I thought the British political establishment was a bit more serious about respecting its own institutions. I thought wrong.
So we have an advisory referendum and a Parliament that's totally within its rights not to follow it despite political promises made by some political parties. Now, as far as I know Parliament as a whole is not against Brexit, just a no-deal Brexit.
Boris maintains a large majority voted in favour of Brexit (statistically, the vote was basically split) and now blames the constitutional crisis he wrought on Parliament because according to him everybody against a no-deal Brexit is anti-Brexit.
He lies less obviously than Trum, but he still lies.
Questions for the Brits: can the Queen refuse Boris' request for the longer leave?
One might have said that you can't suspend parliament for a month during an urgent crisis to prevent it from exercising its will. I think she could have, and it would have been rather interesting to pit the brexit sovereignty thing against the monarchist thing. It seems to me that if a constitutional monarch has a function beyond the decorative, it is to occupy the space that a dictator needs. That must mean at some extreme the possibility to intervene against a leader even against precedent. Perhaps we have yet to reach that extreme...
unenlightenedAugust 29, 2019 at 10:34#3216390 likes
When even the FT is anti tory, it is clear they are completely mad.
What do I think about the proroguing of parliament by Johnson ?
Johnson is a sly, self-serving, lying prick who is in a position of power, as PM, placed there by a group of extreme Tories.That in itself is wrong but legal.
It gets even madder. How will it end ? Hopefully, peacefully using appropriate legal and political process. However, I expect civil unrest will turn to passionate protests. Any sign of violence will be met with the full force of the law...
Proroguing parliament is unlawful abuse of power, court told
MPs seek interdiction in Scotland as challenges also filed in Belfast and London
Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament is an unlawful abuse of power, a Scottish court has heard in the first of three legal challenges.
Aidan O’Neill QC, acting for a cross-party group of 75 MPs and peers, told a court in Edinburgh that the prime minister had trampled on more than 400 years of constitutional law by asking the Queen to prorogue parliament solely for political gain...
...Whichever side loses in the parallel cases is expected to appeal immediately, and the cases will soon be heard by the supreme court, potentially grouped together.
It is the first time in UK legal history the Queen’s decision to prorogue a Westminster parliament has been challenged in court.
A flow diagram follows, showing future possibilities
'Where next for Brexit?'
I thought the British political establishment was a bit more serious about respecting its own institutions. I thought wrong.
The British political establishment is not the Tory party. The rest of it, with the exception of the DUP, is up in arms. And of course, there are some even within the Tory party who are up in arms, too, like the former Chancellor, Phillip Hammond.
Gove, who is in charge of planning for no deal, did not commit to abide by any law which rebel MPs will attempt to pass this week that could mandate an extension to article 50 in the event of no deal...
...The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said Gove’s hints that the government may ignore legislation was a major escalation. “The Tory attack on our democracy is getting worse. Gove has just refused to confirm.. that the government will accept legislation passed by Parliament,” he tweeted.
“This is a startling move beyond anything we’ve ever seen. Johnson government is becoming an elective dictatorship.”
...Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon said it was a “dangerous time for democracy” when ministers could not answer yes or no to whether they would abide by the law. “Not so much prorogue as just plain rogue,” she tweeted. “We mustn’t allow this behaviour to be normalised.”
'Rogue' is too light a term. Even if fun :roll: to play with...
Cuddly rascal Boris :naughty:
Reply to S
Yeah. Bastards all.
Especially Sajid David, current chancellor, who campaigned to be Tory leader with these words:
'You don’t deliver on democracy by trashing democracy'.
unenlightenedSeptember 01, 2019 at 20:50#3228060 likes
In the exchange, Wallace accused parliament of being “awful at saying what it wants”, but “very good at saying what it doesn’t want”. He then goes on to say that:
"So, you know, eventually any leader has to… try"
He concedes that he doesn’t know what the outcome of “it” will be and breaks down laughing. He continues, after regaining his composure, saying “[inaudible] politics”. Later in the exchange, he then appears to explain why “it” had to happen:
"...we’ve suddenly found ourselves with no majority and a coalition and that’s not easy for our [political] system."
The government has since argued that Wallace “misspoke” in the conversation. Clearly he did. Because the minister did the unspeakable: he gave credence to people’s suspicions. He suggested that Johnson has done “it” – the proroguing of parliament – due to the precarious position of his minority government in regards to Brexit. Furthermore, Wallace’s behaviour suggests the cabinet thinks the whole thing is funny:
It is putting party before country all the way, down. The problem is the hard brexiters within the Tory party see no other way out. If we don't leave without a deal they will implode with a viscous fight within thelmselves and electoral oblivion, it will buoy up the Brexit party if this happens, but only temporarily and then they will hang around on the margins for a generation or so, being a one issue party, on an issue which has been decided. We will gradually all get back to normal and restore the "good chap", method of government.
The biggest travesty is that the Queen was drawn into the deceit, had she not agreed to prorogue, she would have entered the fray and the Tory's would have savaged her. The distinguished historian Peter Henesey said on Friday, "on the 27th of August in the library of Balmoral, the good chap theory of government broke apart at the feet of the Queen." This is the treason and I will be taking it up with the headmaster of Eton college.
The government has since argued that Wallace “misspoke” in the conversation. Clearly he did. Because the minister did the unspeakable: he gave credence to people’s suspicions. He suggested that Johnson has done “it” – the proroguing of parliament – due to the precarious position of his minority government in regards to Brexit. Furthermore, Wallace’s behaviour suggests the cabinet thinks the whole thing is funny:
I saw the video but this isn't a necessary conclusion from what he said. As a whole, it could be interpreted as explaining why BoJo opted for such an extreme measure as the only way to break the impasse that exists in Parliament.
Does anyone know when the next general election will be?
We are being prepped for one soon. Amidst all this turmoil.
Nigel Farage, leader of The Brexit Party, exhorts his troops at campaign rallies, shouting:
'I am ready. We are ready. Are you ready ?'
You know they are.
'Ready' is the key word.
The public is being readied for the Hard Brexit, come what may:
The government has set in motion the ‘Get ready for Brexit’ campaign, costing the taxpayers £100m.
According to newspaper reports, if Johnson loses his majority as a consequence of Tory rebellion then an election will be imminent.
Then what...?
If the opposition can't get their act together, then...we are doomed to more of the same.
Perhaps even if they get their act together. The outlook is not promising...
The Guardian leads with “Johnson ready to sacrifice majority by withdrawing whip from rebels”.
The Telegraph has “PM warns rebel MPs: back me or be sacked”.
The Times’headline is “I’ll kick you out of the party, Johnson tells Tory rebels”.
The FT zeroes in on what a Corbyn government might do: “Labour would cost UK companies £300bn by shifting shares to staff”, as it predicts an election is “likely” amid Brexit turmoil.
Blair said Boris Johnson wanted an early election because it would be a “trap” for Labour. Rather than voting for an early election, MPs should insist on a referendum, he said:
If parliament cannot agree, then the right way to consult the people is not through a general election but through a referendum.
That means, as MPs from different parties have agreed, that there should not be a motion of no confidence but rather legislation preventing no deal.
Should the government seek an election, it should be refused in favour of a referendum.
It is counter-intuitive for opposition parties to refuse an election. But in this exceptional case, it is vital they do so as a matter of principle, until Brexit is resolved.
Brexit is an issue which stands on its own, was originally decided on its own and should be reconsidered on its own.
The Brexiteers are laying a trap, to seem as if pushed into an election, whilst actively preparing for one.
Blair said Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity would make an election more appealing to Johnson.
[The Brexiters] know there are two issues in British politics not one: Brexit; and the Corbyn leadership.
It is the interplay between these two issues that has shaped and defined British politics over the past 3-4 years.
Boris Johnson knows that if no deal Brexit stands on its own as a proposition, it might well fail. But if he mixes up the Brexit question with the Corbyn question in a general election, he could succeed, despite a majority being against a no deal Brexit, because some may fear a Corbyn premiership more.
tell you what, people have been comparing Johnson to Trump, but Johnson is a hellava lot smarter than Trump (not that it says much). But he's machivelian compared to The Donald, who thrashes about like the Tin Man on Wizard of Oz.
Reply to Wayfarer
Trump and Boris both lie.
They both want a hard Brexit.
They have a lot in common. Narcissistic, self-serving, etc., etc...
But Boris went to Eton and can talk fluent Latin as well as bullshit.
Trump talked up the prospects for a US-UK trade agreement when the two men met face to face in Biarritz on Sunday, for the first time since Johnson became prime minister.
The US president said they would sign a “very big trade deal, bigger than we’ve ever had,” once the UK is freed from the “anchor” of the EU around its “ankle”.
Asked what his advice was for Brexit, the president said: “He [Johnson] needs no advice. He is the right man for the job.” Johnson said Trump was “on message there”.
Reply to Amity I’m not saying anything good about Boris, I think he’s a phony. But he’s clever in a way Trump isn’t. But I’ve always thought Brexit a disaster.
Reply to Wayfarer
Comparing ways of being clever between psychopathic leaders is interesting up to a point.
What matters is the outcome when the right-wing, regressive hard nuts unite as one.
It gets a little terrifying.
I should switch off now and go meditate...or do something sparkly :sparkle:
Reply to Amity Agreed, Rebecca Long Bailey has just said that the position of the Labour Party is that stopping a no deal Brexit comes before any priority for a general election. They do know about the elephant trap and that Johnson will thrash about for any means of preventing parliament acting. This might include fooling the opposition into helping him call a general election( he needs a two thirds majority in the house to call the election) which would be held before 31st of October and then changing the date to after that date further down the line. Or any number of distractions to delay it until beyond that date. Ensuring a no deal Brexit with no debate, or consent from parliament.
It looks as though Johnson is already grasping at straws and sinking into chaos.
ChangelingSeptember 02, 2019 at 17:12#3232340 likes
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49549960
General election on its way. Who is everyone voting for?
Boris can't have his erection unless Labour agree. So, it ain't that simple
the other really confusing thing is that it's not going to be a poll on Brexit per se. I mean, it's not a matter of voting for one side that supports Brexit, and another side that opposes it. And also, that Corbyn is a misguided idealist (at best) whom many reasonable voters would never vote for (as Tony Blair is saying.)
ChangelingSeptember 02, 2019 at 23:57#3233850 likes
A significantly higher percentage of voters voted for Corbyn in his last election than voted for Blair in his. In fact, Corbyn got one of the highest vote shares for Labour in modern times. So, that's just typical anti-Corbyn hype.
on what basis? Which policies of his are misguided and why?
the press coverage here in Aus has been generally critical. He's been depicted as being 'too far to the left to be electable'. And Blair has been hyper-critical of Corbyn, although I don't know how much that means. But I do note from Wikipedia that in 2017 'Labour made a net gain of 30 seats with 40.0% (its highest vote share since 2001 and the first time the party had gained seats since 1997). This was the closest result between the two major parties since February 1974.' So - let's see. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that if an election was called Labor might win it, but what that means for Brexit is still anyone's guess.
Brexit per se. I mean, it's not a matter of voting for one side that supports Brexit, and another side that opposes it
Yes, Johnson wants to give the electorate a choice between a hard Brexit with the Tory's and a disastrous Corbyn government (economically) which will also keep us in the EU, or half in half out. This sneaks a hard Brexit through under the fear of Marxist Labour policies. Also it drains support from the Brexit party, pushing the Tory's over the line.
Labour won't agree to an election until a further extension is agreed with the EU (until 1st Jan'), they realise that if Johnson calls for an election this week and they don't support it , Johnson is left helpless with no way to turn, the emperor has no clothes.
I'd put it this way, the issue is not Labour's sudden unelectability, it's the Lib Dem's sudden electability. So, the remain vote is split while Johnson has been (very) busy unsplitting the anti-remain vote by stealing Farage's thunder. This is critical in a first-past-the-post system. The winner takes all essentially and that dynamic explains the bulk of what's going on here.
Reply to Baden Well, from what I've been reading today - again, I'm in Aus, so a bit ahead in terms of timezone - Britain's Tuesday-Wednesday look like being momentous.
unenlightenedSeptember 03, 2019 at 08:56#3235670 likes
the press coverage here in Aus has been generally critical.
As has the press coverage in the UK. The reality though is that Corbyn is not remotely radical, and has not proposed a single policy that goes beyond what has already been implemented in the country and then dismantled. Some public housing, a national railway and power system, a national post, a national health service, and some workers' rights. It's all so mainstream that only Americans and propagandists would even call it unusual.
Yes, which would explain why, rather than mentioning these 'radical policies', using the bogeyman of Marxism is generally the preferred method of attempting to discredit him.
unenlightenedSeptember 03, 2019 at 10:06#3235870 likes
Reply to Baden Other taxpayers - you know, you, me, whoever it is who originates 'the stuff' that Labour 'gives'. Anyway - off topic, that's political philosophy. I think, all things considered, if I were a Brit, and I thought voting Labor would prevent (a no-deal) Brexit, then I wouldn't have a moment's hesitation.
StreetlightSeptember 03, 2019 at 11:30#3236000 likes
What's 'ours' in terms of resources is a gift of a society that mostly functions on the backs of ordinary workers, without whom we'd all be sucking on wild berries and being eaten by bears. But yes, let's not go there here.
unenlightenedSeptember 03, 2019 at 12:40#3236130 likes
Reply to Baden Yeah, totally irrelevant because Brexit is totally going to empower tenants and the working class because no Brit will ever have to adhere to those pesky EU regulations.
I am in a safe Tory seat unfortunately and will vote for the remain alliance, which ever party represents this.
You can't risk basing your decision on the notion of safe seats. What were thought to be safe seats were taken by both of the main parties in the last general election. For example, Labour took Kensington from the Tories with a hair's breadth.
As has the press coverage in the UK. The reality though is that Corbyn is not remotely radical, and has not proposed a single policy that goes beyond what has already been implemented in the country and then dismantled. Some public housing, a national railway and power system, a national post, a national health service, and some workers' rights. It's all so mainstream that only Americans and propagandists would even call it unusual.
Yeah. Also, nationalising the railways, for example, is known through polling to be highly popular with the general public.
ChangelingSeptember 03, 2019 at 14:50#3236520 likes
Yeah, totally irrelevant because Brexit is totally going to empower tenants and the working class because no Brit will ever have to adhere to those pesky EU regulations.
Who benefits from Brexit ?
Someone suggested that I watch Ch4 Dispatches 'The Brexit Millionaires' - those who've got rich from Brexit. First shown Monday 11th March this year.
I missed it at the time. Now you need to download the Ch4 app.
Don't know that I will. I am quite depressed enough, thank you.
Perhaps some ice cream, chocolate, crisps, caviar and champagne might help.
Reply to Evil from the Guardian Politics Live
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/03/commons-showdown-looms-in-battle-over-no-deal-brexit-live
'As Johnson talked Tory MP Philip Lee stood up and walked across the floor of the Commons and sat down with the Lib Dems.'
Reply to S Yes, I know, but I'm in south Norfolk, in 2017 the Tory's got approx 35,000 votes, Labour 15,000 and the two other candidates less than 1,000. Most of East Anglia is a Tory stronghold.
I am a poll clerk in a rural area and am used to the elderly farmers banging on about polish immigrants and their Tory credentials.
[quote="Guardian Politics Live"]Gove concludes by saying a no-deal Brexit would pose undoubted risks and real challenges for the UK. But he says there would also be opportunities.
Opportunities for...
The Brexit Billiionaires.
Ch4 Dispatches 'The Brexit Millionaires' - those who've got rich from Brexit. First shown Monday 11th March this year.
It seems to me that no matter how bad or stupid a politician or idea is, the BBC can be trusted to normalize and promote it in the name of journalistic objectivity.
Yes, I know, but I'm in south Norfolk, in 2017 the Tory's got approx 35,000 votes, Labour 15,000 and the two other candidates less than 1,000. Most of East Anglia is a Tory stronghold.
I am a poll clerk in a rural area and am used to the elderly farmers banging on about polish immigrants and their Tory credentials.
Well, if those numbers suggest that you'll be voting Labour, then you have my support. Where I'm from, we've been stuck with a Tory MP since 2010, and that seems like almost forever to me. I sympathise with the situation you're in.
The targeting of Polish immigrants is really horrible, and makes me sick. An innocent Polish man was brutally beaten to death in an unprovoked attack by a group of young thugs close to where I live around three years ago. It made the national news at the time.
It seems to me that no matter how bad or stupid a politician or idea is, the BBC can be trusted to normalize and promote it in the name of journalistic objectivity.
Yes, for example the way they legitimise Farage. If you want to get a deeper insight I would recommend James Obrian on LBC. 10.00 -1.00 weekdays. He's not on today, but tomorrow's show should be a good one.
Reply to S I agree that the Polish are being unfairly targeted. There is an issue with the numbers of EU citizens who have moved into areas like East Anglia. I have recently visited many of the regional towns in Norfolk and Lincolnshire. While walking around the streets about 90% of the people I pass, or hear are polish, or are speaking polish. As many as half the shops are polish, or aimed primarily at polish customers. I don't have a problem with this, although it does seem a bit strange, when I remember how those streets used to be. But I do sympathise with the indigenous British residents who feel they have been taken over by foreigners and I can understand why such areas voted so strongly to leave the EU.
This situation is purely demographic, however I don't see it as a membership of the EU problem specifically. There are other ways to address the imbalance in such places and leaving the EU may not stop the flow of foreigners. It is fuelled primarily by market forces, which are not going away if we leave the EU.
Reply to Punshhh Let's say that there's a problem with immigration. Okay, but what annoys me is that this is given priority over economic prosperity. These people complaining about immigration will end up worse off economically. Is it worth it? No, I don't think so. I'd rather keep the Polish folk around and have more money in my pocket. Also, that's quite a contradiction for Tory's who always cling to the image of being the party you can trust to run the economy.
As many as half the shops are polish, or aimed primarily at polish customers. I don't have a problem with this, although it does seem a bit strange, when I remember how those streets used to be
There are always too many servants, except when there are not enough.
Reply to S Yes, most will suffer economically from leaving the EU, and the influx of immigrants will continue because there is a need for them in the market. The only difference that there may be, is that they might not all come from the EU.
Most of the leavers I meet as a poll clerk can take the hit, they are mostly retired and asset rich.
I woke up in the night spitting cartoons of Johnson's head on a spike and coughing up voodoo dolls of Boris (I am a satirical cartoonist in my spare time). But then the thought that I should keep my head down or some right wing radical might seek me out, came over me, followed by the thought that we may soon be on the streets if this madness continues.
Apparently Johnson is going to demand an election today, which he overwhelmingly doesn't want. Goading Corbyn to agree to one on 15th of October. Corbyn appears to be teetering on the edge of granting it, while the vast majority of his Labour colleagues are trying to pull him back from it and wait until the extension has actually been granted. This is clearly the right strategy, because if they don't agree to an election until then, Johnson is powerless and sooner or later his sham of a government would be exposed and he would probably break the law.
Whereas if he grants an election on the 15th, parliament is immediately dissolved, parliament is silent and powerless while the Johnson is let loose to rampage across Whitehall, change the date of the election do whatever he wants.
The fate of our country rests in Corbyn hands over the next few days, give him strength to hold his nerve.
Reply to Punshhh What I'm reading is that the House of Lords is going to expedite the passage of the 'no-deal-Brexit-ban' meaning that by law, neither Johnson nor anyone else will be able to leave the EU without an agreement.
I think Johnson is completely boxed in. Sacking 21 members of his own party is going to blow up in his face. As it is, he's powerless to command an election without super-majority agreement, and no longer has anything near a parliamentary majority on the Floor. I wouldn't be at all surprised (as I said yesterday) if it turns out the Johnson has the shortest tenure of any PM in British history.
Tories are 'Ready' with their dirty tricks election campaign - as are the right-wing newspapers.
Corbyn bring branded as 'chicken' with his 'surrender bill'. Apparently Johnson is to spew more bile from the lectern in an address to the nation. A pity there is no immediate opportunity for the oppostion to reply.
No 10 sets outs Boris Johnson's election message to voters
General elections are all about choices and what Boris Johnson has been been doing this week has been trying to frame the forthcoming election as a choice between someone who will deliver Brexit by 31 October and someone who won’t. CCHQ could not be clearer about this.
Jeremy Corbyn’s #SurrenderBill means more talk, more delay, more indecision.
BorisJohnson will deliver Brexit by 31st October so we can get Britain back on the road to a brighter future.
So why is No 10 pushing this argument? Because voters like to hear it, according to Politico’s Jack Blanchard. Here is an extract from his London Playbook briefing yesterday.
[A senior government minister} also predicted the opposition parties are playing straight into [Dominic] Cummings’ hands — and that the Tories are now on course to win a snap election. “I’ve seen the numbers from CCHQ, it really is black and white,” they said. “People want it done. They love it when we talk about schools, hospitals and police; they love it when we talk about broadband; they hate it when we talk about Brexit — and these people have just voted to talk more about Brexit. Nobody wants to spend three, six months rowing about Brexit.” To repeat, this may well prove to be the case.
If only the Republicans had stood up to Trump the way the Conservatives stood up to Johnson.
unenlightenedSeptember 05, 2019 at 09:40#3245160 likes
Here's a happy fantasy: Brexit is delayed, then there is an election. the deal between Tory and Brexit parties collapses, splitting the brexit diehard vote, Lib Dems win big , and and tories lose big. Referendum revokes Brexit. Lib dems and Labour become two main parties. Electoral and constitutional reform ensues in both the UK and the EU. Climate change is halted and reversed, everyone lives happily ever after.
unenlightenedSeptember 05, 2019 at 11:07#3245680 likes
And from our 'you couldn't make it up' correspondent...
unenlightenedSeptember 05, 2019 at 12:45#3246110 likes
Reply to Wayfarer He is quite deliberately a parody of a victorian toff, just as Johnson is a deliberate parody of a buffoon. Such behaviour has the effect of normalising extremism, and diverting attention and criticism from substance to trivia, and thus allowing the counter of 'PC-gone-mad'.
Hard to believe, isn't it that this victorian gentleman is intent on making a huge fortune from selling out his own country, whilst protecting his assets in tax havens and foreign investments? He's a clever cruel and ruthless exploiter - if that's what you think a twat is, then he's a twat.
But don't imagine that pose was anything but deliberate.
Still can’t get Brexit through even 3 years later. Remainers like to pay lip-service to democracy while opposing the will of the people at all costs. Let’s see how long they can disguise their authoritarianism beneath their glittering generalities.
A moments background reading would be enough in any case to disabuse anyone of the notion that a no-deal Brexit is the will of the people. Polls consistently show a majority against it and that is all the legislation prevents. Furthermore, it was right-wing Tories and their coalition partners in the DUP that blocked their own PM delivering Brexit just a few months ago.
(Oh, and the opposition will accept an election when the anti-no-deal legislation goes through. Again, they are the ones protecting the will of the people.)
Denying a general election on the topic seems to me to avoid the will of the people.
A General Election isn’t a single issue vote. Parliament (and Government) make decisions about every aspect of British life. Previous polls have shown that Conservative-voting Remainers, for example, would rather leave than have a Labour government (or at least rather than Corbyn as PM) - but they’d still prefer to remain than leave (all other things equal).
So if your concern is the democratic will of the people on Brexit then a second referendum is more meaningful than an early General Election. It’s clear hypocrisy to say that the people have spoken on Brexit and so a second referendum is not needed (some have even bizarrely said undemocratic) but to then say that an early General Election is needed to ascertain the will of the people on Brexit.
EcharmionSeptember 05, 2019 at 16:59#3246850 likes
A General Election isn’t a single issue vote. Parliament (and Government) make decisions about every aspect of British life. Previous polls have shown that Conservative-voting Remainers, for example, would rather leave than have a Labour government (or at least rather than Corbyn as PM).
So if your concern is the democratic will of the people on Brexit then a second referendum is more meaningful than an early General Election. It’s clear hypocrisy to say that the people have spoken on Brexit and so a second referendum is not needed (some have even bizarrely said undemocratic) but to then say that an early General Election is needed to ascertain the will of the people on Brexit.
I don’t know why people would want a second referendum if the first one hasn’t been implemented, despite the government’s insistence that it would do so. It isn’t hypocrisy but a matter of fact that people voted for Brexit. A second referendum is not meaningful because the first one has yet to be realized.
The role of an opposition party is to question the ruling party, not to oppose the will of their own constituents
Labour votes in favour of policies that Labour voters want and against policies that conflict with this, e.g Conservative policies. In this case the leaders of the party have determined that Labour voters do not want the kind of Brexit that the government are pursuing (or at least unintentionally heading towards, e.g without a deal), and so oppose this in attempt to secure the kind of Brexit that they do want.
It isn’t hypocrisy but a matter of fact that people voted for Brexit. A second referendum is not meaningful
Then neither is an early General Election on the issue of Brexit - although again, a General Election will never just be about Brexit.
So if you are saying that the will of the people on Brexit has already been decided then why are you in favour of an early General Election and criticising those who oppose it?
Labour votes in favour of policies that Labour voters want and against policies that conflict with this, e.g Conservative policies. In this case the leaders of the party have determined that Labour voters do not want the kind of Brexit that the government are pursuing (or at least unintentionally heading towards, e.g without a deal), and so oppose this in attempt to secure the kind of Brexit that they do want.
I’m not so convinced of that. A majority of Leave voters would rather a no deal Brexit.
I know, but it's not like arguing with facts is going to work with NOS4A2.
Just thought I'd put it out there anyhow. There seems to be a lot of confusion around what is actually happening even among the mainstream news media who haven't done a great job of explaining things. I don't know how many headlines I've seen, for example, proclaiming that Boris is going to call a general election when he has no legal right to do so (only having the right to seek permission from the house to do so). They've only seemed to have cottoned on to that now that his attempt failed.
If 48% want to remain, 27% want to leave without a deal, and 25% want to leave with a deal, then what is the will of the people? To leave? That’s pretty meaningless as there are two incompatible means of leaving, and it may be that those who voted to leave with a deal would rather remain than leave without a deal and those who voted to leave without a deal would rather remain than leave with a deal. That’s the fundamental problem with the Brexit referendum.
Indeed, maybe you are. For example, did you know that certain combinations of words can have different meanings, even if the individual words refer to similar things?
If 48% want to remain, 27% want to leave without a deal, and 25% want to leave with a deal, then what is the will of the people? To leave? That’s pretty meaningless as there are two incompatible means of leaving, and it may be that those who voted to leave with a deal would rather remain than leave without a deal and those who voted to leave without a deal would rather remain than leave with a deal. That’s the fundamental problem with the Brexit referendum.
In my opinion, the UK should leave first and worry about deals after the Brexit referendum has been implemented. It seems the worry about deals and such were tacked on, willy nilly, after the fact.
And they saw how well that worked out. Hopefully they wouldn’t make the same mistake twice.
If after 2 years the people ought be allowed to redecide how Brexit is to be implemented then after 3 years the people ought be allowed to redecide whether to implement Brexit at all.
But again, in a GE you’re not just voting on who implements Brexit; you’re also voting on who implements every other domestic and foreign policy, which is why a GE is a bad measure of the people’s will on Brexit.
Reply to NOS4A2 And as I’ve explained the will of the people to leave is meaningless if there are incompatible means of leaving. The will of the people might not be to leave without a deal and so we shouldn’t leave without a deal.
Voting remain vs leave is like voting McCain vs a democratic, without being told if that democrat is Obama, Hillary, or Bernie.
Just as an aside, I’m finding I’m often in the minority regarding opinions on current events and politics. I really like conversing about these topics (which I think important) and I have zero intention to troll or to be insincere.
I see no issue about having a second referendum if it is about the means to exit, for example deal vs. No-deal. But including the option to undo the previous referendum without having implemented it is not democratic.
Reply to NOS4A2 Undoing a previous vote with a subsequent vote is how democracy works.
The will of the people is whatever the will of the people is now, not what it was in the past. Voters have died, voters have changed their mind, and new voters who ought be allowed a say on their future are now of age.
So to summarise, if the majority today are in favour of remaining then the will of the people is to remain, and it is perfectly proper and consistent with democratic principles to put the issue to another vote so that this will can be shown.
The will of the people is whatever the will of the people is now, not what it was in the past. Voters have died, voters have changed their mind, and new voters who ought be allowed a say on their future are now of age.
That seems to me to suggest voting on the same issue in perpetuity. So how many referendums on the same question should it take for the result to be implemented? Or do we just stop when we get the result that we want?
That seems to me to suggest voting on the same issue in perpetuity. So how many referendums on the same question should it take for the result to be implemented?
We shouldn’t conflate a referendum with a general election. One is a vote over a policy proposal while the other is a vote over who holds legislative power.
Reply to Wayfarer Yes its all very promising and the parliamentary process of resting control from the bexiters. But the problem is far deeper, you will need to step up a gear, the government is in the control of an ideological cult. They will do anything to push us over the cliff, including breaking the law, fake news, Trumpism. They are rabid and the opposition has to prepair for the worst of these tactics because it is not worth the risk. This is why I said in my last message we could well find ourselves on the streets.
I'm hoping that if things break down to far, or Johnson does something tragic to avoid requesting an extension from the EU that the EU will grant an extension by some other means dealing directly with parliament.
EcharmionSeptember 05, 2019 at 18:55#3247750 likes
Reply to S Yes, it sounds like the opposition has a similar view. I heard someone remarking on Johnson's phrase "do or die", saying that if we don't grant him an election, then its die rather than do.
Still can’t get Brexit through even 3 years later. Remainers like to pay lip-service to democracy while opposing the will of the people at all costs. Let’s see how long they can disguise their authoritarianism beneath their glittering generalities.
Its the breath taking incompetence of Theresa May and the ERG which has left us in this mess. The opposition was happy to work out a cross party Brexit deal and would have voted it through ten months ago.
. I'd rather him dead in a ditch than seek an extension from Brussels.
I don't see how Brexit can happen on 31 Oct, though. No-deal is about to become banned by law, May's deal was voted down three times, and Johnson doesn't look like having anything like an alternative proposal.
The initial referendum was improperly framed and run. For a change of this magnitude, it ought to have required a super-majority (i.e. 66%), and at least mentioned the means by which the proposed separation would be executed. . It was simply the expression of an opinion about membership of the EU without any consideration of the real consequences - which is why this state of paralysis has ensued.
Overall, calling the referendum in the first place was a dubious decision, and loosing it a catastrophe.
RelativistSeptember 06, 2019 at 03:02#3249490 likes
I would love to hear some predictions about what will happen, particularly (but not exclusively) from UK residents. Not what you want to happen, but what you actually think will happen both short term and long term.
Reply to Relativist Australian - my fervent hope is that it falls through, that Brexit is cancelled. (My last years Christmas wish was Brexit cancelled, Trump impeached - still waiting, although both are at least still plausible.)
In reality, I expect the Brexit fiasco still has a long while to run (or rather to fit and spasm on the ground whilst blowing spittle from its dying lips...)
I don't see how Brexit can happen on 31 Oct, though. No-deal is about to become banned by law, May's deal was voted down three times, and Johnson doesn't look like having anything like an alternative proposal.
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that my preference was to leave on the 31st of October. That was some dark humour suggesting that my preference was for Boris to be dead in a ditch.
I would love to hear some predictions about what will happen, particularly (but not exclusively) from UK residents. Not what you want to happen, but what you actually think will happen both short term and long term.
I'm from England, and I really have no idea, but here goes. There'll be an extension, then a slightly modified version of the withdrawal agreement, which won't get through parliament. Then there'll be a vote of no confidence, and an alternative government. If it goes to a general election, I'm not sure anyone can win a majority.
That was some dark humour suggesting that my preference was for Boris to be dead in a ditch.
he's practically as good as, as far as I can tell from 12,000 km away. :naughty:
As I said yesterday, I kind of admire the conservatives who stood up against him. I wish those spineless gutless congressional republicans would do the same to T.
my fervent hope is that it falls through, that Brexit is cancelled.
Yes, there is the theoretical possibility of Brexit simply being cancelled. I would enjoy this outcome: all the fuss and holloring, all the political theatre and emotionality and ...nothing! :sweat: :grin:
All this time wasted away about nothing.
Actually Nigel Farage with his new UKIP 2.0 party would love that!
Yes, but if this law is passed, Johnson will not be able to leave with no agreement. It’s all bluff and bluster.
He can, leaving without a deal is the default position at the moment, it requires action to prevent it.The fact that it is illegal in the UK for the government in the UK to "leave without a deal" is irrelevant to this.
For example Johnson could go to the EU summit in October claiming he is going to request an extension and abide within the law and disappear on route ( get in a car and drive to a secret location and hide until after 31st October). The extension would not have been requested and we would leave without a deal. The Queen could request the extension in his place, but she may decide not to interfere in politics and let it happen rather than get embroiled in political chaos.
One might say well that's ok, we can just go back to the EU and say sorry about Boris, he acted illegally can we forget it ever happened and have that extension anyway. But the chances are they would not be able to grant this, or they would not want to. Or they might say only if you revoke, or yes ,but you loose your special privileges( which are considerable).
In these circumstances the chaos and division would be ramped up far higher than it is at the moment and we would be on the street and edging closer and closer to a civil war.
Reply to Punshhh How could it be irrelevant? There is indeed an action being taken to prevent it, namely, a law that disallows leaving the European Union without an agreement on terms (e.g. here). A 'no-deal brexit' has never been a 'default position', not even for Johnson - he's been saying (although not many believe him) that he's only threatening it to get traction in negotiations. But in any case, it looks like the option of no-deal is off the table. And he doesn't have a majority in Parliament to do anything - as of this moment, he's being 'held hostage in Number 10' as some commentator said.
As I said yesterday, I kind of admire the conservatives who stood up against him. I wish those spineless gutless congressional republicans would do the same to T.
I don't see how Brexit can happen on 31 Oct, though. No-deal is about to become banned by law, May's deal was voted down three times, and Johnson doesn't look like having anything like an alternative proposal.
The new law will require Boris to request an extension. The EU might not grant one. Macron almost didn’t last time, and since then there hasn’t been a good faith effort to renegotiate, so they might decide that it’s pointless to drag it out further.
The EU don't want a 'no-deal' any more than most people. But on the other hand, they're quite entitled to deny any further extension on the basis that it's demonstrably pointless. Which seems to me to mean that the UK is going to *have* to cancel Article 50, or face the economic consequences of crashing out, which will almost certainly provoke a severe economic downturn.
What's that saying? 'Nothing concentrates the mind quite so well as the knowledge one will be hung in the morning'.
EcharmionSeptember 06, 2019 at 06:49#3250170 likes
I think that as long as there are significant political forces in the UK pushing for a more conciliatory position with regards to the EU, the EU leaders are unlikely to cut them off. Also: The longer the Brexit chaos drags on, the stronger the chilling effect on other leave movements.
Which seems to me to mean that the UK is going to *have* to cancel Article 50, or face the economic consequences of crashing out, which will almost certainly provoke a severe economic downturn.
Yes and I would hope the government would revoke, but as I said earlier it is much deeper than this. The government has lurched to the right and is now expressing the demands of a group of Tory's who are fighting to save the Conservative party. This is far more important to them than what happens in the Brexit crisis. They would revoke today if it saved their party, but the only hope in their eyes is to leave without a deal and hope that support for the Brexit party would begin to wane and die as people realised that the Brexit party had no purpose any more.
They really are rabid, because not only are they fighting for the soul of their party, but they see looming on the horizon a Corbyn government, which in their eyes would be a living hell just as bad as a worst excesses of a no deal Brexit. Precisely because at least in that no deal Brexit they, the Conservative party would still be there to help clear up the mess. If Corbyn is there and the conservatives have died, their whole world falls apart and the soul of the country is lost.
Reply to Punshhh I read that Corbyn’s polling is dreadful. I must say I couldn’t vote for him, if I were British it would have to be Lib Dems but I can’t see them forming Government.
Reply to Echarmion Yes, I am sure the EU will grant an extension if a general election is called. They realise that there is a crisis in the UK which requires time and patience to resolve and they don't want to be perceived as responsible for a no deal Brexit.
Reply to Wayfarer I know, but in the eyes of this group of Tory's it's the fear of a Corbyn government alongside their own haemorrhaging of support to the Brexit party which drives their push for a no deal.
So you have a perfect storm in the minds of these people
I would happily vote for the the Lib Dems or Labour, (I am a Green Party supporter) as the economy needs repairing and I have confidence that Corbyn would start the work to repair the country.
unenlightenedSeptember 06, 2019 at 07:56#3250350 likes
if an extension isn't granted article 50 ends and the UK ceases to be a member. It's all in the gift of the EU.
There is a clause in article 50 that says the decision to leave has to be made democratically according to the laws of the country, so It could be that if the Benn bill is law, and nothing is done that not only will Britain not have left, but the whole article 50 notice will have in effect been revoked.
Can’t deny that. But she did negotiate a Brexit deal, agreed to by the EU.
But perhaps worse than that deal is they’re giving up their one remaining bargaining chip: a no deal Brexit.
The best alternative to no agreement is throwing the UK a bone.
Any deal is better than no deal, so "no deal" isn't and never has been a bargaining chip because it's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. It's entirely possible though this is exactly what the political outcome will be, because politics isn't a negotiation. However, the EU in this process is acting as the technocratic bureacracy it is, bereft of politics and just straight negotiations because the political mandate has been set out 2 years ago. So political commitments of UK politicians that they'll deliver on Brexit with "no deal" if they have to, has no effect on the stance of the EU.
The EU has been very clear: it has completely closed rank in support of Ireland as it should be. After all, Ireland will remain a member and the UK wanted to leave... well, actually people were split on the question.
Which brings me to another point, people voted for leave with a stastically insignificant majority (and as such should never have carried the weight it does now) and while a majority of those who voted for leave would be happy with no deal, it's safe to assume that all Remainers were and are against a no-deal Brexit even more than a negotiated Brexit. In other words, a vast majority of UK citizens never wanted and do not currently want a no-deal Brexit.
But don't imagine that pose was anything but deliberate.
It has backfired on him.
[ just as his accusations against whistleblower Dr.Nicholl have.
https://www.channel4.com/news/dr-david-nicholl-if-rees-mogg-wants-to-repeat-that-outside-of-parliament-i-will-sue
After significant pressure, he has since apologised: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/rees-mogg-condemned-for-comparing-doctor-to-disgraced-anti-vaxxer-autism ]
He is a nasty piece of work. People will react against this in any election. Hopefully.
This R-M pose has been circulated worldwide. Wonderful to see this installation by the anti-Brexit campaigners 'Led by Donkeys'. Captions include 'Lying Tory' - ' No one voted for this' - 'They're Lying'.
Reply to S
The Corbyn 'Chicken' was on the cover of the UK Sun. Not on the Scottish or Irish Sun, reflecting different views towards the Tories. In Scotland: 'Floppy Johnson Can't Get An Election'.
The current Westminster government is being increasingly seen as the 'English Nationalist Party'.
See heated comments by frustrated European negotiator in video below:
It could be that if the Benn bill is law, and nothing is done that not only will Britain not have left, but the whole article 50 notice will have in effect been revoked.
It's only revoked if the UK writes to the EU to notify them that it's withdrawing the prior notice to leave.
unenlightenedSeptember 06, 2019 at 09:02#3250500 likes
But perhaps worse than that deal is they’re giving up their one remaining bargaining chip: a no deal Brexit.
— NOS4A2
The best alternative to no agreement is throwing the UK a bone.
Any deal is better than no deal, so "no deal" isn't and never has been a bargaining chip because it's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. It's entirely possible though this is exactly what the political outcome will be, because politics isn't a negotiation. However, the EU in this process is acting as the technocratic bureacracy it is, bereft of politics and just straight negotiations because the political mandate has been set out 2 years ago. So political commitments of UK politicians that they'll deliver on Brexit with "no deal" if they have to, has no effect on the stance of the EU.
[my bolds]
Exactly this.
There is no bargaining chip. The Tories are not in negotiations.
See:
https://www.channel4.com/news/are-brexit-talks-really-yielding-progress
unenlightenedSeptember 06, 2019 at 09:21#3250680 likes
Diversion, and taking some heat off the Boris Cummings faction. All that wasted effort. We are talking about it, and that is a win, because important suff passes by unnoticed.
One of which is that either by breaking the Benn law or by simply not appointing a commissioner, No deal can still be possibly accomplished. Alas, the idiotic democrats refused the no-confidence motion and government of unity that could have taken control... might be too late now.
Diversion, and taking some heat off the Boris Cummings faction. All that wasted effort. We are talking about it, and that is a win, because important suff passes by unnoticed.
Yes. However still very useful as an anti-Tory campaign tool.
We can talk about both that and the Boris Cummings faction.
But such images are more influential in manipulating the public, either way. I would say.
This article and BTL comments might give you a better idea than anything I could offer up.
Things are changing so quickly, it is all quite bewildering.
“The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council.”
unenlightenedSeptember 06, 2019 at 10:41#3251040 likes
Reply to Michael Right. The legal opinion I saw must have been wrong or out of date. But there is still a conflict if the decision to leave must also be be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements, and the leader illegally refuses to seek an extension... maybe - please?
One of which is that either by breaking the Benn law or by simply not appointing a commissioner, No deal can still be possibly accomplished. Alas, the idiotic democrats refused the no-confidence motion and government of unity that could have taken control... might be too late now.
I don't think it's to late for the government of unity yet. The important thing is not to table the vote of no confidence to soon, because there is a risk in anything which dissolves Parliament and allows Johnson to squat in No 10. Parliament must be sitting until after the extension is achieved.
I have heard rumours that the EU would not automatically expel us of we fail to appoint a commissioner. Regarding the Benn law, provided parliament can sit until the extension is achieved, they should be able to check, or bypass any attempt to break the law.
unenlightenedSeptember 06, 2019 at 10:59#3251130 likes
All this talk of 'doing or dying' - 'dying in a ditch' - 'surrender bill '- 'coward' - 'rebels'- 'traitors'.
The ditch isn't by the wayside, it's about trench warfare.
It stirs up more division and potential for violence.
It is designed to inflame and it is scary stuff.
Politicians and staff continue to receive death threats *
The nastiness is being intensified by Johnson's advisor Cummings.
Should there be an investigation into this man and his malign influence ?
* Just one example:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/caroline-spelman-quits-tory-mp-to-stand-down-over-abuse-and-death-threats-which-left-her-wearing-a4230241.html
From the Guardian Politics Live:
'Harriet Harman, the Labour former deputy leader and the chair of the joint committee on human rights, has joked that so many moderate Tories are being driven out of the party that she is thinking of holding an inquiry.
"When are we going to wake-up to what’s going on here? Caroline Spelman, elected, thoroughly decent, hard-working MP driven out of Parlt. We can’t stand by while MPs driven out or retreat behind security gates? "
Reply to Amity Agreed, the hardliners will have to be pulled kicking and screaming out of office. They are like headless chickens ( no pun on Corbyn intended).
RelativistSeptember 06, 2019 at 13:19#3251590 likes
I understand a no-deal Brexit will be bad for the UK, but is it also bad for the EU? This is relevant as to whether the EU is motivated to grant another extension.
'On Monday Austria’s foreign minister, Alexander Schallenberg, said the bloc would keep open the possibility of an extension to the UK’s membership beyond 31 October.
Schallenberg said: “Of course our thread of patience doesn’t go on forever. But in the past two years, we have put in a lot of energy to make an orderly exit possible. Secondly, a disorderly exit would have many consequences that we can not foresee in its entirety when it comes to financial flows and services.'
Just read this on Guardian Live:
'Boris Johnson has said he will win a new Brexit deal at next month’s EU summit by using his “powers of persuasion”, and rejected calls for a further extension to article 50.
The prime minister said he had no plans to accept the new legislation which would require him to write to the EU asking for a “pointless” delay to Brexit, during a visit to Aberdeenshire on Friday.'
Delusional and irresponsible - just one way to describe this character.
unenlightenedSeptember 06, 2019 at 14:23#3251900 likes
In the face of all that reality, Trump continues to delude himself about his escalating trade war with China, telling reporters on Wednesday that “they want to make a deal”. But Donald’s assertions about Beijing’s desires are about as reliable as Boris’s claims about Brussels.
Both leaders are demanding ransom payments by holding themselves hostage. Trump’s anti-China tariffs are actually paid by American consumers. As a tactic, this is as brilliant as Boris threatening Brussels with the prospect of economic collapse in Britain.
Reply to Relativist The direct trading effect for the Netherlands is estimated at a loss of about 10 billion euros. This will be somewhat mitigated because UK companies will be less competitive in the EU market after it leaves the EU and this will create opportunities for Dutch companies. Because the same holds true for every other company in the EU, it remains to be seen how strong the mitigating effect is.
The best alternative to no agreement is throwing the UK a bone.
Any deal is better than no deal, so "no deal" isn't and never has been a bargaining chip because it's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. It's entirely possible though this is exactly what the political outcome will be, because politics isn't a negotiation. However, the EU in this process is acting as the technocratic bureacracy it is, bereft of politics and just straight negotiations because the political mandate has been set out 2 years ago. So political commitments of UK politicians that they'll deliver on Brexit with "no deal" if they have to, has no effect on the stance of the EU.
The EU has been very clear: it has completely closed rank in support of Ireland as it should be. After all, Ireland will remain a member and the UK wanted to leave... well, actually people were split on the question.
Which brings me to another point, people voted for leave with a stastically insignificant majority (and as such should never have carried the weight it does now) and while a majority of those who voted for leave would be happy with no deal, it's safe to assume that all Remainers were and are against a no-deal Brexit even more than a negotiated Brexit. In other words, a vast majority of UK citizens never wanted and do not currently want a no-deal Brexit.
I don’t see how a deal is the only way to go, especially if that deal is no good. May’s deal, for instance, was deemed a bad deal. Rather, It would be shooting oneself in the foot to accept a bad deal. The no-deal needs to remain on the table as another option.
“Safe to assume” is not good enough. It was once safe to assume the UK didn’t want to leave the EU. Boy, was that assumption wrong.
Emily Thornberry claims she would negotiate a deal, but then once the deal was made, would campaign against it in favor of Remain. This is the pretzel logic of Labour.
Emily Thornberry claims she would negotiate a deal, but then once the deal was made, would campaign against it in favor of Remain. This is the pretzel logic of Labour.
It's pretty straightforward. She believes that the best option is to remain, the second best option is to leave with a deal, and that the worst option is to leave without a deal. She would negotiate a deal to avoid the worst option but would campaign for the best option.
It's pretty straightforward. She believes that the best option is to remain, the second best option is to leave with a deal, and that the worst option is to leave without a deal. She would negotiate a deal to avoid the worst option but would campaign for the best option.
On the issue of Brexit it isn’t, because people voted the exact opposite of remain. That issue has already been settled, though I could see undemocratic forces undoing it, and throwing democracy itself to the wind.
I don’t see how a deal is the only way to go, especially if that deal is no good. May’s deal, for instance, was deemed a bad deal. Rather, It would be shooting oneself in the foot to accept a bad deal. The no-deal needs to remain on the table as another option.
You don't see it because you haven't thought it through.
The content of May's deal wasn't the problem. It was her trying to ram it through parliament without including mps in the discussions during the negotiation process that lead to it being rejected. If she had included representatives of Parliament in the preparations and negotiations the support would have been broad based and the resulting deal would've been pretty much the same. There's not really that many flavours to it, the divorce bill, the recognition of court decisions, recognition of licenses granted by local supervisors and obviously a trade deal.
Party politics wouldn't allow such a thing though because the Tories wanted the recognition as the party that got you Brexit and they chewed off more than they could handle. Welcome to the implosion of the Tories; the irrelevant party for the next generation.
“Safe to assume” is not good enough. It was once safe to assume the UK didn’t want to leave the EU. Boy, was that assumption wrong.
The UK didn't want to leave. A statistically insignificant majority of those who voted advised Parliament they wanted to leave the EU. And yes, it is safe to assume that those who voted against Brexit in the referendum would consider it worse to have no agreements in place at all with the EU than at least have some of them remaining. That's safe to assume because it's simple logic not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Can’t deny that. But she did negotiate a Brexit deal, agreed to by the EU.
But perhaps worse than that deal is they’re giving up their one remaining bargaining chip: a no deal Brexit.
As has been pointed out a no deal Brexit ( no idea Brexit) is not and never was a bargaining chip. The EU have always asked us what we want, but we have failed to answer the question. Once the question has been answered the EU will come to a generous accommodation, which protects the four freedoms and doesn't cherry pick benefits enjoyed by members who subscribe to the four freedoms.
The talk about a no deal was always for a domestic audience, to somehow force people to grant what Theresa May was going to present. Or more to the point to appease the rabid leavers in her own party, who were gunning for a no deal right from the beginning. And now with Johnson it is the aim, to leave with a no deal, because if we don't the Conservative party is toast.
As has been pointed out a no deal Brexit ( no idea Brexit) is not and never was a bargaining chip. The EU have always asked us what we want, but we have failed to answer the question. Once the question has been answered the EU will come to a generous accommodation, which protects the four freedoms and doesn't cherry pick benefits enjoyed by members who subscribe to the four freedoms.
The talk about a no deal was always for a domestic audience, to somehow force people to grant what Theresa May was going to present. Or more to the point to appease the rabid leavers in her own party, who were gunning for a no deal right from the beginning. And now with Johnson it is the aim, to leave with a no deal, because if we don't the Conservative party is toast.
The only way to opt out of a bad deal is to walk away from it, “no deal”. It is an important bargaining chip.
The EU already knows what the UK wants, as proven by the referendum: they want out of the EU. The deal aspect has been tacked on after the fact, willy nilly, by someone who always wanted to remain in the EU in the first place.
A 'no-deal brexit' has never been a 'default position', not even for Johnson - he's been saying (although not many believe him) that he's only threatening it to get traction in negotiations.
I read that Corbyn’s polling is dreadful. I must say I couldn’t vote for him, if I were British it would have to be Lib Dems but I can’t see them forming Government.
The same Lib Dems who propped up a Tory government for five years?
The EU already knows what the UK wants, as proven by the referendum: they want out of the EU. The deal aspect has been tacked on after the fact, willy nilly, by someone who always wanted to remain in the EU in the first place.
You're talking out of your ass. The deal aspect hasn't been slapped on willy nilly, it was never the intention of the UK government to leave in an unorganised fashion and the deal was negotiated by the tories who promised Brexit.
You seem to have no clue what leaving the EU involves after such an integration over decades. I'm just going to point out financial services. Just think about the financial services provided by UK financial entities across Europe. You leave without a deal you immediately cause those banks not to be able to offer any type of service in the EU27 and what's more they can't act in primary markets anymore thus closing of business with non-EU investors for European IPOs and (sovereign) debt issuance. LCH would no longer be accepted as a clearing organisation. Just leaving would devastate the UK financial industry.
unenlightenedSeptember 07, 2019 at 20:12#3257050 likes
You seem to have no clue what leaving the EU involves
Well never mind the trolls, never mind the great unwashed, I have very little idea what leaving with no deal means myself, and I am comparatively educated and have taken some small trouble to inform myself.
But it's not great is it? Like, when we make all these new deals with other countries, they will want a quid pro quo same as the EU. The Sovereignty and independence will last s long as it takes to negotiate a trade deal with someone else. The whole independence thing is bullshit from the start. "It's our Amazon" says Belsonaro. As if the atmosphere respects borders. As if the whole thing is a diversionary tactic, and actually, we're all dead anyway.
Reply to NOS4A2 yes, that's called contingency planning. We've got plans for when natural disasters happen as well. That's not a reason to invite them to happen. Try again.
yes, that's called contingency planning. We've got plans for when natural disasters happen as well. That's not a reason to invite them to happen. Try again.
The point is that a no-deal Brexit does not imply leaving in an unorganized fashion at all, despite your claims to the contrary.
The point is that a no-deal Brexit does not imply leaving in an unorganized fashion at all, despite your claims to the contrary.
Having to stockpile foodstuffs, medicine and manufacturing components is to mitigate the consequences of an unorganised withdrawal, it doesn't make things organised at all.
Your interest in discussing these matters is just one where you vomit opinions. Have you even read the withdrawal agreement? Can you explain to me the issue about the Irish back stop, why the alternative arrangements will or won't work and what that means for the Good Friday agreements?
If I wasn’t interested in discussing these matters I wouldn’t be discussing them. It seems you just want consensus.
If preparing for a no deal Brexit isn’t organization, I don’t know what is. But sure, if you wish to call that unorganized, I won’t hold it against you.
The point is that contingency plans do not make disasters of any sort organized. They merely try to mitigate the chaos to some degree. The government's own report makes this clear. Just read it—or at least about it.
Reply to NOS4A2 Theresa May's deal was actually a really good deal, it managed to dovetail the possibility of an independent trade policy with close alignment with the single market and customs union and with an end to free movement. Preparing the way for an almost seamless move into an implementation period. A serious document which had been hammered out in detailed and close negotiations for 18 months. If we were leaving I would have been happy with it.
There are two reasons why we have ended up in this pickle ( well apart from the failure to work cross party which I have already pointed out).
1, the impossibility of squaring the circle of the Irish border problem and squaring the circle of an independent trade policy, while retaining a close relationship with the EU. Something which has become more and more evident as time has gone by.
2, the rabid hard Brexit ambitions of the ERG, which was never going to accept any deal, while having a stranglehold on the government.
I'll let you into a secret, THE ENTIRE BREXIT PROJECT IS A TRAGIC FRACTURING AND PSYCHO DRAMA WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY. Everything else is collateral damage. This has been developing and is well documented for over 40 years.
If preparing for a no deal Brexit isn’t organization, I don’t know what is. But sure, if you wish to call that unorganized, I won’t hold it against you.
The withdrawal is unorganized in case of a no deal Brexit, that's doesn't mean people cannot plan to mitigate the consequences of that fall out. Your mistake is to think the latter makes the former organised. It doesn't but this point seems rather obvious.
That’s fair. But I don’t get the unmitigated fears. Article 50 seems pretty straight forward. The only thing that happens is the treaty no longer applies to you. Work out all the kinks after.
I'm from Ireland. The kink here is a potential return to violence. If the UK crashes out with no-deal, there'll have to be a hard border on the island, and that means the Good Friday agreement is down the tubes. That's a deadly serious issue.
Well, according to Stanley Johnson, Boris's dad, it doesn't matter because, and I quote, “if the Irish people want to shoot each other, they will shoot each other”.
The British and Irish governments agreed there would be no hard border on the island of Ireland. Free movement north and south. That was part of the compromise that ended the war up there. Dumping that commitment in pursuit of a hard Brexit is as unpincipled as China reneging on its agreements with Britain over Hong Kong.
(You might begin to understand now why the EU and Ireland will never submit to Boris's tough guy act and why his "negotiations" are all just a vain show. It's not intransigence on their part, it's bringing Britain to heel on its irresponsible demands. And that will not change.
So, British leavers can huff and puff about a hard Brexit all they want, but they won't get a deal that drags Northern Ireland away from its integrated relationship with the South; and with no-deal off the table, their only other option will be to draw up a customs border between themselves and Northern Ireland. In other words, initiate a de facto break-up of the UK—which would just be the beginning as Scotland would almost certainly desert next with Northern Ireland very possibly then going the whole hog and joining the South).
I don’t see how a deal is the only way to go, especially if that deal is no good. May’s deal, for instance, was deemed a bad deal. Rather, It would be shooting oneself in the foot to accept a bad deal. The no-deal needs to remain on the table as another option.
Ha! "No deal's better than a bad deal"? But realistically no deal is always going to be worse than a deal. A deal worse than no deal is merely hypothetical!
Yes, the same Lib Dems who opposed Labour's war in Iraq.
New Labour's, and our current leader opposed it.
Did you know that the current leader of the Lib Dems almost always voted for the bedroom tax, consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices, generally voted against a banker’s bonus tax, almost always voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax, infamously u-turned by having consistently voted for university tuition fees and by voting for raising England’s undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000 per year, consistently voted for ending financial support for some 16-19 year olds in training and further education, consistently voted for selling England’s state owned forests, generally voted against financial incentives for low carbon emission electricity generation methods, generally voted against greater regulation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract shale gas, consistently voted against slowing the rise in rail fares, generally voted against greater regulation of gambling, consistently voted for capping civil service redundancy payments, almost always voted against Labour's anti-terrorism laws, generally voted for the privatisation of Royal Mail, generally voted for restricting the scope of legal aid, and generally voted for the policies included in the 2010 Conservative - Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement?
So, she can't be trusted to support the least financially well off in society, can't be trusted to tackle ruthless capitalism, can't be trusted on national security, can't be trusted on education, and can't be trusted on the environment.
Reply to Baden The only way I can see the government getting a deal is if the backstop applies only to Northern Ireland with a border down the Irish Sea. But even this is not going to be possible now for the government, as it requires throwing the DUP under the bus.
The only sensible way forward, if we are determined to leave, that I can see is if article 50 is revoked for the purposes of holding a border poll in Northern Ireland and returning to Brexit when that has been sorted out. I know how difficult and divisive this could be, but the cold hard facts are coming to the surface now and the leavers will have to face them.
Well there is another solution, which many in the Labour Party would support is remaining in the single market, so there would be no need for a backstop. But if that is the case surely it is better to remain in the EU, so as to remain a party to the legislature of the EU, rather than in a limbo where we don't have a voice in the EU.
Which everway you turn there are intractable problems like this. More cold hard facts for the leavers to chew on.
Which everway you turn there are intractable problems like this. More cold hard facts for the leavers to chew on.
Not just the leavers. The undecided. And remainers who might be thinking 'Enough already' - a soft Brexit is better than a hard one. Some compromise to reach a majority is required. Otherwise this will be never-ending. I am not convinced that another referendum or general election will accomplish this.
People and politicians are tired of it all. This is when mistakes happen.
Johnson and co are making this more difficult. However, people are easily hoodwinked by the lies.
They are persuaded by easy rhetoric and believe media messages even as they disbelieve.
I am getting pretty tired of the generalisations and accusations flying around. We need concise facts in easy to understand format before rational decision making. Trouble is that it is more about stirring up emotions. Politicians behaving badly might inspire some to extreme anger and violence. It is grossly irresponsible that Johnson is talking about not following the law.
The cold, hard facts have been around for some time in various reports, some of which are still kept hidden. For the general public, leavers, remainders and the undecided - it is essential that before they vote that the consequences are made absolutely clear. I know some who didn't vote last time because they they didn't know. It is only when it hits home personally in travel, business, jobs or family that it becomes real.
So, who gains from Brexit and how? Rees-Mogg 'the Lying Tory' Brexit Billionaire.
Many people decided based on emotion and basic bus promises.
Immigration and the NHS - two main issues. Do we need to leave the EU to solve the problems ?
No.
Hint: Is it Parliament, or the Queen's Government which makes laws?
How laws are made:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/
The role of the Queen:
https://www.bmsf.org.uk/about-the-monarchy/the-queen/the-queen-in-the-government/
I'm from Ireland. The kink here is a potential return to violence. If the UK crashes out with no-deal, there'll have to be a hard border on the island, and that means the Good Friday agreement is down the tubes. That's a deadly serious issue.
Yes.
It is serious and fraught with dangers.
With no clear answers and no trust in Johnson, how will it be solved ? The latest:
European officials have accused Boris Johnson of “reneging” on pledges to uphold the Good Friday agreement, ahead of the prime minister’s first meeting with his Irish counterpart.
Johnson will meet the Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, in Dublin on Monday at a tumultuous moment in the Brexit process, with only 52 days until the UK’s departure. Talks are set to be tense as fears grow in Dublin and Brussels that the British prime minister is backsliding on promises to protect the tightly knit economic and social links on the island of Ireland.
“The commitment to all aspects and all the provisions of the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement recently seems to be taken more lightly than before,” a senior diplomat from a continental member state told the Guardian. “This avoidance of the hard border, it is not just a desire, it is not just about preferences, it is legal obligation.”...
...A UK government spokesperson firmly rejected suggestions the government was not committed to the Good Friday agreement. “We are committed to the common travel area, to upholding the rights of citizens of Northern Ireland, to ongoing north-south cooperation, to retaining the benefits of the single electricity market. We remain firmly committed to peace in Northern Ireland and the Belfast agreement.
“The Belfast/Good Friday agreement neither depends upon, nor requires a particular customs or regulatory regime. The broader commitments in the Belfast/ Good Friday agreement include parity of esteem, partnership, democracy and a peaceful means of resolving differences. This would be best met if we could explore solutions other than the backstop.”
“We have been clear that we are happy to accept a legally binding commitment not to put infrastructure, controls or checks at the border. We hope the EU do likewise.”
It’s been obvious for decades that the eight-word British constitution established in 1689 – what the crown assents in parliament is law – is a decaying, time-worn construct on which to protect and advance today’s democracy...
...Those countries that use referendums a lot, Switzerland and Ireland, for example, have elaborate rules for how they are conducted. In Britain, typically, there are no pre-agreed rules, just ad-hoc legislation arising from the particular power conjuncture of the day: the Cameron government on the run before its rightwing Eurosceptic zealots...
...To win then and now, those in favour of EU membership needed to recognise they had to trump the narrative of an undemocratic Europe by recognising more profound democratic failings at home. Balking at such radicalism, Remain instead found itself the advocate of a hard-to-justify status quo; an archaic state, a decaying democracy and rampant social inequality inflamed by fears of immigration. Leave was allowed to blame it all on the EU – cover for their ultra-rightwing ambitions.
A wholesale change of mindset was needed. Remain should have stood for a re-democratised Britain that put power in the hands of the people and for transformative economic and social change that would make Britain better, not worse. To leave the EU, it should have said, would be to abandon that prospect.
[ my bolds]
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/01/sheer-scale-of-crisis-facing-britains-constitution-has-been-laid-bare
...It has been clear from the outset that the people behind Brexit have very clear intentions.
The EU is a capitalist entity that not only rejects the worst aspects of the US system but has the clout to resist its encroachments.
The disaster capitalists who want to discard laws designed to limit the ill effects of capitalism on employment, the environment, the climate, food, health etc and unleash an unrestricted race to the bottom will get even richer if Brexit goes through.
This was always the purpose behind Brexit, whatever lies have been put up to hide it. These are not people who will be harmed by a no-deal Brexit; on the contrary, the potential to take advantage of it is almost unlimited.
[my bolds]
So, this seems straightforward.The EU v the USA ?
Progress and protect with the more enlightened v Regress with the Hard-Right removing rights.
The rhetoric of 'you are either with us, or against us'.
Is it as simple as that ? We will never walk alone but which path will we follow...
The British and Irish governments agreed there would be no hard border on the island of Ireland. Free movement north and south. That was part of the compromise that ended the war up there. Dumping that commitment in pursuit of a hard Brexit is as unpincipled as China reneging on its agreements with Britain over Hong Kong.
Was there violence when Ireland initially rejected the treaty of Lisbon? What occurred at the border then?
What is Jeremy Corbyn's current condition for agreeing a general election?
[quote=Corbyn's spokesperson]“The bill that is going to parliament today needs to pass. It needs to pass all its stages. It needs to go through and have royal assent – and once we’re confident they can’t crash out and no deal is taken off the table for 31 October, we will support a general election,” he said.[/quote]
And what happens if there is no royal assent for the extension bill?
There will be.
[quote=https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/]Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1707, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality.[/quote]
Due to past treaties I suppose. So I guess that means only when zero treaties apply, violence begins.
I’m still very sceptical of the Brexit fear mongering. Economic collapse, violence along borders—I don’t see how these fears are warranted, and in fact has contributed to the uncertainty over the past few years. I guess time will tell.
Reply to Galuchat I was referring specifically to the sentence that states Royal Assent to be a formality. It's passed both Houses and so will receive Royal Assent and become law.
It's a warranted presupposition. There's no reason to believe that it won't receive Royal Assent. It's passed both Houses.
It's also by the same reasoning that I am warranted in believing that the Queen will appoint as Prime Minister the leader of the party which commands a majority in Parliament after the next General Election (or the leader of the largest party should Parliament be hung and a majority attained by coalition or confidence and supply agreement), and not some random backbencher in a minority party.
But perhaps you could be a little less vague and explain to me what it is you think could happen to prevent the Bill receiving Royal Assent because as it stands I have no idea what you're trying to suggest.
You presuppose it is impossible the bill wouldn't receive Royal Assent without the Monarch refusing assent.
Well, I suppose we could end up a republic before the Queen gives Royal Assent, but that's not a realistic possibility. The only realistic possibility is what Micheal just said.
Well, populism once again reared its ugly head. Now, thanks to all the social media, it's easier than ever to brainwash people (the so called 'hoi polloi' :) ) Empty phrases, like: "take back control", "unelected bureaucrats" etc. put the masses in 'frenzy mode'. Some people need to learn things the hard way in the absence of any sort of insight. I think EU will be better off without UK, as long as UK is stuck in the past thinking they are a great empire. Just let them sober up and then we can consider letting them in again but without all the undeserved benefits they are enjoying now.
Just let them sober up and then we can consider letting them in again but without all the undeserved benefits they are enjoying now
Bring it on, anything is better than this. Remember it is only about a third of the population that has been brainwashed, another third is looking on in horror and astonishment.
ChangelingSeptember 09, 2019 at 05:30#3262700 likes
Reply to Evil They are the people who didn't vote, either they don't know, or can't vote, or won't vote perhaps.
I expect a proportion of them are looking on in horror, and some are so bored they just want to jump of the cliff, just to end it.
Yes, I bear that in mind, and I apologise to that "third", I didn't mean them.
Thats ok, this illustrates the problem of populism, it generates divisions where is there are none, by exploiting moderate human behaviour.
For example Johnson simply needs to meet the EU leaders and insult them in person and they will find it difficult not to respond with an insult and to then grant the extension which he doesn't want.
For example Johnson simply needs to meet the EU leaders and insult them in person and they will find it difficult not to respond with an insult and to then grant the extension which he doesn't want.
Frankly, at this level I would like to expect EU politicians to be above such cheap tricks.
I haven't seen any good explanations of why Boris can kick people out of the conservative party. I'm pretty sure it's not a power prime ministers (or the leader of the party) have in most other party systems; more people would be involved to kick someone out (if it's possible at all, considering citizen party members voted for them). Or am I missing some detail such as Boris controlling the "kick out committee" or that the MP's in question technically quit? In other countries, kicking a single person out of the party would be a pretty complicated process and a scandal if it's for "just voting against the PM", but it seems to have passed as a completely normal event kicking 20 MP's out. Or is there just too much other chaos to dwell on this detail? Am genuinely confused. Drop a link if there's a good article about it.
unenlightenedSeptember 09, 2019 at 10:27#3263580 likes
Reply to boethius My understanding is that 2 things have happened to these people. The whip has been withdrawn, which means they are no longer part of the parliamentary party. This is informal and means you are no longer in on the tactics, considered for any positions, or consulted about anything.
He's proroging at the first opportunity, while demanding an election. Both tactics which are pushing for a process leading to a Queen's speech. Ideally for Johnson, before 31st October( which is why the government had a hissy fit when The opposition didn't support an election). This exposes his position regarding a deal. He wants to bring back May's deal with ( which the speaker won't allow during this session of parliament) the backstop confined to Northern Ireland. He will then bring it back to the commons during the week before the deadline and present the MPs with a cliff edge, a deadly serious deadline this time, and try to force it through. Unfortunately in order to get it through he will need a lot of Labour votes. Something which is tragically impossible, at least with the current parliament. Also there is an open goal for a vote of confidence, which Corbyn can call at anytime, after the prorogation period, unless he sneaks it in this evening before it.
However if he gets his general election before the deadline all he has to do is agree an election pact with the Brexit party and he's laughing, or so he thinks. Because it will result in a fatal split in the Conservative party.
The opposition smells a rat and won't agree to an election until after the deadline, which fatally weakens Johnson, as the Brexit party will then demolish the Conservative party. Thus ushering in a Corbyn government.
Bercow was being accused by Johnson of impartiality.
I think you mean the opposite. He's also been accused of a failure of political correctness towards women and a tendency to bullying. His popularity will soar with his resignation, which is clearly timed to ensure that the new speaker is elected by the current parliament and not a possible post election Johnson Government.
The Boris bridge from Northern Ireland to Scotland will save the day. Maybe someone should point out to him that both ends of the bridge might soon be in the EU.
In a summary of their findings, the Court of Session judges said that the suspension of Parliament was motivated by a desire to "stymy Parliament".
They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
Their full judgment will be released on Friday.
StreetlightSeptember 11, 2019 at 09:31#3273060 likes
"stymy Parliament".
Interesting. I've always spelt this as 'stymie'. But apparently this is OK too. Cool.
The whole idiocy is as wonderful lesson in not allowing internal tory ambition-battles to destroy our Country. Next time, if we must have one, let's send to Switzerland to discover how to organise meaningful referendums. For me, though, it would be pleasing to return to traditional British Parliamentary Democracy.
6. The BDG/DfT planning assumption on reduced flow rates describes a pre-mitigation reasonable worst case flow rate that could be as low as 40% DIND via the short Channel Straits, with significant disruption lasting up to six months. Unmitigated, this will have an impact on the supply of medicines and medical supplies.
The reliance of medicines and medical products' supply chains on the short straits crossing make them particularly vulnerable to severe extended delays; three-quarters of medicines come via the short straits. Supply chains are also highly regulated and require transportation that meets strict Good Distribution Practices. This can include limits on time of transit, or mean product must be transported under temperature controlled conditions. Whilst some products can be stockpiled, others cannot due to short shelf lives - it will also not be practical to stockpile products to cover expected delays of up to six months. DHSC is developing a multi-layered approach to mitigate these risks. (DHSC)
ii. Any disruption to reduce, delay or stop supply of medicines for UK veterinary use would reduce our ability to prevent and control disease outbreaks, with potential detrimental impacts for animal health and welfare, the environment, and wider food safety/availability and zoonotic diseases which can directly impact human health.
Industry stockpiling will not be able to match the 4-12 weeks' worth of stockpiling which took place in March 2019. Air freight capacity and the special import scheme is not a financially viable mitigation to fully close risks associated with all UK veterinary medicine availability issues due to border disruption. (DEFRA)
7. Certain types of fresh food supply will decrease. Critical dependencies for the food supply chain (such as key input ingredients, chemicals and packaging) may be in shorter supply. In combination, these two factors will not cause an overall shortage of food in the UK but will reduce availability and choice of products and will increase price, which could impact vulnerable groups.
The UK growing season will have come to an end and the Agri-food supply chain will be under increased pressure at this time of year, due to preparations for Christmas, which is the busiest time of year for food retailers. Government will not be able to fully anticipate all potential impacts to the agri-food supply chain. There is a risk that panic buying will cause or exacerbate food supply disruption. (DEFRA)
ii. Public water services are likely to remain largely unaffected due to actions now being taken by water companies. The most significant single risk is a failure in the chemical supply chain. The likelihood of this occurring is considered low and the impact is likely to be localised, affecting up to 100,000's of people.
Water companies are well prepared for any disruption; they have significant stocks of all critical chemicals, extensive monitoring of their chemical supply chains (including transportation and all deliveries) and mutual agreements in place. In the event of a supply chain failure, or the need to respond rapidly to other water supply incidents, urgent action may need to be taken to make sure people continue to have access to clean water. (DEFRA)
There's a redacted section that an earlier leak provides:
Tariffs make UK petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability, but UK government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to big financial losses and the closure of two refineries (which are converted to import terminals) with about 2,000 direct job losses. Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions they directly supply. Government analysis of the impact of no-deal on refineries continues.
Its not very detailed, it looks like a summary to me. I wonder what point 15 is about.
It must be a summary. It's way too short for the proper assessment. Interestingly a senior editor of the Sunday Times said she received a copy of this last month and it was labelled as a base assessment whereas this one says it's a worse case scenario. Did they edit this before release?
This is point 15:
Tariffs make UK petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability, but UK government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to big financial losses and the closure of two refineries (which are converted to import terminals) with about 2,000 direct job losses. Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions they directly supply. Government analysis of the impact of no-deal on refineries continues.
Brexit and Johnson
Prorogation means he avoids regular Parliamentary scrutiny. Important Investigative Select Committees are not held. Yesterday the cowardly PM took to Facebook.
From the satirical politics sketch:
Midway through an afternoon on which he had avoided facing 45 minutes of prime minister’s questions and a further two hours of interrogation at the liaison committee by proroguing parliament, Boris Johnson decided he would subject himself to a gruelling 14 minutes of cross-examination in “people’sPMQs” on Facebook Live.
Talking of Facebook.This.
'Data, Democracy and Dirty Tricks'.
All summer in No.10, the Prime Minister and his chief adviser Dominic Cummings laid the groundwork for an early election to fix their version of Brexit.
Both know how crucial targeted online adverts will be in that campaign, just as they were in the referendum in 2016 and in Donald Trump’s presidential election. But how robust are the rules governing the tech giants like Facebook?
Excellent 6 minutes worth. Covering constitutional crises in both UK and USA and the issue of freedom of speech.
A parallel case was heard by the high court in London last week with a different outcome. The judges neither rejected nor accepted the claimant’s view of the government’s ulterior motive. They declared instead that a prime minister’s agenda for prorogation was a point of political contention, so not justiciable.
This vexed matter now passes on to the supreme court. If the Scottish appeal court’s verdict prevails, prorogation will have to be undone. The prime minister will be steeped in disgrace to depths that would once have submerged the career of any politician. Even if the English high court interpretation ends up being preferred, the dishonesty of Mr Johnson’s prorogation gambit has been recorded as a matter of fact. The salient technical question is not whether he is a liar, but whether a constitutional procedure based on his lies should be invalidated.
If the matter of prorogation is 'not justiciable' then how can it be properly and effectively contested.
Parliament has been shut down, so where can it go...?
We wait and see.
SNP’s Joanna Cherry: ‘I would be cautiously optimistic Supreme Court will follow lead of Scottish court’
Judges in Belfast have ruled that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was lawful and would not damage the Northern Ireland peace process.
The high court decision follows a landmark ruling by Scottish judges on Wednesday that said the prime minister acted illegally in proroguing parliament in order to stifle debate in the Commons.
The Belfast case, involving three cases, turned on partially different legal issues to the cases heard in London and Edinburgh.
Edit to add.
Correction from Guardian Live:
'Here is our latest story on the judgment from the high court in Belfast on Brexit. I’ve corrected the earlier post on this (see 11.38am) because it said the prorogation legal challenge was thrown out.
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.'
If the matter of prorogation is 'not justiciable' then how can it be properly and effectively contested.
If it's not justiciable then short of a violent rebellion, what stops a malicious government from proroguing Parliament indefinitely? For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful.
If it's not justiciable then short of a violent rebellion, what stops a malicious government from proroguing Parliament indefinitely? For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful.
I would hope there are other means other than violence. That would play into their hands.
Joanna Cherry ( in the Channel 4 interview ) remarks that the action to shut down Parliament so as to avoid scrutiny of the damaging effects of Brexit is more like that of a fascist dictatorship.
There is another aspect being played out.
Johnson is angling for 'the People v Parliament' where he is at one with the 'People'.
Next up, will it be 'the People v the Courts' ?
'We spoke to former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption and asked him whether we are now facing a constitutional crisis.' From:
If we insist on non-British set-ups like referendums to settle tory squabbles, we'll into non-British politics like assassinations and Civil War (which we gave up for voting). The tories have always hated the UK and democracy and, fair play, have never made any secret about that. The fault lies with the mugs who believe whatever their masters tell 'em.
If it's not justiciable then short of a violent rebellion, what stops a malicious government from proroguing Parliament indefinitely? For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful.
It looks like this has not been tested before and so the Supreme Court will have to set precedent. I expect it will rule that the executive will have to be accountable to the judiciary, as otherwise a prime minister can silence the very parliament he or she is accountable to at will, exposing a gaping hole in our constitution. Normally the time this would take would not be at issue. But in this case, it is the longest prorogation in peacetime for hundreds of years, at the same time that the clock is running down for a massive constitutional change. I would trust that Dominic Grieve will win the day on this one. Particularly in the light of the ruling on Monday that the government must provide all the correspondence relating to prorogation by last Wednesday( now expired), which the government has failed to do.
It looks like this has not been tested before and so the Supreme Court will have to set precedent. I expect it will rule that the executive will have to be accountable to the judiciary, as otherwise a prime minister can silence the very parliament he or she is accountable to at will, exposing a gaping hole in our constitution
Well, at least the Scottish Parliament is still open for business.
'Nicola Sturgeon has said the Scottish government’s copy of the Yellowhammer no-deal Brexit scenario plans was marked “base scenario”, disputing claims by Michael Gove that the documents were a worst case scenario.
Sturgeon told first minister’s questions at Holyrood it was “completely outrageous” that the UK government was contemplating a situation where medicines would be in short supply. She said it was essential that Westminster was urgently reconvened, to allow MPs to question ministers on Brexit and the Yellowhammer forecasts.
The first minister told MSPs: The question for the prime minister and the government is why on earth parliament is still suspended - if any government needed scrutiny, it’s this one.'
A Bridge connecting Scotland and Ireland. Majorly big distraction. Totally taking the piss.
Why is he getting away with all this utter bullshit ? Another huge waste of time, money and resources.
Johnson originally floated this idea in an interview with the Sunday Times last year. At the time his proposal was considered fanciful, but this week Channel 4 News revealed that government officials have been asked to produce a paper on the costs and benefits of such a plan.
The original Sunday Times story about Johnson’s proposal provoked a memorable letter to the paper from a retired offshore engineer who said the idea was “about as feasible as building a bridge to the moon”
When pressed on the meaning of the expression “non-justiciable”, counsel for the respondent conceded that in some circumstances the court might hold that the power to prorogue Parliament had not been validly exercised: for example, if Parliament were prorogued for two years, or if the governing party lost its majority at a general election and immediately thereafter attempted to prorogue Parliament. In my opinion that concession was properly made. What the concession acknowledges, however, is that the power to prorogue Parliament is subject to judicial review by the courts. For the reasons stated in the last paragraph I am of opinion that this is inevitable: the courts must have jurisdiction to determine whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised.
Reply to S I like the wood used to make the fire, as the Palace of Westminster is undergoing major refurbishment, it is constructed from timber taken from the Houses of Parliament.
Reply to Amity Yesterday he announced the commissioning of two new warships, which will be built in Belfast. More bribes to the DUP to get them onside. It's not going to work though, as it's their nature to never agree to anything.
I was watching him on the TV lastnight playing with some kids with a model container ship, he was just like a two year old toddler playing with toys.
This: 'For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful.'
I agree with your thoughts on this. As with the final Scottish legal opinion.
Meanwhile Johnson and team have misrepresented the finding of the English court as being for them. It is not. And is now under appeal.
We must wait for the UK supreme court. There is to be a 3 day hearing, starting on 17th September to look at all 3 appeals from Edinburgh, Belfast and London.
Breaking news, Johnson is going to re-name Great Britain the Titanic.
Let's not be tempted to make this all about Johnson. There is another thread specially for him. It's easy to mix them up. Another thing I am guilty of is simply reporting the latest news. I forget where I am.
Should we not be bringing in, and connecting, the philosophical perspective more than the political and legal ?
At least, we are talking about 'democracy' and issues of media and social manipulation.
Otherwise, this thread could just as easily be swept into a Lounge area? *
Just thinking aloud...
* Scrap all that. I see this thread is under 'Interesting stuff'- politics and current affairs not political philosophy :smile:
Reply to Amity Quite, when I think about the philosophy of this, I see populists muddying the waters and rubbishing any chance of the public considering the choices involved, or any means of determining the will of the people. All I can say is that the British parliament needs reforming now.
Reply to Punshhh
Exactly.
Proroguing parliament - what a wheeze, eh?
Online dictionary:Wheeze
INFORMAL•BRITISH
a clever or amusing scheme, idea, or trick.
"a new wheeze to help farmers"
synonyms:scheme, plan, idea, tactic, move, stratagem, ploy, gambit, device, manoeuvre, contrivance...
As well as avoiding scrutiny of a Hard Brexit, prorogation gives more time for the photo ops with children, bulls, police, fish and whatever as the PM tours the country electioneering.
A benevolent dictatorship?
I would like to ask the British here one question, even thought of opening a different thread:
What has happened to the Conservative Party?
There might be not many that have actually voted for them (yes, I understand this is a Philosophy Forum), yet for a foreigner it looks that the party simply doesn't look like the one that was in power during the time of Thatcher and John Major. Especially it doesn't look conservative to me.
It's an interesting question and a complex answer. I would suggest two movements both originating in the US, and influencing through Thatcher and Blair primarily. The Thatcher effect is basically the neoliberal turn exemplified by 'there's no such thing as society'. - an ideological individualism justified by some Rand/ social darwinian philosophy. The Blair effect is basic populism, there is only one inviolable principle, 'get elected' - spin becomes fake news.
The combination of individualism and amoral power seeking results in social collapse.
Reply to ssu I've seen it first hand. Older upper middle class Conservatives, became spooked by the Germans in the 70's and 80's. I don't think it was justified, I think it was an outdated wartime mind set which was becoming paranoid. It happened to my parents, who were Conservative councillors, who were involved in the twinning movement and went on many local government exchanges to German cities, and French ones too. But at some point, they became infected with this suspicion and once it had started, it became set in. This incubated under the surface for many years until the development of UKIP, which only deepened the mistrust and widened splits of opinion within the Conservative party. The rest is history.
I too believe that there is something of a more general phenomenon working here than just something unique to British politics. In Europe the main problem is that there hasn't been a proper way or entity to critique the flaws or the shortcomings of the EU integration and EU itself from conservative/right-wing stance leading to populist "fringe" movements taking over the issue, typically new political movements or parties that are basically defined just by their anti-EU stance and not much else centered around one politician. EU has only tolerated a pro-integration federalist discourse and paints anything else as "nationalist". As the political elites have gone along with this (with perhaps the exception of the UK starting with Thatcher), criticism has been left to the previous "fringe" populists. The outcome has been obvious: in many countries the political landscape has changed and especially centrist parties are having a tough time. And sometimes the populists can take over a right-wing party (as they can a moderate left-wing party too).
Both in the US and in the EU the neoliberal development, globalization, has not only been criticized from the left, but also from the right, which is now obvious several years to the Trump administration. Neither the left or the right are happy with the power of lobbyists and corporations in present have. This can easily morph into populist anti-elitism. Once this populism gets into the political discourse, you are far away from consensus building and normal politics etc. as the last thing populists try to reach is a political consensus on the policies.
EcharmionSeptember 15, 2019 at 19:54#3290440 likes
EU has only tolerated a pro-integration federalist discourse and paints anything else as "nationalist".
The thing is, there has been, and still is, very little substantive criticism of the EU. Much of what is touted as "criticism" is, in fact, either nationalism or straight up lies. A sizeable portion of the people who voted for Brexit probably have nationalistic ideas. Just like a lot of the people who voted for Trump do agree with his stances on race, gender and nationalism.
