UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: tregiffian on August 10, 2018, 09:52:32 am
-
In soccer parlance, our fate will be in our own hands. This will make a nice change.
Moreover, when Italy, Denmark, Greece et al. become problems we shall be spectators not victims. I do worry a little for those of us doing winter sun Euro trips this winter.
-
No more so than it is now! This is the great lie about this whole fiasco. If they had wanted to, the govt could have spent more money on the NHS, they could have limited migration, they could even have cut some benefits to EU migrants. They weren't prevented from getting involved in various military interventions, we have control of our police, judiciary and the armed forces. We will still be subject to rules of supra-national bodies like NATO, the UN etc, when we sign trade agreements with the US we will be making concessions to them just as we do the EU. Something like the ECHR has no effect an virtually everyone in the country and for those UK citizens it does affect for the majority it is a benefit. The only thing the EU interfered in was dull regulatory shit that you probably wouldn't be interested in, or would applaud if it were done by our govt, such as better employment protection and cleaner beaches.
Tell me something that we will have control over that will be changed for the better and will improve your life post Brexit.
-
Moreover, when Italy, Denmark, Greece et al. become problems we shall be spectators not victims. I do worry a little for those of us doing winter sun Euro trips this winter.
Anything that becomes a problem for Europe becomes a problem for us. Just because we are leaving the EU doesn't mean we are suddenly going to become immune to anything that happens there.
-
No more so than it is now! This is the great lie about this whole fiasco. If they had wanted to, the govt could have spent more money on the NHS, they could have limited migration, they could even have cut some benefits to EU migrants. They weren't prevented from getting involved in various military interventions, we have control of our police, judiciary and the armed forces. We will still be subject to rules of supra-national bodies like NATO, the UN etc, when we sign trade agreements with the US we will be making concessions to them just as we do the EU. Something like the ECHR has no effect an virtually everyone in the country and for those UK citizens it does affect for the majority it is a benefit. The only thing the EU interfered in was dull regulatory shit that you probably wouldn't be interested in, or would applaud if it were done by our govt, such as better employment protection and cleaner beaches.
Tell me something that we will have control over that will be changed for the better and will improve your life post Brexit.
I could go into how bad it will be for healthcare in this country, and sigh at how all the people it will hit hard are the ones who voted for Brexit....
Flippant comments like the one above about euro winter trips need to either ignore it and say nothing or wake up.
-
Something like the ECHR has no effect an virtually everyone in the country and for those UK citizens it does affect for the majority it is a benefit...
The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have no relation to our membership or non-membership of the EU. We will still remain members of the Council of Europe post-Brexit - something for which I at least have cause to be grateful. I'm often surprised that vociferous champions of the EU know so little about European institutions. But I think you are right in questioning the ECHR's/Council of Europe's efficacy.
I certainly take the point that successive UK governments, of all different parties, have blamed the EU for their own failings. If there be only one benefit to our leaving, I'm sure even the most diehard remainers would agree it is this: no longer can the UK government use our membership of the EU as a scapegoat for its own inability to act. And I think that's the most important aspect to it. A democracy simply cannot function with such a lack of accountability - such obfuscation of responsibility. It must be clear to electors where their laws are made, by whom are they made, and how those law-makers can be thrown out if the electorate don't like what they do.
I don't think it was just the lack of democracy within the EU institutions that was a problem to the skeptics, but also the way in which being a member of the EU eroded our own democracy within the UK. Thus when presented with the option of removing the scapegoat, people chose to remove the scapegoat.
...I was going to tell Rocksteady that my main concern with a second referendum is we'd need a new UKB thread, and no one would want that... one's more than enough! Now I see we have another one... What the hell happened?!
-
I've been thinking about all this quite a lot as a result of this thread. A couple of things made me look up logic and reasoning and heuristics (mental shortcuts/rules of thumb that are specious).
Confirmation bias is where your mind instinctively lends more credence to evidence that supports your arguments than evidence that contradicts it.
The 'fallacists fallacy' is a mistake in reasoning whereby you assume that because a supporting argument or piece of evidence is invalid, the conclusion drawn is necessarily invalid.
I've been trying to frame this thread's debate - I think this is how I would summarise:
Economic arguments: Remainers point to lots of economic forecasts by experts that suggest that the UK economy will be worse/much worse off as a result of leaving the UK. Leavers call this 'project fear' and point out that so far the UK economy hasn't been as badly hit as predicted. Above, Pete noted that economic forecasts are proven to be generally unreliable - but noted that he believes that the UK economy will be worse off in the short term as a result of leaving. In the long term it is just as likely to do well as to do badly, and no-one can accurately predict this.
My thoughts are that the weight of evidence tends to support the expert view. Just because they've been wrong in the past doesn't mean they will be wrong this time. But in a sense who knows about the economy? Long term the trend has always gone up. But the same was probably true in many empires of the past that in the end collapsed into chaos.
Governance arguments: Leavers point to the benefits of the UK being in full control of our own destiny, with no laws or policies being foisted on us from the EU. Some argue this will leave us more flexible in the future and able to respond to opportunities or crises in such a way that we will outperform the EU. Also often touted is the unaccountability of EU law and policymakers to UK voters, making them hard to influence or oust for poor performance.
Remainers argue that (a) the UK has in most material ways always been in control of its law and policy despite the EU, and that the EU has been used as a scapegoat by generations of lazy politicians as an excuse for the results of their own failed policies; (b) the world is more complex and interlinked and whatever happens we will be influenced by third parties in order to achieve effective negotiated trade agreements for example; (c) in any event the EU has been a force for good and a useful check and balance on UK government and policy.
Societal/cultural arguments: Free-movement and immigration clearly played a big part in the referendum, with Leavers pointing to the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration. Many Remainers would argue that immigrants from the EU provide us with a net benefit. I find it hard to draw conclusions on this. As a London, some of the negative impact of migration to the UK is very obvious eg. tube even more overcrowded, non-native speakers homeless on the streets and queuing up at foodbanks. But personally I like the idea of being a European citizen and able to work and live easily in a wider geographic area than just the UK.
Are there any other arguments for/against? On the above I feel that no-one can point to any concrete benefits of leaving, but no-one can prove that it would definitely be worse. It's a roll of the dice that change will improve things.
-
The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have no relation to our membership or non-membership of the EU. We will still remain members of the Council of Europe post-Brexit - something for which I at least have cause to be grateful. I'm often surprised that vociferous champions of the EU know so little about European institutions. But I think you are right in questioning the ECHR's/Council of Europe's efficacy.
This is a failry recent development though right? May was keen to leave it but was forced to back down re: reciprocal security arrangements? Your statement makes it look like this was never on the table?
-
The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have no relation to our membership or non-membership of the EU. We will still remain members of the Council of Europe post-Brexit - something for which I at least have cause to be grateful. I'm often surprised that vociferous champions of the EU know so little about European institutions. But I think you are right in questioning the ECHR's/Council of Europe's efficacy.
Its a fair cop, I was sloppy, but I was trying to address the populist reasons that leavers commonly use and, whether ECHR is affected by Brexit or not, it is often cited by leavers as a reasons for leaving. I could just have easily used as an example the claims about Turkey joining the EU or the EU army.
I certainly take the point that successive UK governments, of all different parties, have blamed the EU for their own failings. If there be only one benefit to our leaving, I'm sure even the most diehard remainers would agree it is this: no longer can the UK government use our membership of the EU as a scapegoat for its own inability to act.
If only that were true, every self-inflicted cock up our govt makes is blamed on the EU (their intransigence, their determination to do one over on us etc.) this will continue for decades.
And I think that's the most important aspect to it. A democracy simply cannot function with such a lack of accountability - such obfuscation of responsibility. It must be clear to electors where their laws are made, by whom are they made, and how those law-makers can be thrown out if the electorate don't like what they do. I don't think it was just the lack of democracy within the EU institutions that was a problem to the skeptics, but also the way in which being a member of the EU eroded our own democracy within the UK. Thus when presented with the option of removing the scapegoat, people chose to remove the scapegoat.
So the best solution to successive politicians lying to us is to economically hobble ourselves rather than hold them to account? You might say this would never happen and I'm mindful to agree, even if they stop blaming the EU (and I'm mainly talking about the Tories now) they will find another scapegoat, there'll be plenty of immigrants left over to blame, plenty of poor, disabled, single mum's. The nasty blaming of others will be exacerbate, not ended, by this process. Look at where news programs are now turning to fill the void left by UKIP, the Tax Payers Alliance, look how Mogg has set his sights on the over seas aid budget as the next thing that needs fixing ("That's whats making you poor, not low taxes for the rich"
...I was going to tell Rocksteady that my main concern with a second referendum is we'd need a new UKB thread, and no one would want that... one's more than enough! Now I see we have another one... What the hell happened?!
Not sure, I didn't even notice when I first replied
-
...We will still remain members of the Council of Europe post-Brexit...
This is a failry recent development though right? May was keen to leave it but was forced to back down re: reciprocal security arrangements? Your statement makes it look like this was never on the table?
Not exactly teestub. UK's being in the ECHR and ECtHR rely on our membership of the Council of Europe (est. 1950) which is nothing to do with the EU (est. 1992) or Brexit negotiations.
Mrs May as Home Secretary had beef with the ECtHR over deporting some fella with a monocle and hook for a hand so argued we'd be better off withdrawing from the ECHR. When she became Prime Minister post the 2016 Referendum, I think she realised she had too much on her plate (what with leaving the EU an' all) and that she'd be unlikely to get agreement from Parliament having such a small majority and MPs on her own side being uncomfortable with it. Withdrawing from one set of international treaties seem quite enough, so the idea of leaving the ECHR is on hold and wasn't in the last Conservative manifesto...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-uk-echr-european-convention-human-rights-leave-eu-next-parliament-election-a7742436.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-uk-echr-european-convention-human-rights-leave-eu-next-parliament-election-a7742436.html)
So perhaps there's another silver lining. One can only hope that her stated desire of demonstrating the UK is not withdrawing from the world will give incentive for her government to commit to staying in the ECHR and perhaps even strengthening the 47-member Council of Europe as a body for pan-continental cooperation.
-
Apols, I meant the change in heart on withdrawing was recent.
Apparently not withdrawing from ECHR was just on hold 'for the next parliament' until Barnier insisted otherwise. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-white-paper-eu-european-convention-on-human-rights-tory-mps-a8444386.html
But I'm sure this is just spin from a pro remain rag. How in charge of our sovereignty are we really if the home secretary can waste millions trying to deport someone only for those bloody euro bureaucrats to tell them otherwise ::)
-
Above, Pete noted that economic forecasts are proven to be generally unreliable - but noted that he believes that the UK economy will be worse off in the short term as a result of leaving. In the long term it is just as likely to do well as to do badly, and no-one can accurately predict this.
The point I was trying to make - clumsily - on the other thread was that not all forecasts are created equal. In fact the predictions of a poor economic outcome tend to be long run predictions, and expert opinion is fairly confident in them.
The usual analogy is something like: I can’t predict your weight in ten years, but I can predict that if you increase your diet of beer and pizza, you’ll be heavier than otherwise, all other things being equal.
No one is saying the economy won’t grow, just that it will be smaller than otherwise.
-
“I certainly take the point that successive UK governments, of all different parties, have blamed the EU for their own failings.”
I don’t buy this at all. Consider the great modern UK policy disasters:
Financial crisis
Iraq
Austerity
Decline of NHS
Rubbish tertiary education
Poorly handled de-industrialisation
Housing crisis/lack of social housing
Poor quality infrastructure
Etc
Has the EU really been used as a scapegoat for these decisions? No one said we had to invade Iraq because Jacques Delores said so. Has the EU been invoked in the long slow debacle of building more airport capacity for London?
At the edges, maybe, but for serious government failures - I don’t think so.
-
Its a fair cop, I was sloppy, but I was trying to address the populist reasons that leavers commonly use and, whether ECHR is affected by Brexit or not, it is often cited by leavers as a reasons for leaving...
Indeed. Greater understanding of the facts is needed on all sides; we should all take care not to perpetuate myths.
...every self-inflicted cock up our govt makes is blamed on the EU (their intransigence, their determination to do one over on us etc.) this will continue for decades.
...even if they stop blaming the EU (and I'm mainly talking about the Tories now) they will find another scapegoat, there'll be plenty of immigrants left over to blame, plenty of poor, disabled, single mum's. The nasty blaming of others will be exacerbate, not ended, by this process...
You are right. 'They' will blame the EU for decades, as 'they' always blame the mess left them by their predecessors in goverment, etc. The next scapegoat, post EU-membership, to where democratic blame will be shifted, will be our local councils. We must pay attention.
The arguments are: 1) there are so many areas of EU competence over which we have no say, and 2) the UK government scapegoats the EU for its own failings. I suspect there's a great deal of truth in both of these, but personally believe it will now be very hard for our elected representatives to hide behind the EU.
...I'm now looking forward to our Insect Overlords blaming new EU GDPR rules for the sudden appearance of this second thread. ;)
-
Financial crisis
Iraq
Austerity
Decline of NHS
Rubbish tertiary education
Poorly handled de-industrialisation
Housing crisis/lack of social housing
Poor quality infrastructure
Etc
If not directly then certainly indirectly and it's certainly been a useful distraction for these last 20 years.
-
Financial crisis
Iraq
Austerity
Decline of NHS
Rubbish tertiary education
Poorly handled de-industrialisation
Housing crisis/lack of social housing
Poor quality infrastructure
Etc
If not directly then certainly indirectly and it's certainly been a useful distraction for these last 20 years.
Who blamed the EU “indirectly” for Iraq and what does this even mean - given that most other EU members weren’t involved? “If only we weren’t in the EU, we’d never have been in Basra.” It’s literally nonsense.
Same with many other things on my list. Has the EU been blamed for then UK’s poor planning, or our over-centralisation? Has it been blamed for RBS or Northern Rock?
As for a useful distraction, EU issues were bottom of people’s concerns for years. We have plenty of survey data on this. If it was a distraction it was a very poor one.
I think you’re making the mistake of looking at the past too much through the eyes of the very recent present.
-
I meant to explicitly exclude Iraq but to be honest it doesn't matter as my point is if Brexit wasn't about those things, and wasn't about the economy because even leavers now accepting there'll be a hit to the economy what was it about? People did not make the connection between Brexit and the engarive things in their lives by themselves, politicians were complicit in that.
-
At the risk of repeating myself, Leavers, among other things voted for independence, our fate in out hands was my main thought. Also I again query the longevity of the EU. It is a big bloated lump but rather like a shark best observed from a distance.
-
At the risk of repeating myself, Leavers, among other things voted for independence, our fate in out hands was my main thought.
What particular part of your fate did you feel was being stifled but the European Union?
-
The Common Fisheries Policy. I look forward to a 12 mile limit all round the coast including Rockall. The New Model army and other vanity projects on which we have no effective say. Finally the appalling Gravy Train which is the Commission. That will do for now as it is past my bedtime.
-
The EU has also made any future post-Brexit trade deal conditional on maintaining access for its fisherman – something the UK industry fears means further climbdowns will follow.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/23/britains-fishing-fleet-and-brexit-promises-key-questions-answered
Will see how you get on with that, seems likely that concessions to EU fishermen will be made if it helps lubricate other larger agreements.
-
If we get to do the March 29th base jump over the cliff edge we can use some of the £39bn to beef up the Fisheries Protection which is currently woeful.
Business does not like uncertainty. Any form of `transition period` will create a significant spell of continuing uncertainty which will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on output and investment.
-
If we get to do the March 29th base jump over the cliff edge we
... will be in crisis, and welching on a previous commitment really won’t have that big an impact given the ongoing headwinds for the economy.
-
If we get to do the March 29th base jump over the cliff edge we can use some of the £39bn to beef up the Fisheries Protection which is currently
I honestly think you’re just trolling now, because that’s the kinder of the two analyses I came up with for your posts, so I’m done.
-
If we get to do the March 29th base jump over the cliff edge we can use some of the £39bn to beef up the Fisheries Protection which is currently woeful.
Business does not like uncertainty. Any form of `transition period` will create a significant spell of continuing uncertainty which will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on output and investment.
I've been trying to get my head around how important an issue this is. Obviously if your are a fisherman it's important but from an economic point of view the answer is 'not very'. I got this from the govt website:
In 2015, EU vessels caught 683,000 tonnes (£484 million revenue) in UK waters and UK vessels caught 111,000 tonnes (£114 million revenue) in Member States’ waters.
So we stand to gain an extra £370 million worth of fish per year.
Fishing the extra will require investment in the fishing fleet.
Some UK fishing ports get EU community funds which the government has not promised to replace.
Some fishing ports have requested to become free ports post Brexit because of the negative impact on their on shore activities.
You seem to want to increase spending in fisheries protection.
If you are a fisherman then your choice is logical, if not then this particular benefit is very small.
-
If we get to do the March 29th base jump over the cliff edge we can use some of the £39bn to beef up the Fisheries Protection which is currently woeful.
Business does not like uncertainty. Any form of `transition period` will create a significant spell of continuing uncertainty which will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on output and investment.
Not going to happen.
I keep a close eye on Naval spending etc. Mostly being cut back, massively. Fully committed for the next two decades, too. Planning, designing, tendering for a fleet of fishery protection vessels? Ten years of procurement 5-9 years construction, plus seatrials etc, twenty years before they see service...
£39B? Chicken feed. Anyway, I thought you were promising to fund the NHS with that?
-
I "get" the sovereignty aspect. I have similar sentiments re: Westminster/Holyrood. But the bit I never got about leaving the EU was how little was to be gained. Only ~10% of laws come from the EU and they mostly seem to deal with environmental protections, human rights, trade related regulations etc.
Most of those we'll have to keep aligning to no matter what type of brexit we end up with. I am still waiting for a brexiteer to show me 3 laws that are currently holding the UK back that will now be cast away.
Then there's the "unelected bureaucrat" line of reasoning. Which, 1) was false anyway, the decision makers in the EU are elected and 2) if we crash out on WTO trade rules, can you tell me who your local WTO representative is? How do you influence their decision making? Are they accountable?
Even if we get some kind of deal with the EU - we will be rule takers, with no influence.
I'd love to think that for all this shit we're going through there might be some kind of upside. I cannot see it. Anyone care to point me to it?
-
Above, Pete noted that economic forecasts are proven to be generally unreliable - but noted that he believes that the UK economy will be worse off in the short term as a result of leaving. In the long term it is just as likely to do well as to do badly, and no-one can accurately predict this.
The point I was trying to make - clumsily - on the other thread was that not all forecasts are created equal. In fact the predictions of a poor economic outcome tend to be long run predictions, and expert opinion is fairly confident in them.
The usual analogy is something like: I can’t predict your weight in ten years, but I can predict that if you increase your diet of beer and pizza, you’ll be heavier than otherwise, all other things being equal.
No one is saying the economy won’t grow, just that it will be smaller than otherwise.
I agree the consensus of forecasts is for GDP in 2030 to be marginally lower than it would be had brexit not happened (and all other things in the world being equal..).
That post however makes it sound like there's a fair degree of confidence. The truth looks different - just read the Cambridge paper from 2016 or 2018. Remember most of the authors have no political agenda and voted to remain, and have stated they'd do so again given the chance. There's certainly no confidence on show for the more extreme forecasts (negative or positive).
The long-term forecasts range from -7.9% to +4%, with most sitting between a 2% - 3.5% lower growth of GDP by 2030. See page 19 of the Cambrige paper (2016 version) for a table of the various long-term forecasts.
Would a 2 to 3% lower rate of growth of GDP over the next 12 years actually make any significant difference to the average person in 2030..?
Will all other things in the world be equal between now and 2030..? No unanticipated world events? No new technological revolutions?
-
No new technological revolutions?
Of course there will be the revolution in magic invisible borders.
-
Would a 2 to 3% lower rate of growth of GDP over the next 12 years actually make any significant difference to the average person in 2030..?
Good question. Anyone here had any direct experience negative/positive since we voted to leave? Do you think 12 more years of the same thing will be good for you/your acquaintances?
My small experience is the dropping of the value of the pound has squeezed profit margins at my company (and the previous place I worked). Most electronics components are priced in dollars so any manufacturing in UK will be affected. In the immediate aftermath of the vote a device I was making went up in cost by 10% (company absorbed that loss). Some of our products now make a loss. Company makes burglar alarms. Prices will be going up soon - another brexit benefit to the man on street. No pay rise this year. Around 10 redundancies (literally as I've typed that they've called us in to announce more!). However, I should say, the £ fall isn't the only problem. Our international Sales (Europe) have literally vanished but that is most likely due to restructuring of our distribution by our new Chinese owners rather than some early Brexit effect. This is a bit of shitter because export would have been strengthened by the pound.
So this is my direct experience of Brexit. Increased costs, redundancies, pay freezes and new relationships with foreign powers that don't work like we do and shit things up.
-
No new technological revolutions?
Of course there will be the revolution in seamless magic invisible borders.
Just fixed that for you Tim ;)
-
While not wanting to make light of anyone's hardship, that's not your experience 'of brexit'. That's your experience of 'working in a burglar alarm company'. You could add 'owned by a Chinese firm'. Or 'based in xyz'. Correlation isn't causation..
(also: 'pay freezes' and 'foreign ownership of UK firms' have a long track record in the UK, unrelated to brexit)
-
Our numbers of EU students are down, which is strange given the fall in the pound which should make it cheaper. Our kit prices have gone up as we import most from France, no deal would see a big increase on these (guesstimate >30%) and huge VAT headaches. In our industry any kit manufacturer who uses this as an opportunity to compete runs the risk of being nixed due us losing influence on EN standards.
Those I know who work in the NHS or schools haven't had pay rises in ten years now. Prices have gone up in that time. I don't see brexit bringing any pay rises.
-
Pete - AFIAK GDP is a general measure of how an economy is performing (both the total figure and how much it is changing by). At its crudest, its a sum of what people and companies are earning - so a reduction in growth of say 2-3% per year - would mean wage growth, company income growth (and from both importantly taxation that can then be used to further invest) grow at a reduced rate. Might not sound much, but 2-3% over 10-20 years comes out at quite alot - especially if our EU neighbours GDP growth is not hampered (which is already happening I believe - hence us slipping down the tables of the richest nations in the world - based on GDP).
I was at a wedding last week - where my wifes uncles wife (god knows what relation that is to me!) now chairs a DEFRA committee on Vetinary Medicine. It was interesting to hear her take on things. She said that the whole civil service is in a partial state of paralysis - as Brexit is taking over c.25% of the general workload. This means that all (non brexit) plans fo the future (e.g. where to invest - what legislation to persue - iow how to make our country better) have been put on hold. Nothing new is happening - the usual business of government (making the country run better - and be a better place for its citizens) has been put on hold. She speaks from some experience having been an MP for 2 parliaments in the late 90's onwards. OK - its an anecdote, but the turmoil of something that hasnt even happened yet is having a slow but profound way on how our country should be progressing and developing.
-
TT do you mean progressing like we have in the last ten years? No pay rises etc. See JB’s post above about that. Obviously I fail to see what about preparing to leave the EU isn’t making the country better.
GDP - the consensus is 2% to 3.5% lower *in total*, by 2030. Not year on year. Big difference. I recommend reading the Cambridge paper linked elsewhere for the exact figures.
-
TT do you mean progressing like we have in the last ten years? No pay rises etc. See JB’s post above about that. Obviously I fail to see what about preparing to leave the EU isn’t making the country better.
No. Not wages.
I mean by progressing coming up with new policies and plans - both tackling existing issues effectively (e.g. Transport, homeless, NHS etc.. etc..) - and planning for future ones.
A chunk of running a business, or a country (the civil services job) is to look ahead and see what will need doing for the future (e.g housing, transport etc.. etc..) and setting plans accordingly. She was saying this has all stalled - as there is no capacity to do so due to the workload of brexit.
In her example - animal medicine - they should be looking at new standards, guidlines, best practices, products, treatments etc.. that are all developing and will develop over the next X years. But they cant.
The effect of this slippage is at present not visible - but will be in the coming 10 years.
I'll ask you a question to maybe illustrate - what policies have the government carried out or got through parliament since 2016 other than Brexit related ones?
-
We provide GCSE PE lessons to EF language school (and a few smaller residential schools based in Torbay).
Over the last two years, the composition of those classes changed, from predominantly EU/Nordic students, with around 10-15% Middle Eastern or North African; to almost entirely Chinese and Sub-Saharan African. Speaking with the Principle, this trend is consistent across their UK schools. The company is Swiss and they run residential schools worldwide. The EU students wishing to study in English, are choosing US campuses and qualifications, apparently. Fees in UK campuses have been reduced to attract alternative custom, but numbers are down and some campuses threatened. Many of the staff are EU citizens (other than British), they too are looking to relocate.
Also, speaking for the Climbing Wall, a large percentage of our clientele are Medical professionals from Torbay hospital and the buildings surrounding us are accomidation for overseas staff employed in the hospital. Both the Bed Manager and Ward Manager are clients here. The senior ICU Sister is Mrs OMM’s bestie and so on. The number of EU doctors and other staff has plumeted. I can see it from our membership lists and absolutely monthly’s are down on two years ago (we found alternatives, to fill the gap, so far). The French and Spanish from the hospital were great customers and there were a lot. The hospital is in a staffing crisis, and they put it down to inability to find staff, not budgetary issues. It’s a constant conversation theme, I don’t see any reason to disbelieve them.
Those who I knew, who decided to leave, all cited the referendum result.
Mrs OMM, is an Estate agent. She runs lettings for her company, several hundred properties. Around 70% of those are let to various EU citizens. A good number are leaving and many more have said they are actively looking to leave (many lookingfor US visas, apparently).
We (well, mainly Mrs OMM), are landlords; best tenant is our nextdoor neighbour, a dentist from Poland. After 12 years here, two children born here, he’s not willing to hang around and risk a future here; they’re leaving at the end of the year. Plenty of other landlords with similar stories.
And then there’s all my Romanian friends and relatives here, the constant conversations about what’s coming...
No numbers, no links, all anecdotal; but add it to the forcasts, projections and expert opinion, I’m staggered anyone can see this as a positive move. Even the Cambridge study only concludes it “might not be as bad as some predictions”, SK had some very valid criticism of the whole methodology and it still stands almost alone in a sea of more pessimistic forecasts, that apparently we’re just supposed to ignore.
Is everybit of every negative happening, effect, trend or event; Brexit related?
No, and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, are they?
Hindsight will be the only opportunity to really pick that apart, but is this a positive move? Not a bloody chance in hell.
-
Even the Cambridge study only concludes it “might not be as bad as some predictions”, SK had some very valid criticism of the whole methodology and it still stands almost alone in a sea of more pessimistic forecasts, that apparently we’re just supposed to ignore.
Matt, I respectfully suggest you read that Cambridge paper, because it just isn't accurate to write it off simply as 'standing alone in a sea of more pessimistic forecasts' as if that's all there is to it.
If it stands alone in anything, it's in drilling into the validity of models currently used for predicting complex unprecedented events - models originated in the 50s which have failed to predict large complex shocks and which they report remain largely unchanged post the unforeseen 2008 crash.
It stands alone by looking into the assumptions lying behind those 'more pessimistic forecasts' and explaining why they believe many of those assumptions are seriously flawed.
It stands alone in asking what appear - to my untrained mind - valid questions of some very influential pieces of forecasting which have been much quoted in the UK media; which have become social media fodder for the masses to form their fears and beliefs around, including by you and others on here. It finds the most pessimistic claims to be grossly over-exaggerated and unfounded in their view and gives the reasons why.
And it proposes a different forecasting model, one better suited in their opinion to the complexity of an event like brexit, in an effort to restore credibility and trust to their profession because they acknowledge credibility has disappeared in the wake of years of poor results and biased thinking.
Written by people who would choose to remain in the EU. It appears to me to stand out in searching for truth among a sea of bias..
-
To bring it back to the climate change analogy, one paper about forecasts vs all the non economist business people, banks, etc etc. John Oliver recommended an appropriate way of representing this (from 3 mins for the punchline)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
-
It's like talking to fervent religious believers..
Have you read the report? This isn't some far-fetched 'alternative' view. Here are some sections:
Abstract.
A wide range of reports from official bodies and academics have estimated the impact of Brexit. These influenced the outcome of the Brexit referendum and remain influential in informing views on the potential long-term consequences
of a range of Brexit trade arrangements. This paper builds on a previous CBR working paper (link) in examining the most influential of these reports, from HM Treasury, and the OECD. In this paper the work of the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance is also included. Each of these reports base their analyses either on gravity models or a computable general equilibrium models.
The addition in this paper a review of the link between trade and productivity, which plays an important role in these reports. We also examine three reports which take a direct approach to measuring the impact by assessing the likely prices increases across a large range of commodities due to the imposition of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and using elasticities to estimate the potential changes in the volume of trade.
We find important flaws in both the application of gravity model results to a Brexit context, and in the knock-on impacts from trade to productivity. The flaws always have the result of exaggerating the negative impact of Brexit. The direct approaches involve partial rather than full equilibrium models but provide an important check on results from more complex models. However, the choice of elasticities can result in widely different results from ostensibly similar approaches.
The paper starts by looking at the view, supported in the academic literature and widely repeated in the financial media, that accession to the EEC/in 1973 improved the economic growth performance of the UK. The evidence suggests that this view is incorrect.
-
Introduction
Economic Forecasters in the UK have a poor record over the last decade. The failure to foresee the 2008 economic crisis has become infamous, even involving the Queen’s famous question: ‘Why did nobody notice it?’ That failure showed up how little work had been done on understanding the importance of credit markets in the UK. One aspect of this was the strange lack of a banking sector in the Bank of England model, a lacuna now being rectified.
The failure to predict the crisis was followed by a large over-estimate of the speed of recovery of the UK from the 2009 recession. The tendency of the Office for Budget Responsibility to over-estimate the speed of recovery (see chart 1 below) is now recognised by the OBR itself. The OBR proposes to drop its assumption that growth in UK productivity will return to a pre-recession norm. However, the OBR will continue to base its forecasts on assumptions for productivity and population rather than attempting to forecast these things econometrically. The common tendency to describe OBR projections as forecasts rather than assumptions has compounded the importance of its overoptimism.
The term ‘productivity puzzle’ sums up the profession’s difficulties in understanding the slow growth of productivity in the UK, and the related lack of growth in real wages.
In light of these shortcomings it might have been expected that the profession would take extra care to make its assessment of the potential impact of Brexit as fair and accurate as possible. A further failure would add substantially to the questioning of the underlying soundness of economic theory and practice related to forecasting. We argue in this paper that this did not happen and that much of the economic assessment of the impact of Brexit has been flawed, leading to a conclusion that the profession does indeed need to reassess its methods.
-
(intro continued..)
This paper begins by questioning the view common in academic and media publications that UK membership of the EEC/EU has been beneficial for growth in per capita GDP. This is followed by a brief description of the methods used by forecasters to generate the short-term Brexit forecasts, now known to be overly pessimistic. We then briefly summarise our previous work on the use of gravity models by H M Treasury and others in assessing the amount of trade likely to be lost due to Brexit.
This is followed by a review of the influential assessments of the impact of Brexit by the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) which relies mostly on a general equilibrium approach. Then, we examine the basis for the widespread claim that any loss of trade will be accompanied by a knock-on impact on productivity. This relationship between trade and productivity commonly accounts for around half of the overall negative impact of Brexit, yet it is only
lightly questioned. Finally, we assess a small number of direct, partial equilibrium estimates of the impact of Brexit on trade, plus two reports which have very recently returned to the issue of the long-term impact.
Our conclusion is that most estimates of the impact of Brexit in the UK, both short-term and long-term, have exaggerated the degree of potential damage to the UK economy. We stress at this point that this is not a politically-driven exercise. Most of the four-person team behind the research for this and our other papers voted ‘Remain’ in the 2016 referendum and would do so again if given the chance. Our purpose is rather to establish a sound basis for the ongoing debate on the likely potential economic impact of Brexit, and more generally to question the quality of economic analysis in dealing with major, macroeconomic policy issue like Brexit.
-
Sorry, Pete, I didn’t mean to imply I was writing the paper off and I certainly have read it (and take a good deal of heart from it).
I have only just read it today and caught up with the thread etc. since I’ve been all middle class and spent the last couple weeks canoeing down the Dordogne, dodging epic storms and doing the “Gite” thing (albeit one owned by (and unfortunately hosted by) the Monster-in-law).
Along with endless Expat commentary of the process and impending doom from the dinner party set (around 50% of the locals seem to be Brits, 20% Dutch and the odd, bemused, Frenchy). I have had to listen to “Investment Bankers” (or, possibly something that rhymes with that) explain why we’re all fucked etc...
(And you think I’m a pessimist, even I rolled my eyes a few times. I was actually almost glad to be struck down with diarrhoea on Thursday).
But, I is not so’s green, as I is cabbage lookin’...
Let’s be clear, you and I are actually not a million miles apart politically speaking. I think some people (you) have the impression I’m all “right-on” socialist or some such. I think/ get the feeling the primary difference between us is that I’m actually more authoritarian than you. I think there are rather a lot of people, in this country, who should not be allowed out without supervision, let alone vote...
(Exaggeration for humour, not an acurate position statement).
This leads me down a “Murphy’s law” chain of thought and takes me, on balance, to the negative side of the Brexit debate.
You seem to be far more optimistic in regards to peoples response what is coming. I fully agree that opportunities will exist etc, I just doubt they will be exploited or come to fruition; ON THE SCALE REQUIRED.
Going back to the Cambridge report, no, I haven’t processed it in detail yet. I don’t care that I’m a layman, I’ll try to break it down and understand as best I can, as I try to do with everything else.
I read it this morning and started to fact check etc this evening whilst sitting at work.
But, I didn’t get past the first assumption. The one about the supposed continuation of growth, had the UK not joined the EEC in 73.
Because I remember the events of the ‘70s.
The perturbations of that blue line (on a quick google) seem to coincide with little things like the almost complete collapse of the Engineering (heavy) industry in the UK, along with a similar collapse in manufacturing, mining and all the lovely political instability we had here and that the only reason it wasn’t a Gazzillion times worse, was the mitigating expansion of drilling in the North sea.
(Flippant, but not inaccurate).
None of those things were contingent on the UK joining the EEC. They were predominantly the effects of the seismic shift in the global economy that characterised that decade. Things like the “Made in Hong Kong” phenomena and Japanese electronics.
I didn’t see any account for those things in that assumption they made.
Whilst I have a healthy distaste for Thatcher’s social policies and their sequela, I think her early economic policies pulled our collective genitalia out of the fire. I mean are just pretending the “Winter of discontent” didn’t happen?
Or was that, somehow, the fault of the EEC?
Still, plenty of meat to chew in that study yet.
I don’t, at this point, see it converting me to ardent Brexieer, though.
There remain SK’s criticisms, too.
-
Apologies, as per Matt I’m not trying to denigrate this paper and its standing in the world of economic weather forecasting. I’m trying to balance that with all the hundreds of examples from actual business people who trade with the EU reporting on how bad the effects of Brexit will be for them and their businesses. I don’t think they’ve been looking at forecasts, I think they’ve been looking at the real world.
-
While not wanting to make light of anyone's hardship, that's not your experience 'of brexit'. That's your experience of 'working in a burglar alarm company'. You could add 'owned by a Chinese firm'. Or 'based in xyz'. Correlation isn't causation..
(also: 'pay freezes' and 'foreign ownership of UK firms' have a long track record in the UK, unrelated to brexit)
I understand what you're saying pete but you're wrong. This is my experience of Brexit. Through work is how most people will experience Brexit. I work at a UK Manufacturer - one of the larger employers in Rotherham - who is going through a tough patch and who's management is citing Brexit as a cause of our problems. I mentioned the Chinese owners to be honest about the whole picture - these things will never be clear and there are people who will always use that lack of clarity to claim that this is not Brexit.
The weak pounds effect on Manufacturing (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/02/slowdown-uk-manufacturing-sector-weak-pound-pmi-brexit) is not something only the two companies I have worked for have experienced. It is well known and well discussed.
Our Chinese owners may be shitting on us a little bit but increased Chinese investment (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-watch/politics/uk-china-trade-post-brexit/) has been cited as a benefit of Brexit. In my experience, take overs by Chinese companies has not been a good thing.
Anyway, I thought of two more brexit experiences - one positive and one mixed. My mate Jon had some money in America and that was a lot more more after the Brexit vote. Similarly my old work colleague Maria - who is Austrian - had some savings in Austria increase in £ which allow her buy a nice house in the UK. Then her husband's company - American Optics Manufacturer - decided that being in the UK wasn't a good idea and relocated to Germany. Maria is an extremely good engineer so it's made it very hard at work to lose her. For clarity, this is not the burglar alarm company but where I previously worked.
-
I "get" the sovereignty aspect. I have similar sentiments re: Westminster/Holyrood. But the bit I never got about leaving the EU was how little was to be gained. Only ~10% of laws come from the EU and they mostly seem to deal with environmental protections, human rights, trade related regulations etc.
Most of those we'll have to keep aligning to no matter what type of brexit we end up with. I am still waiting for a brexiteer to show me 3 laws that are currently holding the UK back that will now be cast away.
Then there's the "unelected bureaucrat" line of reasoning. Which, 1) was false anyway, the decision makers in the EU are elected and 2) if we crash out on WTO trade rules, can you tell me who your local WTO representative is? How do you influence their decision making? Are they accountable?
Even if we get some kind of deal with the EU - we will be rule takers, with no influence.
I'd love to think that for all this shit we're going through there might be some kind of upside. I cannot see it. Anyone care to point me to it?
Meant to give a reply (which you won't agree with) earlier and got sidetracked.
It isn't about any particular '3 laws'. It's about the principle of being part-governed from outside the UK. I'm against that in principle because I believe it's fundamental to a proper democracy to be able to hold those in power fully accountable for the consequences of their actions and fully accountable for laws passed. You can scoff at that for various reasons, fine we all believe different things and I don't expect to find much agreement on the echo-chamber of UKB. But you seem to appreciate the principle of having governance from within Scotland. The principle I believe in isn't very different.
I'm all for trade agreements. I'm all for harmonisation of standards where it makes sense. I'm all for free movement of people - but with *some* more control so we can cherry pick the people we really need more than it seems we currently do. Those things don't also require a central government that has any say in UK affairs.
And I'd also prefer those principles were global as far as possible, not just European. I've more enthusiasm for working/living/freedom to travel in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ then I have for Belgium or Portugal. In case of doubt I'm a keen European traveler, I love the different cultures, and non-English language has never been an issue.
For those who think it doesn't matter where power is based, then does it really matter if the UK government has to take direction and have laws passed from Australia, or the US, or Canada as part of some 'global union'? If it does matter, why?
Any trade / economic issues - there are obviously pros and cons with leaving and people being people will work out new opportunities, new job roles, new markets, just as they always have and always will. Because they'll have to and necessity, not ideals, has always been the biggest driver of change. The evidence suggests to me long-term (and even short-term) little if any real negative change for the average person whether we're in or out.
So obviously the upside for me of leaving is I believe it will mean the UK government being 100% accountable to the people, without wiggle room. For any and all shitfests that occur within the country which they're entirely responsible for governing. I think this is important because I believe that sort of 'social contract' pressure will result over time in beneficial effects on how the country is governed. To me it seems fundamental to keeping power in check as far as possible (there will always be corruption and mismanagement).
In short I believe, disagree all you like, that being independent from *but closely linked to* the EU will make the UK a better place to live for the average person.
Don't bother trying to rebut as there's nothing new to be said. This is just what I believe. It isn't an attack on *your* beliefs or values.
-
I couldn’ t describe myself as a nymph but I am your Echo.
-
I'm all for free movement of people - but with *some* more control so we can cherry pick the people we really need more than it seems we currently do.
:-\
-
What? :shrug: :-\ :-\
-
I sort of understand the desire for "accountability", but in reality you will get very little accountability for your money.
The EU is responsible for regulations about things that most people don't care about that get written by civil servants, in exactly the same way that they are here. If there was a problem that required "accountability" all that would happen is that the minister ostensibly in charge would, at absolute best, shuffle sideways into another job and be replaced by someone else. It's a spectre.
-
What? :shrug: :-\ :-\
😱
-
Lacking any plausible response on potential upsides from the Brexit faction I 've been given one by the Guardian! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/18/endangered-birds-farming-uk-brexit
What do you think are the odds of that happening ?
-
I "get" the sovereignty aspect. I have similar sentiments re: Westminster/Holyrood. But the bit I never got about leaving the EU was how little was to be gained. Only ~10% of laws come from the EU and they mostly seem to deal with environmental protections, human rights, trade related regulations etc.
Most of those we'll have to keep aligning to no matter what type of brexit we end up with. I am still waiting for a brexiteer to show me 3 laws that are currently holding the UK back that will now be cast away.
Then there's the "unelected bureaucrat" line of reasoning. Which, 1) was false anyway, the decision makers in the EU are elected and 2) if we crash out on WTO trade rules, can you tell me who your local WTO representative is? How do you influence their decision making? Are they accountable?
Even if we get some kind of deal with the EU - we will be rule takers, with no influence.
I'd love to think that for all this shit we're going through there might be some kind of upside. I cannot see it. Anyone care to point me to it?
Meant to give a reply (which you won't agree with) earlier and got sidetracked.
It isn't about any particular '3 laws'. It's about the principle of being part-governed from outside the UK. I'm against that in principle because I believe it's fundamental to a proper democracy to be able to hold those in power fully accountable for the consequences of their actions and fully accountable for laws passed. You can scoff at that for various reasons, fine we all believe different things and I don't expect to find much agreement on the echo-chamber of UKB. But you seem to appreciate the principle of having governance from within Scotland. The principle I believe in isn't very different.
I'm all for trade agreements. I'm all for harmonisation of standards where it makes sense. I'm all for free movement of people - but with *some* more control so we can cherry pick the people we really need more than it seems we currently do. Those things don't also require a central government that has any say in UK affairs.
And I'd also prefer those principles were global as far as possible, not just European. I've more enthusiasm for working/living/freedom to travel in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ then I have for Belgium or Portugal. In case of doubt I'm a keen European traveler, I love the different cultures, and non-English language has never been an issue.
For those who think it doesn't matter where power is based, then does it really matter if the UK government has to take direction and have laws passed from Australia, or the US, or Canada as part of some 'global union'? If it does matter, why?
Any trade / economic issues - there are obviously pros and cons with leaving and people being people will work out new opportunities, new job roles, new markets, just as they always have and always will. Because they'll have to and necessity, not ideals, has always been the biggest driver of change. The evidence suggests to me long-term (and even short-term) little if any real negative change for the average person whether we're in or out.
So obviously the upside for me of leaving is I believe it will mean the UK government being 100% accountable to the people, without wiggle room. For any and all shitfests that occur within the country which they're entirely responsible for governing. I think this is important because I believe that sort of 'social contract' pressure will result over time in beneficial effects on how the country is governed. To me it seems fundamental to keeping power in check as far as possible (there will always be corruption and mismanagement).
In short I believe, disagree all you like, that being independent from *but closely linked to* the EU will make the UK a better place to live for the average person.
Don't bother trying to rebut as there's nothing new to be said. This is just what I believe. It isn't an attack on *your* beliefs or values.
I actually agree with a lot of your sentiments Pete, in principal, I just can't see the current mob getting us to the point you wish to get to, in practise. I genuinely think the damage that will is highly likely to be done to the environment, to workers rights, to public services will take a long, long time to put right. And I do think that is going to be worse our the EU than in it.
I'm secretly starting to hope for a cliff edge no deal Brexit with instant Scottish referendum in a fatalistic "burn it all down and start again" sentiment....
-
Lacking any plausible response on potential upsides from the Brexit faction I 've been given one by the Guardian! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/18/endangered-birds-farming-uk-brexit
What do you think are the odds of that happening ?
The CAP is certainly one of the biggest issues with the EU. But I don't see any possibility of the current government delivering any improvements. As for environmental protection, we've been reliant on the EU to deliver serious enforcement for many years. Over the last ten years the Conservatives have removed all the teeth from our own supposed watchdog.
-
It's about the principle of being part-governed from outside the UK. I'm against that in principle because I believe it's fundamental to a proper democracy to be able to hold those in power fully accountable for the consequences of their actions and fully accountable for laws passed...
...
Any trade / economic issues - there are obviously pros and cons with leaving and people being people will work out new opportunities, new job roles, new markets, just as they always have and always will. Because they'll have to and necessity, not ideals, has always been the biggest driver of change.
...
So obviously the upside for me of leaving is I believe it will mean the UK government being 100% accountable to the people, without wiggle room.
Thanks for that explanation of the nature of your beliefs Pete, have a wad from me for standing up for your views in a polite and well-articulated fashion.
I've copied out the bits I found interesting above, not trying to take them out of context.
I agree with you re: principle of accountability. But I do feel in practice it is unlikely to be achieved - what Ru said above. I don't think getting out of the EU will change this status quo at all.
In terms of necessity being the greatest driver of change, I disagree. I think necessity makes people focus on low-hanging fruit and miss the big picture. My feeling is that changes driven by necessity are incremental and solve the immediate problem. But history shows there have been many revolutionary changes - generally driven by ideology, ideas and beliefs that unite people. A quick list, off the top of my head of geopolitical world-changing events driven by ideas not necessity: Mongol invasions of China and Persia, the Crusades, Protestantism, French Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, C19th Imperialism, the Russian Revolution and communism. The invention of the internet. In fact, Brexit itself is a great example - it's not necessary, but it will drive change. I don't think just because we'll have to solve trading issues on our own means that we'll do it well/better than we'd have done with the EU.
This strikes at the heart of my issue with the idea of Brexit - while I can see that it does present an opportunity for a revision of the status quo, an opportunity to change life for the better in the UK, the mechanics for making this happen aren't apparent. It seems to me to presents an equal or greater risk for everything getting worse, for an increased pooling of power and resources with the privileged. It seems to me just as likely to play out in favour of the Establishment (hardline Brexiteer Tories are about as Establishment as it gets) as play out in favour of the people. The mechanics for this to happen are fairly obvious - powerful industrialist factions working in voting blocs to unwind all the laws from the EU that they didn't like re: human rights, workers rights etc etc.
-
The CAP is certainly one of the biggest issues with the EU. But I don't see any possibility of the current government delivering any improvements. As for environmental protection, we've been reliant on the EU to deliver serious enforcement for many years. Over the last ten years the Conservatives have removed all the teeth from our own supposed watchdog.
Never mind the current lot! Even if the country were to recover it's lost sanity immediately post-brexit and somehow elect the most enlightened govt ever seen it would be a very brave PM who would prioritise the environment over food production and a trade deal with the U.S. against a background of rising food prices and a faiing economy. I just find it somehow re-assuring to find one area where. albeit completelly theoretically, something good might have come from this madness.
-
It's about the principle of being part-governed from outside the UK. I'm against that in principle because I believe it's fundamental to a proper democracy to be able to hold those in power fully accountable for the consequences of their actions and fully accountable for laws passed...
...
Any trade / economic issues - there are obviously pros and cons with leaving and people being people will work out new opportunities, new job roles, new markets, just as they always have and always will. Because they'll have to and necessity, not ideals, has always been the biggest driver of change.
...
So obviously the upside for me of leaving is I believe it will mean the UK government being 100% accountable to the people, without wiggle room.
Thanks for that explanation of the nature of your beliefs Pete, have a wad from me for standing up for your views in a polite and well-articulated fashion.
I've copied out the bits I found interesting above, not trying to take them out of context.
I agree with you re: principle of accountability. But I do feel in practice it is unlikely to be achieved - what Ru said above. I don't think getting out of the EU will change this status quo at all.
In terms of necessity being the greatest driver of change, I disagree. I think necessity makes people focus on low-hanging fruit and miss the big picture. My feeling is that changes driven by necessity are incremental and solve the immediate problem. But history shows there have been many revolutionary changes - generally driven by ideology, ideas and beliefs that unite people. A quick list, off the top of my head of geopolitical world-changing events driven by ideas not necessity: Mongol invasions of China and Persia, the Crusades, Protestantism, French Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, C19th Imperialism, the Russian Revolution and communism. The invention of the internet. In fact, Brexit itself is a great example - it's not necessary, but it will drive change. I don't think just because we'll have to solve trading issues on our own means that we'll do it well/better than we'd have done with the EU.
This strikes at the heart of my issue with the idea of Brexit - while I can see that it does present an opportunity for a revision of the status quo, an opportunity to change life for the better in the UK, the mechanics for making this happen aren't apparent. It seems to me to presents an equal or greater risk for everything getting worse, for an increased pooling of power and resources with the privileged. It seems to me just as likely to play out in favour of the Establishment (hardline Brexiteer Tories are about as Establishment as it gets) as play out in favour of the people. The mechanics for this to happen are fairly obvious - powerful industrialist factions working in voting blocs to unwind all the laws from the EU that they didn't like re: human rights, workers rights etc etc.
That is a much nicer way of putting it all.
But, it still boils down to most enlightened and thoughtful Brexiteers, seriously underestimating the horrendous number of fickle, deluded, Fucknuggets (Sun, Daily Mail and Express readers) that this country actually contains.
Citations:
Any episode of Jeremy Kyle, most if not all Channel 4 and 5 programming. Any High street.
😉
-
I do worry a little for those of us doing winter sun Euro trips this winter.
Do your concerns also extend to the two million British citizens who live in other EU countries?
-
Given there are two "EU Referendum" threads, I wanted to promote this story, which in my view reflects much of the "thinking" and beliefs I see expressed in the EU Referendum vote.
You may not agree with me about the connection. If not, please put that to one side, and consider the matter on it's own merit. Perhaps you think it has none. I heartily disagree!
Personally, I think that Kweku arguing his position on the grounds of "racism" misses the strongest point.
I want to promote this:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/keepkweku/
-
And yet, we plough on:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46039623 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46039623)
-
So, we have now entered the Twilight Zone.
Did anyone else watch the Banks interview?
All the media reports about a “secret” deal?
-
Did anyone else watch the Banks interview?
Nope - precis? (seen all the media stories about him but not the Marr interview - assuming it was Marr)
-
Did anyone else watch the Banks interview?
Nope - precis? (seen all the media stories about him but not the Marr interview - assuming it was Marr)
Oh, um, precis? Yeah, ok.
He’s a two faced cunt.
Probably not what you meant.
I’ll try again:
If he could vote again, he’d vote remain.
(Some excuses and blaming of others).
-
Did anyone else watch the Banks interview?
Nope - precis? (seen all the media stories about him but not the Marr interview - assuming it was Marr)
Oh, um, precis? Yeah, ok.
He’s a two faced cunt.
Probably not what you meant.
I’ll try again:
If he could vote again, he’d vote remain.
(Some excuses and blaming of others).
Ok. Counted to ten-ish (possibly quite a bit more).
A better synopsis, from a less incoherent source:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/04/arron-banks-no-russian-money-in-8m-given-to-brexit-campaign (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/04/arron-banks-no-russian-money-in-8m-given-to-brexit-campaign)
-
There aren't many journalists I actively enjoy reading, but Nick Cohen manages to be both incisive and merciless in his argument, time after time.
On Labour MPs who defy their Leave-voting constituents to argue for a second referendum:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/28/it-is-not-defying-voters-mps-to-try-to-make-them-think-again-on-brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/28/it-is-not-defying-voters-mps-to-try-to-make-them-think-again-on-brexit)
-
Today in pictures:
:oops:
:badidea:
:worms:
:shit:
:chair:
:popcorn:
-
One down...
Not even 08:30 yet.
-
Next one gone. Big one too. Raab.
-
Resignation letter on Twitter @DominicRaab
-
What an unmitigated cunt
-
What an unmitigated cunt
Yup. Fucknugget. He negotiated the fucking agreement then quits when he doesn’t like it.
That is the one thing they all do. Get us in shit then quit. Cameron. Boris. Davis. Raab.
-
From a Chuka tweet:
Er...you negotiated it, you promised the earth as part of Vote Leave and now you walk off and leave others to clear up the mess? Seriously? These people are shameless.
-
From a Chuka tweet:
Er...you negotiated it, you promised the earth as part of Vote Leave and now you walk off and leave others to clear up the mess? Seriously? These people are shameless.
I think the pertinent point is that he didn't negotiate it. Which begs the question, what has he actually been doing?
-
That’s a bit rich from Chuka. He dangled before our noses the tantalising possibility there being a party leader / PM with actual at-the-coalface experience of garage DJing - someone who could literally claim to offer the illest flava in the House. And then he walked away because the Daily Mail doorstepped his gran...
-
I think the pertinent point is that he didn't negotiate it. Which begs the question, what has he actually been doing?
Pocketing a ministerial salary, while demonstrating the Peter Principle?
-
Third one gone - Esther McVey.
-
3 in one, is that a hat-trick?
-
That’s a bit rich from Chuka. He dangled before our noses the tantalising possibility there being a party leader / PM with actual at-the-coalface experience of garage DJing - someone who could literally claim to offer the illest flava in the House. And then he walked away because the Daily Mail doorstepped his gran...
Didn't know that.
Minister, Minister!
-
From Rafael Beher's article in the guardian today:
Raab has come to the same conclusion that David Davis and Boris Johnson reached earlier in the year: it is easier to be on the team that accuses the prime minister of failing to deliver majestic herds of unicorns than it is to be stuck with a portfolio that requires expertise in unicorn-breeding.
Yup. And the reaction of labour and the ERB is much like a 4 year old saying 'i don't like it' when presented with dinner before he's tried it. It's all descending into a petty power struggle, which it always was anyway really.
-
sums it up really
-
It's all pretty incredible. We've got a Brexit deal that no-one seems to want, negotiated without the Brexit Secretary and that threatens to topple the Prime Minister, if not the Government. Bonkers.
-
Does Olly Robbins have a role here?
-
It's all descending into a petty power struggle, which it always was anyway really.
I’d suggest Labour’s tests have everything to do with being unfulfillable the better to precipitate a GE and nothing to with critiquing a Brexit which its leadership is basically fully in favour of.
Good article on Dominic -who knew Dover was a port?- Raab and resignations herehttp://politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/11/15/raab-resigns-the-shabby-end-of-a-pitiful-career (http://politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/11/15/raab-resigns-the-shabby-end-of-a-pitiful-career)
edit- just had to add- amazing that Raab has resigned because he's in a huff over Brexit terms. What, exactly, was his job again?
-
That’s a bit rich from Chuka. He dangled before our noses the tantalising possibility there being a party leader / PM with actual at-the-coalface experience of garage DJing - someone who could literally claim to offer the illest flava in the House. And then he walked away because the Daily Mail doorstepped his gran...
Didn't know that.
Minister, Minister!
He has a past that would shaft him if he moved higher than he is.
source: Pob. Don't ask me for further details yet, source is on an island off Northumberland.
-
How many Brexiteers does it take to change a light bulb?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One, to promise a brighter future, the rest to screw it up...
-
And a mixed group of remainers and brexiteers to refuse to flick on the light switch.
-
And 27 people in adjacent rooms to come to unanimous agreement.
-
That’s a bit rich from Chuka. He dangled before our noses the tantalising possibility there being a party leader / PM with actual at-the-coalface experience of garage DJing - someone who could literally claim to offer the illest flava in the House. And then he walked away because the Daily Mail doorstepped his gran...
Didn't know that.
Minister, Minister!
He has a past that would shaft him if he moved higher than he is.
source: Pob. Don't ask me for further details yet, source is on an island off Northumberland.
Exactly. They asked his gran if it was true that he once lost an arm-wrestling match against Lisa Maffia in Ayia Napa. She said no comment...
-
I wonder what a second referendum would actually bring. For every voter who thinks this is unworkable and best abandoned there will be one who imagines a lack of belief/commitment/unicorns has resulted in the EU running the show and we'd just need a better team to secure a better deal.
-
edit- just had to add- amazing that Raab has resigned because he's in a huff over Brexit terms. What, exactly, was his job again?
What the f*** has he been doing for the last few months?
Re Labour's tests and reaction, they're not really interested in the deal or indeed what happens, other than exactly like the ERB that they might be able to get into power if they play their cards right. Generally I think most politicians are ultimately well intentioned, but today's events are embarrassing.
-
And a mixed group of remainers and brexiteers to refuse to flick on the light switch.
(https://image.ibb.co/kKFEaL/172356-C6-2-EEE-4-A61-BCFF-C83-C2-AF0-CA60.jpg)
:slap:
-
edit- just had to add- amazing that Raab has resigned because he's in a huff over Brexit terms. What, exactly, was his job again?
Re Labour's tests and reaction, they're not really interested in the deal or indeed what happens, other than exactly like the ERB that they might be able to get into power if they play their cards right. Generally I think most politicians are ultimately well intentioned, but today's events are embarrassing.
I'm not sure what else you'd expect/want? They have to be seen to be opposing Brexit (lest people like me vow to not vote for them for a decade) whilst not being seen to oppose Brexit (lest others vow to not vote for them for a decade).
-
I still believe in leaving the EU. I don't believe in a lot of politicians, who's agendas appear to be self-interest and power rather than national interest. May has actually grown in my estimation - this was always going to involve a lot of compromise and I think she's done as well as she could with an extremely difficult task, and kept her head when all around are losing theirs. The balance of power - DUP / minority Conservatives with a large minority of hard-line brexiteers - meant she was always negotiating for something that couldn't win approval no matter what she came back with. While negotiating with a group of naysayers stood behind her.
In my view Labour are even more of a cynical embarrassment than the hard-line brexiteers. At least the hard-liners are transparent in believing in something they're prepared to articulate and stand for and that people can agree or disagree with. Labour are content to stand for - what? Labour stand for nothing in this. Mediocre failure perhaps. To allow a policy, which a majority of their constituents voted for, to fail or flounder and risk a much worse outcome and then point fingers at that failing in the dim hope that they'll fluke into a position of power on the back of events much larger than them.
-
To allow a policy, which a majority of their constituents voted for....
Figures based on the 2015 vote https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted would disagree with this, and wasn't there an even larger labour swing in the 2017 election?
They're stuck with woah Jeremy leading them who is pro brexit and strongly in chocolate teapot territory as a useful opposition, when they should be getting behind the wonderfully coiffed Kier Starmer and at the very least pushing for a second referendum, if not offering to cancel the whole thing as a platform for another GE.
Remainers are currently left with no-one to back on the political stage, unless there's going to be a huge upturn in support for Lib Dem (still bothered about tuition fees right now?) or Green, whilst Brexiters get to decide what flavour or leave they want among the Tories.
-
To allow a policy, which a majority of their constituents voted for....
Figures based on the 2015 vote https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted would disagree with this, and wasn't there an even larger labour swing in the 2017 election?
You're right. A large minority.
-
To allow a policy, which a majority of their constituents voted for....
Figures based on the 2015 vote https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted would disagree with this, and wasn't there an even larger labour swing in the 2017 election?
You're right. A large minority.
So you're saying that the will of their constituents is to remain?
-
Made more difficult by a majority (60% I think) of Labour consituencies being leave overall (due to population distribution among constituencies).
-
......unless there's going to be a huge upturn in support for Lib Dem (still bothered about tuition fees right now?) ........
The problem is, we have heard chuff all from the Lib Dems through this entire process. At least they always turned up to vote though......... oh.......
-
I think they’ve probably been squeaking away in the background but they lack a ‘charismatic’ old Etonian to guarantee national news coverage.
-
To allow a policy, which a majority of their constituents voted for....
Figures based on the 2015 vote https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted would disagree with this, and wasn't there an even larger labour swing in the 2017 election?
You're right. A large minority.
So you're saying that the will of their constituents is to remain?
No.
According to Full Fact, the will of the people in a 61% majority of Labour constituencies was to leave.
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/
''The results of the EU referendum weren’t counted by parliamentary constituency, so we don’t know for sure how constituencies voted. A small number of councils did release official breakdowns by parliamentary seat, and data on some other areas was obtained by the BBC via Freedom of Information requests.
The best figures we have for other constituencies comes from Professor Chris Hanretty, a political scientist at Royal Holloway University, who combined official results and the BBC data with statistical methods in order to estimate the proportion of Leave and Remain voters in every seat in England, Scotland and Wales.
These estimates show that while the national result of the referendum was relatively close, with 52% voting Leave and 48% voting Remain, a much larger majority of parliamentary seats voted to Leave – with 64% of seats in Great Britain voting Leave. (This is likely due to the uneven distribution of Remain voters, who tended to cluster in large cities, while Leave voters were more evenly spread.)
According to these estimates, around 75% of constituencies that were won by the Conservatives in the 2017 general election voted to Leave, while around 61% of Labour constituencies voted to Leave. All seats won by the Scottish National Party and the Green Party, and a majority of the seats won by the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, voted to Remain.''
(https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/Leave_remain.PNG)
-
Its interesting whats happening in the media..
I think what we are seeing are the (hard) Brexit and Remain camps finally being able to unify over one thing (sink Mays deal) and this voice is dominating the narrative. its also a seductive one for the media as it leads to potential leadership races/elections/referendums etc..
But is the deal actually that bad compared to what it could have been?? It would be good if someone - somewhere in the press could compare Mays deal to the Norway or Canada model for example?
Like Pete, I have a (begrudging) respect for May - I think she's managed to do the best she could given the craziness of her own party, and the idiocy of the red lines (she imposed to keep the crazies happy)....
-
Here's the key bit from your quote Pete "The results of the EU referendum weren’t counted by parliamentary constituency".
I'd actually assumed that this "You're right. A large minority." was a joke, not unintentional irony
-
Indeed. Miscalculations of judgement and certain incompetencies have to be viewed in the context of the most difficult piece of political negotiation that a sitting government has ever had to navigate, with a house that is split in its opinion of what to do, and a relatively indecisive referendum on which it's all based.
Having said that, it's not just Brexit that the Tories will be thinking about. If there's even the faintest whiff of a general election being precipitated they need to have a new leader in-post well in advance of it being called.
-
The deal is as good as we could ever hope for.
As long as freedom of movement is off the table and a border within the UK is off the table, a better deal with the EU is also off the table.
Our redline is incompatible with any positive trade deal with Europe. It always was. It will never be seen that way by the ERG, Dacre, Barclays etc until they are in a position responsible for delivering the impossible.
-
To allow a policy, which a majority of their constituents voted for....
Figures based on the 2015 vote https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted would disagree with this, and wasn't there an even larger labour swing in the 2017 election?
You're right. A large minority.
What?
You mean like the “Remain” portion of the referendum vote?
Or, more like the “Leave” vote numbers compared to total eligible voters?
Almost as if things would be so much clearer if we had required a set majority percentage for both voter turnout and voting choice, in the plebiscite...
-
Here's the key bit from your quote Pete "The results of the EU referendum weren’t counted by parliamentary constituency".
I'd actually assumed that this "You're right. A large minority." was a joke, not unintentional irony
It would have been interesting if they had been wouldn't it.. Because we'd be looking at a 64% territorial majority for Leave instead of 52% of population. As in how they elect Congress and how Trump got into power though territorial majority. Which seems like a crazy way to run a democracy, they key part of the word being 'demos'.
Obviously I was referring to two separate but similar things:
A large minority (31%) of Labour voters voted Leave.
A large majority (61%) of Labour constituencies voted Leave.
Labour voters were roughly two-thirds/one-thirds split in favour of Remain, Conservative voters were roughly two-thirds/one-thirds split in favour of Leave. The country as a whole as we all know were 52/48 in favour of Leave.
-
Or, more like the “Leave” vote numbers compared to total eligible voters?
Going over old topics Matt. Comparing voters of one persuasion or another to total number of eligible voters is a meaningless pursuit. If they couldn't be arsed to vote in one of the most important choices the country has made in generations, for whatever reason other than being held against their will, then they don't have a say. Some people's opinions just don't count, literally.
-
Or, more like the “Leave” vote numbers compared to total eligible voters?
Going over old topics Matt. Comparing voters of one persuasion or another to total number of eligible voters is a meaningless pursuit. If they didn't vote, for whatever reason other than being held against their will, then they don't have a say.
Don’t?
Are you sure?
Are you suggesting that they have been disenfranchised?
It was two years ago. How many new voters are eligible now? Do you know? I bet it’s a larger number than margin in the vote.
How many that voted two years ago, are “gone”?
Bet that’s a lot too.
How many have changed their minds?
Nah. Fuck it.
The idea that all democratic process, in relation to Brexit, stopped on the day after the referendum; is bollocks.
And, revisiting “old topics” and decisions is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.
(Especially, since the points made then, are still valid. Your dislike of them, not withstanding).
This is a stupid, mismanaged, travesty. Certainly impossible to deliver without significant harm, within the time scale and under the current divided and incomptent government.
Go on. Tell me that this is going well.
-
And a mixed group of remainers ... to refuse to flick on the light switch.
Yes, if only they would just believe.
-
Or, more like the “Leave” vote numbers compared to total eligible voters?
Going over old topics Matt. Comparing voters of one persuasion or another to total number of eligible voters is a meaningless pursuit. If they didn't vote, for whatever reason other than being held against their will, then they don't have a say.
Don’t?
Are you sure?
Are you suggesting that they have been disenfranchised?
It was two years ago. How many new voters are eligible now? Do you know? I bet it’s a larger number than margin in the vote.
How many that voted two years ago, are “gone”?
Bet that’s a lot too.
How many have changed their minds?
Nah. Fuck it.
The idea that all democratic process, in relation to Brexit, stopped on the day after the referendum; is bollocks.
And, revisiting “old topics” and decisions is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.
(Especially, since the points made then, are still valid. Your dislike of them, not withstanding).
This is a stupid, mismanaged, travesty. Certainly impossible to deliver without significant harm, within the time scale and under the current divided and incomptent government.
Go on. Tell me that this is going well.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than 'Matt is unhappy and everyone must know about it'.
-
Or, more like the “Leave” vote numbers compared to total eligible voters?
Going over old topics Matt. Comparing voters of one persuasion or another to total number of eligible voters is a meaningless pursuit. If they didn't vote, for whatever reason other than being held against their will, then they don't have a say.
Don’t?
Are you sure?
Are you suggesting that they have been disenfranchised?
It was two years ago. How many new voters are eligible now? Do you know? I bet it’s a larger number than margin in the vote.
How many that voted two years ago, are “gone”?
Bet that’s a lot too.
How many have changed their minds?
Nah. Fuck it.
The idea that all democratic process, in relation to Brexit, stopped on the day after the referendum; is bollocks.
And, revisiting “old topics” and decisions is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.
(Especially, since the points made then, are still valid. Your dislike of them, not withstanding).
This is a stupid, mismanaged, travesty. Certainly impossible to deliver without significant harm, within the time scale and under the current divided and incomptent government.
Go on. Tell me that this is going well.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than 'Matt is unhappy and everyone must know about it'.
You honestly believe I’m alone in that?
No mate.
Some pretty upset bunnies out there, still waiting for even the vaguest hint of “Sun lit uplands” etc.
And guess what? All the people who had “big ideas” and said it would be “easy” and were in Government and part of the negotiations, have resigned to try and avoid owning their shit.
I’m just too long in the tooth to bother with trying to persuade anyone of anything anymore.
Nuance is lost on Leavers that are still in that camp, because nothing they ever said or thought made sense.
It must be the most incredible media bias, but I seem to have missed the majority of the heads of (insert industry, profession, trade body, regulator, etc etc, here) lauding the whole process and explaing how much better it will all be.
Nope, that biased media seems pretty negative on the whole thing...
The only people happy about it are some pretty damn ideologically drive, rich boy politicians; from our “Ruling class” of inbred tossers, and some elderly dicks that think the empire is returning.
Sorry pal. I’m not ideologically driven. I’d vote for any party that had policies I could support. I’m not a lefty, I have no deep seated antipathy to capitalism, no time for bigotry or racial, sexual or pink-unicorn-loving-or-any-the-friggin-shit-social-distiction-you-can-invent discrimination.
It’s simple. Brexit doesn’t make sense.
The reason we clash on this, is that I stopped trying to persuade you and started asking for testable proofs of the Brexit position as a beneficial act (within the context of models and reasoned predictions), and if those had been present, I would be right there with you.
Fuck, I’d love things to be hunkydory or that this might actually solve some of the bloody awful social problems that are drowning this country. Give me the fucking Pink Unicorns!
It’s not going to happen.
Saying, “it’ Be alright in twenty years (or fifty, or even ten)” is fucking stupid.
So...
Angry?
Of course, why aren’t you?
Is this going the way you wanted it to?
-
I am continually frustrated by fellow Remain supporters who have not yet reconciled that there are lots and lots of people out there who, for whatever reason, want something different to them. To say that all Leavers are fundamentally wrong is not true - many of them have a legitimate and reasonably held view that there could be a better alternative to EU membership. The fact that this is different to the view of a Remain supporter is likely due to their holding different values. These values are not necessarily wrong, they are simply formed from each individual's unique set of experiences.
Let us put the shoe on the other foot. Had the result been reversed, with a marginal success for Remain, would Matt (sorry to pick on just you) still be advocating so strongly for a re-run? I think not. I suspect he would be telling his opponents to accept the result and to pipe down.
Imagine for a moment that the referendum had been about some other issue which you feel strongly about. Let's say the referendum is about whether the UK should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia. The UK political establishment is split on this, but a majority of it wants to continue arms sales because it's good for the UK economy, and if we don't sell the weapons then we lose control of the terms of the contract and give it and the revenue to, say, the Russians. Many people speak out against this and say it is morally indefensible to maintain arms sales. Let's say you're on the side which wants to cease selling arms.
There's a campaign were each side trots out plenty of statistics, some credible, some not. An advisory referendum is held and, after a record breaking turnout, its 48/52 in favour of stopping sales.
And the government does nothing. What would you say about the government then? I expect there'd be riots in the street. Could the government be credibly seen as democratic?
Continue to make the argument for Remain if you must, but to call the EU referendum illegitimate is wrong and I think it would have been wrong for the government not to persue Brexit. There's no sense in trying to go over these old arguments.
This is not to say that Brexit must happen at any cost. We have a proposed deal now, which is the best that our democratically formed government could negotiate. It may be that a different group of people would have been able to come up with a better or worse deal, but this is what is in front of us now. I think it would be a fair to both sides of the argument to have another vote on whether to proceed - though from a personal point of view I dread to think what the result might be. We first need to understand the draft deal, and I defy any of the commentators here to say that they understand it in full. It's long, it's complicated, and it's only been out for a couple of days.
-
Or, more like the “Leave” vote numbers compared to total eligible voters?
Going over old topics Matt. Comparing voters of one persuasion or another to total number of eligible voters is a meaningless pursuit. If they didn't vote, for whatever reason other than being held against their will, then they don't have a say.
Don’t?
Are you sure?
Are you suggesting that they have been disenfranchised?
It was two years ago. How many new voters are eligible now? Do you know? I bet it’s a larger number than margin in the vote.
How many that voted two years ago, are “gone”?
Bet that’s a lot too.
How many have changed their minds?
Nah. Fuck it.
The idea that all democratic process, in relation to Brexit, stopped on the day after the referendum; is bollocks.
And, revisiting “old topics” and decisions is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.
(Especially, since the points made then, are still valid. Your dislike of them, not withstanding).
This is a stupid, mismanaged, travesty. Certainly impossible to deliver without significant harm, within the time scale and under the current divided and incomptent government.
Go on. Tell me that this is going well.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than 'Matt is unhappy and everyone must know about it'.
You honestly believe I’m alone in that?
No mate.
Some pretty upset bunnies out there, still waiting for even the vaguest hint of “Sun lit uplands” etc.
And guess what? All the people who had “big ideas” and said it would be “easy” and were in Government and part of the negotiations, have resigned to try and avoid owning their shit.
I’m just too long in the tooth to bother with trying to persuade anyone of anything anymore.
Nuance is lost on Leavers that are still in that camp, because nothing they ever said or thought made sense.
It must be the most incredible media bias, but I seem to have missed the majority of the heads of (insert industry, profession, trade body, regulator, etc etc, here) lauding the whole process and explaing how much better it will all be.
Nope, that biased media seems pretty negative on the whole thing...
The only people happy about it are some pretty damn ideologically drive, rich boy politicians; from our “Ruling class” of inbred tossers, and some elderly dicks that think the empire is returning.
Sorry pal. I’m not ideologically driven. I’d vote for any party that had policies I could support. I’m not a lefty, I have no deep seated antipathy to capitalism, no time for bigotry or racial, sexual or pink-unicorn-loving-or-any-the-friggin-shit-social-distiction-you-can-invent discrimination.
It’s simple. Brexit doesn’t make sense.
The reason we clash on this, is that I stopped trying to persuade you and started asking for testable proofs of the Brexit position as a beneficial act (within the context of models and reasoned predictions), and if those had been present, I would be right there with you.
Fuck, I’d love things to be hunkydory or that this might actually solve some of the bloody awful social problems that are drowning this country. Give me the fucking Pink Unicorns!
It’s not going to happen.
Saying, “it’ Be alright in twenty years (or fifty, or even ten)” is fucking stupid.
So...
Angry?
Of course, why aren’t you?
Is this going the way you wanted it to?
I don't think this impetuous and insulting tirade is becoming of you, Matt. Maybe have a lie down and a nice cup of camomile.
-
Imagine for a moment that the referendum had been about some other issue which you feel strongly about. Let's say the referendum is about whether the UK should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia. The UK political establishment is split on this, but a majority of it wants to continue arms sales because it's good for the UK economy, and if we don't sell the weapons then we lose control of the terms of the contract and give it and the revenue to, say, the Russians. Many people speak out against this and say it is morally indefensible to maintain arms sales. Let's say you're on the side which wants to cease selling arms.
There's a campaign were each side trots out plenty of statistics, some credible, some not. An advisory referendum is held and, after a record breaking turnout, its 48/52 in favour of stopping sales.
And the government does nothing. What would you say about the government then? I expect there'd be riots in the street. Could the government be credibly seen as democratic?
Take your point here Will but I don't think your metaphor is robust, as given the above "Stop selling arms to the Saudis" and "Keep selling arms to the Saudis" are two clear, unequivocal positions that the electorate would have no trouble understanding.
The crux was, and still is, whatever personal interpretation people held / hold of what "Leave the EU" actually means.
I personally wouldn't call Remain voters wrong, it is purely the fact that only now do we have a definition (and it looks like this will be the only definition going), of what "Leave the EU" actually means.
There should be a vote on whether we do that, the "crash out on WTO rules" one (as that is, stupid as it would be, still an option), or just realise the whole thing's a waste of time and just stay in the EU.
In my opinion the point we are at now is where we should have been when the referendum was called way back in 2016. At least then those voting could have done so with eyes wide open.
Anyway. This is well good in today's Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/brexit-paranoid-fantasy-fintan-otoole (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/brexit-paranoid-fantasy-fintan-otoole)
-
Matt it's really easy to refute you because you constantly trot out the mistaken belief that I (being a leave voter) voted thinking that I was voting for 'sunlit uplands', that 'it would all be easy', for a binary choice between demonstrably 'better' and demonstrably 'worse'.
How many hundreds of times do I have to tell you I don't think the world works like that. Rather than believing that leaving the EU would be Unicorn-ville and sunlit uplands, I simply believe that leaving the EU wouldn't have a negative effect on the UK as a whole in the medium to long term. That's something very different to believing it would make us demonstrably better. I.e., I don't think the country will do 'better' per se, but neither do I think the country will do 'worse'. Given that I don't believe that it's in the interests of the UK to be subject to the level of EU control that it currently is, and given that I believe the positives of being able to make relationships globally offsets the negatives of a slightly more complicated relationship with the institution of the EU; then I see leaving as a reasonable choice.
You don't. I don't begrudge you for that.
But making stupid statements that all leave voters believe in Boris, Unicorns and sunlit uplands, and that we think 'it will all be easy' just makes you look like an idiot.
-
What T3 said Will, it's a complete false equivalency.
Plus the other major point is, a win for remain would have meant none of the drawn out painful negotiating of leave. What it could have done though is given the govt a kick up the bum to make sure they were getting the best deal out of the EU as a member, and resisting whatever 'ever closer union' looked like in the future (as the Tories had largely been doing up to that point anyway).
I think Pete has done a great job for the Leave PoV on here, as others have on UKC.
Pete what do you think best way forwards is now, would you be in favour of a 3 option 2nd people's vote?
-
Imagine for a moment that the referendum had been about some other issue which you feel strongly about. Let's say the referendum is about whether the UK should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia. The UK political establishment is split on this, but a majority of it wants to continue arms sales because it's good for the UK economy, and if we don't sell the weapons then we lose control of the terms of the contract and give it and the revenue to, say, the Russians. Many people speak out against this and say it is morally indefensible to maintain arms sales. Let's say you're on the side which wants to cease selling arms.
There's a campaign were each side trots out plenty of statistics, some credible, some not. An advisory referendum is held and, after a record breaking turnout, its 48/52 in favour of stopping sales.
And the government does nothing. What would you say about the government then? I expect there'd be riots in the street. Could the government be credibly seen as democratic?
Take your point here Will but I don't think your metaphor is robust, as given the above "Stop selling arms to the Saudis" and "Keep selling arms to the Saudis" are two clear, unequivocal positions that the electorate would have no trouble understanding.
The crux was, and still is, whatever personal interpretation people held / hold of what "Leave the EU" actually means.
I personally wouldn't call Remain voters wrong, it is purely the fact that just that only now we have a definition (and it looks like this will be the only definition going), of what "Leave the EU" actually means.
There should be a vote on whether we do that, the "crash out on WTO rules" one (as that is, stupid as it would be, still an option), or just realise the whole thing's a waste of time and just stay in the EU.
In my opinion the point we are at now is where we should have been when the referendum was called way back in 2016. At least then those voting could have done so with eyes wide open.
Anyway. This is well good in today's Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/brexit-paranoid-fantasy-fintan-otoole (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/brexit-paranoid-fantasy-fintan-otoole)
Yeah, it wasn't a great analogy. It also falls down in not matching the importance of Brexit to the very fabric of the nation. I was just casting around for a way to put Remainers in the shoes of a Leaver (for a supposedly bleeding-heart-liberal lot, the more vociferous Remainers seem to completely lack empathy).
I completely agree that now is an appropriate time to pause for breath and to rethink, in some way, what to do next now that we actually have sight of what Brexit might look like. If somebody sells you a delicious looking cake and on taking a bite of it you find that they forgot to add the sugar, it stands to reason that you can choose whether to spit or swallow (let's get #spitorswallowBrexit trending, please).
Somebody on the radio last night argued for a two option vote, on the basis that no deal was not worth even mooting as viable. I think that would be a good way to go, but I would quite happily put money on the deal being voted through. I think Remainers vastly overestimate the chances of a reversion to Remain. Even if there is a marginal victory for Remain (anything more decisive is unlikely), this does not mean that the issue is going to go away. We're not going to have a Leaver/Remainer purge.
What T3 said Will, it's a complete false equivalency.
Plus the other major point is, a win for remain would have meant none of the drawn out painful negotiating of leave. What it could have done though is given the govt a kick up the bum to make sure they were getting the best deal out of the EU as a member, and resisting whatever 'ever closer union' looked like in the future (as the Tories had largely been doing up to that point anyway).
I think Pete has done a great job for the Leave PoV on here, as others have on UKC.
Pete what do you think best way forwards is now, would you be in favour of a 3 option 2nd people'e vote?
Yep, I appreciate that the analogy is imperfect. See comment above.
Re: a win for remain. Yep, we wouldn't have started leave negotiations, but the Brexiteers would not have gone back in their box. A marginal Remain victory would only have proven that there was some scope for a victoy in the future and emboldened them. There's a paradox in that you can't really go through the painstaking process of negotiating an exit deal without first triggering Article 50, so perhaps having a marginal Leave success has benefited us by actually showing us what Leave could be.
-
Pete, for the past two years, you have been the sole representative of anything sane or reasonable, from any single person that I have known or spoken to about this.
And I know many Brexit supporters.
All, bar you, have bought into the UKIP/ERG version of reality. The vast majority, including close relatives of mine, are out and out racist. Their entire reason for backing leave is based on immigration (in fact, in most cases, it isn’t even European immigrants they’re worried about and they cannot understand that Brexit isn’t going to stop the kind of immigrants they have nightmares about).
So, this idea that the “other side” deserve respect at all times is balls.
Pete does, but he’s a big lad and he knows how to swat back. (That’s not refutation by the way. “You’re rude” isn’t a rebuttal (even if it’s true). If you cannot point out the unicorns, no rebuttal).
Being polite or reasonable has achieved sweet fanny adams. If you look back at the arguments presented by both sides over the past two years, you see reason on one side and hot air on the other.
Look at the leaders of the movement. That’s the movement.
So, as I said, Pete, is this what you voted for? Are these leaders the ones you expected?
Do you not think your hopes of sovereignty and independence have been hijacked by Some pretty dodgy characters?
Edit:
Actually, almost forgot, the vitriol is not “because someone disagrees with me”. Couldn’t give a toss. The vitriol is because, a lot of people, for a variety of reasons that have failed to stand up to scrutiny, have lead our entire nation into a pointless and damaging pile of shit. This affects me directly, along with those I love and the country I love. This isn’t a college debate, this is real.
You fight for what is real and you fight to protect thise you care about (metaphorically). It’s no longer academic.
Does anyone think this is just going to go away?
Ok, the damage possible is still in the “if” category, but, seriously, does anyone think this is going well?
Do you all think that the resentment is going to deepen or fade out?
Because I think it will deepen. Because I think, ultimately, Pete’s finer ideals are a minority position and the reality will be much darker.
And, yes, I dread a Corbyn Government too. I don’t think he gives a toss anout the lefty middle class or his hipster groupies. His way is a return to the 70’s. I remember them.
-
"A rise in the number of low-skilled people choosing to quit their jobs is a signal of a strong labor market. The number of UK government ministers choosing to quit suggests a red hot UK labor market." - UBS analyst
-
And I know many Brexit supporters.
All, bar you, have bought into the UKIP/ERG version of reality. The vast majority, including close relatives of mine, are out and out racist. Their entire reason for backing leave is based on immigration (in fact, in most cases, it isn’t even European immigrants they’re worried about and they cannot understand that Brexit isn’t going to stop the kind of immigrants they have nightmares about).
And, yes, I dread a Corbyn Government too. I don’t think he gives a toss anout the lefty middle class or his hipster groupies. His way is a return to the 70’s. I remember them.
Matt I recognize that particular Brexit attitude on immigration from people I know in Devon. It's particularly galling that the some of strongest anti'immigrant' feelings are in areas like South Devon with very little ethnic diversity. (NB I did say some, I know there are some genuine issues in some areas.)
It's particularly heartwarming however that what seems to unite many people on here is a real conviction that Corbyn is a total waste of space. I'm sure he's a really nice old chap and everything, but a fucking useless politician. I have no idea what anyone sees in him.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/16/westminster-battle-mps-brexit-car-plant-workers?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/16/westminster-battle-mps-brexit-car-plant-workers?CMP=fb_gu)
:agree:
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/18/theresa-may-brexit-cards-on-table-now-it-is-everyone-elses-turn
The Tory party has always been a treacherous beast, but once it used to conduct its assassination attempts with a degree of politesse. The cabal of Brexit ultras are the men who put the cock into peacocking.
Jeremy Corbyn decries the government for being “in chaos”, which is obviously true but also a convenient way of avoiding clarification of his ultimate intentions. Mr Corbyn is a career-long Europhobe who displayed not an ounce of conviction for remaining within the EU during the referendum, demanded the triggering of Article 50 the morning after, and has not once since expressed a scintilla of remorse about Brexit.
Some reasonably measured comment in the Observer today
-
I rather thought Stewart Lee’s writing too pretentious to be really funny. I might have been wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/18/no-column-brexit-is-only-way-forward
-
I rather thought Stewart Lee’s writing too pretentious to be really funny. I might have been wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/18/no-column-brexit-is-only-way-forward
Great piece thanks for posting.
Today, labour policy wonks try to rebrand Brexit: Jeremy Corbyn to set out Labour alternative to PM's Brexit plan
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/18/jeremy-corbyn-to-set-out-labour-alternative-to-pms-brexit-plan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
'Good Brexit' eh? So that's no plans at all, other than say we'll spend loads of money; which as everyone knows we'll have plenty of after Brexit won't we.
-
This is excellent.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/brexit-class-labour-conservative-leave-peoples-vote?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
Did people not vote in the first, binding, referendum or was it aliens and animals?
-
Did people not vote in the first, binding, referendum or was it aliens and animals?
Yes, though it wasnt binding.
-
The leaflet we all got, supporting Remain at huge length and expense said. “The government will implement your decision “. Sounds fairly solid to me.
-
Yes, we all know how much value to put behind promises on bits of paper from political parties.
-
Yes, we all know how much value to put behind promises on bits of paper from political parties.
Possibly marginally more than those than facebook ads sponsored by Aaron Banks..
-
Did people not vote in the first, binding, referendum or was it aliens and animals?
You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?
I assume you’re talking about the 1973 one?
No?
Because the 2016 re-run proves it’s not a one off thing.
Sorry you are so scared your choice might be reversed, but this isn’t going away. I know I will keep banging on until things change.
There will be plenty. Sometimes more than not, sometimes less, but you just don’t get how divided the country is, do you?
This isn’t a political debate, you and your ilk are depriving me and others of rights that we currently possess and you are wrong to do so. The referendum was wrong. There are alot of people very angry about it. I’m one. Your attitude of “you lost get over it” makes you an idiot.
In the end, it’s all you have.
Every single argument in favour of Brexit has been debunked, except the immigration argument.
This is why it is May’s headline defence of the draft bill.
She and everyone else recognise the bill delivers none of the promises of the referendum, except border control. She and the mainstream government are running with that because they know that is the core of the argument.
I just no longer belive any Brexiter thatclaims their position is based on any foundation itherthan the immigration issue. Every single conversation, eventually, comes down to immigration.
I tried “seeing it from a different perspective” and all the normal, reasonable stuff. I’ve discussed it at lenth with people I used to respect. Used to. I always end discovering that they are at heart quite unpleasant andnarrow minded.
I spent too long living amongst other cultures and with other nationalities to not recognise what these people are.
Racist, niby, scared.
Debunk any law making, financial or trade argument a Brexiter throws at you and they will say “well, at least we get control of our borders!”; call that racist or point out it’s not Euro immigration they’re actually thinking of and they retreat to “you lost we won, get over it”.
It’s our democratic right to dispute the referendum result and try to sway opinion in the other direction.
So shove it.
-
Did people not vote in the first, binding, referendum or was it aliens and animals?
You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?
I assume you’re talking about the 1973 one?
No?
Because the 2016 re-run proves it’s not a one off thing.
Sorry you are so scared your choice might be reversed, but this isn’t going away. I know I will keep banging on until things change.
There will be plenty. Sometimes more than not, sometimes less, but you just don’t get how divided the country is, do you?
This isn’t a political debate, you and your ilk are depriving me and others of rights that we currently possess and you are wrong to do so. The referendum was wrong. There are alot of people very angry about it. I’m one. Your attitude of “you lost get over it” makes you an idiot.
In the end, it’s all you have.
Every single argument in favour of Brexit has been debunked, except the immigration argument.
This is why it is May’s headline defence of the draft bill.
She and everyone else recognise the bill delivers none of the promises of the referendum, except border control. She and the mainstream government are running with that because they know that is the core of the argument.
I just no longer belive any Brexiter thatclaims their position is based on any foundation itherthan the immigration issue. Every single conversation, eventually, comes down to immigration.
I tried “seeing it from a different perspective” and all the normal, reasonable stuff. I’ve discussed it at lenth with people I used to respect. Used to. I always end discovering that they are at heart quite unpleasant andnarrow minded.
I spent too long living amongst other cultures and with other nationalities to not recognise what these people are.
Racist, niby, scared.
Debunk any law making, financial or trade argument a Brexiter throws at you and they will say “well, at least we get control of our borders!”; call that racist or point out it’s not Euro immigration they’re actually thinking of and they retreat to “you lost we won, get over it”.
It’s our democratic right to dispute the referendum result and try to sway opinion in the other direction.
So shove it.
Pop those toys back in the pram, Matt. I think what he's getting at is that the new referendum has been branded as the "People's Vote", perhaps implying that those who voted in the 2016 were not The People (TM).
It's worth noting that the rest of your post is a perfect example of why I think a new referendum (whilst something I cautiously and tentatively support) is probably a bad idea. The question of Leave and Remain, for many people, has now become a matter of identity as opposed to a matter of reason. Tregiffian has presumably (I can't really remember) run his colours up the mast as a Leave supporter and this is all you've needed to write a long and insulting post (which I will punter you for once I've clicked "post" on this one) to brand him, by association, as all those things which you believe to be universal in the Leave population. Posts like yours will not change anyone's mind, it will only drive them deeper into their tribe by making them feel alienated from what the other side is thinking.
Multiply, if you will, by 46.8 million people (the number who were on the electoral register as of June 2017). Bear in mind that in calling for a "People's Vote" (the name is already antagonistic to anybody who feels that the vote is an attempt to sweep the first referendum under the carpet - I suspect this would extend to several million British human beings), you have absolutely no idea what the options will be. Current thinking is that it'll be a two option or a three option job. May's Deal or Stay In The EU; possibly with a No Deal Exit option. We also don't know whether this will work on an alternative vote basis.
There's loads of ways that this vote could go depending on what the options are and how people are allowed to vote. At this stage in the game I would have thought that a Remainer's principle concern would be avoiding a No Deal Brexit at all costs. The polling quoted on the Today programme this morning suggested that the population was split into thirds, with a third each wanting the three options described above. So that implies that it could go either way at the moment. It also means (if the polling is representative) that at present there is a significant proportion of the original Remain population who have changed their mind. Perhaps they felt ambivalent to the whole thing in 2016 and voted for the low-risk status quo option, but now the wheels are in motion they feel some sort of duty to honour the result of the first referendum. I wouldn't underestimate this line of thinking, no matter how much you may disagree with it or find it illogical.
Consider also that during a new referendum campaign, the No Dealers (if that is given as an option, which I think is likely) would be able to make lots and lots of arguments to the electorate that would appeal to people's guts and emotions. Britain standing firm; no potentially interminable kicking-the-can-down-the-road temporary customs arrangement; NO £39b DIVORCE BILL (this one is massive); honouring the will of the people etc etc etc. Any polite pointing out of an economic cliff will be decried as Operation Fear and undemocratic. Disagree all you want, but the evidence is clear from home and abroad that an emotional argument is worth 1000 economists from the IFS. Be careful what you wish for.
My opinion today (it might change tomorrow) is that given the choice between a new 3-option referendum or take the deal now, I'd take the deal as it mitigates the risk of an (IMO) untenable No Deal exit.
-
If it were three way it would be AVC.
-
If it were three way it would be AVC.
Out of interest, how do you know? It might seem to be the most sensible option, but that doesn't mean that parliament would make it so. I'd expect the usual arguments about it being too complicated for the hopelessly dull electorate to re-surface.
-
Tregiffian has presumably (I can't really remember) run his colours up the mast as a Leave supporter and this is all you've needed to write a long and insulting post (which I will punter you for once I've clicked "post" on this one) to brand him, by association, as all those things which you believe to be universal in the Leave population.
Tregiffian has made posts gloating that outside the EU we can spectate on future political issues in Europe and only have to worry about our climbing trips (https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,29545.msg569315.html#msg569315), alleged we are going to have loads more money to spend on nurses and research projects (https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,26815.msg569142.html#msg569142), and dismissed a second referendum as not being 'real' (https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,26815.msg569212.html#msg569212). I am not a fan of Matt's ranty posts, and wish he would tone them down, but I don't think it's fair to say that his rant was soley because Tregiffian is is a leave supporter.
-
Sorry Will, you’re wrong.
Too polite, too wishy-washy, too accommodating.
The Right, in particular, walk all over people like you.
Punter away. You will rue this crap as much as everyone else will.
If the identity you chose is predicated on racist ideology, you deserve a strong clap back, not understanding or sympathy. You just pander to them.
Insulting? Nah.
Calling out the bullshit and calling liars, liars, is not insulting and if you find my calling people who support liars and racists, idiots, you need to toughen up a bit. Because they will call you far worse.
As I said, I’ve listened to both sides. Looked for the good everywhere. Leave is an abomination, people who support it now, after all that has already happened and given all that is likely to come to pass, are either idiots, malicious or deluded.
Pete’s unicorns might not be pink, fluffy, fart rainbows and piss gold dust (like the leave leadership sold 52 % of the country), but grey and unremarkable they might be; they’re still fantasy.
Even Pete, by far the best Leave representative I’ve debated (and I wish he was on to something) cannot, by his on admission, give concrete reasoning for his position, only that it “feels” right and intangible wishes for independence and national identity.
