Wizard wrote:
dspp wrote:
Wizard wrote:But surely, if the majority of English voters would prefer to be out of the EU and would accept Scotland leaving the UK as a price, and the majority of Scots would prefer to be part of the EU and would accept leaving the UK as the price it is a perfectly reasonable outcome. Sure it may not be what everone wants but I have yet to hear anyone come up with an answer everyone agrees to.


If Brexiteers are so sure that is what the demos wants, then perhaps they ought have a referendum proposing that England leaves the UK, leaving the union of Scotland/Wales/NI within the EU and putting England outside it. Why do you think the Brexity English types might not want to be so honest .... ?
- dspp

First, I do not and never have claimed to speak for "Brexiteers", I suspect the fact I do not favour a no deal Brexit at this time puts me out of step with many if not most others who want to leave the EU. Second, I am not sure of it, that is why I used the word IF in my post. I see no point trying to start an argument about it, I was merely speculating that IF the views of various groups of voters were as I described a split of the UK would not be an unreasonable outcome.

I agree in the situation I describe your suggestion is another possible route (though based on 2016 referendum voting I think Wales voted out, so they may go with England). However, I have no idea whether it would be possible under UK law, International law or EU rules. Is it legally possible?


If Scotland can legally leave the UK then it would seem strange if England couldn't do the same. Of course it would be slightly more complicated as the UK parliament would have to move to one of the countries remaining in the UK and England would have to setup its own parliament. I'm not sure that some brexiteeers would like the side effects though which would diminish the standing of England such as it just being another member of the UN rather than having a permanent seat (since that would remain with the rest of the UK) - though if, as currently looks likely after brexit, Scotland and NI leave effectively destroying the UK its hard to see there not being pressure to remove that permanent seat anyway.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2517
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 436 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232313

Postby Wizard » June 27th, 2019, 11:56 am

ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:
dspp wrote:
If Brexiteers are so sure that is what the demos wants, then perhaps they ought have a referendum proposing that England leaves the UK, leaving the union of Scotland/Wales/NI within the EU and putting England outside it. Why do you think the Brexity English types might not want to be so honest .... ?
- dspp

First, I do not and never have claimed to speak for "Brexiteers", I suspect the fact I do not favour a no deal Brexit at this time puts me out of step with many if not most others who want to leave the EU. Second, I am not sure of it, that is why I used the word IF in my post. I see no point trying to start an argument about it, I was merely speculating that IF the views of various groups of voters were as I described a split of the UK would not be an unreasonable outcome.

I agree in the situation I describe your suggestion is another possible route (though based on 2016 referendum voting I think Wales voted out, so they may go with England). However, I have no idea whether it would be possible under UK law, International law or EU rules. Is it legally possible?


If Scotland can legally leave the UK then it would seem strange if England couldn't do the same. Of course it would be slightly more complicated as the UK parliament would have to move to one of the countries remaining in the UK and England would have to setup its own parliament. I'm not sure that some brexiteeers would like the side effects though which would diminish the standing of England such as it just being another member of the UN rather than having a permanent seat (since that would remain with the rest of the UK) - though if, as currently looks likely after brexit, Scotland and NI leave effectively destroying the UK its hard to see there not being pressure to remove that permanent seat anyway.

Yes, the practicalities around establishing a new UK Parliament was one of the things that crossed my mind. Presumably one could just be established in one of the other three countries. But I am not sure the seat at the UN is on my list of top 10 issues.

There are other questions, such as does England (with Wales) get to take the pound with it, it is the Bank of England still, not the Bank of the UK. If it does the SNP's current view is that if Scotland leaves the UK it will not retain the pound, what would happen if England left the UK and could take the pound with it?

I also wondered if there are any sort of MAD (material adverse difference) type clauses in EU treaties. A UK without England (and Wales) would be more different to the current UK than a UK without Scotland (and NI). Taking this further, in a situation where England (and Wales) left the UK I wonder if NI would stay in a Union with Scotland or if the Northern Irish people would at that point decide to re-unite with the rest of Ireland. If that were to be the case then would Scotland still call itself the UK (as in The United Kingdom of Scotland and Nowhere Else)?

What about overseas territories? IIRC the Channel Islands are not in the UK, would they get to decide which way they jumped? What about Gibraltar?