The truth about the EU is that a lot of it's faults, like the power of the commission and the relative lack of democratic legitimacy, exist because they work in favour of the national governments. They give those governments the power to push through unpopular legislation, with the added benefit of being able to later blame the EU and lament it's faults.
And yet there are European countries part of the EU that are less democratic. The democratic deficit of the EU has been exaggerated for years now following a German constitutional court decision referring to a democratic deficit. But that turned on the matter that there's no real way to reconcile representation of the electorate (EU Parliament) with equal representation of states in international affairs (European Council and Council of Ministers). Both bodies need to approve laws even if the appointed Commission (by elected officials) is the body initiating bills.
The thing is, there has been, and still is, very little substantive criticism of the EU. Much of what is touted as "criticism" is, in fact, either nationalism or straight up lies.
That is how the debate is portrayed, unfortunately.
The real problem is that you need to be critical to improve things, but if you assume that every criticism is some kind of nationalist lie, you won't go far. The only "criticism" that is tolerated is that the federalization program hasn't gone far enough and we need more integration, which is simply one agenda that is pushed in the EU.
There's actually a lot of criticism directed towards the EU starting up with the bureaucracy of the organization, the lack of transparency, the peculiar illogical things like the EU Parliament hopping from Brussels to Strasbourg and back. Or things like Greece could outright lie of it's fiscal situation in order to wiggle it's way to the monetary union (and that people believed that with monetary union the countries would start acting in the same way). How well could the EU handle the Yugoslav civil war? The EU was totally incapable of doing anything. How well is the EU managing now it's foreign policy? Turkey wants to occupy parts of Syria and if it doesn't get it's way, it has hinted that it will open it's gates for more refugees to enter the EU. And what just is the EU? For years the EU was basically a large organization for handing out agricultural subsidies (and still is, actually).
The real problem is that what the EU needs is self-criticism and a debate how to improve it, which way should it go. It's hardly not only about two options: a) the EU has to be formed to be like the US or b) It's a monstrosity that has to be done away with quickly.
The truth about the EU is that a lot of it's faults, like the power of the commission and the relative lack of democratic legitimacy, exist because they work in favour of the national governments.
Why would this be a surprise? The EU was formed by national governments. It's wasn't formed by Napoleon (or Hitler), but with genuinely sovereign states coming together and through co-operation between them. Why then do you find this to be the problem? It's like some movie fans creating a fan club and then someone coming and objecting to the fact that the fan club is made of movie fans!
In Europe the main problem is that there hasn't been a proper way or entity to critique the flaws or the shortcomings of the EU integration
This is my perception, it appears rigid and inflexible. In a world which is changing in ways which were not foreseen when the project was conceived the EU appears to be caught in the headlights and unable to act. I am no expert on the EU, as it is perceived as a distant entity from inside the UK, indeed until the referendum was announced, it was very low on the agenda for the majority of the population. It was issues brought about by free movement of people which was causing anti EU sentiment in places like East Anglia where I live and the right wing populist movement in the north of the country.
David Cameron travelled to Europe in 2015 to explain to the leaders of the EU 27 and the commissioners that this was a serious and growing issue and that he was seeking some kind of remedy, otherwise it could result in a referendum to leave. He pressed his case hard but the EU was unable to provide sufficient flexibility. I can't see how they could have prevented this crisis by showing sufficient flexibility, as they are to rigid. So this outcome was inevitable and yet the EU appeared helpless to adapt to a changing world, or to have sufficient foresight when they welcomed in the Eastern European countries, to put in place rules which would enable members to mitigate issues brought about by such expansion.
It seems now, following the publication of David Cameron's memoirs, that many people did not realise the strength of the hard right within the Conservative party. Or how much leverage they would find once the referendum was announced. He was surprised how ugly the campaign became and depressed watching the groundswell of anti EU sentiment which developed. In the three areas of, right wing anti EU Conservatives, the population in East Anglia and Lincolnshire who experienced the influx of EU workers and the right wing populist movement in the north of England and the West Country.
There's actually a lot of criticism directed towards the EU starting up with the bureaucracy of the organization, the lack of transparency, the peculiar illogical things like the EU Parliament hopping from Brussels to Strasbourg and back.
Agree. I am not an expert on the EU. Some here obviously have more political savvy and personal experience. However, there is value in Google and Wikipedia for starters in Eurosceptism:
' The main sources of Euroscepticism have been beliefs that integration undermines national sovereignty and the nation state, that the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency,that it is too bureaucratic and wasteful, that it encourages high levels of migration, or perceptions that it is a neoliberal organisation serving the business elite at the expense of the working class, responsible for austerity and driving privatization...'
[ my bolds ]
Note well, 'beliefs'. Where is the evidence? How does it compare to the nation states ?
Who is it that is responsible for the austerity policies ? Which party is it that is now promising money and resources from the money tree they didn't have before?
It was issues brought about by free movement of people which was causing anti EU sentiment i
'Freedom of movement' is important. I think it vital that it continues but with constraints where necessary. Did the UK not already have the power to control the more troubling aspects ?
Why blame the EU ? It encompasses more than the 'they are taking our jobs' and 'benefit scroungers'.
It is not just a one way process.
The real problem is that what the EU needs is self-criticism and a debate how to improve it, which way should it go. It's hardly not only about two options: a) the EU has to be formed to be like the US or b) It's a monstrosity that has to be done away with quickly.
Agreed. Does this not happen ? What are the mechanisms? Who would win the argument and using what evidence? What are the other options ?
the EU was unable to provide sufficient flexibility.
Why not ? Was it simply a power struggle - a feeling of being under attack ? So much of this is phrased in terms of aggression and war. Johnson now apparently bringing the Hulk into it. His colourful language is not helping matters. He may be flexing his imaginary muscles but flexibility in thought is beyond him and the extreme right-wing contingent. And yet, they accuse others. It's all a bit like bullies in the playground.
Reply to Amity On the freedom of movement issue, I agree, it is a good thing. There is an issue with numbers of Polish people moving into East Anglia and Lincolnshire. This is not exclusively due to their taking jobs and scrounging. It is more to do with the changing of identity of small and medium sized towns in these areas. Many of which feel more like Polish towns than English towns( ref my post a few pages back).
Also perhaps the EU should have considered such consequences when forming the union better than they did, or revised policy when enlarging the EU. I see no sign of any flexibility here.
I agree there is, or so I've heard, more the UK could have done, but didn't. But the perception was that there wasn't.
Why would this be a surprise? The EU was formed by national governments. It's wasn't formed by Napoleon (or Hitler), but with genuinely sovereign states coming together and through co-operation between them. Why then do you find this to be the problem? It's like some movie fans creating a fan club and then someone coming and objecting to the fact that the fan club is made of movie fans!
This analogy doesn't work. The EU passes laws which often have direct effect in the national legal order even if national legislators fail to implement it in time. Fan clubs don't affect those around them in a similar way.
Laws require legitimacy to be acceptable. Since the EU countries are all reportedly democracies that legitimacy is expected to be democratic. As pointed out above, the EU's legitimacy issue is finding the balance between the equality of nations and representative democracy of the electorate. It's not, and hasn't been since 1979, a club of only states and their national interests.
The EU has fraud issues both at the national level where EU subsidies are spent and within the EU organisation itself. At the same time, I don't think the EU apparatus itself is very expensive considering what it does when compared to, for instance, US institutions with similar functions. Except for the parliament and european council and council of ministers there might be misspending but the budgets are still relatively tight.
He pressed his case hard but the EU was unable to provide sufficient flexibility.
I think the issue here was that it wasn't an opt out, which you decide before signing up to an aspect of the EU legal regime but an attempt to renegotiate what was already agreed. This isn't too much of an issue where it concerns contributions to the EU, which is a continuous negotiation, but it's different when you want to change existing laws. If you allow renegotiating on a case-by-case basis you create a precedent that's not wanted for a political project that intends to integrate European countries.
It's not as if the Netherlands doesn't have people grumbling about foreigners (Polish or otherwise) but we don't blame this on the EU for the most part (only about 20% of voters does).
Also, thinking about it, it's also a sort of cognitive dissonance: EU please solve our problem by giving us special treatment but also stop butting in.
It's amazing that before Cameron introduced this insanity, it was a nonsense confined to Tory fanatics. Once he'd produced a referendum, it got heavily mixed up with tory ambitions and the mugs seem to have regarded their as a bit like a football team you support against all reason. Fake 'democracy' has never looked quite this ludicrous, has it?
Reply to Benkei My point stands, free movement is ok in principle, but when you then invite large populations into the club without examining and mitigating the demographic consequences, you are exposed to unforeseen consequences. For example Turkey was being considered as one of the next countries to join. Indeed Michael Gove used the fear of this in the leave campaign during the referendum. The UK could quite possibly have had a million or two Turkish people coming in, with no way of controlling it.
Except I left out 'vote' in 'their vote'. it is an extra-ordinary instance of how people can get hugely worked up about something they'd never bothered about before, isn't it!
Reply to Punshhh It wasn't an argument against the point you were making, merely that I think the "flexibility" qualification required more context. The basis not to agree to the UK's requests is quite sound; you don't want to continually revisit what has already been agreed. The EU member states expect EU regulations are implemented in the national legislation of other member states in the same way, so that there's integration and a level playing field. If we start granting exemptions on immigration for the UK then Italy will want them for budget rules. France will want leniency on environmental issues. etc. etc.
The only way forward on EU immigration issues would be a comprehensive review of the immigration rules for every member state, not bespoke exemptions.
Also, Turkey is "the next country" to join for 20 years now. It's not going to happen any time soon. It's not in Turkey's interest to do so and it's not politically viable for the EU either. It's raised as a spectre often enough
The UK could quite possibly have had a million or two Turkish people coming in, with no way of controlling it.
— Punshhh
Could you explain why that's problematic? Is it a problem with resources to accommodate the immigrants?
It's a problem because studies show that the contributions of EU migrant workers constitute a net benefit to the UK economy, and a good economy is a bad thing apparently, because errrrgh, foreigners, get out arrrr maaaah couuunnntttry!!
unenlightenedSeptember 16, 2019 at 14:44#3294120 likes
Reply to S On the other hand, there are others who think that being slagged off by the Tories counts as a plus...
Could you explain why that's problematic? Is it a problem with resources to accommodate the immigrants
Its problematic because, certainly in my area, a lot of people think the amount of incomers has reached saturation point.* There is some impact of resources, but this is not the main beef. In other areas such as the north of England and the south west, where lots of people have become right wing populists fuelled by the notion of foriegners coming in, even though there are none in their area, or ghettoisation and division of immigrant populations that arrived a generation ago.
* by saturation point, I mean the numbers are causing the towns, shops, businesses to change and become like the towns in the country they came from.
Reply to BenkeiI'm not arguing, I making the point that the way the EU is set up is flawed and it's inflexibility and lack of reform is one of the reasons why the UK may leave. A analogous situation is developing in Italy with the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Fortunately an agreement has been made for other member states to take some of the migrants. But if this had not been agreed and Italy was given no choice but to accept all the migrants, a similar situation might have developed there. The point is that the EU appears blind to the demographic consequences of its expansion.
Yes I'm aware of the status of Turkey and that it is unlikely to join now. I used it as an example as it was exploited in the leave campaign.
Reply to Punshhh While I agree there are consequences to how the EU operates resulting from the way it is constituted I would resist the notion that flexibility is a goal in and of itself. I'm not a proponent of an EU à-la-carte, which would be optimal flexibility. In fact, I think it would be disastrous. That Cameron didn't get what he wanted was necessary to ensure no precedent was created.
In that respect I think your point that the EU appears blind to the consequences of expansion is far more accurate. It is a political vision to have the entirety of continental Europe included in the EU but it's a vision that's not shared by the EU27 electorate. Politicians and public servants are probably also moved by prestige; "I'm the one that got country X in the EU" so these things move forward inexorably - too far removed from common voters.
?Punshhh While I agree there are consequences to how the EU operates resulting from the way it is constituted I would resist the notion that flexibility is a goal in and of itself. I'm not a proponent of an EU à-la-carte, which would be optimal flexibility. In fact, I think it would be disastrous. That Cameron didn't get what he wanted was necessary to ensure no precedent was created.
Then the inevitable leaving of the UK was a fait accompli from a much earlier point in the development of the EU. Not only in regards to free movement, but in regards of other unifications on the cards.
I suspect in this case then that the inviolable nature of the four freedoms, is in a collision course with the realities of this expansion and that welcoming the UK in the the 1970's was one instance where this collision of opposing forces was going to end in the circumstances we find ourselves in. Perhaps this is the beginning of a trend.
the EU appears blind to the consequences of expansion is far more accurate. It is a political vision to have the entirety of continental Europe included in the EU but it's a vision that's not shared by the EU27 electorate.
A divided vision. How to manage ?
It is not the case that the EU is blind to the problems of expansion. The problem might be that some people can make such blind assumptions and run with them.
The trouble is when the anti-EU brigade, like Farage, start to demean and destroy the EU from within its system.That is what I don't get. It troubles me.
Here's what I found:
How to govern a fragmented EU: What Europeans said at the ballot box.
The results of the European Parliament election confront EU leaders with a considerable challenge: navigating a new, more fragmented, and polarised political environment.
+Summary+Introduction+The post-political family map+The new political geography+The new policy map+Conclusion+Country analysis
SUMMARY
The results of the European Parliament election confront EU leaders with a considerable challenge: navigating a new, more fragmented, and polarised political environment.
This was a ‘split screen’ election: electors rarely used their vote to endorse the status quo, but they requested different things. Some want to take on climate change and nationalism; others want to regain national sovereignty and tackle Islamic radicalism.
This need not mean a ‘split screen’ Europe: the desire for change is real across the board, and the new EU institutions will need to provide answers for voters on these issues.
To meet this challenge, the larger political families should prepare to work with parties beyond the mainstream, some of which became stronger on the domestic political scene thanks to the election results. They must do this while preserving red lines on European values.
The high turnout in the election gives the EU a mandate to prove it can respond to voters’ concerns. But this mandate is not open-ended – volatility in the electorate could benefit anti-system parties much more the next time Europe goes to the polls.
...This report studies five ‘maps’ which should guide the formation of these new, shifting majorities; the next generation of EU institution leaders should also study these maps carefully to help them identify where best to focus their energy and attention...
Coming from the promised land of associations I can assure you the metaphor of movie fans and a movie fan club works very well. I do understand that your point is that EU can make legislation over the member states, yet this happens all the time with international agreements too. Basically to be a UN member state limits the sovereignty of countries... at least theoretically. But my point was something more basic.
You see, it's one thing for a group of movie fanatics to meet and watch movies together. It's a totally other thing when they decide to form an association, basically a legal person, with the idea that the association can organize events better. Yet once when that fan club exists, be it a formal association or not, it has a separate agendas from a single movie fan. Will the association continue? Where will it get it's members and are more members needed or not? Will it have enough money to operate? Will it try to organize something else, like trips to movie festivals or whatever? And now of course it has to have some kind of a staff, let's say a secretary and a chairperson. Even if these are movie fans themselves, they have a separate job now to take care of the club.
Yet let's not forget the movie fans, now the members of the new glorious association. For them to be a member of the association is just a tool for their convenience. They get something out of the membership. If the fan club doesn't give them anything, if they would be better simply watching movies themselves, then why shouldn't they opt for that?
This is something that is many times forgotten in the EU debate: the EU is just a tool for it's member states. Nothing else. The members states could co-operate even without it. It isn't an existential institution: if the EU would collapse Europe wouldn't go to war with itself as it did earlier. The EU doesn't exist because there are people hell bent on defending it and willing even giving their life for it. There wasn't and surely isn't an ideological grass roots movement that made the EU. Yes, the EU surely does have it's support, even I think of myself being a supporter of the EU and voted to join the union, yet that support didn't grow from an independent movement. The EU (or the EEC and earlier agreements) were concocted by leaders and top politicians of nation states, like Adenauer, De Gasperi, Schuman and Monnet. And I should add that it was a quite rational and logical concoction after the pile of millions of killed in Europe in WW1 and in it's sequel WW2. Still, the whole process has been right from the start a top-down process and has been done with the sovereign nation states firmly at the helm.
Hence to say that EU's problem is that the nation states have too much power totally ignores from where and how the EU has been created. It shows a lack of historical understanding of just how states form and how they differ from other institutions.
A divided vision. How to manage ?
It is not the case that the EU is blind to the problems of expansion. The problem might be that some people can make such blind assumptions and run with them.
The trouble is when the anti-EU brigade, like Farage, start to demean and destroy the EU from within its system.That is what I don't get. It troubles me.
Of course one alternative line exists: And that is just to be happy what the EU is now and not go forward with even more integration. Why wouldn't the EU of the present work? You can improve small things (transparency, efficiency etc.), but not totally organize it to be something else. Accept that the EU is far more EEC than a federation and totally different from the United States of America. Having open borders inside the EU and border controls on the outer frontiers generally works OK, especially if one prepares for actors like Turkey deliberately opening the flood gates of refugees. One doesn't need to break up EU.
Reply to Punshhh
I haven't been watching. But I hope to catch up soon.
Here's the 3 day timetable:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/timetable-of-proceedings.html
The Supreme Court Live:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
Its problematic because, certainly in my area, a lot of people think the amount of incomers has reached saturation point.
People who feel like they're losing their culture are worth sympathy. It's potentially a source of volatility.
It would be better to guard the old culture through immigration control than to expose the immigrants to violence.
In the US, we're pretty much made of the invading immigrants. We already mostly destroyed the original culture.
unenlightenedSeptember 17, 2019 at 14:40#3298740 likes
Reply to frank Totally different in the UK. We're all Picts apart from the Celts the Angles The Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, the Jews, the Poles, the Spanish, the Aussies, the Indians the Pakistanis, the South Africans, the Nigerians, the Caribbeans and so on.
Reply to unenlightened The Algonquin, Siouxan, Iroquois, Muskogee, Apache, Seminiole, etc. would have said the same, I guess. Those are all distinct language groups, btw, some further divided by distinct groups.
Reply to Punshhh
It will be interesting to see what transpires in the Supreme Court. At the heart of the case seems to be the dividing line between the court's jurisdiction and the government's. There has been much talk about Boris's motives for proroguing parliament, and whether they are valid. But surely the point of law is whether and to what extent a PM is allowed to prorogue, whatever his reason. Under our nebulous unwritten constitution, as I understand it, precedent says he can, but only for a few weeks for the conference season. So what if he decides to prorogue for longer? He can always justify any decision as political, so unless the court stipulates a maximum time limit what is to stop a PM from closing parliament for as long as he wants, certainly until after October 31st? An unwritten constitution requires politicians to play by those unwritten rules. Sadly, in the age of populism, ends alone matter, not means; so will a written constitution inevitably be the result?
The British came here from the Basque Country as the ice melted. A few foreigners have appeared from time to time since, but other than changing the language they were mostly a few gangsters stealing the land or mercenary troops like the Germans who didn't make serious differences. The people in the south east like to pretend they are somehow the people who've conquered them, but I don't see why we should believe it, any more than we should pretend that 'England' was the only country on earth that not only gave up Christianity for paganism, but for a foreign paganism. I think we are still basically the same people as we ever were, British.
unenlightenedSeptember 18, 2019 at 16:11#3304370 likes
I think we are still basically the same people as we ever were, British.
Especially when the term and (the layered identity) started to be used only from the late 17th Century onwards and Britishness started to be used in the middle of the 19th Century.
Reply to Tim3003 The hearing is fascinating, I can now point out what I think it will hinge on. It is quite a Gordian knot for the judges to undo.
The appeal is contending that the Prime minister, acted improperly in prorouging, because his motive was to prevent (stymie) Parliament so as to avoid the risk that parliament could interfere, or stop his free reign to enact his policies.
The argument for the defence is essentially that the prime minister has free reign to proroge for whatever purpose, for as long as he likes, and whenever he wants. And that the courts can't stray into his powers to do it, because it is a political act and would breach the separation of powers.
There are serious flaws in the argument for the defence in my opinion,
Firstly, it is well established in law that no one is above the law, so if the Prime minister acts unlawfully, he can be sanctioned by the court.
Secondly, it is established that the executive(government), is accountable to parliament, as sovereignty rests in parliament and not the executive. So if the exectitive silences parliament to continue on a course for which it does not have parliamentary consent, this relationship becomes reversed. The tail is wagging the dog, rendering the constitution broken. So the Supreme Court must sanction the Prime minister so as to maintain, or protect the constitution.
Third, if they rule in favour of the defence, the government, then the prime minister will have free reign to proroge again on the 14th of October ( when parliament is due to return) until after the 31st of October, enabling the Prime minister to take the UK out of The EU with no deal, simply by inaction and parliament and the Queen would be powerless to stop him. Well I think the Queen could refuse him, but it would compromise her impartiality. So the Supreme Court must sanction the Prime minister so as to protect the Queen and therefore the Crown.
Fourth, I think it can be argued that sanctioning the Prime minister for certain conduct is not actually becoming embroiled in politics, but rather protecting the systems and working of parliament, so as to maintain parliamentary sovereignty. And the proper working of the constitution.
So I can't see how the Supreme Court could do anything other than to find the Prime minister to have acted unlawfully and sanction his powers.
Im looking forward to the intervention of John Major tomorrow.
EU leaders have given Boris Johnson an ultimatum to come up with a new Brexit plan by the end of September or face up to a no deal.
The deadline, agreed at a meeting in Paris on Wednesday evening, comes as the bloc’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier told Mr Johnson to stop “pretending” to negotiate. ...
“If the UK wants to discuss alternatives to the existing Brexit agreement then these must be presented before the end of the month,” Mr Rinne [Finland's PM] told reporters after the meeting in which the deadline was agreed.
Also shows up Johnson's empty threat of no-deal to gain traction in negotiations - the Europeans have called his bluff.
What's really amazing is that BJ's popularity (in the UK, and more so in the conservative base) seems to be going up in all this.
Is BJ successfully creating the dynamic of complete incoherent expectations from his followers and they will defend him come-what-may (there will always be others to blame, a la Trump)? Or is that not his plan, and his plan is just going horribly wrong ... but support increases anyways? Or is there real potential for 5D chess with the EU, Labour, competitors within his party? Or will there be comeuppance from his followers when he fails to deliver Brexit?
On this side of the North Sea, Brexit has just become a side-show running joke, there is no longer any ideological stakes or even much worry about consequential relevance at play (hence the "show us this deal now then or then go away"). Are there any viable end-points for BJ, if not in terms of reasonable policy, at least for his followers?
Im looking forward to the intervention of John Major tomorrow.
Today's timetable. https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/timetable-of-proceedings.html
Also, link to written cases on behalf of the parties and interveners:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-case-submissions.html
10:30 to 11:00
Oral Intervention by Scottish Government in Cherry/Miller, The Lord Advocate - James Mure QC (30 minutes)
11:00 to 11:40
Oral Intervention by NI Claimant (McCord) in Cherry/Miller, Ronan Lavery QC (40 minutes)
11:40 to 12:10
Oral Intervention by Counsel General for Wales, Mike Fordham QC (30 minutes) 12:10 to 12:30 Oral Intervention on behalf of Sir John Major, Lord Garnier QC (20 minutes)
14:00 to 14:30
Appellants reply for Advocate General for Scotland from Inner House in Cherry, Lord Keen QC (30 minutes)
14:30 to 15:00
Appellants reply for Miller, Lord Pannick QC (30 minutes)
What's really amazing is that BJ's popularity (in the UK, and more so in the conservative base) seems to be going up in all this.
This is the rise of populism in the UK. Very sad. Nietzsche spoke of 'slave morality', which unlike 'master morality' is not driven by lofty aims and theorems, but expediency. The ignorant Brexiteer masses don't care about the law or constitution, they just want out of the EU, and as Boris has chosen to champion that simplistic end they support him; thus he's won back hard-line ex-Tories from the Brexit party. Much is spoken now about identity politics, and it's clear that many Brexiteers are now so scared of 'their' referendum result being ignored that they no longer care about the problems of no-deal, they just want their democratic outcry acted upon at any cost. It's the rise of cartoon, black-and-white politics, the dumbing down of debate and the hyping of one-line emotive tropes based usually on fear. We now have a simplistic one-line Brexit policy from the Lib Dems. How long until Labour follows?
So I don't think there's much chance of Boris's popularity waning in a sudden outbreak of enlightened debate and a realisation of the facts of the situation among Brexiteers. The only hope is that parliament - which is the repository of sense in this battle - can frustrate his do-or-die Brexit, and, longer term, push for a full written constitution to set down the limits of the PM's powers and stop him playing dictator again. Whatever happens, I expect Boris will still find a way to say he was frustrated by the 'Remainer parliament' (lies: do the sums..) and keep most supporters on board. He's learned a lot from Trump..
Britannia was the name of the Country when it was part of the Roman Empire. There must surely have been some reason, like being British?
Just like the Romans called one place Germania. Copied in the similar way. Yet Modern Germany and 'the Germans' is even a younger thing than the talk about the British. I assure you that during Roman times there weren't Germans as we know now living there. There is a difference between 'the Germans' and 'Germanic tribes'.
ssu - those the German foreigners called 'Welsh' (or 'foreign') were normally called Britons or British all through actually. The word was pinched to label the union with Scotland, and before that Elizabeth 1 used it because Dee convinced her that there had been an earlier 'Welsh' Empire she could reclaim.
This is the rise of populism in the UK. Very sad. Nietzsche spoke of 'slave morality', which unlike 'master morality' is not driven by lofty aims and theorems, but expediency. The ignorant Brexiteer masses don't care about the law or constitution, they just want out of the EU, and as Boris has chosen to champion that simplistic end they support him; thus he's won back hard-line ex-Tories from the Brexit party.
I agree here, but my wonder is how sustainable this position is.
For instance, to contrast to Trump, Trump supporters have almost zero expectations of what Trump will do other than continue to be Trump. The few places where Trump supporters want delivery, Trump has a lot of power to deliver: crack down on immigrants.
Whereas for BJ, if the expectation is to deliver Brexit in a way that's "good for the economy", and he doesn't deliver (Brexit doesn't happen or then hard Brexit happens and his supporters are surprised things don't improve), will his support continue?
In other-words, is his support dissociated with reality as with Trump (ohh, he's paying a porn star for sex ... hmm, must be the reincarnation of an old testament king that God uses as an instrument of divine intervention from time to time; pretty raunchy times the old testament).
Though it's a truism on the left that Brexit mirrors Trumpianism, and there are similar issues for sure, I am not yet ready to give the British so little credit as to be in a Trumpian level delusion (in the sense of "enough supporters"); but I don't have my finger on the pulse of UK culture, clearly the Brexit delusion has been propped up so far, but it's not completely immune to reality (which is why it's dragged on so far; maintaining a status of fringe EU purgatory while pretending to negotiate are necessary conditions to support the Brexit delusion, but are conditions that aren't stable) and so the question arises when, what conditions, the illusion would turn to disillusionment and what do BJ supporters do after that?
Though it's a truism on the left that Brexit mirrors Trumpianism, and there are similar issues for sure, I am not yet ready to give the British so little credit as to be in a Trumpian level delusion
It might not, but are we able to really answer your question? How are the Brexiteers depicted in the UK?
Brexit and Trump are phenomena were the left simply lost and things didn't go as planned for the ruling elite. Both the Republican and the Conservative party are in disarray. The heart of the support for both Brexit and Trump is in that they gave a giant middle finger to the establishment. Since giving that middle finger succeeded, the supporters are just happy about it and think that little details like political decisions afterwards don't matter so much. They won't leave their baby.
You see both Brexit and Trump are seen as under threat from the left by their supporters: There is the threat that Brexit is cancelled (theoretically at least) and that Trump is impeached (also very theoretical) and the power-elite simply rule out, erase away both voted results. And this 'threat' gives the headphones both to Trumpists and Brexiteers to hear only a ferocious rant from the left in the media, supported by the powers that be, to further this agenda, not genuine criticism of where the policies of Trump and the Brexiteers actually lead the two countries.
In fact both Trump and Brexit need a constant outrage and criticism from the media to gain support.
For instance, to contrast to Trump, Trump supporters have almost zero expectations of what Trump will do other than continue to be Trump. The few places where Trump supporters want delivery, Trump has a lot of power to deliver: crack down on immigrants.
I don't know the US scene, but isnt Trump the guarantor of all the male white-collar industrial jobs that globalism and immigration threaten? Hence trade wars to defend US companies.
Whereas for BJ, if the expectation is to deliver Brexit in a way that's "good for the economy", and he doesn't deliver (Brexit doesn't happen or then hard Brexit happens and his supporters are surprised things don't improve), will his support continue?
No, Brexit won't be good economically, no-one believes it will. But we will muddle through, and Boris will find some way to blame international trading conditions or the EU for being malicious. Populist voters have very short memories. Their support, as with Trump, is based on trust rather than anything deeper. They trust him to keep the foreigners out and believe in such simplistic fallacies as optimism to make things work. (They can understand that; unlike all the economic arguments). You may be right that Boris's come-uppance will be swift - but Trump's almost at re-election point and his house of cards hasn't fallen down yet..
Imagine that: the “ignorant Brexiteer masses” want what they voted for. That seems to me such a strange concept nowadays, especially given the refusal to deliver the results and the routine snobbery and fear mongering that justifies its disruption.
Trump is right. Our self-anointed elites are not so elite, and in fact never were. They just act like it on stage. Brexit and anti-Trumpism proves their cowardice and weakness and their waning grip on power.
Imagine that: the “ignorant Brexiteer masses” want what they voted for. That seems to me such a strange concept nowadays, especially given the refusal to deliver the results and the routine snobbery and fear mongering that justifies its disruption.
Not again. Over half of Brexit voters don't want a no deal Brexit. So at most 25% of those who voted in the referendum for Brexit are in favour of no deal. The vote in the referendum was basically split so a vast majority of those who voted are against a no deal Brexit.
The dichotomy here is not between the elites and the masses. The masses are split down the middle and so are the elites. And when an argument is as easy to parody as yours, that's a good indication it's a bad argument. (See again below).
The dichotomy here is not between the elites and the masses. The masses are split down the middle and so are the elites. And when an argument is as easy to parody as yours, that's a good indication it's a bad argument. (See again below).
The vote shows that no, the masses are not split down the middle. One side had more votes than the other.
Sure, and when I give you 48% of my money, I keep it all to myself and you get nothing.
We’re talking about a vote, not the change in your pocket.
The vote was approximately 50/50 (51.9 vs 48.1), i.e. split down the middle. Not enough difference to unqualifiedly designate one side as 'the masses' or 'the people'. Is that not obvious to you?
The people had a vote. The majority voted to leave. Leave is therefore the people’s decision. That’s how democracy works. It’s not so difficult to figure out.
It might not, but are we able to really answer your question? How are the Brexiteers depicted in the UK?
Yes, I agree there is no "answer" ... for now. However, we will find out as events unfold, people can have feelings and insight that is interesting or useful regardless of whether they can prove it.
But I am not asking how they are depicted in the UK, I'm asking what they might actually do if Brexit either doesn't happen at all or there is a crash-out (and the consequences are obviously and immediately negative). It would seem to us that his supporters would abandon him in these events.
Of course, that doesn't exclude a crash-out but amazing Brexit experience or some awesome deal coming out of BJ at the last moment and if not saves the day at least saves face. Of course, these events would merit more support, a leader leading the way.
Trumpianism is characterized by supporters largely just ignoring events and living in a world where "Trump is a good leader" is an irrefutable belief.
It's a truism on the left that Brexiters are similar, but I am doubtful of this claim; it is not a world view immune to events. There is a false faith in Brexit delivering positive outcomes (it's epistemologicaly possible, sure, just not likely), but there is not a world view so false that a disastrous Brexit will be cheered as a victory nor cancelling or a Brexit-lite being re-interpreted as what they wanted all along. At least, that's what I think.
But even if I think this way, maybe there is evidence that I'm wrong, and even if I'm right it leaves the question of what Brexit supporters will actually do vis-a-vis different events unfolding. People can't really prove anything, but they may have feelings and insight about it.
Brexit and Trump are phenomena were the left simply lost and things didn't go as planned for the ruling elite.
It is not simple, partly for reasons that are even contained in your statement: both the left and the ruling elite lost!?
I'll have to get back to this, as it's interesting to delve into. To quickly summarize, Trump and Brexit are not "simple losses" for the left, they are a new kind of political phenomena (in our political time at least).
Though Trump has emerged from a trend of reality-denial fostered by the right, there is no longer even the pretense of plausible connection to reality and reason. Yes, this is a loss for the left if defined as any honest attempt to understand what is true, but "conservatives" are not defined by a rejection of reality; it happens that Trump is republican but republicans can also prefer reality and still not be left (maybe I think they are wrong, and maybe they really are, but they maybe honestly so and just as frightened by a wholesale rejection of reality and reason as anyone on the left -- in otherwords, Trump supporters are a new constituency that shares only the same name as the previous constituency).
Brexit is driven by a few related issues to Trumpianism, but not really. Part of the argument for Brexit was more money for the NHS?! I.e. more and better socialism. Brexit is also simply not as high stakes as Trump; leaving the EU isn't remotely on the same level as putting a person like Trump in charge of nuclear weapons (and BJ is far from Trump in composure, basic ability to reason, connection to reality; maybe he wants a bit of that Trump sause boosting him up, but he's not unhinged, erratic and self contradictory, with zero respect for the rule of law). He is a fairly normal politician with a fairly good education and ability to make convincing argument through speech, maybe not good but plausible (there's just no comparison to Trump).
Brexit is more a historical train wreck, that is not lethal, but could have been easily prevented on numerous occasions and makes a bumpy ride for the occupants on the train; and the lesson is the engineers driving the train shouldn't suddenly ask the passengers if "they really think trains need tracks, show of hands everyone! We're totally willing to try off-roading this train to settle the issue, fingers crossed!"
You'd be more convincing if you made at least a minimal effort to recognize the nuances of the situation. I'm not sure what purpose your posts serve otherwise. Anyway, carry on.
You'd be more convincing if you made at least a minimal effort to recognize the nuances of the situation. I'm not sure what purpose your posts serve otherwise. Anyway, carry on.
I was pushing back against the sneering about the “the ignorant Brexiteer masses”. But the double standards are noted.
Previously, you didn't know what the backstop, the main obstacle to securing a deal, was. Now you've shown you didn't know Boris Johnson supported Brexit despite the fact he was one of the biggest names in the Leave campaign and, according to many commentators, the main reason the vote got over the line. And you constantly give the impression you don't understand how close the vote was. If I ever come into a conversation about anything with this lack of background knowledge, it will either be because I'm helplessly drunk or otherwise have lost my senses completely. What's your excuse? Why are you here?
It’s not so much “ignoring events” as it is ignoring the persistent fear mongering and prophesies about the future, none of which has yet to come true. You worry about Trump with nuclear weapons or a sinking economy with Brexit, and none of that is derived from reality, but from propaganda.
It’s not so much “ignoring events” as it is ignoring the persistent fear mongering and prophesies about the future, none of which has yet to come true.
I’m well aware of that. It’s amazing how long it has taken. It truly is a scar on the face of democracy.
The fear is about what happens after, and they are reasonable fears from what I tell, which is why a majority of UK politicians are trying to prevent it and why the EU is calling BJ's bluff.
The fear is about what happens after, and they are reasonable fears from what I tell, which is why a majority of UK politicians are trying to prevent it and why the EU is calling BJ's bluff.
Could the fears be overblown and overstated, often by those who who have vested interest in doing so?
It cannot be that bad of a situation. In fact it presents a great opportunity, all while regaining sovereignty from a sclerotic bureaucracy, which is the most important issue of all.
It is not simple, partly for reasons that are even contained in your statement: both the left and the ruling elite lost!?
Let's say both with Brexit and in the GOP primaries things didn't go as planned. At least the Democrats could handle the somewhat similar revolt by containing the popular Bernie Sanders, but the Republican party didn't and Trump's win came especially to Trump as a surprise (which is evident from his pre-election night posturing). Same thing with Brexit: those who issued the referendum in the first place were endorsing the "remain camp" and got a nasty surprise. That the left lost simply comes from the fact that there's no dispute what the leanings of the Trump supporters and Brexiteers are. Now populism can get a stranglehold on the left too, but this time it's right-wing populism.
Trump and Brexit are not "simple losses" for the left, they are a new kind of political phenomena (in our political time at least).
Indeed it's a new phenomena, I agree with that.
And also traditional values both of the left and the right are in change. Traditional conservatism is far away from Trump and anti-EU populism. The left it seems that it's supporters are quite ignorant of old school socialism. Seems like the male factory worker has been taken down from his pedestal. I have been surprised that in the US something as old as social democracy is seen as this new thing with just changing the word order to democratic socialism. Even if the US has it's welfare state, the rhetoric never has been anything close to European style socialism.
Brexit is also simply not as high stakes as Trump; leaving the EU isn't remotely on the same level as putting a person like Trump in charge of nuclear weapons
Uhh...no. Trump and nuclear weapons isn't an issue. Trump is simply such an inept leader that he simply cannot do such trouble. And what is rarely mentioned is that Trump supporters don't like the neocons and the hawks in Washington. He hasn't leashed yet out against Iraq, and there is no push for a new war inside Washington DC. Iran is a difficult enemy, it's not Syria, Libya or Saddam's weakened Iraq.
Do notice that the warmonger neocon John Bolton was fired from his position of being national security advisor. He lasted only 520 days, which is a very long time in the Trump administration, but still.
Here is Sir John Major's intervention in the appeal at the Supreme Court. Pretty damming stuff.
It looks to me that the court will find against the government, but may take a less controversial route, that of it was unlawful to Proroge due to the loss of bills in process and the inability for parliament to legislate and hold the executive to account for more time than necessary during a time critical political crisis. Rather than that Johnson mislead the Queen.
Reply to ssu As I see it the UK population has become polarised following the credit crunch, austerity has angered a lot of less well off people, often who already had quite nationalistic tendencies, or quite crude/naive political understanding. This was a fertile breeding ground for the nationalist movement.
Alongside this there is a large group of middle to upper middle class mainly older conservative supporters who live in a relatively affluent bubble. They often have quite outdated Thatcherite views.
I am generalising for brevity, these two groups have been exploited by hardline Conservatives who are rabid anti EU and the right wing press, especially The Telegraph and The Daily Mail. In this new climate of 24hr news and social media, mainly Facebook. News and political ideology has become sloganised and the angry populous has lappped it up.
I will reiterate that this whole Brexit mess was conceived developed and delivered to us on a plate by the internal machinations of the Conservative party.
It looks to me that the court will find against the government, but may take a less controversial route, that of it was unlawful to Proroge due to the loss of bills in process and the inability for parliament to legislate and hold the executive to account for more time than necessary during a time critical political crisis. Rather than that Johnson mislead the Queen.
Listening to the statements from both lawyers yesterday I learned that the defence parliament has to the PM's seemingly limitless power to prorogue it lies in its ability to request and pass a vote of no-confidence in the PM's govt, thus triggering an election. This was described by Lord Keen as a political defence rather than a legal one, which is part and parcel of the unwritten constitution. That sounds fine, but in the current situation - as he is well aware, that defence would be of no use as the PM could manipulate the timing of the election to suit his own ends - ie achieve Brexit on Oct 31 by default, either before the vote or in the days after it if no majority govt was elected.
The case for Miller/Major seems to hinge on the fact that Boris's reasons for proroguing are suspect, and that he lied in his advice to the Queen, so the suspension of parliament is invalid. However, if lying was not allowed in politics, would we have any politics?
So we have responses to two different questions; one political-masquerading-as-legal and one purely political. Clearly this is a unprecedented situation which the constitution is ill-equiped to handle. It will be interesting to see whether the judges prioritise the faux-legal aspect over the political one. As lawyers this is what I would expect, but I think there would be cries of 'shame' if they ignored the shabby conduct of the PM. So I think maybe a recommendation that some form of written constitution detailing the PM's powers be examined in the longer term will come too.
If some tory clown got a majority to execute me, my children, and all educated people in the UK, would I accept a majority of four percent, few of whom had ever thought of the matter previously, and who had been told huge lies? Why should they rob us all, then, to no personal benefit to anyone but a few tories? This whole situation has been caused by ambitions clashing in the tory party. It ought to be settled by duels between tories, preferably with machine-guns. What it has to do with democracy escapes me.
Reply to iolo Many people in the UK have an idealised view of democracy, that it must be upheld to the ends of the earth, or something like that. But that is a naive view, along with the thought that a one off referendum is democratic and must be respected even after much time has passed, or circumstances have changed. I think that this is due to the perception that Great Britain is where democracy was born and that it is in some way sacred. That democracy is more important than anything else. They don't realise that a perfect democracy is an impossibility and that our democracy only expresses a very remote and handfisted view of what the people think.
Such, views are flawed and vulnerable to exploitation by forms of nationalism and populism. In reality democracy works in two ways, firstly that some vestige of a democratic process is maintained, even if the people are not actually expressing their view on issues. Secondly the government can be changed at short notice and regularly through a process of a public vote. Hence we have the sovereignty upheld by a representative parliamentary democracy. At no point is any specific issue democratically decided by the people, it is only the parliamentarians who are chosen by the people and they then appoint a government to carry out their wishes. The important democratic principle in this system is that they can be thrown out, if they go wrong, as is the case at the moment. We have adopted this system to prevent rule by despots and people who don't have a democratic mandate, or who can hold on to power beyond the point when they fall out of favour. These things are what are important in democracy, not what the people think about something at some point.
A referendum does not follow any rules like these and the view of the people is inevitably going to change over time, but the result of the referendum is set in stone. so it is a mistake to think that the result of the referendum must be upheld and that another referendum cannot be held at a future point, to test the view of the people. People who support leave keep stating that the referendum must be honoured, or democracy is broken, but this is a flawed argument, as the democracy we have is in the form of a parliamentary democracy as I pointed out above and the referendum was simply an advisory snapshot of the people's view about something at some point. Actually the view of the people is not of importance in democracy, their view can be expressed, although in a remote and broad brush way through a general election.
Punshhh - Very well put. It has been a huge mistake (Wilson's at first) to abandon representative democracy, where we chose people who know something about such questions to decide, and, if we felt they'd made a mistake, elect some others who knew something about such things to do better. Mobs 'know' about their football teams, at best.
Reply to Punshhh
I agree with all you say. The mistake was in part Cameron's for calling the referendum and not realising that the result could cause all sorts of problems. The in-out question was too simple, as has become all too obvious in the 3 years since. I must admit it was hard to forsee all this in 2016 though. Those Brexiteers screaming about the loss of their democratic right if the decision is ignored need to learn what a parliamentary democracy is..
I think it's dangerous to say 'the view of the people is not important in a democracy' though. It clearly is, else the word 'democracy' loses its meaning; but that view is expressed only at the level of electing a govt every few years. The UKs problem is that many people don't think their election vote makes any difference, so given an extra opportunity like a binary referendum where they clearly can control future events (by kicking the establishment), it is galling now to be told the result will not be honoured. Subtleties like the fact that a no-deal Brexit was not envisaged at the time, nor would it be supported by the majority now, are lost in the rage to ensure the vote's promise is kept.
The in-out question was too simple, as has become all too obvious in the 3 years since
Yes, there should have been more detail, or follow up on what kind of Brexit the people want and I think a super majority of 60%. As soon as one looks into this, the means of using a referendum to decide these things rapidly becomes problematic, or divisive. Which leads into my other point "the view of the people". I agree that the way I put it "the view of the people is not of importance in democracy" might give the impression to the populous that it sounds as though the democracy doesn't serve the people. But the way in which I use it is as part of a philosophical discussion amongst people who have a more intellectual grasp of the issues we are discussing.
What is the view of the people? Well it may be very difficult to find out, and when you find out, it might not actually be their view, but rather them saying something else with the limited options you gave them when you asked. Or it might be an amplified view of a small focussed group of people, while the silent majority didn't bother speaking for some reason. Half the people asked might not understand the question, or might for some reason mis construe it. An example I heard from a political analyst while discussing this recently, I don't remember who, was "you might ask the population whether they want an apple, or an orange, and the answer is I want a ham sandwich. Then what do you do". This kind of situation might have come about because in the run up to the referendum, a prominent person in the public sphere might have done something with a ham sandwich.
I suggest that all of the above did to some degree happen in this referendum and that the actual view of the people may have been more nuanced or conciliatory on the issue. They might vote "out" so as to have curved cucumbers, rather than straight, but "remain" to maintain the integrity of NATO in the current global political turmoil.
I don't know the US scene, but isnt Trump the guarantor of all the male white-collar industrial jobs that globalism and immigration threaten? Hence trade wars to defend US companies.
That's the story, sometimes, the point is Trump does not need to deliver this, it's just a story being told and actions are for show and not substance.
For instance, if the trade wars lose more male white-collar industrial jobs than they create, Trump base will either just deny those numbers or make up a new story where that's a good thing or in any case not due to Trump. "Nuanced facts" (by which I mean anything not essentially recorded) haven't mattered much to most republicans for a while, Fox News exists to create propaganda and predates Trump; what Trump represents is abandoning internal-consistency as well as non-nuanced-obvious facts, this is a new step into the absurd.
Trump and republican talking heads are willing to deny taped statements, be completely self-contradictory and make no plausible "truthiness theater" (which Republicans, pre-Trump, would at least go through the motions of; so Trump is a not straying too far from Republican strategy and intellectual honesty, but it is a new phase where intellectual honesty is no longer even a "pretend value" but openly mocked).
Uhh...no. Trump and nuclear weapons isn't an issue. Trump is simply such an inept leader that he simply cannot do such trouble. And what is rarely mentioned is that Trump supporters don't like the neocons and the hawks in Washington
We agree on several points, but I'd just like to react to this. It may seem at first "obvious someone like Trump should not have nuclear powers" and then quickly turn into a trope because we think other people would prevent reckless nuclear launch, I think the first intuition is the correct one.
For two reasons:
First, it's a baseless assumption that "it would be hard to launch a nuke". We actually simply don't know. Trump is not surrounded by "other responsible people" all the time, and so anytime he's alone and if he called in the nuclear codes handler; as far as we know those codes simply just work and the soldier with the nuclear football is told to do what the president says. So if it got into his mind that he needs to launch, there's simply no good basis to assume that would be a hard thing to do, and someone who's erratic, unpredictable, self-contradictory and is seems to follow no identifiable pattern of behaviour it's again just groundless speculation that wanting to launch a nuke stays unreasonable to this person. Maybe it's unreasonable today, but tomorrow a few new ideas come up and it looks like genius.
Second, there may arise crisis uncaused by Trump where the use of nuclear weapons looks like it's reasonable, no one in the chain of command has complete knowledge, the order to launch arises and it is carried out because it seems a reasonable response to the crisis and lower-downs will assume "certainly a lot of the higher-ups agree"; but in such moment of crisis it maybe, with complete information (i.e. the information available), completely unreasonable to launch but Trump, using one of his long list of erroneous conclusion formula, truly believes it's reasonable, has all the other "higher-ups" arrested or sidesteps them and sends the command to launch. It's a crisis, it's tense, the likely outcome is people do what they've been trained to do: do what the president says. Things simply happen too fast for there to be some sort of coup to depose Trump.
Let's hope neither of these situations are ever tested, but I think it's unwise to minimize it; it can of course be discussed further, my purpose here was simply to compare the stakes in Brexit with the Trump presidency (there's lot's of other examples of "large gap in stakes").
...and perhaps proportional representation brought in.
That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option.
Trump and republican talking heads are willing to deny taped statements, be completely self-contradictory and make no plausible "truthiness theater" (which Republicans, pre-Trump, would at least go through the motions of; so Trump is a not straying too far from Republican strategy and intellectual honesty, but it is a new phase where intellectual honesty is no longer even a "pretend value" but openly mocked).
This is the most appalling truth about populism. Trump knows that his supporters don't follow politics, so he can contradict what he said last week and they won't mind, or possibly even notice. As long as he's true to their values their trust remains. It's identity politics, as I mentioned before. Trump's voters identify with him and that's their politics. They don't need or want to think beyond that. The Brexiteer credo in the UK is much the same. In both arenas the airing of arguments becomes irrelevent, a distraction - a fear-inducing one - for those who don't understand the arguments and in them just see a threat to their identities.
My fear is that democracy is thus dying beneath the weight of politicians whose strategy is the exploitation of the ignorant. These politicians' aim is not the improvement of the country, but the ego-driven continuation of their own power. Most know this about Trump, and over here in the UK we're realising BJ is from the same mould. I would be interested to see a statistical analysis of the depth of the population's political knowledge, and thus learn whether the majority really are just identity-minded. I used to use the sales of tabloid newspapers vs those of broadsheets, since the split in their readers' mind-sets effectively drives the 2 different journalistic approaches. It' hard to tell with sales of both falling fast nowadays, but I used to reckon the sales ratio was 4 to 1 - tabloids vs broadsheets. That's a dispiriting thought!
That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option
l mentioned Pr because we are in a position of constitutional crisis and weaknesses in the system have become apparent. I realise that constitutional reform is a challenge, and that it should not be done now, but looked at when the dust settles.
I think our politics is very different to how it was in 2011. We have the two main parties moving further apart, to the right and the left before our eyes, unable to do anything about it, other than to swing one way or the other with them. The centrist ( Lib dems) party is not able to fill the gap electorally due to the way the constituency system is set up. We have the Greens growing in popularity, with an increased growth expected due to the climate change crisis developing at the moment.
I have been voting since the early 80's and my vote has never counted, as I have always lived in seats where there was a comfortable majority for either Conservative, or on one occasion Labour. There are many people in the same boat, their voices are ignored by the system as it is. The two main parties can become complacent, this has certainly happened with the Conservatives, I welcome Labour's return to socialism, but there may have been a complacency in their safe seats in the north(I'm no expert).
Take for example a talented person interested in politics who is thinking of a career in politics. If they are not a dyed in the wool Conservative, or Labour person, what choice do they have? If their politics is different to this choice they will have to spend years volunteering for the party they join, virtually no chance of becoming an MP and no chance of their party getting into the position to put their policies into action. There may be an issue with a brain drain in our jaded political system.
Hey the Labor party seems to have gotten itself into a right pickle. Going on what I'm reading here in Oz, they're tearing themselves to pieces over Brexit at the Conference, and Corbyn has abysmal poll ratings. It's such a shame - if only there was an alternative leader to seize the moment, but I'm afraid Corbyn's not it.
My fear is that democracy is thus dying beneath the weight of politicians whose strategy is the exploitation of the ignorant.
Democracy is threatened solely by the electorate. In a democracy nobody else can be held responsible. Blaming the system or politicians is exactly what demagogues do. So I kind of agree with your gloomy analysis but it’s important to maintain confidence in democratic systems in the absence of alternatives.
Reply to Wayfarer This is nonsense. The rules of the game affect how the game is played. The electorate does not have unlimited power or knowlegde, even if they could have it they don't have time. Most people are busy making a living. So we can certainly point out the many issues with various socio-economic systems.
You're frogleaping to a conclusion (or reading that in Tim3003's post) that because the US democratic system is broken (or any other) democratic systems must be bad or something must be wrong with democracy. I would expect that one of the measures of the system is whether it correctly reflects the democratic will of the people. But that shouldn't be, in my view, the only measure.
Reply to Benkei I’m just saying that giving up on democracy plays into the hands of those who wish to subvert it. I’m often surprised, and depressed, by the number of people on this forum who seem happy to write democracy off. In favour of what? I ask. Never get an answer to that, although Agustino did say ‘monarchism’.
Talking about democracy...
and Brexit at the Labour Conference.
Running commentary from Guardian Politics Live:
'The fact that Unison, which controls a sizeable chunk of the union vote at conference, is going to vote against the NEC motion and in favour of composite 13 (see 10.10am), means that there is now a greater chance than we thought this morning that the conference could unequivocally come down in favour of committing to remain now.'
From McDonnell:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/mcdonnell-labour-remaining-in-eu-would-be-better-than-any-brexit-deal
"I smiled when you used the language earlier of civil war and revolt but there isn’t any war in the Labour party. It’s about honest, democratic debate,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Reply to Wayfarer The Labour Party finds itself between a rock and a hard place on the Brexit issue. It will be decided in the next couple of days, as the party is deeply democratic and policy is made through a democratic process at the party conference. The split is over whether the policy is to campaign in favour of remain during a confirmatory referendum, or to campaign for the deal which the party will offer in the referendum on the assumption they win an election. I am personally conflicted over the issue, as which ever way it goes it could have either a good, or a bad outcome. It could help to win the election, or loose it and we know what might happen if they loose it.
It's difficult to say I think whether the lack of confidence in Corbyn is critical, as the media faces criticism of anti Corbyn rhetoric, also many people who don't like him might prefer him to the alternative. It has just been announced that the Supreme Court decision will be published Tuesday morning.
Judgment hand-down 24 September 2019 10:30 Courtroom 1
The Supreme Court has now heard the two prorogation-related judicial review cases. These took place between 17 and 19 September 2019.
The judgment hand-down will take place on 24 September at 10:30 in Courtroom 1.
Live coverage of the judgment hand-down can be watched online via Supreme Court Live.
Both the judgment and full video on demand coverage of the Court sittings can be found online via one of the following links:
R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)
Hey the Labor party seems to have gotten itself into a right pickle. Going on what I'm reading here in Oz, they're tearing themselves to pieces over Brexit at the Conference, and Corbyn has abysmal poll ratings. It's such a shame - if only there was an alternative leader to seize the moment, but I'm afraid Corbyn's not it.
Seizing the moment with a lesser candidate wouldn't be ideal. Sure, it would be better than the Tories. But merely being better than the Tories isn't what turned hundreds of people like me away from political indifference. A moderate candidate is not what propelled Labour back into relevance after the lackluster performance of Brown and Miliband; and Corbyn's more moderate leadership challengers did terribly the last few times. They wouldn't have turned the Labour party into the biggest political party in Europe. They wouldn't have Beaten Blair's vote share in 2005.
So, although I'm a big Corbyn supporter, I take your point about the possibility of a more electable candidate, if one exists, but they probably wouldn't fit your ideal, given your criticisms, much of which could have come right out of the mouth of a Tory MP. You want a Red Tory, right? Like one of the loudmouths on the right of the party who are always in the papers or on social media criticising [I] everything[/I] that Corbyn says or does? Someone bland like Owen Smith or Ed Miliband, perhaps? A Blairite?
I'd much rather someone like Rebecca Long-Bailey or Emily Thornberry become a successor to Corbyn if it came down to it.
Hey the Labor party seems to have gotten itself into a right pickle. Going on what I'm reading here in Oz, they're tearing themselves to pieces over Brexit at the Conference, and Corbyn has abysmal poll ratings. It's such a shame - if only there was an alternative leader to seize the moment, but I'm afraid Corbyn's not it.
Agreed. Corbyn has yet again sat on the fence. He seems to want to please all of the Labour membership all of the time rather than Lead. One of the criticisms made of Theresa May's Brexit negotiations was that, as a remainer, her heart was never really in getting the best deal from Brussels. In theory it sounds fine that if Corbyn wins an election, then negotiates the best deal with the EU, and puts it to another referendum, he himself can remain neutral. But assuming he has a view (usually thought to be 'leave') that must affect his attitude to the negotiations. He cannot negotiate impartially any more than May could. Remain opponents within Labour will pounce on this and undermine him. And we're back in the same situation as we've been with the Tories for the past 2 years..
Let's hope neither of these situations are ever tested, but I think it's unwise to minimize it; it can of course be discussed further, my purpose here was simply to compare the stakes in Brexit with the Trump presidency (there's lot's of other examples of "large gap in stakes").
In both cases the elites and their acolytes and have taken it upon themselves to try to undo the democratic choices of the electorate. Even now, years after both votes have occurred, if the losers of said votes weren’t already crippled by media-induced anxiety and fear, they are front and center in the stifling and undoing of the democratic process.
Love Starmer and how he addresses people attending as 'Conference' - much better than 'Comrades'.
He sounds like a leader.
'Conference, you know where I stand on the question of remain: I’ve said many times that I will campaign for it. But I profoundly respect those who take a different view. And conference, let’s go into this with our eyes open.
In 2016 Labour campaigned for remain. We did so because we are internationalists. We stand in solidarity with our friends and neighbours in Europe. We profoundly believe in peace, reconciliation, human rights and collaboration across borders. Socialist values. Our values. Then and now. And let those values guide us on the road ahead.'
The Brexit chaos in the UK is largely caused by an unfortunate new electoral practice. In the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy there used to high level of harmony between prime minister and parliament simply because the PM was elected by that parliament. If the MPs went against the cabinet, it meant that they would have to choose a new one and that would be their responsibility. Therefore the majority party would usually support their prime minister unless they had an alternative ready.
Now that the party leaders, and thereby the PM, is elected by party members instead, parliament is not responsible for the actual government policy and they can vote against anything the cabinet proposes without having to come up with an alternative plan.
Reply to NOS4A2 Trump was upstaged by a sixteen year old girl today. I bet he didn't even recognise who she was when he breezed through the climate summit and breezed out again.
Trump was upstaged by a sixteen year old girl today. I bet he didn't even recognise who she was when he breezed through the climate summit and breezed out again.
I don’t blame him. I’d avoid that cult of personality at all costs.
Reply to NOS4A2 Then why did he turn up? He looked like petulant bully in a school playground, surrounded by his goons, who felt he needed to show his face because there was some other gig more important than his own going on.
Greta’s performance was by definition of petulant. Critics speak of Trump metaphorically as a child, yet grovel and self-flagellate in front of a literal one.
Greta’s performance was by definition of petulant. Critics speak of Trump metaphorically as a child, yet grovel and self-flagellate in front of a literal one.
Clearly we need a Greta thread so that people can sneer at a sixteen year old for being sixteen.
That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option.
11-0. The Supreme Court is unanimous that prorogation is justiciable.
The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.
11-0. The Supreme Court is unanimous that this prorogation was unlawful.
The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
Parliament isn't prorogued.
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.
That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option.
— S
Reply to Michael
Excellent, clear cut. Delighted. Now Parliament can continue the good fight...
Scrutinise Tory government to death. They are to be held to account.
Johnson's position should be untenable.
StreetlightSeptember 24, 2019 at 09:53#3330860 likes
Reply to Michael Man this season of Brexit is so good. So many plot twists.
Not just her. There were 2 cases being discussed and I think one was by a group of MPs.
Indeed. Gina Miller has been excellent.Twice over.
And yes, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the Scottish court.
'The SNP’s Joanna Cherry led the legal challenge brought by 75 parliamentarians in Scotland’s top civil court, seeking to block the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend.'
However, all of this should not have been necessary. If we had a written constitution perhaps we would not have to deal with this total disaster of a would-be dictatorship.
But it's now back to Brexit.
And more misleading lies...
However, all of this should not have been necessary. If we had a written constitution perhaps we would not have to deal with this total disaster of a would-be dictatorship.
But it's now back to Brexit.
And more misleading lies...
Seeing how many issues the U.S. has over the Second Amendment, I'm glad we don't have a written Constitution.
Reply to Michael
Well, that's another bad story. So what would be the best way forward ?
There has to be something in place whereby we don't rely on a private individual to hold government to account. Do we have to keep returning to the Supreme Court every time a Johnson comes along...
The Brexit referendum was a farce. Still think the result should be overturned. Null and void it too, please.
Moving on...
The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
Well I'm surprised by that, but really pleased. It prioritises parliament's right and abilty to hold the govt to account. The next question is whether Boris can keep his job. The opposition hope not, but I think the populist rules the Tories now espouse say he can..
Reply to Tim3003 This is what I expected, and is the crux of the attack on the constitution by those who are trying to ram through a no deal Brexit. The guarantee, which once I realised this is gave me confidence, was the realisation that once the request was made by Jacob Rees Mogg to the Queen to prorogue, the government had put the Queen and therefore the Crown in a compromised position, for political expediency. The courts would never allow this to happen. Which is why the judgement was kept as far away from the Queen as possible.
Reply to Punshhh
:roll:
Not damned Trump again. I give up.
Let's bring him in to every political discussion, why don't we.
Just like the worst of journalism.
Very kind of you.
I won't be making any more fuss about off topicness.
A bit of a waste of time, as are some 'sorries'.
An apology is empty and meaningless if the action is repeated.
Very kind of you.
I won't be making any more fuss about off topicness.
A bit of a waste of time, as are some 'sorries'.
An apology is empty and meaningless if the action is repeated.
I only apologized because you’re right and I was wrong. The topic is very important and we should not lose track of it.
ChangelingSeptember 24, 2019 at 15:25#3331730 likes
Reply to Benkei Yes, the purpose of the Judgement was to maintain the integrity of the constitution, it had nothing to do with politics and certainly didn't stray into political affairs. It was necessary because if the judiciary hadn't acted in this way, it would have given carte blanche to Johnson to run rough shod over ( act as a dictator with) our political system at a critical juncture in our constitutional history. There was no choice, or alternative.
Why do you call it an intervention in politics? Why not say it is a decision based on constitutional principles?
Unfortunately, that it is a political intervention is exactly what it is being wrongly portrayed as.
It is seen as an attempt to stop Brexit. Against the 'will of the people'.
The most important task is to decide as quickly as we can how we are going to move forward on Brexit. It’s not true, which is being repeated over and over again by ministers, that everybody who’s involved in parliament is just trying to stop Brexit, defy the people … I voted for Brexit three times with a deal on these three preliminary points. I think the best thing to do is to produce a majority in parliament on a cross-party basis –
Someone commenting btl:
'That statement needs to be enforced, to stop the Beeb and the Tory gutter press using it for their populist agendas. Since they’re spreading lies and stirring up hate, they should be taken to task over it.'
I think that it should be 'reinforced' not 'enforced'.
No matter. I hope when Parliament resumes it hammers home the message and effectively counteracts the pervasive lies.
Lies and liars need to be called out as such. Using facts and evidence.
Reply to Punshhh The argument that 'the law courts are interfering in politics' is very reminiscent of current American conservative politics, isn't it? It basically politicizes the judiciary so as to undermine its independence.
Reply to Wayfarer Yes, Lord Sumption (former Supreme Court judge), on radio 4 this morning said that it was important that the court spoke with one voice because of the possibility that judges could be singled out for criticism of their judgement in the light of their views on the issue of Brexit. Thus compromising the independence of the judiciary. I'm sure that brexiters will be trying to do this and also worse, Johnson and his advisers are going to try to pit the people against the establishment remoaners, with Johnson as the champion of the people and their democratic decision. That the establishment is ignoring them and thinks that their decision was wrong and must be corrected.
Unfortunately for him, this course results in him undermining the constitution, parliament and the Crown, which will reflect very badly on him and his government. Also it will strengthen the opposition in Parliament.
EcharmionSeptember 25, 2019 at 11:28#3336390 likes
Unfortunately for him, this course results in him undermining the constitution, parliament and the Crown, which will reflect very badly on him and his government. Also it will strengthen the opposition in Parliament.
Do you think his long-term strategy is a Trump-style populism, appealing to a narrow but highly mobilised and intensely partisan group of voters?
Reply to Echarmion I don't know what his long time aims are, or his party, as he is surrounded by chaos and it is accepted that the strategy is in the hands of a shady unelected advisor Dominic Cummings. Who is a clever strategist who is well aware of how populism works at this time.
In my opinion, Johnson's long term strategy is to achieve the survival of the Conservative party, principally by winning back his support which has drained away to the Brexit party. This split has been going on for a couple of decades and will destroy the party if leaving the EU is not achieved. If he manages to secure a no deal Brexit he is the hero who fought off the Brexit party and restored the supremacy of the Conservative party. If he fails the party will sink into electoral oblivion and his supporters will be under attack from the socialist policies of a Corbyn government( they will have to pay fair taxes).
One might consider that the Conservative party is not in such peril considering their performance over recent times. But they are heading towards a demographic time bomb. They have virtually no support amongst the younger generation, which is swinging to the left. While their core support is steadily dying of old age.
So to answer you question he is not aiming to create an insensly partisan base, or something like that. But rather to restore the party and then everything can get back to normal and restore the good old days, which is, of course, a pipe dream.
Get Ready For Brexit.
Get creative and design a satirical poster - @Punshhh and any other artists, your time for fame ?
'Led By Donkeys' response to the government's £100m advertising campaign. They have a mock-up of a government website and an online tool that lets users design their own “get ready” poster.
'Comedy masterminds Armando Iannucci and David Schneider have kindly agreed to choose the best five entries which will go up on billboards in the real world. Deadline for submissions is Wednesday 2nd October at midnight. Good luck!'
?Echarmion
I don't know what his long time aims are, or his party, as he is surrounded by chaos and it is accepted that the strategy is in the hands of a shady unelected advisor Dominic Cummings. Who is a clever strategist who is well aware of how populism works at this time.
Boris's strategy - and Cummings' is simple. To be the man who despite all the remoaners and cowards achieved Brexit. Ideally he wants to stick to his Oct 31st promise. But if parliament dictates an election first, he can get away with a few weeks' delay and campaign on the promise to do it as soon as he's returned with a majority. He can then repeal the anti-no-deal legislation and present the EU with an ultimatum to drop the back-stop and agree a new deal, or he'll leave with no deal.
I don't think he's much interested in the Tory party as a historical institution, but only as a party in his own image - just like Trump and the Republicans. All the older generation who care about the party's past have gone from the Cabinet, replaced by young hard-liners who will follow his will. Populism is about individual demagogues. The disillisioned Brexit voters trust leaders, not parties..
If he fails the party will sink into electoral oblivion and his supporters will be under attack from the socialist policies of a Corbyn government (they will have to pay fair taxes).
That’s a fair look at it. All the more reason for a general election, in my opinion. Get the Brexit party in to achieve Brexit before the parties sink themselves and ruin their party principles, then once over return to politics as usual.
ChangelingSeptember 25, 2019 at 18:16#3339400 likes
Boris's strategy - and Cummings' is simple. To be the man who despite all the remoaners and cowards achieved Brexit.
Yes the two aims are intertwined. I have long been of the opinion that he would prefer to go for a softer Brexit deal if his party was happy and the Brexit party wouldn't punish them at the ballot box. Firstly because he wasn't a brexiter until the referendum campaign and so is not himself a rabid leaver. Secondly he's intelligent enough to realise that a no deal Brexit will be hugely damaging, or at least a great risk and that he as prime minister would be in the firing line and fire fighting in crisis mode for months or years.
Also if you look back to Theresa May's term in office, she was visibly scared of the wrath of the ERG. This is why she felt unable to reach across the house and build a deal around a cross party consensus. Why she had to lay down her red lines and why they brought down her deal repeatedly, because they have always intended to ram through a no deal.
To me Johnson is like a cornered animal, not just cornered by parliament, but within his own party. With the spectre of Farage looking over his shoulder.
I don't think he's much interested in the Tory party as a historical institution, but only as a party in his own image - just like Trump and the Republicans. All the older generation who care about the party's past have gone from the Cabinet, replaced by young hard-liners who will follow his will. Populism is about individual demagogues. The disillisioned Brexit voters trust leaders, not parties..
I don't want to underplay the size of his ego/egomania. But party really does matter, because the support for the Conservatives is being squeezed in a few ways. To be in government requires a large number of MPs behind you and in our electoral system for those MPs to become elected comes down to votes on the ground, which are not easy to secure. And don't underestimate the fear amongst the party of a Corbyn government.
Johnson plumbed a new low yesterday in Parliament, the sickest bit was when he said that the best way to honour the death of the mudered politician Joe Cox, was to leave the EU ( she was murdered by a far right extremist during the referendum campaign).
If you're not in the UK you can hear it by downloading the podcast on LBC radio, it was about 6pm last night.
Reply to Punshhh
I think it will get much worse. Basically, if you don't help me deliver Brexit, you are a traitor.
Really disgusted and appalled watching Parliament Live yesterday.
The attorney general set the tone going full attack mode. As for Johnson...
Here, as you say, is the worst example:
unenlightenedSeptember 26, 2019 at 09:36#3343480 likes
*rant* It is surely time to remove this odious little man and elect the right honourable member for Old-fartery North to head a government of national unity to delay Brexit and call an election. We cannot continue to have a lying unrepentant criminal psychopath as prime minister. */rant*
I don't want to underplay the size of his ego/egomania. But party really does matter, because the support for the Conservatives is being squeezed in a few ways. To be in government requires a large number of MPs behind you and in our electoral system for those MPs to become elected comes down to votes on the ground, which are not easy to secure. And don't underestimate the fear amongst the party of a Corbyn government.
Yes the party matters as a means to elect MPs and get a government, but when the voters courted by populists vote they vote for the figurehead, not the party. If the Brexit Party makes inroads at the coming election it will be Farage its voters go for - the party un-ashamedly had no policies for the Euro elections! Likewise the Boris Party will be what its intended voters vote for. Yes many of them are Tories, but I think the era of allegiance to party rather than ideas and leaders is coming to a close. It is probably a temporary change however, and once Brexit is in the past old political tribalism will return.
Reply to Tim3003 It does look like we're getting the Boris Party, a fully fledged Machiavellian tyrant. Heading at full speed for a no idea Brexit (no deal Brexit), and a Trump deal. Fasten your seat belts.
The trouble is it is very high risk and he is a flawed character, the phrase on my lips today is,
Beware the ides of March.
EcharmionSeptember 26, 2019 at 13:36#3344640 likes
Brexit is in the past old political tribalism will return.
Arguably, allegiance to a party is less tribal than allegiance to a person. Power in tribal societies is based on personal power, whereas parties represent more abstract values.
It looks a though there's going to be a no confidence vote in Parliament next week and an attempt to install a caretaker government. Fasten your seatbelts and get ready for a rollercoaster ride, right into a general election.
Reply to Punshhh Question for the Brits here - this Nigel Farrage - how much of a threat is he, really? My impression here in Oz is that he is a small-time demagogue who's leveraged xenophobia to get himself elected. But if the Conservatives lost a bunch of seats, what would that mean for Farage and the Brexit Party? They couldn't conceivably become a government, could they?
unenlightenedSeptember 28, 2019 at 11:20#3353800 likes
They couldn't conceivably become a government, could they?
So many things have happened that were inconceivable not long ago. But the currently conceivable danger is to the conservatives that they will split their general election vote, and let the labour party in.
Thus if parliament can frustrate the Borexit plan, that will probably eventually end the whole brexit thing and destroy the conservative party for the foreseeable.
Reply to Wayfarer Farage is not much of a threat at the moment. It's more of a protest movement. From my side as a remainer, he is useful because he can split the leave vote. Although if he forges some sort of alliance with the Conservative party, he could swing the vote in their favour. I expect all sorts of shenanigans during the election campaign.
At the moment Conservatives are saying that would never happen, but I am suspicious that there are deals going on in secret. It is high risk because if it happens it will almost certainly have a devastatinga effect on the Conservative party. So Johnson will have to choose between a hard Brexit selling the soul of his party to the Brexit party and all the consequences of that. Or try and drain support from the Brexit party and save the Conservative party (if that's even possible), although it would probably mean loosing Brexit and could let Corbyn in.
Yesterday at the Conservative party conference, James Cleverly, Conservative party chairman said that there could be civil disobedience and rioting if Brexit is not done by 31st October. While in the Yellow Hammer report ( commissioned by the government to identify what the risks of a no deal Brexit are), if there is a no deal Brexit there is a risk of civil disobedience and rioting.
So the government is leading us down a road in which either way we will have civil disobedience and rioting. Of course they would say that there is an alternative, to agree a deal, but it is well known that there is no deal and they won't bring back the May deal. There is talk today of the outline of a deal being published, but everyone ( who's not a leaver) knows it's a sham.
It looks to me that Johnson's strategy is to be all things to all people. To face both ways promising what the hard Brexiters and the Brexit party want, that his policy is no deal and it's going to happen come what may, do or die. While at the same time promising the more moderate Conservatives and Labour leavers that he is on the verge of agreeing a deal, he really wants a deal and threatening a no deal is the best way to get a deal, the EU always compromises at the very last minute.
He needs to bring everyone with him right to the very last day and hold a metaphorical gun to their heads. To either agree a deal, a deal which few will actually support, or push them of a cliff, which will take everyone else over with them. This also gives him the opportunity with Cummings to conduct some chicanery in the chaos at the point of the acute crisis he will create.
The problem he has is that if he commits one way, or the other, he looses the support who want to go the other way and he would be finished and Corbyn would get in ( a worse outcome than Hell itself to all Conservatives). So he has to hold them in a close hug, or clench with a gun to everyone's head until a second before midnight on 31st of October. Once this point has passed then he can resurrect the Conservative party out of the flames, as any opposition would have been neutralised, it would have no purpose any more. Boris would be proclaimed a hero, all hail Boris, all hail the Emperor.
He has saved the country from the tyranny of a Corbyn government.
The Tory project, ever since about 1910, has been to prevent any government from representing the working majority's interests and those interests ever being seriously considered by a majority, and Farage is a part of that nonsense, as is the constant hymn of hate let out by the boss-class media against a famous villain called 'Corbyn', a literary creation on which they have worked very hard. The purpose of this Brexit crap is to distract the people from their worsening conditions, and Farage is meant to mop up those who are pissed off, as did the Brexit project itself. A dictatorship would be a lot less tedious and messy. Perhaps they'll bring Bliar back from the grave: he is totally unpopular and could still (just) be associated with 'Labour'.
He needs to bring everyone with him right to the very last day and hold a metaphorical gun to their heads. To either agree a deal, a deal which few will actually support, or push them of a cliff, which will take everyone else over with them. This also gives him the opportunity with Cummings to conduct some chicanery in the chaos at the point of the acute crisis he will create.
The problem he has is that if he commits one way, or the other, he looses the support who want to go the other way and he would be finished and Corbyn would get in
I think you've answered your own question - chicanery. No deal will be blamed on the EU for being intransigent despite the UK 'working flat out' to get a deal. Or if a deal is agreed and parliament rejects it, then they get the blame. If a deal is agreed and voted through then Boris is the hero. Boris doesn't need to win, he just needs someone to blame if things go wrong. He can then hold an election against the backdrop of a discredited parliament.
The only fly in the ointment is the doubt that he can force a no-deal Brexit through - seemingly against the law, as he insists but no-one outside the Cabinet believes. If he has to ask for an extention to article 50 he will presumably refuse. If he resigns, triggering an election, can he be prosecuted for disobeying the law? If I understand correctly, he can resign, but he is still PM and his govt are still in place until the election, so subject to the law. So we end up back in the Supreme Court?!
The only fly in the ointment is the doubt that he can force a no-deal Brexit through - seemingly against the law, as he insists but no-one outside the Cabinet believes. If he has to ask for an extention to article 50 he will presumably refuse. If he resigns, triggering an election, can he be prosecuted for disobeying the law? If I understand correctly, he can resign, but he is still PM and his govt are still in place until the election, so subject to the law. So we end up back in the Supreme Court?!
If the EU is done with it come end of October there will be a no-deal Brexit despite what the UK Parliament thinks of it.
bad idea. governments are too corrupt for the democratic experiment to continued ad naseum. it always seemed curious to me why an old greek concept like democracy should be brought up like it's some kind of natural right, when it was a rarity back in the day. the only conclusion is that the united states' declaration of independence was wartime propaganda and that the legitimacy of democracy is something far more fleeting. it's too hard to vote anymore, to be complicit in a farce. institutional power. now that's pretty much self-evident.
governments are too corrupt for the democratic experiment to continued ad naseum
What's your definition of corruption here? Being able to nudge the scales of justice towards arbitrary power for oneself? How would a form of minority rule fix that? not to mention democracies existing today where corruption is low.
Reply to boethius a democracy is advertised as a system where the common people control the policies. brexit is another example, the others may be seen by polling figures, where this is apparently not the case. stop the madness.
he just needs someone to blame if things go wrong.
l don't disagree with your assement, I would add though, as before, the importance of keeping the Conservative party together in his motives. This is very important because it is the only way of preventing Corbyn getting into No10 and no one should underestimate how bad that would be in the eyes of supporters of the Conservatives. I put it to you that in their eyes this is far worse than Brexit being cancelled, or a soft Brexit. I admit that the Conservatives are doomed in either case, but they are clutching at straws and their focus at this point is in fighting off the Brexit party, who will decimate his support if Brexit is delayed again, cancelled, or a soft deal is agreed, again, letting Corbyn in. The Conservatives would far rather wreck the country and the union wherever the blame lands, than enable Corbyn to get his hands on No10, although they will try to blame someone else if they can.
Imo the only way he can succeed in holding the Conservative party together and fend off Corbyn, is to get a no deal, or a hard Deal Brexit by 31st of October. The only way he can do that is to hoodwink the soft brexiters in his own party and the Labour Party. Until either he can force through a no deal, or hold a metaphorical gun to the heads of a large number of MPs and get them to vote a hard deal through before 31st October.
There is a second way, which as you say, is that if he is removed by parliament and fails. He will then try to pit the people against parliament in a general election and if he wins, he will try it all again. But I doubt this would work due to the rise of the Brexit party by that point. Perhaps if some sort of pact with the Brexit party were secured he could win, but that is looking a long way into the future.
Just to add, as I understand it, if Johnson resigns, or refuses to ask the EU for an extension, the Supreme Court will issue an injunction very quickly requiring him to go and ask, and/or instruct another person to do so in his stead by order of the court. Which would be acceptable to the EU. As has been stated by the EU, they are negotiating with her Majesty's Government, they care not who the Prime minister is, or whom her Majesty sends in his stead.
brexit is another example, the others may be seen by polling figures, where this is apparently not the case. stop the madness.
The general analysis of democratic proponents is that the UK is not democratic enough, first-past-the-post vs. proportional representation. Other than simply being more inline with majority rule (first-past-the-post is only majority rule sometimes, which doesn't somehow magically turn cases of when it produces minority rule into majority rule, that's an obvious contradiction and nonsense argument; arguments for first-past-the-post are minority-rule arguments, and made by people that don't like democracy).
So other than being inherently more democratic, the practical consequence of proportional systems is that there is more space for more diverse views at the seat of power (any party with a few percent support can have a seat or two), and so this creates more nuanced discussion between adjacent parties and, critically, if a party get mired in corruption people can switch to a party that's very close in platform.
In first past the post, "whoever has the most votes wins" and so small parties are completely meaningless and the only numerical strategy to beat the incumbent is to merge all opposition into a single party (avoid vote splitting). This naturally tends to a two-party system, with fairly irrelevant exceptions of regional parties. Without stepping stones of platforms in between these polarized positions, debate cannot be nuanced as each party is simply a "cobbling together" of various views in that general space of political opinion and, critically, the only way to punish corruption or incompetence is to switch to a radically different party; both these factors result in coherent policy being left-by-the-wayside, and as a consequence the whole system loses focus on coherent policy, and so, surprise-surprise, the electorate, when polled, don't have a clue. Whereas, in a proportional representation system, parties need to compete by making more sense next to the adjacent parties and people can easily engage in debate with adjacent parties; coherent arguments sort of "win locally" and then move along the ideological space, being adopted by the like-minded and requiring a critique from those opposed to that view (which generally, if the argument is really good, requires modifying the platform to either "take the good parts", explain the argument is simply wrong or then recognize the problem but deal with it by a combination of other policies); all of which promotes a much more coherent understanding of things overall.
But there's a quick empirical take, which is the advanced democracies with proportional representation are never in the news for electing stupid people or having stupid referendums. In other words, people become frustrated with the non-democratic nature of first-past-the-post and over time "anti-establishment" becomes a predominant opinion that expresses itself in eventually supporting disruption to the system. Of course, it would be more productive for this frustration to be directed at the first-past-the-post system, but it takes a lot of time to build that awareness and there's all the incumbent power of the entire country (main political parties, media, the rich) that want the status quo. The whole point of first-past-the-post is that it allows minority rule while being advertised as democratic; the result is the worst of both worlds: the minority that rules becomes detached from reality and stupid and corrupt, and the people are not accustomed to real policy debates mattering so are equally ill equipped to guide the country when their effect is felt from time to time.
Reply to Hassiar There is one thing that our democracy gives us which is an improvement on the alternatives, which is the ability for the electorate to remove the government every 5 years if required. And to be able to put another government, selected through democratic processes in their place.
Reply to Punshhh
I don't see what you mean about Boris having to hold the Tory party together. Surely he has already split it by ejecting those last few Remainers. It is now a Brexit party, cast in his image. His votes in the leadership contest were cast on this understanding and the Tory vote at the next election will be leavers-only. The Brexit party cannot amass enough support for a 'clean' no-deal Brexit - its preference, as even the most fanatical right-wingers in the Tory party know a deal is better than no-deal. Farage preaches to the simplistic Brexiteers who want it at any cost ASAP. These are surely only a minority of the Brexit vote. But the Brexiteer vote won't be split in an election because the Tories won't be standing on a leave-with-a-deal platform: Either we will have done that, or Boris will have had to extend Article 50, and it will be clear no deal is the only future option for him. Hence the Brexit Party has no USP. Recent polls have the Tories well ahead of Labour, and a majority is quite possible for them. It's probable that the Lib Dems and Labour will split the Remainer vote so Boris's path back to No 10 with a majority is clear - assuming he can shed all blame for having to extend Article 50 that is. But he can doubtless blame the Remainer parliament for ignoring the wishes of the people and forcing him as he's done successfully already.
Reply to Tim3003 I think I am doing something akin to discussing a game of chess without actually moving the chess pieces on the board. When I read your posts, it all makes sense, but I have notions and suspect notions in the minds of the group running Downing Street which differ. I suppose I have a different view of the primary motivation within that group. Although having just listened to Johnson's speech at the party conference, I am beginning to think that it is more chaotic, naive and short sighted than I had been thinking.
I suppose what I mean by saving the party is that where the fatal split will be is the focus. I think this split would cleft the party in two with hardened leavers and supporters who are sympathetic to the lurch to the right and populism, but who may have been quite ambivalent on the issue of Brexit (before the referendum) on one side and an equal group of staunch remainers and supporters who are sympathetic with preserving a one nation broad church of a party, who were quite ambivalent about Brexit ( before the referendum)on the other side. At the moment the party is leaking support to the Brexit party on one side and the Lib Dems on the other.
The fear being (justified or not) that the party is loosing support to the Brexit party and that is why Theresa May and now Boris Johnson have had to tow a more right wing approach than they would naturally adopt and why the leadership has been replaced by hard brexiters. As this becomes more extreme, as it appears to be doing, the members and supporters on the other side of the divide will be looking on in horror and wondering what happened to their party. They might be seriously considering changing their allegiance to the Lib Dems.
Add to this schizophrenia the body blow of the referendum result and the rise of a truly socialist opposition and it seems to me that the leadership is struggling to hold the party together, while becoming paranoid of a socialist government. An illustration of this is the way that May and Johnson are repeatedly seen facing both ways at once talking to the two opposing constituencies in their own party. Developing strategies and policies which are shoring up the splits. This is why Johnson appears to both really really want to get a deal, and simultaneously gunning for no deal.