As for Tregriffan? He doesn’t even try to justify his position. His stance has been insulting from the get go. I just built up to it.
Two and a half years.
Listening, reading, talking
Nah. Brexit is bollocks. It will make us smaller, by almost every metric.
And, Will, the point of my “rants” are exactly because of the division this has caused in the country. That division will grow. You can’t accommodate it, you can’t “take the moral high ground”; those things are defeat by another name.
Labour have abandoned the working people, Corbyn is an ideologue, no more interested in the plight of the individual than Reece-Mogg, the Liberal party are incompetent and led by a doddering muppet and the “people” are being buffeted around by populist propaganda for the gain of a few quite horrible individuals.
The Tories, my erstwhile party of choice, are what they always were (I wish I seen it sooner), selfish. They exist to enrich themselves, individually and that gives them common cause, until it doesn’t, their true colours shine through, they dissolve into factions and collapse. They are adept at using peoples fear of “the other”, “the poor” and “the lazy”, though, and it keeps them in power.
The tolerant, by definition, always want to tolerate, avoid offence and find common ground. The determined laugh at that, left and right. The “middle” and the “reasonable” are currently the shuttlecock in this game (actually, it’s more a game of Squash right now, not as genteel as Badminton implies).
-
My two penneth worth in brief.
Was a stanch remainer and still am, but accept others were not and accept the result.
Dont want another referendum and dont think anything would change if we had one.
Know loads of leavers as i have wide ranging social groups away from climbing. Non of them i have spoken to would change there vote and non of them are racists. Dont agree with oldmanmatts vision of them at all.
Think that Mays proposal is a pretty good effort at getting a deal that pleases a large section of society if you accept we have to leave. Shes gone up in my estimations and i would vote for this option, it went down well with the CBI.
Am very disappointed in Labour who i think are a total waste of space and will struggle to ever get my vote again.
Think that a majority of people are sick of it now, which is a bit disappointing, but reality and the reason we should never ask the general public an important y/n question ever again as the devil is in the detail and non of them want the detail
-
Sorry Will, you’re wrong.
Too polite, too wishy-washy, too accommodating.
The Right, in particular, walk all over people like you.
Punter away. You will rue this crap as much as everyone else will.
If the identity you chose is predicated on racist ideology, you deserve a strong clap back, not understanding or sympathy. You just pander to them.
Insulting? Nah.
Calling out the bullshit and calling liars, liars, is not insulting and if you find my calling people who support liars and racists, idiots, you need to toughen up a bit. Because they will call you far worse.
As I said, I’ve listened to both sides. Looked for the good everywhere. Leave is an abomination, people who support it now, after all that has already happened and given all that is likely to come to pass, are either idiots, malicious or deluded.
Pete’s unicorns might not be pink, fluffy, fart rainbows and piss gold dust (like the leave leadership sold 52 % of the country), but grey and unremarkable they might be; they’re still fantasy.
Even Pete, by far the best Leave representative I’ve debated (and I wish he was on to something) cannot, by his on admission, give concrete reasoning for his position, only that it “feels” right and intangible wishes for independence and national identity.
As for Tregriffan? He doesn’t even try to justify his position. His stance has been insulting from the get go. I just built up to it.
Two and a half years.
Listening, reading, talking
Nah. Brexit is bollocks. It will make us smaller, by almost every metric.
And, Will, the point of my “rants” are exactly because of the division this has caused in the country. That division will grow. You can’t accommodate it, you can’t “take the moral high ground”; those things are defeat by another name.
Labour have abandoned the working people, Corbyn is an ideologue, no more interested in the plight of the individual than Reece-Mogg, the Liberal party are incompetent and led by a doddering muppet and the “people” are being buffeted around by populist propaganda for the gain of a few quite horrible individuals.
The Tories, my erstwhile party of choice, are what they always were (I wish I seen it sooner), selfish. They exist to enrich themselves, individually and that gives them common cause, until it doesn’t, their true colours shine through, they dissolve into factions and collapse. They are adept at using peoples fear of “the other”, “the poor” and “the lazy”, though, and it keeps them in power.
The tolerant, by definition, always want to tolerate, avoid offence and find common ground. The determined laugh at that, left and right. The “middle” and the “reasonable” are currently the shuttlecock in this game (actually, it’s more a game of Squash right now, not as genteel as Badminton implies).
Screaming "RACIST!" in the faces of those who raised modest concerns about immigration is exactly the sort of thing that precipitated this utter clusterfuck.
You say the Right will walk all over me. I've never tolerated racism and have had loud and acrimonious shouting matches with my family over it. Your rhetoric and debate style plays into the hands of those you would seek to oppose. Divide and Rule has been the linchpin of the Leave campaign from the start. Do you actually think that anybody who voted Leave who reads your posts will consider changing their mind? You might want to confine your activism to protests and demos and leave the one-on-one debate to those who might be more persuasive.
I love nothing better than slagging people off and can do insulting if you want, you total shit-for-brains cunt, but I don't think you deserve it and I don't think it'll help me change your stance.
My two penneth worth in brief.
Was a stanch remainer and still am, but accept others were not and accept the result.
Dont want another referendum and dont think anything would change if we had one.
Know loads of leavers as i have wide ranging social groups away from climbing. Non of them i have spoken to would change there vote and non of them are racists. Dont agree with oldmanmatts vision of them at all.
Think that Mays proposal is a pretty good effort at getting a deal that pleases a large section of society if you accept we have to leave. Shes gone up in my estimations and i would vote for this option, it went down well with the CBI.
Am very disappointed in Labour who i think are a total waste of space and will struggle to ever get my vote again.
Think that a majority of people are sick of it now, which is a bit disappointing, but reality and the reason we should never ask the general public an important y/n question ever again as the devil is in the detail and non of them want the detail
I agree with a lot of this, but there's a difference between accepting the original result and thinking that means that we have to go through with it. The question was not "shall we exit at any cost whatsoever?".
-
Will, you misunderstand my motivation. Debate, persuasion and false equivalency; are what lead us into this mess.
What is happening, is not a “mild expression of concern about immigration”; it’s a total overreaction, with a multitude of babies being thrown out with the bath water.
It is a universally recognised axiom, that you can tell a person (lets not be sexist here) by the company they keep.
Rabidly, openly, racist and xenophobic organisations form a huge chunk of the persistent Leave camp and they threaten to swamp every aspect of our lives.
To be honest, for me and many others (that I know) this stopped being simply about Brexit some time ago. It’s just another symptom.
The world has lurched to the right.
The utter ridiculousness, that I, as a relatively authoritarian, slightly militaristic, only just able to grin-and-bear Islam (or any religion or new age spiritualism), with a strong capitalist bent; is considered a “lefty” by the current standard, dhould be bloody frightening to anyone more tolerant than I am!
Dancing around the issue, playing down the insidious roll of xenophobia in all of our decision making is not helping any more.
This is a xenophobic act. Most of the world is quite happy to call it that. Xenophobia is the dancing partner of Racism.
If I’m going to entertain any mythology, at least analogously, then let it be the true four horsemen of apocalypse, Xenophobia, Racism, Greed and Self interest.
-
Matt you're in danger of taking the vacant position of most self-righteous person on UKB. Last occupied by Sloper. The only reasonable response to your ranting is to roll the eyes.
Ignoring most of your turbo-rants, but on the racism point:
I don't recognise your characterisation of all leave voters being racist. I'm well aware that racists voted for leave. How else were they ever going to vote in a 2-option referendum?
Yours is a simple logical fallacy: All racists voted leave. Therefore all leave voters are racist. No.
There's certainly a lot of clumsy and inarticulate language around immigration. Is that really any surprise? There's a debate about whether someone is being racist or how much boils down to them being unable to concisely articulate sincerely-held beliefs and concerns around immigration in a language that's acceptable to you, me, or to commonly accepted norms among an educated middle-class.
News Alert - working class, relatively less educated members of the population have difficulty using nuanced sensitive language around a sensitive topic that they feel threatened by... Better not ask about football then, some of them actually want to kill rival fans just for being from a neighbouring city, not country!
Immigration's a difficult enough topic to sensitively discuss for an educated professional without offending someone! Stick a Sky TV camera and microphone in the face of Frank the factory-worker and ask him to explain in 30 seconds his views on the socio-economic impact of immigration on the fabric of UK life and what do you expect other than another soundbite for inherently angry over-reactive people to despair over and be angry about.
I don't believe that everyone who's guilty of being inarticulate or who sounds offensive while expressing confusing, passionately-held concerns actually wants to impose a racist regime on others, or that they consider other races inferior to themselves. I know those people exist in the UK, like everywhere else. Tribalism is normal in humans - it needs controlling or it can get ugly. It's an element of the right, of course it is, like it is of the extreme left. But it's cynical politicians that stoke it for their own ends and I just don't see an appetite in the UK for the sort of fascist, racist apocalypse that you keep ranting about.
-
If you have the misfortune to do prevent training. You might find the radicalisation of young white anglosaxons by the far right is a bit too common to be complacent about.
-
I “Hah!” Derisively at your eye roll...
Most of what you wrote mearly reinforces all the reasons I stated for the whole shit show being a mistake from the beginning. Albeit from the other direction...
I’d be incredibly surprised if I actually came across someone who was genuinely immune to feelings of Xenophobia or Racism. I’m not, nor have I claimed to be.
The problem, is when those thoughts go unrecognised as natural fears, like that of heights or spiders and (the next bit got deleted, weird) become the basis for government.
You said that such thoughts had no bearing on your position, I have no reason to dispute that, you haven’t shown any such tendency elsewhere around here that I’m aware of. I referenced something you said (more than once, iirc) on the other thread about an almost patriotic need for self determination; that you said you found hard to articulate (hence me finding it even more so).
Self righteous?
Hmmm.
Uh yeah! Isn’t everyone, when they argue for a position?
Joking aside, I think you were wrong/made the wrong choice, becuse you got the risk/benefit calculation you were forced to make, wrong. You have an inherent and justified distrust of “Economists” and modelling, based on past errors by those entities.
Over reactive?
When I want to be. Facist revolution? That’s not what I said, I said “lurch to the right” (is that even possible to question?). Please go back, though, and read about the way Facism crept into Italy/Germany post WW1 (I suspect you already have), there were many who said quite similar things to your line above...
The apocalypse reference was for colour, not prognostication.
Also, you saw the whole “Tommeh” thing play out, over the last ew weeks, right?
Edit:
Oh yeah, Will (I think, losing track), I’m entirely anti second referendum!
I just get annoyed that so many people, like Tregriffan, think it was some ultimate fixed point or some apex of British life that can never be challenged or repeated.
-
Was a stanch remainer and still am, but accept others were not and accept the result.
... i would vote for this option,
So you want to stay but you'd now vote to leave? That makes no sense Gav, why on earth would you not vote to stay with May's deal as 2nd choice?
(Will - I've not heard anyone say a 3-way option would be 3-way straight without second choices, weighted scores etc.)
I would plump for another referendum, but that's because
1. I don't want to leave; and
2. I've yet to hear any good reason not to have one. Arguments about having more democracy being undemocratic seem non-nonsensical*. We're already hugely divided and I don't see it getting any worse by running a referendum on what's actually on offer.
Why wouldn't you want a 2nd one Gav? (and anyone else who wouldn't?)
* For those who like an analogy: we all get in the car and decide, on a vote, to go to Malham. Then en-route we realise its the Malham show this weekend and the whole palce will be rammed.. it might be fine but it might not. But we're not allowed to decide whether to change our minds and go to Kilnsey instead... wtf??
-
* For those who like an analogy: we all get in the car and decide, on a vote, to go to Malham. Then en-route we realise its the Malham show this weekend and the whole palce will be rammed.. it might be fine but it might not. But we're not allowed to decide whether to change our minds and go to Kilnsey instead... wtf??
Not sure this really works. The choice wouldn't be Malham or Kilnsey, it would be Malham or go back to where you were when you had the vote. Unless Kilnsey is the much-maligned EEA/FTA option; that would make sense. And of course where you got in the car would be 1973 EEC not EU, and by the time it came to taking a vote on it you were a little unsure about the bloke behind the wheel...
:alky: :alky: :alky:
(http://themillenniumreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/44371_juncker_sad.jpg)
-
We’re sleepwalking into Mays deal... It will become the default option and we’ll end up drifting into it after a couple of years.
I am (a) glad that it seems to have (probably) knocked hard brexit on the head (for now) but (b) really quite angry that Labour - no its not labour its Corbyn - are doing nothing about this. Just playing politics holding out for a GE.
RE: Barrows/Malham.
Its like a car of four people leaving Leeds to head to Almscliff. We always go to almscliff moans one of them - I’m bored of almscliff says passenger 2. For once the normally quiet passenger 3 pipes up one says - yeah me too. Passenger 2 says, well maybe we should try somewhere else - lets go to Earl. The driver doesn’t want to go - she’s quite happy with Almscliff and passenger three umms and aahs, but then decides alright lets go somewhere different.
So they change direction to Earl - but the clouds look a bit grey that way. Passenger 1 checks the forecast on his phone “rain over Earl!! (SHOCK”, Passenger 2 checks a different weather app and says “mine says it’ll be fine”. A great argument erupts in the car -“there’s always something you can do in the rain” - “it’ll be terrible - it will all be wet” but they’re already part way there. Soon they are coming past Ilkley quarry - so the driver decides they’ll stop there as everyone can climb and its not raining. Though its still polished and full of people saying what are you doing..
-
Re the 'racists' issue. I don't think all leavers are / were racist, I do think that the leave campaign precipitated the worst instincts of many, issues surrounding non EU and EU immigration were conflated by people like Farage specifically for electoral gain. This normalised a vein of racist discourse amongst far more of the population than would otherwise have thought it the most important thing in their communities.
-
* For those who like an analogy: we all get in the car and decide, on a vote, to go to Malham. Then en-route we realise its the Malham show this weekend and the whole palce will be rammed.. it might be fine but it might not. But we're not allowed to decide whether to change our minds and go to Kilnsey instead... wtf??
To refine your analogy,
100 of you get in shark's 3.2L BMW OakSeigeWagon and roll slowly up the A629 to Malham - there's no rush it's been 12 years. 52 of you are keen for Malham and 48 are vehemently against cryptic undercuts, sidepulls and being subjected to belay fury and obscenity-ridden tirades, and would much rather just go to Kilnsey because it's more like a typical Euro crag. Just as you approach the outskirts of Gargrave the met office app suggests conditions at Malham might not be 100% perfect for hard redpointing and the price of a pint in the Lister Arms has increased.
The 48 want to divert to Kilnsey as they kept saying all along, while a small group of the 52 Malham group are unhappy that conditions aren't going to allow for perfect conditions for their long-held dream of a redpoint of Rainman 9b, which everyone else in the car has always secretly thought is a totally unrealistic goal considering their previous best redpoint is 8b+. The discussion goes round and round in circles as does Shark's OakSeigeWagon while you all run out of fuel. A Northern Irish climber holds the credit card to pay for petrol but refuses to allow shark to use it. You get fuck all done.
-
What's the ending to the tale though Pete? Due to the disagreement, everyone ends up having to go to Robin Proctor Scar to climb on glued together choss, but there's a promise that, in the future, this will really turn out to be a 5 star crag with more opportunity that either Malham or Kilnsey?
-
Whichever car journey is involved, the passengers are listening to a Jam Crack podcast interview with Ken Wilson, who is moaning about bolts and extolling the virtues of Lliwedd.
-
Why would anyone be heading to Malham if Kilnsey is in condition?
-
What's the ending to the tale though Pete? Due to the disagreement, everyone ends up having to go to Robin Proctor Scar to climb on glued together choss, but there's a promise that, in the future, this will really turn out to be a 5 star crag with more opportunity that either Malham or Kilnsey?
Fake news! You imply that Robin Proctor's is held together with glue. It's not - it's falling apart.
-
We’re sleepwalking into Mays deal... It will become the default option and we’ll end up drifting into it after a couple of years.
I am (a) glad that it seems to have (probably) knocked hard brexit on the head (for now) but (b) really quite angry that Labour - no its not labour its Corbyn - are doing nothing about this. Just playing politics holding out for a GE.
RE: Barrows/Malham.
Its like a car of four people leaving Leeds to head to Almscliff. We always go to almscliff moans one of them - I’m bored of almscliff says passenger 2. For once the normally quiet passenger 3 pipes up one says - yeah me too. Passenger 2 says, well maybe we should try somewhere else - lets go to Earl. The driver doesn’t want to go - she’s quite happy with Almscliff and passenger three umms and aahs, but then decides alright lets go somewhere different.
So they change direction to Earl - but the clouds look a bit grey that way. Passenger 1 checks the forecast on his phone “rain over Earl!! (SHOCK”, Passenger 2 checks a different weather app and says “mine says it’ll be fine”. A great argument erupts in the car -“there’s always something you can do in the rain” - “it’ll be terrible - it will all be wet” but they’re already part way there. Soon they are coming past Ilkley quarry - so the driver decides they’ll stop there as everyone can climb and its not raining. Though its still polished and full of people saying what are you doing..
We're actually sleepwalking into No Deal, which is the only option at the moment which doesn't require parliamentary approval. Thinking at the moment is that parliament will not approve the deal or a second referendum. This only leaves us with the default which is for the Article 50 time bomb to tick down to 0.
Labour seem to have dug a trench opposing the deal. The Tories haven't yet succeeded in their coup, thus the government have dug a trench for the deal. No artillery support in the form of the DUP. Parliamentary arithmetic is in a stalemate.
I think in a few weeks time each side will see that the other isn't going to budge and a consensus will grow for a referendum so that the blame for the outcome can be apportioned to the public. They'll have to be quick because there's really not much time to run a referendum with all the campaigning and logistics that will involve.
-
* For those who like an analogy: we all get in the car and decide, on a vote, to go to Malham. Then en-route we realise its the Malham show this weekend and the whole palce will be rammed.. it might be fine but it might not. But we're not allowed to decide whether to change our minds and go to Kilnsey instead... wtf??
To refine your analogy,
100 of you get in shark's 3.2L BMW OakSeigeWagon and roll slowly up the A629 to Malham - there's no rush it's been 12 years. 52 of you are keen for Malham and 48 are vehemently against cryptic undercuts, sidepulls and being subjected to belay fury and obscenity-ridden tirades, and would much rather just go to Kilnsey because it's more like a typical Euro crag. Just as you approach the outskirts of Gargrave the met office app suggests conditions at Malham might not be 100% perfect for hard redpointing and the price of a pint in the Lister Arms has increased.
The 48 want to divert to Kilnsey as they kept saying all along, while a small group of the 52 Malham group are unhappy that conditions aren't going to allow for perfect conditions for their long-held dream of a redpoint of Rainman 9b, which everyone else in the car has always secretly thought is a totally unrealistic goal considering their previous best redpoint is 8b+. The discussion goes round and round in circles as does Shark's OakSeigeWagon while you all run out of fuel. A Northern Irish climber holds the credit card to pay for petrol but refuses to allow shark to use it. You get fuck all done.
That was poetry.
However, the real story ends in the Foundry.
Still, this is news:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/20/brexit-supreme-court-rejects-government-attempt-to-derail-legal-action-to-revoke-article-50 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/20/brexit-supreme-court-rejects-government-attempt-to-derail-legal-action-to-revoke-article-50)
-
This is worth a gander,as are the comments:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-reesmogg-brexit-erg-theresa-may-latest-dads-army-meaningful-vote-steve-baker-a8643296.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1542731799 (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-reesmogg-brexit-erg-theresa-may-latest-dads-army-meaningful-vote-steve-baker-a8643296.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1542731799)
And this, as a guide to how your view correlates with the general population:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/11/16/7-more-things-weve-learned-about-public-opinion-br (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/11/16/7-more-things-weve-learned-about-public-opinion-br)
-
That yougov survey was taken on November 15th... The draft agreement was barely out in the public domain by then. How could anyone surveyed have had the chance to digest the details of the withdrawal agreement by then? Quite simply they couldn't. All it shows is a finger in the air of public opinion in the immediate media feeding frenzy following the draft agreement hitting.
-
That yougov survey was taken on November 15th... The draft agreement was barely out in the public domain by then. How could anyone surveyed have had the chance to digest the details of the withdrawal agreement by then? Quite simply they couldn't. All it shows is a finger in the air of public opinion in the immediate media feeding frenzy following the draft agreement hitting.
Do you think it’s changed? Has the media coverage changed it’s tone? Have hordes of people poured over the details?
I’d be surprised if it’s moved much, frankly, and even more so if opinion had swung massively behind the ERG. I expect those results will be updated shortly, too. I know it’s a full five days out of date, but two of those were weekend days.
I’ll keep an eye on the updates and let you know if your gut is right...
-
My gut is that people won't move behind the ERG but they will move behind the May draft agreement.
-
IMHO the biggest media shift is now recognition that there is hard brexit, Mays deal or no brexit. The last point an admission by may at her presser announcing her deal.
The prospect of no brexit (and the second referendum that is most likely oath to this) has been out of the debate in the media previously...
-
My gut is that people won't move behind the ERG but they will move behind the May draft agreement.
That seems likely.
Though I expect it will be more a lack lustre resignation, than “getting behind”.
-
IMHO the biggest media shift is now recognition that there is hard brexit, Mays deal or no brexit. The last point an admission by may at her presser announcing her deal.
Surely May’s deal is a hard-ish Brexit, as it takes us out of the single market? It seems we stay in some sort of customs union for some length of time but it’s certainly not a soft Brexit.
No deal is a moron’s choice, of course, but inexplicably popular amongst Leavers. It must be embarrassing for the smarter Leavers to be bracketed in with people who are either very ill-informed, very stupid or very reckless.
-
About equally embarrassing as for those who would bracket people so lazily, I'd have thought.
-
Sorry forthe Facebook link, and I haven’t had time to actually watch it yet, but might be interesting:
https://www.facebook.com/130437690316977/posts/2319512838076107/ (https://www.facebook.com/130437690316977/posts/2319512838076107/)
-
About equally embarrassing as for those who would bracket people so lazily, I'd have thought.
Oh come on.
Leaver, the bracket is Leaver.
Granted, it ignores the sub-sets, that exist in any bracket or or social division, but it’s a valid bracket.
Furthermore, you most definitely don’t like being lumped in with them; it’s been a clash point throughout this discussion. I don’t blame you either.
-
About equally embarrassing as for those who would bracket people so lazily, I'd have thought.
Conservative voter, Labour voter, Green voter - all valid groupings of people. Remoaners are definitely a group - a group of saboteurs whose recalcitrance has scuppered Brexit, according to some.
However Leave voters cannot - and should not ever! - be lumped together. Especially when half of them are plainly utterly foolish. It wouldn’t look too good for the others, would it?
Anyhow surely the point is that a hard Brexit such as we appear to be getting is the most economically damaging one of all. That appears to have been forgotten for the moment. Which bit of the welfare state can we do without? My money is on expensive cancer drugs, small town policing and functioning secondary schools. But that’s just a guess.
-
Conservative voter, Labour voter, Green voter - all valid groupings of people. Remoaners are definitely a group - a group of saboteurs whose recalcitrance has scuppered Brexit, according to some.
I don't think anyone has 'scuppered' Brexit. Few of its enthusiasts admitted, or realised how difficult separating, renegotiating or replacing 40 years of legal entanglement would be. In fact I'd guess few outside the area of international law experts really understood this, I definitely didn't.
-
A piece of entertaining and intelligent historical perspective from Simon Jenkins this morning:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/britain-go-back-european-club-history-leave
-
I don't think anyone has 'scuppered' Brexit. Few of its enthusiasts admitted, or realised how difficult separating, renegotiating or replacing 40 years of legal entanglement would be. In fact I'd guess few outside the area of international law experts really understood this, I definitely didn't.
Really? I thought it was blindingly obvious from the start. Admittedly I've had some involvement with standards and regulations in my work but still...
I blame the (right-wing) press mainly. They've been instrumental in misinforming the public and not holding lying politicians to account.
-
I didn't ever believe that leaving would be like leaving a golf club, as some seem to have thought, but I hadn't fully considered the real impact of leaving on really important things like the import and regulation of medication. The impact on the car industry and any other just in time manufacturing was fairly well known if you read newspapers / showed an interest, but pre-referendum medication, nuclear regulation and waste disposal, and scientific research not so much, outside of those in those fields.
-
Oh dear... looks like we won’t have WTO to fall back on either...
https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/17232332.agenda-events-in-geneva-could-make-the-london-drama-pointless/?ref=fbshr&fbclid=IwAR1JH1gH4i-d9B5BDBYsUE6Urf0jPF5s-xkZ-UsTdHRq-R0Q1TNDcZLu3zQ
-
Sorry to lower the tone, but :lol: :lol:
https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/1064117182005747714
-
So, the Economist is full of seasonal joy, today:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/11/24/the-truth-about-a-no-deal-brexit?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/thetruthaboutanodealbrexitbritainandtheeu (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/11/24/the-truth-about-a-no-deal-brexit?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/thetruthaboutanodealbrexitbritainandtheeu)
And, then there’s Raab, really getting into the Xmas spirit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/23/dominic-raab-theresa-mays-deal-worse-than-staying-in-eu?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/23/dominic-raab-theresa-mays-deal-worse-than-staying-in-eu?CMP=fb_gu)
Not as if he hadany hand in this, at all.
-
And, then there’s Raab, really getting into the Xmas spirit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/23/dominic-raab-theresa-mays-deal-worse-than-staying-in-eu?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/23/dominic-raab-theresa-mays-deal-worse-than-staying-in-eu?CMP=fb_gu)
Not as if he had any hand in this, at all.
I don't think he did, that's (one of the reasons) why he's kicking off.
-
I think he peered into the abyss and it peered back.
-
Food for thought.
Forget Brexit, war in Ukraine is the biggest threat to Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/26/forget-brexit-ukraine-europe-russia?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
New Brexit economic impact assessments here, courtesy of the FT's economics editor:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1066968976071303168.html
Cost is about a third of the financial crisis or the equivalent of £700 to £1,100 per person, every year (compare to the average salary of 30k). Before the "economics knows nothing" bleaters sceptics tell us all forecasts are worthless, I'll point out that it's a conditional not an unconditional forecast. That's the difference between "if you keep eating so many pies you're going to be fatter than you would otherwise be" vs "your pie habit will give you diabetes in 2027".
One has to assume that the effect won't just be on personal finances, but also on the finances of our welfare state too. Which services are worth cutting for Brext? High-end cancer drugs? Benefits for working families? Functioning national parks?
I wouldn't bet the house on any of these delightful Brexit impacts being evenly distributed across the UK, because they never are, are they?
You may still believe that there are upsides in ten years' time but I suspect our room for manoeuvre will be pretty limited:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/11/23/may-s-brexit-deal-is-a-humiliation-for-britain
-
I can understand why some people voted for leave, but none of their motivation can have been economic if they paid attention to any information on the subject. Free trade deals, commonwealth, global outreach it's all total cloud Cuckoo Land, the EU is the most sophisticated trading block on the planet and leaving it is a gigantic economic mistake.
The only sane counterarguments as far as I can see revolve around control over immigration which I can understand but not necessarily agree with, control over fishing rights- ditto, and a notion of national sovereignty, which may be sane yet misguided in my opinion. Fetishisation of sovereignty ignores the enormous change in the nature and position of the nation state in the age of huge corporations, web based everything and global trading blocks.
-
The only sane counterarguments as far as I can see revolve around control over immigration which I can understand but not necessarily agree with,
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-may-isnt-telling-the-whole-story-on-immigration (https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-may-isnt-telling-the-whole-story-on-immigration)
-
The only sane counterarguments as far as I can see revolve around control over immigration which I can understand but not necessarily agree with, control over fishing rights- ditto, and a notion of national sovereignty, which may be sane yet misguided in my opinion.
So immigration, if that's what leavers wanted, could have been & still could be much better controlled without leaving the EU.
The sovereignty argument seems to be simply a matter of whose rules we are going to accept - the EU's or the US's & nobody is offering us a voice in the US. So Fishing then ....
-
In reply to the previous two posts... I wasn't saying I thought these credible reasons, just that I can understand how people might have thought voting leave would help these issues if they concerned them, not that they were based on credible evidence. More credible perhaps than millions more for the NHS but still probably misguided.
See Caroline Cadwalladers piece in the observer last Sunday for Farages constant and ongoing lies and deceit.
-
A highly recommended read, one of the more entertaining political sketch writers on PMQs yesterday:
The time would have been better spent getting both leaders to face off in a bushtucker trial. Chomping their way through a wallaby’s scrotum would be the least that May and Corbyn could do in return for wrecking the country with their own incompetence. It would also be much better TV.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/theres-a-plan-for-a-brexit-debate-its-a-shame-its-the-only-plan
-
A highly recommended read, one of the more entertaining political sketch writers on PMQs yesterday:
The time would have been better spent getting both leaders to face off in a bushtucker trial. Chomping their way through a wallaby’s scrotum would be the least that May and Corbyn could do in return for wrecking the country with their own incompetence. It would also be much better TV.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/theres-a-plan-for-a-brexit-debate-its-a-shame-its-the-only-plan
Always enjoy John Crace. Amazing how satire can make things seem so clear. Always makes me feel better readings his pieces.
Brexit seems to have disappeared up its own arse right now. Lots of headlines, leave and remain papers, saying how May's deal is bad for Britain but surely we were warned about this all along. Project fear anyone? Leave voters new this to be the case, like Pete says, it's the price worth paying to take back control.
I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen at the moment. There's about a dozen factions in parliament all wanting different things. Which one we end up with is anyone's guess. I feel like it's probably going to be May's deal because it's the only option that's had a couple of years of work put into it, everything else is back to square one. I hope I'm wrong...
-
I know we have heard enough from experts and we definitely don't trust the forecasts of Economists, but Spreadsheet Phil and Mark Carney don't seem to have much nice to say about the short and longish (15 yrs) term impacts of May's proposed deal. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/economic-forecasts-strike-blow-to-theresa-mays-brexit-deal
-
I feel like it's probably going to be May's deal because it's the only option that's had a couple of years of work put into it, everything else is back to square one. I hope I'm wrong...
:-\
-
I feel like it's probably going to be May's deal because it's the only option that's had a couple of years of work put into it, everything else is back to square one. I hope I'm wrong...
:-\
The best we can hope for is a “Go back three spaces” and hope we don’t land on a snake.
I won’t yet dare, even dream, of landing on a ladder...
-
Interesting piece in the Grauniad about how people stopped trusting politicians/journalists & how that got extended to others scientists/doctors/economists etc. Seemed to suggest that those like Trump,Farage, Johnson aren't included because the lies they tell are so obvious that they're not considered "deceitful" Uh ???
-
We’re all waiting for Trump to pull off a silicone face mask to reveal Chris Morris.
It would be his finest work.
-
Wonderful take on things from Andy Serkis...
https://youtu.be/Tjp5OmoDYQM
-
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. In Marx's words history repeats itself "first as tragedy, then as farce." Not sure exactly where we are in that cycle, but in it we are.
-
Before you retire, Andy, you’ll be teaching a course on “The Brexit disaster”, aka, “How pride came before...”
Seriously, I do hope you won’t be. I hope this all comes out in the wash, without a second referendum (because I really don’t see that reducing division or helping the country recover it’s trajectory).
-
Seriously, I do hope you won’t be. I hope this all comes out in the wash, without a second referendum (because I really don’t see that reducing division or helping the country recover it’s trajectory).
I actually don't see where there is the scope for a positive outcome at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
-
Seriously, I do hope you won’t be. I hope this all comes out in the wash, without a second referendum (because I really don’t see that reducing division or helping the country recover it’s trajectory).
I actually don't see where there is the scope for a positive outcome at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
Actually I think its positive news on balance - especially if we consider how it looked 6 months ago. I think at this stage all roads lead to a soft brexit or no brexit....
Mays deal has (at least) illustrated to the loons in her party that its not possible to square the irish border issue without either (a) a catastrophic cliff edge (which will not be allowed to happen guessing by the shift in media coverage of this) or (b) some sort of customs union (whether it be blatant or backdoor e.g. backstop stuff).
ergo - cliff edge or Norway (style) or no-brexit. and I think cliff edge is not going to happen. As the A50 court ruling today showed - our default position need not be to 'crash out' in 5 months time if there is no deal, but to 'slump back in' instead :)
Of course it leaves us with a largely divided country - 2-3 years of no growth/stagnation - which is shite. But not the total clusterfuck it could have been.....
-
Nice to see you’re an optimist TT, I hope that is borne out in the fullness of time.
Regarding the Norway option however, there’ll be opposition from the Norwegians, it may not be as attainable as some imagine.
-
Nice to see you’re an optimist TT, I hope that is borne out in the fullness of time.
Regarding the Norway option however, there’ll be opposition from the Norwegians, it may not be as attainable as some imagine.
Yeah - we’d not be part of the EFT but I think early on in the negotiations a Norway style deal (as a starting point) was offered. Would still mean a customs union and free movement I think.
-
I thought Norway-esque had been completely ruled out in recent days, not least by Norway. And the EU have made it very, very clear today that there will be no renegotiation. Everything I've read this afternoon suggests a np deal Brexit has become more likely.
-
That was joining the EFT that was ruled out - not having a deal ‘like’ Norway’s. But tbh - i doubt that would happen as the difference between that and full member isn’t great - but without any decision making power.
Not sure if you’ll pick up on it via print media / Web Andy, but to me there has been a definite shift away from no deal... the hardcore leavers are not talking about it so much - and/or not being reported much. Either is quite a shift.
Also - no brexit is now being mentioned more and more. No deal won’t happen... I think the economic impacts of a no deal is finally hitting home and it won’t be.
-
There's no doubt a lot I'm missing out on.
-
There's no doubt a lot I'm missing out on.
Not so much missing, as mercifully avoiding.
It’s got this silly:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2018/dec/10/put-it-back-labour-mp-grabs-the-mace-during-parliament-video (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2018/dec/10/put-it-back-labour-mp-grabs-the-mace-during-parliament-video)
-
There's no doubt a lot I'm missing out on.
As Matt said... :)
Wall to wall here. I think the channels had all booked extra shows and live coverage of the vote tomorrow eve etc.. brexit specials etc... it is close to wall to wall coverage.
-
Ugh... the mother of all Parliaments eh?! ::) ::) ::)...
https://youtu.be/6kk2lkm86mE
Fair play though it was quite a comeback!
-
So, the Maybot survives.
This really ought to kill BoJo’s future, and Lord Bloody Snooty, too; surely?
-
Someone (may have been Hesletine) said today: there's not much point changing the singer if you keep playing the same song. This changes nothing - in fact, it makes the parliamentary arithmetic look even bleaker. May hasn't a hope in hell of getting her deal past the Commons, the EU will not renegotiate, and so we head towards a clifftop exit unless something crazy happens such as sense prevailing. On current form, that's us fucked then!
-
No brexit or no deal brexit.
That’s what it’ll come down to if there isn’t a 2nd ref.
-
Not sure what proportion of the house have dipped their feet in the second referendum shallows yet, let alone the shark infested rescind A50 deep end!
-
I love that, this morning, May has variously, “Scraped through”, “Crushed her opponents”, “Lost all authority”, and “Proved the only real option”.
Apparently, winning a vote with 63% of the ballots, isn’t conclusive...
-
Apparently, winning a vote with 63% of the ballots, isn’t conclusive...
Particularly strange from a mathematical point of view is Rees Mogg's conclusion that 63% with 100% turn out for isn't a win, yet apparently 52% for something is a win for all time so conclusive you can't have another vote.
-
I thought it nuaseating, revealing, and not surprising that all media coverage of Tory party supporters asked about the vote featured exclusively white men (70%) and Women over retirement age.
-
Apparently, winning a vote with 63% of the ballots, isn’t conclusive...
Particularly strange from a mathematical point of view is Rees Mogg's conclusion that 63% with 100% turn out for isn't a win, yet apparently 52% for something is a win for all time so conclusive you can't have another vote.
Did you expect him to roll over and stop pushing his agenda?
-
I thought it nuaseating, revealing, and not surprising that all media coverage of Tory party supporters asked about the vote featured exclusively white men (70%) and Women over retirement age.
Pretty hard to find any other sort, really.
-
Comment from guardian reader
Tory Hard Brexit is a Trojan horse with fake patriotism on the outside and hedge fund millionaires on the inside. UK membership of the EU means worker’s rights and people’s protection, and that’s why they hate it.
-
Comment from guardian reader
Tory Hard Brexit is a Trojan horse with fake patriotism on the outside and hedge fund millionaires on the inside. UK membership of the EU means worker’s rights and people’s protection, and that’s why they hate it.
Good opportunity for a 'Jim'll Draw it' cartoon there.
-
:clap2:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/erg-theresa-may-brexit?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/erg-theresa-may-brexit?CMP=fb_gu)
-
From Gary Young's article in the guardian today: “There are two kinds of European nations,” the Danish finance minister Kristian Jensen said last year. “There are small nations and there are countries that have not yet realised they are small nations.”
Neat. As the UK writhes trying to work out what happened to the empire and the US is preoccupied with a man everyone knows is a corrupt, incompetent politician, Russia has become the world's largest arms dealer, consolidates its power base in the middle east, and works out how far it can push it in eastern Europe.
Another cracking year for Putin.
-
two good opinion pieces in the Observer today:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/failed-by-both-major-parties-betrayed-britain-lurches-towards-the-abyss
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/why-are-labour-party-leaders-so-quiet-on-europe---maybe-it-is-the-lure-of-disaster
I have to say that that I agree with their argument that the reaction of the official opposition to this crisis makes the current government look competent and cohesive.
-
two good opinion pieces in the Observer today:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/failed-by-both-major-parties-betrayed-britain-lurches-towards-the-abyss
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/why-are-labour-party-leaders-so-quiet-on-europe---maybe-it-is-the-lure-of-disaster
I have to say that that I agree with their argument that the reaction of the official opposition to this crisis makes the current government look competent and cohesive.
those are certainly opinions.
the guardian had a podcast last week that explained the labour silence on brexit rather simply : labour constituencies are more likely to have voted leave. (could have been a protest vote, could have been uninformed, lied to, whatever)
if labour does not respect that they will lose their base.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2018/dec/11/labours-brexit-dilemma
-
If MPs are representing the views of their, albeit ill educated and/or elderly, voters that sounds to me like democracy in action.
-
Yeah, a bit of a conundrum, should they represent their constituents’ wishes, or their best interests (and lose the next few elections)
-
Parliament is stuck, because both major parties represent voters for and against remain.
Its not in labour or Tory interest to go remain or hard brexit. Despite what their MP’s think.
Its almost fertile enough to generate a new IN and a new OUT party.... but I think the political and media system of the UK make it especially hard for newcomers/parties to break through. And First Past the Post doesn’t help the genesis of new parties either.
Always leads to decisive governments right? :D
-
The endless ducking and diving about when they might call a no-confidence vote against the government makes Labour look like opportunists desperately hoping to luck into office on the back of Brexit turmoil rather than a party with the national interest at heart.
This ^^. The problem of a voter base split between leave and remain is real enough, but forever ducking the issue is not the solution.
-
Interesting detail from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
-
Interesting detail from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
Christ - that’s a harrowing read. I mean a really interesting but grim read of what might happen.
Fascinating dispassionate commentary.
-
two good opinion pieces in the Observer today:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/failed-by-both-major-parties-betrayed-britain-lurches-towards-the-abyss
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/why-are-labour-party-leaders-so-quiet-on-europe---maybe-it-is-the-lure-of-disaster
I have to say that that I agree with their argument that the reaction of the official opposition to this crisis makes the current government look competent and cohesive.
those are certainly opinions.
the guardian had a podcast last week that explained the labour silence on brexit rather simply : labour constituencies are more likely to have voted leave. (could have been a protest vote, could have been uninformed, lied to, whatever)
if labour does not respect that they will lose their base.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2018/dec/11/labours-brexit-dilemma
That wasn't really Cohen's point. His was that the Labour leadership are idealogically in favour of Brexit for reasons of political advancement. Corbyns constituency was firmly remain, I believe as for many of the other shadow front bench with seats in North London.
-
Interesting detail from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
Been thinking some more overnight about this. And it’s a great piece.
One of its biggest point is about making deals (exit and trade) - and how the UK is in such a shit position because it set time limits (article 50 trigger) and red lines (both to appease brexit loons in Tory party) which box the uk into a time and position corner.
What’s clear as well is that if we exit without a customs union/ free movement - it will take years..a generation before things can get back to the level they were before.
Also interesting on how brexit argument has focused on manufacturing (where we are in deficit to EU) when really it should focus on damage to services (where we are in surplus).
I really recommend you sit down with a cup or tea or two and read it.
-
Today’s “No Deal”, full implementation of planning for, thingy; includes the sentence “including provision of clean drinking water, currently treated with chemicals imported from Europe”.
Bit long for the side of a bus, I suppose.
-
Been listening to Mark Mardells Brexit - A Love Story? podcast recently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p062h50y
For someone too young at the time to remember joining, it provides a good history of key events and how we ended up where we are now.
-
Been listening to Mark Mardells Brexit - A Love Story? podcast recently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p062h50y
For someone too young at the time to remember joining, it provides a good history of key events and how we ended up where we are now.
The 5Live Brexitcast podcast is very good if you want an in depth discussion of current events.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Brexitcast&suggid=urn%3Abbc%3Aprogrammes%3Ap05299nl
-
Today’s “No Deal”, full implementation of planning for, thingy; includes the sentence “including provision of clean drinking water, currently treated with chemicals imported from Europe”.
Bit long for the side of a bus, I suppose.
It is a massive embarrassment. Fridges and chartered flights to get medication in for the whole NHS? Using the whole of Kent as a lorry park? Swift decline and annihilation of British agriculture?
To top it off there is no alternative, the leader of the opposition genuinely can't come up with anything even as good as this heap of shit; just lie at the dispatch box about what he has said earlier that day.
For the sake of clarity I don't give a f if he is sexist or not, but he is increasingy obviously a fundamentally dishonest man. He can't tell the truth about this, about his instinct for leaving the EU, about anti-semitism...
-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gunboat-politics-won-t-solve-immigration-h5jgf8s3s
-
... there is no alternative, the leader of the opposition genuinely can't come up with anything even as good as this heap of shit; just lie...
It's too late to legislate a second referendum. I think people are being disingenuous suggesting there is any alternative. Look at those calling loudly for a people's vote; Blair, mandelson et al then tell me this isn't just the latest stick being used to beat Corbyn with.
Furthermore, I believe the other accusations of instances where he has lied (such as on the issue of anti semitism) in your post to be baseless.
But this thread isn't about Corbyn, it's about brexit and, right now, the only issue around brexit is do we take the damage control option of May's deal, which locks us into an unending "backstop" arrangement likely forever, or take the terminal no deal option, and hope we somehow raise from the flames like a Cuban phoenix post oil crisis? (Unlikely to be comfortable)
-
It isn't too late to carry out a second referendum because Parliament can pass legislation that delays article 50 to give the required time.
You're saying that because Blair is calling for a second referendum then it must be sone plot against Corbyn? Give me strength! Where to even begin?
Corbyn has many good qualities. One of those is not the ability to lead the opposition or a party of government, which is a shame. When he was first elected to the position I was optimistic, but the evidence has dispelled that. Unfortunately it is the plight of the Corbynista to argue perpetually for him, despite any evidence because they have deified him. He could curl a shit directly into the Chief Rabbi's gob and it would somehow be a Murdoch plot.
-
... there is no alternative, the leader of the opposition genuinely can't come up with anything even as good as this heap of shit; just lie...
It's too late to legislate a second referendum. I think people are being disingenuous suggesting there is any alternative. Look at those calling loudly for a people's vote; Blair, mandelson et al then tell me this isn't just the latest stick being used to beat Corbyn with.
Furthermore, I believe the other accusations of instances where he has lied (such as on the issue of anti semitism) in your post to be baseless.
But this thread isn't about Corbyn, it's about brexit and, right now, the only issue around brexit is do we take the damage control option of May's deal, which locks us into an unending "backstop" arrangement likely forever, or take the terminal no deal option, and hope we somehow raise from the flames like a Cuban phoenix post oil crisis? (Unlikely to be comfortable)
Errrr... you’re forgetting option 3.
No brexit! Which as a50 can be readily withdrawn is a completely viable option.
-
As nice as it might be for Remainers, I just don't think it would be politically tenable unfortunately. Imagine if you were on the other side of the argument...
-
As nice as it might be for Remainers, I just don't think it would be politically tenable unfortunately. Imagine if you were on the other side of the argument...
But Will. You’re missing the point that no options are politically tenable atm.
Regardless revoking a50 - even if “temporarily” is an equally viable option.
-
Labour MP Ian Murray:
"We can leave the EU under the terms of some version of the prime minister's bad deal or we can keep all our rights, powers, influence and op-outs in our current deal as full members of the EU."
Forget the "no-deal" blackmail. That's just May being a lunatic.
-
Forget the "no-deal" blackmail. That's just May being a lunatic.
As understand (potentially incorrectly!) the House showed yesterday that there are sufficient numbers to vote down a No Deal, so that is now effectively off the table https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/theresa-may-suffers-commons-defeat-over-no-deal-brexit
-
As a result of today's vote, if (when) May's bad deal is thrown out she has three days to draft a "plan B" and present it to the Commons. I'm praying that no one gives her the crayons.
-
Forget the "no-deal" blackmail. That's just May being a lunatic.
As understand (potentially incorrectly!) the House showed yesterday that there are sufficient numbers to vote down a No Deal, so that is now effectively off the table https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/theresa-may-suffers-commons-defeat-over-no-deal-brexit
There won't be a vote on whether we have a no deal Brexit, because that vote has already happened when we triggered Article 50. A no deal Brexit is what we're currently getting. To avoid it, a majority of MPs must vote for some alternative. We expect the deal to be rejected on the 15th. Not sure what then.
-
I expect there'll either be an election or a second referendum, possibly both. History would suggest the latter. But given the trajectory of the last two years I don't think a chaotic no deal exit is impossible. If that happens, I suspect these events may be just the beginning of something bigger and more unpleasant.
-
The amendment passed today allows MPs to amend whatever the PM comes back with if/when her deal is voted down. This will be the opportunity to make sure a no deal is not possible, and the vote yesterday was a proof of principle that the numbers are there to do this.
-
Deal rejected >> extend article 50 >> second referendum >> stay in Europe >> general election >> return to old school socialism >> get on with living in France without having to worry that I might have to hide in the woods >> fuck politics off and go climbing.
That's my plan B comrades.
-
The amendment passed today allows MPs to amend whatever the PM comes back with if/when her deal is voted down. This will be the opportunity to make sure a no deal is not possible, and the vote yesterday was a proof of principle that the numbers are there to do this.
But what amendment would they make that could command a majority of support? They might agree that they don't want no deal, but this is meaningless unless they agree on what they do want. The only alternative on the table at the moment is May's deal, which is objectionable to everyone in equal measure. Delaying article 50 requires agreement of the 27, and approval in Parliament. Cancelling and retriggering requires parliamentary approval. Tricky but could happen? But what would it achieve? The Brexiters in parliament might not support it as it could be the first step on the road to cancelling their project.
JB, I'm not sure how a GE would come about under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. It would need the DUP to break their confidence and supply agreement or for Tory MPs to vote for a GE. Unlikely without a new leader in place which is an idea they just rejected. Could happen if Labour tank even further in the polls?
-
But Will, if May keeps banging her head against the parliamentary brick wall and trying to push through deals that no one votes for then she will lose the support of even her own party. The amendments actually have little clout - but are very symbolic shots across her bows... warnings if you like that she can't just do what she wants.
I find it actually quite re-assuring - that most (just) MP's recognise that no deal is bonkers and these amendments make it quite clear that it wont be allowed to happen (even if the amendments themselves are somewhat toothless - they show the intent etc..)
-
Will, Labour have said they’ll issue MoNC May’s deal is voted down, if that passed then we have a GE. DUP are already voting against Conservatives currently and I can see May getting the concessions they need to get them back on side.
Most likely amendment at the mo will be extending A50 as this obviously need me to happen to allow a second ref or time for a new deal. The guy who wrote the A50 stuff was on the radio yesterday saying that you couldn’t just stop it and restart it again, as that would go against clauses in there for extension. Ireland have said they won’t stand against an extension, and I couldn’t see any other country voting against it now they see which way the tide is going.
Less clear after that, Labour still seem to think they can get a better deal by changing red lines, also growing support for second ref across the house.
-
The amendment passed today allows MPs to amend whatever the PM comes back with if/when her deal is voted down. This will be the opportunity to make sure a no deal is not possible, and the vote yesterday was a proof of principle that the numbers are there to do this.
I don't think it is safe to assume that everyone who voted for the amendment will also vote against May's deal or even a no deal brexit.
Backbench Conservatives can safely vote for the amendment to send May a message on the direction things are going while also knowing that the amendment on its own is of relatively little consequence.
Once it comes down to voting on May's deal or a potential no deal brexit, a vote against May will effectively be a vote for a general election and a chance for each current MP to lose their job.
Never underestimate a politician's ability to sacrifice their principles in order to prolong/further their career.
For example, staunch europhile Ken Clarke voted for the amendment but has already said he will tow the Tory line when it comes to voting on May's deal. He says this is because he thinks May's deal is less damaging to the country than a potential no deal. Reading between the lines, it seems more like sacrificing his supposed convictions in order to prolong a Conservative government.
It wouldn't take many to change sides to change the result.
-
Iirc in the first defeat this week there were 30 or so Labour Mp’s who didn’t vote....
-
Less clear after that, Labour still seem to think they can get a better deal by changing red lines
They can do that based on the following two assumptions:
1) The EU agree to start all over again
2) Labour agree not to end freedom of movement
I don't think either is at all certain.
The EU have been pretty clear that they have no intention of starting negotiations again. They have their own issues to sort out. Brexit is the be all and end all of UK politics, it is not the be all and end all of European politics right now. How much patience can we expect on the other side of the negotiating table? We have already negotiated one agreement which was quickly passed by the the other 27 heads of state. Then we can't agree ourselves whether we want the agreement we came to. We can't yet agree amongst ourselves what it is that we do want. Maybe the EU might agree to reopen talks if there is a new government with new aims but that is far from certain, especially when Corbyn's brexit plans don't so far appear to be that different from May's anyway.
On freedom of movement, if we don't agree to keep it, there is no alternative deal. We can't divorce ourselves from EU regulations without breaking the Good Friday Agreement or WTO rules. I don't think Corbyn has said he would seek to keep freedom of movement (I may be wrong on this, it is hard to keep track of all of the things he has backtracked on recently).
-
I don't think it is safe to assume that everyone who voted for the amendment will also vote against May's deal or even a no deal brexit.
....
It wouldn't take many to change sides to change the result.
Indeed, the only thing certain about the situation at the moment is the large amount of uncertainty about the outcome of the vote next week. The thing about May's deal is that there seem to be a lot of different factions likely to vote against it:
- Hard Brexit fans within the Tories who don't think the deal goes far enough in various areas
- DUP who aren't satisfied in the NI backstop position which seems very unlikely to change
- Labour MPs who are of the (mistaken IMO as per your next post) opinion that they as a party can get a better deal
- Pro remain MPs looking to use the amendment passed yesterday to force an extension to A50 at least, if not a 2nd referendum
Going to be very interesting to see who votes in what direction next week, have only skim read articles today suggesting that May is adding in some stuff on workers' rights that may appease some labour MPs of her deal? Personally I'm just hoping her deal gets voted down as that's the only path to staying in the EU, even if the path after that is tortuous.
-
even if the path after that is tortuous.
Boom!! ;D
(sorry - wrong thread).
-
you want to get your dictionary out first ;)
-
you want to get your dictionary out first ;)
https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,29715.msg574590.html#msg574590
(I was applauding your correct use of the word Tortuous)
-
Apologies, I thought you were accusing me of eggcorning! I think either word is entirely suitably for the A50 process, torturously tortuous!
-
Personally I'm just hoping her deal gets voted down as that's the only path to staying in the EU, even if the path after that is tortuous.
Agreed. I don't have much confidence that that will be the final outcome after her deal is voted down.
It looks like the only way to avoid a bad deal is to risk potentially ending up with a catastrophic (no) deal.
It's a strange world where the extremes at either end of the debate end up having to join forces to ensure that the middle ground that nobody wants gets defeated.
-
Deal rejected >> extend article 50 >> second referendum >> stay in Europe >> general election >> return to old school socialism >> get on with living in France without having to worry that I might have to hide in the woods >> fuck politics off and go climbing.
That's my plan B comrades.
I think it's more likely that with the shambles of an "opposition" that Magic Grandpa is putting together that we get
Deal rejected >> extend article 50 >> May resigns >> Boris / JRM Tory Party leader >> general election ]>> Tory majority win >> all sorts of nasty shit
-
Will, Labour have said they’ll issue MoNC May’s deal is voted down, if that passed then we have a GE. DUP are already voting against Conservatives currently and I can see May getting the concessions they need to get them back on side.
Most likely amendment at the mo will be extending A50 as this obviously need me to happen to allow a second ref or time for a new deal. The guy who wrote the A50 stuff was on the radio yesterday saying that you couldn’t just stop it and restart it again, as that would go against clauses in there for extension. Ireland have said they won’t stand against an extension, and I couldn’t see any other country voting against it now they see which way the tide is going.
Less clear after that, Labour still seem to think they can get a better deal by changing red lines, also growing support for second ref across the house.
So if Labour table a MoNC, they'll get their support, and they'll get PC, the Greens, LDs, and the SNP. I doubt they'd get any significant number of Tory rebels; they might get the DUP. The Tory and DUP MPs might not like what the government is doing, but to vote for a GE is to help Labour strike a huge political blow against the government. The DUP and Conservatives are close bedfellows, and even if they disagree on Brexit, they are very much united in how much they would hate to see a Corbyn government. I suspect many of them would view that prospect as more dangerous than a No Deal Brexit. We've already seen Rees-Mogg support May when the motion was brought by Labour, despite organising his own MoNC a little time earlier.
If they do get a GE (unlikely I think, but you never know), what does that achieve? It doesn't stop the A50 countdown, and I don't think it's possible now to get a new government formed and legislating in time for the March deadline. If anything it might just paralyse parliament while A50 rolls past. From the Tory side, TM has said that she won't fight another GE, so if she lost the MoNC she would resign immediately. Then a quick Tory leadership contest and a fresh face with a fresh plan to appeal to the public. Either way, I can't see much breaking of a deadlock in parliamentary arithmetic.
-
MoNC is against the government, not the party, so it could be used to oust May by Tories MPs who think they have a chance of forming a govt with support of DUP under a new agreement based around guarantees on NI. They'd have 2 weeks to try and form a govt with enough votes before a GE is called. As such this is not essentially handing a win to Labour by any stretch. As T3 alluded to above, despite the horrible mess being made by the Conservaties, Labour have made little ground in the polls, due mainly I assume to them not actually differentiating themselves from Cons at all.
Obviously if we are going to have a GE it's in the whole House's interest to delay A50 trigger, so that should be an easy vote to pass, and as noted previously it doesn't seem like there'd be any resistance to this from the EU.
I agree with you re: parliamentary arithmetic at the moment, but a deadlock in the House makes a second ref more likely.
-
Will, Labour have said they’ll issue MoNC May’s deal is voted down, if that passed then we have a GE. DUP are already voting against Conservatives currently and I can see May getting the concessions they need to get them back on side.
Most likely amendment at the mo will be extending A50 as this obviously need me to happen to allow a second ref or time for a new deal. The guy who wrote the A50 stuff was on the radio yesterday saying that you couldn’t just stop it and restart it again, as that would go against clauses in there for extension. Ireland have said they won’t stand against an extension, and I couldn’t see any other country voting against it now they see which way the tide is going.
Less clear after that, Labour still seem to think they can get a better deal by changing red lines, also growing support for second ref across the house.
So if Labour table a MoNC, they'll get their support, and they'll get PC, the Greens, LDs, and the SNP. I doubt they'd get any significant number of Tory rebels; they might get the DUP. The Tory and DUP MPs might not like what the government is doing, but to vote for a GE is to help Labour strike a huge political blow against the government. The DUP and Conservatives are close bedfellows, and even if they disagree on Brexit, they are very much united in how much they would hate to see a Corbyn government. I suspect many of them would view that prospect as more dangerous than a No Deal Brexit. We've already seen Rees-Mogg support May when the motion was brought by Labour, despite organising his own MoNC a little time earlier.
If they do get a GE (unlikely I think, but you never know), what does that achieve? It doesn't stop the A50 countdown, and I don't think it's possible now to get a new government formed and legislating in time for the March deadline. If anything it might just paralyse parliament while A50 rolls past. From the Tory side, TM has said that she won't fight another GE, so if she lost the MoNC she would resign immediately. Then a quick Tory leadership contest and a fresh face with a fresh plan to appeal to the public. Either way, I can't see much breaking of a deadlock in parliamentary arithmetic.
What would they achieve? The EU have said they would extend the brexit deadline in the case of a GE or 2nd ref.
-
I actually wonder, if taking the deal, and by extension reducing of our global footprint and influence; might not be better in the long run.
We’re just exhausting our resources, trying to be this global superpower, whilst almost 20% of our population live in “poverty”*.
We are, after all, a piddling island nation, in a damp, windy, corner of the North Atlantic; battling Behemoths. We’d have gone under 80 years ago, if it wasn’t for our bigger cousin, coming over to sort outthe bullies next door.
Maybe we could focus on our own shit for a while?
*Relative poverty, before anyone points out how much worse it could be.
-
Yeeees Matt... come over to the dark siiiide...
(piddling country that's still the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world by gdp. Something a lot of people I think forget when they're navel gazing thinking we're insignificant. We're not. Yes I know that doesn't translate to quality of life, I'd prefer Norway, Switzerland or Canada's quality of life)
-
I think the point Matt makes re poverty is that we're
still the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world by gdp.
and thus nobody should be living in poverty, relative or not.
-
I think the point Matt makes re poverty is that we're
still the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world by gdp.
and thus nobody should be living in poverty, relative or not.
The only problem being, conservative economic policy requires there to be an underclass to keep wages low and make people feel replaceable.
I'm sure that can be easily picked apart but hey ho.
Right, 8 weeks out here are my predictions:
1) The deal is voted down
2) She goes away for 3 days and comes back with nothing new, more "assurances"
3) This happens back and forward a bit, with all manners of amendments proposed
4) Clock ticks down to 29 March, no election is called, no 2nd referendum
5) Last minute a voted is tabled for rescinding article 50 (but not, per say, cancelling Brexit) to buy more time.
6) May is ousted for utter ineptitude.
7) A coalition forms with a second referendum on no deal/may's deal/cancel brexit.....(this last one is just my wishful thinking!)
-
I actually wonder, if taking the deal, and by extension reducing of our global footprint and influence; might not be better in the long run.
We’re just exhausting our resources, trying to be this global superpower, whilst almost 20% of our population live in “poverty”*.
If that was the stated aim of any of the main supporters of Brexit you might have a claim but Gavin Williamson has stated that Brexit will allow us to build additional military bases all over the world and those that support it for economic reasons do so because of the teachings of prof Minford (end to manufacturing Jobs in UK) or because of a reduction in red tape (fewer workers rights).
In fact, never mind that, any of the things you describe could be done from within the EU so not sure why you thing Brexit will bring about any sort of mindset change. Russia's straightened circumstances hasn't stopped it trying to exert itself as a still relevant superpower
-
I actually wonder, if taking the deal, and by extension reducing of our global footprint and influence; might not be better in the long run.
We’re just exhausting our resources, trying to be this global superpower, whilst almost 20% of our population live in “poverty”*.
If that was the stated aim of any of the main supporters of Brexit you might have a claim but Gavin Williamson has stated that Brexit will allow us to build additional military bases all over the world and those that support it for economic reasons do so because of the teachings of prof Minford (end to manufacturing Jobs in UK) or because of a reduction in red tape (fewer workers rights).
In fact, never mind that, any of the things you describe could be done from within the EU so not sure why you thing Brexit will bring about any sort of mindset change. Russia's straightened circumstances hasn't stopped it trying to exert itself as a still relevant superpower
I don’t ( think Brexit is necessary or worthwhile, that is).
I’m rather anti, that hasn’t changed.
I think this will diminish us as a nation (might have mentioned that, once or ten times).
First off, I recognise the difference between the thoughtful Brexit supporter and the zealots.
But I have been dismayed by the nationalistic, xenophobic, racist and imperialistic, attitudes of such a large section of the British population.
In total denial of the actuality of history.
I think this was hidden, by societal pressure, until Brexit proclaimed “open season” to so many.
I think the divide between the socially liberal and the populist, ummm, wankers (?), is essentially unbridgeable. Reality and facts do not persuade the wankers, until it bites so hard they cannot ignore it. Mere predictions, based on best evidence, are as useful as your best, saved up all night, morning piss, into the teeth of a force ten gale.
JRM, Boris, Yaxley-Lennon et al, are not going to lead the nation into a glorious future of wealth and prosperity.
My elderly relatives are wrong, to think that this will lead to the resurgence of the Church as a guiding light to the young, good christian values and not so many brown people with funny habits.
If the people in rubber boats, stop crossing the channel, it won’t be because we have “taken back control”, it will be because it’s not worth coming from one third world nation to another...
Military bases all over the world?
Fuck off! We can’t even afford the ones we have here!
(There are, today, fewer ships in the entire RN (of all classes), than there were in a single Frigate squadron on the day I joined in ‘89).
But, the division is real. The country is hopelessly divided. I think that the Remainers are correct, that Euro unity is the best way into the globalist future, that is todays reality.
Unfortunately, perhaps, this needs to be played out, as a very painful, expensive, abject, lesson.
-
I think the point Matt makes re poverty is that we're
still the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world by gdp.
and thus nobody should be living in poverty, relative or not.
The only problem being, conservative economic policy requires there to be an underclass to keep wages low and make people feel replaceable.
I'm sure that can be easily picked apart but hey ho.
Right, 8 weeks out here are my predictions:
1) The deal is voted down
2) She goes away for 3 days and comes back with nothing new, more "assurances"
3) This happens back and forward a bit, with all manners of amendments proposed
4) Clock ticks down to 29 March, no election is called, no 2nd referendum
5) Last minute a voted is tabled for rescinding article 50 (but not, per say, cancelling Brexit) to buy more time.
6) May is ousted for utter ineptitude.
7) A coalition forms with a second referendum on no deal/may's deal/cancel brexit.....(this last one is just my wishful thinking!)
Parliament seem to me to be blocking 'no deal' as a likely option and the day before yesterday voted agaisnt May running down the clock any more. If May loses the vote next week by any sizable margin a new election or a new Referendum (or the unlikely just staying in in shame) seem the only ways out of this mess. Both of those options WILL delay the Brexit date: the EU have said so and its very much in their interests.
On point 7 I can't see the electoral commission agreeing anything more than a binary vote. My best current guess is stay in vs Canada+ as they won't stitch up the leave side voters and that looks to me like currently the most popular Leave option in terms of what people said they voted for. Mays brexit doesn't seem to suit anyone other than the trapped government. It's funny that the Foreign Secretary is thinking this might happen more than you ;-) Be optimistic and campaign for that option.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/11/uk-faces-prospect-of-no-brexit-if-may-deal-rejected-says-hunt
-
Such an outcome would be “enormously damaging” for politicians’ relationships with voters and Britain’s global reputation, the foreign secretary said.
Says Hunt.
Am I alone in thinking that this could be a one of the great, positive outcomes of this whole shitshow?
-
Interesting stuff going on at the moment. Anyone care to speculate on what's next?
I'd hoped that the failed deal would force Corbyn's hand, but it looks like he's sticking to his principle of "let Brexit happen on the Conservative's watch". Won't enter discussions until no deal is off the table? There's no way to avoid no deal other than a cross-parliament consensus which he doesn't seem to want to bring about!
-
I don't like Corbyn but from what I can see there is no attempt at consensus from May. She talked about compromise but has ruled out an extension to Article 50, removing any of her red lines, a second referendum and presumably (as she's not ruling it out) still sticking to the damaging mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal.
-
I think 'no deal' will be removed from 'the table' at least figuratively next week by the backbencher's amendment allowed into play by the speaker.
Following that, anyone's guess. But there's a full transcript available of the Chancellor and Brexit secretary's conference call to UK heads of business that is well worth a read for some clarity on what's actually happening in the background rather than what much of the media proclaim is happening: https://premium.telegraph.co.uk/newsletter/article4/exclusive-the-governments-conference-call-to-reassure-big-business-the-full-transcript/?WT.mc_id=e_DM924391&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Edi_New_Reg&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_Edi_New_Reg_2019_01_17&utm_campaign=DM924391
My guess is something resembling the May deal will emerge out the other side of the most difficult birth in history. With significant loss of tory blood, and I hope the death of Corbyn's career.
Personally thought the May deal was a good compromise. The letter from the EU last Monday in response to May's letter is worth a read. I thought the tone was reassuring and it didn't strike me that we would ever use the backstop.
I can't overstate my contempt for the Labour position so far.More so than my contempt for the ERG who run a close second. Labour in this process stand for nothing except obstruction and political opportunism. Even at the tories weakest most vulnerable moment in decades, labour are unable to capitalise politically or have any clear plan that the public can understand. That shows how profoundly pathetic and lacking pragmatic ideas labour currently are as a party. I can only imagine individual lab MPs will move towards something, with or without Corbyn's approval.
My money is on a bespoke version of a Customs Union that compromises on allowing limited free trade outside the EU.
-
I have no clue what will happen, but agree that Corbyn seems pretty useless and pathetic right now
-
A lifelong Eurosceptic in charge of a largely Remain inclined party in the red corner, a mendacious old witch cackling away to herself and repeating "Brexit means Brexit!" and "The will of the people! in the blue corner.
Fuck off the pair of you. I'm going climbing.
-
Whilst it’s easy to think - and is probably true - that both major parties are doing this for solely political problems, both parties are split about brexit or no brexit. For sure there are less ardent separatists in Labour - but a large portion of labour seats voted leave and their MPs have to both respect this and consider what going against it would mean for their re-election prospects. So whether or not politicians from both parties want to leave or remain - their seats are split as well....
Compounding the present logjam is a very stubborn PM who seems to seek no council on her strategy, and a left wing Labour leader who is loathed by the tories (and unifies then in that respect) as well as having a hatred of the Tories himself.
Operating behind all this are vote leave et al (who seem to have become far less organised and more dissident) and the People’s Vote campaign who are (I think) very carefully gaming what is going on here.
I think Corbin has played this wrong. He could have gone to talks - with the PM (which would have driven sticks into the eyes of many tories!) but then made it clear that the only way things could change (for the EU or anything else) would be for May to drop some of her red lines (which are why we have the boxed in bodge of a deal at the moment) and make it not some ‘Labour denand’ But that it’s nust what HAS to change to move things on.
I hope moderate members of both Parties work this through behind both leaders backs and we end up with some consensus- but I suspect Corbin and May will manage to keep a lid on lots of it.
It’s also interesting reading the NYT coverage of this - all in Corbyns hands they say....
-
Corbyn is not merely loathed by Tories; he is detested by working class individuals, who have bought into the “laying wreaths at memorials to terrorists” type crap and consider him a traitor.
I’m a member of several vetrans forums/groups and the vitriol levelled against him is stunning.
I have no time for him, whatsoever, however, I don’t believe him to be a traitor or even close. I do think he’s a silly and ineffectual, ideologe; with a tenuous grip on reality.
-
I can't overstate my contempt for the Labour position so far.
I don't pretend to understand Labour's position and as far as I can tell Corbyn has been weak and undecided. But Brexit belongs to the Tories and the Tories alone. David Cameron called a referendum purely to try and end an internal civil war and to protect his right flank from UKIP. He then spearheaded a lacklustre and complacent remain campaign and promptly fucked off when he lost, refusing to accept any responsibility (ditto other senior Tories). Since then May has been mercilessly cowed by the ERG. This is the Tories to own.
-
You should be a labour MP Andy. With an attitude like that you'd fit in well with the self-serving attitudes at large in westminister. You're entirely wrong that Brexit is the tories to own. A huge number of people across all party allegiances voted to leave the EU. Making out that it's a tory issue is disingenuous, and usefully shields you from any responsibility for turning the other cheek and accepting your personally held views dind't prevail in a fair vote and putting aside lab/con binary thinking for the sake of making the best out of a situation you'd prefer not to find yourself in. Your attitude reeks to me of self-righteousness.
-
Fair enough, though I have certainly always accepted the outcome of the vote. And I do think Labour could and should have shown far more initiative and decision and take no delight in how things stand now. I also know voters of all persuasions voted leave - but I wasn't talking about voters at all. But if we're sharing blame around (and I think we should be, not for the decisions of voters, but for the actions of politicians) then the greater part of it goes to the Tory party and its leadership.
-
Should MPs still be making decisions based on how people voted however long ago, now that the sort of deal available has become more crystallised, along with the erm... ‘alternative facts’ largely relied on by the leave side (not to mention illegal activities)?
-
Fair enough, though I have certainly always accepted the outcome of the vote. And I do think Labour could and should have shown far more initiative and decision and take no delight in how things stand now. I also know voters of all persuasions voted leave - but I wasn't talking about voters at all. But if we're sharing blame around (and I think we should be, not for the decisions of voters, but for the actions of politicians) then the greater part of it goes to the Tory party and its leadership.
Well I agree the larger share of responsibility for the referendum lies with the tories - they were in power and asked the question. It isn't churlish however to point out that Labour have rarely *been* in power. If they had been then eventually they would have come up against this *British* issue just as the tories did. Curse of having the power.
The question asked was always lurking in the minds of a large proportion of the UK population. It isn't a party issue, that's the crux of it and the crux of why the deal isn't getting through - because MPs are treating a national cross-party issue as a personal political cause. The ERG are guilty too but they're at least somewhat transparent in their opposition to the proposed deal.
Labour's approach is so at odds with the crux of the issue. It's a national issue, not a party political one and the best outcomes are possible when politicians can accept some issues are greater than political rivalry.. The way labour are acting makes me wonder if Corbyn - and his master, McDonnell - would play party politics with absolutely any issue of national importance just to obstruct on ideological grounds.
-
Should MPs still be making decisions based on how people voted however long ago, now that the sort of deal available has become more crystallised, along with the erm... ‘alternative facts’ largely relied on by the leave side (not to mention illegal activities)?
I say yes. You probably say no. 'Lets call the whole thing off' :whistle:
-
Excellent, I never thought you’d be in favour of revoking Article 50 ;D
-
Should MPs still be making decisions based on how people voted however long ago, now that the sort of deal available has become more crystallised, along with the erm... ‘alternative facts’ largely relied on by the leave side (not to mention illegal activities)?
I say yes. You probably say no. 'Lets call the whole thing off' :whistle:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/saturday-uk-remain-parliament-force-second-referendum?CMP=share_btn_fb (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/saturday-uk-remain-parliament-force-second-referendum?CMP=share_btn_fb)
-
The way labour are acting makes me wonder if Corbyn - and his master, McDonnell - would play party politics with absolutely any issue of national importance just to obstruct on ideological grounds.
I agree. However incompetently one deems May to have handled Brexit so far, Corbyn et al have been more dishonest, less realistic and don't even have the responsibility.
The whole current situation is proof positive that representative and direct democracy cannot work in tandem. That's certainly a British issue, not a conservative or any particular party's sole problem.
-
But Brexit belongs to the Tories and the Tories alone. David Cameron called a referendum purely to try and end an internal civil war and to protect his right flank from UKIP. He then spearheaded a lacklustre and complacent remain campaign and promptly fucked off when he lost, refusing to accept any responsibility (ditto other senior Tories). Since then May has been mercilessly cowed by the ERG. This is the Tories to own.
If there had been any opposition from Corbyn for the last 3 years, maybe the ERG wouldn't have been able to assume the position of the de facto opposition. With the only vocal opposition on nearly every issue coming from the extremes of the tory party it is amazing that, since ruling out freedom of movement, May has avoided any further concessions to the hard brexiters.
You're entirely wrong that Brexit is the tories to own. A huge number of people across all party allegiances voted to leave the EU. Making out that it's a tory issue is disingenuous, and usefully shields you from any responsibility for turning the other cheek and accepting your personally held views dind't prevail in a fair vote and putting aside lab/con binary thinking for the sake of making the best out of a situation you'd prefer not to find yourself in. Your attitude reeks to me of self-righteousness.
There wouldn't have been a referendum without the conservatives and they alone are responsible for the terms of the referendum which ensured the division and ill feeling across the country (we would have been just as divided had it been 52% the other way).
But that doesn't excuse Corbyn's inaction ever since. An attitude of "they started it" isn't helping anything.
The Conservatives' refusal to include all parties in talks from the start was a terrible decision. Labour's refusal to join the talks now with the clock ticking is just as bad.
-
If there had been any opposition from Corbyn for the last 3 years, maybe the ERG wouldn't have been able to assume the position of the de facto opposition.
Doesn't the last three years include the general election where he wiped out the government's majority?
-
I was surprised by the scale of the defeat on Tuesday. If Brexit has any chance of happening then May's deal is it.
I'm no Corbyn fan but surprised and pleased to see his redline over no deal. Parliament know it isn't an option and cannot happen - high time the tories admit this and stop pretending it is a bargaining chip.
Right now, I'm happy that Leave won the referendum because it has forced the nation to act and take them seriously. I think we'd be in a worse place had the result gone the other way with the same margin, because the leavers would genuinely have been ignored and their rhetoric left unexamined. As it was the small margin of victory was a mandate to take them very seriously, but far from being big enough that three years down the line we should be unable to revisit the question.
The failure of Brexit is entirely due to the failure of the Leavers to own their victory, get involved and make it happen. Their only response to the difficulties of reality has been to bluster then flounce out. It isn't an adult way to deal with the EU whether you're a country or a minister. The breathtaking arrogance of a minority PM to not take a cross-party approach is another component, though I'm far from convinced the leavers on the other side of the house had much more to offer. Leave have had their opportunity, they squandered it.
I cannot see another way forward but another referendum. A proper one, with minimum turnout, specified super-majority and a binding result on actual concrete options. Corbyn is desperate for an election but that won't solve much.
The whole thing is a very strong mandate for massive reform, particularly proportional representation. FPTP and the biggest minority takes all is not fit for modern voting patterns.
-
It is suggested that the current FPTP system is only beneficial for the SNP and Conservatives, who would both lose out if the voting system was changed to PR. In other words, with the current seat allocation in Parliament, PR just ain't gonna happen.
-
To be fair to FPTP, it has kept Parliament almost entirely UKIP free (obviously under PR people may have been more careful with their protest votes at the last elections). But outsider parties who nevertheless pose a threat to a big player still have the power to pull the debate in their direction (see the absolute political masterclass that has been Farage for about the last 10 years. Never had a seat himself, his party has never won a seat at a GE, yet has been fundamental in precipitating the biggest home-grown political crisis the country has seen in 100 years).
-
The whole thing is a very strong mandate for massive reform, particularly proportional representation. FPTP and the biggest minority takes all is not fit for modern voting patterns.
FPTP is a terrible system and it winds me up no end when politicians claim they have a mandate based on results in a general election, ignoring the huge amount of tactical voting that FPTP encourages and the suppression of valid votes for minor parties. How many times do people not vote for the party they most agree with, but instead vote for the party most likely to beat the party they don't want to win in their constituency? I know when I've voted for Labour it's only ever been as a 'not Conservative' vote. The huge differences between the percentage of the vote a party receives and their representation in parliament is a joke. I'm no UKIP fan, but they should have some MPs. The Greens should have more than 1.
Which government is going to implement reforms of the system that put them in power though? The major parties see the AV vote as having put the issue to bed for a generation.
-
To be fair to FPTP, it has kept Parliament almost entirely UKIP free (obviously under PR people may have been more careful with their protest votes at the last elections). .
This isn't an advantage, it's a huge disadvantage; most of the PR parliaments in the world have seats occupied by far-from-centre parties and they get as much attention as they should based on their number of seats, and you don't end up with our situation where millions of people have voted for a party and not ended up with any parliamentary representation. I'm sure Farage would like to claim brexit as being his, but do you think the Tories would have been moved to do anything if there wasn't so much anti EU feeling within their own party?
-
We all had our chance to vote for a major change in the voting system back in 2012 or 13 (I think?).....
But too many vested interests in Labour and Conservative to push for it.
I agree with a lot of what JB said and Teestub - the inability of our system to represent (somehow) all views enables discontent to bubble up until it becomes hard to handle properly...
-
Two interesting Brexit related pieces:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/18/brexit-climate-change-yemen-gaza-irish-backstop
#
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46919072
-
As a counterbalance to the views expressed by Tory Party Propaganda Units (formerly known as the BBC, SKY, etc.), I offer you this:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/01/18/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-blame-corbyn-for-refusing-to-talk-with-theresa-may/
-
As a counterbalance to the views expressed by Tory Party Propaganda Units (formerly known as the BBC, SKY, etc.), I offer you this:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/01/18/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-blame-corbyn-for-refusing-to-talk-with-theresa-may/
Probably the least well argued political piece I've ever read. A nice illustration of why reliable news sources employ actual trained, experienced journalists. If Corbyn did ' his job' to quote the article, he would oppose Brexit, his behaviour is childish and unproductive. He has been the least consistent or transparent of any significant politician I can bring to mind, other than Boris Johnson.
-
As a counterbalance to the views expressed by Tory Party Propaganda Units (formerly known as the BBC, SKY, etc.), I offer you this:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/01/18/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-blame-corbyn-for-refusing-to-talk-with-theresa-may/
Probably the least well argued political piece I've ever read. A nice illustration of why reliable news sources employ actual trained, experienced journalists. If Corbyn did ' his job' to quote the article, he would oppose Brexit, his behaviour is childish and unproductive. He has been the least consistent or transparent of any significant politician I can bring to mind, other than Boris Johnson.
Some pretty strong Corbyn bashing going on here, not just Toby.
I wonder this is fair or tainted by negative way the Tories and press portray him.
As I understand it he for honouringthe result of the referendum and wants a GE because a labour Brexit would be better than a Tory one. Beyond that "all options are on the table". Where are the lack of transparencies or inconsistencies in this?
I can agree that he's not been anti Brexit. And as a remainer that grates. But he's consistently called the Tory Brexit crap - find me a quote that you don't like or is inconsistent?
One can argue that he has made too many political manoeuvres. But remember he is a politician and his priority is not stopping Brexit it's getting into power, where he'd be most effective, in his opinion.
I admit he's not the most inspirational and his performances at PMQ can be frustratingly bad. But I'm not convinced anyone else could do better. Have SNP or LibDem leaders been more effective against Brexit?
-
Corbyn should have one of the easiest positions in modern political times. That is leader of opposition to:
Minority government trying to push through a highly unpopular bill - on a contentious issue that affects the country for years to come. Governed by a stubborn narrow minded Pm. Propped up by ultra right wing DUP head swivellers. Meanwhile Rome burns with record rates of homelessness and poverty.
I think JC was surprisingly effective in the last GE - and he’s been surprisingly effective in keeping most of his party in line (though deselection threats from momentum probably is the big stock there).
But as a paid up Lp member I can’t stand him. At the moment he’s ‘less worse’ than May and that’s about all I can positively say about him.
I understand the LP’s tactics re brexit - but how they are appearing or communicating them comes across as just being anti everything rather than seeking solutions... maybe this isn’t their position and it’s a MSM thing - but they have to play that game - and look how Kier Starner and Yvette Cooper can create a constructive narrative rather than ‘I’m not going to talk to you unless you drop x or y’. Come on that’s being just as pathetic as May having red lines...
-
But as a paid up Lp member I can’t stand him. At the moment he’s ‘less worse’ than May and that’s about all I can positively say about him.
..
Time for him to step aside and make way for Starmer and/or Thornberry?
-
Corbyn is a political ideologue, out of touch with his own party, elevated to his position by cult-like followers on a “trendy” whim and playing politics with a decision and future that will have lasting repercussions for generations.
He is not doing this for the “good of the people”, he’s doing it for the good of his political mantra (one where “the people” are mainly supposed to shut up and do as the State commands. I think people are forgetting the core of pure socialism, he’s not after theScandinavian model, here), every bit as much as the ERG and DUP do as they do for their own twisted idiocy.
Edit:
By which I mean:
A party leader is meant to represent the collective will of his party membership, not their own will exclusively. When their own principles conflict with the apparent will of the members, they should be resigning and putting their names back on the ballot for leadership; to determine their true mandate. Ploughing on is not noble, it is wrong. This, in it’s entirety, could could have been written about May.
-
Corbyn does have the power to make a deal happen though. Or a referendum.
There are enough Tories who would back either/and a Norway style thingy or Ref- to have a parliamentary majority if he got the (fairly well ordered) labour bloc behind it.
-
Corbyn is a political ideologue, out of touch with his own party, elevated to his position by cult-like followers on a “trendy” whim and playing politics with a decision and future that will have lasting repercussions for generations.
And here's an alternative view:
The game the Labour Party leadership has played culminated in the government suffering the biggest defeat of any British government in history. There have been 32 resignations from government since June 2017. The government has been defeated more times in the last 18 months than the governments of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron combined.
Despite being routinely undermined by his own party and smeared by almost the entire mainstream media, Corbyn’s Labour won 40% of the vote share in the election. It was the biggest increase in vote share for Labour in any election since 1945 and wiped out the Tory majority.
Just saying, like...
-
Corbyn does have the power to make a deal happen though. Or a referendum.
There are enough Tories who would back either/and a Norway style thingy or Ref- to have a parliamentary majority if he got the (fairly well ordered) labour bloc behind it.
Have you got any refs for this? Thought we were still a long way off a majority for either.
-
Corbyn does have the power to make a deal happen though. Or a referendum.
There are enough Tories who would back either/and a Norway style thingy or Ref- to have a parliamentary majority if he got the (fairly well ordered) labour bloc behind it.
Have you got any refs for this? Thought we were still a long way off a majority for either.
Simon Wren-Lewis has written a good post on the parliamentary numbers https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/01/parliaments-brexit-game.html?m=1 (https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/01/parliaments-brexit-game.html?m=1)
-
Corbyn is a political ideologue, out of touch with his own party, elevated to his position by cult-like followers on a “trendy” whim and playing politics with a decision and future that will have lasting repercussions for generations.
And here's an alternative view:
The game the Labour Party leadership has played culminated in the government suffering the biggest defeat of any British government in history. There have been 32 resignations from government since June 2017. The government has been defeated more times in the last 18 months than the governments of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron combined.
Despite being routinely undermined by his own party and smeared by almost the entire mainstream media, Corbyn’s Labour won 40% of the vote share in the election. It was the biggest increase in vote share for Labour in any election since 1945 and wiped out the Tory majority.
Just saying, like...
Then they are failing.
Of the last ten major polls, four put Labour (slightly) ahead, four put the Tories (slightly) ahead and two have them neck and neck...
Carrying parliament does not make Corbyn PM, that requires bringing the voting public into agreement with his world view. Despite the shitshow the Tories entertain us with daily, Labour have failed to swing the vote.
And, I would argue, the Tories have been consistently stabbing each other in the back, on the odd occasion they’re not too busy shooting themselves in the foot, whilst simultaneously offending large swathes of the population... All without any effort on the part of Labour and without handing Labour a decisive majority.
-
And here's an alternative view:
The game the Labour Party leadership has played culminated in the government suffering the biggest defeat of any British government in history. There have been 32 resignations from government since June 2017. The government has been defeated more times in the last 18 months than the governments of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron combined.
Despite being routinely undermined by his own party and smeared by almost the entire mainstream media, Corbyn’s Labour won 40% of the vote share in the election. It was the biggest increase in vote share for Labour in any election since 1945 and wiped out the Tory majority.
Just saying, like...
I would give total credit to the Tory party doing this to themselves without any assistance from Corbyn and the Labour party. They are not so much playing a game as standing on the sidelines bickering among themselves over what game to play!
Given the circumstances any competent opposition should be miles ahead in the polls. But then it's clear the Labour party are as split as the Tories with Corbyn's stance as a not so closet Brexiteer and the fundamentally opposed position of most of the PLP. That the British public apparently sees May as a more competent leader than JC is mindboggling and should be deeply worrying for him, he's failing utterly to reach out beyond the faithful.
-
I really think that over the last two years since the vote, the labour / conservative binary has become increasingly irrelevant; to some extent replaced by a leave / remain one. But all the same I think trying to be idealogically critical of one party is a mistake as members of opposite 'sides' have more in common than they might with their own respective colleagues. Yvette Cooper hardly sees eye to eye with Corbyn / MacDonald; or Nick Boles with May.
In my view Corbyn and May are both totally incompetent to lead in the current situation but in very different ways, though at least Mays deal is realistic to the EU if not UK parliament, whereas Corbyns bright idea is unrealistic if not technically impossible.
-
This:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/27/tory-values-conservative-party-repellent-brexit?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/27/tory-values-conservative-party-repellent-brexit?CMP=fb_gu)
-
This:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/27/tory-values-conservative-party-repellent-brexit?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/27/tory-values-conservative-party-repellent-brexit?CMP=fb_gu)
Yes - i read this with interest....
-
I noticed they decided not to open up the comments (which they usually do) on that opinion piece!
-
Can I just renege on my previous support for Corbyn. He's a nice lad but really not cut out for this politics malarkey.
Anyway, who keeps tabling these amendments for labour? They're on fire. The first one about taxes totally paved the way for May's deal getting shut down.
Now, this next one blocking a no deal is basically our last chance to get out of Theresea May's shit deal.
As far as I can see, May ain't worried about no deal, she ain't sweating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we crash out with no deal, we'll have no access to the aviation authority. And without a regulating body, other countries won't fly to us. So we'll have no flights. I'm betting it'll take less than 24 hours for all the MPs who voted against the deal to suddenly start scrabbling for any deal going. And, as far as I'm aware, the one and only deal going is the one May negotiated. Meaning, unless the no deal amendment gets passed, May just has to sit back with her ace up her sleeve and watch everything crumble? No wonder she hasn't stepped down, yet.
Is there anything I'm not getting right here?
-
They could just decide to extend/cancel A50. Something that somebody said on here that I didn't understand was that the UK couldn't unilaterally cancel and reinitiate A50 to restart the 2 year clock. I thought we could.
Lots of remainer friends on Facebook are despairing about the last minute nature of things. It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.
I do think No Deal would be a fascinating thing to watch unfold, in a morbid post-apocalyptic film sort of way. Once the unthinkable had happened, I suspect you'd see regulatory bodies scrambling to maintain what status quo they could. Perhaps their EU and world counterparts would do the same? But these institutions are nothing if not enacters and enforcers of legislation. And if they tried to break the rules, pressure groups could surely just take them to judicial review? So would senior leadership at these institutions risk their careers and give the order to try and break the new rules?
Sorry for the rambling. Need my morning coffee.
-
Something that somebody said on here that I didn't understand was that the UK couldn't unilaterally cancel and reinitiate A50 to restart the 2 year clock. I thought we could.
No we can't do that. It would be considered an abuse of process with the likely result being that the revocation of A50 would be unlawful. The ECJ specifically ruled on that issue in the A50 case.
-
Something that somebody said on here that I didn't understand was that the UK couldn't unilaterally cancel and reinitiate A50 to restart the 2 year clock. I thought we could.
No we can't do that. It would be considered an abuse of process with the likely result being that the revocation of A50 would be unlawful. The ECJ specifically ruled on that issue in the A50 case.
Thanks for the gen, Ru. So we can extend A50 by unanimous agreement of the other 27 nations, or we can unilaterally cancel A50 and would then need to wait an acceptable period before deciding to trigger it again?
Did the ruling indicate what that acceptable time period might be? Only after a new "decision", i.e parliamentary vote, occurs?
-
It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.
I think this is a right load of shite (sorry Will - will explain).
This isnt a fucking poker game in a Bond film where they look agressively accross a table at each other until someone gets a nervous twitch that gives their game away...
The EU have been consistent (dare I say logical?) with what can and can't be done - and because of the (ridiculous) self imposed red lines - and self imposed (or self triggered) deadline (A50) the UK is boxed into a corner of very few options. Personally, I think the EU has been pretty generous allowing an arrangement as nebulous as the NI backstop to be allowed.
I'll say this once. ALL of the crap/delays/shit/standoff (whatever you call it) to do with the Brexit negotiations are caused by 60-80 Conservative MP's (and < handful of labour, and the DUP) demanding THEIR vision of Brexit. THEY have defined the red lines, the timetable etc.. Much as I disagree with Brexit and would like to remain - A DEAL that would work (Norway, Canada whatever...) that a majority of MPs' would support could have happened without their demands. AND I think this could have quite convincinly be sold to the population. It is the internal divisions within the Tory party that have driven us towards the 'cliff edge' of a no-preparation/no-transition deal.
That's what really pisses me off. That and how the 60-80 take no ownership of the fuck up they may well cause.
/rant
-
It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.
I think this is a right load of shite (sorry Will - will explain).
This isnt a fucking poker game in a Bond film where they look agressively accross a table at each other until someone gets a nervous twitch that gives their game away...
The EU have been consistent (dare I say logical?) with what can and can't be done - and because of the (ridiculous) self imposed red lines - and self imposed (or self triggered) deadline (A50) the UK is boxed into a corner of very few options. Personally, I think the EU has been pretty generous allowing an arrangement as nebulous as the NI backstop to be allowed.
I'll say this once. ALL of the crap/delays/shit/standoff (whatever you call it) to do with the Brexit negotiations are caused by 60-80 Conservative MP's (and < handful of labour, and the DUP) demanding THEIR vision of Brexit. THEY have defined the red lines, the timetable etc.. Much as I disagree with Brexit and would like to remain - A DEAL that would work (Norway, Canada whatever...) that a majority of MPs' would support could have happened without their demands. AND I think this could have quite convincinly be sold to the population. It is the internal divisions within the Tory party that have driven us towards the 'cliff edge' of a no-preparation/no-transition deal.
That's what really pisses me off. That and how the 60-80 take no ownership of the fuck up they may well cause.
/rant
It’s not a rant.
It’s a succinct summation and whilst it suffers from the same shortcomings that always beset cramming complicated issues into a few paragraphs; it is no less valid for it.
-
Couldn't Labour open talks with the EU and get a better draft deal without those silly red lines? It's probably too late now, but could this have been an option? Then we might have had more options on the table when we exit with no deal and scrabble to sign anything that will get the planes flying again?
-
I do think No Deal would be a fascinating thing to watch unfold, in a morbid post-apocalyptic film sort of way.
No it really wouldn't / won't. As TT says more or less it's not a frigging film, it's food and medication shortages, massive price rises and transport chaos
-
Couldn't Labour open talks with the EU and get a better draft deal without those silly red lines? It's probably too late now, but could this have been an option?
No, that's ridiculous, they're not in power. What could have happened is that May could have formed cross party working groups from the start. That she didn't is one of the major mistakes the Tories made which doomed the deal to failure from the start.
-
It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.
I think this is a right load of shite (sorry Will - will explain).
This isnt a fucking poker game in a Bond film where they look agressively accross a table at each other until someone gets a nervous twitch that gives their game away...
The EU have been consistent (dare I say logical?) with what can and can't be done - and because of the (ridiculous) self imposed red lines - and self imposed (or self triggered) deadline (A50) the UK is boxed into a corner of very few options. Personally, I think the EU has been pretty generous allowing an arrangement as nebulous as the NI backstop to be allowed.
No, it's not Hollywood, but it is a negotiation, and I don't think there's any negotiation where both parties walk in and instantly lay all their cards on the table. As you've said, the EU have already compromised by allowing the backstop, who's to say what else they'd allow?
The problem with Remainers' assessments of the situation is that they are always tainted by their own views, i.e TT's post is full of language which paints the government as bungling (not necessarily without truth) and the EU as an impeccably fair negotiating partner (not necessarily entirely untrue).
I do think No Deal would be a fascinating thing to watch unfold, in a morbid post-apocalyptic film sort of way.
No it really wouldn't / won't. As TT says more or less it's not a frigging film, it's food and medication shortages, massive price rises and transport chaos
Something can be fascinating and utter shite at the same time. An unprecedented political situation where a minority government inflicts an act of national self harm in the face of a useless opposition? How can that be anything other than fascinating?
-
Project Fear predictions from Carey, Hammond et al have proved erroneous in the past and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.
-
Project Fear predictions from Carey, Hammond et al have proved erroneous in the past and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.
What do you think will happen to the UK and it's economy in the long and short term in a no deal scenario?
-
It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.
I think this is a right load of shite (sorry Will - will explain).
This isnt a fucking poker game in a Bond film where they look agressively accross a table at each other until someone gets a nervous twitch that gives their game away...
