Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Legally, it was most certainly advisory, and there was no legal compulsion to invoke Article 50.

Any backstage chit-chat, before or after, was just that.

Well, that still doesn’t make it legally binding, as Kreuz alludes to. Its legal status was non-binding and advisory only. It’s a technicality, I know, but it’s quite an important one.

In effect, it means that the decision to end the UK’s EU membership was entirely a political choice by the Tories.

I don't buy that. There was no way anyone was getting out of it on a technicality, to put it euphemistically. "You know when we said we'd abide by the result? We were lying".

The die was cast once the Tories got a majority in 2015.

Part of my continued hostility to the Greens (apart from my MP) goes back to their failure to understand the importance of the referendum as a step in a downward spiral. They were too busy taking chunks out of Ed Miliband.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Dec 19, 2025 3:57 pm It's rubbish, if you look at the Labour manifesto or King's Speech.

The US Bluesky position is likely based on immigration and trans rights, which are very strong issues for the Bluesky US Left, in their opposition to Trumpism as a whole. Not that the UK Government is running anything like an ICE operation. We'll see what the new guidance says on trans rights. The fact the first draft was rejected may be a semi-positive sign that there could be flexibility. But I can more see the Bluesky US Left point on that, because the UK is anomalous with other European countries.

On immigration, one thing they often overlook is that Biden, in fact, moved to the right on immigration. At the beginning of 2024, a deal was ready to pass the Senate, which would have included several harsh measures. Also, I remember some of themwhen they were on Twitter saying Democrsts will have to move rightwards on immigration.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 19, 2025 5:02 pm In effect, it means that the decision to end the UK’s EU membership was entirely a political choice by the Tories.

With the full support of the LOTO.

As ever, who is saying something is just as, if not more, important than what is being said.

Starmer could go as far to the right as you like, and the RW media would say that he was trying too hard, or too little too late, or it was a sham.

Point being, tribalism is so embedded that impartial analysis is impossible. Even the I has decided that Labour are finished, with accompanying articles by Isabel "not the worst with this name" Hardman and Kamikaze Kwasi.

Edit- got wrong end of the stick

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Dec 19, 2025 6:04 pm
On immigration, one thing they often overlook is that Biden, in fact, moved to the right on immigration. At the beginning of 2024, a deal was ready to pass the Senate, which would have included several harsh measures. Also, I remember some of themwhen they were on Twitter saying Democrsts will have to move rightwards on immigration.

Yeah, Biden, Sanders and others got it. So did Trump, so he didn't let it happen. I don't know if the Bluesky US Left would have agreed.

When are the IMF riding into town?

This is the McSweeney quote that everyone on Blusky was getting worked up about yesterday.

I mean, to what extent does this actually exist as a thing? Somebody did a paper on it for a think tank, who may not even support the conclusions, and who probably won't find anyone to run on this platform. which is out of date anyway (it's the law)? And given that a concession was made on a probationary period, how relevant is this argument anyway?

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Dec 19, 2025 7:03 pm This is the McSweeney quote that everyone on Blusky was getting worked up about yesterday.

I actually agree with Stephen Bush on this. It's a "hidden shallows" quote. Somebody just sounding off to sound clever.

What is this "Bluesky-Thing" thing? We are fully enabled to curate and inflate our own bubbles. If you want kittens, Jewish hamsters, or South Californian Dems, you're free to choose.

This seems, well, optimistic.

What common ground is there on immigration? Very little, I'd say. And each side sees its immigration position as being core to its beliefs. I foresee very little prospect of "let's put aside you want 400,000 net migration and we want hardly any, and have a meeting of minds over regional water companies". Lots of the other stuff (including, I'd argue, buying water companies) is basically "let's spend some money on this". Where does that come from?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Dec 19, 2025 7:15 pm I mean, to what extent does this actually exist as a thing? Somebody did a paper on it for a think tank, who may not even support the conclusions, and who probably won't find anyone to run on this platform. which is out of date anyway (it's the law)? And given that a concession was made on a probationary period, how relevant is this argument anyway?

Well, the bill's received royal assent, so it's a bit late now.

Apparently they’ve offered local authorities that are facing re-organisation to save some money by postponing their elections.

Lots of gnashing of teeth though in Plymouth they would still hold the council so really you do wonder what the point is there on holding an election that will be null and void within a year.

What these councils should do is go yeah ok we have an election but we’ve cancelled the Christmas lights as we’ve had to save some money somewhere.

The GLC was due elections in 1985 but they weren't held because it was being scrapped in 1986. That was the Thatcher Government. What's the difference?

I don't see any great partisan advantage in having these later. So can we go with "underestimated the complexity"? Not the best, but surely relatively minor in the greater scheme of things. The devolution, which nobody has attempted before for these areas will still go ahead. That to me is better than have them open before they're ready and almost inevitably overspend massively on such relatively minor things as upgrading station platforms (which is what happened with other devolved bodies, compared with the established Scotrail).

The Institute of Government have a particular interest in this area, so of course they flag it up. The difference with this government, compared with others, is that it's picked up as part of a broader narrative of "it's all shit". (The IoG btw don't do that). We want devolution to happen but then go mad that it gets delayed. I could sometimes forgive ministers for thinking it's not worth the effort.

Bizarrely, this "they've taken an extra year to devolve! useless!" narrative co-exists with "where's the ambitious programme of reform?". Often with the same people.

I don't see any great partisan advantage in having these later. So can we go with "underestimated the complexity"? Not the best, but surely relatively minor in the greater scheme of things. The devolution, which nobody has attempted before for these areas will still go ahead. That to me is better than have them open before they're ready and almost inevitably overspend massively on such relatively minor things as upgrading station platforms (which is what happened with other devolved bodies, compared with the established Scotrail).

The Institute of Government have a particular interest in this area, so of course they flag it up. The difference with this government, compared with others, is that it's picked up as part of a broader narrative of "it's all shit". (The IoG btw don't do that). We want devolution to happen but then go mad that it gets delayed. I could sometimes forgive ministers for thinking it's not worth the effort.

Bizarrely, this "they've taken an extra year to devolve! useless!" narrative co-exists with "where's the ambitious programme of reform?". Often with the same people. I see Dan Sohege, who hates the Government for asylum matters, has helpfully told everyone it's an "unpopular government playing for time", while hiding this with "most people will think".