Would the Queen remain the Head of State for the UK (Scotland) and separately for England (and Wales)? If she is constitutionally aligned to the UK would she end up relocating permanently to Balmoral? Would the Sovereign Grant be paid by the remaining parts of the UK or would they look for a contribution from England (and Wales)? Whilst the Queen is the Head of State for Australia I do not think they make a contribution to the Sovereign Grant, though I may be wrong

Anyone got any thoughts?

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3519
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 2551 times
Been thanked: 830 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232319

Postby dspp » June 27th, 2019, 12:22 pm

On a no deal and/or hard Brexit pathway it is almost irrelevant whether England leaves UK, or UK leaves England - the end result is quite likely the same via both pathways.

Assuming IndyRef2 results in an independence vote (!) there would be enormous pressure on Scotland to agree a Sovereign Base Area at Faslane for the English nuclear deterrent (which is not just the SSBNs themselves, it is everything that is required to get them out and back and etc correctly) , as part of the withdrawal agreement. That would most likely include all the north-west approaches right out to the territorial waters (12nm) or EEZ (200nm) limit, and the corresponding airspace, and radars and etc, and include another SBA for Lossiemouth as that is where the MRA are/will be based (and other relevant aircraft). One needs all of these elements and more to be able to do assured deterrence. Basically that is Scotland handing over defence to England !! Failing that non-cooperation by Scotland would force England out of the nuclear business, if that non-cooperation were very abrupt. If NI was similarly uncooperative and similarly exited, then the waters/EEZ question becomes even more problematic if one considers submarine routes out of the Clyde. One could even imagine situations where an overnight/overmonth decamp to an allied base would be a consequence - and only France or USA have the relevant infrastructure, and only the USA infrastructure is compatible by design. That might be the only way to do a pierhead jump whilst preparing little-England alternatives (the studies on this tend to suggest Falmouth, as preferable to either Milford or Devonport).

Along that pathway it is fairly likely England would get squeezed out of the UN P5 if it lost the nuclear deterrent, and large chunks of its military capability, at the same time as a significant chunk of air/water space if split from NI & Scotland. Minor matters like a economic collapse and so on would probably be happening at the same time. Frankly I don't see how rump-England could make a credible case to remain in the UN P5 at that point.

By the time the remnants crawled back into the EU, it seems likely the P5 would be absent the UK, and probably by then be a UN P6 including Brazil & India. Whether France would then be the de facto EU perm voice is up for discussion, but my guess is that France would retain it for itself.

All of this was explained on TMF/TLF at various points well before the referendum. I have seen it discussed in other (more private, and more relevant) venues as well, including amongst people very accessible to senior politicians in such a way that I am sure the information is available (even if it was disregarded). In my opinion the so-called Project Fear only scratches the surface of the reality of the downside consequences of many of the Brexit pathways.

- dspp

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2517
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 436 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232321

Postby Wizard » June 27th, 2019, 12:32 pm

dspp wrote:On a no deal and/or hard Brexit pathway it is almost irrelevant whether England leaves UK, or UK leaves England - the end result is quite likely the same via both pathways.

Assuming IndyRef2 results in an independence vote (!) there would be enormous pressure on Scotland to agree a Sovereign Base Area at Faslane for the English nuclear deterrent (which is not just the SSBNs themselves, it is everything that is required to get them out and back and etc correctly) , as part of the withdrawal agreement. That would most likely include all the north-west approaches right out to the territorial waters (12nm) or EEZ (200nm) limit, and the corresponding airspace, and radars and etc, and include another SBA for Lossiemouth as that is where the MRA are/will be based (and other relevant aircraft). One needs all of these elements and more to be able to do assured deterrence. Basically that is Scotland handing over defence to England !! Failing that non-cooperation by Scotland would force England out of the nuclear business, if that non-cooperation were very abrupt. If NI was similarly uncooperative and similarly exited, then the waters/EEZ question becomes even more problematic if one considers submarine routes out of the Clyde. One could even imagine situations where an overnight/overmonth decamp to an allied base would be a consequence - and only France or USA have the relevant infrastructure, and only the USA infrastructure is compatible by design. That might be the only way to do a pierhead jump whilst preparing little-England alternatives (the studies on this tend to suggest Falmouth, as preferable to either Milford or Devonport).