There is one thing however which all sides of the party and their support is united on, which is that they really really don't want to let a socialist party to get into government. I noticed in his speech some serious attacks on Corbyn, for example, if he got into government, he would close down all private schools, abolish ofstead, disband the army and a string of other dubious claims and slurs.
However he failed to make the expected ultimatum to the EU and was quite subdued in his bravado on the Brexit issue.
The government's (Johnson's) eagerly anticipated proposals to the EU have been published. It's a great big slice of fudge. As I was beginning to suspect, his team and strategy is limp, limping along. It confirms that the plan all along was to secure a general election, unfortunately for him he is going to become cornered now into adopting no deal as his policy, which will divide his party further. There is some murmuring about bringing back the May deal again and holding a gun to their heads, but I can't see how they can achieve that with such a limp and it would destroy his party if it is passed.
It's beginning to look like a crash and burn.
unenlightenedOctober 02, 2019 at 17:25#3370920 likes
Uniting the Conservative party means winning the election.What divides the Tories is always losing; they hate losers, and in the end everyone is a loser, so they hate everyone. They are divided over what makes a winning strategy, and brexit is an aspect of the division. They will even support the NHS in theory, if they think it is a winning strategy.
They will even support the NHS in theory, if they think it is a winning strategy
They don't have to support the NHS, just say they will and their base believes it. Everyone else is highly sceptical, there is a feeling going around that they can't be trusted on anything. Johnson's splash the cash announcements in his speech yesterday, had a hollow sound to them. He's trying to appeal to the Labour heartlands in the north who voted leave. I doubt if they will fall for it, although they may still support him, or more likely the Brexit party. They are in deprived areas often where there are a lot of immigrants, they will become more deprived after Brexit, they know it and will still vote to leave. Talk about stubborn. Labour will campaign hard in these areas, sincerely promising to help with socialist policies, which they will implement and will work. I wonder if it will have any impact.
The question of whether or not Brexit has been settled is going to be criticial in the election. Because it's effectively an issue of nationalism it has polarised opinion across the old party boundaries. If it hasn't we're heading for the same situation as Northern Ireland and Scotland, where the whole political landscape is divided up along nationalist or unionist lines. At the moment Brexit is drowning out all other political issues and I think the party conference promises are gaining little traction with voters. If Article 50 is extended pre-election then Brexit could cause the sort of seismic shake up in the political map which happened in Scotland 10 years ago. (What makes me laugh is that the 'Conservative and Unionist Party' is the biggest mainstream voice for nationalism, with Boris's Tories happily willing to sacrifice their core principles in the name of Brexit.) Maybe the Lib Dems and Labour will have to work together and not stand in eachother's best seats to keep the Tories/Brexit Party out..
unenlightenedOctober 03, 2019 at 12:23#3373900 likes
Maybe the Lib Dems and Labour will have to work together and not stand in eachother's best seats to keep the Tories/Brexit Party out..
That's not going to happen, even for a few weeks to prevent the no deal that is the Lib-Dem signature policy this week they will not support Labour. They're just tories without tax havens.
I've just heard an electoral analyst on LBC, stating that the leave vote is split between the Conservative party and the Brexit party, which is a "fight to the death". Whereas the remain vote is mainly divided between Labour and Lib Dems. Who may well cooperate, at some point.
The important observation he made was that on the leave side there are a lot of seats which are marginal between the Lib Dems and Conservative, which could swing in the Lib Dem's favour if Johnson starts to loose support. Whereas the majority of Labour marginal seats are between Labour and the Conservatives, with some Brexit party. Labour and Lib Dems are predominantly in different areas of the country and don't overlap much. So if Lib Dems do well, it will mainly be at the expense of the Conservative party.
That's not going to happen, even for a few weeks to prevent the no deal that is the Lib-Dem signature policy this week they will not support Labour. They're just tories without tax havens.
It is becoming very evident that trying to monopolise the 'Remain' position is the Liberals' great hope of a political comeback after they destroyed themselves with their 'personal pledges' and putting the tories in. I find it rather shocking that they should so obviously put their own interests before those of the Country, but I suppose I'm old fashioned. It's sad that my own nation should be the only one of those involved that seem to care about the UK. I put it down to drink! :)
Reply to iolo I would say that those who don't care about our union are a minority. The Lib Dems hold a legitimate position. Is there much of a Welsh independence sentiment in your area?
'Boris Johnson will ask the EU for a Brexit extension if deal not reached by 19 October
Government documents submitted to Scotland’s highest civil court today state that the prime minister will seek a Brexit extension from the EU if no withdrawal deal is reached by 19 October.
Boris Johnson said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than seek a further delay, and the revelation in court appears to be in direct contradiction of that statement and throws the question of whether the UK will leave the bloc on 31 October into fresh doubt.'
'In the Scottish court of session, Aidan O’Neill QC said the commitment within the submissions were inconsistent with what Johnson said in parliament yesterday.
The government had sought to prevent these documents being released to the media, and it will raise questions over the contradiction between the prime minister’s public and private stances.'
So, when will he, the 'Father of Lies' come clean in Parliament ?
?iolo I would say that those who don't care about our union are a minority. The Lib Dems hold a legitimate position. Is there much of a Welsh independence sentiment in your area?
Yes, and growing. But the centuries of serfdom take a hell of a time to get over.
The government had sought to prevent these documents being released to the media, and it will raise questions over the contradiction between the prime minister’s public and private stances.'
It's what I was saying a couple of posts back, Johnson is facing both ways, one way for the hard brexiters in his party and the Brexit party, the other way to his moderate and remain conservative supporters. He can often be heard saying the opposite to what he said a moment earlier, or saying something which means exactly the opposite of what he's doing.
It has been coined "double speak" ( like doublethink in George Orwell's Animal Farm). The problem with it is, that his leave supporters, know it but don't care because they're in on the roose. The people on the remain side, see it, but when they call it out it is denied, or ignored. And the worst thing is the leave supporting newspapers print his rhetoric aimed at leavers and are read by a large swathe of less knowledgeable leave voters, who follow slogans, rather like the Trump base. But they don't realise what he's up to, or that he is continually contradicting himself and lying. This constituency is considered to be the Labour leave areas in the north of England, who Johnson wants to poach from Corbyn. I noticed that some EU politicians were commenting on it lastnight and this morning, it is why they think Johnson is disingenuous and playing to a UK audience in preparation for an election.
Reply to iolo Interesting, as Wales as a whole voted to leave the EU. But lastnight Plied Cymru's Adam Price was speaking of an independent Wales in the EU.
?iolo Interesting, as Wales as a whole voted to leave the EU. But lastnight Plied Cymru's Adam Price was speaking of an independent Wales in the EU.
It's always been so. One third of the population are English now - mainly geriatrics, fortunately, but they and the holiday-homers close down our schools and pubs for us - and a whole lot of people never hear 'Welsh' news or read a 'Welsh' newspaper, so progress is very slow. However, in the first Referendum for Devolution the Labour Government was unpopular, so it lost, but then the mugs found that English government meant Thatcherism, so then it was victorious on the second. Similarly, they voted Brexit because they are treated like shit and thought it meant they mattered, but as they begin to learn what it will actually mean there is more support for and discussion of Independence. It's a slow learner, my suffering Country, but it does learn - eventually.
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2019 at 13:16#3383120 likes
One third of the population are English now - mainly geriatrics,
I am a geriatric English remainer in Wales. But I think the blame for the school and pub closures has to be laid more at the doors of the Welsh emigrants than the English immigrants. Is there not a certain logic there?
they voted Brexit because they are treated like shit and thought it meant they mattered,
This is sadly true of most of the brexit majority regions, and how the rich have convinced them that it is the bloody foreigner shitting on them and not the bloody elite, is truly wonderful to behold. But the incomer and foreigner almost invariably improve the economy. Not the second homers, but the long term residents support the local economy; even idlers like myself bring our pensions and savings into the area.
I am a geriatric English remainer in Wales. But I think the blame for the school and pub closures has to be laid more at the doors of the Welsh emigrants than the English immigrants. Is there not a certain logic there?
This is sadly true of most of the brexit majority regions, and how the rich have convinced them that it is the bloody foreigner shitting on them and not the bloody elite, is truly wonderful to behold. But the incomer and foreigner almost invariably improve the economy. Not the second homers, but the long term residents support the local economy; even idlers like myself bring our pensions and savings into the area.
The incredible robbery that has gone on over the last few hundred years, as in Ireland, does mean that those who want to 'get on' have to move out, but there were still plenty of people until their houses were all bought up. I don't think most of those who move in contribute anything whatever, frankly - that is just a politeness. Persons like yourself are always welcome, but have you bought a house in an area where our language is spoken, and have you learned any? That's what this is all about.
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2019 at 13:40#3383190 likes
Duw, there's awful! Better call me 'Taff''! :) As a believer in 'races' I don't get started, I'm afraid! I don't know where you are/were, so it's difficult for me to comment, but if the Government has more-or-less consciously destroyed all employment opportunities, what do you suggest people should do? What we tend to care about is the survival of our language-communities and our own future as a people rather than our being replaced by rich foreigners. Seems to me a fairly normal reaction!
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2019 at 14:24#3383340 likes
Yes, and growing. But the centuries of serfdom take a hell of a time to get over.
I don't disagree, but do you realise there are millions of serfs in England to, just on this side of the border rather than that?
In my world, places where I have lived, or that I know of have been " gentrified", which is a polite way of saying the privelidged, private school educated, self appointed important people, knobs(for want of a better word) have moved in. They have decimated many a nice old fashioned village, or town. Only the desirable ones of course. A classic example you may know of as it's right on the Welsh border, is Haye on Wye. When I used to visit as young boy it was untouched( well relatively, as there was a draw for secondhand book collectors, as I was). But over the last 30 years it has become gentrified, to the extent that every other shop has been set up by moneyed people playing at being cool and stylish, living the dream( country living magazine style). You trip over them in the streets and in the skinny latte, coffee houses. ( I know there is still a strong local community there, but it has been pushed to the sidelines and into the shadows.)
This split, them and us divide in our society, our country has been going on overtly since people (some poeple, the privelidged of course) found they had wealth, new money and started spilling out of their middle class enclaves in the Home Counties where their privelidge, their important private schools and routes ( a nod and a wink) into all the privelidged and important jobs, was confined. Now they spill out into every quaint, beautiful, desirable place in the country and pollute it with big black four wheel drive vehicles, with their sharp elbows buy up all the best property's, and make everywhere look like a country living magazine cover.
Where as there is an equal, infact larger, phenomena of regions and towns becoming deprived, wealth drained away, work going in the direction of short term contracts and zero hour contracts. Dying High streets, filled with chicken cafes, porn shops, betting shops and discount retailers. These are the towns where sizeable numbers of immigrants have been put, adding to the feelings of discontent due to the deprivation, with one of demographic fears too.
Weirdly not only do these left behind deprived populations feel they want to hit back at the establishment with a leave vote. But the privelidged interlopers on mass want to leave as well. But their reasons are predominantly to increase unregulated capitalism, along with some myth that the Germans are going to suck us into some kind of superstate, which they are in charge of. To become a German colony.
Seriously, forget the self parody, this is a racist trope.
If you like to think in that peculiar way. The only point of any country is its culture, and if that is destroyed, what's it matter who replaces it? That's about it, as far as I can see, and what it has to do with imagined 'races' escapes me.
I agree with all you say. The point about our culture is that it makes the history of these things easier to remember. It is astounding to me how, in English, the rich revolutionary traditions of mining areas like this get rubbed away, whereas a minority culture things are better remembered - though even there the increasing commercialisation is doing what it can. We are fortunate in that our fake history is mainly cultural, especially the National Eisteddfod, rather than political.
unenlightenedOctober 06, 2019 at 11:50#3386200 likes
Races are imagined, but countries and cultures are real?
My wife is a very real mixed [s]race[/s] culture person, Welsh and Caribbean. Her father's name, his slave name was 'Williams'. What is peculiar is to imagine that the dreadful abusive history of Britain stopped at the border and left Wales innocent. How very complacently racist you are again to think that nation has a reality that race does not. Imagine a Jew in the Death camps or a slave on the plantation saying 'races are imagined'! Now that would be peculiar. But coming from you as represented in what you have already said, it is just more racism.
My wife is a very real mixed race culture person, Welsh and Caribbean. Her father's name, his slave name was 'Williams'. What is peculiar is to imagine that the dreadful abusive history of Britain stopped at the border and left Wales innocent. How very complacently racist you are again to think that nation has a reality that race does not. Imagine a Jew in the Death camps or a slave on the plantation saying 'races are imagined'! Now that would be peculiar. But coming from you as represented in what you
You speak a language or you don't: it's not difficult to grasp, surely.
? The language gives you access to a particular culture. Still with me? 'Race' is a nonsense thought up by imperialism to allow one lot to be persuaded that those the rich wanted them to fight were quite other than themselves, whereas cultures are real and can be experienced. I don't quite see how geographical concepts can be innocent or guilty of anything, and quite obviously races were imagined to allow slavery and mass murder. I rather gather that you were too superior to learn the language of the country you were settling in: you certainly seem to be getting extremely worked up about imagined things, so I take that to be the reason! :) No need to be so sensitive: our struggle to survive had hardly got going back then!
unenlightenedOctober 06, 2019 at 12:52#3386260 likes
I don't quite see how geographical concepts can be innocent or guilty of anything,
Have fun joining up those dots. I'll leave there, sir. I have had this conversation too many times. But I do urge you to consider the historical connections between nationalism and fascism and racism, and consider that being black is at least as real as being Welsh. I would bet that even a expert like you would see my wife's blackness before you noticed her Welshness.
I rather gather that you were too superior to learn the language of the country you were settling in: you certainly seem to be getting extremely worked up about imagined things, so I take that to be the reason! :) No need to be so sensitive: our struggle to survive had hardly got going back then!
You know so much about me that I have not said; your condescension is so very English. Personally it is the Englishness of Welsh culture that I find objectionable, the overweening pride, the xenophobia, the self-satisfied innocence, the exclusivity. Fortunately, it exists mainly in a middle-class minority, and the real Welsh culture and tradition is much more open-hearted.
And by the way, one can speak a language somewhat. It is by no means the case that one speaks it or does not. For example aside from English, I speak reasonable French (for a foreigner) a very little German, and some Catalan. And maybe a smattering of some other tongues. But I am no linguist.
To wish to keep your own culture alive is normal. It doesn't need defence or political guff. I would notice whether your wife spoke the language of her country. Why should I be bothered about anything else? I don't see why I have to suffer all this tedious irrelevance, really I don't.
unenlightenedOctober 06, 2019 at 13:20#3386330 likes
I would notice whether your wife spoke the language of her country.
I'm sorry, I wanted to leave you be, but this is a bit too extreme. Suppose, like most of the Welsh, she did not?
Half a million people in Wales can speak Welsh; that's around 19% of the population.
Why should you be bothered about 81% of the population of the country you claim as your own? No reason at all, let them eat cake. Now I really am done.
Reply to iolo I respect the Welsh for their insistence on keeping their culture alive. Here in England, I don't know what our culture is, as to a large extent it is defined by the notion of a United Kingdom and Commonwealth and as a mixing bowl for all the cultures found in the different regions of that. So now that those other regions have left or may soon leave, what are we left with? Even our language is not ours anymore, it is owned by the whole world.
What would we call our country, Great England? Or maybe Boris Isles, which might be appropriate.
Probably 95% of we Irish can't speak Irish (fluently). So, what is it to be Irish? What is it to be a game? It's never one thing and no one thing is ever indispensable.
Government documents submitted to Scotland’s highest civil court today state that the prime minister will seek a Brexit extension from the EU if no withdrawal deal is reached by 19 October.
Boris Johnson said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than seek a further delay, and the revelation in court appears to be in direct contradiction of that statement and throws the question of whether the UK will leave the bloc on 31 October into fresh doubt.'
I've heard that the answer could be yes, he will ask the EU for an extension, but he will also 'bribe' the Poles to veto the EU proposal to grant one by putting pressure on their relationship with the UK. I'm not sure how he can exert greater pressure than the EU can - maybe via trident missiles?!
Maybe another Daily Telegraph fantasy (the last one was that Ireland was "under pressure" to accept Boris's deal). The fact is that no EU country is going to go out on a limb for the UK. Not on the extension, not on any deal, not on anything. Least of all Poland. Consider that one of the main reasons the UK is leaving is because they want to keep foreigners (particularly Poles and other eastern Europeans) out. Add to that the obvious point that EU countries will always have more to gain from members than non-members and it adds up to the UK continuing to have as little leverage as ever.
My reading of what Johnson is up to with the Benn act is that he will capitulate and ask for the extension when it is clear that he won't get his deal with the EU. He is keeping up the pretence of defying the law in an attempt to put pressure on the EU to compromise.
When he asks for the extension there is going to be an almighty push to put the blame on everyone else trying to thwart Brexit, the will of the people. The idea being that it will build up a head of steam and give him a majority in the looming general election. When he gets this majority he will carry on from where he left off, but with an offer which he can get through Parliament. Thus giving the EU a way out through some fudge over the Irish Border, then we will get the Canada plus deal.
The problem as I see it is that he will split the leave vote in the general election, by running on a negotiated deal ticket, to try and get the moderate vote. Surely he can't still be facing both ways this far down the line. People will smell a rat and won't trust him anymore.
Half a million people in Wales can speak Welsh; that's around 19% of the population.
Why should you be bothered about 81% of the population of the country you claim as your own? No reason at all, let them eat cake. Now I really am done.
What is all that supposed to be about? If there are no areas of the Country where the language is used, it ceases to be in any meaningful sense a country. Are you a big capitalist or something - all these obsessive attempts to work up hatred do look remarkably like it!
Reply to Punshhh Punshhh - I love the Boris Isles! In my own opinion, certain parts of England have very rich traditions, and have dialects as different from Standard as Scots. One or my daughters has been researching revolutionary traditions in and around Bradford for instance, and it would be interesting to follow through the elimination of Elmet and Loidis from memory. I'm rather fascinated by the way history is managed - the way we were told that the four-to-five million people of Roman Britannia were 'driven west' by a few thousand German mercenaries, for instance, or the complete disappearance of so much working-class action from history, the Physical Force Chartists, for instance. Who's ever heard of the Merthyr Rising these days. It seems to me that, just as we did in the Eighteenth Century, the English could build a very satisfactory national tradition by cutting out a good deal of boss-class propaganda. As a people rather than as a gang of imperialists they have a very great deal to be proud of!
To connect all this with Brexit again, the most obvious political unit for a small country is a large Federation made of all sorts of others. The EU, unlike the Westminster regime, also does what it can for minority languages.
Reply to iolo Yes I agree about the airbrushing of history, my family comes from Huddersfield by the way, so Yorkshire a region with its own traditions and history. Going back to identity though, we don't have an equivalent to the Eisteddfod, and we can't shut the knobs out, because they come from England (actually I suspect France with William the conqueror). So we're stuck with them.
?iolo Yes I agree about the airbrushing of history, my family comes from Huddersfield by the way, so Yorkshire a region with its own traditions and history. Going back to identity though, we don't have an equivalent to the Eisteddfod, and we can't shut the knobs out, because they come from England (actually I suspect France with William the conqueror). So we're stuck with them.
My Wife comes from up there. The trick is to do what we did in the Eighteenth Century, and start see those who speak in a foreign fashion as foreigners, and ignore them! One of her ancestors was done for armed rebellion in the Chartist days, and when he got out of Wakefield Jail, had to get a loan from the Woolcombers' Association to go to Australia. since he was blacklisted in Bradford. His brothers, despairing of getting rid of wage-slavery here, went over to the 'States to volunteer for the Northern Army, and the next generation but one were (probably) founder-members of the ILP. There's all the material in the world available for us all if we care to ignore propaganda! :)
Reply to iolo Culture isn't monolithic and certainly not defined by language alone. Western culture overarches several languages. At the same time the culture in my city is distinct from other areas in the Netherlands, which is still Dutch culture. And just look at the history of the development of the guitar (or most any other instrument for that matter) that cultural differences are fluid. Cultures exchange, change, copy and merge over time.
Given how culture has comes about, resistance to cultural change is misplaced.
?iolo Culture isn't monolithic and certainly not defined by language alone. Western culture overarches several languages. At the same time the culture in my city is distinct from other areas in the Netherlands, which is still Dutch culture. And just look at the history of the development of the guitar (or most any other instrument for that matter) that cultural differences are fluid. Cultures exchange, change, copy and merge over time.
Given how culture has comes about, resistance to cultural change is misplaced.
Who said it was monolithic? It is , however, hugely affected by the language in which it is experienced.
The Westminster regime has tried to destroy our language and culture for five hundred years. You think we should lie down and die now it's so much feebler?
Reply to iolo I'm pointing out there isn't a clear line between various cultures and you reply with "our culture", "our language" and us vs. them and how it shouldn't change: that is a interpretation of culture as monolithic par excellence.
I'm not answering your question because I'm not going to speak for an entire "culture" as to what they should do. That would be hubris.
When he asks for the extension there is going to be an almighty push to put the blame on everyone else trying to thwart Brexit, the will of the people. The idea being that it will build up a head of steam and give him a majority in the looming general election.
Well it's already looking like the EU arent going to bend to Boris's will. It must be time for J R Mogg to pipe up about the Benn act which prevents no deal allowing the EU to play hard-ball in the negotiations. I almost wish Boris could negotiate with no-deal really on the table to see what the result would be - maybe with a secret agreement with parliament to stop no deal at the last moment..
As for the election. I think if Boris fails to take the UK out on Oct 31st his election chances will be hit. At least some of those who thought he could get Brexit done and wasn't just another dithering politician may think again..
?iolo I'm pointing out there isn't a clear line between various cultures and you reply with "our culture", "our language" and us vs. them and how it shouldn't change: that is a interpretation of culture as monolithic par excellence.
I'm not answering your question because I'm not going to speak for an entire "culture" as to what they should do. That would be hubris.
Who asked you to reply for 'an entire culture'? To instance the other two languages/cultures I know passably well, would you wish seriously to argue that there was nothing but vocabulary and grammar to distinguish culturally between English-speakers, French-speakers and Chinese-speakers (National Language ones)? Like so many supporters of capitalism, you do seem to spend a lot of effort in trying to divide real people while contending you do the opposite, by bullying minorities. It seems to me pretty sick to identify oneself with what has been done in Westminster over the long, disgusting years, incidentally.
The blame game has started. Downing Street briefed this morning that in a phone call with Angela Merkel lastnight, she had said that a deal was overwhelmingly unlikely. So No10 says it's pulling the talks due to EU intransigence. It's emerged that No10 threatened to pull security arrangements with the EU lastnight, thus undermining NATO.
There are firey exchanges in parliament. There is a major leak from No10 this morning assumed to be from Cummings to James Forsyth of the Spectator magazine, ranting about the betrayal and claiming that they will bypass the Benn Act and are going to push through a no deal. It is a good read.
Here it is,
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/how-number-10-view-the-state-of-the-negotiations/
Reply to Baden I was thinking of a Halloween party, as Halloween is looming over the horizon. I wish I were manufacturing rubber pitch forks, I'd make a killing. Suppose we'll have to settle for tridents and pointy tails.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, the EU has rejected the proposals, it was widely understood that they were never going to be sufficient, but rather a "sham"(according to Cummings). You suggest if Johnson were to negotiate with no deal on the table, there might be some leverage. But I disagree, this is because the EU's red lines are and never were negotiable. They said that right after the referendum, and it ought to have been obvious to Brit's that it would be so ( although I can't say that I had that understanding myself). It is, certainly in hindsight, if not before, a tragic misunderstanding of how the EU is constituted, or what sort of an agreement that was being entered into in this case. The entire notion that some sort of negotiating leverage was an important means to getting a good deal was entirely for the domestic audience in the UK, or more pertinently, the Tory party talking to its own navel.
I agree that Johnson is weakened by him not delivering his promise and that the Brexit party will wipe the floor with him in the election. He knows this and will now have to neutralise the Brexit party by running on a no deal ticket in the election. The problem is I don't think Brexit party support will trust him and he will loose his moderate support. I can't see him winning a majority.
I almost wish Boris could negotiate with no-deal really on the table to see what the result would be - maybe with a secret agreement with parliament to stop no deal at the last moment..
It would make absolutely 0 difference. The EU has four central pillars : freedom of movement, freedom of services, freedom for goods and freedom of capital. No proposal that undermines any of those pillars is going to be acceptable in any way, shape or form.
It would make absolutely 0 difference. The EU has four central pillars : freedom of movement, freedom of services, freedom for goods and freedom of capital. No proposal that undermines any of those pillars is going to be acceptable in any way, shape or form.
As far as i can see, that means the options are:
Remain, and break the referendum promise.
Reinstate the border in N. Ireland, and break the N.I treaty.
Unification of Ireland, and break the treaty.
There can be a fudge where we leave but remain subject to most of the rules, a la permanent backstop, but in order to not have internal borders, the EU needs proper external borders.
Or we could invade the Republic again, and make them be part of Even Greater Britain.
Remain, and break the referendum promise.
Reinstate the border in N. Ireland, and break the N.I treaty.
Unification of Ireland, and break the treaty.
A hard border between NI and the rest of the UK until such time a different solution can be thought of. Or screw the promise, which was made by a previous government any way with regard to an advisory referendum that only proved the voters were hopelessly split on the issue.
Reply to unenlightened My suggestion would be that the government should revoke and have a border Pole in Northern Ireland. Then try and work something out after they have decided what they want to do.
Reply to Benkei I don't think that screwing the promise of the first referendum is betraying the promise. Rather it would be Parliament, or the government accepting that there isn't a way of leaving without causing damage to the country, be it an economic catastrophe, or a fracturing of the Good Friday agreement and that parliament has a duty of care to the wellbeing of the country. It would be acting in the country's best interest by cancelling Brexit, or coming to a soft Brexit accommodation.
unenlightenedOctober 09, 2019 at 12:51#3398810 likes
I don't think that screwing the promise of the first referendum is betraying the promise.
No. to the extent that there was a promise to respect the result, not respecting the result is breaking the promise. That would be a good thing, but it would be breaking the promise. Let's not resort to gobbledygook.
I liked the bit in the I this morning comparing the whole sorry saga to Blackadder - it had been very funny, including Cummings' cunning plans, but we were now in the final episode: the whistles were blowing, and it was time for us all to be sent over the top.
On the stuff about 'nationalism' and 'race', I thought the following was interesting as a comment on our own wicked culture:
Rugby World Cup: Wales v Fiji for a divided couple
Emma and Tevita Manaseitava will be divided for 80 minutes
When Wales play Fiji in the Rugby World Cup on Wednesday, there will be split loyalties at the Manaseitava home in Bridgend.
Emma is Welsh but her husband Tevita is Fijian - and the Fiji captain is one of his relatives.
Even their 15-year-old son Dominkio's loyalties are divided.
"Wales are gonna win, part of me for Dom wants Fiji to come out on top, but my heart is Wales," says Emma, who adds that their son is "Fiji all the way".
She added: "He's actually Welsh speaking, Welsh through and through. His [Fiji] flag is hanging out the window, his shirt will be on and I think for bragging rights in school he's hoping Fiji will come out on top."
And Tevita laughs: "My heart says Fiji and, my head says Fiji."
He moved to Wales in late 1980s to play for Pyle Rugby Club, where he is now a coach.
Of the match, which starts at 10:45 BST, Tevita said: "I think both camps are nervous. It is a big game for both teams, Wales will be on a defensive to try and win all the pool games, Fiji will be attacking more.
"It will be a good game - both teams you could say have nothing to lose, but Fiji need to do more to get the game under their hat."
And what of Wales' famous loss to Fiji in the World Cup in France in 2007?
"It could happen again, watching them [Fiji] back last week, they are quite dangerous, it is a worry, but Wales are on top form so I think it's going to be a good game," Emma said.
No. to the extent that there was a promise to respect the result, not respecting the result is breaking the promise. That would be a good thing, but it would be breaking the promise. Let's not resort to gobbledygook
Yes, I don't deny that, however what was the promise to do? Let's say Johnson declared war on Let's say Luxembourg today, I wouldn't put it past him. Giving the reason that this is how to respect the will of the people, there is no other way to do it because Luxembourg was planning, indeed collaborating to thwart the will of the people, right from the beginning. The ends don't justify the means. Lord Sumption said following the Supreme Court judgement,"the ends don't justify the means, if they were to, that would be tyranny".
Presumably the promise was for parliament to carry out the will of the people with due care to the country and if unknowingly carrying it out were to put the country in peril, to refrain from doing that and to find another solution.
I would suggest that Parliament's duty is firstly to the Crown and secondly to the people and that parliament would hold an oath to the Crown to have a duty of care to the country, first and foremost.
unenlightenedOctober 09, 2019 at 14:44#3399280 likes
I have the solution!
The name of the EU in English shall be changed to "The New British Empire". Then we'll have none of this German conspiracy to become independent led by the blond Aryan traitor Boris.
Just heard that there is a group of 60 Tory MPs saying they won't campaign on a no deal Brexit in a general election, including I think 5 cabinet resignations being threatened.
unenlightenedOctober 09, 2019 at 15:12#3399390 likes
And the EU Commission can employ the Queen to read them a speech they have written telling them whatever they want to hear, and we'll call that the democratic mandate of legitimate government. I deserve a knighthood for this! Lord Unenlightened at your service.
Presumably the promise was for parliament to carry out the will of the people with due care to the country and if unknowingly carrying it out were to put the country in peril, to refrain from doing that and to find another solution.
I would suggest that Parliament's duty is firstly to the Crown and secondly to the people and that parliament would hold an oath to the Crown to have a duty of care to the country, first and foremost.
The idea that a no-deal exit would put the country in peril is maybe putting it a bit strong? My reading of the Brexiteer credo is that leaving is not primarily an economic matter, it is one of politics and freedom. 'We want our country back' sums it up. We can argue against the idea that leaving the EU would achieve that, but in the minds of those who believe it, any thwarting of the referendum outcome is unacceptable. The democratic principle is more important than the economic reality to these people. What they hate is the idea of the Wesminster elite patronisingly telling them that they're wrong and their wishes should be ignored. However questionable their decision-making, this is hard to refute to my mind.
Reply to Baden Quite, the pantomime antics of yesterday were a sight to behold. With widow Twanky guffawing at the despatch box to howls of laughter. It was more like a braying donkey than a prime Minister delivering his Queens speech.
Reply to Tim3003 I would concede that it is debatable whether a no deal Brexit is putting the country in peril. I could point out how it would be if you like, but I will mention the break up of the Union for now and leave it at that. Remember that in many ways our public services are already teetering on the edge and the large number of people who are a couple of wage checks away from repossession, or homelessness.
I agree with your assessment of the Brexiter credo, however I would put that down to the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail. Along with a rump of toffs in the Tory party. So it is not really a valid credo, rather the result of scaremongering and an outdated bulldog spirit sentiment. As for the motivation of the toffs, I think sir Bill Cash illustrates the problem. As far as he is concerned the German government has a stranglehold over any decision made in the EU parliament and it is only allowed through once hard nosed, hardline German power brokers give it the nod and that our sovereignty is at peril if we remain in the EU.
I would suggest that the numbers of Brexiters who still hold to this credo has eroded over the summer and it does not need to erode much to have lost its mandate.
In addition I just wanted to mention the democratic principle you mention. I agree with your point, but in my opinion there is a mis understanding of democracy in the minds of the people you refer to. I think I have already pointed this out a few posts back, but I will repeat it, as it is an important issue in the division which has developed in the country.
There is a sacred principle in the minds of the people in our country, the principle of democracy. Which they are taught about in school and that the UK is the last bastion, the defender of democracy due to our history etc. But many of the people who hold this view, as I have done myself, don't realise the inadequacies of democracy and that in this country it is exercised, fundamentally, as a system of representative parliament with an executive which is accountable to that parliament, which is regularly changed by a democratic process.
The way in which the democratic principle is exercised in this system is the way in which the executive is changed, or endorsed at regular intervals by a public vote.
At no point is the public asked for their view on any particular issue and carrying out a referendum is a different exercise to our decomcracy, it is legally, only an advisory exercise and a difficult way in which to conduct constitutional change. I lay the blame and cause of all this turmoil over the last few years at the door of David Cameron's government and the folly they entered into in this exercise.
Michel Barnier has given Johnson an ultimatum, to provide a full legal text to the EU by midnight tonight(15/10/2019). Which boils down to accepting a customs border down the Irish Sea. He is finished now, there is no way back from this.
Coincidentally a report came out this morning that Johnson acted recklessly with over 50 million pounds of public money on the garden bridge project ( the Boris Bridge) while he was London Mayor.
None of this is about the substance for Boris. He always knew if it was anything, it was either May's deal or a custom's border between NI and the UK, but also that he had to act like a complete asshole before the ERG would support him. Which he has done and which they are doing while essentially getting fuck all in return. Anyhow, I think he's ready to wilt like a pissed-on peony while beating his chest through it all. Politricks. Bleugh.
It does look like going down to the wire - as the ERG always said it would. However, their view was that the EU would give ground in the final hours. It looks much more like Boris is doing the giving from the little we are hearing.. My hunch is that Boris will want so much to be the hero who clinches a deal with the EU that he may well do so, but at the cost of getting one parliament can vote for. He'd rather blame them than Brussels because painting MPs as the enemy will help his election chances more.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, which is what he's lining up Super Saturday for. The big show down in Parliament with thousands of protesters from both sides clashing on the streets outside. The people against parliament.
Reply to Baden It might be that he has turned the ERG, but I don't think he will turn the Spartans, or all the Labour rebels and the 21 rebel Tory's are not buying it at the moment. There is suspicion going round that it is a trick, another trap. That if Parliament doesn't endorse the deal Johnson will call a confidence vote, or take it as one, in the government, which he will loose and trigger an election. Or that if they vote it through, the Benn act falls and Johnson doesn't need to request an extension, leaving the only option for the opposition a confidence vote and the triggering of a general election before the end of the month.
Of course, everything he does is a trick and a trap. Doesn't change the dynamics. The opposition currently have Boris by the proverbials. He gets a last-minute deal and he has them by same. They can wreck it and absolve him of the responsibility for no-deal / more endless stalemate. Or they can pass it and make him a hero. Either way he wins. Ergo, I predict he now dumps the DUP, swallows the NI only backstop, and goes for Brexity Labour MPs to replace that lost support (and they will come under enormous pressure from their constituents to vote yea).
Reply to Evil Thanks, I am a bit dyslexic, so occasionally get into a rut like that. I find it hard to believe that is how to spell lose, but it must be right, I've checked it. Please do correct me when it happens.
Reply to Baden Yes, I see that, but I also see the pips squeaking in both directions for the Labour rebels. I don't think it can be assumed that Johnson will sway them, it will be going into the lions den for most of them. Corbyn will be impressing it on them that if they hold their nerve just a little longer Boris will crash and burn and 5 years of socialism will be instigated, they can make the necessary reforms that they all want and we still may leave the EU. Or they sell their souls for a bargain basement Trump deal and poverty stricken gnashing of teeth in their constituency's for a decade. What would you choose.
Also I expect some Tory rebels to continue to rebel, as it has now gone beyond the pale and this would not be the end of the shenanigans, but merely the start of a decade of them.
There is talk this morning of a massive bung for the DUP. Someone should have told him that you don't play fast and loose/lose with the DUP and get away with it. Also there is a get out clause for many MPs, they will back the deal if there is a second referendum tacked on.
Of course, everything he does is a trick and a trap. Doesn't change the dynamics. The opposition currently have Boris by the proverbials. He gets a last-minute deal and he has them by same. They can wreck it and absolve him of the responsibility for no-deal / more endless stalemate. Or they can pass it and make him a hero. Either way he wins. Ergo, I predict he now dumps the DUP, swallows the NI only backstop, and goes for Brexity Labour MPs to replace that lost support (and they will come under enormous pressure from their constituents to vote yea).
The problem with this strategy is that the EU will not agree a deal if they even suspect it wont go through parliament. And I think the DUP view is crucial to their calculations. Are Brussels sure enough about the support for a deal in the Labour party to risk it without the DUP's support? I doubt it. And that's assuming Boris can count on the 20-odd Tories he's thrown out, plus the Spartans..
Interestingly the deal he is bringing back is essentially the same deal which was about to be agreed in December 2018. When Theresa May told the EU negotiators that she had forgotten to pass it by the DUP and had to rush back and eat humble pie in front of Arlene Foster.
The DUP are in the driving seat again, which of course means they have no chance of agreeing the deal. The reverend Ian Paisley must be spinning in his grave.
There is no deal I can envisage that Ireland (and for Ireland read the EU) and the UK can agree on that the DUP will also agree to. Because there is no deal that can remove a customs border between ROI and NI without instituting one either between the UK and NI (unacceptable to the DUP) or over the whole of the UK (unacceptable to the Tories). No amount of creative accounting changes that fundamental reality. And out of Ireland/the EU, the UK, and the DUP, there is only one potentially expendable party to the agreement, i.e. the DUP. Everyone knows that. So, as I see things, it's a matter now of Boris splitting off as many of the hard Brexiteers from the DUP as possible and a hail Mary for Labour support. All this will involve lightspeed levels of spin, but it might just work.
Reply to Baden it looks as though everyone is hanging on the word of the DUP tonight. If the DUP say yes, the ERG, some Tory rebels, some Labour rebels will follow and the EU may make a final tiny concession to push it over the line. If the DUP say no, then all bets are off. And we all know what they are going to say.
Norman Smith (BBC correspondent) has just said that the problem is that the Stormont vote on rolling over the arrangements with the EU or customs, every 4 years. A major concession from the EU agreed over the last couple of days, is not acceptable to the DUP. The problem being that it would require a simple majority in the Northern Ireland assembly (Stormont) in this vote in order to veto the arrangements. This is because the DUP will be in a minority in Northern Ireland, so they have lost their control over the process.
Not to mention that such a vote would amount to a referendum about the unification of Ireland every 4 years forever. Talk about a recipe for disaster around the border.
Reply to Wayfarer Yes, without the DUP they don't have the votes. Johnson has 48hrs to bring them round, but they are the most Stubborn political grouping ever known, so I can't see him succeeding. Even if he showers them with money.
That's a huge concession from the EU and Ireland. There is no way the DUP will get more than that. But these are the people who opposed the Good Friday Agreement, so yes, we shouldn't expect them to move even if the whole thing falls down in pieces around everyone.
What would be amusing would be abstentionist Sinn Fein taking their seats in Parliament for the first time just to support the deal and make the DUP irrelevant. That's a fantasy though.
Reply to Baden What a stupid "principle". If you consider yourself not-British then the exercise of power in British politics is totally awesome when you can directly affect politics in such a way that it will benefit NI and Eire as a whole.
Any other players that can replace the lost DUP votes?
Not easily, there is the ERG( the hard brexiters in the Conservative party) who were following the lead of the DUP, so they will give less support now. There are the Conservative rebels who were expelled from the party a few weeks ago, again their support will drain away now. There are the Labour rebels (brexiters), who will again follow the lead of the DUP, so they will fade away now.
Apart from these groups who were hanging on the DUP's response, there is no one. Except possibly Sinn Fein, but that's extremely unlikely because they don't sit in the House of Commons as a protest against British rule in NI. So if the DUP don't turn, it's over.
Reply to Baden Yes the DUP have a siege, or bunker mentality, as was pointed out by an Irish political commentator on R4 yesterday. Once the're dug in they hold their ground while the bombs drop around them.
The DUP are now expendable. The Tory rebels on both wings will all now come back in-line, thus healing the recent rift. If the vote on Saturday still does not pass then we'll have a short extention for an election - which Boris can blame on parliament. He can then stand for re-election with a deal in his pocket. Brexit fatigue ensures the opposition have no chance of selling 2nd referendums/ no Brexit policies against that. So Boris is returned with a decent majority, and the deal is voted through by the new parliament. Brexit happens, probably in January...
Reply to Tim3003 Not so fast, a lot of the swing votes were waiting to see what the DUP say. Also what they've agreed over NI is a dog's dinner, we will have to see what the swing voters and particularly the Labour rebels think about it. A border pole in Stormont every 4 years, who would agree to that?
Not so fast, a lot of the swing votes were waiting to see what the DUP say. Also what they've agreed over NI is a dog's dinner, we will have to see what the swing voters and particularly the Labour rebels think about it. A border pole in Stormont every 4 years, who would agree to that
I think the Tories will back Boris rather than the DUP. The dreaded backstop is gone, and that was the main stumbling block for the ERG. Teresa May's deal passed in the Commons with the backstop removed remember.. In an election almost no voters on the UK mainland care much about the Northern Irish problem anyway. And in the end the determination to get Brexit done will persuade the ERG to cut the DUP loose and follow their leader. They can't really claim there's a better deal out there and tell him to try again can they?! As for Labour, don't forget plenty of their MPs are in leave-seats and will feel huge pressure to back a deal.
As for the agreement re NI. Anything agreed was going to be a dog's dinner. It's basically a problem of squaring the circle - impossible to keep all sides happy. I think most Tories will decide that the DUP having to settle for a sub-optimal deal is the least worst outcome. I think it has yet to sink in what a huge victory for Boris this is. He has got the EU to back down over the backstop and his take-it-to-the-wire negotiating strategy has thus been totally vindicated. Few would have forecast this. Ok, he's allowed the border in the Irish sea, which as May said and he parroted 'No UK PM could ever do', but as we know, populist politicians can U-turn without their voters caring one jot if their basic aims are met. The ERG will be crowing like grinning ravens over the coming days. They can hardly vote against a leader who's done all they asked..
I even saw Farrage looking a bit crest-fallen when interviewed. He's holding out for no-deal, but the ground is fast falling away from under him. Likewise Junker is saying 'No extention'; but if the deal goes down narrowly in the Commons and Boris asks for one for an election in which the polls have him 10 pts ahead will Junker (or to be accurate, the EU 27) opt for no deal instead? I think not..
He has got the EU to back down over the backstop and his take-it-to-the-wire negotiating strategy has thus been totally vindicated.
I agree with your analysis, but has the EU actually backed down? It seems to me they would have accepted this solution earlier, but the British didn't want it.
If you want to do Brexit, this seems the most sensible arrangement.
So, as I see things, it's a matter now of Boris splitting off as many of the hard Brexiteers from the DUP as possible and a hail Mary for Labour support. All this will involve lightspeed levels of spin, but it might just work.
Quite a few MP's are saying tonight that cutting off NI permanently like this is the death nail for the Union. There will be no way to stop Scotland following next in line. I expect there are a lot of MP's not happy with this dogs dinner. Whether voters don't care about NI or not, MP's do, as they will be culpable and will have to clear up the mess. Unless of course they are banking on reunification with Ireland soon. Maybe that's the answer, but then it's Scotland next.
If so, the Tory's are finished as they will be known as the government which brought about the end of the Union as a result of infighting.
Why is it a mess? The NI assembly has a significant pro-EU majority and (when sitting) will very likely vote to keep EU rules every time. That's why Ireland and the EU agreed to the deal. Nothing's likely to change.
Reply to Tim3003 I am not so convinced about the numbers in parliament, the DUP's 10 votes are gone and I doubt there will be more than 5 Labour rebels. This deal is far worse for Labour as it leads to a greater divergence from the EU than May's deal did, leading to a Singapore like destination. I can't see Labour rebels wanting to be blamed for pushing that over the line. Also Tory rebels like David Gauke, or Dominic Grieve are not going to be happy.
Also there may be some spartans who think it's a betrayal in the other direction. It will be interesting to watch how the support builds, or wanes over the next couple of days.
Reply to Punshhh I would care if Brexit wasn't the meal they cooked for themselves and NI and Scotland but then are unwilling to toss the shit sandwich in the bin. They tried forcing it on others and those others might decide to go out for dinner instead. Nobody is stopping the English from cancelling dinner and join them in the restaurant. So yeah, pretty much, fuck the English for their self inflicted misery.
Reply to Benkei Yes, its very sad. The people who will lose out are the moderate intelligentsia, including the entire establishment, who were overwhelmingly in favour of remain. Also the young, there are about 2 million younger voters who are now eligible to vote, but who were to young to vote in 2016. There is a majority for remain in this group too and they are the generation who will have to pick up the pieces.
It really is weird for people who are not in one of the two leave groupings, because it feels like everything was fine and peaceful going along as normal. Then suddenly an upper class twit stood up and said we're going to leave the EU, we need to leave, or we're in trouble. People were thinking what are they talking about, the EU is a great coalition between like minded Europeans, why would you want to put that in jeopardy? Then all these nationalist slogans start appearing and people like Nigel Farage start popping up on TV, with their anti EU rhetoric. Followed by three years of chaos, argument and division.
When the leave arguments are examined they are vacuous, there was a problem with immigration, but it was within the gift of the government to solve that without leaving. But you get the slogans shouted back at you, with no intelligent argument.
"We have to leave because we voted to leave, why did you vote to leave? Because we wanted to leave, we have to leave now because we voted to leave!"
I was thinking about what started all this and I put the blame firmly at the door of the Tory heartlands.
(I am generalising here) I have noticed for over 30 years now the way the privelidged middle class demographic has become money grabbing and cavalier. That it was the bankers who are dominated by patronage from this group which fuelled, or at least capitalised on the short selling which led to the banking crisis. You could see the greed and sharing out of the wealth in their luxury enclaves in the West Country, for example. Following the banking crisis the top heavy Tory party started to nose dive, instigating austerity, a harsh Protestant ethic, which strangled the less privelidged areas of the country draining all their wealth away to pay for the crisis. Of course no bankers went to gaol.
Immigrants were pushed into poorer areas generating more unrest in these areas, which fuelled the nationalist anti immigration movements in the midlands and the north. Meanwhile the right wing press were drip feeding the Tory heartlands with anti EU poison. The Tory party started to split under the strain and the infighting has led us to this point where the far right have grabbed the reigns of power.
I wonder if the Power brokers and capitalists had seen this all along, indeed planned it as they saw where the EU was going with sensible social democratic policies and anticipated laws to restrict the offshore tax evasion industry. Which is where the fat cats have been hiding their money. You can certainly see how the owners of the right wing papers have been planning and feeding this division.
or at least capitalised on the short selling which led to the banking crisis
A bit of a tangent but what makes you say this? We've had a subprime mortgage crisis that started in the US which affected the EU banks in 2007 as well and a subsequent sovereign debt crisis in 2009. I don't see how short selling caused these two banking crises.
Reply to Benkei I'm not saying the bankers caused the crisis, but they were heavily involved from our perspective and left the UK very exposed. I don't want to get into the debate about the financial crisis here. I mentioned it as the catalyst for the problems in the Conservative party, which has hit the country hard over the last decade leading to where we now find ourselves.
Perhaps the words short selling weren't a good choice.
Sam Gyima has pointed out an interesting scenario which supports what I was saying about Johnson's primary aim to be to neutralise the Brexit party and save the Conservative party, which requires a no deal Brexit.
The opposition is on to this now, so I can see the support from Labour rebels fading away now.
The scenario is, in this deal NI is safely within the EU backstop, but the rest of the country is not in a backstop as was the case with the May deal. So following the transition period which ends at the end of 2020. If there is not deal agreed for our future relationship with the EU, the default position is a no deal, or world trade rules. And if the we want to extend the transition period for another two years, we have to request it by June 2020, which is 7 months away. So all Johnson needs to do now is offer a have my cake and eat it trade deal and scupper the talks, leading to an irreversible no deal exit at the end of the period. This apparently is why the ERG is happy to back it. The whole time Johnson will be free to smear the EU as trying to control us, or trap us in some way, so the anti EU sentiment will only increase.
Thus he would make the Brexit party pointless, all their supporters will come back into the fold and he saves his party from oblivion. Brexit, deal or no deal is nothing more than collateral damage. Albeit it would inevitably benefit his wealthy backers.
?Tim3003
I am not so convinced about the numbers in parliament, the DUP's 10 votes are gone and I doubt there will be more than 5 Labour rebels. This deal is far worse for Labour as it leads to a greater divergence from the EU than May's deal did, leading to a Singapore like destination. I can't see Labour rebels wanting to be blamed for pushing that over the line. Also Tory rebels like David Gauke, or Dominic Grieve are not going to be happy.
Also there may be some spartans who think it's a betrayal in the other direction. It will be interesting to watch how the support builds, or wanes over the next couple of days.
I think as long as the vote is close - say no more than 10 in it, then Boris can request an extention to hold an election. Most Labour MPs won't back him, but all the talk about worker's rights suffering is a red-herring - that is the 'direction of travel' part of the political declaration, ie not set in stone and up for discussion as part of the future trade deal negotiations. If Labour do not like what the Tories propose they can challenge it further down the line.
With a deal in his pocket I think Tory support will build and the Brexit party will lose most of its vote. Are there really that many Brexiteers who'd prefer no deal to a deal? I suspect a 100+ seat majority for the Tories at that election. The fact that Boris has missed his Oct 31st deadline he can blame on parliament - he's got a deal; it's them who've forced an extention. I am looking for an opinion poll to see if the figures have shifted since the deal was agreed. I'm betting the Tory lead is well into double figures..
HallucinogenOctober 18, 2019 at 11:52#3429660 likes
I have difficulty telling the difference between remain MPs who accept the vote and those who simply want to stop Brexit and bin the vote. Parliament appears to be doing whatever it can to stop Brexit, exemplified by Hilary Benn passing a law in his own name to "stop the catastrophe of No Deal" only to reject voting for a deal when he is given one.
All bets are off until tomorrow evening, it's basically a coin toss whether Boris's deal will pass, but as Cameron puts it "the greased piglet will slip through".
Reply to Tim3003 I would agree with you if the they win the vote tomorrow, although I wouldn't expect such a large majority in the election. However if they lose and it's looking to be by about 10 short at the moment. Then I doubt Johnson will have so much traction during the campaign. He will still have the same problem, if he runs on the deal he's got, or a similar deal he will not drain support from the Brexit party because they think it is not leaving, Farage said as much this morning. Whereas if he runs on a no deal, he loses a sizeable chunk of support who don't want a no deal. So we are back with the infighting in the Conservative side of the argument ( I am regarding the Brexit party as an extreme wing of the Conservative party here).
I would agree with you if the they win the vote tomorrow, although I wouldn't expect such a large majority in the election. However if they lose and it's looking to be by about 10 short at the moment. Then I doubt Johnson will have so much traction during the campaign. He will still have the same problem, if he runs on the deal he's got, or a similar deal he will not drain support from the Brexit party because they think it is not leaving, Farage said as much this morning. Whereas if he runs on a no deal, he loses a sizeable chunk of support who don't want a no deal. So we are back with the infighting in the Conservative side of the argument ( I am regarding the Brexit party as an extreme wing of the Conservative party here).
I think Farrage over-estimates how much of his support is no-deal-of-any-sort voters, and how many just supported him because they thought Boris would not get a deal and would not get no-deal through because parliament wouldnt let him. That made the Farrage way seem the quickest. Speed is what many people want. I hear 'Just get it done' over and again on News vox-pop interviews. Assuming the vote fails tomorrow and no-deal on Oct 31st is prevented by the Benn act, what is the quickest way to get Brexit done? It's an extention for an election, with the Tories winning. No Brexiteer is going to vote for Labour's 'start all over again' route, nor the Lib Dems cancel-Brexit idea. Boris knows that and will campaign ruthlessly on it.. There will still be plenty of remainers left, but with Brexit-fatigue and a deal on offer I expect the pro-Brexit vote to be 65% or more. Boris can spare Farrage 10% and still romp home.. Sadly other issues will probably be swamped at the election.
Maybe that's why Farage looked so sad this morning, it was as though he had seen a ghost.
It won't be getting Brexit done though, unless getting it done is simply crossing the line as it seems is the case for most leavers. Whatever happens after that is of little importance.
There will still be plenty of remainers left, but with Brexit-fatigue and a deal on offer I expect the pro-Brexit vote to be 65% or more. Boris can spare Farrage 10% and still romp home.
That's not quite how I see it, I think there is a high likelihood that the Tory's will win the most seats though. But if they don't have a majority, who would they negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement, or a coalition with?
There will still be plenty of remainers left, but with Brexit-fatigue and a deal on offer I expect the pro-Brexit vote to be 65% or more. Boris can spare Farrage 10% and still romp home.
That's not quite how I see it, I think there is a high likelihood that the Tory's will win the most seats though. But if they don't have a majority, who would they negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement, or a coalition with?
Another hung parliament sounds like a neverending nightmare! Maybe if the polls predict one during the campaign voters would vote tactically to prevent it?
Also, this Letwin amendment has thrown a cat amongst the pigeons. Boris is now saying today's vote may be pulled if it is allowed..
Another hung parliament sounds like a neverending nightmare! Maybe if the polls predict one during the campaign voters would vote tactically to prevent it?
l can't see a way to avoid it, at least if there is a coalition of the opposition they will enact their plan and the deadlock will be broken by a public vote, a referendum. I put the stalemate down to the inept performance of the government, they should have reached across the isle following the referendum and formed a coalition across the house for a way forwards on such a fundamental change in the future of our country. But they put their own narrow party interest before that of the country.
I know they couldn't have done that due to the depth of the infighting in their own party, indeed they were so ham strung by their own chaos that they were unable to do anything else but deliver us a deadlock in such a shambles. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I saw an interview with Ian Duncan Smith on the BBC following the Letwin vote. He was defiant and spitting profanities in indignation and yet he was one of the ERG who through their ideological erotic spasm delivered us this mess, disgraceful.
There is a risk, the EU might not grant the extension, or they might say there must be a democratic event, or the meaningful vote must be held first, in which case we might see more chicanery. It's an unknown.
There is a risk, the EU might not grant the extension, or they might say there must be a democratic event, or the meaningful vote must be held first, in which case we might see more chicanery. It's an unknown
Possible, but I think the EU's political leaders probably have enough political acumen to realize that they'd be playing into Johnson's Hands if they did.
Possible, but I think the EU's political leaders probably have enough political acumen to realize that they'd be playing into Johnson's Hands if they did.
Yes, but they will not want to be drawn into the internal politics of another country. They will have to tread carefully.
Already I hear that Johnson sent a photocopy of the letter unsigned, with an accompanying signed letter saying that the first letter is not his words, but those of Parliament and that any delay would be harmful to both Britain and Europe. I wonder if there are threats included. He insisted that he will continue pushing his deal through parliament and will leave by 31st.
I know that they have the measure of him, but if you have a petulant child, it is difficult to manage them without having to step over any red lines.
If I were EU, I’d say: ‘three choices. Vote YES for the deal on the table; leave without a deal; or rescind Article 50. No extension. They’re your choices.’ Takes Johnson’s threat of ‘no deal’ as a bargaining chip, and turns it right back on the Brits.
As a foreign observer: Twinge of admiration for Johnson’s chutzpah; twinge of exasperation for the prospect of Yet Another Delay; twinge of hope for second referendum voting No Brexit.
Already I hear that Johnson sent a photocopy of the letter unsigned, with an accompanying signed letter saying that the first letter is not his words, but those of Parliament and that any delay would be harmful to both Britain and Europe. I wonder if there are threats included. He insisted that he will continue pushing his deal through parliament and will leave by 31st.
I know that they have the measure of him, but if you have a petulant child, it is difficult to manage them without having to step over any red lines.
UK politics must be a laughing stock worldwide by now! The EU are going to hold off granting the extention to the last minute - but grant it they will if need be. They hope that parliament will be scared into voting through Boris's deal before then. It's going to be a game of bluff over the next 2 weeks..
Another hung parliament sounds like a neverending nightmare! Maybe if the polls predict one during the campaign voters would vote tactically to prevent it?
l can't see a way to avoid it, at least if there is a coalition of the opposition they will enact their plan and the deadlock will be broken by a public vote, a referendum. I put the stalemate down to the inept performance of the government, they should have reached across the isle following the referendum and formed a coalition across the house for a way forwards on such a fundamental change in the future of our country. But they put their own narrow party interest before that of the country.
If Boris gets his deal through, as I now think is likely if MPs get to look at its detail and are reassured that the govt don't plan a race to the bottom re workers' rights and green policy, then how can he lose the election? Any opposition policies on overturning Brexit will be greeted as sour grapes and dismissed by the Tories. Farage is a dead duck - well, mortally wounded I'd say. I think Boris's charm will win voters over. They'll trust him, despite his impossible 'lower taxes and more spending' policies - Trump won with that manifesto..
As I said earlier, if the deal isn't passed and there's an extension for an election, I think the fact that Boris has a deal will persuade enough would-be-remainers that the time has come to hold their noses and accept it. Party loyalties may well count for little. It'll be a Brexit election.
Reply to Tim3003 I have to agree with your assessment of Johnson getting the deal through or winning an election, although I would erh on the side of only just scraping through. But it's looking now that there is going to be a confirmatory referendum tacked on. Or failing that a confidence vote in the last week of October. An accidental no deal at the end of October is not looking likely now as Oliver Letwin is happy and doesn't think he will be bringing any other amendments, so Corbyn will be lining up for the no confidence vote now.
?Tim3003
But it's look now that there is going to be a confirmatory referendum tacked on. Or failing that a confidence vote in the last week of October. An accidental no deal at the end of October is not looking likely now as Oliver Letwin is happy and doesn't think he will be bringing any other amendments, so Corbyn will be lining up for the no confidence vote now.
My feeling is that an amendment tacking on a confirmatory referendum wont pass. No Tories will vote for it, so everyone else would have to, and I'm sure a few Labour MPs won't want to delay things any further.. It would need a 6 months extension from Brussels I think, unlike the 2 or 3 months for an election, and there'd be huge irritation among the public..
I assume that as the EU seem to have taken Boris's official letter seriously - unsigned or not - no-deal is virtually dead - at least for now.
I can't see what possible incentive the EU has for extending the deadline again. They've already made a 'final offer' and then been persuaded to change it again. What is more time required for? What end will it achieve, from their perspective? I think they should hold the line: Oct 31st is it, ready or not - unless the UK revokes Article 50
Reply to Wayfarer A new extension is required to throw Johnson out of Downing st, without the risk that parliament finds itself not sitting during the period up to the 1st of November. In which case we leave the EU by default. ( if an election is called, parliament doesn't sit for 5 weeks)
So we have trench warfare between the government and the opposition. In which Johnson will try to ram through his deal and the opposition will do anything to prevent him without the risk of a no deal by default. The opposition can throw him out now( well it's very close, it might come down to one or two votes), but there is a risk ( of no deal) which is why they are waiting.
The EU I expect is simply trying not to get involved, drawn into this battle, while also trying not to facilitate a no deal by default, or by accident. In which case they would take the blame for causing it.
It's in Corbyn's interest to wait because Johnson is powerless and digging a hole for himself, to die in a ditch, "do or die". In the meantime Corbyn can bring amendments to erode Johnson's deal, making it softer and less palatable for the ERG, thus reducing his majority. ( the ERG only came onboard with Johnson's deal because there would be a no deal by default at the end of the implementation period in December 2020, which they are gunning for, if this is taken away, their support will fade).
Reply to Punshhh hmmm - the prospect of Brexit being delayed again until 2020 seems unbearable - and I’m not even there! Anyway we’ll see - Monday is going to be a pivotal day.
It looks like Rees Mogg won't be granted a vote on the deal today by the speaker. So he will have to bring forward the withdrawal bill, which will be eroded all week by the opposition, until it has faded so much that it's a dead duck. The first amendment may be a customs union with the EU for the whole of the UK.
It's like that serie Lost all over again. It long stopped being entertaining, is confusing for everyone involved, including its original architects but you have to sit it out because you already committed to the previous 5 seasons.
( the ERG only came onboard with Johnson's deal because there would be a no deal by default at the end of the implementation period in December 2020, which they are gunning for, if this is taken away, their support will fade).
Surely we have to assume that the implementation period will be extended. It was originally 21 months from the end of March 19, and that looked tight. There's no way a trade deal can be agreed in 1 year even if Boris's deal is agreed by Oct 31st, especially if we lose say 2 months of that year for an election and bedding in of a new govt. Both the UK and the EU must accept that. I havent heard the Tories insist on Dec 2020. Once the withdrawal bill passes Boris can say he's kept to his promise, so hopefully there's no longer such a rush..
Reply to Tim3003 I haven't seen the deal or the bill, but the commentators are saying that the implementation period ends Dec' 2020 and that an extension must be agreed in June 2020. It is suggested that it was by dangling a no deal Brexit at the end of this period if a future deal is not agreed by then, which brought the majority of the ERG on board on Saturday. John Baron stated this explicitly and I think we can assume that Bill Cash and a handful of the hardest brexiters are banking on this. Also ministers have been saying over the weekend that the threat of this no deal at the end of the period is an important bargaining tool in the negotiations for the future agreement.
So we have the same hardline rhetoric with a cliff edge continuing for another 14 months and considering that the government has been populated with hardline brexiters. This wreckless behaviour is not going to end anytime soon.
You know the phrase we keep hearing in the media, "people just want to get this done", "we just want to get this done", is so disingenuous. Nothing will be done, we are in for at leat another year and a half of this and many years beyond that.
the commentators are saying that the implementation period ends Dec' 2020 and that an extension must be agreed in June 2020. It is suggested that it was by dangling a no deal Brexit at the end of this period if a future deal is not agreed by then, which brought the majority of the ERG on board on Saturday.
Yes but as I understand it, that 'no deal' is no trade deal - not no withdrawal deal, which is what we are threatened with now. I think 'no trade deal' is less of a disaster. It would just put the EU/UK on the same trade terms as UK/US currently is. Okay, a bad deal compared to what we have whilst in the EU, but not a disaster like no deal at all. And a trade deal could be renegotiated by another govt in a few years time if the Tories cant agree one. It's not a once-or-never chance..
Anyway, what is the ERG logic for not wanting a trade deal with the EU? I can't see any advantages..
Anyway, what is the ERG logic for not wanting a trade deal with the EU? I can't see any advantages..
I will have to take your word for it about a no trade deal, as I have no information on that. I have heard both a full no deal and only a no trade deal on the media, so I don't know about that.
The ERG logic for a no deal is simple, they simply want to leave the EU in the cleanest way possible. What happens next following a no deal exit is irrelevant, really. Although they each have their vision, or unicorn that they hope for.
Are you aware of the position that the goal is to leave, fully properly, a clean break. For the people who hold that position that is all that matters, they couldn't believe their luck when the referendum result went that way and now they are desperate to hold onto it and want to secure the no deal for the benefit of all of us, even if to achieve it they have to lie, cheat, break the law. We'll thank them for doing it later, when we arrive in "the sunlit uplands". Perhaps they think that we are deluded or something for wanting to remain linked to the controlling EU, or fill in any anti EU rhetoric coming from the Brexit party.
[quote=The Guardian]Boris Johnson will make a final bid on Tuesday to force Brexit through by the 31 October “do or die” deadline, amid growing signs he will make a renewed push for a general election whether his deal passes or not.
Johnson has already requested a delay to Brexit, by sending the letter to Brussels required by the backbench Benn act after MPs declined to support his deal on Saturday – something he said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than do.
But if the government can force its Brexit bill through parliament in time, the UK could in theory still leave the EU by next Thursday’s deadline.
The prime minister will ask MPs to back him in two crucial votes on Tuesday – on the withdrawal agreement bill, enshrining the deal he struck in Brussels last week, and on his plan to ram it through the House of Commons by the end of Thursday.[/quote]
Yet another nail-biter/deadline/crucial vote/point of no return. They just keep coming.
Yes, there are likely to be some interesting amendments from the opposition too.
Interestingly it has emerged that the Letwin amendment on Saturday prevented a circumstance in which if the government had won the meaningful vote, they would have been able to retract the request for an extension from the EU and we would have been heading for a no deal again. So that was the cunning Cummings plan. It would have forced a no confidence vote this week and a divisive election.
The ERG logic for a no deal is simple, they simply want to leave the EU in the cleanest way possible. What happens next following a no deal exit is irrelevant, really. Although they each have their vision, or unicorn that they hope for.
Are you aware of the position that the goal is to leave, fully properly, a clean break. For the people who hold that position that is all that matters.
I know that is true for the simplistic Farage supporters, but I'd have thought that ERG MPs would have more sense. One of the benefits of leaving is supposed to be the ability to negotiate our own trade deals with other countries. That includes the EU, who are by far our biggest trading partner. Having a transition period will allow that negotiation to proceed with willingness from both sides. If we just cut and run then why would the EU rush to agree such a deal? I know the ERG logic that no deal would hurt them as much as us, but that is demonstrable rubbish. 44% UK trade is with the EU, but only 8% of EU trade is with the UK. fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
So who'd suffer most from the imposition of WTO tarifs?
I suppose maybe they think the EU will keep delaying and ensure the trade negotiations drag on for several years, during which time we are still paying in to the EU and subject to its laws, and during which time a new UK govt could come in with a pro-EU mandate. However, once the withdrawal bill passes we have left and article 50 can't be rescinded as far as I know, so a process to rejoin would have to start from scratch..
"But Downing Street is braced for potential defeat on the so-called programme motion setting out the timetable, as it suspects some pro-deal Labour MPs and a few Conservatives may not support plans to rush it through the Commons within days.
Veteran Conservative Ken Clarke said: “Unless you are prepared to contemplate more expansive debate, there is not the slightest possibility of considering the deal that has been obtained within the time available.”
If the programme motion falls, the government has little chance of “getting Brexit done”, as Johnson calls it, by 31 October."
It seems to me that everyone is wasting time on this nonsense. How can you base any policy on a vote three years ago on a woolly question, which close on half opposed anyway? Nobody bothered to ask about the detail of 'leaving the EU' because it was all about feuds in the tory party and no-one seriously expected it to pass. People, however, were in a bloody-minded, totally irresponsible mood. It is like a Beckett play, only more depressing.
Reply to Tim3003 I think you are rather generous about the thinking of the members of the ERG. I agree that the majority view amongst them is that a deal is preferable to no deal, but only a hard deal with a minimum divergence equivalent to a Canada trade deal. But more important than this distinction for them is to secure leaving. They are terrified that moderate (read sensible) Tory's will water down, or lose the prize of leaving, or Parliament will somehow cancel Brexit. Also they might be of the opinion that they might have to secure a no deal Brexit to both secure leaving and save the Tory party. This is because they might only be able to achieve this by whipping up nationalist civil unrest, during an election campaign. Such a campaign is likely to split the party and the leave vote, as I've already explained.
Also I think you are being less than generous to the EU about the negotiations over a trade deal. They have behaved impeccably throughout the process and all the nonsense and delay is on the side of the government. They certainly would'nt be playing games to get a few more membership payments. Also I disagree with any suggestion that the EU is delaying or something in the hope that a more moderate government gets into power in the UK.
if the programme motion falls, the government has little chance of “getting Brexit done”, as Johnson calls it, by 31 October
Yes he has now threatened that he will pull the bill if that doesn't pass. He is like a petulant child throwing his toys out of the pram. Corbyn pointed out that bringing the bill in this way shows contempt for parliament, which is correct. Johnson is lining up for the people against parliament and trying to get his general election ( which he apparently doesn't want).
Interestingly the threat to pull the bill emanated from No10 during the PM's speech in parliament introducing the bill. He hadn't mentioned it and then did later on. Presumably when someone had told him about it during his speech. Proving that Cummings is pulling the strings.
Interestingly the threat to pull the bill emanated from No10 during the PM's speech in parliament introducing the bill. He hadn't mentioned it and then did later on. Presumably when someone had told him about it during his speech. Proving that Cummings is pulling the strings.
Or it was planned to go down that way. Doesn't seem to prove anything one way or another.
Also I think you are being less than generous to the EU about the negotiations over a trade deal. They have behaved impeccably throughout the process and all the nonsense and delay is on the side of the government. They certainly would'nt be playing games to get a few more membership payments. Also I disagree with any suggestion that the EU is delaying or something in the hope that a more moderate government gets into power in the UK.
I agree with you that the EU have behaved impeccably. I didn't accuse them of deliberately delaying, I said the ERG will think they are, and that's one of the smears they will use to whip up anti-Brussels sentiment.
Anyway, the deal has passed now on 2nd reading, so it's now a matter of the time it takes to go into law. Notably Boris insisted 'the UK will leave with this deal' - no mention of Oct 31st, after the programme motion went down. He didn't quite throw his toys out of the pram and go for an election. So I assume he will ask the EU for as short a delay as he thinks parliament would accept. Maybe only a week. The longer the delay, the more chance of MPs adding amendments to the bill and sabotaging it. I'm still not sure whether he'd rather call the election with the deal fully passed, or with that as his campaign's main aim. Perhaps he'd prefer it passed, to prove he's done it, hence his investigating a short extension first. But if he can only get 3 months he'll surely plump for an election and aim to get a big enough majority to pass it unmolested.
so it's now a matter of the time it takes to go into law.
I agree with you apart from this one point. It is probably a Pyrrhic victory, for two reasons, one the Letwin amendment withholds approval until the whole bill has been amended and agreed. So it has not actually been approved. Secondly there isn't a majority for the deal in its current form, the support he was given tonight by the Labour rebels was due to their wanting to add a number of amendments which would make it a softer Brexit. The problem being, if this happens Johnson's support will fall away from the ERG. So he is swapping one group of votes for another, but still does not a have a majority for either incarnation of his deal.
In the meantime he has now gone to the EU and asked for an extension, rather than die in a ditch and he has missed his do or die deadline of the 31st of October. Although I'm not sure how important these issues are at the moment.
the Letwin amendment withholds approval until the whole bill has been amended and agreed. So it has not actually been approved.
That won't stop Boris saying it has in the election campaign. And if he gets a majority it's certain to go through the rest of the parliamentary stages.
Boris seems not to want to discuss an extension with the EU, as he doesnt want one. So he's leaving it up to them to decide on its length. This of course allows him to avoid blame (he hopes) for missing his Oct 31st deadline - ie the delay was a stitch-up between parliament and the EU. He also hasn't tried too hard to agree a more realistic timetable with Corbyn as he knows the bill would be mutilated. So we have the odd situation of the EU deciding the timescale for what happens next. I doubt they'll want the Corbyn short entension for the same reason Boris doesn't. So will it be Jan 31st, and an election at the start of December?
Interestingly a poll Daily Express poll reports 2/3 of Brexit party voters are happy with the deal, so I think Farage's bolt is shot. Also over 1/3 of remain voters now think the deal should go through..
How odd that parliament could pass a law that forced the prime minister to act against his deepest conviction. Has that ever happened before? Usually when the PM doesn’t have the backing of parliament on an important issue, he threatens to resign and then he either gets his will or parliament appoints another PM from its midst (or there’s reelection).
The whole messy Brexit process signifies a crisis of parliamentary democracy and the Westminster model. Because this PM was not elected by parliament but by party members, the assembly is not responsible for executive policy anymore, and therefore it can afford to act irresponsibly. Parliament doesn’t need a plan. It can now be perpetually destructive.
If this novum of direct election of the party leader had not been introduced, Britain would now have had a PM supported by parliament (like it has always had throughout its history) and his Brexit plan, whatever it had been, would have been accepted a long time ago.
As it now is, no one is to blame for the mess. Not Johnson, he’s working for what he believes in, and not parliament, it doesn’t need to believe in anything. The new unbritish system is to blame.
It's a problem caused by the hung Parliament we now have. A minority govt has elected a new leader and the Fixed Term Parliament law prevents him from calling an election mid-term without the support of some of the opposition. It's very unusual that the opposition doesn't want an immediate election - the daftness of the no deal Brexit cliff-edge has brought about this situation. I would doubt it will ever be repeated.
Reply to Tim3003 I expect an election in the new year. But really I don't think we can predict what is going to happen next. It's chaos, a mess which has in part been generated by the scaremongering and fake news peddled by rags like the Daily Express, over the last 30 years.
Interestingly Peter Oborne has said today that the mainstream media has now become a sound board for the No10 leak and comment factory. "A source in Downing Street" has been manipulating the media in the knowledge that many widely followed reporters working for the BBC for example simply repeat it, without challenging, or questioning the information. He should know he was a political commentator for the Telegraph, a staunch leaver who had the courage to admit his mistake and now talks of how the whole referendum and leave ideology was a tragic mistake.
Are you confident that the British public won't eventually see through this smoke and mirrors and doublethink of the vote leave campaign and now the government.
Another example of the behaviour has emerged today, Corbyn and Johnson met today to discuss a sensible compromise on how long to allow for scrutiny of the bill. After the niceties, Corbyn brought up the issue which the meeting was supposed to be about, the timetable for debate of the bill and apparently Cummings slammed his hand down on the table and shouted no, it's not going to be discussed, or something like that. After which Johnson tried to paper over the cracks. Somehow I don't think the meeting went very well.
Seems from my perspective that Johnson is winning. He did actually get a Brexit bill passed, albeit with caveats and strings attached, but he's in a very good position to go to the polls, especially with Jeremy Corbyn being leader of the opposition, as by all accounts he's unelectable. I would prefer to see Brexit abandoned, but an orderly exit would be next best.
Reply to Wayfarer Either side can't decide whether to have an election at all at the moment. If we get one it is going to be chaotic and who knows what the results will be.
I'm hoping the British public will see through the lies, bullying and destructive behaviour of our government and throw them out. They are doing to much damage
Either side can't decide whether to have an election at all at the moment.
That’s not strictly speaking true. Johnson is champing at the bit, and has repeatedly called for an election, but Corybn has voted an election down on the grounds that it might lead to a no-deal exit. Now that the no-deal option has been firewalled, I think Corbyn will be very hard-pressed to keep denying a poll. Then, I would think, Johnson will campaign hard on the fact that he has a Brexit deal in the bag, and I expect he’ll win.
Reply to Wayfarer You will find by morning that there are a significant number of leading Tory's who are skeptical about whether they should go for a snap election. Cummings and Johnson are gunning for one, but there are a lot of Tory's near the top of their party who have had to hold their noses to go along with the stench coming out of No10 already. Some don't want an election now and others want to try and pass the bill anyway, allowing more time.
Today Downing Street has got its knickers in a twist (which was going to happen when the thing we had to get done was described). No wonder Johnson wanted the whole bill bounced through in three days.
Two cabinet ministers have contradicted themselves in the House of Commons, regarding customs checks between NI and Britain. This has erupted into a political storm in the commons.
No10 is splitting today, the're like cats in a sack.
Oh, also Farage is kicking up a stink, the deep split between a sensible deal and no deal is yawning.
there are a lot of Tory's near the top of their party who have had to hold their noses to go along with the stench coming out of No10 already. Some don't want an election now and others want to try and pass the bill anyway, allowing more time.
The problem for the Tories if they delay is the bill getting amended. There is very close to a majority for adding a customs union to it - all opposition plus a handful of Tories would support it. So Boris can't really aford to risk going throught the rest of the bill. He would ideally like to stick to Oct 31st, but that's surely now impossible, so an election it'll have to be. As Wayfarer says: Corbyn cannot really refuse when the EU offer an extension and no deal is no longer possible before the new govt gets in.
Are you confident that the British public won't eventually see through this smoke and mirrors and doublethink of the vote leave campaign.
I think the general public are totally bamboozled by the whole Brexit farrago, and just want it to end. They don't understand what's going on and that leads to fear of the unknown. Basically, they'll give anything for certainty - even a bad deal...
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, I know about the problem with amendments, a gift for the opposition. I expect they will be saying let's get Brexit done now while the government wants to waste time with an election.
Regarding the public, there are a lot of voters who think that "getting it done", means it will all be sorted. This is one of the worst deceits of the government, they know it won't be done, we will have another decade of it. There certainly won't be any certainty. The only way to stop it is to revoke, support for a people's vote may be increasing now, it's difficult to read though along with anything else at the moment.
Regarding the public, there are a lot of voters who think that "getting it done", means it will all be sorted. This is one of the worst deceits of the government, they know it won't be done, we will have another decade of it. There certainly won't be any certainty. The only way to stop it is to revoke, support for a people's vote may be increasing now, it's difficult to read though along with anything else at the moment.
I agree it won't all be sorted for years yet, and there will certainly be an outcry against the continuing payments the UK has to make in the transition period. Indeed I've just read the UK will lose its rebate, so we'll be paying more than whilst in, still be subject to EU laws, and with no say! But once the withdrawal deal is passed it becomes a matter of when rather than if. I can't see support for another referendum doing anything but reducing from here as even hardened remainers start to accept the inevitable - assuming, that is, Boris wins the election..
No, the hung parliament is not the problem since many conservative MPs have also voted against the various deals proposed by May and Johnson. In the old days, when the prime minister was elected by parliament and not by party members, the whip had power and could force his MPs into line with their leader. It was in their own interest to support the PM from their own party even if they didn’t agree with him a hundred percent. Those days are gone. By introducing this foolish rule that the leaders must be directly elected by party members, the unintended consequence has been to turn the distinguished British parliament into a messy American Congress where every representative is on his own without responsibility for the overall functioning of government. No plan can be expected from a group of people without a common purpose and they certainly don’t feel obligated to support a leader they have not chosen themselves.
A hung parliament is uncommon in British politics, but it’s very common on the continent and even there the representatives almost always support the countries leader when he is from their own party. That’s the natural thing to do in a parliamentary democracy. Britain is not a parliamentary democracy anymore, but a strange American hybrid.
I agree it won't all be sorted for years yet, and there will certainly be an outcry against the continuing payments the UK has to make in the transition period. Indeed I've just read the UK will lose its rebate, so we'll be paying more than whilst in, still be subject to EU laws, and with no say! But once the withdrawal deal is passed it becomes a matter of when rather than if. I can't see support for another referendum doing anything but reducing from here as even hardened remainers start to accept the inevitable - assuming, that is, Boris wins the election..
There won't just be an outcry about payments,( I noticed Farage was going on about this today) people will begin to understand the implications of the deal as the government won't be able to hide them from their supporters anymore. For example the customs arrangements, complexity and a blizzard of red tape on the border between the mainland and NI, Remember 80% of trade in NI is with the mainland. Not to mention the demands for a independence referendum from Scotland. Also Michel Barnier has said now that the new future agreement will take a minimum of 3 years to finalise. So the transition period will stretch out into the distance and given the incompetence of the government, it could last a decade. The ECJ will have jurisdiction over EU nationals for 8 years. I'll stop there (for it is a long list), because the people who Johnson and the press have duped are not concerned with what happens next, as far as they are concerned the goal is getting Brexit done. But remember, it won't be done, not for a number of years. So outcry again.
It's interesting, if they have adopted this mindset, that the goal is simply to get it done. It doesn't matter what it is. They are happy to buy the shiny car without looking under the bonnet. The car sold to them by populist decievers, but they can't look under the bonnet, because it doesn't matter if the engine doesn't work, because all that matters is to buy it. Once it's bought it doesn't matter if it is a wreck, because they have got it done. The brainwashing is complete. For others they are looking forward to unicorns appearing over the horizon, while trying not to think what they are throwing away, those pesky Europeans.
If Johnson wins an election, ( a majority, because no one would go into coalition with such a divisive regime), then hardened remainers may accept the inevitable, because it would be reality. But I doubt they would adopt that stance until such a majority were secured. I wonder if hard brexiters would accept it if the decision were reversed, or we had a soft Brexit, somehow I doubt it. Because they would have to admit that they played a part in such a charade.
The withdrawal bill won't be passed before an election, as I said in my previous post, there isn't a majority for Johnson's deal amendments or not. So his offer tonight for a two week window to scrutinise the deal, if an election is agreed for 12 of December is playground games.
It's a problem caused by the hung Parliament — Tim3003
No, the hung parliament is not the problem since many conservative MPs have also voted against the various deals proposed by May and Johnson.
The likes of Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair always had large enough majorities to allow them to disregard the 'extremists' in their own parties. Since 2010 we have not had such a stable majority govt. Maybe the times are changing and we'll have to get used to coalitions like much of the rest of Europe has..
In the old days, when the prime minister was elected by parliament and not by party members, the whip had power and could force his MPs into line with their leader. It was in their own interest to support the PM from their own party even if they didn’t agree with him a hundred percent.
The whips still have that power - hence the 20-odd expelled Tory MPs. But Brexit is an issue where some MPS are putting the country before party loyalty, and good on them for doing so! I think Brexit is such a huge decision that with no majority govt the normal Westminster tactics are creaking under the strain. But that doesnt mean normality won't be restored in time..
Reply to Tim3003
No, the diminishing sense of party loyalty is not just about Brexit. It’s clearly seen regarding other issues as well, and in both parties. The Labour leader is also facing rebellion for different reasons, among them anti-Semitism. That would not have happened prior to 2015 when the leader was first directly elected by party members.
Party loyalty is not a basic instinct among MPs, it follows logically from what is at stake for them personally. When the leader was elected by them, they had to be loyal or else they would be responsible for the failure of their own favoured policy. Now they don’t have much to lose by voting against their leader since he was never their real leader in the first place.
In America there’s very little party loyalty and that’s not for any psychological reasons but simple because the election process is different. It’s a perpetual state of American politics and it’s not at all restricted to important issues. They don’t need to be loyal to their president. Now that the British PM has got his base removed from Parliament he has unfortunately become more like a president. A wedge has been driven between Westminster and Downing Street and its name is not Brexit.
Party loyalty is not a basic instinct among MPs, it follows logically from what is at stake for them personally. When the leader was elected by them, they had to be loyal or else they would be responsible for the failure of their own favoured policy. Now they don’t have much to lose by voting against their leader since he was never their real leader in the first place.
I agree that election by the members means the likes of Boris will win vs Jeremy Hunt any time - a populist who simplifiies things will get his priorities through quicker than someone whose approach is more nuanced. But don't forget, before the Tory members voted, their MPs whittled the candidates down to 2. And Boris was way ahead all the way through that process. I don't think you can say the majority of his MPs don't support him, or that they'd elect a different leader given sole choice.
The problem was the introduction of a referendum, with a close to 50/50 result, demanding close on half the population undergo a forced change of circumstances against their will. Whereby, if the half of the population who were in favour of the change would if the reverse happened be forced to continue with the status quo, or in other words no change in their circumstances.
Finally a decision from the EU on a Jan 31st extension. Hopefully now Corbyn will have to man up. If he keeps looking like he's running from a December election it can only harm his chances. He's repeatedly talked about agreeing to one as soon as no deal is no longer an option. Well, that's now. Or maybe he won't want to disturb his Christmas shopping..
They’ve voted down the proposed election for Dec. I think the UK Parliament is just being bloody-minded now. The possibility of leaving without an agreement is now effectively zero, I can’t see how the Opposition can plausibly deny an election - it does look like they’re running scared.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The offer made by Johnson was under the fixed term parliament act, meaning it required a two thirds majority(434) votes to pass. So there wasn't any chance of it passing without support from both sides of the house. Labour didn't support it because it included a commitment to debate and pass Johnson's withdrawal bill in approx 5 sitting days, with the aim of having the bill passed before the election period begins. Also there was a worry that no deal wasn't removed entirely. Johnson could play political games leading to a change of polling day and there is a trap door of a no deal at the end of 2020, during the future negotiations.