The EU have been consistent (dare I say logical?) with what can and can't be done - and because of the (ridiculous) self imposed red lines - and self imposed (or self triggered) deadline (A50) the UK is boxed into a corner of very few options. Personally, I think the EU has been pretty generous allowing an arrangement as nebulous as the NI backstop to be allowed.
No, it's not Hollywood, but it is a negotiation, and I don't think there's any negotiation where both parties walk in and instantly lay all their cards on the table. As you've said, the EU have already compromised by allowing the backstop, who's to say what else they'd allow?
There is often "last minute deals" involved with the EU, I agree, but this is next level. The EU have started writing the withdrawal agreement into EU legislation as if they don't, they won't be able to get it passed in time. We ,the UK, have now missed our internal deadline. If we voted for May's deal tomorrow, we don't have the time to pass the legislation before the 29th of March. That's not brinkmanship, that's incompetence. Why weren't we doing this before Christmas when the vote should have happened? Decisions have been made to protect the Tory Party, not in the best interest of the nation.
The problem with Remainers' assessments of the situation is that they are always tainted by their own views, i.e TT's post is full of language which paints the government as bungling (not necessarily without truth) and the EU as an impeccably fair negotiating partner (not necessarily entirely untrue).
The government are painted as bungling by TT because they are. It's not because he's a remainer, I'm sure plenty of Brexiteers would agree with his opinion. The EU are a "fair" outfit to deal with because they are so consensus and procedure driven, they are predictable and slow moving. They are often clear in their intentions because they have to be.
-
... and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.
The EU Withdrawal Act allows the date of exit (and in fact the whole definition of "exit day") to be changed by a minister, without needing to go before parliament. So in theory you are right, in practice it could be undone very quickly.
-
Project Fear predictions from Carey, Hammond et al have proved erroneous in the past and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.
Carney and, to a lesser extent, Hammond made it their duty to ensure that their predictions did not come true. They have been in damage limitation mode to try and limit the harm done to our economy.
-
To answer the question posed some posts earlier. A Clean Break will inevitably mean some short term awkwardness which will happen whenever and however we leave. It will, however, avoid potentially more months/years of debilitating uncertainty for firms. I am cheered by the support of Lord J.C.Bamford for such an outcome, he is in a position to express an informed opinion. Many entities :- U.K. govt. , firms here and abroad, the port of Calais to name but a few, have prepared for a Clean Break in March. Even the EU ipse. It seems to be the long expected outcome .
-
... and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.
The EU Withdrawal Act allows the date of exit (and in fact the whole definition of "exit day") to be changed by a minister, without needing to go before parliament. So in theory you are right, in practice it could be undone very quickly.
I did not know this. Ru, does this mean that A50 can be revoked without parliamentary approval? When you say a minister, presumably that would be the PM, but in theory could it be another cabinet minister? Presumably only with a majority of cabinet approval?
-
To answer the question posed some posts earlier. A Clean Break will inevitably mean some short term awkwardness which will happen whenever and however we leave. It will, however, avoid potentially more months/years of debilitating uncertainty for firms. I am cheered by the support of Lord J.C.Bamford for such an outcome, he is in a position to express an informed opinion. Many entities :- U.K. govt. , firms here and abroad, the port of Calais to name but a few, have prepared for a Clean Break in March. Even the EU ipse. It seems to be the long expected outcome .
I worked for Lord Bamford, before he was a Lord, in fact.
(And I mean, in the same room, when he was tipsy and mouthing off, kind of worked for).
He inherited his wealth. He needs help to tie his shoe laces. (His wife is truly hideous).
I did something similar for Ashcroft too. He’s a smart cookie. But he’s only interested in his bottom line. People are things to be used.
Well, that probably breached a few NDA’s, but fuck’em.
Edit:
That was unfair. I’m just irritated by the idea that anyone believes these people to be worth listening too.
In truth, I have worked for many “magnates” of various nationalities. I was a good Tory boy.
Bamford is far from an idiot. He was not as savy as some I dealt with.
But, some were good men (almost always men, I’m afraid) Mark Watkins (rip) springs to mind; the majority, however, would sell their Grandmothers for profit. (Or, in one case where I had to play diplomat, sell a stewardess to an Inuit guide).
They are not infallible and plenty of equally “qualified” people are saying something rather opposite.
-
Is "Clean Break" a new euphemism for "No deal" or "Hard Brexit"? Much nicer sounding.
-
Is "Clean Break" a new euphemism for "No deal" or "Hard Brexit"? Much nicer sounding.
Starting from the bottom.
Will - re: brinksmanship etc.. The problem with this is that this pushes uncertainty right to the limit - So company’s - like the one you work for end up with masses of uncertaintanty as to what to do and whether or not it invest. And spend £millions on contingency plans that may well be wasted money. We (as tax payers, bill payers, consumers) will always end up picking up the bill for this.
While we’re talking about JCB and manufacturing - there has been a lot of attention on manufacturing and the break to the Just in time system most/all modern manufacturers now use. Its worth bearing in mind that imports/exports from the manufacturing sector are dwarfed by the size of the ££ worth of service industry between the EU and the UK.
-
I notice you term less dramatic solutions ‘debilitating’ but total rupture is ‘clean’. And black is white my friend.
A Clean Break will inevitably mean some short term awkwardness
.
Short term awkwardness’ if you are properly financially secure. If you are vulnerable, or sick and unable to access medicines, it may be the end of your life.
Potentially dirty business this ‘Clean Brexit’.
-
By the by, are Bloomberg, Imperial College London and Liverpool Uni; agents of “PROJECT FEAR”?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-28/brexit-could-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-by-2030-research-suggests?srnd=premium-europe (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-28/brexit-could-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-by-2030-research-suggests?srnd=premium-europe)
Anyway, the real issue, going forward, is this:
(https://i.ibb.co/VWLfm09/21-A4-D23-A-7332-47-A0-A803-D3882-A32-A0-C6.jpg)
-
I am cheered by the support of Lord J.C.Bamford for such an outcome, he is in a position to express an informed opinion.
Don't be.
He has had it in for the EU ever since they imposed a huge antitrust fine due to his company's illegal trade practices nearly 20 years ago. Illegal trade practices that harmed the consumer, JCB employees and JCB distributors.
His position is not in an indication of the positives of the EU for business as a whole, he just has a €40m axe to grind.
-
Potentially dirty business this ‘Clean Brexit’.
Where the poor are just collateral. Has ever been thus.
-
By the by, are Bloomberg, Imperial College London and Liverpool Uni; agents of “PROJECT FEAR”?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-28/brexit-could-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-by-2030-research-suggests?srnd=premium-europe (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-28/brexit-could-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-by-2030-research-suggests?srnd=premium-europe)
Really OMM, I know the Remoanageddonists are panting this as a *bad* thing, but think about it: how many of the thousands more dead due to Brexit will be leave voters? Add them all to the thousands of aged leave voters whose deaths have been so gleefully and tastelessly trumpeted by some (https://web.archive.org/web/20190114195641/https://deatherendum.co.uk/) and I think, come the People's Vote, you guys might just swing it!
I know it's clutching at straws but at least it's a chance of stopping the planes falling out of the frickin sky!
-
So now MPs have voted for something that the EU have said definitely can’t happen?
-
Is "Clean Break" a new euphemism for "No deal" or "Hard Brexit"? Much nicer sounding.
Starting from the bottom.
Will - re: brinksmanship etc.. The problem with this is that this pushes uncertainty right to the limit - So company’s - like the one you work for end up with masses of uncertaintanty as to what to do and whether or not it invest. And spend £millions on contingency plans that may well be wasted money. We (as tax payers, bill payers, consumers) will always end up picking up the bill for this.
I think you're mistaking me. I'm not saying I like it or that I don't realise the disadvantages to it, just that I understand why it is inevitably happening given the circumstances. That doesn't make the circumstances any less fucked up.
I feel like I turned a corner when I stopped talking about how dumb I thought Leave was and started to view their opinions as legitimate but borne of a different perspective and set of core values. I don't want to sound like I'm the enlightened one here, but once you do that you can view the situation more dispassionately and judge it accordingly. It's a total shambles, but this is less to do with the personalities involved and individual decisions made and more to do with what's being attempted with a parliamentary system that is completely unsuited to it. We've got a parliament that is roughly structured around two competing fiscal, public spending, and state-size ideologies. The question of Brexit doesn't fit neatly with any party, and so parliament and the parties are split, making it almost impossible to achieve anything. The opposition are doing what they are constitutionally and habitually obliged to do and opposing the government, and there's not enough whippable MPs to get a deal enacted, so we're left with Brexit blancmange.
We could have not enacted Article 50, but that wouldn't have been a less difficult road to walk down.
-
So now MPs have voted for something that the EU have said definitely can’t happen?
And then they voted both to prevent something happening and to prevent themselves from preventing that same thing from happening. Parliament excelled itself tonight.
-
I must have missed one of the No Deal amendments, what a mess.
-
Will - we could have negotiated our exit, a trade deal, the divorce bill. The whole fucking lot before triggering A50. That was done to appease the brexit Tory MP’s... and ultimately handicapped the whole process.
One of the biggest of the many fallacies/half truths/poorly thought out ‘claims’ of the leave campaign is that we could leave quickly and have it all done fine - fox saying trade deals just like that etc...
If May st the outset had said - ok we’ll do this. But it’s going to take 5 years maybe more... we’ll set up a consultation process. Peoples panels, cross party committees etc.. all of that. But no.
All that has happened tonight is that the Conservative party and the DUP have decided they the prospect of a Labour government is worse than that of no deal. The thought of a bearded elbow patched shouty old school socialist in charge chills them so much that they unite. And so vaguely got behind the PM who now has an impossible task to negotiate.
Roll on feb15th for the next instalment of fuck all.
-
Will - we could have negotiated our exit, a trade deal, the divorce bill. The whole fucking lot before triggering A50. That was done to appease the brexit Tory MP’s... and ultimately handicapped the whole process.
On Nick Robinson's podcast David Milliband- who was among the group who drafted A50 said that it was drafted specifically to be used with all exit agreements in place.
Welcome to no deal, probably. Increased cost of living and leave voting pensioners emptying out the shops while you're at work and the imminent demise of the NHS. ( Last paragraph isn't straight faced ranting btw but if I'm pessimistic enough I'd love to look silly if it doesn't happen)
-
By the by, are Bloomberg, Imperial College London and Liverpool Uni; agents of “PROJECT FEAR”?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-28/brexit-could-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-by-2030-research-suggests?srnd=premium-europe (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-28/brexit-could-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-by-2030-research-suggests?srnd=premium-europe)
Really OMM, I know the Remoanageddonists are panting this as a *bad* thing, but think about it: how many of the thousands more dead due to Brexit will be leave voters? Add them all to the thousands of aged leave voters whose deaths have been so gleefully and tastelessly trumpeted by some (https://web.archive.org/web/20190114195641/https://deatherendum.co.uk/) and I think, come the People's Vote, you guys might just swing it!
I know it's clutching at straws but at least it's a chance of stopping the planes falling out of the frickin sky!
That didn’t seem either “gleeful” nor “Tasteless”; rather dispassionate considering his circumstances. Just reinforced the point, that (depending on how you choose to view it) this has been foisted on a) very nearly half the population of this country, or b) slightly more than half the population and rising; against their will.
Millions of people will have their lives made harder, for no tangible benefit, even in the best scenarios.
Again, there is no economic forcast, from either side, that predicts a “better” future or standard of living for the people of this country, than that which could be expected under the current system; few even pridict anything close to parity. That’s both short and long term.
I see far more “gleeful” and “Tasteless” probrexit campaigners (often violent and aggressive) than I do remainers (not helped by by my Torquay (the homeof UKIP and retirement land) location). I see shouts of “Traitors” and pseudo-patriotic shit, spouted in support of Brexit, against (possibly) more than half the population and the main response being “but this doesn’t make sense” (which does not seem particularly treasonous, but apparently it is).
I have had certain relatives posting that Xerxes/Sparta meme on Facebook:
(https://i.ibb.co/mtQC0qC/1-B3-AFA42-5-E44-46-A6-AE2-F-0-DA573-D76-B6-D.jpg)
Very stirring. Patriotic. Etc.
But, as I messaged my Aunt:
(https://i.ibb.co/PrkvFr6/BD02-C7-C4-92-AE-4-F18-A14-F-909-E2-BFD35-DD.jpg)
-
So now MPs have voted for something that the EU have said definitely can’t happen?
And then they voted both to prevent something happening and to prevent themselves from preventing that same thing from happening. Parliament excelled itself tonight.
It's like the writers of Yes (Prime) Minister and The Thick of It collaborated to create the most ridiculous political omnishambles ever.
-
With production oversight by The Goon Show
-
I don't want to sound like I'm the enlightened one here,
I'm not sure that should be on your worry list Will.........
-
I saw this on the BBC just now:
"Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman has declined to reveal what, if any, sanctions will be taken against Labour MPs who defied the party whip and did not vote for the Yvette Cooper amendment on Tuesday."
Does this mean an MP can't go on their own judgement if it's against their party's policy? If so is there any reason for this, it seems to stink of the party politics which many have complained about....
-
I saw this on the BBC just now:
"Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman has declined to reveal what, if any, sanctions will be taken against Labour MPs who defied the party whip and did not vote for the Yvette Cooper amendment on Tuesday."
Does this mean an MP can't go on their own judgement if it's against their party's policy? If so is there any reason for this, it seems to stink of the party politics which many have complained about....
That's the essence of a three line whip - you're expected to attend and vote for the thing in question. or expect consequences.
I think what the scenario you're referring to is a "free vote", which was the (can't not see it as Seb) Dominic Grieve amendment yesterday. Which was defeated.
-
Of course it’s hard to escape the glare of hypocracy for JC when whipping his party - has he was (in)famous for defying the whip - on 30 plus occasions before he was thrust into the spotlights iirc.
-
There’s someone leaving do on the 29th March at work - and it’s starting to morph into a strange “end of the world”/“fuck it let’s just get pissed” event.
Sounds like a good idea.
-
Have we had this Tony Abbott article? (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/tony-abbott-how-to-save-brexit/)
Was in a wetherspoons magazine that came through my door yesterday. I'm guessing a few people will get one. It's very enlightening on brexit and I've been converted and think no deal is a great idea and wish we'd done it two years ago.
Apparently, everyone who said brexit was in any way bad for the UK is part of the liberal elite establishment thing and they're all project fearing us to scupper brexit.
Turns out the only people who aren't part of this elite are Tony and Tim who owns wetherspoons. Decent blokes all round apparently.
On a serious note, can anyone say why Tony is not right or is no deal really the green and pleasant land we've been looking for?
-
For one, and I’m hoping someone (Ru?) can confirm, but under WTO rules, if you make, unilaterally, one country’s goods tariff free; you have to do the same for all WTO members? Unless it’s part of a negotiated free trade agreement? Otherwise, what’s the point in trade agreements and why do nations spend so much time, energy and treasure, negotiating them?
-
Have we had this Tony Abbott article? (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/tony-abbott-how-to-save-brexit/)
Was in a wetherspoons magazine that came through my door yesterday. I'm guessing a few people will get one. It's very enlightening on brexit and I've been converted and think no deal is a great idea and wish we'd done it two years ago.
Apparently, everyone who said brexit was in any way bad for the UK is part of the liberal elite establishment thing and they're all project fearing us to scupper brexit.
Turns out the only people who aren't part of this elite are Tony and Tim who owns wetherspoons. Decent blokes all round apparently.
On a serious note, can anyone say why Tony is not right or is no deal really the green and pleasant land we've been looking for?
Tony Abbot. The mad monk. I spend some time every year in Oz - and I can safely say that having watched many current affairs programs over there and chat to g to colleagues etc... the guy is a total fucking melon.
He is a mysoganistic, sexist homophobe who crawled to power over the corpses of his colleagues.
If you ever want to see a fantastic put down of him from the the PM Julia Gilard - Watch this. It’s long but gives your a good measure of what a worm he is.
https://youtu.be/ihd7ofrwQX0
-
For one, and I’m hoping someone (Ru?) can confirm, but under WTO rules, if you make, unilaterally, one country’s goods tariff free; you have to do the same for all WTO members? Unless it’s part of a negotiated free trade agreement? Otherwise, what’s the point in trade agreements and why do nations spend so much time, energy and treasure, negotiating them?
Yes, the WTO calls it the Most Favoured Nation principle, but it basically means you have to treat all countries you deal with under the WTO treaties the same.
-
On a serious note, can anyone say why Tony is not right or is no deal really the green and pleasant land we've been looking for?
No, the article is rubbish, it is on the same intellectual level as when my 4 year old son argued that he doesn't need to leave for school on time because our car goes 100mph so we could just drive that fast to make it up. I tried it, it doesn't work, too many other cars and corners and shit.* I can't be bothered refuting all the claims, but a glaring error is not understanding WTO rules on tariffs as Oldmanmatt points out.
* I didn't really.
-
Tony Abbot really is s bell end.
-
Then there’s this sort of thing, I just don’t understand how some people can dismiss it all:
“A fruit and vegetable buyer for a major supermarket told James O'Brien the reality of how food supplies and prices would be affected in a no-deal Brexit - and it's not good news.
John called after becoming frustrated with hearing people dismiss fears over food prices after Brexit, despite having no knowledge of the industry.
Insisting he had no reason to exaggerate the effect of leaving the EU with no agreement, he told James O'Brien just how much supermarkets will be affected.
He said: "Under WTO rules, we'd have to apply tariffs. These are extraordinary at times.
"The salad I buy has a tariff of 10%. We reckon every 1% of trade tariff will cost us £10-15million. Multiply that by 20 and you're looking at £200-300m in tariffs.
"You've then got the impact of weakening exchange rates. During the referendum, the exchange rate tanked and we took massive hits internally. We passed some on to the consumer, but we absorbed some. But there's no way we'd be able to absorb any more.”
"For every 1% weakening - and it dropped 18% last time - it's going to affect our cost of goods by 0.8%. So if it drops by 10%, you're looking at a 10% cost increase.
"You've then got the problem of availability - and this is a shocker.”
"Fruit and vegetables are the fourth priority for the government, so we've been told we will be given 25% availability of our lorries to pass through Dover ports. So from what we have now, we have to quarter what we take in from the EU. That's before we get the gridlock of the remaining 25%.”
"We can get them from countries outside the EU, but these all have trade deals with the EU on an Anything But Arms basis. We won't have that."
John had one more concern - this is the worst possible time for these problems. He added: "In April and May, it's when British stocks run out and the British harvest hasn't started. We import almost everything for these two months. It couldn't be worse timing.”
"All our stocks of onions, potatoes, carrots, they can run out. So we have to import everything."
-
Vegetables?
Who on earth eats those nowadays except the liberal elite? ::)
Will 2 litre coke, kebabs and fish n chips be affected? No? Well then. Scaremongering nutrient trolls.
-
Better make sure you start stockpiling toilet paper to go with all that coke and kebabs, or you’ll be using the newspaper the fish and chips came in.
-
I've read somewhere that one solution to the gridlock is to just open our borders. No checks, nothing.
No Borders - Anarchy in the UK.
I know all about Tony Abbott... Perhaps it's lost in my posts but I'm attempting to take the piss.
EDIT: decided I shouldn't take the piss. It's actually a bit frightening
-
Vegetables?
Who on earth eats those nowadays except the liberal elite? ::)
Will 2 litre coke, kebabs and fish n chips be affected? No? Well then. Scaremongering nutrient trolls.
I was wondering about that, coincidentally, because I noticed the Coke in the fridge of the cafe at work, says “product of Eire” on it...
-
Vegetables?
Who on earth eats those nowadays except the liberal elite? ::)
Will 2 litre coke, kebabs and fish n chips be affected? No? Well then. Scaremongering nutrient trolls.
I was wondering about that, coincidentally, because I noticed the Coke in the fridge of the cafe at work, says “product of Eire” on it...
Blimey, climate change must really be kicking in. All you used to get from Ireland was potatoes and Guinness, and the Coke came from Columbia or Bolivia.
-
I know all about Tony Abbott... Perhaps it's lost in my posts but I'm attempting to take the piss
I was replying in between reading the same story to the lad whilst trying to get him to sleep (it’s. 90+ min job at the moment) so may not have grasped the full context / nuances :)
-
I've read somewhere that one solution to the gridlock is to just open our borders. No checks, nothing.
No Borders - Anarchy in the UK.
But then all the bloody immigrants and refugees will come flooding in, and i though that was the whole point we voted for Brexit!*
*i'm kidding in case that wasn't obvious.
-
Vegetables?
Who on earth eats those nowadays except the liberal elite? ::)
Will 2 litre coke, kebabs and fish n chips be affected? No? Well then. Scaremongering nutrient trolls.
I was wondering about that, coincidentally, because I noticed the Coke in the fridge of the cafe at work, says “product of Eire” on it...
Blimey, climate change must really be kicking in. All you used to get from Ireland was potatoes and Guinness, and the Coke came from Columbia or Bolivia.
You forgot bombs.
They might be making a come back this season too.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO - on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat
I'm not talking about 'a trade deal with the EU'. I'm talking about both sides making provisions for trading with a neighbour who they already have a market, supply chains, common standards and relationships in place. Neither will want to just sit there, staring at each other across the channel, doing nothing.
I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items
-
I think it’s tricky as we’d be a third party to the EU. So we would have to pay a WTO tarrif.
It’s not the tarrifs that would empty the shelves (that would just make everything 10-50% more - depending if the pound tanks etc..) it’s the additional customs checks that have to be carried out on goods entering the UK (that we could rather dangerously waive) but also checks that would have to be done on goods leaving the EU (eg Calais). Which the EU are obliged to carry out. I think.
-
That’s the default situation yes. Possibly.
I’m not talking about that.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO - on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat
Whilst this kind of speculation is all very jolly (at least if you're a Brit who has no experience of catastrophic political failures and widespread disruption) I think this is equally serious:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47055188
"Inward investment fell 46.5% to £588.6m last year from £1.1bn in 2017, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) says.
Production fell 9.1% to 1.52m vehicles, with output for the UK and for export falling 16.3% and 7.3% respectively.
Brexit uncertainty has "done enormous damage", said SMMT chief Mike Hawes.
But the impact so far on output, investment and jobs "is nothing compared with the permanent devastation caused by severing our frictionless trade links overnight, not just with the EU but with the many other global markets with which we currently trade freely," he added."
I may be wrong, but wasn't a drop in inward investement part of Project Fear? Whilst not running out of medicines and vegetables as a result of incompetent politicians and a gullible public is clearly very important, shouldn't we take a moment to think about the long-term degradation of our country?
Of course the long-term economic effects of Brexit are poor, especially as it seems we are headed towards a hard-ish Brexit which will be damaging to services. It's amazing that we are not even thinking about how we are voluntarily damaging the backbone of our economy because we are more worried about another self-inflicted idiocy.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO - on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat
I'm not talking about 'a trade deal with the EU'. I'm talking about both sides making provisions for trading with a neighbour who they already have a market, supply chains, common standards and relationships in place. Neither will want to just sit there, staring at each other across the channel, doing nothing.
I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items
We've taken two years to fail to agree to the terms that allow us to begin the process of negotiating the terms on which our future relationship will be based. I see no reason to believe that we are capable of agreeing anything of substance within any of those time frames.
Part of me thinks that we might stop the petty political games and start acting in the country's interest before things get too bad. Then I look at the last two years and realise all of the evidence suggests this will not be the case.
I hope I'm wrong.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade
I assume "no deal" means not paying the 40 billion that we owe, because JRM & co will scream & sulk if it doesn't.
In which case I think there'd be considerable pressure within the EU not to rush to try and help the U.K. with any of that until that debt is cleared.
-
Russia has already moved to block a fast-track WTO deal, 'leading a block of 20 countries.' A veto is powerful thing.
Yes, there are countries keen to trade with us. There are also plenty keen to capitalise. The UK does not have a particularly proud history in dealing with Johnny Foreigner, in the commonwealth countries I've been to recently they'll be absolutely delighted to watch our living standards descend closer to those we left them with.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade
I assume "no deal" means not paying the 40 billion that we owe, because JRM & co will scream & sulk if it doesn't.
In which case I think there'd be considerable pressure within the EU not to rush to try and help the U.K. with any of that until that debt is cleared.
I think that is a matter of opinion.
The rabid Brexiteers are seeing it as one of the main pros of a No Deal scenario (as well as having snubbed the EU etc and so on), but somewhere (potentially the excellent Brexitcast podcast I think) I heard mention that it's more a case of the impression it gives off, especially to any potential future trade partners.
-
...in the commonwealth countries I've been to recently they'll be absolutely delighted to watch our living standards descend closer to those we left them with.
Whilst an element of schadenfreude or at least amusement is likely amongst our former colonial subjects, I get the impression that they are more concerned about being able to come and work and study in the UK much more easily. All those middle class Indians who want to be able to visit their relatives in London but face a humiliating visa process, or who want their kids to study here more easily and hang around to work afterwards - that's who the Indian government are going to be listening to.
-
I'm sorry I don't quite get what you're saying. You think the EU will be happy to just drop it and ride to the rescue anyway?
-
- that's who the Indian government are going to be listening to.
They will, and UK visa will be a fundamental part of most trade agreements, as will fishing rights etc. All this "control" we have wrestled back from the EU is probably going to be sold to the highest bidder.
-
I'm sorry I don't quite get what you're saying. You think the EU will be happy to just drop it and ride to the rescue anyway?
From what I've heard / read this is to an extent part of the problem.
I don't think the EU sees any connection between the two - the "divorce settlement" is just that - a negotiated (by the UK don't forget) amount to cover historical membership and benefits enjoyed while part of the club.
Endorsement of the withdrawal agreement / leaving on WTO terms is a separate and unconnected matter. Again, the withdrawal agreement was negotiated and agreed by the UK.
While the 27 would doubtless like / need the settlement, I don't get the feeling that being seen to budge on something that (to labour the point) was negotiated and agreed by the UK is a big enough price to pay for it.
All the way through this I think the UK Government, the swivel-eyed Brexiteers and the UK press have overplayed the extent to which the EU are emotionally engaged in this process. All this talk of the EU wanting to humiliate the UK, hold us to ransom etc I think credits the organisation with a lot more skullduggery than they are capable of given their modus operandi.
From what I've heard they are rule and process driven to the point of absolute tedium. In their eyes we have voted to leave, that is unfortunate - but we have collectively been through the process, the outcome is where we are now. The fact that certain element of the UK establishment don't like the outcome of that process really rests with one group in the negotiation, and that isn't the EU!
-
Have we had this Tony Abbott article? (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/tony-abbott-how-to-save-brexit/)
On a serious note, can anyone say why Tony is not right or is no deal really the green and pleasant land we've been looking for?
Have you seen this,
https://youtu.be/ELbSsLXNT_w
(as a foot note - watched with the sound off - it does look like Mike is at rave :lol:).
-
Potential next steps now then.
Two things I've read / been hearing.
So the Brady amendment is big (kinda) on support, but small on detail as to what "alternative arrangements" are.
One school of thought was that the Brady amendment was put forward after Barnier made a nebulous comment on the impacts of a "No Deal" by saying that the border checks could be handled with using (waves hands around vaguely) "technology".
This I think has given succor to those elements that felt that "Max Fac" was a go-er as an alternative to a border or the backstop.
However, presumably this was part of / debated in the withdrawal agreement negotiations - though I gather the ERG feel that Olly Robbins (the government's choice of lead negotiator) didn't push their chosen solution hard enough.
Magic Grandpa finally agreeing to talks with Maybot is an interesting one.
The alternative school of thought is that this could pave the way for an "alternative arrangement" that looks a lot more like a customs union, which while it would royally piss off the right wing of the Tories, could potentially garner support from Labour and therefore pass a vote in Parliament.
The EU sounds (from what I heard yesterday on R4 anyway at least) more open to a renegotiation along these lines, rather than tinkering with the backstop as it stands.
This second option probably has more legs, but would May / The Tories be prepared to take the political / "optics" hit of Labour looking like the party than saved the country from No Deal / finally got Brexit over the line?
-
Politically (fuck the country etc..) then no deal would destroy the Tories at the next GE.
So she NEEDS a deal.
(A) take it right to the wire and persuade some labour wobblers to back her (eg promises of money for those labour constituencies- which is widely reported today) to get May deal over the line.
(B) carefully work with Labour (probablynwithout it seeming like that) to come up with some Norway type customs union deal.
Sky’s analyst describes these as her two track approach...
Either way - her aim is to keep the Tory party electable - never mind what is best for the country etc...
-
Brexit is so unlikely to be stopped now, the hope for that reprieve is firmly in Unicornville.
What I don’t understand, is why it cannot be accepted, by Labour, that the deal is as good as it will get and that the only/most likely casualty of acceptance would be the permanent rupture of the Tory party into two distinct parties.
Therefore, a likely Labour win at the next election, regardless of Grandad Corbyn’s ineptitude.
-
It's a trap! The Tory plan is to give the people what they asked for, which is some form of Brexit. That'll keep 1/3 of the country onside no matter what happens afterwards. They've handled it as they have in order to keep their party together, not caring about handing Labour the keys at the next election. They know that the economy will tank as reality sets in (let's not forget, even with the deal, we'll all be worse off). This can then be blamed on Labour's inability to run the economy blah blah blah. Back around comrade!
Never forget, with all but about 2 newspapers and with the Beeb onside, right wingers managed to shift the blame for the 2008 crash from deregulated financing onto Gordon Brown and gave austerity the shoo-in. If they can manage that, convincing us that the latest penury is socialism's rather than nationalism's fault will be absolute piss.
-
On the Irish border issue - Can the Norway and Swiss border models not just be replicated - what am I missing here??
genuinely ignorant and not got time right now to go and research how they work.
-
On the Irish border issue - Can the Norway and Swiss border models not just be replicated - what am I missing here??
genuinely ignorant and not got time right now to go and research how they work.
Yes - but there is (apparently) still border infrastructure and some checks (despite it being mostly non stop)...
-
They know that the economy will tank as reality sets in
There is a significant downturn on the horizon, totally unconnected with Brexit or anything else, though that will exacerbate it.
To quote a mate of mine who knows about these things (and makes good money trading them), this one's going to make the crash of 2007/8 like a picnic.
-
Never forget, with all but about 2 newspapers and with the Beeb onside, right wingers managed to shift the blame for the 2008 crash from deregulated financing onto Gordon Brown and gave austerity the shoo-in. If they can manage that, convincing us that the latest penury is socialism's rather than nationalism's fault will be absolute piss.
To be fair, Corbyn is quite capable of making a right fuck up on his own. His response to the referendum result? Immediately trigger Article 50. A senior politician with this level of insight and understanding (not to mention grandstanding or even grandadstanding) - it's a fucking thrilling prospect.
-
On the Irish border issue - Can the Norway and Swiss border models not just be replicated - what am I missing here??
genuinely ignorant and not got time right now to go and research how they work.
Yes - but there is (apparently) still border infrastructure and some checks (despite it being mostly non stop)...
I actually lived on the border crossing in Como. The bathroom window of my apartment opened into Switzerland. So squeezed between the train tracks and the road.
There were frequent “crack downs”, when full checks would be instituted and the queues went halfway around the lake. Other days,my closest cafe was in Swiss and I could stroll throughthe board without even a glimpse of a uniform.
Much harder with a sea border and such hardly “respects the referendum” or similar crap.
-
On the Irish border issue - Can the Norway and Swiss border models not just be replicated - what am I missing here??
genuinely ignorant and not got time right now to go and research how they work.
The BBC did an article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44054594
-
The Norway border and agreement respects freedom of movement for all EU citizens, if that were replicated in NI, then the same must be allowed at every other UK border. Absolutely nothing, except a hard border (harder than the Swiss) “takes back control”. The only way to avoid a hard border, is to accept freedom of movement. An end to Freedom of movement seems to be the heart of the Brexiteer’s cause, the main selling point of the whole shitshow. So we need a hard border, or it’s pointless.
But we cannot have a hard border in NI.
But we have to have one.
But we cannot.
But we must.
But....
Zxaffyytdscghjjkk,km,iugddruii
Error 404, logic not found.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/ireland-hard-border-brexit-backstop-good-friday-agreement?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/ireland-hard-border-brexit-backstop-good-friday-agreement?CMP=fb_gu)
-
I'm sorry I don't quite get what you're saying. You think the EU will be happy to just drop it and ride to the rescue anyway?
No, that isn't what I'm saying.
I asked a fairly simple question which I hoped would led people to consider how long we'll be in the default 'worst case' trade agreement brought about on March 29th by a no deal. Nobody has attempted to give their answer. Presumably everyone thinks we'll be in the same set-up for evermore
Don't have time for any more, I'm off to Norway!
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO - on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat
I'm not talking about 'a trade deal with the EU'. I'm talking about both sides making provisions for trading with a neighbour who they already have a market, supply chains, common standards and relationships in place. Neither will want to just sit there, staring at each other across the channel, doing nothing.
I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items
Was it this question? Answer: I don't know, because I'm not an expert on trade regulations. Based on what has been said about WTO tariff equality rules, if we agree reduced tariffs on essential goods, don't those tariffs have to apply to everybody? Would the eu be obliged to offer those tariffs to others?
If you're wondering about whether the EU will abet the UK in bending or breaking the law to assist an emergency situation, I wouldn't count on it. As I said earlier, these are legal bodies that enforce and enact the law. They could be held to judicial review by all sorts of interested parties.
Doesn't sound like Taking Back Control.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO - on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat
I'm not talking about 'a trade deal with the EU'. I'm talking about both sides making provisions for trading with a neighbour who they already have a market, supply chains, common standards and relationships in place. Neither will want to just sit there, staring at each other across the channel, doing nothing.
I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items
Was it this question? Answer: I don't know, because I'm not an expert on trade regulations. Based on what has been said about WTO tariff equality rules, if we agree reduced tariffs on essential goods, don't those tariffs have to apply to everybody? Would the eu be obliged to offer those tariffs to others?
If you're wondering about whether the EU will abet the UK in bending or breaking the law to assist an emergency situation, I wouldn't count on it. As I said earlier, these are legal bodies that enforce and enact the law. They could be held to judicial review by all sorts of interested parties.
Doesn't sound like Taking Back Control.
But, haven’t you heard? They need us more than we need them.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March... how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc... on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat...
I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items
It's a shame no one was willing to play along with you Pete; I'd have been interested to see how close they got. Although I can only comment on two of the above mentioned.
It's correct to say that if we leave with a 'no deal' on 29th March temporary measures to ensure continuation of Air traffic will kick in immediately. I can say this with some degree of confidence because the European Commission announced exactly that themselves on 19 December 2018
European Commission - Press release
Brexit: European Commission implements “no-deal” Contingency Action Plan in specific sectors
Brussels, 19 December 2018 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6851_en.htm (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6851_en.htm)
Transport
The Commission has today adopted two measures that will avoid full interruption of air traffic between the EU and the UK in the event of no deal...
* A proposal for a Regulation to ensure temporarily (for 12 months) the provision of certain air services between the UK and the EU.
* A proposal for a Regulation to extend temporarily (for 9 months) the validity of certain aviation safety licences.
Regarding financial services I think you were a little pessimistic with your guess of 1 month - again immediately would have been the right answer, at least as far as derivative clearing is concerned. This was also announced in the same EU Commission Press Release (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6851_en.htm). This one's a good story so I'll leave it till a little later to avoid too many long posts...
-
So Pete thought it would take one month following a 'no deal' Brexit for some form of interim/temporary measures to be established to ensure trade in financial services, but it seems they're already in place and will be automatic if the EU Commission's 19 December 2018 Press Release (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6851_en.htm) is anything to go by. It states...
Financial services
After a thorough examination of the risks linked to a no deal scenario in the financial sector, the Commission has found that only a limited number of contingency measures is necessary to safeguard financial stability in the EU27.
The Commission has therefore adopted today the following acts:
* A temporary and conditional equivalence decision for a fixed, limited period of 12 months to ensure that there will be no immediate disruption in the central clearing of derivatives.
* A temporary and conditional equivalence decision for a fixed, limited period of 24 months to ensure that there will be no disruption in central depositaries services for EU operators currently using UK operators.
* Two Delegated Regulations facilitating novation, for a fixed period of 12 months, of certain over-the-counter derivatives contracts, where a contract is transferred from a UK to an EU27 counterparty.
Now I'll admit I don't know the first thing about derivatives clearing. But I have paid enough attention over the past few months to realise it is a major necessity for EU-based client institutions to have access to London's derivatives swaps which provide the financial backing for their trades. This much is evidenced by the above which shows that even in a 'no deal' situation the EU Commission still thinks it essential for EU operators to be able to use UK clearing houses for up to 2 years after Brexit.
There was some coverage of the issue last year in the financial press but the articles are behind paywalls so I can't link them. But, if I recall correctly, the crux of the matter was if EU-based financial institutions couldn't have their clearing done in London they'd be forced to take their business to New York or the Asian cities because none of the continental finance centres could handle it. This presented a problem because a three-month notice period is required by London's clearing houses before the closure or transfer of an account and their EU clients really had nowhere else to go. This affected £45 trillion pounds worth of contracts. Again it's paywalled, but The Telegraph in its Business section reported on 19 December 2018, see here (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/12/19/contracts-worth-45-trillion-saved-brexit-cliff-edge-final-hour/), that it was only the 11th hour announcement from Brussels that saved the situation.
The EU will only move at the last minute it seems.
When you look at the current financial state of the EU countries, particularly Italy at the moment, it is clear that loans need to come from somewhere and the German banks can't or won't keep on lending. I'd suggest that London provides the liquidity which helps keep the European banking system afloat and struggling banks and businesses on the continent need access to London's money markets.
It's worth a look at the Global Financial Centres Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index) to see where London sits in the list. Ask yourselves: how many EU cities are in the top 10?
-
I guess there’’d be nothing to stop the banks leaving London if it suits them following a no deal, unless the govt are going to bend over even further for them to keep them incentivised to stay. The forecast downturn might be a good excuse for them to up sticks.
-
Whilst London is certainly a premier financial centre, why does anyone assume it will remain so? The City has been rather loud in it’s condemnation of current affairs. Meanwhile the FT (paywalled) the Times (paywalled) and others report a fleeing of assets and capital to other EU cities. Here’s one of many summaries of such from Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/while-u-k-dithers-over-brexit-finance-outflows-pick-up-speed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/while-u-k-dithers-over-brexit-finance-outflows-pick-up-speed)
The key word in all of Jooser’s post is “temporary “. Nobody wants this to all go south, it’s difficult and expensive to change things. But they will. Plenty of EU cities will be vying for a chance to steal London’s crown, why does anyone assume it is unassailable.
I suspect the “temporary” measures will be more of a rearguard action to allow an orderly retreat, than a foundation for a reconstruction on site.
-
Hmm, two struggling countries in Europe at the moment, Greece and Italy.
I mean, come on, where have Rome or Athens ever been on the world stage.
Money is liquid, it'll flow and my fear is its gonna start flowing away from London, sooner and faster than people realise.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO - on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat
I'm not talking about 'a trade deal with the EU'. I'm talking about both sides making provisions for trading with a neighbour who they already have a market, supply chains, common standards and relationships in place. Neither will want to just sit there, staring at each other across the channel, doing nothing.
I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items
Pete, on the vegetables/food my "informed" opinion is influenced by a reasonably senior figure in a major UK supermarket who was telling me that they are very worried about fresh goods, the timing of Brexit (we will be producing pretty much no fresh fruit and veg) and the fact it seems pretty low on the government priority list means they can't see a short term fix being implemented in the case of a no deal.
Air traffic and finance is sorted (well, finance is partially sorted as a stop gap), medical supplies is next. Industry and the associated JIT deliveries seem to be higher up the priority list than food so we'll just have to see.
One hopes that if a no deal scenario becomes the option we are taking things will be done asap but I guess the EU have to wait until the 11th hr in order to make it look as unattractive an option as possible.
-
So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw), how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO - on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat
I'm not talking about 'a trade deal with the EU'. I'm talking about both sides making provisions for trading with a neighbour who they already have a market, supply chains, common standards and relationships in place. Neither will want to just sit there, staring at each other across the channel, doing nothing.
I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items
Pete, on the vegetables/food my "informed" opinion is influenced by a reasonably senior figure in a major UK supermarket who was telling me that they are very worried about fresh goods, the timing of Brexit (we will be producing pretty much no fresh fruit and veg) and the fact it seems pretty low on the government priority list means they can't see a short term fix being implemented in the case of a no deal.
They aren't alone. But what would the chief executives of Asda, Sainsburys, M&S, Lidl, Waitrose, The Co-op and the British Retail Consortium know about the just in time supply chain for fresh food?
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fthumbor%2FhGDj0spSeEnIwRIuPLsTtJ883wQ%3D%2F0x0%3A848x1200%2F1200x0%2Ffilters%3Afocal(0x0%3A848x1200)%3Ano_upscale()%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F13721847%2FDyAHvSlXQAEg9gE.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Flondon.eater.com%2F2019%2F1%2F29%2F18201855%2Fno-deal-brexit-food-shortages-asda-sainsburys-mcdonalds&tbnid=rAA1S_22v9faKM&vet=1&docid=5XDl8piWwnFbZM&w=848&h=1200 (https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fthumbor%2FhGDj0spSeEnIwRIuPLsTtJ883wQ%3D%2F0x0%3A848x1200%2F1200x0%2Ffilters%3Afocal(0x0%3A848x1200)%3Ano_upscale()%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F13721847%2FDyAHvSlXQAEg9gE.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Flondon.eater.com%2F2019%2F1%2F29%2F18201855%2Fno-deal-brexit-food-shortages-asda-sainsburys-mcdonalds&tbnid=rAA1S_22v9faKM&vet=1&docid=5XDl8piWwnFbZM&w=848&h=1200)
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi2-prod.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle13918390.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fs615b%2F0_DyAHvSbW0AEOLAr.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fkfc-could-run-out-food-13918415&tbnid=9qLxxFDg9NqiXM&vet=1&docid=f7B6dPpB0I4uCM&w=615&h=870 (https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi2-prod.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle13918390.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fs615b%2F0_DyAHvSbW0AEOLAr.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fkfc-could-run-out-food-13918415&tbnid=9qLxxFDg9NqiXM&vet=1&docid=f7B6dPpB0I4uCM&w=615&h=870)
-
It's worth a look at the Global Financial Centres Index to see where London sits in the list. Ask yourselves: how many EU cities are in the top 10?
Yes pop-pickers, let's have a look at this week's Top of the GFCs! In at No.1 it's New York! Last year's No.1, London is down 1 to No.2! Meanwhile this years' fastest climbers are Zurich, Frankfurt and Madrid, racing up the charts by 7, 10 and 12 places respectively!
We don't need to tumble down the charts; continuing the current trend will be plenty for a prolonged recession.
-
Will - we could have negotiated our exit, a trade deal, the divorce bill. The whole fucking lot before triggering A50. That was done to appease the brexit Tory MP’s... and ultimately handicapped the whole process.
On Nick Robinson's podcast David Milliband- who was among the group who drafted A50 said that it was drafted specifically to be used with all exit agreements in place.
Sorry to go back a few pages but this was bugging me and I couldn't put my finger on why. I've just checked and it was the EU who refused to have any talks before article 50 was triggered.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
Considering what Miliband said (more on this later), its clear that brinksmanship is a part of the game. The UK said it was ready to leave and could we work some stuff out before lighting the blue touch paper, and the EU responded by double daring the UK to get it lit. It's an argument normally reserved for swivel-eyed Brexits, but it's not a quantum leap to then see the EU as purposefully creating a set of circumstances which make it a difficult as possible to leave, even when "the people" have made up their minds to do so.
As for Miliband and any other A50 legislaters, if what he says is true, I've lost a good deal of respect for them. For a legislater to have an intention for an article and to completely fail to make provision for it in statute is grossly incompetent.
-
Anyone started stockpiling yet (I’m being serious)?
-
Anyone started stockpiling yet (I’m being serious)?
I did when Lehman's went down. Not this time
-
Anyone started stockpiling yet (I’m being serious)?
Did our weekly shop this evening. First time in many years I wandered down the “tinned” and “dried” asile and actually looked at something other than Baked Beans. Didn’t buy anything, but...
-
Anyone started stockpiling yet (I’m being serious)?
I did when Lehman's went down. Not this time
I have been stockpiling fine wine since 2002, in the expectation that I might want to drink some at the drop of a hat :alky:
I always find Lehman's goes down very well https://www.waitrosecellar.com/shiraz-or-syrah/peter-lehmann-stonewell-shiraz?gclid=Cj0KCQiA-c_iBRChARIsAGCOpB05Y_PeI__jag0lN5Gvt9JMlRkj4f0zkU01vN4wU8ymKVsB6Uab9j8aAtGLEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
-
;D
-
In other news, we got a letter through the door today from our MP, serial cunt Philip Davies, inviting us to a meeting to ask questions about Brexit. It's Friday the 15th of this month if anyone wants to go. I'd love to go and give some verbal, but I'd expect to be thoroughly out debated by a politician who has lived and breathed politics for a good while.
-
First of all tell him that your not tall - then ask him for a list of what achievements he’s done as an MP. Then tell him that you’ve done all of that and found it easy. 😃
-
So, IOD monthly newsletter popped up in my inbox this morning (well, yesterday really, but I didn’t read it until today).
https://www.iod.com/news/navigating-brexit-for-business/articles/nearly-a-third-of-firms-looking-overseas-due-to-brexit (https://www.iod.com/news/navigating-brexit-for-business/articles/nearly-a-third-of-firms-looking-overseas-due-to-brexit)
Please tell me how this is a good thing?
I just do not get how, so many continue to assert that this is all “just project fear” and not realise that we are just telegraphing our distaste for the rest of the world, to the rest of the world and to half of us born here.
Oh, and frankly, I’m with these guys:
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/news-opinion/snow-brexit-big-fake-news-2486161 (https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/news-opinion/snow-brexit-big-fake-news-2486161)
-
Guy Verhofstadt nails it:
https://www.facebook.com/GuyVerhofstadt/videos/386412598827338/
-
A masterclass in clarity. Appropriately enough.
Thanks for posting.
-
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-nissan/nissan-to-cancel-uk-x-trail-manufacture-plans-sky-news-idUKKCN1PR0HS (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-nissan/nissan-to-cancel-uk-x-trail-manufacture-plans-sky-news-idUKKCN1PR0HS)
-
“Britain is one of the richest and most advanced democracies in the world. It is currently locked in a room, babbling away to itself hysterically while threatening to blow its own kneecaps off. This is what nationalist populism does to a country.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-collective-madness-behind-britains-latest-brexit-plan/2019/01/31/48d4d67e-2578-11e9-81fd-b7b05d5bed90_story.html
-
“Britain is one of the richest and most advanced democracies in the world. It is currently locked in a room, babbling away to itself hysterically while threatening to blow its own kneecaps off. This is what nationalist populism does to a country.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-collective-madness-behind-britains-latest-brexit-plan/2019/01/31/48d4d67e-2578-11e9-81fd-b7b05d5bed90_story.html
“Trying to unlock a door with a slice of bread”.
-
Polly Toynbee in the Guardian today:
"Just to reprise the government’s own warnings: putrid rubbish will fester in the streets, and slurry will stink out the countryside, risking a plague of rats. Sheep will be slaughtered, unexportable with a 60% tariff. Supermarket shelves will empty – it only takes a rumour to set off panic-buying. The NHS may lack medicines. The army and police stand ready for riots, all this costing £4.2bn. You may shrug off Project Fear forecasts – but the pound has already fallen 15%, carmaking has lost 50% investment in a year, and finance is in flight with 2% less growth. The business minister warns that Brexit is a crisis but no deal “will be a catastrophe”. Good grief, even the Queen may flee for fear of us storming her palace."
We're all doomed.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/05/civil-servant-no-deal-brexit-operation-yellowhammer
-
Who else is stockpiling some essential supplies and what are you buying?
-
Whisky and arrows for the crossbow.
-
Petrol for the generator.
-
Petrol for the generator.
A generator's a mug's game. When the maruading hordes see the lights on in your house or hear the genny rumbling, yours will be the first house to be raided. I'd invest in some black-out blinds and good solar panels and batteries.
-
Sentient protection drones patrolling my property.
-
Petrol for the generator.
A generator's a mug's game. When the maruading hordes see the lights on in your house or hear the genny rumbling, yours will be the first house to be raided. I'd invest in some black-out blinds and good solar panels and batteries.
I think a genny in the cellar will be easier to hide than the black out blinds and the solar panels :D
-
Who else is stockpiling some essential supplies and what are you buying?
Prescription meds. If those run out, I only have rather limited time, so after that I'll be compiling a list of people to try to take down with me.
-
Sentient protection drones patrolling my property.
Are they made by the same people who make the new border drones that eliminate the need for physical checks?
-
Who else is stockpiling some essential supplies and what are you buying?
Prescription meds. If those run out, I only have rather limited time, so after that I'll be compiling a list of people to try to take down with me.
That's pretty shit :-(
(But can we make nominations?)
-
Who else is stockpiling some essential supplies and what are you buying?
Prescription meds. If those run out, I only have rather limited time, so after that I'll be compiling a list of people to try to take down with me.
That's pretty shit :-(
Fortunately I'm not on anything that's controlled or has a short shelf-life, and I have a friendly psychiatrist, so I can stockpile several months's worth and be reasonably sure I can weather likely disruptions to the supply chain (unless we hit full-on zombie apocalypse dystopia).
I'm just aware from past experience of just how fast I can tank if stuff's tapered, and having a sense of "roughly how many weeks until I would need to be hospitalized" is ... less than fun.
But it's people who are on controlled meds or anything with a short shelf-life (like insulin) who are in really serious danger. I'm comparatively lucky.
-
Hmmm...
The life threatening, prescription med thing is awful.
But, you know there are a few million women on various birth control regimes, that can’t just be stopped (there are reasons other than birth control, for being on them).
Brexit Baby Boom?
It’s just stupid.
If it’s only a 1/4 as bad as the median prediction, it’s chaos and hugely damaging.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/30/no-deal-brexit-poses-a-potentially-fatal-risk-to-those-with-epilepsy
-
Friend of mine is stockpiling salbutamol.
Drug supply chains are quite fragile as it is. We often have minor shortages at work that tend to have relatively easy work arounds. It becomes clear though that every manufacturer of certain drugs rely on very few or a single manufacturer of certain necessary components. I can only assume the trusts are planning to cancel elective surgery in the event of no deal to preserve stocks. Not so easy for chronic conditions.
-
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-supporter-max-gammon-bruges-group-speech-westminster-priti-patel-8762171?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1549384205 (https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-supporter-max-gammon-bruges-group-speech-westminster-priti-patel-8762171?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1549384205)
We are reaching peak absurdity.
-
I am afraid we may not get there for a while..
We are incapable of bringing ourselves to understand a deadly threat to our freedom, indeed a threat to our very existence as a nation.
I rather think Dr Gammon has a point, though maybe not the one he intended.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47143135
It’s hard to disagree.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47143135
It’s hard to disagree.
Indeed. I highly recommend reading John Craces political sketch in the guardian on this comment.
The absolute bone-headed intransigent idiocy of some of the hard-line Brexit believers is just depressing. They witter about border control technology that doesn't exist, insisting if does. They appear to think that the EU will give them the moon on a stick if they whinge on for long enough about the second world war and pride in British industry. There appears to be an intellectual vacuum at the heart of British politics at the moment. Leadsom, Johnson, Corbyn, Abbott...
-
I wonder if corbyns letter to May will give the green light for a load of remain/centre labour mps to jump ship.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47143135
It’s hard to disagree.
Sorry to be a boring old bastard again. I totally agree with his sentiment, but don't think it's a piece of rhetoric becoming of the President of the EC. If Donald Trump had said such a thing about an issue that >50% of, say, Mexicans or Canadians had voted for, our response would be one of outrage. We should hold our allies to the same standards as our opponents.
-
Sorry to be a boring old bastard again. I totally agree with his sentiment, but don't think it's a piece of rhetoric becoming of the President of the EC. If Donald Trump had said such a thing about an issue that >50% of, say, Mexicans or Canadians had voted for, our response would be one of outrage. We should hold our allies to the same standards as our opponents.
Will, I think you're misinterpreting what he said. Its specifically aimed at the leaders of the campaign, 'without a sketch of a plan' about how to carry out Brexit 'safely.' Its not aimed at those who voted for it, although it was unhelpfully reported as such. However, I agree with you that its a pretty inflammatory thing to say in any case. I can only presume that hes as fed up to the back teeth of the whole farrago as everyone else is, and dealing with our government must be like dealing with the worst client at work, x a million.
-
Sorry to be a boring old bastard again. I totally agree with his sentiment, but don't think it's a piece of rhetoric becoming of the President of the EC. If Donald Trump had said such a thing about an issue that >50% of, say, Mexicans or Canadians had voted for, our response would be one of outrage. We should hold our allies to the same standards as our opponents.
Will, I think you're misinterpreting what he said. Its specifically aimed at the leaders of the campaign, 'without a sketch of a plan' about how to carry out Brexit 'safely.' Its not aimed at those who voted for it, although it was unhelpfully reported as such. However, I agree with you that its a pretty inflammatory thing to say in any case. I can only presume that hes as fed up to the back teeth of the whole farrago as everyone else is, and dealing with our government must be like dealing with the worst client at work, x a million.
^^^ This.
-
Sorry to be a boring old bastard again. I totally agree with his sentiment, but don't think it's a piece of rhetoric becoming of the President of the EC. If Donald Trump had said such a thing about an issue that >50% of, say, Mexicans or Canadians had voted for, our response would be one of outrage. We should hold our allies to the same standards as our opponents.
Will, I think you're misinterpreting what he said. Its specifically aimed at the leaders of the campaign, 'without a sketch of a plan' about how to carry out Brexit 'safely.' Its not aimed at those who voted for it, although it was unhelpfully reported as such. However, I agree with you that its a pretty inflammatory thing to say in any case. I can only presume that hes as fed up to the back teeth of the whole farrago as everyone else is, and dealing with our government must be like dealing with the worst client at work, x a million.
I think you're being a bit naive there, Jim. Yes, he made sure that he didn't directly have a go at the electorate, because he's a politician. But it is quite clear that he knew how his remarks would be interpreted (and in a sense he is directing his ire at those who voted to leave the EU because they too voted without consideration or care for NI), otherwise he wouldn't have said it and then followed it up with an identical tweet, because he's a politician.
You don't get to become the President of the EC without being able to hold your tongue when dealing with difficult people or situations (even if, as you say, those people are very difficult). It's a calculated outburst and the reason he resorted to violent religious imagery was because he knew it would get his speech and meeting with the Taoiseach onto the front page, rather than being buried at the back of the news agenda or even unreported. The reason he wants his meeting to be in the news is because it puts the image of a united EC and Irish government into millions of homes during the tea time news.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be presenting a united front, but he should have avoided the use of such a blunt rhetorical instrument. All it does it anger Leave voters (understandably since they've just been told by a very powerful political heavyweight that they are either a) desperately and pathetically naive and probably unable to function as adults, or b) should rot in Hell). Given that the only thing that can prevent a No Deal scenario is to achieve some form of meaningful, legislatable consensus in parliament (which the Spelman amendment doesn't achieve), then deepening the divisions between the two sides of the argument is actually spectacularly unhelpful.
-
I completely agree its calculated and can totally see his rationale behind saying it. From the EU's perspective they need to present a united front to put pressure on the UK government. I don't see it as that unhelpful to be honest, its no different to what the ERG have been spouting for years on end and everyone seems to take them seriously in the UK corridors of power for some reason. The battle lines, as they are, have been drawn for ages and no one is changing their minds, particularly by some religious imagery. Anyone that scared of the fires of hell is beyond hope. :devangel:
The threat of No Deal is obviously real and a very shit prospect for the UK. I'm not convinced its such a shit prospect for the EU as I keep reading it is, and the increased risk of it happening is perhaps exactly why Tusk has doubled down on the 'united front' rhetoric, to try and bind the EU 27 together as they cast the UK into the wilderness. Its working quite well so far. A shit deal for them is one which gives the UK too many cherries and allows other nations to think 'hang on.' No Deal would at least allow them to say 'the grass isn't always greener' and point over the Channel at our medicine shortages.
-
There's a balance to be struck, mind. I don't think they're as keen on making post-Brexit as miserable as you suggest. A very significant factor in Leave voter's opinions is that they believe the EU to be an uncaring and disconnected body of foreign rule. Being overzealous is only going to prove the point of those in Italy and France who already have plenty of momentum behind their campaigns ("just look at what they did to poor old Britain"). Remember that Leave voters voted to leave in spite of the knowledge that it could/would make them worse off (as did many Scots in the Indy Ref) because they'd rather be free and poor than shackled and rich.
This is a really good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/poorer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers?fbclid=IwAR1nVtPKEeIlECO8-5SSDc3KfKSE79yCIp6dcSEGgb0-CYIAOYjhLzLpu8Q
Particularly the breaking down of assumption by Remainers about why Leave voters voted in the way that they did. Remainers are happy to accept less sovreignity for the prize of international co-operation; Leave voters don't trust the establishment that they've devolved power to. And before I catch myself saying "but we are sovereign" again, it's interesting to note that the Council of Europe actually describes the EU as a body which members delegate their sovreignity to in its two sentence description of what the organisation is (https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/do-not-get-confused).
-
There's a balance to be struck, mind. I don't think they're as keen on making post-Brexit as miserable as you suggest. A very significant factor in Leave voter's opinions is that they believe the EU to be an uncaring and disconnected body of foreign rule. Being overzealous is only going to prove the point of those in Italy and France who already have plenty of momentum behind their campaigns ("just look at what they did to poor old Britain"). Remember that Leave voters voted to leave in spite of the knowledge that it could/would make them worse off (as did many Scots in the Indy Ref) because they'd rather be free and poor than shackled and rich.
This is a really good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/poorer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers?fbclid=IwAR1nVtPKEeIlECO8-5SSDc3KfKSE79yCIp6dcSEGgb0-CYIAOYjhLzLpu8Q
Particularly the breaking down of assumption by Remainers about why Leave voters voted in the way that they did. Remainers are happy to accept less sovreignity for the prize of international co-operation; Leave voters don't trust the establishment that they've devolved power to. And before I catch myself saying "but we are sovereign" again, it's interesting to note that the Council of Europe actually describes the EU as a body which members delegate their sovreignity to in its two sentence description of what the organisation is (https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/do-not-get-confused).
That’s all very nice.
Doesn’t change the reality, that we will all be poorer for this. The reality that people who were asked to make this decision, were poorly informed and lied too.
Frankly, you seem to believe that the “why we are here” thing is going to materially change the outcome. Which is that old “you must believe harder and it’s just you being negative, that is messing this up” argument; slightly tarted up and bathed in glitter.
About as effective as trying to avoid an STI with a Vagazzle.
If.
If, we end up in dire Straits and the shit hits the proverbial. Those same people, that you eloquently defend, who clearly knew exactly what they were voting for, will be lobbing Molotovs in the street.
They will be poorer, sadder, unemployed and hungry.
At that point the laudable notion of “Sovereignty” will, likely, seem a little more abstract.
Or, to put it another way, I don’t believe they “”really” knew what it meant.
Have you ever met someone who, say, joined the Army; then three weeks into the (perfectly predictable) training, realised it was way worse than they expected?
I think it’s going to be quite a lot like that.
-
Actually, and in reference to the “if” that I singled out in the last post.
When our collective “debating society” rhetoric and hyperbole is set aside (something almost all contributers here, have employed at times), I tend to feel that this piece in the Guardian is our most likely future.
This tallies well with Pete’s argument, except the writer (and myself) disagree on the long term consequences of our actions.
I’ve said it many times, here. Diminished.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/no-deal-brexit-medieval-siege-eu-britain-industries?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/no-deal-brexit-medieval-siege-eu-britain-industries?CMP=fb_gu)
-
Perhaps go back and actually read my posts, Matt.
-
We are all already poorer for the referendum result.
Growth is stunted. Investment has winnowed away (external and internal) normal governance hs shrunk and things that would normally be scandalous (eg homeless numbers as one of many possible examples) are ignored because of the bigger worry. Our position as a global economic power has already been reduced - and frankly our behaviour as a nation and our governments behaviour is embarrassing.
There is no upside to anything that has happened - or will happen. We are Justifying the “benefits” Of the shit deal on offer based on comparison to no deal disaster.
The insane logic of this is like getting in your car and deciding you are going to go and crash it. Then being really glad that you only decided to drive into a gatepost rather than sideways into a tree at speed.
-
No deal: self-strangulation while performing an act of autoerotic asphyxiation
-
Perhaps go back and actually read my posts, Matt.
Ok, more specific.
There’s no “balance” to be struck. Equilibrium, of a temporary nature (on “no deal”) will be a practical necessity for the 27. That is to say, they will put their collective toes on their end of the see-saw, push down hard enough to tip it gently in their favour, hold it there until all the goodies flow smoothly down to them and then (slightly less gently) let our end sink to where it may.
All, regardless of internal squabbling.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dyz3uuzWsAADDap.jpg)
Apparently Donald Tusk was a rope-access worker in his youth. Boris Johnson wasn't.
-
https://www.ft.com/content/5ce60af2-2b90-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7 (https://www.ft.com/content/5ce60af2-2b90-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7)
So, I’m assuming this bodes ill for the auto industry in the UK.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dyz3uuzWsAADDap.jpg)
Apparently Donald Tusk was a rope-access worker in his youth. Boris Johnson wasn't.
Interesting to check Tusk’s Wikipedia entry. Seems he wasn’t unfamiliar with a bit of the ‘ol street violence and at some considerable risk of a lifetime ticket to the Gulag. Possibly, he really does think the people protesting his comments, could do with a little more spine.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/09/a-hidden-government-is-preparing-for-brexit-by-keeping-us-in-the-dark
"The British stiff upper lip cannot explain the absence of fear: if it ever existed, it wilted long ago. Rather, the deep complacency of British and in particular English life, which sleeps soundly beneath all the noise of the news cycle, still makes the average citizen believe it can’t happen here. The only major European country to escape both communism and fascism, or occupation by the armies of Hitler or Stalin, has an ingrained bias against taking the possibility of disaster seriously. We’ve always managed before, previous alarms have turned out to be false, are the default responses of a country that has yet to learn that the past does not always determine the future."
-
Is this just wishful thinking, seems to have come somewhat out of the blue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan
-
Is this just wishful thinking, seems to have come somewhat out of the blue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan
The article doesn't say anything about a time line. Would the plan be to negotiate an extension to Article 50? I can't see a referendum being held before we leave in 47 days. So without an extension, presumably the question would be to continue with brexit or to rejoin the EU (potentially or worse terms)?
I've no idea how much support this amendment has but I don't see many tories voting for it. The default position is that we leave the EU, I don't think enough of them are scared enough of no deal to risk no brexit.
-
Is this just wishful thinking, seems to have come somewhat out of the blue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan
This is the sort of thing that the Guardian / Observer publish all the time, It is a potential amendment, supported by 5 noted pro European MPs, I'd bet any money that it will come to nothing and not be accepted as an amendment much less voted through.
This isn't to say that I disagree with it, but with both main parties headed by small insular cadres who basically want to leave but not really to say that that is their intention, no chance. The combined duplicity of May and Corbyn is breathtaking. In the last couple of days, the ferry debacle, followed by May asking MPs for a bit more time; and (in a Guardian report) a senior Labour meeting where they didn't discuss Brexit at all. The energies of both parties appears to be entirely directed towards trying to mask fundamental disagreements within them, and postpone splits which seem almost inevitable in some form or other.
-
The article doesn't say anything about a time line. Would the plan be to negotiate an extension to Article 50? I can't see a referendum being held before we leave in 47 days. So without an extension, presumably the question would be to continue with brexit or to rejoin the EU (potentially or worse terms)?
I've no idea how much support this amendment has but I don't see many tories voting for it. The default position is that we leave the EU, I don't think enough of them are scared enough of no deal to risk no brexit.
The EU have said many times an extension of article 50 for a new election or a new referendum would be OK even up to the wire..
I doubt the amendement will be supported even though it should be. Neither Tory nor Labour leadership will back down easily.
-
, but with both main parties headed by small insular cadres who basically want to leave but not really to say that that is their intention, no chance.
I think they've both been pretty clear they want to leave and they wouldn't back a second referendum, that would be the reason this amendment would fail.
Is the a reason why you say it differently?
-
, but with both main parties headed by small insular cadres who basically want to leave but not really to say that that is their intention, no chance.
I think they've both been pretty clear they want to leave and they wouldn't back a second referendum, that would be the reason this amendment would fail.
Is the a reason why you say it differently?
Corbyn has been anything but clear. He has been notable for trying to avoid Brexit at every stage. Clearly because coming down on either side would alienate half of his support.
-
Reasons for voting leave... this article puts across a clear picture.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/11/england-brexit-broken-neoliberalism (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/11/england-brexit-broken-neoliberalism)
-
Voting leave because you are angry about austerity, poverty and under investment in Northern towns makes about as much sense as me being angry after having a crap day at work and deciding to get back at my boss by driving my car through my living room wall before signing over power of attorney to my boss. :slap:
-
Voting leave because you are angry about austerity, poverty and under investment in Northern towns makes about as much sense as me being angry after having a crap day at work and deciding to get back at my boss by driving my car through my living room wall before signing over power of attorney to my boss. :slap:
This^^^
That just read as another example(s) of everything that’s wrong with plebiscite democracy.
People, can be amazing, wonderful and inspiring. “The People” suck most of the time.
-
Now I read that back, I realise it sounds as if I don’t care about the issues raised. That’s not my point, I very much do.
My point is, the very people most responsible for the shit state of the country, are the people that devised, drove and control the entire Brexit process.
The EU was the last check on their power and wealth grab, hence the drive now for “No Deal”.
-
Hi sdm, looking at your point rationally, for sure. But things aren’t always rational as they seem from our own point of view. Others may have a different logic.
This illustrates the point I think.
In Nuneaton (66% leave), I met a man who ..... told me he would be voting out in the EU referendum. But that might make the economy even more precarious, I said. He paused for a moment, narrowed his eyes. “If the economy goes down the toilet,” he said, “at least those bastards [in London] will finally know what it feels like to be us.”
-
This illustrates the point I think.
In Nuneaton (66% leave), I met a man who ..... told me he would be voting out in the EU referendum. But that might make the economy even more precarious, I said. He paused for a moment, narrowed his eyes. “If the economy goes down the toilet,” he said, “at least those bastards [in London] will finally know what it feels like to be us.”
But the flaw in this is that 'Those Bastards' he's referring to are the likes of Reece Mogg, IDS, Bojo, Gove et al and they are the last folks who'll feel any Brexit pain. Far from it and I expect they're going to do rather nicely out of at the expense.
-
"Those bastards in London" also include the hedge fund managers who stand to make huge profits from shorting the pound.
And then there's Philip May. Philip May is a senior executive of Capital Group, an investment firm who buy shares in all sorts of companies across the globe – including thousands of shares in the world’s biggest defence firm, Lockheed Martin.
In 2018, Theresa May sanctioned British military action on Syria – air strikes that saw the debut of a new type of Cruise Missile, the JASSM, produced exclusively by the Lockheed Martin Corporation. Every single JASSM costs more than $1,000,000, and as a result of their widespread use during the bombing of Syria, the share price of Lockheed Martin soared. Consequently, with the air strikes on Syria having hugely boosted Lockheed Martin’s share price, Philip May’s firm made a fortune from their investment.
This is what we're up against, comrades :furious:
-
And your point is?
We shouldn't have intervened in Syria?
We should have intervened in Syria?
We should have intervened in Syria using weapons made by a different manufacturer, whose shareholders don't include anyone who ever held a position of political power?
We should have intervened in Syria using weapons made by a community collective, whose employees are equal shareholders and where a % of proceeds from cruise missile sales are used to support local community projects - 'Co-Op Defense'?
I know a GP who invests in British American Tobacco because they sell a lot of - heart disease and cancer causing -cigarettes to people in third world and developing countries. Personally I think it's poor taste. Should he be struck off comrade?
2 weeks away in Norway, no change here.
-
The global arms trade is fascinatingly evil and corrupt (I recommend Andrew Feinstein’s The Shadow World) but, as I understand it, the only JASSMs fired in Syria were American ones, dropped by B1-B bombers. Moreover, the UK doesn’t have any of them. Outside the US, only the Australians and Polish do.
The majority of the cruise missiles fired in Syria have been Tomahawks, which are manufactured by Raytheon, not LM. And the British ones are Storm Shadows, which are made by the European group MBDA.
-
2 weeks away in Norway, no change here.
Is this really such an impossible a thing to comprehend?
... You have to make a highly specialised department 100 times bigger in no time. Sure it can be done - not in a (Boris Johnson style dismissal) 'couple of years'...
Explain why 'in no time'. That makes it sound like one week or one month. You must be aware that there's a minimum two-year exit process during which we remain with the current trade deals no?
It's good to debate these points and I'm open to being convinced but debate based on facts where they exist.
As for the smart Leavers, who are like rich folks staying in trailers in a rain-soaked Festival of Dumb and trying not to get their chinos muddy, do you really trust your leaders to steer you through the course ahead? Boris, with his well known inability to grasp of detail. IDS, whose attempt to reform the benefits system reached about 150,000 people after six years of effort. Gove, with his flagship policy of creating new schools in areas that didn't need them, the radical destroyer whose own boss described him as "a bit of a Maoist". Steve "blue sky thinking" Hilton who wanted to close jobcentres, abolish maternity leave and alter the weather. Government by TED talk isn't my idea of fun. And, erm, Priti Patel and Penny Mordaunt.
You might want to divorce the principle from the personnel, but you can't. These are the people we'll have running the most complex and intricate challenge the government has faced in decades. Feeling lucky?
Two weeks you say.
My gut feeling is the country wouldn't do any worse out of the EU as it has done in the EU.
-
? You've lost me ?
-
Pete, Yossarian, if you don't understand the point I was trying to make, tough shit. I can't be arsed explaining it to you.
Pete, if your GP invests in the tobacco industry because it makes him money despite the cancer and heart disease it causes he's a cunt.
-
Pete, Yossarian, if you don't understand the point I was trying to make, tough shit. I can't be arsed explaining it to you.
Pete, if your GP invests in the tobacco industry because it makes him money despite the cancer and heart disease it causes he's a cunt.
-
Pete, Yossarian, if you don't understand the point I was trying to make, tough shit. I can't be arsed explaining it to you.
I think they very well get the point but they're challenging you on that particulars, which is that you accuse Theresa May of bombing Syria (which she couldn't do unilaterally anyway, she would need parliamentary support) in order to boost the fortunes of her husband. Yossarian acknowledges that the arms trade is corrupt and then debunks (I assume, I'm not going to fact check it) the reasoning behind what you said. So basically, if what Yos says is true, you are a spreader of conspiracy theories and fake news. Any comeback to that? I've got no problem with people exposing corruption where it genuinely exists.
Out of interest, what is it in particular that makes hedge funds and investment groups evil? And how do you think your pension is created?
-
Out of interest, what is it in particular that makes hedge funds and investment groups evil? And how do you think your pension is created?
You can choose pension funds that invest ethically (as I believe ours does). For example steering away from tobacco companies (that have performed very well consistently over the last 20 years but make their money by peddling addictive death sticks), fossil fuel companies, Arms companies etc.. Some pension funds have invested (for example) in renewable energy, community housing projects as these are seen as long terms source of ethical income.
Not all 'hedge funds' are bad of course - and Hedge fund has become a bit of a catch all for investment companies. Though Hedging in its correct definition is betting for or against something happening. Personally I think this sucks - as it allows companies to be driven down in order for some to make money on their stocks collapse (within that company of course are people who rely on it for their livelihoods - think Carillion). EG if Yorkshire Water were in the sights of several hedge funds then you might well be concerned Will.
Of course ethics in business is a sliding scale - as to make money, someone has to loose money. I guess it depends upon your style ;)
-
as to make money, someone has to loose money.
Not necessarily so.
-
Out of interest, what is it in particular that makes hedge funds and investment groups evil? And how do you think your pension is created?
You can choose pension funds that invest ethically (as I believe ours does). For example steering away from tobacco companies (that have performed very well consistently over the last 20 years but make their money by peddling addictive death sticks), fossil fuel companies, Arms companies etc.. Some pension funds have invested (for example) in renewable energy, community housing projects as these are seen as long terms source of ethical income.
Not all 'hedge funds' are bad of course - and Hedge fund has become a bit of a catch all for investment companies. Though Hedging in its correct definition is betting for or against something happening. Personally I think this sucks - as it allows companies to be driven down in order for some to make money on their stocks collapse (within that company of course are people who rely on it for their livelihoods - think Carillion). EG if Yorkshire Water were in the sights of several hedge funds then you might well be concerned Will.
Of course ethics in business is a sliding scale - as to make money, someone has to loose money. I guess it depends upon your style ;)
I agree with everything you've said there, TT. Except the last bit, but I don't think you were being serious there.
The reason for my tetchy post is that tc's post came across as being typical of the lazy populist thinking that many indulge in now. i.e. banks are evil; investment is evil; all our problems are because of the finance industry. And then it's only a short step to get to: if you have money you're evil; if your parents had money you're evil; if you went to Eton you're evil; if you are in a position of power or privilege and you are related to or friends with someone else in a similar position then it's because you're corrupt etc etc etc
-
Well said Will.
Both posts.
Except the bit about Eton. Definitely a finishing school for Bond villains, that place.
-
This is a really good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/poorer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers?fbclid=IwAR1nVtPKEeIlECO8-5SSDc3KfKSE79yCIp6dcSEGgb0-CYIAOYjhLzLpu8Q
Particularly the breaking down of assumption by Remainers about why Leave voters voted in the way that they did.
I have to say I find Gary's argument inconclusive. Yes, as a pinko liberal earning a decent wage I vote against my economic interests, but there is a matter of scale. I don't vote to lose my job, I vote to pay slightly more in tax. The newest Conservative tax cuts were worth around £300 to me, but losing that isn't the same as losing a job paying £30,000 - that's an order of 100 times bigger. And scale does matter.
Naturally the other issue is that I don't entirely believe Leavers when they claim they are happy to be poorer. Most are either really poor and don't believe they can get much poorer, or are retired and so feeling insulated from economic storms. Most people in work voted to Remain, and most young people - who will live with this for longer - also voted Remain.
Also - and this may just be my experience or prejudice - is that scratch under what most Leavers say about "sovereignty" and what laws they are really, really vexed by, and it's freedom of movement. That's the one law they can name of any consequence (other than fishing/agriculture).
We also know - from Dominic Cummings, no less - that the £350m for the NHS was the offer that galvanised all parts of the Leave voting coalition. It worked for all Leavers. Because just about everyone uses the NHS and everyone wants it better, for purely self-interested reasons. So I end up feeling kind of bullshitted by Leavers who claim they are above money-grubbing motives and ascribe the desire to Leave the EU to some higher principle. (It does however say a lot about what they need from politics.)
Simon Wren-Lewis points out (in a piece worth a read) that Leavers have already suffered economic hardship from Brexit but they don't see it, so it's not a consideration for them, and the small numbers changing their mind are down to the somewhat hidden nature of the economic damage.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-economic-cost-of-brexit-decision.html
"The Leave campaign, with the essential help of the Brexit press, managed to convince people that all this talk that the economy would be worse off after Brexit was false. Second, when the small percentage who think Brexit will damage the economy increases, support for Leave falls. Correlation does not prove causation, but this evidence suggests we should be sceptical about claims that Brexit is all about values and not about the economy."
-
as to make money, someone has to loose money.
Not necessarily so.
Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D
Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...
Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....
-
Pete, Yossarian, if you don't understand the point I was trying to make, tough shit. I can't be arsed explaining it to you.
I don't think you understand the facts behind the conspiracy you just spouted.
You stated that LM missiles were fired by the UK at targets in Syria in the airstrikes (of April 2018). That is false - the UK don't own these. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jassm-er-makes-combat-debut-against-syrian-chemical-447747/
That fact alone would be enough to demolish your conspiracy theory.
Then you stated that 'Consequently, with the air strikes on Syria having hugely boosted Lockheed Martin’s share price, Philip May’s firm made a fortune from their investment'.
Firstly - LM's share price over what time-range? LM's share price today is down on what it was on April 13th 2018 (the day before airstrikes began).
LM's share price has averaged down most days since April 13th, with a short uptrend for one week in April following the Syria airstrikes.
Perhaps you meant BAE systems? A report the week following the airstrikes reported that BAE share price had 'rocketed' (ahem..).
Except BAE's share price is down significantly today on where it was on April 13th, the day before airstrikes. Even at it's peak it looks like the share price rose around 10% in the week following the Syria strikes. Hardly rocketed.. though I stand to be corrected..
So you're trying to claim that Phillip May used UK airstrikes against Syrian government chemical weapons sites to benefit from a share price increase of Lockheed Martin (or maybe BAE) shares.
In which case it would be in the public record that Capital Group would have sold significant holdings in BAE or LM in the week following the Syrian airstrikes.
And is it?? Again I'm open to info you can find to support your theory..
Unless you can come up with some facts to support your claim then what you're claiming is utter made-up bollocks.
-
Well, this is fun:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-settled-status-application-children-eu-citizens-yvette-cooper-home-office-a8775216.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1549973081 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-settled-status-application-children-eu-citizens-yvette-cooper-home-office-a8775216.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1549973081)
It is fortunate for my kids, that I sorted this out last year. Some friends are less lucky. Oddly, if the mother is foreign, it’s easier to sort than if the father is non-British. That is to say, my children’s claim to British citizenship is greater, because their Farther is British, than it would be if the parental nationality was reversed.
That’s not sexist, at all, is it?
-
as to make money, someone has to loose money.
Not necessarily so.
Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D
Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...
Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....
Whilst many commercial relationships will involve a degree of exploitation that doesn't always mean they will be zero sum games. Business activity can create wealth as well as simply move it around. That said, corporate business has become extremely adept at expropriating an outsized chunk of the returns to business activity.
As an aside, Trump seems to understand international trade in entirely zero sum terms.
[Edit: not comparing you to Trump!!!]
-
Isnt that built on the assumtion that everything has to grow?
-
I don't think you understand the facts behind the conspiracy you just spouted.
Unless you can come up with some facts to support your claim then what you're claiming is utter made-up bollocks.
[/quote]
How kind of you to point out my stupidity in such patronising terms. Here are some of the sources I used when making all that bollocks up and then fact-checking it for accuracy:
http://www.grahamscambler.com/greedy-bastards-philip-may/
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/081416/top-5-shareholders-lockheed-martin-lmt.asp
https://www.rt.com/uk/424392-may-husbands-capital-group/
https://www.ft.com/content/47e1e0f6-408e-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b
https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/who-is-philip-may-theresa-may-husband-closest-advisor-capital-group-paradise-papers-2017-11
-
And how do you think your pension is created?
State Pension + ethical and sustainable investments, since you ask.
-
Isnt that built on the assumtion that everything has to grow?
Broadly, economic growth has been the "norm:" the cake has got larger. But I really only meant to address the narrow point that in order to make money someone else has to lose it, which isn't the case.
-
Pete, Will -- I replied to your comments on the previous page. I could be arsed after all, sort of...
-
as to make money, someone has to loose money.
Not necessarily so.
Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D
Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...
Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....
The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign - we did plenty to ensure Indian industry, for example, couldn't compete with us. But broadly value is created by putting labour and capital together in new ways to make new stuff, or stuff more cheaply.
You ask if this requires economic growth. I think it's the other way around: it creates economic growth. But not just any old growth - countries got wealthier even before the Industrial Revolution. It was just really really really really slow. Extra productivity gains happened - ships got bigger and better, roads were improved, banking systems developed - but the surplus basically got eaten up in a larger population. Then suddenly - bang - we got exponential growth.
This is great as long as we don't fuck the planet up (different thread no?).
-
as to make money, someone has to loose money.
Not necessarily so.
Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D
Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...
Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....
The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign ...
Indeed not. By the early C19th Lancashire was drawing almost all its raw cotton from Southern slave states.
-
as to make money, someone has to loose money.
Not necessarily so.
Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D
Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...
Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....
The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign ...
Indeed not. By the early C19th Lancashire was drawing almost all its raw cotton from Southern slave states.
Yes, I don’t think we ever grew much cotton here, did we?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton)
-
The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign - we did plenty to ensure Indian industry, for example, couldn't compete with us. But broadly value is created by putting labour and capital together in new ways to make new stuff, or stuff more cheaply.
You ask if this requires economic growth. I think it's the other way around: it creates economic growth. But not just any old growth - countries got wealthier even before the Industrial Revolution. It was just really really really really slow. Extra productivity gains happened - ships got bigger and better, roads were improved, banking systems developed - but the surplus basically got eaten up in a larger population. Then suddenly - bang - we got exponential growth.
Thats the spirit! Bring back the glory years! Roll on a hard brexit on the 29th March! ;)
(very much a sarcastic smiley above... :) )
-
Pete, Will -- I replied to your comments on the previous page. I could be arsed after all, sort of...
Pete, Will -- I replied to your comments on the previous page. I could be arsed after all, sort of...
There isn't anything in the links in your post that we don't already know. And nothing in them that resembles any sort of evidence of the sort of conspiracy that you're implying :blink: :
Phillip May is an investment manager for Capital Group.
Capital Group is a large investment fund that invests in a large number of companies. Companies including Lockheed Martin, BAE, Starbucks, Amazon, among hundreds of others.
The UK, US, France launched airstrikes against Syria on April 14th 2018.
The airstrikes used weapons manufactured by LM (fired by the US) and BAE (in consortium with MBDA) (fired by UK).
Lockheed Martin and BAE share prices increased for a period beginning April 14th.
In the case of Lockheed, the price increased by around 4.5% above the April 13th price, to a peak on April 23rd. Since April 23rd LM's price has decreased and currently sits 11.5% lower than on the day before airstrikes.
BAE's price increased beginning April 14th to a peak on 19th July, where it was 15% higher than on the day before airstrikes. Since 19th July, BAE's price has decreased and today sits 13.5% lower than on April 13th.
We haven't yet seen what profit Capital Group realised from any price movement in the period shortly after April 13th.
As a comparison, another company which Capital Group invest in is Amazon. Amazon's share price rose by 42.5% from the day before the Syria airstrikes to a peak on 4th Sept 2018.
Nothing in the above is in any way evidence of anything other than that Phillip May works as an investment manager for an investment fund that invests, as funds do, in a range of companies including companies that do things that mean they come into contact with things governments are involved with. Lots of people works as investment managers. Investment funds invest in lots of companies. Successful companies do things that bring them int contact with lots of different government policies.
That's life, you can make connections everywhere you look if you want to; if you think there's anything more sinister then you're in conspiracy theory land. Some conspiracies turn out to be true. Most don't.
BTW, Capital Group also took a large investment in BAE in December 2002, before Phillip May joined in 2005.
-
Nothing in the above is in any way evidence of anything other than that Phillip May works as an investment manager for an investment fund that invests, as funds do, in a range of companies including companies that do things that mean they come into contact with things governments are involved with. That's life, you can make connections everywhere you look if you want to and if you think it's anything more sinister then you're in conspiracy theory land. Some conspiracies turn out to be true. Most don't.
Just to try back tc up a little. And I may be way off as it's not very clear what being got at.
tc's example does seem a bit tenuous and well into the conspiracy theory zone.
But I think tc is trying to get at the general corruption within "The Establishment" which means they do shit to further their own (or families, friends, oldboys) interests and lie about it.
Related to Brexit some examples off top of me head are Mogg launching an investment fund in Dublin, John Redwood advising investors to pull money out of the uk, Nigel Lawson applying for french residency, Farage getting his kids German passports, Dyson moving the Singapore. There are many more examples (not just related to Brexit) on which books have been written or a bi-weekly satrical periodical called Private Eye can be easily purchased to which you can smirk and cry about these bastards to your hearts content!
-
Whilst it may be true that Phillip May's activities are entirely normal and above board for an investment manager, it is another question whether or not it is ever appropriate for those activities to be carried on by the spouse of the serving Prime Minister (the same would apply to Dennis [and Mark] Thatcher and to a much lesser extent to Samantha Cameron or Cherie Blair). I think many people would feel it is not.
-
Whilst it may be true that Phillip May's activities are entirely normal and above board for an investment manager, it is another question whether or not it is ever appropriate for those activities to be carried on by the spouse of the serving Prime Minister (the same would apply to Dennis [and Mark] Thatcher and to a much lesser extent to Samantha Cameron or Cherie Blair). I think many people would feel it is not.
Perfectly true.
I wonder if they charge their own security detail, to stay in hotels, owned by the protected politician/premier...
It’s patently a bad thing, but it’s certainly a global issue.
-
Nothing in the above is in any way evidence of anything other than that Phillip May works as an investment manager for an investment fund that invests, as funds do, in a range of companies including companies that do things that mean they come into contact with things governments are involved with. That's life, you can make connections everywhere you look if you want to and if you think it's anything more sinister then you're in conspiracy theory land. Some conspiracies turn out to be true. Most don't.
Just to try back tc up a little. And I may be way off as it's not very clear what being got at.
tc's example does seem a bit tenuous and well into the conspiracy theory zone.
But I think tc is trying to get at the general corruption within "The Establishment" which means they do shit to further their own (or families, friends, oldboys) interests and lie about it.
Related to Brexit some examples off top of me head are Mogg launching an investment fund in Dublin, John Redwood advising investors to pull money out of the uk, Nigel Lawson applying for french residency, Farage getting his kids German passports, Dyson moving the Singapore. There are many more examples (not just related to Brexit) on which books have been written or a bi-weekly satrical periodical called Private Eye can be easily purchased to which you can smirk and cry about these bastards to your hearts content!
I can't comment on those other malcontents, but on Dyson I'll respond. He's a Brexiter, so on that count I disagree with him. However moving his headquarters to Singapore hasn't really got anything to do with Brexit. Dyson wants to enter the electric car market. China is home to tens if not hundreds of millions of newly wealthy and aspirational (read materialistic) consumers. The market there is frighteningly big.
Meanwhile flogging hoovers in the UK represents 4% of Dyson's turnover. Pitiful.
You don't want to move headquarters to China, obviously, because of the 'orrible communist government. Singapore is an obvious choice as its an English-speaking tiger economy with a stable, benevolent-dictatorship government that is very business friendly. And it has a fantastic education system.
The real question is why he hasn't moved HQ already.
-
as to make money, someone has to loose money.
Not necessarily so.
Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D
Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...
Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....
The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign ...
Indeed not. By the early C19th Lancashire was drawing almost all its raw cotton from Southern slave states.
But hideous exploitation isn’t enough to explain why the U.K. got rich, as per Tom’s original point.
Quick question: did Belgium - the second country to industrialise - do so using cheap US slave grown cotton as its raw material? It certainly got rich before it had a colony (the Congo came after as I understand it).
-
I can't comment on those other malcontents, but on Dyson I'll respond. He's a Brexiter, so on that count I disagree with him. However moving his headquarters to Singapore hasn't really got anything to do with Brexit. Dyson wants to enter the electric car market. China is home to tens if not hundreds of millions of newly wealthy and aspirational (read materialistic) consumers. The market there is frighteningly big.
Meanwhile flogging hoovers in the UK represents 4% of Dyson's turnover. Pitiful.
You don't want to move headquarters to China, obviously, because of the 'orrible communist government. Singapore is an obvious choice as its an English-speaking tiger economy with a stable, benevolent-dictatorship government that is very business friendly. And it has a fantastic education system.
The real question is why he hasn't moved HQ already.
Don't forget that Singapore also has a free trade agreement with the EU. Something that we may not be able to offer in 44 days.
Dyson were going to move sooner or later but the timing of the move is almost certainly due to the uncertainty over brexit.
Dyson has always been in it for himself (nothing wrong with that) so a move to where costs are lower was inevitable. His manufacturing has been shifting for a long time so it was just a matter of time before the administration (and ultimately the research) followed. Add in the various EU rulings against his vacuums and their refusal to bow to his lobbying and he was never going to stay within the EU but a move to Singapore offers the best of both worlds, giving a presence in the far East, while maintaining access to the EU market.
To campaign so heavily for brexit then to fuck off at the first opportunity shows his true colours.
-
To campaign so heavily for brexit then to fuck off at the first opportunity shows his true colours.
Yes it makes you question whether he has the best interests of the UK populous at heart.
There's a piece on this in private eye. Possible reasons for leaving. Free Trade with EU, lower corporation tax, no dividend tax, no ineheritance tax, weaker workers rights, weaker corporate disclosure laws and finally no risk of a Corbyn government.
I guess once we're out the gov can aspire to entice him back. Apparently he move business to Malta and came back 2003-2009.
-
as to make money, someone has to loose money.
Not necessarily so.
Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D
Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...
Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....
The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign ...
Indeed not. By the early C19th Lancashire was drawing almost all its raw cotton from Southern slave states.
But hideous exploitation isn’t enough to explain why the U.K. got rich, as per Tom’s original point.
Quick question: did Belgium - the second country to industrialise - do so using cheap US slave grown cotton as its raw material? It certainly got rich before it had a colony (the Congo came after as I understand it).
Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?
Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.
-
Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?
Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.
Bloody Liberal Elite, coming in here being all educated ‘n shit.
I reckon you’s one of them “X”spurts the Patriotic Daily Mail warned me about.
-
Whilst it may be true that Phillip May's activities are entirely normal and above board for an investment manager, it is another question whether or not it is ever appropriate for those activities to be carried on by the spouse of the serving Prime Minister (the same would apply to Dennis [and Mark] Thatcher and to a much lesser extent to Samantha Cameron or Cherie Blair). I think many people would feel it is not.
I don't disagree with that but it raises the question of what jobs are deemed OK and what jobs aren't; for what level of relationship to a politician (or civil servant...) - brother/cousin/partner/uncle; what level of politician (or civil servant...); and what time limits are applied.
Easier to just assume the lizards are conspiring against you actually.
-
Whilst it may be true that Phillip May's activities are entirely normal and above board for an investment manager, it is another question whether or not it is ever appropriate for those activities to be carried on by the spouse of the serving Prime Minister (the same would apply to Dennis [and Mark] Thatcher and to a much lesser extent to Samantha Cameron or Cherie Blair). I think many people would feel it is not.
I don't disagree with that but it raises the question of what jobs are deemed OK and what jobs aren't; for what level of relationship to a politician (or civil servant...) - brother/cousin/partner/uncle; what level of politician (or civil servant...); and what time limits are applied.
Easier to just assume the lizards are conspiring against you actually.
The “ethics” of big business are such a murky puddle of fetid dingo’s piss, it’s really beyond redemption. How many Non-executive Directors, also sit on the boards of other, related, businesses (or are married to people who do, or siblings of people who do, or are in-laws to people who do, and... You get the picture).
The regulators can only hope to enforce the most blatant breaches of such codes and laws there are.
I remember working on a yacht, hosting a meeting between some international airport owners, about one purchasing several airports from the other etc. At the end of the meeting, the host/owner called the crew into the main saloon and said “I’ve transfered your salaries early, call a broker and buy as much stock as you can in (X) because when we arrive in Antibes tomorrow, I’m making an announcement. Call this your bonus for the past week.”
Now, that was actually totally illegal (not that any of us knew at the time). But, I would infer from that, that it’s quite normal behaviour, where the favoured are close to the principle. I’m also pretty sure the delay in the announcement was not for the crew’s benefit! Tossing some crumbs to the help, while someone else made an absolute killing.
-
Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?
Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.
Yes we agree on this, my point was more directed at Tom's original comment. Clearly my post not as well worded as it could have been.
Also aware of your academic background...
-
Of course ethics in business is a sliding scale - as to make money, someone has to loose money. I guess it depends upon your style ;)
I think about this question quite a lot in idle moments. Perhaps idealistic, but I do genuinely believe it is possible to make money ethically and without screwing anyone. This logic works better with small businesses rather than large ones and on a micro rather than a macro level I think. At a basic level, if a business pays its staff well, minimises damage to the environment/offsets any damage it does and causes no societal harm that would tick my boxes. However I take the point that 'societal harm' is a nebulous concept and many businesses I see as causing societal harm (pay day lenders, cigarette manufacturing, tax avoiding multinationals) would be and are defended to the hilt by people with differing world views.
-
Of course ethics in business is a sliding scale - as to make money, someone has to loose money. I guess it depends upon your style ;)
I think about this question quite a lot in idle moments. Perhaps idealistic, but I do genuinely believe it is possible to make money ethically and without screwing anyone. This logic works better with small businesses rather than large ones and on a micro rather than a macro level I think. At a basic level, if a business pays its staff well, minimises damage to the environment/offsets any damage it does and causes no societal harm that would tick my boxes. However I take the point that 'societal harm' is a nebulous concept and many businesses I see as causing societal harm (pay day lenders, cigarette manufacturing, tax avoiding multinationals) would be and are defended to the hilt by people with differing world views.