Along that pathway it is fairly likely England would get squeezed out of the UN P5 if it lost the nuclear deterrent, and large chunks of its military capability, at the same time as a significant chunk of air/water space if split from NI & Scotland. Minor matters like a economic collapse and so on would probably be happening at the same time. Frankly I don't see how rump-England could make a credible case to remain in the UN P5 at that point.

By the time the remnants crawled back into the EU, it seems likely the P5 would be absent the UK, and probably by then be a UN P6 including Brazil & India. Whether France would then be the de facto EU perm voice is up for discussion, but my guess is that France would retain it for itself.

All of this was explained on TMF/TLF at various points well before the referendum. I have seen it discussed in other (more private, and more relevant) venues as well, including amongst people very accessible to senior politicians in such a way that I am sure the information is available (even if it was disregarded). In my opinion the so-called Project Fear only scratches the surface of the reality of the downside consequences of many of the Brexit pathways.

- dspp

OK, fair enough, but it was you that raised the 'reverse exit', with England (and Wales) leaving the UK and not Scotland (and NI).

Maybe I am missing something, but other than trouser sausage waving points I am not really sure what a permanent seat on the UN Security Council gives us. But I am not that well up on the UN, so there may well be significant benefits that are not front of my mind.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3519
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 2551 times
Been thanked: 830 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232325

Postby dspp » June 27th, 2019, 12:57 pm

Wizard wrote:
dspp wrote:On a no deal and/or hard Brexit pathway it is almost irrelevant whether England leaves UK, or UK leaves England - the end result is quite likely the same via both pathways.

Assuming IndyRef2 results in an independence vote (!) there would be enormous pressure on Scotland to agree a Sovereign Base Area at Faslane for the English nuclear deterrent (which is not just the SSBNs themselves, it is everything that is required to get them out and back and etc correctly) , as part of the withdrawal agreement. That would most likely include all the north-west approaches right out to the territorial waters (12nm) or EEZ (200nm) limit, and the corresponding airspace, and radars and etc, and include another SBA for Lossiemouth as that is where the MRA are/will be based (and other relevant aircraft). One needs all of these elements and more to be able to do assured deterrence. Basically that is Scotland handing over defence to England !! Failing that non-cooperation by Scotland would force England out of the nuclear business, if that non-cooperation were very abrupt. If NI was similarly uncooperative and similarly exited, then the waters/EEZ question becomes even more problematic if one considers submarine routes out of the Clyde. One could even imagine situations where an overnight/overmonth decamp to an allied base would be a consequence - and only France or USA have the relevant infrastructure, and only the USA infrastructure is compatible by design. That might be the only way to do a pierhead jump whilst preparing little-England alternatives (the studies on this tend to suggest Falmouth, as preferable to either Milford or Devonport).

Along that pathway it is fairly likely England would get squeezed out of the UN P5 if it lost the nuclear deterrent, and large chunks of its military capability, at the same time as a significant chunk of air/water space if split from NI & Scotland. Minor matters like a economic collapse and so on would probably be happening at the same time. Frankly I don't see how rump-England could make a credible case to remain in the UN P5 at that point.

By the time the remnants crawled back into the EU, it seems likely the P5 would be absent the UK, and probably by then be a UN P6 including Brazil & India. Whether France would then be the de facto EU perm voice is up for discussion, but my guess is that France would retain it for itself.

All of this was explained on TMF/TLF at various points well before the referendum. I have seen it discussed in other (more private, and more relevant) venues as well, including amongst people very accessible to senior politicians in such a way that I am sure the information is available (even if it was disregarded). In my opinion the so-called Project Fear only scratches the surface of the reality of the downside consequences of many of the Brexit pathways.

- dspp

OK, fair enough, but it was you that raised the 'reverse exit', with England (and Wales) leaving the UK and not Scotland (and NI).

Maybe I am missing something, but other than trouser sausage waving points I am not really sure what a permanent seat on the UN Security Council gives us. But I am not that well up on the UN, so there may well be significant benefits that are not front of my mind.


1. The point about explaining it this way, is if that had been the referendum question then I think we all know how likely a different vote would have been. Yet that is quite a high probability as being the outcome.

2. A UN P5 member can block a Security Council resolution that affects anything at all, anywhere in the world, pertaining to anyone. Only these 5-countries have that authority. Rather significant .........