What was expected to pass was a one line bill tabled today by the SNP and Lib Dems, requiring a majority of one and a fixed poling date of 9th of December. If Johnson had accepted this he would have secured his election today. But he rejected this offer and decided to play games again and is apparently going to bring an equivalent one line bill tomorrow of their own. Presumably there will be some wheeze hidden in there which won't be acceptable to the SNP, or Lib Dems. They want cast iron guarantees of the poling date and no no deal.
So let's see if they get an election tomorrow, I'm not holding my breath.
The possibility of leaving without an agreement is now effectively zero
Why do you say that? If Parliament won't vote to pass a deal or to revoke Article 50 then we'll leave without a deal when the EU stops granting an extension. They won't keep offering one every 3 months forever.
Also there was a worry that no deal wasn't removed entirely.
The only way to do that is to pass a bill that commits to revoking Article 50 if a deal is not passed by a certain date, and I doubt there are the numbers in Parliament for that.
Reply to Michael Yes, I know, but Labour couldn't agree to that because it would alienate their leave support, resulting in a clear path to a majority for Johnson in the election. Labour is effectively boxed into a narrow course of action by its divided supporters. This is why they have formulated a policy to hold a second referendum and let the people decide the issue.
Reply to Tim3003
Johnson may have been nominated by the Tory MPs, but since the ultimate responsibility was out of their hands, they don’t have any strong allegiance to him. That even happened to Theresa May, who was a moderate and could have been chosen under the old system of exclusive MP election as well. Since they were not uniquely responsible for giving her the power, they didn’t have to go along with her proposals. It’s quite unheard of in the history of British parliamentarism that MPs from the ruling party have consistently voted against their own prime minister, but now, with the change in the leadership election process, that has become possible.
The whips still have that power - hence the 20-odd expelled Tory MPs.
On the contrary, the expulsion of the twenty Tories proves the new impotence of the whip. In the past the whip had power because he could threaten consequences in case of non-abidance. There was no need to carry out the threat.
The fact that an MP rebellion is also seen in the Labour party and concerns issues that have nothing to do with Brexit, shows that the link between the MPs and their leaders has been severely weakened.
It’s being argued that power of Parliament has increased in the process, but the opposite is the case. Parliament, a body elected by the entire populace, used to have the sole power to appoint the prime minister, but now it has to share it with some random party members. When the PM came from Parliament only, that distinguished assembly had the ultimate responsibility for all government policy and thereby all the power.
There was an interesting Despatches on Channel 4 tonight about how the NHS would be compromised in the Trump trade deal with the US. Apparently government officials have already discussed this with US officials. Estimates suggest that the current drug bill for US drugs for the NHS (approx £18 billion per year) would increase to approx £45 billion. Working out at an increase of £500 million per week which the NHS would have to pay. It also suggests that there would be legal requirements for the NHS to buy only from the US suppliers at the higher rates, rather than buy generic equivalent drugs from elsewhere. Apparently Trump has accused the UK of "free loading" from US drug suppliers.
There was an interesting Despatches on Channel 4 tonight about how the NHS would be compromised in the Trump trade deal with the US. Apparently government officials have already discussed this with US officials. Estimates suggest that the current drug bill for US drugs for the NHS (approx £18 billion per year) would increase to approx £45 billion. Working out at an increase of £500 million per week which the NHS would have to pay. It also suggests that there would be legal requirements for the NHS to buy only from the US suppliers at the higher rates, rather than buy generic equivalent drugs from elsewhere. Apparently Trump has accused the UK of "free loading" from US drug suppliers.
And that's a big reason for why Brexit shouldn't go ahead. Don't fuck with my healthcare.
They voted for the Johnson deal last week, remember? That was Johnson’s only win thus far: that he actually got the Brexit bill through, immediately followed by another vote delaying it’s implementation. (Although as Punshhh points out, nothing is clear cut.)
They voted for the Johnson deal last week, remember? That was Johnson’s only win thus far: that he actually got the Brexit bill through, immediately followed by another vote delaying it’s implementation.
Not quite. It passed the second reading which means it moves onto the committee stage where the first round of amendments can be added. It's not until passing the third reading (which is actually the 5th stage) that it moves to the House of Lords to consider, where the process is repeated before returning back to the Commons for the final vote.
But then of course any amendments would need to be accepted by the EU...
We're going to have an election, Labour is supporting it now. (there is also a rumour that it might be followed by a no confidence vote)
Don't be too certain just yet. The election bill can now be amended. So it may include votes for EU nationals, 16-17 yr olds; and be on Dec 9th, which will be a public holiday, before MPs have finished. Boris could yet be so afronted he'll pull the bill. It's not a no-confidence vote, so he has that right, just as (he says) he's doing for the Brexit Withdrawal bill..
Well it's gone through now. Dec 12th it will be. I must admit that after hearing the result of the 2017 election I did not believe a Brexit deal could be agreed by parliament. Finally my prediction has been proved right. I should have bet the house on it!
The Conservatives will need 326 seats (out of 650) to get back into government. As they have no friends to form a coalition with. So any seat won by another party reduces their chances of winning that many. Whereas if the Conservatives win less seats than that, provided all the opposition party's can cooperate, they can form a coalition. It looks like the SNP will win most of the Conservative seats in Scotland, amounting to them winning around 50 seats. Plus the Lib Dems will do well, they may win over 20 seats.
So from my perspective, it's looking like a coalition of the opposition forming our next government.
I must admit that after hearing the result of the 2017 election I did not believe a Brexit deal could be agreed by parliament. Finally my prediction has been proved right. I should have bet the house on it!
I didn't think that, although I didn't think about it. I was still under the impression that professional people would arrange a sensible deal and it would all go smoothly, just as I did the day after the referendum. Which is why I was quite relaxed about leaving the EU at that time.
I can't believe what has happened since then, the Conservative party has imploded trying to take rest rest of us down with them. I never would have predicted that.
The Conservatives will need 326 seats (out of 650) to get back into government.
Assuming Sinn Fein win back their current 7 seats, and they don't take them, and allowing for the Speakers & deputies who don't vote, the total is 640. I think much will rest on whether Boris's Tories can eat the Brexit Party vote down to 10% or less. I think they will. The Brexit Party is little more than a protest vote - in the EU elections they didn't have any policies at all! I don't think whatever policies they cobble together will stand up to full scrutiny in a general election. And with a deal in Boris's pocket he can ram home the message that a Tory victory is the quickest path to Brexit until even the dumbest Faragists agree. Boris just has to keep reminding them that any vote for the Brexit Party risks letting the remain parties in..
I hear the Brexit party is feeling forlorn as the Tory's won't talk with them about a pact. We haven't heard from them yet it will be interesting what line they take. I don't see them backing down as yet, there is a valid fear that in order for Johnson to get his deal through and hold his party together, by pleasing the moderates, if he gets a majority, he will water it down, until it is Brexit in name only.
Anyone have any predictions for the GE result? Will the leave voters be dispersed enough between the Cons and Brexit party? And will the remain vote be too divided between Labour, Lib Dems, SNP?
Reply to Evil I don't have any certainty, commentators are saying it is likely to be the most unpredictable election in recent history. Because the smaller party's will win more seats due to the two main party's being divided on the Brexit issue. Also there is a big new issue, which did not figure much before, climate change. The other big problem for the Conservatives, is that their big election policy other then Brexit, is lots of spending on public services and infrastructure. But it is a hollow promise because it is their government which has starved these things of cash for the last 10 years, until they are at breaking point. For example, they are promising 20,000 more police officers, while they have cut officer numbers by 21,000 over the last 10 years. The voters will see through such hollow promises.
Added to this is the problem which has emerged for the Conservatives due to their hardline do or die policies. They don't have any friends, other party's who will go into coalition with them, or a confidence and supply arrangement, because they totally alienated the DUP by putting a border down the Irish Sea. What this means is for them to form a government they must have an outright majority, of between 321-326 (I can't find the exact figure) seats.
What this means for the opposition party's is that any seat won by any other party will reduce the majority which the conservatives can win. And the opposition party's will all cooperate if required in tactical voting, or coalition.
So taking all this into consideration my prediction is for a rainbow coalition of remain party's in coalition with the Labour Party.
Another miscalculation which the Conservatives have made, which was illustrated perfectly in an interview with Michael Heseltine on Sky News yesterday. Is that they are are overestimating the the perception in the mind of the voters of how reviled Corbyn is as a socialist.
Hesletine said, the Brexit vote was a protest vote against austerity (austerity is Corbyn's main attack line against the government and his socialist policies will immediately begin to reverse austerity). He then said that in his opinion Brexit is a calamitous mistake and he would vote for a party which will stop Brexit happening. That was all fine, but he then contradicted himself politically by attacking Corbyn as an extreme Marxist who is not fit to be prime minister and would never get into power. The problem being, if he is going to vote for any party which will stop Brexit, he will be voting to put Corbyn into government. He then found himself in an impossible position in which he couldn't say who he would vote for.
This is typical of the knots that the Conservatives have tied themselves into over these issues. Many dyed in the wool Conservatives believe this line that Corbyn is unelectable for these reasons, but they have lost touch with vast swathes of the country who are angry at the extent to which austerity is destroying our public services, fuelling the wealth divide and through universal credit, punishing the poor and causing a big increase in homelessness (this is a long list). Also there is a growing green vote worried about climate change. Such people will vote Green, or Labour.
Chris HughesOctober 31, 2019 at 07:58#3473000 likes
As a UK citizen, I suggest a compromise solution to Brexit: be in AND out. Ie, stay in (promise reform of EU free movement of people to the UK, then hold a second referendum) but be the outsider.
The 2004 neo-liberal experiment of allowing virtually unrestricted access to the UK of people from poor east European countries (pushed by UK Labour premier Tony Blair) upset many locals. Boosted Euroscepticism led to the 2016 referendum, which was, in effect, the first public consultation on mass immigration. Result: split nation: loquatious liberals versus taciturn precariat.
Offered a binary choice, I voted to remain but was actually undecided. As a left-liberal who welcomes immigration, I nevertheless sympathised with the overlooked precariat - who were wrongly dismissed by the metrocentric liberal establishment as ignorant provincial racists.
But it's madness to abandon a good trading deal with our near neighbours in exchange for environment-destroying air and sea miles, and a sweetheart deal with corporate USA involving chlorinated chicken and a garage sale of the UK's National Health System.
So, let's stay in and, firstly, use the same EU rules as Germany and France have to restrict the "free movement" of people. (Mobility of cheap labour is no freedom.) Then vote for reforming the sh*t out of the corrupt, bloated, neo-lib EU gravy train. Then we can resume our previous blissful sense of indifference.
So, let's stay in and, firstly, use the same EU rules as Germany and France have to restrict the "free movement" of people. (Mobility of cheap labour is no freedom.)
Isn't that what David Cameron tried before the referendum, and came back effectively empty-handed? The UK has no power to influence the EU to change, and its 4 freedoms are sacrosanct. What are the rules you mention that France and Germany use to restrict free movement?
Chris HughesOctober 31, 2019 at 14:19#3473700 likes
Cameron sought concessions from the EU. He got some on EU immigration and benefits. (see, eg, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105)
This minor victory may have been drowned out by the noise of the referendum campaigning. The UK has never unilaterally used permitted restrictions as France and Germany have. For instance:
"In Germany, EU nationals have to apply for a residence card if they wish to work. This card can be withdrawn for various reasons, after which the holder is required to leave Germany or be forcibly expelled, and is automatically denied re-entry."
(Financial Times, UK, June 2018, "Tantalising glimpse of an EU compromise on freedom of movement'
https://www.ft.com/content/db49c91e-70ac-11e8-8863-a9bb262c5f53)
Chris HughesOctober 31, 2019 at 15:37#3473800 likes
Tim3003:The UK has no power to influence the EU to change, and its 4 freedoms are sacrosanct.
Regarding the "sacrosant" four freedoms, if the free movement of people (FMP) (AKA the unrestricted mobility of cheap labour) is considered essential to the EU's single market, then that market's in serious need of reform.
As seen in Lode Desmet's brilliant two-part fly-on-the-wall TV documentary, "Brexit: Behind Closed Doors" (Storyville, BBC Four, May 2019), liberal MEP Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit coordinator for the European Parliament, federalist and, apparently, self-appointed High Priest of the Four Freedoms, pompously and melodramatically - if unconvingly - lectured a 2018 UK parliamentary committee on the supposed sanctity of FMP. Verhofstadt (who, unlike EU senior Brexit panjandrums Tusk, Juncker and Barnier, is at least elected) duly preached the 4F credo to the committee:
You cannot pick and choose one element out of this concept and say, 'We like everything, services, goods, capital, but not people. We don’t like people. They cannot come. Our goods can go out, our capital can go out, services can go out, but not people'. That is not the single market. Everybody on the continent understands that when you’re talking about the single market, it can not only be the freedom of movement of goods or services or capital, but that it also needs to be the freedom of movement of people. Because there are some countries in the single market who are specialised in goods. So they have an advantage on the single market with their goods. Some countries are specialised in services. I think we are here in the centre, in the capital of a country that is specialised, that has a huge advantage in services. Like other countries have an advange in that single market, because of their work force. And if you want to take out one of these elements, you destroy the concept itself of the single market.
(Transcript kindly provided to me by Lode Desmet)
So, how noble are the mighty four freedoms! We rich west Europeans can export our goods, services and capital. Poor east Europeans can export their cheap labour. Neo-liberalism at its grubby worst, I'd say.
Cameron sought concessions from the EU. He got some on EU immigration and benefits.
Yes, I thought Cameron did well when he sought concessions and I was surprised at the outcry from the Murdoch press etc, that the concessions were not good enough. It was the first time that I became aware of the extent of the anti EU poison that had been administered by such populist power brokers.
Chris HughesOctober 31, 2019 at 19:21#3474260 likes
Yes, he got a kicking from most of the press. The ("on balance") pro-EU Guardian tried to be positive, saying the deal “achieves things that can make a difference.” Not exactly entbusiastic, though.
Trump waded in to the election tonight on the Nigel Farage show on LBC.
He said about Johnson,
"He's the exact right guy for the times"
He said about Farage and Johnson,
"if you and him get together you'd be an unstoppable force"
He said about Corbyn,
"Corbyn would be bad for you he'd take you to bad places"
A gift for Corbyn and and an own goal for Farage and Johnson. Corbyn has already tweeted that it's sour grapes from Trump because he won't be able to buy out the NHS with a Corbyn government. Also he's put his foot in it suggesting that Farage and Johnson should team up. A toxic prospect for Johnson.
Reply to Wayfarer
Labour would put it back to the people with binding alternatives. Which would take about 6 months. If Johnson wins and pushes through his deal, he would be snarled up in fractious negotiations for the next stage of talks with the EU, with periodic cliff edges and the continuation of the chaos and division.
The reason that the leaving arrangements with the EU are in such divisive chaos is entirely due to the infighting and rabid Brexit factions in the Conservative party. The party which has been in government for the whole period.
Reply to Punshhh I think you're probably right, but as election platforms go, I think Johnson's claim to have an agreed deal in hand, even if it's not strictly true, is going to be very powerful. Don't know, of course,and may well be wrong - and in any case, we don't have that long a time to find out!
Chris HughesOctober 31, 2019 at 23:57#3475480 likes
Yes, the Tories have a deal in hand - but Labour’s offering a second referendum. If voters go for ref2, the nation, now veering to Remain, might be reunited (if ref1 Leave voters' concerns can be allayed). And with Labour, stay or go, we avoid Trump's corporate chlorinated chicken.
Reply to Chris Hughes Quite, the deal which would be negotiated by Labour would be very different to Johnson's deal. Myself as a remainer would be confident in Labour getting a good sensible deal closely aligned to the EU, provided Labour were in power for five years to steer us in the right direction. They might just manage to hold the Union( the UK) together, or if Scotland left, be able to prevent a hard border between England and Scotland.
But if Johnson gets in with a majority we are going to hell in a hand cart. He will ram through his deal with no care for the damage done, because his two main goals are more important than any collateral damage he does in achieving them, firstly to get 5 years in No 10, closely followed and linked hand in glove, with saving the Conservatives from electoral oblivion.
The third goal, making it a heady mix, is to prevent at all cost a socialist party getting into government. Readers outside the UK are probably not aware how profound this would be for the Conservatives and their supporter base. Also what a profound change it would be for the fortunes of our country following forty years of a stranglehold of Tory capitalism, which has brought our country to its knees. If Labour gets into power they will be going after the top 5% of earners and wealth hoarders.
Whereas if the Conservatives win less seats than that, provided all the opposition party's can cooperate, they can form a coalition. It looks like the SNP will win most of the Conservative seats in Scotland, amounting to them winning around 50 seats. Plus the Lib Dems will do well, they may win over 20 seats.
I'd like to ask the Britons here the following questions?
How are the Lib Dems seen in the UK? Is there a wedge in the conservative party?
I gather that there might be a of former conservatives that could be disappointed about the whole mess that the conservative party has made itself and how it has dealt with the issue, yet won't ever vote for such a catastrophe as the Labour party.
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 11:06#3477030 likes
Farage(Brexit party)has opened his campaign, he has come out with a hard line of offering an election pact with the Conservatives. They must ditch their deal and go for no deal( or something equivalent) followed by a Canada style trade agreement by 14th of November, or he will field candidates in every seat and fight them to the death.
He's very critical of Johnson's deal, as a warmed up May deal, which is not really Brexit at all.
It sounds like the death nail of the Conservative party to me.
I gather that there might be a of former conservatives that could be disappointed about the whole mess that the conservative party has made itself and how it has dealt with the issue, yet won't ever vote for such a catastrophe as the Labour party.
Yes definitely, there are a lot of former and current Conservatives who are feeling sick watching the shambles. Who will switch to the Lib Dems. Although there is a sliding scale here against how hard they are on Brexit, the harder they are the more likely they are to go to Brexit party.
As I said earlier, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Corbyn getting into No 10, because the Conservatives don't have anyone to go into coalition with. Although the Brexit party may win a few seats( they have none now), who they could possibly form an alliance with.
There is a deep split in the Conservative party between hardline, right wing, hard Brexit and moderate, soft Brexit, or remain. Their Achilles heal is the Brexit party, that split will be yawning following the launch of the Brexit party campaign now.
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 11:53#3477100 likes
Tory voters won't switch to Labour. Whatever the current state of Labour, why would they?
Because more voters identify with their vote to Leave or Remain than with a political party — and because no single party captures all of the Leave or Remain vote — they are likely to vote “tactically,” and look for the party that stands the best chance of winning in their area.
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 11:57#3477120 likes
very few voters on either side of the argument have changed their minds about whether the UK should leave the EU. The country appears to be just as divided as it was three years ago.
On average, during the last month, polls that ask people how they would vote in another referendum suggest that 88% of those who backed Remain would do so again. Among those who voted Leave, 86% have not changed their minds.
These figures have changed very little during the last two years.
True, most polls suggest - and have done so for some time - that the balance of opinion might be tilted narrowly in favour of remaining a member of the EU. On average, this is by 53% to 47%.
However, this lead for Remain rests primarily on the views expressed by those who did not vote three years ago - and perhaps might not do so again.
In truth, nobody can be sure what would happen if there were to be another referendum.
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 12:03#3477130 likes
Labour has some problems, but it isn't a catastrophe. It could win. Then there'd be a second referendum next year (Labour's deal or remain). If it's Remain, we revoke Article 50 and... like in Dallas, it was all a bad dream...
Yes, the Tories have a deal in hand - but Labour’s offering a second referendum. If voters go for ref2, the nation, now veering to Remain, might be reunited (if ref1 Leave voters' concerns can be allayed). And with Labour, stay or go, we avoid Trump's corporate chlorinated chicken.
I cant see voters wanting another 6 month delay for ref2. Even if they swallowed that, the result will almost certainly be close and the arguing will continue. Also, the renegotiated Labour party Brexit deal is going to include Customs Union, Single Market membership, maybe even Freedom of Movement. All that is going to enrage Brexiteers who'll see it is Brexit in name only. So the referendum will be hugely problematical, divisive and if Remain wins the result won't be accepted by the leavers any more than the first one was by remainers. I can only see it making matters worse..
I'm a remainer too, but I think people want this exit deal put to bed. Yes part 2 will be just as complicated, but the prevailing view is 'let's get on with it.' Hadn't you noticed the 13% (and rising) Tory lead in the polls?
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 12:40#3477230 likes
True.. but polls before the last two general elections and the referendum were wrong.
True, most polls suggest - and have done so for some time - that the balance of opinion might be tilted narrowly in favour of remaining a member of the EU. On average, this is by 53% to 47%.
This might be the state of the polls as of this morning, but it's a long way to polling day and Farage and Johnson have plenty of opportunity to stumble. Indeed in the last 24 hours Farage is flat on his face and trying to bring Johnson down with him and the election campaign hasn't started yet.
Also there are record numbers of young voters registering to vote as we speak and most of them will be voting for remain or Labour party's.
People are speculating that Farage would rather remain in the EU and still be the champion of Brexit. Than allow Johnson to leave and become the hero of Brexit and steal his thunder.
Johnson and Farage are Laurel and Hardy. Hardy says "and this is another fine mess you've got me into". While Laurel whimpering says "sorry", while pouring a bucket of water down Hardy's trousers. On the side of the bucket is a label saying shark infested waters.
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 14:54#3477660 likes
Chris Hughes:As a UK citizen, I suggest a compromise solution to Brexit: be in AND out.
ssu:Why? Do you want to prolong the confusion and have everybody continue to be disappointed?
As I said, I mean: stay in, but be an outsider. Stay in keep the easy trading with our near neighbours (and to avoid the chlorinated chicken, etc) . Be an outsider to reflect the valid views of Eurosceptics.
This may be the case now, but if there is a split in the leave vote, then it's game over and I can hear the cracks spreading.
Farage is already getting desperate and having to put up candidates for every seat. No sign of the Tories wanting a pact. They will push hard with 'a vote for the Brexit party risks letting Corbyn in'. And we havent got to the fun part of examining Farage's policies yet..
I also notice many of the Tory left-leaning MPs are not standing. More evidence that Boris has won and recast the party just as Corbyn did after fighting off his challenger for the leadership in 2016 (I think). Perhaps there will be a leakage of the leftie Tory vote to the Lib Dems? I am still intrigued to see if their cancel-Brexit policy gamble pays off.
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 18:57#3478040 likes
A lib-lab pact and/or coalition could heal the divided nation. Their joint policy could be just one item: a second referendum repeating the question: should we stay or should we go (on the basis of the deal agreed by parliament)? Ideally, all public campaigning and polling would be banned.
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 19:07#3478070 likes
OK, the nation would still be divided. But the decision would be better informed and therefore more acceptable. Maybe.
Chris HughesNovember 01, 2019 at 19:16#3478090 likes
The Liberals could demand a second policy: the enactment (with no referendum) of proportional representation. Future UK governments would then be coalitions with little or no ideology. The old divisions would fade away and harmony would reign.
OK, the nation would still be divided. But the decision would be better informed and therefore more acceptable. Maybe.
Yes, which is self evident, dispite all the leavers who keep banging on about the will of the people, saying it would be an affront to democracy, it wouldn't.
There is a big material difference between leaving and remaining which is not acknowledged in the commentary. If we leave half the population will be forced against their will to accept a long lasting and profound material change in circumstances. Whereas if we remain the half of the population who voted to leave will be forced against their will to have no material change in their circumstances.
This exposes the inadequacy of the referendum and that it was ill conceived. For such a large material change it should have required a super majority of 60%, or two thirds majority. Or stated that there would be a confirmatory referendum at the end of the process.
I'd like to ask the Britons here the following questions?
How are the Lib Dems seen in the UK?
In the UK the Lib Dems are acknowledged as the third of the main party's. In a largely two party system, they are often trapped in the middle, meaning that they often have large swings in their number of seats depending on the mood in the country. Their policies are as centrist as they can be, they are often criticised for being in line with either conservative policies, or Labour, by the other side. But they do have a solid support in the middle ground, the woolly jumper, Saab driving brigade.
unenlightenedNovember 02, 2019 at 10:09#3480210 likes
?ssu
I'd like to ask the Britons here the following questions?
How are the Lib Dems seen in the UK?
In the UK the Lib Dems are acknowledged as the third of the main party's. In a largely two party system, they are often trapped in the middle, meaning that they often have large swings in their number of seats depending on the mood in the country. Their policies are as centrist as they can be, they are often criticised for being in line with either conservative policies, or Labour, by the other side. But they do have a solid support in the middle ground, the woolly jumper, Saab driving brigade.
The rather more negative view is that they are less centrist and more two-faced, able to have contradictory policies according to who they are speaking to, having the luxury of never having to implement and thus be judged on them. The ideal home for career politicians who are all talk and no trousers.
Chris HughesNovember 02, 2019 at 12:42#3480290 likes
Reply to unenlightened
You have a point about the UK Liberal Democrats. Their coalition government with the Conservatives (2010-15) seriously damaged their liberal credentials.
(However, you're wrong, if I may say so, to say "all talk and no trousers". This a common but meaningless misspeak error, usually misspoken as "all mouth and no trousers". The correct phrase is "all mouth and trousers". This is analogous to "all smoke and mirrors". You wouldn't say, "all smoke and no mirrors". The error is due to people overexcitedly confusing the phrase with its racy sister-phrase, "all fur coat and no knickers".)
unenlightenedNovember 02, 2019 at 12:49#3480300 likes
All due respect to the grammar nazis but as a mere speaker of common-speak, so-to-speak, is it not the case that once a phrase gains common currency, does it not attain to meaning independent of its misbegotten origins? My concern is more that it is a sexist phrase. :wink:
Chris HughesNovember 02, 2019 at 12:53#3480320 likes
I'm not a nazi of the grammatical or any other variety. I ask you to withdraw that remark.
Chris HughesNovember 02, 2019 at 12:55#3480330 likes
A misspoken meaningless phrase doesn't acquire meaning due to frequent repetition.
unenlightenedNovember 02, 2019 at 13:51#3480420 likes
The analysis of a pollster on Newsnight last night was that any Brexit Party success is more likely to hurt Labour than the Tories, so Farage's 'threat' to split the Tory vote by putting candidates in 500+ constituencies looks hollow already. Part of the reasoning was that tribal Labour voters who are also leavers are less likely to defect to the Tories than to the Brexit Party, which would be more a protest vote. This of course assumes they can understand and stomach Farage's 'clean break' Brexit more than the Tory negotiated deal. ('Clean break' as in having your leg bitten off by an aligator rather than removed in a long hospital process, that is)
Chris HughesNovember 02, 2019 at 15:03#3480610 likes
The allegorical aligator being US corporations...
Chris HughesNovember 02, 2019 at 16:47#3480740 likes
However, in the interests of harmony, Farage shouldn't be demonised. He should be acknowledged as representing the valid views of Eurosceptics. Some of his views are borderline racist, but he and his UKIP party achieved the referendum, which many people clearly wanted. The views of those who want a "clean-break" separation should be taken seriously by remainers. If remaining is achieved, our relationship with the EU must be re negotiated so as to unite the nation.
Farage shouldn't be demonised. He should be acknowledged as representing the valid views of Eurosceptics.
I don't think Farage any longer represents the majority of Eurosceptics. I read a poll saying 2/3 of Brexit Party members prefer the Tory govt deal to no deal. I think many of them only cling to him because they understand none of it and he seems a chap who stands up for their 'interests' (aka fears). I have never believed the referendum endorsed no deal and I don't think many others at the time did. Farage has now co-opted the term 'Brexit' to mean no deal - as he says any deal is now selling out. He deals in simplistic slogans. His arguments never hold water under inspection - which is why he never allows anyone to disect them. My point was that 'clean break' is the most absurd mis-representation of what leaving with no deal represents, chosen to hoodwink his followers. I think it's sad that our politics is descending to a populist battle of one-line slogans. Politicians have followed Farage's success and now believe the best way to win voters is not to inform them but to poke them emotionally, either inciting fear or blind optimism.
His masterstroke I have to admit was using the term 'project fear' during the referendum, for all the negative economic predictions Cameron was fighting him with. The irony was that the term should already have been coined to describe the demonising of immigrants, and the impending tidal wave of them coming to swamp us, which led to calls for the referendum in the first place!
Chris HughesNovember 02, 2019 at 17:21#3480800 likes
My point is that in the interest of national unity, those who, like me, hope to remain must acknowledge the validity of the criticism of the EU made by those who wish to leave.
Chris HughesNovember 02, 2019 at 17:22#3480810 likes
There's no future in the dichotomy.
Chris HughesNovember 02, 2019 at 20:08#3481100 likes
In the 2015 general election UK premier David Cameron expected to need another coalition with the Liberal Democrats and he expected them to block his manifesto promise of an EU referendum. Having got an unexpected majority, he had to hold the referendum. Because he then expected Remain to win, his attempt to negotiate a better relationship with the EU was half-hearted and mainly fruitless. The binary choice of the referendum then split the nation. Whether we actually leave or not, it's now essential that the two sides try to meet each others' concerns. Shambolic duo Johnson and Cummings - and their super-rich backers - must be removed if that is to happen.
Reply to Tim3003 Farage emerged from an Enoch Powell fascism, apparently he used to goad left wing teachers and lecturers at his college and was described as a loud mouth and good at selling things. I expect he found fertile ground in estuarine right wing organisations in Essex. By the time he managed to become elected as an MEP he had found his ideological ground and as he was being paid to represent the UK in the European Parliament( he tried to be elected to the UK parliament, but failed). He started using the populist techniques he had learnt to good effect there. I dont know exactly why he targeted the EU, but presumably it was free movement that he didn't like, but realised that it would be deemed a racist attitude and so attached the EU for being undemocratic, apparently.
What he has been doing over the last few years is well known. But I don't think he has any other modus operandi. The techniques of populism he has developed is all he has. He is not a politician and now that he finds himself more and more in the political sphere he doesn't know what else to do other than more of the same. So what does he do, he knows that if he stops now he is finished and will be ridiculed and abused by large numbers of people, he has needed body guards for a while now.
So we have what he did last week, he comes out fighting and gunning for the Tory party. Like Trump all he can do is exploit populist memes until he gets to the top. Unfortunately he has come up against his nemesis in Johnson, a carnivorous Tory, with the whole Tory machine behind him, with numerous skilled political operators. It seems as though he has now hit a brick wall, by giving the ultimatum that the Tory party must drop its deal and go for no deal by 14th November.
However, in the interests of harmony, Farage shouldn't be demonised. He should be acknowledged as representing the valid views of Eurosceptics. Some of his views are borderline racist, but he and his UKIP party achieved the referendum, which many people clearly wanted. The views of those who want a "clean-break" separation should be taken seriously by remainers. If remaining is achieved, our relationship with the EU must be re negotiated so as to unite the nation.
Do you listen to James O Brian* he is the leading media pundit for remain. He points out that the majority of "leavers", have simply believed a few lies, which like Farages slogans, are easy to believe and propagate. That most of the Brexit party followers, (apart from the working class supporters in the north and east who often have valid concerns) are against immigration, again many of them will have believed lies and untruths about the realities of immigration.
So a proportion of "leavers" are actually mistaken, rather than having well thought through legitimate concerns. Indeed he would go further and point out that there aren't any legitimate concerns about the EU which necessitate leaving the EU. Every concern which has been put to him has been shown to be unwarranted, or more to do with the incompetence of the UK government, than the EU.
I'm not saying that the EU is perfect, or that our membership isn't problematic, but there are no valid reasons to leave which hold up to scrutiny, which to correct would require us to leave the EU. There are a few ideological political views or stances which can make a case for the UK being independent from the EU, but by no means are they a necessity, or required.
* James O Brian, LBC radio, 10.00 am - 1.00pm Monday to Friday.
Chris HughesNovember 03, 2019 at 10:08#3482520 likes
O'Brien seems fair and well informed. However, proving leave arguments "wrong" only increases national disunity. The reason for remaining is that all alternatives are worse. As the father of Jim, who ran away from his nurse and was eaten by a lion in Hillaire Belloc's cautionary tale, advised his surviving children: Always keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse.
Chris HughesNovember 03, 2019 at 12:22#3482650 likes
Perhaps it's possible to argue that leaving is "something worse" without hostility and "othering".
Reply to Chris Hughes Yes, I agree. What James is doing is on the phone radio format, so he is discussing the arguments for and against and fending off some attacks from leavers. What I'm doing is looking into the issue with some philosophical objectivity and political enquiry.
I sympathise with your view here, I used the word mistake rather than wrong. I realise that politically the leaver ideology is not in and of itself wrong other than were it is incoherent and/or has no relation to reality. However there are real hard consequences to political choices on the ground, something which we have to bare in mind in our analysis.
As I pointed out yesterday there is a real material consequence for the half of the population who is being forced to leave against their will. At least if Brexit is cancelled, or neutered, that half of the population who wish to leave will not have any material consequences imposed on them. They may feel hard done by, or betrayed, but that is only in terms of their aspiration, not their material circumstances and if they take it hard, that is their intellectual choice, because in reality nothing on the ground would have changed. Perhaps they could say but what about the unicorn I was expecting, look I even provided a stable for it and now you have taken it away from me.
Chris HughesNovember 03, 2019 at 14:27#3482890 likes
Unicorn.... Its hard to drop the tropes of oppositional discourse, isnt it?
Its easier, perhaps I could say the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an old friend of mine. One I have encountered after half a bottle of proseco.
Unicorn is appropriate to illustrate the point. What does the independent UK look like? Perhaps there are many images, some with one horn, some where the grass is greener. I remember Johnson saying something about " the sunlit uplands", " we can have our cake and eat it", I can't remember who said "the exact same benefits".
Chris HughesNovember 03, 2019 at 16:48#3483150 likes
Exaggerated claims and counter-claims have been made by both sides. There's a lot of uncertainty concealed on both sides by unwaranted confidence. The dismal non-science of economic forecasting has been given undeserved importance by both sides. I'd suggest that the best (and least gratuitousy confrontational) argument for Remain is that it's worth surrendering some sovereignty for frictionless trade with our near neighbours.
So a proportion of "leavers" are actually mistaken, rather than having well thought through legitimate concerns. Indeed he would go further and point out that there aren't any legitimate concerns about the EU which necessitate leaving the EU.
Some leavers justify their stance as 'to get our country back'. It's hard to fight against such meaningless generalisations, which are based on 'feelings' that the EU tells us what to do; we don't have control over immigration, our laws etc. Describing the reality doesn't counter gut-instincts, based not on hard evidence but everyday experience of life - a life surrounded by and informed by the uninformed. This is 'identity' politics, where logical arguments don't work..
Didn't Farage use to be a City trader before he came into politics? I think it's great that he's not going to stand as an MP. He knows the Tories will mobilise all their forces to keep him out - as has happened for the last SEVEN times I hear! A politician who can't get elected shows his worthlessness..
Chris HughesNovember 03, 2019 at 17:44#3483290 likes
Farage has been an elected member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England since 1999. Gut feelings exist on both sides and can't be dismissed as unimportant. The case for Remain (and for future national harmony) isn't helped by binary absolutism, I'd say.
I'd suggest that the best (and least gratuitousy confrontational) argument for Remain is that it's worth surrendering some sovereignty for frictionless trade with our near neighbours
Yes I agree with this, however I don't find the opportunity arises. The few people I know who voted leave don't discuss it with me and I avoid discussing it with them. We just pretend it's not happening. I suspect this approach is common place, a sign of the division. I find myself discussing it a lot with people I know who voted remain, I suppose we are simply reinforcing memes etc. We are all stuck in these positions relying on the media to mediate. Fortunately the TV media that we all watch is reasonably objective and impartial, with the biased media restricted to print media. I don't know what effect it is having on the constituency which will due to their particular demographic be important in determining the course we take, the swing voters in marginal seats "Workington man". They seem remote to most of us, on both sides, it feels as though we are in a boat without a paddle drifting towards a waterfall. We (99% of us) are powerless to prevent it happening and then we see on the TV Trump talking to Farage over the phone about how great Johnson is. The three stooges, Johnson, Farage and Trump, all duplicitous playing with media, populism and powerful divisive memes. Corbyn the only leader, potential leader who is trying to compromise and bring the country back together being smeared and discounted out of hand by both sides based on outdated prejudice about his policies and what he represents.
Someone in my position is well aware of what these three stooges are doing, what they represent and what motivates them. I don't see much concern for the country there.
Reply to Tim3003 I agree, it looks like divide and rule. The degree to which logical argument is meaningless can be evidenced by the outrageous behaviour of Johnson and the group around him and how the supporters jump to justify every action.
I can't work Farage out, he is the Tory's Achilles heal, but why is he gunning so hard? I can only come up with two alternative goals, one he is bluffing while holding a secret pact with the Tory's. Two he would rather be in the EU with Corbyn in power and retain his mantle as Mr Brexit. Rather than help deliver The prize while Johnson takes all the glory.
I can't see either of these as very plausible, so what is he up to?
Chris HughesNovember 03, 2019 at 22:23#3483730 likes
I don't despair about the populist right. It appeals to the neglected precariat. They could be rescued from neglect, and the means is practical rather than ideoligical. If I despair, it's about climate crisis. Corbyn might take on the neo-liberalism driving us over that cliff. I rather like his Brexit ambivalence, and I think voters, tired, like me, not so much of delay but of division, might give him a majority.
Likewise I'm not that bothered about the populist right. I'm more concerned about the Conservative party turning in on itself and defacating on the rest of us. Why don't they go off into a corner and do it there, rather than taking a wrecking ball to our country. It's interesting when I look back to my political development. I started out a Tory, as a teenager, ushering Thatcher in to office, my house was the local conservative Election Day headquarters. I was a Thatcherite through and through, I only saw positive developments. Then from that day forward, we have inexorably drifted apart, until now they are reviled in my eyes. It's a two pronged attack, climate change, I went Green in the 1980's, and the social contract. Two things which don't seem to concern the Tory's, it just gets lip service.
This is not a climate change thread, but I am equally alarmed and feel powerless on this. There is a good Attenborough documentary at the moment, I think he spells it out very well.
Chris HughesNovember 04, 2019 at 10:45#3485010 likes
Yes, back to Brexit. (Except there is a connection between Brexit and the climate crisis: the super-rich, who benefit from neo-liberalism and presumably hope to ride out any insurrection or environmental destruction.) Working class Conservatives seeking support for Powelite views on immigration were bound to be disappointed. The Tories have always represented the rich. The current disintegration of the Conservative Party is probably nothing more than a superficial cracking of the surface, with Johnson, Cummings and co. reaching for the super-rich with a hard or no-deal Brexit, whereas "one-nation" Tories rightly see their merely rich constituents better served by Remain.
I agree about the super rich seeking to ride out the climate crisis, this may be contributing to the acuteness of neo-Liberalism.
Yes I can see how the cracks might be just on the surface, but as I see it there is an existential crisis in the Conservative party due to two factors. The demographic, they have very little support amongst the young, which runs into the consequences and concerns of a more bleak economic future over the next generation. The turning point as I see it was the financial crisis of 2008, they have been reeling from the fallout since then and the younger generation among their base has financial and social concerns which are outside the traditional remit of the party.
I can see them coalescing around the privelidged classes again once the dust settles, but probably smaller and struggling to get into office, as their base will have shrunk. Also if they have alienated some of their moderate base due to this sojourn to the right, their numbers will shrink more. I think a lot will depend on whether Corbyn gets into office, but I do see a swing to the left due to the state of the country.
Chris HughesNovember 04, 2019 at 12:45#3485170 likes
A swing to the left is perhaps inevitable in the face of ever-increasing inequity. Corbyn says:
Guardian, 4 Nov:I understand why people voted remain - I live in a constituency which is heavily remain. I understand why people voted leave, out of anger. We have to bring people together, and our party is the only one that will offer people the final choice.
His "anger" explanation for the leave vote is wrong, but I think his hope to bring unity is genuine.
Yes and yes, I think unity and the social crisis is more important for Corbyn than how Brexit is resolved. Which Is evident in his speeches in the house over recent months. He refused to be drawn into the Tory Brexit psycho drama, not because he wasn't tempted, I expect, but because these issues are more important and pressing.
Chris HughesNovember 04, 2019 at 15:06#3485610 likes
I wouldn't say Corbyn is a master strategist or a great leader, but somehow he stays upright, like that toy.
Corbyn might take on the neo-liberalism driving us over that cliff. I rather like his Brexit ambivalence, and I think voters, tired, like me, not so much of delay but of division, might give him a majority.
Nice as it would be I fail to see how Labour's Brexit policy (or anyone else's) can bring about a national healing process. Brexit is so divisive precisely because the country is split more or less 50 - 50, and however it's resolved, the 'wronged' half are going to be unhappy. If we leave Remainers will probably knuckle under and get used to it longer term, as I'd guess they're more tolerant and adaptable people. If Brexit is cancelled I doubt the Leavers will stop rioting, demonstrating etc for years. Farage will be talking about overthrowing the govt..
I can't work Farage out, he is the Tory's Achilles heal, but why is he gunning so hard? I can only come up with two alternative goals, one he is bluffing while holding a secret pact with the Tory's. Two he would rather be in the EU with Corbyn in power and retain his mantle as Mr Brexit. Rather than help deliver The prize while Johnson takes all the glory.
I can't see either of these as very plausible, so what is he up to?
What is the mystery? He wants a fast no deal Brexit and thinks Boris is conning people, who don't realise nor want the years of delay and EU fees we'll incur by negotiating a trade deal. However, he knows his only chance of winning seats is via a pact with the Tories. He can't beat them and they won't let him 'join' them, so he's a bit miffed.
Chris HughesNovember 04, 2019 at 17:51#3486310 likes
Don't you think Labour's six-month plan - get a new deal, followed by a second referendum - would take a significant amount of heat out of the dichotomy?
Reply to Tim3003 He's miffed, well I can understand that. I was expecting some sort of strategy from him. Even if he gets a pact,the Tory's won't grant him any seats, they'll ask him to stand down his candidates. At the moment he's set to split the vote and let Corbyn in. Perhaps that is a better outcome than having to gift Brexit to Johnson and eat humble pie.
Don't you think Labour's six-month plan - get a new deal, followed by a second referendum - would take a significant amount of heat out of the dichotomy?
As I said in an earlier post. No. Corbyn's renogiated withdrawal deal will include the customs union, single market etc, and for leavers be akin to no Brexit at all, so ref2 will not be viable..
unenlightenedNovember 04, 2019 at 21:50#3487210 likes
?Tim3003
He's miffed, well I can understand that. I was expecting some sort of strategy from him. Even if he gets a pact,the Tory's won't grant him any seats, they'll ask him to stand down his candidates. At the moment he's set to split the vote and let Corbyn in. Perhaps that is a better outcome than having to gift Brexit to Johnson and eat humble pie.
He wont get a pact, the Tories have made that clear. I doubt he'll stand down his candidates either. So they'll be demonised over and over as risking letting Labour in by splitting the Tory vote, and almost all Tory voters will stay loyal. The question is whether enough Labour leavers will back him to lose Labour some of its marginals to the Tories..- I'm sure I've heard Farage say he's targetting Labour leavers, not Tory hard Brexiteers.
Sinn Fein has announced it will not stand in three constituencies in Northern Ireland to help other pro-Remain candidates defeat DUP Brexiteers.
The party is standing aside in south and east Belfast and North Down - a move that puts the republicans in the highly unusual position of explicitly urging supporters to vote for a unionist, in the form of incumbent North Down MP Lady Sylvia Hermon.
I never quite understood why making trade deals with the US constitutes getting our country back from the EU deals that have taken it away...
I think they mean: taking back control of immigration, law-making, saving the money we pay the EU etc. Trade deals are surely a huge red herring in the whole Brexit debate as they take forever to negotiate and their effects can be expected to balance out - if not, why would both sides agree?
As I said in an earlier post. No. Corbyn's renogiated withdrawal deal will include the customs union, single market etc, and for leavers be akin to no Brexit at all, so ref2 will not be viable..
It depends if there is a meaningful vote or what the balance of MPs in the house is after the election. Perhaps the referendum result will be binding. If Corbyn can get it through these hurdles there is no reason to presume that the electorate will choose the leave option. The mood and demographic has changed a lot since 2016.
In respect of Farage, there is a hard core of support who will not vote Tory, because it is not a true Brexit. I can't predict the numbers though. It's going to be unpredictable.
Chris HughesNovember 04, 2019 at 22:44#3487440 likes
Re Labour’s planned deal: customs union, probably: single market, definately not (unless you count "close alignment").
unenlightenedNovember 04, 2019 at 23:26#3487790 likes
Anything they can do, we can do better. We can be done by anyone better than you.
Reply to unenlightened Yes, an important story. The government will have read it and for some reason decided to sit on it. Typical of the ram it through policies of Cummings. The BBC will probably ignore it as it could bring the referendum result into doubt. Let's see if Channel 4, or Sky News pick it up.
An interesting side issue, which illustrates how out of touch members of the government are. Rees Mogg (mewling pencil), said on LBC yesterday that it was common sense that the people trapped in Grenfell Tower should have ignored the fire brigade and left the building. So in essence blaming the victims and undermining the integrity of the fire service.
But of course a person of such privelidge and high demeanour with a posh voice must be right.
unenlightenedNovember 05, 2019 at 12:27#3489440 likes
But of course a person of such privelidge and high demeanour with a posh voice must be right.
Apparently, it's acceptable to call for people like that to be put down. You might imagine death threats are unacceptable, but it seems not. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/tories-back-candidate-francesca-o-brien-benefits-street-remarks-gower
Benkei
2.1k
?Tim3003
Good agreements are win-win propositions for the parties. So no, it doesn't balance out.
By 'balance out' I meant that the nett of gains/losses will be the same for each side - not that neither side will gain overall.
However if you think both sides can simply agree and win, tell that to Trump and the Chinese leader. The problem is when there is a trade imbalance to start with, and the side in deficit (ie the USA) wants to redress that and gain more than it loses. The US has a 2:1 trade deficit with the UK too, so what will Trump's approach be?..
It depends if there is a meaningful vote or what the balance of MPs in the house is after the election. Perhaps the referendum result will be binding. If Corbyn can get it through these hurdles there is no reason to presume that the electorate will choose the leave option. The mood and demographic has changed a lot since 2016.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you say: Do you mean a meaningful (parliamentary) vote on Corbyn's new deal or the existing one? If which referendum result is binding?
By 'balance out' I meant that the nett of gains/losses will be the same for each side - not that neither side will gain overall.
Accept that is still not correct. If country A has a maximum gain of 100 USD and country B a maximum gain of 500 USD, should country A not enter into the trade agreement out of spite?
The problem is when there is a trade imbalance to start with, and the side in deficit (ie the USA) wants to redress that and gain more than it loses.
It's not established among economists whether a trade deficit is a benefit or not. The trade accounts for services and goods are a fraction of capital flows nowadays. The effects a trade deficit used to have aren't there anymore, allowing countries like the UK and US to run trade deficits for years without that causing issues for their economies.
On the far end of that spectrum is Milton Friedman who says trade deficits will never be a problem because ultimately the money will flow back; after all, dollars can only be spent in the US (more or less).
Reply to Tim3003 Sorry I must have rushed that post. I meant a meaningful vote on the new deal negotiated by Corbyn and his second referendum.
What I am referring to is that May's deal only required a meaningful vote because Keir Starmer had to demand a vote to secure it. It might not be required for Corbyn's deal, although the legislation will have to pass in the Commons.
Also Corbyn might be able to engineer a second referendum not requiring such parliamentary consent by having binding options on the ballot paper. Which the government would be legally required to implement. I'm no constitutional expert, so this might not be right.
Apparently, it's acceptable to call for people like that to be put down. You might imagine death threats are unacceptable, but it seems not.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/tories-back-candidate-francesca-o-brien-benefits-street-remarks-gower
Yes precisely, although when I read your post my first thought was that Mogg was eligible to be put down.
unenlightenedNovember 05, 2019 at 13:44#3489840 likes
Also Corbyn might be able to engineer a second referendum not requiring such parliamentary consent by having binding options on the ballot paper. Which the government would be legally required to implement. I'm no constitutional expert, so this might not be right.
I think the House of Commons is the law-making body and any referendum is only advisory. Of course the House can promise beforehand to enact the decision a referendum comes back with, as David Cameron did I think. But the bill for the withdrawal is far more complex than the yes/no decision which prompts it, so it's something the govt has to work out and pass through the Commons.
Having said that, I suppose that if the referendum is held after the EU negotiations have produced a deal, at least people know exactly what they're voting for, and the govt can then in theory pass the bill quickly. But doubtless the opposition would find ways to frustrate that.
It would be truly bizzare if a Labour govt - mostly supporting Remain, held a referendum which voted to leave, and then had to pass the bill!
It's not established among economists whether a trade deficit is a benefit or not. The trade accounts for services and goods are a fraction of capital flows nowadays. The effects a trade deficit used to have aren't there anymore, allowing countries like the UK and US to run trade deficits for years without that causing issues for their economies.
On the far end of that spectrum is Milton Friedman who says trade deficits will never be a problem because ultimately the money will flow back; after all, dollars can only be spent in the US (more or less).
I'm no economist, but in a trade deficit situation, money is flowing out of the country and goods coming in. The money doesn't depreciate - infact it can be invested by the exporter to grow, but the goods do, so isn't the country importing gradually getting poorer relative to the one exporting?
And as I said, if the US deficit with China is no problem, why is Trump pursuing a trade war to correct it? I thought Trump's rationale was that by undercutting US prices the Chinese are taking away US jobs and industries, as they flood US markets with cheap goods.
Reply to unenlightened Its delinquency, this is what the Tory party has become. The decent Tory's have jumped ship and ERG stooges have filled the gap drunk on raw power.
I'm no economist, but in a trade deficit situation, money is flowing out of the country and goods coming in. The money doesn't depreciate - infact it can be invested by the exporter to grow, but the goods do, so isn't the country importing gradually getting poorer relative to the one exporting?
And as I said, if the US deficit with China is no problem, why is Trump pursuing a trade war to correct it? I thought Trump's rationale was that by undercutting US prices the Chinese are taking away US jobs and industries, as they flood US markets with cheap goods.
It's indeed not that simple and we can rest assured Trump doesn't know what he's talking about. If the Chinese subsidise their industry, so what? That money for subsidies has to come from somewhere so even if the price is lower in the market the costs are the same and probably even higher because the resource allocation is presumably less effective than in a market mechanism.
So you raise tariffs? Who pays for the increased prices? US citizens and companies. You subsidise your own industry? Who pays? US citizens again. The only winning strategy is to block items that are subsidised from entering your market entirely but I suspect the dependency on Chinese goods would cause chaos.
So, in fact, because the Chinese subsidise their industry we are all better off because we are buying goods more cheaply thanks to Chinese taxpayers who subsidise the lower price. The problem is only there if you think you should compete in the same market as the Chinese. When you don't there is only a net benefit.
Second, to buy Chinese goods you have to buy renmibi with dollars or pounds, so all of a sudden a lot of Chinese have dollars and pounds because they are the holders of renmibi. What are they going to do with their dollars and pounds? Sit on it? If they want to invest, they need to go back to the US or UK where they can spend dollars and pounds. Or they can buy UK or US goods. That's why you see both countries have large amounts of foreign direct investment that allows them to maintain prolonged periods with trade deficits. According to some theories that can be maintained indefinitely provided it continues to be offset by FDI.
Well, once a group of companies dominate a market, new rival competing enterprises don't emerge as the ideal free market theory would predict. Real world economy doesn't work that way. You see, after forcing out other competitors from the market those previous competitors won't be competing in the R&D sector etc.
One idea of subsidies is that the country gains (or retains) a dominant position in the global market. Basically it works just as protective tariffs. Then you assume that you can ease with the subsidies later after your countries own industry is strong on it's own in the field. So the idea goes and sometimes it can happen so (like with German companies emerging from the 19th Century to compete in the global market against British goods). Typically it doesn't work like this, just look Africa, but the Chinese have been fairly good at this.
But I don't have high hopes for them: their fascist government will squash free thinking in the end and that will be their Achilles heel in the global competition.
Johnson's opening campaigning speech today. His privelidged voice sounds irresistible, he has nailed that tone of benevolent optimism, that you hear from the most skilled salesmen. But what he is saying is a word salad of hollow sound bites floundering accusations and slurs about his opponents. Naive inaccuracies about the economic realities of a hard Brexit and the vast investments he is promising for public services. " come with me", as we bring the country back together in a wave of optimism and investment. Or "go with him" (Corbyn) into division, delay, chaos and incompetence.
Interestingly he accused Corbyn of collusion with Putin, while he is refusing to publish the extensive report into Russian collusion in the 2016 referendum and democracy through social media etc.
But what he is saying is a word salad of hollow sound bites floundering accusations and slurs about his opponents.
You mean you're surprised? Sorry, but you're in for another 5 weeks of that from all sides. Well, maybe the Greens will talk a bit more about reality. Boris will follow Trump's optimism tactics I'm sure. Every US president seems to be elected on a 'Make America great again' platform. Getting voters to believe in you as an individual is more important than your policies nowadays because most voters don't understand the subtleties of policy. And they don't want to, they just want to find someone they can trust. This election may come down to who voters mistrust least - Corbyn or Johnson. Not an obvious choice!
Reply to Tim3003 Yes I do expect it from Johnson, I do get a bit angry with him though. It is interesting that you suggest Corbyn can't be trusted. Can you suggest what things he can't be trusted on? Also, you imply that he will talk nonsense, or ingage in Tory like tactics. Any example of that?
I agree with what you say about the Greens, but I don't think I can vote for them this time as I will vote tactically.
ChangelingNovember 06, 2019 at 17:17#3495120 likes
But I don't have high hopes for them: their fascist government will squash free thinking in the end and that will be their Achilles heel in the global competition.
:pray: :pray: :pray:
Chris HughesNovember 06, 2019 at 17:21#3495170 likes
Blanket cynicism is understandable but is ultimately the philososphy of despair. Informed optimism lets us see a way through the mess.
It is interesting that you suggest Corbyn can't be trusted. Can you suggest what things he can't be trusted on? Also, you imply that he will talk nonsense, or ingage in Tory like tactics. Any example of that?
I think many voters naturally mistrust Labour spending pledges - ie how will they be paid for? I don't trust his Brexit solution will work, and I think many others won't either. Interstingly the Tories have joined Labour in the spend-spend-spend frenzy, so their main attack weapon of profligacy will be blunted. But their is also the far-left legacy that Corbyn has. No group is trusted less than the far left I think.
To be clear though, I don't think many mistrust what he says, but that he is actually able to carry out his great reforming schemes in the real world.
Chris HughesNovember 06, 2019 at 18:12#3495620 likes
The Corbynite far Left is, at least nominally, openly on the side of the people. The Johnson/Cummings far Right is secretly on the side of the super-rich. As regards funding corrective policies, the notion of a balanced economy, equivalent to a household, is a collective illusion. Government could resume its responsibility for issuing money, and, instead of allowing banks to issue 97% of money as debt, could issue 100% of money as social credit. This could fund a state income to replace wages, social spending on health and education, and infrastructure.
Chris HughesNovember 06, 2019 at 18:25#3495860 likes
As for Labour’s Brexit policy, it guarantees a second referendum, which would produce a more informed decision, and would therefore move the national mood towards unity and harmony. Support for having a second referendum has risen to neck and neck (for and against: 43% each).
Terrapin Station:I don't live in the UK, but I'm in favor of there eventually being world unification/a one-world government...
— Terrapin Station
S:Dream on. That'll never work. The world is too big a place, with multiple conflicting interests. There will always be a great number of those who would oppose unification and prevent it from happening. And if it became corrupt, it would be harder to topple. That actually makes me think of The Empire in Star Wars.
Think instead of Star Trek’s United Earth government, which ended poverty, disease and war within fifty years.
Reply to Tim3003 So your reservations are with whether the Labour Party will be able to deliver their policies. Perhaps they will have problems here and there, government can be unpredictable and Brexit is a Gordian knot. I can't see much of a problem in their carrying out most of their policies and the reason why their critics can't see how they are going to pay for it is because they are wedded to the ideology of continuous reduction of taxes. It's simple, they will pay for a lot of it by raising taxes. As for Brexit, there is really only one way to resolve it with any kind of valid mandate and that is to have it decided with a referendum on precise choices.
What I am critical of the Tory's for is their contempt for democracy, constitution, parliament, the people, Europe. The fact that they are dishonest, deceptive, divisive. Their claims are nonsense and hollow, for example in Johnson's speech today he said once Brexit is done there will be hundreds of billions of pounds of investment in the country. I could quite easily continue for another page, but I will leave it at that. None of the opposition party's have sold their souls in this way.
As for Labour’s Brexit policy, it guarantees a second referendum, which would produce a more informed decision, and would therefore move the national mood towards unity and harmony. Support for having a second referendum has risen to neck and neck (for and against: 43% each).
I'm afraid I see polls like this as pointless. Remainers want another vote, leavers don't, so why even ask the question? Basically, it's close to 50-50 as it's always been. I don't think Labour's 2nd ref would work because Corbyn's negotiated 'Brexit' will not be considered Brexit by leavers, and so the poll will not get full public endorsement. Farage has already noted this. I don't see how you can hold a ref if half the population support neither of the options they're given. Most people did support the idea of and the question asked in the 1st ref, so its result has some validity.
Despite being a remainer my view (now that no deal is ruled out) is that the 1st ref's result has to be honoured. People's views have not changed enough to justify a rerun. The principle of democracy is too important for us of the 'intelligentsia' to overrule the 'ignorant' masses..
The principle of democracy is too important for us of the 'intelligentsia' to overrule the 'ignorant' masses
Don't forget the ignorant Toffs and middle class Tory's, they out numbered those masses and they brought about the flawed referendum to begin with. They should have known better.
Chris HughesNovember 06, 2019 at 21:34#3496960 likes
Tim3003:Despite being a remainer my view (now that no deal is ruled out) is that the 1st ref's result has to be honoured. People's views have not changed enough to justify a rerun. The principle of democracy is too important for us of the 'intelligentsia' to overrule the 'ignorant' masses..
According to Barnier in The Guardian, no deal is no longer ruled out. Perhaps Labour’s second referendum could have a third no-deal option. In the circumstances, it's not clear that a rerun is undemocratic. If the better informed decision is to remain then, as others here have pointed out, any grievance felt by leavers would be tempered by the consensus that we'll all be better off, economically.
the consensus that we'll all be better off, economically.
Yes, leavers have accepted now that we will take an economic hit, accept a Trump deal and cock a snook at the Europeans. So if Brexit is cancelled we can all feel the glow of economic prosperity friendship with the Europeans and cock a snook at Trump.
I think this discussion should be widened out to consider what is going on here, alongside the commentary and discussion of day to day events.
The reason I say this is because I am aware of a phenomena which is not being discussed in the media and by commentators. A denial amongst the chattering classes of the crisis. Also a consideration of the Tory project of the last 40 years and what it has done to our country.
I have noticed a denial of and failure to comprehend the depth of the crisis we have been plunged into. This became particularly acute during the row in the House of Commons the day the commons opened again after the illegal prorogation of parliament. Let me illustrate, Geoffrey Cox and Boris Johnson, both people with great booming voices of a privelidged tone. Stormed the chamber (metaphorically) in a contemptuous aggressive tone, accusing the members of trying anything to prevent the government in its efforts to respect the referendum (an untruth). Then proceeding to say that parliament was broken and could perform its purpose( an untruth). Followed by an attack on a group of parliamentarians who took the action to nullify the prorogation of 5 weeks (contemptuous of the Supreme Court and the constitution). When a few opposition members called them out for disrespectful insightful language and breaking the good chap philosophy of politics established in this country. They were shouted down in the most callous way as humbug and having contempt for parliament and the government(accusing the victims of their attacks as attacking them( the psychology of transference)).
In the media commentary afterwards journalists and MPs followed a line that the tempers and bad language were from all sides, the whole house needed to calm down etc, in reality they were in shock and denial of the abuse of the house that had just taken place by the government. This is when Ian Duncan Smith on behalf of the government, cursed and was spitting out expletives at the contempt of parliament for the government just trying to do its job(showing utter contempt for our politics and constitution).
People involved in this episode (who were not members of this gang of people who had lost touch with reality) were in shock and trying to calm things down and resume normality. This included doing what people do to deflate a bully in our society which is by saying there is heated language on all sides, if we all calm down this would include the bully calming down without lashing out any more.
This is the approach adopted by the people observing the outrage, as is human nature. But it fails to make the bully accountable for the damage they have done, or for them to stop bullying abruptly and behave correctly like everyone else.
Even now people are saying that the dishonest behaviour is from all sides and are failing to hold the bullies to account. While in the meantime the bullies carry on damaging our constitution, our country, our and their integrity and creating more crisis.
It is time for people of integrity to embrace the truth of what is happening here. The Conservative party is not anymore one of our 4 or 5 political party's vying for power in a descent and respectful( for our constitution) way. They have become this bully, they have no respect for, or integrity in, the institutions, the ways of doing things in our political system. The only reason that they are obeying the rules at the moment as we go into this election, is because it serves their purposes and is inline with their plan to hoodwink the population into doing what they want.
This is an abuse and attack on our country by a political party which has lost its way, lost all touch with reason and integrity. Which has been beset with infighting in which the dominant bully has risen to the surface and inflicted this erotic spasm on the country. It is time people call it out for what it is, rather than just thinking its business as usual.
I have noticed a denial of and failure to comprehend the depth of the crisis we have been plunged into. This became particularly acute during the row in the House of Commons the day the commons opened again after the illegal prorogation of parliament. Let me illustrate, Geoffrey Cox and Boris Johnson, both people with great booming voices of a privelidged tone. Stormed the chamber (metaphorically) in a contemptuous aggressive tone, accusing the members of trying anything to prevent the government in its efforts to respect the referendum (an untruth).
I agree wholeheartedly. This episode shocked me more than I can say. This should be played back along with images of that Lying Tory. Go viral. It seems that works...
Even now people are saying that the dishonest behaviour is from all sides and are failing to hold the bullies to account. While in the meantime the bullies carry on damaging our constitution, our country, our and their integrity and creating more crisis.
Yes. And the media are playing their usual part. Plans drawn up to influence the electorate.
Passive consumption.
...This passive way of obtaining information means the instant emotional impact of an amusing meme or a shocking headline is likely to spread far wider and faster than any policy-heavy political speech – which helps explains the potency of an image of Jacob Rees-Mogg reclining on a bench in the House of Commons.
..In reality it’s not much more sophisticated than a Colgate ad – you need a really great message that connects with people and you need to pay to get it in front of as many people as you can.”
However, he insisted no advertising can counteract widespread negative coverage: “If a major figure from outside politics – a Stormzy, for example – is using their huge online reach to speak with an authentic voice and mobilise their followers against you, then that can be worth as much or more than great ads, good targeting and a really big budget. Parties also have to accept that almost all of that will be happening completely outside their control, and it adds a huge degree of unpredictability to the online battle.”
Chris HughesNovember 07, 2019 at 10:27#3498600 likes
Reply to Chris Hughes Quite, and compounded by the finality of the cut off date of the article 50 process. Our political process is not designed for such deadlines on profound constitutional issues. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, whereby if you don't fit it into the hole, by a point in time, you loose. Cummings knows that all he needs to do is distract you with jiggery pokery, including trashing the constitution and the economy if required, until the deadline is passed. It is despicable.
An interesting interview on Politics live today(BBC) with Anthony Seldon, who has written an in depth analysis of Theresa May's term in office. He describes her performance on Brexit as a failure because she not only made it into a party issue, rather than cross party, which was required. But a narrow sectional internal party issue. Resulting in the biggest self inflicted own goal in the history of British politics.
Perhaps Labour’s second referendum could have a third no-deal option. In the circumstances, it's not clear that a rerun is undemocratic. If the better informed decision is to remain then, as others here have pointed out, any grievance felt by leavers would be tempered by the consensus that we'll all be better off, economically.
If a referendum has 3 options, none will get a majority. Where do you go then?
I think you misunderstand what leavers are all about. The idea that now they're better informed they'd vote to remain is flawed, as the unchanging Brexit opinion polls prove. Their choice is not based on being better or worse off, but on the politics of national identity. I think you'll find they would call your claim that their grievance at losing would be tempered by being better off insulting..
Also a consideration of the Tory project of the last 40 years and what it has done to our country.
I would answer your outcry simply: Welcome to populism! It's taking over the politics of the West, largely stoked by globalisation and the fears of immigration the easy movement of labour and refugees has stoked up in rich countries.. Boris's Tory party is just the UK manifestation of that, as is Trump in the US, Le Pen in Fance ... etc.
On widening out the discussion: Globalisation/populism should I think have its own thread. This one is for Brexit isn't it?
Reply to Tim3003 Its not populism, although populism played a part. If it were that simple Le Pen and others like her would be in office now. Trump got into power because when the populism struck the US population was already hopelessly divided and he was a brilliant exploiter of the media. Which he used to divide and rule.
In our country the seed of the Brexit phenomena was sown when we joined the common market in 1973 and had grown steadily among the Tory twits over the next couple of decades I know this because I was there as it was happening. The populism was exploited by Farage in a relatively small demographic. It's true that the Tory twits began defecting to UKIP, but it was not populism which infected them. They were already converted by the drip feed of the Tory poison administered by a group of hard right right wing Tory's. This gets quite murky when one starts looking at the power and wealth brokers behind the Tory's.
Johnson is an opportunist who found himself in the right place at the right time. I suppose one could call him a populist, but Cummings is working through social media primarily and any populism is consequential. Now like Trump, it is divide and rule. People against Parliament is Johnson's catch phrase, but I don't see it having all that much effect, because the decision to leave was taken at the beginning of the process in the referendum. He is having to use such tactics now due to the laughable incompetence of the government in leaving the EU in a sensible way. The man can't even lie straight in bed let alone lead a populist revolution.
I agree that populism as used by Farage capitalised on the fears of immigration and racism. I expect that he saw what the Tory twits were up to and thought that there was an opportunity for a snake oil salesman like him. To team up with them at some point, they don't seem to like him for some reason. I wonder why.
Reply to unenlightenedYes, the article does lean slightly in Favour of Labour, but I recognise that reality. It is one of the numerous means used by the right wing elite and media to discredit Corbyn. The privelidged elites really do seem to be scarred of something, their tried and tested ways of slamming Labour and keeping them out of power while they practice their wealth creation, only for people who are in the know, are failing, there is a younger generation coming through who aren't aware of the slamming and discrediting of the Labour Party on their performance in the 1970's. Ever since the Credit Crunch in 2008, it has been going wrong for the Tory's. The death nail being when they had a group lobotomy around 2014/15.
Its not populism, although populism played a part. If it were that simple Le Pen and others like her would be in office now. Trump got into power because when the populism struck the US population was already hopelessly divided
So what is your definiton of 'populism'? I see it as the politics of an - invariably figure-head lead - party whose one aim is power, and whose tactic is to use any democratic method possible to achieve it. This means such tropes as giving the people what they want (or seeming to), rubbishing anyone who picks apart their flimsy emotive arguments, indeed quashing all argument with ranting and changing the subject where possible; exploiting the public fear of immigration and justiying the necessary counter-measures in the name of national identity. Populists don't care a fig for tradition or convention - which makes BJ one - the end justifies any means. Because their targeted voters are basically uneducated, populists can u-turn, contradict their previous policies and just smile whilst doing so; secure that their followers still trust them. Populism is also usually a facade for right-wing economic policies so it finds a ready home with Tory right-wingers.
Incidentally Le Pen is a classic populist. She's not in power because Macron is a much tougher and more skilful operator than Corbyn. Trump is clearly one too. Personally I'm not sure you can talk about 'populism' as a movement sweeping the world. That assumes some guiding force or creative aspiration. Surely it's just the fact of and the means of voters' primal fears being exploited by ruthlessly self-serving would-be leaders. Populists are above all opportunists, and the increased mass-movement of labour and goods brought by globalisation has thrown up their chance.
Watching Trump pose as he signs into law some document or other he reminds me of a Roman Emperors, ruling by decree. I'm sure this is what he'd like if he could rid of that troubesome Senate..
unenlightenedNovember 08, 2019 at 18:06#3503680 likes
Brexit joke of the week.
I think this is the bit where we’re meant to ask what they call their act, and for Johnson to triumphantly declare: “The Aristocrats!”
Chris HughesNovember 08, 2019 at 20:57#3504100 likes
Brexit joke of the week.
"I think this is the bit where we’re meant to ask what they call their act, and for Johnson to triumphantly declare: “The Aristocrats!”
For any forumites who (like me) didn't get the joke, the Guardian writer (usually better than that) was lazily referring to a "joke" which I'd never heard of, but which, according to Wikipedia, is about a family pitching their act to an agent and describing at great length and with much swearing many disgusting and socially transgressive behaviours. The agent then asks the name of their act, and they say, The Aristocrats. That's the punchline. Hmm.
exploiting the public fear of immigration and justiying the necessary counter-measures in the name of national identity. Populists don't care a fig for tradition or convention - which makes BJ one - the end justifies any means. Because their targeted voters are basically uneducated, populists can u-turn, contradict their previous policies and just smile whilst doing so; secure that their followers still trust them
I think this sums it up quite well, but what I have been trying to say is that this course has only been adopted by the Conservatives as a last resort. Putting Johnson into No10 was their last throw of the dice, their last ace card(or so they thought), after the failure of their "strong and stable" Theresa May. Also I think we only got to this point due to the clash of two democratic outcomes, the referendum result saying one thing and the elected MPs saying something else. Resulting in deadlock. Johnson is supposed to break the deadlock by adopting populism and somehow trying to bypass or hoodwink parliament, so as to implement the result of the referendum. So if the referendum had not been called British politics would have carried on as normal with no populism.
Unfortunately while being their greatest asset, Johnson is turning out to be their greatest liability. Today he was found to be burbling during a speech and swearing blind that there will be no checks of goods crossing the Irish Sea. This is clearly irrational and incoherent, as was pointed out by Chris Morris the BBC fact checker, today. Who pointed out that if there is going to be regulatory divergence, then the single market rules will require checks to establish compliance. Now Johnson said we won't carry out these checks, if the EU require it, they can do it. But the problem with this approach is that the border where the checks will be required is within the UK, i.e. The Irish Sea and this is not to mention tariffs either, which will require checks, in the UK.
The flaws in his deal are beginning to show.
Just a thought about Le Pen, I put it down to the rapid communication amongst the intelligentsia in France via "La Grande Conversation", who then adopted Macron as their representative in a remarkably short space of time. If only we had a grand conversation in this country, we wouldn't have got into such a pickle.
I think you misunderstand what leavers are all about. The idea that now they're better informed they'd vote to remain is flawed, as the unchanging Brexit opinion polls prove.
I don't think you can presume that all leavers are this hardline. A significant proportion are likely to be less decided and are either concerned about the behaviour of the government, or are waiting to see how the campaign goes before deciding. There is plenty of evidence for this in interviews with the public on the media.
what I have been trying to say is that this course has only been adopted by the Conservatives as a last resort. Putting Johnson into No10 was their last throw of the dice, their last ace card(or so they thought), after the failure of their "strong and stable" Theresa May. Also I think we only got to this point due to the clash of two democratic outcomes, the referendum result saying one thing and the elected MPs saying something else.
I think your first point is probably true - of the leaver Conservatives anyway; and as they've overrun the Remainers they hold sway now.
I've never believed the Tory claims of a Remainer parliament holding up the will of a Leaver public though. For a start the public is (or was) only marginally Leaver. And parliament would have accepted May's deal without the backstop, and did accept Boris's. Ok that majority may not have survived committee stages. But what do they expect in a hung parliament? MPs are as divided on the issue as the public, so they reflect the national view well. But populists only see in black and white so they blame MPs for being out of step. They reply that 420 constituencies voted leave, against 220 for remain. True but irrelevant.
If MPs did echo the public views on every issue there'd be no point in having them! I've never believed that they should just parrot the views of their constituents. We elect them to use their experience and knowledge to govern on our behalf. If we're never going to accept their views can differ from the majority then we end up with government by referendum, which anyone can see would be absurd. The conclusion therefore is that referendums are a bad idea.
Chris HughesNovember 09, 2019 at 16:08#3506640 likes
Re populism and immigration, it's a popular remainer trope that leave voters were manipulated and stirred up by leave campaigners. There was some of that, true, but it was riffing on existing grassroots concern about mass immigration.
The UK host community was just about coming to terms with postwar mass immigration from colonies and the Commonwealth when EU free movement of people began, and large numbers of people came to the UK from Eastern Europe. Polls showed that concern about immigration was a main reason for the leave result.
Mass immigration has always been imposed or facilitated by governments for economic reasons with no concern for the wellbeing of the host or immigrant communities.
The referendum was, in effect, the first public consultation on mass immigration.
If MPs did echo the public views on every issue there'd be no point in having them! I've never believed that they should just parrot the views of their constituents. We elect them to use their experience and knowledge to govern on our behalf. If we're never going to accept their views can differ from the majority then we end up with government by referendum, which anyone can see would be absurd. The conclusion therefore is that referendums are a bad idea.
I agree, the decision to call the referendum was a tragic mistake, Cameron should have denied the Eurosceptics in his own party the opportunity. I think the problem was that for electoral reasons Cameron along with Blair before him had waived the idea of a referendum actually happening to bring Eurosceptics in line. This had the unfortunate effect of giving people the idea that it was going to happen and by the time of the 2015 election it became evident to Cameron that the momentum for a referendum had become irresistible. Perhaps he could have stopped it in the run up to the election, but he was complacent in the thought that he would be returned in coalition with the Lib Dems and they would block it, or he could hide behind them in denying it.
From the other side of the divide, UKIP had been thriving for a number of years on fears of immigration,due to the large numbers that entered following the accession of the A8 countries in Eastern Europe. The UK alone allowed unfettered access, expecting the other members to follow suit, but they didn't, they all imposed restrictions at the last minute. Thus the seeds were sown for the referendum in the mid naughties, which led to the defeat of Labour in 2010. By this time the strength of UKIP was threatening the Tory's and with the pressure from the hard right within the party, the cracks were beginning to show and the struggle to save the party began.
Ultimately they put party before country, which laid the blame for the Tory Brexit firmly at their door.
unenlightenedNovember 10, 2019 at 10:16#3509390 likes
Ultimately they put party before country, which laid the blame for the Tory Brexit firmly at their door.
And that is an extension of the general irresponsibility of national government over decades that finds in the EU a convenient scapegoat for its incompetence and venality.
I don't think you can presume that all leavers are this hardline. A significant proportion are likely to be less decided and are either concerned about the behaviour of the government, or are waiting to see how the campaign goes before deciding. There is plenty of evidence for this in interviews with the public on the media.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50043549
This includes BBC polling (albeit from mid-October) on whether leavers/remainers have changed thieir minds since the referendum (3rd graph down): Of those who voted leave, 6% are now remain. Of those who voted remain, 27% are now leave (mostly, assuming a deal is agreed)...
Also: "On average, during the last month, polls that ask people how they would vote in another referendum suggest that 88% of those who backed Remain would do so again. Among those who voted Leave, 86% have not changed their minds." Which doesnt seem totally to match the above for remain voters! Still, I think it confirms there's not that much change in the leave voters' views.
Thus the seeds were sown for the referendum in the mid naughties, which led to the defeat of Labour in 2010. By this time the strength of UKIP was threatening the Tory's
Surely Labour's 2010 defeat was down to the crash and their spending almost bankrupting the country - also to the fact that no-one thought Brown was any good. The UKIP poll vote did not exceed 8% til 2013, when it went well into double figures.
Surely Labour's 2010 defeat was down to the crash and their spending almost bankrupting the country - also to the fact that no-one thought Brown was any good. The UKIP poll vote did not exceed 8% til 2013, when it went well into double figures.
.
Yes, in hindsight I think you were right to pick me up on that one. It was the article I was reading which made me over egg the influence of Tony Blairs policy on EU migrants. Although I do think it played a part. Gordon Brown was atrocious.
This is the article, https://theconversation.com/the-huge-political-cost-of-blairs-decision-to-allow-eastern-european-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077
Its not populism, although populism played a part.
As an outside observer, I think populism played a key part to this whole debacle.
You see, populism is about making a divide, dividing people to be either part of the "common ordinary people" or then "the elites". The 'elites' were in favour of globalization, EU integration and "giving up independence". The 'elites' have totally forgotten the 'common people'. The 'elite' is evil. That is populism.
And when populists are in power, the elite has to be naturally abroad. It's Brussels. It's the EU. It out there trying to take away your independence. That is Euro-populism.
And a populist never, ever tries to reach a consensus. Giving something in exchange for pushing one's own agenda is something that a populist cannot stand. That is simply selling oneself to the enemy. Your supporters won't tolerate that. Because the other side is the enemy. Not perhaps an enemy you would shoot, but someone that you cannot come into terms and find a solution that both agree on. Nope, you either win or fall trying to win.
This includes BBC polling (albeit from mid-October) on whether leavers/remainers have changed thieir minds since the referendum (3rd graph down): Of those who voted leave, 6% are now remain. Of those who voted remain, 27% are now leave (mostly, assuming a deal is agreed)...
I did see that article, I left not sure what to think, other than the electorate had not moved significantly from what it was thinking in 2016. Also the graph you refer to was taken between 4-7th of September which was before the illegal prorogation of parliament. Before Johnson's disgraceful behaviour. I have heard of some people saying they won't support him after that. The other thing I noticed is that there were 5 options in the Pole, 4 were versions of leave and only one was a version of remain, I don't know if that might have skewed the result.
As I am embedded in the remain camp, it is difficult to judge what is happening in the opposing camp. I can speak for myself though. I voted remain, but would have been happy with a sensible deal and respectful alignment with the EU, while maintaining our international reputation and integrity. But for over a year now I have not been happy with the way the government has taken a wrecking ball to our institutions and reputation. So now I am vehemently remain.
As an outside observer, I think populism played a key part to this whole debacle.
You see, populism is about making a divide, dividing people to be either part of the "common ordinary people" or then "the elites". The 'elites' were in favour of globalization, EU integration and "giving up independence". The 'elites' have totally forgotten the 'common people'. The 'elite' is evil. That is populism.
Yes, I hear you, if that is the definition then you are right. The cabal at the centre of the hard right faction of the Conservative party during the 1970's and 80's were developing into populists. But I don't think they were employing the populist strategies we are discussing here, of appealing to large numbers of people. Their strategy was one on one, although they were employing xenophobia memes. I saw it first hand at the time. It was traditionalist Tory politicians, who had grown up during the Second World War. They were simply spreading paranoia about what the goals or ambitions of the Germans are in their involvement in the EU, i.e. they would become the leaders of a European Empire. Also criticism of the French as being corrupt. This spread slowly for decades, before anti EU sentiment became mainstream, fuelled by worries about the growing numbers of EU migrants roughly between 2004-10. This last development is when Farage came onto the scene and adopted megaphone populism.
Farage has just said he will not stand candidates in the seats that the Conservatives won in the last election. About 317 seats I think. He says it's because Johnson made a speech yesterday in which he leaned in the direction of a Canada free trade relationship with the EU. Apparently the Mail on Sunday turned the screws on Farage yesterday.
I voted remain, but would have been happy with a sensible deal and respectful alignment with the EU, while maintaining our international reputation and integrity.
I think that is the view of a significant minority of remainers - me included. We are bowing to the need for compromise and a resolution to the problem, hence the remain vote is fraying. (Most leave voters are I think too emotionally involved - having been whipped up into a frenzy by Farage and his like, to consider compromising, as SSU pointed out) As it happens I do know someone who voted remain before but says he'd vote leave in a 2nd ref. Anecdotal of course, but ..
Farage has just said he will not stand candidates in the seats that the Conservatives won in the last election. About 317 seats I think. He says it's because Johnson made a speech yesterday in which he leaned in the direction of a Canada free trade relationship with the EU. Apparently the Mail on Sunday turned the screws on Farage yesterday.
Yes I saw the headline "Stand down Nigel". :lol: Another Farage lie. It's nothing to do with the fact that he risked letting Labour in of course...
We are bowing to the need for compromise and a resolution to the problem, hence the remain vote is fraying
I would have accepted leave the day following the referendum up until Theresa May's first meaningful vote. Although I was critical of her failure to work across the house and was becoming reluctant by that point. From that point on, I have been vehemently remain due to the wrecking of our country by the Tory's. As we have descended into chaos and lashed out at the EU, there is no way I would support it now. You say you know someone who would vote leave know. Are they happy with this mess and to leave in this position of weakness and contempt for the EU?
It has emerged that Farage had been starting to examine what was wrong with Johnson's deal last week. As soon as the tabloids realised what he was up to, they turned on him and pressured him to get into bed with Johnson, at which point he rolled over. Because as they know, as soon as anyone starts to describe Brexit, it falls apart. The government will do anything, pull any stunt, to prevent scrutiny of his deal, because as soon as that happens it falls apart.
But unfortunately now that they are in bed, the Tory party has lost its soul and any moderate Tory's left will be leaving now.
It has been reported that the Labour Party campaign team has suffered a cyber attack. Just as Hillary Clinton has criticised the government for sitting on the Russia report. This story is growing fast.
The cabal at the centre of the hard right faction of the Conservative party during the 1970's and 80's were developing into populists.
Thatcherism still wasn't really populism and surely John Major wasn't a populist just as Tony Blair wasn't either. But of course political discourse has always been quite rude in the UK.
But do note that populism isn't only a right-wing thing. Hugo Chavez was the perfect example of left wing populism that has truly poisoned the political discourse of a country. The populism can be seen in the insistence that everything gone wrong is because of the evil imperialist gringos, that the rich have conspired against the 'common people'. Talking to the opposition would be betraying the cause.
It has been reported that the Labour Party campaign team has suffered a cyber attack. Just as Hillary Clinton has criticised the government for sitting on the Russia report. This story is growing fast.
Well, one really can't tell who it was yet. And if it would be Russia, remember that their goal is just to make Britain more weak, more hateful against each other and more distrustful of your own government, so that they are a bigger player in Europe. :wink:
Thatcherism still wasn't really populism and surely John Major wasn't a populist just as Tony Blair wasn't either. But of course political discourse has always been quite rude in the UK.
The cabal I was referring to was in the shadows, they were always confined to an enclave by the moderate, "one nation" Tory's who ran the governments. In order to win the centre ground the party had to show moderation and a nod to the ordinary folk, hence the slogan "one nation". It was never much more than a nod though. Now the cabal is front and centre for the first time, naked, who knows what will transpire.
[quote]
Well, one really can't tell who it was yet. And if it would be Russia, remember that their goal is just to make Britain more weak, more hateful against each other and more distrustful of your own government, so that they are a bigger player in Europe. :wink:
Of interest to me is that it will contribute to a political row over the government refusing to publish the select committee report on possible Russian interference. A big headache for Johnson, it has already been leaked that Kremlin sponsored oligarchs had been smoozing with Tory politicians, including Johnson himself and making large contributions to Tory coffers. There are also rumours going round that Dominic Cummings was complicit, as he had spent a year working in Moscow a few years back.