Idealistic, yes.
What’s wrong with that?
Personally, I often wish things could be like that. The “parasite” industries that deal in non-tangibles and speculations and “trading” in futures and ...
Things that are, at heart, wholly imagined, invented, constructs only possible by shared delusion (yes, I know that probably includes “money”. I’m constructing my own wall between sensible delusions (WTF? Did I write that?) and what seem bizarre variants of plain old “gambling”).
Of course, I’m typing this on my iPad, on the internet, which would never have existed without the shared delusion...
-
Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?
Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.
Yes we agree on this, my point was more directed at Tom's original comment. Clearly my post not as well worded as it could have been.
Also aware of your academic background...
Sorry, that was a complete dick move on my part.
-
Sorry, that was a complete dick move on my part.
On the contrary. What’s the point in writing a book if you can’t occasionally whop out your author credentials in the course of savagely crushing the opposition in an internet argument...
-
Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?
Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.
Yes we agree on this, my point was more directed at Tom's original comment. Clearly my post not as well worded as it could have been.
Also aware of your academic background...
Sorry, that was a complete dick move on my part.
Hahaha no worries Andy.
What's interesting here is the common notion "we got rich cos we nicked a load of stuff/exploited people" vs the economists' explanation for growth which rests on - as far as my flimsy knowledge of long run growth theory goes - improvements in technical ability, knowledge, openness to international trade, etc. Obviously no one agrees but it's interesting that cheap raw materials don't get a (theoretical) look in.
So it got me thinking... just how cheap was US slave cotton anyhow? Was it massively undercutting other sources of cotton (did Europe even have other easily available sources of cotton?), or was it just a bit cheaper? Did other nascent industries in the UK such as the Potteries - to pick an example almost at random - also enjoy really cheap inputs as compared to their competitors elsewhere in the world?
I guess we'd need a noted historian of business in 18th and 19th century Britain to shed some light on these questions. Clearly they have nothing to do with Brexit but since Brexit at the moment mostly consists of UK politicians arguing in the wheelhouse whilst the iceberg heaves into view, we might as well divert ourselves...
-
such as the Potteries - to pick an example almost at random
:lol: North Staffordshire has lots and lots of clay (and coal) but the clay is for the most part crap and all the china clay had to come from Cornwall. Indeed, Wedgwood made a very serious effort to find new sources of clay in the US, so resource endowments certainly don't offer a full explanation. Entrepreneurship, however we definite it, is an clearly an important factor and in that respect and others Wedgwood is a bit of a hero to me. Slavery, on the other hand, whilst generating much scholarship, has actually been largely written out of business and economic history until relatively recently. The (emerging) consensus is that it was a significant factor in industrialization on both sides of the Atlantic.
Actually, I think British business/economic history, even as far back as the C18th, really does matter to Brexit. In my view, particular readings or constructions of British history have played a prominent role in some of the arguments made by Brexiteers and leave voters. Some of that is to do with readings of Imperial history or the history of our relationship with Europe (which still pivots far too heavily on WWII) but some of it is to do with economic history, particularly Britain's loss of its status as a manufacturing nation, when that loss occurred, and the possibilities for its recovery. Most people would date this loss to relatively recent history but Britain was already in effect a service economy by the late C19th, partly because of the huge success of financial services (helped my empire, formal and informal) and partly because many manufacturing industries, including ceramics and cotton, were starting to suffer declining competitiveness. At the same time, the popular reading of British economic history is also wrong in that its too gloomy - Britain remains an important and successful manufacturing nation.
-
I read a book a few years back, that challenged the notion of British ingenuity being a “special case”.
The book re-referenced the notion if the invention of the Steam Locamotive (for one, mechanical looms for another), which is in this country, almost always thought of as being a British thing, as happening, with some a somewhat simultaneous nature, in several nations at that time. Rebranding it “Steam engine time”.
The author went on to posit various reasons that such things became “bigger” in Britain, than elsewhere, mostly our political system and lack of absolute monarchy, ircc.
Can’t remember title or author (at work), but do recall it was a well reviewed book.
-
minimises damage to the environment/offsets any damage it does...
As we are completely off topic I don’t mind dragging it in a different direction: I think that the consumerism underpinning our current economy and environmental protection are largely incompatible.
-
I read a book a few years back, that challenged the notion of British ingenuity being a “special case”.
I don't really think this is off topic. A myth about how British genius/ingenuity made the country the "workshop of the world" has sustained a belief among some leave supporters that Britain will once more be able to pluckily "go it alone" after it leaves the EU.
-
Sorry Andy, just read your longer post re the narratives around British economic history, and it is fascinating, not quite side of a bus stuff though! Would be interesting if remain could have distilled some of this in a positive way pre referendum.
-
Sorry Andy, just read your longer post re the narratives around British economic history, and it is fascinating, not quite side of a bus stuff though! Would be interesting if remain could have distilled some of this in a positive way pre referendum.
Rejection of British exceptionalism is gloomy though. Spirit Of The Blitz™ and Don't Do Britain Down™ make it too easy to dismiss these arguments.
-
such as the Potteries - to pick an example almost at random
:lol: North Staffordshire has lots and lots of clay (and coal) but the clay is for the most part crap and all the china clay had to come from Cornwall. Indeed, Wedgwood made a very serious effort to find new sources of clay in the US, so resource endowments certainly don't offer a full explanation. Entrepreneurship, however we definite it, is an clearly an important factor and in that respect and others Wedgwood is a bit of a hero to me. Slavery, on the other hand, whilst generating much scholarship, has actually been largely written out of business and economic history until relatively recently. The (emerging) consensus is that it was a significant factor in industrialization on both sides of the Atlantic.
Actually, I think British business/economic history, even as far back as the C18th, really does matter to Brexit. In my view, particular readings or constructions of British history have played a prominent role in some of the arguments made by Brexiteers and leave voters. Some of that is to do with readings of Imperial history or the history of our relationship with Europe (which still pivots far too heavily on WWII) but some of it is to do with economic history, particularly Britain's loss of its status as a manufacturing nation, when that loss occurred, and the possibilities for its recovery. Most people would date this loss to relatively recent history but Britain was already in effect a service economy by the late C19th, partly because of the huge success of financial services (helped my empire, formal and informal) and partly because many manufacturing industries, including ceramics and cotton, were starting to suffer declining competitiveness. At the same time, the popular reading of British economic history is also wrong in that its too gloomy - Britain remains an important and successful manufacturing nation.
I though there was a lengthy thread about economics and resources a few years back, but can;t find it now. May have been started by sloper.
-
Please remember, the government have said, this is unrelated to Brexit:
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/defence/190212-Chairman-Williamson-MP-17-19.pdf (https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/defence/190212-Chairman-Williamson-MP-17-19.pdf)
Frankly, I think that’s a crock of brown stuff.
I know it’s speculation and Pete will knock it down as such, but I’m not a believer in coincidence in this case. I also think GE are anticipating a much reduced defence budget, post Brexit, and will reposition accordingly for the international market.
Edit:
By way of (somewhat circumstantial) evidence, I would ask:
Why relocate, if the facility you propose to relocate to, does not have the capability to produce your product. Why abandon the original and all the staff, knowledge base etc etc.
Also, heard of this via the Knowledge Transfer (unofficial rumour network), Brussels division.
-
Thought I’d expand a little on that, as I suspect to story has slipped under the radar.
Here’s the local paper take on the move:
https://rugbyobserver.co.uk/news/end-of-an-era-as-ge-confirms-plan-to-close-rugby-site-9626/ (https://rugbyobserver.co.uk/news/end-of-an-era-as-ge-confirms-plan-to-close-rugby-site-9626/)
After the Australian Type 26’s were announced for Australian ship yards, I think this was a foregone conclusion. (They were always unlikely to be built here, but many had hoped).
Because we will not have a trade deal in place with Australia, in time for the first propulsion units to be delivered. Or even the next batch, by my estimates of the build timings (educated guess) and the commonly promulgated time scales for creating such trade agreements.
-
I can't comment on those other malcontents, but on Dyson I'll respond. He's a Brexiter, so on that count I disagree with him. However moving his headquarters to Singapore hasn't really got anything to do with Brexit.
FFS, Dyson is not being name checked here and elsewhere because he has moved his HQ but because he was the poster boy for the manufacturing case for Brexit. He apparently had skin in the game and allowed people to believe that, as a manufacturer, Brexit would benefit his business but that has proven not to be the case. He wasn't someone who's case was based on how Brexit would benefit his business but another disinterested commentator. That said his business has benefited from the EU Singapore trade deal, he never had a valid pro Brexit case but an anti EU one as it was too protectionist for him (i.e. he had to pay tariffs when exporting to EU)
-
promulgated
Had to look it up. Nice word.
-
promulgated
Had to look it up. Nice word.
OT
It’s odd isn’t it.
I’ve made an unsettling discovery, quite late in life. Entirely unconfirmed etc.
I thought I understood Autism. Then, with opening the Bunker, I began to meet and teach people who were genuinely autistic and discovered the sheer variety of what that might mean.
Then, we started to question my son’s odd quirks.
Then I met a young man, who had never been diagnosed, but knew he fit the bill, at least in the “high functioning” sort of way.
The I made friends with a Speech and Language therapist, who knew all three of us and spends her life dealing with autistic people of all ages.
So, I asked her what she thought of the Young man and my Son.
She said “absolutely”.
Then she said “like you”.
You see, the three of us share this whole “Well Spoken” , pedantic, walking thesaurus, mad general knowledge skills, thing. Along with an inability to recognise when we are pissing people off.
I’ve developed a habit, that I had not acknowledged; of imitating the person I was speaking to; in terms of mannerisms and even accents. My Partner, Polly, is the first person to actually point it out to me, in real time, and stop me.
Edit:
Of course, some people would term this, simply, “being an Engineer”; which is pretty much the same thing.
-
Well, yesterday evenings vote looks like bad news for anyone interested in living in a country with functioning infrastructure and economy. The swivel eyed Eurosceptics move closer to the no deal exit they've been pushing for all along, hoping that hapless May will take all the flack and they can populate the cabinet with dimwits even more incompetent than the current crop, if that's indeed possible.
-
Well, yesterday evenings vote looks like bad news for anyone interested in living in a country with functioning infrastructure and economy. The swivel eyed Eurosceptics move closer to the no deal exit they've been pushing for all along, hoping that hapless May will take all the flack and they can populate the cabinet with dimwits even more incompetent than the current crop, if that's indeed possible.
Though quite a lot of commentary saying how this shows the ERG for who they are - and strengthens the hand / unity of the soft brexit/remainer contingent.
It’s quite remarkable (though i wish I wasn’t living the consequences) that we really have no idea what the position will be in 1 year....
-
hoping that hapless May will take all the flack and they can populate the cabinet with dimwits even more incompetent than the current crop, if that's indeed possible.
Downing Street blamed Corbyn for the defeat, saying he had "yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest" by voting against the government's motion."
Erm...nah, fuck it.
-
Poly Toynbee (I normally dislike her columns tbh) has an interesting commentary about how history will judge all this. How there may well be a long dissection of who did/didn’t say/do what...
-
Poly Toynbee (I normally dislike her columns tbh) has an interesting commentary about how history will judge all this. How there may well be a long dissection of who did/didn’t say/do what...
I know people often attribute things to their kids, but my daughter (13) shocked me recently.
She hadn’t taken up her dual nationality. She was English, with a Romanian mother. We confirmed her status officially etc.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, she turns around to me and tells me that when she turns 14, she’s allowed to apply for a Romanian passport and she intends to. She tells me she has been researching her rights regarding dual nationality and that she thinks it only prudent (yes, she used that phrase).
Now, I know I’m loud on here, but if you think I’ve had any sort of discussion with my kids about it all, your on crack.
Turns out, she and her mates have opinions on this and strong ones.
Now she’s a Grammar girl , has decided she wants to study law, via the Army Intelligence Corps (no less and much to my chagrin) but I wouldn’t have imagined any sort of awareness of current affairs.
So yes, I think this is going to have repercussions for decades and I think the Tory party will be finished if this leads to a significant recession.
-
Worth a look - nice graphical analysis of how the MPs and factions of MPs have voted.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/feb/15/how-brexit-revealed-four-new-political-factions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
hoping that hapless May will take all the flack and they can populate the cabinet with dimwits even more incompetent than the current crop, if that's indeed possible.
Downing Street blamed Corbyn for the defeat, saying he had "yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest" by voting against the government's motion."
Erm...nah, fuck it.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but was this lost vote Corbyn's fault? No. It was more a combination of the stubbornness of May and the ERG, desperately trying to control each other. However Corbyn is 100% guilty of aiding and abetting what is looking increasingly likely to be a no deal Brexit. He is transparently hoping for a disastrous Brexit he can pin on the Tories to improve his chances in any prospective election after it. Make no mistake he is neither temperamentally nor intellectually qualified to be an effective PM. It's widely known in Westminster that he's currently struggling to cope with the pressure of the opposing factions in his own party. Neither May not Corbyn seem to be able to grasp that collaborative not oppositional politics is the way this is heading, as many other European countries have had for years.
-
Worth bearing in mind that No Deal = instant general election. DUP instantly tear up confidence and supply agreement and vote of no confidence passes by a good margin. It wouldn't be a bad position for the Dear Leader to be in.
-
But it’s all ok, because JRM says Britain’s Boer war concentration camps, were absolutely fine and dandy.
The bloke is an amazing piece of utter shit.
27000 deaths.
But, according to him, it’s fine because they died from neglect and not gas chambers...
-
Worth bearing in mind that No Deal = instant general election. DUP instantly tear up confidence and supply agreement and vote of no confidence passes by a good margin. It wouldn't be a bad position for the Dear Leader to be in.
Hmmmmm...
Nah, this is a game of “Hot Potato”, where the potato is approaching the melting point of steel.
Losing is the only way to win. Let the other side take the rap.
-
So...
Idiot tries to reassert some sort of imperial moral authority over the opposite side of the planet.
Other idiot discovered that threatening to kill citizens of another country, not conducive of good trading relationships.
What F’ing planet are these jokers on?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chancellor-china-trade-visit-gavin-williamson-aircraft-carrier-pacific-a8782211.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1550310195 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chancellor-china-trade-visit-gavin-williamson-aircraft-carrier-pacific-a8782211.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1550310195)
-
It's F'ing ridiculous isn't it. Like the cabinet are holding an impromptu incompetence competition. Grayling... Ferries. Fox... 4 trade deals in 2 years, one of which is with the Faroe Islands. Williamson... Declaration of war on a nation so much more powerful than the UK that they just find it slightly irritating, threatening them with an aircraft carrier which is 2 years away from being ready. Twats.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/17/mrs-may-and-mr-corbyn-are-complicit-in-britains-drift-towards-disaster
-
You will forgive my pointing out that if the above were the case they would both be honouring their manifesto pledges.
-
You will forgive my pointing out that if the above were the case they would both be honouring their manifesto pledges.
Its ironic that Brexit and Trump have brought about the paradoxical situation that politicians are forgiven for telling either outright lies or deliberate misstatements but blindly sticking to manifesto promises, even ones that were justified by the same erroneous information, is considered praiseworthy.
-
You will forgive my pointing out that if the above were the case they would both be honouring their manifesto pledges.
Ahhh.
Of course, the argument of the mythical Lemming.
Nicely done. Debate over, potential problems avoided.
-
This all might go a little better, if Hunt and Fox would piss off and chase each other around some fields somewhere.
https://www.ft.com/content/9cd62bde-32ba-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5?sfns=1 (https://www.ft.com/content/9cd62bde-32ba-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5?sfns=1)
-
You will forgive my pointing out that if the above were the case they would both be honouring their manifesto pledges.
Corbyn is plainly hoping for a Conservative curated disaster so he can get into power. May is gambling the country's future on trying to keep a terminally divergent party together. They are both fools who don't seem to grasp how bad no deal could be for the UK.
-
Or just possibly they both sincerely believe that the only thing worse than a no-deal Brexit would be the other remaining in/getting into power. In which case I have to agree with Corbyn on that at least.
-
Or just possibly they both sincerely believe that the only thing worse than a no-deal Brexit would be the other remaining in/getting into power. In which case I have to agree with Corbyn on that at least.
Or, possibly, neither leader is listening to anything except their own thoughts and the loudest extremists in their parties, their parties are disintegrating because of it and all but the most “faithful” people are sick to the back teeth with all of them?
Edit:
Labour, currently, must hold the title for worst political “home goals” in the history of British politics.
-
Or just possibly they both sincerely believe that the only thing worse than a no-deal Brexit would be the other remaining in/getting into power. In which case I have to agree with Corbyn on that at least.
Agreeing with Corbyn is fine, but it ignores the fact that the majority of people who recently voted on these issues in a democratic process expressed their will that a. Corbyn/Labour should not be in power, and b. the UK should not remain in the EU.
By playing political power games with what is a cross party issue just leaves everyone exasperated. All sides guilty, not just Labour.
-
Or just possibly they both sincerely believe that the only thing worse than a no-deal Brexit would be the other remaining in/getting into power. In which case I have to agree with Corbyn on that at least.
Agreeing with Corbyn is fine, but it ignores the fact that the majority of people who recently voted on these issues in a democratic process expressed their will that a. Corbyn/Labour should not be in power, and b. the UK should not remain in the EU.
By playing political power games with what is a cross party issue just leaves everyone exasperated. All sides guilty, not just Labour.
The real problem is that yes more people voted that Corbyn/Labour should not be in power, and a different set of people voted that the UK should not remain in the EU.
-
Hence:
''playing political power games with what is a cross party issue just leaves everyone exasperated.''
-
Agreeing with Corbyn is fine, but it ignores the fact that the majority of people who recently voted on these issues in a democratic process expressed their will that a. Corbyn/Labour should not be in power, and b. the UK should not remain in the EU.
Don't forget that the majority of people who voted also didn't vote for either the Conservatives or the DUP. They had a combined vote share of just 13,929,000 or 43%.
Apparently the wishes of 16,141,241 people (48%) can be ignored entirely. But the parties who got 2,212,241 (5%) fewer votes than this think they have a mandate to plow ahead with their interpretation of how to proceed for 2 years without considering the opinions of the 18,274,975 people (57%) of people who voted against the Conservative / DUP administration at the last election.
-
Very simply..
In a two-option vote (Brexit referendum), the 48% result lost to the 52% result. How else can a binary choice vote have any meaning.
In a multiple option vote (general election), multiple combinations of outcomes are possible.
You’re attempting to make your case by conflating a binary option vote with a multiple option vote. It’s not a strong argument.
Whichever way you look at it Labour did not win the share of votes required to be in power. They have however, quite rightly, influenced the process of leaving the EU (for the better or worse depends on your viewpoint).
And.. if you want to start conflating apples and oranges, it would be more transparent to also acknowledge the difference in voter turnout between those who voted leave (not just remain as you do), and those who voted Labour (not just Con/DUP as you do).
-
How else can a binary choice vote have any meaning.
How can it have any meaning? 48% voted broadly for things to stay the same, 52% voted for an undefined alternative.
With neither option being defined, we have asked a binary question for a nonbinary issue. Had it been a simple binary issue, we wouldn't have spent over 2 years arguing over what brexit might actually mean.
As it is, even the heads of the Vote Leave campaign can't agree with each other on what brexit means, our previous brexit secretaries can't agree with each other on what brexit means and the government who delivered the deal for the withdrawal agreement can't decide whether or not they want their own deal to be passed. They whipped the party to vote in favour of an amendment against their own deal.
I'm not suggesting that Labour have a mandate. Just that, by using their own logic, the conservatives/DUP don't.
The country (and parliament) are massively divided. The Conservatives (and Labour) should have been grown up enough to put aside party politics on such an important issue and should have worked together with the other parties to achieve a consensus that could actually be agreed upon and might have achieved a parliamentary majority.
Despite thinking brexit is a terrible idea, I think this would have been the correct way forward, even though I think it would have made remaining almost impossible.
-
Well, could we at least all agree that both major political parties (labour and conservative) have generally been useless/hopeless/bad/fuckingawful (delete as applicable) here....?
-
If the Labour membership are all as desperate for a second referendum as the Guardian/anti-Corbyn mob would have us believe, why hasn't Chuka gone for a leadership challenge?
-
Because most LP members, it seems, are in a cult.
-
As previously discussed:
That’s a bit rich from Chuka. He dangled before our noses the tantalising possibility there being a party leader / PM with actual at-the-coalface experience of garage DJing - someone who could literally claim to offer the illest flava in the House. And then he walked away because the Daily Mail doorstepped his gran...
Didn't know that.
Minister, Minister!
He has a past that would shaft him if he moved higher than he is.
source: Pob. Don't ask me for further details yet, source is on an island off Northumberland.
Exactly. They asked his gran if it was true that he once lost an arm-wrestling match against Lisa Maffia in Ayia Napa. She said no comment...
-
If the majority of a party are in a "cult" as you say, does that not mean everyone else should leave (as they have?).
-
How can it have any meaning? 48% voted broadly for things to stay the same, 52% voted for an undefined alternative.
With neither option being defined, we have asked a binary question for a nonbinary issue. Had it been a simple binary issue, we wouldn't have spent over 2 years arguing over what brexit might actually mean.
As it is, even the heads of the Vote Leave campaign can't agree with each other on what brexit means, our previous brexit secretaries can't agree with each other on what brexit means and the government who delivered the deal for the withdrawal agreement can't decide whether or not they want their own deal to be passed. They whipped the party to vote in favour of an amendment against their own deal.
I'm not suggesting that Labour have a mandate. Just that, by using their own logic, the conservatives/DUP don't.
The country (and parliament) are massively divided. The Conservatives (and Labour) should have been grown up enough to put aside party politics on such an important issue and should have worked together with the other parties to achieve a consensus that could actually be agreed upon and might have achieved a parliamentary majority.
Despite thinking brexit is a terrible idea, I think this would have been the correct way forward, even though I think it would have made remaining almost impossible.
I completely agree (well almost completely - I wouldn’t agree with Labours’s customs union option, may as well remain in that case).
-
You completely agree - including the "thinking brexit is a terrible idea" bit?
-
If the Labour membership are all as desperate for a second referendum as the Guardian/anti-Corbyn mob would have us believe, why hasn't Chuka gone for a leadership challenge?
I wonder if the "Gang of Seven" will do the honourable, democratic thing and stand down as MPs to force by-elections in their constituencies?
Actually, no -- I think I already know the answer to my own question.
-
You completely agree - including the "thinking brexit is a terrible idea" bit?
No I completely agree with the paragraph from ‘The country’ onward, minus ‘Brexit terrible idea’ bit.
Should have been clearer ::)
-
Aw.
-
If the majority of a party are in a "cult" as you say, does that not mean everyone else should leave (as they have?).
Well, someone in the party is not happy:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/02/we-re-fucked-accidental-voiceover-bbc-footage-labour-split (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/02/we-re-fucked-accidental-voiceover-bbc-footage-labour-split)
-
I wonder if the "Gang of Seven" will do the honourable, democratic thing and stand down as MPs to force by-elections in their constituencies?
Would you prioritise that, after what Luciana Berger has been through, were you her? It would become another platform for the anti semites of Wavertree- a place I know well, as it happens.
I will wait to see what the 7 do but if concern about Corbyn’s Brexit strategy is a motive, calling a by-election a few weeks before March 29th would be insane. In the longer term, of course.
-
If the Labour membership are all as desperate for a second referendum as the Guardian/anti-Corbyn mob would have us believe, why hasn't Chuka gone for a leadership challenge?
I wonder if the "Gang of Seven" will do the honourable, democratic thing and stand down as MPs to force by-elections in their constituencies?
Actually, no -- I think I already know the answer to my own question.
This comes across as rather sneery if you don't mind me saying so. I don't think these MPs did this for personal glorification; they're well aware of how precarious this makes their futures. FPTP voting gives them very little chance. They clearly weren't enjoying the experience, and will be well aware of the petty stream of Twitter abuse they'll be subjected to. Whatever you think of their decision you have to admit that it was a brave action. There are clearly many MPs who won't put their jobs and careers on the line for conviction, but these people have.
-
I fully expect my cynicism to prove well founded.
-
Well it wouldn’t be very cynical if you didn’t ;)
This sort of Jewish conspiracy nonsense, from High Peak Labour MP Ruth George, can’t be pulling Berger back into the fold:
Support from the State of Israel, which supports both Conservative and Labour ‘Friends of Israel’, of which Luciana [Berger] was chair, is possible and I would not condemn those who suggest it, especially when the group’s financial backers are not being revealed
FWIW Several years ago, before the issue really hit the press, after multiple occasions of anti-Semitic speech were dealt with in the most lukewarm and tolerant way, I concluded that Corbyn was an anti-Semite. I really don’t see any reason to change my mind.
The irony is I suspect that Corbyn would never recognise it in himself.
-
From an opinion piece by Daniel Finkelstein:
"Yesterday, in modern Britain, a young woman was driven out of Britain’s biggest progressive party by people who hate Jews and by other people who won’t do anything about it. Set against that, so much else just seems blah."
I couldn't agree more. The reaction of Corbyn seems to be a sort of stubborn apathy. Labour is probably the party I'd most like to vote for, but I couldn't imagine Corbyn coping with being a PM. I can't help hoping that the latest resignation this evening is by no means the last.
-
The irony is I suspect that Corbyn would never recognise it in himself.
Almost nobody believe that they are racist. And most believe they have as much right to define what exactly constitute racism as persecuted groups.
-
From an opinion piece by Daniel Finkelstein:
"Yesterday, in modern Britain, a young woman was driven out of Britain’s biggest progressive party by people who hate Jews and by other people who won’t do anything about it. Set against that, so much else just seems blah."
This isn’t the same Daniel Finkelstein who sits as a Conservative lord, is it?
-
Racism is saying that the breakaway group are funded by Israel. Corbyn doesn't seem outwardly that crass, but he enables and is an apologist for this behaviour, he's been thus since he became leader. The idea that he could renegotiate the deal with the EU, as he constantly says is as if not more ridiculous than Mays current idea.
-
Somewhat off topic, but today's Daily Podcast from the NYT was about the Democrats and Israel (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/podcasts/the-daily/israel-democrats-ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib.html). I thought it made for interesting listening.
-
From an opinion piece by Daniel Finkelstein:
"Yesterday, in modern Britain, a young woman was driven out of Britain’s biggest progressive party by people who hate Jews and by other people who won’t do anything about it. Set against that, so much else just seems blah."
This isn’t the same Daniel Finkelstein who sits as a Conservative lord, is it?
I refer you to this in the Guardian today:
The choice is clear for Labour MPs. Stay with Corbyn or leave the party
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/19/corbyn-labour-party-broad-church?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Political party colour is becoming increasingly irrelevant on Brexit. I think that merely denouncing someone as Tory or Labour is rather meaningless. Nick Boles is hardly similar to JRM, or indeed Tom Watson to Corbyn.
-
So a look at the betting markets on Brexit make for interesting reading.
UK currently 4/11 not to leave the EU on 29th March 2019, No Deal on 29th March 2019 currently at 3/1. Leaving with a deal is 6/1!
Another EU referendum is currently 2/7 for No, 5/2 for Yes.
I know on this stuff that the markets have been wrong before but based purely on the odds, looking like we're heading for a (Br)extension (thank me later) of Article 50, no chance of a People's Vote then.
-
So a look at the betting markets on Brexit make for interesting reading.
UK currently 4/11 not to leave the EU on 29th March 2019, No Deal on 29th March 2019 currently at 3/1. Leaving with a deal is 6/1!
Another EU referendum is currently 2/7 for No, 5/2 for Yes.
I know on this stuff that the markets have been wrong before but based purely on the odds, looking like we're heading for a (Br)extension (thank me later) of Article 50, no chance of a People's Vote then.
The day of the referendum, my dad (who has followed horses and been a betting man his whole life) messaged me in Australia with the immortal words as follows:
"Remain in to 1.18 on Betfair, brexit out to 9/2, £54m already matched, all over bar the shouting and its not even midday yet. You can rest easy in your bed (unless the bookies have dropped the biggest ricket since Dettori's seven at Ascot."
As such, I view all political markets with healthy scepticism ever since, although this does make interesting reading. I don't think leaving with a deal is bad value there on the basis that quite a lot could change in the last 48 hours before the 29th.
-
I was working at William Hill (in the Trading dept) at the time of the referendum.
One of our tech guys dropped £500 on Remain on the afternoon of the vote on the basis that it was "buying money" at (I think) 1/10.
Assuming he had some explaining to do the next morning when his missus found out.
Agree with your contention re: that 6/1 though. From what they've saying on Brexitcast at least there seem to be serious moves towards getting something that will get past UK Govt. That said the "Malthouse Compromise" was all but killed off yesterday, so the ERG are on the warpath again.
-
I seem to remember both you and me made some ££ with 'concience hedges' on the Brexit vote and Trump...
:)
Bookies very nearly got the GE wrong too...
But its interesting reading. Deal by 29th at 6/1 looks like great odds... Its quite possible she'll squeak some shitty version of her shitty deal over the line then.
(of course her deal is nothing more than an outline for what 'might' happen next - rather than a deal. Which most people seem to have forgotten... sorry. I'll get back under my rock)
-
I was working at William Hill (in the Trading dept) at the time of the referendum.
One of our tech guys dropped £500 on Remain on the afternoon of the vote on the basis that it was "buying money" at (I think) 1/10.
Assuming he had some explaining to do the next morning when his missus found out.
Agree with your contention re: that 6/1 though. From what they've saying on Brexitcast at least there seem to be serious moves towards getting something that will get past UK Govt. That said the "Malthouse Compromise" was all but killed off yesterday, so the ERG are on the warpath again.
You'll know precisely what you're talking about then! I'm fairly clueless ( and so was my dad, clearly...)
I was the other way round; had some insurance money on Brexit but have never been more pissed off to win a bet! Never been attracted to gambling on such short odds but the amount of cash I'm playing with, the rewards are so small as to be nonexistent.
I think No Deal is less likely than those odds suggest, but this might be overly optimistic and misplaced. I don't think there is any appetite in the commons for No Deal and enough people will stop it happening if required. Hope that's not wrong! Would agree that an extension is most likely but wouldn't be surprised if a Norway style customs union bodge got over the line at 10.55 on the 29th.
-
I seem to remember both you and me made some ££ with 'concience hedges' on the Brexit vote and Trump...
:)
Bookies very nearly got the GE wrong too...
But its interesting reading. Deal by 29th at 6/1 looks like great odds... Its quite possible she'll squeak some shitty version of her shitty deal over the line then.
(of course her deal is nothing more than an outline for what 'might' happen next - rather than a deal. Which most people seem to have forgotten... sorry. I'll get back under my rock)
I made £40 at 4s with an emotional hedge on Trump (which I then donated 50/50 to an immigrant and a women's charity) but had no skin in the game on Brexit thankfully.
You're right about the markets potentially being wrong. As SM says, some value in there for the brave.
-
I hope these FT links aren’t paywalled, some are some aren’t and I can’t see which are which.
Anyway, comment is pointless and, I suspect, so is the reality of whether or not Brexit is part of the problem; the nation was relying on this manufacturing “base” for it’s future prosperity. This base looks to be eroding rapidly:
https://www.ft.com/content/cba667f8-345e-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5 (https://www.ft.com/content/cba667f8-345e-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5)
I see three Tories crossed the aisle today. I agree with their assessment of the lack of representation for the middle ground. Personally, really sick of ideologues, trying to force their “one size fits all” shit on everyone.
I will never understand, why, so many people feel obliged to slavishly follow any doctrine and reject the evidence of it’s fallibility, even as it smacks them, repeatedly, in the face.
-
Many people find it incredibly hard to accept that there first assessment of something is wrong and therefor defend it to the hilt.Must be some psych studies on it...
-
I hope these FT links aren’t paywalled, some are some aren’t and I can’t see which are which.
They are unfortunately. It seems like rather a coincidence that 2 major Japanese companies announce scaling down or closing in a few days immediately after the EU Japan trade deal. Meanwhile Gavin Williamson is doing all he can to wreck any deals the UK might get by threatening other countries with a military might that exists only in his otherwise rather empty skull.
-
Many people find it incredibly hard to accept that there first assessment of something is wrong and therefor defend it to the hilt.Must be some psych studies on it...
Sort of reverse confirmation bias I guess.
-
Many people find it incredibly hard to accept that there first assessment of something is wrong and therefor defend it to the hilt.Must be some psych studies on it...
Sort of reverse confirmation bias I guess.
cognitive dissonance.
On a slightly different note, the Sun's EU headline today is a classic: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/133B4/production/_105727787_the-sun-front-page-21.02.19.jpg
-
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/inevitable-division-politics-and-consequences-of-labour-split (https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/inevitable-division-politics-and-consequences-of-labour-split)
A summation of current state of the Labour Party.
-
Many people find it incredibly hard to accept that there first assessment of something is wrong and therefor defend it to the hilt.Must be some psych studies on it...
Sort of reverse confirmation bias I guess.
Ironically, Pete would say this about me...
Yet again, I had two Spanish work experience guys start at the Bunker yesterday (we offer work placements to adult language students from Totnes European School. Gym instructors or Climbing instructors looking to up their English).
So, inevitably, I get asked what Brexit is all about. Considering they’re both Basques, I’d expected a sympathetic attitude to the notion. It was a simple five minute conversation and the upshot was that they “have idiots, stuck in the past, too”; which seemed their take on their own nationalist.
Anyway, it got me thinking.
I’m not ideological in my opposition to Brexit. I don’t understand how anything which is, on balance, harmful to the majority of people and the nation as a whole (regardless of the degree of that harm), is worth the nebulous aand ethereal notion of Freedom (TM) and consider such a concept to be nothing more than a poorly thought out ideology and as unobtainable as Unicorn shit.
You are already, just about, as free as it’s possible to be, in a civilised society, in a nation with 68 million opinions, on a planet, groaning under the weight of 7 Billion appetites and needs.
Nothing in this process is going to improve anyone’s level of freedom, rights, or prosperity.
Damn it, almost every society, since the dawn of language, has told tales warning of the dangers of PRIDE (TM), every religion talks of the sin of PRIDE etc etc, and, yet, here we are; letting the PRIDE do the talking.
-
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/inevitable-division-politics-and-consequences-of-labour-split (https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/inevitable-division-politics-and-consequences-of-labour-split)
A summation of current state of the Labour Party.
From the above article:
For the Labour left, the political conclusions to be drawn from this analysis are stark, but important. As I’ve already suggested - we should not be responding to the behaviour of the centrists with simple moral indignation. Their entire project is to wrap up their defence of their own elite interests in a language of moral indignation – accusing the Left of racism, of being responsible for Brexit, of ‘bullying’ (ie expecting elected representatives to be accountable to members and constituents).
If you don't mind me saying so, what an absolute crock of shit. This entire article is a hackneyed, intellectually bankrupt Marxist diatribe. When will the far left realise that Marxism is a broken ideology? There really are not any happy, progressive countries that subscribe to this sort of political ethos.
The denials of anti semitism are particularly galling.
The reference to accountability is ridiculous. Clearly a reference to MPs for 'leave' voting constituencies campaigning for remain, it ignores the entire idea of representative democracy. MPs are elected to represent the peoples best interests, not to be dictated to by the electorate.
-
Ironically, Pete would say this about me...
It is sometimes my initial reaction to criticism, both at work and elsewhere, but usually catch myself internally before causing too much trouble. My work doesn't involve setting up the economic future of the country etc. though so I let myself off. Getting a bit :off: though.
-
If you don't mind me saying so, what an absolute crock of shit.
Cheers for the heads up. Will refrain from reading 'marxist' political professors in future and stick to Guardian columnists instead.
-
If you don't mind me saying so, what an absolute crock of shit.
Cheers for the heads up. Will refrain from reading 'marxist' political professors in future and stick to Guardian columnists instead.
I dunno, I think Toby has a point.
It reads very much like a left wing version, of a typical Alt-right conspiracy theory. Terms such as “splitters” etc, just make it read like a rip off of the Monty Python “People’s Front of Judea” sketch; to me.
Incidentally, I’ve spent enough time in, supposedly, Marxist states (as they emerged from it) and spent enough time talking with relatives who lived through it (some, from the initial “people’s liberation”, to the final curtain (often more bloody than the inception)), to have any illusions of Marxist Utopias...
-
That's all very well, but nationalising the trains and making higher education free again isn't Marxism.
If anything is 'intellectually bankrupt', it is to cast the author, and Corbyn's policy platform, as such.
Costa Rica has abolished defence spending completely to prioritise healthcare and education and is one of the happiest, most literate countries on the planet. Surely that's more in line with what Corbyn is proposing than the USSR is/was?
-
Of course.
But that last post of yours describes “Social Democracy” (Scandinavian model) and Corbyn advocates something quite a way beyond that. However, I think he’s still more pragmatic than the author of that piece and it is the author we are calling Marxist (at least, I am).
I would call myself a Social Democrat tending to Liberal.
-
From reading the article, I would say he's an academic with a knowledge of Marxist theory. It's a bit of a leap to suggest he advocates we become a communist country.
-
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/inevitable-division-politics-and-consequences-of-labour-split (https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/inevitable-division-politics-and-consequences-of-labour-split)
A summation of current state of the Labour Party.
From the above article:
For the Labour left, the political conclusions to be drawn from this analysis are stark, but important. As I’ve already suggested - we should not be responding to the behaviour of the centrists with simple moral indignation. Their entire project is to wrap up their defence of their own elite interests in a language of moral indignation – accusing the Left of racism, of being responsible for Brexit, of ‘bullying’ (ie expecting elected representatives to be accountable to members and constituents).
If you don't mind me saying so, what an absolute crock of shit. This entire article is a hackneyed, intellectually bankrupt Marxist diatribe. When will the far left realise that Marxism is a broken ideology? There really are not any happy, progressive countries that subscribe to this sort of political ethos.
The denials of anti semitism are particularly galling.
The reference to accountability is ridiculous. Clearly a reference to MPs for 'leave' voting constituencies campaigning for remain, it ignores the entire idea of representative democracy. MPs are elected to represent the peoples best interests, not to be dictated to by the electorate.
Well if you don't mind me saying so, your response is also nonsense. Many countries political history is a history of conflict between different ideologies and traditions and their current state is the product of these conflicts. Many of the most progressive countries, take the Nordics as an example, have in the past had very strong socialist and Marxist-inflected political and trade union movements which are directly responsible for their strong, if eroding, welfare states. Free and universal social services which I, for one, am very much in favour of, education, health etc are complete anathema to capitalist ideology and i would absolutely hate to live in an unambiguously capitalist economy. On a different note, if Marxism if a broken ideology why does that anytime anyone so much as hoists a red flag the imperialist armies suddenly arrive.. eh but doesnt it collapse on its own?
On the accountability point, eh the Independent Group are completely non-accountable. They're registered as a private company, they have no members to be accountable to and they don't disclose their donors. They were elected on Labour manifesto and have subsequently flatly rejected any suggestions of by-elections. Meanwhile their members complete ludicrously unpopular policies, a la Angela Smiths fanaticism about the privatisation of water. In other words she supports a policy that the majority of her voters reject but is unwilling to be held accountable for it.
-
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/inevitable-division-politics-and-consequences-of-labour-split (https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/inevitable-division-politics-and-consequences-of-labour-split)
A summation of current state of the Labour Party.
From the above article:
For the Labour left, the political conclusions to be drawn from this analysis are stark, but important. As I’ve already suggested - we should not be responding to the behaviour of the centrists with simple moral indignation. Their entire project is to wrap up their defence of their own elite interests in a language of moral indignation – accusing the Left of racism, of being responsible for Brexit, of ‘bullying’ (ie expecting elected representatives to be accountable to members and constituents).
If you don't mind me saying so, what an absolute crock of shit. This entire article is a hackneyed, intellectually bankrupt Marxist diatribe. When will the far left realise that Marxism is a broken ideology? There really are not any happy, progressive countries that subscribe to this sort of political ethos.
The denials of anti semitism are particularly galling.
The reference to accountability is ridiculous. Clearly a reference to MPs for 'leave' voting constituencies campaigning for remain, it ignores the entire idea of representative democracy. MPs are elected to represent the peoples best interests, not to be dictated to by the electorate.
the most progressive countries, take the Nordics as an example, have in the past had very strong socialist and Marxist-inflected political and trade union movements which are directly responsible for their strong, if eroding, welfare states......
On a different note, if Marxism if a broken ideology why does that anytime anyone so much as hoists a red flag the imperialist armies suddenly arrive.. eh but doesnt it collapse on its own?
Point one, though they no doubt have many advantages Scandanavian countries still have massive issues with poverty and significant social problems as all countries do really. They have also in the past had some very right wing tendencies. I don't think you can say they're a victory for Marxism.
Marxism does very well at self destructing under the auspices of leaders who are very happy to be a little more equal than others.
-
I don't think you can say they're a victory for Marxism.
Nor would they claim to be; they're capitalist and social democratic.
-
I don't think you can say they're a victory for Marxism.
Nor would they claim to be; they're capitalist and social democratic.
Yes, exactly. Social democracy obviously can result in successful states with relatively high quality of life, and relatively happy populations.
I can't think of any Marxist states whose leaders haven't become significantly autocratic if not totalitarian, and generally their populations poorer, and often desperate to emigrate.
-
Apologies, I think I probably misunderstood the post I replied to.
-
Apologies, I think I probably misunderstood the post I replied to.
No apologies necessary! I didn't take your comment as criticism anyway.
I apologise if some of my above comments are a little ranty; I get frustrated with the idea that the hard left policies that have left many countries impoverished over the last century might suddenly work.
-
Apologies, I think I probably misunderstood the post I replied to.
No apologies necessary! I didn't take your comment as criticism anyway.
I apologise if some of my above comments are a little ranty; I get frustrated with the idea that the hard left policies that have left many countries impoverished over the last century might suddenly work.
Amen.
But I’d add the same sentiments, about unrestrained Free market and populist/right wing policies too.
Fructose sake! Any team functions successfully, only on compromise, playing the individuals strengths and supporting their weaknesses.
Never will understand,why as a society we can grasp that fact in the macro, but fail to see it as a necessity of society at large.
-
I don't think you can say they're a victory for Marxism.
Nor would they claim to be; they're capitalist and social democratic.
I absolutely would claim improved welfare and progressive reforms to be victories for socialist movements in many cases. The construction of the welfare state was achieved under sustained pressure from trade union and socialist movements and reforms were only conceded when it was that or potentially even greater disruption. Many of these reforms are now remembered as the enlightened granting of rights by social democrats but they were won through struggle and class conflict, take universal suffrage as an example:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/workers-movement-universal-suffrage-socialism-second-international
I'm not claiming these were all won by movements and politicians who were committed socialists and absolutely wanted a socialist society but socialism/Marxism has been a consistent influence on progressive movements for social and economic justice. Many progressive reforms they were won by people who believed in class struggle, democratic control of the economy and rolling back the extension of markets, which are core socialist demands.
-
Socialism and collectivism, vastly predate Marxs. I don’t believe anyone commenting is denying the socialist aspects of those nations, such as the Scandinavian region, or our own nation, come to that.
I think most of us would dispute this constitutes Marxism, which is an extreme form of socialism, no? The examples of successful nations, represent a compromise between socialism and capitalism, which I’m fairly sure is distinct from Marxism and generally refered to as Social Democracy?
-
Socialism and collectivism, vastly predate Marxs. I don’t believe anyone commenting is denying the socialist aspects of those nations, such as the Scandinavian region, or our own nation, come to that.
I think most of us would dispute this constitutes Marxism, which is an extreme form of socialism, no? The examples of successful nations, represent a compromise between socialism and capitalism, which I’m fairly sure is distinct from Marxism and generally refered to as Social Democracy?
Yes I pretty much agree. There may be some debate about precise definitions of -isms or - ocracies but it all comes down to the same thing; extremes of political thought on the right or left are equally as catastrophic for nation states and equally seem to produce and promote the worst in human beings.
So really, the UK should just stay in the bloody EU and have a nice tedious centrist coalition government.
Chuka Amuna on any questions this evening sounded far more statesman like than either of the current main party leaders. NB I'm not saying I think he should be PM.
-
Danny Dyer (dire?) sounds more statesmanlike than ‘May or Corbyn to be fair :D
-
Danny Dyer (dire?) sounds more statesmanlike than ‘May or Corbyn to be fair :D
My ten week old Collie puppy, is more intelligent and has better leadership skills.
And that little sod keeps eating my shoes and shitting on the carpet.
-
Danny Dyer (dire?) sounds more statesmanlike than ‘May or Corbyn to be fair :D
My ten week old Collie puppy, is more intelligent and has better leadership skills.
And that little sod keeps eating my shoes and shitting on the carpet.
I have it on good account that’s Danny Dyer is toilet trained.
#10 still has newspaper sheets all over the floor.
-
Danny Dyer (dire?) sounds more statesmanlike than ‘May or Corbyn to be fair :D
Now you mention it, I think Peppa Pig would absolutely hand it to Corbyn in a debate about anything.
-
From the State Propaganda Agency today:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47363307?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3G1C2anECDEd-Q0AdDPTKWPNHxm6y0lnukVt45qEXH-mzo83PIbhDJCl8
Labour now prepared to back a second referendum. Good. Proceeding according to Labour policy agreed at Conference. Agreed by Members; not dictated by Corbyn. Also good.
-
Interesting to see how this pans out over the next few days. My first thoughts were:
All feels a bit too little too late... and it might galvanise the Tory party to support Mays deal (rather than support anything Labour)... anyway we'll see and its better news than anything else that has happened to date!
Then:
Emily Thornbury is saying (via Grauniad website) the referendum would be remain vs Tory Brexit (her words)... and Labour would campaign for remain. She's an on message front bencher so thats probably the main message.
-
Interesting take on it from the New Statesman:
"Frontbench advocates of the plan say it will service both halves of Labour's electoral coalition: those in leave seats can sell it as a vote for a deal, while those in remain areas can cast it as a vote for a new referendum."
-
Labour are demanding a deal, that looks a lot like “staying in, in all but name”, which seems like lead balloon material...
-
Labour are demanding a deal, that looks a lot like “staying in, in all but name”, which seems like lead balloon material...
Sadly Labour saying that they want a second referendum under these circumstances is nothing to do with leave / remain, and everything to do with trying to stop more defections.
-
Robert Peston's interpretation of today's political pirouetting, arguing that today’s long-term winners from May’s u-turn may well be Mogg and the ERG Brexiters rather than Rudd and the Gaukward Squad threatening to resign from government.
https://www.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2286295155028550/ (https://www.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2286295155028550/)
-
Well, gives us time to sort out our pallets, at least...
https://amp.businessinsider.com/brexit-michael-gove-ministers-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?r=US&IR=T&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0pYTWM_xO62mPPXoLXq4e3kEe8ioT4u3HZ_hx44gZVbuMAUuDNz2yuPYg (https://amp.businessinsider.com/brexit-michael-gove-ministers-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?r=US&IR=T&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0pYTWM_xO62mPPXoLXq4e3kEe8ioT4u3HZ_hx44gZVbuMAUuDNz2yuPYg)
-
Oh, and show this to most of the ERG, and Brexit will be off....
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-brexit-shooting-idUKKCN1QF1TB?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5c759c5e4b73850001dc0bff&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-brexit-shooting-idUKKCN1QF1TB?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5c759c5e4b73850001dc0bff&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook)
-
Quick one.
Has anybody come across anyone, still arguing that Brexit will be of net benefit to the nation and can you link to it?
-
A concise and decently written analysis of yesterday's events.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47396530
-
Quick one.
Has anybody come across anyone, still arguing that Brexit will be of net benefit to the nation and can you link to it?
Yes, the Spectator regularly publishes pieces which argue this. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/no-deal-no-problem/
To be fair to it as a publication it also publishes passionate remainers such as Matthew Paris.
I have just read this, its an excellent point: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/03/as-immigration-from-outside-europe-rises-hucksters-foment-racial-hatred
-
I’d read Abbot’s piece.
Honestly, I thought it a joke.
As in, really, a joke. I don’t believe, he actually believed, what he claimed to believe...
Yeah, I think Cohen’s ditty is on the money.
-
Your regular reminder that Brexit is an authoritarian's game, and if you're not an authoritarian but voted for it, you've been had.
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1102650703909187585
-
Said the preacher to the congregation of the converted.
-
Said the preacher to the congregation of the converted.
I'm all for free movement of people - but with *some* more control
We've had a system which let people live their lives with less government oversight but a key part of Brexit was the desire for greater control. You got what you wanted!
-
I'm not sure to what you're referring - I don't take much on twitter at face value. As things currently stand in the negotiations/non-negotiations I'm not sure what 'I've got'!
-
I'm not sure to what you're referring - I don't take much on twitter at face value. As things currently stand in the negotiations/non-negotiations I'm not sure what 'I've got'!
I don't know, you could always just follow the link and see what it's all about. Or not follow the link to avoid cognitive dissonance.
-
I did click it and saw something about a Scottish lady. I didn't get much further. Nothing to do with cognitive dissonance - or I wouldn't engage on here. I simply don't have time to read twitter links.
-
I did click it and saw something about a Scottish lady. I didn't get much further. Nothing to do with cognitive dissonance - or I wouldn't engage on here. I simply don't have time to read twitter links.
Except, apparently, she isn’t a Scottish Lady and that has become a problem...
-
Actually, here’s a more interesting link, on a related theme...
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/on-the-island (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/on-the-island)
-
I've just read through the story linked and I don't understand what your point is Sean:
1. EU national who lives in the UK, but doesn't have a UK passport, asked to 'register' once the UK is no longer an EU member state.
2. Once registered, they'll be able to remain living in the UK with full resident's rights.
Err? I'd be more surprised if they didn't have to register?
I lived in Canada for 4 years, without residency. If I'd wanted to live there any longer I would have had to go through the residency process - which I did (long story - it took me 2 years to get it, cost months of my time and much money, and I then didn't go back). The Candaian immigration system makes this UK 'registering' fade into nothing in terms of bureaucracy. If you think the UK does petty bureaucracy well, then try Canadian immigration - 'dire on every level'TM!
-
Er - isn’t the point that people came to the UK from Europe because they were treated as equal to UK citizens.
Now this will be retracted and they have to register to stay and may have reduced rights (we don’t know to what extent yet)
When you moved to Canada you (presumably) knew that you would not have the same rights as a Canadian citizen and would therefore at some point have to apply to do so.
-
I still don’t understand what you’d expect a nation to do in these unprecedented circumstances?
We’re leaving the EU. Those people who moved here as EU citizens therefore won’t be living in an EU state. No doubt they couldn’t have foreseen that when they moved. But also no doubt that the situation has changed.
-
My point is that people have been able to move about as they liked, free of government interference in their lives (or with very minimal interference). Now we're moving to a more authoritarian system and frankly that's quite upsetting for a lot of people - including those who suddenly don't understand why they should have to "register" to stay in their own homes. But that's what happens when you get authoritarian - old ladies get upset to fulfill your political fantasies.
Naturally, you may be an authoritarian personality and love all this stuff.
-
2. Once registered, they'll be able to remain living in the UK with full resident's rights.
Loving the confidence here.
-
I still don’t understand what you’d expect a nation to do in these unprecedented circumstances?
We’re leaving the EU. Those people who moved here as EU citizens therefore won’t be living in an EU state. No doubt they couldn’t have foreseen that when they moved. But also no doubt that the situation has changed.
And of course Leave promised it wouldn't happen. Project fear wasn't it?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0ytTaGWoAAYkg6?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
My point is that people have been able to move about as they liked, free of government interference in their lives (or with very minimal interference). Now we're moving to a more authoritarian system and frankly that's quite upsetting for a lot of people - including those who suddenly don't understand why they should have to "register" to stay in their own homes. But that's what happens when you get authoritarian - old ladies get upset to fulfill your political fantasies.
Naturally, you may be an authoritarian personality and love all this stuff.
Naturally I may be an authoritarian personality?
Priceless :lol:
Lala land.
Now excuse me while I pop out to intimidate somebody I deem lesser...
-
JB - isn't the point of registering that their status won't change?
-
old ladies get upset to fulfill your political fantasises
TBF, it was a load of upset old ladies (and men) fulfilling their political fantasies which got us into this mess...
-
I don't know if you speak to many EU citizens who live in the UK Pete.
I do - I have many who are colleagues and some who are neighbours.
All have expressed disquiet and many feel torn - between wanting to leave as they now feel unwelcome, yet having now having family, friends and TBH their whole life now based here in the UK.
This has done the rounds on FB today - but its probably a decent summary of many of the feelings I've collectively heard.
Imagine moving to a country because you can and have the right to. Fall in love with country - and a person. You put down roots. Add Marmite to the shopping basket. Your kids have different accents to yours, but you embrace life in a country you’ve chosen.
You start a business. Invest money and energy. The roots become firmer. Yorkshire Puddings.
The Brexit vote happens. You don’t get a say: you’re an immigrant. It feels unfair, but that’s how it is. A divide created. People vote ‘NO’ to a question nobody understands.
Later a guy calls you ‘fucking foreigner’ on the streets of London. You tell yourself it’s maybe because Iceland just beat England at football, but your stomach turns: Things change.
Months pass. News start referring to EU citizens as ‘EU migrants’. You wonder for what purpose other than drive divide.
Over 1000 days dwindle with no answers, endless uncertainty. Friends start to leave the UK. Stress strangles.
The worry about business set in. Things are going well but you can’t plan because nobody’s making decisions, just power struggles. It becomes harder to hire people. The Leave Lobby shouts: “Nonsense; everything is FINE”. Like a silent earthquake, we’re all shaking, falling through the cracks, drinking tea, carrying on. You lay awake wondering what to do, for the children’s sake.
You see, after 20+ years, 2 kids and a 30-people business, it’s not just a matter of saying ‘I’m off’. Firstly, that’s just not how you do things, it’s also not feasible. You can’t rip your British-esque children out of school without it changing their lives. You don’t just give up. You can’t bring yourself to consider leaving - because you love your life. You feel (almost) British.
We have to register to apply to be allowed to stay. We have to ‘prepare for Brexit’ but nobody has told us how. Recession is inevitable (predictions are 1:8 food businesses will suffer irreversibly). We make plans to stay, ride out the storm because we love London. But we’re breaking. It’s enough.
Tell me that ‘Well, at least you can stay!’ and expect me to act grateful. I’m not. Brexit has cut me up – and I’m just one soul of 3,5million EU citizens here.
-
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make TT?
I've read and heard very similar stories. I don't gain any pleasure from hearing them. But what is your point, beyond 'you don't agree with brexit'.
-
The point I would take is that the decision has very real negative consequences for real lives, consequences that were barely given any thought in advance and to which barely any more thought has been devoted to since. Consequences that are now simply to be ignored?
In a mirror image, one of my English friends was delighted to become Dutch today.
-
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make TT?
I've read and heard very similar stories. I don't gain any pleasure from hearing them. But what is your point, beyond 'you don't agree with brexit'.
The main thing I take from the situation where many EU nationals find that the UK has become an uncomfortable place for them and leave, is that it will further de skill and deplete the NHS. Healthcare professional training in Western Europe is of an exceptionally high standard, and in some parts of the world, it isn't quite as good. I know which I'd rather be working with / treated by.
-
JB - isn't the point of registering that their status won't change?
Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!
-
The main thing I take from the situation where many EU nationals find that the UK has become an uncomfortable place for them and leave, is that it will further de skill and deplete the NHS. Healthcare professional training in Western Europe is of an exceptionally high standard, and in some parts of the world, it isn't quite as good. I know which I'd rather be working with / treated by.
Don't worry Toby, at least when they chop off the wrong leg you'll have your newly returned sovereignty to make you happy :lol:
-
The point I would take is that the decision has very real negative consequences for real lives, consequences that were barely given any thought in advance and to which barely any more thought has been devoted to since. Consequences that are now simply to be ignored?
Any significant change of circumstances is going to have unintended negative consequences. Without wanting to make light, unfortunately that's life it isn't always fair and never will be. I don't know how you can say those consequences have been ignored or had barely any thought given to though. They haven't been ignored by the media - it's been all over; they haven't been ignored by the government - or the schemes (however clumsy you might think they are) to issue passports to windrush generation and the registering for EU nationals wouldn't have happened; they haven't been ignored by the general population - as evidenced by endless social media posts and posts like this. Saying they've been ignored is an exaggeration of the truth.
I'll ask once more - other than 'don't leave the EU', what is a nation supposed to do about non-UK nationals in the circumstances of leaving the EU?
I've recently returned from 10 days on a climbing trip with an EU national living in the UK and listened to him explain his frustration and uncertainty over brexit. He's considering moving back. It's not like I live in a bubble and am unaware of consequences, however much that might fit Sean's perception of who I am.
-
Hmmm...?
So,aside from the obvious, evidence based, expert recommended, solution, you’re asking “what can we do (it is what it is (TM))”?
Am I to assume that “keep raising the issue, protesting through any legal, peaceful, means and trying (as best as any private citizen can) to hold our elected representatives to account; simultaneously trying to convice people with other views, of the merits of our perpective” is not the answer you are looking for?
-
I voted to leave the EU Matt. However much you've convinced yourself, you haven't convinced me otherwise.
-
Convinced myself?
*giggle*
-
You'll not convince Pete of your argument, Matt, because you consistently present arguments founded on your values, which are fundamentally different to Pete's (on this issue).
-
You'll not convince Pete of your argument, Matt, because you consistently present arguments founded on your values, which are fundamentally different to Pete's (on this issue).
See, this is what I don’t get.
Putting aside my (if I’m honest, not entirely serious) debating (de-baiting-re-baiting?) with Pete and Tregriffin (now, there’s waste of a good dig).
I don’t see this as a “values” issue.
I suppose it’s easy to assume that any “Remainer” is automatically some sort of Europhile or even Fedralist and yet, I’m not. I share many of the concerns of “Leavers” on the whole Europe Project.
My argument, from the very first time I commented of Tom’s poll, is “what good is this? What benefit does it present? Why should I support it?”
And, in two years, I’ve not seen a pro-argument that amounts to anything more concrete than a typical justification for “faith” in any given religion.
For every pro economic argument, there have followed ten “experts” to debunk it and it usually turns out the source of the pro-argument, wasn’t actually expert in that field anyway (remember the “Economists for leave” (or whatever they were called) that turned out to be, one economist and some public school boys, or equally silly things). For every “nothing will change, it won’t be bad” spouted, there are two or three negatives announced to be actually happening, every week.
I really would flip, faster than May, if I found a practical and convincing justification for this.
But it’s just a mess isn’t it? Nobody is happy with what’s happening, many of the negative predictions are actually happening and, so far, none of the positives.
It feels like debating flat earthers, or anti-vaccers, or any one of all the various “religious” converts who are “right” and, worse, you cannot even say that, because you just deteriorate into ad hominem crap. :guilty:
So, this seems like a sensible opinion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/brexit-kyle-wilson-amendment (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/brexit-kyle-wilson-amendment)
-
'Leaving the EU will be painful — hopefully painful enough to make the changes the UK needs.'
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-uk-eu-referendum-just-what-britain-needs/ (https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-uk-eu-referendum-just-what-britain-needs/)
-
If we leave the EU we won’t be free of that organisation as some pretend.
We will be bound to it like Prometheus in a never ending cycle of negotiation while we address the complex new relationship we have constructed with our dominant trading partner.
‘Having left’ won’t be an event, it will be a never ending process. If you think the civil service doesn’t have the ‘bandwidth’ for administering government now whilst we have negotiating leverage, wait till they really have their hands full.
-
The main thing I take from the situation where many EU nationals find that the UK has become an uncomfortable place for them and leave, is that it will further de skill and deplete the NHS. Healthcare professional training in Western Europe is of an exceptionally high standard, and in some parts of the world, it isn't quite as good. I know which I'd rather be working with / treated by.
Don't worry Toby, at least when they chop off the wrong leg you'll have your newly returned sovereignty to make you happy :lol:
...And I can die safely in the knowledge that the last minutes of my life were painful, miserable but at least they were British pain and misery. Well I'm convinced. In the totally unbelievable hypothetical situation of referendum mark two, I'm voting out. :slap:
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/09/vanilla-brexit-marmite-tories-labour
In one sense, this article is really quite optimistic. Unfortunately I don't know if I can share its positive outlook, it seems to rely far too heavily on Corbyn doing anything statesmanlike, and sensible. I can't help feeling that my money is on the UK heading up the branch of shit creek with a no deal signpost on it in a couple of weeks' time.
-
So having sat through two hours of rolling news about Mays breakthrough - am I right in interpreting it as nothing has changed?
-
Think this is the Olive Branch / ladder to climb off high horse / insert metaphor here for the ERG wonks.
-
So having sat through two hours of rolling news about Mays breakthrough - am I right in interpreting it as nothing has changed?
I think if there's still a backstop then nothings changed, if there isn't then everything's changed. There is still a backstop so you are correct. I think backstop is like being pregnant, there's one state or the other so any idea that there's a temporary backstop to be had is nonsense.
-
Deal is dead. Cox's final paragraph condemns it as risk is same as before....
-
DUP surely can’t accept on same grounds they rejected before. ERG have said they will see what DUP say first...
-
DUP surely can’t accept on same grounds they rejected before. ERG have said they will see what DUP say first...
The ERG would reject the deal whatever happened. When members such as Mark Francois are interviewed, it's clear that they would probably still reject it in the impossible event of the backstop not being part of it, as they'd just start complaining about the £39 bn or something instead. It was always pointless for May to try to placate them.
-
Sure, and the ERG don’t necessarily all act together and getting them all on board must be impossible.
-
https://newfinancial.org/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-city/ (https://newfinancial.org/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-city/)
:slap:
-
An expected NO then to May's deal and a free vote tomorrow.
Is anyone actually governing?
-
Shall we extrapolate?
No Deal rejected tomorrow.
Then vote to request extension to A50 goes through.
EU are saying that an extension will only be granted if its accompanied by a plan. They've also said there won't be a third version of the deal. So the plan is...?
Does that leave us with a No Deal result or a referendum?
There's talk of a general election but I can't see what that might achieve?
-
Shall we extrapolate?
No Deal rejected tomorrow.
Then vote to request extension to A50 goes through.
EU are saying that an extension will only be granted if its accompanied by a plan. They've also said there won't be a third version of the deal. So the plan is...?
Does that leave us with a No Deal result or a referendum?
There's talk of a general election but I can't see what that might achieve?
We can also revoke a50...
I thought she might resign... but no. So I expect she’ll try another meaningless- sorry meaningful vote next week and wind the clock down even more.
But it’s quite possible anything could happen.
The sensible thing to do would be to reach out and get some sort of Norway/customs union type deal that would work for both sides of the house. But - this would tear the Conservative party apart - so it’s not going to happen.
Shocking bbc coverage on R5 tonight in that ALL the politicians interviewed were Tories - all the pundits invited on were from Tory newspapers or former #10 staff. It’s because the controversy and this story is how the Tory party is torn apart by this - but it wholly under represents any other side (party or remain)
Let’s not forget it’s her red lines - that leave us with this mess of a prelude to a deal negotiation (portrayed as a deal) - and those red lines exist to try and keep the Conservative party together.
-
I suspect resignation will come either when a GE is called or is inevitable or when A50 is revoked as opposed to delayed. If I were her I'd be concerned about who might take my place and what their vision for the country might be. JR-M anyone?
-
TT - they aren't 'her' red lines they are the red lines that approximately represent what most leave voters, including me, recognise as being roughly in accordance with the sort of post-brexit arrangement we'd like to see. You don't seem to understand that. maybe because you didn't vote to leave. I recognise compromises were inevitable and I was ok with her deal. It's silly to expect perfection as the ERG seem to be doing.
Saying we should go for a customs union ignores what leave voters voted for. I don't want a customs union and there's no way I would have voted to leave and join a customs union - that would be a ridiculous fudge and the worse of all worlds. I'd rather remain in the EU (I actually am not deeply emotionally tied to either remain or leave, believe it or not after all this thread) than end up in a Norway style customs union without any say either in or out of the EU.
-
Shall we extrapolate?
No Deal rejected tomorrow.
Then vote to request extension to A50 goes through.
EU are saying that an extension will only be granted if its accompanied by a plan. They've also said there won't be a third version of the deal. So the plan is...?
Does that leave us with a No Deal result or a referendum?
There's talk of a general election but I can't see what that might achieve?
A further option is she goes to the EU for extension, the EU says no, she goes back to parliament and says “it’s my deal or no deal”. Third meaningless vote.
-
Is anyone actually governing?
Aren't they too busy trying to sort out sodding Brexit??
-
TT - they aren't 'her' red lines they are the red lines that approximately represent what most leave voters, including me, recognise as being roughly in accordance with the sort of post-brexit arrangement we'd like to see. You don't seem to understand that. maybe because you didn't vote to leave. I recognise compromises were inevitable and I was ok with her deal. It's silly to expect perfection as the ERG seem to be doing.
Saying we should go for a customs union ignores what leave voters voted for. I don't want a customs union and there's no way I would have voted to leave and join a customs union - that would be a ridiculous fudge and the worse of all worlds. I'd rather remain in the EU (I actually am not deeply emotionally tied to either remain or leave, believe it or not after all this thread) than end up in a Norway style customs union without any say either in or out of the EU.
Pete, I'm surprised by your response, as you're are assuming/conflating what you voted for was what other leave voters voted for. Your idea of perfection is not every leave voters...
Thats clearly the case from all the interviews/commments I've heard from leavers. Some leave voters wanted to retain ETA including freedom of movement (for example)... Some wanted full on hard leave...
This is one of the problems with the referendum. One side (remain) was a clear outcome (retain status quo) - the other side (leave) contained no plan and a range of options (depending who was speaking) from ETA/Customs union etc... to full on hard brexit (and all the shades of grey in between). Really - the referendum should have been between two plans or two clear options.
So - leave voters have voted "to leave the EU" - not for any plan or deal or compromise - or for Mays red lines (unless you were psychic as they didnt exist then!!). A leave vote endorsed a direction - a desire to leave the EU rather than an actual plan.
This isnt because I voted to remain - its logic! Is anything I've said in this post incorrect?
-
I took issue with your declaration that May's red lines 'exist to try to keep the tory party together'. That to me's a massive misrepresentation. I don't feel that way about her tactics. I think she genuinely was trying to walk a very difficult line between getting something that satisfies most leave voters while, yes, trying to appease some of the more hard-line in the tory party. But it wasn't one or the other. And I honestly can't imagine how any other leader could have done anything much different. given the splits within Labour.
Sure, the party issue is part of it. But the Labour party would be in exactly the same quandary. At heart this isn't a party issue it's a cross party issue and it galls me to see people treating it as tory or labour party issue, because that way leads to a dead end as we now see.
-
'red lines'
(https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmexeu/935/IDExport-web-resources/image/FutureRelationshipSlide.png)
-
Is anyone actually governing?
Aren't they too busy trying to sort out sodding Brexit??
Yes.
That is exactly what they are doing to Brexit, the Nation and each other.
Must be a shortage of pig’s heads in Tory HQ.
-
Meanwhile... https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2019/03/12/eu-court-defends-the-ecbs-right-to-cover-up-its-illegal-closure-of-greeces-banks/ (https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2019/03/12/eu-court-defends-the-ecbs-right-to-cover-up-its-illegal-closure-of-greeces-banks/)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/SPFp6TT/650-ED7-E0-B7-EF-4-F05-8-DB4-E9-D88-F69-C6-BD.jpg)
-
One for the Leavers on the thread.
It looks to me that leaving the customs union and/or single market AND retaining a borderless Ireland/Irish Sea are mutually exclusive.
Is this something that you disagree with? If so, can you explain by what mechanism both of those conditions might be satisfied?
If you agree that that isn't possible, does that feature in your thinking on the issue? Is leaving the EU more important than honouring the Good Friday Agreement?
-
I honestly can't imagine how any other leader could have done anything much different. given the splits within Labour.
Sure, the party issue is part of it. But the Labour party would be in exactly the same quandary. At heart this isn't a party issue it's a cross party issue and it galls me to see people treating it as tory or labour party issue, because that way leads to a dead end as we now see.
I completely agree. There are MPs on both sides who are discussing sensible compromise, but the front line of both major parties are both being completely indecisive, caught between trying to pander to their voters, the various factions of their parties and their own personal prejudices or ideologies.
I find myself as incensed about the ERG's repeated insistence on the Malthouse compromise and their mythical technological solution to the Irish border, as the member the the Labour shadow cabinet, who insisted this morning on the Today program that "all options are still on the table".
If you're not going to make your minds up now, then when? It's increasingly obvious that party boundaries have become almost irrelevant and "tory" or "labour" tribalism merely avoids the issue, which should be finding a manageable solution, which isn't an economic, geopolitical and social disaster for the UK.
-
It's been doing the rounds on Twitter etc but I think Emily Maitlis summed up the mood of the nation with her thinly disguised contempt for everyone in front of her here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPNV-xGAFRY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPNV-xGAFRY)
The eye roll she drops on Barry Gardiner is just stone cold.
-
I was walking through the Environment Agency's Leeds office today and passed a meeting room. There was an A4 sheet of paper blue tacked to the door with
"EU EXIT
NO DEAL PLANNING TEAM"
printed on it.
The room had been soundproofed and, peering through the window, I could see a lone Agency employee, his fingernails tearing at his face, his mouth agape in a silent scream.
That last bit might not be true.
-
https://youtu.be/VPNV-xGAFRY?t=528 (https://youtu.be/VPNV-xGAFRY?t=528)
-
[cough] read a few posts up [cough]
-
It's the moment she asks Gardiner about the manifesto. Saves listening to Zahawi extol the merits of no deal for 6 minutes.
-
I just got in from work and trying to make head or tail of what’s going on tonight, or what it might mean (especially the threatened Tory revolt, for a “standstill” until December 2021), but apparently I’m not the most confused:
(https://i.ibb.co/5Wfbbt8/77-B62-BC0-02-B5-4679-B3-F6-B9602-C2-DA053.jpg)
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/as-the-losses-take-their-toll-may-is-now-a-leader-in-name-only
"Then Hammond went rogue. Who cared if Lino was sitting next to him? She didn’t count anyway. It was time to level with the country. The statement was a waste of time. He couldn’t say what was going to happen in the next two weeks, let alone make a stab at what might happen in six months’ time.
If we left the EU with a deal then we’d all be a bit more broke than we otherwise would have been. But if we left with no deal then we were totally screwed. Might as well give up and kill ourselves. So Lino could shove her deal. Now was the time for the government to work with the opposition on what might get through parliament. His door was open. With her one remaining functioning eye, Lino gave her former colleague a death stare – an effort that caused her circuit board to crash entirely."
Outstanding.
-
Chortle. From Sky’s feed...
Gove silent, but neighbour vents frustration
The Environment Secretary said nothing to journalists as he left his home this morning, but a neighbour did call over to reporters: "Give him hell, he's a total w*****."
-
I just got in from work and trying to make head or tail of what’s going on tonight, or what it might mean (especially the threatened Tory revolt, for a “standstill” until December 2021), but apparently I’m not the most confused:
(https://i.ibb.co/5Wfbbt8/77-B62-BC0-02-B5-4679-B3-F6-B9602-C2-DA053.jpg)
In the interest of fact, to say that May voted against her own motion is disingenuous because by the time Amendment A had been passed, the motion had been very significantly changed from this:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement."
To this:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement. rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship.".
-
I just got in from work and trying to make head or tail of what’s going on tonight, or what it might mean (especially the threatened Tory revolt, for a “standstill” until December 2021), but apparently I’m not the most confused:
(https://i.ibb.co/5Wfbbt8/77-B62-BC0-02-B5-4679-B3-F6-B9602-C2-DA053.jpg)
In the interest of fact, to say that May voted against her own motion is disingenuous because by the time Amendment A had been passed, the motion had been very significantly changed from this:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement."
To this:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement. rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship.".
On’t t’other hand...
The tale of of the change in text, is just as shambolic.
-
Sorry, forgot the quote.
The BBC reported:
“The amendment (a) from Labour MP Jack Dromey and Conservative Dame Caroline Spelman changes the wording of the government motion to "this House rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship".
Dame Caroline told MPs she wanted to withdraw the amendment, because Theresa May's government motion would do the same job.
But she was told by Commons Speaker John Bercow that she could not withdraw it because other signatories could "persist with it"”
So, Dame Wa’s’er’face, is probably off to the Headmistress’s study for a short sharp “lecture” on party unity, with a long pointy stick.
-
People’s Vote extension amendment selected for today’s vote, be interesting to see if it gets the required support, I can’t see it happening unfortunately.
-
Every time a second referendum gets mentioned in the chamber a small crowd of people cheer, which is then followed by an almighty roar of disapproval. I'm still sceptical about what the result of a second referendum might be, but I'm surprised it doesn't have more traction in the house as a way of settling the direction of travel.
Bit of a fucker this. With 4 possible options, the one-by-one two-optioned voting approach isn't doing too well!
-
Bit of a fucker this. With 4 possible options, the one-by-one two-optioned voting approach isn't doing too well!
This. Parliament just doesn't seem setup to organise something like Brexit, certainly when the government has lost it's ability to govern
-
Bit of a fucker this. With 4 possible options, the one-by-one two-optioned voting approach isn't doing too well!
This. Parliament just doesn't seem setup to organise Anything more complicated than chimp’s tea party, without the tea or the party or even the chimps, certainly when the government has lost it's ability to govern
You *spelt* that wrong.
-
Because we have outright winners rather than co-alitions we are used to being ruled by executive (pm via whips) rather than consensus (which may happen with a more diverse parliament that PR would provide).
-
Quite honestly, I’m just glad that that hero (The honourable) Pisser Mudrat, has finally riden to the rescue and asked Sheriff Dumbfuck to take over.
We’re saved!
-
I thought this was a very honest thread, can’t have been easy to write:
https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle/status/1106228189368631297
-
I thought this was a very honest thread, can’t have been easy to write:
https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle/status/1106228189368631297
Sadly, the people who really need to compromise even a little bit: the inner circle of the ERG and the DUP, don't show any signs of willingness to think and adapt. It's difficult not to be profoundly cynical about a situation with these groups alongside an opposition whose thought process is confined to trying to pander to a working class who they neither represent or understand. Both sides digging in in their own selfish interest.
-
I am assuming this is similar advice to that which May is hearing, hence her recent statements about “...or not leave at all”?
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/03/19/no-deal-brexit-may-be-unlawful-a-view-from-rose-slowe/ (https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/03/19/no-deal-brexit-may-be-unlawful-a-view-from-rose-slowe/)
-
I read that blog post from an 'Honorary Research Fellow at University of Bristol Law School, an author on EU law, and a barrister at Foundry Chambers', linked above. I have my doubts about it; I think the author may be mistaken...
Leaving the EU without a deal on 29 March 2019 is not the “legal default”, as has been repeatedly, but wrongly, asserted.
The author talks about the constitutional requirement mentioned in the Article 50 text and then goes on to argue that...
The 137-word EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (‘Notification Act’), enacted in response to Miller, did not satisfy this constitutional requirement as it merely permitted the Government to give notice under Article 50.
Finishing...
In conclusion, if the UK is unable to leave the EU in a constitutionally compliant manner by 29 March 2019, as in by an Act of Parliament, then we cannot lawfully withdraw.
The thing is, no where in that blog post is there any mention of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/contents/enacted). I'm pretty sure it's this Act of Parliament which sets the 'legal default' date of 29 March 2019 in a constitutionally compliant manner. See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted)
“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (and see subsections (2) to (5));
It is funny how that blog post completely neglects to mention this major piece of Brexit legislation which is a heck of a lot longer than 137 words. Indeed, which would appear to completely contradict the initial premise of the whole piece. Is it possible that even experts can make mistakes?
-
It looks like we're probably going to leave on 29th without a deal in either case. I really can't imagine May having the imagination and nous to either come up with a concrete plan for an extension or somehow scrape her deal through. So we'll all be poorer and have fewer holidays through a mixture of small minded populist nationalism, and gross incompetence. The real icing on the cake would be Boris Johnson becoming PM into the bargain.
Unless she goes for the ultimate curve ball and revokes article 50.
-
My reading of the runes (and mystic meg is probably about as accurate as anything else in this shit show) is that the EU will force her to change her tack before an extension. gE, referendum, Norway plus etc...
-
Transcribing a tweet, but from Florain Eder, from Politico Europe:
"Asked what May needs to "have in her bag" when she goes to Brussels to ask for Brexit extra time, Junker (said) that "approval of the negotiated [Withdrawal] Agreement" is the precondition for extension.
-
My reading of the runes (and mystic meg is probably about as accurate as anything else in this shit show) is that the EU will force her to change her tack before an extension. gE, referendum, Norway plus etc...
I disagree, I don't think May would agree to change her mind whatever the option. My guess is we're 'out' in a week or so with no deal, no idea, and incompetent blusterers like Grayling to rely on.
-
So hard to try and predict but - here's my complete guess.
May goes to Brussels and EU offers a short extension contingent on approval of the WA
May brings the deal back for MV3, potentially on 28th or 29th March, effectively putting a gun to moderate Tories / Labour MPs to back it or tacitly plunge the country into No Deal
From there? I have no idea.
I think her maneuvering over the last month or so has been a pretty blatant attempt to shift the responsibility for the outcome away from her and on to parliament as a whole.
After the stink Cameron and co made about Labour "crashing the economy in 2007/08" (the veracity of which is not worth going into here), I get the sense that she realises the impending mess when we do crash out without a deal, and wants to ensure that the blame for that falls as far away from her (and the Tory party) as possible.
-
My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.
The great “save Brexit” thing that happened here, a few months back,was tiny. They tried hard to make it look bigger, by blocking the roads outside the conference centre, creating traffic chaos and then claiming it was a massive number of people trying to watch Farage speak.
Actually, their “stewards”, blockedthe road that runs past the conference centre, diverted the traffic throughthe car park and Farage stood at the car park entrance to be interviewed. The was a massive, national, Brass Band Competition,hosted in the conference centre that day andit houses the main leisure centre and wave pool.
I know the above is true, because I was caught up in it, dropping my youngest off to a pool party.
Infact, and it’s a matter of record, 300 people attended the speech. The hall capacity is around a thousand.
I think we’re all fed up with it. Very few have any illusions left, either way and we’ll end up taking the deal. At which point,the realisation that the negotiations are only just starting, will finally break moral and when the continuing uncertainty bites further into the economy,certain politicians and parties will pay.
I predict the break up of both main parties, or at the very least, internal revolutions and an overthrow of the current structures.
-
... and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.
The EU Withdrawal Act allows the date of exit (and in fact the whole definition of "exit day") to be changed by a minister, without needing to go before parliament. So in theory you are right, in practice it could be undone very quickly.
It would be interesting to hear more on this. It has certainly had no airing in the press. If it's true then it changes the whole picture, especially since parliament has already declared that it does not want a No Deal scenario.
-
... and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.
The EU Withdrawal Act allows the date of exit (and in fact the whole definition of "exit day") to be changed by a minister, without needing to go before parliament. So in theory you are right, in practice it could be undone very quickly.
It would be interesting to hear more on this. It has certainly had no airing in the press. If it's true then it changes the whole picture, especially since parliament has already declared that it does not want a No Deal scenario.
That's all covered in the text of the Act which I linked a few posts ago. See...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted#section-20-2 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted#section-20-2)
(2)In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3)Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b)amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
(5)In subsections (3) and (4) “the Treaties” means the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
So, yes, my understanding is it would be possible for a Minister to change the exit date without going to Parliament but for that to happen someone in Westminster would have to actually make a decision and then be prepared to stick to that decision... precious little chance of that I fear. ::)
-
I was just looking at that. I think subsection (3) is the interesting one though. The right under (4) arises only when the defined 'exit date' is no longer the date on which the Treaties cease to apply in accordance with Art 50.
The date referred to at Art 50 is the date set out in the withdrawal agreement or such later date as the Council and member state unanimously agree.
I think the provision is to allow a minister to make that change once a new date is agreed. It's housekeeping basically.
-
My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.
I think it's fair to say that Leave isn't a walky movement.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/
-
I was just looking at that. I think subsection (3) is the interesting one though. The right under (4) arises only when the defined 'exit date' is no longer the date on which the Treaties cease to apply in accordance with Art 50.
The date referred to at Art 50 is the date set out in the withdrawal agreement or such later date as the Council and member state unanimously agree.
I think the provision is to allow a minister to make that change once a new date is agreed. It's housekeeping basically.
Waaaiiit a minute... a piece of political text open to interpretation? :-\
-
My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.
I think it's fair to say that Leave isn't a walky movement.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/
All voting for cheaper US chicken no doubt. Fat fuckers.
-
My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.
I think it's fair to say that Leave isn't a walky movement.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/
All voting for cheaper US chicken no doubt. Fat fuckers.
Pete it's heartwarming to see you finally begin to understand that Brexit is going to be damaging to lots and lots of British people.
Now we need to work on that whole "promised extra sovereignty is just an illusion" thing, and you'll be up to speed on this clusterfuck.
-
In reply to petekitso: Quite right, housekeeping. :agree: The EU treaties cease to apply two years after the triggering of Article 50 unless an extension is requested (by the UK) and agreed unanimously (by the EU). Both parties presumably would then agree on a new date... :popcorn:
The Act allows a Minister to change the exit date without approval of Parliament, but I can't see a point in doing so unless the EU consent to an extension. I'm sure it would take more than simply changing the exit date for the exit date to actually change!
-
Hmmm. I don't think that's what it's saying. It's saying that Exit Day means 11pm on 29th March. It then says that if this time is different from the time at which the treaties of the EU cease to apply to us (i.e. I expect this would mean if we negotiate an extension or if for some other reason the EU decide to kick us out before/after the originally set date) then a minister ("by regulations" not sure what that means) can change the date. But they can't exercise that power without the exit day and the end of treaties being different.
So they've built that in to be able to avoid having to change the legislation in Parliament and accidentally falling into No Deal if an extension is agreed at 10:59pm.
Edit: Too slow. What Pete said.
In reply to petekitso: Quite right, housekeeping. :agree: The EU treaties cease to apply two years after the triggering of Article 50 unless an extension is requested (by the UK) and agreed unanimously (by the EU). Both parties presumably would then agree on a new date... :popcorn:
The Act allows a Minister to change the exit date without approval of Parliament, but I can't see a point in doing so unless the EU consent to an extension. I'm sure it would take more than simply changing the exit date for the exit date to actually change!
Read the legislation again. A minister can't change the date unilaterally unless for some reason the treaties end at a different time to 11pm 29th March i.e. the EU have agreed to an extension and agreed the date. And then, the minister can only change the date to match that at which the treaties stop. It's just to make sure that the UK's exit time can be aligned with the EU's understanding of the exit time.
-
My Facebook feed is full of posts about a mass Brexiteer protest, this Friday, to “bring the country to a standstill” by blocking motorways; country wide, if May secures an extention.
Given the pathetic turnout for the mass march to London, I’m skeptical, but, who knows.
I think it's fair to say that Leave isn't a walky movement.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/
All voting for cheaper US chicken no doubt. Fat fuckers.
Pete it's heartwarming to see you finally begin to understand that Brexit is going to be damaging to lots and lots of British people.
Now we need to work on that whole "promised extra sovereignty is just an illusion" thing, and you'll be up to speed on this clusterfuck.
Urghh.. you sound like O'Brian from 1984. Do you own a rat?
-
In reply to petekitso: Quite right, housekeeping. :agree: The EU treaties cease to apply two years after the triggering of Article 50 unless an extension is requested (by the UK) and agreed unanimously (by the EU). Both parties presumably would then agree on a new date... :popcorn:
The Act allows a Minister to change the exit date without approval of Parliament, but I can't see a point in doing so unless the EU consent to an extension. I'm sure it would take more than simply changing the exit date for the exit date to actually change!
Is this where that obscure legislation, The Acts, Provisions and General What-actual-fuck Law of Unintended Consequences (entacted under the reign of Ug-the-fat, 22400BC and never repealed) comes into play?
-
Urghh.. you sound like O'Brian from 1984. Do you own a rat?
Toys back in the pram Pete. This piece in the FT on post-Brexit sovereignty (tl;dr - :wavecry:) was paywalled but you can, if you are so inclined, read it here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1PiTy-XgAImUfo.jpg
Just out of interest, do you see Brexit as having any negative effects on you personally? You're quite clear that you know there will be real problems for some people - "that's life" - but do you think any of the shit hitting the fan is going to splatter on you? Genuine question.
-
Urghh.. you sound like O'Brian from 1984. Do you own a rat?
Toys back in the pram Pete.
Rolls eyes.
-
Just out of interest, do you see Brexit as having any negative effects on you personally? You're quite clear that you know there will be real problems for some people - "that's life" - but do you think any of the shit hitting the fan is going to splatter on you? Genuine question.
Genuine answer. Not really no.
I have a secure good job, and in each of our quarterly manager's meetings since the referendum the directors have stated our order books are looking good, there is no sign on the ground of any let up in the construction industry, the petrochemical industry, power generation or infrastructure projects in the UK, at least at the level it impacts us. So work-wise no, not for me.
Consumer wise - I expect prices of some goods will rise, certainly in the short term. Some may fall as traders exploit loopholes. Longer term I expect no difference. Will this negatively affect me? Not particularly. If I can't afford blueberries from Spain as many times per week as I currently can then I'll be OK :thumbsup: I can't think of anything I won't be able to afford post brexit that means so much to me that my life will be significantly worse off by not being to afford it. I'm fortunate that I'm well paid and don't have too many overheads - not the typical but a good position to be in. So consumer wise no.
Travel. I'll be able to take the same trips that I could before we left the EU. It may require a tiny bit of extra paperwork, but nothing that travelling outside the EU doesn't currently. So travel wise no.
Socially - Most EU nationals I know socially are planning to stay. A minority are planning to leave. This *might* be the area I notice most but that isn't really clear yet.
I fully expect you or someone else will come back with points about people less fortunate than me. Can I preempt you by saying you're better off asking them directly how they think their life will be impacted, rather than me. My guess would be that some would answer you that their conditions were pretty shit when we were in the EU, and that they don't think there'll be much change overall.
-
Read the legislation again. A minister can't change the date unilaterally unless for some reason the treaties end at a different time to 11pm 29th March i.e. the EU have agreed to an extension and agreed the date. And then, the minister can only change the date to match that at which the treaties stop. It's just to make sure that the UK's exit time can be aligned with the EU's understanding of the exit time.
[/quote]
That's my reading. A regulation is just a statutory instrument made under delegated ministerial responsibility.
-
Mind you, I don't even know how to quote preceding posts properly . . .
-
We leave the EU when the art 50 period expires in a few days time unless the period is extended by agreement with the EU or art 50 is withdrawn which can been done unilaterally. The Withdrawal Act only determines when we leave from the UK's pov by repealing the European Communities Act, but to remain there would need to be agreement from both sides. The point about being able to alter the exit date is that it can be done quickly if necessary, rather than needing primary legislation so it is incorrect to say that we necessarily leave by default at the end of March because there would be insufficient time to pass new legislation through the houses. There seem to be 3 options that are most probable at this stage (although this seems to change on an hourly basis): 1. Eu grants short extension ruling out longer extension - that forces parliament to vote on WA vs no-deal and WA wins (provided the vote is allowed). 2. As before, WA loses, no deal. 3. If the deal is voted on before art 50 expires, an amendment is added to the motion to withdraw art 50 in the event that WA is voted down so as to uphold parliament's previous vote for no no-deal in any circs, art 50 withdrawn, possible collapse of government (I'm unsure if we can unilaterally withdraw art 50 during an extended period). My guess is that the WA will pass because parliament has exhausted itself of options and is too cowardly to revoke art 50.
-
:agree:
To Will and petekitso. I'm sure our understanding of this is the same, we can all read after all! Are we not pretty much saying the same thing?! :???: :unsure: :???:
I've emended my previous quote, just in case my earlier one was a little imprecise...
The Act allows a Minister to change the exit date without approval of Parliament should circumstances require, but I can't see a point in doing it being possible to do so unless the EU consent to an extension. I'm sure it would take more than simply changing the exit date for the exit date to actually change!
...any better? :???: :unsure: :???: But, everyone please do feel free to continue telling me what I think! ;) Shesh, it's almost as if this thread exists just for people to find arguments with one another!...
By the way, I found the oft-used phrase 'accidentally leave with No Deal' an interesting one. The UK voted in a Referendum to leave the EU, elected two parties on manifestos pledging to honour that result, MPs voted overwhelmingly to invoke Article 50 setting a deadline to leave with or without a deal then voted overwhelmingly to fix a date in law. In what way is our leaving without a deal 'accidental'? 'Unintended', maybe; 'undesirable', if you wish; but 'accidental'?! :doubt:
-
Probably close enough but no offence intended (or taken) on my part anyway.
-
Likewise. We may have the same understanding but I could only go on what you'd written which wasn't clear. You can clear it up even more if you like!
The Act allows a Minister to change the exit date without approval of Parliament should circumstances require, but I can't see a point in doing it being possible to do so unless the EU consent to an extension. I'm sure it would take more than simply changing the exit date for the exit date to actually change!
OK, I'll stop being a patronising twat now.
elected two parties on manifestos pledging to honour that result
This is one of my least favourite bits of rhetoric. With a two party system where both of the major parties made the same committment there was really no choice. Anybody not wishing to partake of what they offered would have either had to not vote for anyone or vote for a third party, which in many seats means welcoming in a party that you're fundamentally opposed to. There was no real choice and thus a vote for that party cannot be taken as endorsement of all their policies.
This needs clarity as well:
52% of The UK voted in a Referendum to leave the EU. 48% expressed a contrary opinion.
MPs voted overwhelmingly to invoke Article 50 setting a deadline to leave with or without a deal then voted overwhelmingly to fix a date in law. In what way is our leaving without a deal 'accidental'? 'Unintended', maybe; 'undesirable', if you wish; but 'accidental'?! :doubt:
When a majority of MPs votes to avoid No Deal under any circumstances (because they changed their minds, something which many would have us believe the rest of the country is incapable of), but then finds that they've locked the doors and windows of the car that's speeding towards the cliff edge - that is accidentally leaving without a deal.
-
Pointless statement by PM.
Childish behaviour by Corbyn
Meanwhile another finger holding onto the cliff edge has let go...
-
Pointless statement by PM.
Childish behaviour by Corbyn
Meanwhile another finger holding onto the cliff edge has let go...
Yup. It's really rather depressing. I don't know if I'd consider it an 'accidental' no deal. But it's the outcome which most MPs don't want, I believe most people don't want, but not enough of them have the motivation, bravery or in some cases intelligence to do anything about it.
Many hugely wealthy Euro sceptical MP s have their way, rejoice that they shorted the pound and retire to the massive mansion they can now afford in Tuscany. Meanwhile Corbyn continues to pretend he's the man of the people, whilst being as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican; and behaving like a spoilt 4 year old.
-
I can't help but agree with pretty much every European politician quoted in this article:
Pathetic, incoherent, chaotic: Europe's verdict on Brexit shambles
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/pathetic-incoherent-chaotic-europes-verdict-on-brexit-shambles?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Petition to revoke Art50, breaks Gov website and becomes fastest growing in the site’s history.
Farage launches a poll, during Peston’s show:
(https://i.ibb.co/cTkn4FL/A0301050-9482-42-BA-BEC5-1-B7-D113-C17-E1.jpg)
Brexit march down to 50 people.
May criticised for possibluy inciting violence against MPs and roundly condemned from all quarters for her address (seems like the best way to convince people to support you, right? Call them idiots, imply they are traitorous and betraying the people? Winning strategy, for sure :slap:).
-
Actually, I only got home ten minutes ago, so the above post was just my initial reaction to skimming the news,whilst I made lunch.
Having now read more in depth, eaten and finnished a cuppa; it’s probably worse than I thought. Funny that the Telegraph and the Guardian read almost identically in their savaging of May.
Anyway, this made me giggle:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-speech-bbc-news-statement-eu-delay-a8832941.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1553170220 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-speech-bbc-news-statement-eu-delay-a8832941.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1553170220)
-
Just out of interest, do you see Brexit as having any negative effects on you personally? You're quite clear that you know there will be real problems for some people - "that's life" - but do you think any of the shit hitting the fan is going to splatter on you? Genuine question.
Genuine answer. Not really no.