- dspp

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4482
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 208 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232329

Postby BobbyD » June 27th, 2019, 1:31 pm

SteMiS wrote:It's not much consolation...


As I said...

SteMiS wrote:Seats obviously.


The two are usually synonymous, so whilst it might be the obvious claim to make, it is not necessarily obvious that it that it is the claim being made.

ursaminortaur wrote:Of course it would be slightly more complicated as the UK parliament would have to move to one of the countries remaining in the UK and England would have to setup its own parliament.


England would simply have to reinstate its Parliament, otherwise known as carrying on as usual but without the non-English MP's.

Setting up the non-English Parliament would be more interesting, but given the need to house 117 MP's on the current system and the more disjointed nature of the union I would envisage a rotating seat of Parliament as long as the current system held sway.

ursaminortaur wrote:I'm not sure that some brexiteeers would like the side effects though which would diminish the standing of England such as it just being another member of the UN rather than having a permanent seat (since that would remain with the rest of the UK


I seem to recall our international prestige being roundly dubbed a price worth paying a few short years ago when the sunny uplands were in certain sight and our course firmly plotted? Since we have entered 'Brexit do or die' phase. whilst I'm sure 'some' Brexiteers would be disappointed I doubt they constitute anything but a small minority of those still clinging to dreams of freedom, independence and sovereignty.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1684
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232334

Postby SteMiS » June 27th, 2019, 1:52 pm

dspp wrote:
Wizard wrote:
dspp wrote:On a no deal and/or hard Brexit pathway it is almost irrelevant whether England leaves UK, or UK leaves England - the end result is quite likely the same via both pathways.

Assuming IndyRef2 results in an independence vote (!) there would be enormous pressure on Scotland to agree a Sovereign Base Area at Faslane for the English nuclear deterrent (which is not just the SSBNs themselves, it is everything that is required to get them out and back and etc correctly) , as part of the withdrawal agreement. That would most likely include all the north-west approaches right out to the territorial waters (12nm) or EEZ (200nm) limit, and the corresponding airspace, and radars and etc, and include another SBA for Lossiemouth as that is where the MRA are/will be based (and other relevant aircraft). One needs all of these elements and more to be able to do assured deterrence. Basically that is Scotland handing over defence to England !! Failing that non-cooperation by Scotland would force England out of the nuclear business, if that non-cooperation were very abrupt. If NI was similarly uncooperative and similarly exited, then the waters/EEZ question becomes even more problematic if one considers submarine routes out of the Clyde. One could even imagine situations where an overnight/overmonth decamp to an allied base would be a consequence - and only France or USA have the relevant infrastructure, and only the USA infrastructure is compatible by design. That might be the only way to do a pierhead jump whilst preparing little-England alternatives (the studies on this tend to suggest Falmouth, as preferable to either Milford or Devonport).

Along that pathway it is fairly likely England would get squeezed out of the UN P5 if it lost the nuclear deterrent, and large chunks of its military capability, at the same time as a significant chunk of air/water space if split from NI & Scotland. Minor matters like a economic collapse and so on would probably be happening at the same time. Frankly I don't see how rump-England could make a credible case to remain in the UN P5 at that point.

By the time the remnants crawled back into the EU, it seems likely the P5 would be absent the UK, and probably by then be a UN P6 including Brazil & India. Whether France would then be the de facto EU perm voice is up for discussion, but my guess is that France would retain it for itself.

All of this was explained on TMF/TLF at various points well before the referendum. I have seen it discussed in other (more private, and more relevant) venues as well, including amongst people very accessible to senior politicians in such a way that I am sure the information is available (even if it was disregarded). In my opinion the so-called Project Fear only scratches the surface of the reality of the downside consequences of many of the Brexit pathways.

- dspp

OK, fair enough, but it was you that raised the 'reverse exit', with England (and Wales) leaving the UK and not Scotland (and NI).

Maybe I am missing something, but other than trouser sausage waving points I am not really sure what a permanent seat on the UN Security Council gives us. But I am not that well up on the UN, so there may well be significant benefits that are not front of my mind.


1. The point about explaining it this way, is if that had been the referendum question then I think we all know how likely a different vote would have been. Yet that is quite a high probability as being the outcome.

2. A UN P5 member can block a Security Council resolution that affects anything at all, anywhere in the world, pertaining to anyone. Only these 5-countries have that authority. Rather significant .........