Interesting intervention from David Gauke this morning a well respected Tory moderate. Saying that a Johnson majority would be bad for the country. It would likely drive the country of a cliff at the end of 2020, and the uncertainty wouldn't stop in the meantime, but intensify.
The cabal I was referring to was in the shadows, they were always confined to an enclave by the moderate, "one nation" Tory's who ran the governments.
Yes, I've always thought that there has had to be behind this all a power play in the conservative party. Once the fateful error of a vote on the EU was made by the leadership of the conservative party, then this cabal went public. Or so I assume.
Of interest to me is that it will contribute to a political row over the government refusing to publish the select committee report on possible Russian interference. A big headache for Johnson, it has already been leaked that Kremlin sponsored oligarchs had been smoozing with Tory politicians, including Johnson himself and making large contributions to Tory coffers. There are also rumours going round that Dominic Cummings was complicit, as he had spent a year working in Moscow a few years back.
Now here's what I find absolutely fascinating.
You would think that such active measures intent on sowing discord in the West would be seen through, understood and make the West to get angry as possible and make it retaliate. Conventional wisdom would say that so bold moves wouldn't be a smart thing to do especially with the US and UK that have together various ways of retaliating. But here we come to the genius of Vladimir Putin.
The secret is that spreading discord simply works, as there was (and is) genuine discord even without Russian involvement. It's just pouring gasoline into an already burning fire. Russia didn't make people in the UK being unhappy about the EU. Russia didn't make Scotland to vote for independence. Russia didn't make Republicans hate Hillary. But all these things Russia supported by active measures. If you think that the SNP and Scottish Independence is totally out of whack in the category, it is so! But for Russia it's the same thing: there isn't any genuine ideology behind Russia's actions. Hence the accusation "Russia has meddled in our politics" becomes in the ears of those angry about the issues as a condemnation "you are Russian trolls!".
In the US any talk of the actual Russian involvement has become just a ploy of the Democrats! Partisanship rules and destros any kind of true response to the isssue. We can see the absolutely crazy way how the FBI has been accused first of being Pro-Trump Anti-Clinton and the out of nowhere being Anti-Trump Pro-Clinton. And Putin is happy.
Interesting intervention from David Gauke this morning a well respected Tory moderate. Saying that a Johnson majority would be bad for the country. It would likely drive the country of a cliff at the end of 2020, and the uncertainty wouldn't stop in the meantime, but intensify.
Given the withdrawal deal will be signed, sealed and delivered by then, what exactly is the cliff edge at the end of 2020? Is it just no trade deal - so a fallback to WTO terms? If so, wouldn't this self-evidently be an own goal ? Ok we'd stop paying the EU members fees and taking EU laws too, but would exporters settle for that ? I'm not sure where the balance of pros and cons is at that stage..
Given the withdrawal deal will be signed, sealed and delivered by then, what exactly is the cliff edge at the end of 2020? Is it just no trade deal - so a fallback to WTO terms? If so, wouldn't this self-evidently be an own goal ? Ok we'd stop paying the EU members fees and taking EU laws too, but would exporters settle for that ? I'm not sure where the balance of pros and cons is at that stage..
Yes, I'm not sure what would happen at that point, David Gauke described it as moving to world trade rules, but many commentators, including well informed ones describe it as a cliff edge.
Regardless of just what would be involved, it would be just as febrile as the March 31st, or October 31st, with just as much uncertainty as we have now, so businesses will still suffer, public services will still be in crisis, important legislation would be kicked into the long grass, or not brought forward, just as over the last two years.
Everyone who knows what is involved in the next stage of negotiations says it will be at the very least 3 years to thrash out something that can be agreed on for going forward. But this cliff edge is in one year. Johnson's shambles of a government doesn't inspire me with confidence about this. Also we shouldn't be under any illusions about the fact that Johnson has secured the support of the ERG and a number of Brexit party supporters on the promise that he will drag his feet during the negotiations so that the cliff edge happens at the end of that period.
So it's more of the same, more division, more uncertainty, we will probably go into recession and Scotland will be set to leave in short order. There will be major crisis in the NHS and other public services, far worse than the crisis which is emerging right now.
Happy days, still at least we will be respecting democracy, because if we don't democracy is broken. The people voted to leave, so we must leave, why did we vote to leave? Because we wanted to leave, so we must leave, do or die, get over it you remoaners (not).
Reply to ssu Yes, very interesting. Putin should take care with Europe because a large revenue stream comes from the gas pipeline to Europe. As far as I know most of the wealth in Russia comes from fossil fuels. If this falls he will be in trouble.
unenlightenedNovember 15, 2019 at 10:28#3527080 likes
I would have accepted leave the day following the referendum up until Theresa May's first meaningful vote.
Worth pointing out that most remainers-become-leavers are probably of this 'accepting' mindset __ democrats that is. Bad idea but will of the people is perhaps almost all of them. Whereas leavers-become-remainers, fewer though they may be, must have actually changed their minds.
The latest polls show the Tories cracking 40%, Labour cracking 30% and the Brexit Party down at 5%. It looks more like the old 2-horse race now. Farage seems to be losing influence by the day. Is Tory pressure to give them a clear run at Labour marginals by standing down Brexit MPs working? Even if Farage ignores them it looks like voters are getting the message.
I think Labour's socialist style huge spending plans are going to be shot to pieces soon - possibly by a bullet fired by McDonald into his own foot. The one good thing to come out of this election may be the end of Corbyn..
Yes, very interesting. Putin should take care with Europe because a large revenue stream comes from the gas pipeline to Europe. As far as I know most of the wealth in Russia comes from fossil fuels. If this falls he will be in trouble.
This is the crucial issue. Putin's aggressive stance isn't in the end at all the best way to handle these issues.
You see in Central Asia once after 9/11 happened, the US established bases and started military cooperation with the "Stans". Yet in this case Russia simply waited it out. And what do you know: there are NO active US bases in Central Asia apart from Afghanistan. None. The logistical support for the Afghan was is flown from a NATO country Romania, if I remember correctly. So the neocons came, hassled around... and left. Russia stayed. Simply by waiting passively the Russians held their ground.
This could have been a similar politicy when Ukraine went up in flames. Simply to have the Ukrainians have again a color revolution of some sort and simply keep cool and now that the disaster called Ukraine won't get into NATO. Above all, Ukraine would have a large section of Pro-Russian people voting and the ties to EU would be totally different. NATO wouldn't have waken up from the slumber it was in and would still be looking for a reason to exist.
But no. Putin can go now into the history books with annexing back Crimea, an economic disaster zone with not much to give Russia else than historical prestige. And after annexing parts from two countries now the Europeans won't brush it aside. In the end the outcome could be expected from a former head of the FSB that in order to improve his popularity first started a war by blowing up apartment buildings in a Moscow suburb.
And the Union.( I don't mean it's a good thing. But the best way to prevent Scotland leaving is a Labour coalition)
Do you mean 'the end of the union'? And that that's a good thing?
I think a Tory majority and leaving the EU would certainly add to pressure for a 2nd indie ref, but would the Tories give in to it?
A Labour/SNP coalition might prevent the Scots seeking to leave ASAP if the Labour 2nd EU ref returned a Remain result. But would even that silence Ms Sturgeon?
Do you mean 'the end of the union'? And that that's a good thing?
Yes the end of the union and that it would be a bad thing. Principly for England, it would certainly precipitate unification in Ireland and possibly Wales, but certainly Scotland. Where does that leave England? I suggest in a very vulnerable and exposed position in all regards. And why would we go down that route? Because the Conservative party lost touch with reality, I don't think that is a good enough reason. Better to ditch the Conservatives and preserve the Union and get back to some semblance of normality and statesmanship in our government.
I think a Tory majority and leaving the EU would certainly add to pressure for a 2nd indie ref, but would the Tories give in to it?
Yes, having that clown (Johnson) in Downing Street would certainly add to the pressure. The government would not be able to prevent it if the demand was clear. I don't think many English people realise the extent of the damage done to relations ( don't mention Johnson's relations) with the Scott's by this farce of a government. Cameron did a good job in shoring up the Union with the Scottish referendum. I think independence had been pushed into the long grass for a generation. But now that has all been kyboshed and the Scott's treated with contempt. Rather like the contempt with with the Irish have been treated. It really is remarkable what damage can be done when a political party goes wrong.
Yes the end of the union and that it would be a bad thing. Principly for England, it would certainly precipitate unification in Ireland and possibly Wales, but certainly Scotland. Where does that leave England? I suggest in a very vulnerable and exposed position in all regards. And why would we go down that route?
Why would the end of the Union be bad for England. Both Scotland and N Ireland (and I'm sure Wales) are subsidised by the English tax payer. By leaving they'd make England better off. England has 55m of the 65m UK population. Not that I'm in favour of the break-up, but I'm beginning to think it's inevitable that Ireland will be reunited and the Scots will vote for independence when (if) we leave the EU.
Perhaps it's another kick-back against globalisation, but there are other examples of small peoples wanting independence and their own state - the Catalans, the Kurds, the Sudan split, the Chechens, even going back to the break-up of Yugoslavia. It's not just a UK issue.
War and/or deep division between groups with all the animosity which is found in human nature.
I'm surprised you are not acknowledging the difficulties that would be faced. I shouldn't need to spell it out( although I find it common place amongst leavers, that they don't think of the consequences).
The kind of future envisioned by the government is to have quite rapid divergence in regulations, standards and tariffs. So it would require hard borders on every border around England. As a consequence of this divergence and the inevitable difficulties in negotiating future arrangements there would be great pressure to a open up new trade routes with other countries who are not in the EU, such as America, China, India. They would by that point be poised like vultures around a carcass.
This is not to mention the animosity between the people of these islands after they have been shafted by the clown in Downing Street.
I have barely started, but don't have much time now. It is an interesting subject though and probably should be considered here.
I'm surprised you are not acknowledging the difficulties that would be faced. I shouldn't need to spell it out( although I find it common place amongst leavers, that they don't think of the consequences).
Actually I was considering the idea of England being separate to the other countries in the UK completely regardless of Brexit. Yes the leaver-envisaged post-Brexit future would be bad news economically, but within that, I don't think England would suffer much additional pain from losing the other UK countries - if of course a good trade deal is negotiated with the EU.. Don't forget Scotland intends to keep the Pound even after leaving the UK, which given that they have no say over monetary policy can only harm them economically relative to England.
I think the idea of a quick divergence of the UK from EU standards and tarifs is self-evidently daft - losses would clearly outweigh gains. There is much simplistic bluster and 'blue-skies-thinking' from the Right, but if there is divergence it will be slow and not easy. As you say the pro-EU voices won't go away even after Brexit, and I doubt Boris will have enough of a majority to ignore them completely.
Reply to Tim3003 Rather like I say, in an ideal world, ( or a good deal with the EU) an independent England is an interesting concept. Although I don't see what reason there would be to go in that direction. I quite like the idea of an independent East Anglia, I'm not going to push for it though, why would I.
In the real world though we are in a mess, due to government incompetence and in fighting. Why would we go down a route leading to an independent England*? To save face for the Conservative Party? As I say in my last but one post, if the Conservative party is broke, why fix the country, surely one should fix the Conservative party instead.
If Johnson wins a majority, as David Gauke said the other day, it would be bad for the country. Again I could list the issues, but surely it only takes a little thought.
* not to mention all the other changes envisioned in a Tory Brexit.
Why would we go down a route leading to an independent England?
We wouldn't. It's the Scots and N Irish who may force the situation..
As for an independent East Anglia. That includes me too! but it's one of the most right-wing parts of the country isn't it? - save for Cambridge and Ipswich. So independence would presumably of the hard-Brexit variety if voted for here.
We wouldn't. It's the Scots and N Irish who may force the situation..
Johnson's deal takes us there, or do you think it doesn't?
As for an independent East Anglia. That includes me too! but it's one of the most right-wing parts of the country isn't it? - save for Cambridge and Ipswich. So independence would presumably of the hard-Brexit variety if voted for here.
In an ideal world, (as you suggested)
My point was what are we doing considering such a thing? Because of infighting in the Tory party caused by the fanaticism of the far right, along with a drip feeding of a similar ideology through the media by wealthy right wing Tory backing media barons.
Take those two small groups of people out of the equation and none of this Brexit psychodrama would have happened and everyone would have carried on as normal living in peace and harmony with our neighbours.
I think blaming everything on Tory party infighting is to miss the point. Yes that fighting has been endemic since Major's time and grown steadily, but in part it reflects a public view on the EU rules. I'm not convinced the whole Brexit issue has been concocted by the far right, who've then persuaded the rest of the leavers to believe it and agitate for the referendum etc. The large-scale immigration of the last decade is surely what raised public ire, as shown by the rise of UKIP and Farage. The anti-EU view is a legitimate one and if it spits the Tory party then Toryism needs to adapt to cope. Political parties have to do that periodically as the world changes. If the Labour Party had not been in such a mess since BIair stood down they could have kept the Tories out of power and the rift might have been healed quicker. Instead they've proved inept too, and left a divided Tory party to soldier on with so little opposition it didn't really need to confront and deal with the split. Sadly, Corbyn is continuing that, seemingly ensuring another five years of opposition for Labour.
I was blaming the idea of leaving the EU on the Tory party. On the assumption that UKIP was a Tory party phenomenon, part of the split in the party.
It is well known that the threat of UKIP once it was established is what pushed the Tory's and New Labour to start talking about the idea of leaving. Blair only talked about it because the conversation had been started by UKIP, which in turn only started talking about it because right wing Tory's had been talking about it for a decade before that.
What added fuel to the fire was Blair's decision to allow unfettered access for east European citizens in 2004. At that point very few people were unhappy with our membership, or were talking about leaving. So the idea of leaving was already in place at this point and was predominantly held by Tory's and disaffected Tory's in UKIP.
These groupings found fertile ground following the large numbers of EU citizens who came in over the next few years. The populist press quickly took up the batton and the anti EU sentiment grew quickly.
As far as I know this development didn't split the Labour Party, but was exerting internal pressures in the Tory party. This resulted in hard right Tory's who had been kept quiet flexing their muscles within the party. Resulting in Cameron concluding that the only way to prevent the party splitting and hemorrhaging significant numbers to UKIP was to call a referendum, therefore shutting them up for a generation.
If Blair talked about a referendum, it was only because the Tory's had been banging on about it and it had become an election issue.
Regarding Corbyn, he has scorn poured on him every day by the tabloids and is subject to an endemic anti socialist rhetoric throughout the whole media establishment. Whoever was the leader of the Labour Party would be subject to this bias. Unless it was still under the control of New Labour, someone like Blair, or David Milliband. But New Labour was Tory Light, it was Tory in all but name and was acceptable to be backed by The Sun newspaper, a right wing rag.
but in part it reflects a public view on the EU rules.
I just wanted to pick up on these two points. The "public view" on EU rules has been primed by the tabloid press and figures like Boris Johnson spreading spurious claims about EU rules. Most if not all of it is wrong, or inaccurate.
The anti-EU view is a legitimate one
Of course there is such a thing as anti-EU sentiment. But the only legitimate one I can identify is the one of political independence and Sovereignty. Although most of the rhetoric I hear on this point is spurious, which is due to a misunderstanding of how the EU works and what we are doing in cooperating in such a Union.
Again this has been primed by the tabloids and anti EU politicians spreading spurious claims.
This is evident in the fact that if one looks at the comment on the EU and our involvement in it in the media, it has for a number of years been entirely negative, i.e. Pointing out things about our membership which are not in our interest, while at no point mentioning what is in our interest.
If this is not a bias in the media, then where is the comment in favour of both our involvement and our future in the EU?
What added fuel to the fire was Blair's decision to allow unfettered access for east European citizens in 2004.
I'm not sure what it was that Blair allowed then... And why didn't the Tories un-allow it from 2010? Thereafter is when the immigration issue really blossomed.
The "public view" on EU rules has been primed by the tabloid press and figures like Boris Johnson spreading spurious claims about EU rules. Most if not all of it is wrong, or inaccurate.
I agree that most of the media is appalling. However, their aim is to sell copy, and their usual tactic is, just like the populists, to whip up fear. It's not surprising they've jumped on the opportunity Brexit offers to do that. If you're read The Guardian or the 'I' you'll know there are moderate voices, it's just that they can get drowned out in the ranting - which is why its propogators do it..
Still, fishermen could surely be said to have genuine grievances, so could those opposed to free movement. And even those who object to the EU directives - usually trivial though they are.
That's what I find hard to accept. The right of the Tory party reflects a public view. Its Mps don't exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of us.
Yes I don't deny that they did reflect a public view. But the public was from my experience quite isolated from the general public politically. It was mainly well off Tory supporters in Tory heartlands. Anyway going back to the hard right, I heard it from the horses mouth at the time. My ex partners father was the political editor of The Times during the 1980's, the time I am referring to and was present in the political establishment throughout the period. Anti EU rhetoric spread slowly through the party base, I was persuaded to an extent at the time. But decided a few years later that the fears were largely unfounded and the benefits of EU membership outweigh the issues they were concerned about. Well apart from those who were convinced that the Germans where planning to create a European superstate which they would control. If you subscribed to that view, there was no way back.
I'm not sure what it was that Blair allowed then... And why didn't the Tories un-allow it from 2010? Thereafter is when the immigration issue really blossomed.
In 2004 the other countries already in the EU put working and residency restrictions on immigrants from the east European states when they joined. The UK didn't, they could have done, but Blair didn't think many would come and thought it would be beneficial.
There will be a leaders debate tonight at 8.00pm on ITV. Between Johnson and Corbyn. It will be broadcast widely on news channels if you're not in the UK.
Highlights of the leaders debate, its difficult to be impartial due to the depth of the political division. Audience and initial public reaction is split, meaning that their opinions can't be taken as impartial.
For me the stand out points come down to the compulsive lying, the failure to answer questions and sound plausible by Johnson and the inability of Corbyn to address Brexit other than his fixed party line. Both were hamstrung by their party lines, Johnson "get Brexit done", Corbyn " I'll negotiate a sensible deal and offer it back to the people in a referendum".
Johnson's weakness, is he only has one policy, one slogan, one goal, get it done. Corbyn's weakness is he has to straddle a split party so has to try to appeal to both sides and not to alienate one, or the other.
Johnson is a one trick pony, a pony, who is untrustworthy, divisive and doesn't care for the real issues in the country.
Corbyn is balancing on a fence and finding himself a socialist up against four decades of anti socialist sentiment, drip fed by the press and pretty much endemic in public perception at this time. While having an extensive and progressive socialist plan to restore the social and economic health of the country, which is desperately wanted by a portion of the population and dismissed as Marxist by another portion.
Johnson's policy other than "just get it done", is more of the same deregulated capitalism, failure to address the disintegrating public services. More stripping of workers rights. And the prospect of a rip roaring capitalist trade deal with Trump selling out the NHS and access to a deregulated marketplace, a race to the bottom.
The sensible choice for me is a no brainer, it is depressing how many people are caught up in prejudice and deceit and can't think clearly about what is important for the country.
James OBrian on LBC has just made an interesting observation. In reference to the fraudulent change of the name and title of the Conservative press twitter account, yesterday during the debate lastnight.
The title was changed to FactcheckerUK aping genuine fact checker organisations, which have become important in UK politics, due to so much disinformation and untruths. This is a big story this morning.
What James is saying is that in the Tory spin press office during the debate, while in the knowledge that the headlines in the dominant right wing press would slam Corbyn in the morning. Decided to create this fraudulent fact checker because they were worried about Corbyn's attack on what a Johnson government would do to sell out the NHS. Why are they so scarred? That they would pull that stunt.
Maybe it's because the younger generations have been signing up to vote in large numbers since the vote was called and we all know what they think of the Tory's.
unenlightenedNovember 20, 2019 at 12:57#3544980 likes
Reply to unenlightened Thanks for that, there is so much going on now, I can't write it all here. The first time I saw this false poll was on BBC in the follow up coverage. Looks like the gremlins in the BBC are spreading fake news again.
Update,
The i newspaper is saying that the poll wasn't held before the debate, but immediately after and that the time referenced on the webpage had not been updated. Also they say the claim went viral amongst Corbyn supporters. I'm not sure what to think on that one. YouGov who ran the pole is run by Nadim Zahawi, a Conservative cabinet minister, so the result is dubious anyway.
unenlightenedNovember 20, 2019 at 14:07#3545100 likes
"YouGov confirmed to i that the page was uploaded as a placeholder, originally without the data or the headline, but that it was updated when the data came in after the debate. That means when the headline was updated, the time stamp was not, giving the post the appearance of being pre-planned."
https://inews.co.uk/news/itv-debate-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-opinion-shared-before-false-1310553
unenlightened confirmed today that he doesn't think much of yougov anyway, and you can't trust anyone, especially unenlightened.
Reply to unenlightenedI have seen a few other polls on the debate, Corbyn is well ahead in all of them. I don't have time now to link them.
Anyway Dominic Raab the Tory Secretary of State said "no one gives a toss about social media" on BBC breakfast this morning. So it doesn't matter anyway.
unenlightenedNovember 20, 2019 at 16:29#3545320 likes
[quote=Charley Dickeds]It was the best of Doms, it was the worst of Doms.[/quote]
For me the stand out points come down to the compulsive lying, the failure to answer questions and sound plausible by Johnson and the inability of Corbyn to address Brexit other than his fixed party line. Both were hamstrung by their party lines, Johnson "get Brexit done", Corbyn " I'll negotiate a sensible deal and offer it back to the people in a referendum".
I think they stuck to their lines deliberately. They were given little time to answer questions and so chose to ram their core messages home. This was ITV, don't forget. I watched the whole thing and I don't think I learned anything of policy.
I don't think Corbyn can survive the Johnson attack which should have been: 'He wants to lead the country, yet after 3 years of Brexit debate he must be the only person in the country without a view! He's not a Remainer, not a Leaver, indeed he can't even decide that he's an Undecided! How can he negotiate a new withdrawal treaty with the EU when he has no view if what he's suggesting is a good or a bad idea?'
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, I agree about sticking to party lines. I mentioned it because the media focussed on it as being boring and not broadening the debate and were spinning lines that they were unfit to be prime minister because of it. Which I didn't agree with, I realised that they were aiming at a small audience of undecided, or poorly informed voters, so wanted to give them, their primary attack lines.
I thought Corbyn's reluctance to commit to a view was Johnson's attack line, he didn't seem to have any others apart from a few mumbled references to " the highest corporation tax in Europe", or 1.2 trillion in spending under Corbyn. Both blatantly in accurate. When I realised that was his only attack line, I was surprised and relieved, because it is in fact irrelevant. As Rebecca Long Bailey pointed out on Newsnight after the debate. Their policy is that the people would decide in a referendum, and the party would decide democratically in conference when the referendum is called what the party line would be and frontline politicians wouldn't be whipped on it. That It is sensible for Corbyn not to express a view going into a renegotiation with the EU, as it was a matter of negotiation.
I don't know why the right wing rags were banging on about it yesterday morning. Do they really not have anything else to attack Corbyn with?
I don't know why the right wing rags were banging on about it yesterday morning. Do they really not have anything else to attack Corbyn with?
The Labour manifesto comes out shortly. I forecast they'll go into orbit re the spending plans. It'll be Gordon Brown all over again. This will be an open goal for the Tories who can say they are spending on what the public wants, but responsibly. Personally I don't believe the UK public will trust the huge socialist spending sums can be repaid. The one thing above all which was clear from the debate is that neither leader has any public trust. It's a great opportunity for the Lib Dems, if they can get some air time..
Reply to Tim3003 Interesting that the conversation has moved on from Brexit...
The problem with the view that a labour government would bankrupt the country which is the usual slur. Is that most people don't remember what happened in the 1950's and 1970's. The older predominantly Tory supporting part of the population, who were there at the time, are falling in number due to demographic forces.
Whereas on the other side of the debate, the string of failing, or profiteering private provision of essential services over the last 30 years spells out that privatisation is not all it's cracked up to be either. I think I only need to mention two names to illustrate this point, for now. Jarvis and Carillion.
Now that the Labour manifesto has come out, lots of wealthy and powerful people are coming out of the woodwork and claiming that the're under attack, they'll leave the country etc. When all is being proposed is that they pay a little more tax, or pay the taxes they are avoiding paying. Oh, and it will bankrupt the country etc. With no thought for the poor.
When all is being proposed is that they pay a little more tax, or pay the taxes they are avoiding paying. Oh, and it will bankrupt the country etc. With no thought for the poor.
Most people are basically selfish, and kind unselfish people seldom get rich..
Most people are basically selfish, and kind unselfish people seldom get rich..
Yes, the people who are rich tend to be more selfish, or put more effort into accruing wealth for some reason. The poor are more vulnerable and rely more on the state to look after their interests. Although there is a strange phenomena of poor people voting for the rich to keep them poor, a kind of defeatist attitude.
The reason that the government hasn't come out all guns blazing at the Labour manifesto is that they too are planning to say that they are going to splash the cash. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They seem to be tying themselves into a knot. This morning Priti Patel the Home Secretary started blaming the housing crisis and poverty on councils and providers who the government has starved of cash for the last 9 years. So basically blaming the government and claiming that the government is now going to put it right.
Yes, they are desperate. This is an existential crisis for the Conservative party, they are terrified that a truly socialist party can get into government and take to task their privelidged lifestyles, so they fear. That the public could get a taste for it, while their party fades into oblivion due to the change in the demographic( the younger generations don't favour the Conservative party).
This is a fascinating video broadcast on BBC Question Time recorded lastnight. It illustrates how low income relative to wealth has become in this country. The relationship between Labour (work) and capital.
The system is rigged to gradually drive down wages for the people who work. While the people who live on capital keep quiet and spend as little as possible, so that the workers don't realise where all the wealth is. When the Labour Party says it will increase tax for people earning over £80,000, people like this man think that they are taxing the ordinary worker, because he doesn't think he is in the top 5%. He thinks he's in the bottom half of earners, but actually he is in the top 5%.
Interesting point made on BBC lunchtime news. Namely that the poll tracker graphs of Labour/Lib Dems and of Tories/Brexit Paty are exact mirror images of eachother. This demonstrates that the Remain/Leaver divide is entrenched and the only movement is between parties on the same side of it.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, I found that interesting. I think these pole trackers aren't giving us a true picture, for two reasons. It doesn't reflect the vote share destributed among constituencies and it doesn't show the effect of tactical voting. If one looks into constituencies and marginals, it gets quite complicated.
I was looking at the constituencies around the area where I live. My constituency is a safe Tory seat. In 2017 Tory's had approx 35,000 votes and Labour had17,000 votes, Lib Dems about 1,000.
So if you look at it in terms of wasted votes, the conservatives only needed 17,001 votes to win, so 17,999 were wasted on this constituency. Labour wasted 17,000 and the Lib Dems only 1,000. But it took a total of 35,000 of the the national Tory vote to secure the constituency. There are a lot of constituencies like this around here, basically all the rural constituencies in East Anglia, except North Norfolk. So roughly, it takes a lot of the national Tory share of the vote to secure these constituencies, whereas Labour has lost approximately half as much of their national share in these areas and Lib Dems, much less.
I know these demographics may work the other way in different areas, but it illustrates how unpredictable it is if one is not analysing the constituencies in more detail. Also, there is evidence of a lot more floating voters on this occasion than usual, making it more unpredictable. And a large number of younger voters introduced to the system, due to record numbers registering to vote.
The feeling here in Aus seems to be that the whole 'Brexit uncertainty' story has now (mercifully) faded off the front pages. We await the election, but my impression is that BoJo will win, and perform Brexit as advertised. I fully expect this to have many adverse consequences and result in an overall diminution of British wealth and prosperity, but I think this is what will happen.
unenlightenedNovember 23, 2019 at 11:29#3555480 likes
This is an existential crisis for the Conservative party, they are terrified that a truly socialist party can get into government and take to task their privelidged lifestyles, so they fear.
No Punshhh, it is this agitation and agravation that just makes ordinary politics to be out of the ordinary. When you look at the polls Boris Johnson has saved the Conservatives from utter ruin (if the polls are to be believed). And it's the Brexit party that is in an existential crisis. And why wouldn't they: what on Earth does a party to give other than a process that is well under way? I assume that you Punshhh aren't a conservative, so I guess you are the people helping Johnson getting the conservatives to support him with those kind of remarks... if you would be a reporter.
To put it simply, fear mongering and mud slinging works. In surprising ways.
Today the best possible thing happen to a conservative politician is that the liberal media is just going crazy in bashing him. Just like it seems to be for a leftist politician to be accused of being an unrepentant Marxist-Leninist or whatever. That's the kind of world we live in.
I know these demographics may work the other way in different areas, but it illustrates how unpredictable it is if one is not analysing the constituencies in more detail. Also, there is evidence of a lot more floating voters on this occasion than usual, making it more unpredictable. And a large number of younger voters introduced to the system, due to record numbers registering to vote.
I agree that in this election more than most tactical voting will play a big part - on the Brexit issue above all. The pact between Libs/Greens/PC should make a small difference, but if Labour/Lib Dems vote for eachother to beat the Tories it could make a large difference. The Tories can only count on Brexit Party voters coming to their aid, and there are far less of them.
Tells actually a situation that is very surprising! Nothing portrayed in the Media would make you connect the present to such polls.
I am amazed that TV news just doesnt report the polls any more. I don't know why this is. Maybe they have been wrong at predicting the outcome before, but so what?
but if Labour/Lib Dems vote for eachother to beat the Tories it could make a large difference.
Yes, I don't think it will happen though. Although as I mentioned a few pages back, there aren't all that many seats where Labour and Lib Dems overlap( marginal). Whereas there are a lot where Tory's and Lib Dems overlap. Also Any seat which goes to a party other than the Tory's is a seat going towards preventing a Tory majority( apart from any Brexit party seats, although they have never won any as yet, I doubt they will win more than two or three).
Oh also about the poll tracker, the BBC has the polltracker on their website, along with a list of all the constituencies with the share of the votes from the 2017 election. They frequently tell their viewers to go to the website and have a look. It's part of their drive to get their viewers to be more interactive.
I assume that you Punshhh aren't a conservative, so I guess you are the people helping Johnson getting the conservatives to support him with those kind of remarks... if you would be a reporter.
Yes, I support the Greens, but my vote like many many others won't count, as I live in a safe Conservative seat. I doubt my remarks would sway any voters on this forum (which is the only one I write on). I doubt there are any subscribers on this forum who support Johnson, or could be swayed to do so by the remarks I make. Also the division between leave and remain is so deep, that to a large extent it doesn't matter anymore what anyone says, or does. This is why Johnson can get away with his behaviour, which is very uncharacteristic of the behaviour of a PM in this country.
In reference to the media, it is almost entirely anti Corbyn and is only slightly critical of Johnson. It's more a case of the media not knowing how to deal with the unprecedented way the government is behaving, allowing it to get away with far more than would usually be the case. There is a very good commentator on this issue called Peter Obourne, I will post a link to his blog/articles tomorrow.
Graph of age demographic.
This is why the Conservatives are worried, it's only a matter of time before they become a party with no chance of winning an election. As I see it, they began to nose dive following the Credit Crunch, especially when austerity began to bite.
Reply to Punshhh Unless it reflects a change of opinion related to age. One way to tell is whether there are older graphs like this and if younger support for conservatives was higher there or not.
unenlightenedNovember 24, 2019 at 12:51#3558450 likes
Unless it reflects a change of opinion related to age.
I'm way too philosophical to actually do the research, but it makes intuitive psychological sense that young people are radical and know everything better than we old-fogies who have become set in our ways and cannot believe there is anything better than our wisdom born of experience.
Or to put it another way, having spent most of a lifetime accumulating a small stash, the olds are not about to vote to give it all to young wastrels.
Unless it reflects a change of opinion related to age. One way to tell is whether there are older graphs like this and if younger support for conservatives was higher there or not.
I have had a look for older graphs, I haven't found anything easy to read before 2015 so far, but it looks like this trend has been building for about a decade. Before that the split was more even between the age groups.
I see it as inevitable due to the fall in living standards and the growing mistrust in the Thatcherite model, which has had some negative effects over the last 20 years. The older age group is still living in the Thatcherite era and have retained the wealth thereof. But the younger generations are increasinly feeling disenfranchised, poorer, with poorer prospects. There is a clamour for a redistribution of wealth which is unfairly balanced in favour of the older generation.
Interestingly the older generation is also a lot more in favour of Brexit, than the younger generation. That graph and this one about the referendum demonstrate how there is a deep generational divide, in which the older generation wants to give the younger generation what they don't want and then go and die of old age and leave them with the mess to clear up.
Oh also about the poll tracker, the BBC has the polltracker on their website, along with a list of all the constituencies with the share of the votes from the 2017 election. They frequently tell their viewers to go to the website and have a look. It's part of their drive to get their viewers to be more interactive.
I found this. But what I was looking for was some ranked listing of the marginals, with the percentage vote of each party, including the Lib Dems (and Ukip if it's from 2017).The listings of swing-seats I've seen only cater for close Tory-Labour marginals. I don't think much of a Labour/Tory swing is likely. It's the movement of votes to the big 2 parties from the 2 smaller ones which I think may be important. A big tactical Lib Dem to Labour swing could turn a relatively safe Tory seat to Labour, and the reverse could turn some safe Tory seats to Lib Dem.
This website shows targeted marginals for the main party's. It's difficult to work out where Labour and Lib Dems overlap, because it doesn't show the third party's position in a marginal, only the two main contenders. It looks as though there is not much overlap though.
On the Andrew Marr show on Sunday Jo Swinson said, she thought the Tory's were likely to win at the moment and almost, but not quite hinted that she may do a pact of some sort with Labour. I don't know if, or how candidates can be pulled now that they have been submitted. My worry has always been that the Brexit Party would pull all their Candidates the day before the poll, but I don't know if, or how this would happen.
The Conservative party released their manifesto yesterday, it was incredibly underwhelming and launched on a Sunday afternoon. It looks as though they don't want to make a gaff and will just rely on the leave vote to push them over the line. Commentators say this is because in 2017 they made a manifesto gaff which lost them their majority, the dementia tax.
To me this looks weak and cowardly, while displaying indifference to the important pressing public service crisis we are enduring now following 9 years of unpopular austerity. The problem is people might think austerity is not over, which the conservatives are claiming and they would be right.
In reference to the media, it is almost entirely anti Corbyn and is only slightly critical of Johnson. It's more a case of the media not knowing how to deal with the unprecedented way the government is behaving, allowing it to get away with far more than would usually be the case.
Well, I could say the media has been a bit more than slightly critical of Johnson, but that is a matter of opinion. Yet do notice that both Corbyn and Johnson have picked up support for themselves.
Also the division between leave and remain is so deep, that to a large extent it doesn't matter anymore what anyone says, or does. This is why Johnson can get away with his behaviour, which is very uncharacteristic of the behaviour of a PM in this country.
I think that this deep division is happening very much everywhere. It's happening because of populism. One of the core principals of populism is to separate people to "us" and "them". Trying to search a consensus or try to search for a middle ground isn't done, it's actually intentionally avoided as "the other" is depicted to be so bad. And naturally the whole Brexit -process is a dividing cause. You could have just voted "yes" or "no" for brexit. That divides the people into two distinct categories.
Intentionally or unintentionally the dividing rhetoric and politics creates more lasting "camps" on the issue you can start to see generational, societal, differences as you Punshhh note in your later comments in this thread.
The chief rabbi and the interviewee on the Today program, are explicitly telling the population to vote for the Conservative party today. It's true that there is an anti-Semitic problem amongst members of the Labour Party, but what are they suggesting is going to happen if Corbyn forms a government in a hung parliament?
It is implicit in the remarks that people who are not Jews should secure a conservative government to assuage a feeling of unease amongst the Jewish population.
So Johnson's racism and policies is going to improve the degree of unease?
The problem is this is dog whistle populism which can't be challenged, because of its sensitivity. It may tip the balance between a sensible resolution to the Brexit issue, which would begin to heal the division and start to bring the country back together. In favour of an intensification of the division and chaos, plunging the country into a populist nose dive into Trump, or Putins hands.
It is grossly irresponsible for a religious leader to intervene in this way.
Reply to ssu I agree entirely with your observations on the populism sweeping the world and it's use in this country.
I would point out that the anti-Corbyn sentiment is endemic in our establishment, it is not specific to Corbyn, but he is a classic example of what they fear. It is the same bias that occurred when Michael Foot ran for government in the early 80's. The establishment, the wealthy and the privelidged are rabidly anti any form of socialism. By contrast the critisism of Johnson is little more than depicting him as a bumbling jester, a lovable rogue, who would naturally due to his privelidge and grooming by the establishment schools and colleges, secure our best interests.
I suggest that such prejudice is difficult for people who have not grown up here to appreciate the subtlety of this distinction.
It's true that there is an anti-Semitic problem amongst members of the Labour Party, but what are they suggesting is going to happen if Corbyn forms a government in a hung parliament?
I would say Corbyn or the Labour party has nothing against Jews or the Jewish religion. Likely what has happened in their hatred of the international financial elite they just have been ignorant about how close their narrative comes to Hitler and anti-semitism. Because when talking about "the World being ruled by a cabal of international bankers", you have just taken out one word and that is Jewish and then you are talking exactly the same line as Adolf Hitler did.
Hence when Corbyn defends some mural like this (before he admits that it was wrong defend it), there is the case of him being an anti-semite.
"The Enemy of Humanity"
And then there is the leftist Middle East policy. So Corbyn talks about Hamas and Hezbollah as 'friends' and naturally is very critical of the actions that Israel takes. And often anti-Israeli views are interpreted to be anti-semitic views.
As a foreigner I'd say this a red herring or typical mudslinging of modern politics.
Yes agreed, this conflation is widespread in this country. My point is what is it the anxious Jews making this intervention think is going to happen? That they will be persecuted by the government, or the home office. Because their intervention is a direct move to sway the election and therefore who forms the next government.
I agree that it is probably mud slinging, but in our society it is a taboo to criticise claims of racist bias like this. So it's mud which sticks.
That graph and this one about the referendum demonstrate how there is a deep generational divide, in which the older generation wants to give the younger generation what they don't want and then go and die of old age and leave them with the mess to clear up.
I’ve read these sort of comments before. Why do you think that’s what’s happening? Why do you think it’s true?
My point is what is it the anxious Jews making this intervention think is going to happen?
There is one point to be made here. That is that politicians in power do regulate and move the limits of the Overton window. Hence if it's totally acceptable of referring to an "international cabal of bankers running the World", then there's only a small step to add the J-word in front of the bankers. And these are the subtle things that then do add to anti-semitism.
Yet persecution of Jews in the modern state is of course a whimsical outrageous idea. And the whole narrative of "Jews leaving the UK" is just similar talk like we heard in 2016 election of "Americans leaving to Canada if Trump is elected". Basically it's nonsensical rhetoric that just adds to the polarization and division of the political landscape.
Besides, isn't it 'Silly-Season' there as you are going to have a general election in few weeks?
Reply to ssu Yes there is an unprecedented level of silliness. Due to our political system the result is going to be decided by a small group of voters in a few seats. A large portion of these voters are susceptible to dog whistle politics.
Regarding the overton window, in this country anti-discrimination and anti-racism is scrupulously held, there is a Protestant ethic on this and the broadcast media would not be able to veer away from this.
I’ve read these sort of comments before. Why do you think that’s what’s happening? Why do you think it’s true?
It is widely understood here that there is this generational divide. Personally, nearly every old person I know is a leaving Conservative supporter. While all the young people I know are the opposite.
There are two reasons for what the younger people think. One, they are disillusioned with a Thatcherite model due to the results of the credit crunch. Secondly, they have not experienced any issues which would foster an anti EU sentiment. For the older folk, firstly, they are steeped in the affluence they accrued during the Thatcherite period, particularly through the housing market. Secondly, they have been infected with anti EU sentiment over a long period.
Here is Corbyn 40 years ago, on the right is a photo of the members of the Bullingdon club, at the same time. In the photo are Johnson, Cameron, Osbourne( he's not in the photo, but is a member)
If you click on 2019 UK Parliament swingometer you can play around with the %s of the parties and see how the result is affected. Ok, it's based on uniform swings, but fun to play with.
I see that just as the Chief Rabbi is urging Jews not to vote Labour, Heseltine is urging Tories to vote Lib Dem or for independent ex-Tories, and Blair is calling them both 'dangerous', although he'll still vote Labour. I'm surprised at that. I'd have thought the Socialist program would alienate him..
Reply to Tim3003 Blair is a staunch remainer, he has no choice but to support Labour. Presumably he would tactically vote depending on the circumstances in his constituency.
Breaking news about 450 pages of unredacted documents, of the notes, or minutes of meetings about a possible trade deal with the US, with the government, from the middle of 2017-18, released by the Labour Party, obtained through freedom of information laws.
Detailing amongst other things "full access" to markets, including the NHS. Noting the insistence that drug pricing will be at the front of the pile. NICE being the first target.
This looks a lot like scaremongering by Corbyn. The minutes were from preliminary meetings, during which the US delegates outlined the areas they'd be interested in discussing re a trade deal. Access to the NHS and drug patents were among them. However, that doesnt mean the govt side agreed with their priorities, or that they'd be willing to compromise on them when the real talks start. Johnson is categorically ruling out any deal on the NHS. If he goes back on this promise he'll be in trouble.. It would be hilarious if he got an EU trade deal but couldn't agree one with the US!
Reply to Tim3003
The dossier was handed to him by a whistleblower yesterday and all he's saying is that it is evidence of what will be on the table in the post Brexit trade deal. With the follow up that Johnson is being dishonest about it.
The important thing is that the voters who don't spend much time looking into such things are aware of Johnson's duplicity and the reality of how tough the trade talks with the US might be.
For people like us who do give it a bit more thought, we should be under no illusions about what a hard ball game the US negotiators will play and how they will push for wide open access to our markets while we are in a position of weakness. That Johnson is unreliable and weak in the face of hard nosed business interests. That he will sell out our business interests, even if we get a reasonable trade deal with the US.
Not to mention the elephant in the room, that the US won't negotiate until all the future arrangements with the EU have been sorted out. Which will require the brexiter government to make up its mind again, which it repeatedly fails to do. That the US will demand a hard Brexit during the decade of negotiations with the EU to try and thrash this out( this is the optimistic view, what's more likely is that the Johnson government will descend into chaos and the economy and welfare state will pay the price).
ChangelingNovember 29, 2019 at 04:35#3571590 likes
I think, probably no-one. As an ex-Blairite (pre Iraq) I might go for Lib Dems, but I just don't think unilaterally revoking Brexit is a viable policy.. I'm also in a safe Tory seat.
It has to be said that there must be something wrong with a democracy where in the vast majority of seats it doesnt matter who you vote for..
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, most of my friends and family are in safe Tory seats, but will vote for other party's, so their votes are meaningless/wasted when it comes to the result of the election.
ChangelingNovember 29, 2019 at 14:56#3572670 likes
I'm voting red by proxy in a marginal seat
ChangelingNovember 30, 2019 at 05:14#3574970 likes
Boris Johnson pleaded with Trump not to wade into British politics in an interview on LBC: “It’s best when you have close friends and allies like the US and the UK … for neither side to be involved in each other’s election campaigns.”
Hah. Well now, a Trumpian intervention didn't seem to concern Johnson much when it came to his supporting Brexit, now did it ?
Guardian:Trump arrives in London next week for a two-day Nato summit which will see him greeted on Tuesday evening by doctors, nurses and other NHS workers leading a protest of tens of thousands outside Buckingham Palace.
The protesters – aiming to highlight potential risks to the NHS in a future US-UK trade deal – will march from Trafalgar Square up the Mall, and gather at Canada Gate when Trump and other Nato leaders meet the Queen at a 6pm drinks reception.
It will mark the formal beginning of a short summit that has been in the diary for 18 months, but has ended up occurring at the closing stages of an election campaign, prompting jitters in No 10 – and making for Labour’s best hope of a comeback.
Watch this space...
ChangelingDecember 01, 2019 at 01:37#3578300 likes
Reply to Punshhh
Yeah. Really hoping for a damning, turning moment in this campaign; a special which nobody can ignore.
But I think the bastards are on their guard...
Look at how and what they hide. :rage:
ChangelingDecember 02, 2019 at 04:42#3581960 likes
Johnson is showing his true colour's in the scrabble to politicise the terrorist attack last Thursday. Blaming it on legislation brought in by the last Labour government ten years ago. No shame, no apologies, just promises to bang people up and throw away the key. Oh and more tax cuts of course.
Early on Monday, as the day’s front pages emerged covering a proposed Tory crackdown on those freed after serving sentences for terrorism, Merritt’s father David tweeted saying: “Don’t use my son’s death, and his and his colleague’s photos – to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for – hatred, division, ignorance.”
----------
On a more practical, or tactical, note.
Question about voting, and potential wasted votes.
Nine candidates have either withdrawn from campaigning or had support from their party withdrawn after the close of nominations.
3 Tories, 3 Lib Dems, 1 from Labour, SNP and Brexit.
However, these candidates remain on the ballot papers in their constituency.
I presume if voters place an X at their name, this will be a wasted vote ?
What action, if any, is being taken to inform voters of this at the local level.
It will be too late for any postal voters.
Some tactical voting sites have not changed their recommendations accordingly.
Reply to Amity Yes, I should point out that the vile propaganda is being spread by the gutter press, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Sun and now we can probably include The Daily Telegraph.
Regarding candidates withdrawing, I'm not sure, but I would think, that if they won and refused to take office, it would trigger a by-election and it would not be included in the number of seats for the party which they represented. Or if someone else wins in their seat, it would make no difference. I have been worried for some time that the Brexit party would pull all their candidates the day before the election. But It's looking now as though this won't happen. Although if the Tory's do really badly over the next week, they still might do that.
Johnson said that the idea that the NHS would be on the table in a US trade deal, is Loch Ness monster, Bermuda Triangle nonsense, conspiracy theories believed by crackpots. Yet more contemptuous divide and rule narrative.
The "working class", deprived neighbourhoods ( traditional Labour heartlands) who have fallen for the lies and snake oil salesmen, will shrug this off. Continuing to believe that Johnson is a lovable rogue, who is giving us some leadership. It's not certain that they will shrug off Trumps duplicity though, because the right wing gutter press they read, has been anti-Trump up until now.
The "working class", deprived neighbourhoods ( traditional Labour heartlands) who have fallen for the lies and snake oil salesmen, will shrug this off.
Yes. I find this totally shocking as presented in the following article:
Regarding candidates withdrawing, I'm not sure, but I would think, that if they won and refused to take office, it would trigger a by-election and it would not be included in the number of seats for the party which they represented.
Candidates who have been withdrawn from their respective parties and are still on the ballot paper seemingly have the status as Independents. Therefore, it is misleading the public who wish to tactically vote for the original party, as stated.
It is totally bizarre that we have this situation...
Reply to Amity Yes, it is difficult to understand why millions of poor and deprived people are going to vote for Johnson. The poor voting to keep the rich in power and keep them poor. I watched a vox-pops documentary on Chanel 4 news yesterday, where they invited 10 people from a working class area of Birmingham who voted leave. They were all people who had voted Labour their whole lives (they were all around retirement age). They were saying they couldn't trust Corbyn, they don't believe his pledges to rebuild the public services etc, because they have swallowed the narrative that we all have to struggle to get by and there isn't any money available to put things right. The Tory austerity mindset. Johnson was a lovable rogue who couldn't put a foot wrong, he was going to give them leadership. All of them said getting out of the EU was more important than any other consideration. And yet as soon as Johnson implements his hard Brexit, they will be hit hard with baked in austerity and exploitative capitalism, deregulation and stripping of what few workers rights they have left.
Another Chanel 4 report today is about the use of social media by Arron Banks. Apparently he was sold the contact details of all the UKIP supporters prior to the referendum. About 140,000 of the most Euroscepticsl people in the country. Banks set up Vote Leave, a political organisation which he used to groom all these people and gain access to all their extended contacts. Creating a countrywide social media campaign influencing millions of susceptible people. Once the referendum had happened he started a campaign of entryism infiltrating the Conservative party. Trying to deselect MPs who were pro-EU.
There is a row between the US and the French over measures to claw back some tax from offshore corporations. The French are putting a 3% tax on revenues and the US is threatening 100% tariffs on key French exports. This is going to become a big row when the UK goes begging for a US trade deal.
Yes, it is difficult to understand why millions of poor and deprived people are going to vote for Johnson. The poor voting to keep the rich in power and keep them poor. I watched a vox-pops documentary on Chanel 4 news yesterday, where they invited 10 people from a working class area of Birmingham who voted leave. They were all people who had voted Labour their whole lives (they were all around retirement age). They were saying they couldn't trust Corbyn, they don't believe his pledges to rebuild the public services etc, because they have swallowed the narrative that we all have to struggle to get by and there isn't any money available to put things right. The Tory austerity mindset. Johnson was a lovable rogue who couldn't put a foot wrong, he was going to give them leadership. All of them said getting out of the EU was more important than any other consideration.
You seem to be saying that there's no middle-ground between Corbyn's spend-spend-spend policies and the 'mean' Tories. It's not hard to understand why people don't trust Corbyn. They still recall the years of austerity necessitated by Labour spending from 2008-2010. Okay you can dispute the term 'necessitated', but people instinctively shrink from the country running up large debts again, and I've yet to hear Corbyn say how he will pay back all the billions he wants to borrow. A moderate Labour party might be doing better in the polls. (I always thought the wrong Milliband brother won the leadership contest back in 2010..)
I noticed one strand common among those interviewed in the Voxpop Guardian article. Namely hope. Voters voted for Brexit in part because they hope the change it brings will be beneficial. Okay they're probably wrong, but when you don't understand all the political chicanery and economic forecasts hope is a powerful motivator. Similarly with Johnson. 'He's a new face, so let's give him a try and hope', goes the 'logic'..
Reply to Tim3003 I'm not ignoring the middle ground, I just don't see it as relevant in this campaign. Personally I would be happy with a LibDem government, although I have moved to a more socialist position as a result of the damage done by the years of Tory cuts. It has become so extreme that I think Labour's policies are the only ones sufficient to redress the balance. My priority is to throw the Tory's out, Brexit or not, although I would prefer revoke, I would be happy with a sensible soft Brexit.
You mention 2008-2010, well for a start New Labour was Tory light, they certainly weren't socialist. Gordon Brown was spectacularly disfunctional, but he inherited such a poisoned chalice from the credit crunch, I don't think anyone would have survived long in that position. You should not understate the severity of the fallout from the credit crunch, it was the genuine cause of the circumstances which made the Tory's choose austerity. Also the debt has increased over the last decade.
If you listen to John MacDonnell, he is claiming that by putting money into the pockets of ordinary people in the economy, it generates prosperity and growth in the real economy, resulting in a benefit to all. It is the opposite of the Tory capitalist ideology of capitalism generating wealth with a trickle down effect, which has been shown to be an illusion. In reality people of wealth and corporations siphon the wealth offshore and make those at the bottom more deprived, with greater inequality.
Regarding the hope voters and protest voters. I know their hearts are in the right place, but they are mistaken, which is understandable due to the "vile" poison spread by the gutter press and nationalist populists, who have taken advantage of them.
But by how much? If the debt increases at less that RPI it effectively decreases. Bringing down the deficit - and hence the annual increase, was as I understand it was part of the logic of austerity..
If you listen to John MacDonnell, he is claiming that by putting money into the pockets of ordinary people in the economy, it generates prosperity and growth in the real economy, resulting in a benefit to all. It is the opposite of the Tory capitalist ideology of capitalism generating wealth with a trickle down effect, which has been shown to be an illusion. In reality people of wealth and corporations siphon the wealth offshore and make those at the bottom more deprived, with greater inequality.
So putting money into the pockets of the poor aids growth but putting it into the rich's trousers doesn't? I think maybe you over-estimate the % of 'rich' money hidden overseas. Have you figures to back up your claim, and that of Macdonnell ? I think on the whole successful people want to spend their money, either on high-lifestyles or investments like property and businesses, both of which means it does trickle down.
Regarding the hope voters and protest voters. I know their hearts are in the right place, but they are mistaken, which is understandable due to the "vile" poison spread by the gutter press and nationalist populists, who have taken advantage of them.
Who are you to tell voters they are mistaken? Surely this high-handed attitude is one of the drivers of Brexit. I also don't think you can blame the media for brainwashing people so effectively. Given the preponderance of right-wing views among tabloids you'd expect 80% of their readers to vote Tory. That doesn't happen, so maybe they're not all as gullible as you suggest.
I don't have figures in ref' to John MacDonnell, I was describing economic ideology, rather than figures. Let me illustrate with a thought experiment.
Let's say there is an average group of people, one of which is wealthy (earns enough probably from investments, that they can save a significant proportion of their income). Now let's say the government gave each of them £20,000 and then came back a few months later to see what happened to the money. The people who are not wealthy would probably spend the money in short order in their local economy, probably on a broad range of products and services. The wealthy person would probably put it in a savings account, or if they are clued up, some kind of investment designed to avoid capital gains tax and then forget about it. This person wouldn't spend any more than they were going to before they received the money, as they already have all the money they need for day to day living costs. Like any of our 150 billionaires for example.
I expect I don't need to describe the ways in which corporations move wealth offshore, as this is well documented.
I apologise for my strong language in regard of the vox-pop people. I do talk about this a lot and my language has become more direct. What I mean by them being mistaken, is that many of them think that voting in that way their circumstances will somehow improve. This is where I suggest they are mistaken, simply because a Tory Brexit will evidently not improve their circumstances. Also, I am saying that the right wing media and populists convinced them to vote to leave the EU, not to vote Tory. They are now voting Tory to get Brexit done, because this same media has told them that democracy would be broken if it does not happen.
The wealthy person would probably put it in a savings account, or if they are clued up, some kind of investment designed to avoid capital gains tax and then forget about it. This person wouldn't spend any more than they were going to before they received the money, as they already have all the money they need for day to day living costs. Like any of our 150 billionaires for example.
I suggest you talk to your friends and ask them what'd they'd do if their salaries suddenly doubled. I think they'd be talking about new cars, houses, buy-to-let investment, long-haul holidays, maybe even private schools; before they got around to offshoring any of their extra money. Who do you think keeps luxury brands afloat. Yes the ultra-rich may go that way, but I think only a small proportion of their income would go to tax havens, most of their wealth will be in property and shares. Not that I've any evidence - but then who has, either way?
I also think when the average/poorer person spends their gift money from MacDonnell on everyday products and services, a proportion of that money ends up in the hands of your rich 5%, because they own all the companies and take profits, dividends etc. How do you think they got rich? So Labour's attempted wealth-redistribution is not as easy as it seems. The only way to avoid this trickle-up effect is communism..
On a more Brexitey note I see the Brexit Party MEPs are deserting Farage's sinking ship - polling now 2-3%. He explains: " well, they're ex-Tories so it's not surprising." How many of his crew aren't ex-Tories? As I guessed, the Tories are mopping up the Leave vote..
I suggest you talk to your friends and ask them what'd they'd do if their salaries suddenly doubled. I think they'd be talking about new cars, houses, buy-to-let investment, long-haul holidays, maybe even private schools; before they got around to offshoring any of their extra money.
I was talking about people further up the wealth scale, there are 850,000 millionaires in the UK, (if you include property assets 3.6 million). I don't dispute your point here, also I think that most of the creaming off of wealth is done by corporations*.
Who do you think keeps luxury brands afloat. Yes the ultra-rich may go that way, but I think only a small proportion of their income would go to tax havens, most of their wealth will be in property and shares. Not that I've any evidence - but then who has, either way?
Again I don't dispute this, but what I want to focus on is where money is taken out of the real economy for a period of time. For example, a lot of money goes into property, which then sits there for a long time, rather than being spent on products and services provided by small businesses, or in the local economy. The high house prices are due to other issues, where insufficient houses have been built for decades. The selling off of council houses without replacing the stock. Such failings in the market and state provision has caused a property price bubble, which brings a whole host of problems with it. Or in my example in my previous post, the wealthy person doesn't spend the money, it sits in a bank account, again it is not being used in the real economy.
Another problem in the real economy is the way in which the government bailed out the banks in 2008 and then spent the next 10years making the poor and disadvantaged in the country pay for it with crippling austerity. Whether austerity was required or not, it starved the real economy of money.
How do you think they got rich? So Labour's attempted wealth-redistribution is not as easy as it seems. The only way to avoid this trickle-up effect is communism..
No, that is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is a larger Social Democratic State like the Northern European countries.
What I think is important is what I call, the money go round, circulating around the real economy alongside a sensible public provision of essential services.
On a more Brexitey note I see the Brexit Party MEPs are deserting Farage's sinking ship - polling now 2-3%. He explains: " well, they're ex-Tories so it's not surprising." How many of his crew aren't ex-Tories? As I guessed, the Tories are mopping up the Leave vote..
Yes, you were correct, I don't think Farage will withdraw though**, which was my fear. Interestingly the squeeze on the Brexit party seems to have gone as far as it can now. While the Labour squeeze on the Lib Dems does seem to be continuing, or at least, there is some more slack to take up. Not to mention the effect of tactical voting, which is difficult to gauge.
*an interesting development in the NATO summit, was the row between France and the US over clawing taxes off the large internet corporations. France is going to impose 3% and in return the US is threatening 100% tariffs on key French exports. The UK will get mired in this row from a far weaker position when begging for a US trade deal.
** due to the amount of money the Brexit party has spent on electioneering, if they were to reduce their number of candidates beyond a certain point they would fall foul of the rules on the maximum amount that can be spent per constituency. Meaning they could go to jail. Farage would not relish ending up in court again like he did following the 2017 election.
Again I don't dispute this, but what I want to focus on is where money is taken out of the real economy for a period of time. For example, a lot of money goes into property, which then sits there for a long time, rather than being spent on products and services provided by small businesses, or in the local economy.
I think this is a bit of a myth. For every rich house-buyer who sits on it as an investment, there's a newly rich seller. He may then spend his newly aquired money locally.. A house as an investment is no different to any other investment - the investor spends his cash to buy it. I think the problem is if such properties are left unoccupied, then they are effectively being taken out of the housing stock, but aside from a few millionaires' pads owned by russian oligarchs in London, is this is a big problem?
What is being proposed is a larger Social Democratic State like the Northern European countries.
What does this mean? For all the talk of nationalising rail, mail, power, broadband etc, whose profits will be added to govt coffers and redistributed, where does the extra money come from? Higher taxation for the rich will produce some cash, but that's more redistribution.. Any extra has to come from borrowing or better productivity. Simply using tax revenue to fund large inefficient public monopolies has never produced wealth on the past and there' s no reason why it will in the future. What it probably will produce is inflation..
An interesting development in the NATO summit, was the row between France and the US over clawing taxes off the large internet corporations. France is going to impose 3% and in return the US is threatening 100% tariffs on key French exports. The UK will get mired in this row from a far weaker position when begging for a US trade deal.
Absolutely. I'm surprised the EU doesnt act as a whole to apply these taxes. It would thus be strong enough for Trump to think twice. The UK - whose exports to the US are twice theirs to us, will be a sitting duck for this kind of pressure. Scotch whisky I think was mentioned by Trump..
Reply to Tim3003 I don't think you are considering the problems in the housing market. There are many as I mentioned in my last post. For example, a whole generation coming of age for whom home ownership is an unobtainable dream (unless they are fortunate enough to inherit while still young, or their parents help them out), while they are having to spend a large proportion of their income on rent. I'm not going to get into this here, but bring it back to my initial point. The wealth sitting in the inflated house values is a form of congestion, like our roads, or like being obese. It ceases to be a dynamic aspect of a healthy real economy, but starts to become one of the problems holding it back. And while we continue to fail to address the lack of house building which has caused it, it is only going to get worse. This is just one of the economic issues presided over by the Tory's, as I mentioned before, resulting in real poverty and deprived neighbourhoods and an increase in the social divide between the rich and the poor.
To address the issue of privatisation, I had already pointed out that the privatisation of essential services undertaken by the Tory's, is not a pretty picture and does not insulate the provision from capitalist profiteering, exploitation and cherry picking. I agree that nationalised provision can become inefficient, but that is only really a management issue and is free of those capitalist issues. I agree it does require a capital investment to bring them back into public ownership. But this along with the other capital investment proposed by the Labour Party, is not funded from tax provision, but rather by issuing government bonds, a one off capital investment. The 86 billion day to day running costs of the economy which would be paid for by tax receipts has been fully costed." Large inefficient public monopolies" would not be there to generate wealth, they are there to provide essential services, like water, power and travel infrastructure.
In reality the economics of this is a large complex subject, we could easily stray into deep water.
Bringing it back to Brexit, it turns out there is going to be a border down the Irish Sea, according to Johnson there is nothing to see here, just get it done.
The wealth sitting in the inflated house values is a form of congestion, like our roads, or like being obese. It ceases to be a dynamic aspect of a healthy real economy, but starts to become one of the problems holding it back. And while we continue to fail to address the lack of house building which has caused it, it is only going to get worse.
I agree of course, the cause of the property jam is lack of new affordable housing, and I'm all for spending on new council housing. The fact that people's houses are worth much more than 20 years ago makes housing unaffordable to the young I agree. But I don't see your point that the wealth in housing is thus tied up and so not available to the 'real' economy any more than it was in the past. A lot of the added wealth is paper-wealth - ie simply extra value added to assets already owned. It's not as if people have had to make themselves penniless to afford their homes so they can't afford anything else. If we had a property price fall and serious problems with negative equity, preventing those with large mortgages from selling, then yes, that asset value would be trapped. But we don't, so it isn't.
I agree that nationalised provision can become inefficient, but that is only really a management issue and is free of those capitalist issues.
The issue with public ownership is as much an inevitable lack of funding when times are hard as inefficiency. The NHS is always underfunded, as were the railways before privatistion. I'm not advocating privatisation of either, but I think expecting nationalisation to improve them economically is wishful thinking.
But this along with the other capital investment proposed by the Labour Party, is not funded from tax provision, but rather by issuing government bonds, a one off capital investment.
This is just the govt borrowing money on the markets, and having to repay interest to bond holders for however many years the bonds last. And then, finally, the capital. It increases the national debt - I think by £100 billion per year under Corbyn's plan. So that's over 25% extra in debt and debt repayment costs in 5 years.
The higher the UK's debt and debt-to-GDP ratio, the lower it will be rated by agencies, and the more interest the bond holders will want for their UK investments. It's already 88% (see graph above). After 5 years of Labour it would be around 110%. We'd almost be up there with basket cases like Italy and Portugal.. And if all the borrowed money is spent on infrastructure and extra public servants how does it expand the economy by enough to repay the loans?
Reply to Tim3003 You make good points, but as I said, we are opening up a big debate/can of worms here and could spend a while playing ping pong. I will reply to your two main points and then I think we should go back to the subject. On housing, it is a liability because it is a bubble (as you say, it is only on paper) and due to issues like housing essential workers in cities etc, it becomes an unnecessary impediment. Also the amount of money made by banks such as Santander on unnecessary high mortgages, is like a tax on a shortage of housing.
The debt you mention does not factor in the growth of the real economy intended by Labour, which as I have pointed out is quite disfunctional at the moment. Also it may be appropriate to raise taxes for the good of the country.
The debt you mention does not factor in the growth of the real economy intended by Labour, which as I have pointed out is quite disfunctional at the moment. Also it may be appropriate to raise taxes for the good of the country.
Extra economy growth will be required to pay off all that extra debt.. Not being an economist I can't quantify the details, but forecasters have thrown doubt on both Tory and Labour sums..
I do agree with tax raises to offset growing inequality. I'd raise the National Insurance Ceiling. No-one ever seems to admit that NI is just another sort of income tax these days. Although Boris is to raise the lower limit I think, and not before time.
But generally the election campaigning energy seems all used up and we're just drifting towards polling day. I think because the main parties have concentrated on their key messages everyone's getting bored with them..
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, the election messages are out there now, it's only slip ups that we're looking out for. Johnson nearly got caught using the word "coloured" the other day(in reference to immigrants) but it turned out he actually said "talented", but the recording was ambiguous. Interestingly, his petulant behaviour in the leaders debate on Friday didn't fall into this category. He could still fall flat on his face though. I think there are a large number of undecided voters who will still be making up their minds. There is an army of momentum canvassers going around in marginal seats. A friend of mine is out every day in Norwich North and North Norfolk. Whether it's working is difficult to know.
Do you get lots of adds and targeted posts on Facebook, or other social media? I get about 30 a day, targeted for Labour, or tactical voting sites. I suspect that other people are getting entirely different messages.
I think there are a large number of undecided voters who will still be making up their minds. There is an army of momentum canvassers going around in marginal seats. A friend of mine is out every day in Norwich North and North Norfolk. Whether it's working is difficult to know.
Do you get lots of adds and targeted posts on Facebook, or other social media? I get about 30 a day, targeted for Labour, or tactical voting sites. I suspect that other people are getting entirely different messages.
Thee has been much talk of the Red wall - Labour strongholds in the north with a pro-leave ref result, and whether Labour voters can 'hold their noses' and lend the Tories their votes. From what I've heard on TV quite a few will, and I doubt Momentum's assurances will make much difference to them. The Lib Dems do seem to be suffering a bit from the cancel article 51 policy - no surprise to me, and I'm sure some staunch 'democrats' have already defected to Labour. Then, also, in safe Toryland like St Albans with a large affluent Remain community, the Lib Dems apparently have a good chance. My sister is thinking of lending her Labour vote to the Lib Dems. It's possible a late shift could shake things up - like in the referendum itself. There is certainly more scope for tactical voting than ever before.
I keep my Facebook details and links to other sites to a minimum, so get very few adverts and
forwarded posts.
Swinson made such a mess of this election campaign, beginning with her revoke gambit, then her mercenary move of giving Boris his election exactly when he wanted it, then attacking Corbyn more than Johnson (young people like Corbyn and hate Johnson and they are your best chance for new votes, so alienate them??), to generally being shrill and unlikeable. Probably the most incompetent leader of the lot.
Reply to Baden Yes, the decision by Swinson and the SNP to gun for an election was a very risky strategy (although it might have been harder to secure the extension without it). The Labour strategy of keeping Johnson hostage in No10 was working, it was only a matter of time before Johnson would slip up big time. Now we have a dangerous election which is playing into Cumming's hands. I'm watching Swinson viscously attacking Labour again now on TV.
I think that she is desperate to distance herself from Labour, because it would alienate the Tory swing vote. I think she is right to do this and she can smooze with Labour after the election if it's a hung parliament.
I keep my Facebook details and links to other sites to a minimum, so get very few adverts and
forwarded posts.
There is a social media battle going on, I came across one yesterday claiming that the stunt with the boy being treated on the floor for pneumonia yesterday was a momentum plot to discredit Johnson. There is a sophisticated propaganda machine producing this material, it is particularly widespread throughout the Red wall. Once you are tuned into it you can spot the people who are infected straight away. The give away is that they are rabidly anti Corbyn, as though he is some kind of bogeyman. You see lots of them on BBC coverage, because they like to go to leave seats and interview them (part of the endemic BBC bias). It's obvious that they have been corrupted because no innocent bystander would be so vehemently anti one candidate simply from observing the campaign as presented on the TV media. If you want impartial TV coverage you have to watch Channel 4, or Sky News.
Yes that is why my handle is Punshhh, that is my cartoonist signature.
The degree of social media deception, has reached new heights now. In reference to the story of the boy being treated for pneumonia on the floor of A&E. First, a senior Tory source told senior BBC and ITV political editors that a Labour activist outside the hospital had punched Matt Hancock. Top media journalists rushed outside to discover that nothing had happened. Meanwhile it had been tweeted nationally on major media platforms. Shortly afterwards this photograph of a tweet was widely distributed on Facebook and was all over twitter.
This illustrates the degree to which the Tory's are terrified of a major gaff. Also it has blown their cover, exposing their manipulation of the media and social media.
Here is one I received about a month ago, suggesting that to buy back parts of the NHS which Blair(apparently) sold off, would take 1 trillion pounds.
The degree of social media deception, has reached new heights now.
It's well past time that people realised they can't trust anything they receive on social media. Hence I ignore it. A news story is no more valid than its source. (I would have suggested trusting the BBC and not Sky, but you seem to disagree!)
ChangelingDecember 10, 2019 at 18:24#3615710 likes
Turn this down a bit as the audio is tinny (it was only officially posted on Facebook). The message, however, is loud and clear:
Do you get lots of adds and targeted posts on Facebook, or other social media? I get about 30 a day, targeted for Labour, or tactical voting sites. I suspect that other people are getting entirely different messages.
That's one of the most irritating things in a modern democracy: when you get election adds and other material from only one or few political parties...especially if they aren't the party you have and are not thinking to vote. That for some reason the party you support doesn't even bother to target you in the elections. It's the forget those people, not worth even the effort syndrome. But it tells very clearly what the parties actually really thinks of you.
Perhaps now when our personal thoughts and attitudes are data traded in a lucrative business using computer algorithms to map and compartmentalize us for commercial or political use, this isn't as crude as just looking at one's living address or income. Facebook et al. make a buck with this!
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, I like to get involved on social media as I am interested in current developments in politics.
The problem with the BBC (With whom I have made a complaint about this), is that they try to give equal weight to what is said by each side in the debate, with very little in the way of challenge and they are very slow in adapting that approach to its exploitation by the Tory's. So what is happening is the Tory's bluster and use double speak, along with crowding out the opposition by talking over others, or refusing to stop talking in a short limited time slot. The problem with this is that their news broadcasts are dominated by lines and slogans from the Tory's which are opportunist, disingenuous, hollow promises, duplicituos etc.. as though it is the accepted truth. There is a lack of equivalence in what messages are shown, or to what degree they are true representations of policy. So basically they are being played by the bully in the room. Secondly they are slightly endemically anti socialist and anti Corbyn, in comparison to their slight endemic pro Tory stance. This distinction is subtle and can be seen in their whole approach to the issues. An example the other day, of which there are many was in reference to the spending announcements of the party's they referred to Labours plans as "give always", while describing the Tory's plans as "spending plans".
Whereas Channel 4 has far higher standards of reporting and addressing issues. They repeatedly win awards for reporting. Sky also has high standards and I can't see any evidence of bias, indeed it's quite refreshing after the BBC. I always watch Channel 4 news and All out Politics on Sky for the most objective presentation of politics.
I strayed onto the Facebook page of a racist brexiter this morning. Here are a few examples of what we, as moderates are up against. The last post is in reference to the recent London Bridge terrorist who was shot by the police.
Yes, I like to get involved on social media as I am interested in current developments in politics.
The problem with the BBC (With whom I have made a complaint about this), is that they try to give equal weight to what is said by each side in the debate, with very little in the way of challenge and they are very slow in adapting that approach to its exploitation by the Tory's. So what is happening is the Tory's bluster and use double speak, along with crowding out the opposition by talking over others, or refusing to stop talking in a short limited time slot. The problem with this is that their news broadcasts are dominated by lines and slogans from the Tory's which are opportunist, disingenuous, hollow promises, duplicituos etc.. as though it is the accepted truth. There is a lack of equivalence in what messages are shown, or to what degree they are true representations of policy. So basically they are being played by the bully in the room.
I'd say if you're interested in politics, ignore social media. News-wise it's basically a free-for-all cesspit. It's pointless to complain about all the lies. I forecast that it will be widely ignored in a few years.
It sounds like you're blaming the BBC for the way the Tories use their air-time, which I don't see as fair. If the half-truths, bluster and refusing to shut up of populism are more effective then the opposition should and will follow suit. Nevertheless, I am often annoyed by the way journalists on Newsnight constantly probe for a weakness in whomever they interview. Getting a headline is clearly more important to them than enlightening us viewers. However they do have a very hard job. These days politicians are trained to focus on their message and ignore questions which try to open up topics from more informative angles. They will all bluster and drown out counter-views if given the chance. I think Michal Hussein on Today is the best and most ruthless at stopping interviewees wittering on and talking over her questions.
Personally I like my news advert-free.. I can't say I'd noticed any anti-socialist bias in the BBC. It's regularly criticised by the Tory right for being against them, so if the Labour left says the same that's probably a sign both are a little too paranoid..
Reply to Tim3003 I'm not going to try and explain the BBC bias now as I will be running a polling station in the morning and have to get up early. What I will point out though is the way the BBC reports the bluster as fact, without question. Because it is a public institution assumed to be impartial people will believe what is reported as truth if it is not qualified or challenged. Also they don't expose the double speak, where Tory's say one thing and then the opposite so that they can appeal to two opposing constituencies at the same time. I know that Channel 4 does this from time to time Sky doesn't and nearly always challenges such tactics.
Interestingly Laura Kuensberg was reported to the electoral commission today following her appearance on Politics live, I missed it unfortunately. Basically she was dissing Labour by claiming that postal votes which have already been opened to be counted were showing a poor turnout for Labour. A clear infringement of electoral law, she has been criticised the most for pro Tory comment.
Anyway it's very exciting, I can't wait to see the results coming in tomorrow night.
Well good luck with the polling station! I think we could be in for some surprises as the results come in. I heard today that 30% of people may vote tactically..
The problem with the BBC (With whom I have made a complaint about this), is that they try to give equal weight to what is said by each side in the debate, with very little in the way of challenge and they are very slow in adapting that approach to its exploitation by the Tory's.
This is a real problem and a consequence of the 24/7 media coverage of every event. Typically, nowadays it's news when a politicians opens his mouth. So the news is "Boris said: "[insert quote]"", brought to you first by [insert media outlet]. I have newspaper headlines that are direct quotes from someone or other with little to no analysis into the veracity of whatever is claimed.
It would be news and not at all partisan if you'd do this: https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
Reply to Benkei Yes, that's how they do it. They just reel off phrases, designed to roll off the tongue as slogans. These phrases encapsulate everything that ticks the boxes of the target audience. It doesn't matter if it's nonsense, or if the representative of the opposite party points out that it's disengenuous etc. Their audience doesn't have the time to check it. "Just get it done", " the will of the people"
In my polling station it's busy so far, should be one of the highest turnouts for a long time.It turns out we are about 400m outside a quarantine zone around a highly contagious bird flu epidemic. I hope we don't get quarantined.
unenlightenedDecember 12, 2019 at 18:33#3622400 likes
The difference between a joke and a dirty trick is whether you get it or not. They are the same thing understood differently. One mans subtle humorist is another man's arrogant liar.
Comments (3111)
So we have an advisory referendum and a Parliament that's totally within its rights not to follow it despite political promises made by some political parties. Now, as far as I know Parliament as a whole is not against Brexit, just a no-deal Brexit.
Boris maintains a large majority voted in favour of Brexit (statistically, the vote was basically split) and now blames the constitutional crisis he wrought on Parliament because according to him everybody against a no-deal Brexit is anti-Brexit.
He lies less obviously than Trum, but he still lies.
Questions for the Brits: can the Queen refuse Boris' request for the longer leave?
She's already granted it.
But, no, she couldn't have.
One might have said that you can't suspend parliament for a month during an urgent crisis to prevent it from exercising its will. I think she could have, and it would have been rather interesting to pit the brexit sovereignty thing against the monarchist thing. It seems to me that if a constitutional monarch has a function beyond the decorative, it is to occupy the space that a dictator needs. That must mean at some extreme the possibility to intervene against a leader even against precedent. Perhaps we have yet to reach that extreme...
https://www.ft.com/content/9dbc7852-c9b2-11e9-af46-b09e8bfe60c0
What do I think about the proroguing of parliament by Johnson ?
Johnson is a sly, self-serving, lying prick who is in a position of power, as PM, placed there by a group of extreme Tories.That in itself is wrong but legal.
It gets even madder. How will it end ? Hopefully, peacefully using appropriate legal and political process. However, I expect civil unrest will turn to passionate protests. Any sign of violence will be met with the full force of the law...
First up, court challenges:
Quoting Severin Carrell and Lisa O'Carroll
A flow diagram follows, showing future possibilities
'Where next for Brexit?'
Bo Jo goes rogue with prorogue.
:smile:
Just wait till they burst out in song.
'Do you hear the people sing ?' - Les Miserables.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/les-miserables-hong-kong-protests-do-you-hear-the-people-sing-musical-a9081401.html
The British political establishment is not the Tory party. The rest of it, with the exception of the DUP, is up in arms. And of course, there are some even within the Tory party who are up in arms, too, like the former Chancellor, Phillip Hammond.
Next up - Gove.
Quoting Jessica Elgot
'Rogue' is too light a term. Even if fun :roll: to play with...
Cuddly rascal Boris :naughty:
Yeah. Bastards all.
Especially Sajid David, current chancellor, who campaigned to be Tory leader with these words:
'You don’t deliver on democracy by trashing democracy'.
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/08/29/defence-minister-is-caught-on-camera-spilling-the-unspeakable-beans-about-boris-johnson/?fbclid=IwAR1K_X-kRiiLNqdQutzE3X7ZfGum3D_aU0UcS0fqWuuMxr66ND_zJdbmR-Y
It is putting party before country all the way, down. The problem is the hard brexiters within the Tory party see no other way out. If we don't leave without a deal they will implode with a viscous fight within thelmselves and electoral oblivion, it will buoy up the Brexit party if this happens, but only temporarily and then they will hang around on the margins for a generation or so, being a one issue party, on an issue which has been decided. We will gradually all get back to normal and restore the "good chap", method of government.
The biggest travesty is that the Queen was drawn into the deceit, had she not agreed to prorogue, she would have entered the fray and the Tory's would have savaged her. The distinguished historian Peter Henesey said on Friday, "on the 27th of August in the library of Balmoral, the good chap theory of government broke apart at the feet of the Queen." This is the treason and I will be taking it up with the headmaster of Eton college.
I saw the video but this isn't a necessary conclusion from what he said. As a whole, it could be interpreted as explaining why BoJo opted for such an extreme measure as the only way to break the impasse that exists in Parliament.
We are being prepped for one soon. Amidst all this turmoil.
Nigel Farage, leader of The Brexit Party, exhorts his troops at campaign rallies, shouting:
'I am ready. We are ready. Are you ready ?'
You know they are.
'Ready' is the key word.
The public is being readied for the Hard Brexit, come what may:
The government has set in motion the ‘Get ready for Brexit’ campaign, costing the taxpayers £100m.
According to newspaper reports, if Johnson loses his majority as a consequence of Tory rebellion then an election will be imminent.
Then what...?
If the opposition can't get their act together, then...we are doomed to more of the same.
Perhaps even if they get their act together. The outlook is not promising...
Quoting The Guardian's Monday Briefing
Quoting Live feed from Guardian
Trump and Boris both lie.
They both want a hard Brexit.
They have a lot in common. Narcissistic, self-serving, etc., etc...
But Boris went to Eton and can talk fluent Latin as well as bullshit.
Quoting Heather Stewart
They both make me wanna :vomit:
Comparing ways of being clever between psychopathic leaders is interesting up to a point.
What matters is the outcome when the right-wing, regressive hard nuts unite as one.
It gets a little terrifying.
I should switch off now and go meditate...or do something sparkly :sparkle:
It looks as though Johnson is already grasping at straws and sinking into chaos.
General election on its way. Who is everyone voting for?
Ben Bradshaw.
the other really confusing thing is that it's not going to be a poll on Brexit per se. I mean, it's not a matter of voting for one side that supports Brexit, and another side that opposes it. And also, that Corbyn is a misguided idealist (at best) whom many reasonable voters would never vote for (as Tony Blair is saying.)
A significantly higher percentage of voters voted for Corbyn in his last election than voted for Blair in his. In fact, Corbyn got one of the highest vote shares for Labour in modern times. So, that's just typical anti-Corbyn hype.
On what basis? Which policies of his are misguided and why?
Hm, he must be unelectable then.
the press coverage here in Aus has been generally critical. He's been depicted as being 'too far to the left to be electable'. And Blair has been hyper-critical of Corbyn, although I don't know how much that means. But I do note from Wikipedia that in 2017 'Labour made a net gain of 30 seats with 40.0% (its highest vote share since 2001 and the first time the party had gained seats since 1997). This was the closest result between the two major parties since February 1974.' So - let's see. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that if an election was called Labor might win it, but what that means for Brexit is still anyone's guess.
Yes, Johnson wants to give the electorate a choice between a hard Brexit with the Tory's and a disastrous Corbyn government (economically) which will also keep us in the EU, or half in half out. This sneaks a hard Brexit through under the fear of Marxist Labour policies. Also it drains support from the Brexit party, pushing the Tory's over the line.
Labour won't agree to an election until a further extension is agreed with the EU (until 1st Jan'), they realise that if Johnson calls for an election this week and they don't support it , Johnson is left helpless with no way to turn, the emperor has no clothes.
I'd put it this way, the issue is not Labour's sudden unelectability, it's the Lib Dem's sudden electability. So, the remain vote is split while Johnson has been (very) busy unsplitting the anti-remain vote by stealing Farage's thunder. This is critical in a first-past-the-post system. The winner takes all essentially and that dynamic explains the bulk of what's going on here.
As has the press coverage in the UK. The reality though is that Corbyn is not remotely radical, and has not proposed a single policy that goes beyond what has already been implemented in the country and then dismantled. Some public housing, a national railway and power system, a national post, a national health service, and some workers' rights. It's all so mainstream that only Americans and propagandists would even call it unusual.
Yes, which would explain why, rather than mentioning these 'radical policies', using the bogeyman of Marxism is generally the preferred method of attempting to discredit him.
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/09/02/the-media-goes-into-attack-corbyn-mode-ahead-of-a-possible-snap-election-his-response-is-sublime/?fbclid=IwAR0Aebd8WD-BxJTydFTMmEqDTn6Q-K9NAbyyASFrluBX0Q7zal0EkZvszcA
Lol @theFT. Shock/horror! Don't vote Labour because they want to give you stuff!
What other people?
What's 'ours' in terms of resources is a gift of a society that mostly functions on the backs of ordinary workers, without whom we'd all be sucking on wild berries and being eaten by bears. But yes, let's not go there here.
Let's go thither hither instead.
You can't risk basing your decision on the notion of safe seats. What were thought to be safe seats were taken by both of the main parties in the last general election. For example, Labour took Kensington from the Tories with a hair's breadth.
The same Jeremy Corbyn who won a larger share of the vote than Tony Blair in 2005?
I agree, just don't let my party know about my agreement. I'll be voting for Labour, of course.
Yeah. Also, nationalising the railways, for example, is known through polling to be highly popular with the general public.
Who benefits from Brexit ?
Someone suggested that I watch Ch4 Dispatches 'The Brexit Millionaires' - those who've got rich from Brexit. First shown Monday 11th March this year.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/
I missed it at the time. Now you need to download the Ch4 app.
Don't know that I will. I am quite depressed enough, thank you.
Perhaps some ice cream, chocolate, crisps, caviar and champagne might help.
Oh...wow :smile:
What now ?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/03/commons-showdown-looms-in-battle-over-no-deal-brexit-live
'As Johnson talked Tory MP Philip Lee stood up and walked across the floor of the Commons and sat down with the Lib Dems.'
I am a poll clerk in a rural area and am used to the elderly farmers banging on about polish immigrants and their Tory credentials.
Opportunities for...
The Brexit Billiionaires.
Ch4 Dispatches 'The Brexit Millionaires' - those who've got rich from Brexit. First shown Monday 11th March this year.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/
Risks as per the Operation Yellowhammer document which Gove had been planning to publish today, but dropped the idea because it was too negative.
:up:
Well, if those numbers suggest that you'll be voting Labour, then you have my support. Where I'm from, we've been stuck with a Tory MP since 2010, and that seems like almost forever to me. I sympathise with the situation you're in.
The targeting of Polish immigrants is really horrible, and makes me sick. An innocent Polish man was brutally beaten to death in an unprovoked attack by a group of young thugs close to where I live around three years ago. It made the national news at the time.
Also first since the 1700s to lose first vote.
I thought May was the worst PM in living memory...
I reckon the odds favour the latter right now.
Yes, for example the way they legitimise Farage. If you want to get a deeper insight I would recommend James Obrian on LBC. 10.00 -1.00 weekdays. He's not on today, but tomorrow's show should be a good one.
This situation is purely demographic, however I don't see it as a membership of the EU problem specifically. There are other ways to address the imbalance in such places and leaving the EU may not stop the flow of foreigners. It is fuelled primarily by market forces, which are not going away if we leave the EU.
:gasp:
There are always too many servants, except when there are not enough.
Most of the leavers I meet as a poll clerk can take the hit, they are mostly retired and asset rich.
Well said.
Bastards.
Do you believe that's possible?
As an outsider, I think what is worse is the condition of the whole conservative party.
Talk about a train wreck planned and executed by the railroad engineers driving the train.
They can force votes to pass by not counting the noes? That's insane.
Apparently Johnson is going to demand an election today, which he overwhelmingly doesn't want. Goading Corbyn to agree to one on 15th of October. Corbyn appears to be teetering on the edge of granting it, while the vast majority of his Labour colleagues are trying to pull him back from it and wait until the extension has actually been granted. This is clearly the right strategy, because if they don't agree to an election until then, Johnson is powerless and sooner or later his sham of a government would be exposed and he would probably break the law.
Whereas if he grants an election on the 15th, parliament is immediately dissolved, parliament is silent and powerless while the Johnson is let loose to rampage across Whitehall, change the date of the election do whatever he wants.
The fate of our country rests in Corbyn hands over the next few days, give him strength to hold his nerve.
I think Johnson is completely boxed in. Sacking 21 members of his own party is going to blow up in his face. As it is, he's powerless to command an election without super-majority agreement, and no longer has anything near a parliamentary majority on the Floor. I wouldn't be at all surprised (as I said yesterday) if it turns out the Johnson has the shortest tenure of any PM in British history.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/brexit-lords-agree-to-push-through-bill-preventing-no-deal-by-end-of-friday
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/05/boris-johnson-is-a-hostage-in-no-10-no-wonder-he-fears-a-long-contest
Corbyn bring branded as 'chicken' with his 'surrender bill'. Apparently Johnson is to spew more bile from the lectern in an address to the nation. A pity there is no immediate opportunity for the oppostion to reply.
Quoting Guardian Politics Live
That there is now one being used worldwide to show the 'lying Tory' Rees-Mogg gladdens my heart.
It has passed. Watch this space or the Guardian Politics Live.
I still have fears...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/pm-cornered-how-the-papers-covered-johnsons-horror-day-in-commons
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jo-johnson-boris-johnsons-brother-resigns-from-parliament_uk_5d70e1cee4b09bbc9efa44c9?fbclid=IwAR3CdHLFuljUmZeOPlqx4VxBTml8q3feLBgG8-T1meO2r9SdiDTnLsfEaWQ
Hard to believe, isn't it that this victorian gentleman is intent on making a huge fortune from selling out his own country, whilst protecting his assets in tax havens and foreign investments? He's a clever cruel and ruthless exploiter - if that's what you think a twat is, then he's a twat.
But don't imagine that pose was anything but deliberate.
Denying a general election on the topic seems to me to avoid the will of the people.
Opposing the "will of the people" is part of democracy. That's what opposition parties are for.
Quoting NOS4A2
If elections represent the will of the people, then the actions of MPs do, too. They are elected.
A moments background reading would be enough in any case to disabuse anyone of the notion that a no-deal Brexit is the will of the people. Polls consistently show a majority against it and that is all the legislation prevents. Furthermore, it was right-wing Tories and their coalition partners in the DUP that blocked their own PM delivering Brexit just a few months ago.
(Oh, and the opposition will accept an election when the anti-no-deal legislation goes through. Again, they are the ones protecting the will of the people.)
The role of an opposition party is to question the ruling party, not to oppose the will of their own constituents.
They are elected to represent their constituents, not to represent their own wants and desires.
A General Election isn’t a single issue vote. Parliament (and Government) make decisions about every aspect of British life. Previous polls have shown that Conservative-voting Remainers, for example, would rather leave than have a Labour government (or at least rather than Corbyn as PM) - but they’d still prefer to remain than leave (all other things equal).
So if your concern is the democratic will of the people on Brexit then a second referendum is more meaningful than an early General Election. It’s clear hypocrisy to say that the people have spoken on Brexit and so a second referendum is not needed (some have even bizarrely said undemocratic) but to then say that an early General Election is needed to ascertain the will of the people on Brexit.
Right, so? I didn't say anything about opposing the will of their constituents.
Quoting NOS4A2
And? What does that have to do with the topic?
I know, but it's not like arguing with facts is going to work with @NOS4A2.
I don’t know why people would want a second referendum if the first one hasn’t been implemented, despite the government’s insistence that it would do so. It isn’t hypocrisy but a matter of fact that people voted for Brexit. A second referendum is not meaningful because the first one has yet to be realized.
Labour votes in favour of policies that Labour voters want and against policies that conflict with this, e.g Conservative policies. In this case the leaders of the party have determined that Labour voters do not want the kind of Brexit that the government are pursuing (or at least unintentionally heading towards, e.g without a deal), and so oppose this in attempt to secure the kind of Brexit that they do want.
Then neither is an early General Election on the issue of Brexit - although again, a General Election will never just be about Brexit.
So if you are saying that the will of the people on Brexit has already been decided then why are you in favour of an early General Election and criticising those who oppose it?
I’m not so convinced of that. A majority of Leave voters would rather a no deal Brexit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49551893
Just thought I'd put it out there anyhow. There seems to be a lot of confusion around what is actually happening even among the mainstream news media who haven't done a great job of explaining things. I don't know how many headlines I've seen, for example, proclaiming that Boris is going to call a general election when he has no legal right to do so (only having the right to seek permission from the house to do so). They've only seemed to have cottoned on to that now that his attempt failed.
I always thought constituents were people. Maybe i’m Wrong.
Constituents aren’t people? Maybe I’m wrong.
The people decided in the 2017 General Election who they wanted to implement Brexit (according to your logic).
Sorry, I deleted my post to correct it, so yours got deleted to. I defer to what @Michael said above about the numbers.
And they saw how well that worked out. Hopefully they wouldn’t make the same mistake twice.
Indeed, maybe you are. For example, did you know that certain combinations of words can have different meanings, even if the individual words refer to similar things?
In my opinion, the UK should leave first and worry about deals after the Brexit referendum has been implemented. It seems the worry about deals and such were tacked on, willy nilly, after the fact.
So the will of the people does not include the will of the constituents?
If after 2 years the people ought be allowed to redecide how Brexit is to be implemented then after 3 years the people ought be allowed to redecide whether to implement Brexit at all.
But again, in a GE you’re not just voting on who implements Brexit; you’re also voting on who implements every other domestic and foreign policy, which is why a GE is a bad measure of the people’s will on Brexit.
Except the leave campaign ruled out leaving without a deal. From the Vote Leave manifesto:
Redecide? First the general will must be implemented. Only after can they vote to move back to the EU.
And in 2017 we voted on who to implement Brexit. So that general will must be accepted, right?
There were other leave groups, such as leave.eu and grassroots out.
It seems to me we shouldn’t conflate general elections and referendums.
Neither. They are campaign groups composed of politicians. The vote is the will of the people.
Voting remain vs leave is like voting McCain vs a democratic, without being told if that democrat is Obama, Hillary, or Bernie.
I see no issue about having a second referendum if it is about the means to exit, for example deal vs. No-deal. But including the option to undo the previous referendum without having implemented it is not democratic.
Having a vote is never undemocratic.
But attempting to undo a vote is. That topic was already voted upon.
The will of the people is whatever the will of the people is now, not what it was in the past. Voters have died, voters have changed their mind, and new voters who ought be allowed a say on their future are now of age.
No it isn't. It's how democracy is undermined. By your logic the UK should decide every other year if it wants to remain or leave.
This is about the British identity. It's just the last fumes of a dead empire.
That seems to me to suggest voting on the same issue in perpetuity. So how many referendums on the same question should it take for the result to be implemented? Or do we just stop when we get the result that we want?
Why not? We’re currently having a GE every other year. The people’s will is always changing. If anything it’s undemocratic to ignore it.
That’s what we do with General Elections.
We shouldn’t conflate a referendum with a general election. One is a vote over a policy proposal while the other is a vote over who holds legislative power.
If you don't have a brexit vote once a week, you dont have a democracy.
:100:
I'm hoping that if things break down to far, or Johnson does something tragic to avoid requesting an extension from the EU that the EU will grant an extension by some other means dealing directly with parliament.
No. I am not sure how it even makes sense to speak of one will including another.
He's rather be dead in a ditch but apparently not rather resign.
Cause of death: electile dysfunction.
Seems a fitting way to go for Mr. Johnson.
I don't see how Brexit can happen on 31 Oct, though. No-deal is about to become banned by law, May's deal was voted down three times, and Johnson doesn't look like having anything like an alternative proposal.
Can’t deny that. But she did negotiate a Brexit deal, agreed to by the EU.
But perhaps worse than that deal is they’re giving up their one remaining bargaining chip: a no deal Brexit.
Overall, calling the referendum in the first place was a dubious decision, and loosing it a catastrophe.
In reality, I expect the Brexit fiasco still has a long while to run (or rather to fit and spasm on the ground whilst blowing spittle from its dying lips...)
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that my preference was to leave on the 31st of October. That was some dark humour suggesting that my preference was for Boris to be dead in a ditch.
I'm from England, and I really have no idea, but here goes. There'll be an extension, then a slightly modified version of the withdrawal agreement, which won't get through parliament. Then there'll be a vote of no confidence, and an alternative government. If it goes to a general election, I'm not sure anyone can win a majority.
he's practically as good as, as far as I can tell from 12,000 km away. :naughty:
As I said yesterday, I kind of admire the conservatives who stood up against him. I wish those spineless gutless congressional republicans would do the same to T.
Yes, there is the theoretical possibility of Brexit simply being cancelled. I would enjoy this outcome: all the fuss and holloring, all the political theatre and emotionality and ...nothing! :sweat: :grin:
All this time wasted away about nothing.
Actually Nigel Farage with his new UKIP 2.0 party would love that!
He can, leaving without a deal is the default position at the moment, it requires action to prevent it.The fact that it is illegal in the UK for the government in the UK to "leave without a deal" is irrelevant to this.
For example Johnson could go to the EU summit in October claiming he is going to request an extension and abide within the law and disappear on route ( get in a car and drive to a secret location and hide until after 31st October). The extension would not have been requested and we would leave without a deal. The Queen could request the extension in his place, but she may decide not to interfere in politics and let it happen rather than get embroiled in political chaos.
One might say well that's ok, we can just go back to the EU and say sorry about Boris, he acted illegally can we forget it ever happened and have that extension anyway. But the chances are they would not be able to grant this, or they would not want to. Or they might say only if you revoke, or yes ,but you loose your special privileges( which are considerable).
In these circumstances the chaos and division would be ramped up far higher than it is at the moment and we would be on the street and edging closer and closer to a civil war.
Yes, this was brilliant.
The new law will require Boris to request an extension. The EU might not grant one. Macron almost didn’t last time, and since then there hasn’t been a good faith effort to renegotiate, so they might decide that it’s pointless to drag it out further.
What's that saying? 'Nothing concentrates the mind quite so well as the knowledge one will be hung in the morning'.
I think that as long as there are significant political forces in the UK pushing for a more conciliatory position with regards to the EU, the EU leaders are unlikely to cut them off. Also: The longer the Brexit chaos drags on, the stronger the chilling effect on other leave movements.
Yes and I would hope the government would revoke, but as I said earlier it is much deeper than this. The government has lurched to the right and is now expressing the demands of a group of Tory's who are fighting to save the Conservative party. This is far more important to them than what happens in the Brexit crisis. They would revoke today if it saved their party, but the only hope in their eyes is to leave without a deal and hope that support for the Brexit party would begin to wane and die as people realised that the Brexit party had no purpose any more.
They really are rabid, because not only are they fighting for the soul of their party, but they see looming on the horizon a Corbyn government, which in their eyes would be a living hell just as bad as a worst excesses of a no deal Brexit. Precisely because at least in that no deal Brexit they, the Conservative party would still be there to help clear up the mess. If Corbyn is there and the conservatives have died, their whole world falls apart and the soul of the country is lost.
So you have a perfect storm in the minds of these people
I would happily vote for the the Lib Dems or Labour, (I am a Green Party supporter) as the economy needs repairing and I have confidence that Corbyn would start the work to repair the country.
There is a clause in article 50 that says the decision to leave has to be made democratically according to the laws of the country, so It could be that if the Benn bill is law, and nothing is done that not only will Britain not have left, but the whole article 50 notice will have in effect been revoked.
But don't tell Boris.
The best alternative to no agreement is throwing the UK a bone.
Any deal is better than no deal, so "no deal" isn't and never has been a bargaining chip because it's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. It's entirely possible though this is exactly what the political outcome will be, because politics isn't a negotiation. However, the EU in this process is acting as the technocratic bureacracy it is, bereft of politics and just straight negotiations because the political mandate has been set out 2 years ago. So political commitments of UK politicians that they'll deliver on Brexit with "no deal" if they have to, has no effect on the stance of the EU.
The EU has been very clear: it has completely closed rank in support of Ireland as it should be. After all, Ireland will remain a member and the UK wanted to leave... well, actually people were split on the question.
Which brings me to another point, people voted for leave with a stastically insignificant majority (and as such should never have carried the weight it does now) and while a majority of those who voted for leave would be happy with no deal, it's safe to assume that all Remainers were and are against a no-deal Brexit even more than a negotiated Brexit. In other words, a vast majority of UK citizens never wanted and do not currently want a no-deal Brexit.
It has backfired on him.
[ just as his accusations against whistleblower Dr.Nicholl have.
https://www.channel4.com/news/dr-david-nicholl-if-rees-mogg-wants-to-repeat-that-outside-of-parliament-i-will-sue
After significant pressure, he has since apologised: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/rees-mogg-condemned-for-comparing-doctor-to-disgraced-anti-vaxxer-autism ]
He is a nasty piece of work. People will react against this in any election. Hopefully.
This R-M pose has been circulated worldwide. Wonderful to see this installation by the anti-Brexit campaigners 'Led by Donkeys'. Captions include 'Lying Tory' - ' No one voted for this' - 'They're Lying'.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-edinburgh-castle_uk_5d70bc33e4b09bbc9ef9fe47
The Corbyn 'Chicken' was on the cover of the UK Sun. Not on the Scottish or Irish Sun, reflecting different views towards the Tories. In Scotland: 'Floppy Johnson Can't Get An Election'.
The current Westminster government is being increasingly seen as the 'English Nationalist Party'.
See heated comments by frustrated European negotiator in video below:
Excellent Matt Frei piece ! 5 minutes.
https://www.channel4.com/news/are-brexit-talks-really-yielding-progress
That's already happened; Parliament voting to grant Theresa May authority to invoke article 50.
Quoting unenlightened
It's only revoked if the UK writes to the EU to notify them that it's withdrawing the prior notice to leave.
You may be right. But you may be wrong; it is at least possible to say that the Benn bill legally changes the democratic decision.
Quoting Benkei
[my bolds]
Exactly this.
There is no bargaining chip. The Tories are not in negotiations.
See:
https://www.channel4.com/news/are-brexit-talks-really-yielding-progress
Diversion, and taking some heat off the Boris Cummings faction. All that wasted effort. We are talking about it, and that is a win, because important suff passes by unnoticed.
One of which is that either by breaking the Benn law or by simply not appointing a commissioner, No deal can still be possibly accomplished. Alas, the idiotic democrats refused the no-confidence motion and government of unity that could have taken control... might be too late now.
Yes. However still very useful as an anti-Tory campaign tool.
We can talk about both that and the Boris Cummings faction.
But such images are more influential in manipulating the public, either way. I would say.
This article and BTL comments might give you a better idea than anything I could offer up.
Things are changing so quickly, it is all quite bewildering.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/early-late-election-labour-brexit-october-johnson
“The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council.”
I have heard rumours that the EU would not automatically expel us of we fail to appoint a commissioner. Regarding the Benn law, provided parliament can sit until the extension is achieved, they should be able to check, or bypass any attempt to break the law.
All this talk of 'doing or dying' - 'dying in a ditch' - 'surrender bill '- 'coward' - 'rebels'- 'traitors'.
The ditch isn't by the wayside, it's about trench warfare.
It stirs up more division and potential for violence.
It is designed to inflame and it is scary stuff.
Politicians and staff continue to receive death threats *
The nastiness is being intensified by Johnson's advisor Cummings.
Should there be an investigation into this man and his malign influence ?
* Just one example:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/caroline-spelman-quits-tory-mp-to-stand-down-over-abuse-and-death-threats-which-left-her-wearing-a4230241.html
From the Guardian Politics Live:
'Harriet Harman, the Labour former deputy leader and the chair of the joint committee on human rights, has joked that so many moderate Tories are being driven out of the party that she is thinking of holding an inquiry.
"When are we going to wake-up to what’s going on here? Caroline Spelman, elected, thoroughly decent, hard-working MP driven out of Parlt. We can’t stand by while MPs driven out or retreat behind security gates? "
Google returned this:
'On Monday Austria’s foreign minister, Alexander Schallenberg, said the bloc would keep open the possibility of an extension to the UK’s membership beyond 31 October.
Schallenberg said: “Of course our thread of patience doesn’t go on forever. But in the past two years, we have put in a lot of energy to make an orderly exit possible. Secondly, a disorderly exit would have many consequences that we can not foresee in its entirety when it comes to financial flows and services.'
From:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/eu-could-declare-no-deal-brexit-as-major-natural-disaster
Sounds easy, doesn't it ?
Trouble is Johnson is being an arse. And even if an extension is achieved, there is still trouble afoot.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/backstop-boris-johnson-brexit-deal-changes-defence-workers-rights
Hey ho...
Just read this on Guardian Live:
'Boris Johnson has said he will win a new Brexit deal at next month’s EU summit by using his “powers of persuasion”, and rejected calls for a further extension to article 50.
The prime minister said he had no plans to accept the new legislation which would require him to write to the EU asking for a “pointless” delay to Brexit, during a visit to Aberdeenshire on Friday.'
Delusional and irresponsible - just one way to describe this character.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/boris-and-donald-two-leaders-afraid-to-do-the-hard-work-of-running-a-country?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1tTJPvXGkZNjsWMTMwJVqCnS4kKOQ4qpD1Onrs-F84u5Ut1oGOUyyqUVA#Echobox=1567751422
I don’t see how a deal is the only way to go, especially if that deal is no good. May’s deal, for instance, was deemed a bad deal. Rather, It would be shooting oneself in the foot to accept a bad deal. The no-deal needs to remain on the table as another option.
“Safe to assume” is not good enough. It was once safe to assume the UK didn’t want to leave the EU. Boy, was that assumption wrong.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/9874598/labour-admit-its-brexit-policy-is-to-negotiate-new-deal-then-reject/
It's pretty straightforward. She believes that the best option is to remain, the second best option is to leave with a deal, and that the worst option is to leave without a deal. She would negotiate a deal to avoid the worst option but would campaign for the best option.
The problem is remain is not an option.
On the issue of Brexit it isn’t, because people voted the exact opposite of remain. That issue has already been settled, though I could see undemocratic forces undoing it, and throwing democracy itself to the wind.
You don't see it because you haven't thought it through.
The content of May's deal wasn't the problem. It was her trying to ram it through parliament without including mps in the discussions during the negotiation process that lead to it being rejected. If she had included representatives of Parliament in the preparations and negotiations the support would have been broad based and the resulting deal would've been pretty much the same. There's not really that many flavours to it, the divorce bill, the recognition of court decisions, recognition of licenses granted by local supervisors and obviously a trade deal.
Party politics wouldn't allow such a thing though because the Tories wanted the recognition as the party that got you Brexit and they chewed off more than they could handle. Welcome to the implosion of the Tories; the irrelevant party for the next generation.
Quoting NOS4A2
The UK didn't want to leave. A statistically insignificant majority of those who voted advised Parliament they wanted to leave the EU. And yes, it is safe to assume that those who voted against Brexit in the referendum would consider it worse to have no agreements in place at all with the EU than at least have some of them remaining. That's safe to assume because it's simple logic not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
As has been pointed out a no deal Brexit ( no idea Brexit) is not and never was a bargaining chip. The EU have always asked us what we want, but we have failed to answer the question. Once the question has been answered the EU will come to a generous accommodation, which protects the four freedoms and doesn't cherry pick benefits enjoyed by members who subscribe to the four freedoms.
The talk about a no deal was always for a domestic audience, to somehow force people to grant what Theresa May was going to present. Or more to the point to appease the rabid leavers in her own party, who were gunning for a no deal right from the beginning. And now with Johnson it is the aim, to leave with a no deal, because if we don't the Conservative party is toast.
The only way to opt out of a bad deal is to walk away from it, “no deal”. It is an important bargaining chip.
The EU already knows what the UK wants, as proven by the referendum: they want out of the EU. The deal aspect has been tacked on after the fact, willy nilly, by someone who always wanted to remain in the EU in the first place.
Thereby undermining his own strategy.
The same Lib Dems who propped up a Tory government for five years?
You're talking out of your ass. The deal aspect hasn't been slapped on willy nilly, it was never the intention of the UK government to leave in an unorganised fashion and the deal was negotiated by the tories who promised Brexit.
You seem to have no clue what leaving the EU involves after such an integration over decades. I'm just going to point out financial services. Just think about the financial services provided by UK financial entities across Europe. You leave without a deal you immediately cause those banks not to be able to offer any type of service in the EU27 and what's more they can't act in primary markets anymore thus closing of business with non-EU investors for European IPOs and (sovereign) debt issuance. LCH would no longer be accepted as a clearing organisation. Just leaving would devastate the UK financial industry.
Well never mind the trolls, never mind the great unwashed, I have very little idea what leaving with no deal means myself, and I am comparatively educated and have taken some small trouble to inform myself.
But it's not great is it? Like, when we make all these new deals with other countries, they will want a quid pro quo same as the EU. The Sovereignty and independence will last s long as it takes to negotiate a trade deal with someone else. The whole independence thing is bullshit from the start. "It's our Amazon" says Belsonaro. As if the atmosphere respects borders. As if the whole thing is a diversionary tactic, and actually, we're all dead anyway.
You’re talking out your ass. The UK government, the EU, and each member state has a plan for if/when a no deal Brexit happens.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-deal_Brexit
Nice.
Yes, the same Lib Dems who opposed Labour's war in Iraq.
Perfectly timed for the Sunday Newspapers. :up:
The point is that a no-deal Brexit does not imply leaving in an unorganized fashion at all, despite your claims to the contrary.
Eerie.
Having to stockpile foodstuffs, medicine and manufacturing components is to mitigate the consequences of an unorganised withdrawal, it doesn't make things organised at all.
Your interest in discussing these matters is just one where you vomit opinions. Have you even read the withdrawal agreement? Can you explain to me the issue about the Irish back stop, why the alternative arrangements will or won't work and what that means for the Good Friday agreements?
If I wasn’t interested in discussing these matters I wouldn’t be discussing them. It seems you just want consensus.
If preparing for a no deal Brexit isn’t organization, I don’t know what is. But sure, if you wish to call that unorganized, I won’t hold it against you.
You can prepare for a hurricane too. Does that make the hurricane organized?
You could call them... Rudderless
:clap:
Read: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/operation-chaos-whitehalls-secret-no-deal-brexit-plan-leaked-j6ntwvhll
+
https://intpolicydigest.org/2019/08/19/no-deal-chaos-the-brexit-cliff-face-and-operation-yellowhammer/
I’m not sure how that is in any way analogous. A hurricane is a natural disaster. Leaving the European Union isn’t.
The point is that contingency plans do not make disasters of any sort organized. They merely try to mitigate the chaos to some degree. The government's own report makes this clear. Just read it—or at least about it.
There are two reasons why we have ended up in this pickle ( well apart from the failure to work cross party which I have already pointed out).
1, the impossibility of squaring the circle of the Irish border problem and squaring the circle of an independent trade policy, while retaining a close relationship with the EU. Something which has become more and more evident as time has gone by.
2, the rabid hard Brexit ambitions of the ERG, which was never going to accept any deal, while having a stranglehold on the government.
I'll let you into a secret, THE ENTIRE BREXIT PROJECT IS A TRAGIC FRACTURING AND PSYCHO DRAMA WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY. Everything else is collateral damage. This has been developing and is well documented for over 40 years.
The withdrawal is unorganized in case of a no deal Brexit, that's doesn't mean people cannot plan to mitigate the consequences of that fall out. Your mistake is to think the latter makes the former organised. It doesn't but this point seems rather obvious.
That’s fair. But I don’t get the unmitigated fears. Article 50 seems pretty straight forward. The only thing that happens is the treaty no longer applies to you. Work out all the kinks after.
I'm from Ireland. The kink here is a potential return to violence. If the UK crashes out with no-deal, there'll have to be a hard border on the island, and that means the Good Friday agreement is down the tubes. That's a deadly serious issue.
I never realized that. Why would the Good Friday agreement go down the tubes?
The Guardian is the para-military wing of the Labour Party.
Well, according to Stanley Johnson, Boris's dad, it doesn't matter because, and I quote, “if the Irish people want to shoot each other, they will shoot each other”.
The British and Irish governments agreed there would be no hard border on the island of Ireland. Free movement north and south. That was part of the compromise that ended the war up there. Dumping that commitment in pursuit of a hard Brexit is as unpincipled as China reneging on its agreements with Britain over Hong Kong.
So, British leavers can huff and puff about a hard Brexit all they want, but they won't get a deal that drags Northern Ireland away from its integrated relationship with the South; and with no-deal off the table, their only other option will be to draw up a customs border between themselves and Northern Ireland. In other words, initiate a de facto break-up of the UK—which would just be the beginning as Scotland would almost certainly desert next with Northern Ireland very possibly then going the whole hog and joining the South).
Ha! "No deal's better than a bad deal"? But realistically no deal is always going to be worse than a deal. A deal worse than no deal is merely hypothetical!
New Labour's, and our current leader opposed it.
Did you know that the current leader of the Lib Dems almost always voted for the bedroom tax, consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices, generally voted against a banker’s bonus tax, almost always voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax, infamously u-turned by having consistently voted for university tuition fees and by voting for raising England’s undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000 per year, consistently voted for ending financial support for some 16-19 year olds in training and further education, consistently voted for selling England’s state owned forests, generally voted against financial incentives for low carbon emission electricity generation methods, generally voted against greater regulation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract shale gas, consistently voted against slowing the rise in rail fares, generally voted against greater regulation of gambling, consistently voted for capping civil service redundancy payments, almost always voted against Labour's anti-terrorism laws, generally voted for the privatisation of Royal Mail, generally voted for restricting the scope of legal aid, and generally voted for the policies included in the 2010 Conservative - Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement?
So, she can't be trusted to support the least financially well off in society, can't be trusted to tackle ruthless capitalism, can't be trusted on national security, can't be trusted on education, and can't be trusted on the environment.
Mic drop.
The only sensible way forward, if we are determined to leave, that I can see is if article 50 is revoked for the purposes of holding a border poll in Northern Ireland and returning to Brexit when that has been sorted out. I know how difficult and divisive this could be, but the cold hard facts are coming to the surface now and the leavers will have to face them.
Well there is another solution, which many in the Labour Party would support is remaining in the single market, so there would be no need for a backstop. But if that is the case surely it is better to remain in the EU, so as to remain a party to the legislature of the EU, rather than in a limbo where we don't have a voice in the EU.
Which everway you turn there are intractable problems like this. More cold hard facts for the leavers to chew on.
Not just the leavers. The undecided. And remainers who might be thinking 'Enough already' - a soft Brexit is better than a hard one. Some compromise to reach a majority is required. Otherwise this will be never-ending. I am not convinced that another referendum or general election will accomplish this.
People and politicians are tired of it all. This is when mistakes happen.
Johnson and co are making this more difficult. However, people are easily hoodwinked by the lies.
They are persuaded by easy rhetoric and believe media messages even as they disbelieve.
I am getting pretty tired of the generalisations and accusations flying around. We need concise facts in easy to understand format before rational decision making. Trouble is that it is more about stirring up emotions. Politicians behaving badly might inspire some to extreme anger and violence. It is grossly irresponsible that Johnson is talking about not following the law.
The cold, hard facts have been around for some time in various reports, some of which are still kept hidden. For the general public, leavers, remainders and the undecided - it is essential that before they vote that the consequences are made absolutely clear. I know some who didn't vote last time because they they didn't know. It is only when it hits home personally in travel, business, jobs or family that it becomes real.
So, who gains from Brexit and how? Rees-Mogg 'the Lying Tory' Brexit Billionaire.
Many people decided based on emotion and basic bus promises.
Immigration and the NHS - two main issues. Do we need to leave the EU to solve the problems ?
No.
Hint: Is it Parliament, or the Queen's Government, which makes laws?
Easy enough to google
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/
Quoting Galuchat
How laws are made:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/
The role of the Queen:
https://www.bmsf.org.uk/about-the-monarchy/the-queen/the-queen-in-the-government/
The whole process is archaic.
The difference between parliament and government:
https://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/parliament-and-government/
What's your point concerning Brexit ?
The answer to my question is found in your third link.
What is Jeremy Corbyn's current condition for agreeing a general election?
Come on.
Spit it out. What is your point ?
Quoting Amity
Which law?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill (HL Bill 202)
That would be a bill, not a law.
And how is Royal Assent obtained in the UK?
The Clerk of the Crown prepares letters patent listing all bills passed by Parliament which are then signed by the Royal Commission.
Stay tuned.
Yes.
It is serious and fraught with dangers.
With no clear answers and no trust in Johnson, how will it be solved ? The latest:
Quoting Jennifer Rankin
Quoting Will Hutton
[ my bolds]
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/01/sheer-scale-of-crisis-facing-britains-constitution-has-been-laid-bare
Quoting Jeremy Cushing
[my bolds]
So, this seems straightforward.The EU v the USA ?
Progress and protect with the more enlightened v Regress with the Hard-Right removing rights.
The rhetoric of 'you are either with us, or against us'.
Is it as simple as that ? We will never walk alone but which path will we follow...
Was there violence when Ireland initially rejected the treaty of Lisbon? What occurred at the border then?
[quote=Corbyn's spokesperson]“The bill that is going to parliament today needs to pass. It needs to pass all its stages. It needs to go through and have royal assent – and once we’re confident they can’t crash out and no deal is taken off the table for 31 October, we will support a general election,” he said.[/quote]
Whether or not Ireland accepted the treaty of Lisbon had no implications whatsoever for the border. We were still all in the EU one way or the other.
Correct.
And what happens if there is no royal assent for the extension bill?
We cut off her head.
There will be.
[quote=https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/]Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1707, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality.[/quote]
Indeed.
Due to past treaties I suppose. So I guess that means only when zero treaties apply, violence begins.
I’m still very sceptical of the Brexit fear mongering. Economic collapse, violence along borders—I don’t see how these fears are warranted, and in fact has contributed to the uncertainty over the past few years. I guess time will tell.
Who said anything about the Monarch refusing royal assent?
There will be. If not, we'll cut off her head. Or maybe stick a red-hot poker up her arse, like we did to Edward II.
You presuppose it is impossible the bill wouldn't receive Royal Assent without the Monarch refusing assent.
No, I'm presupposing that the bill will receive Royal Assent because it's passed both Houses.
You presuppose much.
It's a warranted presupposition. There's no reason to believe that it won't receive Royal Assent. It's passed both Houses.
It's also by the same reasoning that I am warranted in believing that the Queen will appoint as Prime Minister the leader of the party which commands a majority in Parliament after the next General Election (or the leader of the largest party should Parliament be hung and a majority attained by coalition or confidence and supply agreement), and not some random backbencher in a minority party.
But perhaps you could be a little less vague and explain to me what it is you think could happen to prevent the Bill receiving Royal Assent because as it stands I have no idea what you're trying to suggest.
Well, I suppose we could end up a republic before the Queen gives Royal Assent, but that's not a realistic possibility. The only realistic possibility is what Micheal just said.
What about the final third?
I expect a proportion of them are looking on in horror, and some are so bored they just want to jump of the cliff, just to end it.
Yes, I bear that in mind, and I apologise to that "third", I didn't mean them.
For example Johnson simply needs to meet the EU leaders and insult them in person and they will find it difficult not to respond with an insult and to then grant the extension which he doesn't want.
Frankly, at this level I would like to expect EU politicians to be above such cheap tricks.
I hope you are right. I worry about president Macron, he has political tensions at home, any sign of weakness might not go down well.
I haven't seen any good explanations of why Boris can kick people out of the conservative party. I'm pretty sure it's not a power prime ministers (or the leader of the party) have in most other party systems; more people would be involved to kick someone out (if it's possible at all, considering citizen party members voted for them). Or am I missing some detail such as Boris controlling the "kick out committee" or that the MP's in question technically quit? In other countries, kicking a single person out of the party would be a pretty complicated process and a scandal if it's for "just voting against the PM", but it seems to have passed as a completely normal event kicking 20 MP's out. Or is there just too much other chaos to dwell on this detail? Am genuinely confused. Drop a link if there's a good article about it.
The other thing is the threat of deselection.
So they are not actually kicked out of the party, they merely lose their jobs and become mere peasants in it.
However if he gets his general election before the deadline all he has to do is agree an election pact with the Brexit party and he's laughing, or so he thinks. Because it will result in a fatal split in the Conservative party.
The opposition smells a rat and won't agree to an election until after the deadline, which fatally weakens Johnson, as the Brexit party will then demolish the Conservative party. Thus ushering in a Corbyn government.
I think you mean the opposite. He's also been accused of a failure of political correctness towards women and a tendency to bullying. His popularity will soar with his resignation, which is clearly timed to ensure that the new speaker is elected by the current parliament and not a possible post election Johnson Government.
He was a hardcore remainer, is what I mean.
Whoops, yes. Thanks for the correction.
Ha. I knew Macron would be difficult.
A massive europhile, difficult? Never!
Will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Interesting. I've always spelt this as 'stymie'. But apparently this is OK too. Cool.
The actual ruling does spell it as "stymie", although "stymy" is valid too.
Just working out how to upload photos, this is a cartoon I did lastnight
One criticism though; the buses are missing the "£350 million" sign.
Yes, I try to keep the cartoons simple, I have a tendency to put to much information in them.
Government response to Humble Address Motion
Some important bits (will update as I read them):
There's a redacted section that an earlier leak provides:
Here is a more racy cartoon from the day Rees Mogg went to Balmoral.
It must be a summary. It's way too short for the proper assessment. Interestingly a senior editor of the Sunday Times said she received a copy of this last month and it was labelled as a base assessment whereas this one says it's a worse case scenario. Did they edit this before release?
This is point 15:
Prorogation means he avoids regular Parliamentary scrutiny. Important Investigative Select Committees are not held. Yesterday the cowardly PM took to Facebook.
From the satirical politics sketch:
Quoting John Crace
Talking of Facebook.This.
'Data, Democracy and Dirty Tricks'.
Quoting Jon Snow
Excellent 6 minutes worth. Covering constitutional crises in both UK and USA and the issue of freedom of speech.
https://www.channel4.com/news/roger-mcnamee-facebooks-business-model-of-converting-peoples-lives-into-data-is-morally-wrong
Two legal systems - two different outcomes.
Quoting Editorial
If the matter of prorogation is 'not justiciable' then how can it be properly and effectively contested.
Parliament has been shut down, so where can it go...?
We wait and see.
SNP’s Joanna Cherry: ‘I would be cautiously optimistic Supreme Court will follow lead of Scottish court’
https://www.channel4.com/news/snps-joanna-cherry-i-would-be-cautiously-optimistic-supreme-court-will-follow-lead-of-scottish-court
Quoting Owen Bowcott
Edit to add.
Correction from Guardian Live:
'Here is our latest story on the judgment from the high court in Belfast on Brexit. I’ve corrected the earlier post on this (see 11.38am) because it said the prorogation legal challenge was thrown out.
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.'
If it's not justiciable then short of a violent rebellion, what stops a malicious government from proroguing Parliament indefinitely? For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful.
I would hope there are other means other than violence. That would play into their hands.
Joanna Cherry ( in the Channel 4 interview ) remarks that the action to shut down Parliament so as to avoid scrutiny of the damaging effects of Brexit is more like that of a fascist dictatorship.
There is another aspect being played out.
Johnson is angling for 'the People v Parliament' where he is at one with the 'People'.
Next up, will it be 'the People v the Courts' ?
'We spoke to former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption and asked him whether we are now facing a constitutional crisis.' From:
https://www.channel4.com/news/lord-sumption-we-havent-yet-got-to-the-people-against-the-courts-maybe-well-get-there-one-day
Well, at least the Scottish Parliament is still open for business.
'Nicola Sturgeon has said the Scottish government’s copy of the Yellowhammer no-deal Brexit scenario plans was marked “base scenario”, disputing claims by Michael Gove that the documents were a worst case scenario.
Sturgeon told first minister’s questions at Holyrood it was “completely outrageous” that the UK government was contemplating a situation where medicines would be in short supply. She said it was essential that Westminster was urgently reconvened, to allow MPs to question ministers on Brexit and the Yellowhammer forecasts.
The first minister told MSPs:
The question for the prime minister and the government is why on earth parliament is still suspended - if any government needed scrutiny, it’s this one.'
Why is he getting away with all this utter bullshit ? Another huge waste of time, money and resources.
I was right in what I said earlier.
I was watching him on the TV lastnight playing with some kids with a model container ship, he was just like a two year old toddler playing with toys.
Quoting Michael
This: 'For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful.'
I agree with your thoughts on this. As with the final Scottish legal opinion.
Meanwhile Johnson and team have misrepresented the finding of the English court as being for them. It is not. And is now under appeal.
We must wait for the UK supreme court. There is to be a 3 day hearing, starting on 17th September to look at all 3 appeals from Edinburgh, Belfast and London.
Let's not be tempted to make this all about Johnson. There is another thread specially for him. It's easy to mix them up. Another thing I am guilty of is simply reporting the latest news. I forget where I am.
Should we not be bringing in, and connecting, the philosophical perspective more than the political and legal ?
At least, we are talking about 'democracy' and issues of media and social manipulation.
Otherwise, this thread could just as easily be swept into a Lounge area? *
Just thinking aloud...
* Scrap all that. I see this thread is under 'Interesting stuff'- politics and current affairs not political philosophy :smile:
Exactly.
Proroguing parliament - what a wheeze, eh?
As well as avoiding scrutiny of a Hard Brexit, prorogation gives more time for the photo ops with children, bulls, police, fish and whatever as the PM tours the country electioneering.
A benevolent dictatorship?
What has happened to the Conservative Party?
There might be not many that have actually voted for them (yes, I understand this is a Philosophy Forum), yet for a foreigner it looks that the party simply doesn't look like the one that was in power during the time of Thatcher and John Major. Especially it doesn't look conservative to me.
What do people think is the reason for this?
[math]Brexit + Trump = \frac {Boris Johnson} {Dominic Cummings}[/math]
It's an interesting question and a complex answer. I would suggest two movements both originating in the US, and influencing through Thatcher and Blair primarily. The Thatcher effect is basically the neoliberal turn exemplified by 'there's no such thing as society'. - an ideological individualism justified by some Rand/ social darwinian philosophy. The Blair effect is basic populism, there is only one inviolable principle, 'get elected' - spin becomes fake news.
The combination of individualism and amoral power seeking results in social collapse.
I too believe that there is something of a more general phenomenon working here than just something unique to British politics. In Europe the main problem is that there hasn't been a proper way or entity to critique the flaws or the shortcomings of the EU integration and EU itself from conservative/right-wing stance leading to populist "fringe" movements taking over the issue, typically new political movements or parties that are basically defined just by their anti-EU stance and not much else centered around one politician. EU has only tolerated a pro-integration federalist discourse and paints anything else as "nationalist". As the political elites have gone along with this (with perhaps the exception of the UK starting with Thatcher), criticism has been left to the previous "fringe" populists. The outcome has been obvious: in many countries the political landscape has changed and especially centrist parties are having a tough time. And sometimes the populists can take over a right-wing party (as they can a moderate left-wing party too).
Both in the US and in the EU the neoliberal development, globalization, has not only been criticized from the left, but also from the right, which is now obvious several years to the Trump administration. Neither the left or the right are happy with the power of lobbyists and corporations in present have. This can easily morph into populist anti-elitism. Once this populism gets into the political discourse, you are far away from consensus building and normal politics etc. as the last thing populists try to reach is a political consensus on the policies.
The thing is, there has been, and still is, very little substantive criticism of the EU. Much of what is touted as "criticism" is, in fact, either nationalism or straight up lies. A sizeable portion of the people who voted for Brexit probably have nationalistic ideas. Just like a lot of the people who voted for Trump do agree with his stances on race, gender and nationalism.
The truth about the EU is that a lot of it's faults, like the power of the commission and the relative lack of democratic legitimacy, exist because they work in favour of the national governments. They give those governments the power to push through unpopular legislation, with the added benefit of being able to later blame the EU and lament it's faults.
And yet there are European countries part of the EU that are less democratic. The democratic deficit of the EU has been exaggerated for years now following a German constitutional court decision referring to a democratic deficit. But that turned on the matter that there's no real way to reconcile representation of the electorate (EU Parliament) with equal representation of states in international affairs (European Council and Council of Ministers). Both bodies need to approve laws even if the appointed Commission (by elected officials) is the body initiating bills.
That is how the debate is portrayed, unfortunately.
The real problem is that you need to be critical to improve things, but if you assume that every criticism is some kind of nationalist lie, you won't go far. The only "criticism" that is tolerated is that the federalization program hasn't gone far enough and we need more integration, which is simply one agenda that is pushed in the EU.
There's actually a lot of criticism directed towards the EU starting up with the bureaucracy of the organization, the lack of transparency, the peculiar illogical things like the EU Parliament hopping from Brussels to Strasbourg and back. Or things like Greece could outright lie of it's fiscal situation in order to wiggle it's way to the monetary union (and that people believed that with monetary union the countries would start acting in the same way). How well could the EU handle the Yugoslav civil war? The EU was totally incapable of doing anything. How well is the EU managing now it's foreign policy? Turkey wants to occupy parts of Syria and if it doesn't get it's way, it has hinted that it will open it's gates for more refugees to enter the EU. And what just is the EU? For years the EU was basically a large organization for handing out agricultural subsidies (and still is, actually).
The real problem is that what the EU needs is self-criticism and a debate how to improve it, which way should it go. It's hardly not only about two options: a) the EU has to be formed to be like the US or b) It's a monstrosity that has to be done away with quickly.
Quoting Echarmion
Why would this be a surprise? The EU was formed by national governments. It's wasn't formed by Napoleon (or Hitler), but with genuinely sovereign states coming together and through co-operation between them. Why then do you find this to be the problem? It's like some movie fans creating a fan club and then someone coming and objecting to the fact that the fan club is made of movie fans!
David Cameron travelled to Europe in 2015 to explain to the leaders of the EU 27 and the commissioners that this was a serious and growing issue and that he was seeking some kind of remedy, otherwise it could result in a referendum to leave. He pressed his case hard but the EU was unable to provide sufficient flexibility. I can't see how they could have prevented this crisis by showing sufficient flexibility, as they are to rigid. So this outcome was inevitable and yet the EU appeared helpless to adapt to a changing world, or to have sufficient foresight when they welcomed in the Eastern European countries, to put in place rules which would enable members to mitigate issues brought about by such expansion.
It seems now, following the publication of David Cameron's memoirs, that many people did not realise the strength of the hard right within the Conservative party. Or how much leverage they would find once the referendum was announced. He was surprised how ugly the campaign became and depressed watching the groundswell of anti EU sentiment which developed. In the three areas of, right wing anti EU Conservatives, the population in East Anglia and Lincolnshire who experienced the influx of EU workers and the right wing populist movement in the north of England and the West Country.
Agree. I am not an expert on the EU. Some here obviously have more political savvy and personal experience. However, there is value in Google and Wikipedia for starters in Eurosceptism:
' The main sources of Euroscepticism have been beliefs that integration undermines national sovereignty and the nation state, that the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency,that it is too bureaucratic and wasteful, that it encourages high levels of migration, or perceptions that it is a neoliberal organisation serving the business elite at the expense of the working class, responsible for austerity and driving privatization...'
[ my bolds ]
Note well, 'beliefs'. Where is the evidence? How does it compare to the nation states ?
Who is it that is responsible for the austerity policies ? Which party is it that is now promising money and resources from the money tree they didn't have before?
Quoting Punshhh
'Freedom of movement' is important. I think it vital that it continues but with constraints where necessary. Did the UK not already have the power to control the more troubling aspects ?
Why blame the EU ? It encompasses more than the 'they are taking our jobs' and 'benefit scroungers'.
It is not just a one way process.
Quoting ssu
Agreed. Does this not happen ? What are the mechanisms? Who would win the argument and using what evidence? What are the other options ?
Quoting Punshhh
Why not ? Was it simply a power struggle - a feeling of being under attack ? So much of this is phrased in terms of aggression and war. Johnson now apparently bringing the Hulk into it. His colourful language is not helping matters. He may be flexing his imaginary muscles but flexibility in thought is beyond him and the extreme right-wing contingent. And yet, they accuse others. It's all a bit like bullies in the playground.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/15/hulk-actor-smashes-pms-attempt-at-incredible-metaphor
Also perhaps the EU should have considered such consequences when forming the union better than they did, or revised policy when enlarging the EU. I see no sign of any flexibility here.
I agree there is, or so I've heard, more the UK could have done, but didn't. But the perception was that there wasn't.
This analogy doesn't work. The EU passes laws which often have direct effect in the national legal order even if national legislators fail to implement it in time. Fan clubs don't affect those around them in a similar way.
Laws require legitimacy to be acceptable. Since the EU countries are all reportedly democracies that legitimacy is expected to be democratic. As pointed out above, the EU's legitimacy issue is finding the balance between the equality of nations and representative democracy of the electorate. It's not, and hasn't been since 1979, a club of only states and their national interests.
The EU has fraud issues both at the national level where EU subsidies are spent and within the EU organisation itself. At the same time, I don't think the EU apparatus itself is very expensive considering what it does when compared to, for instance, US institutions with similar functions. Except for the parliament and european council and council of ministers there might be misspending but the budgets are still relatively tight.
I think the issue here was that it wasn't an opt out, which you decide before signing up to an aspect of the EU legal regime but an attempt to renegotiate what was already agreed. This isn't too much of an issue where it concerns contributions to the EU, which is a continuous negotiation, but it's different when you want to change existing laws. If you allow renegotiating on a case-by-case basis you create a precedent that's not wanted for a political project that intends to integrate European countries.
It's not as if the Netherlands doesn't have people grumbling about foreigners (Polish or otherwise) but we don't blame this on the EU for the most part (only about 20% of voters does).
Also, thinking about it, it's also a sort of cognitive dissonance: EU please solve our problem by giving us special treatment but also stop butting in.
Except I left out 'vote' in 'their vote'. it is an extra-ordinary instance of how people can get hugely worked up about something they'd never bothered about before, isn't it!
Could you explain why that's problematic? Is it a problem with resources to accommodate the immigrants?
The only way forward on EU immigration issues would be a comprehensive review of the immigration rules for every member state, not bespoke exemptions.
Also, Turkey is "the next country" to join for 20 years now. It's not going to happen any time soon. It's not in Turkey's interest to do so and it's not politically viable for the EU either. It's raised as a spectre often enough
It's a problem because studies show that the contributions of EU migrant workers constitute a net benefit to the UK economy, and a good economy is a bad thing apparently, because errrrgh, foreigners, get out arrrr maaaah couuunnntttry!!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/16/rnli-donations-surge-tory-criticism-work-overseas-lifeboat-charity?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR19IvevbkhBo9N2QsV4_gwqlx0kHVUvmOZbyapfyobWzAwR0VbS4bBoEww#Echobox=1568642677
* by saturation point, I mean the numbers are causing the towns, shops, businesses to change and become like the towns in the country they came from.
Yes I'm aware of the status of Turkey and that it is unlikely to join now. I used it as an example as it was exploited in the leave campaign.
In that respect I think your point that the EU appears blind to the consequences of expansion is far more accurate. It is a political vision to have the entirety of continental Europe included in the EU but it's a vision that's not shared by the EU27 electorate. Politicians and public servants are probably also moved by prestige; "I'm the one that got country X in the EU" so these things move forward inexorably - too far removed from common voters.
I suspect in this case then that the inviolable nature of the four freedoms, is in a collision course with the realities of this expansion and that welcoming the UK in the the 1970's was one instance where this collision of opposing forces was going to end in the circumstances we find ourselves in. Perhaps this is the beginning of a trend.
Quoting Benkei
A divided vision. How to manage ?
It is not the case that the EU is blind to the problems of expansion. The problem might be that some people can make such blind assumptions and run with them.
The trouble is when the anti-EU brigade, like Farage, start to demean and destroy the EU from within its system.That is what I don't get. It troubles me.
Here's what I found:
How to govern a fragmented EU: What Europeans said at the ballot box.
The results of the European Parliament election confront EU leaders with a considerable challenge: navigating a new, more fragmented, and polarised political environment.
+Summary+Introduction+The post-political family map+The new political geography+The new policy map+Conclusion+Country analysis
[my bolds]
https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/how_to_govern_a_fragmented_eu_what_europeans_said_at_the_ballot_box
Coming from the promised land of associations I can assure you the metaphor of movie fans and a movie fan club works very well. I do understand that your point is that EU can make legislation over the member states, yet this happens all the time with international agreements too. Basically to be a UN member state limits the sovereignty of countries... at least theoretically. But my point was something more basic.
You see, it's one thing for a group of movie fanatics to meet and watch movies together. It's a totally other thing when they decide to form an association, basically a legal person, with the idea that the association can organize events better. Yet once when that fan club exists, be it a formal association or not, it has a separate agendas from a single movie fan. Will the association continue? Where will it get it's members and are more members needed or not? Will it have enough money to operate? Will it try to organize something else, like trips to movie festivals or whatever? And now of course it has to have some kind of a staff, let's say a secretary and a chairperson. Even if these are movie fans themselves, they have a separate job now to take care of the club.
Yet let's not forget the movie fans, now the members of the new glorious association. For them to be a member of the association is just a tool for their convenience. They get something out of the membership. If the fan club doesn't give them anything, if they would be better simply watching movies themselves, then why shouldn't they opt for that?
This is something that is many times forgotten in the EU debate: the EU is just a tool for it's member states. Nothing else. The members states could co-operate even without it. It isn't an existential institution: if the EU would collapse Europe wouldn't go to war with itself as it did earlier. The EU doesn't exist because there are people hell bent on defending it and willing even giving their life for it. There wasn't and surely isn't an ideological grass roots movement that made the EU. Yes, the EU surely does have it's support, even I think of myself being a supporter of the EU and voted to join the union, yet that support didn't grow from an independent movement. The EU (or the EEC and earlier agreements) were concocted by leaders and top politicians of nation states, like Adenauer, De Gasperi, Schuman and Monnet. And I should add that it was a quite rational and logical concoction after the pile of millions of killed in Europe in WW1 and in it's sequel WW2. Still, the whole process has been right from the start a top-down process and has been done with the sovereign nation states firmly at the helm.
Hence to say that EU's problem is that the nation states have too much power totally ignores from where and how the EU has been created. It shows a lack of historical understanding of just how states form and how they differ from other institutions.
Of course one alternative line exists: And that is just to be happy what the EU is now and not go forward with even more integration. Why wouldn't the EU of the present work? You can improve small things (transparency, efficiency etc.), but not totally organize it to be something else. Accept that the EU is far more EEC than a federation and totally different from the United States of America. Having open borders inside the EU and border controls on the outer frontiers generally works OK, especially if one prepares for actors like Turkey deliberately opening the flood gates of refugees. One doesn't need to break up EU.
I haven't been watching. But I hope to catch up soon.
Here's the 3 day timetable:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/timetable-of-proceedings.html
The Supreme Court Live:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
People who feel like they're losing their culture are worth sympathy. It's potentially a source of volatility.
It would be better to guard the old culture through immigration control than to expose the immigrants to violence.
In the US, we're pretty much made of the invading immigrants. We already mostly destroyed the original culture.
It will be interesting to see what transpires in the Supreme Court. At the heart of the case seems to be the dividing line between the court's jurisdiction and the government's. There has been much talk about Boris's motives for proroguing parliament, and whether they are valid. But surely the point of law is whether and to what extent a PM is allowed to prorogue, whatever his reason. Under our nebulous unwritten constitution, as I understand it, precedent says he can, but only for a few weeks for the conference season. So what if he decides to prorogue for longer? He can always justify any decision as political, so unless the court stipulates a maximum time limit what is to stop a PM from closing parliament for as long as he wants, certainly until after October 31st? An unwritten constitution requires politicians to play by those unwritten rules. Sadly, in the age of populism, ends alone matter, not means; so will a written constitution inevitably be the result?
The British came here from the Basque Country as the ice melted. A few foreigners have appeared from time to time since, but other than changing the language they were mostly a few gangsters stealing the land or mercenary troops like the Germans who didn't make serious differences. The people in the south east like to pretend they are somehow the people who've conquered them, but I don't see why we should believe it, any more than we should pretend that 'England' was the only country on earth that not only gave up Christianity for paganism, but for a foreign paganism. I think we are still basically the same people as we ever were, British.
Ah yes, the good old days when the ice was melting and Doggerland was flooding... I remember it well.
Especially when the term and (the layered identity) started to be used only from the late 17th Century onwards and Britishness started to be used in the middle of the 19th Century.
The appeal is contending that the Prime minister, acted improperly in prorouging, because his motive was to prevent (stymie) Parliament so as to avoid the risk that parliament could interfere, or stop his free reign to enact his policies.
The argument for the defence is essentially that the prime minister has free reign to proroge for whatever purpose, for as long as he likes, and whenever he wants. And that the courts can't stray into his powers to do it, because it is a political act and would breach the separation of powers.
There are serious flaws in the argument for the defence in my opinion,
Firstly, it is well established in law that no one is above the law, so if the Prime minister acts unlawfully, he can be sanctioned by the court.
Secondly, it is established that the executive(government), is accountable to parliament, as sovereignty rests in parliament and not the executive. So if the exectitive silences parliament to continue on a course for which it does not have parliamentary consent, this relationship becomes reversed. The tail is wagging the dog, rendering the constitution broken. So the Supreme Court must sanction the Prime minister so as to maintain, or protect the constitution.
Third, if they rule in favour of the defence, the government, then the prime minister will have free reign to proroge again on the 14th of October ( when parliament is due to return) until after the 31st of October, enabling the Prime minister to take the UK out of The EU with no deal, simply by inaction and parliament and the Queen would be powerless to stop him. Well I think the Queen could refuse him, but it would compromise her impartiality. So the Supreme Court must sanction the Prime minister so as to protect the Queen and therefore the Crown.
Fourth, I think it can be argued that sanctioning the Prime minister for certain conduct is not actually becoming embroiled in politics, but rather protecting the systems and working of parliament, so as to maintain parliamentary sovereignty. And the proper working of the constitution.
So I can't see how the Supreme Court could do anything other than to find the Prime minister to have acted unlawfully and sanction his powers.
Im looking forward to the intervention of John Major tomorrow.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-boris-johnson-deal-plan-deadline-ultimatum-latest-a9111066.html
At least we'll know before Halloween.
Also shows up Johnson's empty threat of no-deal to gain traction in negotiations - the Europeans have called his bluff.
What's really amazing is that BJ's popularity (in the UK, and more so in the conservative base) seems to be going up in all this.
Is BJ successfully creating the dynamic of complete incoherent expectations from his followers and they will defend him come-what-may (there will always be others to blame, a la Trump)? Or is that not his plan, and his plan is just going horribly wrong ... but support increases anyways? Or is there real potential for 5D chess with the EU, Labour, competitors within his party? Or will there be comeuppance from his followers when he fails to deliver Brexit?
On this side of the North Sea, Brexit has just become a side-show running joke, there is no longer any ideological stakes or even much worry about consequential relevance at play (hence the "show us this deal now then or then go away"). Are there any viable end-points for BJ, if not in terms of reasonable policy, at least for his followers?
I would put that down to wishful thinking, soon to be mugged by reality.
Today's timetable. https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/timetable-of-proceedings.html
Also, link to written cases on behalf of the parties and interveners:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-case-submissions.html
10:30 to 11:00
Oral Intervention by Scottish Government in Cherry/Miller, The Lord Advocate - James Mure QC (30 minutes)
11:00 to 11:40
Oral Intervention by NI Claimant (McCord) in Cherry/Miller, Ronan Lavery QC (40 minutes)
11:40 to 12:10
Oral Intervention by Counsel General for Wales, Mike Fordham QC (30 minutes)
12:10 to 12:30 Oral Intervention on behalf of Sir John Major, Lord Garnier QC (20 minutes)
14:00 to 14:30
Appellants reply for Advocate General for Scotland from Inner House in Cherry, Lord Keen QC (30 minutes)
14:30 to 15:00
Appellants reply for Miller, Lord Pannick QC (30 minutes)
Britannia was the name of the Country when it was part of the Roman Empire. There must surely have been some reason, like being British?
This is the rise of populism in the UK. Very sad. Nietzsche spoke of 'slave morality', which unlike 'master morality' is not driven by lofty aims and theorems, but expediency. The ignorant Brexiteer masses don't care about the law or constitution, they just want out of the EU, and as Boris has chosen to champion that simplistic end they support him; thus he's won back hard-line ex-Tories from the Brexit party. Much is spoken now about identity politics, and it's clear that many Brexiteers are now so scared of 'their' referendum result being ignored that they no longer care about the problems of no-deal, they just want their democratic outcry acted upon at any cost. It's the rise of cartoon, black-and-white politics, the dumbing down of debate and the hyping of one-line emotive tropes based usually on fear. We now have a simplistic one-line Brexit policy from the Lib Dems. How long until Labour follows?
So I don't think there's much chance of Boris's popularity waning in a sudden outbreak of enlightened debate and a realisation of the facts of the situation among Brexiteers. The only hope is that parliament - which is the repository of sense in this battle - can frustrate his do-or-die Brexit, and, longer term, push for a full written constitution to set down the limits of the PM's powers and stop him playing dictator again. Whatever happens, I expect Boris will still find a way to say he was frustrated by the 'Remainer parliament' (lies: do the sums..) and keep most supporters on board. He's learned a lot from Trump..
Just like the Romans called one place Germania. Copied in the similar way. Yet Modern Germany and 'the Germans' is even a younger thing than the talk about the British. I assure you that during Roman times there weren't Germans as we know now living there. There is a difference between 'the Germans' and 'Germanic tribes'.
I agree here, but my wonder is how sustainable this position is.
For instance, to contrast to Trump, Trump supporters have almost zero expectations of what Trump will do other than continue to be Trump. The few places where Trump supporters want delivery, Trump has a lot of power to deliver: crack down on immigrants.
Whereas for BJ, if the expectation is to deliver Brexit in a way that's "good for the economy", and he doesn't deliver (Brexit doesn't happen or then hard Brexit happens and his supporters are surprised things don't improve), will his support continue?
In other-words, is his support dissociated with reality as with Trump (ohh, he's paying a porn star for sex ... hmm, must be the reincarnation of an old testament king that God uses as an instrument of divine intervention from time to time; pretty raunchy times the old testament).
Though it's a truism on the left that Brexit mirrors Trumpianism, and there are similar issues for sure, I am not yet ready to give the British so little credit as to be in a Trumpian level delusion (in the sense of "enough supporters"); but I don't have my finger on the pulse of UK culture, clearly the Brexit delusion has been propped up so far, but it's not completely immune to reality (which is why it's dragged on so far; maintaining a status of fringe EU purgatory while pretending to negotiate are necessary conditions to support the Brexit delusion, but are conditions that aren't stable) and so the question arises when, what conditions, the illusion would turn to disillusionment and what do BJ supporters do after that?
It might not, but are we able to really answer your question? How are the Brexiteers depicted in the UK?
Brexit and Trump are phenomena were the left simply lost and things didn't go as planned for the ruling elite. Both the Republican and the Conservative party are in disarray. The heart of the support for both Brexit and Trump is in that they gave a giant middle finger to the establishment. Since giving that middle finger succeeded, the supporters are just happy about it and think that little details like political decisions afterwards don't matter so much. They won't leave their baby.
You see both Brexit and Trump are seen as under threat from the left by their supporters: There is the threat that Brexit is cancelled (theoretically at least) and that Trump is impeached (also very theoretical) and the power-elite simply rule out, erase away both voted results. And this 'threat' gives the headphones both to Trumpists and Brexiteers to hear only a ferocious rant from the left in the media, supported by the powers that be, to further this agenda, not genuine criticism of where the policies of Trump and the Brexiteers actually lead the two countries.
In fact both Trump and Brexit need a constant outrage and criticism from the media to gain support.
I don't know the US scene, but isnt Trump the guarantor of all the male white-collar industrial jobs that globalism and immigration threaten? Hence trade wars to defend US companies.
Quoting boethius
No, Brexit won't be good economically, no-one believes it will. But we will muddle through, and Boris will find some way to blame international trading conditions or the EU for being malicious. Populist voters have very short memories. Their support, as with Trump, is based on trust rather than anything deeper. They trust him to keep the foreigners out and believe in such simplistic fallacies as optimism to make things work. (They can understand that; unlike all the economic arguments). You may be right that Boris's come-uppance will be swift - but Trump's almost at re-election point and his house of cards hasn't fallen down yet..
Imagine that: the “ignorant Brexiteer masses” want what they voted for. That seems to me such a strange concept nowadays, especially given the refusal to deliver the results and the routine snobbery and fear mongering that justifies its disruption.
Trump is right. Our self-anointed elites are not so elite, and in fact never were. They just act like it on stage. Brexit and anti-Trumpism proves their cowardice and weakness and their waning grip on power.
Not again. Over half of Brexit voters don't want a no deal Brexit. So at most 25% of those who voted in the referendum for Brexit are in favour of no deal. The vote in the referendum was basically split so a vast majority of those who voted are against a no deal Brexit.
Oh, here we go. I wasn’t speaking of deal/no deal, but remain and leave.
Salt-of-the-earth English Brexiteers:
vs. remainer elites:
Quoting NOS4A2
Clearly.
Didn’t Johnson vote to remain? Cameron? Theresa May?
Boris Johnson is the current PM. He campaigned and voted to leave and is now trying to leave.
I know who Johnson is, just didn’t know which way he voted. I found a more accurate answer.
Most of those in power voted to remain. The people voted otherwise.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946
The dichotomy here is not between the elites and the masses. The masses are split down the middle and so are the elites. And when an argument is as easy to parody as yours, that's a good indication it's a bad argument. (See again below).
Quoting NOS4A2
Sure, and when I give you 48% of my money, I keep it all to myself and you get nothing.
The vote shows that no, the masses are not split down the middle. One side had more votes than the other.
We’re talking about a vote, not the change in your pocket.
The vote was approximately 50/50 (51.9 vs 48.1), i.e. split down the middle. Not enough difference to unqualifiedly designate one side as 'the masses' or 'the people'. Is that not obvious to you?
The people had a vote. The majority voted to leave. Leave is therefore the people’s decision. That’s how democracy works. It’s not so difficult to figure out.
Yes, I agree there is no "answer" ... for now. However, we will find out as events unfold, people can have feelings and insight that is interesting or useful regardless of whether they can prove it.
But I am not asking how they are depicted in the UK, I'm asking what they might actually do if Brexit either doesn't happen at all or there is a crash-out (and the consequences are obviously and immediately negative). It would seem to us that his supporters would abandon him in these events.
Of course, that doesn't exclude a crash-out but amazing Brexit experience or some awesome deal coming out of BJ at the last moment and if not saves the day at least saves face. Of course, these events would merit more support, a leader leading the way.
Trumpianism is characterized by supporters largely just ignoring events and living in a world where "Trump is a good leader" is an irrefutable belief.
It's a truism on the left that Brexiters are similar, but I am doubtful of this claim; it is not a world view immune to events. There is a false faith in Brexit delivering positive outcomes (it's epistemologicaly possible, sure, just not likely), but there is not a world view so false that a disastrous Brexit will be cheered as a victory nor cancelling or a Brexit-lite being re-interpreted as what they wanted all along. At least, that's what I think.
But even if I think this way, maybe there is evidence that I'm wrong, and even if I'm right it leaves the question of what Brexit supporters will actually do vis-a-vis different events unfolding. People can't really prove anything, but they may have feelings and insight about it.
Quoting ssu
It is not simple, partly for reasons that are even contained in your statement: both the left and the ruling elite lost!?
I'll have to get back to this, as it's interesting to delve into. To quickly summarize, Trump and Brexit are not "simple losses" for the left, they are a new kind of political phenomena (in our political time at least).
Though Trump has emerged from a trend of reality-denial fostered by the right, there is no longer even the pretense of plausible connection to reality and reason. Yes, this is a loss for the left if defined as any honest attempt to understand what is true, but "conservatives" are not defined by a rejection of reality; it happens that Trump is republican but republicans can also prefer reality and still not be left (maybe I think they are wrong, and maybe they really are, but they maybe honestly so and just as frightened by a wholesale rejection of reality and reason as anyone on the left -- in otherwords, Trump supporters are a new constituency that shares only the same name as the previous constituency).
Brexit is driven by a few related issues to Trumpianism, but not really. Part of the argument for Brexit was more money for the NHS?! I.e. more and better socialism. Brexit is also simply not as high stakes as Trump; leaving the EU isn't remotely on the same level as putting a person like Trump in charge of nuclear weapons (and BJ is far from Trump in composure, basic ability to reason, connection to reality; maybe he wants a bit of that Trump sause boosting him up, but he's not unhinged, erratic and self contradictory, with zero respect for the rule of law). He is a fairly normal politician with a fairly good education and ability to make convincing argument through speech, maybe not good but plausible (there's just no comparison to Trump).
Brexit is more a historical train wreck, that is not lethal, but could have been easily prevented on numerous occasions and makes a bumpy ride for the occupants on the train; and the lesson is the engineers driving the train shouldn't suddenly ask the passengers if "they really think trains need tracks, show of hands everyone! We're totally willing to try off-roading this train to settle the issue, fingers crossed!"
You'd be more convincing if you made at least a minimal effort to recognize the nuances of the situation. I'm not sure what purpose your posts serve otherwise. Anyway, carry on.
I was pushing back against the sneering about the “the ignorant Brexiteer masses”. But the double standards are noted.
Previously, you didn't know what the backstop, the main obstacle to securing a deal, was. Now you've shown you didn't know Boris Johnson supported Brexit despite the fact he was one of the biggest names in the Leave campaign and, according to many commentators, the main reason the vote got over the line. And you constantly give the impression you don't understand how close the vote was. If I ever come into a conversation about anything with this lack of background knowledge, it will either be because I'm helplessly drunk or otherwise have lost my senses completely. What's your excuse? Why are you here?
It’s not so much “ignoring events” as it is ignoring the persistent fear mongering and prophesies about the future, none of which has yet to come true. You worry about Trump with nuclear weapons or a sinking economy with Brexit, and none of that is derived from reality, but from propaganda.
I love politics. I have no ulterior motives and no amount of projection will change that.
You do realize Brexit hasn't come true either?
I’m well aware of that. It’s amazing how long it has taken. It truly is a scar on the face of democracy.
The fear is about what happens after, and they are reasonable fears from what I tell, which is why a majority of UK politicians are trying to prevent it and why the EU is calling BJ's bluff.
Could the fears be overblown and overstated, often by those who who have vested interest in doing so?
It cannot be that bad of a situation. In fact it presents a great opportunity, all while regaining sovereignty from a sclerotic bureaucracy, which is the most important issue of all.
Let's say both with Brexit and in the GOP primaries things didn't go as planned. At least the Democrats could handle the somewhat similar revolt by containing the popular Bernie Sanders, but the Republican party didn't and Trump's win came especially to Trump as a surprise (which is evident from his pre-election night posturing). Same thing with Brexit: those who issued the referendum in the first place were endorsing the "remain camp" and got a nasty surprise. That the left lost simply comes from the fact that there's no dispute what the leanings of the Trump supporters and Brexiteers are. Now populism can get a stranglehold on the left too, but this time it's right-wing populism.
Quoting boethius
Indeed it's a new phenomena, I agree with that.
And also traditional values both of the left and the right are in change. Traditional conservatism is far away from Trump and anti-EU populism. The left it seems that it's supporters are quite ignorant of old school socialism. Seems like the male factory worker has been taken down from his pedestal. I have been surprised that in the US something as old as social democracy is seen as this new thing with just changing the word order to democratic socialism. Even if the US has it's welfare state, the rhetoric never has been anything close to European style socialism.
Quoting boethius
Uhh...no. Trump and nuclear weapons isn't an issue. Trump is simply such an inept leader that he simply cannot do such trouble. And what is rarely mentioned is that Trump supporters don't like the neocons and the hawks in Washington. He hasn't leashed yet out against Iraq, and there is no push for a new war inside Washington DC. Iran is a difficult enemy, it's not Syria, Libya or Saddam's weakened Iraq.
Do notice that the warmonger neocon John Bolton was fired from his position of being national security advisor. He lasted only 520 days, which is a very long time in the Trump administration, but still.
(That's actually a great move from Trump. :up: )
What is your excuse?
It looks to me that the court will find against the government, but may take a less controversial route, that of it was unlawful to Proroge due to the loss of bills in process and the inability for parliament to legislate and hold the executive to account for more time than necessary during a time critical political crisis. Rather than that Johnson mislead the Queen.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-sir-john-major.pdf
Alongside this there is a large group of middle to upper middle class mainly older conservative supporters who live in a relatively affluent bubble. They often have quite outdated Thatcherite views.
I am generalising for brevity, these two groups have been exploited by hardline Conservatives who are rabid anti EU and the right wing press, especially The Telegraph and The Daily Mail. In this new climate of 24hr news and social media, mainly Facebook. News and political ideology has become sloganised and the angry populous has lappped it up.
I will reiterate that this whole Brexit mess was conceived developed and delivered to us on a plate by the internal machinations of the Conservative party.
Listening to the statements from both lawyers yesterday I learned that the defence parliament has to the PM's seemingly limitless power to prorogue it lies in its ability to request and pass a vote of no-confidence in the PM's govt, thus triggering an election. This was described by Lord Keen as a political defence rather than a legal one, which is part and parcel of the unwritten constitution. That sounds fine, but in the current situation - as he is well aware, that defence would be of no use as the PM could manipulate the timing of the election to suit his own ends - ie achieve Brexit on Oct 31 by default, either before the vote or in the days after it if no majority govt was elected.
The case for Miller/Major seems to hinge on the fact that Boris's reasons for proroguing are suspect, and that he lied in his advice to the Queen, so the suspension of parliament is invalid. However, if lying was not allowed in politics, would we have any politics?
So we have responses to two different questions; one political-masquerading-as-legal and one purely political. Clearly this is a unprecedented situation which the constitution is ill-equiped to handle. It will be interesting to see whether the judges prioritise the faux-legal aspect over the political one. As lawyers this is what I would expect, but I think there would be cries of 'shame' if they ignored the shabby conduct of the PM. So I think maybe a recommendation that some form of written constitution detailing the PM's powers be examined in the longer term will come too.
Such, views are flawed and vulnerable to exploitation by forms of nationalism and populism. In reality democracy works in two ways, firstly that some vestige of a democratic process is maintained, even if the people are not actually expressing their view on issues. Secondly the government can be changed at short notice and regularly through a process of a public vote. Hence we have the sovereignty upheld by a representative parliamentary democracy. At no point is any specific issue democratically decided by the people, it is only the parliamentarians who are chosen by the people and they then appoint a government to carry out their wishes. The important democratic principle in this system is that they can be thrown out, if they go wrong, as is the case at the moment. We have adopted this system to prevent rule by despots and people who don't have a democratic mandate, or who can hold on to power beyond the point when they fall out of favour. These things are what are important in democracy, not what the people think about something at some point.
A referendum does not follow any rules like these and the view of the people is inevitably going to change over time, but the result of the referendum is set in stone. so it is a mistake to think that the result of the referendum must be upheld and that another referendum cannot be held at a future point, to test the view of the people. People who support leave keep stating that the referendum must be honoured, or democracy is broken, but this is a flawed argument, as the democracy we have is in the form of a parliamentary democracy as I pointed out above and the referendum was simply an advisory snapshot of the people's view about something at some point. Actually the view of the people is not of importance in democracy, their view can be expressed, although in a remote and broad brush way through a general election.
I agree with all you say. The mistake was in part Cameron's for calling the referendum and not realising that the result could cause all sorts of problems. The in-out question was too simple, as has become all too obvious in the 3 years since. I must admit it was hard to forsee all this in 2016 though. Those Brexiteers screaming about the loss of their democratic right if the decision is ignored need to learn what a parliamentary democracy is..
I think it's dangerous to say 'the view of the people is not important in a democracy' though. It clearly is, else the word 'democracy' loses its meaning; but that view is expressed only at the level of electing a govt every few years. The UKs problem is that many people don't think their election vote makes any difference, so given an extra opportunity like a binary referendum where they clearly can control future events (by kicking the establishment), it is galling now to be told the result will not be honoured. Subtleties like the fact that a no-deal Brexit was not envisaged at the time, nor would it be supported by the majority now, are lost in the rage to ensure the vote's promise is kept.
What is the view of the people? Well it may be very difficult to find out, and when you find out, it might not actually be their view, but rather them saying something else with the limited options you gave them when you asked. Or it might be an amplified view of a small focussed group of people, while the silent majority didn't bother speaking for some reason. Half the people asked might not understand the question, or might for some reason mis construe it. An example I heard from a political analyst while discussing this recently, I don't remember who, was "you might ask the population whether they want an apple, or an orange, and the answer is I want a ham sandwich. Then what do you do". This kind of situation might have come about because in the run up to the referendum, a prominent person in the public sphere might have done something with a ham sandwich.
I suggest that all of the above did to some degree happen in this referendum and that the actual view of the people may have been more nuanced or conciliatory on the issue. They might vote "out" so as to have curved cucumbers, rather than straight, but "remain" to maintain the integrity of NATO in the current global political turmoil.
That's the story, sometimes, the point is Trump does not need to deliver this, it's just a story being told and actions are for show and not substance.
For instance, if the trade wars lose more male white-collar industrial jobs than they create, Trump base will either just deny those numbers or make up a new story where that's a good thing or in any case not due to Trump. "Nuanced facts" (by which I mean anything not essentially recorded) haven't mattered much to most republicans for a while, Fox News exists to create propaganda and predates Trump; what Trump represents is abandoning internal-consistency as well as non-nuanced-obvious facts, this is a new step into the absurd.
Trump and republican talking heads are willing to deny taped statements, be completely self-contradictory and make no plausible "truthiness theater" (which Republicans, pre-Trump, would at least go through the motions of; so Trump is a not straying too far from Republican strategy and intellectual honesty, but it is a new phase where intellectual honesty is no longer even a "pretend value" but openly mocked).
Quoting ssu
We agree on several points, but I'd just like to react to this. It may seem at first "obvious someone like Trump should not have nuclear powers" and then quickly turn into a trope because we think other people would prevent reckless nuclear launch, I think the first intuition is the correct one.
For two reasons:
First, it's a baseless assumption that "it would be hard to launch a nuke". We actually simply don't know. Trump is not surrounded by "other responsible people" all the time, and so anytime he's alone and if he called in the nuclear codes handler; as far as we know those codes simply just work and the soldier with the nuclear football is told to do what the president says. So if it got into his mind that he needs to launch, there's simply no good basis to assume that would be a hard thing to do, and someone who's erratic, unpredictable, self-contradictory and is seems to follow no identifiable pattern of behaviour it's again just groundless speculation that wanting to launch a nuke stays unreasonable to this person. Maybe it's unreasonable today, but tomorrow a few new ideas come up and it looks like genius.
Second, there may arise crisis uncaused by Trump where the use of nuclear weapons looks like it's reasonable, no one in the chain of command has complete knowledge, the order to launch arises and it is carried out because it seems a reasonable response to the crisis and lower-downs will assume "certainly a lot of the higher-ups agree"; but in such moment of crisis it maybe, with complete information (i.e. the information available), completely unreasonable to launch but Trump, using one of his long list of erroneous conclusion formula, truly believes it's reasonable, has all the other "higher-ups" arrested or sidesteps them and sends the command to launch. It's a crisis, it's tense, the likely outcome is people do what they've been trained to do: do what the president says. Things simply happen too fast for there to be some sort of coup to depose Trump.
Let's hope neither of these situations are ever tested, but I think it's unwise to minimize it; it can of course be discussed further, my purpose here was simply to compare the stakes in Brexit with the Trump presidency (there's lot's of other examples of "large gap in stakes").
That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option.
This is the most appalling truth about populism. Trump knows that his supporters don't follow politics, so he can contradict what he said last week and they won't mind, or possibly even notice. As long as he's true to their values their trust remains. It's identity politics, as I mentioned before. Trump's voters identify with him and that's their politics. They don't need or want to think beyond that. The Brexiteer credo in the UK is much the same. In both arenas the airing of arguments becomes irrelevent, a distraction - a fear-inducing one - for those who don't understand the arguments and in them just see a threat to their identities.
My fear is that democracy is thus dying beneath the weight of politicians whose strategy is the exploitation of the ignorant. These politicians' aim is not the improvement of the country, but the ego-driven continuation of their own power. Most know this about Trump, and over here in the UK we're realising BJ is from the same mould. I would be interested to see a statistical analysis of the depth of the population's political knowledge, and thus learn whether the majority really are just identity-minded. I used to use the sales of tabloid newspapers vs those of broadsheets, since the split in their readers' mind-sets effectively drives the 2 different journalistic approaches. It' hard to tell with sales of both falling fast nowadays, but I used to reckon the sales ratio was 4 to 1 - tabloids vs broadsheets. That's a dispiriting thought!
I think our politics is very different to how it was in 2011. We have the two main parties moving further apart, to the right and the left before our eyes, unable to do anything about it, other than to swing one way or the other with them. The centrist ( Lib dems) party is not able to fill the gap electorally due to the way the constituency system is set up. We have the Greens growing in popularity, with an increased growth expected due to the climate change crisis developing at the moment.
I have been voting since the early 80's and my vote has never counted, as I have always lived in seats where there was a comfortable majority for either Conservative, or on one occasion Labour. There are many people in the same boat, their voices are ignored by the system as it is. The two main parties can become complacent, this has certainly happened with the Conservatives, I welcome Labour's return to socialism, but there may have been a complacency in their safe seats in the north(I'm no expert).
Take for example a talented person interested in politics who is thinking of a career in politics. If they are not a dyed in the wool Conservative, or Labour person, what choice do they have? If their politics is different to this choice they will have to spend years volunteering for the party they join, virtually no chance of becoming an MP and no chance of their party getting into the position to put their policies into action. There may be an issue with a brain drain in our jaded political system.
Democracy is threatened solely by the electorate. In a democracy nobody else can be held responsible. Blaming the system or politicians is exactly what demagogues do. So I kind of agree with your gloomy analysis but it’s important to maintain confidence in democratic systems in the absence of alternatives.
You're frogleaping to a conclusion (or reading that in Tim3003's post) that because the US democratic system is broken (or any other) democratic systems must be bad or something must be wrong with democracy. I would expect that one of the measures of the system is whether it correctly reflects the democratic will of the people. But that shouldn't be, in my view, the only measure.
and Brexit at the Labour Conference.
Running commentary from Guardian Politics Live:
'The fact that Unison, which controls a sizeable chunk of the union vote at conference, is going to vote against the NEC motion and in favour of composite 13 (see 10.10am), means that there is now a greater chance than we thought this morning that the conference could unequivocally come down in favour of committing to remain now.'
From McDonnell:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/mcdonnell-labour-remaining-in-eu-would-be-better-than-any-brexit-deal
"I smiled when you used the language earlier of civil war and revolt but there isn’t any war in the Labour party. It’s about honest, democratic debate,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
It's difficult to say I think whether the lack of confidence in Corbyn is critical, as the media faces criticism of anti Corbyn rhetoric, also many people who don't like him might prefer him to the alternative. It has just been announced that the Supreme Court decision will be published Tuesday morning.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
Seizing the moment with a lesser candidate wouldn't be ideal. Sure, it would be better than the Tories. But merely being better than the Tories isn't what turned hundreds of people like me away from political indifference. A moderate candidate is not what propelled Labour back into relevance after the lackluster performance of Brown and Miliband; and Corbyn's more moderate leadership challengers did terribly the last few times. They wouldn't have turned the Labour party into the biggest political party in Europe. They wouldn't have Beaten Blair's vote share in 2005.
So, although I'm a big Corbyn supporter, I take your point about the possibility of a more electable candidate, if one exists, but they probably wouldn't fit your ideal, given your criticisms, much of which could have come right out of the mouth of a Tory MP. You want a Red Tory, right? Like one of the loudmouths on the right of the party who are always in the papers or on social media criticising [I] everything[/I] that Corbyn says or does? Someone bland like Owen Smith or Ed Miliband, perhaps? A Blairite?
I'd much rather someone like Rebecca Long-Bailey or Emily Thornberry become a successor to Corbyn if it came down to it.
Agreed. Corbyn has yet again sat on the fence. He seems to want to please all of the Labour membership all of the time rather than Lead. One of the criticisms made of Theresa May's Brexit negotiations was that, as a remainer, her heart was never really in getting the best deal from Brussels. In theory it sounds fine that if Corbyn wins an election, then negotiates the best deal with the EU, and puts it to another referendum, he himself can remain neutral. But assuming he has a view (usually thought to be 'leave') that must affect his attitude to the negotiations. He cannot negotiate impartially any more than May could. Remain opponents within Labour will pounce on this and undermine him. And we're back in the same situation as we've been with the Tories for the past 2 years..
In both cases the elites and their acolytes and have taken it upon themselves to try to undo the democratic choices of the electorate. Even now, years after both votes have occurred, if the losers of said votes weren’t already crippled by media-induced anxiety and fear, they are front and center in the stifling and undoing of the democratic process.
He sounds like a leader.
'Conference, you know where I stand on the question of remain: I’ve said many times that I will campaign for it. But I profoundly respect those who take a different view. And conference, let’s go into this with our eyes open.
In 2016 Labour campaigned for remain. We did so because we are internationalists. We stand in solidarity with our friends and neighbours in Europe. We profoundly believe in peace, reconciliation, human rights and collaboration across borders. Socialist values. Our values. Then and now. And let those values guide us on the road ahead.'
Chair rejects call for card vote - despite admitting there was some confusion as to result.
Jeez :roll:
Now that the party leaders, and thereby the PM, is elected by party members instead, parliament is not responsible for the actual government policy and they can vote against anything the cabinet proposes without having to come up with an alternative plan.
I don’t blame him. I’d avoid that cult of personality at all costs.
Greta’s performance was by definition of petulant. Critics speak of Trump metaphorically as a child, yet grovel and self-flagellate in front of a literal one.
Enough already. There is a Trump thread for this kind of sniping.
Clearly we need a Greta thread so that people can sneer at a sixteen year old for being sixteen.
:up: :sparkle:
Looking forward to more of your Brexit and prorogation analysis :smile:
Would you vote for AV rather than PR?
11-0. The Supreme Court is unanimous that this prorogation was unlawful.
Parliament isn't prorogued.
Summary
Judgement
Objection. Irrelevant, your Honour.
Excellent, clear cut. Delighted. Now Parliament can continue the good fight...
Scrutinise Tory government to death. They are to be held to account.
Johnson's position should be untenable.
True, but I hope it gets cancelled. I'd rather watch something less interesting.
Not just her. There were 2 cases being discussed and I think one was by a group of MPs.
You could try political satire, it can be just as interesting, but less worrying, and It can be funny too.
Prepare for the second great sulk.
Yes, I had faith in Dominic Grieve, but Gina picked up the baton first.
The Thick of It and In the Loop. Love 'em.
Indeed. Gina Miller has been excellent.Twice over.
And yes, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the Scottish court.
'The SNP’s Joanna Cherry led the legal challenge brought by 75 parliamentarians in Scotland’s top civil court, seeking to block the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend.'
However, all of this should not have been necessary. If we had a written constitution perhaps we would not have to deal with this total disaster of a would-be dictatorship.
But it's now back to Brexit.
And more misleading lies...
Seeing how many issues the U.S. has over the Second Amendment, I'm glad we don't have a written Constitution.
Well, that's another bad story. So what would be the best way forward ?
There has to be something in place whereby we don't rely on a private individual to hold government to account. Do we have to keep returning to the Supreme Court every time a Johnson comes along...
The Brexit referendum was a farce. Still think the result should be overturned. Null and void it too, please.
Moving on...
Well I'm surprised by that, but really pleased. It prioritises parliament's right and abilty to hold the govt to account. The next question is whether Boris can keep his job. The opposition hope not, but I think the populist rules the Tories now espouse say he can..
And with a cliffhanger ending, to boot!
I'd vote for neither. I'd vote to keep FPTP. Although admittedly I have a conflict of interest as a member of the Labour party.
:roll:
Not damned Trump again. I give up.
Let's bring him in to every political discussion, why don't we.
Just like the worst of journalism.
But could the British do away with freedom of religion with a referendum?
I would never sneer at a child, just the adults who abuse them.
My apologies.
Very kind of you.
I won't be making any more fuss about off topicness.
A bit of a waste of time, as are some 'sorries'.
An apology is empty and meaningless if the action is repeated.
I only apologized because you’re right and I was wrong. The topic is very important and we should not lose track of it.
Unfortunately, that it is a political intervention is exactly what it is being wrongly portrayed as.
It is seen as an attempt to stop Brexit. Against the 'will of the people'.
Ken Clarke speaking of this:
Quoting Ken Clarke
Someone commenting btl:
'That statement needs to be enforced, to stop the Beeb and the Tory gutter press using it for their populist agendas. Since they’re spreading lies and stirring up hate, they should be taken to task over it.'
I think that it should be 'reinforced' not 'enforced'.
No matter. I hope when Parliament resumes it hammers home the message and effectively counteracts the pervasive lies.
Lies and liars need to be called out as such. Using facts and evidence.
Since you mention UK history, it's reminiscent of King Charles I dissolving parliament against its will, and we know what that lead to.
And some of us have already started sharpening our axes.
Unfortunately for him, this course results in him undermining the constitution, parliament and the Crown, which will reflect very badly on him and his government. Also it will strengthen the opposition in Parliament.
Do you think his long-term strategy is a Trump-style populism, appealing to a narrow but highly mobilised and intensely partisan group of voters?
In my opinion, Johnson's long term strategy is to achieve the survival of the Conservative party, principally by winning back his support which has drained away to the Brexit party. This split has been going on for a couple of decades and will destroy the party if leaving the EU is not achieved. If he manages to secure a no deal Brexit he is the hero who fought off the Brexit party and restored the supremacy of the Conservative party. If he fails the party will sink into electoral oblivion and his supporters will be under attack from the socialist policies of a Corbyn government( they will have to pay fair taxes).
One might consider that the Conservative party is not in such peril considering their performance over recent times. But they are heading towards a demographic time bomb. They have virtually no support amongst the younger generation, which is swinging to the left. While their core support is steadily dying of old age.
So to answer you question he is not aiming to create an insensly partisan base, or something like that. But rather to restore the party and then everything can get back to normal and restore the good old days, which is, of course, a pipe dream.
Get creative and design a satirical poster - @Punshhh and any other artists, your time for fame ?
'Led By Donkeys' response to the government's £100m advertising campaign. They have a mock-up of a government website and an online tool that lets users design their own “get ready” poster.
'Comedy masterminds Armando Iannucci and David Schneider have kindly agreed to choose the best five entries which will go up on billboards in the real world. Deadline for submissions is Wednesday 2nd October at midnight. Good luck!'
Details here:
https://ledbydonkeys.com
Boris's strategy - and Cummings' is simple. To be the man who despite all the remoaners and cowards achieved Brexit. Ideally he wants to stick to his Oct 31st promise. But if parliament dictates an election first, he can get away with a few weeks' delay and campaign on the promise to do it as soon as he's returned with a majority. He can then repeal the anti-no-deal legislation and present the EU with an ultimatum to drop the back-stop and agree a new deal, or he'll leave with no deal.
I don't think he's much interested in the Tory party as a historical institution, but only as a party in his own image - just like Trump and the Republicans. All the older generation who care about the party's past have gone from the Cabinet, replaced by young hard-liners who will follow his will. Populism is about individual demagogues. The disillisioned Brexit voters trust leaders, not parties..
I was just paraphrasing the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49807212
Nooooooooooo! That's evil! :scream:
That’s a fair look at it. All the more reason for a general election, in my opinion. Get the Brexit party in to achieve Brexit before the parties sink themselves and ruin their party principles, then once over return to politics as usual.
:lol:
Also if you look back to Theresa May's term in office, she was visibly scared of the wrath of the ERG. This is why she felt unable to reach across the house and build a deal around a cross party consensus. Why she had to lay down her red lines and why they brought down her deal repeatedly, because they have always intended to ram through a no deal.
To me Johnson is like a cornered animal, not just cornered by parliament, but within his own party. With the spectre of Farage looking over his shoulder.
I don't want to underplay the size of his ego/egomania. But party really does matter, because the support for the Conservatives is being squeezed in a few ways. To be in government requires a large number of MPs behind you and in our electoral system for those MPs to become elected comes down to votes on the ground, which are not easy to secure. And don't underestimate the fear amongst the party of a Corbyn government.
As far as I know. Is it inaccurate?
If you're not in the UK you can hear it by downloading the podcast on LBC radio, it was about 6pm last night.
I think it will get much worse. Basically, if you don't help me deliver Brexit, you are a traitor.
Really disgusted and appalled watching Parliament Live yesterday.
The attorney general set the tone going full attack mode. As for Johnson...
Here, as you say, is the worst example:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/25/pm-branded-a-disgrace-after-saying-best-way-to-honour-jo-cox-is-to-deliver-brexit
Now I need to take a break. Keep up the good work :sparkle:
Oh my god. Shocking.
Just look at the reaction to the defence of his remarks on Newsnight:
https://mobile.twitter.com/maya_rstw/status/1176979198667309058
Yes the party matters as a means to elect MPs and get a government, but when the voters courted by populists vote they vote for the figurehead, not the party. If the Brexit Party makes inroads at the coming election it will be Farage its voters go for - the party un-ashamedly had no policies for the Euro elections! Likewise the Boris Party will be what its intended voters vote for. Yes many of them are Tories, but I think the era of allegiance to party rather than ideas and leaders is coming to a close. It is probably a temporary change however, and once Brexit is in the past old political tribalism will return.
The trouble is it is very high risk and he is a flawed character, the phrase on my lips today is,
Beware the ides of March.
Arguably, allegiance to a party is less tribal than allegiance to a person. Power in tribal societies is based on personal power, whereas parties represent more abstract values.
So many things have happened that were inconceivable not long ago. But the currently conceivable danger is to the conservatives that they will split their general election vote, and let the labour party in.
Thus if parliament can frustrate the Borexit plan, that will probably eventually end the whole brexit thing and destroy the conservative party for the foreseeable.
At the moment Conservatives are saying that would never happen, but I am suspicious that there are deals going on in secret. It is high risk because if it happens it will almost certainly have a devastatinga effect on the Conservative party. So Johnson will have to choose between a hard Brexit selling the soul of his party to the Brexit party and all the consequences of that. Or try and drain support from the Brexit party and save the Conservative party (if that's even possible), although it would probably mean loosing Brexit and could let Corbyn in.
Either way, it's a loose loose for Johnson.
So the government is leading us down a road in which either way we will have civil disobedience and rioting. Of course they would say that there is an alternative, to agree a deal, but it is well known that there is no deal and they won't bring back the May deal. There is talk today of the outline of a deal being published, but everyone ( who's not a leaver) knows it's a sham.
It looks to me that Johnson's strategy is to be all things to all people. To face both ways promising what the hard Brexiters and the Brexit party want, that his policy is no deal and it's going to happen come what may, do or die. While at the same time promising the more moderate Conservatives and Labour leavers that he is on the verge of agreeing a deal, he really wants a deal and threatening a no deal is the best way to get a deal, the EU always compromises at the very last minute.
He needs to bring everyone with him right to the very last day and hold a metaphorical gun to their heads. To either agree a deal, a deal which few will actually support, or push them of a cliff, which will take everyone else over with them. This also gives him the opportunity with Cummings to conduct some chicanery in the chaos at the point of the acute crisis he will create.
The problem he has is that if he commits one way, or the other, he looses the support who want to go the other way and he would be finished and Corbyn would get in ( a worse outcome than Hell itself to all Conservatives). So he has to hold them in a close hug, or clench with a gun to everyone's head until a second before midnight on 31st of October. Once this point has passed then he can resurrect the Conservative party out of the flames, as any opposition would have been neutralised, it would have no purpose any more. Boris would be proclaimed a hero, all hail Boris, all hail the Emperor.
He has saved the country from the tyranny of a Corbyn government.
I think you've answered your own question - chicanery. No deal will be blamed on the EU for being intransigent despite the UK 'working flat out' to get a deal. Or if a deal is agreed and parliament rejects it, then they get the blame. If a deal is agreed and voted through then Boris is the hero. Boris doesn't need to win, he just needs someone to blame if things go wrong. He can then hold an election against the backdrop of a discredited parliament.
The only fly in the ointment is the doubt that he can force a no-deal Brexit through - seemingly against the law, as he insists but no-one outside the Cabinet believes. If he has to ask for an extention to article 50 he will presumably refuse. If he resigns, triggering an election, can he be prosecuted for disobeying the law? If I understand correctly, he can resign, but he is still PM and his govt are still in place until the election, so subject to the law. So we end up back in the Supreme Court?!
If the EU is done with it come end of October there will be a no-deal Brexit despite what the UK Parliament thinks of it.
What's your definition of corruption here? Being able to nudge the scales of justice towards arbitrary power for oneself? How would a form of minority rule fix that? not to mention democracies existing today where corruption is low.
l don't disagree with your assement, I would add though, as before, the importance of keeping the Conservative party together in his motives. This is very important because it is the only way of preventing Corbyn getting into No10 and no one should underestimate how bad that would be in the eyes of supporters of the Conservatives. I put it to you that in their eyes this is far worse than Brexit being cancelled, or a soft Brexit. I admit that the Conservatives are doomed in either case, but they are clutching at straws and their focus at this point is in fighting off the Brexit party, who will decimate his support if Brexit is delayed again, cancelled, or a soft deal is agreed, again, letting Corbyn in. The Conservatives would far rather wreck the country and the union wherever the blame lands, than enable Corbyn to get his hands on No10, although they will try to blame someone else if they can.
Imo the only way he can succeed in holding the Conservative party together and fend off Corbyn, is to get a no deal, or a hard Deal Brexit by 31st of October. The only way he can do that is to hoodwink the soft brexiters in his own party and the Labour Party. Until either he can force through a no deal, or hold a metaphorical gun to the heads of a large number of MPs and get them to vote a hard deal through before 31st October.
There is a second way, which as you say, is that if he is removed by parliament and fails. He will then try to pit the people against parliament in a general election and if he wins, he will try it all again. But I doubt this would work due to the rise of the Brexit party by that point. Perhaps if some sort of pact with the Brexit party were secured he could win, but that is looking a long way into the future.
Just to add, as I understand it, if Johnson resigns, or refuses to ask the EU for an extension, the Supreme Court will issue an injunction very quickly requiring him to go and ask, and/or instruct another person to do so in his stead by order of the court. Which would be acceptable to the EU. As has been stated by the EU, they are negotiating with her Majesty's Government, they care not who the Prime minister is, or whom her Majesty sends in his stead.
Yes, I agree.
Quoting Hassiar
The general analysis of democratic proponents is that the UK is not democratic enough, first-past-the-post vs. proportional representation. Other than simply being more inline with majority rule (first-past-the-post is only majority rule sometimes, which doesn't somehow magically turn cases of when it produces minority rule into majority rule, that's an obvious contradiction and nonsense argument; arguments for first-past-the-post are minority-rule arguments, and made by people that don't like democracy).
So other than being inherently more democratic, the practical consequence of proportional systems is that there is more space for more diverse views at the seat of power (any party with a few percent support can have a seat or two), and so this creates more nuanced discussion between adjacent parties and, critically, if a party get mired in corruption people can switch to a party that's very close in platform.
In first past the post, "whoever has the most votes wins" and so small parties are completely meaningless and the only numerical strategy to beat the incumbent is to merge all opposition into a single party (avoid vote splitting). This naturally tends to a two-party system, with fairly irrelevant exceptions of regional parties. Without stepping stones of platforms in between these polarized positions, debate cannot be nuanced as each party is simply a "cobbling together" of various views in that general space of political opinion and, critically, the only way to punish corruption or incompetence is to switch to a radically different party; both these factors result in coherent policy being left-by-the-wayside, and as a consequence the whole system loses focus on coherent policy, and so, surprise-surprise, the electorate, when polled, don't have a clue. Whereas, in a proportional representation system, parties need to compete by making more sense next to the adjacent parties and people can easily engage in debate with adjacent parties; coherent arguments sort of "win locally" and then move along the ideological space, being adopted by the like-minded and requiring a critique from those opposed to that view (which generally, if the argument is really good, requires modifying the platform to either "take the good parts", explain the argument is simply wrong or then recognize the problem but deal with it by a combination of other policies); all of which promotes a much more coherent understanding of things overall.
But there's a quick empirical take, which is the advanced democracies with proportional representation are never in the news for electing stupid people or having stupid referendums. In other words, people become frustrated with the non-democratic nature of first-past-the-post and over time "anti-establishment" becomes a predominant opinion that expresses itself in eventually supporting disruption to the system. Of course, it would be more productive for this frustration to be directed at the first-past-the-post system, but it takes a lot of time to build that awareness and there's all the incumbent power of the entire country (main political parties, media, the rich) that want the status quo. The whole point of first-past-the-post is that it allows minority rule while being advertised as democratic; the result is the worst of both worlds: the minority that rules becomes detached from reality and stupid and corrupt, and the people are not accustomed to real policy debates mattering so are equally ill equipped to guide the country when their effect is felt from time to time.
Can you suggest a better system?
I don't see what you mean about Boris having to hold the Tory party together. Surely he has already split it by ejecting those last few Remainers. It is now a Brexit party, cast in his image. His votes in the leadership contest were cast on this understanding and the Tory vote at the next election will be leavers-only. The Brexit party cannot amass enough support for a 'clean' no-deal Brexit - its preference, as even the most fanatical right-wingers in the Tory party know a deal is better than no-deal. Farage preaches to the simplistic Brexiteers who want it at any cost ASAP. These are surely only a minority of the Brexit vote. But the Brexiteer vote won't be split in an election because the Tories won't be standing on a leave-with-a-deal platform: Either we will have done that, or Boris will have had to extend Article 50, and it will be clear no deal is the only future option for him. Hence the Brexit Party has no USP. Recent polls have the Tories well ahead of Labour, and a majority is quite possible for them. It's probable that the Lib Dems and Labour will split the Remainer vote so Boris's path back to No 10 with a majority is clear - assuming he can shed all blame for having to extend Article 50 that is. But he can doubtless blame the Remainer parliament for ignoring the wishes of the people and forcing him as he's done successfully already.
I suppose what I mean by saving the party is that where the fatal split will be is the focus. I think this split would cleft the party in two with hardened leavers and supporters who are sympathetic to the lurch to the right and populism, but who may have been quite ambivalent on the issue of Brexit (before the referendum) on one side and an equal group of staunch remainers and supporters who are sympathetic with preserving a one nation broad church of a party, who were quite ambivalent about Brexit ( before the referendum)on the other side. At the moment the party is leaking support to the Brexit party on one side and the Lib Dems on the other.
The fear being (justified or not) that the party is loosing support to the Brexit party and that is why Theresa May and now Boris Johnson have had to tow a more right wing approach than they would naturally adopt and why the leadership has been replaced by hard brexiters. As this becomes more extreme, as it appears to be doing, the members and supporters on the other side of the divide will be looking on in horror and wondering what happened to their party. They might be seriously considering changing their allegiance to the Lib Dems.
Add to this schizophrenia the body blow of the referendum result and the rise of a truly socialist opposition and it seems to me that the leadership is struggling to hold the party together, while becoming paranoid of a socialist government. An illustration of this is the way that May and Johnson are repeatedly seen facing both ways at once talking to the two opposing constituencies in their own party. Developing strategies and policies which are shoring up the splits. This is why Johnson appears to both really really want to get a deal, and simultaneously gunning for no deal.
There is one thing however which all sides of the party and their support is united on, which is that they really really don't want to let a socialist party to get into government. I noticed in his speech some serious attacks on Corbyn, for example, if he got into government, he would close down all private schools, abolish ofstead, disband the army and a string of other dubious claims and slurs.
However he failed to make the expected ultimatum to the EU and was quite subdued in his bravado on the Brexit issue.
It's beginning to look like a crash and burn.
That's not going to happen, even for a few weeks to prevent the no deal that is the Lib-Dem signature policy this week they will not support Labour. They're just tories without tax havens.
The important observation he made was that on the leave side there are a lot of seats which are marginal between the Lib Dems and Conservative, which could swing in the Lib Dem's favour if Johnson starts to loose support. Whereas the majority of Labour marginal seats are between Labour and the Conservatives, with some Brexit party. Labour and Lib Dems are predominantly in different areas of the country and don't overlap much. So if Lib Dems do well, it will mainly be at the expense of the Conservative party.
It is becoming very evident that trying to monopolise the 'Remain' position is the Liberals' great hope of a political comeback after they destroyed themselves with their 'personal pledges' and putting the tories in. I find it rather shocking that they should so obviously put their own interests before those of the Country, but I suppose I'm old fashioned. It's sad that my own nation should be the only one of those involved that seem to care about the UK. I put it down to drink! :)
'Boris Johnson will ask the EU for a Brexit extension if deal not reached by 19 October
Government documents submitted to Scotland’s highest civil court today state that the prime minister will seek a Brexit extension from the EU if no withdrawal deal is reached by 19 October.
Boris Johnson said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than seek a further delay, and the revelation in court appears to be in direct contradiction of that statement and throws the question of whether the UK will leave the bloc on 31 October into fresh doubt.'
'In the Scottish court of session, Aidan O’Neill QC said the commitment within the submissions were inconsistent with what Johnson said in parliament yesterday.
The government had sought to prevent these documents being released to the media, and it will raise questions over the contradiction between the prime minister’s public and private stances.'
So, when will he, the 'Father of Lies' come clean in Parliament ?
Yes, and growing. But the centuries of serfdom take a hell of a time to get over.
It's what I was saying a couple of posts back, Johnson is facing both ways, one way for the hard brexiters in his party and the Brexit party, the other way to his moderate and remain conservative supporters. He can often be heard saying the opposite to what he said a moment earlier, or saying something which means exactly the opposite of what he's doing.
It has been coined "double speak" ( like doublethink in George Orwell's Animal Farm). The problem with it is, that his leave supporters, know it but don't care because they're in on the roose. The people on the remain side, see it, but when they call it out it is denied, or ignored. And the worst thing is the leave supporting newspapers print his rhetoric aimed at leavers and are read by a large swathe of less knowledgeable leave voters, who follow slogans, rather like the Trump base. But they don't realise what he's up to, or that he is continually contradicting himself and lying. This constituency is considered to be the Labour leave areas in the north of England, who Johnson wants to poach from Corbyn. I noticed that some EU politicians were commenting on it lastnight and this morning, it is why they think Johnson is disingenuous and playing to a UK audience in preparation for an election.
It's always been so. One third of the population are English now - mainly geriatrics, fortunately, but they and the holiday-homers close down our schools and pubs for us - and a whole lot of people never hear 'Welsh' news or read a 'Welsh' newspaper, so progress is very slow. However, in the first Referendum for Devolution the Labour Government was unpopular, so it lost, but then the mugs found that English government meant Thatcherism, so then it was victorious on the second. Similarly, they voted Brexit because they are treated like shit and thought it meant they mattered, but as they begin to learn what it will actually mean there is more support for and discussion of Independence. It's a slow learner, my suffering Country, but it does learn - eventually.
I am a geriatric English remainer in Wales. But I think the blame for the school and pub closures has to be laid more at the doors of the Welsh emigrants than the English immigrants. Is there not a certain logic there?
Quoting iolo
This is sadly true of most of the brexit majority regions, and how the rich have convinced them that it is the bloody foreigner shitting on them and not the bloody elite, is truly wonderful to behold. But the incomer and foreigner almost invariably improve the economy. Not the second homers, but the long term residents support the local economy; even idlers like myself bring our pensions and savings into the area.
Quoting unenlightened
The incredible robbery that has gone on over the last few hundred years, as in Ireland, does mean that those who want to 'get on' have to move out, but there were still plenty of people until their houses were all bought up. I don't think most of those who move in contribute anything whatever, frankly - that is just a politeness. Persons like yourself are always welcome, but have you bought a house in an area where our language is spoken, and have you learned any? That's what this is all about.
Well where I used to live was half empty back in the sixties and abandoned cottages sold for £50. So my experience rather contradicts this
Quoting iolo
That is frankly racist.
Duw, there's awful! Better call me 'Taff''! :) As a believer in 'races' I don't get started, I'm afraid! I don't know where you are/were, so it's difficult for me to comment, but if the Government has more-or-less consciously destroyed all employment opportunities, what do you suggest people should do? What we tend to care about is the survival of our language-communities and our own future as a people rather than our being replaced by rich foreigners. Seems to me a fairly normal reaction!
Seriously, forget the self parody, this is a racist trope.
In my world, places where I have lived, or that I know of have been " gentrified", which is a polite way of saying the privelidged, private school educated, self appointed important people, knobs(for want of a better word) have moved in. They have decimated many a nice old fashioned village, or town. Only the desirable ones of course. A classic example you may know of as it's right on the Welsh border, is Haye on Wye. When I used to visit as young boy it was untouched( well relatively, as there was a draw for secondhand book collectors, as I was). But over the last 30 years it has become gentrified, to the extent that every other shop has been set up by moneyed people playing at being cool and stylish, living the dream( country living magazine style). You trip over them in the streets and in the skinny latte, coffee houses. ( I know there is still a strong local community there, but it has been pushed to the sidelines and into the shadows.)
This split, them and us divide in our society, our country has been going on overtly since people (some poeple, the privelidged of course) found they had wealth, new money and started spilling out of their middle class enclaves in the Home Counties where their privelidge, their important private schools and routes ( a nod and a wink) into all the privelidged and important jobs, was confined. Now they spill out into every quaint, beautiful, desirable place in the country and pollute it with big black four wheel drive vehicles, with their sharp elbows buy up all the best property's, and make everywhere look like a country living magazine cover.
Where as there is an equal, infact larger, phenomena of regions and towns becoming deprived, wealth drained away, work going in the direction of short term contracts and zero hour contracts. Dying High streets, filled with chicken cafes, porn shops, betting shops and discount retailers. These are the towns where sizeable numbers of immigrants have been put, adding to the feelings of discontent due to the deprivation, with one of demographic fears too.
Weirdly not only do these left behind deprived populations feel they want to hit back at the establishment with a leave vote. But the privelidged interlopers on mass want to leave as well. But their reasons are predominantly to increase unregulated capitalism, along with some myth that the Germans are going to suck us into some kind of superstate, which they are in charge of. To become a German colony.
And so we have Brexit.
If you like to think in that peculiar way. The only point of any country is its culture, and if that is destroyed, what's it matter who replaces it? That's about it, as far as I can see, and what it has to do with imagined 'races' escapes me.
I agree with all you say. The point about our culture is that it makes the history of these things easier to remember. It is astounding to me how, in English, the rich revolutionary traditions of mining areas like this get rubbed away, whereas a minority culture things are better remembered - though even there the increasing commercialisation is doing what it can. We are fortunate in that our fake history is mainly cultural, especially the National Eisteddfod, rather than political.
Races are imagined, but countries and cultures are real?
My wife is a very real mixed [s]race[/s] culture person, Welsh and Caribbean. Her father's name, his slave name was 'Williams'. What is peculiar is to imagine that the dreadful abusive history of Britain stopped at the border and left Wales innocent. How very complacently racist you are again to think that nation has a reality that race does not. Imagine a Jew in the Death camps or a slave on the plantation saying 'races are imagined'! Now that would be peculiar. But coming from you as represented in what you have already said, it is just more racism.
You speak a language or you don't: it's not difficult to grasp, surely.
? The language gives you access to a particular culture. Still with me? 'Race' is a nonsense thought up by imperialism to allow one lot to be persuaded that those the rich wanted them to fight were quite other than themselves, whereas cultures are real and can be experienced. I don't quite see how geographical concepts can be innocent or guilty of anything, and quite obviously races were imagined to allow slavery and mass murder. I rather gather that you were too superior to learn the language of the country you were settling in: you certainly seem to be getting extremely worked up about imagined things, so I take that to be the reason! :) No need to be so sensitive: our struggle to survive had hardly got going back then!
Quoting iolo
Have fun joining up those dots. I'll leave there, sir. I have had this conversation too many times. But I do urge you to consider the historical connections between nationalism and fascism and racism, and consider that being black is at least as real as being Welsh. I would bet that even a expert like you would see my wife's blackness before you noticed her Welshness.
Quoting iolo
You know so much about me that I have not said; your condescension is so very English. Personally it is the Englishness of Welsh culture that I find objectionable, the overweening pride, the xenophobia, the self-satisfied innocence, the exclusivity. Fortunately, it exists mainly in a middle-class minority, and the real Welsh culture and tradition is much more open-hearted.
And by the way, one can speak a language somewhat. It is by no means the case that one speaks it or does not. For example aside from English, I speak reasonable French (for a foreigner) a very little German, and some Catalan. And maybe a smattering of some other tongues. But I am no linguist.
I'm sorry, I wanted to leave you be, but this is a bit too extreme. Suppose, like most of the Welsh, she did not?
Half a million people in Wales can speak Welsh; that's around 19% of the population.
Why should you be bothered about 81% of the population of the country you claim as your own? No reason at all, let them eat cake. Now I really am done.
What would we call our country, Great England? Or maybe Boris Isles, which might be appropriate.
I will coin my phrase again,
Remember Remember the 1st of November.
I've heard that the answer could be yes, he will ask the EU for an extension, but he will also 'bribe' the Poles to veto the EU proposal to grant one by putting pressure on their relationship with the UK. I'm not sure how he can exert greater pressure than the EU can - maybe via trident missiles?!
Maybe another Daily Telegraph fantasy (the last one was that Ireland was "under pressure" to accept Boris's deal). The fact is that no EU country is going to go out on a limb for the UK. Not on the extension, not on any deal, not on anything. Least of all Poland. Consider that one of the main reasons the UK is leaving is because they want to keep foreigners (particularly Poles and other eastern Europeans) out. Add to that the obvious point that EU countries will always have more to gain from members than non-members and it adds up to the UK continuing to have as little leverage as ever.
When he asks for the extension there is going to be an almighty push to put the blame on everyone else trying to thwart Brexit, the will of the people. The idea being that it will build up a head of steam and give him a majority in the looming general election. When he gets this majority he will carry on from where he left off, but with an offer which he can get through Parliament. Thus giving the EU a way out through some fudge over the Irish Border, then we will get the Canada plus deal.
The problem as I see it is that he will split the leave vote in the general election, by running on a negotiated deal ticket, to try and get the moderate vote. Surely he can't still be facing both ways this far down the line. People will smell a rat and won't trust him anymore.
And culture conveniently adheres to borders? How quaint.
What is all that supposed to be about? If there are no areas of the Country where the language is used, it ceases to be in any meaningful sense a country. Are you a big capitalist or something - all these obsessive attempts to work up hatred do look remarkably like it!
Now you're equating language with culture if your quote in my previous post is any indication.
Good God, no - what a weird idea!
Obviously. What do you equate it with?
My Wife comes from up there. The trick is to do what we did in the Eighteenth Century, and start see those who speak in a foreign fashion as foreigners, and ignore them! One of her ancestors was done for armed rebellion in the Chartist days, and when he got out of Wakefield Jail, had to get a loan from the Woolcombers' Association to go to Australia. since he was blacklisted in Bradford. His brothers, despairing of getting rid of wage-slavery here, went over to the 'States to volunteer for the Northern Army, and the next generation but one were (probably) founder-members of the ILP. There's all the material in the world available for us all if we care to ignore propaganda! :)
Given how culture has comes about, resistance to cultural change is misplaced.
Who said it was monolithic? It is , however, hugely affected by the language in which it is experienced.
The Westminster regime has tried to destroy our language and culture for five hundred years. You think we should lie down and die now it's so much feebler?
I'm not answering your question because I'm not going to speak for an entire "culture" as to what they should do. That would be hubris.
Well it's already looking like the EU arent going to bend to Boris's will. It must be time for J R Mogg to pipe up about the Benn act which prevents no deal allowing the EU to play hard-ball in the negotiations. I almost wish Boris could negotiate with no-deal really on the table to see what the result would be - maybe with a secret agreement with parliament to stop no deal at the last moment..
As for the election. I think if Boris fails to take the UK out on Oct 31st his election chances will be hit. At least some of those who thought he could get Brexit done and wasn't just another dithering politician may think again..
Who asked you to reply for 'an entire culture'? To instance the other two languages/cultures I know passably well, would you wish seriously to argue that there was nothing but vocabulary and grammar to distinguish culturally between English-speakers, French-speakers and Chinese-speakers (National Language ones)? Like so many supporters of capitalism, you do seem to spend a lot of effort in trying to divide real people while contending you do the opposite, by bullying minorities. It seems to me pretty sick to identify oneself with what has been done in Westminster over the long, disgusting years, incidentally.
:rofl:
There are firey exchanges in parliament. There is a major leak from No10 this morning assumed to be from Cummings to James Forsyth of the Spectator magazine, ranting about the betrayal and claiming that they will bypass the Benn Act and are going to push through a no deal. It is a good read.
Here it is,
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/how-number-10-view-the-state-of-the-negotiations/
I agree that Johnson is weakened by him not delivering his promise and that the Brexit party will wipe the floor with him in the election. He knows this and will now have to neutralise the Brexit party by running on a no deal ticket in the election. The problem is I don't think Brexit party support will trust him and he will loose his moderate support. I can't see him winning a majority.
It would make absolutely 0 difference. The EU has four central pillars : freedom of movement, freedom of services, freedom for goods and freedom of capital. No proposal that undermines any of those pillars is going to be acceptable in any way, shape or form.
Current state of affairs: Keir Starmer talks honestly and sensibly. Of what use against extreme Tory machinations and misrepresentations i.e. lies.
As far as i can see, that means the options are:
Remain, and break the referendum promise.
Reinstate the border in N. Ireland, and break the N.I treaty.
Unification of Ireland, and break the treaty.
There can be a fudge where we leave but remain subject to most of the rules, a la permanent backstop, but in order to not have internal borders, the EU needs proper external borders.
Or we could invade the Republic again, and make them be part of Even Greater Britain.
A hard border between NI and the rest of the UK until such time a different solution can be thought of. Or screw the promise, which was made by a previous government any way with regard to an advisory referendum that only proved the voters were hopelessly split on the issue.
No. to the extent that there was a promise to respect the result, not respecting the result is breaking the promise. That would be a good thing, but it would be breaking the promise. Let's not resort to gobbledygook.
Rugby World Cup: Wales v Fiji for a divided couple
Emma and Tevita Manaseitava will be divided for 80 minutes
When Wales play Fiji in the Rugby World Cup on Wednesday, there will be split loyalties at the Manaseitava home in Bridgend.
Emma is Welsh but her husband Tevita is Fijian - and the Fiji captain is one of his relatives.
Even their 15-year-old son Dominkio's loyalties are divided.
"Wales are gonna win, part of me for Dom wants Fiji to come out on top, but my heart is Wales," says Emma, who adds that their son is "Fiji all the way".
She added: "He's actually Welsh speaking, Welsh through and through. His [Fiji] flag is hanging out the window, his shirt will be on and I think for bragging rights in school he's hoping Fiji will come out on top."
And Tevita laughs: "My heart says Fiji and, my head says Fiji."
He moved to Wales in late 1980s to play for Pyle Rugby Club, where he is now a coach.
Of the match, which starts at 10:45 BST, Tevita said: "I think both camps are nervous. It is a big game for both teams, Wales will be on a defensive to try and win all the pool games, Fiji will be attacking more.
"It will be a good game - both teams you could say have nothing to lose, but Fiji need to do more to get the game under their hat."
And what of Wales' famous loss to Fiji in the World Cup in France in 2007?
"It could happen again, watching them [Fiji] back last week, they are quite dangerous, it is a worry, but Wales are on top form so I think it's going to be a good game," Emma said.
Presumably the promise was for parliament to carry out the will of the people with due care to the country and if unknowingly carrying it out were to put the country in peril, to refrain from doing that and to find another solution.
I would suggest that Parliament's duty is firstly to the Crown and secondly to the people and that parliament would hold an oath to the Crown to have a duty of care to the country, first and foremost.
The name of the EU in English shall be changed to "The New British Empire". Then we'll have none of this German conspiracy to become independent led by the blond Aryan traitor Boris.
Job done!
Just heard that there is a group of 60 Tory MPs saying they won't campaign on a no deal Brexit in a general election, including I think 5 cabinet resignations being threatened.
We can call it "unexit".
The idea that a no-deal exit would put the country in peril is maybe putting it a bit strong? My reading of the Brexiteer credo is that leaving is not primarily an economic matter, it is one of politics and freedom. 'We want our country back' sums it up. We can argue against the idea that leaving the EU would achieve that, but in the minds of those who believe it, any thwarting of the referendum outcome is unacceptable. The democratic principle is more important than the economic reality to these people. What they hate is the idea of the Wesminster elite patronisingly telling them that they're wrong and their wishes should be ignored. However questionable their decision-making, this is hard to refute to my mind.
I agree with your assessment of the Brexiter credo, however I would put that down to the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail. Along with a rump of toffs in the Tory party. So it is not really a valid credo, rather the result of scaremongering and an outdated bulldog spirit sentiment. As for the motivation of the toffs, I think sir Bill Cash illustrates the problem. As far as he is concerned the German government has a stranglehold over any decision made in the EU parliament and it is only allowed through once hard nosed, hardline German power brokers give it the nod and that our sovereignty is at peril if we remain in the EU.
I would suggest that the numbers of Brexiters who still hold to this credo has eroded over the summer and it does not need to erode much to have lost its mandate.
In addition I just wanted to mention the democratic principle you mention. I agree with your point, but in my opinion there is a mis understanding of democracy in the minds of the people you refer to. I think I have already pointed this out a few posts back, but I will repeat it, as it is an important issue in the division which has developed in the country.
There is a sacred principle in the minds of the people in our country, the principle of democracy. Which they are taught about in school and that the UK is the last bastion, the defender of democracy due to our history etc. But many of the people who hold this view, as I have done myself, don't realise the inadequacies of democracy and that in this country it is exercised, fundamentally, as a system of representative parliament with an executive which is accountable to that parliament, which is regularly changed by a democratic process.
The way in which the democratic principle is exercised in this system is the way in which the executive is changed, or endorsed at regular intervals by a public vote.
At no point is the public asked for their view on any particular issue and carrying out a referendum is a different exercise to our decomcracy, it is legally, only an advisory exercise and a difficult way in which to conduct constitutional change. I lay the blame and cause of all this turmoil over the last few years at the door of David Cameron's government and the folly they entered into in this exercise.
Coincidentally a report came out this morning that Johnson acted recklessly with over 50 million pounds of public money on the garden bridge project ( the Boris Bridge) while he was London Mayor.
None of this is about the substance for Boris. He always knew if it was anything, it was either May's deal or a custom's border between NI and the UK, but also that he had to act like a complete asshole before the ERG would support him. Which he has done and which they are doing while essentially getting fuck all in return. Anyhow, I think he's ready to wilt like a pissed-on peony while beating his chest through it all. Politricks. Bleugh.
Of course, everything he does is a trick and a trap. Doesn't change the dynamics. The opposition currently have Boris by the proverbials. He gets a last-minute deal and he has them by same. They can wreck it and absolve him of the responsibility for no-deal / more endless stalemate. Or they can pass it and make him a hero. Either way he wins. Ergo, I predict he now dumps the DUP, swallows the NI only backstop, and goes for Brexity Labour MPs to replace that lost support (and they will come under enormous pressure from their constituents to vote yea).
Quoting Punshhh
Also I expect some Tory rebels to continue to rebel, as it has now gone beyond the pale and this would not be the end of the shenanigans, but merely the start of a decade of them.
There is talk this morning of a massive bung for the DUP. Someone should have told him that you don't play fast and loose/lose with the DUP and get away with it. Also there is a get out clause for many MPs, they will back the deal if there is a second referendum tacked on.
The problem with this strategy is that the EU will not agree a deal if they even suspect it wont go through parliament. And I think the DUP view is crucial to their calculations. Are Brussels sure enough about the support for a deal in the Labour party to risk it without the DUP's support? I doubt it. And that's assuming Boris can count on the 20-odd Tories he's thrown out, plus the Spartans..
The DUP are in the driving seat again, which of course means they have no chance of agreeing the deal. The reverend Ian Paisley must be spinning in his grave.
There is no deal I can envisage that Ireland (and for Ireland read the EU) and the UK can agree on that the DUP will also agree to. Because there is no deal that can remove a customs border between ROI and NI without instituting one either between the UK and NI (unacceptable to the DUP) or over the whole of the UK (unacceptable to the Tories). No amount of creative accounting changes that fundamental reality. And out of Ireland/the EU, the UK, and the DUP, there is only one potentially expendable party to the agreement, i.e. the DUP. Everyone knows that. So, as I see things, it's a matter now of Boris splitting off as many of the hard Brexiteers from the DUP as possible and a hail Mary for Labour support. All this will involve lightspeed levels of spin, but it might just work.
Now it's the struggle over the Benn act.
Is that it for the prospects of any deal by Halloween?
Not to mention that such a vote would amount to a referendum about the unification of Ireland every 4 years forever. Talk about a recipe for disaster around the border.
That's a huge concession from the EU and Ireland. There is no way the DUP will get more than that. But these are the people who opposed the Good Friday Agreement, so yes, we shouldn't expect them to move even if the whole thing falls down in pieces around everyone.
What would be amusing would be abstentionist Sinn Fein taking their seats in Parliament for the first time just to support the deal and make the DUP irrelevant. That's a fantasy though.
Not easily, there is the ERG( the hard brexiters in the Conservative party) who were following the lead of the DUP, so they will give less support now. There are the Conservative rebels who were expelled from the party a few weeks ago, again their support will drain away now. There are the Labour rebels (brexiters), who will again follow the lead of the DUP, so they will fade away now.
Apart from these groups who were hanging on the DUP's response, there is no one. Except possibly Sinn Fein, but that's extremely unlikely because they don't sit in the House of Commons as a protest against British rule in NI. So if the DUP don't turn, it's over.
The DUP are now expendable. The Tory rebels on both wings will all now come back in-line, thus healing the recent rift. If the vote on Saturday still does not pass then we'll have a short extention for an election - which Boris can blame on parliament. He can then stand for re-election with a deal in his pocket. Brexit fatigue ensures the opposition have no chance of selling 2nd referendums/ no Brexit policies against that. So Boris is returned with a decent majority, and the deal is voted through by the new parliament. Brexit happens, probably in January...
I think the Tories will back Boris rather than the DUP. The dreaded backstop is gone, and that was the main stumbling block for the ERG. Teresa May's deal passed in the Commons with the backstop removed remember.. In an election almost no voters on the UK mainland care much about the Northern Irish problem anyway. And in the end the determination to get Brexit done will persuade the ERG to cut the DUP loose and follow their leader. They can't really claim there's a better deal out there and tell him to try again can they?! As for Labour, don't forget plenty of their MPs are in leave-seats and will feel huge pressure to back a deal.
As for the agreement re NI. Anything agreed was going to be a dog's dinner. It's basically a problem of squaring the circle - impossible to keep all sides happy. I think most Tories will decide that the DUP having to settle for a sub-optimal deal is the least worst outcome. I think it has yet to sink in what a huge victory for Boris this is. He has got the EU to back down over the backstop and his take-it-to-the-wire negotiating strategy has thus been totally vindicated. Few would have forecast this. Ok, he's allowed the border in the Irish sea, which as May said and he parroted 'No UK PM could ever do', but as we know, populist politicians can U-turn without their voters caring one jot if their basic aims are met. The ERG will be crowing like grinning ravens over the coming days. They can hardly vote against a leader who's done all they asked..
I even saw Farrage looking a bit crest-fallen when interviewed. He's holding out for no-deal, but the ground is fast falling away from under him. Likewise Junker is saying 'No extention'; but if the deal goes down narrowly in the Commons and Boris asks for one for an election in which the polls have him 10 pts ahead will Junker (or to be accurate, the EU 27) opt for no deal instead? I think not..
Nail hit on head.
I agree with your analysis, but has the EU actually backed down? It seems to me they would have accepted this solution earlier, but the British didn't want it.
If you want to do Brexit, this seems the most sensible arrangement.
Here we go...
If so, the Tory's are finished as they will be known as the government which brought about the end of the Union as a result of infighting.
Why is it a mess? The NI assembly has a significant pro-EU majority and (when sitting) will very likely vote to keep EU rules every time. That's why Ireland and the EU agreed to the deal. Nothing's likely to change.
Quoting Punshhh
Everyone's a winner then.
Also there may be some spartans who think it's a betrayal in the other direction. It will be interesting to watch how the support builds, or wanes over the next couple of days.
It really is weird for people who are not in one of the two leave groupings, because it feels like everything was fine and peaceful going along as normal. Then suddenly an upper class twit stood up and said we're going to leave the EU, we need to leave, or we're in trouble. People were thinking what are they talking about, the EU is a great coalition between like minded Europeans, why would you want to put that in jeopardy? Then all these nationalist slogans start appearing and people like Nigel Farage start popping up on TV, with their anti EU rhetoric. Followed by three years of chaos, argument and division.
When the leave arguments are examined they are vacuous, there was a problem with immigration, but it was within the gift of the government to solve that without leaving. But you get the slogans shouted back at you, with no intelligent argument.
"We have to leave because we voted to leave, why did you vote to leave? Because we wanted to leave, we have to leave now because we voted to leave!"
(I am generalising here) I have noticed for over 30 years now the way the privelidged middle class demographic has become money grabbing and cavalier. That it was the bankers who are dominated by patronage from this group which fuelled, or at least capitalised on the short selling which led to the banking crisis. You could see the greed and sharing out of the wealth in their luxury enclaves in the West Country, for example. Following the banking crisis the top heavy Tory party started to nose dive, instigating austerity, a harsh Protestant ethic, which strangled the less privelidged areas of the country draining all their wealth away to pay for the crisis. Of course no bankers went to gaol.
Immigrants were pushed into poorer areas generating more unrest in these areas, which fuelled the nationalist anti immigration movements in the midlands and the north. Meanwhile the right wing press were drip feeding the Tory heartlands with anti EU poison. The Tory party started to split under the strain and the infighting has led us to this point where the far right have grabbed the reigns of power.
I wonder if the Power brokers and capitalists had seen this all along, indeed planned it as they saw where the EU was going with sensible social democratic policies and anticipated laws to restrict the offshore tax evasion industry. Which is where the fat cats have been hiding their money. You can certainly see how the owners of the right wing papers have been planning and feeding this division.
A bit of a tangent but what makes you say this? We've had a subprime mortgage crisis that started in the US which affected the EU banks in 2007 as well and a subsequent sovereign debt crisis in 2009. I don't see how short selling caused these two banking crises.
Perhaps the words short selling weren't a good choice.
The opposition is on to this now, so I can see the support from Labour rebels fading away now.
The scenario is, in this deal NI is safely within the EU backstop, but the rest of the country is not in a backstop as was the case with the May deal. So following the transition period which ends at the end of 2020. If there is not deal agreed for our future relationship with the EU, the default position is a no deal, or world trade rules. And if the we want to extend the transition period for another two years, we have to request it by June 2020, which is 7 months away. So all Johnson needs to do now is offer a have my cake and eat it trade deal and scupper the talks, leading to an irreversible no deal exit at the end of the period. This apparently is why the ERG is happy to back it. The whole time Johnson will be free to smear the EU as trying to control us, or trap us in some way, so the anti EU sentiment will only increase.
Thus he would make the Brexit party pointless, all their supporters will come back into the fold and he saves his party from oblivion. Brexit, deal or no deal is nothing more than collateral damage. Albeit it would inevitably benefit his wealthy backers.
I think as long as the vote is close - say no more than 10 in it, then Boris can request an extention to hold an election. Most Labour MPs won't back him, but all the talk about worker's rights suffering is a red-herring - that is the 'direction of travel' part of the political declaration, ie not set in stone and up for discussion as part of the future trade deal negotiations. If Labour do not like what the Tories propose they can challenge it further down the line.
With a deal in his pocket I think Tory support will build and the Brexit party will lose most of its vote. Are there really that many Brexiteers who'd prefer no deal to a deal? I suspect a 100+ seat majority for the Tories at that election. The fact that Boris has missed his Oct 31st deadline he can blame on parliament - he's got a deal; it's them who've forced an extention. I am looking for an opinion poll to see if the figures have shifted since the deal was agreed. I'm betting the Tory lead is well into double figures..
All bets are off until tomorrow evening, it's basically a coin toss whether Boris's deal will pass, but as Cameron puts it "the greased piglet will slip through".
I think Farrage over-estimates how much of his support is no-deal-of-any-sort voters, and how many just supported him because they thought Boris would not get a deal and would not get no-deal through because parliament wouldnt let him. That made the Farrage way seem the quickest. Speed is what many people want. I hear 'Just get it done' over and again on News vox-pop interviews. Assuming the vote fails tomorrow and no-deal on Oct 31st is prevented by the Benn act, what is the quickest way to get Brexit done? It's an extention for an election, with the Tories winning. No Brexiteer is going to vote for Labour's 'start all over again' route, nor the Lib Dems cancel-Brexit idea. Boris knows that and will campaign ruthlessly on it.. There will still be plenty of remainers left, but with Brexit-fatigue and a deal on offer I expect the pro-Brexit vote to be 65% or more. Boris can spare Farrage 10% and still romp home.. Sadly other issues will probably be swamped at the election.
It won't be getting Brexit done though, unless getting it done is simply crossing the line as it seems is the case for most leavers. Whatever happens after that is of little importance.
Good analysis. :up:
Another hung parliament sounds like a neverending nightmare! Maybe if the polls predict one during the campaign voters would vote tactically to prevent it?
Also, this Letwin amendment has thrown a cat amongst the pigeons. Boris is now saying today's vote may be pulled if it is allowed..
And Boris still insists on the Oct 31st deadline and refuses to negotiate an extension with the EU. This could be fun for the lawyers..
He doesn't have to negotiate, he just has to send the letter. Word games from him. He's sending the letter.
I know they couldn't have done that due to the depth of the infighting in their own party, indeed they were so ham strung by their own chaos that they were unable to do anything else but deliver us a deadlock in such a shambles. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I saw an interview with Ian Duncan Smith on the BBC following the Letwin vote. He was defiant and spitting profanities in indignation and yet he was one of the ERG who through their ideological erotic spasm delivered us this mess, disgraceful.
Possible, but I think the EU's political leaders probably have enough political acumen to realize that they'd be playing into Johnson's Hands if they did.
Yes, but they will not want to be drawn into the internal politics of another country. They will have to tread carefully.
Already I hear that Johnson sent a photocopy of the letter unsigned, with an accompanying signed letter saying that the first letter is not his words, but those of Parliament and that any delay would be harmful to both Britain and Europe. I wonder if there are threats included. He insisted that he will continue pushing his deal through parliament and will leave by 31st.
I know that they have the measure of him, but if you have a petulant child, it is difficult to manage them without having to step over any red lines.
UK politics must be a laughing stock worldwide by now! The EU are going to hold off granting the extention to the last minute - but grant it they will if need be. They hope that parliament will be scared into voting through Boris's deal before then. It's going to be a game of bluff over the next 2 weeks..
If Boris gets his deal through, as I now think is likely if MPs get to look at its detail and are reassured that the govt don't plan a race to the bottom re workers' rights and green policy, then how can he lose the election? Any opposition policies on overturning Brexit will be greeted as sour grapes and dismissed by the Tories. Farage is a dead duck - well, mortally wounded I'd say. I think Boris's charm will win voters over. They'll trust him, despite his impossible 'lower taxes and more spending' policies - Trump won with that manifesto..
As I said earlier, if the deal isn't passed and there's an extension for an election, I think the fact that Boris has a deal will persuade enough would-be-remainers that the time has come to hold their noses and accept it. Party loyalties may well count for little. It'll be a Brexit election.
Johnson is a blundering oaf, his chutzpah has no legs, or should I say trousers.
My feeling is that an amendment tacking on a confirmatory referendum wont pass. No Tories will vote for it, so everyone else would have to, and I'm sure a few Labour MPs won't want to delay things any further.. It would need a 6 months extension from Brussels I think, unlike the 2 or 3 months for an election, and there'd be huge irritation among the public..
I assume that as the EU seem to have taken Boris's official letter seriously - unsigned or not - no-deal is virtually dead - at least for now.
So we have trench warfare between the government and the opposition. In which Johnson will try to ram through his deal and the opposition will do anything to prevent him without the risk of a no deal by default. The opposition can throw him out now( well it's very close, it might come down to one or two votes), but there is a risk ( of no deal) which is why they are waiting.
The EU I expect is simply trying not to get involved, drawn into this battle, while also trying not to facilitate a no deal by default, or by accident. In which case they would take the blame for causing it.
It's in Corbyn's interest to wait because Johnson is powerless and digging a hole for himself, to die in a ditch, "do or die". In the meantime Corbyn can bring amendments to erode Johnson's deal, making it softer and less palatable for the ERG, thus reducing his majority. ( the ERG only came onboard with Johnson's deal because there would be a no deal by default at the end of the implementation period in December 2020, which they are gunning for, if this is taken away, their support will fade).
Surely we have to assume that the implementation period will be extended. It was originally 21 months from the end of March 19, and that looked tight. There's no way a trade deal can be agreed in 1 year even if Boris's deal is agreed by Oct 31st, especially if we lose say 2 months of that year for an election and bedding in of a new govt. Both the UK and the EU must accept that. I havent heard the Tories insist on Dec 2020. Once the withdrawal bill passes Boris can say he's kept to his promise, so hopefully there's no longer such a rush..
So we have the same hardline rhetoric with a cliff edge continuing for another 14 months and considering that the government has been populated with hardline brexiters. This wreckless behaviour is not going to end anytime soon.
You know the phrase we keep hearing in the media, "people just want to get this done", "we just want to get this done", is so disingenuous. Nothing will be done, we are in for at leat another year and a half of this and many years beyond that.
Meanwhile it's bye bye Scotland.
Yes but as I understand it, that 'no deal' is no trade deal - not no withdrawal deal, which is what we are threatened with now. I think 'no trade deal' is less of a disaster. It would just put the EU/UK on the same trade terms as UK/US currently is. Okay, a bad deal compared to what we have whilst in the EU, but not a disaster like no deal at all. And a trade deal could be renegotiated by another govt in a few years time if the Tories cant agree one. It's not a once-or-never chance..
Anyway, what is the ERG logic for not wanting a trade deal with the EU? I can't see any advantages..
What national or domestic constituency does it appeal to? I suspect there's your answer.
I will have to take your word for it about a no trade deal, as I have no information on that. I have heard both a full no deal and only a no trade deal on the media, so I don't know about that.
The ERG logic for a no deal is simple, they simply want to leave the EU in the cleanest way possible. What happens next following a no deal exit is irrelevant, really. Although they each have their vision, or unicorn that they hope for.
Are you aware of the position that the goal is to leave, fully properly, a clean break. For the people who hold that position that is all that matters, they couldn't believe their luck when the referendum result went that way and now they are desperate to hold onto it and want to secure the no deal for the benefit of all of us, even if to achieve it they have to lie, cheat, break the law. We'll thank them for doing it later, when we arrive in "the sunlit uplands". Perhaps they think that we are deluded or something for wanting to remain linked to the controlling EU, or fill in any anti EU rhetoric coming from the Brexit party.
Johnson has already requested a delay to Brexit, by sending the letter to Brussels required by the backbench Benn act after MPs declined to support his deal on Saturday – something he said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than do.
But if the government can force its Brexit bill through parliament in time, the UK could in theory still leave the EU by next Thursday’s deadline.
The prime minister will ask MPs to back him in two crucial votes on Tuesday – on the withdrawal agreement bill, enshrining the deal he struck in Brussels last week, and on his plan to ram it through the House of Commons by the end of Thursday.[/quote]
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/21/boris-johnson-in-final-push-to-ram-through-brexit-deal
Yet another nail-biter/deadline/crucial vote/point of no return. They just keep coming.
Yes, there are likely to be some interesting amendments from the opposition too.
Interestingly it has emerged that the Letwin amendment on Saturday prevented a circumstance in which if the government had won the meaningful vote, they would have been able to retract the request for an extension from the EU and we would have been heading for a no deal again. So that was the cunning Cummings plan. It would have forced a no confidence vote this week and a divisive election.
I know that is true for the simplistic Farage supporters, but I'd have thought that ERG MPs would have more sense. One of the benefits of leaving is supposed to be the ability to negotiate our own trade deals with other countries. That includes the EU, who are by far our biggest trading partner. Having a transition period will allow that negotiation to proceed with willingness from both sides. If we just cut and run then why would the EU rush to agree such a deal? I know the ERG logic that no deal would hurt them as much as us, but that is demonstrable rubbish. 44% UK trade is with the EU, but only 8% of EU trade is with the UK. fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
So who'd suffer most from the imposition of WTO tarifs?
I suppose maybe they think the EU will keep delaying and ensure the trade negotiations drag on for several years, during which time we are still paying in to the EU and subject to its laws, and during which time a new UK govt could come in with a pro-EU mandate. However, once the withdrawal bill passes we have left and article 50 can't be rescinded as far as I know, so a process to rejoin would have to start from scratch..
"But Downing Street is braced for potential defeat on the so-called programme motion setting out the timetable, as it suspects some pro-deal Labour MPs and a few Conservatives may not support plans to rush it through the Commons within days.
Veteran Conservative Ken Clarke said: “Unless you are prepared to contemplate more expansive debate, there is not the slightest possibility of considering the deal that has been obtained within the time available.”
If the programme motion falls, the government has little chance of “getting Brexit done”, as Johnson calls it, by 31 October."
Also I think you are being less than generous to the EU about the negotiations over a trade deal. They have behaved impeccably throughout the process and all the nonsense and delay is on the side of the government. They certainly would'nt be playing games to get a few more membership payments. Also I disagree with any suggestion that the EU is delaying or something in the hope that a more moderate government gets into power in the UK.
Yes he has now threatened that he will pull the bill if that doesn't pass. He is like a petulant child throwing his toys out of the pram. Corbyn pointed out that bringing the bill in this way shows contempt for parliament, which is correct. Johnson is lining up for the people against parliament and trying to get his general election ( which he apparently doesn't want).
Interestingly the threat to pull the bill emanated from No10 during the PM's speech in parliament introducing the bill. He hadn't mentioned it and then did later on. Presumably when someone had told him about it during his speech. Proving that Cummings is pulling the strings.
Or it was planned to go down that way. Doesn't seem to prove anything one way or another.
I agree with you that the EU have behaved impeccably. I didn't accuse them of deliberately delaying, I said the ERG will think they are, and that's one of the smears they will use to whip up anti-Brussels sentiment.
Anyway, the deal has passed now on 2nd reading, so it's now a matter of the time it takes to go into law. Notably Boris insisted 'the UK will leave with this deal' - no mention of Oct 31st, after the programme motion went down. He didn't quite throw his toys out of the pram and go for an election. So I assume he will ask the EU for as short a delay as he thinks parliament would accept. Maybe only a week. The longer the delay, the more chance of MPs adding amendments to the bill and sabotaging it. I'm still not sure whether he'd rather call the election with the deal fully passed, or with that as his campaign's main aim. Perhaps he'd prefer it passed, to prove he's done it, hence his investigating a short extension first. But if he can only get 3 months he'll surely plump for an election and aim to get a big enough majority to pass it unmolested.
I agree with you apart from this one point. It is probably a Pyrrhic victory, for two reasons, one the Letwin amendment withholds approval until the whole bill has been amended and agreed. So it has not actually been approved. Secondly there isn't a majority for the deal in its current form, the support he was given tonight by the Labour rebels was due to their wanting to add a number of amendments which would make it a softer Brexit. The problem being, if this happens Johnson's support will fall away from the ERG. So he is swapping one group of votes for another, but still does not a have a majority for either incarnation of his deal.
In the meantime he has now gone to the EU and asked for an extension, rather than die in a ditch and he has missed his do or die deadline of the 31st of October. Although I'm not sure how important these issues are at the moment.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit-countdown/2019/1022/1084934-brexit-uk/
That won't stop Boris saying it has in the election campaign. And if he gets a majority it's certain to go through the rest of the parliamentary stages.
Boris seems not to want to discuss an extension with the EU, as he doesnt want one. So he's leaving it up to them to decide on its length. This of course allows him to avoid blame (he hopes) for missing his Oct 31st deadline - ie the delay was a stitch-up between parliament and the EU. He also hasn't tried too hard to agree a more realistic timetable with Corbyn as he knows the bill would be mutilated. So we have the odd situation of the EU deciding the timescale for what happens next. I doubt they'll want the Corbyn short entension for the same reason Boris doesn't. So will it be Jan 31st, and an election at the start of December?
Interestingly a poll Daily Express poll reports 2/3 of Brexit party voters are happy with the deal, so I think Farage's bolt is shot. Also over 1/3 of remain voters now think the deal should go through..
The whole messy Brexit process signifies a crisis of parliamentary democracy and the Westminster model. Because this PM was not elected by parliament but by party members, the assembly is not responsible for executive policy anymore, and therefore it can afford to act irresponsibly. Parliament doesn’t need a plan. It can now be perpetually destructive.
If this novum of direct election of the party leader had not been introduced, Britain would now have had a PM supported by parliament (like it has always had throughout its history) and his Brexit plan, whatever it had been, would have been accepted a long time ago.
As it now is, no one is to blame for the mess. Not Johnson, he’s working for what he believes in, and not parliament, it doesn’t need to believe in anything. The new unbritish system is to blame.
It's a problem caused by the hung Parliament we now have. A minority govt has elected a new leader and the Fixed Term Parliament law prevents him from calling an election mid-term without the support of some of the opposition. It's very unusual that the opposition doesn't want an immediate election - the daftness of the no deal Brexit cliff-edge has brought about this situation. I would doubt it will ever be repeated.
Interestingly Peter Oborne has said today that the mainstream media has now become a sound board for the No10 leak and comment factory. "A source in Downing Street" has been manipulating the media in the knowledge that many widely followed reporters working for the BBC for example simply repeat it, without challenging, or questioning the information. He should know he was a political commentator for the Telegraph, a staunch leaver who had the courage to admit his mistake and now talks of how the whole referendum and leave ideology was a tragic mistake.
Are you confident that the British public won't eventually see through this smoke and mirrors and doublethink of the vote leave campaign and now the government.
Another example of the behaviour has emerged today, Corbyn and Johnson met today to discuss a sensible compromise on how long to allow for scrutiny of the bill. After the niceties, Corbyn brought up the issue which the meeting was supposed to be about, the timetable for debate of the bill and apparently Cummings slammed his hand down on the table and shouted no, it's not going to be discussed, or something like that. After which Johnson tried to paper over the cracks. Somehow I don't think the meeting went very well.
What's that then?
I'm hoping the British public will see through the lies, bullying and destructive behaviour of our government and throw them out. They are doing to much damage
That’s not strictly speaking true. Johnson is champing at the bit, and has repeatedly called for an election, but Corybn has voted an election down on the grounds that it might lead to a no-deal exit. Now that the no-deal option has been firewalled, I think Corbyn will be very hard-pressed to keep denying a poll. Then, I would think, Johnson will campaign hard on the fact that he has a Brexit deal in the bag, and I expect he’ll win.
I agree with your view about Corbyn.
Two cabinet ministers have contradicted themselves in the House of Commons, regarding customs checks between NI and Britain. This has erupted into a political storm in the commons.
No10 is splitting today, the're like cats in a sack.
Oh, also Farage is kicking up a stink, the deep split between a sensible deal and no deal is yawning.
The problem for the Tories if they delay is the bill getting amended. There is very close to a majority for adding a customs union to it - all opposition plus a handful of Tories would support it. So Boris can't really aford to risk going throught the rest of the bill. He would ideally like to stick to Oct 31st, but that's surely now impossible, so an election it'll have to be. As Wayfarer says: Corbyn cannot really refuse when the EU offer an extension and no deal is no longer possible before the new govt gets in.
Quoting Punshhh
I think the general public are totally bamboozled by the whole Brexit farrago, and just want it to end. They don't understand what's going on and that leads to fear of the unknown. Basically, they'll give anything for certainty - even a bad deal...
Regarding the public, there are a lot of voters who think that "getting it done", means it will all be sorted. This is one of the worst deceits of the government, they know it won't be done, we will have another decade of it. There certainly won't be any certainty. The only way to stop it is to revoke, support for a people's vote may be increasing now, it's difficult to read though along with anything else at the moment.
I agree it won't all be sorted for years yet, and there will certainly be an outcry against the continuing payments the UK has to make in the transition period. Indeed I've just read the UK will lose its rebate, so we'll be paying more than whilst in, still be subject to EU laws, and with no say! But once the withdrawal deal is passed it becomes a matter of when rather than if. I can't see support for another referendum doing anything but reducing from here as even hardened remainers start to accept the inevitable - assuming, that is, Boris wins the election..
No, the hung parliament is not the problem since many conservative MPs have also voted against the various deals proposed by May and Johnson. In the old days, when the prime minister was elected by parliament and not by party members, the whip had power and could force his MPs into line with their leader. It was in their own interest to support the PM from their own party even if they didn’t agree with him a hundred percent. Those days are gone. By introducing this foolish rule that the leaders must be directly elected by party members, the unintended consequence has been to turn the distinguished British parliament into a messy American Congress where every representative is on his own without responsibility for the overall functioning of government. No plan can be expected from a group of people without a common purpose and they certainly don’t feel obligated to support a leader they have not chosen themselves.
A hung parliament is uncommon in British politics, but it’s very common on the continent and even there the representatives almost always support the countries leader when he is from their own party. That’s the natural thing to do in a parliamentary democracy. Britain is not a parliamentary democracy anymore, but a strange American hybrid.
Quoting Evil
A quick Brexit whatever the cost
There won't just be an outcry about payments,( I noticed Farage was going on about this today) people will begin to understand the implications of the deal as the government won't be able to hide them from their supporters anymore. For example the customs arrangements, complexity and a blizzard of red tape on the border between the mainland and NI, Remember 80% of trade in NI is with the mainland. Not to mention the demands for a independence referendum from Scotland. Also Michel Barnier has said now that the new future agreement will take a minimum of 3 years to finalise. So the transition period will stretch out into the distance and given the incompetence of the government, it could last a decade. The ECJ will have jurisdiction over EU nationals for 8 years. I'll stop there (for it is a long list), because the people who Johnson and the press have duped are not concerned with what happens next, as far as they are concerned the goal is getting Brexit done. But remember, it won't be done, not for a number of years. So outcry again.
It's interesting, if they have adopted this mindset, that the goal is simply to get it done. It doesn't matter what it is. They are happy to buy the shiny car without looking under the bonnet. The car sold to them by populist decievers, but they can't look under the bonnet, because it doesn't matter if the engine doesn't work, because all that matters is to buy it. Once it's bought it doesn't matter if it is a wreck, because they have got it done. The brainwashing is complete. For others they are looking forward to unicorns appearing over the horizon, while trying not to think what they are throwing away, those pesky Europeans.
If Johnson wins an election, ( a majority, because no one would go into coalition with such a divisive regime), then hardened remainers may accept the inevitable, because it would be reality. But I doubt they would adopt that stance until such a majority were secured. I wonder if hard brexiters would accept it if the decision were reversed, or we had a soft Brexit, somehow I doubt it. Because they would have to admit that they played a part in such a charade.
The withdrawal bill won't be passed before an election, as I said in my previous post, there isn't a majority for Johnson's deal amendments or not. So his offer tonight for a two week window to scrutinise the deal, if an election is agreed for 12 of December is playground games.
The likes of Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair always had large enough majorities to allow them to disregard the 'extremists' in their own parties. Since 2010 we have not had such a stable majority govt. Maybe the times are changing and we'll have to get used to coalitions like much of the rest of Europe has..
Quoting Congau
The whips still have that power - hence the 20-odd expelled Tory MPs. But Brexit is an issue where some MPS are putting the country before party loyalty, and good on them for doing so! I think Brexit is such a huge decision that with no majority govt the normal Westminster tactics are creaking under the strain. But that doesnt mean normality won't be restored in time..
No, the diminishing sense of party loyalty is not just about Brexit. It’s clearly seen regarding other issues as well, and in both parties. The Labour leader is also facing rebellion for different reasons, among them anti-Semitism. That would not have happened prior to 2015 when the leader was first directly elected by party members.
Party loyalty is not a basic instinct among MPs, it follows logically from what is at stake for them personally. When the leader was elected by them, they had to be loyal or else they would be responsible for the failure of their own favoured policy. Now they don’t have much to lose by voting against their leader since he was never their real leader in the first place.
In America there’s very little party loyalty and that’s not for any psychological reasons but simple because the election process is different. It’s a perpetual state of American politics and it’s not at all restricted to important issues. They don’t need to be loyal to their president. Now that the British PM has got his base removed from Parliament he has unfortunately become more like a president. A wedge has been driven between Westminster and Downing Street and its name is not Brexit.
I agree that election by the members means the likes of Boris will win vs Jeremy Hunt any time - a populist who simplifiies things will get his priorities through quicker than someone whose approach is more nuanced. But don't forget, before the Tory members voted, their MPs whittled the candidates down to 2. And Boris was way ahead all the way through that process. I don't think you can say the majority of his MPs don't support him, or that they'd elect a different leader given sole choice.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Just in, we have a Cummings plan to table an equivalent bill to this tomorrow.
What was expected to pass was a one line bill tabled today by the SNP and Lib Dems, requiring a majority of one and a fixed poling date of 9th of December. If Johnson had accepted this he would have secured his election today. But he rejected this offer and decided to play games again and is apparently going to bring an equivalent one line bill tomorrow of their own. Presumably there will be some wheeze hidden in there which won't be acceptable to the SNP, or Lib Dems. They want cast iron guarantees of the poling date and no no deal.
So let's see if they get an election tomorrow, I'm not holding my breath.
Why do you say that? If Parliament won't vote to pass a deal or to revoke Article 50 then we'll leave without a deal when the EU stops granting an extension. They won't keep offering one every 3 months forever.
The only way to do that is to pass a bill that commits to revoking Article 50 if a deal is not passed by a certain date, and I doubt there are the numbers in Parliament for that.
Johnson may have been nominated by the Tory MPs, but since the ultimate responsibility was out of their hands, they don’t have any strong allegiance to him. That even happened to Theresa May, who was a moderate and could have been chosen under the old system of exclusive MP election as well. Since they were not uniquely responsible for giving her the power, they didn’t have to go along with her proposals. It’s quite unheard of in the history of British parliamentarism that MPs from the ruling party have consistently voted against their own prime minister, but now, with the change in the leadership election process, that has become possible.
Quoting Tim3003
On the contrary, the expulsion of the twenty Tories proves the new impotence of the whip. In the past the whip had power because he could threaten consequences in case of non-abidance. There was no need to carry out the threat.
The fact that an MP rebellion is also seen in the Labour party and concerns issues that have nothing to do with Brexit, shows that the link between the MPs and their leaders has been severely weakened.
It’s being argued that power of Parliament has increased in the process, but the opposite is the case. Parliament, a body elected by the entire populace, used to have the sole power to appoint the prime minister, but now it has to share it with some random party members. When the PM came from Parliament only, that distinguished assembly had the ultimate responsibility for all government policy and thereby all the power.
And that's a big reason for why Brexit shouldn't go ahead. Don't fuck with my healthcare.
They voted for the Johnson deal last week, remember? That was Johnson’s only win thus far: that he actually got the Brexit bill through, immediately followed by another vote delaying it’s implementation. (Although as Punshhh points out, nothing is clear cut.)
Not quite. It passed the second reading which means it moves onto the committee stage where the first round of amendments can be added. It's not until passing the third reading (which is actually the 5th stage) that it moves to the House of Lords to consider, where the process is repeated before returning back to the Commons for the final vote.
But then of course any amendments would need to be accepted by the EU...
Don't be too certain just yet. The election bill can now be amended. So it may include votes for EU nationals, 16-17 yr olds; and be on Dec 9th, which will be a public holiday, before MPs have finished. Boris could yet be so afronted he'll pull the bill. It's not a no-confidence vote, so he has that right, just as (he says) he's doing for the Brexit Withdrawal bill..
So from my perspective, it's looking like a coalition of the opposition forming our next government.
I can't believe what has happened since then, the Conservative party has imploded trying to take rest rest of us down with them. I never would have predicted that.
Assuming Sinn Fein win back their current 7 seats, and they don't take them, and allowing for the Speakers & deputies who don't vote, the total is 640. I think much will rest on whether Boris's Tories can eat the Brexit Party vote down to 10% or less. I think they will. The Brexit Party is little more than a protest vote - in the EU elections they didn't have any policies at all! I don't think whatever policies they cobble together will stand up to full scrutiny in a general election. And with a deal in Boris's pocket he can ram home the message that a Tory victory is the quickest path to Brexit until even the dumbest Faragists agree. Boris just has to keep reminding them that any vote for the Brexit Party risks letting the remain parties in..
Added to this is the problem which has emerged for the Conservatives due to their hardline do or die policies. They don't have any friends, other party's who will go into coalition with them, or a confidence and supply arrangement, because they totally alienated the DUP by putting a border down the Irish Sea. What this means is for them to form a government they must have an outright majority, of between 321-326 (I can't find the exact figure) seats.
What this means for the opposition party's is that any seat won by any other party will reduce the majority which the conservatives can win. And the opposition party's will all cooperate if required in tactical voting, or coalition.
So taking all this into consideration my prediction is for a rainbow coalition of remain party's in coalition with the Labour Party.
Hesletine said, the Brexit vote was a protest vote against austerity (austerity is Corbyn's main attack line against the government and his socialist policies will immediately begin to reverse austerity). He then said that in his opinion Brexit is a calamitous mistake and he would vote for a party which will stop Brexit happening. That was all fine, but he then contradicted himself politically by attacking Corbyn as an extreme Marxist who is not fit to be prime minister and would never get into power. The problem being, if he is going to vote for any party which will stop Brexit, he will be voting to put Corbyn into government. He then found himself in an impossible position in which he couldn't say who he would vote for.
This is typical of the knots that the Conservatives have tied themselves into over these issues. Many dyed in the wool Conservatives believe this line that Corbyn is unelectable for these reasons, but they have lost touch with vast swathes of the country who are angry at the extent to which austerity is destroying our public services, fuelling the wealth divide and through universal credit, punishing the poor and causing a big increase in homelessness (this is a long list). Also there is a growing green vote worried about climate change. Such people will vote Green, or Labour.
The 2004 neo-liberal experiment of allowing virtually unrestricted access to the UK of people from poor east European countries (pushed by UK Labour premier Tony Blair) upset many locals. Boosted Euroscepticism led to the 2016 referendum, which was, in effect, the first public consultation on mass immigration. Result: split nation: loquatious liberals versus taciturn precariat.
Offered a binary choice, I voted to remain but was actually undecided. As a left-liberal who welcomes immigration, I nevertheless sympathised with the overlooked precariat - who were wrongly dismissed by the metrocentric liberal establishment as ignorant provincial racists.
But it's madness to abandon a good trading deal with our near neighbours in exchange for environment-destroying air and sea miles, and a sweetheart deal with corporate USA involving chlorinated chicken and a garage sale of the UK's National Health System.
So, let's stay in and, firstly, use the same EU rules as Germany and France have to restrict the "free movement" of people. (Mobility of cheap labour is no freedom.) Then vote for reforming the sh*t out of the corrupt, bloated, neo-lib EU gravy train. Then we can resume our previous blissful sense of indifference.
Isn't that what David Cameron tried before the referendum, and came back effectively empty-handed? The UK has no power to influence the EU to change, and its 4 freedoms are sacrosanct. What are the rules you mention that France and Germany use to restrict free movement?
This minor victory may have been drowned out by the noise of the referendum campaigning. The UK has never unilaterally used permitted restrictions as France and Germany have. For instance:
"In Germany, EU nationals have to apply for a residence card if they wish to work. This card can be withdrawn for various reasons, after which the holder is required to leave Germany or be forcibly expelled, and is automatically denied re-entry."
(Financial Times, UK, June 2018, "Tantalising glimpse of an EU compromise on freedom of movement'
https://www.ft.com/content/db49c91e-70ac-11e8-8863-a9bb262c5f53)
Regarding the "sacrosant" four freedoms, if the free movement of people (FMP) (AKA the unrestricted mobility of cheap labour) is considered essential to the EU's single market, then that market's in serious need of reform.
As seen in Lode Desmet's brilliant two-part fly-on-the-wall TV documentary, "Brexit: Behind Closed Doors" (Storyville, BBC Four, May 2019), liberal MEP Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit coordinator for the European Parliament, federalist and, apparently, self-appointed High Priest of the Four Freedoms, pompously and melodramatically - if unconvingly - lectured a 2018 UK parliamentary committee on the supposed sanctity of FMP. Verhofstadt (who, unlike EU senior Brexit panjandrums Tusk, Juncker and Barnier, is at least elected) duly preached the 4F credo to the committee:
(Transcript kindly provided to me by Lode Desmet)
So, how noble are the mighty four freedoms! We rich west Europeans can export our goods, services and capital. Poor east Europeans can export their cheap labour. Neo-liberalism at its grubby worst, I'd say.
Yes, I thought Cameron did well when he sought concessions and I was surprised at the outcry from the Murdoch press etc, that the concessions were not good enough. It was the first time that I became aware of the extent of the anti EU poison that had been administered by such populist power brokers.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/19/the-guardian-view-on-the-eu-summit-last-tangle-in-brussels
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/feb/20/david-camerons-eu-deal-what-the-national-newspapers-said
He said about Johnson,
"He's the exact right guy for the times"
He said about Farage and Johnson,
"if you and him get together you'd be an unstoppable force"
He said about Corbyn,
"Corbyn would be bad for you he'd take you to bad places"
A gift for Corbyn and and an own goal for Farage and Johnson. Corbyn has already tweeted that it's sour grapes from Trump because he won't be able to buy out the NHS with a Corbyn government. Also he's put his foot in it suggesting that Farage and Johnson should team up. A toxic prospect for Johnson.
Labour would put it back to the people with binding alternatives. Which would take about 6 months. If Johnson wins and pushes through his deal, he would be snarled up in fractious negotiations for the next stage of talks with the EU, with periodic cliff edges and the continuation of the chaos and division.
The reason that the leaving arrangements with the EU are in such divisive chaos is entirely due to the infighting and rabid Brexit factions in the Conservative party. The party which has been in government for the whole period.
But if Johnson gets in with a majority we are going to hell in a hand cart. He will ram through his deal with no care for the damage done, because his two main goals are more important than any collateral damage he does in achieving them, firstly to get 5 years in No 10, closely followed and linked hand in glove, with saving the Conservatives from electoral oblivion.
The third goal, making it a heady mix, is to prevent at all cost a socialist party getting into government. Readers outside the UK are probably not aware how profound this would be for the Conservatives and their supporter base. Also what a profound change it would be for the fortunes of our country following forty years of a stranglehold of Tory capitalism, which has brought our country to its knees. If Labour gets into power they will be going after the top 5% of earners and wealth hoarders.
?
Why? Do you want to prolong the confusion and have everybody continue to be disappointed?
Be out: Be treated like the US (or Morocco) by the EU. No problem, actually
Be in: forget totally the last years that the UK has been in turmoil and just be like nothing happened, the referendum was just a bad dream.
I'd like to ask the Britons here the following questions?
How are the Lib Dems seen in the UK? Is there a wedge in the conservative party?
I gather that there might be a of former conservatives that could be disappointed about the whole mess that the conservative party has made itself and how it has dealt with the issue, yet won't ever vote for such a catastrophe as the Labour party.
He's very critical of Johnson's deal, as a warmed up May deal, which is not really Brexit at all.
It sounds like the death nail of the Conservative party to me.
Yes definitely, there are a lot of former and current Conservatives who are feeling sick watching the shambles. Who will switch to the Lib Dems. Although there is a sliding scale here against how hard they are on Brexit, the harder they are the more likely they are to go to Brexit party.
As I said earlier, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Corbyn getting into No 10, because the Conservatives don't have anyone to go into coalition with. Although the Brexit party may win a few seats( they have none now), who they could possibly form an alliance with.
There is a deep split in the Conservative party between hardline, right wing, hard Brexit and moderate, soft Brexit, or remain. Their Achilles heal is the Brexit party, that split will be yawning following the launch of the Brexit party campaign now.
Politico
BBC News
I cant see voters wanting another 6 month delay for ref2. Even if they swallowed that, the result will almost certainly be close and the arguing will continue. Also, the renegotiated Labour party Brexit deal is going to include Customs Union, Single Market membership, maybe even Freedom of Movement. All that is going to enrage Brexiteers who'll see it is Brexit in name only. So the referendum will be hugely problematical, divisive and if Remain wins the result won't be accepted by the leavers any more than the first one was by remainers. I can only see it making matters worse..
I'm a remainer too, but I think people want this exit deal put to bed. Yes part 2 will be just as complicated, but the prevailing view is 'let's get on with it.' Hadn't you noticed the 13% (and rising) Tory lead in the polls?
This might be the state of the polls as of this morning, but it's a long way to polling day and Farage and Johnson have plenty of opportunity to stumble. Indeed in the last 24 hours Farage is flat on his face and trying to bring Johnson down with him and the election campaign hasn't started yet.
Also there are record numbers of young voters registering to vote as we speak and most of them will be voting for remain or Labour party's.
People are speculating that Farage would rather remain in the EU and still be the champion of Brexit. Than allow Johnson to leave and become the hero of Brexit and steal his thunder.
This may be the case now, but if there is a split in the leave vote, then it's game over and I can hear the cracks spreading.
As I said, I mean: stay in, but be an outsider. Stay in keep the easy trading with our near neighbours (and to avoid the chlorinated chicken, etc) . Be an outsider to reflect the valid views of Eurosceptics.
Farage is already getting desperate and having to put up candidates for every seat. No sign of the Tories wanting a pact. They will push hard with 'a vote for the Brexit party risks letting Corbyn in'. And we havent got to the fun part of examining Farage's policies yet..
I also notice many of the Tory left-leaning MPs are not standing. More evidence that Boris has won and recast the party just as Corbyn did after fighting off his challenger for the leadership in 2016 (I think). Perhaps there will be a leakage of the leftie Tory vote to the Lib Dems? I am still intrigued to see if their cancel-Brexit policy gamble pays off.
There is a big material difference between leaving and remaining which is not acknowledged in the commentary. If we leave half the population will be forced against their will to accept a long lasting and profound material change in circumstances. Whereas if we remain the half of the population who voted to leave will be forced against their will to have no material change in their circumstances.
This exposes the inadequacy of the referendum and that it was ill conceived. For such a large material change it should have required a super majority of 60%, or two thirds majority. Or stated that there would be a confirmatory referendum at the end of the process.
In the UK the Lib Dems are acknowledged as the third of the main party's. In a largely two party system, they are often trapped in the middle, meaning that they often have large swings in their number of seats depending on the mood in the country. Their policies are as centrist as they can be, they are often criticised for being in line with either conservative policies, or Labour, by the other side. But they do have a solid support in the middle ground, the woolly jumper, Saab driving brigade.