I have a secure good job, and in each of our quarterly manager's meetings since the referendum the directors have stated our order books are looking good, there is no sign on the ground of any let up in the construction industry, the petrochemical industry, power generation or infrastructure projects in the UK, at least at the level it impacts us. So work-wise no, not for me.
Consumer wise - I expect prices of some goods will rise, certainly in the short term. Some may fall as traders exploit loopholes. Longer term I expect no difference. Will this negatively affect me? Not particularly. If I can't afford blueberries from Spain as many times per week as I currently can then I'll be OK :thumbsup: I can't think of anything I won't be able to afford post brexit that means so much to me that my life will be significantly worse off by not being to afford it. I'm fortunate that I'm well paid and don't have too many overheads - not the typical but a good position to be in. So consumer wise no.
Travel. I'll be able to take the same trips that I could before we left the EU. It may require a tiny bit of extra paperwork, but nothing that travelling outside the EU doesn't currently. So travel wise no.
Socially - Most EU nationals I know socially are planning to stay. A minority are planning to leave. This *might* be the area I notice most but that isn't really clear yet.
I fully expect you or someone else will come back with points about people less fortunate than me. Can I preempt you by saying you're better off asking them directly how they think their life will be impacted, rather than me. My guess would be that some would answer you that their conditions were pretty shit when we were in the EU, and that they don't think there'll be much change overall.
So, no real change for you, then, Pete?
-
Petition to revoke Art50, breaks Gov website and becomes fastest growing in the site’s history.
Because the internet is beautiful: someone has re-purposed their surrealist dick jokes Twitterbot to post the count, to help reduce the load on the website from people checking it to watch the number go up:
https://twitter.com/ultrabutt
-
Look, regardless of your position on Brexit (and because the Gov will ignore this, as they always do); can we just all (and I mean all) sign this and encourage as many others to, as possible?
Because, if it passed 17.4 million signatures, Nigel Farge’s head would actually explode (or, at the very least, start bleeding from the ears and eyes), and that mustbe worth it, even if you’re a Brexit supporter.
(https://i.ibb.co/X3rz8Hx/60-DD62-C5-97-F8-46-F9-80-E7-6-E923-F16-FACC.png)
-
I have, and passed it on. Have you?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
Sorry if the link was already posted.
-
So, the Great Brexit roadblock protest, seems to be huge.
I realise I might be jumping the gun, but it was scheduled for “Rush hour” today and (according to the organisers) “going to bring the country to it’s knees”.
Anyway, getting home from work at 17:30 and skimming the news with post daily grind cuppa, I realised there seemed to be no mention of the great event in the national media.
“Ho Ho!” I thought, “must be a media/Gov conspiracy to mask the outpouring of popular sentiment”.
So I actively Googled the dramatic and heroic actions of the downtrodden masses, and sure enough it’s being covered by the underground media. Just look!
(https://i.ibb.co/b2VYZkw/4-FAF7210-3-C29-4-D58-B0-CE-4-C4829-FA571-D.png)
Of course, that’s over now and the brave fighters have been dragged off by the Babylon, but they went down fighting the oppressors.
The movement is unstoppable though:
(https://i.ibb.co/yhwLLfP/0-DF2-AA1-F-059-D-48-EF-83-C7-669-E22-D7-FE58.png)
-
I’m sorry, it’s a dull evening. My youngest is having a sleepover and the lounge is 10 year old girl territory (I think they’re watching The Voice, or something equally banal); so I’m hiding on the Kitchen couch watching Watership Down on Netflix and keeping abreast of the day’s drama between episodes.
It’s all kicking off:
(https://i.ibb.co/KNr5JMj/D77-DBD5-F-E02-A-463-F-9-D60-B1920-E04-A533.png)
-
:jab:I know, I know...
But seriously, this write up is hilarious:
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/brexit-ferry-protest-plymouth-no-2677855 (https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/brexit-ferry-protest-plymouth-no-2677855)
Edit:
Actually, I was just having a humorous dig, rather than making serious comment, but, compare the two realities:
4.2 million signatures on the revoke art 50 petition.
People’s vote march? Arriving by the bus load, some from Scotland:
https://bbc.in/2JC1sbV (https://bbc.in/2JC1sbV)
-
I wanted to go today. Bit flew in last night and having been away a week I wanted to see family - and I’d have been killed if I’d not provided some childcare respite!!
-
Ummmm....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/put-it-to-the-people-march-brexit-second-referendum-london-a8836756.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/put-it-to-the-people-march-brexit-second-referendum-london-a8836756.html)
-
I wanted to go today. Bit flew in last night and having been away a week I wanted to see family - and I’d have been killed if I’d not provided some childcare respite!!
Was hoping to go too but it clashed with daughter's dance show and who could pass on the opportunity to have every The Greatest Showman song and a clutch of modern pop classics blasted at you at level 11 while sitting through 40 odd acts to see your child for two minutes
-
I’ve been there- or somewhere very similar. Except that she was hidden at the back in the first performance so we had to watch the whole shebang twice.
-
Apparently the revolution will have to wait for people to perform family duties :lol:
-
Apparently the revolution will have to wait for people to perform family duties :lol:
Nowadays the revolution waits for the crooked arm of a social media company to swing behind it...
-
Apparently the revolution will have to wait for people to perform family duties :lol:
Nowadays the revolution waits for the crooked arm of a social media company to swing behind it...
Ain’t dat de trufe.
-
So, no real change for you, then, Pete?
No. I’m in Spain now, and I expect I will be again before too long whatever happens..
-
(https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOzfZIkIH1Bj9TvN80K9bAwCDzXShMHRxF89PtA)
:o
-
(https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOzfZIkIH1Bj9TvN80K9bAwCDzXShMHRxF89PtA)
:o
404 on that link shark
-
Petition just breached 5 million!
-
Officially, according to the site themselves, the estimated error/fake/false margine is approximately 4% (I believe their metric is url based), so it probably is significant.
If ultimately meaningless.
I wish it wasn’t. I certainly signed.
-
Went on that march thing. Don't want to jump the gun, but I think it may have had more people than Nigel's ...
-
It is amazing how on the day 1 million marched in London - the BBC decided that to be balanced they reported on farages march. That at its peak when he was speaking in a pub car park had 137 attendees.
I think the really interesting thing is the spatial breakdown of the vote. MANY Tory areas have a very high proportion - and many trad labour ones (nE, s Wales) are very low.
I suspect the biggest impact may be MPs looking at what’s going on where they are based...
-
It’s 5.15 million.
But, May’s incredibly stubborn. Half the cabinet are die hard Brexiteers. Don’t believe there will even be a debate, let alone a second ref and as for simple revocation?
Yeah, right.
Nevertheless, it seriously undermines the “will of the people” argument. It guarantees this will continue to divide the nation for years to come, regardless of the outcome of this process.
-
It’s 5.15 million.
my oldest child turned 18 after the referendum
she, and her friends, have been trying to have a say - their main issue is the people who voted leave who have since died
-
My eldst is 13.
I mighthave already related this, somewhere above, but she turns 14 in August.
She’s entitled to adopt Romanian citizenship at 14, without my consent, by Romanian law and then hold dual nationality until she turns 18, when (as I understand it) she must choose.
She told me she’s going to do so. She’s arranging with her Grandmother to travel out for her birthday and collect her ID card and Passport.
I had no say in it.
She said she is very anti-Brexit. Actually, she was more assertive than that, not complimentary of the “Baby boomers” in general and said she wanted a bailout option that prserved her EU citizenship.
I know it might seem the obvious conclusion that I have influenced and encouraged that position, but Politics is an absolutely taboo subject in this house (hence my avid discussion here, my only outlet).
For reference, whilst they debrided her scalded foot, for the second time, late Thursday night; she recited Pi to 30 decimal places, to distract herself from the pain.
Not sure if myself or the Consultant was the more shocked.
-
Surprised she couldn't get to 50, yeah?
-
Surprised she couldn't get to 50, yeah?
Probably. Biggest Geek I ever met.
This is worth a read:
https://www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-4c03-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64 (https://www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-4c03-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64)
-
Surprised she couldn't get to 50, yeah?
Probably. Biggest Geek I ever met.
This is worth a read:
https://www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-4c03-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64 (https://www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-4c03-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64)
Copy and paste for us the wrong side of the paywall if you have a mo please?
-
Surprised she couldn't get to 50, yeah?
Probably. Biggest Geek I ever met.
This is worth a read:
https://www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-4c03-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64 (https://www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-4c03-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64)
Copy and paste for us the wrong side of the paywall if you have a mo please?
Actually it was free to read, when I read it, not anymore. Sorry. I don’t subscribe either, but usually get a few articles per month free through FB.
-
My eldst is 13.
She told me she’s going to do so. She’s arranging with her Grandmother to travel out for her birthday and collect her ID card and Passport.
I had no say in it.
Do you oppose this? If she has any interest in an education or career in science or tech, which doesn't seem out of the question from the pi anecdote, then this is exactly the correct decision.
-
My eldst is 13.
She told me she’s going to do so. She’s arranging with her Grandmother to travel out for her birthday and collect her ID card and Passport.
I had no say in it.
Do you oppose this? If she has any interest in an education or career in science or tech, which doesn't seem out of the question from the pi anecdote, then this is exactly the correct decision.
Absolutely not!
I couldn’t be more proud of the little firebrand she’s turning into.
I’m also impressed that she’s quite popular at school and can’t quite workout why she’s not a bullied Geek like I was at that age.
Having her Mum’s looks and charm probably helps...
-
I realise this thread is generally free of satire, but I thought Jonathan Pie nailed it pretty well this weekend. (And besides, there's not much satire left to be had in this shit fest so his more recent reports/rants are relatively devoid of comedy and just brutally to the point).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IL2XwSkFJQ
-
Mr Pie is definitely more shout than satire these days - and it's not him that's changed. Spot on as usual.
-
I realise this thread is generally free of satire, but I thought Jonathan Pie nailed it pretty well this weekend. (And besides, there's not much satire left to be had in this shit fest so his more recent reports/rants are relatively devoid of comedy and just brutally to the point).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IL2XwSkFJQ
Yep.
That didn’t quite make me cry, but it was close.
-
For all those still wondering about the interplay between the EU Withdrawal Act's definition of exit day and the treaty definition, here is the (draft) amendment regulation that will change it:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111184622 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111184622)
-
It's a good thing they remembered to do that, otherwise there might have been a genuine case of the UK accidentally leaving with No Deal and 29th March. :lol:
2 (a) might be a bit redundant though, wasn't that dependent on Mrs May's deal, the one which she isn't bringing to the House on Tuesday, getting accepted by Parliament?
They're a bit pressed for time too; need to get it agreed by both houses so squeezing something that usually takes 6-8 weeks into 2-3 days.
:popcorn:
Dress-down Friday is going to be unusually exciting in the House of Lords this week I dare say!
https://youtu.be/LSlcKqPmk1s
-
So....
Who’s in charge now?
-
So....
Who’s in charge now?
The EU. Obviously.
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-notes/no-notes-davis-riles-anti-brexit-camp-in-negotiations-idUSKBN1A213Z (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-notes/no-notes-davis-riles-anti-brexit-camp-in-negotiations-idUSKBN1A213Z)
It may have been that way for a while tbh...
-
So....
Who’s in charge now?
The EU. Obviously.
Well, I was thinking, I have a couple hours free, this Thursday and since this is “the easiest deal in history”; I thoughtit might be a good starter for me to begin with. I thought it might be a plus for my Level 1 Economics evening classes.
-
Fuck me!
JRM is back-pedalling on “No Deal”!
https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2019/03/the-moggcast-deal-or-no-brexit-becomes-the-choice-eventually-mays-deal-is-better-than-not-leaving-at-all.html (https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2019/03/the-moggcast-deal-or-no-brexit-becomes-the-choice-eventually-mays-deal-is-better-than-not-leaving-at-all.html)
-
Oh dear. Deal it is. I'd rather hoped that the deadlock would continue which at least offered the glimmer of a reversal.
-
Oh dear. Deal it is. I'd rather hoped that the deadlock would continue which at least offered the glimmer of a reversal.
Don't worry. The DUP and a harcore of c.20 Brexit Ultra's will vote against it...
Ultra's - Grand wizards. Theres something in those names the separatists call themselves....
But if it does squeak through - it sounds like pretty much any sort of deal (aside from remain) can be hammered out in the second part of the process. By then we may have had a new PM or/and a GE.
-
Fuck me!
JRM is back-pedalling on “No Deal”!
https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2019/03/the-moggcast-deal-or-no-brexit-becomes-the-choice-eventually-mays-deal-is-better-than-not-leaving-at-all.html (https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2019/03/the-moggcast-deal-or-no-brexit-becomes-the-choice-eventually-mays-deal-is-better-than-not-leaving-at-all.html)
Trying to derive what's going on here is tricky at best but my two cents is that over the weekend at the Chequers PM / ERG shindig the PM got buy-in for the deal but the price was her resignation soon after. That seems to be the noises all the pro-Brexit MPs were making yesterday.
I'm guessing they are assuming / hoping that in the resultant leadership election a more hardline candidate (Boris? JRM? Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabb?) would prevail and they could then start playing hardball in the subsequent negotiations.
I have no idea about process here, but if it came to that - could (say) Mark Francois as PM (I've just been sick in my mouth) retrospectively revoke the deal as part of the trade negotiations?
-
If you - like some Brexiters - believe Brexit is all about sovereignty and control, and nothing to do with disliking foreigners, then this article by the FT's chief economics commentator should make you think again*:
https://www.ft.com/content/473bd2ae-4ee5-11e9-b401-8d9ef1626294
If it's paywalled for you, then google FT and "The Brexit delusion of taking back control" and follow the links - that usually works, but sometimes need to be in private browsing mode.
* I am not actually expecting any Brexiters to think again.
-
Update from my inbox:
Parliament is going to debate the petition you signed – “Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.”.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
The debate is scheduled for 1 April 2019.
I hope that doesn't clash with the annual bolting of Ulysses.
-
Next line of the response:
"This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union."
Doesn't really leave much room for a debate...
-
Does rely on 'this government' surviving the Art 50 extension though.
-
Does rely on 'this government' surviving the Art 50 extension though.
What Government?
-
Sounds like typical May at the 1922 comm tonight... no schedule - no timetable - nothing firm. Suspect it'll please a few people in the short term but then people will look at it and realise what she said was meaningless... If she never gets her deal through (a big possibility) then she'll never resign??
-
Not how it sounds to me.. Lets see what the DUP say.. on hearing May's news they cancelled their statement that was due at 6pm.
-
She’ll gain a good load of those that voted against - but not enough I think. But will also lose some of the labour rebels who voted for her deal. As this (potentially) lands the next phase of negotiations with Boris or who ever. A handful of votes can swing it either way.
You can game it here (nice link). It’s pretty hard for her to get it through I estimate...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/can-you-get-mays-deal-through-meaningful-vote-3?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Anyway. So much for taking back control.
Hope the separatist/brexit voters will be happy that if her deal gets the nod our next PM and possible architect of our EU-less future will be selected by a Westminster cabal ratified by 100000 Tory party members.
And people think having another referendum is somehow undemocratic.
-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
So, that’s cleared that up.
Couple or ten stiff drinks, anyone?
-
At least we now know what they don't want. :wank:
-
"What followed was a masterclass in hypocrisy so severe that it was startling even in this golden age of consequence-free political lying."
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/27/the-obscene-moral-spectacle-of-theresa-may-s-resignation (https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/27/the-obscene-moral-spectacle-of-theresa-may-s-resignation)
-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
So, that’s cleared that up.
Couple or ten stiff drinks, anyone?
Have a watch of Bercow reading out the vote results earlier, and MPs marking their cards, it looks for all the world like a really badly organised bingo hall. Corbyn appears to be struggling to cope with his card, depressingly many of them appear to find it hilarious that they haven't got a clue, can't discuss things with colleagues and have no concept of sensible compromise.
-
In other bad news for those of us doing any driving on the continent, we'll now (almost certainly) need a 'Green Card' (available from your motor insurer) and an International Driving Permit (available for £5.50 from the Post Office. But you have to go in, not available online). And you'll need 2 if you're driving France to Spain.
This to me epitomises what life will be like after Brexit.
It's not that much worse, your Dad will say it's what you used to have to do anyway, but it's just extra faff, admin hassle and slight cost that you don't need and didn't have before.
https://www.gov.uk/driving-abroad/international-driving-permit (https://www.gov.uk/driving-abroad/international-driving-permit)
-
Intrigued as to where the money from these things will actually go? Just cover the self perpetuated admin costs?
-
This Brexit farce is slowing transmorphing into the sketch in Little Britain (how apt) where they guy in the wheelchair says "Don't like it".
-
In other bad news for those of us doing any driving on the continent, we'll now (almost certainly) need a 'Green Card' (available from your motor insurer) and an International Driving Permit (available for £5.50 from the Post Office. But you have to go in, not available online). And you'll need 2 if you're driving France to Spain.
This is only if we leave with no deal though presumably? If a softer brexit materialises maintaining EEA & single market membership we wouldn't I don't think, but may be wrong.
-
In other bad news for those of us doing any driving on the continent, we'll now (almost certainly) need a 'Green Card' (available from your motor insurer) and an International Driving Permit (available for £5.50 from the Post Office. But you have to go in, not available online). And you'll need 2 if you're driving France to Spain.
This is only if we leave with no deal though presumably? If a softer brexit materialises maintaining EEA & single market membership we wouldn't I don't think, but may be wrong.
You're probably right. At the moment don't even know if I'll need them or not as travelling in April. But I don't want this sort of thing to kybosh my holiday so will probably get them just in case!
-
Same, flying to France on April 15th. I was aware of the International Driving Permit but not of the green card, so thanks!
-
This Brexit farce is slowing transmorphing into the sketch in Little Britain (how apt) where they guy in the wheelchair says "Don't like it".
Closer to the Little Britain Mr Mann sketches
https://littlebritain.fandom.com/wiki/Mr_Mann
-
ahh, I've just seen the green card is for if you are driving your own car abroad, correct me if I'm wrong.
-
This Brexit farce is slowing transmorphing into the sketch in Little Britain (how apt) where they guy in the wheelchair says "Don't like it".
Closer to the Little Britain Mr Mann sketches
https://littlebritain.fandom.com/wiki/Mr_Mann
“Parliament says NO”...
-
ahh, I've just seen the green card is for if you are driving your own car abroad, correct me if I'm wrong.
Yep I'm driving via Eurotunnel. I've also been told by a colleague that she had massive delays on Eurostar due to customs checks, hopefully will not experience that in April...
-
Yep I'm driving via Eurotunnel. I've also been told by a colleague that she had massive delays on Eurostar due to customs checks, hopefully will not experience that in April...
I did a day trip to France a few weeks ago, using the Eurotunnel. Going was fine, coming back the French customs were working to rule which may or may not have been Brexit related, anyhow had a couple of hours sitting in the car park and inching forwards.
Aggregating the time over everyone sat there, it seems (like the enforced post office visit) to be a massive collective waste for no gain, in fact a waste of time and effort for a collective loss. It won't even deliver the promised benefits of "ruling ourselves" as that argument relies on a complete misunderstanding of what we can and can't do.
Plus of course the lost opportunities to fix the things that really matter.
-
I'd love to write the sketch for The News Quiz.
Bercow: Ordeeeeeeeer! Ordeeeer! I'm only going to say this once so listen very closely. Has everybody got their voting slip? You should find a voting slip on your bench.
*Mutters of aye from the house*
Bercow: Has anybody NOT got their voti... Yes, Diane it's on the other side. The other side, Diane. Yes. Yes. Turn it over, Dian... Kier, please could you help Diane turn her vo... Yes, there we are.
Now, I want you to read through the options that are presented there. Boris, Theresa will help you to read them. I say, Theresa, please could you help Boris read through his voting slip? And don't tell him that the "No Deal" option is the "Revoke" option, Theresa, you're better than that. Philip, please could you check that Theresa is honest with Boris? Thank you.
Now, when you've read the options I want you to indicate with a cross whether you're in favour of them.
*Inaudible from the Labour bench*
Bercow: No, no, no. Jeremy you can't fill in other people's slips for them, they have to make up their own minds. Yes, I know they made you leader but you've made up your own mind plenty of times in the past, it's time to let the others have their turn at it.
And on and on and on.
-
It's times like this that I miss Spitting Image.
-
It's times like this that I miss Spitting Image.
Hard to grasp, but I almost miss Maggie.
And she was a total psycho bitch.
She was, at least, decisive and commanding in her unrestrained cruelty.
-
Yep I'm driving via Eurotunnel. I've also been told by a colleague that she had massive delays on Eurostar due to customs checks, hopefully will not experience that in April...
I did a day trip to France a few weeks ago, using the Eurotunnel. Going was fine, coming back the French customs were working to rule which may or may not have been Brexit related, anyhow had a couple of hours sitting in the car park and inching forwards.
We had the same experience in January. No problems on the way out but on our return, Calais had been turned in to a car park with the customs queues spiralling all around the port for miles to prevent the traffic backing up too far on to the motorway. They had portaloos set up all along the routrand seemed to have drafted in thousands of students with high vis jackets and glowsticks to direct the traffic. We presumed it was all part of the brexit contingency planning as there were no reports of any other issues.
I would have had a few more attempts at the problem I was trying rather than rushing back to the car had I known there wasn't a hope in hell of making our designated crossing.
We're going back in April too. I'm assuming we won't have left yet by then but we'll be sorting out an international license and green card just in case and I'm fully expecting extra delays regardless of whether brexit has been finalised.
On traveling to Dubai this month, I see they haven't waited for us to make our minds up, British passport holders have already had more stringent visa requirements imposed than the rest of the EU.
-
I'd love to write the sketch for The News Quiz.
Bercow: Ordeeeeeeeer! Ordeeeer! ...
The thing is, it really didn't need the sketch, the reality was a surreal comedy as it was.
On the subject of R4 comedy, last week's now show had a great sketch with Corbyn at a kebab festival saying 'how much I like hammas. Err... I mean hummus.'
-
So, I know this will come as a shock, but “the deal” has been defeated in Parliament for a third time.
I sat down to have a cup of tea, read the papers etc, after the last of the Lunchtime training mob cleared out and there it was.
Such a surprise! It was only every fucking single commentator, pundit, politician, layman, Buddhist monk in a Himalayan cave (and even my 12 week old Collie barked “May’s got no fucking chance” in my ear over breakfast this morning); that predicted this.
-
https://www.facebook.com/6622931938/posts/10156626651816939?sfns=mo (https://www.facebook.com/6622931938/posts/10156626651816939?sfns=mo)
Sorry for the FB link, can’ Find it on their website yet.
Interesting wording she used.
-
An excellent article on the conspiracy theory bs that seems to have become rife at both political extremes.
It’s far easier to be hoodwinked if you really think they’re out to get you
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/30/far-easier-to-be-hoodwinked-if-you-really-think-they-are-out-to-get-you-conspiracy-theorists?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
The skippers of the Defiant , Resolute and Provider were not hoodwinked. They knew that the CFP is stacked against them and want out to get unfettered access to our territorial waters. They may not get out past Rockall but who knows? I am with them (but not off Rockall).
-
The skippers of the Defiant , Resolute and Provider were not hoodwinked. They knew that the CFP is stacked against them and want out to get unfettered access to our territorial waters. They may not get out past Rockall but who knows? I am with them (but not off Rockall).
Yep. Definitely. :slap:
Actually here’s a far more sarcastic article. The author is grinding his teeth to stumps as he types. 70,000 tons of work, replaced by 150, because Brexit:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/european-carrier-work-offered-to-scotland-blocked-by-uk-government/?no_cache=1 (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/european-carrier-work-offered-to-scotland-blocked-by-uk-government/?no_cache=1)
I understand pacifist objections to arms manufacturing in the UK, I am only considering the economic impact in this post.
-
Too late to edit, but...
Actually, I just did a back of fag-packet calc to estimate an illustration of how ridiculous the above is.
There will be more steel used, in the domestic cold water system, of the carrier, than in the entire fleet of cross Thames ferries. Each ferry will displace less than only 11 of the aircraft carried aboard the carrier, and will provide employment of only 1/100 th (in total for all disciplines) of that I would estimate for the Fabrication alone (of the carriers), before looking at other trades.
-
Actually here’s a far more sarcastic article. The author is grinding his teeth to stumps as he types. 70,000 tons of work, replaced by 150, because Brexit:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/european-carrier-work-offered-to-scotland-blocked-by-uk-government/?no_cache=1 (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/european-carrier-work-offered-to-scotland-blocked-by-uk-government/?no_cache=1)
I understand pacifist objections to arms manufacturing in the UK, I am only considering the economic impact in this post.
Sarcastic's putting it mildly. Did you get to the footnote at the bottom?...
If you have read this far, you will undoubtedly have noticed that the entire story is a fabrication put together by contributors from various parts of the UK defence community and is simply, an April Fools joke.
Today's a good day to stay off the internet.
-
No, that got me.
Totally forgot what day it was...
My desperation for a resurgence in British ship building got the better of me there.
-
:lol:
Oh dear! Surely alarm bells rang at this photo caption?
Luxembourg is expected to produce and ship the bow section.
There's actually a serious point to be made there about how easy it is to fall prey to conspiracy theories and fake news if it fits with a narrative that we like. But I'm better than to make it ... :ang:
-
In my defence, we have reached a point in all this, where very little is too ridiculous to be true...
-
Well, we're really fucked now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47776512
I can't see the cabinet volunteering for an election (and the necessary extension to article 50) as they're - very reasonably - scared they might lose.
I'm really disappointed that more MPs didn't hear Grayling's threat to resign in the case of a soft Brexit and take the opportunity to rid the government of the most incompetent fool in a ship of fools.
-
To be fair to Grayling, he can't be a fool in a ship of fools since he has no ships to be a fool in.
-
I found last night very disappointing. The non ERG headbangers who didn't support a customs union or common market 2.0 should be ashamed. No Deal has to be heavy favourite now...
-
I found last night very disappointing. The non ERG headbangers who didn't support a customs union or common market 2.0 should be ashamed. No Deal has to be heavy favourite now...
Indeed. Boles in his resignation speech said the failure to reach a compromise lay firmly with the conservatives.
God knows what may will do today. She’ll have to change MV4 considerably to enable the speaker to allow it...
-
To be fair to Grayling, he can't be a fool in a ship of fools since he has no ships to be a fool in.
:lol:
I found last night very disappointing. The non ERG headbangers who didn't support a customs union or common market 2.0 should be ashamed. No Deal has to be heavy favourite now...
Yes me too, much as I don't think we should leave I think either of the probable options now is extremely unpalatable. As you say, it's looking most likely that we'll be out without a deal. Which will not affect most of its proponents in parliament, just most of the rest of us.
It's frankly pretty depressing.
-
Indeed. Boles in his resignation speech said the failure to reach a compromise lay firmly with the conservatives.
God knows what may will do today. She’ll have to change MV4 considerably to enable the speaker to allow it...
I think the Conservatives are beyond help on this issue and their penance will be the total destruction of the party if No Deal is the result. I don't feel let down by that side of the house because I expected it from them, I feel let down by the other side! But as you say, today is another day....!
-
Indeed. Boles in his resignation speech said the failure to reach a compromise lay firmly with the conservatives.
God knows what may will do today. She’ll have to change MV4 considerably to enable the speaker to allow it...
I think the Conservatives are beyond help on this issue and their penance will be the total destruction of the party if No Deal is the result. I don't feel let down by that side of the house because I expected it from them, I feel let down by the other side! But as you say, today is another day....!
Too many Groundhogs involved in the days lately...
-
I found last night very disappointing. The non ERG headbangers who didn't support a customs union or common market 2.0 should be ashamed. No Deal has to be heavy favourite now...
Specifically,:
The SNP decided to abstain on the Clarke proposal, which only lost by 3 votes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47781009 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47781009)
But for their support, we'd be looking at a) a way out of this mess with b) a much softer Brexit in prospect. From the tone of Ian Blackford's point of order straight after the results (basically "Scotland wanted to Remain, Parliament can't agree on any proposal, therefore Scotland should be free to do its own thing"), I'm not sure the benefit to their cause justifies the wider cost to the process as a whole.
The TIGgers / CUKers also voted against both Clarke's proposal, and the Boles plan, as their stated aim is a People's Vote (or presumably confirmatory referendum, which is what they backed yesterday)
Plaid Cymru also voted against the Clarke proposal - but then backed all the other proposals. WTF.
Adam Fleming (I think) summed it up well on last night's Brexitcast - that essentially the various factions are all holding out, assuming that if they end up as last man standing they might get what they want.
-
The SNP decided to abstain on the Clarke proposal, which only lost by 3 votes:
The TIGgers / CUKers also voted against both Clarke's proposal, and the Boles plan, as their stated aim is a People's Vote (or presumably confirmatory referendum, which is what they backed yesterday)
Customs union would be a bad option for the country as agreed by nearly everyone from all sides years ago. The only reason to vote for it is having been bullied in to it due to fear of an even more damaging option winning.
I can see the the thinking of voting for it out of fear but, in their situation, I'm not sure I could bring myself to vote for something so inadequate.
Plaid Cymru also voted against the Clarke proposal - but then backed all the other proposals. WTF.
At least they have been consistent. They said from the beginning that they would not support any option that meant losing membership of the single market.
-
I don't get that - why is a customs union so bad?
I mean it's obviously bad if we have no say in future customs negotiations, but that's not a realistic proposition. Looking at the position of, e.g. Turkey, we would probably end up with negotiators in EU trade delegations (as now), but no formal veto over future trade deals (which we do have now).
The obvious pro of a customs union is that size matters in trade negotiations, so we are likely to get better deals as part of the EU. Once we leave, larger economies will want to push us around and get better terms. As clear evidence of this, witness Liam Fox's laughable lack of success in rolling over the deals we currently have as part of the EU.
Balanced against that is we would only be negotiating in our own interests, so wouldn't have to make compromises to protect the French champagne market, for example. This might offset some of the size disadvantages we would have. David Davis has direct experience of this from his Tate & Lyle days, when UK growers of sugar beet were thrown under the bus in favour of cheap sugar cane imports. That might not have happened in a UK-only trade negotiation and you could speculate is the root of Davis's Eurosceptism.
Looking at those factors it seems like a win for the CU to me, or at worst a score draw, but hardly worth getting upset about unless you are a sovereignty fetishist.
The obvious problem with Kuddly Ken's Kustom's Union is that the customs union is being sold as fixing lots of the border issues with NI. But without regulatory alignment you still need checks for regulatory controls, VAT etc so the problem is smaller but is still there.
-
And now everyone’s lost the chance for a CU exit.... no more IV’s....
-
I don't get that - why is a customs union so bad?
If you are a brexiter it offers none of the supposed control or increased sovereignty that we apparently voted for.
If you are a remainer, it surrenders many of the advantages of EU membership while offering nothing in return.
It pleases almost nobody, it doesn't solve the issue of how to maintain the Good Friday Agreement and "take back control". The only thing going for it is being less scary than a potentially worse alternative.
-
It pleases almost nobody, it doesn't solve the issue of how to maintain the Good Friday Agreement and "take back control". The only thing going for it is being less scary than a potentially worse alternative.
I think it removes the need for the backstop... or makes it alot easier....
Compromise may well end up pleasing nobody... but pissing off less people...
-
If you're a Brexiter a CU:
- gets you out of the single market;
- stops freedom of movement;
- stops paying into the EU budget;
- gives EU bodies no legislative power in the UK (except over tariffs);
- means you'll never have the euro, or contribute to an EU army;
- allows you to have an independent trade policy for services.
Seems like a lot to me. How is that characterised as offering "none" of the control or sovereignty voted for?
In contrast to tomtom's post, what it *doesn't* do is remove the need for a backstop, since that is as much about the single market as it is the C.U.
-
Probably wrong :) though CU is a bit of a catch all phrase IIRC and could mean pretty much full alignment (e.g. no need for goods checks on the border) or could be something less... sorry - awkward toddler here
-
Hmmmm...
Any takers?
Brexit: MPs push to prevent no-deal in law https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47789298 (http://Brexit: MPs push to prevent no-deal in law https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47789298)
-
Complete sidenote, but potentially a touch of light relief from the "abyss" as Guy Verhofstadt put it:
"Sweary John Bercow" Twitter is at @BercowSweary
The ever-excellent David Squires in The Guardian covers a bit of Brexit (LOL at "you're betraying the will of some people"):
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/apr/02/david-squires-on-liverpool-spurs-solskjaer-and-warnock (https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/apr/02/david-squires-on-liverpool-spurs-solskjaer-and-warnock)
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-train-railway-line-cambridgeshire-nottinghamshire-police-a8851181.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1554217890 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-train-railway-line-cambridgeshire-nottinghamshire-police-a8851181.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1554217890)
We’re leaving today, under WTF rules.
(It’s not still the 1st, is it)?
-
Cabinet had their phones locked away for 7 hours :)
Bet Liam Fox just sits there playing candy crush otherwise. Maybe he’s a fruit ninja man instead...
-
Breaking News.
May proposes Groundhog day, again.
And again.
And again.
And again, before May 22nd?
-
Actually - this could be quite interesting.... getting a bit house of cards now...
ERG and DUP will be mightily pissed off (which personally I am not upset by,,,)
-
No.10 statement: Look out for Theresa May's no-deal trap
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/04/02/no-10-statement-look-out-for-theresa-may-s-no-deal-trap (https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/04/02/no-10-statement-look-out-for-theresa-may-s-no-deal-trap)
-
David Davis has direct experience of this from his Tate & Lyle days, when UK growers of sugar beet were thrown under the bus in favour of cheap sugar cane imports. That might not have happened in a UK-only trade negotiation and you could speculate is the root of Davis's Eurosceptism.
I know the above is wildly off topic to pick up on, but I thought that actually the opposite was true of David Davis? I. E. Tate & lyle (for whom Davis worked) import most of their sugar from non-uk and were hampered by EU tariffs to protect European beet farmers, which worked in favour of t&l's main competitor British sugar. I think you have davis's motives upside down, I think its him who wants to throw British beets farmers under the bus of free trade principles and bin the tariffs for imported sugar. I am more than happy to be proved wrong by those who have a better Internet connection who can look that up (I'm away atm and just this reply has taken long enough), but if true it would invert your speculation on his motives for euroscepticism.
-
David Davis has direct experience of this from his Tate & Lyle days, when UK growers of sugar beet were thrown under the bus in favour of cheap sugar cane imports. That might not have happened in a UK-only trade negotiation and you could speculate is the root of Davis's euroscepticism
He's explicitly said that this is the case, on nick Robinson's podcast political thinking
-
It must be true then!
-
- gives EU bodies no legislative power in the UK (except over tariffs);
Sort of depends what's agreed. There's more to customs law than tariffs. I wish I knew what was going on, I'm supposed to be presenting to a UK trade organisation about this stuff in 3 weeks.
-
Do you know what a customs union could mean for the new tax avoidance laws?
I can see why the Atlantic bridgers are so vehemently opposed to one, but the Brexiters of a more tax dodging persuasion seem equally opposed.
-
This is brilliant. The whole current situation has been making me extremely despondent but this made me chuckle
May has kicked her Brexit can firmly into Corbyn's face
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/02/may-has-kicked-her-brexit-can-firmly-into-corbyns-face?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
David Davis has direct experience of this from his Tate & Lyle days, when UK growers of sugar beet were thrown under the bus in favour of cheap sugar cane imports. That might not have happened in a UK-only trade negotiation and you could speculate is the root of Davis's euroscepticism
He's explicitly said that this is the case, on nick Robinson's podcast political thinking
OK I don't have the connection to listen to that I'm afraid, but I have (painstakingly slowly!) googled "David davis sugar". I am sorry but I'm struggling to provide the links on my phone, but there's a guardian article and some website called "pinprick" which confirm my suspicions. Perhaps some kind hearted soul with decent WiFi could post them?
I won't comment on what Davis said in this podcast as haven't heard, but I would respectfully suggest that if he said something along the lines of stu's quote he's lying, or you have both misunderstood his position (i.e. He's Pro Free trade removal of all tariff barriers thus undercutting UK suppliers with a cheaper product, rather than wanting to put barriers up to protect them).
-
Nige is right about DD everyone; I had remembered this exactly the wrong way around.
The point about the pros of leavings customs union still stands though, unless T&L have bought out the negotiators.
-
Perhaps May and Corbyn are going to behave like grown ups now? We can only hope... At least it seems to have irritated the conservative ultras. I fear this is likely to end in deadlock as well, but you never know.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06mykb7
That's a link to the DD podcast interview, for anyone who can get it.
-
Complete sidenote, but potentially a touch of light relief from the "abyss" as Guy Verhofstadt put it:
"Sweary John Bercow" Twitter is at @BercowSweary
The ever-excellent David Squires in The Guardian covers a bit of Brexit (LOL at "you're betraying the will of some people"):
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/apr/02/david-squires-on-liverpool-spurs-solskjaer-and-warnock (https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/apr/02/david-squires-on-liverpool-spurs-solskjaer-and-warnock)
Reposting as I got the weird small text problem.
-
I think this is where I’m at, now:
https://newsthump.com/2019/04/03/incompetent-leader-hopeful-alliance-with-rubbish-opposition-will-secure-support-for-crap-deal-that-everyone-hates/ (https://newsthump.com/2019/04/03/incompetent-leader-hopeful-alliance-with-rubbish-opposition-will-secure-support-for-crap-deal-that-everyone-hates/)
-
Nige is right about DD everyone; I had remembered this exactly the wrong way around.
The point about the pros of leavings customs union still stands though, unless T&L have bought out the negotiators.
Thanks stu, I thought so.
As a genuine enquiry, was this a "misrembering"? Or a misunderstanding? (Same question to Toby who seemed to agree with your original point). It's just your second paragraph seems like you're willing to extend motivation to Brexiters which I don't think does, and I think never has, existed.
Currently all the brexit process is hinging on whether or not to have a customs union with the EU it would appear. If we don't (the brexiter position) your point is that unless tate & lyle have bought off the UK trade negotiation team then in future trade deals we may be able to increase tariffs on imports to protect UK suppliers, and you say this point still stands (as a pro point) . I would say that yes it stands in theory depending on the government of the time, but it absolutely does not stand for any current tory government Brexiters, such as Davis. If you can find a single tory brexiter who wants brexit so they can increase import tariffs on anything I'll be amazed.
As I said they are free market fundamentalists, they want to drop import tariffs to zero (ideally). I can make no comments on the benefits of this as an ideology as I have no idea. I'm not a expert on international trade. But then again neither are any of us (are we?). In that I include people like David davis and other tory Brexiters who probably heard something they liked about free trade once and never let go (ignoring the fact that presumably it would only work if the whole globe joined in? Anyone? ).
Yet here we are at two minutes past midnight in the brexit process having a national nervous breakdown about whether or not to have a customs union with the EU. If anyone can give a reasoned pros and cons list either way I would be much obliged, as I confess to being totally ignorant, as I suspect is most of the country. My strong suspicion would be that honestly most of these tory Brexiters are equally ignorant / too thick to understand international trade and customs union in any depth, which makes their motivation for brexit at any cost fairly ridiculous.
Apologies for the long rambling post but it's on my phone so fiddly to edit down. I guess in summary what I'm saying is that the tory brexit lot want a particular outcome of not being in an EU customs union, and increased tariffs i.e. Protectionism for UK businesses is not it. Listing increased tariffs as a potential pro point seems to me to a) ignore who is in government currently and their motivations, and b) presume knowledge of international trade I'm not convinced many people have as things will cut both ways in a bilateral deal and will depend on the countries involved (apologies if this is a step too far! I am happy to be educated! As I say I am largely ignorant about all this).
Anyhow I expect all the above about trade is largely moot because the Irish border issue will take precedent. If that needs a customs union (minimum) to preserve good Friday then we will have one. Once again tory brexiters were either unable / too thick to understand this when they proposed brexit, or didn't care enough to find a workable solution.
-
For some background... I've met DD twice. Once for about an hour - just me, him and a scrawny 18 year old scribe he bought along. I was not impressed. He's affable, but rather than being intellectual or constructing sensible arguments bout what we were discussing he seemed to flit from vaguely linked anecdote to anecdote. Rather like a Jeffry Archer novel...
I strongly suspect he was massively out of his depth in the Brexit negotiations.
-
If JC and TM agree on a path - that gets voted through (and maybe if not too) then I think its probably the end for the Labour and especially Tory party.
The split in the population is so great - and across all party, social and geographic lines (mainly age and education are the descriptors of brexit intentions according to pollsters) that I can't see labour or conservative parties functioning as they have. I wonder - and probably hope that this leads to a fractionation of politics and new parties like the TiG (or whatever they morph into) and maybe whatever the Brexit equiavalent would be - come to the fore.
Fascinating times. Though I do wish they would end votes/agree shit earlier in the evening - Its affecting my amount of sleep! #soapopera
-
A genuine misremembering Nige.
I think you are interpreting my point a bit too tightly as well, TBH. It was merely meant to serve as an example of the kind of thing one could do in a bilateral trade talk that would be harder in an EU-wide one because you don't have to tension UK interests against French or German ones.
It was probably searching for an anecdote to fit that example that led me to invert DD's tate & lyle history.
I think you are right about most of the Brexiteer's plans for a free Britannia, but not all. For example, see how hard Gove pushed as environment sec to get some protection for UK farming when the govt. published it's no-deal tariff plans.
I don't share your skepticism about MPs as a whole though. Whilst there are reports of many Tory MPs attending a "customs union for dummys" briefing, I think many others know the legislation and principles inside out. I watched the Laura Kuenssberg documentary a couple of nights ago and was struck by how principled many of the players were, and how difficult they are finding it as they question whether they are doing the right thing.
-
Makes perfect sense stu. Yes I probably was interpreting you a bit tightly, your intended example is sound. I think I'm just interested overall in the motivations of some of the main shakers of brexit. Essentially, why are they so dead set on it? Thanks for heads up on that documentary, I'll check it out when home and have WiFi / iplayer works.
-
Makes perfect sense stu. Yes I probably was interpreting you a bit tightly, your intended example is sound. I think I'm just interested overall in the motivations of some of the main shakers of brexit. Essentially, why are they so dead set on it?
1. Because a deregulated marked, shorn of EU environmental and employment protections, offers opportunities to make a killing if you have enough capital to begin with?
2. Because when people are ideologically wedded to a view it becomes the only prism through which they can view things? To a man with a hammer every screw looks like a nail etc
3. Because they genuinely believe that we are a nation who need to be shaken out of sloth by the hurricane of the unfettered free market - the Britannia Unchained view?
4. Because there is a gut revulsion of 'Europe' and being tied to 'it'?
5. Because it’s career game-playing of the sort only only indulged in by those personally insulated from the consequences if it tanks?
6. Because Empire never quite died as an idea?
7. Because of genuine concerns about the European supranational state as a project?
8. Because of a belief that European law diminishes UK sovereignty, whilst not recognising that absolute sovereignty in a global capitalist system is an illlusion?
9. Because of concerns about the opacity of EU decision making?
10. Because of a belief that EU regulations hamper the development of an industrial policy underpinned by state aid?
11. Because of concern about the EU/Troika management of Greece when it defaulted?
12. Because of a dislike of foreigners?
.
I suspect there's quite a range of views, left to right. but on the Tory right, I suspect mostly #1
-
I think you have been over-generous in your estimation of the business acumen of the current crop of Tory rightwingers. Sure, there are a handful with big wads ready to spunk on child-labour fraking projects (JRM, Ian Duncan Smith’s wife, etc) but having a quick glance at the histories of various members of the ERG reveals a remarkable variety of not-particularly-high-calibre professional backgrounds. For example, the odious Mark Francois (who seems to have emerged from nowhere as the main mouthpiece of this lot) has actually been an MP since 2006, before which he was basically a freelance public affairs / lobbying consultant. And then his wife divorced him. I’d be very surprised if he has much more than a few shares in Centrica and a couple of premium bonds. Ditto the ex journalists, ex army, etc. There are a few ERG ex lawyers and bankers, but the latter seem to be more operations / admin than traders.
I worked (briefly) in government relations in the early 2000s and spent a load of time compiling a background database on MPs, inc professional histories. From a purely dick-swinging CV point of view (directorships of listed companies, legal careers, etc) they were vastly more impressive than the current crop. Across all parties...
-
My feeling is that the Conservative right intransigence over customs union and several other issues is in significant part because May has repeatedly given them an inch, and now they want to push their point as far as they can get it.
On another point a fascinating statistic in an article this morning, all 10 DUP MPs received less than half of the votes that elected Caroline Lucas the single green Mp. And who's got the greater say in Brexit negotiation? DUP don't even represent the majority view in northern Ireland.
-
For the Tories who are working in the interests of American corporations (Fox, Hunt, Davis etc), the whole point of Brexit is to get regulatory standards down to a point whereby American companies don't have to change their practices to gain access to the UK market. So if we have a customs union, there is literally no point to Brexit with regards this agenda.
I imagine the Tory Brexit faction to be a three part Venn diagram - the Atlantic Bridgers mentioned above, Tax Dodgers (Rees Mogg, Redwood and co) and Political Opportunists (Johnson, Gove and Davis) - probably with quite a lot of overlap between them.
-
As a genuine enquiry, was this a "misrembering"? Or a misunderstanding? (Same question to Toby who seemed to agree with your original point). It's just your second paragraph seems like you're willing to extend motivation to Brexiters which I don't think does, and I think never has, existed.
Currently all the brexit process is hinging on whether or not to have a customs union with the EU it would appear. If we don't (the brexiter position) your point is that unless tate & lyle have bought off the UK trade negotiation team then in future trade deals we may be able to increase tariffs on imports to protect UK suppliers, and you say this point still stands (as a pro point) . I would say that yes it stands in theory depending on the government of the time, but it absolutely does not stand for any current tory government Brexiters, such as Davis. If you can find a single tory brexiter who wants brexit so they can increase import tariffs on anything I'll be amazed.
Nigel, no you're right I was trying to say only that T&L was the root of DDs Euroscepticism, I obviously skim read Stus post. He described the situation in the podcast the Brexit ultra position is as I understood it that they want rid of tariffs ... I have to admit my understanding is pretty limited but there's an argument that it heavily depends on whether this is applying to goods and / or services and to what extent each matters as we have a far stronger service economy (?) especially compared to say France and Germany and that this is one of the more nuanced but ultimately compelling reasons for leaving.
Personally I don't agree that it's worth the cost but I can see the argument. Unlike the sovereignty bullshit.
-
There's a transcript of Marc Francois' speech reproduced in the guardian today, Jesus wept I was convinced he was a ridiculous zealot before reading it but it's clearly insane. How does anyone in good conscience vote for this man to be an MP?
There are good arguements for leaving but this guy definitely doesn't have them.
-
:lol:j
There's a transcript of Marc Francois' speech reproduced in the guardian today, Jesus wept I was convinced he was a ridiculous zealot before reading it but it's clearly insane. How does anyone in good conscience vote for this man to be an MP?
There are good arguements for leaving but this guy definitely doesn't have them.
On that note:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexiteer-divulges-reasons-behind-change-heart/ (https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexiteer-divulges-reasons-behind-change-heart/)
Stable door=closed
Horse=Bolted
Oh, and apparently, it’s all the Queen’s fault for, traitorously, signing the latest bill into law, according to the Daily Fail comments section.
-
I just realised, not everyone can be demented enough to subject themselves to Daily Fail comment sections.
I feel it’s the intellectual equivalent of a high colonic...
Anyway, here’s a link to the Poke’s selection of top moments in this glorious ode to deep thought and natural justice:
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/04/09/daily-mail-readers-calling-queen-traitor-todays-best-brexit-thing/ (https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/04/09/daily-mail-readers-calling-queen-traitor-todays-best-brexit-thing/)
I love the locations of the first few commentators (I’d go with “trolls”, tbh) and then way the credulous take up the chant. Hilarious!
(Slightly deranged, quiet, giggle)
We’re fucked, aren’t we?
Edit:
Oh yeah! The “Organise Anarchy” comment! Classic!
-
"One foul swoop", just great!
-
I love the locations of the first few commentators (I’d go with “trolls”, tbh) and then way the credulous take up the chant. Hilarious!
Credulous.
adjective
having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.
Yes Matt :whistle:
-
I love the locations of the first few commentators (I’d go with “trolls”, tbh) and then way the credulous take up the chant. Hilarious!
Credulous.
adjective
having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.
Yes Matt :whistle:
It’s ok Pete, I wasn’t referring to you.
This time.
-
No, but I was to you ;D
The skippers of the Defiant , Resolute and Provider were not hoodwinked. They knew that the CFP is stacked against them and want out to get unfettered access to our territorial waters. They may not get out past Rockall but who knows? I am with them (but not off Rockall).
Yep. Definitely. :slap:
Actually here’s a far more sarcastic article. The author is grinding his teeth to stumps as he types. 70,000 tons of work, replaced by 150, because Brexit:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/european-carrier-work-offered-to-scotland-blocked-by-uk-government/?no_cache=1 (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/european-carrier-work-offered-to-scotland-blocked-by-uk-government/?no_cache=1)
I understand pacifist objections to arms manufacturing in the UK, I am only considering the economic impact in this post.
:lol:
Oh dear! Surely alarm bells rang at this photo caption?
Luxembourg is expected to produce and ship the bow section.
There's actually a serious point to be made there about how easy it is to fall prey to conspiracy theories and fake news if it fits with a narrative that we like. But I'm better than to make it ... :ang:
-
No, but I was to you ;D
The skippers of the Defiant , Resolute and Provider were not hoodwinked. They knew that the CFP is stacked against them and want out to get unfettered access to our territorial waters. They may not get out past Rockall but who knows? I am with them (but not off Rockall).
Yep. Definitely. :slap:
Actually here’s a far more sarcastic article. The author is grinding his teeth to stumps as he types. 70,000 tons of work, replaced by 150, because Brexit:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/european-carrier-work-offered-to-scotland-blocked-by-uk-government/?no_cache=1 (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/european-carrier-work-offered-to-scotland-blocked-by-uk-government/?no_cache=1)
I understand pacifist objections to arms manufacturing in the UK, I am only considering the economic impact in this post.
:lol:
Oh dear! Surely alarm bells rang at this photo caption?
Luxembourg is expected to produce and ship the bow section.
There's actually a serious point to be made there about how easy it is to fall prey to conspiracy theories and fake news if it fits with a narrative that we like. But I'm better than to make it ... :ang:
Hey, my couple of hours of confusion, pales to insignificance, compared to, what, three years? 😂
To be fair this hasreached a degree of farce, that beggars belief!
-
Beggers belief might also work 😃
-
Beggers belief might also work 😃
Too true.
Although, “buggers” would be more accurate...
-
So - I'm at a large conference in Vienna and catching up with all my academic pals from across Europe (and beyond) and they are addicted to the Brexit soap opera. They really can't believe what is happening and why its taking so long to sort out.
One of my German friends even watches the parliament channel as he's become very inrerested in all of the procedures of our house of commons. Its good that we are providing entertainment for people I guess - but its not a good impression for UK PLC to portray...
-
So - I'm at a large conference in Vienna and catching up with all my academic pals from across Europe (and beyond) and they are addicted to the Brexit soap opera. They really can't believe what is happening and why its taking so long to sort out.
One of my German friends even watches the parliament channel as he's become very inrerested in all of the procedures of our house of commons. Its good that we are providing entertainment for people I guess - but its not a good impression for UK PLC to portray...
Yes. My nominal “Boss” in my Engineering Consultant capacity , is Dutch. He absolutely rips the piss (he, also, might be the instigator of my recent stitch up, on or around the 1st of this month (bastard!)) every time we talk.
-
So - I'm at a large conference in Vienna and catching up with all my academic pals from across Europe (and beyond) and they are addicted to the Brexit soap opera. They really can't believe what is happening and why its taking so long to sort out.
One of my German friends even watches the parliament channel as he's become very inrerested in all of the procedures of our house of commons. Its good that we are providing entertainment for people I guess - but its not a good impression for UK PLC to portray...
Indeed not. Theres a nice piece by Max Hastings in the Times today relating how Robert Harris says these are fascinating times but it would be better not to be living through them.
It is truly incredible that backbench MPs are getting legislation through parliament effectively against the government's will. I wonder if the red faced fury of the erg will come to anything or just turn out to be an impotent temper tantrum.
-
If we do end up in eu elections this guy actually sounds credible: Sheffield's anti-Trump lord mayor ready to run for MEP
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/10/sheffields-anti-trump-lord-mayor-ready-to-run-for-mep?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
If we do end up in eu elections this guy actually sounds credible: Sheffield's anti-Trump lord mayor ready to run for MEP
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/10/sheffields-anti-trump-lord-mayor-ready-to-run-for-mep?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
If he gets the nomination I will certainly be voting for him.
-
Halloween.
‘Nuff said.
-
Halloween.
‘Nuff said.
Well maybe or maybe not. Or will any attempt at consensus be abandoned in favour of a back biting power struggle (mainly conservative) and totally ineffectual mutterings (Corbyn) until about October 20th when there'll be another last minute crisis; unless someone somehow gains power in the meantime who is slightly more use than a fucking chocolate teapot.
-
Halloween.
‘Nuff said.
Well maybe or maybe not. Or will any attempt at consensus be abandoned in favour of a back biting power struggle (mainly conservative) and totally ineffectual mutterings (Corbyn) until about October 20th when there'll be another last minute crisis; unless someone somehow gains power in the meantime who is slightly more use than a fucking chocolate teapot.
Based on the last 2-3 years?
I standby my comment.
-
Halloween.
‘Nuff said.
Well maybe or maybe not. Or will any attempt at consensus be abandoned in favour of a back biting power struggle (mainly conservative) and totally ineffectual mutterings (Corbyn) until about October 20th when there'll be another last minute crisis; unless someone somehow gains power in the meantime who is slightly more use than a fucking chocolate teapot.
That’s pretty much my view...
-
Oooh look at Switzerland giving voters the chance to change their mind in light of new evidence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47879777
-
Hearing the - god, I can hardly say the words - voice of Theresa May on the radio, feels like having someone implement an orderly exit of my eyes, out through my ears.
:sick:
-
Hearing the - god, I can hardly say the words - voice of Theresa May on the radio, feels like having someone implement an orderly exit of my eyes, out through my ears.
:sick:
Much as you might recoil from the sound of Mrs May's voice, and much as I have minimal to no faith in either front bench in the commons, I'd maintain that May has made some very poor decisions but that this crisis is not her fault. Ultimately Brexit is a symptom of something national rather than a direct fault of one person or group. The guardian often publishes columnists who argue that 'the torys' should own it; I really think this is total crap. In summary I'm not trying to say I think that Theresa May is a good prime minister, but things wouldn't be rosy under anyone's leadership at the moment. I really don't think that theres anything to be gained from personalizing political opinion.
Unless you're talking about Marc Francois that is, who is obviously a pig ignorant zealot with an over inflated opinion of himself and a brain which can't deal with the fact that it's not the 1930s.
-
? What?
Where did I say that this is Mrs May's fault.
Where did I attribute this whole situation to the action/inaction of one person?
I won't bother expanding on exactly why it feels like a pair of forceps grasping my eyeballs :blink:
It also doesn't stop me feeling considerable sympathy too - just not when she's complaining about the children not lining up in an orderly fashion in the playground.
-
? What?
Where did I say that this is Mrs May's fault.
Where did I attribute this whole situation to the action/inaction of one person?
I won't bother expanding on exactly why it feels like a pair of forceps grasping my eyeballs :blink:
It also doesn't stop me feeling considerable sympathy too - just not when she's complaining about the children not lining up in an orderly fashion in the playground.
Sorry Dave, I wasn't meaning to get at you, it was a general rant really! Many apologies.
I am also somewhat tired of Mrs May giving the same speech for the last 3 years but more tired of over personal attacks on politicians. Your comment was pretty fair, I'm just in a bad mood as I can't climb at the moment really and prone to ranting!
-
Where did I say that this is Mrs May's fault.
Off topic, but why do we persist in saying "Mrs May" in political discourse? Is it a hangover from the cloying "Mrs Thatcher" moniker? Trump is simply Trump in discussion, not Mr Trump, ditto Cameron when he was PM. It feels like the verbal equivalent of May's curtsey to me; overly respectful!
-
Ultimately Brexit is a symptom of something national rather than a direct fault of one person or group. The guardian often publishes columnists who argue that 'the torys' should own it; I really think this is total crap. In summary I'm not trying to say I think that Theresa May is a good prime minister, but things wouldn't be rosy under anyone's leadership at the moment. I really don't think that theres anything to be gained from personalizing political opinion.
I think that first point is very important. There is a detachment of the voting population from the political classes and the 'elite' and the current mess on the news day after day is hardly going to be healing. Its bigger than Brexit and needs to be fixed. Our direction of travel is still in an unhealthy direction.
I still think the Guardian is correct on the specifics of Brexit as Cameron pulled the referendum stunt to try and block his rabid right and it failed spectacularly. The government enacts legislation (at least in normal times), so it owns it. Where I think the Guardian is wrong is mostly ignoring or belittling the motivations of Brexit voters...as a broadly social liberal publication it should be doing better at looking into the concerns of a large section of the populace who have been 'left behind'.
I also think May is special I've never seen or heard of such stubborn robotic behaviour from a UK PM and its only gone on and on and on because there is no solution, given the Conservatives blew all their chances to get rid of her.
-
Where did I say that this is Mrs May's fault.
Off topic, but why do we persist in saying "Mrs May" in political discourse? Is it a hangover from the cloying "Mrs Thatcher" moniker? Trump is simply Trump in discussion, not Mr Trump, ditto Cameron when he was PM. It feels like the verbal equivalent of May's curtsey to me; overly respectful!
Really?
Always struck me as the opposite. A subtle dig, “Mrs” implying ownership by a “Mr”; in that casually sexist way we put people down.
Along the lines of “Big girl’s blouse” or “Scream like a girl” and other stupid (but ingrained) derogative statements that imply a female connotation is a negative one.
Ingrained to the point, that we are incapable of seeing it until it’s pointed out.
I have tried to avoid the”Mrs” myself, at least I think I have. I felt as if I could just imagine the likes of Johnson guffawing, that “Mr May should take control of his wife” of similar (I’d put money on such things being said in private).
-
Really?
Always struck me as the opposite. A subtle dig, “Mrs” implying ownership by a “Mr”; in that casually sexist way we put people down.
Along the lines of “Big girl’s blouse” or “Scream like a girl” and other stupid (but ingrained) derogative statements that imply a female connotation is a negative one.
Ingrained to the point, that we are incapable of seeing it until it’s pointed out.
I have tried to avoid the”Mrs” myself, at least I think I have. I felt as if I could just imagine the likes of Johnson guffawing, that “Mr May should take control of his wife” of similar (I’d put money on such things being said in private).
Interesting response, and very probably correct with regard to the Johnson guffawing. Hadn't thought about the ownership possibility until now.
I did not live through the Thatcher years, but have definitely noticed a tendency among people who did to refer to her as Mrs Thatcher rather than just Thatcher. I don't notice this same tendency with regard to the Wilson/Callaghan/Major years. Perhaps a generational thing where women were always referred to as Mrs or Miss? My grandad refers to the Chancellor as Mrs Merkel, for example!
-
On a lighter note, I went to see Boris the Musical 2 last night at the Sheffield Theatre Deli. It has 2 more nights to run and it was very funny and bang up to date, referencing the new deadline.
https://www.theatredeli.co.uk/Event/boris-the-musical-2-brexit-harder2
-
:jaw: The Telegraph!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/04/12/against-second-brexit-referendum-now-way-fixing-almighty-mess/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/04/12/against-second-brexit-referendum-now-way-fixing-almighty-mess/)
In other news:
Satan buys controlling stake in RAB, as Hell freezes over.
Sales of wide brimmed Stetson hats and armoured umbrellas soar, as domestic pigs sprout wings and take to the air.
Riots erupt on streets of UK cities as argument over shade of Blue moon, boil over. Is is Azure or Cyan?
-
I did not live through the Thatcher years, but have definitely noticed a tendency among people who did to refer to her as Mrs Thatcher rather than just Thatcher.
I did and she was always Margaret Thatcher to me and my peers. No faux deference in Liverpool, not even for back-handed sexism.
I don't notice this same tendency with regard to the Wilson/Callaghan/Major years. Perhaps a generational thing where women were always referred to as Mrs or Miss? My grandad refers to the Chancellor as Mrs Merkel, for example!
Not generational in my personal experience (geography?), always Margaret or just Maggie, never Mrs, but you may have a point. I do think OMM nailed it tbh
-
The Tories own Brexit.
Don’t think anything else please. It is their fault. They own it.
Let’s not forget that this has driven a wedge down the middle of the Conservative party ever since we joined. Thatcher kept it together (for a while) they (europhobes) forced Major out. Eventually they got rid of Cameron et al.,
Johnson started the whole fake news EU bent banana type story with his missives from Europe before he was fired from the Telegraph. The Tory press have backed and backed and backed anti Europe rhetoric for the last 30 years.
The discontent and disconnect posts have talked about - also aligned to poverty AND austerity which has driven much of this.
Austerity was a Tory policy.
Did you hear people moaning about EU migration or the EU whilst the good times rolled (c. 1997 > 2007) and people were better off and living standards rose?
Sure there’s lots of frustration at many things jumbled up in the leave vote but the cause of that is again at the door of the Conservative party.
\rantover
-
Johnson started the whole fake news EU bent banana type story with his missives from Europe before he was fired from the Telegraph.
A propos… https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/12/daily-telegraph-forced-correct-false-brexit-claim-boris-johnson (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/12/daily-telegraph-forced-correct-false-brexit-claim-boris-johnson)
-
Johnson started the whole fake news EU bent banana type story with his missives from Europe before he was fired from the Telegraph.
A propos… https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/12/daily-telegraph-forced-correct-false-brexit-claim-boris-johnson (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/12/daily-telegraph-forced-correct-false-brexit-claim-boris-johnson)
It’s very hard, for me, to accept that this man and the Farage wanker, haven’t broken the law (to a prosecutable degree) in all this.
I have often despaired at the vagaries of our legal system (so liberal an yet, often, so useless at protecting the vulnerable), but it really needs a damn good looking at. Lying for political gain, should be a serious offence and carry significant tariffs. Prove it, or go directly to jail, do not pass Go and do not collect £200(in bribes).
-
Amusingly they forgot to register their domain and Led By Donkeys have got hold of it...
http://www.thebrexitparty.com (http://www.thebrexitparty.com)
-
Amusingly they forgot to register their domain and Led By Donkeys have got hold of it...
http://www.thebrexitparty.com (http://www.thebrexitparty.com)
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
-
? What?
Where did I say that this is Mrs May's fault.
Where did I attribute this whole situation to the action/inaction of one person?
I won't bother expanding on exactly why it feels like a pair of forceps grasping my eyeballs :blink:
It also doesn't stop me feeling considerable sympathy too - just not when she's complaining about the children not lining up in an orderly fashion in the playground.
Sorry Dave, I wasn't meaning to get at you, it was a general rant really! Many apologies.
I am also somewhat tired of Mrs May giving the same speech for the last 3 years but more tired of over personal attacks on politicians. Your comment was pretty fair, I'm just in a bad mood as I can't climb at the moment really and prone to ranting!
Thanks Toby.
Sorry to hear that you can't climb atm :(
It seems a few folk have latched on to my use of "Mrs"! :yawn:
Please Miss. Can I go to the toilet Miss?
I hope you heal soon!
I still have one eye left.
-
I have often despaired at the vagaries of our legal system (so liberal an yet, often, so useless at protecting the vulnerable), but it really needs a damn good looking at. Lying for political gain, should be a serious offence and carry significant tariffs. Prove it, or go directly to jail, do not pass Go and do not collect £200(in bribes).
It would be hard to prove what constitutes a lie for political gain, and what just constitutes an economic forecast...
Oh is that not what you meant..
-
I have often despaired at the vagaries of our legal system (so liberal an yet, often, so useless at protecting the vulnerable), but it really needs a damn good looking at. Lying for political gain, should be a serious offence and carry significant tariffs. Prove it, or go directly to jail, do not pass Go and do not collect £200(in bribes).
It would be hard to prove what constitutes a lie for political gain, and what just constitutes an economic forecast...
Oh is that not what you meant..
Oh, I'm sure the judiciary could get down do the nuts and bolts of it. Perhaps we should put it to the test in a court of law.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-45971644/lord-sugar-prosecute-boris-johnson-and-michael-gove-over-brexit
-
I have often despaired at the vagaries of our legal system (so liberal an yet, often, so useless at protecting the vulnerable), but it really needs a damn good looking at. Lying for political gain, should be a serious offence and carry significant tariffs. Prove it, or go directly to jail, do not pass Go and do not collect £200(in bribes).
It would be hard to prove what constitutes a lie for political gain, and what just constitutes an economic forecast...
Oh is that not what you meant..
Deliberately miss-quoting a poll?
350 million other lies?
The entire leave campaign?
Economic forecasts seem like exactly what they say they are.
-
The Tories own Brexit.
Don’t think anything else please. It is their fault. They own it.
Let’s not forget that this has driven a wedge down the middle of the Conservative party ever since we joined. Thatcher kept it together (for a while) they (europhobes) forced Major out. Eventually they got rid of Cameron et al.,
Johnson started the whole fake news EU bent banana type story with his missives from Europe before he was fired from the Telegraph. The Tory press have backed and backed and backed anti Europe rhetoric for the last 30 years.
The discontent and disconnect posts have talked about - also aligned to poverty AND austerity which has driven much of this.
Austerity was a Tory policy.
Did you hear people moaning about EU migration or the EU whilst the good times rolled (c. 1997 > 2007) and people were better off and living standards rose?
Sure there’s lots of frustration at many things jumbled up in the leave vote but the cause of that is again at the door of the Conservative party.
\rantover
Its true that Cameron's weakness and attempt to placate the Eurosceptic contingent sired the referendum but I wholly disagree with much of the rest of what you've said Tom. Some of it is incidental to the fact that the conservatives have been in government, but in the continuing Brexit debacle both main parties are culpable. It has split labour as much as the conservatives it's less apparent as they're in opposition however far more labour MPs defected to form TIG, and daily labour MPs openly disagree with Corbyn/ Abbot / Macdonald over antisemitism, Julian Assange, Venezuela etc etc. I really see Brexit as a symptom of a crisis of national identity not as a specifically conservative problem. If you really want to blame someone, I'd blame Aaron Banks and the assorted wealthy businessmen and financiers who funded the leave lobby likely not through political conviction but for personal financial interests.
-
One or two people with money backed Remain.
Does Soros ring a bell?
-
Toby - (rather than a big quote it’s easier to reply).
Brexit has only been a Labour Party problem since Corbyn was leader. Before then - there was (are?) a handful of leave minded Labour MP’s. But since the vote it’s clear that many labour constituencies are in leave areas - which sharpens the direction of the MP if they want to represent their constituents or possibly more importantly to them retain selection :)
So I would argue that the Tory split on brexit is driven by ideals (sic) about the evils of the European ‘state’ etc... whereas the much smaller Labour split is one of pragmatism and a few outliers (one of whom is leader).
Where I’ve stretched things in my OP is that some form of hardship/austerity would have come post 2008 whoever was in charge. But if Labour has won the election I would wager it wouldn’t have hurt the same type of people in the same way...
Has the raft of populism across the (western) world been driven by the aftermath of the 2008 crash and how it was handled? It’s an easy causality to assert - ill admins as pretty much every country has been affected - but if you looks that issues in Italy, Greece and of course USA/ Trump...
However our own particular brand of turmoil was not only sired (I like your Bullingdon reference there) by Cameron - but the cloning/breeding facility enabling his legacy to flourish has been carefully crafted by the Conservative party for the last 30 years.
They own it - don’t let them off that easily.
-
One or two people with money backed Remain.
Does Soros ring a bell?
Did you actually read Toby’s post, or is that just a knee jerk reaction to the mention of Banks?
I suspect the latter, in this case.
Interestingly, despite the attention he gets (possibly, even deserves) I don’t think I’ve seen Soros accused of either promulgating lies on the behalf of Remain or illegal campaign finance activities.
Where as, Banks, is, it appears, a fucking crook and probable Russian stooge.
There in “lie” the main differences. Leave have provably broken the law and lied (and continue to do so). The fact that you can now only reach for the “But Soros!” argument, puts you firmly in Alex Jones territory.
Toby’s take is quite balanced and makes a few good points, but I think he’s underplayed the Con’s role in the current social divisions that are the bed rock of this crap.
Thatcher, in many ways, dragged the country out of the shit. I remember the ‘70s and the Labour government and unions that had all but destroyed the economy. The “Us and Them” thing (always present) had really grown during that time. Thatcher’s policies created wealth, for many, but were based on co-opting the upper echelons of “Us” into the ranks of “Them”, by creating the “stake holder” economy (creating home owners and share holders, out of those who could scrape up a little seed money) and simultaneously forcing the remaining “Us” deeper into the hole. Recreating the massive social divide of an earlier age. That was unsustainable and now it’s coming back to haunt us all.
Basic, underlying, social injustice aside (not easy, because it’s fucking evil), strategically, the current government’s greatest failing, over the last decade of miss-rule, has been allowing huge numbers to drop off the bottom end of the “Them” category. I think it’s a result of over focus on the whims of their wealthier donors, the (relatively) wealthy, reliable voters of the Boomer generation and increasing contempt for the “Us” echelon.
A sort of selfish, survivor bias, comfort bubble, miasma; had settled on certain individuals and groups (occasionally, I feel the presence of such, in this thread and used to live there myself), where those without “have only themselves to blame” and other tropes.
Well, sow the seeds of storm (or something, something, blah, blah) and reap the rotating column of air, pendant from a Cumuliform cloud or words to that effect. It’s not as if this hasn’t happened to virtually every civilisation recorded in history, is it? Oh, yeah, it is. The scale changes, we’re not quite at barricades and open revolution (though I think we might be closer than we care to admit), but these divisions will take generations to heal (or possibly, now, one really bad Flu season, if voting analysts have earned their peanuts (that’s a joke about age related divisions in society, not me wishing ill upon any sector, in any sort of “real” way))
A word from our sponsors:
Todays episode of the “Fuck me! How many nested clauses?” Show, is brought to you by The Early Morning, Small bladdered Puppy Company and Already at Four Double Shots of Espresso LTD...
-
I've always chuckled whenever people bring up the 350 million on the side of the bus thing. I hardly listened to a word any of the prominent leave politicians had to say during the campaign, and I clearly remember thinking when I saw a picture or a news snippet of the 350 million thing 'that's probably a load of balls, I wonder what the actual figure is on the bottom line after you do the accounting'. But that's just me being all intelligent and having a mind of my own and not being easily led I suppose, unlike all those poor dumb lambs.
I place '350 million' in the same pot I place 'imminent recession'. Designed to capture the mind of people unable to do their own basic research.
If selling the leave side by claiming 350 million could be saved* is a lie for which prison time should be served then we better lock up the majority of advertising professionals right now, along with just about every politician who ever walked the earth.
*Please read the small print, actual rates may vary and you may not get back your original investment.
-
I've always chuckled whenever people bring up the 350 million on the side of the bus thing. I hardly listened to a word any of the prominent leave politicians had to say during the campaign, and I clearly remember thinking when I saw a picture or a news snippet of the 350 million thing 'that's probably a load of balls, I wonder what the actual figure is on the bottom line after you do the accounting'. But that's just me being all intelligent and having a mind of my own and not being easily led I suppose, unlike all those poor dumb lambs.
If selling the leave side by claiming 350 million could be saved* is a lie for which prison time should be served then we better lock up the majority of advertising professionals right now, along with just about every politician who ever walked the earth.
*Please read the small print, actual rates may vary and you may not get back your original investment.
Great idea Pete! Glad you suggested it.
-
Shit, something is up, I find myself agreeing with Pete again!
What is quite apparent is that a large proportion of Leave voters haven't changed their minds, even with evidence that the Leave vote was corrupt, and knowing that economically we are fucked if we Leave without a deal, and are likely to be significantly worse off even with a good deal.
The Guardian gets a good slagging earlier in this thread about their reporting on Brexit, and editorially I'd tend to argue that no paper is any better, they all stick to a fairly tight narrative pandering to their core readership. However, their video reportage series "Anywhere but Westminster" breaks the mould a little bit, in that it actually gives some air time to other views.
It dispels the myth that all Brexiteers are the same for example. For every ruthless disaster capitalist rubbing their hands at the prospect of deregulation and fragmentation, there will be a dozen desperate minimum wage workers, living off food bank hand outs, living in a safe seat where FPTP makes their vote worthless. Their Brexit is a drowning man clutching at straws.
I'm desperate for us to stay in and avoid this massive act of self harm, but I don't for a second think that is even going to begin to solve the huge problems stacked up for a lot of this countries population.
-
Shit, something is up, I find myself agreeing with Pete again!
What is quite apparent is that a large proportion of Leave voters haven't changed their minds, even with evidence that the Leave vote was corrupt, and knowing that economically we are fucked if we Leave without a deal, and are likely to be significantly worse off even with a good deal.
The Guardian gets a good slagging earlier in this thread about their reporting on Brexit, and editorially I'd tend to argue that no paper is any better, they all stick to a fairly tight narrative pandering to their core readership. However, their video reportage series "Anywhere but Westminster" breaks the mould a little bit, in that it actually gives some air time to other views.
It dispels the myth that all Brexiteers are the same for example. For every ruthless disaster capitalist rubbing their hands at the prospect of deregulation and fragmentation, there will be a dozen desperate minimum wage workers, living off food bank hand outs, living in a safe seat where FPTP makes their vote worthless. Their Brexit is a drowning man clutching at straws.
I'm desperate for us to stay in and avoid this massive act of self harm, but I don't for a second think that is even going to begin to solve the huge problems stacked up for a lot of this countries population.
Exactly.
-
Interesting posts all. Would it be a stretch to agree that the objection to the EU is largely a proxy for a more widespread malaise? Yes, there are a few idealogically opposed to it ( Rees-Mogg et Al, Leadsom, Gove, Corbyn , McDonald, Abbot ) but mostly people are generally fed up and feel the need to do something. Sadly, leaving the EU will only make them more fed up.
I meet people every day I'm at work that genuinely seemed to have believed the 350 mill stuff and are now baffled that the NHS isn't rolling in it.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07632fx
A great episode of beyond today, in which Nick Robinson explains whether Brexit is solely a conservative matter... Spoiler alert, it isn't. In his opinion of course. He argues it well though.
-
If anybody else gets campaign literature through from that odious Brexit Party, feel free to copy my subject access request and send it off to them. They must respond within 30 days. I expect they've got stock answers prepared for this. Any ideas of how this could have been spiced up but still within the threshold of non-chargeable requests would be welcome.
To whom it may concern,
I received campaign literature from your party in the post today. This was addressed to [name and address].
Under GDPR legislation, please provide me with the following information within the statutory deadline:
1. A copy of all of my personal data which you hold.
2. The recipients that you disclose my personal data to.
3. The period that you intend to store my personal data for or the criteria that you use to determine how long you will hold my data for.
4. Details of how you made the decision to send me your campaign literature. i.e. why have you decided to send it to me when you have chosen not to send it to other people whose personal data you hold.
5. Details of the safeguards you provide if you have transferred my personal data to a third country or international organisation.
Kind regards
[Name]
-
Isn’t your info just off the electoral register? And so Is this just to waste some of their time?
-
Is that cheaper to post than a turd in a Jiffy bag?
-
Isn’t your info just off the electoral register? And so Is this just to waste some of their time?
The info will be from the electoral register, but I'd like to hear it from them. The other questions such as why they've chosen to send it to me as opposed to anybody else on the electoral role might be more illuminating but I'm expecting a stock answer with no real meaning behind it.
Yes, it's mainly to waste a miniscule amount of their time. If they've thought about it (which I'm sure they have), they'll have all their answers prepared and a very efficient system for sending them out. However, they're a party set up in a hurry to fight a particular election, so maybe they haven't done all that and this will be a pain in the arse for them. Hopefully they fail to reply and I can then report them to the ICO.
-
The gammons have responded thus:
D
Rest assured we do not hold any of your data.
The leaflet that you received was an "electoral address". Candidates and political parties have a right to send an "election address" by Freepost, either addressed to each individual elector or unaddressed to each postal address. This applies to elections for the UK or Scottish Parliament, for the Northern Ireland Assembly or National Assembly for Wales, or for the European Parliment, or a particular referendum.This type of Freepost mailing does not constitute direct marketing.
We don't collect or store any personal data from this, most parties will send you an election address. You are not on a marketing list.
Kind regards
ear Will,
Many thanks,
The Brexit Party
Can that be true? To send information they have to have held or processed my data somehow? Even if it is taking a list of names and addresses from the electoral register and putting them through a mail merge, that is processing data.
And presumably there is some decision-making process behind who to target, but maybe that is non-personal and they're just hitting certain postcodes?
I'd like to come back for a more detailed answer if possible.
-
The gammons have responded thus:
D
Rest assured we do not hold any of your data.
The leaflet that you received was an "electoral address". Candidates and political parties have a right to send an "election address" by Freepost, either addressed to each individual elector or unaddressed to each postal address. This applies to elections for the UK or Scottish Parliament, for the Northern Ireland Assembly or National Assembly for Wales, or for the European Parliment, or a particular referendum.This type of Freepost mailing does not constitute direct marketing.
We don't collect or store any personal data from this, most parties will send you an election address. You are not on a marketing list.
Kind regards
ear Will,
Many thanks,
The Brexit Party
Can that be true? To send information they have to have held or processed my data somehow? Even if it is taking a list of names and addresses from the electoral register and putting them through a mail merge, that is processing data.
And presumably there is some decision-making process behind who to target, but maybe that is non-personal and they're just hitting certain postcodes?
I'd like to come back for a more detailed answer if possible.
First off, if you're doing this as some sort of extremely unsophisticated DDoS attack, I.e. to do nothing other than waste their time then that strikes me as rather petty and pointless. Surely if you disagree with them then the decent and more productive thing to do is a) write to them explaining why, b) vote for other parties or c) actively campaign for parties or policies you do agree with.
However, you peaked my interest so I've had a quick look.
What you received is normally classed as 'direct marketing'.
Source - pages 2 & 4 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ico.org.uk/media/1589/promotion_of_a_political_party.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwihp-PNrJDiAhVeUBUIHQjtB5MQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0oh0QgE_2ryopFgZ3YiHTn)
However, according to Regulation 63 of the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/293/regulation/63/made), they are correct in asserting that they have a right to send you a postal communication relating to the election only:
63.—(1) An individual candidate and the nominating officer of a registered party which is included in the statement of parties and individual candidates nominated for the election or a person authorised in writing by that officer at a European Parliamentary election is, subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the universal service provider concerned may specify, entitled to send free of any charge for postage which would otherwise be made by a universal service provider either—
(a)one unaddressed postal communication, containing matter relating to the election only and not exceeding 60 grammes in weight, to each place in the electoral region which, in accordance with those terms and conditions, constitutes a delivery point for the purposes of this paragraph; or
(b)one such postal communication addressed to each elector.
Significantly, that right applies even if you have asked them not to send you any direct marketing.
All political parties have access to the electoral register and, therefore, your name and address when you are registered to vote.
My understanding is that in completing the mailing to you the party have acted only as a data processor under the DPA, and not as a data controller. If so, they won't hold any of your data; they will simply process it for the purposes of the mailing they are entitled by law to send you. That also means they have no obligation to reply to a Subject Access Request from you, as that only applies to data controllers.
Source EU GDPR article 15 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679)
Article 15
Right of access by the data subject
1. The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller....
As to how/why they've decided to send it to you, I suspect they've just sent them to as many households as they can afford, and just addressed it to the first person on the roll at each address. I don't think you actually have any right in law to find out why they've sent it to you but could be wrong. If it helps, I had one too :)
-
Good knowledge, Bradders. Childish it may be, but by my standards it's positively grown up.
-
However, you peaked my interest so I've had a quick look.
Straight to the Eggcorns thread for you!
-
Blast! Out pedanted!! :chair:
-
Good knowledge, Bradders. Childish it may be, but by my standards it's positively grown up.
FWIW it's worth I did the same, but Bradders is right - as they are a political party they will have been given access to electoral roll data.
Still worth doing though, if only on the off-chance that they come back saying they hold nothing on you at all, and have not shared your data etc...and at a later date it's found that they have in some way done something shady in respect of data protection law. Not that the individuals concerned have form for that type of thing of course.
-
In the upcoming EU elections it seems that the tactical remain option is basically lib Dems if you live in England, I'd rather vote green in many ways but tactics seems to trump ethics on this one, any thoughts?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_and_the_Humber_(European_Parliament_constituency)
Greens beat Lib Dem in last EU election (though that was when LD were getting a kicking) so I'm not sure it's clear-cut what's the best tactics in terms of getting remain-focused MEPs. I'm working on the assumption that it's not too crucial as either Green or Lib Dem will be a vote for an explicitly remain party, and some of the impact of the election is what it says about the nation's mood, which seems most likely to be measured by the total votes for explicitly Brexit parties vs total votes for explicitly remain parties... I'm pretty happy to vote LD or Green, but happy to be argued round to either one!
-
I think Magid Magid is on the Green ticket too, seemed to do a pretty decent job in Sheffield from what I saw.
-
In the upcoming EU elections it seems that the tactical remain option is basically lib Dems if you live in England, I'd rather vote green in many ways but tactics seems to trump ethics on this one, any thoughts?
I'll have to vote SNP on the same ground...
-
I think I'll be voting LD.
I've always thought that social change - very simply, looking at ways for people to feel more supported and included in society, more able to be creative, involved in local projects, more connected etc etc - might lead to people feeling they just need less "stuff" - is more likely to lead to the sorts of changes in behaviour that we're going to need, if we're going to be able to better protect the environment.
On a separate note, Magid Magid (Green) has been a great Mayor for Sheffield, and yet has faced racist abuse recently, as he approaches the end of his time as Lord Mayor.
-
(https://www.remainunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/predicated-seats-tactical-926x1024.jpg)
(https://www.remainunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/UK-map-regions-recommended-voting-729x1024.jpg)
These tables are from Gina Miller's site - https://www.remainunited.org/ (https://www.remainunited.org/).
Worth saying that the analysis treats the Labour Party as a pro-Brexit party. They'll re-run the tactical voting analysis "should Labour clearly state it backs remaining in the EU or backs a confirmatory vote which includes an option to remain. Remain United will be rerunning this research and publishing the results on the 21st May. The research will include specific Labour related questions."
-
I'm instinctively very suspect about the Gina Miller analysis. If you live in Wales or Scotland then it tells you to vote for a nationalist party. A friend has been quite vocal on Facebook about his unwillingness to lend support to Plaid - citing the nazi-sympathetic tendancies of their founder. If you live in England it is no more subtle than telling you to vote for Lib Dem if you support Remain. The gains for doing so are tiny (based on a very unlikely amount of tactical voting. 50% of remain voters all vote the same way? Really?!) and most affect Labour - who now seem to be tiptoeing around the notion of being a party that Remain voters can support. I might very well vote Lib Dem anyway, but is it not just more important to back a party that explicitly supports Remain? Proportional Representation will pick up the rest?
-
I'm instinctively very suspect about the Gina Miller analysis.
Me too. I'm guessing it uses data from recent polls and the council elections, but in the last EU elections, the Greens got more votes than Lib Dems in Yorkshire & Humber, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu-regions/E15000003 (click the 'Results' tab).
-
Anyway, voting for a party purely on their stance on Brexit 'to send a message' seems a bit daft. I'd rather vote for the party whose manifesto best represents me when they are taking their seat in EU meetings/votes
-
I became a full paid up Green Party member last month. First time I've ever belonged to a political party and thought long and hard about it. It requires confronting some personal conflicts in terms of what I do for work, but I figured it was best to confront and negotiate those dilemmas rather than sitting on a fence. I'll be voting Green.
-
I'm instinctively very suspect about the Gina Miller analysis.
Me too. I'm guessing it uses data from recent polls and the council elections, but in the last EU elections, the Greens got more votes than Lib Dems in Yorkshire & Humber, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu-regions/E15000003 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu-regions/E15000003) (click the 'Results' tab).
Worth noting that there hasn’t yet been a proper poll from Yorkshire/Humber that would clarify who among LibDem or Greens are most likely to win a seat. Greens were ahead of LibDems in 2014 but both fell short.
D'Hondt voting system explainer - https://youtu.be/6CU3F3ToIIg
-
Aren't there multiple seats per region so even if the vote is split you could still return one of each (or am I being too optimistic and the thinking is that there will be a max of only one Remain MEP per region?)
-
Labour - who now seem to be tiptoeing around the notion of being a party that Remain voters can support. I might very well vote Lib Dem anyway, but is it not just more important to back a party that explicitly supports Remain?
Will I have to disagree with your take on Labour's position. While it is fronted by the hard left, it is clearly a Brexit party which wants to cultivate a younger vote by pretending it might not be at some point. In many ways I think they're being more duplicitous than anyone else.
I respect people like Starmer, Watson etc who seem to be trying but Corbyn, Murray, MacDonald, Abbot aren't listening they just want the current government to leave, take the flack and then slide in on a GE.
-
Interesting counter-argument to the Gina Miller analysis, from someone who built a 2017 tactical voting site:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/13/why-i-wont-be-advising-people-to-vote-tactically-in-the-european-elections
She's not arguing that people should vote in a totally non-tactical way (for example, she suggest that you limit your choices to parties big enough to have a shot at getting a seat), but that it's all too complicated and unpredictable to make clear-cut tactical voting recommendations, and that the priority is getting people out to vote.
I think both Miller's argument and the counter-argument are worth considering.
-
Labour - who now seem to be tiptoeing around the notion of being a party that Remain voters can support. I might very well vote Lib Dem anyway, but is it not just more important to back a party that explicitly supports Remain?
Will I have to disagree with your take on Labour's position. While it is fronted by the hard left, it is clearly a Brexit party which wants to cultivate a younger vote by pretending it might not be at some point. In many ways I think they're being more duplicitous than anyone else.
I respect people like Starmer, Watson etc who seem to be trying but Corbyn, Murray, MacDonald, Abbot aren't listening they just want the current government to leave, take the flack and then slide in on a GE.
I generally agree with your analysis there, Toby. My comment about tiptoeing was made after hearing Watson talking on the Today programme about their policy line being to back a deal on the basis that it has to go before the public first in a "confirmatory vote", which is a position that I think I can support. I'm sceptical about whether Remain could win another referendum, but think we have to try since it is the only tenable way back from Leave. Especially if No Deal isn't on the cards.
I tuned into the news yesterday evening eagerly awaiting an interview with Corbyn where he clearly stated that Watson's interview was representative of party policy but there was nada, so I can only assume that Corbyn hasn't budged.
-
On a separate note, Magid Magid (Green) has been a great Mayor for Sheffield, and yet has faced racist abuse recently, as he approaches the end of his time as Lord Mayor.
He has been getting racist abuse as well as probably just plain abuse since he became Lord Mayor.
I have been a Labour party member since the 2010 election result but will be voting for Magid in the Euro elections as it is about the person. Likewise I will vote for Louise Haigh for MP (almost certainly) irrespective of what Labour are doing nationally.
I have long had the matra ABC, Anyone But Conservative, but maybe that needs extending to ABC/UKIP/Brexit/Change.
-
I thought you voted party rather than person in the EU elections, as some parties field multiple candidates but the voting system runs on number of votes received by party?
-
The candidates are listed in order, Magid is the Greens No 1
-
I’m tossing up my eu election choices...
As a remain supporting mostly labour voter - I want my vote to show Labour that they should get off the fence and go remain etc...
So this means either green or libdem. I suspect though that a high Lib Dem vote is more likely to shake Labour up more than a high green vote so erring Lib Dem way.
Nauseously we received a Yaxley-Lennon flier through the door here....
-
"If you believe that Britain’s destiny is to live and work with our neighbours, rather than to be an outpost of xenophobic Trumpism, a closed island whose national emblem will be the grinning, gurning face of Nigel Farage, then you have several good choices. But, sad to say, this time Labour is not one of them."
Remain voters are left with no choice but to ignore Labour next week
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/17/remain-voters-ignore-labour-change-uk-lib-dems-greens?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
I'm posting my postal vote for Green today.
-
I'm posting my postal vote for Green today.
Is a double posting like a double negative? ;)
-
Ivan Rogers is
plugging his new book ‘9 lessons in Brexit’ giving a talk on June 20 in Bramhall, for those who live near Stockport. You can book by emailing simplybooks.info. £10.
-
I’m tossing up my eu election choices...
As a remain supporting mostly labour voter - I want my vote to show Labour that they should get off the fence and go remain etc...
So this means either green or libdem. I suspect though that a high Lib Dem vote is more likely to shake Labour up more than a high green vote so erring Lib Dem way.
Tomtom, I admire your optimism about Labour. The only thing that would make them 'go remain ' is the sudden death of all of their most powerful front line politicians and the associated union leaders and hard left wing behind momentum. Perhaps a series of electoral catastrophes for them might change things, but even that's a stretch. Perhaps about as likely as imagining a Conservative party without bickering about Europe.
-
Just read an article in the Sunday Times by Michael Hesteltine, saying that he's voting lib dem...
-
Just read an article in the Sunday Times by Michael Hesteltine, saying that he's voting lib dem...
Tarzan changed his stripes...
Also grianiad article (or maybe Indy) saying that labours position has nuetralised LibDems toxicity from co-alition / austerity time.
-
The Guardian is starting to lean heavily towards supporting the LibDems, even editorially. At least, it would be harder for the uninitiated, reading the paper for the first time, to unequivocally deem it pro-Labour. Certainly not the case 12 months ago.
I’ve noticed a creeping increase in pro LibDem opinion pieces and a hardening editorial cant against current Labour leadership, which seems to now be verging on outright condemnation.
Personally, I’m sick of the extremities of our system and the way the divisions have increased to the point that we no longer function as a nation. The lack of compromise and political navel gazing, has meant the most pressing issues of our global and national realities have been ignored, in favour of silly political side shows and trying to twist the narrative to fit silly 19th/Early 20th century doctrines.
Populations do not conform to either Neo-Liberalism, nor pure Socialism; but the loudest voices are always the zealots and that drives party policy. Meanwhile, the vast middle ground (with other, to them more important, things on their minds) is left with no choice but to pick that which they see as the lesser of two evils. Pick an extreme, or waste your franchise and then, somehow, not realise you just lost your franchise anyway.
I would love to see a more balanced, realistic, more representative government in this country, but as long as we all keeping choosing sides/teams/tribes that’s never going to happen.
So, even though FPTP hampers such expression of the true spectrum that is political and social desires or beliefs, we could, if only we had the courage, choose and different path. It merely takes those of reasonable disposition to take a stand against the extremists and pull the rug from under the domineering Red/Blue juggernauts that have dragged us into this shit.
That could be Green or Orange, in fact it could be Sky-Blue-Pink for all I care, I just wish people would wake up.
-
As a remain supporting mostly labour voter - I want my vote to show Labour that they should get off the fence and go remain etc...
So this means either green or libdem. I suspect though that a high Lib Dem vote is more likely to shake Labour up more than a high green vote so erring Lib Dem way.
For me though it's not just about Brexit. The European parliament will influence our lives for many years Brexit or no Brexit. At a time of genuine ecological crisis with the right on the rise everywhere I need to know that those I'm voting for will be effective. Across much of Europe the old parties of governance are losing support and the effective opposition to the right is now the Greens. On taking their seat a Green MEP will therefore have a like-minded group to join to oppose the righ-wing nutters. Can the same be said of the LDs? Will they find such allies and if so where?
My conceren is that thay could be, at best ,innefectual or worse counterproductive given that they have recent form for supporting a (fiscally) extreme-right govt here.
-
Great comments from OMM above - especially about tribalism in politics, and also, importantly, the potential to "waste your franchise".
I voted Green during the current round of local elections - in direct support of the individuals standing - Lib Dem before that.
I will be voting Lib Dem in the Euro MP elections. While there is very strong Green support in my local ward, this isn't reflected across the Yorkshire/Humber region as a whole. (Three councillors elected per ward, six MEPs per region.)
It was very easy to be deceived by support for the remain vote during the referendum, and it's worth remembering that what's marketed by party campaigners locally, may not (probably won't?) reflect levels of support across the region. Worth checking, if you're undecided.
Remaining in Europe is, in my view, the best way to strengthen support for the debate on things like the environment and human rights.
-
It's all fucked by the way. I asked my parents and my mother voted Brexit party which was entirely predictable. Less so was Dad, who voted the same way. He'd originally been a reluctant remainer whose financial conservatism had prevented a leave vote. He cited reasons of dissatisfaction with the EU ("unelected bully boys") and of Westminster.