Like say, blocking the UN supporting an Argentinian claim to the Falklands or a Spanish claim to Gibraltar; although I realise in the pursuit of Brexit our relationship with our overseas territories is just another inconvenience to be thrown on the fire...

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2517
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 436 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232335

Postby Wizard » June 27th, 2019, 1:58 pm

dspp wrote:
Wizard wrote:
dspp wrote:On a no deal and/or hard Brexit pathway it is almost irrelevant whether England leaves UK, or UK leaves England - the end result is quite likely the same via both pathways.

Assuming IndyRef2 results in an independence vote (!) there would be enormous pressure on Scotland to agree a Sovereign Base Area at Faslane for the English nuclear deterrent (which is not just the SSBNs themselves, it is everything that is required to get them out and back and etc correctly) , as part of the withdrawal agreement. That would most likely include all the north-west approaches right out to the territorial waters (12nm) or EEZ (200nm) limit, and the corresponding airspace, and radars and etc, and include another SBA for Lossiemouth as that is where the MRA are/will be based (and other relevant aircraft). One needs all of these elements and more to be able to do assured deterrence. Basically that is Scotland handing over defence to England !! Failing that non-cooperation by Scotland would force England out of the nuclear business, if that non-cooperation were very abrupt. If NI was similarly uncooperative and similarly exited, then the waters/EEZ question becomes even more problematic if one considers submarine routes out of the Clyde. One could even imagine situations where an overnight/overmonth decamp to an allied base would be a consequence - and only France or USA have the relevant infrastructure, and only the USA infrastructure is compatible by design. That might be the only way to do a pierhead jump whilst preparing little-England alternatives (the studies on this tend to suggest Falmouth, as preferable to either Milford or Devonport).

Along that pathway it is fairly likely England would get squeezed out of the UN P5 if it lost the nuclear deterrent, and large chunks of its military capability, at the same time as a significant chunk of air/water space if split from NI & Scotland. Minor matters like a economic collapse and so on would probably be happening at the same time. Frankly I don't see how rump-England could make a credible case to remain in the UN P5 at that point.

By the time the remnants crawled back into the EU, it seems likely the P5 would be absent the UK, and probably by then be a UN P6 including Brazil & India. Whether France would then be the de facto EU perm voice is up for discussion, but my guess is that France would retain it for itself.

All of this was explained on TMF/TLF at various points well before the referendum. I have seen it discussed in other (more private, and more relevant) venues as well, including amongst people very accessible to senior politicians in such a way that I am sure the information is available (even if it was disregarded). In my opinion the so-called Project Fear only scratches the surface of the reality of the downside consequences of many of the Brexit pathways.

- dspp

OK, fair enough, but it was you that raised the 'reverse exit', with England (and Wales) leaving the UK and not Scotland (and NI).

Maybe I am missing something, but other than trouser sausage waving points I am not really sure what a permanent seat on the UN Security Council gives us. But I am not that well up on the UN, so there may well be significant benefits that are not front of my mind.


1. The point about explaining it this way, is if that had been the referendum question then I think we all know how likely a different vote would have been. Yet that is quite a high probability as being the outcome.

2. A UN P5 member can block a Security Council resolution that affects anything at all, anywhere in the world, pertaining to anyone. Only these 5-countries have that authority. Rather significant .........

- dspp

On 1. that is a possible consequence. It would have been a very, very long question if all the possible consequences of both leaving and remaining had been included in it.

On 2., my recollection is that we have that seat because when the system was set up each of the five nuclear powers at the time got permanent seats. But the nuclear club is a lot bigger now and we are less globally significant than we were at the time. Is it therefore reasonable for us to hang on to a seat any way (same question re France)? If we do continue to have one, will we really use it independently? We may abstain when the US votes for or against something or vice versa, but when did we last veto something the US voted for or vote for something the US has vetoed? I am not saying we haven't done so, but I would be surprised if it is something that has happened very frequently in the last 20 years.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3533
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232344

Postby ursaminortaur » June 27th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Wizard wrote:
dspp wrote:
Wizard wrote:OK, fair enough, but it was you that raised the 'reverse exit', with England (and Wales) leaving the UK and not Scotland (and NI).