The rather more negative view is that they are less centrist and more two-faced, able to have contradictory policies according to who they are speaking to, having the luxury of never having to implement and thus be judged on them. The ideal home for career politicians who are all talk and no trousers.
You have a point about the UK Liberal Democrats. Their coalition government with the Conservatives (2010-15) seriously damaged their liberal credentials.
(However, you're wrong, if I may say so, to say "all talk and no trousers". This a common but meaningless misspeak error, usually misspoken as "all mouth and no trousers". The correct phrase is "all mouth and trousers". This is analogous to "all smoke and mirrors". You wouldn't say, "all smoke and no mirrors". The error is due to people overexcitedly confusing the phrase with its racy sister-phrase, "all fur coat and no knickers".)
All due respect to the grammar nazis but as a mere speaker of common-speak, so-to-speak, is it not the case that once a phrase gains common currency, does it not attain to meaning independent of its misbegotten origins? My concern is more that it is a sexist phrase. :wink:
Meaning is use.
Now back to the meaningless topic of "brexit".
No, it's not. Use a meaningless phrase a million times, it's still meaningless. This isn't pedantry - it's correction.
I don't think Farage any longer represents the majority of Eurosceptics. I read a poll saying 2/3 of Brexit Party members prefer the Tory govt deal to no deal. I think many of them only cling to him because they understand none of it and he seems a chap who stands up for their 'interests' (aka fears). I have never believed the referendum endorsed no deal and I don't think many others at the time did. Farage has now co-opted the term 'Brexit' to mean no deal - as he says any deal is now selling out. He deals in simplistic slogans. His arguments never hold water under inspection - which is why he never allows anyone to disect them. My point was that 'clean break' is the most absurd mis-representation of what leaving with no deal represents, chosen to hoodwink his followers. I think it's sad that our politics is descending to a populist battle of one-line slogans. Politicians have followed Farage's success and now believe the best way to win voters is not to inform them but to poke them emotionally, either inciting fear or blind optimism.
His masterstroke I have to admit was using the term 'project fear' during the referendum, for all the negative economic predictions Cameron was fighting him with. The irony was that the term should already have been coined to describe the demonising of immigrants, and the impending tidal wave of them coming to swamp us, which led to calls for the referendum in the first place!
What he has been doing over the last few years is well known. But I don't think he has any other modus operandi. The techniques of populism he has developed is all he has. He is not a politician and now that he finds himself more and more in the political sphere he doesn't know what else to do other than more of the same. So what does he do, he knows that if he stops now he is finished and will be ridiculed and abused by large numbers of people, he has needed body guards for a while now.
So we have what he did last week, he comes out fighting and gunning for the Tory party. Like Trump all he can do is exploit populist memes until he gets to the top. Unfortunately he has come up against his nemesis in Johnson, a carnivorous Tory, with the whole Tory machine behind him, with numerous skilled political operators. It seems as though he has now hit a brick wall, by giving the ultimatum that the Tory party must drop its deal and go for no deal by 14th November.
What is he playing at, world domination?
Do you listen to James O Brian* he is the leading media pundit for remain. He points out that the majority of "leavers", have simply believed a few lies, which like Farages slogans, are easy to believe and propagate. That most of the Brexit party followers, (apart from the working class supporters in the north and east who often have valid concerns) are against immigration, again many of them will have believed lies and untruths about the realities of immigration.
So a proportion of "leavers" are actually mistaken, rather than having well thought through legitimate concerns. Indeed he would go further and point out that there aren't any legitimate concerns about the EU which necessitate leaving the EU. Every concern which has been put to him has been shown to be unwarranted, or more to do with the incompetence of the UK government, than the EU.
I'm not saying that the EU is perfect, or that our membership isn't problematic, but there are no valid reasons to leave which hold up to scrutiny, which to correct would require us to leave the EU. There are a few ideological political views or stances which can make a case for the UK being independent from the EU, but by no means are they a necessity, or required.
* James O Brian, LBC radio, 10.00 am - 1.00pm Monday to Friday.
I sympathise with your view here, I used the word mistake rather than wrong. I realise that politically the leaver ideology is not in and of itself wrong other than were it is incoherent and/or has no relation to reality. However there are real hard consequences to political choices on the ground, something which we have to bare in mind in our analysis.
As I pointed out yesterday there is a real material consequence for the half of the population who is being forced to leave against their will. At least if Brexit is cancelled, or neutered, that half of the population who wish to leave will not have any material consequences imposed on them. They may feel hard done by, or betrayed, but that is only in terms of their aspiration, not their material circumstances and if they take it hard, that is their intellectual choice, because in reality nothing on the ground would have changed. Perhaps they could say but what about the unicorn I was expecting, look I even provided a stable for it and now you have taken it away from me.
Unicorn is appropriate to illustrate the point. What does the independent UK look like? Perhaps there are many images, some with one horn, some where the grass is greener. I remember Johnson saying something about " the sunlit uplands", " we can have our cake and eat it", I can't remember who said "the exact same benefits".
Some leavers justify their stance as 'to get our country back'. It's hard to fight against such meaningless generalisations, which are based on 'feelings' that the EU tells us what to do; we don't have control over immigration, our laws etc. Describing the reality doesn't counter gut-instincts, based not on hard evidence but everyday experience of life - a life surrounded by and informed by the uninformed. This is 'identity' politics, where logical arguments don't work..
Didn't Farage use to be a City trader before he came into politics? I think it's great that he's not going to stand as an MP. He knows the Tories will mobilise all their forces to keep him out - as has happened for the last SEVEN times I hear! A politician who can't get elected shows his worthlessness..
Someone in my position is well aware of what these three stooges are doing, what they represent and what motivates them. I don't see much concern for the country there.
I can't work Farage out, he is the Tory's Achilles heal, but why is he gunning so hard? I can only come up with two alternative goals, one he is bluffing while holding a secret pact with the Tory's. Two he would rather be in the EU with Corbyn in power and retain his mantle as Mr Brexit. Rather than help deliver The prize while Johnson takes all the glory.
I can't see either of these as very plausible, so what is he up to?
This is not a climate change thread, but I am equally alarmed and feel powerless on this. There is a good Attenborough documentary at the moment, I think he spells it out very well.
Yes I can see how the cracks might be just on the surface, but as I see it there is an existential crisis in the Conservative party due to two factors. The demographic, they have very little support amongst the young, which runs into the consequences and concerns of a more bleak economic future over the next generation. The turning point as I see it was the financial crisis of 2008, they have been reeling from the fallout since then and the younger generation among their base has financial and social concerns which are outside the traditional remit of the party.
I can see them coalescing around the privelidged classes again once the dust settles, but probably smaller and struggling to get into office, as their base will have shrunk. Also if they have alienated some of their moderate base due to this sojourn to the right, their numbers will shrink more. I think a lot will depend on whether Corbyn gets into office, but I do see a swing to the left due to the state of the country.
His "anger" explanation for the leave vote is wrong, but I think his hope to bring unity is genuine.
Nice as it would be I fail to see how Labour's Brexit policy (or anyone else's) can bring about a national healing process. Brexit is so divisive precisely because the country is split more or less 50 - 50, and however it's resolved, the 'wronged' half are going to be unhappy. If we leave Remainers will probably knuckle under and get used to it longer term, as I'd guess they're more tolerant and adaptable people. If Brexit is cancelled I doubt the Leavers will stop rioting, demonstrating etc for years. Farage will be talking about overthrowing the govt..
Quoting Punshhh
What is the mystery? He wants a fast no deal Brexit and thinks Boris is conning people, who don't realise nor want the years of delay and EU fees we'll incur by negotiating a trade deal. However, he knows his only chance of winning seats is via a pact with the Tories. He can't beat them and they won't let him 'join' them, so he's a bit miffed.
Or is it world domination?
As I said in an earlier post. No. Corbyn's renogiated withdrawal deal will include the customs union, single market etc, and for leavers be akin to no Brexit at all, so ref2 will not be viable..
I never quite understood why making trade deals with the US constitutes getting our country back from the EU deals that have taken it away...
He wont get a pact, the Tories have made that clear. I doubt he'll stand down his candidates either. So they'll be demonised over and over as risking letting Labour in by splitting the Tory vote, and almost all Tory voters will stay loyal. The question is whether enough Labour leavers will back him to lose Labour some of its marginals to the Tories..- I'm sure I've heard Farage say he's targetting Labour leavers, not Tory hard Brexiteers.
https://www.irishnews.com/news/generalelection/2019/11/04/news/sinn-fe-in-will-not-contest-election-in-three-seats-1756091/
I think they mean: taking back control of immigration, law-making, saving the money we pay the EU etc. Trade deals are surely a huge red herring in the whole Brexit debate as they take forever to negotiate and their effects can be expected to balance out - if not, why would both sides agree?
It depends if there is a meaningful vote or what the balance of MPs in the house is after the election. Perhaps the referendum result will be binding. If Corbyn can get it through these hurdles there is no reason to presume that the electorate will choose the leave option. The mood and demographic has changed a lot since 2016.
In respect of Farage, there is a hard core of support who will not vote Tory, because it is not a true Brexit. I can't predict the numbers though. It's going to be unpredictable.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/no-10-blocks-russia-eu-referendum-report-until-after-election?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0cAeEtsNn7jPPSZbv4QrOQVWuWFujgktVzBdVmojEGcs-JrQFbJUmVXCM#Echobox=1572872454
But of course a person of such privelidge and high demeanour with a posh voice must be right.
Apparently, it's acceptable to call for people like that to be put down. You might imagine death threats are unacceptable, but it seems not. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/tories-back-candidate-francesca-o-brien-benefits-street-remarks-gower
By 'balance out' I meant that the nett of gains/losses will be the same for each side - not that neither side will gain overall.
However if you think both sides can simply agree and win, tell that to Trump and the Chinese leader. The problem is when there is a trade imbalance to start with, and the side in deficit (ie the USA) wants to redress that and gain more than it loses. The US has a 2:1 trade deficit with the UK too, so what will Trump's approach be?..
Sorry, but I don't understand what you say: Do you mean a meaningful (parliamentary) vote on Corbyn's new deal or the existing one? If which referendum result is binding?
Accept that is still not correct. If country A has a maximum gain of 100 USD and country B a maximum gain of 500 USD, should country A not enter into the trade agreement out of spite?
Quoting Tim3003
It's not established among economists whether a trade deficit is a benefit or not. The trade accounts for services and goods are a fraction of capital flows nowadays. The effects a trade deficit used to have aren't there anymore, allowing countries like the UK and US to run trade deficits for years without that causing issues for their economies.
On the far end of that spectrum is Milton Friedman who says trade deficits will never be a problem because ultimately the money will flow back; after all, dollars can only be spent in the US (more or less).
What I am referring to is that May's deal only required a meaningful vote because Keir Starmer had to demand a vote to secure it. It might not be required for Corbyn's deal, although the legislation will have to pass in the Commons.
Also Corbyn might be able to engineer a second referendum not requiring such parliamentary consent by having binding options on the ballot paper. Which the government would be legally required to implement. I'm no constitutional expert, so this might not be right.
Yes precisely, although when I read your post my first thought was that Mogg was eligible to be put down.
Works for me! But I apologise for my choice of words.
I think the House of Commons is the law-making body and any referendum is only advisory. Of course the House can promise beforehand to enact the decision a referendum comes back with, as David Cameron did I think. But the bill for the withdrawal is far more complex than the yes/no decision which prompts it, so it's something the govt has to work out and pass through the Commons.
Having said that, I suppose that if the referendum is held after the EU negotiations have produced a deal, at least people know exactly what they're voting for, and the govt can then in theory pass the bill quickly. But doubtless the opposition would find ways to frustrate that.
It would be truly bizzare if a Labour govt - mostly supporting Remain, held a referendum which voted to leave, and then had to pass the bill!
I'm no economist, but in a trade deficit situation, money is flowing out of the country and goods coming in. The money doesn't depreciate - infact it can be invested by the exporter to grow, but the goods do, so isn't the country importing gradually getting poorer relative to the one exporting?
And as I said, if the US deficit with China is no problem, why is Trump pursuing a trade war to correct it? I thought Trump's rationale was that by undercutting US prices the Chinese are taking away US jobs and industries, as they flood US markets with cheap goods.
And for me. Mogg has gone viral now. Stormsy has said politicians actually are aliens. I agree that Mogg, Johnson and Co live on another planet.
What? Did I say something wrong?
Surely, Mogg must be a sleeper agent.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/nov/05/jacob-rees-mogg-is-cleverer-than-grenfell-tower-residents-tory-mp-suggests-video?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1c2Law1y7s2926y-_CFNNWJHW_objHJc-4pYodeFn97HHcn1AZEhvT-a8#Echobox=1572984514
Political Darwin award shared?
I wonder if they are trying to lose?
The Tory gaffs are coming thick and fast today.
It's indeed not that simple and we can rest assured Trump doesn't know what he's talking about. If the Chinese subsidise their industry, so what? That money for subsidies has to come from somewhere so even if the price is lower in the market the costs are the same and probably even higher because the resource allocation is presumably less effective than in a market mechanism.
So you raise tariffs? Who pays for the increased prices? US citizens and companies. You subsidise your own industry? Who pays? US citizens again. The only winning strategy is to block items that are subsidised from entering your market entirely but I suspect the dependency on Chinese goods would cause chaos.
So, in fact, because the Chinese subsidise their industry we are all better off because we are buying goods more cheaply thanks to Chinese taxpayers who subsidise the lower price. The problem is only there if you think you should compete in the same market as the Chinese. When you don't there is only a net benefit.
Second, to buy Chinese goods you have to buy renmibi with dollars or pounds, so all of a sudden a lot of Chinese have dollars and pounds because they are the holders of renmibi. What are they going to do with their dollars and pounds? Sit on it? If they want to invest, they need to go back to the US or UK where they can spend dollars and pounds. Or they can buy UK or US goods. That's why you see both countries have large amounts of foreign direct investment that allows them to maintain prolonged periods with trade deficits. According to some theories that can be maintained indefinitely provided it continues to be offset by FDI.
Well, once a group of companies dominate a market, new rival competing enterprises don't emerge as the ideal free market theory would predict. Real world economy doesn't work that way. You see, after forcing out other competitors from the market those previous competitors won't be competing in the R&D sector etc.
One idea of subsidies is that the country gains (or retains) a dominant position in the global market. Basically it works just as protective tariffs. Then you assume that you can ease with the subsidies later after your countries own industry is strong on it's own in the field. So the idea goes and sometimes it can happen so (like with German companies emerging from the 19th Century to compete in the global market against British goods). Typically it doesn't work like this, just look Africa, but the Chinese have been fairly good at this.
But I don't have high hopes for them: their fascist government will squash free thinking in the end and that will be their Achilles heel in the global competition.
Interestingly he accused Corbyn of collusion with Putin, while he is refusing to publish the extensive report into Russian collusion in the 2016 referendum and democracy through social media etc.
You mean you're surprised? Sorry, but you're in for another 5 weeks of that from all sides. Well, maybe the Greens will talk a bit more about reality. Boris will follow Trump's optimism tactics I'm sure. Every US president seems to be elected on a 'Make America great again' platform. Getting voters to believe in you as an individual is more important than your policies nowadays because most voters don't understand the subtleties of policy. And they don't want to, they just want to find someone they can trust. This election may come down to who voters mistrust least - Corbyn or Johnson. Not an obvious choice!
I agree with what you say about the Greens, but I don't think I can vote for them this time as I will vote tactically.
:pray: :pray: :pray:
I think many voters naturally mistrust Labour spending pledges - ie how will they be paid for? I don't trust his Brexit solution will work, and I think many others won't either. Interstingly the Tories have joined Labour in the spend-spend-spend frenzy, so their main attack weapon of profligacy will be blunted. But their is also the far-left legacy that Corbyn has. No group is trusted less than the far left I think.
To be clear though, I don't think many mistrust what he says, but that he is actually able to carry out his great reforming schemes in the real world.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/would-you-support-or-oppose-holding-a-second-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-eu-to-confirm-or-reverse-britains-decision-to-leave-the-eu/
— Terrapin Station
Think instead of Star Trek’s United Earth government, which ended poverty, disease and war within fifty years.
What I am critical of the Tory's for is their contempt for democracy, constitution, parliament, the people, Europe. The fact that they are dishonest, deceptive, divisive. Their claims are nonsense and hollow, for example in Johnson's speech today he said once Brexit is done there will be hundreds of billions of pounds of investment in the country. I could quite easily continue for another page, but I will leave it at that. None of the opposition party's have sold their souls in this way.
I'm afraid I see polls like this as pointless. Remainers want another vote, leavers don't, so why even ask the question? Basically, it's close to 50-50 as it's always been. I don't think Labour's 2nd ref would work because Corbyn's negotiated 'Brexit' will not be considered Brexit by leavers, and so the poll will not get full public endorsement. Farage has already noted this. I don't see how you can hold a ref if half the population support neither of the options they're given. Most people did support the idea of and the question asked in the 1st ref, so its result has some validity.
Despite being a remainer my view (now that no deal is ruled out) is that the 1st ref's result has to be honoured. People's views have not changed enough to justify a rerun. The principle of democracy is too important for us of the 'intelligentsia' to overrule the 'ignorant' masses..
This is why people hate politicians. And somehow he just can't help himself.
According to Barnier in The Guardian, no deal is no longer ruled out. Perhaps Labour’s second referendum could have a third no-deal option. In the circumstances, it's not clear that a rerun is undemocratic. If the better informed decision is to remain then, as others here have pointed out, any grievance felt by leavers would be tempered by the consensus that we'll all be better off, economically.
Yes, leavers have accepted now that we will take an economic hit, accept a Trump deal and cock a snook at the Europeans. So if Brexit is cancelled we can all feel the glow of economic prosperity friendship with the Europeans and cock a snook at Trump.
The reason I say this is because I am aware of a phenomena which is not being discussed in the media and by commentators. A denial amongst the chattering classes of the crisis. Also a consideration of the Tory project of the last 40 years and what it has done to our country.
I have noticed a denial of and failure to comprehend the depth of the crisis we have been plunged into. This became particularly acute during the row in the House of Commons the day the commons opened again after the illegal prorogation of parliament. Let me illustrate, Geoffrey Cox and Boris Johnson, both people with great booming voices of a privelidged tone. Stormed the chamber (metaphorically) in a contemptuous aggressive tone, accusing the members of trying anything to prevent the government in its efforts to respect the referendum (an untruth). Then proceeding to say that parliament was broken and could perform its purpose( an untruth). Followed by an attack on a group of parliamentarians who took the action to nullify the prorogation of 5 weeks (contemptuous of the Supreme Court and the constitution). When a few opposition members called them out for disrespectful insightful language and breaking the good chap philosophy of politics established in this country. They were shouted down in the most callous way as humbug and having contempt for parliament and the government(accusing the victims of their attacks as attacking them( the psychology of transference)).
In the media commentary afterwards journalists and MPs followed a line that the tempers and bad language were from all sides, the whole house needed to calm down etc, in reality they were in shock and denial of the abuse of the house that had just taken place by the government. This is when Ian Duncan Smith on behalf of the government, cursed and was spitting out expletives at the contempt of parliament for the government just trying to do its job(showing utter contempt for our politics and constitution).
People involved in this episode (who were not members of this gang of people who had lost touch with reality) were in shock and trying to calm things down and resume normality. This included doing what people do to deflate a bully in our society which is by saying there is heated language on all sides, if we all calm down this would include the bully calming down without lashing out any more.
This is the approach adopted by the people observing the outrage, as is human nature. But it fails to make the bully accountable for the damage they have done, or for them to stop bullying abruptly and behave correctly like everyone else.
Even now people are saying that the dishonest behaviour is from all sides and are failing to hold the bullies to account. While in the meantime the bullies carry on damaging our constitution, our country, our and their integrity and creating more crisis.
It is time for people of integrity to embrace the truth of what is happening here. The Conservative party is not anymore one of our 4 or 5 political party's vying for power in a descent and respectful( for our constitution) way. They have become this bully, they have no respect for, or integrity in, the institutions, the ways of doing things in our political system. The only reason that they are obeying the rules at the moment as we go into this election, is because it serves their purposes and is inline with their plan to hoodwink the population into doing what they want.
This is an abuse and attack on our country by a political party which has lost its way, lost all touch with reason and integrity. Which has been beset with infighting in which the dominant bully has risen to the surface and inflicted this erotic spasm on the country. It is time people call it out for what it is, rather than just thinking its business as usual.
I agree wholeheartedly. This episode shocked me more than I can say. This should be played back along with images of that Lying Tory. Go viral. It seems that works...
Quoting Punshhh
Yes. And the media are playing their usual part. Plans drawn up to influence the electorate.
Passive consumption.
Quoting Jim Waterson
If a referendum has 3 options, none will get a majority. Where do you go then?
I think you misunderstand what leavers are all about. The idea that now they're better informed they'd vote to remain is flawed, as the unchanging Brexit opinion polls prove. Their choice is not based on being better or worse off, but on the politics of national identity. I think you'll find they would call your claim that their grievance at losing would be tempered by being better off insulting..
I would answer your outcry simply: Welcome to populism! It's taking over the politics of the West, largely stoked by globalisation and the fears of immigration the easy movement of labour and refugees has stoked up in rich countries.. Boris's Tory party is just the UK manifestation of that, as is Trump in the US, Le Pen in Fance ... etc.
On widening out the discussion: Globalisation/populism should I think have its own thread. This one is for Brexit isn't it?
In our country the seed of the Brexit phenomena was sown when we joined the common market in 1973 and had grown steadily among the Tory twits over the next couple of decades I know this because I was there as it was happening. The populism was exploited by Farage in a relatively small demographic. It's true that the Tory twits began defecting to UKIP, but it was not populism which infected them. They were already converted by the drip feed of the Tory poison administered by a group of hard right right wing Tory's. This gets quite murky when one starts looking at the power and wealth brokers behind the Tory's.
Johnson is an opportunist who found himself in the right place at the right time. I suppose one could call him a populist, but Cummings is working through social media primarily and any populism is consequential. Now like Trump, it is divide and rule. People against Parliament is Johnson's catch phrase, but I don't see it having all that much effect, because the decision to leave was taken at the beginning of the process in the referendum. He is having to use such tactics now due to the laughable incompetence of the government in leaving the EU in a sensible way. The man can't even lie straight in bed let alone lead a populist revolution.
I agree that populism as used by Farage capitalised on the fears of immigration and racism. I expect that he saw what the Tory twits were up to and thought that there was an opportunity for a snake oil salesman like him. To team up with them at some point, they don't seem to like him for some reason. I wonder why.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/first-time-my-life-im-frightened-be-jewish/?fbclid=IwAR2ejcJZTfR0aiRVB6FvWftg5J8PZoyTJvCcSRBRlSYSwyFAsFkf10Jt_lk
So what is your definiton of 'populism'? I see it as the politics of an - invariably figure-head lead - party whose one aim is power, and whose tactic is to use any democratic method possible to achieve it. This means such tropes as giving the people what they want (or seeming to), rubbishing anyone who picks apart their flimsy emotive arguments, indeed quashing all argument with ranting and changing the subject where possible; exploiting the public fear of immigration and justiying the necessary counter-measures in the name of national identity. Populists don't care a fig for tradition or convention - which makes BJ one - the end justifies any means. Because their targeted voters are basically uneducated, populists can u-turn, contradict their previous policies and just smile whilst doing so; secure that their followers still trust them. Populism is also usually a facade for right-wing economic policies so it finds a ready home with Tory right-wingers.
Incidentally Le Pen is a classic populist. She's not in power because Macron is a much tougher and more skilful operator than Corbyn. Trump is clearly one too. Personally I'm not sure you can talk about 'populism' as a movement sweeping the world. That assumes some guiding force or creative aspiration. Surely it's just the fact of and the means of voters' primal fears being exploited by ruthlessly self-serving would-be leaders. Populists are above all opportunists, and the increased mass-movement of labour and goods brought by globalisation has thrown up their chance.
Watching Trump pose as he signs into law some document or other he reminds me of a Roman Emperors, ruling by decree. I'm sure this is what he'd like if he could rid of that troubesome Senate..
Grauniad.
For any forumites who (like me) didn't get the joke, the Guardian writer (usually better than that) was lazily referring to a "joke" which I'd never heard of, but which, according to Wikipedia, is about a family pitching their act to an agent and describing at great length and with much swearing many disgusting and socially transgressive behaviours. The agent then asks the name of their act, and they say, The Aristocrats. That's the punchline. Hmm.
I think this sums it up quite well, but what I have been trying to say is that this course has only been adopted by the Conservatives as a last resort. Putting Johnson into No10 was their last throw of the dice, their last ace card(or so they thought), after the failure of their "strong and stable" Theresa May. Also I think we only got to this point due to the clash of two democratic outcomes, the referendum result saying one thing and the elected MPs saying something else. Resulting in deadlock. Johnson is supposed to break the deadlock by adopting populism and somehow trying to bypass or hoodwink parliament, so as to implement the result of the referendum. So if the referendum had not been called British politics would have carried on as normal with no populism.
Unfortunately while being their greatest asset, Johnson is turning out to be their greatest liability. Today he was found to be burbling during a speech and swearing blind that there will be no checks of goods crossing the Irish Sea. This is clearly irrational and incoherent, as was pointed out by Chris Morris the BBC fact checker, today. Who pointed out that if there is going to be regulatory divergence, then the single market rules will require checks to establish compliance. Now Johnson said we won't carry out these checks, if the EU require it, they can do it. But the problem with this approach is that the border where the checks will be required is within the UK, i.e. The Irish Sea and this is not to mention tariffs either, which will require checks, in the UK.
The flaws in his deal are beginning to show.
Just a thought about Le Pen, I put it down to the rapid communication amongst the intelligentsia in France via "La Grande Conversation", who then adopted Macron as their representative in a remarkably short space of time. If only we had a grand conversation in this country, we wouldn't have got into such a pickle.
I think your first point is probably true - of the leaver Conservatives anyway; and as they've overrun the Remainers they hold sway now.
I've never believed the Tory claims of a Remainer parliament holding up the will of a Leaver public though. For a start the public is (or was) only marginally Leaver. And parliament would have accepted May's deal without the backstop, and did accept Boris's. Ok that majority may not have survived committee stages. But what do they expect in a hung parliament? MPs are as divided on the issue as the public, so they reflect the national view well. But populists only see in black and white so they blame MPs for being out of step. They reply that 420 constituencies voted leave, against 220 for remain. True but irrelevant.
If MPs did echo the public views on every issue there'd be no point in having them! I've never believed that they should just parrot the views of their constituents. We elect them to use their experience and knowledge to govern on our behalf. If we're never going to accept their views can differ from the majority then we end up with government by referendum, which anyone can see would be absurd. The conclusion therefore is that referendums are a bad idea.
The UK host community was just about coming to terms with postwar mass immigration from colonies and the Commonwealth when EU free movement of people began, and large numbers of people came to the UK from Eastern Europe. Polls showed that concern about immigration was a main reason for the leave result.
Mass immigration has always been imposed or facilitated by governments for economic reasons with no concern for the wellbeing of the host or immigrant communities.
The referendum was, in effect, the first public consultation on mass immigration.
I agree, the decision to call the referendum was a tragic mistake, Cameron should have denied the Eurosceptics in his own party the opportunity. I think the problem was that for electoral reasons Cameron along with Blair before him had waived the idea of a referendum actually happening to bring Eurosceptics in line. This had the unfortunate effect of giving people the idea that it was going to happen and by the time of the 2015 election it became evident to Cameron that the momentum for a referendum had become irresistible. Perhaps he could have stopped it in the run up to the election, but he was complacent in the thought that he would be returned in coalition with the Lib Dems and they would block it, or he could hide behind them in denying it.
From the other side of the divide, UKIP had been thriving for a number of years on fears of immigration,due to the large numbers that entered following the accession of the A8 countries in Eastern Europe. The UK alone allowed unfettered access, expecting the other members to follow suit, but they didn't, they all imposed restrictions at the last minute. Thus the seeds were sown for the referendum in the mid naughties, which led to the defeat of Labour in 2010. By this time the strength of UKIP was threatening the Tory's and with the pressure from the hard right within the party, the cracks were beginning to show and the struggle to save the party began.
Ultimately they put party before country, which laid the blame for the Tory Brexit firmly at their door.
And that is an extension of the general irresponsibility of national government over decades that finds in the EU a convenient scapegoat for its incompetence and venality.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50043549
This includes BBC polling (albeit from mid-October) on whether leavers/remainers have changed thieir minds since the referendum (3rd graph down): Of those who voted leave, 6% are now remain. Of those who voted remain, 27% are now leave (mostly, assuming a deal is agreed)...
Also: "On average, during the last month, polls that ask people how they would vote in another referendum suggest that 88% of those who backed Remain would do so again. Among those who voted Leave, 86% have not changed their minds." Which doesnt seem totally to match the above for remain voters! Still, I think it confirms there's not that much change in the leave voters' views.
Surely Labour's 2010 defeat was down to the crash and their spending almost bankrupting the country - also to the fact that no-one thought Brown was any good. The UKIP poll vote did not exceed 8% til 2013, when it went well into double figures.
Yes, in hindsight I think you were right to pick me up on that one. It was the article I was reading which made me over egg the influence of Tony Blairs policy on EU migrants. Although I do think it played a part. Gordon Brown was atrocious.
This is the article, https://theconversation.com/the-huge-political-cost-of-blairs-decision-to-allow-eastern-european-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077
As an outside observer, I think populism played a key part to this whole debacle.
You see, populism is about making a divide, dividing people to be either part of the "common ordinary people" or then "the elites". The 'elites' were in favour of globalization, EU integration and "giving up independence". The 'elites' have totally forgotten the 'common people'. The 'elite' is evil. That is populism.
And when populists are in power, the elite has to be naturally abroad. It's Brussels. It's the EU. It out there trying to take away your independence. That is Euro-populism.
And a populist never, ever tries to reach a consensus. Giving something in exchange for pushing one's own agenda is something that a populist cannot stand. That is simply selling oneself to the enemy. Your supporters won't tolerate that. Because the other side is the enemy. Not perhaps an enemy you would shoot, but someone that you cannot come into terms and find a solution that both agree on. Nope, you either win or fall trying to win.
I did see that article, I left not sure what to think, other than the electorate had not moved significantly from what it was thinking in 2016. Also the graph you refer to was taken between 4-7th of September which was before the illegal prorogation of parliament. Before Johnson's disgraceful behaviour. I have heard of some people saying they won't support him after that. The other thing I noticed is that there were 5 options in the Pole, 4 were versions of leave and only one was a version of remain, I don't know if that might have skewed the result.
As I am embedded in the remain camp, it is difficult to judge what is happening in the opposing camp. I can speak for myself though. I voted remain, but would have been happy with a sensible deal and respectful alignment with the EU, while maintaining our international reputation and integrity. But for over a year now I have not been happy with the way the government has taken a wrecking ball to our institutions and reputation. So now I am vehemently remain.
Yes, I hear you, if that is the definition then you are right. The cabal at the centre of the hard right faction of the Conservative party during the 1970's and 80's were developing into populists. But I don't think they were employing the populist strategies we are discussing here, of appealing to large numbers of people. Their strategy was one on one, although they were employing xenophobia memes. I saw it first hand at the time. It was traditionalist Tory politicians, who had grown up during the Second World War. They were simply spreading paranoia about what the goals or ambitions of the Germans are in their involvement in the EU, i.e. they would become the leaders of a European Empire. Also criticism of the French as being corrupt. This spread slowly for decades, before anti EU sentiment became mainstream, fuelled by worries about the growing numbers of EU migrants roughly between 2004-10. This last development is when Farage came onto the scene and adopted megaphone populism.
I think that is the view of a significant minority of remainers - me included. We are bowing to the need for compromise and a resolution to the problem, hence the remain vote is fraying. (Most leave voters are I think too emotionally involved - having been whipped up into a frenzy by Farage and his like, to consider compromising, as SSU pointed out) As it happens I do know someone who voted remain before but says he'd vote leave in a 2nd ref. Anecdotal of course, but ..
Yes I saw the headline "Stand down Nigel". :lol: Another Farage lie. It's nothing to do with the fact that he risked letting Labour in of course...
But unfortunately now that they are in bed, the Tory party has lost its soul and any moderate Tory's left will be leaving now.
Thatcherism still wasn't really populism and surely John Major wasn't a populist just as Tony Blair wasn't either. But of course political discourse has always been quite rude in the UK.
But do note that populism isn't only a right-wing thing. Hugo Chavez was the perfect example of left wing populism that has truly poisoned the political discourse of a country. The populism can be seen in the insistence that everything gone wrong is because of the evil imperialist gringos, that the rich have conspired against the 'common people'. Talking to the opposition would be betraying the cause.
Well, one really can't tell who it was yet. And if it would be Russia, remember that their goal is just to make Britain more weak, more hateful against each other and more distrustful of your own government, so that they are a bigger player in Europe. :wink:
The cabal I was referring to was in the shadows, they were always confined to an enclave by the moderate, "one nation" Tory's who ran the governments. In order to win the centre ground the party had to show moderation and a nod to the ordinary folk, hence the slogan "one nation". It was never much more than a nod though. Now the cabal is front and centre for the first time, naked, who knows what will transpire.
Of interest to me is that it will contribute to a political row over the government refusing to publish the select committee report on possible Russian interference. A big headache for Johnson, it has already been leaked that Kremlin sponsored oligarchs had been smoozing with Tory politicians, including Johnson himself and making large contributions to Tory coffers. There are also rumours going round that Dominic Cummings was complicit, as he had spent a year working in Moscow a few years back.
Yes, I've always thought that there has had to be behind this all a power play in the conservative party. Once the fateful error of a vote on the EU was made by the leadership of the conservative party, then this cabal went public. Or so I assume.
Quoting Punshhh
Now here's what I find absolutely fascinating.
You would think that such active measures intent on sowing discord in the West would be seen through, understood and make the West to get angry as possible and make it retaliate. Conventional wisdom would say that so bold moves wouldn't be a smart thing to do especially with the US and UK that have together various ways of retaliating. But here we come to the genius of Vladimir Putin.
The secret is that spreading discord simply works, as there was (and is) genuine discord even without Russian involvement. It's just pouring gasoline into an already burning fire. Russia didn't make people in the UK being unhappy about the EU. Russia didn't make Scotland to vote for independence. Russia didn't make Republicans hate Hillary. But all these things Russia supported by active measures. If you think that the SNP and Scottish Independence is totally out of whack in the category, it is so! But for Russia it's the same thing: there isn't any genuine ideology behind Russia's actions. Hence the accusation "Russia has meddled in our politics" becomes in the ears of those angry about the issues as a condemnation "you are Russian trolls!".
In the US any talk of the actual Russian involvement has become just a ploy of the Democrats! Partisanship rules and destros any kind of true response to the isssue. We can see the absolutely crazy way how the FBI has been accused first of being Pro-Trump Anti-Clinton and the out of nowhere being Anti-Trump Pro-Clinton. And Putin is happy.
Given the withdrawal deal will be signed, sealed and delivered by then, what exactly is the cliff edge at the end of 2020? Is it just no trade deal - so a fallback to WTO terms? If so, wouldn't this self-evidently be an own goal ? Ok we'd stop paying the EU members fees and taking EU laws too, but would exporters settle for that ? I'm not sure where the balance of pros and cons is at that stage..
Yes, I'm not sure what would happen at that point, David Gauke described it as moving to world trade rules, but many commentators, including well informed ones describe it as a cliff edge.
Regardless of just what would be involved, it would be just as febrile as the March 31st, or October 31st, with just as much uncertainty as we have now, so businesses will still suffer, public services will still be in crisis, important legislation would be kicked into the long grass, or not brought forward, just as over the last two years.
Everyone who knows what is involved in the next stage of negotiations says it will be at the very least 3 years to thrash out something that can be agreed on for going forward. But this cliff edge is in one year. Johnson's shambles of a government doesn't inspire me with confidence about this. Also we shouldn't be under any illusions about the fact that Johnson has secured the support of the ERG and a number of Brexit party supporters on the promise that he will drag his feet during the negotiations so that the cliff edge happens at the end of that period.
So it's more of the same, more division, more uncertainty, we will probably go into recession and Scotland will be set to leave in short order. There will be major crisis in the NHS and other public services, far worse than the crisis which is emerging right now.
Happy days, still at least we will be respecting democracy, because if we don't democracy is broken. The people voted to leave, so we must leave, why did we vote to leave? Because we wanted to leave, so we must leave, do or die, get over it you remoaners (not).
Worth pointing out that most remainers-become-leavers are probably of this 'accepting' mindset __ democrats that is. Bad idea but will of the people is perhaps almost all of them. Whereas leavers-become-remainers, fewer though they may be, must have actually changed their minds.
I think Labour's socialist style huge spending plans are going to be shot to pieces soon - possibly by a bullet fired by McDonald into his own foot. The one good thing to come out of this election may be the end of Corbyn..
This is the crucial issue. Putin's aggressive stance isn't in the end at all the best way to handle these issues.
You see in Central Asia once after 9/11 happened, the US established bases and started military cooperation with the "Stans". Yet in this case Russia simply waited it out. And what do you know: there are NO active US bases in Central Asia apart from Afghanistan. None. The logistical support for the Afghan was is flown from a NATO country Romania, if I remember correctly. So the neocons came, hassled around... and left. Russia stayed. Simply by waiting passively the Russians held their ground.
This could have been a similar politicy when Ukraine went up in flames. Simply to have the Ukrainians have again a color revolution of some sort and simply keep cool and now that the disaster called Ukraine won't get into NATO. Above all, Ukraine would have a large section of Pro-Russian people voting and the ties to EU would be totally different. NATO wouldn't have waken up from the slumber it was in and would still be looking for a reason to exist.
But no. Putin can go now into the history books with annexing back Crimea, an economic disaster zone with not much to give Russia else than historical prestige. And after annexing parts from two countries now the Europeans won't brush it aside. In the end the outcome could be expected from a former head of the FSB that in order to improve his popularity first started a war by blowing up apartment buildings in a Moscow suburb.
Do you mean 'the end of the union'? And that that's a good thing?
I think a Tory majority and leaving the EU would certainly add to pressure for a 2nd indie ref, but would the Tories give in to it?
A Labour/SNP coalition might prevent the Scots seeking to leave ASAP if the Labour 2nd EU ref returned a Remain result. But would even that silence Ms Sturgeon?
Yes the end of the union and that it would be a bad thing. Principly for England, it would certainly precipitate unification in Ireland and possibly Wales, but certainly Scotland. Where does that leave England? I suggest in a very vulnerable and exposed position in all regards. And why would we go down that route? Because the Conservative party lost touch with reality, I don't think that is a good enough reason. Better to ditch the Conservatives and preserve the Union and get back to some semblance of normality and statesmanship in our government.
Yes, having that clown (Johnson) in Downing Street would certainly add to the pressure. The government would not be able to prevent it if the demand was clear. I don't think many English people realise the extent of the damage done to relations ( don't mention Johnson's relations) with the Scott's by this farce of a government. Cameron did a good job in shoring up the Union with the Scottish referendum. I think independence had been pushed into the long grass for a generation. But now that has all been kyboshed and the Scott's treated with contempt. Rather like the contempt with with the Irish have been treated. It really is remarkable what damage can be done when a political party goes wrong.
Why would the end of the Union be bad for England. Both Scotland and N Ireland (and I'm sure Wales) are subsidised by the English tax payer. By leaving they'd make England better off. England has 55m of the 65m UK population. Not that I'm in favour of the break-up, but I'm beginning to think it's inevitable that Ireland will be reunited and the Scots will vote for independence when (if) we leave the EU.
Perhaps it's another kick-back against globalisation, but there are other examples of small peoples wanting independence and their own state - the Catalans, the Kurds, the Sudan split, the Chechens, even going back to the break-up of Yugoslavia. It's not just a UK issue.
War and/or deep division between groups with all the animosity which is found in human nature.
I'm surprised you are not acknowledging the difficulties that would be faced. I shouldn't need to spell it out( although I find it common place amongst leavers, that they don't think of the consequences).
The kind of future envisioned by the government is to have quite rapid divergence in regulations, standards and tariffs. So it would require hard borders on every border around England. As a consequence of this divergence and the inevitable difficulties in negotiating future arrangements there would be great pressure to a open up new trade routes with other countries who are not in the EU, such as America, China, India. They would by that point be poised like vultures around a carcass.
This is not to mention the animosity between the people of these islands after they have been shafted by the clown in Downing Street.
I have barely started, but don't have much time now. It is an interesting subject though and probably should be considered here.
Actually I was considering the idea of England being separate to the other countries in the UK completely regardless of Brexit. Yes the leaver-envisaged post-Brexit future would be bad news economically, but within that, I don't think England would suffer much additional pain from losing the other UK countries - if of course a good trade deal is negotiated with the EU.. Don't forget Scotland intends to keep the Pound even after leaving the UK, which given that they have no say over monetary policy can only harm them economically relative to England.
I think the idea of a quick divergence of the UK from EU standards and tarifs is self-evidently daft - losses would clearly outweigh gains. There is much simplistic bluster and 'blue-skies-thinking' from the Right, but if there is divergence it will be slow and not easy. As you say the pro-EU voices won't go away even after Brexit, and I doubt Boris will have enough of a majority to ignore them completely.
In the real world though we are in a mess, due to government incompetence and in fighting. Why would we go down a route leading to an independent England*? To save face for the Conservative Party? As I say in my last but one post, if the Conservative party is broke, why fix the country, surely one should fix the Conservative party instead.
If Johnson wins a majority, as David Gauke said the other day, it would be bad for the country. Again I could list the issues, but surely it only takes a little thought.
* not to mention all the other changes envisioned in a Tory Brexit.
We wouldn't. It's the Scots and N Irish who may force the situation..
As for an independent East Anglia. That includes me too! but it's one of the most right-wing parts of the country isn't it? - save for Cambridge and Ipswich. So independence would presumably of the hard-Brexit variety if voted for here.
Johnson's deal takes us there, or do you think it doesn't?
In an ideal world, (as you suggested)
My point was what are we doing considering such a thing? Because of infighting in the Tory party caused by the fanaticism of the far right, along with a drip feeding of a similar ideology through the media by wealthy right wing Tory backing media barons.
Take those two small groups of people out of the equation and none of this Brexit psychodrama would have happened and everyone would have carried on as normal living in peace and harmony with our neighbours.
It is well known that the threat of UKIP once it was established is what pushed the Tory's and New Labour to start talking about the idea of leaving. Blair only talked about it because the conversation had been started by UKIP, which in turn only started talking about it because right wing Tory's had been talking about it for a decade before that.
What added fuel to the fire was Blair's decision to allow unfettered access for east European citizens in 2004. At that point very few people were unhappy with our membership, or were talking about leaving. So the idea of leaving was already in place at this point and was predominantly held by Tory's and disaffected Tory's in UKIP.
These groupings found fertile ground following the large numbers of EU citizens who came in over the next few years. The populist press quickly took up the batton and the anti EU sentiment grew quickly.
As far as I know this development didn't split the Labour Party, but was exerting internal pressures in the Tory party. This resulted in hard right Tory's who had been kept quiet flexing their muscles within the party. Resulting in Cameron concluding that the only way to prevent the party splitting and hemorrhaging significant numbers to UKIP was to call a referendum, therefore shutting them up for a generation.
If Blair talked about a referendum, it was only because the Tory's had been banging on about it and it had become an election issue.
Regarding Corbyn, he has scorn poured on him every day by the tabloids and is subject to an endemic anti socialist rhetoric throughout the whole media establishment. Whoever was the leader of the Labour Party would be subject to this bias. Unless it was still under the control of New Labour, someone like Blair, or David Milliband. But New Labour was Tory Light, it was Tory in all but name and was acceptable to be backed by The Sun newspaper, a right wing rag.
Of course there is such a thing as anti-EU sentiment. But the only legitimate one I can identify is the one of political independence and Sovereignty. Although most of the rhetoric I hear on this point is spurious, which is due to a misunderstanding of how the EU works and what we are doing in cooperating in such a Union.
Again this has been primed by the tabloids and anti EU politicians spreading spurious claims.
This is evident in the fact that if one looks at the comment on the EU and our involvement in it in the media, it has for a number of years been entirely negative, i.e. Pointing out things about our membership which are not in our interest, while at no point mentioning what is in our interest.
If this is not a bias in the media, then where is the comment in favour of both our involvement and our future in the EU?
That's what I find hard to accept. The right of the Tory party reflects a public view. Its Mps don't exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of us.
Quoting Punshhh
I'm not sure what it was that Blair allowed then... And why didn't the Tories un-allow it from 2010? Thereafter is when the immigration issue really blossomed.
Quoting Punshhh
I agree that most of the media is appalling. However, their aim is to sell copy, and their usual tactic is, just like the populists, to whip up fear. It's not surprising they've jumped on the opportunity Brexit offers to do that. If you're read The Guardian or the 'I' you'll know there are moderate voices, it's just that they can get drowned out in the ranting - which is why its propogators do it..
Still, fishermen could surely be said to have genuine grievances, so could those opposed to free movement. And even those who object to the EU directives - usually trivial though they are.
In 2004 the other countries already in the EU put working and residency restrictions on immigrants from the east European states when they joined. The UK didn't, they could have done, but Blair didn't think many would come and thought it would be beneficial.
For me the stand out points come down to the compulsive lying, the failure to answer questions and sound plausible by Johnson and the inability of Corbyn to address Brexit other than his fixed party line. Both were hamstrung by their party lines, Johnson "get Brexit done", Corbyn " I'll negotiate a sensible deal and offer it back to the people in a referendum".
Johnson's weakness, is he only has one policy, one slogan, one goal, get it done. Corbyn's weakness is he has to straddle a split party so has to try to appeal to both sides and not to alienate one, or the other.
Johnson is a one trick pony, a pony, who is untrustworthy, divisive and doesn't care for the real issues in the country.
Corbyn is balancing on a fence and finding himself a socialist up against four decades of anti socialist sentiment, drip fed by the press and pretty much endemic in public perception at this time. While having an extensive and progressive socialist plan to restore the social and economic health of the country, which is desperately wanted by a portion of the population and dismissed as Marxist by another portion.
Johnson's policy other than "just get it done", is more of the same deregulated capitalism, failure to address the disintegrating public services. More stripping of workers rights. And the prospect of a rip roaring capitalist trade deal with Trump selling out the NHS and access to a deregulated marketplace, a race to the bottom.
The sensible choice for me is a no brainer, it is depressing how many people are caught up in prejudice and deceit and can't think clearly about what is important for the country.
The title was changed to FactcheckerUK aping genuine fact checker organisations, which have become important in UK politics, due to so much disinformation and untruths. This is a big story this morning.
What James is saying is that in the Tory spin press office during the debate, while in the knowledge that the headlines in the dominant right wing press would slam Corbyn in the morning. Decided to create this fraudulent fact checker because they were worried about Corbyn's attack on what a Johnson government would do to sell out the NHS. Why are they so scarred? That they would pull that stunt.
Maybe it's because the younger generations have been signing up to vote in large numbers since the vote was called and we all know what they think of the Tory's.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/19/tories-tweet-anti-labour-posts-under-factcheckuk-brand?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3a1MQTOZU4loBEGvb13rBONPdE4eoMqr0aiL5HvvnpksJ7lJl0aRcakVE#Echobox=1574196811
Fake polling, and fake factchecking. Genuine election anyone?
Update,
The i newspaper is saying that the poll wasn't held before the debate, but immediately after and that the time referenced on the webpage had not been updated. Also they say the claim went viral amongst Corbyn supporters. I'm not sure what to think on that one. YouGov who ran the pole is run by Nadim Zahawi, a Conservative cabinet minister, so the result is dubious anyway.
https://inews.co.uk/news/itv-debate-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-opinion-shared-before-false-1310553
unenlightened confirmed today that he doesn't think much of yougov anyway, and you can't trust anyone, especially unenlightened.
Anyway Dominic Raab the Tory Secretary of State said "no one gives a toss about social media" on BBC breakfast this morning. So it doesn't matter anyway.
I think they stuck to their lines deliberately. They were given little time to answer questions and so chose to ram their core messages home. This was ITV, don't forget. I watched the whole thing and I don't think I learned anything of policy.
I don't think Corbyn can survive the Johnson attack which should have been: 'He wants to lead the country, yet after 3 years of Brexit debate he must be the only person in the country without a view! He's not a Remainer, not a Leaver, indeed he can't even decide that he's an Undecided! How can he negotiate a new withdrawal treaty with the EU when he has no view if what he's suggesting is a good or a bad idea?'
I thought Corbyn's reluctance to commit to a view was Johnson's attack line, he didn't seem to have any others apart from a few mumbled references to " the highest corporation tax in Europe", or 1.2 trillion in spending under Corbyn. Both blatantly in accurate. When I realised that was his only attack line, I was surprised and relieved, because it is in fact irrelevant. As Rebecca Long Bailey pointed out on Newsnight after the debate. Their policy is that the people would decide in a referendum, and the party would decide democratically in conference when the referendum is called what the party line would be and frontline politicians wouldn't be whipped on it. That It is sensible for Corbyn not to express a view going into a renegotiation with the EU, as it was a matter of negotiation.
I don't know why the right wing rags were banging on about it yesterday morning. Do they really not have anything else to attack Corbyn with?
The Labour manifesto comes out shortly. I forecast they'll go into orbit re the spending plans. It'll be Gordon Brown all over again. This will be an open goal for the Tories who can say they are spending on what the public wants, but responsibly. Personally I don't believe the UK public will trust the huge socialist spending sums can be repaid. The one thing above all which was clear from the debate is that neither leader has any public trust. It's a great opportunity for the Lib Dems, if they can get some air time..
The problem with the view that a labour government would bankrupt the country which is the usual slur. Is that most people don't remember what happened in the 1950's and 1970's. The older predominantly Tory supporting part of the population, who were there at the time, are falling in number due to demographic forces.
Whereas on the other side of the debate, the string of failing, or profiteering private provision of essential services over the last 30 years spells out that privatisation is not all it's cracked up to be either. I think I only need to mention two names to illustrate this point, for now. Jarvis and Carillion.
Wow.
Most people are basically selfish, and kind unselfish people seldom get rich..
Yes, the people who are rich tend to be more selfish, or put more effort into accruing wealth for some reason. The poor are more vulnerable and rely more on the state to look after their interests. Although there is a strange phenomena of poor people voting for the rich to keep them poor, a kind of defeatist attitude.
The reason that the government hasn't come out all guns blazing at the Labour manifesto is that they too are planning to say that they are going to splash the cash. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They seem to be tying themselves into a knot. This morning Priti Patel the Home Secretary started blaming the housing crisis and poverty on councils and providers who the government has starved of cash for the last 9 years. So basically blaming the government and claiming that the government is now going to put it right.
Yes, they are desperate. This is an existential crisis for the Conservative party, they are terrified that a truly socialist party can get into government and take to task their privelidged lifestyles, so they fear. That the public could get a taste for it, while their party fades into oblivion due to the change in the demographic( the younger generations don't favour the Conservative party).
The system is rigged to gradually drive down wages for the people who work. While the people who live on capital keep quiet and spend as little as possible, so that the workers don't realise where all the wealth is. When the Labour Party says it will increase tax for people earning over £80,000, people like this man think that they are taxing the ordinary worker, because he doesn't think he is in the top 5%. He thinks he's in the bottom half of earners, but actually he is in the top 5%.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514
Guardian poll tracker
I was looking at the constituencies around the area where I live. My constituency is a safe Tory seat. In 2017 Tory's had approx 35,000 votes and Labour had17,000 votes, Lib Dems about 1,000.
So if you look at it in terms of wasted votes, the conservatives only needed 17,001 votes to win, so 17,999 were wasted on this constituency. Labour wasted 17,000 and the Lib Dems only 1,000. But it took a total of 35,000 of the the national Tory vote to secure the constituency. There are a lot of constituencies like this around here, basically all the rural constituencies in East Anglia, except North Norfolk. So roughly, it takes a lot of the national Tory share of the vote to secure these constituencies, whereas Labour has lost approximately half as much of their national share in these areas and Lib Dems, much less.
I know these demographics may work the other way in different areas, but it illustrates how unpredictable it is if one is not analysing the constituencies in more detail. Also, there is evidence of a lot more floating voters on this occasion than usual, making it more unpredictable. And a large number of younger voters introduced to the system, due to record numbers registering to vote.
A man without even an opinion.
Tells actually a situation that is very surprising! Nothing portrayed in the Media would make you connect the present to such polls.
Quoting Punshhh
No Punshhh, it is this agitation and agravation that just makes ordinary politics to be out of the ordinary. When you look at the polls Boris Johnson has saved the Conservatives from utter ruin (if the polls are to be believed). And it's the Brexit party that is in an existential crisis. And why wouldn't they: what on Earth does a party to give other than a process that is well under way? I assume that you Punshhh aren't a conservative, so I guess you are the people helping Johnson getting the conservatives to support him with those kind of remarks... if you would be a reporter.
To put it simply, fear mongering and mud slinging works. In surprising ways.
Today the best possible thing happen to a conservative politician is that the liberal media is just going crazy in bashing him. Just like it seems to be for a leftist politician to be accused of being an unrepentant Marxist-Leninist or whatever. That's the kind of world we live in.
(Two typical British politicians)
I agree that in this election more than most tactical voting will play a big part - on the Brexit issue above all. The pact between Libs/Greens/PC should make a small difference, but if Labour/Lib Dems vote for eachother to beat the Tories it could make a large difference. The Tories can only count on Brexit Party voters coming to their aid, and there are far less of them.
I am amazed that TV news just doesnt report the polls any more. I don't know why this is. Maybe they have been wrong at predicting the outcome before, but so what?
Oh also about the poll tracker, the BBC has the polltracker on their website, along with a list of all the constituencies with the share of the votes from the 2017 election. They frequently tell their viewers to go to the website and have a look. It's part of their drive to get their viewers to be more interactive.
Yes, I support the Greens, but my vote like many many others won't count, as I live in a safe Conservative seat. I doubt my remarks would sway any voters on this forum (which is the only one I write on). I doubt there are any subscribers on this forum who support Johnson, or could be swayed to do so by the remarks I make. Also the division between leave and remain is so deep, that to a large extent it doesn't matter anymore what anyone says, or does. This is why Johnson can get away with his behaviour, which is very uncharacteristic of the behaviour of a PM in this country.
In reference to the media, it is almost entirely anti Corbyn and is only slightly critical of Johnson. It's more a case of the media not knowing how to deal with the unprecedented way the government is behaving, allowing it to get away with far more than would usually be the case. There is a very good commentator on this issue called Peter Obourne, I will post a link to his blog/articles tomorrow.
This is why the Conservatives are worried, it's only a matter of time before they become a party with no chance of winning an election. As I see it, they began to nose dive following the Credit Crunch, especially when austerity began to bite.
I'm way too philosophical to actually do the research, but it makes intuitive psychological sense that young people are radical and know everything better than we old-fogies who have become set in our ways and cannot believe there is anything better than our wisdom born of experience.
Or to put it another way, having spent most of a lifetime accumulating a small stash, the olds are not about to vote to give it all to young wastrels.
I see it as inevitable due to the fall in living standards and the growing mistrust in the Thatcherite model, which has had some negative effects over the last 20 years. The older age group is still living in the Thatcherite era and have retained the wealth thereof. But the younger generations are increasinly feeling disenfranchised, poorer, with poorer prospects. There is a clamour for a redistribution of wealth which is unfairly balanced in favour of the older generation.
Interestingly the older generation is also a lot more in favour of Brexit, than the younger generation. That graph and this one about the referendum demonstrate how there is a deep generational divide, in which the older generation wants to give the younger generation what they don't want and then go and die of old age and leave them with the mess to clear up.
I found this. But what I was looking for was some ranked listing of the marginals, with the percentage vote of each party, including the Lib Dems (and Ukip if it's from 2017).The listings of swing-seats I've seen only cater for close Tory-Labour marginals. I don't think much of a Labour/Tory swing is likely. It's the movement of votes to the big 2 parties from the 2 smaller ones which I think may be important. A big tactical Lib Dem to Labour swing could turn a relatively safe Tory seat to Labour, and the reverse could turn some safe Tory seats to Lib Dem.
This website shows targeted marginals for the main party's. It's difficult to work out where Labour and Lib Dems overlap, because it doesn't show the third party's position in a marginal, only the two main contenders. It looks as though there is not much overlap though.
On the Andrew Marr show on Sunday Jo Swinson said, she thought the Tory's were likely to win at the moment and almost, but not quite hinted that she may do a pact of some sort with Labour. I don't know if, or how candidates can be pulled now that they have been submitted. My worry has always been that the Brexit Party would pull all their Candidates the day before the poll, but I don't know if, or how this would happen.
To me this looks weak and cowardly, while displaying indifference to the important pressing public service crisis we are enduring now following 9 years of unpopular austerity. The problem is people might think austerity is not over, which the conservatives are claiming and they would be right.
Well, I could say the media has been a bit more than slightly critical of Johnson, but that is a matter of opinion. Yet do notice that both Corbyn and Johnson have picked up support for themselves.
Quoting Punshhh
I think that this deep division is happening very much everywhere. It's happening because of populism. One of the core principals of populism is to separate people to "us" and "them". Trying to search a consensus or try to search for a middle ground isn't done, it's actually intentionally avoided as "the other" is depicted to be so bad. And naturally the whole Brexit -process is a dividing cause. You could have just voted "yes" or "no" for brexit. That divides the people into two distinct categories.
Intentionally or unintentionally the dividing rhetoric and politics creates more lasting "camps" on the issue you can start to see generational, societal, differences as you Punshhh note in your later comments in this thread.
It is implicit in the remarks that people who are not Jews should secure a conservative government to assuage a feeling of unease amongst the Jewish population.
So Johnson's racism and policies is going to improve the degree of unease?
The problem is this is dog whistle populism which can't be challenged, because of its sensitivity. It may tip the balance between a sensible resolution to the Brexit issue, which would begin to heal the division and start to bring the country back together. In favour of an intensification of the division and chaos, plunging the country into a populist nose dive into Trump, or Putins hands.
It is grossly irresponsible for a religious leader to intervene in this way.
I would point out that the anti-Corbyn sentiment is endemic in our establishment, it is not specific to Corbyn, but he is a classic example of what they fear. It is the same bias that occurred when Michael Foot ran for government in the early 80's. The establishment, the wealthy and the privelidged are rabidly anti any form of socialism. By contrast the critisism of Johnson is little more than depicting him as a bumbling jester, a lovable rogue, who would naturally due to his privelidge and grooming by the establishment schools and colleges, secure our best interests.
I suggest that such prejudice is difficult for people who have not grown up here to appreciate the subtlety of this distinction.
I would say Corbyn or the Labour party has nothing against Jews or the Jewish religion. Likely what has happened in their hatred of the international financial elite they just have been ignorant about how close their narrative comes to Hitler and anti-semitism. Because when talking about "the World being ruled by a cabal of international bankers", you have just taken out one word and that is Jewish and then you are talking exactly the same line as Adolf Hitler did.
Hence when Corbyn defends some mural like this (before he admits that it was wrong defend it), there is the case of him being an anti-semite.
"The Enemy of Humanity"
And then there is the leftist Middle East policy. So Corbyn talks about Hamas and Hezbollah as 'friends' and naturally is very critical of the actions that Israel takes. And often anti-Israeli views are interpreted to be anti-semitic views.
As a foreigner I'd say this a red herring or typical mudslinging of modern politics.
Yes agreed, this conflation is widespread in this country. My point is what is it the anxious Jews making this intervention think is going to happen? That they will be persecuted by the government, or the home office. Because their intervention is a direct move to sway the election and therefore who forms the next government.
I agree that it is probably mud slinging, but in our society it is a taboo to criticise claims of racist bias like this. So it's mud which sticks.
Quoting Punshhh
I’ve read these sort of comments before. Why do you think that’s what’s happening? Why do you think it’s true?
There is one point to be made here. That is that politicians in power do regulate and move the limits of the Overton window. Hence if it's totally acceptable of referring to an "international cabal of bankers running the World", then there's only a small step to add the J-word in front of the bankers. And these are the subtle things that then do add to anti-semitism.
Yet persecution of Jews in the modern state is of course a whimsical outrageous idea. And the whole narrative of "Jews leaving the UK" is just similar talk like we heard in 2016 election of "Americans leaving to Canada if Trump is elected". Basically it's nonsensical rhetoric that just adds to the polarization and division of the political landscape.
Besides, isn't it 'Silly-Season' there as you are going to have a general election in few weeks?
Regarding the overton window, in this country anti-discrimination and anti-racism is scrupulously held, there is a Protestant ethic on this and the broadcast media would not be able to veer away from this.
There are two reasons for what the younger people think. One, they are disillusioned with a Thatcherite model due to the results of the credit crunch. Secondly, they have not experienced any issues which would foster an anti EU sentiment. For the older folk, firstly, they are steeped in the affluence they accrued during the Thatcherite period, particularly through the housing market. Secondly, they have been infected with anti EU sentiment over a long period.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/polls/general-election
If you click on 2019 UK Parliament swingometer you can play around with the %s of the parties and see how the result is affected. Ok, it's based on uniform swings, but fun to play with.
I see that just as the Chief Rabbi is urging Jews not to vote Labour, Heseltine is urging Tories to vote Lib Dem or for independent ex-Tories, and Blair is calling them both 'dangerous', although he'll still vote Labour. I'm surprised at that. I'd have thought the Socialist program would alienate him..
Detailing amongst other things "full access" to markets, including the NHS. Noting the insistence that drug pricing will be at the front of the pile. NICE being the first target.
Looks like a smoking gun.
Check out Sky News.
This looks a lot like scaremongering by Corbyn. The minutes were from preliminary meetings, during which the US delegates outlined the areas they'd be interested in discussing re a trade deal. Access to the NHS and drug patents were among them. However, that doesnt mean the govt side agreed with their priorities, or that they'd be willing to compromise on them when the real talks start. Johnson is categorically ruling out any deal on the NHS. If he goes back on this promise he'll be in trouble.. It would be hilarious if he got an EU trade deal but couldn't agree one with the US!
The dossier was handed to him by a whistleblower yesterday and all he's saying is that it is evidence of what will be on the table in the post Brexit trade deal. With the follow up that Johnson is being dishonest about it.
The important thing is that the voters who don't spend much time looking into such things are aware of Johnson's duplicity and the reality of how tough the trade talks with the US might be.
For people like us who do give it a bit more thought, we should be under no illusions about what a hard ball game the US negotiators will play and how they will push for wide open access to our markets while we are in a position of weakness. That Johnson is unreliable and weak in the face of hard nosed business interests. That he will sell out our business interests, even if we get a reasonable trade deal with the US.
Not to mention the elephant in the room, that the US won't negotiate until all the future arrangements with the EU have been sorted out. Which will require the brexiter government to make up its mind again, which it repeatedly fails to do. That the US will demand a hard Brexit during the decade of negotiations with the EU to try and thrash this out( this is the optimistic view, what's more likely is that the Johnson government will descend into chaos and the economy and welfare state will pay the price).
I think, probably no-one. As an ex-Blairite (pre Iraq) I might go for Lib Dems, but I just don't think unilaterally revoking Brexit is a viable policy.. I'm also in a safe Tory seat.
It has to be said that there must be something wrong with a democracy where in the vast majority of seats it doesnt matter who you vote for..
Quoting Guardian
Hah. Well now, a Trumpian intervention didn't seem to concern Johnson much when it came to his supporting Brexit, now did it ?
Watch this space...
Amity-Ville not say.
Yeah. Really hoping for a damning, turning moment in this campaign; a special which nobody can ignore.
But I think the bastards are on their guard...
Look at how and what they hide. :rage:
Yes, well. Not a great surprise. Everything is Labour's fault, or Corbyn's in particular.
Despicable given the family's request:
Quoting Guardian
----------
On a more practical, or tactical, note.
Question about voting, and potential wasted votes.
Nine candidates have either withdrawn from campaigning or had support from their party withdrawn after the close of nominations.
3 Tories, 3 Lib Dems, 1 from Labour, SNP and Brexit.
However, these candidates remain on the ballot papers in their constituency.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
Excuse my ignorance but:
I presume if voters place an X at their name, this will be a wasted vote ?
What action, if any, is being taken to inform voters of this at the local level.
It will be too late for any postal voters.
Some tactical voting sites have not changed their recommendations accordingly.
Regarding candidates withdrawing, I'm not sure, but I would think, that if they won and refused to take office, it would trigger a by-election and it would not be included in the number of seats for the party which they represented. Or if someone else wins in their seat, it would make no difference. I have been worried for some time that the Brexit party would pull all their candidates the day before the election. But It's looking now as though this won't happen. Although if the Tory's do really badly over the next week, they still might do that.
Trump.
:lol:
It's hard to believe this guy is real and not out of The Simpsons.
The "working class", deprived neighbourhoods ( traditional Labour heartlands) who have fallen for the lies and snake oil salesmen, will shrug this off. Continuing to believe that Johnson is a lovable rogue, who is giving us some leadership. It's not certain that they will shrug off Trumps duplicity though, because the right wing gutter press they read, has been anti-Trump up until now.
Yes. I find this totally shocking as presented in the following article:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/anywhere-but-westminster-vox-pops-understanding-uk-political-landscape
Stupid, stupid, stupid people. I despair :sad:
Candidates who have been withdrawn from their respective parties and are still on the ballot paper seemingly have the status as Independents. Therefore, it is misleading the public who wish to tactically vote for the original party, as stated.
It is totally bizarre that we have this situation...
Another Chanel 4 report today is about the use of social media by Arron Banks. Apparently he was sold the contact details of all the UKIP supporters prior to the referendum. About 140,000 of the most Euroscepticsl people in the country. Banks set up Vote Leave, a political organisation which he used to groom all these people and gain access to all their extended contacts. Creating a countrywide social media campaign influencing millions of susceptible people. Once the referendum had happened he started a campaign of entryism infiltrating the Conservative party. Trying to deselect MPs who were pro-EU.
You seem to be saying that there's no middle-ground between Corbyn's spend-spend-spend policies and the 'mean' Tories. It's not hard to understand why people don't trust Corbyn. They still recall the years of austerity necessitated by Labour spending from 2008-2010. Okay you can dispute the term 'necessitated', but people instinctively shrink from the country running up large debts again, and I've yet to hear Corbyn say how he will pay back all the billions he wants to borrow. A moderate Labour party might be doing better in the polls. (I always thought the wrong Milliband brother won the leadership contest back in 2010..)
I noticed one strand common among those interviewed in the Voxpop Guardian article. Namely hope. Voters voted for Brexit in part because they hope the change it brings will be beneficial. Okay they're probably wrong, but when you don't understand all the political chicanery and economic forecasts hope is a powerful motivator. Similarly with Johnson. 'He's a new face, so let's give him a try and hope', goes the 'logic'..
You mention 2008-2010, well for a start New Labour was Tory light, they certainly weren't socialist. Gordon Brown was spectacularly disfunctional, but he inherited such a poisoned chalice from the credit crunch, I don't think anyone would have survived long in that position. You should not understate the severity of the fallout from the credit crunch, it was the genuine cause of the circumstances which made the Tory's choose austerity. Also the debt has increased over the last decade.
If you listen to John MacDonnell, he is claiming that by putting money into the pockets of ordinary people in the economy, it generates prosperity and growth in the real economy, resulting in a benefit to all. It is the opposite of the Tory capitalist ideology of capitalism generating wealth with a trickle down effect, which has been shown to be an illusion. In reality people of wealth and corporations siphon the wealth offshore and make those at the bottom more deprived, with greater inequality.
Regarding the hope voters and protest voters. I know their hearts are in the right place, but they are mistaken, which is understandable due to the "vile" poison spread by the gutter press and nationalist populists, who have taken advantage of them.
But by how much? If the debt increases at less that RPI it effectively decreases. Bringing down the deficit - and hence the annual increase, was as I understand it was part of the logic of austerity..
Quoting Punshhh
So putting money into the pockets of the poor aids growth but putting it into the rich's trousers doesn't? I think maybe you over-estimate the % of 'rich' money hidden overseas. Have you figures to back up your claim, and that of Macdonnell ? I think on the whole successful people want to spend their money, either on high-lifestyles or investments like property and businesses, both of which means it does trickle down.
Quoting Punshhh
Who are you to tell voters they are mistaken? Surely this high-handed attitude is one of the drivers of Brexit. I also don't think you can blame the media for brainwashing people so effectively. Given the preponderance of right-wing views among tabloids you'd expect 80% of their readers to vote Tory. That doesn't happen, so maybe they're not all as gullible as you suggest.
I don't have figures in ref' to John MacDonnell, I was describing economic ideology, rather than figures. Let me illustrate with a thought experiment.
Let's say there is an average group of people, one of which is wealthy (earns enough probably from investments, that they can save a significant proportion of their income). Now let's say the government gave each of them £20,000 and then came back a few months later to see what happened to the money. The people who are not wealthy would probably spend the money in short order in their local economy, probably on a broad range of products and services. The wealthy person would probably put it in a savings account, or if they are clued up, some kind of investment designed to avoid capital gains tax and then forget about it. This person wouldn't spend any more than they were going to before they received the money, as they already have all the money they need for day to day living costs. Like any of our 150 billionaires for example.
I expect I don't need to describe the ways in which corporations move wealth offshore, as this is well documented.
I apologise for my strong language in regard of the vox-pop people. I do talk about this a lot and my language has become more direct. What I mean by them being mistaken, is that many of them think that voting in that way their circumstances will somehow improve. This is where I suggest they are mistaken, simply because a Tory Brexit will evidently not improve their circumstances. Also, I am saying that the right wing media and populists convinced them to vote to leave the EU, not to vote Tory. They are now voting Tory to get Brexit done, because this same media has told them that democracy would be broken if it does not happen.
I suggest you talk to your friends and ask them what'd they'd do if their salaries suddenly doubled. I think they'd be talking about new cars, houses, buy-to-let investment, long-haul holidays, maybe even private schools; before they got around to offshoring any of their extra money. Who do you think keeps luxury brands afloat. Yes the ultra-rich may go that way, but I think only a small proportion of their income would go to tax havens, most of their wealth will be in property and shares. Not that I've any evidence - but then who has, either way?
I also think when the average/poorer person spends their gift money from MacDonnell on everyday products and services, a proportion of that money ends up in the hands of your rich 5%, because they own all the companies and take profits, dividends etc. How do you think they got rich? So Labour's attempted wealth-redistribution is not as easy as it seems. The only way to avoid this trickle-up effect is communism..
On a more Brexitey note I see the Brexit Party MEPs are deserting Farage's sinking ship - polling now 2-3%. He explains: " well, they're ex-Tories so it's not surprising." How many of his crew aren't ex-Tories? As I guessed, the Tories are mopping up the Leave vote..
I was talking about people further up the wealth scale, there are 850,000 millionaires in the UK, (if you include property assets 3.6 million). I don't dispute your point here, also I think that most of the creaming off of wealth is done by corporations*.
Again I don't dispute this, but what I want to focus on is where money is taken out of the real economy for a period of time. For example, a lot of money goes into property, which then sits there for a long time, rather than being spent on products and services provided by small businesses, or in the local economy. The high house prices are due to other issues, where insufficient houses have been built for decades. The selling off of council houses without replacing the stock. Such failings in the market and state provision has caused a property price bubble, which brings a whole host of problems with it. Or in my example in my previous post, the wealthy person doesn't spend the money, it sits in a bank account, again it is not being used in the real economy.
Another problem in the real economy is the way in which the government bailed out the banks in 2008 and then spent the next 10years making the poor and disadvantaged in the country pay for it with crippling austerity. Whether austerity was required or not, it starved the real economy of money.
No, that is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is a larger Social Democratic State like the Northern European countries.
What I think is important is what I call, the money go round, circulating around the real economy alongside a sensible public provision of essential services.
Yes, you were correct, I don't think Farage will withdraw though**, which was my fear. Interestingly the squeeze on the Brexit party seems to have gone as far as it can now. While the Labour squeeze on the Lib Dems does seem to be continuing, or at least, there is some more slack to take up. Not to mention the effect of tactical voting, which is difficult to gauge.
*an interesting development in the NATO summit, was the row between France and the US over clawing taxes off the large internet corporations. France is going to impose 3% and in return the US is threatening 100% tariffs on key French exports. The UK will get mired in this row from a far weaker position when begging for a US trade deal.
** due to the amount of money the Brexit party has spent on electioneering, if they were to reduce their number of candidates beyond a certain point they would fall foul of the rules on the maximum amount that can be spent per constituency. Meaning they could go to jail. Farage would not relish ending up in court again like he did following the 2017 election.
I think this is a bit of a myth. For every rich house-buyer who sits on it as an investment, there's a newly rich seller. He may then spend his newly aquired money locally.. A house as an investment is no different to any other investment - the investor spends his cash to buy it. I think the problem is if such properties are left unoccupied, then they are effectively being taken out of the housing stock, but aside from a few millionaires' pads owned by russian oligarchs in London, is this is a big problem?
Quoting Punshhh
What does this mean? For all the talk of nationalising rail, mail, power, broadband etc, whose profits will be added to govt coffers and redistributed, where does the extra money come from? Higher taxation for the rich will produce some cash, but that's more redistribution.. Any extra has to come from borrowing or better productivity. Simply using tax revenue to fund large inefficient public monopolies has never produced wealth on the past and there' s no reason why it will in the future. What it probably will produce is inflation..
Quoting Punshhh
Absolutely. I'm surprised the EU doesnt act as a whole to apply these taxes. It would thus be strong enough for Trump to think twice. The UK - whose exports to the US are twice theirs to us, will be a sitting duck for this kind of pressure. Scotch whisky I think was mentioned by Trump..
To address the issue of privatisation, I had already pointed out that the privatisation of essential services undertaken by the Tory's, is not a pretty picture and does not insulate the provision from capitalist profiteering, exploitation and cherry picking. I agree that nationalised provision can become inefficient, but that is only really a management issue and is free of those capitalist issues. I agree it does require a capital investment to bring them back into public ownership. But this along with the other capital investment proposed by the Labour Party, is not funded from tax provision, but rather by issuing government bonds, a one off capital investment. The 86 billion day to day running costs of the economy which would be paid for by tax receipts has been fully costed." Large inefficient public monopolies" would not be there to generate wealth, they are there to provide essential services, like water, power and travel infrastructure.
In reality the economics of this is a large complex subject, we could easily stray into deep water.
Bringing it back to Brexit, it turns out there is going to be a border down the Irish Sea, according to Johnson there is nothing to see here, just get it done.
I agree of course, the cause of the property jam is lack of new affordable housing, and I'm all for spending on new council housing. The fact that people's houses are worth much more than 20 years ago makes housing unaffordable to the young I agree. But I don't see your point that the wealth in housing is thus tied up and so not available to the 'real' economy any more than it was in the past. A lot of the added wealth is paper-wealth - ie simply extra value added to assets already owned. It's not as if people have had to make themselves penniless to afford their homes so they can't afford anything else. If we had a property price fall and serious problems with negative equity, preventing those with large mortgages from selling, then yes, that asset value would be trapped. But we don't, so it isn't.
Quoting Punshhh
The issue with public ownership is as much an inevitable lack of funding when times are hard as inefficiency. The NHS is always underfunded, as were the railways before privatistion. I'm not advocating privatisation of either, but I think expecting nationalisation to improve them economically is wishful thinking.
Quoting Punshhh
This is just the govt borrowing money on the markets, and having to repay interest to bond holders for however many years the bonds last. And then, finally, the capital. It increases the national debt - I think by £100 billion per year under Corbyn's plan. So that's over 25% extra in debt and debt repayment costs in 5 years.
Countries with highest debt to GDP ratios
The higher the UK's debt and debt-to-GDP ratio, the lower it will be rated by agencies, and the more interest the bond holders will want for their UK investments. It's already 88% (see graph above). After 5 years of Labour it would be around 110%. We'd almost be up there with basket cases like Italy and Portugal.. And if all the borrowed money is spent on infrastructure and extra public servants how does it expand the economy by enough to repay the loans?
The debt you mention does not factor in the growth of the real economy intended by Labour, which as I have pointed out is quite disfunctional at the moment. Also it may be appropriate to raise taxes for the good of the country.
Extra economy growth will be required to pay off all that extra debt.. Not being an economist I can't quantify the details, but forecasters have thrown doubt on both Tory and Labour sums..
I do agree with tax raises to offset growing inequality. I'd raise the National Insurance Ceiling. No-one ever seems to admit that NI is just another sort of income tax these days. Although Boris is to raise the lower limit I think, and not before time.
But generally the election campaigning energy seems all used up and we're just drifting towards polling day. I think because the main parties have concentrated on their key messages everyone's getting bored with them..
Do you get lots of adds and targeted posts on Facebook, or other social media? I get about 30 a day, targeted for Labour, or tactical voting sites. I suspect that other people are getting entirely different messages.
Quoting Punshhh
Thee has been much talk of the Red wall - Labour strongholds in the north with a pro-leave ref result, and whether Labour voters can 'hold their noses' and lend the Tories their votes. From what I've heard on TV quite a few will, and I doubt Momentum's assurances will make much difference to them. The Lib Dems do seem to be suffering a bit from the cancel article 51 policy - no surprise to me, and I'm sure some staunch 'democrats' have already defected to Labour. Then, also, in safe Toryland like St Albans with a large affluent Remain community, the Lib Dems apparently have a good chance. My sister is thinking of lending her Labour vote to the Lib Dems. It's possible a late shift could shake things up - like in the referendum itself. There is certainly more scope for tactical voting than ever before.
I keep my Facebook details and links to other sites to a minimum, so get very few adverts and
forwarded posts.
Swinson made such a mess of this election campaign, beginning with her revoke gambit, then her mercenary move of giving Boris his election exactly when he wanted it, then attacking Corbyn more than Johnson (young people like Corbyn and hate Johnson and they are your best chance for new votes, so alienate them??), to generally being shrill and unlikeable. Probably the most incompetent leader of the lot.
I think that she is desperate to distance herself from Labour, because it would alienate the Tory swing vote. I think she is right to do this and she can smooze with Labour after the election if it's a hung parliament.
Yes that is why my handle is Punshhh, that is my cartoonist signature.
I will post some of the propaganda later.
This illustrates the degree to which the Tory's are terrified of a major gaff. Also it has blown their cover, exposing their manipulation of the media and social media.
Here is one I received about a month ago, suggesting that to buy back parts of the NHS which Blair(apparently) sold off, would take 1 trillion pounds.
It's well past time that people realised they can't trust anything they receive on social media. Hence I ignore it. A news story is no more valid than its source. (I would have suggested trusting the BBC and not Sky, but you seem to disagree!)
That's one of the most irritating things in a modern democracy: when you get election adds and other material from only one or few political parties...especially if they aren't the party you have and are not thinking to vote. That for some reason the party you support doesn't even bother to target you in the elections. It's the forget those people, not worth even the effort syndrome. But it tells very clearly what the parties actually really thinks of you.
Perhaps now when our personal thoughts and attitudes are data traded in a lucrative business using computer algorithms to map and compartmentalize us for commercial or political use, this isn't as crude as just looking at one's living address or income. Facebook et al. make a buck with this!
The problem with the BBC (With whom I have made a complaint about this), is that they try to give equal weight to what is said by each side in the debate, with very little in the way of challenge and they are very slow in adapting that approach to its exploitation by the Tory's. So what is happening is the Tory's bluster and use double speak, along with crowding out the opposition by talking over others, or refusing to stop talking in a short limited time slot. The problem with this is that their news broadcasts are dominated by lines and slogans from the Tory's which are opportunist, disingenuous, hollow promises, duplicituos etc.. as though it is the accepted truth. There is a lack of equivalence in what messages are shown, or to what degree they are true representations of policy. So basically they are being played by the bully in the room. Secondly they are slightly endemically anti socialist and anti Corbyn, in comparison to their slight endemic pro Tory stance. This distinction is subtle and can be seen in their whole approach to the issues. An example the other day, of which there are many was in reference to the spending announcements of the party's they referred to Labours plans as "give always", while describing the Tory's plans as "spending plans".
Whereas Channel 4 has far higher standards of reporting and addressing issues. They repeatedly win awards for reporting. Sky also has high standards and I can't see any evidence of bias, indeed it's quite refreshing after the BBC. I always watch Channel 4 news and All out Politics on Sky for the most objective presentation of politics.
I strayed onto the Facebook page of a racist brexiter this morning. Here are a few examples of what we, as moderates are up against. The last post is in reference to the recent London Bridge terrorist who was shot by the police.
I'd say if you're interested in politics, ignore social media. News-wise it's basically a free-for-all cesspit. It's pointless to complain about all the lies. I forecast that it will be widely ignored in a few years.
It sounds like you're blaming the BBC for the way the Tories use their air-time, which I don't see as fair. If the half-truths, bluster and refusing to shut up of populism are more effective then the opposition should and will follow suit. Nevertheless, I am often annoyed by the way journalists on Newsnight constantly probe for a weakness in whomever they interview. Getting a headline is clearly more important to them than enlightening us viewers. However they do have a very hard job. These days politicians are trained to focus on their message and ignore questions which try to open up topics from more informative angles. They will all bluster and drown out counter-views if given the chance. I think Michal Hussein on Today is the best and most ruthless at stopping interviewees wittering on and talking over her questions.
Personally I like my news advert-free.. I can't say I'd noticed any anti-socialist bias in the BBC. It's regularly criticised by the Tory right for being against them, so if the Labour left says the same that's probably a sign both are a little too paranoid..
Interestingly Laura Kuensberg was reported to the electoral commission today following her appearance on Politics live, I missed it unfortunately. Basically she was dissing Labour by claiming that postal votes which have already been opened to be counted were showing a poor turnout for Labour. A clear infringement of electoral law, she has been criticised the most for pro Tory comment.
Anyway it's very exciting, I can't wait to see the results coming in tomorrow night.
Well good luck with the polling station! I think we could be in for some surprises as the results come in. I heard today that 30% of people may vote tactically..
(I was going to post an inspiring picture of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'll try to maintain a minimum pretence of political objectivity.)
P.S. Fuck Boris.
This is a real problem and a consequence of the 24/7 media coverage of every event. Typically, nowadays it's news when a politicians opens his mouth. So the news is "Boris said: "[insert quote]"", brought to you first by [insert media outlet]. I have newspaper headlines that are direct quotes from someone or other with little to no analysis into the veracity of whatever is claimed.
It would be news and not at all partisan if you'd do this: https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
In my polling station it's busy so far, should be one of the highest turnouts for a long time.It turns out we are about 400m outside a quarantine zone around a highly contagious bird flu epidemic. I hope we don't get quarantined.
Boris won the alpha male vote. Cue break-up of UK.
I have to say I agree. Worse for Labour than 1983 with Michael Foot. SNP surging too. John Macdonnell looks crushed talking to Andrew Neil.