So an absolute Brexit landslide it is.
-
Hooray for narrow-minded out of touch OAPs! :beer2:
-
Hooray for narrow-minded out of touch OAPs! :beer2:
I didn’t realise you’d retired?
-
Not yet old chap, just waiting for my punt on shorting the £ and my investment in US poultry to come good.
-
Not yet old chap, just waiting for my punt on shorting the £ and my investment in US poultry to come good.
I hope you remembered Chlorine production and Health insurance?
-
Not yet old chap, just waiting for my punt on shorting the £ and my investment in US poultry to come good.
I hope you remembered Chlorine production and Health insurance?
I'm investing in milkshake stocks.
-
My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard
-
My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard
Not quite as good as the, "My milkshake brings all the boys to Farage" tweet.
-
It's all fucked by the way. I asked my parents and my mother voted Brexit party which was entirely predictable. Less so was Dad, who voted the same way. He'd originally been a reluctant remainer whose financial conservatism had prevented a leave vote. He cited reasons of dissatisfaction with the EU ("unelected bully boys") and of Westminster.
So an absolute Brexit landslide it is.
Well done for engaging with them. I have yet to have an open discussion about politics with my Mum that hasn't descended into an argument for quite a while. I can't get past the fact there doesn't seem to be a reason for the way she votes, especially as it seems the opposite of the values she embodies and how she lives her life.
-
My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard
Lactosing the intolerant.
Not quite as good as the, "My milkshake brings all the boys to Farage" tweet.
-
Not yet old chap, just waiting for my punt on shorting the £ and my investment in US poultry to come good.
I hope you remembered Chlorine production and Health insurance?
I'm investing in milkshake stocks.
I think Farage is a nob and I'm not a supporter of his, but I don't agree with lobbing milkshakes at politicians just because you disagree with their point of view. I agree with what Amber Rudd was saying on R4 earlier - that it coarsens the atmosphere. It's essentially using humiliation to show you disagree with someone instead of engaging them in civil debate and making your points rationally. If you think it's funny and admirable then you have to also accept it'll be funny and admirable tomorrow, if some right-wing nobhead eggs Jess Philips to try to humiliate her (more preferable, though, than 'joking' about raping her.. idiot), or lobs milkshake all over Caroline Lucas to attempt to make her look a twat the next time she turns up to speak.
The milkshake lobber's charged with common assault. Says it all. He'll be the one left looking the real twat.
-
Not yet old chap, just waiting for my punt on shorting the £ and my investment in US poultry to come good.
I hope you remembered Chlorine production and Health insurance?
I'm investing in milkshake stocks.
I think Farage is a nob and I'm not a supporter of his, but I don't agree with lobbing milkshakes at politicians just because you disagree with their point of view. I agree with what Amber Rudd was saying on R4 earlier - that it coarsens the atmosphere. It's essentially using humiliation to show you disagree with someone instead of engaging them in civil debate and making your points rationally. If you think it's funny and admirable then you have to also accept it'll be funny and admirable tomorrow, if some right-wing nobhead eggs Jess Philips to try to humiliate her (more preferable, though, than 'joking' about raping her.. idiot), or lobs milkshake all over Caroline Lucas to attempt to make her look a twat the next time she turns up to speak.
The milkshake lobber's charged with common assault. Says it all. He'll be the one left looking the real twat.
I completely agree. Jo Cox's husband was quoted as saying more or less the same thing as well. I think Farage is a dangerous wealthy man playing populism and partly succeeding. (As opposed to Victor Orban who is really succeeding) It's a shame milkshake throwing has detracted from the real thing that should be in the news, how the Brexit party is funded. Their co founder was wholly unconvincing when interviewed on the Today program.
-
Don't forget that Farage, the same man who posed in front of the infamous "Breaking Point" poster on literally the same day that Thomas Mair killed Jo Cox, said in his victory speech something about "winning the war without firing a single bullet".
-
Don't forget that Farage, the same man who posed in front of the infamous "Breaking Point" poster on literally the same day that Thomas Mair killed Jo Cox, said in his victory speech something about "winning the war without firing a single bullet".
Hmm. He is a nasty piece of work, a hypocrite and clearly out for financial gain and empowerment. But lobbing foodstuffs isn't the way to educate him about his nature.
-
I asked my parents and my mother voted Brexit party which was entirely predictable. Less so was Dad, who voted the same way.
I can't discuss with my parents in law, as I know they both voted leave, even though they don't openly admit it. I just like watching them flinch every time I mention what a disaster the Brexit process is, and how the shambles is affecting our daily lives, theirs included.
-
Don't forget that Farage, the same man who posed in front of the infamous "Breaking Point" poster on literally the same day that Thomas Mair killed Jo Cox, said in his victory speech something about "winning the war without firing a single bullet".
Hmm. He is a nasty piece of work, a hypocrite and clearly out for financial gain and empowerment. But lobbing foodstuffs isn't the way to educate him about his nature.
Agreed that throwing milkshakes is an unhelpful distraction at this point, but we shouldn't be too po-faced about it either. It was little more than a bit of street theatre and British electoral politics were often much rowdier and more rambunctious in the past.
-
Problem with throwing stuff at Farage is that it buys into the lunatic fringe left message that he likes to peddle and reinforces his supporters' perspective that remoaners are cry babies.
I'm seriously worried that his Brexit party is going to get a landslide victory in the European elections and he may force his way into negotiations ongoing, as a sop to appease the more leave side of the Conservative party.
-
Hmm. He is a nasty piece of work, a hypocrite and clearly out for financial gain and empowerment. But lobbing foodstuffs isn't the way to educate him about his nature.
It seems to me to be absolute pie in the sky to think it is possible to educate Farage and his ilk about their nature. They've shown their cards, we know they're cheating and everyone is carrying on as usual, both the public and the media. Farage isn't scared by facts; you can't reason someone out of a position they haven't used reason to arrive at in the first place. He enjoys being vilified and heckled, it just gives him and his far right cronies exposure, its their lifeblood. What he doesn't like is to be embarrassed, which he was yesterday. Whilst I accept and agree with all the points raised about throwing foodstuffs not being civilised, I find myself exasperated that despite his obvious lies, evasion and obfuscation he is still treated as a serious politician rather than the joke and racist irrelevance that he is.
-
I'm seriously worried that his Brexit party is going to get a landslide victory in the European elections and he may force his way into negotiations ongoing, as a sop to appease the more leave side of the Conservative party.
I think this would herald the end of the Conservative party in its present form.
-
I'm seriously worried that his Brexit party is going to get a landslide victory in the European elections and he may force his way into negotiations ongoing, as a sop to appease the more leave side of the Conservative party.
I think this would herald the end of the Conservative party in its present form.
Surely looking highly possible now. Hopefully Boris will finally win the leadership he has so long coveted just in time to preside over the final death throes ...
-
I'm seriously worried that his Brexit party is going to get a landslide victory in the European elections and he may force his way into negotiations ongoing, as a sop to appease the more leave side of the Conservative party.
I'm not sure he would even accept any position in the negotiations.
His party is a single issue party that has has no policy on its single issue. By avoiding having any specific policies, he can't be criticised for the detail of those policies.
As soon as he actually has concrete policies, they will be open to scrutiny and he can no longer spend all of his media time just criticising the policies of others.
His brand of politics can't exist from the inside. It relies on being on the outside, avoiding scrutiny, while claiming victimisation over everything. I doubt he is willing or capable of changing.
-
He doesn’t need to change, he’s already providing the service he’s been paid to provide.
-
His party is a single issue party that has has no policy on its single issue. By avoiding having any specific policies, he can't be criticised for the detail of those policies.
As soon as he actually has concrete policies, they will be open to scrutiny and he can no longer spend all of his media time just criticising the policies of others.
His brand of politics can't exist from the inside. It relies on being on the outside, avoiding scrutiny, while claiming victimisation over everything. I doubt he is willing or capable of changing.
Exactly. Well put.
-
His party is a single issue party that has has no policy on its single issue. By avoiding having any specific policies, he can't be criticised for the detail of those policies.
As soon as he actually has concrete policies, they will be open to scrutiny and he can no longer spend all of his media time just criticising the policies of others.
His brand of politics can't exist from the inside. It relies on being on the outside, avoiding scrutiny, while claiming victimisation over everything. I doubt he is willing or capable of changing.
Exactly. Well put.
That’s pretty much what they said about Trump. Non?
-
Trump revelled in outsider status, but he had some sort of public agenda. Farage is a single issue politician so far.
-
When I said educate Farage about his nature, I didn't have any intention of changing him more his nature as an object of derision.
I'd argue that Farage is a serious politician. In the sense that he's probably the most successful politician of the last few decades. Depressing though it may be his influence has been unmatched. However if he ever, God forbid gained political office, hed probably be f**led in a fortnight. Much like Mr Johnson, hes not a details man and would blunder over the actual essentials like diplomacy or dealing with figures. However, today are the people with the real power politicians?
Who are Huawei more scared of, the US government, or Google?
-
Trump revelled in outsider status, but he had some sort of public agenda. Farage is a single issue politician so far.
I thought Trumps only agenda was to become (and now to stay) president. I can’t think of anything that is his policy direction - its all over the place and more “not what Obama/Clinton” would do...
-
I'd argue that Farage is a serious politician. In the sense that he's probably the most successful politician of the last few decades. Depressing though it may be his influence has been unmatched. However if he ever, God forbid gained political office, hed probably be f**led in a fortnight. Much like Mr Johnson, hes not a details man and would blunder over the actual essentials like diplomacy or dealing with figures. However, today are the people with the real power politicians?
Who are Huawei more scared of, the US government, or Google?
Some interesting points Toby - I’d say Farage benefits from the vacuum of decent leadership in any of the political parties at the moment (apart from the SNP I’d argue)...
Huawei is really interesting... their public reaction was more visceral to Google than the US govt - which implies google has hit them harder - but its probably safer/less political to launch a retaliatory broadside against a company than the US Govt (just). I suspect Google are seething about having to do this. It’s fairly easy for Huawei to engineer their own western version of Android (they already have for China where google products are not allowed/controlled) and with The 2nd largest phone manufacturer now forking Android majorly for their own purposes it takes a substantial chunk of the google control on android away (if that makes sense)
-
A counter-point to right wing popularism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/yanis-varoufakis-green-new-deal-can-unite-europes-progressives
-
May could be gone today.... seen the pictures of her answering questions to her plan with her front bench gone - a handful of tories left and fairly full opposition benches...
She's been deserted - I'd put money on those men in grey suits trying to push her out today. Whether they will or not is a differetn question...
-
Isn’t she technically safe until December from her own party voting her out?
-
The 1922 could change the rules of the Conservative Party to allow earlier intervention and allow another vote.
-
Depressing though it may be his influence has been unmatched. However if he ever, God forbid gained political office, hed probably be f**led in a fortnight. Much like Mr Johnson, hes not a details man and would blunder over the actual essentials like diplomacy or dealing with figures
What like Trump you mean?
-
Depressing though it may be his influence has been unmatched. However if he ever, God forbid gained political office, hed probably be f**led in a fortnight. Much like Mr Johnson, hes not a details man and would blunder over the actual essentials like diplomacy or dealing with figures
What like Trump you mean?
Good point, JB. However I think (hope!) that there isn't the volume of people prepared to accept a proven liar philanderer and all round gob shite leading their country. I'm not sure the country would elect a Boris Johnson headed government, although the few hundred thousand elderly white men ( mostly) who will get to decide who occupies number ten probably will.
-
This was touched on the most recent Brexitcast, in the context of the Austrian populist candidate who's been caught up in some scandal involving taking Russian money, bribing / influencing media outlets...and nonetheless is still polling strongly at 18% or something.
Whether it's Farage / Brexit Party and party funding / expenses, or Trump and Russia / grab-gate - it doesn't matter to their base. People aren't deploying logical thinking in politics in 2019, the landscape is more about an identification with a "movement".
I think this is (one of) the category error that the "mainstream" has made in the last 5-odd years, i.e. thinking that these new movements conform to the old ways of working.
To summarise (ex-UKB-er) Dave, who very eloquently posted on Twitter the other day, think we're at the point where the "put Farage on Question Time once a month so we can debate him and show up the futility of his positions" model has failed. Yes, chucking a milkshake at the guy is childish, not addressing the politics and is potentially a crime, but at least it's making a point.
-
I thoroughly recommend reading this
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/23/what-happened-when-i-met-my-islamophobic-troll?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
It’s about an islamaphobic troll - but the parallels with the far right and populism are obvious.
-
A counter-point to right wing popularism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/yanis-varoufakis-green-new-deal-can-unite-europes-progressives
If only ....
-
His party is a single issue party that has has no policy on its single issue. By avoiding having any specific policies, he can't be criticised for the detail of those policies.
As soon as he actually has concrete policies, they will be open to scrutiny and he can no longer spend all of his media time just criticising the policies of others.
His brand of politics can't exist from the inside. It relies on being on the outside, avoiding scrutiny, while claiming victimisation over everything. I doubt he is willing or capable of changing.
Exactly. Well put.
That’s pretty much what they said about Trump. Non?
I did consider that as I was writing the post. Maybe that is a sign that I'm wrong but I don't think so.
I think the way he ran away from politics "for good" after the referendum shows how he has no intention of engaging in politics other than by sniping from the sidelines without having to worry about details or the reality of what is deliverable.
At least Johnson, Davis and Raab tried for a bit before running away to leave negotiations to people who bothered to put in sufficient effort to understand the basics of what the EU is, how it works and what our obligations look like.
-
Well, I voted.
When I voted at 09:30, I could see the voter list as the lady wrote down my house number.
It was a numbered list and I was 29. So, hardly anyone voted before going to work.
This is the problem.
I also took 10 minutes and several laps of the surrounding streets to find a parking space, if I’d had, say, a 15 minute window between dropping kids at school and having to be at work, I’d have had to abandon my vote.
Meanwhile, the most gullible generation in history, safe and time wealthy in their retirement, have all day to amble down and vote for their swivel eyed Facist (but he has a nice suit and tells them they are the greatest generation and all those youngsters are wasters and lazy)...
Sorry, auto correct, of course I meant to write Facist but it just won’t let me.
Damn! Again! I meant Facist.
No!
Facist!
Ok, hang on.
F. A. R. A . G. E.
(You know, even if you try and type it all in lower case, without the punctuation, it auto corrects to “Liar”. Can’t imagine why).
-
I went at 3 before picking up kids, no-one in the polling station voting, on the A4 page where they ticked my name off i could see less than a dozen names crossed out out of the at least 50 on the page. Concerns me.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/NWKjYZD/1-B410-C69-72-CE-40-CC-86-C3-B9405-F0-B9747.jpg)
-
...I’d have had to abandon my vote.
Do you really think busyness actually stops people voting? Polling stations are open until 10 pm and, with a bit of foresight, busy people could vote by proxy or post, if they know voting on the day in person isn't going to be possible.
People with normal jobs, would you be allowed to go and vote in your break?
-
...I’d have had to abandon my vote.
Do you really think busyness actually stops people voting? Polling stations are open until 10 pm and, with a bit of foresight, busy people could vote by proxy or post, if they know voting on the day in person isn't going to be possible.
People with normal jobs, would you be allowed to go and vote in your break?
I've voted at 7 different polling stations, from very rural locations to urban locations. None of them has been more than a 5 minute walk from my home. Have I been very lucky or is lack of parking not an issue?
I have also voted by post and by proxy a few times when work or leisure have stopped me voting in person. 2 of the proxy votes were due to late notice work travel but I still managed to vote. I don't think you can do that if you leave it until election day (?) but if your travel plans change that frequently and you care about voting, you would have arranged for a proxy in advance.
As long as there hasn't been an administrative cockup, it isn't hard to vote even if you are busy.
I could vote on my lunchbreak although I might have to take longer than I'm supposed to to get there and back (which would not cause a problem).
Twice I have been working late for deadlines on an election day and have finished "early" in order to get home before the 10pm deadline. It would not go down well if someone tried to stop me.
-
Ah yes.
But you are determined to vote and take it seriously, understanding that your contribution is important.
Plenty of people will be stymied by quite minor things.
I intended to imply that voting should be mandatory (I know, I know; freedom and all that Jazz, but “the people” suck).
I have umpteen secure accounts/apps online for everything from banking to paying my taxes. Why can’t I vote online too? Please don’t tell me that my ballot today was “secure” because I didn’t have to show any ID and I could have picked an address at random.
-
Everyone around when I voted this am was young and BME which cheered me up. On the down side, the news says many Europeans seem to be able to vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/23/eu-citizens-denied-vote-european-election-polling-booths-admin-errors
-
On the down side, the news says many Europeans seem to be able to vote.
Not keen on the blighters, eh?
-
Why not by post OMM? I’ve done that last X years and once you’re on the list you seem to stay.
-
Why not by post OMM? I’ve done that last X years and once you’re on the list you seem to stay.
No guys! I get that there are many ways to vote, my point is, that it’s very easy for people to be put off or just not bother to try and fit it in to busy lives.
As I said you (and I) are motivated and prepared, many don’t bother at all, others don’t prepare and still more would have gone “fuck it”.
I think “we” should be making it even easier and compulsory.
-
Of course (I forgot to mention), I am conflicted in that view, because part of me thinks some people should be excluded from the franchise. So a small voice, way down in the back of my mind, is whispering something like this:
(https://i.ibb.co/NWY7L98/557-A344-D-935-A-4-F49-A983-B3-C365-AAAE3-C.jpg)
-
Some general thoughts.
Farage is not a fascist or a nazi. He is many unpleasant things but not them. I think it's an important distinction to make. Those terms are becoming devalued by being applied to anybody to the right of the Conservatives. As we all know, fascists and the nazis were so much worse than that.
To people saying Farage hasn't reached his opinions through reason or logic. Well, he has. Again, he just holds different values to you and me. The point is is that he has chosen to argue the case using the most powerful tools at his disposal - people's emotions, gut feelings, and fears. Like it or not, would you expect anything else?
Appealing to a sense of reason among people at this stage is nonsensical. It's an identity issue and people likely made up their minds about it years ago. How many people on this thread can honestly say that, when they heard there was going to be a referendum, they stopped and thought about it and came to the best decision on the balance of evidence? I instinctively knew that I was for Remain and then was smugly pleased when the evidence fell in my favour. It's exactly the same for Leavers, but they choose to look at different sets of evidence (i.e greater sovereignty, better accountability of government, greater immigration control etc etc).
-
Have you reached for the wrong medication this morning Will?
You know no better than any of us what makes Farage do or think what he does!!!
-
He’s a “backdoor” Facist.
Such people rarely arrive advertising the extent of their odious desires, they drip feed their bile into society, hidden behind smiles and catchy slogans.
I’m quite certain, that when the National Socialists were voted into power, they did not campaign on the slogan “We shall gas the Jews and bring about the greatest war in human history”.
However, a great deal of their rhetoric prior to their rise to power, shared far too much common ground with the rhetoric of Farage (and his ilk) therefore the comparison (or at least the inference of the possibility of progression to comparable status) is quite justified.
We are witnessing the subversion of one if the worlds more robust democracies, by a corrupt president and powerful political party usurped by the religious right, the very real possibility of a virtual collapse in our own system of government, an impending environmental catastrophe that dwarfs those things mentioned previously in this sentence and yet you find the possibility of Farage being capable of full on Nazi tendencies implausible or too distasteful to suggest?
Simply put. I made a joke, of the black humour variant.
However, I have absolutely no qualms in suggesting that it is not far from the truth of the man’s character.
I have no difficulty picturing him as an eager and ardent follower of the likes of Facism and National Socialism, if circumstances permitted him to be thus.
I think your faith in humanity is touching, Will, but frankly, I think we’re better off stamping on the snakes head, the moment we detect a hint of “Rattlesnakeness” rather than wait for the DNA test results.
-
Good post OMM
Remember Poppers theory of fascism/extremism?
-
Brexit claims another Tory PM.
Now - where's that Cameron "chaos under Ed Miliband" tweet?
-
Well, my affluent left leaning corner of south west Manchester were out voting in droves last night, both polling stations I visited had queues (mix up with polling stations due to address change). To give you the vibe of where I live, I was nearly knocked over by a father and daughter unicycling to vote wearing EU top hats.
-
Farage is roughly the same age as me.
It seemed blatantly obvious to me, despite growing up in a completely white village of 10,000 people that racism was wrong.
Nigel meantime was parading around with, and a member of, the National Front.
He may well have changed his opinion, I know I have on many things since my teens but seeing as he posed for a poster about rivers of immigrants... I'm inclined to think that he's not changed his spots so much.
-
Brexit claims another Tory PM.
Cue another bunfight over leadership, play for time, new proposal, proposal rejected, clock runs out.
And which of that shower of shits would you like to have in charge?
-
Fuck me!
Posted, drained my coffee, went to the bank and the carpet was yanked out while my back was turned.
If (if) we now end up with a BoJo or equivalent PM, there is nothing that parliament can do to override, veto or restrain that PM, who can deliver immediately a “No Deal” Brexit by executive function. At least, that’s a legal opinion I read in the Times yesterday (scrabbling to find link, wait out).
I actually didn’t think she’d quit. I almost respected her for trying to do the best for the country in an appalling situation (because if we had to leave, her deal was the best we could hope for).
-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-couldn-t-stop-no-deal-under-new-prime-minister-tories-warn-k59db9nq7?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1558681126 (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-couldn-t-stop-no-deal-under-new-prime-minister-tories-warn-k59db9nq7?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1558681126)
-
I was talking to my other half about this theoretical scenario last night, which I think is eminently possible (and also terrifying at the same time)...I'm calling this now so I can say "I told you so" later:
- [/size]Tories win (sizeable lead / slim majority)
- [/size]"Big beasts" rumbling about Maybot's calling of election, not pushing home advantage
- [/size]Maybot resigns / gets the boot
- [/size]BoJo PM
[/size]So we'll have been round in a massive circle, to end up with a Tory govt with a similar sized majority, and an unelected PM.
Then of course, the Brexit omnishambles begins...
This has stood the test of time pretty well.
-
I was talking to my other half about this theoretical scenario last night, which I think is eminently possible (and also terrifying at the same time)...I'm calling this now so I can say "I told you so" later:
- [/size]Tories win (sizeable lead / slim majority)
- [/size]"Big beasts" rumbling about Maybot's calling of election, not pushing home advantage
- [/size]Maybot resigns / gets the boot
- [/size]BoJo PM
[/size]So we'll have been round in a massive circle, to end up with a Tory govt with a similar sized majority, and an unelected PM.
Then of course, the Brexit omnishambles begins...
This has stood the test of time pretty well.
Freakin Nostradamus, mate!
-
Corbyn will now face his third Tory leader opposite...
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1131870218156945408?s=21
Whodathunkit?
-
You know, suddenly, there’s √0 Euro election coverage...
It’s just possible the best thing about May’s resignation and the impending new PM, might be the complete overshadowing of Farage’s moment of glory.
Please?
-
You know, suddenly, there’s √0 Euro election coverages...
It’s just possible the best thing about May’s resignation and the impending new PM, might be the complete overshadowing of Farage’s moment of glory.
Please?
Along with the fact that on the almost certain inauguration of a staunch leaver, whether it's Johnson or someone else, they'll actually have to put up a plan since they've been universally distinctly unpleasant to Theresa May for 3 years, they'll look pretty stupid if it turns out they have even less of an idea than she did.
-
Corbyn will now face his third Tory leader opposite...
Whodathunkit?
And despite this has not managed to make up any significant ground in the polls!
-
You know, suddenly, there’s √0 Euro election coverages...
It’s just possible the best thing about May’s resignation and the impending new PM, might be the complete overshadowing of Farage’s moment of glory.
Please?
Along with the fact that on the almost certain inauguration of a staunch leaver, whether it's Johnson or someone else, they'll actually have to put up a plan since they've been universally distinctly unpleasant to Theresa May for 3 years, they'll look pretty stupid if it turns out they have even less of an idea than she did.
But isn't that actually the plan - put forward any old BS, knowing that the EU will not agree to it?
They get to play the hard man ("they always cave at the last minute" etc), and when it all goes to pot then it's just the No Deal exit they wanted in the first place.
Oh well, what can we do - nasty old EU's fault that one. Now let's start ramping up the privatisation of the NHS and getting the chlorinated chicken rolling in.
-
Corbyn will now face his third Tory leader opposite...
Whodathunkit?
And despite this has not managed to make up any significant ground in the polls!
You'd think that if BJ becomes leader it would be a prime opportunity to for Labour mop up a bunch of middle-ground voter who think he's a bit of a dick... I fear that this won't happen with JC at the helm
-
I think they aren't allowed to report on some aspects of the voting until voting has finished in all area, which isn't until sunday evening. Thats why there is no coverage .
-
Corbyn will now face his third Tory leader opposite...
Whodathunkit?
And despite this has not managed to make up any significant ground in the polls!
You'd think that if BJ becomes leader it would be a prime opportunity to for Labour mop up a bunch of middle-ground voter who think he's a bit of a dick... I fear that this won't happen with JC at the helm
I feel like this has been the case for years.
-
I find this really sad.
Desperately difficult position for Theresa May to have found herself in, and you must surely feel for her.
Unfortunately, I get the impression that the mantra of "The Will of The People" became something she couldn't reassess, in order to suppress her own sentiment.
She was trying to serve an office she honoured on the one hand, while denying her own being.
I wished she'd honoured her own sentiment more.
-
I feel for her too (only a little bit though); she knew what she was up against when she took the position on, no-one forced it upon her, maybe she took it on under a misguided belief in her own capabilities and popularity both within the party and with the general public, and made a terrible misjudgement with the snap GE, which she called thinking the result would make her life easier, but it backfired badly. She should have resigned then, but soldiered on, latterly continually trying to pull slightly different coloured rabbits out of the same hat and not impressing anyone
-
I don't feel sorry for her. Not even a little bit I'm afraid. Remember the 'immigrants go home' van campaign.
As you say, she knew what she wanted, knew what she was signing up for. She just wanted the '2nd female prime minister' badge to wear.
-
I haven't got a shred of sympathy for her. She decided at the outset to pursue a damaging policy of legitimising No Deal and alienating 48% of the population. That stupidity on top of the immigration van campaign Sam mentioned and the Windrush scandal, which she was responsible for as previous home secretary, is inexcusable. She makes Cameron look like a model of competence. Good riddance, although god knows whats next.
-
Please let me just say, it's not about sympathy, but about a human being - and one who wanted to do her duty as well as possible.
Whether she made the right choices and/or decisions is a separate matter.
Reaching out to the person on the other side of the table is the challenge we all need to try to face - in that respect, I very much echo Will's sentiments above.
It's very easy to apply labels to satisfy our own enmity.
-
Please let me just say, it's not about sympathy, but about a human being - and one who wanted to do her duty as well as possible.
I guess this depends on what her ‘duty’ was really. Certainly as foreign secretary the things that she carried out as part of her ‘duty’ were reprehensible, and her time as PM has not been much better.
This was not a role that was thrust upon her, but one she put herself forward for and has done a terrible job of.
-
Of course being humane is the ideal that we should all perhaps aspire to. However, if you happen to be disabled, poor or indeed just plain unlucky you will have experienced directly the inhumanity that the government, she chose to lead, has inflicted upon it’s own citizens. She can shed a few tears, retire to a country retreat and enjoy the ill gotten gains that she enabled hubby to get whilst in power. Maybe whilst she’s got some free time she can look for the files she ‘lost’ on high powered paedophile rings. So I am really struggling to find any sympathy for what she has lost... Call me cynical but I personally believe the only sense of duty she has is deeply entrenched in the desire for personal gain and the pursuit of power to enable further personal gain (far too many politicians on all sides of the house with this attitude, could do with a clear out of all the gravy trainers..). Now we’ll sit back to see what shit shower she is replaced with, brace yourself people!
-
Interesting guardian commentary saying a deal of any sort is now dead. Arguing it’s now no deal or no brexit.
-
Her ‘hostile environment’ turned the Home Office from one that should serve us all into a racist institution that has wreaked- and continues to wreak- misery on UK citizens.
How many of the Windrush deportees have died? 11 According to Javid, with others ‘unaccounted for’.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/12/windrush-11-people-wrongly-deported-from-uk-have-died-sajid-javid
It doesn’t matter if she considers it was her duty, that’s the defence of many a monstrous act. Her legacy is a disgrace.
I suspect who comes next will be worse, though.
-
You know, suddenly, there’s √0 Euro election coverage...
It’s just possible the best thing about May’s resignation and the impending new PM, might be the complete overshadowing of Farage’s moment of glory.
Please?
France doesn’t vote on weekdays and all the results need to be in first.
-
Interesting guardian commentary saying a deal of any sort is now dead. Arguing it’s now no deal or no brexit.
Was this not always the case?
The majority of tories will not vote for anything involving a customs union or freedom of movement, Labour won't vote for anything without a customs union, the DUP won't vote for anything (because anything other than the absolute softest of soft brexits necessitates a border).
So there can't be a majority in this parliament in favour of anything other than maybe people voting for something they disagree with purely out of fear of an even worse outcome if they don't.
This should never have been negotiated by a single party (especially one without even a majority). Maybe if all parties had had input from the beginning, a compromise might have been achievable.
Once May decided it would be a tory only brexit and once she decided freedom of movement was her one redline, this was inevitable. This failure is hers to own.
-
But isn't that actually the plan ... let's start ramping up the privatisation of the NHS and getting the chlorinated chicken rolling in.
Now these two I frankly care less about than I do EU membership. The NHS is falling to pieces without the aid of a politician of any party, probably be hastened when we leave as well. This is said with resignation and not relish. No private company in its right mind would take on much of what the NHS does.
There are more important things to worry about than chickens. ( This isn't entirely serious I am concerned about animal welfare, before I get burnt at the steak, sorry... )
Back to the actual topic... Good post Dave T, I have considerable sympathy for Theresa May, not for her performance or record in office but for the way she's been treated by people such as IDS, whose smug crowing today was nauseating, especially when he tried to say in an interview on five live that he'd had a harder job as an opposition leader than she has as PM. Given that he was a massive failure on every level, it's pretty rich really.
-
But isn't that actually the plan ... let's start ramping up the privatisation of the NHS and getting the chlorinated chicken rolling in.
Now these two I frankly care less about than I do EU membership. The NHS is falling to pieces without the aid of a politician of any party, probably be hastened when we leave as well.
Not to go off topic, but interested to know what makes you think this? What do you see as the cause of the NHS falling to pieces?
I ask because from my perspective it seems like for the NHS to survive you need political will. I don’t know if the future of our healthcare includes the NHS as we know it, or some insurance system or part privatisation, but I would argue that the lack of political action currently is the deliberate ‘aid’ to hasten the decline of the NHS.
-
But isn't that actually the plan ... let's start ramping up the privatisation of the NHS and getting the chlorinated chicken rolling in.
Now these two I frankly care less about than I do EU membership. The NHS is falling to pieces without the aid of a politician of any party, probably be hastened when we leave as well.
Not to go off topic, but interested to know what makes you think this? What do you see as the cause of the NHS falling to pieces?
Working for it. Knowing that there is no realistic amount of money that will fix it.
Leaving with no deal will hasten this.
-
Knowing that there is no realistic amount of money that will fix it.
Leaving with no deal will hasten this.
But would an unrealistic amount of money fix it? And at what point is the boundary between financially realistic and unrealistic, and how does anyone know where it is?
-
But would an unrealistic amount of money fix it? And at what point is the boundary between financially realistic and unrealistic, and how does anyone know where it is?
:agree:
And compared to other healthcare systems around the world it seems to be good value for money, so any other option is likely to be more expensive than the ‘untealistic’ amount of money the NHS requires.
-
Working for it. Knowing that there is no realistic amount of money that will fix it.
I disagree
Show me a western health service that isn't in a financial crisis. It's easy to be pessimistic about the NHS, especially when you're on the front line, but assuming present funding levels don't change substantially don't think any other model of care (e.g. an insurance-based service) would result in an improvement in service.
What will make a difference is funding the service at a similar level to other similarly rich European countries like France or Germany. UK funding (as a percentage of GDP) is 13th out of the original 15 EU members. We can and should afford more. NHS funding improved substantially under Blair/Brown from 2000 to 2009 and this was clearly noticeable both as a patient and someone who worked in hospitals. Since then it has declined (as a % of GDP) despite a growing economy, this has also been clearly noticeable as a patient. This is austerity in action.
Data from OCED, figure from KIng's Fund
(https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally)
(https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/media_large/public/media/NHS-spending-internationall-comparison-fig-1.png?itok=oLRJnWi1)
-
Ratio of GDP might not be the most trustworthy normalisation, as Luxembourg and Ireland's GDP are much inflated as they are used as nominal headquarters by multinationals for taxdodging purposes (=lots of 'domestic' production that will never ever be gainful for any Irish or Luxembourger).
-
Happy to omit Ireland and Luxembourg from that data. My argument is the UK should be spending a similar proportion of GDP on healthcare as (broadly) similar countries like France and Germany.
-
I'm happy to report anecdotal evidence that France's healthcare system is really quite good; better than Japan's and Sweden's in my (very) limited experience.
-
This also assumes that populations are the same when we know they are not. Large parts of the UK population have been badly affected by austerity, which won't show up in GDP because it's an average (and the rich have been getting steadily richer). These effects will be manifested by mental and physical health problems which then will add to the required butchers bill the health service has to pay.
I witnessed a microcosm of this the other week - I needed a GP appointment for the first time in a few years, and was told it would be a 5 week wait unless I turned up and queued first thing in the morning. Lucky me, working from home, so I'm straight in there the next day.
In the waiting room, a big guy is on his phone, sounding really stressed out - his boss is angry he hasn't given any notice for not being at work, he's trying to explain that you don't get appointments in advance any more. It sounds like he might get sacked, as he has to hang up and go into see the doctor. Within a minute ALL the practice staff are rushing to the room, and the guy bursts out swearing. He's obviously snapped over something and kicked off. Things settle down, he gets seen, it's my turn next to see the GP. I sit down, look at the doc and think, fuck me its 9.10am and you've already had to use your panic button, you poor bastard. He's extremely competent, and I leave, pondering austerity and the effect of negative feedback loops.
-
GP's practices seem wildly different across the country. My tuppence worth:
My previous one in Hull was dire. 2-3 week list or go to A&E.
In Manc you call that morning and are triaged by a doctor/nurse and we've nearly always got an appointment that day. Out of hours is run by a private company (based next to A&E at Manchester Royal) and thats always been really good and fast too.
Anyway - back to the EU. I am presently completely disinterested by the Tory leadership race. I think it will make f*ck all difference. A GE might - but equally might leave us in the same quagmire. With that and Trumps upcoming visit that I'd rather not know anything about - I'm quite happy avoiding news for the time being.
-
In Manc you call that morning and are triaged by a doctor/nurse and we've nearly always got an appointment that day. Out of hours is run by a private company (based next to A&E at Manchester Royal) and thats always been really good and fast too.
I'm not sure you can say "in Manc" with that degree of certainty, my experience of Whalley Range Health centre was 5 weeks for an appointment (things might have improved but my wife works on various pathway and commissioning projects and suggests things are getting worse).
Anyway - back to the EU. I am presently completely disinterested by the Tory leadership race. I think it will make f*ck all difference. A GE might - but equally might leave us in the same quagmire.
This is the thing people seem to miss, it might not be up to us in the UK. If the EU Parliament is packed with rabble rousers like Farage they might not grant an extension, they certainly won't be renegotiating the deal. No deal would be a disaster for Europe but they've seen the way the wind is blowing and in a no deal scenario companies are favouring moving to the EU from UK and not the other way around so there are some compensations for them.
-
There are more important things to worry about than chickens.
Chlorinated chicken is just emblematic of "being fucked over by the US in trade negotiations" and only a fraction of the story. The US is probably one place where we don't need to work on a trade agreement at the moment as it is the one major western economy we have a trade surplus with, this surplus is what will be trageted by the US in any negotiation.
There is a reason the EU hasn't got around to signing a trade agreement with the US and it's not because they have forgotten or because they don't have negotiators of the quality of Liam Fox but because the terms of TTIP are so onerous as to be unacceptable, e.g. UK govt policy being held to account by US companies and lobbyists (sovereignty anyone?).
Don't let the seriousness of any future US trade deal be defined by its least important aspect. It's like equating climate change with global warming, "hur, hur, I wouldn't mind a bit of that!"
-
This is the thing people seem to miss, it might not be up to us in the UK. If the EU Parliament is packed with rabble rousers like Farage they might not grant an extension, they certainly won't be renegotiating the deal. No deal would be a disaster for Europe but they've seen the way the wind is blowing and in a no deal scenario companies are favouring moving to the EU from UK and not the other way around so there are some compensations for them.
Isn’t it the council (I.e. heads of state) rather than the parliament that pass the extension?
-
With regards to May’s legacy, this article about parents with No Recourse to Public Funds makes sobering reading:
Dave Stamp, a senior caseworker at ASIRT, said children, and frequently British children, have become casualties of the “hostile environment” put in place during Theresa May’s tenure as home secretary. “Essentially, we have come to anticipate that children will be left destitute without the prospect of legal action,” he said. (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/26/destitute-children-unlawfully-denied-support-local-councils-immigration-status)
-
But would an unrealistic amount of money fix it? And at what point is the boundary between financially realistic and unrealistic, and how does anyone know where it is?
:agree:
And compared to other healthcare systems around the world it seems to be good value for money, so any other option is likely to be more expensive than the ‘untealistic’ amount of money the NHS requires.
Whatever you believe about funding more money will not make any difference because the NHS is managed by legions of people with absolutely no idea about front line healthcare. Government may change, ministers may change, but without profound reorganisation and proper attention to social care for very elderly people it will carry on getting worse, however much money gets poured into it.
-
I assume the Labour leadership have access to the same or better polling info that we plebs do. Which just goes to show that Corbyn is a blinkered ideologue, content to be in eternal opposition and so far out of touch with his members, he might as well be leading an entirely different party:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-would-labour-win-an-election-if-it-backed-remain (https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-would-labour-win-an-election-if-it-backed-remain)
-
Interesting that if you are a Holocaust denier the Labour Party will mutter about ‘education’ and prevaricate for years but if you’re a Blairite who votes for an unequivocally remain party you can be expelled in a single weekend:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/labour-expels-alastair-campbell-from-party (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/labour-expels-alastair-campbell-from-party)
It’s all about values, innit.
-
It’s all about values, innit.
Or, lack there of...
-
Antisemites good, Blairites bad.
Strikes me all manner of unsavoury bigots could have been dealt with as briskly as Campbell had the inclination so moved them.
But it didn’t. Someone is easily threatened by perceived disloyalty though - flounce out from a meeting that includes Chuka, remove one of the key players from the Blair-led years of success.
-
Interesting that if you are a Holocaust denier the Labour Party will mutter about ‘education’ and prevaricate for years but if you’re a Blairite who votes for an unequivocally remain party you can be expelled in a single weekend:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/labour-expels-alastair-campbell-from-party (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/labour-expels-alastair-campbell-from-party)
It’s all about values, innit.
Indeed it is. The values of Milne, Murray, Abbott etc al are that none must say a word against the glorious leader for he is incapable of being wrong. Corbyns values are that he likes manhole covers and his allotment . The expulsion of Alistair Campbell is a symptom of an insecure paranoid party trying to freeload it's way into government without really having a position on by far and away the most important issue in British politics at the moment.
-
Interesting article by Daniel Finkelstein in the Times today, saying more or less that we're heading for another referendum of some sort whatever happens.
-
It's all about the timing..
Big Red Bus-ted 😉:
https://youtu.be/VukaSbkW2VQ
.. well not quite yet. If this one has any prospect of sticking, then surely it will bring a tidal wave of similar action.
-
Some general thoughts.
Farage is not a fascist or a nazi. He is many unpleasant things but not them. I think it's an important distinction to make. Those terms are becoming devalued by being applied to anybody to the right of the Conservatives. As we all know, fascists and the nazis were so much worse than that.
To people saying Farage hasn't reached his opinions through reason or logic. Well, he has. Again, he just holds different values to you and me. The point is is that he has chosen to argue the case using the most powerful tools at his disposal - people's emotions, gut feelings, and fears. Like it or not, would you expect anything else?
Appealing to a sense of reason among people at this stage is nonsensical. It's an identity issue and people likely made up their minds about it years ago. How many people on this thread can honestly say that, when they heard there was going to be a referendum, they stopped and thought about it and came to the best decision on the balance of evidence? I instinctively knew that I was for Remain and then was smugly pleased when the evidence fell in my favour. It's exactly the same for Leavers, but they choose to look at different sets of evidence (i.e greater sovereignty, better accountability of government, greater immigration control etc etc).
Apologies for going back to this, but I think it’s important.
Not trying to attack you Will, your point is valid, but...
One of my German friends shared this. They have very definite attitudes to this question, over there:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zvgZtdmyKlI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zvgZtdmyKlI)
-
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/everything-you-think-you-know-about-leavers-and-remainers-wrong (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/everything-you-think-you-know-about-leavers-and-remainers-wrong)
-
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/everything-you-think-you-know-about-leavers-and-remainers-wrong (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/everything-you-think-you-know-about-leavers-and-remainers-wrong)
Nice post OMM. Worth a read anyone else.
-
That newstatesman survey accurately reflects my views. I'm most in favour of May's deal (or something similar); would prefer no deal over 'soft brexit' (i.e. customs union); I'd also prefer remain over 'soft brexit'. If we never leave I won't lose any sleep. If we end up out of the EU but in the customs union I'd be majorly pissed off.
-
The evident success of Project Fear is proof positive that money speaks loudly. There is still much water to flow under the Brexit bridge. Time will tell.
-
The evident success of Project Fear is proof positive that money speaks loudly. There is still much water to flow under the Brexit bridge. Time will tell.
Dan Cheetham, is that you? Is this another UFCK thing!
-
The evident success of Project Fear is proof positive that money speaks loudly. There is still much water to flow under the Brexit bridge. Time will tell.
Dan Cheetham, is that you? Is this another UFCK thing!
No, I think its Donald Trump. It makes no sense whatsoever, and contains mostly words of one syllable.
-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/let-me-assure-you-boris-johnson-will-fail-as-pm-hl7b6tkx5?shareToken=0bed6db93b930da012e739517ea91f62
(Paywalled I think) an absolute demolition of Johnson from Matthew Parris.
-
That newstatesman survey accurately reflects my views. I'm most in favour of May's deal (or something similar); would prefer no deal over 'soft brexit' (i.e. customs union); I'd also prefer remain over 'soft brexit'. If we never leave I won't lose any sleep. If we end up out of the EU but in the customs union I'd be majorly pissed off.
Then I’m not sure you’ve fully realised the implications of May’s deal.
The Irish border is the key. May’s deal commits to keeping that open. I think almost everyone agrees there is no magical technical solution and finding one would take many years. To keep the border open therefore *requires* a customs union and a single market arrangement between NI and the EU.
In other words, the backstop is more of a “minimum degree of alignment” than an insurance policy.
So May’s deal implies either the UK stays in something like the CU and SM, or a regulatory split between the NI and the mainland. The latter is politically impossible for the conservative and unionist party.
In fact, if you want to stay out of the CU and SM, then I think you can either delay leaving until a technical solution is found, or throw the Good Friday Agreement under the bus.
I reckon I agree with your position that leaving the EU to remain in the CU and SM is a really stupid idea. The trouble is that the Irish border is the thorn in the side of those who wish to leave these institutions.
-
That newstatesman survey accurately reflects my views. I'm most in favour of May's deal (or something similar); would prefer no deal over 'soft brexit' (i.e. customs union); I'd also prefer remain over 'soft brexit'. If we never leave I won't lose any sleep. If we end up out of the EU but in the customs union I'd be majorly pissed off.
Then I’m not sure you’ve fully realised the implications of May’s deal.
The Irish border is the key. May’s deal commits to keeping that open. I think almost everyone agrees there is no magical technical solution and finding one would take many years. To keep the border open therefore *requires* a customs union and a single market arrangement between NI and the EU.
In other words, the backstop is more of a “minimum degree of alignment” than an insurance policy.
So May’s deal implies either the UK stays in something like the CU and SM, or a regulatory split between the NI and the mainland. The latter is politically impossible for the conservative and unionist party.
In fact, if you want to stay out of the CU and SM you either accept the above, or throw the Good Friday Agreement under the bus.
I reckon I agree with your position that leaving the EU to remain in the CU and SM is a really stupid idea. The trouble is that the Irish border is the thorn in the side of those who wish to leave these institutions.
I agree Stu. Except that I'd qualify this by saying the trouble is that those who are adamant that we must leave the EU haven't aligned themselves with the inescapable fact that it's either a stupid economically harmful gesture with little or no benefits, or that it will weaken or possibly break up the UK. Its somewhat ironic that what has become a Conservative obsession is about the least conservative thing a government could do.
-
That newstatesman survey accurately reflects my views. I'm most in favour of May's deal (or something similar); would prefer no deal over 'soft brexit' (i.e. customs union); I'd also prefer remain over 'soft brexit'. If we never leave I won't lose any sleep. If we end up out of the EU but in the customs union I'd be majorly pissed off.
Then I’m not sure you’ve fully realised the implications of May’s deal.
The Irish border is the key. May’s deal commits to keeping that open. I think almost everyone agrees there is no magical technical solution and finding one would take many years. To keep the border open therefore *requires* a customs union and a single market arrangement between NI and the EU.
In other words, the backstop is more of a “minimum degree of alignment” than an insurance policy.
So May’s deal implies either the UK stays in something like the CU and SM, or a regulatory split between the NI and the mainland. The latter is politically impossible for the conservative and unionist party.
In fact, if you want to stay out of the CU and SM, then I think you can either delay leaving until a technical solution is found, or throw the Good Friday Agreement under the bus.
I reckon I agree with your position that leaving the EU to remain in the CU and SM is a really stupid idea. The trouble is that the Irish border is the thorn in the side of those who wish to leave these institutions.
I broadly agree with all of that and you're wrong I do recognise the implications of May's deal. If a solution to an open Irish border takes many years then it takes many years. I don't think anyone sensible who voted leave believes the border issue won't take time, effort and ingenuity. I think it's worth it, you don't. Happy to differ. I did btw patrol that border for 10 years in my late teens and twenties, twice being attacked for being there. I have more than an inkling of what's involved.
-
Sorry Pete,
I didn’t mean to imply you don’t understand the border issues. I was just surprised to see you describe a CU as your worst option but May’s deal as your preferred one. Given the border issues I see May’s deal as inevitably leading to a CU/SM relationship in the future.
-
Sorry Pete,
I didn’t mean to imply you don’t understand the border issues. I was just surprised to see you describe a CU as your worst option but May’s deal as your preferred one. Given the border issues I see May’s deal as inevitably leading to a CU/SM relationship in the future.
It is the only solution, hence every (very senior and expert) Civil servant tasked with finding a solution (or the future possibility of one) has resigned.
-
Sorry Pete,
I didn’t mean to imply you don’t understand the border issues. I was just surprised to see you describe a CU as your worst option but May’s deal as your preferred one. Given the border issues I see May’s deal as inevitably leading to a CU/SM relationship in the future.
I'm hopeful that a CU/SM would be transitory. Others believe the CU/SM would be permanent. If it turned out to be permanent then I don't believe that would be a situation the population or government would accept - through general elections either we'd end up back in the EU as full members, or an agreement to the border would eventually be worked out through necessity. Until a withdrawal agreement is voted through and the next steps begin it's all speculation.
Also, while I'm not in favour of a permanent CU I do think the possibility exists for a bit more flexibility to be had within a CU than is 'advertised'. We'll see.
-
An interesting perspective: Brexit Britain is wallowing in dangerous talk of national humiliation
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/14/brexit-britain-national-humiliation-uk-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Went to a talk by Ivan Rogers tonight. Excellent, really illuminating to hear him talk about his years in the civil service working for Major through to May and what he understood of the Brexit process.
I’d recommend catching him if you can, doing a tour around UK. He has a book out -9 lessons from Brexit. All in all, fascinating albeit not encouraging, though the ‘policy based evidence making’ did amuse me.
-
An article by Alistair Campbell, nothing totally novel but concisely put:
From Trump to Boris Johnson, we’re moving from post-truth to post-shame
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/15/populism-boris-johnson-brexit-trump?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Really? An article on 'post-truth and post-shame'. By Alistair Campbell.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Are we also post-satire then? Certainly must be post-hypocrisy.
Alistair Campbell - political spin-meister; chief twister of facts to suits his boss's agenda, master of airbrushing nefarious behaviour.
Who played a central role in one of the most destructive political lies in recent memory - the 'sexing up' of a UK intelligence dossier on Iraq which was central to manipulating public and parliament sentiment to go into a poorly planned and unnecessary war which had disastrous consequences.
Even the term 'sexing up' is classic Campbell airbrushing of nasty behaviour - in reality sexing up meant twisting truths into falsehoods to make a case for an unjustified war.
The public have short memories, as cunts like Campbell well know. I think it's a sick joke to see that lying bastard opining on 'post truth and post shame' in politics. I suppose he's one of the best qualified to comment. If anyone could be said to be a figurehead for the birth of modern post-truth politics it's Campbell.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/10/alastair-campbell-iraq-dossier-inquiry
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/britain-loves-war-criminal/
Introduction from open democracy:
'Is there any better demonstration of our ability to normalise the unthinkable than the continued omnipresence of Alastair Campbell in British public life? Ten years and one day ago, on 24 September 2002, the British Government released its propagandistic dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. A year later, Campbell was obliged to resign, in effect over the role he played in its composition - the publicist had become 'the story'. But this was not seen as a moral issue relating to the substance of the assault on British democracy he masterminded, but as a technical slip that could happen to 'any' public relations operative.
Since then, the public have had to endure his presence on Top Gear; on Richard & Judy; on Newsnight; Question Time; Comic Relief’s edition of The Apprentice; Sky News; the BBC News; “This Week”; the Channel 4 News; in Esquire; hosting Have I Got News for You; mentoring aspiring orators on BBC 2’s “The Speaker”; teaching politics in Channel 4’s “Jamie’s Dream School”; presenting Panorama; as a columnist for the Times; and so merrily on. So frequently has the BBC put Campbell on air that in January last year it was forced to address the issue publicly, in response to a rising tide of public complaint. If you knew nothing else about him, you’d assume he was some kind of national treasure.
Yet this man was intimately involved in one of the most abominable crimes of the twenty-first century. The illegal invasion of Iraq – which Campbell played a key role in facilitating – may have left a million people dead in four years. Millions more were forced to flee their homes and pushed into destitution. It led to the routine torture of prisoners and killing of innocent people by occupying forces. It led to the unleashing of US-sponsored death squads – a key component of its “Salvador option” for pacifying the country – across Iraq. It led to torture on a scale worse than under its former dictator. It led to an indiscriminate attack on a major city that included – in one of the cruelest ironies of the conflict – the use of banned chemical weapons. In the wake of the latter, Fallujah, a city the size of Leeds, is now experiencing a level of birth defects worse than post-war Hiroshima. In the words of US marine Ross Caputi, who took part in the attack on Fallujah, the Iraq war was “one long atrocity”.
If Campbell had propagandised for a Milosevic or a Hussein, it is unlikely he would now be exchanging chummy quips with Jeremy Clarkson. At best he would perhaps, like Iraq’s Information Minister “comical Ali”, be the object of derision; at worst he would be regarded with utter disgust. Instead, because the British mainstream media taken as a whole can't face up to the realities of a war in which it was largely complicit a remarkable transformation takes place in which the perpetrator becomes the injured party. A perfect example can be found in this month's Guardian of 8 September. It's splash called the pre-war propaganda simply “The dossier that killed trust” – as though Britain’s self-regarding political elite were the Iraq war’s primary victims, rather than its perpetrators. One interviewee was Charles Falconer, himself complicit in the crime as a supportive member of Blair’s cabinet. The record of the other, Menzies Campbell, is distinguished by his opposition to his party’s presence at the 2003 anti-war march – alongside people of all political stripes – lest they be tainted with “anti-Americanism”.
Perhaps “criminal” seems a strong label for a Labour Party spin doctor. Yet, under international law, a criminal is what he is. As George Monbiot documented in some detail earlier this month, not only was there no legal justification for the Iraq war, but in private Blair’s Government freely acknowledged as much. Campbell’s involvement was not – as far as we know – military or managerial in nature; but legally this in no way excuses him. The Principles applied at Nuremberg in 1945-6 make clear that “complicity in the commission of a crime against peace … is a crime under international law”. A “crime against peace”, these Principles state, means one of two things:
“(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”; or
“(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”
That Campbell was actively complicit in such a “common plan or conspiracy” has now been established beyond reasonable doubt. Presented below is just one sample of the evidence: a brief run-down of the established role of Campbell and colleagues in the months before the September 2002 dossier’s publication.'
-
16 years to the very day since the death of Dr David Kelly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/David_Kelly_2000s.jpg)
14 May 1944 - 17 July 2003
"Moving from post-truth to post-shame" indeed. Some got there a long time ago.
-
Pete, I'm not exactly a Campbell cheerleader, but that piece of writing is full of holes, massive exaggerations and plain inaccuracies. Iraq would have happened with of without Campbell. Inappropriate reference to Nazis pretty much marks it out as a valueless rant to me. It is no more relevant than when people compare Trump or most other people to the Nazis, and I really dislike him but he is not Hitler.
-
.... when people compare Trump or most other people to the Nazis, and I really dislike him but he is not Hitler.
Though the ‘send her home’ chants at his rally yesterday were chilling.
He’s clearly not ideologically driven as hitler may have been, but there are an increasing number of similarities in tactics and rhetoric.
-
Iraq would have happened with of without Campbell. Inappropriate reference to Nazis pretty much marks it out as a valueless rant to me. It is no more relevant than when people compare Trump or most other people to the Nazis, and I really dislike him but he is not Hitler.
Well done for arguing against what nobody said, ever.
It's beyond debate that Campbell altered facts contained in intelligence reports - that's putting it gently. Iraq may have happened anyway because the US were going in come what may, but the UK may not have joined the shit-show if parliament and the public weren't fed a load of untruths.
-
On a more relevant note...
Today’s Tory revolt might prove significant.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/18/mps-pass-amendment-seeking-to-thwart-no-deal-prorogation?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1563453725 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/18/mps-pass-amendment-seeking-to-thwart-no-deal-prorogation?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1563453725)
-
Slightly less relevant, but more amusing, is the “Tuckered” account’s take on the day’s news:
“Daily News Roundup
-Blond man-child waves fish
Catastrophic cuntnado, Boris Johnson, waved a smoked kipper at a bunch of pensioners yesterday to illustrate just what petty arseholes the EU are, in a bid to become the next PM.
He insisted that when mailing fish (which we all do on a regular basis) we'll now be forced to include a little plastic pillow, and that crashing the economy would be the best way to avoid this.
His claims were later refuted by the EU, who said that the bizarre measure was actually implemented by our own fucking government.
- MPs cancel their holidays
MPs voted on a motion to try and prevent the likely next PM, Boris Johnson, from proroguing parliament, thereby allowing the UK to crash out of the EU on Halloween to appease a handful of geriatric, piss scented Blitz obsessives, Express readers, and the north. Thank fuck.
-Trump considering some form of hand gesture to connect with his voters
After the storming success of his recent racist Tweets, President Shit-for-brains stoked his lobotomised, slack-jawed, sister fucking followers up into a rabid, bigoted, frenzy by getting them all to chant 'Send Her Back!' to a woman who has always been there.
As we speak he's pricing up giant iron eagles, having a radical flag rethink, and getting his staff measured up for their new Hugo Boss uniforms.”
-
Kind of surprised this thread has been quiet for so long. Has everyone just given up/ in despair (for want of better words, I don't really mean given up as such)?
-
I'm personally so disillusioned with the whole debacle that I'm in a kind of sit back and watch kind of place. It's so mind-bendingly fascinating, I can't really sort it all into a sensible thing to comprehend....
And then this happens - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632
Unbelievable!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
-
Kind of surprised this thread has been quiet for so long. Has everyone just given up/ in despair (for want of better words, I don't really mean given up as such)?
Yup. Been actively avoiding news on it....
Today’s developments are both a surprise and (sadly) not a surprise if you get what I mean.
-
Taking back control.
From the people, to the executive.
-
Who would have thought that a project spearheaded by a Putinesque gang of spivs, chancers and populists, which weaponised fear of outsiders, should turn out to sideline Parliament in pursuit of their ideal...
...Brexit is an authoritarian's game, and if you're not an authoritarian but voted for it, you've been had.
-
Grauniad's got a liveblog going:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/aug/28/spending-review-set-for-next-week-fuels-election-speculation-live
Petition (does fuck-all except register one's protest but hey, it takes 10 seconds):
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157
-
It's really pretty depressing to be honest. Sterling is plummeting, come November all our food will go through the roof as the old fuckers who voted leave will stockpile everything as they're retired anyway. I know this is not entirely accurate and a massive generalisation but the current situation just makes me angry. It'll spell the beginning of the end of any small scale farming in the UK. I don't believe there will be an instant catastrophe on November 1st, just a slow slide into recession, decreasing living standards and quality of life. Still, at least we'll have our fucking independence eh.
-
Most importantly, future trips to Europe and the states are going to get more expensive too...
-
Most importantly, future trips to Europe and the states are going to get more expensive too...
Going to..? Have been. Since 2016 with the £ decline....
Stockpile those rock boots people...
-
Parliament officially prorogued...
-
I don't believe there will be an instant catastrophe on November 1st, just a slow slide into recession, decreasing living standards and quality of life. Still, at least we'll have our fucking independence eh.
+1
Reopens another can of worms up here too...
-
Kind of surprised this thread has been quiet for so long. Has everyone just given up/ in despair (for want of better words, I don't really mean given up as such)?
Yes.
It’s beyond our control.
No point in even writing to your MP, because even the vaguest hint of democratic process has been ripped from this.
All based on a snapshot of public opinion, one day, three years ago.
-
I don't believe there will be an instant catastrophe on November 1st, just a slow slide into recession, decreasing living standards and quality of life. Still, at least we'll have our fucking independence eh.
+1
Reopens another can of worms up here too...
Boiled frog syndrome.
We’re living it.
Economic issues aside, layout a timeline of reporting on Northern Ireland, over the last 5 years and tell me everything is just peachy.
-
Actually, to clarify, I call this an escalation.
I think we should be very worried.
(https://i.ibb.co/g6xDnn5/1-CECDA42-4938-428-A-884-C-0050420-D1-AEA.png)
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to depress everyone.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to depress everyone.
I’m livid about Brexit - a waste and destructive - and whilst I totally get why no one outside media/political circles is talking about it that much right now (this thread going quiet is a reflection of that) I kind of feel that we should. Sure, it’s been summer, there’s been a lull and everyone is exhausted. But we’re on the verge of something very serious.
Otoh, quite what we should be saying and whether it would help, well I’m not sure about that either.
Anyhow, thanks for the resurrection Andy.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to depress everyone.
I’m livid about Brexit - a waste and destructive - and whilst I totally get why no one outside media/political circles is talking about it that much right now (this thread going quiet is a reflection of that) I kind of feel that we should. Sure, it’s been summer, there’s been a lull and everyone is exhausted. But we’re on the verge of something very serious.
Otoh, quite what we should be saying and whether it would help, well I’m not sure about that either.
Anyhow, thanks for the resurrection Andy.
I quite like Hugh Grant’s take, myself. Says it all, really:
(https://i.ibb.co/SXrkjDm/566-ADD17-6-E03-49-D5-842-F-8-C7364-E02-C05.jpg)
-
It makes me feel slightly better about being totally despondent and enraged about national politics that others are equally, if not more angry. Boris Johnson turns Queen's Balmoral stay into a holiday from hell
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/boris-johnson-turns-queens-balmoral-stay-into-a-holiday-from-hell?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Actually, to clarify, I call this an escalation.
I think we should be very worried.
(https://i.ibb.co/g6xDnn5/1-CECDA42-4938-428-A-884-C-0050420-D1-AEA.png)
A few months ago I was driving back from the crag and got into a sort of Brexit argument with a born and bred English/British remainer. I have joint British and Irish nationality, my mother is from the Republic and my wife’s parents are northern Irish, with my mother-in-law growing up during the height of the troubles.
We had pretty different takes on the problem with the future border. She felt maintaining the United Kingdom needed to take priority over avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. I would rather see the United Kingdom break apart than see a hard border. I have no desire for such and outcome but I don’t see it as worth anyone’s life when it’s a self generated disaster.
I think the main difference between us was just how serious we took the issue. I don’t think people of my generation in England quite understand just how disastrous this could be. The feeling of being an oppressed people, for a few, is just under the surface, and I think those escalations could very easily just be the beginning. Along with the fruit and petrol shortages and other loss of comforts and economic strife, sectarian violence and death is unfortunately a huge worry for me, and I don’t think it’s being talked about.
-
Original Backstop proposal was to have CU between NI and RI and have a ‘hard’ border between NI and England... which tbh makes much more sense. I suspect most in Remain voting NI would have been ok with that in some form..
But Arlene et al didn’t like it...
It’s fucking nuts that NI border is virtually ignored as an issue by many leavers....
Interesting wrt Scotland and Ruth Davidson... Tories rely on those 12 Scottish Tory MP’s.....
A GE will see some interesting ‘re balancing’ for all the parties...
I would (genuinely) like to think what any of the leavers who’ve posted on here think of BJ and the whole prorogue situation...
-
Boris Boris what a choad
Looks like a blond haired toad
Lying, scheming Tory scum
I wouldn't even bum their mum
OR as Haiku
Depressing summer
A large, liar toad scheming
because of the choad
-
Actually, to clarify, I call this an escalation.
I think we should be very worried.
(https://i.ibb.co/g6xDnn5/1-CECDA42-4938-428-A-884-C-0050420-D1-AEA.png)
A few months ago I was driving back from the crag and got into a sort of Brexit argument with a born and bred English/British remainer. I have joint British and Irish nationality, my mother is from the Republic and my wife’s parents are northern Irish, with my mother-in-law growing up during the height of the troubles.
We had pretty different takes on the problem with the future border. She felt maintaining the United Kingdom needed to take priority over avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. I would rather see the United Kingdom break apart than see a hard border. I have no desire for such and outcome but I don’t see it as worth anyone’s life when it’s a self generated disaster.
I think the main difference between us was just how serious we took the issue. I don’t think people of my generation in England quite understand just how disastrous this could be. The feeling of being an oppressed people, for a few, is just under the surface, and I think those escalations could very easily just be the beginning. Along with the fruit and petrol shortages and other loss of comforts and economic strife, sectarian violence and death is unfortunately a huge worry for me, and I don’t think it’s being talked about.
Does this not assume that, in the event of the UK breaking up, the loyalist side wouldn't carry out acts of violence? Wouldn't any divergance from the status quo result in increased unrest?
-
Protests in assorted cities (inc. Sheffield) on Sat:
https://www.anothereurope.org/stopthecoup-join-the-nationwide-wave-of-protests/
-
Can you guys sort this out please? I'm planning on moving back to the UK early next year...
-
Can you guys sort this out please? I'm planning on moving back to the UK early next year...
One tax haven to another? 😂
-
I've always assumed going through with Brexit would destroy the conservative party and make them unelectable for decades but the talk of a November election made me wonder whether their plan is to leave with no deal then be happy to lose the subsequent election leaving an uneasy coalition to deal with the mess. Then spend the next five years of what will be an impossible task reassuring the population that honouring the referendum result was the democratically correct thing to do and would have done things better had they been given the chance, then retake power with the coalition parties having done all the hard work that's yet to pay dividends actually coming out of it worse and leaving them unlectable for decades.
-
Actually, to clarify, I call this an escalation.
I think we should be very worried.
(https://i.ibb.co/g6xDnn5/1-CECDA42-4938-428-A-884-C-0050420-D1-AEA.png)
A few months ago I was driving back from the crag and got into a sort of Brexit argument with a born and bred English/British remainer. I have joint British and Irish nationality, my mother is from the Republic and my wife’s parents are northern Irish, with my mother-in-law growing up during the height of the troubles.
We had pretty different takes on the problem with the future border. She felt maintaining the United Kingdom needed to take priority over avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. I would rather see the United Kingdom break apart than see a hard border. I have no desire for such and outcome but I don’t see it as worth anyone’s life when it’s a self generated disaster.
I think the main difference between us was just how serious we took the issue. I don’t think people of my generation in England quite understand just how disastrous this could be. The feeling of being an oppressed people, for a few, is just under the surface, and I think those escalations could very easily just be the beginning. Along with the fruit and petrol shortages and other loss of comforts and economic strife, sectarian violence and death is unfortunately a huge worry for me, and I don’t think it’s being talked about.
Does this not assume that, in the event of the UK breaking up, the loyalist side wouldn't carry out acts of violence? Wouldn't any divergance from the status quo result in increased unrest?
Well yeah it’s possible things are screwed whatever the outcome here, but I’d imagine physical border posts would be such an obvious symbol and soft target that they would be bound to be attacked. What’s the alternative in a no deal Brexit? EU can’t compromise integrity of single market.
-
Bizarrely (to me) the Tories are a shoe in to win the next election. Large lead in all the polls.
The opposition vote is hopelessly split and huge numbers would do anything to avoid a Corbyn government.
A Lib/Lab coalition might pull it off, but not with Corbyn leading it.
He really is a toxic brand, if he’s unable to effectively oppose a Bojo clownathon.
-
On the subject of our Dear Leader (of the opposition). John McDonnell said on the news last night that they'd been contemplating the possibility of prorogation for much of the summer. They've now got something like 5 days to legislate against No Deal. Why is draft legislation not already prepared for such an eventuality?! If it isn't already then it seems like a hopeless exercise to try and cobble something together at such short notice and get it through both houses next week.
-
Because Corbyn wants out. Much (most?) of his membership don’t.
(The EU is a huge obstacle to his “State run” and “Nationalisation” ambitions).
So, easier to let the Tories swallow the shit, then (in his “stuck in the 1970’s” head, at least) ride in to save the proletariat from the evil overlords, brandishing a shiny new red book.
(Dora turns to camera: “Can you say Anachronistic “? .... (pause for audience to repeat word)).
-
Bizarrely (to me) the Tories are a shoe in to win the next election. Large lead in all the polls.
They have the largest slice of the national vote - but IIRC if you break it down to seats they're in shit. 20+ 'safe' Tory seats in the SE and home counties could easily go to LibDems also now 12 in Scotland.. they don't have a majority without the DUP...
Might pull a couple of Labour seats back... but will disgruntled brexit labour voters vote tory or brexit party?
-
Because Corbyn wants out. Much (most?) of his membership don’t.
(The EU is a huge obstacle to his “State run” and “Nationalisation” ambitions).
So, easier to let the Tories swallow the shit, then (in his “stuck in the 1970’s” head, at least) ride in to save the proletariat from the evil overlords, brandishing a shiny new red book.
(Dora turns to camera: “Can you say Anachronistic “? .... (pause for audience to repeat word)).
All nice stuff, Matt, but it doesn't explain what Keir and Co have been up to.
-
Because Corbyn wants out. Much (most?) of his membership don’t.
(The EU is a huge obstacle to his “State run” and “Nationalisation” ambitions).
So, easier to let the Tories swallow the shit, then (in his “stuck in the 1970’s” head, at least) ride in to save the proletariat from the evil overlords, brandishing a shiny new red book.
(Dora turns to camera: “Can you say Anachronistic “? .... (pause for audience to repeat word)).
All nice stuff, Matt, but it doesn't explain what Keir and Co have been up to.
It’s not intended to.
Corbyn is the toxic ingredient.
Labour have achieved electoral success, in the past, I would posit, through appearing to represent the “ordinary citizen”. Even, perhaps, a compassionate vibe.
They occupied the political hinterlands during their late ‘70s and ‘80s deep, dark, red period. Blair et al, poured a good dose of white paint and thinners into that mix and achieved a rather rosy pink.
I’m loathe to admit it, but it worked. I can’t logically blame them for the global crash (plenty of other things, but not that).
Corbyn, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as intent on dragging the party back to that era and a large number of people (most, I would think) see that as a very, very, bad thing. His apparent lack of leadership, has compounded that view in many (including me).
He had an open goal, since 2016, and has not convinced or persuaded anyone outside his cabal of Corbynistas.
NOT EVEN WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY!
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49509275
Even Ruth Davidson has had enough. Can't see Tories retaining any seats up here..
-
you say Anachronistic “? .... (pause for audience to repeat word)).
Corbyn is the toxic ingredient.
Labour have achieved electoral success, in the past, I would posit, through appearing to represent the “ordinary citizen”. Even, perhaps, a compassionate vibe.
They occupied the political hinterlands during their late ‘70s and ‘80s deep, dark, red period. Blair et al, poured a good dose of white paint and thinners into that mix and achieved a rather rosy pink.
I’m loathe to admit it, but it worked. I can’t logically blame them for the global crash (plenty of other things, but not that).
Corbyn, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as intent on dragging the party back to that era and a large number of people (most, I would think) see that as a very, very, bad thing. His apparent lack of leadership, has compounded that view in many (including me).
He had an open goal, since 2016, and has not convinced or persuaded anyone outside his cabal of Corbynistas.
NOT EVEN WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY!
[/quote]
I largely agree with you Matt. Labour used to be a party who I'd have been inclined to vote for. Labour is currently a party I'm as likely to vote for as the Brexit party, which is to say, not unless I'd been forcibly lobotomized first. I can't believe Corbyn is convincing anyone with an ounce of sense, anymore than Johnson is in claiming prorogation isn't anything to do with preventing Parliament from questioning anything he wants to do.
-
Labour is currently a party I'm as likely to vote for as the Brexit party, which is to say, not unless I'd been forcibly lobotomized first. I can't believe Corbyn is convincing anyone with an ounce of sense
This is probably my own bias emerging, but I find the above hard to fathom from anyone with an ounce of sense, especially if they're a remainer. There is a difference between being convinced by Corbyn (which I'm not either) and honestly thinking that a Labour government is as harmful as no deal Brexit. Even senior Tories have acknowledged that even from their own jaundiced perspective, a short lived Corbyn government would be 'less harmful.' Its about the lesser evil at this stage surely?
-
I largely agree with you Matt. Labour used to be a party who I'd have been inclined to vote for. Labour is currently a party I'm as likely to vote for as the Brexit party, which is to say, not unless I'd been forcibly lobotomized first.
I'd wouldn't go as far as that Toby. I'm no Corbyn fan but I'd never vote Brexit Party, and under FPTP I arguably should vote tactically for Labour in my constituency (and hate myself for it) as anything else would just be increasing the Conservative winning margin.
-
their late ‘70s and ‘80s deep, dark, red period.
I agree with nearly everything you've written here, and hate to be pedantic, but (I'm about to be pedantic) by the general standards of the time throughout the western world, Labour in the late 70s was not far left. In the late 1970s Healey embarked on a programme to reduce borrowing and public expenditure, and to control the money supply.
Callaghan told the Labour Party conference: “We used to think you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour, that option no longer exists.”
And of course the Winter of Discontent occured because the government were trying to control inflation through pay restraint, which the unions hated. As I understand it proposed plans by Labour to reduce the power of the unions would have prevented the Winter of Discontent, but they were scuppered by the Labour left. So clearly Benn et al were influential, but I don't see the Labour government as being far left. Naturally the early 80s was a different matter, but I'd suggest that modern Labour has been more thoroughly captured by the far left than the party was then.
I'm sure Andy has a more informed and nuanced view...
-
I think Jeremy Corbyn is afforded far too much kudos for influencing the direction of Labour. He's an enthusiastic oldschool leftwinger who, if left to his own devices would spend the rest of his career shouting at crowds and meeting with his revolutionary chums from around the world. The problem is that he allows himself to be beholden to a group of advisors - Seamus Milne, Karie Murphy, Len McCluskey - who have a tight grip over both him and the party structure, and who are all highly committed to what until quite recently would've been been considered an extremist outlook. I'm impressed that people like Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper have spent the last couple of years trying to work with that sort of cabal rather than sit on the back benches, but they both must put their heads in their hands every time they get home at night..
Johnson is a slightly less passive partner in his relationship with his advisors, but it's pretty obvious that he's happy to follow the line dictated by Dominic Cummings, Nikki da Costa, etc. The situation is obviously bleak, but I have a grudging respect for how they've managed to smash their way to this point. Cummings is like a political Guderian...
-
I think Jeremy Corbyn is afforded far too much kudos for influencing the direction of Labour. He's an enthusiastic oldschool leftwinger who, if left to his own devices would spend the rest of his career shouting at crowds and meeting with his revolutionary chums from around the world. The problem is that he allows himself to be beholden to a group of advisors - Seamus Milne, Karie Murphy, Len McCluskey - who have a tight grip over both him and the party structure, and who are all highly committed to what until quite recently would've been been considered an extremist outlook.
Ahh, the old "the king is a good man, surrounded by dangerous advisors" line. I'm fairly sure it's nonsense - Corbyn shares almost exactly the same worldview as Milne, Murray, etc, and is equally committed to it, it's just they are smarter and more sophisticated. He's done all he can to push Labour in a far left direction, and played his role very well. He could quite easily hand over the succession to an acolyte or fellow traveller and spend his days as you suggest, but of course, he doesn't.
Johnson is a slightly less passive partner in his relationship with his advisors, but it's pretty obvious that he's happy to follow the line dictated by Dominic Cummings, Nikki da Costa, etc. The situation is obviously bleak, but I have a grudging respect for how they've managed to smash their way to this point. Cummings is like a political Guderian...
Two decades of visiting places where governments are good at smashing things up and poor at building them leaves me with nothing but a deep and visceral disgust for such people. It's easy to break things, really fucking easy. Dressing up it up with pseudo-intellectual wank like Cummings doesn't make it any better. Such people are dangerous, and worthy of no respect whatsoever.
-
Ahh, the old "the king is a good man, surrounded by dangerous advisors" line. I'm fairly sure it's nonsense - Corbyn shares almost exactly the same worldview as Milne, Murray, etc, and is equally committed to it, it's just they are smarter and more sophisticated. He's done all he can to push Labour in a far left direction, and played his role very well. He could quite easily hand over the succession to an acolyte or fellow traveller and spend his days as you suggest, but of course, he doesn't.
That’s exactly my point. I don’t doubt he believes in the rhetoric. But he spent 30 years as an undistinguished reactionary backbencher. He’s not exactly bursting with intellectual horsepower or leadership prowess. He’s disorganised and petulant. However, I think that his “advisors” are, as you say, smarter and more sophisticated and ruthless. I also think it’s quite likely that he / they will try to engineer his successor before too long. Rebecca Long Bailey for instance, who I think would offer a pretty seamless ideological transition whilst stripping out much of Corbyn’s accumulated baggage...
-
I would (genuinely) like to think what any of the leavers who’ve posted on here think of BJ and the whole prorogue situation...
TT, I would genuinely like to answer you but it just isn't worth the hassle of then feeling compelled to read through the countless numbers of people on UKB who want to remain disagreeing with me and telling me why they think I'm wrong. I'd much rather discuss it with you in a friendly manner over a pint and pleasantly agree to disagree (probably) while having respect for and interest in your point of view.
-
I would (genuinely) like to think what any of the leavers who’ve posted on here think of BJ and the whole prorogue situation...
TT, I would genuinely like to answer you but it just isn't worth the hassle of then feeling compelled to read through the countless numbers of people on UKB who want to remain disagreeing with me and telling me why they think I'm wrong. I'd much rather discuss it with you in a friendly manner over a pint and pleasantly agree to disagree (probably) while having respect for and interest in your point of view.
Fair enough Pete. I can see that.
-
All those who say labour is now "far left", could you possibly point to some policies and positions that represent this? I'm genuinely interested, as I feel that it's more a case that the general political landscape in the UK as shifted so far right, that Labour seems "far left", when in fact they're not actually that far left of centre.
NB: I do not feel that Corbyn would be a great PM, as he's not a great "leader". I would take him at the drop of hat over Johnson/May etc.
-
Fair enough Pete. I can see that.
Shame as after a heated family discussion last night I'd like to read what at least will be a considered opinion.
-
Saw your tweets Paul ... :-/
-
Honestly, for me, this has gone well beyond Remain or leave.
Obviously, everyone is aware of my Remain stance and I think my distaste for rampant Socialism is pretty plain too.
This, that which we are now living, is, I fear worse.
Unbridled, unregulated free market, exploitative (thoroughly un-Conservative), cabals seizing control.
If you are in any way disadvantaged or even just unlucky, this is going to be a rough ride for you. It’s not as if there’s very much of a safety net left after the current Tory pogrom on the poor and poorly.
-
Unbridled, unregulated free market, exploitative (thoroughly un-Conservative), cabals seizing control.
If you are in any way disadvantaged or even just unlucky, this is going to be a rough ride for you. It’s not as if there’s very much of a safety net left after the current Tory pogrom on the poor and poorly.
I have something that is really baffling me. I have a FB acquaintance (we haven't met in real life but are connected through climbing/writing) who is vehement leave supporter, but from a left wing or so-called Lexit position. In recent days he's absolutely doubled-down, saying he doesn't care what Johnson has to do so long as Brexit takes places on October 31st. I may disagree with it but I can at least understand a right wing, free trade argument for Brexit, but it has been blindingly obvious for a very long time that we were never going to get a "Lexit." Why the ongoing commitment to a pipedream?
-
I’ve a former colleague - who is (I’d say) hard left. Hates EU - arguments mainly about promotion of neoliberal policies/values.
-
I would (genuinely) like to think what any of the leavers who’ve posted on here think of BJ and the whole prorogue situation...
TT, I would genuinely like to answer you but it just isn't worth the hassle of then feeling compelled to read through the countless numbers of people on UKB who want to remain disagreeing with me and telling me why they think I'm wrong. I'd much rather discuss it with you in a friendly manner over a pint and pleasantly agree to disagree (probably) while having respect for and interest in your point of view.
It sounds like what Pete is looking for here is a safe space, where he can talk about his feelings without contradiction or argument. UKB's great strength and weakness is its blokey chumminess, so it's somewhat surprising that Pete feels he now needs to shy away from the inevitable disagreements, because this place is pretty vanilla.
But let's zoom out a moment. People often take their cues from the powerful at the head of their particular tribe. Cummings has been in contempt of Parliament for refusing to answer select committee questions. Johnson wants to shut down Parliament, partly at least to avoid scrutiny. In fact for all his verbal dexterity, he's really not a man for the hard questions hard questions, as the Eddie Mair interview reminds us. We've had three years of the whipping of anger against those whose job it is to scrutinise - judges, journalists, campaigners.
So effectively Pete is mirroring the behaviour of the big men of the Leave movement. I mean sure, Gove was on the TV this morning, so it's not as if they are giving us the full omerta treatment, but essentially not being answerable to anyone is a big part of the Leave movement right now.
This isn't surprising if we consider Brexit not as a policy, but as both a revolutionary process and one of radicalisation. The first post-revolution government tried to absorb the revolutionaries and their aims, but of course they couldn't, so they had to go and now we've a government of the revolutionaries. And exactly on cue, they are trashing the ideals of the revolution. If we take Leavers at their word then it's not about the economics, doesn't matter if we'll be poorer, but it's about restoring sovereinty to Parliament. Ensuring that the people who make the laws can be removed from power. Yet we now have the government deciding to close down Parliament, and cabinet ministers deciding whether they want to obey particular laws or not, at least according to Gove today.
That's the very opposite of the revolutionary ideals that apparently were so important to Leavers. It's madness of the "in order to save the village, we had to destroy it" kind. But madness is what it's all about, because I get the feeling that lots of Leavers have gone through a process of radicalisation. And to be fair, so have Remainers - going from accepting a Norway style agreement to an increase in support for revoking A50. (Maye radical choices are the only ones open to us right now?) But Leavers' radicalisation is more dangerous, because they are in control of the government and want to trash the very system of representative democracy, whereas one can make an argument that after three years and many failures from post-referendum, generally pro-Brexit Parliament (WotP v2), we have exhausted the mandate of the original, one-off vote, and are at the point where the cuckoo is on the verge of killing the rest of the brood. Radicalisation might seem a strong word but when I see prominent right wing Leave commentators looking for ways to excuse their side for the flagrant violation of the principles they apparently held dear, and ignoring the stream of lies emanating from the government, then I can't think of other ways to describe it.
Naturally, none of this stuff was in the original Brexit brochure and I guess that the former supporters of the revolution have to either go along with it, or suffer the slow process of disillusionment which is quite upsetting. I'm a former Labour Party member so I know how this feels.. It's really grim.
So these two points kind of give me an answer to Fultonius' question above re Labour. Sure, the manifesto was pretty anodyne, but do I trust Corbyn and co to stick within those bounds? Like Gove and Cummings, they are revolutionaries. They'll trash stuff, including norms and procedures, because the end is worth the means to them. For example, they were quite clear there would be no mandatory re-selection of MPs, but of course now there is a mandatory re-selection of MPs coming up (just in time for an election, smart boys these). The fact that they are relaxed about Brexit - none of those state aid rules - should suggest what they really think about nationalisation. I'd also be extremly concerned about foreign policy, freedom of speech and general ability to deal with crises, as Corbyn is a pig-headed idiot and McDonnel will trash anything - including your livelihood - to enact his aims.
-
Unfair on Pete. Perfectly reasonable of him to not want to get drawn into another round of online Brexit debate.
-
Well, the subtext of the original question was "are you bonkers, fanatical or disillusioned yet?" and it's quite understandable that he wouldn't want to answer. However teasing out the bigger picture (at least as I see it) struck me as interesting.
Also let's also be completely accurate: he didn't want to avoid another round of debate, he wanted to avoid "feeling compelled to read" posts that disagreed with him. As a minority on this forum, that is also understandable.
-
Hi Sean. I'll correct your mischaracterisation of my motives for shying away from this thread.
I'm not avoiding this thread out of any desire for a safe space - 'to be unanswerable' as you put it (do I detect undertones of someone with total conviction in their righteousness?). It's been well noted by very many who post on this thread that I've remained open to debate and 'answerable', in your terminology, about my views on brexit since 2016!
My reason for no longer feeling enthusiastic for this thread - not since this week, but for many months now.. - is that nothing has changed in my opinions and nothing has changed in the ~90% of posters to this thread who disagree with my opinions.
Nothing has changed. All that could be said has been said. I don't agree with remaining in the EU, but I respect the values and beliefs of those that do. You don't agree with my position.
It's therefore a very simple decision to question what utility I'd get from posting any more on here. I'm outnumbered ten to one in this little ukb tribe, the enjoyment in trying to explain the difference runs out after a time.
My only other point is surprise (not total surprise ) at your mischaracterisation of the last three years as 'just having had three years of mostly pro-Brexit parliament'.
I mean, it makes your argument work a little better. But by any objective measure it's demonstrably untrue.
Edit: in the referendum approx 479 MPs voted for remain against 158 who voted for Leave. Numbers from the BBC news site on June 22nd, missing the not-declared. Only someone blinkered to the truth by their own beliefs could make the claim that our parliament 'is mostly pro-brexit'.
Roll on the 31st but, as I've said in the past, if parliament do contrive a way to stop brexit and it never happens I won't lose any sleep.
-
Unfair on Pete. Perfectly reasonable of him to not want to get drawn into another round of online Brexit debate.
+1
But you have some interesting points about radicalisation... (like burn the village allegory) and the last para is interesting too.
-
(Maye radical choices are the only ones open to us right now?)
Would you mind expanding on this? Partly because I didn't fully understand your point and partly because I'm interested in what you see 'our' "choices".
Thanks
-
Things moving apace today. No 10 have said that they will deselect MPs who don't fall into line, and are now talking about a snap election. Seems pretty text book. Rearrange the party as more towards a hard Brexit and pick up the UKIP/Brexit Party votes at the GE (which may then mean that Brexit happens during the campaign, or the campaign takes us so close to the deadline that there's no time to legislate anything else?) - probably bolstering the Tories majority a bit while the left are divided and competing with each other for the same votes.
The opposition need to back a GE in order for the government to call one. Blair described this as an elephant trap this morning for the above reason. I googled it: it's a chess move where amateur players are drawn into a trap by being offered the lure of an easily takeable pawn. Corbyn's been a stuck record for about 2 years now saying that the only way to fix the mess is for a GE to happen and for Labour to form a government. He now gets forced to put his money where his mouth is.
Glancing at Twitter was depressing. The Corbyn zealots despise Blair more than any public figure of the past or present, so their addled brains can only conceive Blair's warning as an evil conspiracy against the party and Corbyn.
:wall:
Checkmate?
Doleful hypothesis is that only widespread civil unrest at the prospect of a no deal Brexit can reverse the government's actions. The Remain politicians have been outmanouvered. I went to a protest (my first) on Saturday morning to demonstrate against the prorogation of parliament. Not huge numbers, couldn't hear anything. Low energy. The fight seems to have gone out of people.
-
Old Shit-For-Brains playing his part perfectly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49552403
-
The fight seems to have gone out of people.
The Manchester protest seemed reasonably high energy and a big turn out,. though it was combined with the XR prtests I guess so that added something.
Today and the weeks coming up would be fascinating politics to watch as an impartial but thoroughly depressing otherwise.
-
I would (genuinely) like to think what any of the leavers who’ve posted on here think of BJ and the whole prorogue situation...
TT, I would genuinely like to answer you but it just isn't worth the hassle of then feeling compelled to read through the countless numbers of people on UKB who want to remain disagreeing with me and telling me why they think I'm wrong. I'd much rather discuss it with you in a friendly manner over a pint and pleasantly agree to disagree (probably) while having respect for and interest in your point of view.
Pete, I'd echo other's sentiments that it's a shame you are bowing out. I try to read "the other side's" point of view but the general discussion is so full of tribalism and vitriol that it's rare to hear reasons from either side over the insults and shouting.
-
Fair enough Pete. I can see that.
Shame as after a heated family discussion last night I'd like to read what at least will be a considered opinion.
Paul, I feel your pain. I understand (though disagree with) my mother's reasons but there is no room for debate or discussion and if I hear "we just need to get out" one more time I'll........
I bet your parents could use the UKB quote function properly though.
-
re: calling a snap general election, what is the mechanism for this as I thought the FTPA had kind of ruled that out without a VONC?
-
Govt tables motion and 2/3 of MPs have to vote in favour https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/early-election
-
A brutal rundown from Ivan Rogers on why a no-deal exit on October 31 isn't going to be a "clean break" or "get [anything] over with":
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/ivan-rogers-the-realities-of-a-no-deal-brexit/
-
I know Slabs, I think many of us have been shouting similar all along.
My FB feed has been full of support for Johnson and all my Leaver friends have said exactly the same thing “we voted out, they must deliver, it’s more important than anything else”.
I’m not exaggerating. The other unifying argument, had been the “we voted out, you must support that decision and if you don’t you are a traitor to democracy”. Twice, I protested that it is my democratic right to protest and campaign against that which I disagree with. Both occasions I was told “that’s not how it works”.
None of my friends are (academically) idiots, yet there is no logic, no consideration, no attempt to provide any conversation; just a desperate need to get out.
I truly do not believe they have thought as much as one second past that point.
-
Yeah, figured I was mostly preaching to the converted here, but if nothing else it might be useful to share around.
In other news, Jacob Rees-Mogg has achieved a new moral low: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/jacob-rees-mogg-doctor-shameful-no-deal-drug-concerns
-
I think its like Will has said several times, the abstract concept of sovereignty is something pretty nebulous that sort of defies logical explanation. To the logically inclined, its obviously less relevant than people getting the drugs they need. To someone who deeply identifies with the (in my opinion long gone) image of Britain as it used to be in their heads, its more important than anything, hence the need to 'just get out' at all costs.
I remain interested in the intellectual reasons for leaving, but this has always been about emotions and not facts. I still think the leave arguments are a load of shite, just as I always have, and those who voted leave think I'm talking shite. Its very hard to see a way out.
-
None of my friends are (academically) idiots, yet there is no logic, no consideration, no attempt to provide any conversation; just a desperate need to get out.
I truly do not believe they have thought as much as one second past that point.
I'm sorry if this is an elitist or an offensive comment, but I too have friends and family who fall into this category. I can't help but conclude they are idiots. :sorry: They think the same about me.
-
The Lectern of Lament is outside No 10.
-
The Lectern of Lament is outside No 10.
Good noisy protest that could be heard the whole time!
-
The fight seems to have gone out of people.
The Manchester protest seemed reasonably high energy and a big turn out,. though it was combined with the XR prtests I guess so that added something.
It was well attended considering the rain and short notice but high energy it was not! It was the typical nice, middle-class turn out you get at these events, and which the govt find it easy to ignore. Anxious not to offend or even call out the morons in the 'counter protest' (mid-week mornings at Wetherspoons vibe but with fewer people) wearing Trump 2020 T-Shirts. The only person I saw getting spoken to b the police was some middle aged bloke in a Babour jacket carrying a Bailie Gifford investments golf brolly FFS. I won't be wasting an afternoon at another until there is chance of it being a bit more tasty, this policy of reasoning with the govt or the kind of dicks that wear Trump 2020 T-shirts gets you nowhere.
-
Wouldn't attend a protest because you might not agree with everyone there? Oh dear.
One person at the Leeds one had a placard encouraging people to kick the queen's corpse to ensure she's dead. Should I have left? Of course not.
-
Wouldn't attend a protest because you might not agree with everyone there? Oh dear.
Thanks for the supercilious tone Will, always good to remind us remainers of the attitudes that got leave voters back's up in the first place.
One person at the Leeds one had a placard encouraging people to kick the queen's corpse to ensure she's dead. Should I have left? Of course not.
The reason I won't go to another is because it's fucking pointless. The fact that they are populated by people who are outraged that someone should make a crass remark whilst the govt rides roughshod over parliament illustrates the disconnect between what is being done to us and our supine reaction.
-
I wouldn't say I was outraged, I just don't agree with the sentiment of kicking a dead octogenarian.
I'm just not sure that what you're saying makes any sense. You're cross that executive power is being abused, but you'll stay home because the other people who are cross aren't throwing molotovs at the police/neighbouring buildings?
The reason for the lack of visible rage might be because the perpetrators are all in Westminster and we were at regional protests. People seemed quite cross outside Downing Street tonight.
-
I wouldn't say I was outraged, I just don't agree with the sentiment of kicking a dead octogenarian.
I'm just not sure that what you're saying makes any sense. You're cross that executive power is being abused, but you'll stay home because the other people who are cross aren't throwing molotovs at the police/neighbouring buildings?
I'm not sure what you don't get, I'll stay at home because it will do no less good than joining a march but I'll get to finish painting the attic.
The reason for the lack of visible rage might be because the perpetrators are all in Westminster and we were at regional protests. People seemed quite cross outside Downing Street tonight.
This lot? https://news.sky.com/video/protesters-in-central-london-were-chanting-stop-brexit-as-pm-was-making-a-speech-11800928
I'm surprised they haven't sent in the army to break them up
-
Justine Greening’s gone.
Piquant little resignation note too.
Even Tory MPs think Johnson’s government are extremists.
-
You're cross that executive power is being abused, but you'll stay home because the other people who are cross aren't throwing molotovs at the police/neighbouring buildings?
Yep. That sums up my attitude perfectly. Wake me up when the revolution begins.
-
From the “Tuckered” account.
“I might be completely wrong but I predict a Conservative defeat today and an immediate call for a snap election.
Be under no illusion, this outcome is as manufactured as a wine box bus and not by Johnson either. Dominic Cummings is grinding this organ.
Ever since he was elected to govern by 7 pensioners Dorset, Boris has been stealth campaigning alongside his crash-out promises.
Think about it, how many times have you heard '20,000 new police officers', 'investment in the NHS' and 'levelling up education funding'? He's hawking a manifesto.
It's a massive gamble but sadly I can see it paying off; lose the vote, purge the party of those pesky remainers, then ride to election victory on a wave of Patriotism with a renewed majority.
Don't be fooled by the chants from protesters drowning out his speeches, and don't forget that, whether you like it or not, he's got charisma and is a fine orator. That's the secret weapon.
Brexit is dominating the headlines again and the public are exhausted with it all. Cries of 'get on with it' from tosser commentators like Piers Morgan are resonating, and MPs like Jeremy Corbyn whispering his warnings will by drowned out by Johnson's (in his mind) Churchillian optimism.
Protesters, opposing MPs, remainers and doomsayers will all be branded traitors and enemies of the people, a rhetoric which will be bolstered by the mainstream media.
So prepare yourselves for the most far-right, newly emboldened government this country has ever seen. These are indeed dark times.