Maybe I am missing something, but other than trouser sausage waving points I am not really sure what a permanent seat on the UN Security Council gives us. But I am not that well up on the UN, so there may well be significant benefits that are not front of my mind.


1. The point about explaining it this way, is if that had been the referendum question then I think we all know how likely a different vote would have been. Yet that is quite a high probability as being the outcome.

2. A UN P5 member can block a Security Council resolution that affects anything at all, anywhere in the world, pertaining to anyone. Only these 5-countries have that authority. Rather significant .........

- dspp

On 1. that is a possible consequence. It would have been a very, very long question if all the possible consequences of both leaving and remaining had been included in it.

On 2., my recollection is that we have that seat because when the system was set up each of the five nuclear powers at the time got permanent seats. But the nuclear club is a lot bigger now and we are less globally significant than we were at the time. Is it therefore reasonable for us to hang on to a seat any way (same question re France)? If we do continue to have one, will we really use it independently? We may abstain when the US votes for or against something or vice versa, but when did we last veto something the US voted for or vote for something the US has vetoed? I am not saying we haven't done so, but I would be surprised if it is something that has happened very frequently in the last 20 years.


The US has used the Veto 81 times whereas the UK has only used it 29 times (Russia has used it 113 times). The UK used it on its own a number of times over Rhodesia and with France over Suez.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3519
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 2551 times
Been thanked: 830 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232349

Postby dspp » June 27th, 2019, 3:11 pm

Formally at present a P5 nation cannot be forced to surrender P5 status. However reality matters in realpolitik.

Practically the situation over the last 70-years-or-so has been one of progressive accumulating changes in the relative strengths of the P5 nations. What has not happened (except once, see below*) is a rapid reduction in strength.

At inception there was not a link to nuclear weapons status, indeed the USA was the only country with nukes at the time. However there was a very clear de facto understanding that these were the significant Allied military powers to be reckoned with in the decades to come.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent ... ty_Council

* The one reduction in power that did happen was in 1949-1971 when the Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan, and then in 1971 the UN de-recognised Taiwan and recognised the PRC mainland. It is actually worth reading through the wiki entry on this in some detail. In essence the P5 seat move reflected the way in which the (Chinese) nation had been broken up and then reconstituted, and the subsequent shift in power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... ution_2758

This actually creates a precedent I would suggest as derecognition of the UK could occur, as a recognition of reality (even if the UK tried to argue that a U of England and the principality of Wales counted it would be somewhat laughable). That would take away the UK's seat. Then individual ex-UK nations could reapply to become UN members, but in doing so would not necessarily obtain a P5 seat. Given that other nations are quite keen to obtain a P5/6/etc seat (that veto power is a powerful tool, desired by many) you could imagine this would be a feast with many knives and one menu item. I rather suspect that the circumstances of a rump-England at such a moment would be so dire as to preclude much in the way of a successful English rearguard action. Emergence of a P6 with Brazil and India entering P-status is my most likely scenario outcome. There are many others.

You have only to look at the ongoing saga of Chagos islanders and the recent UN Gen Ass resolution to appreciate that the UK (or England) could find the world a pretty unfriendly and lonely place, if there is red meat to be shared around.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12146.doc.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion ... CJ_hearing

Up for grabs in the red meat department:
- A P5 veto & seat
- Falklands
- Gibraltar
- Cyprus SBA
- forcing the (English) to divest of nukes
- forcing the City into a untenable situation
- etc, etc, etc

- dspp

EverybodyKnows
Posts: 11
Joined: February 11th, 2018, 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232385

Postby EverybodyKnows » June 27th, 2019, 7:26 pm

Wizard wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:There are other questions, such as does England (with Wales) get to take the pound with it, it is the Bank of England still, not the Bank of the UK.


According to WikiPedia the Bank of England is the central bank of the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2517
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 436 times

Re: A strategy for Remain to win

#232416

Postby Wizard » June 27th, 2019, 9:44 pm

EverybodyKnows wrote:
Wizard wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:


According to WikiPedia the Bank of England is the central bank of the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

Fair comment, but London is the capital of the UK and I doubt that would move to Scotland, but then maybe it would as it voted comfortably to remain ;) . Back to the Bank of England, it was founded in 1694 in England before the Act of Union in 1707, but I guess it would be something else to argue over in the theoretical situation put forward and there would be valid points to be made on both sides.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests