English Chess Forum

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Does anyone have any idea how the by-election might have gone if the Conservatives had put forward an official candidate? Would that have increased the Lib Dem eventual majority, or might it have confused things still further?

I imagine that this would have split Zac's vote, but could also have split the anti-Brexit vote (dependent on the views of the Tory candidate).

Net effect would likely to have been to reduce the Lib Dem vote, but to have reduced Zac's vote more, increasing the majority.

Today, on the continent, there's a constitutional referendum in Italy - where, as Cameron did in the UK, Renzi has staked all on winning - and a General Election in Austria.

To me, the Brexit and Trump victories together with these, and other, coming electoral battles smack of the English, American and French Revolutions - the people versus the establishment.

In the coming results will we see the start of a great European revolt against the modern ancien régimes?

John McKenna wrote:a General Election in Austria.

It's actually a Presidential election, isn't it?

It has been an amazing year in Austrian elections. The first attempt was declared a winner for the Van Der Bellen, but very narrowly, and the courts decided there had to be a re-run. The second attempt was cancelled due to faulty glue on postal ballots. The third attempt is today, and should be just as close as the first attempt. It'd be funny from an outside perspective if Austria just spends the next four or five years with elections that are roughly 50/50, and never actually electing anyone.

I thank you for the correction, Alex, and appreciate the joke as usual.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Does anyone have any idea how the by-election might have gone if the Conservatives had put forward an official candidate? Would that have increased the Lib Dem eventual majority, or might it have confused things still further?

The key issue here in Richmond Park was Brexit. The only chance for the Conservatives to win was is if they selected a high-profile official candidate who advocated a soft Brexit (who?). Zac is Conservative in all but name: he had the support of many local Conservative activists and had a strong local following. Tory HQ didn't want to exacerbate the internal Brexit divisions within the party. There was an unofficial Conservative candidate but she received fewer votes than the Monster Raving Loonies.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

John McKenna wrote:a General Election in Austria.

It's actually a Presidential election, isn't it?

It has been an amazing year in Austrian elections. The first attempt was declared a winner for the Van Der Bellen, but very narrowly, and the courts decided there had to be a re-run. The second attempt was cancelled due to faulty glue on postal ballots. The third attempt is today, and should be just as close as the first attempt. It'd be funny from an outside perspective if Austria just spends the next four or five years with elections that are roughly 50/50, and never actually electing anyone.

Looks like VdB has won BBC report

Italian referendum result awaited

While awaiting the Renzi result one could listen to Rienzi -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rienzi

We are certainly in an interesting place when victory for the Green candidate is seen as a fight back for mainstream politics. Matteo Renzi seemed, on the face of it, to be proposing very sane things in the Italian referendum and his defeat appears to be on the back of more anti-establishment feeling (although I can understand Italians being wary of changes to the constitution which potentially reduce limits on executive power).
Whatever next? I cannot see Marine Le-Pen winning in France, but neither can I see the European Union continuing in its current form in 10 years time.

Matthew Turner wrote:Whatever next? I cannot see Marine Le-Pen winning in France, but neither can I see the European Union continuing in its current form in 10 years time.

This was part of my arguement in the referedum which nobody on the Remain side could answer, what will the EU be like in 10 years time; it was looking to me that there would have been a major treaty change to bring about fiscal union (the only way to make the Euro work) in this period; and if this would have occurred then another referedum would have to happen (brought in by Cameron so we didn't have the same problem as Labour did with the Lisbon Treaty), and the likely outcome of this would have be a significant "no" in my eyes

So either way I think it would have been highly likely that the British people would have eventually voted to Leave whatever the scenario would have been, it has just been exabberated a bit quicker

Alan Walton wrote:

Matthew Turner wrote:Whatever next? I cannot see Marine Le-Pen winning in France, but neither can I see the European Union continuing in its current form in 10 years time.

This was part of my arguement in the referedum which nobody on the Remain side could answer, what will the EU be like in 10 years time; it was looking to me that there would have been a major treaty change to bring about fiscal union (the only way to make the Euro work) in this period; and if this would have occurred then another referedum would have to happen (brought in by Cameron so we didn't have the same problem as Labour did with the Lisbon Treaty), and the likely outcome of this would have be a significant "no" in my eyes

So either way I think it would have been highly likely that the British people would have eventually voted to Leave whatever the scenario would have been, it has just been exabberated a bit quicker

Why not have an EU without a common currency?

Alan Walton wrote:
So either way I think it would have been highly likely that the British people would have eventually voted to Leave whatever the scenario would have been, it has just been exabberated a bit quicker

A minority of the British people...

Angus French wrote:

Alan Walton wrote:

Matthew Turner wrote:Whatever next? I cannot see Marine Le-Pen winning in France, but neither can I see the European Union continuing in its current form in 10 years time.

This was part of my arguement in the referedum which nobody on the Remain side could answer, what will the EU be like in 10 years time; it was looking to me that there would have been a major treaty change to bring about fiscal union (the only way to make the Euro work) in this period; and if this would have occurred then another referedum would have to happen (brought in by Cameron so we didn't have the same problem as Labour did with the Lisbon Treaty), and the likely outcome of this would have be a significant "no" in my eyes

So either way I think it would have been highly likely that the British people would have eventually voted to Leave whatever the scenario would have been, it has just been exabberated a bit quicker

Why not have an EU without a common currency?

Valid point Angus, personally I would just want the EU to be a free trade zone with a much simplified ToR

Matthew Turner wrote:Matteo Renzi seemed, on the face of it, to be proposing very sane things in the Italian referendum and his defeat appears to be on the back of more anti-establishment feeling (although I can understand Italians being wary of changes to the constitution which potentially reduce limits on executive power).

There's a significant difference how Italian and British newspapers reported about the Italian referendum and their results.
For Italian newspapers it's all about Italians expressing disappointment with Renzi's government: in that way you can definitely call it an anti-establishment position. However British newspapers seem to highlight an anti-EU position of the Italian voters that does not have such central stage in Italian newspapers. It kind of feels someone trying to justify their bad choices by projecting them onto others.

With respect to the actual question of the referendum, I believe many Italians feel that good intentions (reducing the complexity of the law-making process and reducing the size/cost of parliament) were poorly implemented (major source of concern that the senators would be in practice named as opposed to elected as they are today). As such you could either make a case for a no vote on the specifics of the constitutional amendment or you could make a case for a yes vote in the name of political stability in the country.

Michael Farthing wrote:

Alan Walton wrote:
So either way I think it would have been highly likely that the British people would have eventually voted to Leave whatever the scenario would have been, it has just been exabberated a bit quicker

A minority of the British people...

What I am saying here is that I suspect more people would vote "no" if the question was put to them, "Do you want Brussels to set your tax rate"

If this was the case and EU presses ahead with the changes then I suspect leaving would be the only option

Alan Walton wrote:What I am saying here is that I suspect more people would vote "no" if the question was put to them, "Do you want Brussels to set your tax rate"

That's for sure, but do you think the answer from the UK population would be any different to the question "do you want London to set your tax rate?"