-----------------------------------
Please consider supporting the page.
https://www.paypal.me/MTProductions”
-
Johnson's strategy is clearly brexit, as soon as possible, screw the consequences, election before anything goes badly wrong. Then blame anything bad happening on the EU, or remainders, or immigrants.
I think he'll probably be successful; and that he'll have made life slightly worse for almost everyone in the country. A few will really suffer. Still fewer will get a lot richer as they'll have shorted the pound.
I really hope I'm totally wrong. On a different point, isn't the queen a nonagenarian rather than an octogenarian?
-
With the opposition split, as it is, there seems little hope.
Even when the Billions for schools, the 20k new policemen and new, money tree, funds for the NHS, fail to arrive; their supporters will continue support. We are all so deep into the mire now, admitting a mistake is worse than any negative consequence of our arrogance.
There is no such thing as a respectable, honest, humane, member of the current administration. None of these people would have been considered credible candidates for leadership as little as five years ago. Fringe lunatics, all of them, then.
Incidentally, that includes the Shadow Prime Minister (even if the timeline is different). I think he’s an undercover Tory wrecker, planted into Labour to bring them down from within.
(That is a joke, to be clear).
Our Prime Minister, on the record, is a confirmed Misogynist, Racist, Homophobe and Elitist. A man who was widely mocked, globally, for his inability to cope as Foreign Secretary, who’s stupidity put a young mother deep into an Iranian jail. A man who blew millions on a fantasy bridge.
Yet, according to many (if not most) I’m just paranoid and unnecessarily gloomy and all his latest promises are absolutely guaranteed.
Uni-Fucking-Corns!
-
Started typing a reply but deleted it. Yeah, tired of it all. I fear an election might be a disaster. Politicians have never been less accountable and the manipulation through social media has not been addressed; worse, the manipulators are now in power.
That said, I think Boris has a lot less support than he thinks and No Deal likewise. I thought a no confidence vote followed by a caretaker government and a second referendum might have had a hope, but a lot of people just want an end to it either way. I can't see them voting for a left coalition proposing another referendum.
-
I'm getting an appreciation for the curse "may you live in interesting times". At least i'm not in the US I guess.
-
Our Prime Minister, on the record, is a confirmed Misogynist, Racist, Homophobe and Elitist. A man who was widely mocked, globally, for his inability to cope as Foreign Secretary, who’s stupidity put a young mother deep into an Iranian jail. A man who blew millions on a fantasy bridge.
Yet, according to many (if not most) I’m just paranoid and unnecessarily gloomy and all his latest promises are absolutely guaranteed.
Sounds uncannily like the madman across the water.
-
Reading the rolling news blogs it looks like Boris might not get enough support for his election plans....
Real house of cards stuff. That would screw him up a bit - with 20 odd Tories no longer backing him...
I suspect Cummings has gamed it all out... (I find it very amusing hes not even a member of the Tory party!)
-
No majority now.
-
No majority now.
Yup - he walked across and joined the lib dems benches during Johnsons speech!!
-
Just read his letter.
Seconds after getting back from crossing the road to hand my MP a letter of protest...
Anyway, couldn’t have worded it better.
-
Are we forgetting Kate Hoey et al.?
-
Are we forgetting Kate Hoey et al.?
Given the VONC by her own constituency (+78% remain at ref) and that the chance of her joining the Tories seems extremely unlikely (Brexit party, perhaps) not sure how she’s expected to affect the parliamentary majority?
If another follows the good Doctor across the aisle?
I think the latter more probable, though it’s anyone’s guess these (this) day(s).
Our country looks a complete basket case, either way.
-
Anyway, this is far more important:
(https://i.ibb.co/R6Xxt9P/8-F3680-FC-ADCF-4-CB4-A50-A-A2-E0-AC5-E62-CF.jpg)
-
Boris looked pretty out of his depth in the chamber.
-
Tonights vote will be interesting and I'll stay up for it...
Whilst some may call it chaos - I think some re-balancing amongst the different parties will be one of the best things to come from this whole horrid brexit affair...
Presently:
Conservative 309
Labour 247
Scottish National Party 35
Independent 15
Liberal Democrat 16
Democratic Unionist 10
Sinn Féin 7
The Independent Group 5
Plaid Cymru 4
Green Party 1
Speaker 1
If the Tories and Labour are both 250-300 or lower, SNP up to 50, LibDems up to 50... then we may start to see some better coalition politics at play. Lib Dems certainly wont be burnt like they were last time...
-
I was reading this (love the way she tries and fails, to come across as impartial):
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-brexit-no-deal-leadership-charisma-ego-a9090086.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1567524890 (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-brexit-no-deal-leadership-charisma-ego-a9090086.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1567524890)
And suddenly I realised Bojo is the reincarnation of the Boss from Reginald Perrin (original 1970’s version).
-
For the younger viewers...
Worth watching all the way through.
https://youtu.be/R5Os_SrLJ0w (https://youtu.be/R5Os_SrLJ0w)
-
On a more serious note:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/03/corbyn-better-no-deal-brexit-say-investment-banks-anti-capitalist/amp/?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/03/corbyn-better-no-deal-brexit-say-investment-banks-anti-capitalist/amp/?__twitter_impression=true)
Although, I would like to add an expression, from my Naval days, used to convey feelings of amazement and a degree of surprise:
Hoofin-Wank-Spangles!
-
Sizeable defeat for the Govt.
What’s very interesting is how poor the new PMs team perform in the House of Commons.
Boris looks rambling and his affable bumbling makes him look like an irritable fool at the dispatch box. And Reesmogg slumbering on the benches.
I wonder if the more the public see of him in the commons the less they’ll think of him.... PMQ’s tomorrow.
21 rebels...
-
Is 52%-48% now a sizeable majority :whistle:
-
Is 52%-48% now a sizeable majority :whistle:
No.
Which is why we are in this shit in the first place.
Which is also why we will continue to be in this shit for a great deal of time to come.
Because Parliament and the nation at large are pretty evenly split on the issue and regardless of which side prevails, approximately half the nation is going to be pissed off.
Seriously, deeply, lastingly, pissed off and resentful of the other approximately half of the nation.
-
Until enough of the 52% die.
Which given the leave voters demographic might not be that long. Geological time in political scales but in ten years time...
-
If we (hopefully) remain, most of those who voted leave will probably be dead in a generation. Or stay in Benidorm.
-
On a more serious note:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/03/corbyn-better-no-deal-brexit-say-investment-banks-anti-capitalist/amp/?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/03/corbyn-better-no-deal-brexit-say-investment-banks-anti-capitalist/amp/?__twitter_impression=true)
The guy on (our) left of Corbyn is Afzal Khan. He's a supersized shit elected to Gorton last time. Links with the Death for Blasphemy far right Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan party. No experience and an Islamist Mawdudist so what happens under Corbyn? He's in the Shadow Cabinet, of course!
Anyone voting Labour to put him into actual government has some serious explaining to do.
-
Its not often I recommend going on the conservative home website... but this is an interesting read. Honest.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/09/the-end-of-the-conservative-party-as-we-have-known-it.html
-
On a more serious note:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/03/corbyn-better-no-deal-brexit-say-investment-banks-anti-capitalist/amp/?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/03/corbyn-better-no-deal-brexit-say-investment-banks-anti-capitalist/amp/?__twitter_impression=true)
The guy on (our) left of Corbyn is Afzal Khan. He's a supersized shit elected to Gorton last time. Links with the Death for Blasphemy far right Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan party. No experience and an Islamist Mawdudist so what happens under Corbyn? He's in the Shadow Cabinet, of course!
Anyone voting Labour to put him into actual government has some serious explaining to do.
He was formerly Lord Mayor of Manchester for 2005–2006, and a Member of the European Parliament representing North West England from 2014–2017.
I haven't fact-checked your "Links with the Death for Blasphemy far right Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan party" claim yet but if the "no experience" comment is anything to go by I am a little dubious about it. What do you mean when you say "links"?
-
+1 - I thought it sounded a bit Daily Mail to me so I did a little back googling
Couldn't really find anything to suggest he's a "super sized shit" nor "links" with any terrorist organisations.
Only thing I could dig up was the fact that he met with some members of said organisation at a 'Peace Conference'
https://www.facebook.com/JIPakistan.UK/posts/mep-afzal-khan-meeting-with-siraj-ul-haq-in-oldham-manchester-jiukpeaceconf-ehte/990426447646267/
Neville Camberlain met with Hitler non?
-
+1 - I thought it sounded a bit Daily Mail to me so I did a little back googling
Couldn't really find anything to suggest he's a "super sized shit" nor "links" with any terrorist organisations.
Only thing I could dig up was the fact that he met with some members of said organisation at a 'Peace Conference'
https://www.facebook.com/JIPakistan.UK/posts/mep-afzal-khan-meeting-with-siraj-ul-haq-in-oldham-manchester-jiukpeaceconf-ehte/990426447646267/
Neville Camberlain met with Hitler non?
Though happy to be corrected if someone can furnish me with some evidence to back up such strong claims.
-
Though happy to be corrected if someone can furnish me with some evidence to back up such strong claims.
If you haven't read the literature why would expect to see the evidence? :shrug: Try someone like Innes Bowen for a potted history of JI in the UK
Khan was 'Head' of the Manchester UKIM mosque, UKIM became the UK centre for JI, which Mawdudi founded, UKIM having been set up to publish his works and propagate his ideas.
2011 Salman Taseer was murdered by his body guard for suggesting changes to Paks blasphemy law. His killer was Mumtaz Qadri, who had a son. Siraj Ul Haq, the JI leader you've googled, offered to pay the educational expenses of Qadri's 4 year old son, “To pay tribute to Qadri’s sacrifices, I announced that the JI will bear the entire educational expenses of Qadri’s son,”
Afzal Khan has joined Siraj Ul Haq at a number of UKIM and JI events in the UK, that 'Peace Conference' you mentioned is just a JI jamboree.
-
Here's a tenuous link for you:
I've read "Mein Kampf" in the original German. I once owned a full-length brown leather coat. I visited Dachau concentration camp when I was working in Munich for a few days in the 1980s. My son was once invited to a Psytrance night in a nightclub in Hamburg that is inside a former Nazi bunker. I have been seen with my son on numerous occasions.
I guess I must be a Nazi.
-
Here's a tenuous link for you:
I've read "Mein Kampf" in the original German. I once owned a full-length brown leather coat. I visited Dachau concentration camp when I was working in Munich for a few days in the 1980s. My son was once invited to a Psytrance night in a nightclub in Hamburg that is inside a former Nazi bunker. I have been seen with my son on numerous occasions.
I guess I must be a Nazi.
I was going to write:
“ I spent three years sleeping in the bunk above Allan Grimson, drank with him in the PO’s mess of HMS Westminster everyday, had three meals a day with him at my table and spent many hours chatting and laughing with him. Therefore, I must be a serial killer.”
But someone came in before I could type and you beat me to it.
(Gen dit, no shit. He was known as Frank to us. Never liked him, I thought he was odd. Absolutely blindsided when he was arrested).
-
Here's a tenuous link for you:
That's not even slightly close as a comparison, is it?
-
Not geographically, no.
-
Here's a tenuous link for you:
That's not even slightly close as a comparison, is it?
The weather is nice in Nice, too.
I believe the intent is to ironically relate equally tenuous and irrelevant comparisons, as a way of demonstrating a degree of skepticism in your original assertions.
I might be wrong, even about my own intentions, who knows?
Incidentally, I only actually found out today, that Nice biscuits are, in fact, pronounced after Nice, not nice. Which is nice.
-
And there goes the GE.
Coalition Gov, anyone?
-
As a side note...
I just read a piece about businesses needing Customs agents to complete export/import paperwork; as the complexities are manifest (gedd’it?) and there aren’t anywhere near enough, because we haven’t needed them for so long and....
-
I’m sure with the ‘let them all through’ border hgv policy in the first few weeks of Brexit there are some excellent opportunities for fraud and smuggling...
-
I'm running low on popcorn..
-
Just to check, this bumbling Trump-lite choad wants an election because he thinks he'll get a big enough majority to force no-deal through?? Or is there another reason??
-
Just to check, this bumbling Trump-lite choad wants an election because he thinks he'll get a big enough majority to force no-deal through?? Or is there another reason??
I think your first idea is probably right. Or that’s the aim of his masters. I suspect Bj just wants power.. and it’s trappings, you know all the cool stuff like a boreal sponsorship 😃
-
Just to check, this bumbling Trump-lite choad wants an election because he thinks he'll get a big enough majority to force no-deal through?? Or is there another reason??
Pretty much, after all it work for Teresa...
I think it's also the only thing left in his playbook, and he has no other idea.
Personally I am fucking delighted he is on the hook, and clearly squirming, seeing as he is one of the main instigators who got us into this sorry mess.
-
Yes. Opposition have to be careful here. Temptation to leave him squirming on the hook for a few weeks to make him look bad. But could backfire and make them look like they’re playing politics under a looming brexit deadline etc... which they would be.
-
And if there was a GE and J.Corbot got in...??
-
And if there was a GE and J.Corbot got in...??
Referendum on some sort of deal or remain I think.
-
I'm not sure if Johnson is particularly wedded to the idea of a No Deal Brexit per se (though Cummings will be), but he has pinned his fortunes (for now) on Brexit, and Brexit will only happen if he has a majority in the commons. I'd suggest that the first objective is to get that and what follows after will depend on the size of the majority he may or may not have.
Johnson effectively brought down his own government when he purged the MPs who wouldn't toe the line. He could have kept them in and clung to a just about manageable minority government, but what then? Miss the 31st October promise and then struggle on to the next election/motion of no confidence and then lose seats to the Brexit Party in the following election? It's not much of a prospect.
By losing his majority by such a significant margin he makes an election a certainty, and it looks now like it will happen some time after the extension of Article 50. In effect he has seized the initiative by making the opposition parties fight the battle that he wants to fight (a GE campaign) on the battleground of his choosing. He'll go into that election with a set of candidates who will do as they're told and who are more orientated towards a hard Brexit position, thus hopefully heading off the threat of the Brexit Party. Obviously this will alienate some Conservative voters and push them towards the Lib Dems or one of the other parties. He and Cummings will have sat down and worked out whether the shift to a harder Brexit position is likely to gain them more seats than it'll cost. It's a gamble.
-
From what I can see / hear I think Tories are dead in the water in Scotland and will be lucky to keep a seat.
-
If/when there is a GE, it would be devastating to the Tories (and Brexit generally) if Labour/Lib Dems/Green/PC/Change stood on a joint platform,possibly on a People's Vote platform - to the extent of...can't remember the name... when they only put a single candidate forward in each district.
But Labour are the spanner in this, as they - or at least JC - are pretty ambiguous as to their entire Brexit approach.
I honestly (as a remainer...) think a 2nd referendum needs to occur, just to indicate to ALL parties what the mood of the nation is. Both Labour and Tories are split as Brexit doesn't follow party lines, but if a second referendum showed a huge swing to remain - Boris' mandate disappears.
Equally, if it was still leave - at least Government would know decisively which way to align.
-
For all those Remainers getting their hopes up, the vibe in my office (engineering firm in Manchester c.400 employees, old white, reasonably comfortable) is "we need to just get out, I'd prefer Boris and No deal than JC and more delay."
-
he vibe in my office (engineering firm in Manchester c.400 employees, old white, reasonably comfortable) is "we need to just get out, I'd prefer Boris and No deal than JC and more delay."
I presume they're buying Johnson's line that Corbyn is "chicken" for not supporting an October GE? To me it looks like a transparent attempt to circumvent Parliament's will that there should be no no deal Brexit. Why the hell should Labour (and the other parties) be bounced into an election now just because Johnson's mandate and control have completely evaporated?
-
For all those Remainers getting their hopes up, the vibe in my office (engineering firm in Manchester c.400 employees, old white, reasonably comfortable) is "we need to just get out, I'd prefer Boris and No deal than JC and more delay."
I think there’s gonna be more motivated remainers than motivated separatists this time around...
Tories have to win over some of these (nearly) all red Manchester seats for example.
-
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/5/7/1399480746832/998518aa-48e4-42b2-b812-656b49eb8e08-2060x1236.jpeg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=462536937763ba140987ee93e6c1e519)
-
BoJos brother has even stood down now.
For all those Remainers getting their hopes up, the vibe in my office (engineering firm in Manchester c.400 employees, old white, reasonably comfortable) is "we need to just get out, I'd prefer Boris and No deal than JC and more delay."
I think there’s gonna be more motivated remainers than motivated separatists this time around...
The point is though, come a 'peoples vote' I still think it'll be a vote for leave. If there is one trait that runs amongst the British bulldog camp, and that is admitting you were wrong is a big problem.
Any leavers I've spoken to are still adamant that they'd still vote leave again.
Even it swings back to remain, its still going to be a very small margin the other way. All the arguments remainers have cited over the last 3 years over the narrow margin will just get chucked straight back at them.
I'm now reasonably resigned to the fact that we'll be leaving, but hopefully with some sort of have decent deal.
I think parliament have actually done quite well to (seemingly) ensure we don't crash out without a deal.
-
I know a few leave voters who realised it was a shit idea more or less immediately (remember the vox-pop amazement when Cameron stood down "Ooh I didn't realise it was a big deal"), plus older leave voters who are very alarmed by the No Deal rhetoric. The leave vote was also bolstered by a lot of 'fuck you' austerity protest votes that will mostly not turn out this time. Plus they are genuinely dying off.
Even it swings back to remain, its still going to be a very small margin the other way. All the arguments remainers have cited over the last 3 years over the narrow margin will just get chucked straight back at them.
Surely we'll do it properly this time and require a super-majority? Hugely irritated that this point has not been done to death in the media. 1.9% is not a mandate for massive constitutional change. If no super-majority, no change. At least Parliament understands this, as we saw yesterday with an election requiring no less than 2/3 of all MPs to vote for it.
As I said above, what does worry me about any vote now is the social media illegal advertising which has not been addressed.
-
Any leavers I've spoken to are still adamant that they'd still vote leave again.
I hit an impasse with my parents at the weekend as we couldn't rationally discuss BREXIT. I simply couldn't get them to read or look at anything without them solely concentrating on the language used rather than what was being said.
However, speaking to the in-laws over a dinner a month or so ago they were very interested to get the views of myself, my Wife and her brother as to why we voted remain, noting their age and the impact the vote will have on essentially their children rather than themselves (it hasn't been explicitly stated but I suspect they both voted leave). As myself and her Dad generally strongly disagree on politics this took me by complete surprise.
On that basis I fully intend on talking to my folks as much as possible about it ( :tumble: ) in case of a confirmatory vote.
-
The leave vote was also bolstered by a lot of 'fuck you' austerity protest votes that will mostly not turn out this time.
This doesn't make any sense. You're saying that people voted in protest at a government that they thought was failing to represent them. In their eyes they gave a clear and resounding instruction to parliament, which parliament has failed to enact. Why wouldn't you go out and deliver another big "fuck you" to them. There's plenty of evidence that this will happen in the support there's been for the Brexit Party.
-
My leave voting relatives (thankfully, neither my parents, nor my in-laws), did not listen to either side of the argument then, in any meaningful way.
They were Leave voters, before there was a vote and the EU, in fact foreigners in general, were the enemy, long before any rise in UKIP or hint of referendum.
They haven’t listened or paid attention since. Certainly not to any pro-remain argument.
I don’t believe they have realised that there is any valid argument or debate, just “traitors” fighting the noble bulldogs trying to deliver “the will of the people”. Yes, my aunt thinks her own son, sister, nephew, and most of her relatives, are traitors.
(I’ve mentioned it before, her son is an expat school teacher living in Perpignan and facing an uncertain future. He’s lived there for 25 years).
Nothing is getting through to that woman.
She’s no idiot (well, she is, I told her so, but you know what I mean), senior manager at Post Office counters before retiring.
Oddly enough, we were at Mrs OMM’s Grandfather’s funeral last Friday.
That family are full on “Four Weddings and Funeral” posh. All doctors (usually married to a different kind of doctor (never nurses, I noticed)) or “in the City”.
Anyway, I knew F-I-L was LD, through and through. Turns out, the whole congregation were, even the vicar had a quick dig at the current Government. Mrs OMM (her name is Polly, I give up with patronising euphemism) Grandfather married a German girl, after her Grandmother died in the early 80’s, so I shouldn’t have been surprised.
I digress here:
There were strict instructions that dress should be “formal but vibrant, no black” for the day long extravaganza, there were a couple of diplomats from the Nigerian embassy in full on national dress, extremely bright colours. Stuck out like the proverbial sore digit in the dour C of E chamber of arcane device (sorry, church). Apart from all the God bothering, my kind of funeral. With kids abandoning expensive suits, to make goals in the hotel garden as the wake progressed and the poshest game of footy ever took place. Squealing girls with skirts tucked out the way in pants, irate gardeners, the lot.
-
However, speaking to the in-laws over a dinner a month or so ago they were very interested to get the views of myself, my Wife and her brother as to why we voted remain, noting their age and the impact the vote will have on essentially their children rather than themselves (it hasn't been explicitly stated but I suspect they both voted leave). As myself and her Dad generally strongly disagree on politics this took me by complete surprise.
My grandad specifically asked me what I thought, along with his other 6 grandchildren, prior to the referendum as he said he wanted to do what we thought best, since we would have to deal with the consequences. 7-0 in favour of remain. He proceeded to totally ignore this and vote leave. It took a few months, but he has since apologised and I don't think he'd do it again...but you never know!
-
Its really hard to call.
But this won’t be a referendum. It’ll be a GE where Brexit is the number one issue - but NOT the only issue. Tied into however you voted for Europe - will be the ‘I always vote labour/tory’ factor. Additionally, tactical voting will now have a very different dimension!
I’m less worried by the social media shizz JB. In leave campaign it was leave who got it sorted and remain were not. For the GE - all parties - especially labour - are social media savvy.
20000+ under 35’s registering to vote per day at the moment too....
-
Actually, just had a convo with an old mate I joined up with bid.
He's with the FT now and so Tory it’s scary. We normally take the piss out of each other, then gang up on a mutual friend who quite likes JCorbot.
Anyway, just endured a massive rant from him about BBC bias, against JC! Apparently this is the talk of the FT office/board room today.
There truly is a growing feeling there that JC’s socialism lite, is preferable to Bojo’s high jinks.
-
Wish I'd engaged Daily Mail reading ILs before the Referendum, every time I bring it up the result they both get all nervous and embarrassed.
-
Actually, just had a convo with an old mate I joined up with bid.
He's with the FT now and so Tory it’s scary. We normally take the piss out of each other, then gang up on a mutual friend who quite likes JCorbot.
Anyway, just endured a massive rant from him about BBC bias, against JC! Apparently this is the talk of the FT office/board room today.
There truly is a growing feeling there that JC’s socialism lite, is preferable to Bojo’s high jinks.
BBC is weird. It seems to flip flop between being a government mouthpiece yet the next day carrying a load of labour stories. Rarely together - possibly different editors I guess.
Anyway, I’ve pretty much ditched the BBC and my tv media sources of choice are C4news and SkyNews that was quite Tory a few years ago but now seems pretty balanced against the BBC.
-
Actually, just had a convo with an old mate I joined up with bid.
He's with the FT now and so Tory it’s scary. We normally take the piss out of each other, then gang up on a mutual friend who quite likes JCorbot.
Anyway, just endured a massive rant from him about BBC bias, against JC! Apparently this is the talk of the FT office/board room today.
There truly is a growing feeling there that JC’s socialism lite, is preferable to Bojo’s high jinks.
FT ran a story today basically saying the city would prefer JC to No Deal and BoJo.
-
Actually, just had a convo with an old mate I joined up with bid.
He's with the FT now and so Tory it’s scary. We normally take the piss out of each other, then gang up on a mutual friend who quite likes JCorbot.
Anyway, just endured a massive rant from him about BBC bias, against JC! Apparently this is the talk of the FT office/board room today.
There truly is a growing feeling there that JC’s socialism lite, is preferable to Bojo’s high jinks.
FT ran a story today basically saying the city would prefer JC to No Deal and BoJo.
Yes, Dodge mentioned that one of their reporters made an un-sanctioned tweet about the bias.
He’s “Global Facilities Director” so more a very senior janitor and not editorial (bastard can’t even wangle me a subscription, useless tit) but, the top floor is, I’m told, a-buzz with speculation about a possible delicate sanction or even an unspoken endorsement, editorially speaking...
-
But Labour are the spanner in this, as they - or at least JC - are pretty ambiguous as to their entire Brexit approach.
I honestly (as a remainer...) think a 2nd referendum needs to occur,
The general election will be a 2nd referendum by proxy.
Corbyn, it appears is relatively toxic, so would rely on remainers from the LibDems to do anything. The problem is JC has failed miserably. He could have been campaigning for remain for the last 3 years but hasn't, as a result leavers still look like the largest group.
"Almost half (48%) of Britons would prefer to see Britain leave the EU and Jeremy Corbyn not become Prime Minister. By contrast, only just over a third (35%) would rather the Labour leader move in to Number 10 and hold a second referendum. The remaining 17% are unsure either way."
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/17/48-35-britons-would-rather-have-no-deal-and-no-cor
Whatever No-Deal legislation is passed, BoJo can campaign against it at the GE. If he wins the GE, he can force through a repeal and proceed with no deal.
It looks like Labour can't win on Remain and certainly won't win on Leave.
Almost the only hope is a huge turnout for the LibDems, who were dead in the water before Corbyn came along.
-
I believe the intent is to ironically relate equally tenuous and irrelevant comparisons, as a way of demonstrating a degree of skepticism in your original assertions.
I'm sure that's the intent, the execution just nonsense.
It's a matter of public record that Khan was head of UKIM in Manchester, similarly it's well known that UKIM and JI share resources (UKIM used to have the logo on the website) and it's a matter of record that JI are a death for blasphemy party (it's their policy FFS!). So it's hardly some six degrees conspiracy.
I would say that the actions of JI have glorified terrorism and that should mean that JI becomes a banned organisation in the UK. Death for Blasphemy being a form of racial murder. No other MP in the UK is so far right wing so as to share platforms with people who glorify terrorism or racial murder. Compare them to say National Action who were banned for glorifying the murder of Jo Cox, membership currently getting you 5 years prison.
-
Was Khan a member of JI?
Do you have demonstrable and recorded incidents of Khan supporting JI, or their policies?
In his record as a public servant, can you point to actions or statements that might indicate extremist right wing or Islamist policies or agenda?
Is JI, currently, a proscribed organisation? Do you have reasonable grounds to believe it will become such? Do believe Khan should have been aware that at some point in the future, an organisation of which he was not a member, might be come proscribed, and thus should have taken steps to distance himself from and actively condemn such organisation? (Possibly his lack of crystal ball is criminal? We should investigate!)
Etc etc etc.
While we’re at it, perhaps we should be arresting anyone who ever associated with NA members?
I deleted a few more paragraphs.
Flogging dead horses.
You are implying guilt by association and merely providing evidence against the associated body, not the body under discussion. You have little or no evidence of anything beyond “being in the same room, possibly, at some point”.
Not even a six degree separation conspiracy.
Edit:
Oh and if we’re discussing Religious organisations who’s offical docterine might be construed as promoting hate crime etc etc, could I suggest you investigate the Catholic church? They have form too, pritty sure they might have officially sanctioned some grotesque torture and murder.
-
Assuming the Times’ source is true, what slimy bastards.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/early-election-stops-students-1-6256282
-
Assuming the Times’ source is true, what slimy bastards.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/early-election-stops-students-1-6256282
More reliable than the Daily Fail, I suppose.
I generally accept the Times as reliable, anyone have evidence to counter that view?
Photo of Putin holding a copy?
Photo of Putin in a copy?
.
.
.
Fuck but I’m grumpy this morning.
More coffee, me thinks.
Also:
Today, I will mostly be making typos and not realising untilllll it’s tooo latte too modificate.
-
I’d assume it was reliable too. Though god knows what tricks people are up to these days.
-
To be fair (not that I feel overly generous to that bunch of twunts) but its in any parties interest to time the election to be at a point when they feel most likely to win it. That's why Labour are holding out. (notwithstanding the fact they understandably want to avoid a No Deal crash out)
-
Labour seem to be holding out to get no deal, one of their policies, off the table before an election which seems sensible.
Choosing a date to try and reduce the number of people who will vote just seems entirely undemocratic for a political party.
-
Do you know, I’m actually beginning to think democracy in the UK, might be a bit of a sham...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not enough coffee currently available in the entire nation.
On that note:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-police-officer-speech-west-yorkshire-john-robins-a9094286.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1567767364 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-police-officer-speech-west-yorkshire-john-robins-a9094286.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1567767364)
-
Labour seem to be holding out to get no deal, one of their policies, off the table before an election which seems sensible.
Choosing a date to try and reduce the number of people who will vote just seems entirely undemocratic for a political party.
Part of BJ’s problem is that he’s now set himself a ‘red line’ of brexit or bust, die in a ditch - whatever - for 31st Oct. So - by pushing him over that line the opposition make him look like a knob (in their eyes) for missing his own deadline and may try and force his resignation etc..
You would have thought he’d have learnt about red lines from his predecessor.... (face - palm etc..)...
Though it does make Labour look like they are playing a political game etc... I think brexiteers will be pissed off with Labour whatever though so maybe there is no real hit there....
Media reporting over 200k people have signed up to vote in Sept....
And to repeat my message from earlier - a GE will mostly be about Brexit - but not completely..... so don’t assume voters will follow their referendum votes completely....
-
In his record as a public servant, can you point to actions or statements that might indicate extremist right wing or Islamist policies or agenda?
He was Regional Head of a Mawdudist organisation.
That'll do.
-
I know a few leave voters who realised it was a shit idea more or less immediately (remember the vox-pop amazement when Cameron stood down "Ooh I didn't realise it was a big deal"), plus older leave voters who are very alarmed by the No Deal rhetoric. The leave vote was also bolstered by a lot of 'fuck you' austerity protest votes that will mostly not turn out this time. Plus they are genuinely dying off.
Even it swings back to remain, its still going to be a very small margin the other way. All the arguments remainers have cited over the last 3 years over the narrow margin will just get chucked straight back at them.
Surely we'll do it properly this time and require a super-majority? Hugely irritated that this point has not been done to death in the media. 1.9% is not a mandate for massive constitutional change. If no super-majority, no change. At least Parliament understands this, as we saw yesterday with an election requiring no less than 2/3 of all MPs to vote for it.
As I said above, what does worry me about any vote now is the social media illegal advertising which has not been addressed.
I totally agree. This was Theresa Mays huge mistake, to take 52/48 and trigger article 50 and go all out for pleasing the Brexit Spartans, not appreciating that they'd always want a harder Brexit than the one she offered. In reality she should have gone for something like a cross party select committee to analyse what sort of leave 52/48 could relate to.
Re future election: I'd be very concerned that an effective social media marketing campaign by vote leave / Cummings in either an election of a referendum would swing it their way, by cultivating apathy in the younger demographic and stirring as much fear and distrust to make sure enough leave voters turned up.
In reply to Andy F re the Costa Blanca elderly ex pats, the vast majority voted remain, principally and understandably, because the they were afraid they'd lose healthcare.
-
Around 60% of the estimated 4.9 million British citizens living abroad could not vote in the EU referendum due to the 15 year rule.
-
Boris is Rudderless.....
Boom Boom.
-
Very droll Matt. This is I'm afraid more frightening than amusing:
The real reason we should fear the work of Dominic Cummings
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/07/smash-and-grab-dominic-cummings-democracy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Yeah read that this morning. Quite scary. Though - I fear he has picked too big a beast in the civil service to slay.
There’s another cup of dystopian java brewing on the independent - talk of veto-ing the EU ratification of a new commissioner to force the EU to deal with us. A political dirty protest.
-
Anyone been reading Amber’s denunciations?
No real cabinet?
Not sure who’s running the Government?
Etc etc.
Ken Clarke saying the same?
How is this not a coup?
-
So, obviously, we’re a long way through the looking glass, now.
Almost impossible to comment on events, really.
However, I note an article in the Torygraph, celebrating Nigel as our best hope as Brexit leader and describing him as our Brexit Icarus.
Yep.
If you’re going to use a Greek mythological character for your lionising analogies, best to read the myth first...
-
That's not what it says Matt.
"Here is how Nigel Farage can avoid being the Brexit Icarus and see us fly out of the EU to freedom"
-
Much as I was kind of enjoying the spectacle, I'm glad Parliament has been prorogued: the whole things was wreaking havoc with my productivity and work ethic.
-
No, no.
The breakdown of the original:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2019/09/tortured-brexit-metaphor-alert-telegraph-thinks-icarus-flew-freedom (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2019/09/tortured-brexit-metaphor-alert-telegraph-thinks-icarus-flew-freedom)
Edit:
I mean, they went back and revised the tweet. There are screen caps of the original, doing the rounds too.
-
That's not what it says Matt.
"Here is how Nigel Farage can avoid being the Brexit Icarus and see us fly out of the EU to freedom"
Wouldn't the Trojan Horse be a better use of greek mythology given his near takeover of the Tory party
-
I think Stavros is possibly a better Greek cultural figure for Farage to be associated with.
Innit.
-
So, the Times are calling out the Government over the newly released Yellow Hammer synopsis. They’re saying it’s not the “worst case” document at all, that it is the document the Times received over a month ago, that was titled “Base” scenario (or similar) and is, in fact the best case report, retitled.
Or, to put it another way, fake.
Numerous Times journalists tweeting the same thing.
Do you reckon they might be in possession of something meatier?
The Times seems to have taken on a hint of an anti-Johnson stance.
Edit:
Oh yes, anyone north of the border have an opinion on the following:
Scotland’s highest court ruled against the Government, on Tuesday, Englands highest court will likely override that ruling. Effectively telling the Scots to get back in their box, because, ultimately, English law trumps Scots law.
I hadn’t thought much about it before, but we are absolutely not equal partners in this union. My idea that we were all just “British” and that clinging to old notions of nationality was, actually, a bit anachronistic, was naive, wasn’t it?
England has ultimate authority over the other British nations and however genteel our occupation may be, if we retain ultimate authority; occupation it must be.
I suppose there is some subtle legal niceties that mean, technically, the above isn’t “true”, for a given value of true, but if I was “British, other than English” I’d be watching what happens next with a great deal of side eye...
-
I'm not aware that English law is different from Scottish law on this matter - it's not a devolved issue (sorry my understanding of the legal specifics is near non-existant)? I think the reason the case was heard in a Scottish court is because the relevant court in England is on its hols.
Most of the rest of your post is dressing up an assertion that the judiciary is not independent, for which I see you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I am not a legal expert but even I can see that some of it is factually incorrect or misleading. i.e. you say that England's highest court will likely (is it likely? What makes you think that?) overrule Scotland's highest court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for civil matters is the United Kingdom, so the Scottish Court of Session is not the highest authority on this matter, and the supreme court is not an English court, it is a court in England.
You're letting your own desire to see injustice (and, sure, there's plenty of it about) get in the way of interpreting the facts again.
-
I'm not aware that English law is different from Scottish law on this matter - it's not a devolved issue (sorry my understanding of the legal specifics is near non-existant)? I think the reason the case was heard in a Scottish court is because the relevant court in England is on its hols.
Most of the rest of your post is dressing up an assertion that the judiciary is not independent, for which I see you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I am not a legal expert but even I can see that some of it is factually incorrect or misleading. i.e. you say that England's highest court will likely (is it likely? What makes you think that?) overrule Scotland's highest court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for civil matters is the United Kingdom, so the Scottish Court of Session is not the highest authority on this matter, and the supreme court is not an English court, it is a court in England.
You're letting your own desire to see injustice (and, sure, there's plenty of it about) get in the way of interpreting the facts again.
Will.
Mate.
I was taking the piss.
It’s about perception, innit...
Also, I see you’re being a humourless muppet.
Again.
To be clear, I saw a very similar opinion expressed by a poster in the comments section of one of the articles I read yesterday and a few others, here and there. I suppose I should have phrased the question to end “following view” or “following view, that I saw expressed in X comment section (paraphrased here), partly for entertainment and party because I actually do wonder how wide spread this type of view is”.
But, I didn’t think all that was needed.
My mistake.
(Insert side eye, in Will’s direction).
Edit:
Sorry, I forgot.
Another bit of context, which gave rise (I guess, it was mentioned elsewhere in that comment thread) was that our dear Government had implied (flatly stated?) that the Scottish court was biased. I’m drinking coffee, do I have to trawl back through the overwhelming number of stories from the past week, to find the link, Will? I can, but it will have to wait.
-
link=topic=29545.msg589803#msg589803 date=1568244472]
I'm not aware that English law is different from Scottish law on this matter - it's not a devolved issue (sorry my understanding of the legal specifics is near non-existant)?
So is mine, I have no knowledge of the law. However I do have a hazy notion that Scottish law is very different to English law. Different origins.
Devolution probably has nothing to do with it either way as that relates to government / politics rather than the law doesn't it?
Hopefully someone knowledgeable (ru?), or who can be arsed to Google it will clear it up.
The rest of your post seems unnecessarily harsh.
-
Fuck.
I should have put it in quotes!
No wonder you got so stressed Will!
It must have been impossible for you to grasp.
You should calm down and have a cup of tea, dear. I’m not sure your face should be quite so purple. Camomile is your friend here, I think.
-
To be fair to young Will, it wasn't overly obvious OMM.
-
To be fair to young Will, it wasn't overly obvious OMM.
Fair?
This is Britain in 2019, mate.
Take your foreign “fair” muck back to your socialist superstate, we’ll only have good old fashioned authoritarian social structures here and a lose association with facts and reality, when it suits our political prejudices (and tug your forelock on your way out).
(I really hope that was obviously and clearly meant to be both humorous and mocking of my own apparent tone).
-
So is mine, I have no knowledge of the law. However I do have a hazy notion that Scottish law is very different to English law. Different origins.
This thread from legal commentator David Allen Green touches on this, he’s done various interviews including one on LBC going into a bit of detail https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171717055911014400?s=21
-
So is mine, I have no knowledge of the law. However I do have a hazy notion that Scottish law is very different to English law. Different origins.
This thread from legal commentator David Allen Green touches on this, he’s done various interviews including one on LBC going into a bit of detail https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171717055911014400?s=21
Forgive me, but...
Isn’t that entire thread and the subsequent comments/replies, eerily similar to my satirical earlier post?
I did say/ask if this was a widely held view in Scotland.
It will be, won’t it?
If this is shrugged off, by Government and “English” Jurisprudence; regardless of the technical legality of such a decision; it will result in a further, deep, crisis of belief in the validity of the union.
I’m not kidding about being slightly less than semi-serious in the initial post.
-
From what I’ve read on this - the Scottish Judges ruling has the same weight as the English. As in - subject to appeal - BJ lied about reasons for progradation.
But the judiciary seem to be waiting until the English Supreme Court makes a ruling....
The interesting thing is that the English lower courts rejected saying it was a political not a legal issue - but Scottish disagreed. Maybe they saw different evidence - but several things I’ve read make it clear that the Scottish judges (unanimous) arguments are pretty darned solid. I guess the Supreme Court won’t be swayed by the Scottish judgement - but will revisit their ruling and the reasons behind their judgement that may well be compelling.
-
Meanwhile BJ had just denied lying to the queen.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-denies-lying-to-queen-over-suspension-of-parliament-11807566
I wonder if the bigger scandal may be in the covering up rather than the act here... although the act seems pretty bad
-
But the judiciary seem to be waiting until the English Supreme Court makes a ruling....
* United Kingdom Supreme Court, important distinction here!
-
But the judiciary seem to be waiting until the English Supreme Court makes a ruling....
* United Kingdom Supreme Court, important distinction here!
Yup.
Will it been seen that way, up north?
Obviously, the reasonable, the educated etc etc, will see that.
I was fishing for a position, but I’ve been reading through more comments now. At best, it will merely harden separatists into their stance, at worse....?
Somewhere in the middling of adjacent possibles, is growth in resentment, that extends beyond current separatist boundaries and calls more of the wavering middle ground to the pipes and drums of independence.
Yes Will, that’s a guess.
-
I guess judges can only apply the law if their land; under Scottish law there was a case to be heard and it seems that the lack of an affidavit confirming the reason for the prorogation counted very badly against the government. The English court just said the case was ‘unjusticable’ as in none of their business.
I see NI court has now ruled prorogation was lawful too, but there seems to have been a different question asked here re: potential damage to peace process.
-
Yes Will, that’s a guess.
:off:
I think you've made your point now.
I can generally tell when tongue is in cheek. Perhaps I should have clocked that it was something you'd copied and pasted but it didn't seem too out of step with the rest of the post or others that you've made, so how are we to know? Dunny also commented that it wasn't glaringly obvious :shrug:
Looks like some of my guesses about Scottish law and its interaction with English law were well off the mark - happy to be corrected on that. In light of the Twitter thread that Stubbs shared (I notice that the commentator has since corrected himself on one point) there's an interesting question to be answered about independence of judges and how they arrive at their decisions. When No10 called out the Scots decision as being biaised all hell broke loose; when similar comments were made by a journo on Twitter it leads to thoughtful chin scratching. Anybody who's been watching the BBC doc about the rise of the Nazis will know the importance of judicial independence and of public trust in the judiciary - I'd like to know more about this but it's going to have to be a good explanation for a lay person. For instance: this from the Twitter thread doesn't hold a huge amount of meaning for me.
English constitutional law has been contaminated for a century by the parliamentary absolutism of Victorian jurist AV Dicey
-
Meanwhile BJ had just denied lying to the queen.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-denies-lying-to-queen-over-suspension-of-parliament-11807566
I wonder if the bigger scandal may be in the covering up rather than the act here... although the act seems pretty bad
The ruling seems to all come down to intent. If there was no malintent involved in the decision to prorogue, it would be trivial for someone in government or one of their aides to testify and back it up by documenting correspondence. They would then have won the case and the whole issue would have gone away.
That nobody testified only seems to make sense if the decision makers are aware that any future release of correspondence would not back up their case and they aren't willing to perjure themselves. Or would that be being too cynical?
-
I think that’s a reference to more specific version of the axiom about “precedent making bad law”, or however it goes.
I guess further reading is needed here.
Sorry, for flogging dead horses etc. Had a stressful night and was enjoying the light relief of internet argy-bargy. Yes, I make sweeping statements. They’re for debating purposes, not deeply held convictions. There used to be a permanent subscript on all my posts, to that effect. I hadn’t noticed that it had disappeared in that site revamp, back-along (I was once puntered by Big iron horse, because it was repeated, due to a mistake in my settings and invisible to me as I was using Tapatalk in those days).
-
there's an interesting question to be answered about independence of judges and how they arrive at their decisions. When No10 called out the Scots decision as being biaised all hell broke loose; when similar comments were made by a journo on Twitter it leads to thoughtful chin scratching.
Hi Will I don’t get this bit, perhaps it’s my very carefully policed filter bubble, but all the sensible coverage I’ve seen has just noted that the individual courts have made their judgements according to the differences in the laws between Scotland and England, with no hint of bias or partiality. No. 10 were very quick to roll back on their initial ‘No.10 source’ (Classic Dom) leak.
-
I'm just not clear on what the differences in Scottish and English law are and how those laws have been applied (and how is this different from UK law?).
It seems that the English court ruled that it wasn't a matter for the court - so basically didn't make a ruling on the evidence at all.
The Scottish court ruled that it was unlawful. And they could look at the issue because Scots law does not hold parliamentary sovereignity as a central tenet (this is the Dicey thing that is being referred to). So how does this work? Why could the English court not look at the issue? Parliament didn't vote for or pass an act that initiated prorogation - moreover it was an action of the executive. In fact, a majority of MPs expressed dissatisfaction with being prorogued, so why does Parliamentary sovereignity come into it?
I'm aware that I must sound like a complete fuckwit, wittering on about stuff I clearly know nothing about, but I'd very much like to see a clear explanation of what's happened (anyone have a good link?)
-
I found the combination of this summary of the English position https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/11/english-judges-explain-decision-to-reject-prorogation-challenge and this round up https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/scottish-court-ruling-what-happens-next-in-prorogation-dispute was enough to answer a lot of those questions without going into too much detail that I got lost.
-
I started reading Dicey with his Wikipedia page.
Anyone recommend a biography or more reputable historical source?
Because first impressions are of an “Individual Liberalist”, who was only such if the individual was White, male and not Irish...
Aka a bit of a Twunt.
I will read further, but...
Edit:
Probably a hero to BJ, come to think of it.
-
From Gu about NI judgement
In fact, it was the argument that a no-deal Brexit would undermine the Good Friday agreement that was rejected. A claim about prorogation being unlawful was excluded on the grounds that it is being decided in the cases in England and Wales.
-
Wasn’t it actually that the ruling did not decree that No Deal would not undermine the GFA, but that it did not contravene a particular aspect of the 1998 Northern Ireland act?
Read somewhere a legal commentator complaining the the action was too narrowly defined, or some such.
As in they thought they’d found a sure fire in, and it wasn’t, but they didn’t test many other aspects, etc etc.
-
On BJ’s new wheeze - a bridge to NI from Scotland. When the idea was floated a while back this retired engineer wrote to the times
“On your front page Boris Johnson airily proposes building a bridge from Britain to Northern Ireland. As a retired offshore engineer, I know this is about as feasible as building a bridge to the moon.
“Many long bridges have been built, but none across such a wide, deep and stormy stretch of water. For a great part of the 22-mile route the water is more than 1,000ft deep. It would require about 30 support towers at least 1,400ft high to carry the road deck across the deepest part and above the shipping channel. In total the bridge would require 54 towers, of heights never achieved anywhere in the world.
“In addition, the trickiest section, Beaufort Dyke, was used for many years from 1946 to dump obsolete munitions. The Ministry of Defence estimates the total dumped at more than 1.5m tons. There are no maps of their locations.
“No sane contractor or responsible government would consider building such a bridge, and because of the weather conditions it would probably have to be closed for considerable periods if it did. The proposal is just another thoughtless soundbite. This is typical of Johnson. He simply does not have the seriousness to lead the country.”
This is straight out of the Trump playbook.
-
Some highlights of the opinions of the Scottish Judges (and the full text) in this thread https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1172171677867769856?s=21 some pretty damning stuff.
-
Once, it would have been damning.
I don’t think it will be now.
Like the redacted section 15.
Like the Times calling out the Government for issuing faked reports.
(The Times ffs, remember when they were the most respected newspaper in the world?)
Strange days.
And the bridge!
Aaaarrrrggghhhh!
-
Even the Civil service.
I don’t believe the FDA would have gone this far, unless very senior Civil servants are incredibly worried:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/civil-service-union-tells-pm-dont-make-our-members-break-law (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/civil-service-union-tells-pm-dont-make-our-members-break-law)
Oh, and I think Bercow is right about needing a written constitution.
-
Oh, and I think Bercow is right about needing a written constitution.
Sadly it appears so. We have a perfectly good system which is complex and old but worked well. Unfortunately it relies on some degree of honour and honesty in senior politicians and judges, Johnson, among others appears to have neither of these.
-
On BJ’s new wheeze - a bridge to NI from Scotland. When the idea was floated a while back this retired engineer wrote to the times
“On your front page Boris Johnson airily proposes building a bridge from Britain to Northern Ireland. As a retired offshore engineer, I know this is about as feasible as building a bridge to the moon.
“Many long bridges have been built, but none across such a wide, deep and stormy stretch of water. For a great part of the 22-mile route the water is more than 1,000ft deep. It would require about 30 support towers at least 1,400ft high to carry the road deck across the deepest part and above the shipping channel. In total the bridge would require 54 towers, of heights never achieved anywhere in the world.
“In addition, the trickiest section, Beaufort Dyke, was used for many years from 1946 to dump obsolete munitions. The Ministry of Defence estimates the total dumped at more than 1.5m tons. There are no maps of their locations.
“No sane contractor or responsible government would consider building such a bridge, and because of the weather conditions it would probably have to be closed for considerable periods if it did. The proposal is just another thoughtless soundbite. This is typical of Johnson. He simply does not have the seriousness to lead the country.”
This is straight out of the Trump playbook.
Maybe a causeway would work.
-
It would have to be pretty........... large?
-
Gigantic.
-
Maybe a causeway would work.
A Gigantic idea!
I propose we use BJ’s ego to bridge the impossible bits (it’s big enough), Trumps brain for foundations (it’s dense enough) and Farage’s personality as weather protection (that shit can repel anything).
-
SNAP!
-
I started reading Dicey with his Wikipedia page.
Anyone recommend a biography or more reputable historical source?
Because first impressions are of an “Individual Liberalist”, who was only such if the individual was White, male and not Irish...
Aka a bit of a Twunt.
I will read further, but...
In 1860s Britain. Just 30 years after parliament had to pass an act to outlaw slaves being used in British colonies. It's hardly enlightened times compared to today. Maybe some historical perspective required as 95% of people would probably qualify as twunts to you on today's metric.
-
It was such a ridiculous statement that I'd assumed that it was another of Matt's hilarious jokes :shrug:
-
I started reading Dicey with his Wikipedia page.
Anyone recommend a biography or more reputable historical source?
Probably a hero to BJ, come to think of it.
A bit of hero to JRM. Dicey is one of the twelve people profiled in his recent book The Victorians - however, definitely not a reputable historical source. There are a number of deliciously vicious reviews that are well worth seeking out (as is also true for Boris' recent pathetic attempt at a biography of Churchill).
-
I started reading Dicey with his Wikipedia page.
Anyone recommend a biography or more reputable historical source?
Because first impressions are of an “Individual Liberalist”, who was only such if the individual was White, male and not Irish...
Aka a bit of a Twunt.
I will read further, but...
In 1860s Britain. Just 30 years after parliament had to pass an act to outlaw slaves being used in British colonies. It's hardly enlightened times compared to today. Maybe some historical perspective required as 95% of people would probably qualify as twunts to you on today's metric.
Whilst it was most certainly a throwaway line.
His vitriol and anti-Irish posturing etc, most certainly put him deep into Twunt territory even by the standards of the day. He died most dischuffed that the world moved on and ignored his crap, which makes the fact that so much of our current parliamentary procedure is beholden to his world view, even sillier.
-
It was such a ridiculous statement that I'd assumed that it was another of Matt's hilarious jokes :shrug:
No, it wasn’t.
The man was a dinosaur even in his day. See my reply to Pete.
You were wrong Will, twice now, even my joke was closer to reality than your pompous crap of a reply. It’s becoming a habit. I accept your apology though.
😜
-
Oddly though.
And I’m halfway into Dicey’s book on Irish home rule:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028148132/page/n9 (https://archive.org/details/cu31924028148132/page/n9)
Dicey would almost certainly have been a Remainer.
If you picked him up and dragged him into the 21st century.
Pete is right, in as much as some of his views were “of his day”, and therefore, then, Europe was an adversary.
However, given his strong Federalist leanings (his principle objection to Irish home rule, was the notion that “Nations” were an archaic concept due for the scrap heap of history).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44027520?read-now=1&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents (https://www.jstor.org/stable/44027520?read-now=1&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents)
So, his book is far less vitriolic than his quoted statements (of which I have only found snippets here and there, with assertions by the commentators that he was strident in his condemnation of both the Suffragette movement/women and the Irish. )
(Hence the search for better biographical sources), but, still, looking pretty Twuntish).
So I do wonder if he would have been far more socially liberal, now, given his politically liberal stance then.
Edit:
Sorry! I actually meant to point out that misogyny and racism are not exclusive to the Right wing of British politics, now or then.
(Being anti-Irish is racist? I struggle to think of a better way to put it, a better word, though I struggle even more than normal, trying to see how someone could view the Irish as a different “race”).
-
Further....
I strongly suspect he would not support BJ’s assumption of Executive authority in the current matter. Since, whilst he strongly favoured the “party unable to make government” should, with the people, support the ruling party, where it has achieved government through a small majority on regular matters of state, he was unequivocal in his rejection of that authority in matters of constitutional change, where he felt Parliament and the people should be sovereign. He reluctantly conceded that “referendum” was the least worst expression of that sovereignty.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rivka_Weill/publication/228204057_Dicey_Was_Not_Diceyan/links/5cefd1dba6fdcc8475f796fb/Dicey-Was-Not-Diceyan.pdf?origin=publication_detail (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rivka_Weill/publication/228204057_Dicey_Was_Not_Diceyan/links/5cefd1dba6fdcc8475f796fb/Dicey-Was-Not-Diceyan.pdf?origin=publication_detail)
-
(Being anti-Irish is racist? I struggle to think of a better way to put it, a better word, though I struggle even more than normal, trying to see how someone could view the Irish as a different “race”).
I'd tend to use bigoted.
-
(Being anti-Irish is racist? I struggle to think of a better way to put it, a better word, though I struggle even more than normal, trying to see how someone could view the Irish as a different “race”).
I'd tend to use bigoted.
Ah yes!
That’s the word. I’ve had a three day bout of insomnia and read for ~8hrs last night until surrendering at around 6 this morning and doing shots before work.
Espresso shots.
Six of them.
Finished on shot 12, with lunch....
Now decaf and much yawning.
To save anyone else having to read the last link...
“In Executive matters I hold that the Government of the day ought even though put into oce by but a small majority, to be whilst it continues the Government, in general supported by good citizens. My reason is this, viz:- that in Executive matters the majority must of necessity be treated as the organ of the nation, otherwise the action of the nation is at every turn weakened. A party which is not in a position to carry on the administration ought not to hamper the action of the Ministers of the day. Moreover matters of administration are transitory. On the other hand on matters of constitutional change I do not think a small majority has any moral right to act with vigour. The presumption is in favour of the existing state of aairs, because on the whole it may be assumed to be the permanent will of the nation. Add to this that a constitutional change once made is, or ought to be, ®nal, and therefore ought not to be made by any body of men who do not clearly represent the ®nal will of the nation. Till modern times this has been the practice, though not the theory, of English constitutional government, and it is, as I have pointed out, recognised as a democratic principle in every true democracy.”
-
Historically, the Irish have certainly sometimes been considered as a race and subject to virulent anti-racism on that basis. During the great waves of migration to the US in the late nineteenth-century neither the Irish nor the Italians were considered to be properly white by many (they were not considered to be black but had no proper claim to whiteness).
-
I’ve had a three day bout of insomnia and read for ~8hrs last night until surrendering at around 6 this morning and doing shots before work.
Espresso shots.
Six of them.
Finished on shot 12, with lunch....
Now decaf and much yawning.
Have you considered that the caffeine intake may well be linked to the insomnia.. :w00t: :bounce: :w00t:
-
I’ve had a three day bout of insomnia and read for ~8hrs last night until surrendering at around 6 this morning and doing shots before work.
Espresso shots.
Six of them.
Finished on shot 12, with lunch....
Now decaf and much yawning.
Have you considered that the caffeine intake may well be linked to the insomnia.. :w00t: :bounce: :w00t:
Shhhh! Hush your mouth.
We’ll have none of your “Logical” thingamybobs here.
This is a local forum, for local people...
Looks like my PDF to TEXT software is also doing shots, possibly Tequila by the looks of it.
Looks, on my browser at least, like Dicey thought that “constitutional change, once made, should be anal.”
Does it look the same to everyone else?
-
Not sure which is more worrying - insomnia and 12 shots of coffee, or that you just spent 8 hrs learning about an obscure constitutional theorist.
-
Strangely fascinating fellow.
His “dualist” concept of British government, as above, Executive matters for Government and Constitutional matters for the sovereignty of the people, is logically elegant in it’s apportioning of that sovereignty; a small majority (only) necessary for the former to have validity, a significant and large majority for the latter to be taken as valid.
He’d be doing his nut at the prospect of enacting constitutional change on the basis of that referendum.
I can only assume JRM was too comfortably reclined, on a commons bench, to properly read him and skipped a few pages/chapters...
-
I can only assume JRM was too comfortably reclined, on a commons bench, to properly read him and skipped a few pages/chapters...
As I understand it, Dicey was in favour of referenda, hence JRM's enthusiasm.
-
I can only assume JRM was too comfortably reclined, on a commons bench, to properly read him and skipped a few pages/chapters...
As I understand it, Dicey was in favour of referenda, hence JRM's enthusiasm.
Yes, he was, but he needed a super majority to be convinced, he explicitly stated that with a small majority, the status-quo should prevail, since change was not passionately sought.
He also believed that popular support needed to be constantly sought, on the basis that it would change with time...
He would have insisted on a second referendum or twi consecutive GE’s, fought on the constitutional issue, with significant majority, in both, in favour of change. Had the second shown diminished support, he would have said the change was not truly supported. To his reasoning, neither the referendum, nor the last GE, motivated or warranted constitutional change.
That is, I think, the basis of the learned dissent aimed at the governments actions and position, from triggering article 50 onwards.
I didn’t grasp, that without a written constitution, such learned arguments carried such weight. I would have seen them as mere opinion. But, this sort of thing is supposed to be how we work and suddenly I grasp the “constitutional outrage” of certain individuals. The Speaker, for instance, is a guardian of these arguments. I thought Bercow an attention seeking Twunt (well, he is) but he really is doing his job.
-
Well, pretty sure Lord Pannick QC (you couldn’t have made that name up, could you) is familiar with Dicey.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-abuse-of-power?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1568720090 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-abuse-of-power?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1568720090)
-
The crag T shirt everyone needs:
https://shop.slowthai.com/products/fuck-borris-t-shirt-white
-
Another day, another sign of how healthy politics in the UK really isn’t...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-ally-emily-thornberry-piles-pressure-on-labour-leader-we-should-be-campaigning-to-a4242321.html?utm_source=bestforbritain.org (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-ally-emily-thornberry-piles-pressure-on-labour-leader-we-should-be-campaigning-to-a4242321.html?utm_source=bestforbritain.org)
-
Another day, another sign of how healthy politics in the UK really isn’t...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-ally-emily-thornberry-piles-pressure-on-labour-leader-we-should-be-campaigning-to-a4242321.html?utm_source=bestforbritain.org (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-ally-emily-thornberry-piles-pressure-on-labour-leader-we-should-be-campaigning-to-a4242321.html?utm_source=bestforbritain.org)
I'm not sure what your intention was in posting this but if it was to say that the labour party is in just as bad a place as the conservative party at the moment, I agree. They are spending an absolutely critical time in politics farting about with trying to reintroduce a 102- year old clause about total nationalisation into their policy, and seemingly, trying their best to get rid of any MP with any talent, experience or intelligence. The treatment of Harriet Harman is a disgrace.
-
I wonder how this will fare in the provinces?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49776100
-
I wonder how this will fare in the provinces?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49776100
John Lansman has a lot to answer for... ffs do momentum not see the irony in this “ A Momentum source told the BBC: "We just can't afford to go into an election with a deputy leader set on wrecking Labour's chances.”
-
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/02/04/labours-path-to-vicotry-is-through-leave-voting-conservative-marginals/ (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/02/04/labours-path-to-vicotry-is-through-leave-voting-conservative-marginals/)
-
There was rumour last week that a Watson was going to move to the LibDems / or was being heavily courted by them
-
I'm not sure what your intention was in posting this but if it was to say that the labour party is in just as bad a place as the conservative party at the moment, I agree.
Aside from the point of putting words into Matt's mouth, do you really believe that? Personally I don't think anything comes remotely close to comparing to the bizarro world the Conservatives are currently running amok in. The two examples you give - of a policy discussion (normal for a conference?) and reselection ballots for MP's (now cancelled afaik?) don't seem on quite the same level as shutting down the Houses of Parliament for 5 weeks at this "critical time in politics", and being taken to the Supreme Court for it, and also summarily dismissing 21 MP's. Maybe its just me?
-
In fact, I find this hypothesis quite credible, though Bozo’s frequent and ridiculous lies seem to undermine any notion of skilful statesman beneath the silly mop:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/boris-johnson-brexit-deal-brussels-dup?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1568995905 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/boris-johnson-brexit-deal-brussels-dup?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1568995905)
Labour, are done, as far as I can see.
I mean in my eyes, obviously I speak for myself, but I’d be surprised if there were not a good many who had wondered about tactically voting in favour of Labour; just to end the Tory clown show; but now will not.
Labour are rabid. Possibly even more self destructive than the Tories. Seriously, at this point in history, what kind of opposition party deliberately moves to scare away middle ground voters?
This is the disfunction I was referring to. It has intensified since I posted.
-
Seriously, at this point in history, what kind of opposition party deliberately moves to scare away middle ground voters?
The Lib Dems?
-
Seriously, at this point in history, what kind of opposition party deliberately moves to scare away middle ground voters?
The Lib Dems?
Yes. Absolutely. It’s all of them.
The LD “revoke” thing is as dumb as the rest of it, just not quite so important right now.
-
I'm not sure what your intention was in posting this but if it was to say that the labour party is in just as bad a place as the conservative party at the moment, I agree.
Aside from the point of putting words into Matt's mouth, do you really believe that? Personally I don't think anything comes remotely close to comparing to the bizarro world the Conservatives are currently running amok in. The two examples you give - of a policy discussion (normal for a conference?) and reselection ballots for MP's (now cancelled afaik?) don't seem on quite the same level as shutting down the Houses of Parliament for 5 weeks at this "critical time in politics", and being taken to the Supreme Court for it, and also summarily dismissing 21 MP's. Maybe its just me?
Tory and Labour divisions are very different in magnitude and area. But there are many similarities.
Both are being pulled in a direction by their members (hard brexit tory, fairly hard left Labour) that most of their MP’s are not especially happy with. You could argue that both are being manipulated from outside (leave EU etc.. and Momentum).
Whilst BJ has outlawed 21 MP’s - I’d argue that Under BJ the Tories are a tighter unit than Labour - where JC seems to ignore the majority view of its members and most of their Mp’s (remain).
What I find truly remarkable is that it’s like watching an example emporers new clothes in both Labour and Tory leadership.
Lib Dem’s is an interesting one - it certainly removes any ambiguity! Though tbh I figured the LibDems were already had the clearest brexit position so whether it’s needed or not is questionable. Possibly they were empowered by their bollox to brexit euro campaign success. Though at face value it seems like a renerkabke move away from the centre ground that no one else was occupying.
-
I'm predicting the birth of the Nihilism Party and their sweep to victory. Manifesto pledge: It's all too difficult. Fuck it.
-
I'm predicting the birth of the Nihilism Party and their sweep to victory. Manifesto pledge: It's all too difficult. Fuck it.
No need for a nihilism party it’s all burning to the ground as we watch...
-
Can I nominate Fiend for PM?
-
I'm not sure what your intention was in posting this but if it was to say that the labour party is in just as bad a place as the conservative party at the moment, I agree.
Aside from the point of putting words into Matt's mouth, do you really believe that? ...
MP's. Maybe its just me?
Yes. Labour is in a worse place than the conservative party. Corbyn is the least popular leader of any opposition, ever. His stance on brexit is ridiculous, everyone understands that he wants to leave but won't say so. Labour are in the process of making themselves totally unelectable for years to come. The conservative party is hardly in great shape but if Johnson pulls off a deal (unlikely I know) they will win an election.
-
Umm..
What I said above, about how I hoped that Bozo was possibly being more adept and Statesman like than it appeared?
Yeah.
Umm.
Nah.
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri-overruled-officials-send-trade-missions-2019-9?utm_source=bestforbritain.org&r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri-overruled-officials-send-trade-missions-2019-9?utm_source=bestforbritain.org&r=US&IR=T)
-
Umm..
What I said above, about how I hoped that Bozo was possibly being more adept and Statesman like than it appeared?
Yeah.
Umm.
Nah.
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri-overruled-officials-send-trade-missions-2019-9?utm_source=bestforbritain.org&r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri-overruled-officials-send-trade-missions-2019-9?utm_source=bestforbritain.org&r=US&IR=T)
Indeed. A quick scan through the papers shows how completely unstatesman like both main party leaders are. The report on Johnson's relationship with this model in the Sunday times is pretty damning, although mainly by inference. The resignation of Corbyns adviser makes him look similarly awful, though in a different way.
-
I disagree on the parallels between the leaders though.
Both are puppets to a seemingly fair degree.
But I would argue that BJ has a pretty loathesome set of values. Liar, adulterer, not trustworthy, stabs friends and colleagues in the back to get power. Seemingly has no shame.
Wherras JC clearly has a very strong set of beliefs and values - we may not all agree with them all but he has those and follows them.
-
Toby also has a very strong principles regarding never letting any remotely political post go by without replying to rubbish corbyn in some way, relevant or not.
-
Highly enjoyable review of Cameron's new memoir: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/22/for-the-record-david-cameron-review
-
Wherras JC clearly has a very strong set of beliefs and values - we may not all agree with them all but he has those and follows them.
He believes in human rights and is against genocide, unless it's his political buddies trashing the former and enacting the later, in which case, all cool.
You are right, we may not all agree with that.
-
It seems like it's corbyn's refusal start madly banging a set of drums for one side or the other which is driving the press mad. It makes it too difficult for them to report on what he's actually saying as he hasn't taken a dichotomous approach to anything.
If you look at the situation and polarised political divide, we currently have, I believe his proposition is the most likely to yield and outcome which the majority of people can be at peace with. Unfortunately you have to actually go and do the tiniest amount of reading to get to grips with what he is proposing and it won't fit in bold type on the front page so the press are being pathetically useless with it.
-
It seems like it's corbyn's refusal start madly banging a set of drums for one side or the other which is driving the press mad. It makes it too difficult for them to report on what he's actually saying as he hasn't taken a dichotomous approach to anything.
I have seen interviews in which Cobyn makes it quite clear what he wants to do. He is refusing to take a side on the biggest political question of our time. One can only speculate why.
But it's worse than that. His suggestion that we could, with a Labour deal, be economically better off outside the EU is just nonsense. Honestly, why do these over-promoted public school drop-outs get the idea that they know more about the economics of leaving the EU than the legions of professionals tasked with actually investigating the question, who have all* found that it would make us poorer than staying in. He is tasked with making life better for millions of less well-off Britons, a task it seems he is unable to fulfill.
If you look at the situation and polarised political divide, we currently have, I believe his proposition is the most likely to yield and outcome which the majority of people can be at peace with. Unfortunately you have to actually go and do the tiniest amount of reading to get to grips with what he is proposing and it won't fit in bold type on the front page so the press are being pathetically useless with it.
As above, it's pretty obvious what he's proposing (at least until you ask if a Labour government will campaign for or against leaving the EU, at which point the party ummm and ahhh and ask us to trust them until after the election). The polling I've seen suggests that it has lost them some votes, which suggests that voters aren't seeing it as creating an outcome they would be happy with.
Emails from my Labour MP this weekend suggest that many of them in what should be safe seats are bricking it.
* Yeah yeah yeah Patrick Minford and his outdated 1970s approach excepted.
-
Emails from my Labour MP this weekend suggest that many of them in what should be safe seats are bricking it..
My MP called me yesterday afternoon hoping to secure my support in an upcoming selection ballot.
-
Wherras JC clearly has a very strong set of beliefs and values - we may not all agree with them all but he has those and follows them.
He believes in human rights and is against genocide, unless it's his political buddies trashing the former and enacting the later, in which case, all cool.
You are right, we may not all agree with that.
Yup. I don’t like what I know about JC.
To answer one of the other questions - I think it’s quite reasonable for the press to hold his toes to the fire on his fence sitting. In an issue that seemingly splits the country (with a fairly small amount of don’t knows - and very few people have seemed to shift from one camp to another) so what vote is he hoping to pick up?
I genuinely can’t see who it appeals to?
-
I think the suggestion that Corbyn’s problems are all to do with the media disliking his Brexit stance, is way off base.
Half of his own party and a good many of his immediate senior staff, can’t stand to be in the same room as him and seem to think him “inhumane”. His Marr interview was a train wreck and he looked like an out and out liar.
Both major parties are in the grip of muppets.
-
Yeah he's refusing to pick a side and that's because plenty of labour voters opted for leave and and ton of them voted remain. If he chose a side he'd automatically lose half his vote so that's a lose, lose one scenario. I think his neutral stance makes sense in that light. There's no way we can simply abolish brexit in the way that the lib dems are suggesting, that would say to over 17 million people that their vote didn't matter, so the remain supporters ( of which I am one ) need to understand that we can't just ignore those people.
-
He wouldn’t lose half the vote for backing remain.... Hasn’t there been a load of opinion polls of labour voters showing the downsides of backing remain are much smaller than having no position?
Anyway... To me the glaring problem with JC’s plan is that it’s contingent/based on making a decision/referendum on an EU deal that’s not been negotiated yet.
That’s a tough ask for people of both sides to believe in I think...
Unless I’ve misunderstood the Labour plan. Which would say something in itself l😃
-
Toby also has a very strong principles regarding never letting any remotely political post go by without replying to rubbish corbyn in some way, relevant or not.
That's rather unfair, to be honest it's not so much him as Seamus Milne, Len McCluskey, Andrew Murray that I really object to; or rather I object to the way a dogmatic hard left position has turned the party I most want to vote for, and have done in the past into a mess. I hold the same scorn for the Labour leadership as I do for Johnson and the bunch of lightweight also rans who somehow are occupying the front bench.
-
The problem with the "outcome that brings everyone together" is that there's no such thing. If you assume that the best reflection of the tight vote on an undefined outcome is some kind of SM/CU, technically out of the EU but only just so not economically too damaging... well that's absolutely pointless. All the rules with none of the say in making them. It absolutely doesn't put the issue to bed, but allows it to continue to poison British politics and public life for years - and the Eurosceptics would have a genuine point. As would Remainers/Rejoiners.
Why would you even bother to negotiate this? Everyone is going to hate you, and it's going to be reversed at some point anyhow.
Leaving on the terms we have, or no deal, similarly puts us in position for years of bruising negotations, economic slowdown, loss of rights, possible violence in N.I. and we'll be easy pickings for China and the US. I can't see how that's going to heal any divisions.
Clearly, simply Remaining leaves a lot of pissed off people, but there is an argument for it: two Parliaments, have tried and failed to implement the result of the referendum. It's mandate has been tested to destruction, and it's nearly destroyed the UK (quite literally). Time to stop this madness, and a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition (the realistic best option if you're not a rapid nationalist) would have the mandate to do so. If you believe in Parliamentary democracy, that is.
That of course requires a senior politician to make the argument that democracy is a process, not a single event. Clearly, Corbyn is not that person .We want him to help it go away and he won't use the power he has accrued to do so. He cannot understand that makes him a lightening rod for the anger that's swirling around.
Naturally there are downsides to this: a lot of disgruntled people who have lost faith in democracy. A risk of far-right violence. But we have both these things already - they are international trends. At least the demographic winds would be in a helpful direction with this one...
We're stuck with this shit for years, whether we like it or not, so might as well push for something we believe in.
-
Incidentally - my local MP (dianna johnson) is the first to go under the Labour re-selection process. I'm an inactive Labour party member. She rang me up yesterday to chat about it. Quite empowering to
Toby also has a very strong principles regarding never letting any remotely political post go by without replying to rubbish corbyn in some way, relevant or not.
(Meant to post this yesterday but it didnt go off for some reason.)
Ha! I can't stand Corbyn and hate how Momentum etc.. are reshaping tearing the party apart..Their (Mo) tactics of division "you're a blairite" or "you're XYZ" etc.. are the same/just as bad as Vote Leave etc... in my view.
Intersting commentary in a couplel of papers today (reflecting OMM's FT comments) about the business community coming around to a Labour govt being a safer pair of hands than a Tory one... those "Trotsky" economic plans of raising corporation tax to 23% would just be putting it back to 2011 levels (for example..).
-
Tom, have you been a labour member for a while or were you part of the Corbyn inspired intake? You think you’d still vote for them in the next election if he’s at the helm?
-
Tom, have you been a labour member for a while or were you part of the Corbyn inspired intake? You think you’d still vote for them in the next election if he’s at the helm?
I joined to vote against him at the last leadership thing - and been in ever since. Though known/spoken to our local MP since 2007...
Its really tricky for me - as I think our local MP is both a great local MP as well as a good backbencher - raising lots of issues (she championed the contaminated bloods campaigning in parliament - that led to it getting a public enquiry etc..)... So I'd want to vote LibDem on Brexit things - and probably many other from a national perspective, but like what our existing (decent majority) Labour MP is doing.
Not an unusual position I suspect.... from all sides of politics.
-
I wonder if your MP will be tempted to move over to LD if getting deselected, you could get both of your wishes!
-
Obviously, this is nothing but opinion.
I really struggle to understand the people of this country, in the main. Swing voters in particular. We have ended up with a ridiculous two party system, less because of the FTP, I think, than because centrists, refuse to vote for centrist parties. We pick extremist parties, when lead by people who present as moderates, and hope they can keep their extremist members in check.
Then watch in despair as the country lurches from left to right, like a gyroscope slowing down. The metaphor being all the more apt, since the drag on our economy of the latest frictions, might just precipitate the gyro’s final collapse to one side or the other.
It’s not pretty or predictable when the top falls from it’s axis. It skitters off in a destructive maelstrom.
-
...
Not an unusual position I suspect.... from all sides of politics.
Yup. There are many principled, talented Labour MPs with whom I agree and would like to vote for, as there are many Labour principles that I totally agree with and think would improve the country. Sadly, at the moment the leadership seems to have subordinated principle to dogma.
To be honest I'd almost say the same thing about the conservative party, except that I live in Sheffield so voting Conservative would be a totally wasted vote under Fptp, even if I did want to.
-
The journalists on PM sounded gutted at the result of today’s vote, so the outcome probably bodes well for Labour’s chance at GE.
The raising of this motion to back remain in any future referendum - and its vote - has created a situation whereby the issue can be settled democratically in leadership’s favour, and there’s very little the media can do to then criticise Corbyn’s position, without twisting themselves into all sorts of knots.
-
Sounds like they could have done with an actual vote on it rather than a show of hands as it was close... probably 52:48!
-
Emails from my Labour MP this weekend suggest that many of them in what should be safe seats are bricking it..
My MP called me yesterday afternoon hoping to secure my support in an upcoming selection ballot.
Deleted as I thought you'd have Jeff Smith as MP, didn't realise you were still clinging to an identity in Hull.....
-
The journalists on PM sounded gutted at the result of today’s vote, so the outcome probably bodes well for Labour’s chance at GE.
The raising of this motion to back remain in any future referendum - and its vote - has created a situation whereby the issue can be settled democratically in leadership’s favour, and there’s very little the media can do to then criticise Corbyn’s position, without twisting themselves into all sorts of knots.
However, all the Labour party activists and MPs who say it won't fly with voters and they'll get panned, as politically unengaged voters will just conclude that Corbyn is a fence-sitter and they'd better vote brexit party or LD or conservative as at least they know where they stand, must be wrong?
-
The idea has some merit - hear all views and put it to a final referendum when the form of exit becomes concrete. However, to many, me included, it will just look political opportunism.
ie a policy of '' let's keep our heads down and appear to be all things to all people, we can show our hand once we are in finally in power.''
It's a Brexit leadership leading a Remain membership. It won't end well
-
Bloody hell. The supreme court decision was pretty unequivocal. What happens now?
-
They reconvene at Bercow's request. Everyone tells Boris to resign. Boris ignores them. Chaos +/- a GE ensues.
-
Impeachment.
If only..
-
They reconvene at Bercow's request. Everyone tells Boris to resign. Boris ignores them. Chaos +/- a GE ensues.
Yeah, I'm sure you're right, although at this stage I'd hardly be surprised whatever happens...
-
(https://i.ibb.co/j4vxdTf/E7-D97158-8478-4-D72-8-DC9-19-E48-DC01-EE6.jpg)
-
I’m hazy on the position now, anyone know if this is correct:
The government was found to act unlawfully, therefore has committed a crime?
Therefore, their Chief exec, is principally liable?
If this was a private corporate entity, the Chief exec would be criminally liable, no? As in liable to condign punishment?
Ain’t life weird when one arm of the Government finds another to have acted unlawfully.
There is no remedy though is there? He/they will just ignore the ruling, won’t they?
:popcorn:
-
Ffs!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-resign-nigel-farage-parliament-brexit-supreme-court-dominic-cummings-a9117986.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569321079 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-resign-nigel-farage-parliament-brexit-supreme-court-dominic-cummings-a9117986.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569321079)
-
Are you angry because you agree with Farage?
-
The lawyers will clarify, but I think unlawful means not authorised by law, illegal is in contravention of a specific statute and criminal if illegal and punishable.
So unlawful is not necessarily criminal.
I'd expect to be told an unauthorised extension to my house should be taken down if it were not authorised and therefore unlawful; I wouldn't expect to find myself being prosecuted, for example.
-
Are you angry because you agree with Farage?
Extremely! :boxing:
No.
I am laughing at the blatant hypocrisy and how it won’t dent his support one iota.
-
The lawyers will clarify, but I think unlawful means not authorised by law, illegal is in contravention of a specific statute and criminal if illegal and punishable.
So unlawful is not necessarily criminal.
I'd expect to be told an unauthorised extension to my house should be taken down if it were not authorised and therefore unlawful; I wouldn't expect to find myself being prosecuted, for example.
Good example (and I assume correct).
To extend the analogy, now that a ruling has been made, you must remove the extension or be prosecuted, correct?
If, say, you did so, and then rebuilt the extension in gingerbread (ie. a wholly novel extension), you would still be prosecuted under the original order, no?
-
Prosecuted for a crime against good taste maybe.
-
I’m hazy on the position now, anyone know if this is correct:
The government was found to act unlawfully, therefore has committed a crime?
Therefore, their Chief exec, is principally liable?
If this was a private corporate entity, the Chief exec would be criminally liable, no? As in liable to condign punishment?
Ain’t life weird when one arm of the Government finds another to have acted unlawfully.
There is no remedy though is there? He/they will just ignore the ruling, won’t they?
:popcorn:
I think Mr JR is right. It's worth reading the judgement before rushing to judgement and speculating on what might happen next.
It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.
And:
This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.
and:
It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible.
So Parliament has not been progrogued and the Court has advised that it is up to the speakers of both houses to decide what to do next. Given that Bercow is the speaker of the commons I would expect that bums will be on seats tomorrow.
-
Some more key bits from the judgement:
For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.
So, Johnson could move to prorogue parliament again, but I believe they would have to do it for a much shorter period and for the decision to stand he would need to be able to provide reasonable justification for preventing Parliament from scrutinising the executive.
-
So, Johnson could move to prorogue parliament again
I assume he'd have to ask Queeny again. Given her current mood with PM's, reckon she might think long and hard about saying yes, non?
-
One would tell him to Foxtrot Oscar I expect.
-
Are you angry because you agree with Farage?
Extremely! :boxing:
No.
I am laughing at the blatant hypocrisy and how it won’t dent his support one iota.
In some ways not hypocrisy at all - if anything it seems consistent with his position. He wants Brexit as soon as possible and in any form. He (probably rightly) judges that this decision imperils Brexit, at least in the short-term. Cummings has thus badly overplayed his hand in a serious tactical error, endangering what both he and Farage want.
However, I presume he previously fully supported prorogation, in which case, yes, hypocrisy.
-
Agreed Andy, it'll be strategic.
Bet there's an interesting atmosphere in No.10 right now!
-
Bet there's an interesting atmosphere in No.10 right now!
More of an atmosphere in BJ's hotel room in New York - where some aide has had to go in - trying to ignore the bodily smells left by a hungover jetlagged late middle aged man sprawled on a bed - and break the bad news to him.
Whether or not he abandons his meeting with Trump and heads back to parliament we wait to see.
Also - what will parliament decide to do! No government orders of business - Bercow has said he's open to more emergency motions etc... I wonder how long before a vote of no confidence comes in... or if they want to play that card now.
Tory party conference will be interesting.
-
Surely BJ will try to force an election somehow?
I can't see him resigning, and I can't see him going back on his do or die by the 31st pledge.
-
Bet there's an interesting atmosphere in No.10 right now!
Tory party conference will be interesting.
If they go ahead with it!?
-
Because Bozo hasn’t been challenged yet by his own back bencher, is this possibly something that his own people might be furiously writing to the 1922 committee about?
May was safe, after surviving the challenge, for a year or so, wasn’t she? Does the “safety” zone apply to a newly elected leader?
-
I wonder if we will start to see Tory support for BJ starting to unravel now... Lying to the queen, breaking the law.... Drawing a Trump parallel there repiblicans all (sometimes unwillingly) got behind Trump - will UK Tories do the same?
Already BJ's hypocracy is being called out - As Nicola Sturgeon (and Amber Rudd) have pointed out "He can’t have it both ways - either prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit as he claimed, OR having prorogation declared unlawful frustrates Brexit. It can’t be both."
-
@ Sam and Chris. The Queen will do as she is told by her ministers. If the ministers are found to be engaged in shenanigans then the courts will sort it out. If this process has taught me one thing it is that the Queen takes her constitutional role as an apolitical head of state extremely seriously.
@ Andy. Cummings has said some nasty things about Farage in the past (they were part of different Leave campaigns with different methods and agendas). There's long standing beef and Farage would love to see him toppled.
@ Tom. I don't think "breaking the law" is right, is it? I believe there's an important distinction between an illegal and an unlawful act. An illegal act is one which is expressly forbidden by law. An unlawful act is one which is not provisioned for or does not conform with the law. So as far as I'm aware he hasn't committed an offence.
I was wondering about this when they passed the Act that forces the PM to extend Article 50. The text of the act (which you can find here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/contents/enacted ) doesn't talk about the consequences of not abiding by the Act. So if Johnson decides not to do anything, I don't think it's neccesarily criminal, moreover I think it would be unlawful? Normally when we have rules which constitute an offence when broken there will be an indication of what the punishment can be - there's nothing like that in the EU Withdrawal Act that I can see.
Where's Ru (or, God forbid, Sloper) when you need him?
-
(or, God forbid, Sloper)
I wonder what type of Brexit (if any!) Sloper would favour?
-
Rough straw poll: is Brexit on October 31st - with or without a deal - now more or less likely than it was yesterday?
(Disclaimer: this could actually be personally pretty critical for me. Having largely viewed Brexit in relatively abstract terms, that is no longer possible).
-
(or, God forbid, Sloper)
I wonder what type of Brexit (if any!) Sloper would favour?
Tom’s Irish, isn’t he?
So possibly none.
-
Rough straw poll: is Brexit on October 31st - with or without a deal - now more or less likely than it was yesterday?
(Disclaimer: this could actually be personally pretty critical for me. Having largely viewed Brexit in relatively abstract terms that is no longer possible).
50/50. My vote.
Extension there if we ask (I think), still massive momentum towards leaving sooner rather than later.
Genies don’t easily get put back in bottles.
Then, many years/decades of recriminations and discord during negotiations. No quick fix either way.
-
On the face of it you’d say slightly less, given it’s a setback for the current Brexit strategists in no. 10. but I think Danny Dyer got it right with his Sphinx-like riddle of a Brexit. It’s a political Schrödinger’s cat: unknowable till it’s over; simultaneously more and less likely with each random event.
There’s no meaningful answer really.
-
@ Sam and Chris. The Queen will do as she is told by her ministers. If the ministers are found to be engaged in shenanigans then the courts will sort it out. If this process has taught me one thing it is that the Queen takes her constitutional role as an apolitical head of state extremely seriously.
@ Andy. Cummings has said some nasty things about Farage in the past (they were part of different Leave campaigns with different methods and agendas). There's long standing beef and Farage would love to see him toppled.
@ Tom. I don't think "breaking the law" is right, is it? I believe there's an important distinction between an illegal and an unlawful act. An illegal act is one which is expressly forbidden by law. An unlawful act is one which is not provisioned for or does not conform with the law. So as far as I'm aware he hasn't committed an offence.
I was wondering about this when they passed the Act that forces the PM to extend Article 50. The text of the act (which you can find here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/contents/enacted ) doesn't talk about the consequences of not abiding by the Act. So if Johnson decides not to do anything, I don't think it's neccesarily criminal, moreover I think it would be unlawful? Normally when we have rules which constitute an offence when broken there will be an indication of what the punishment can be - there's nothing like that in the EU Withdrawal Act that I can see.
Where's Ru (or, God forbid, Sloper) when you need him?
There seems to be a bewildering variety of analyses out there (so it’s “suck it and see”, again),
but this one seems the most stark:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/supreme-court-brexit-boris-johnson-europe-eu-parliament-a9118011.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569324212 (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/supreme-court-brexit-boris-johnson-europe-eu-parliament-a9118011.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569324212)
-
(or, God forbid, Sloper)
I wonder what type of Brexit (if any!) Sloper would favour?
Think I've seen Tom since Brexit and IIRC he thinks its nuts.
-
(or, God forbid, Sloper)
I wonder what type of Brexit (if any!) Sloper would favour?
Tom’s Irish, isn’t he?
So possibly none.
Irish, yes, but North or Republic?
-
Quite a worrying post from Leave.eu on farcebook
"Today eleven unelected lawyers have given a few hundred MPs the power to subvert the decision of 17.4m voters. As we approach Oct. 31, we will find out if Britain is still a democracy or not!"
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71196924_2448833525214874_4298139687693844480_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnKft90p0dwxwgFxQIn5Mkv3ohwub8AgcEwyyiif4hJLLsR6k9gFEJohCUa3ePqAB0&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=c68bbbf616523f21482d58ecbf6ed804&oe=5E3D3BCE)
Full link https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/photos/rpp.794492093982367/2448833518548208/?type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/photos/rpp.794492093982367/2448833518548208/?type=3&theater)
-
@ Tom. I don't think "breaking the law" is right, is it? I believe there's an important distinction between an illegal and an unlawful act. An illegal act is one which is expressly forbidden by law. An unlawful act is one which is not provisioned for or does not conform with the law. So as far as I'm aware he hasn't committed an offence.
I think someone has dug up legistlation showing that lying to the queen = treason = breaking the law.
But that aside - I was just quoting what the BBC and SkyNews were saying.... Their legal wonks are better than mine...
-
You know, the funniest part about the LeaveEU thing?
I thought the prorogation of Parliament, was nothing nothing to do with Brexit?
.......?
-
love a good flow chart - this is a great series
https://jonworth.eu/brexit-what-next/
Strongly disagree with his probabilities though - specifically the chance of a VONC succeeding
-
So, has Bozo actually succeeded in reducing the power of the Executive, permanently?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/24/supreme-court-judgment-sounds-trumpet-failed-prime-minister?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569327782 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/24/supreme-court-judgment-sounds-trumpet-failed-prime-minister?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569327782)
-
Even the FT, whose policy is never for call for heads to roll in editorials, have gone full 12-bore on Bojo...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFQBBHdXkAQWK3s?format=jpg&name=small)
https://www.ft.com/content/2b217664-deb9-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59 (https://www.ft.com/content/2b217664-deb9-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59)
-
You know, the funniest part about the LeaveEU thing?
I thought the prorogation of Parliament, was nothing nothing to do with Brexit?
.......?
Exactly. Same with Gove's gibberish about a strong domestic agenda and a chance to deliver Brexit - surely an admission of guilt?? :blink:
I woke up remembering that fucking Leave.eu farcebook image and was instantly angry, presumably the site is an offshoot of the Daily fucking Mail. The level of stupidity is disgusting, everyone involved in it and all of their 965k followers should be rendered down into offal and dog food.
-
The Times investigation into Boris Johnson's relationship with Jennifer Acuri at any other time would be big news and a profound indictment of character and behaviour in public office:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prime-ministers-100m-plan-for-former-model-jennifer-arcuri-hk0zt7kff?shareToken=5b9718d0c67a424b0912cd2445057fcc
-
I was surprised to see the headlines today. Yesterday I looked at the Mail and the Sun's coverage and it was fairly emotionless. The editorial teams have rallied overnight with the usual shameful headlines. Even the Telegraph have gone too far.
-
What do you expect (papers)....
The irony is that Brexiteers seem to moan (on phone ins and voxpops) that all of this is slowing the process - adding to the confusion and sense of going no-where that the country is experiencing. THEY VOTED for all of this shit to happen - just didnt realise it would take so long when they ticked out on their ballot paper...
Even if. IF. a quick deal/decision had been made back in say 2018 (don't forget MayBot delayed things by calling a GE...) then we'd still be having 3, 5, 10 years of negotiations and transitions (even if we went for a 'easy' Norway package deal etc..).
FOOLS.
/rant
-
Love that Gove has said today that “some judges” disagree with the Supreme Court ruling.
Yes Mike, but not any of the eleven that actually matter.
Every learned opinion I’ve read over the last 24 hrs since I posted my question here yesterday, agrees that the ruling sets parliament as the sovereign over the executive. That the ruling diminishes the Executive prerogative in many areas, confirms parliament’s sovereignty in matters such as declaration of war (already mostly removed from the Executive) etc etc.
All these excited Law professors and QCs etc, are saying this is going to have repercussions way beyond Brexit and the current crisis and that this event will be remembered and influential, long after Brexit is forgotten.
I think you could probably close your eyes, spin around, lob a pebble and hit two Giddy Law professionals, with similar opinions on their lips, right now.
I admit I have avoided the Telegraph, so far. I suppose I will venture there soon, but it really did stop making sense some time ago and always seems at odds with all the other broad sheets. The Times is as far right as I can stomach these days.
-
It’s a distinguished list of Interveners, supporting the plaintiff, pretty much all the other governments of the UK, for instance.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Miller-No-FINAL-1.pdf (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Miller-No-FINAL-1.pdf)
-
Has anyone else actually watched Bozo’s UN address?
I managed 3 minutes of it,
Shit! That is some rambling bollocks, right there; even by my standards.
Don’t try Will. If I irritate you, that speech will put you in an asylum...
-
The Supreme Court judgement is a perfect example of why large interested bodies (government agencies, large companies, insurers, etc) often roll over rather than risk appealing cases to the Supreme Court. The outcome can have far reaching repercussions and there is no higher court of appeal. If you don't want to know the answer, don't force someone to ask the question.
Boris could have prorogued legitimately for a shorter period without risking legal action, but by gunning for a few days extra he has got an outcome that has decisively shifted power away from the executive (I suppose that technically it was always like that and the Supreme Court just made everyone aware of it). Not so much shooting himself in the foot as removing his legs at the waist.
-
The Supreme Court judgement is a perfect example of why large interested bodies (government agencies, large companies, insurers, etc) often roll over rather than risk appealing cases to the Supreme Court. The outcome can have far reaching repercussions and there is no higher court of appeal. If you don't want to know the answer, don't force someone to ask the question.
Boris could have prorogued legitimately for a shorter period without risking legal action, but by gunning for a few days extra he has got an outcome that has decisively shifted power away from the executive (I suppose that technically it was always like that and the Supreme Court just made everyone aware of it). Not so much shooting himself in the foot as removing his legs at the waist.
The response to this from the government has made me so angry today. Cox in the chamber was a disgrace earlier. No admission of wrongdoing, no mea culpa, nothing. It wasn't even close; 11-0 for fucks sake!
-
Love that Gove has said today that “some judges” disagree with the Supreme Court ruling.
It’s a standard ploy from the hard right playbook: sow seeds of doubt, project responsibility elsewhere.
Remember this one? Disgraceful comment from Kwasi Kwarteng:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49670901 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49670901)
-
I used to work with Jo Cox.
The way Johnson has spoken tonight... disgust doesn’t even begin to describe it.
-
I used to work with Jo Cox.
The way Johnson has spoken tonight... disgust doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Bit beyond the pale, wasn’t it.
Some sort of sociopath, that fella. If I disliked him before, dislike has become far too mild a term for my current contempt.
I would have put Kuenssburg as an out and out Tory in her slant, normally:
(https://i.ibb.co/ngFZP4C/78-D1401-D-6-B1-B-4-C9-B-BA71-DDBA59-F61-AE5.jpg)
-
I used to work with Jo Cox.
The way Johnson has spoken tonight... disgust doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Much as I've been disgusted with much that's gone on with Brexit debate, this is the one thing which really made me sick to the core. They don't care. There's no heart, no plan, no thought for the good of the country or how our democracy should actually operate. It's all a Willy waving contest for entitled pricks. What a nasty piece of work this man is, I really hope it comes crashing down on him. I don't have a lot of respect for May, but I did respect the fact that I felt she was acting in good faith in trying to secure a deal.
-
“The Poke” is a satirical news site. On the off chance that anyone didn’t know.
Today, they took time off from their usual ridicule, to out and out condemn our PM.
Suddenly the world stopped and I think for the first time, nobody’s laughing.
Nobody who you would want to associate with, anyway.
Or, to put it another way, it’s really rather telling, to see who does think it’s funny.
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/09/26/boris-johnsons-divisive-language-new-low/ (https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/09/26/boris-johnsons-divisive-language-new-low/)
-
I could barely stand any of the news yesterday, the behaviour of many MPs is childish and contemptible. (I am referring to Boris Johnson, Geoffrey Cox, Jacob Rees Mogg, Michael Gove principally but any use of words like dictatorship ) I'm increasingly drawn to hoping for any sort of least worst outcome, such as that suggested by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian:
The one alternative is a deal along the lines already agreed by Theresa May, and rejected time and again by the foolish Commons. Events have moved on. If Johnson was shrewd, he would await the end of his conference next week and, in the name of unity, summon an elder statesman such as Ken Clarke. He would license such a figure to forge a cross-party agreement based on the May deal, sweetened by pleading with Brussels for a new form of words governing an Irish border. Here negotiators are still playacting. Such a deal is feasible.
The UK could then leave the EU on 31 October with a withdrawal agreement and enter a transition period, with all options (other than remain) on the table. It would honour the referendum. For Tory leavers it would be the least worst outcome. The political climate would instantly shift. Johnson, proclaiming himself “deliverer of the will of the people”, could romp home at a subsequent election.
I cannot imagine a worse prime minister to be leading the country just now. But that is not the issue, any more than whether Johnson broke the law. If he can keep his nerve, this could yet be his hour of pain before an electoral dawn. Forget the judges. Only the short term matters. The true maxim is: be you never so self-righteous, politics is above you.
-
I'd be interested to hear which MP's who are not Conservatives you think are behavingly disgracefully. A government that refuses to acknowledge it has acted unlawfully and continues to insist that it will not ask for an extension under any circumstances, despite being required to by law, is sailing extremely close to the winds of dictatorship as far as I'm concerned. The government does not get to say that the highest court in the land was wrong. That is tyrannical rhetoric and should be called out as such without any Trumpian 'both sides' asterisks attached.
-
The invoking of Jo Cox was beyond the pale. I think that tops everything else in terms of plumbing new depths in rhetoric.
-
Easily lost in all the righteous anger is that bozo didn't bring up the subject of Jo cox.
He was replying to an emotional semi-rant - the sort of emotional tirade that debate is supposed to be worse off for. By a back-bencher who invoked Jo Cox along with a load of other angry tirade decrying how debate has become inflamed. Which ignored that bringing up the name of Jo Cox as part of an emotional and not entirely coherent tirade is pretty much the perfect definition of Do as I Say Not as I Am Currently Doing.
I thought he was quite right to think what he heard was a load of humbug. He was probably quite wrong, being a politician after all and not supposed to say what he thinks, to say it!
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=78&v=yD-4vs7He6M
Footage of what he was replying to here which, whilst being heated (as the entire House was yesterday) was cogent and entirely understandable from a friend of Jo Cox who has herself been receiving death threats.
-
Easily lost in all the righteous anger is that bozo didn't bring up the subject of Jo cox.
He was replying to an emotional semi-rant - the sort of emotional tirade that debate is supposed to be worse off for. By a back-bencher who invoked Jo Cox along with a load of other angry tirade decrying how debate has become inflamed. Which ignored that bringing up the name of Jo Cox as part of an emotional and not entirely coherent tirade is pretty much the perfect definition of Do as I Say Not as I Am Currently Doing.
I thought he was quite right to think what he heard was a load of humbug. He was probably quite wrong, being a politician after all and not supposed to say what he thinks, to say it!
"The best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox...is to get Brexit done".
:ohmy:
-
Jeeze Pete, that’s a harsh take.
She was certainly emotional, but he was an out and out bastard. How can you possibly justify his shit?
Total false equivalency.
Not to mention how much he and his aides have doubled down on this today.
But, a quote from a mate at the FT. Name withheld, coz it’s from a personal conversation. He has a point, even though we rarely agree on much and I have strong reservations, still:
“Just don't think social media is the right place for truths and non-truths to be argued over. All I see is people being pushed further to the left and further to the right. The only winner is extremism and we will only see increased attacks, verbal and physical, on our MPs. No matter what party they were yesterday the behaviour was indeed a disgrace. When you see politicians speaking with such emotional intensity and anger the outcome will be worse for everybody. There are a lot of people who think Parliament have ignored democracy and a lot of people who think that is ok as long as their needs are served. I haven't seen an MP for a long time that is fit to serve. Time for a reset. Which just happens to be our new agenda at the FT!”
Should mention, he’s strongly pro-brexit, so the “their needs are served” bit, he can shove where the sun don’t shine.*
.
.
*It’s in a small valley, just west of Tryfan.
-
You are partially correct though Pete:
(https://i.ibb.co/jHMT98x/8028-D030-509-E-4907-A9-A9-52-F219919-DB7.jpg)
-
Honestly Pete, I genuinely can't understand your viewpoint. What was humbug? The idea that "surrender" "betrayal" etc might be prime fodder for people smashing out death threats? You may think it's not key but it's clearly not "humbug".
I remember a few years back, I'd see/hear people giving MPs shit and think to myself that really they mostly they don't deserve it - I disagree with about half of them but no doubt we just honestly disagree with each other on how to make the country better. I can't say that about BJ anymore, he's either a moron or a bad person, and I don't think he's a moron.
-
Honestly Pete, I genuinely can't understand your viewpoint. What was humbug? The idea that "surrender" "betrayal" etc might be prime fodder for people smashing out death threats? You may think it's not key but it's clearly not "humbug".
Agree completely. And also think we shouldn't forget (I wish we could!) that Johnson is prime minister - despite all the heightened retoric on all sides we should be able to expect some level of control and reasonableness from this position.
I really struggle to think of any PM in history who has behaved anything like this. I try not to despair but do feel like there are people in the current government who are willing to go full bore for the Trump style division and populist appeal to your base irrelevant of the wider impact.
-
Given Johnson's random wandering speeches and total disregard for the truth I think we're already into our own Trump territory
-
Easily lost in all the righteous anger is that bozo didn't bring up the subject of Jo cox.
He was replying to an emotional semi-rant - the sort of emotional tirade that debate is supposed to be worse off for. By a back-bencher who invoked Jo Cox along with a load of other angry tirade decrying how debate has become inflamed. Which ignored that bringing up the name of Jo Cox as part of an emotional and not entirely coherent tirade is pretty much the perfect definition of Do as I Say Not as I Am Currently Doing.
I thought he was quite right to think what he heard was a load of humbug. He was probably quite wrong, being a politician after all and not supposed to say what he thinks, to say it!
"The best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox...is to get Brexit done".
:ohmy:
Either you haven't read what I wrote or you've misunderstood it. I wasn't talking about the following day's comment by bozo on 'getting brexit done'.
I was talking about the flack he got for his 'humbug' response the evening before. And I clearly said that it was inappropriate to verbalise what he (and no doubt many others) were thinking.
Alex. To some people the label 'Surrender act' is an entirely appropriate characterisation of the Ben act.
In our parliamentary system using labels 'surrender' and 'betrayal' in political debate is nothing out of the ordinary. That kind of thing is an entirely normal scene in any robust political debate. What's obvious is these aren't normal times.
What some people see and object to is politicians using moral outrage as a rhetorical tool to try to stifle debate - namely leavers' labelling of the Ben act as the 'surrender act'.
Why? Because it being labelled that way is a moderately effective rhetorical tool by tory leavers. The message of it being surrender resonates with many people. Opponents of brexit can see that and, naturally, they want to try to stop it. It's a sign of how awful our standard of discussion is over brexit that politicians are resorting to moral outrage surrounding their murdered colleague as a rhetorical device to serve their political view on brexit.
It's an ugly show on all sides of the argument. If you want to calm an emotional debate between two opposing viewpoints you simply do not go about it by invoking the senseless murder of your colleague, and then try to use that tragic fact to attempt to stop the other side using words such as 'surrender' and 'betrayal' which, as I've noted above, are in any rational logical and sensible debate perfectly appropriate characterisations to be used by one side of an argument. Neither do you reply insensitively by uttering humbug!!
-
Pete, if you had to balance the chances of inflammatory and martial language in Parliament leading to violence against remain supporting MPs by Brexiters vs Brexit supporting by remainers, how would you rate that, about even?
Did you catch the AG’s tirade from earlier in the day? I think the opposition were probably expecting some contrition from the government on the first day back after their illegal break, but they just got a load of populist chest thumping and drum beating.
-
I’m sorry Pete, of course, this has all been so logical, perfectly appropriate and simply a robust debate, from the start.
Has it bollocks!
Pete, you are mischaracterising the opposition in Parliament, for one thing. It’s not Leavers vs Remain, it’s “No Dealers” vs everybody else. Many of those opposed to the Gov are pro leave.
Secondly, as I said above, total false equivalency. Asking for a toning down of rhetoric, using a very real and tragic example of the consequences of the language currently in use, is perfectly acceptable. It does not pertain to either Leave or Remain. I understand that you are uncomfortable with emotional arguments, but I’m afraid humans have emotions and they display them. Quite, bloody, right too. This isn’t just another election and the stakes are much greater, ergo, the emotions much higher.
I do not see how, by any stretch, you can equate the very likely consequences of Johnson’s rhetoric and comments, with those of (what did you call her?) “Some back bencher” (dismissively, as if unimportant, then in the next breath, giving her words equivalency with the those of the man holding the office of Prime Minister).
Exactly, in your opinion, how did those “Some back bencher’s” words, in any way, incite or encourage violence or unrest?
Then, apply the same filter to Johnson’s words.
Then, give me an example of a radical Remainer, engaging in violence or intimidation? Incited by....?
I know we’ll never agree here, but I find your take on this so heartless and lacking in empathy.
But then, I find that with almost the entire Leave campaign, and all it’s top advocates.
-
but I find your take on this so heartless and lacking in empathy.
But then, I find that with almost the entire Leave campaign, and all it’s top advocates.
This ^^^^
And that is exactly why I'm deeply troubled by where Brexit is taking us as a nation. It's not looking at all pretty as far as I can see.
-
Pretty shocked by your replies on this one Pete. People are getting death threats with the PMs words repeated verbatim.
It’s one thing to defend his right to use inflammatory language, but it’s genuinely shocking to hear you suggest that people receiving death threats are only raising this issue for political gain, or to “stifle debate” as you put it.
That’s a whole new level of cynicism
-
I hope I have misunderstood your posts Pete, because I find the alternative troubling.
Johnson, Cox, Mogg, Cleverly, Cummings and others are deliberately using inciteful language in order to pitch a narrative where both the judiciary and parliament are "enemies of the people".
MPs are receiving death threats. Paula Sheriff received death threats this week. Joe Swinson received threats against her children. Jess Phillips received a death threat quoting Boris Johnson's exact words. As a colleague and friend of Jo Cox, I think Sheriff may be forgiven for being emotional; she will be all too aware that not all death threats are received from harmless nutcases. Some of them are real.
I didn't see it as invoking the memory of Jo Cox for political point scoring, but as the justifiably emotional response of someone fearing for their safety.
If this narrative and rhetoric is allowed to continue unchecked, I'm afraid another attack on a politician or a judge seems inevitable.
-
Pete,
I don't think there is a case for what you are arguing. In normal times such language may have been accepted and passed away without much comment. Context and intent both matter, and these are plainly not normal times.
I find Boris Johnson's language in parliament depressing and I think he knows it's likely to risk emulation and violence and he doesn't care.
-
Pete,
I don't think there is a case for what you are arguing. In normal times such language may have been accepted and passed away without much comment. Context and intent both matter, and these are plainly not normal times.
I find Boris Johnson's language in parliament depressing and I think he knows it's likely to risk emulation and violence and he doesn't care.
I suspect he does care.
I think they, he and Cummings, are quite prepared to use fear in their opposition, to leverage their will.
-
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/09/british-army-corporal-tweets-angela-rayner-will-perish-brexit-civil-war (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/09/british-army-corporal-tweets-angela-rayner-will-perish-brexit-civil-war)
Bet you can picture the type, too, can’t you Pete.
Pretty sure we both know someone in that category.
I still see them in my FB feed, old friends, too many fond memories to just delete the tossers, but I’m dismayed by their radicalism.
-
Did you catch the AG’s tirade from earlier in the day? I think the opposition were probably expecting some contrition from the government on the first day back after their illegal break, but they just got a load of populist chest thumping and drum beating.
I think this is an excellent point - and has been overshadowed by the "humbug" stuff.
Having caught a decent section of leading Brian Blessed impersonator Geoffrey Cox's time at the despatch box I was more taken aback by his tone and what he was saying - calling the opposition "this shower" and "cowards" and all before he started banging on about "dead parliament".
I can't help but feel that kind of set the tone. I know it's not about who cast the first stone etc but I don't think it set a very good precedent for what followed.
-
I keep asking myself “why”?
What is the point in all this?
Why are these people so intent on dying on this hill?
Every expert in the land says “ bad idea”, but they just ramp it up a notch and drop all pretence of “advantages” and fall to pushing the tribal buttons.
But.
I read the Times.
So, I can take a wild stab in the dark at “why”:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-tax-plans-will-give-6bn-to-richest-tenth-of-households-h7cvs7ld3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569587123 (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-tax-plans-will-give-6bn-to-richest-tenth-of-households-h7cvs7ld3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569587123)
-
Its an interesting gamble by Cummings et al.
They will - undoubtably lose a large number of Tory voters (probably to the Lib Dems). Much of this is unsavoury language and behaviour for the well trimmed hedges of the suburban SE.
They will - undoubtably gain labour and Brexit party/UKIP voters in N.England, S.Wales and other traditional Labour strongholds.
The gamble for them is how this pans out in terms of seats lost (they know some will go) vs seats gained.
RE: The langauge. I was thinking of how counterpoint language would go if we were to treat the ERG Ultra's and their leader/crew to the same type of langauge. Something like:
"The derranged separatists are willing on their suicide bill that comes into effect on Halloween".
"Fueled by an illegal referendum funded by a communist dictator"
"The right honourable PM is a treasonous liar - and is a racist facist in charge of a dead government"
That sounds terrible - but is it so far from the mark in the same way BJ and Cox were calling things?
-
Pretty shocked by your replies on this one Pete. People are getting death threats with the PMs words repeated verbatim.
It’s one thing to defend his right to use inflammatory language, but it’s genuinely shocking to hear you suggest that people receiving death threats are only raising this issue for political gain, or to “stifle debate” as you put it.
That’s a whole new level of cynicism
I'm not defending anyone's right to use inflammatory language Stu - although I would if they were. I don't agree that labelling the ben act the surrender act is 'martial' or 'inflammatory language' as some have put it. Saying it is is a wonderfully easy way to shut down a valid argument.
You're basically saying to vast numbers of people who see it explicitly as surrendering power to the EU that their perception is wrong. They aren't wrong, that IS their perception. The tories are quite within their rights to paint the ben act in that way, that's just normal political rhetoric.
If the tories were suggesting to a group of the general public that they should go out and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them into silence through threats of violence then I'd agree that's totally unacceptable. This is nothing like that and is closer to a media moral panic than anything else.
-
Do you mean like this Pete?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/deliver-brexit-or-face-riots-minister-warns-boris-johnson-m7bqr00x3
-
They aren't wrong, that IS their perception.
This is :off: as a tangent, but it's perfectly possible to hold a perception that is wrong. Perhaps you didn't mean it to read like that?
I also disagree about it shutting down debate - you can argue that the bill cedes too much power, and that you're disappointed by a court's ruling without resorting to claiming "betral", "surrender" and "a constitutional coup". It's all just getting a bit Trump in here...
I find your argument a bit like arguing that me not calling BJ an evil cunt who'll rot in hell in my earlier post (where I said I thought he was a bad person) was my side of the debate being stiffled... it's not stiffled.
-
That’s a poor analogy Alex.
Because you aren’t trying to win an election by persuading a great many people, via soundbites in the media, in the simplest terms possible, that what you’re trying hard to do is being obstructed by your opponents.
It’s nothing like what you said.
-
You were claiming that it stiffles debate and shuts down a valid argument.. my point is that moderating your language doesn't do either of those. Whether it inhibits your ability to play to an angry base is a separate question..
-
Or the ability to generate an angry base - which may be more pertinent 🙄
-
Being effective, simple, and easy for the intellectually challenged; does not make it right.
Nor does it make it a justifiable equivalent of the language used by the opposition (everybody, except a now very reduced Tory minority).
TT made this point, and his statement was irrefutable. Which is why you didn’t address it. Several people made this point, his was the best rendering.
Incidentally, the meta polls are putting it 53/47 to remain, as of Tuesday.
So regardless of anything else, the country appears to still be evenly split on the issue.
Therefore, the PM et al, are using this language to label, very nearly, half the population, traitors etc etc.
Despite being insulted in such a heinous fashion, I (nor anyone else) have not walked the 20 meters from my front door at work, to Kevin Foster’s office, to berate his staff or threaten their families.
And that wanker is Bozo’s little flunky.
If you still can’t grasp the difference, then it’s wilful on your part snd I don’t actually believe you “really” think it’s the same thing.
I do think you support it because it furthers the objective of your “side”, that is the only conclusion possible, given the weight of arguments against your statements.
-
Pretty shocked by your replies on this one Pete. People are getting death threats with the PMs words repeated verbatim.
It’s one thing to defend his right to use inflammatory language, but it’s genuinely shocking to hear you suggest that people receiving death threats are only raising this issue for political gain, or to “stifle debate” as you put it.
That’s a whole new level of cynicism
I'm not defending anyone's right to use inflammatory language Stu - although I would if they were. I don't agree that labelling the ben act the surrender act is 'martial' or 'inflammatory language' as some have put it. Saying it is is a wonderfully easy way to shut down a valid argument.
You're basically saying to vast numbers of people who see it explicitly as surrendering power to the EU that their perception is wrong. They aren't wrong, that IS their perception. The tories are quite within their rights to paint the ben act in that way, that's just normal political rhetoric.
If the tories were suggesting to a group of the general public that they should go out and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them into silence through threats of violence then I'd agree that's totally unacceptable. This is nothing like that and is closer to a media moral panic than anything else.
I note you totally dodge the main part of my argument. Fine - defend the use of “surrender” if you like. I still think it’s reckless in the current climate but we can agree to differ.
What really shocked me was your immediate assumption that the, predominantly female, MPs calling Johnson out for it were doing so for political convenience.
If your mate was killed in a climate very similar to today’s, and you were getting death threats daily, and you called someone out for their language and were accused of using your mates death for political gain - how would you feel about that?
I do sometimes feel like everyone - in both sides - has lost their minds about Brexit, to the point where we see people on the other side as less human than us. It worries me a lot more than Brexit itself.
It’s also perfectly obvious that Johnson is exploiting that situation, which is pretty odious.
-
You are right Stu.
But there’s a massive difference between the two camps, or the extremes thereof, anyway.
I can’t find a comparable report, with an opposite slant, to the likes of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/27/police-investigate-pro-brexit-hate-crimes-in-lewes (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/27/police-investigate-pro-brexit-hate-crimes-in-lewes)
Can you?
More to the point, even if you could, you’d find 10:1 of the incidents are angled as per this incident. There just aren’t that many violent or aggressive Remainers.
Loud, maybe.
Sign waving?
Sure.
Protest marching?
Absolutely.
Death threats, bricking windows, murdering MPs?
Not so much.
Actually, not at all.
And therein lies the difference. Johnson’s language is a calculated call to the dogs he knows are listening. Already straining at their leash.
-
Something like:
"The derranged separatists are willing on their suicide bill that comes into effect on Halloween".
"Fueled by an illegal referendum funded by a communist dictator"
"The right honourable PM is a treasonous liar - and is a racist facist in charge of a dead government"
That sounds terrible - but is it so far from the mark in the same way BJ and Cox were calling things?
Sounds bang on to me :yes:
-
...
And therein lies the difference. Johnson’s language is a calculated call to the dogs he knows are listening. Already straining at their leash.
Pithy. Actually you effectively summarize what Stephen Bush says here: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/09/boris-johnson-knows-exactly-what-hes-doing-when-he-talks-about-jo-cox-and
-
Follow this thread but have been reluctant to comment because I am a socialist and a fan of JC, I have previously been accused of destroying the Labour Party and wearing a tin foil hat for suggesting the majority of the mainstream media is railed against any form of socialist government that would affect the interests of the owners. The voice of folk like Me is distinctly lacking from this thread and the thread is dominated by the same small group of people that post regularly. So on behalf of people who hold similar views, I will stick my tin foil encased head above the parapet...
The game is now obvious, Mr Johnson under the guidance of Cummins is being fashioned as a man of the people and the one who will stand with them against an establishment and political system that denies their Democratic will. After countless years of dog whistling in the mainstream media there are enough people (of an aggressive and violent disposition) to inhale this narrative and view Mr Johnson as their saviour. These are scary times, the hatred and blaming of ‘outsiders’ is strongly rooted in the prejudice, racism, xenophobia promoted by the Daily Mail, right wing social media etc. Etc.
In my opinion, the LP have it right, it is a time for compromise and a time to dissolve tensions. Taking a stance in either of the polarised camps of Leave and Remain will resolve nothing. With a nation split down the middle everyone will have to accept compromise. JC is very experienced at negotiating and is lauded by some for his involvement in bringing peace to NI. An interim government led by him would enable compromise to be reached, we just need the Lib Dem’s and ex Cons to get on board now..
-
I’m still not quite sure how one can have a compromise over a binary decision. Remainers want no change in the current situation, and as discussed at length in many places, any soft brexit avenues lose benefits of being in the EU with no advantages to replace them. This is without considering how distasteful they are to the harder/no deal Brexit camp.
It sounds like you’re still a fan of magic grandpa, so what do you think the likelihood of a man with such shocking approval ratings (I know we don’t believe in polls) following through with his plan:
- winning a majority in the election
- going to the EU and getting a deal which is better than being in the EU (what he proposed at the conference)
- getting a majority for that deal in parliament
- getting a majority in parliament for a second referendum?
JC would and should be very far down anyone’s list as a choice to lead an interim government (i understand he has first dibs being leader of the opposition) as he is so toxic to so many people. A more middle ground Lab member would form a better figurehead to rally LD and more centrist Cons, but that seems v unlikely to happen with JC in place.
-
Farage says he wants to 'take a knife to civil servants'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/police-investigate-nigel-farage-knife-comments
Some might say it's just good politics to motivate the base.
I'd say if it is as reported, it's an incitement to violence.
-
Pretty shocked by your replies on this one Pete. People are getting death threats with the PMs words repeated verbatim.
It’s one thing to defend his right to use inflammatory language, but it’s genuinely shocking to hear you suggest that people receiving death threats are only raising this issue for political gain, or to “stifle debate” as you put it.
That’s a whole new level of cynicism
I'm not defending anyone's right to use inflammatory language Stu - although I would if they were. I don't agree that labelling the ben act the surrender act is 'martial' or 'inflammatory language' as some have put it. Saying it is is a wonderfully easy way to shut down a valid argument.
You're basically saying to vast numbers of people who see it explicitly as surrendering power to the EU that their perception is wrong. They aren't wrong, that IS their perception. The tories are quite within their rights to paint the ben act in that way, that's just normal political rhetoric.
If the tories were suggesting to a group of the general public that they should go out and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them into silence through threats of violence then I'd agree that's totally unacceptable. This is nothing like that and is closer to a media moral panic than anything else.
I note you totally dodge the main part of my argument. Fine - defend the use of “surrender” if you like. I still think it’s reckless in the current climate but we can agree to differ.
What really shocked me was your immediate assumption that the, predominantly female, MPs calling Johnson out for it were doing so for political convenience.
If your mate was killed in a climate very similar to today’s, and you were getting death threats daily, and you called someone out for their language and were accused of using your mates death for political gain - how would you feel about that?
I do sometimes feel like everyone - in both sides - has lost their minds about Brexit, to the point where we see people on the other side as less human than us. It worries me a lot more than Brexit itself.
It’s also perfectly obvious that Johnson is exploiting that situation, which is pretty odious.
Stu, a few points to consider. (for the sake of omm: try to read as if I'm speaking calmly because I'm not passionate about this)
Firstly. What gets said and done in parliament is political, whatever the intent may be.
Wednesday evening's debate wasn't an off the record heated discussion down the pub between a group of friends comprising remainers and leavers. A professional politician - an elected MP - standing up to speak in the house of commons during a rowdy debate where everyone present is fully conscious that what they say can and will be all over the media broadcast to the nation within minutes. With political analysts eager to interpret the fall-out for days afterwards.
In that parliamentary context it's undeniable that whatever is uttered, is uttered with the inherent potential at least for political gain or loss. If you disagree that politicians speaking in political debates do so without at least the obvious risk of political impact, then I'm afraid you may be among the group who you think have lost their senses. ;)
Secondly. Despite the above, if you read what I said you'll see that I haven't said - because I didn't think it - that I thought the MP's intention in raising the murder of her colleague was political effect.
I'm open to believing she raised it purely with the intention of her wanting passions to calm down on all sides. And because it has huge emotional resonance for her and others. What I was saying was that, for the reason explained above, the unavoidable (and for a professional politician, foreseeable?) effect is political.
I was questioning the logic, if calming heated passions is the purported aim, of attempting to calm passions by invoking one of the most passionate subjects among MPs in recent times - the murder of an MP. 'Clumsy and ill considered' would be my characterisation. 'Humbug' was bozos - again clumsy and ill considered.
And the logic of whether the language mentioned really is inflammatory? I think it's a statement of fact that the ben act surrenders power.
We can agree to disagree on 'surrender'. I'm more concerned with the unintended consequences of silencing debate. The short term picture might be messy right now but the long term outcome of not allowing people to say things you disagree with (but which are not demonstrably sexist, inciting violence, racist, etc.) is far more damaging and sinister for everyone.
As for seeing people as less human, I definitely don't? I've never felt that way about anyone who disagrees with me over brexit - probably because I'm not emotionally invested in it like many seem to be. My mind has been made without needing anything any politician has ever claimed either for or against. But I certainly have felt what you describe (not aimed at you) from some people who disagree with me and I recognise the 'faith' belief at work.
-
That's a fair reply, but I think your defence of the term 'surrender' lacks credibility.
Rachel Johnson put it this way:
My brother is using words like surrender and capitulation as if the people standing in the way of the blessed will of the people as defined by 17.4 million votes in 2016 should be hung, drawn, quartered, tarred and feathered. I think that is highly reprehensible language to use.
The point she is making should be obvious: it is such an emotionally (and culturally) charged term to use it is highly inflammatory and has no place in responsible debate.
Inflaming the emotions of a mob mentality will cause real harm, sooner or later.
Going from your posts, intelligent and well argued as they are, you seem much less troubled than most on here about that.
I think that's a mistake.
-
Fair enough.
Here's a question about inflammatory language for you. And I'm not angling at anything and am not going down the road of whataboutery - not interested in playing that game. I'm genuinely interested in what you and others think constitutes, in your words, 'emotionally (and culturally) charged' terms, and which presumably 'have no place in debate'.
Without going into the facts, which have been analysed by fullfact and others and are available to read. Try to answer the following without bias or emotion or resorting to party loyalties:
The British government is responsible for the 'murder' of 120,000 of its own citizens.
Inflammatory language? Could incite violence?
-
Potentially. Shorn of context, cannot say much else.
The issue is the impact of the words, so context is everything.
-
The inverted commas make me think of someone doing the bunny ears whilst saying the words, and add instant doubt into the statement. Without them it would be a shocking statement.
-
It's a shocking statement but I can't see where the incitement angle comes from? In itself it's an extreme use of language which could be used to describe the deliberate policies of austerity and the calculated effect this would have on the population. The effect is beyond dispute, but what do you call it? Negligence, murder, don't care as they won't vote for us anyway, needed to be done - that can be argued over, for sure.
Going back to Boris and Cummings game plan here, someone has obviously done the electoral maths. They need to get enough traditional Labour voters who voted Leave riled up enough to switch allegiance to vote Tory, and also be as monomaniacal as the Brexit party to grab all those votes too. Their bet is the opposition will split the vote and lose out. They must have decided that the MEP elections represent a fair approximation of people voting intentions if they can make the election a single issue one. That's why Labour are making lots of policy announcements - they are hoping to broaden the issues people will vote on.
Unfortunately I see this quite pessimistically, mainly because the Lib Dems are not being pragmatic enough. Who cares if JC makes a poor and to some toxic caretaker PM? Big deal. Proper patriots would suck it up, get Boris out and an extension to A50 granted, and then go for an election but with a proper voting pact in place to make sure we don't get a Tory majority.
Labour likewise need to finally realise that FPTP is what is really destroying democracy in the UK and back PR so we move to a more cooperative and representative parliament in the future. As the world gets more partisan, the 2 party system makes things get more extreme as time goes on. It's the basic root of all our ailments, just look at the shitshow over the pond for where we're headed if we don't fix it, and fast.
-
Who cares if JC makes a poor and to some toxic caretaker PM? Big deal. Proper patriots would suck it up, get Boris out and an extension to A50 granted, and then go for an election but with a proper voting pact in place to make sure we don't get a Tory majority.
You see how much shit has stuck to the Lib Dems after coalition? Can you imagine how long it would take constituency voters to forget the Tory MPs who voted ‘comrade Corbyn’ into No.10, even if it was only on a temporary basis? You can imagine the Sun and Mail headlines already!
If anyone should be sucking it up to be pragmatic in terms of getting a workable temporary govt. it’s JC.
-
Yeah, the obvious way to get a compromise temporary gov does seem to...er... compromise (so a right-wind Labour or left-wing Tory who seems to have no goals of being PM for longer than a few weeks as they're not party leader and aren't likely to become part leader)
-
Brutus - I agree with many of your points...
Though like TStub, I don’t think the UK is ready to reconcile Leave and Remain yet... So I err on the side of JC’s neutral policy being weak rather than clever... I think (and clearly not alone) that its to try and appease labour leave voters - whilst not pissing off labour remainers too much..
Sadly, I suspect it will please neither... Labour is fortunate - it has a strong cohort of tribal voters and an extensive and very well organised membership (the boots on the ground) - but it will haemorrhage votes I fear. Why? JC is a divisive character... he can come across warm and friendly - but can also come across as barracking shouty union man. As TStub said he has cataclysmic personal ratings. Much as you like JC - can you Brutus see him galvanising and bringing everyone together on this? Can he warm those Tory voters who waver away from Leave or will he scare them?
Its a non from me..... we need a figure like... er how Nick Clegg was perceived in 2010... (for want of a better example)...
I fear the only thing that will bring people together now is either
(A) a referendum where ENOUGH people vote for the remain OR leave side for it to be clear (at least 55%...) this may be before or after a GE (which would be a horrible affair I suspect)
(B) No deal brexit. And 2-5 years down the line this turns out to be either (i) such a disaster that most people agree it was a cock up and we re-join somehow (Norway?) (ii) so great that all those remainers come around to it actually being a good thing.
-
Sorry to be gloomy, but I'd anticipate a no deal Brexit to bring misery and siren voices from the far right apportioning blame. Some of those voices will be well-heeled; Enemies of the People, anyone? I would expect them to gain a lot of traction while people look for someone to blame for their plight.
Trust in democratic institutions is being cynically weakened. Just because fascist ideologies have not gained much ground in Britain before does not mean it can't happen. It has happened before in other places, it can happen here.
I'd expect social division to get a lot worse before it gets any better.
-
Ken clark or John Major.
Milliband, also.
Oh and TT’s last paragraph. Spot on.
-
Here in lies the problem as I see it... Personality politics, the dumbing down and manipulation of the masses (the persuadables as Cambridge Analytica would put it). We don’t live in a vacuum, information and narrative is formulated by those with the power to do so. You could replace JC with anyone you like extolling the same values, virtues and policies, I guarantee whoever it is they would receive the same flack. None of this has anything to do with how he sounds, who he’s associated with in the past, his age etc. And everything to do with the hyper wealthy having to give up the tax evasion, the back handers, the private contracts, the market manipulation etc. They”ll tell us all whatever they can to direct the attention away from where the real problem lies. Brexit is bourne out of these lies, the masses convinced they are jobless and poor because of immigration, the anger towards others stirred to boiling point. Like the serfs we are, we entrust the ‘Bulllingdon set’ to run the show coz they really have our interests at heart don’t they?! Well they’ve done a great job convincing the majority of this. The whole fricken world needs system change and when the opportunity comes to do just that, we Hoover up the bullshit and say no we’ll stay right where we are because the papers say he makes his own jam and he doesn’t sound right.. The whole country needs to grow the fuck up! :furious:
-
I disagree Brutus.. whenever I've heard John McDonnell I've thought he sounded like a sensible and clever guy, even though I think a number of policies are too far left for me (eg private school asset seizure).. JC has never impressed me in the same way. Plus shit like calling for article 50 to be invoked straight after referendum..
-
Sorry Brutus, I tend to agree with Alex, there are many people on the left of the labour party whose intelligence and ideas I respect, though I may not agree with many of them; Corbyn has done nothing that leads me to suspect that he is at all capable of any office in government let alone prime minister.
That isn't to say I don't think he could be a lot better than the current bunch of incompetents exemplified by Johnson, Raab and Patel.
-
Observer article about Paula Sherriff’s experience of abuse since clashing with Johnson about Jo Cox on Wednesday. The pattern of loaded language in parliament and hostility in the street doesn’t make for especially comfortable reading.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/threat-hostility-rise-female-mps-paula-sherriff-tracy-brabin-boris-johnson-brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/threat-hostility-rise-female-mps-paula-sherriff-tracy-brabin-boris-johnson-brexit)
-
Whether you like them or not any socialist leader would be smeared and all possible efforts would be made by the MSM and the political establishment to discredit them.
-
Whether you like them or not any socialist leader would be smeared and all possible efforts would be made by the MSM and the political establishment to discredit them.
True. But Farage and BJ are both getting a hard time from the MSM at the moment. I suspect if you were a Bj fan - you’d be giving a lot of blow back to the press at the moment (sorry - couldn’t resist!)
-
Damn it, TT!
You beat me.
This is a very valid point, and largely undermines your central argument Brutus.
The right wing MSM, is seemingly as Brutus describes, but the centrist and left leaning (without venturing into the fully socialist aligned papers) are full of outrage at Bozo’s apparently corrupt relationship with the very “over arching, controlling elite and vested interests” Brutus describes.
Actually, they exist.
Of course they do. I’ve worked for many of them. I spent the nearly twenty years from leaving the Navy until the death of my wife, first running, then building and then designing and consulting on the construction of Mega yachts. That’s yachts greater than 500 Gross tons and 50 meters in length. Or, to put it another way, yachts that cost over £25M to purchase and 25-50% of that to run annually.
Essentially a servant, of course, not besties or confidant, but a servant who was invited to meetings over dinner or drinks. In the background of main saloons, during drinking sessions at Monaco Grand prix etc etc.
Even had to carry Lord (though not Lord at that time) Ashcroft home drunk, after trying to sell a stewardess to an Inuit fisherman.
Mentioned all of this before, at various times on here. There are lots and lots of people in that and similar industries who will have very similar experiences and stories. People often forget that servants are in the room...
So, why mention it again?
Well, because I think most of them will tell you exactly or something similar too, this:
These people hate each other. They exist in a constant state of cutthroat competition, more interested in getting one over on their rival, than dominating the masses. We exist as an afterthought. Things to be utilised or ignored. You won’t even be noticed or removed until you actually stand in their way. The idea of a global cabal, intent on power and controlling the plebs, is an over estimation of their malicious intent, and, frankly, of our importance to them.
If there exists any alliance, then it’s at most temporary, more likely coincidental and certainly more tenuous than the common portrayal.
So, there will be some pretty powerful, wealthy people, opposed to BJ, just as there are those who stand to gain from him and his gang.
This, though, is one of the reasons I’m so worried about the breakdown of democracy in the West, right now. People who don’t even see us a people, do see a chance for personal gain. They won’t even notice how many of us get squashed in their rush to grab more wealth.
These are people who have grabbed every opportunity that ever presented itself, without ever considering it’s morality.
-
Neither the MSM nor the right wing MSM would support a socialist....The fact that a section of the MSM would attack Mr Johnson just affirms their affiliation to the ‘Centrist’ neo lib establishment, they still won’t fully support a socialist LP.
-
Well you're still fucked, because left-leaning non-tribal voters like me still think Corbyn's a bit of a dumbass and will vote Lib/Green instead... whether or not that's down to us being suckers. Why it is doesn't really change the fact that Labour could do with someone else in charge to help them win an election...
-
Well you're still fucked, because left-leaning non-tribal voters like me still think Corbyn's a bit of a dumbass and will vote Lib/Green instead... whether or not that's down to us being suckers. Why it is doesn't really change the fact that Labour could do with someone else in charge to help them win an election...
Barrows is not wrong...
-
And so we go round in circles because if we replace JC with another socialist we’ll have the same situation we have now and if we replace with a neo lib centrist we get more of the same shite we’ve had since Thatcher. When what we need is significant social change.
If the political discourse you can come up with is referring to someone as a ‘bit of dumbass’, suggesting that you yourself may well be a sucker and you’re prepared to eschew positive social change on this basis. Then I refer you to my previous comment about folk needed to grow up.
Try leaning further it would benefit us all...
-
Brutus, you know Neo Libs are fully committed “free market, no Government” extremists, right? Not centrists. A centrist would be a Social Democrat (slightly left of Centre) or a Liberal Democrat (slightly right). Even the Cons are currently bemoaning their party’s usurpation by unmitigated NeoLibs. Thatcher started that move in the UK, Regan in the states; now we’re seeing the ultimate (?) expression of that as they seek to wreck the institutions of democracy and Government.
Enough of the “with us or against us” stuff.
History doesn’t speak well of either extreme, when it comes to systems of governance.
Some pretty glowing models and happy populations, currently living under Social or Liberal democratic models, though.
-
I can (and did, above, briefly) expand on why I think Corbyn is a dumbass:
- He's never impressed me in interviews (and he doesn't do enough of them - smash out some good ones on Today, where John M has done, and I'll be more receptive)
- He called to trigger Article 50 straight after the referendum.. which is a straight-up dumbass move
- He's rarely impressed me in PMQs (though to be fair, most LOTOs, PMs and MPs tend to sound like idiots in this forum)
- Refusing to agree to a compromise leader to a temporary caretaker gov is a dumbass move
- Various other incidents, though I'll happily admit that I can't remember them well enough to know whether I'm judging based directly on what he's said or based on what I read in the FAKE NEWS MEDIA. It's not like I keep a list, so Id have to spend half an hour looking through old Guardian stories to find the kind of things I'm thinking of.
So yeah, he strikes me as a bit of a dumbass (feel free to replace with other vaugely insulting term e.g. douchebag)
I've never really paid attention to the IRA/Palestinian militant connection news stories as I don't know enough to have a view on them.
Try leaning further it would benefit us all...
I don't try to lean left or right, I just end up where I end up...
-
And so we go round in circles because if we replace JC with another socialist we’ll have the same situation we have now and if we replace with a neo lib centrist we get more of the same shite we’ve had since Thatcher. When what we need is significant social change.
I’m not so sure about this, I think a younger, better presented better communicator with a strong message based around the scandi style high tax high high quality of services model, without Corbyn’s historical associations, would be way more palatable for a lot of people, and edge you towards the socialist paradisiacal sunlit uplands you desire.
-
You can’t make any changes unless you are in power.
To be in power you need to appeal to a wider - and more central base.
Then you can make changes.
-
Well you're still fucked, because left-leaning non-tribal voters like me still think Corbyn's a bit of a dumbass and will vote Lib/Green instead... whether or not that's down to us being suckers. Why it is doesn't really change the fact that Labour could do with someone else in charge to help them win an election...
because left-leaning non-tribal voters like me
I get the Corbyn thing, the dislike and the fact people can't imagine him running the country. But Lib Dems? Really? They're not remotely socialist these days. It just shows how far the center ground has shifted that neo-liberal, soft-right (typical conservatives) are considered left of centre. Joe Swinson, if you look at her voting record, is a proper yellow tory.
-
Maybe I'm getting right wing in my old age...
+1 to teestub's post
-
Come on then folks, suggestions on a post card.. Who is the leader you desire? Does this person exist? Preferably not someone bought or owned by corporate interests or the state of Israel.
-
Fultonius is correct, the centre ground is skewed. The LP has policies not dissimilar to the Scandinavian social democracies mentioned above but they are cast as being hard left Marxists by the MSM.
-
Come on then folks, suggestions on a post card.. Who is the leader you desire? Does this person exist? Preferably not someone bought or owned by corporate interests or the state of Israel.
So is that a no-Jews policy? Or only approved Jews?
-
No Jews were mentioned in my post but if you think it’s OK for an MP to receive payment from any state go ahead and explain why you think that might be a good thing?
As far as I am aware Israel is the only state giving money to MPs.
-
No Jews were mentioned in my post but if you think it’s OK for an MP to receive payment from any state go ahead and explain why you think that might be a good thing?
Brutus, did you mean the present Israeli Government - rather than the State of Israel?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-government-and-the-state
-
For the avoidance of doubt Brutus, it was me who puntered you for:
bought or owned by corporate interests or the state of Israel.
The reason is that I don't like the sly rehashing of anti-Semitic tropes. No faux-innocent hiding behind 'Can't I denounce the corrupting pay of vested interests?' hypocrisy here, thank you very much. That's rubbish.
You didn't randomly mention Israel within a list of the 200+ countries in the world which might seek to gain leverage over elected representatives: you chose that state, with its ethnicity and referenced long established anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.
Take your racism, conscious or otherwise, elsewhere. Not welcome here.
-
Yeah. I meant government.
-
You’re also right that I didn’t randomly mention Israel, as that government is the only one I am aware of that donates money to our politicians.. prepared to eat humble pie to a certain extent for clumsy use of language. Ie. State/government. Don’t think our politicians should be able to take money from any outside interests let alone from the government of another country.
-
You’re also right that I didn’t randomly mention Israel, as that government is the only one I am aware of that donates money to our politicians.. prepared to eat humble pie to a certain extent for clumsy use of language. Ie. State/government. Don’t think our politicians should be able to take money from any outside interests let alone from the government of another country.
One imagines you’re far less concerned about politicians taking cash from the state broadcasters of regimes that hang gays from lampposts.
-
Nope, that sounds shite.. Would like to know more?
-
Nope, that sounds shite.. Would like to know more?
Yeah. Some shitty pol took a bunch of money from an Iranian TV company. I think it’s one close to the Revolutionary Guard - they have money and interests across the Iranian state. Don’t know if you’ve been to Iran but when I visited ordinary Iranians were scared shitless of those guys.
Just the sort of people we want putting money into British politicians’ pockets.
-
Al Jazirra have of course paid for several recent ex politicians salaries. Alex Salmond, George Galloway. And also funded a documentary about Israel govt funding UK politicians that is (apparently) cited by some to the left of the LP.
-
Just been having a big chat with my ever so sensible and wise wife over the above.. Been called out as a racist whether intentional or unintentional is a pretty heavy situation for me and has me questioning a lotta things. Definitely not who I am or who I will be in everyday life at any point and anyone who knows me personally will know my values and what I have always stood for... Amongst the things we discussed, was the echo chamber of fudgebook/ social media, I have been contemplating coming off for sometime because political discourse leads nowhere and everything I follows affirms what I know (or what I think I know). Maybe, the things I read and learn are leading to particular ways of thinking and I have certainly read a lot on socialist sites around things such as LFI interfering with/ undermining the LP leadership or Israeli government officials offering money to ‘take down’ UK politicians. I most definitely had this in mind when posting. Whilst without doubt these things are happening and shouldn’t be, it maybe to my detriment to not consider or be aware of how all International interference affects our politics. I am prepared to learn and be enlightened on everything in life and to accept if I have things wrong. I should have said ‘bought or owned by corporate entities or any outside influences’ specifying a particular state (I see now) could be interpreted negatively. Lesson learnt and left here for everyone else to learn from.
JR if I have caused personal offence to you I apologise.
Language can easily offend and it is easy to cause offence without intention eg. From above ‘Gay people’ would be way more appropriate than referring to people as ‘gays’.
Now please carry on discussing Leaving the EU or not Leaving the EU before this thread goes way :off: and I’ll just slink off with my tail between my legs for the time being.
-
Actually Brutus.
We were discussing how important the language used in political discourse is....
-
Glad I could so ably illustrate that for you. ;)
-
I should have said ‘bought or owned by corporate entities or any outside influences’
Then you'd have been on safe ground. Good answer Brutus, thank you for your courteous and considered response. :beer2:
-
I'm not defending anyone's right to use inflammatory language Stu - although I would if they were. I don't agree that labelling the ben act the surrender act is 'martial' or 'inflammatory language' as some have put it. Saying it is is a wonderfully easy way to shut down a valid argument.
One thing I think is key here is whether Labour have a history in one direction or the other. unfortunately they do and it's very one sided.
In February whilst Luciana Berger, (a pregnant jewess driven out of the Labour Party by racism, who has seen FOUR people imprisoned for violent and racist messages sent to her), was holding her TIG press conference, Young Labour tweeted this: "Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, We'll keep the red flag flying here", implying TIG were cowards and traitors.
The line is, of course, part of the chorus of The Red Flag, sung last week at the end of the Labour conference (did Sherriff sing along?) same as it has been done for decades.
Here's a vid of Harold Wilson singing the same lines in 1969:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNhcKj9CvOA
A Labour councillor, Sam Gorst, tweeted that Berger was a “hideous traitor” and “backstabber”. He was investigated for anti-semitism (cleared ) but no-one in Labour questioned his use of language.
If Sherriff is "sick" of this language how can she sit with her Labour colleagues?
-
One thing I think is key here is whether Labour have a history in one direction or the other. unfortunately they do and it's very one sided.
Not true, they provided backing vocals on the first album.
-
Take that, Winhill.
-
Now now.. lets not let this get too spicy girls!
-
Now now.. lets not let this get too spicy girls!
Looking at the typical poster this thread seems almost exclusively a boyzone.
-
Eeeee - 17 posts in the last few days though, so quite popular.
-
:sorry:
-
Now now.. lets not let this get too spicy girls!
Looking at the typical poster this thread seems almost exclusively a boyzone.
Not Boys2Men?
;)
-
No girls aloud here.
-
We're All Saints.
-
Practically Bros :icon_beerchug: :pissed: :hug:
-
You’re all Disturbed.
-
Anyway, aren't we meant to be talking about the European Monetary Fund,.. you know the EMF.
-
:off: FFS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCxLpte5loY&feature=youtu.be)! I thought you were all talking about what a Theatre of Hate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWcByQtAWLE&feature=youtu.be) Parliament (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWurqD68u70&feature=youtu.be) is.
-
Anyway, aren't we meant to be talking about the European Monetary Fund,.. you know the EMF.
You’re Unbelievable!
-
Anyway, aren't we meant to be talking about the European Monetary Fund,.. you know the EMF.
You’re Unbelievable!
I know, sorry. This topic has seriously gone West. Life goes on though.
-
A fairly sanguine summary I thought:
https://news.sky.com/story/forget-the-hype-johnson-hasnt-made-much-progress-on-breaking-brexit-deadlock-11826814
-
Interesting inference from yesterday's Brexitcast - that while May secured a deal that the EU endorsed but Parliament would not approve, Johnson appears to have done the opposite.
Whether this is a winning strategy or not.
Arguably the EU would have more motivation to compromise / change tack if this is indeed a deal that would make it through the next meaningful vote. Or just that there's more chance of that than a fractured, tribal and increasingly divided House Of Commons being prepared to converge on something that is in middle of everyone's points of view.
Or this could all just be an elaborate ruse to be seen to be trying to get a deal by proposing something he knows the EU will reject, thereby lining up a convenient scapegoat for what he really wants which is a no-deal Brexit.
-
As you say, by getting it this way around I guess Johnson gets to make it seem that it’s the EU who are inflexible and unwilling to compromise so that if/when no deal is the outcome he is not seen to be at fault by those not paying much attention.
-
But he missed an opp to have a vote on it this week... where he may have got enough support before it’s forensically torn apart.
-
Interesting from the current Scottish court case, the submitted government papers seem to go strongly against Johnson’s ‘we are leaving on 31st come what may’ position. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/04/boris-johnson-will-write-to-eu-requesting-article-50-extension-court-told-brexit
-
But he missed an opp to have a vote on it this week... where he may have got enough support before it’s forensically torn apart.
Where would he have gained enough support from to get it through parliament? I don't see many (any?) of the Tory 21 coming back on side. The DUP would have to vote in favour of something that creates a border both between NI and Ireland and between NI and the UK and I don't see the additional money for NI changing their minds. Labour's position is hardening against Brexit.
I don't see where the extra votes would have come from. I think he might have lost by even more than the last vote.
-
The DUP are supporting it aren't they? For some reason.
-
Interesting from the current Scottish court case, the submitted government papers seem to go strongly against Johnson’s ‘we are leaving on 31st come what may’ position. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/04/boris-johnson-will-write-to-eu-requesting-article-50-extension-court-told-brexit
I'm still trying to guess what the getout is going to be. Steve Baker was suggesting on Newsnight earlier in the week that BJ and co have something in their back pockets but it's being kept under wraps.
Could Boris write the letter asking for an extension, but stipulate a timeframe? Could he ask for something stupid like 10 minutes?
-
Not strictly Brexit-related, but this made me properly LOL a number of times:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/02/raising-hopes-and-denying-gropes-tory-conference-leaves-no-fantasy-untouched (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/02/raising-hopes-and-denying-gropes-tory-conference-leaves-no-fantasy-untouched)
-
The proposal to get Stormont to review whether to align more closely with the EU (ROI) or UK every 4 years is an interesting one.
Essentially an endless rerun of the core referendum issue, every 4 years, in an area where tensions are historically sky high.
What could possibly go wrong? :-\
-
The proposal to get Stormont to review whether to align more closely with the EU (ROI) or UK every 4 years is an interesting one.
Essentially an endless rerun of the core referendum issue, every 4 years, in an area where tensions are historically sky high.
What could possibly go wrong? :-\
Especially since Stormont hasn't actually sat for over 1000 days.
There is a keenly observed opinion piece by Johnathan Freedland in the Guardian detailing the casual disdain in which the Brexit lobby hold the Irish situation.
-
I'm still trying to guess what the getout is going to be. Steve Baker was suggesting on Newsnight earlier in the week that BJ and co have something in their back pockets but it's being kept under wraps.
This is where we are at the moment right, guessing how the PM might try and break the law. WTF!
-
I'm still trying to guess what the getout is going to be. Steve Baker was suggesting on Newsnight earlier in the week that BJ and co have something in their back pockets but it's being kept under wraps.
This is where we are at the moment right, guessing how the PM might try and break the law. WTF!
As one of the panel on Any Questions put it, it really comes to something when the PM writing a letter to say he'll abide by the law is breaking news. I sympathise with Rory Stewart's move out of party politics, though I wish there were more like him in positions of power at the moment. (Or indeed Andy Burnham, David Milliband, William Hague or anyone else with dignity and intelligence)
-
Not Hauge!
I was in charge/head guide for his honeymoon expedition, with Ffion, to Greenland, summer 2000. When he was leader and shadow PM.
Total idiot. Couldn’t tie his own shoe laces without an assistant.
-
Not Hauge!
I was in charge/head guide for his honeymoon expedition, with Ffion, to Greenland, summer 2000. When he was leader and shadow PM.
Total idiot. Couldn’t tie his own shoe laces without an assistant.
The mark of really profound intelligence, the inability to do simple everyday tasks. ;)
-
The text from UK govt sent to several MP’s I believe that the spectator unearthed today
‘The negotiations will probably end this week. Varadkar doesn’t want to negotiate. Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold and in the last week the official channels and the backchannels have also gone cold. Varadkar has also gone back on his commitments — he said if we moved on manufactured goods then he would also move but instead he just attacked us publicly. It’s clear he wants to gamble on a second referendum and that he’s encouraging Barnier to stick to the line that the UK cannot leave the EU without leaving Northern Ireland behind.
There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate. Those who think Merkel will help us are deluded. As things stand, Dublin will do nothing, hoping we offer more, then at the end of this week they may say ‘OK, let’s do a Northern Ireland only backstop with a time limit’, which is what various players have been hinting at, then we’ll say No, and that will probably be the end.
Varadkar thinks that either there will be a referendum or we win a majority but we will just put this offer back on the table so he thinks he can’t lose by refusing to compromise now. Given his assumptions, Varadkar’s behaviour is arguably rational but his assumptions are, I think, false. Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here.
If this deal dies in the next few days, then it won’t be revived. To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’. They thought that if May went then Brexit would get softer. It seems few have learned from this mistake. They think we’re bluffing and there’s nothing we can do about that, not least given the way May and Hammond constantly talked tough then folded.
So, if talks go nowhere this week, the next phase will require us to set out our view on the Surrender Act. The Act imposes narrow duties. Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about. Different lawyers see the “frustration principle” very differently especially on a case like this where there is no precedent for primary legislation directing how the PM conducts international discussions.
We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.
We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless. They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen. We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal.
‘When they say ‘so what is the point of delay?’, we will say “This is not our delay, the government is not asking for a delay — Parliament is sending you a letter and Parliament is asking for a delay but official government policy remains that delay is an atrocious idea that everyone should dismiss. Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave. Those who supported delay will face the inevitable consequences of being seen to interfere in domestic politics in a deeply unpopular way by colluding with a Parliament that is as popular as the clap.
Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded. So the main effect of it will probably be to help us win an election by uniting the leave vote and then a no deal Brexit. History is full of such ironies and tragedies.’
-
Classic Dom, so much nonsense, particularly around his secret plans to get out of asking for a delay (after the government have made explicit in court documents this week what their duties are). Even he obviously doesn’t believe that whatever tactics he had dreamed up will work otherwise the whole remainder of his statement would be pointless.
Anyone from parliament will be able to answer that the reason for the delay is to have an election without the possibility of no deal occurring by accident, which was one of the reasons the EU agreed was appropriate to delay exit.
This is putting aside all of the tough talk against a trading block that you will have to do a deal with after your glorious riding off into the sunset on a unicorn no deal exit.
-
He is probably right about the fact that they will get a majority in a GE though, what with the opposition parties so split. They are either refusing to cooperate with each other, refusing to work under certain interim leaders and in some cases trying to keep all their potential voters happy by having no clear direction of potential travel and sitting on the fence or trying to ride two horses at the same time.
-
He is probably right about the fact that they will get a majority in a GE though, what with the opposition parties so split.
If the conservatives do get a majority after all of this shite, whether it's due to people agreeing with their current policies on brexit and other matters, not having anyone else they feel they can vote for instead in their constituency, or whatever else, I won't like it, but at least then they will have a mandate in our current system. Then they will have gained the right to pursue whatever policies they think are best without all of the unconstitutional nefarious shit they're up to right now.
-
Unfortunately under the current system, the split opposition is a massive problem.
None of the opposition parties are exactly covering themselves in glory, are they.
So, we will get a Government with a Parliamentary majority, representing a minority of the voting population. Again.
If only Swinson was such a stubborn cus and Labour could pull their heads out of the 70’s...
I’d support a coalition. Even one with Corbyn at the head, if it avoided no deal.
-
A GE will not sort out anything though.
Whoever wins - 45-55% of the population will be unhappy with their brexit position...
Like a toddler riding a bike - the UK needs to fall over and hurt itself before it understands what the dangers are and what to do and not do.
I'm increasingly coming to the unsavoury view that maybe we need to hard brexit and experience all the shit that brings - so the stupid, shortsighted, deluded Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party that have driven this whole process (going back over 40 years) and those that have followed them most leave voters realise what a really really bad idea it was.
Not sure I can see a different way out of this (looking at the longer term)....
:(
-
To add...
Last week I was in Utrecht for a publication meeting - and there were journal editors from all over Europe (who I all know quite well now). Many people asked about Brexit... three people (separately) from NL, Austria and Germany all said to me that the one positive thing about Brexit was that in their own countries - it had killed off stone dead any 'leave EU' type movements. The far right was there still - but leave EU parties had all shrivelled up. In the NL gone from 15-20% support to sub 5%.
-
+1
-
A GE will not sort out anything though.
Well it will sort out is having a minority government and an essentially unelected PM, so I guess that’s a step in the right direction!
Agree with you overall though.
-
I'm increasingly coming to the unsavoury view that maybe we need to hard brexit and experience all the shit that brings -
People like you and me will manage though, Tomtom. Old, infirm, disabled, trapped in areas where the main employment has tanked without the skills to adapt or move- these people will pay a different sort of price.
The misery of a hard Brexit will definitely not be spread evenly.
-
I'm increasingly coming to the unsavoury view that maybe we need to hard brexit and experience all the shit that brings -
People like you and me will manage though, Tomtom. Old, infirm, disabled, trapped in areas where the main employment has tanked without the skills to adapt or move- these people will pay a different sort of price.
The misery of a hard Brexit will definitely not be spread evenly.
I agree entirely. Many farmers, smaller food businesses will be ruined overnight. I'd like to think that at least some medical supplies have been planned for by the government, but they are likely to have disregarded or not thought about things like incontinence pads, commodes etc etc used in many thousands in care homes and by agencies, which would be a massive decrease in quality of life for an awful lot of people.
-
Yup. Agree MrJA and Toby. It was posted with heavy heart.
-
Interesting commentary from a history prof at Kings.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/brexit-crisis-global-capitalism-britain-place-world
some choice quotes below:
RE: Links between capitalism and the conservative party (or lack there-of in recent years) "Since the 1970s things have changed radically. Today there is no such thing as British national capitalism. London is a place where world capitalism does business – no longer one where British capitalism does the world’s business."
"Brexit is a necessary crisis, and has provided a long overdue audit of British realities. It exposes the nature of the economy, the new relations of capitalism to politics and the weakness of the state. It brings to light, in stunning clarity, Brexiters’ deluded political understanding of the UK’s place in the world. From a new understanding, a new politics of national improvement might come; without it we will remain stuck in the delusional, revivalist politics of a banana monarchy."
-
Interesting commentary from a history prof at Kings.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/brexit-crisis-global-capitalism-britain-place-world
some choice quotes below:
RE: Links between capitalism and the conservative party (or lack there-of in recent years) "Since the 1970s things have changed radically. Today there is no such thing as British national capitalism. London is a place where world capitalism does business – no longer one where British capitalism does the world’s business."
"Brexit is a necessary crisis, and has provided a long overdue audit of British realities. It exposes the nature of the economy, the new relations of capitalism to politics and the weakness of the state. It brings to light, in stunning clarity, Brexiters’ deluded political understanding of the UK’s place in the world. From a new understanding, a new politics of national improvement might come; without it we will remain stuck in the delusional, revivalist politics of a banana monarchy."
Interesting, the Times has a comment piece by Daniel Finkelstein saying a similar thing about the leave lobby's assumptions about the USA cooperating on trade, and British power relations.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexiteers-beware-america-only-looks-after-itself-q2ggk7jdj?shareToken=7c6104ab7f9a4e4a2b4a06c5e753ef2c
Also, my previous comments about really important medical supplies having been planned for are rebutted by this NHS report:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/winter-crisis-will-be-worse-under-no-deal-say-doctors-5pz5vxpnf?shareToken=1804c7b5e496b6f82244cc4975562396
-
The misery of a hard Brexit will definitely not be spread evenly.
I think it will also hit us at random in areas we never anticipated. Higher Ed, Commerce, Local or Regional "Government" dependant services, those of us in industries dependent on a volatile market. I think very few will not see significant impact in their immediate circle of family and friends in one way or another.
-
Also, my previous comments about really important medical supplies having been planned for are rebutted by this NHS report:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/winter-crisis-will-be-worse-under-no-deal-say-doctors-5pz5vxpnf?shareToken=1804c7b5e496b6f82244cc4975562396
See also: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/ministers-still-do-not-know-nhs-cope-no-deal-brexit-report
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/06/conservative-election-impact-on-securing-medical-supplies-before-a-no-deal-brexit
As a bonus, this is occurring on top of a situation where there are already shortages of various medications (including some anti-depresssants, epilepsy meds, painkillers, and blood pressure meds) occurring for non-Brexit-related reasons:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/hrt-hormone-therapy-medicine-shortage-exports-department-of-health-a9131776.html
-
Indy commentary suggesting BJ may go for a second ref as a way out of his present zero sum game. Interesting idea...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-boris-johnson-cummings-referendum-final-say-vote-no-deal-a9148876.html
-
I really empathise with many of the points in this article, I'm increasingly confused and upset by the use of the language of conflict that has become the currency of, first the fringe erg extremists such as Marc Francois, and now Johnson and Cummings. Its worrying, and wrong.
Brexiters’ adoption of war language will stop Britain from finding peace
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/12/brexiters-adoption-war-language-will-stop-britain-finding-peace?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
These figures are from YouGov which tends to overstate Tory positions but really, with Momentum calling for unpopular MPs to be recalled, what can they say about such an unpopular leader (esp given that the choice is Boris!)
Who'd make best Prime Minister?
Johnson 43% (+2)
Corbyn 21% (-)
Not sure 32% (-2)
Leavers 73-6 for Johnson
Women 38-20 Johnson
18-24 yr olds 32-29 Johnson
Working class 44-17 Johnson
Middle class 42-23 Johnson
London 32-29 Johnson
Apparently amongst Remainers Not Sure is a nailed on winner.
-
Well I for one am shocked that the Democratic UNIONIST Party have issues with a deal that treats NI differently to the rest of the UK...
-
Deal done apparently.
Looks like parly will sit on Saturday, with potential for a motion for a confirmatory referendum to be attached to said deal...
-
Looks like it's now just the worst ever game of 'would you rather'. An end result that literally no-one wanted.
Hoping the DUP won't cut off their nose to spite our collective face
-
This is pretty much border down the Irish Sea. DUP were never going to back this.
-
This was interesting... the deal may be in breach of UK law following an amendment by the ERG last year.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/16/brexit-legal-action-stop-boris-johnson-putting-withdrawal-agreement-before-mps
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/22/section/55/enacted
-
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-new-brexit-deal-explained (https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-new-brexit-deal-explained)
-
Prediction time:
- Parliament sits on Saturday
- No weight behind move to amend motion to tack on confirmatory referendum(
- Meaningful vote doesn't pass
- Boris writes letter(s) to EU, reluctantly ends up with an extension
- Parliament either votes through election, or motion of no confidence ends up with an election
- Boris campaigns on "look, I had a deal - those bloody parliamentarians wouldn't vote for it - vote for me if you want Brexit"
- Tory win, substantial majority
- Boris deal passes
- Tories begin wholesale deconstruction of NHS, worker's rights etc, probably just before / during impending global recession
-
Happy days Nostradamus.
-
Is anyone going to London tomorrow for the people’s march?
-
Or planning to move to NI?
-
Happy days Nostradamus.
The big N was almost always wrong though...
-
Is anyone going to London tomorrow for the people’s march?
We will be there. We happen to be in London anyway, but went down specially for the last one..
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/oct/18/how-much-johnson-great-new-deal-actually-new?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1571394455 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/oct/18/how-much-johnson-great-new-deal-actually-new?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1571394455)
-
Prediction time:
- Parliament sits on Saturday
- No weight behind move to amend motion to tack on confirmatory referendum(
- Meaningful vote doesn't pass
- Boris writes letter(s) to EU, reluctantly ends up with an extension
- Parliament either votes through election, or motion of no confidence ends up with an election
- Boris campaigns on "look, I had a deal - those bloody parliamentarians wouldn't vote for it - vote for me if you want Brexit"
- Tory win, substantial majority
- Boris deal passes
- Tories begin wholesale deconstruction of NHS, worker's rights etc, probably just before / during impending global recession
Sounds about right.
I'd add that the economy will tank with or without world recession and austerity two will be rolled out and all the election spending promises cancelled. Recession will be used as the excuse for the coming bonfire of worker's rights and environmental protections, which was the right's whole reason for brexit all along.
-
Chances of avoiding the nightmare below just got worse.
Having fled the U.K. for a country with , you know a working Govt,I just had an e-mail saying effectively that my postal vote isn't worth jackshit! So that's the votes of the millions most affected by this shitshow neatly discounted then.
Prediction time:
- Parliament sits on Saturday
- No weight behind move to amend motion to tack on confirmatory referendum(
- Meaningful vote doesn't pass
- Boris writes letter(s) to EU, reluctantly ends up with an extension
- Parliament either votes through election, or motion of no confidence ends up with an election
- Boris campaigns on "look, I had a deal - those bloody parliamentarians wouldn't vote for it - vote for me if you want Brexit"
- Tory win, substantial majority
- Boris deal passes
- Tories begin wholesale deconstruction of NHS, worker's rights etc, probably just before / during impending global recession
-
I think Magic Grandpa has gamed this one really badly - or been out-gamed by the Tories, I can't work out which.
I'll happily be proved wrong come the election but given his general poll ratings re: public confidence, the fudging and re-fudging of the Brexit position - I can't help but feel like the rule of the game changed with Brexit, and the Labour party haven't caught up yet.
And yes - the recession is coming, no doubt about that, and it'll be nothing to do with domestic matters but will probably shape the fiscal and political landscape for the next generation.
-
I think Magic Grandpa has gamed this one really badly - or been out-gamed by the Tories, I can't work out which.
I'll happily be proved wrong come the election but given his general poll ratings re: public confidence, the fudging and re-fudging of the Brexit position - I can't help but feel like the rule of the game changed with Brexit, and the Labour party haven't caught up yet.
And yes - the recession is coming, no doubt about that, and it'll be nothing to do with domestic matters but will probably shape the fiscal and political landscape for the next generation.
Corbyns best hope electorally as Phillip Collins observes in the times today is to campaign strongly for remain in a hypothetical second referendum. Unfortunately for him this isn't what he believes in, so it's very unlikely.
I wonder how effective Landsmans threats of deselection will be at swinging Labour MPs. Frankly I can't see the deal getting through anyway, the lesson of Brexit so far is that if it can get more chaotic and difficult then it will.
I'd like the deal to pass, reluctantly; because if Farage is against it, it must be a good thing.
-
Remain felt well and truly snookered yesteday. Seeing the display of back-slapping from the EU27 and Johnson was one of the most depressing scenes of the whole saga. It doesn't matter if the deal is better or worse than May's, it is Boris' deal, and that for most Leavers will be enough to convince them. With the EU27 and the Leavers on board, any rejection by Parliament is a clear indicator of their being against The Will Of The People. The only logical way to proceed being to call a general election which will result in a more compliant parliament stuffed with Leave supporters.
-
The Letwin amendment is an interesting one - where the deal will not pass until the required legislation has also passed. This is an effort to ensure the UK doesn't end up leaving with no deal if the deal is voted for.
What an awful time we live in where a government can't be trusted to go along with parliamentary votes...
-
if this deal passes - it gives Johnson and his team the green light to negotiate the future deal (inc no deal) however they want.
It is a colossal mistake to suggest it’s ‘alright’.
If it passes - then I bet there won’t be an election... and Labour Lib snp will have been very successfully played.
I had little bit some trust in Mays govt to handle future negotiations reasonably - this lot? Nutters.
I truly truly hope it doesn’t pass tomorrow. I see no benefits to the country if it does.
-
If it passes - then I bet there won’t be an election... and Labour Lib snp will have been very successfully played.
This seems an unlikely outcome given the conservatives current minority govt. Passing the deal (“getting Brexit done”) will surely put Joris in a stronger election position?
-
Yes - I think that while some kind of anti-Boris / anti-Brexit alliance had a fighting change were an election to have been called a month or so ago, now he's got his deal the only possible outcome of an election is a sizable Tory majority.
Part of me just wants it all to just happen now, rip off the plaster etc - let the turkeys see what Christmas really means for them.
-
If it passes - then I bet there won’t be an election... and Labour Lib snp will have been very successfully played.
This seems an unlikely outcome given the conservatives current minority govt. Passing the deal (“getting Brexit done”) will surely put Joris in a stronger election position?
Or - once its done gets the DUP to swing back behind him. Starts to re-instate the whip on the 21...
-
What would be the logic for not having an election when you’re in the cards for a sizeable majority, rather than having to rely on confidence and supply with DUP who you have just pissed off?
-
What would be the logic for not having an election when you’re in the cards for a sizeable majority, rather than having to rely on confidence and supply with DUP who you have just pissed off?
Especially as if the deal goes through with Labout rebels help, Labour will suffer a hit from remain voters pissed at that and at Corbyn's general incompetence over Brexit
-
What would be the logic for not having an election when you’re in the cards for a sizeable majority, rather than having to rely on confidence and supply with DUP who you have just pissed off?
Especially as if the deal goes through with Labout rebels help, Labour will suffer a hit from remain voters pissed at that and at Corbyn's general incompetence over Brexit
True - but that was Mays line of thinking - and see how that payed off.
At the moment he is prime minister - and I think he's going to cling on to that for as long as he can.
Once the 'deal' is passed (OK - or if) then does he need parliament to ratify the future/further trade agreements?? If he does then yes it will be GE time.. but if not I bet he won't...
I dunno. I find this all so utterly depressing at the moment... there is nothing we can do about it (apart from demonstrate) its now all in the hands of our MP's who seem to be following a very divergent and fluid set of directions...
-
Putting Brexit aside for the moment, he will certainly need parliament on his side to get any of his domestic agenda going, including passing a budget!
-
I'd like the deal to pass, reluctantly; because if Farage is against it, it must be a good thing.
Are you on drugs? It's a fucking awful deal, NI aside it contains all the worst things of May's deal and adds to them taking by us further away from any sort of alignment with the EU. This opens the door to a fucking Pandora's Box of a deal with the US and the burning of any regulations that EU have imposed (generally these have not been bad).
Not that I give a flying fuck what Garage thinks but if he is genuinely against it (and who knows, he's a lying cunt) it's because it's the end of the gravy train for him if it passed. Much as I'd like to see the smug twat shafted it's nothing compared to the shafting the country will take. Remember this deal is the most economically damaging possible short of a no deal, 6% GDP gets you an awful lot of welfare services.
-
I did wonder if someone had hijacked your account Toby..!
-
I'd like the deal to pass, reluctantly; because if Farage is against it, it must be a good thing.
This opens the door to a fucking Pandora's Box of a deal with the US and the burning of any regulations that EU have imposed (generally these have not been bad).
I thought regulations are made by elected governments. Labour can propose whatever regulations to uphold workers rights they want... if they can convince the country to believe in their policies and vote for them in a democratic election, they would then have the authority to introduce those regulations.
-
I thought regulations are made by elected governments. Labour can propose whatever regulations to uphold workers rights they want... if they can convince the country to believe in their policies and vote for them in a democratic election, they would then have the authority to introduce those regulations.
In the last 40 years Labour have been in power for 13 of them. There seems a dim prospect of that figure being extended in the next 5, at least.
-
What would be the logic for not having an election when you’re in the cards for a sizeable majority, rather than having to rely on confidence and supply with DUP who you have just pissed off?
The Conservatives can't call an election without Labour support or we would have had one already. Labour have said they won't support an election until the possibility of no deal has been ruled out.
With the backstop now being toast, my understanding is that under Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement, the transition period lasts until November 2020 (?), after which we would have to request an extension or the default would be that we (the mainland) leave without a deal (should familiar).
So under Corbyn's previous conditions, he shouldn't agree to an election until we have actually signed a deal and left the EU. But I expect he will be out manoeuvred and we'll end up with an election before the electorate understands the reality of the withdrawal agreement.
-
I did wonder if someone had hijacked your account Toby..!
;D I wasn't being entirely serious, sorry. It is an extremely bad deal, I fully acknowledge. I personally would 100% rather be in the EU, if i could apply to be French i would. However, I'm British, pragmatic, and realistically it may be the best way to avoid no deal. It's pretty bloody depressing but there you go. As its almost universally recognised, May's deal was better, and I wonder how many MPs regret voting it down repeatedly.
-
What would be the logic for not having an election when you’re in the cards for a sizeable majority, rather than having to rely on confidence and supply with DUP who you have just pissed off?
The Conservatives can't call an election without Labour support or we would have had one already. Labour have said they won't support an election until the possibility of no deal has been ruled out.
With the backstop now being toast, my understanding is that under Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement, the transition period lasts until November 2020 (?), after which we would have to request an extension or the default would be that we (the mainland) leave without a deal (should familiar).
So under Corbyn's previous conditions, he shouldn't agree to an election until we have actually signed a deal and left the EU. But I expect he will be out manoeuvred and we'll end up with an election before the electorate understands the reality of the withdrawal agreement.
My interpretation was that the Corbyn condition refers to the withdrawal agreement. Once that’s signed, we leave the EU. I think the transition period is a separate thing and refers more to the trade deal, not the deal for leaving the EU. The EU won’t negotiate on trade until we’ve left and we can’t negotiate with other non-EU states until we’ve left, so the transition period gives us time to do this (not very much time admittedly, but we know trade deals are pretty simple so should be a piece of piss). So, if this passes Parliament, we will leave the EU with a deal, but could end with no EU trade deal.
So I don’t think it’s a question of Corbyn being outmanoeuvred into calling an election. His conditions will have passed.
-
I would consider any situation that sees Corbyn supporting an early election that is likely to lead to a Conservative majority as being outmanoeuvred.
If they have an election where Johnson can claim to have a "deal" but before reality bites, I expect he'll get his majority.
-
What would be the logic for not having an election when you’re in the cards for a sizeable majority, rather than having to rely on confidence and supply with DUP who you have just pissed off?
The Conservatives can't call an election without Labour support or we would have had one already. Labour have said they won't support an election until the possibility of no deal has been ruled out.
With the backstop now being toast, my understanding is that under Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement, the transition period lasts until November 2020 (?), after which we would have to request an extension or the default would be that we (the mainland) leave without a deal (should familiar).
So under Corbyn's previous conditions, he shouldn't agree to an election until we have actually signed a deal and left the EU. But I expect he will be out manoeuvred and we'll end up with an election before the electorate understands the reality of the withdrawal agreement.
The EU won’t negotiate on trade until we’ve left and we can’t negotiate with other non-EU states until we’ve left, so the transition period gives us time to do this (not very much time admittedly, but we know trade deals are pretty simple so should be a piece of piss).
The idea that this government can get a trade deal with the eu by the end of 2020 is laughable. Anything less than a decade would be pretty good going.
This article may have rather changed my view on the deal
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-mps-must-beware-becoming-brexiteers-useful-idiots-3ksg68w68?shareToken=5887eed1d003a72061171221d2e71496
-
Well that was nicely worded by Matthew Parris. He is saying what I have always believed: the drive to eliminate EU ‘red tape’ aims to remove legislation protecting workers and the environment. His Gulliver is the free market nutters’ Britannia Unchained (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/22/britannia-unchained-rise-of-new-tory-right).
I fear Corbyn will go down in history as the enabler of the collapse of workers’ rights and the welfare state.
-
Letwin amendment carried 👏👏
-
Parliament Square was rather jubilant when the results were announced...
I don't quite get what that means now though - Borris having withdrawn the bill and planning to bring it back on Tuesday - if anyone would care to explain...
-
I think... it means
1. BJ has to ask the EU for an extension by 11pm tonight. This should rule out a loophole that could have allows a no deal exit to sneak through..
2. Which if he does makes him possibly look a bit silly as he’s refused to (political point scoring). If he doesn’t then there’s a court hearing on Monday that will probably find him in contempt - and may rule someone else has to.
3. It means there will be more time before it’s voted through - which may mean more scrutiny of the deal and possibly the result of any vote changing.
-
Thanks! Does the Letwin amendment stay attached when the bill is next brought to parliament?
I guess the aim of that was to ask for an extension so then gives the government 3 months to get the law sorted before approving the deal?
-
As far as I understand it doesn’t need to stay attached as the deadline for requesting an extension is 11pm tonight. So assuming there’s no loophole for the PM, the next time the bill comes to parliament the extension will have been requested and hopefully granted!
-
The decision by Johnson to send a photocopy is frankly fucking childish. It's like hes wearing his school uniform and leaving the short untucked to rebel. Whatever your view on extension, delay or whatever this is one of the most unstatesmanlike actions I've ever seen from a supposedly senior politician.
-
Our very own Trump :sick: :shit: :sick: :shit:
-
The decision by Johnson to send a photocopy is frankly fucking childish. It's like hes wearing his school uniform and leaving the short untucked to rebel. Whatever your view on extension, delay or whatever this is one of the most unstatesmanlike actions I've ever seen from a supposedly senior politician.
Yes. Agree.
But like a 5 year old having a tantrum it’s best ignored. As Europe have done and are moving on the extension request. Nice OP in the guardian explaining how the side note is worthless and even if it’s not signed that doesn’t matter.
What really riles me is the incessant vox pops and pundit viewpoints on the BBC, Sky etx.. saying everyone wants this deal done. Bollox. Total bollox.
-
Interesting thread
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185989844281020418?s=21
If this is right the govt screwed up on sat and it’s going to be a rollercoaster week.
-
The decision by Johnson to send a photocopy is frankly fucking childish.
We shouldn't be giving this kind of press briefing air time. What does it even mean? He didn't sign it, it was a photocopy (really?!) etc.
He said he would never send the letter. He sent the letter. End of.
-
Interesting thread
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185989844281020418?s=21
If this is right the govt screwed up on sat and it’s going to be a rollercoaster week.
I read that thread this morning but I'd don't know enough about palimentary procedure to get this bit:
"There is a common misconception that the govt pulled the vote on Saturday. They did not. They just didn't bring the motion as amended to a division. It went through on the nod. The House decided something. I.e. Letwin, that there is no deal until WAB passes. That is big."
What does "amended to a division" and "went through on the nod" mean?
-
Interesting thread
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185989844281020418?s=21
If this is right the govt screwed up on sat and it’s going to be a rollercoaster week.
I read that thread this morning but I'd don't know enough about palimentary procedure to get this bit:
"There is a common misconception that the govt pulled the vote on Saturday. They did not. They just didn't bring the motion as amended to a division. It went through on the nod. The House decided something. I.e. Letwin, that there is no deal until WAB passes. That is big."
What does "amended to a division" and "went through on the nod" mean?
And WAB? I think I've missed something somewhere.
-
And WAB? I think I've missed something somewhere.
WAB = Withdrawal Agreement Bill
-
A division is the voting in the Commons, where you walk through one corridor for yes and another one for no. As far as I understand the amendment that passed essentially gutted a lot of the text of what the PM tabled, so once the amendment passed, there was no vote on the bill (it ‘went through on the nod’, as it it was passed without dispute which happens a lot to stop things that are definitely going to pass having to be voted on to save time).
I think the issue is that, in the terms of the commons, this counts as a vote on that deal, and as with May’s deal(s), the speaker made it clear that you can’t just bring exactly the same thing to be voted on again when you didn’t get the result you wanted first time.
-
there was no vote on the bill (it ‘went through on the nod’, as it it was passed without dispute which happens a lot to stop things that are definitely going to pass having to be voted on to save time).
I think the issue is that, in the terms of the commons, this counts as a vote on that deal, and as with May’s deal(s), the speaker made it clear that you can’t just bring exactly the same thing to be voted on again when you didn’t get the result you wanted first time.
This is how I read it but that means the bill was passed, so there's not need to bring it back to be voted on again?
-
I agree with Gina
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/20/boris-johnson-ride-roughshed-laws-grant-extension-law
It would be awful if Boris scraped an election win because brexit votes split less than those of the progressive parties. People really need to consider tactical voting on an ABB basis in marginal or 3 way/ 4 way seats. The only exception I'd make to the tactical voting likely to be suggested on her site is to support no tactical voting in very safe seats (ie much bigger than 50% single party majorities) as this allows parties like the greens to grow confidence and better influence policy.
-
This is how I read it but that means the bill was passed, so there's not need to bring it back to be voted on again?
This I’m more hazy on but I think they want a vote on an unamended version to show that there is support in the house for the legislation to pass.
-
This is how I read it but that means the bill was passed, so there's not need to bring it back to be voted on again?
This I’m more hazy on but I think they want a vote on an unamended version to show that there is support in the house for the legislation to pass.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1186250561676595200
Having listened to this, I think it means it was defeated "on the nod" as they didn't even put it up for a vote.
-
From the Beeb
"15:38
BreakingSpeaker refuses Brexit deal vote
House of Commons
Parliament
Commons Speaker John Bercow has refused the government's call to hold a vote on the prime minister's Brexit deal today."
-
This is how I read it but that means the bill was passed, so there's not need to bring it back to be voted on again?
This https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/21/brexit-what-just-happened-and-what-happens-next makes it all a bit clearer after today’s events.
-
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/10/exposed-brexiteer-hypocrisy-over-bercow-ruling
-
What a colosssal fuck up this all feels like...
Interesting tweet from an FT journo:
"A wild guess at what happens next: @BorisJohnson wins second reading, MPs who feel guilty about backing the deal then block programme motion; EU grants extension of a few weeks. Johnson accepts (and doesn't pull bill). Brexit happens. No election till 2020. Lab changes leader."
-
That would be a fairly accurate reflection of the last 3.5 years - Brexit scrapes through; labour not in power because the public sees them as a flip-flopping shower of; Cornyn gone becasue he couldn’t lead a dog.
-
My favourite report of the day:
The Irish Mirror is reporting that the Irish taoiseach Leo Varadkar is very keen to get Brexit done by 31 October because he has tickets to see Cher on 1 November.
“He has tickets for the pop legend in Dublin’s 3Arena on November 1 and wants to enjoy it properly,” the paper reports.
“Mr Varadkar is a self-confessed Kylie Minogue fan who sent her a personal letter and got a selfie with the Aussie when she performed here last December.
“But he is also believed to love Cher and has been looking forward to the concert for months.”
-
The decision by Johnson to send a photocopy is frankly fucking childish. It's like hes wearing his school uniform and leaving the short untucked to rebel. Whatever your view on extension, delay or whatever this is one of the most unstatesmanlike actions I've ever seen from a supposedly senior politician.
Yes. Agree.
But like a 5 year old having a tantrum it’s best ignored. As Europe have done and are moving on the extension request. Nice OP in the guardian explaining how the side note is worthless and even if it’s not signed that doesn’t matter.
What really riles me is the incessant vox pops and pundit viewpoints on the BBC, Sky etx.. saying everyone wants this deal done. Bollox. Total bollox.
Polling does actually suggest there is public support for this deal (among those who say they understand it). Unfortunately more than a third of people asked still say they don't understand the deal, which kind of tells you everything you need to know about the validity of the original referendum!
Also, I'd wager the actual number of people who have even a vague understanding of the deal is a lot less than two thirds...
-
The decision by Johnson to send a photocopy is frankly fucking childish. It's like hes wearing his school uniform and leaving the short untucked to rebel. Whatever your view on extension, delay or whatever this is one of the most unstatesmanlike actions I've ever seen from a supposedly senior politician.
Yes. Agree.
But like a 5 year old having a tantrum it’s best ignored. As Europe have done and are moving on the extension request. Nice OP in the guardian explaining how the side note is worthless and even if it’s not signed that doesn’t matter.
What really riles me is the incessant vox pops and pundit viewpoints on the BBC, Sky etx.. saying everyone wants this deal done. Bollox. Total bollox.
Polling does actually suggest there is public support for this deal (among those who say they understand it). Unfortunately more than a third of people asked still say they don't understand the deal, which kind of tells you everything you need to know about the validity of the original referendum!
Also, I'd wager the actual number of people who have even a vague understanding of the deal is a lot less than two thirds...
Agreed. Not necessarily because they lack the capacity but ultimately the motivation, its ultimately a tedious legal document. I'm not pretending I understand it in great depth.
Currently the most depressing angle is Johnson's refrain of getting it done. It will go on for years, perhaps decades whatever happens.
I thought this was an excellent piece
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-dups-answer-is-always-the-same-no-7vp6dh3rq?shareToken=f1012f527087a59a4fcb2e75fcfe3850
-
Considering MPs who’s job it is to scrutinise these things were still finding out new thing about it yesterday (inc customs papers for goods to cross Irish Sea), I'd think it was incredibly unlikely that 2/3 of the general population understood the deal.
-
Have you tried to read it? It’s truly dense...
-
nope, that's what I pay my elected official for (current NI Secretary getting an earful today)!
-
Considering MPs who’s job it is to scrutinise these things were still finding out new thing about it yesterday (inc customs papers for goods to cross Irish Sea), I'd think it was incredibly unlikely that 2/3 of the general population understood the deal.
Agreed. It also even makes the idea of a public vote scary.
-
nope, that's what I pay my elected official for (current NI Secretary getting an earful today)!
I’d download it and just skim - even just to get a flavour for how it’s written....
I suspect even Ru might wrinkle his brow whilst wading through it...
-
British journalists have become part of Johnson’s fake news machine | openDemocracy
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/
Good read from ex-Telegraph journo.
-
And the Conservatives have started spreading false information about “parliament passing the deal” on Facebook and Twitter. https://fullfact.org/europe/brexit-deal-not-passed-parliament/
Probably just the start of the campaign of dodgy targetted ads etc as we go into the election
-
And the Conservatives have started spreading false information about “parliament passing the deal” on Facebook and Twitter. https://fullfact.org/europe/brexit-deal-not-passed-parliament/
Probably just the start of the campaign of dodgy targetted ads etc as we go into the election
On a similar note, the government has repeatedly declined to legislate against political misinformation on social media, Nick Cohen suggests, as they wish to prolong their own ability to do so: Trust is becoming the principal casualty of Britain’s raging political war
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/27/trust-becoming-principal-casualty-of-britains-raging-political-war?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Looking like there will almost certainly be an election in the second week of December then. I'm really not sure who this really benefits, actually I don't know if anyone else does either, but the details in the Times report about leave.eu releasing a tactical voting app to 'crush the remainers' are deeply worrying.
-
Tories will walk it but with 30 of their most moderate and/or Remain MPs replaced by ERG loons.
Fucking depressing on every level
-
I don't think I've ever been so depressed about an election campaign. We're all completely fucked.
Labour had no choice but to support it after the other opposition parties pulled out. I can't help but feel let down by the opposition parties who have backed this instead of throwing their collective weight behind a second referendum. I'm highly sceptical about whether Remain would win a new referendum, but a general election can't hope to answer the question of what does the public want to do about Brexit.
The best we can hope for is another hung parliament/minority Conservative government and further paralysis about what to do next.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-commemorative-leaving-coins-to-be-destroyed-after-delay-11847958
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
Tories will walk it but with 30 of their most moderate and/or Remain MPs replaced by ERG loons.
Fucking depressing on every level
Yep.
Did anyone read that Polly Toynbee article?
She, I think rightly, imagined that the Tories winning (with a clear majority) would be the best outcome.
Brexit is unavoidable.
If it’s a disaster, or even just makes us all poorer and diminished on the world stage, the Tories own it. All of it.
If it goes wrong, people will turn on them.
If it’s a run away success and we all benefit from our new sovereignty, or even if it’s neutral for the majority of people, it won’t matter.
My guess, is the Tories should be very, very careful what they wish for. Demographically, they are on shaky ground and it seems highly unlikely that would change, with even the slightest negative impacts from Brexit. Another five years of Tory rule, who would they blame? An impending global recession? The end of the domination of the Boomers? Boris’s scandals catching up with him? Climate change bearing down on us? They really seem to be backed into a corner, even if they can’t see it themselves.
A far worse scenario, would be another hung parliament.
Reality will out and there will be nowhere to hide and nobody else to blame.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-commemorative-leaving-coins-to-be-destroyed-after-delay-11847958
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
If you could get your hands on a couple of those they will be worth a fortune in a few years time. Security Guards at Royal Mint must be tempted.
-
If it goes wrong, people will turn on them.
Yes, that's certainly worked so far...
-
I think this deserves a new thread....
-
If it goes wrong, people will turn on them.
Yes, that's certainly worked so far...
The Tories greatest asset is Corbyn, but even the Teflon OAP couldn’t survive a crushing GE defeat, surely? Could he?
So, Labour enter the new parliament under a new leader, where there is much less ambiguity.
Anyway, BJ is about to pull the GE, because the likelihood of his winning would be hugely diminished if the 16+/EU citizen amendments go through (or might go through) and they’re looking like they have strong support.
It really is too surreal now.
-
I can't help but feel let down by the opposition parties who have backed this instead of throwing their collective weight behind a second referendum.
There are nowhere near enough MP's in the current parliament who will vote for a second referendum, that has always been the case. Even if all the opposition parties whipped for it then once you knock off the handful of labour loons who'd refuse (Hoey et al) its still not enough without a majority of (ex-) tory independents and the DUP. That majority is not there, nor is it ever likely to be. There is also the problem of how to actually get the process? The government are not going to move a motion for a 2nd ref, ever. The opposition could do an SO24 again (same process as Benn Bill) which would make it law in theory, but the government would still have to implement it. They would frustrate that process. The politics of the opposition being seen to force a 2nd ref without a mandate from a GE would also not be the PR victory with the entire nation that its supporters would like, I would suggest. And all this is before you get to the nitty gritty e.g. the question? Franchise? Simple / super-majority? Legally binding / advisory? Etc. 2nd ref in this parliament was always pie in the sky.
I'm highly sceptical about whether Remain would win a new referendum, but a general election can't hope to answer the question of what does the public want to do about Brexit.
I agree that a GE is a less good measure of the public mood on Brexit, but given that a 2nd ref won't come out of this parliament, what other option is there? In some ways if we make the assumption that people only voted on Brexit (obvs they won't) then in a way it might be a better way of deciding Brexit, given that there are actually 3 end states:
No deal - Brexit party definitely. (Maybe tories depending on which of the warring factions wins)
A deal - Hard: Tories, Soft: Labour (depending on 2nd ref)
Revoke & remain: LD's, SNP, Labour (depending on 2nd ref)
Choose your majority / coalition to suit.
The best we can hope for is another hung parliament/minority Conservative government and further paralysis about what to do next.
If you want a 2nd ref, then the best you can hope for is a Labour majority non? I know that most of the regular posters on this thread think Corbyn is a born loser, but all you have to do is hold your nose once, give him this one GE win, then he can get his own Brexit deal and lose the 2nd ref to remain. Job done.
-
There is a lot to like in Labour policies, the real difficulty for me is the antisemitism which is rife in some parts of the party, running all the way to the top. And the unelectable leadership, but the antisemitism is a line in the sand for me.
Very disappointed in the LibDem position. Boris will increasingly struggle the more time passes, with his get Brexit done shtick manifestly failing amidst a plethora of grim headlines from the NHS in winter crisis. Can only see sense in LibDem position if their real objective is to target Labour, not Tory seats, and to hell with the country and their remain evangelism. Maybe it was only ever an insincere attempt to peel off Labour voters anyway.
-
If you want a 2nd ref, then the best you can hope for is a Labour majority non? I know that most of the regular posters on this thread think Corbyn is a born loser, but all you have to do is hold your nose once, give him this one GE win, then he can get his own Brexit deal and lose the 2nd ref to remain. Job done.
I don't disagree with you, I do think Corbyn is incapable, but im increasingly of the opinion that I'd rather that with some of the more sensible and competent Labour front bench team than Johnson, and most of all Dominic Cummings. I'd like nothing better than to see Johnson get absolutely trounced, sadly I think that's even less likely than Trump stopping using Twitter or Putin actually turning out to be a lovely chap after all
-
I don't get this pessimism. Some serious pundits (like John Curtice) are predicting 100+ seats for neither of the main parties. Hence, I think it's very likely both the main parties will struggle to get a working majority. The tories will likely be all, but wiped out in Scotland and likely lose tens of seats to the Lib Dems in the south and south west and the tories will rely on winning tens of midland and northern seats with popular moderate Labour MPs with 5%+ majorities, even if the Brexit party do very badly; if Brexit do well the tories are looking at an equivalent to a food bit over 10% swings, so more than the polls indicate now and we know how well advance polls worked for May. Brexit wasn't delivered ( despite no ifs no buts promises), the country is in a mess due to austerity and the cabinet are mainly far right and accident prone with skeletons. In contrast Labour do campaign well and still have a huge and young membership. If Boris fails to get a majority he and his hard brexit are toast, as there are no likely partners for his minority tory government.
Encourage people to register and get the progressive vote out, and try and pusuade people to consider voting tactically in the marginals.
-
I don't get this pessimism.
Obviously you’ve not been following politics for the last 3 years :lol:
-
Well from my perspective as a remainer and a progressive we had a brexit vote and a tory government that started with a sizable majority. May then called an election in 2017 that everyone said they couldn't fail to gain seats (but I was sceptical) and lo and behold they became a minority government and squabbled so much they changed leader to a liar and a clown and failed to get brexit done despite all this '31/10, no ifs and no buts' .. If people believe in a progressive future, hold their nerve and vote we will probably have a minority Labour government saved from itself by having to work in partnership with other progressive parties. Even Remain is still possible... when I heard the bnexit vote news after landing in Heathrow, those years ago, I couldnt have predicted hope would still here approching xmas 2019.
This wasn't surprising to me:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SebzH269-qE
Then we have this:
https://www.ft.com/content/bb027040-fa65-11e9-98fd-4d6c20050229