They were outmanoeuvred. The Leave vote was united. The Remain vote was split. And Workington man couldn't give a toss that Boris is an areshole. In fact, he probably likes it.
Populism wins. We better get used to it, I suppose. Whoever's with stupid will be running the UK for the forseeable future and probably several other countries too. On the positive side, I'll probably be a grand or two up when I transfer my Sterling back to Euros.
The campaign lessened my conviction in my own forecast, but a big Tory win was what I said as soon as the Brexit deal was signed. I wish I'd been wrong, but people really are as dumbly predictable as I thought..
unenlightenedDecember 12, 2019 at 23:39#3623410 likes
Just got home, it's not looking good, I agree populism and duplicity has hoodwinked many people and won the Tory's another five years. It looks like this was the goal and Brexit the means. The blue collar workers who gave him victory are going to wake up to an almighty head ache in a few months, or certainly in about a year. Blojo's premiership will finish the Tory's for good, along with the change in the demographic.
My reading from afar is that Brexit fatigue was a huge factor. Conservatives offered certainty, the opposition parties, more dithering, and the Brexit dither has been more intolerable than Brexit, even if Brexit turns out to be a bad idea.
Reply to Wayfarer Yes, you're right about the will to get it done, rather than more dither. It is important not to forget that the master stroke of Johnson's advisors is to conflate Brexit with domestic issues and the threat of a socialist government. If we had had a second referendum on leaving the EU, we would have voted remain, this is widely known and is the reason why brexiters were vehemently against a second referendum.
It was won by disenfranchising voters who wish to remain in the EU via the electoral system. So we have a Brexit election piggy backing on and doubling down on a domestic issue general election. Focussing on the fear of a socialist government. It has worked, but it will betray and anger more than half the population. We are in for a rollercoaster ride now, which will probably result in the break up of the Union with the pieces breaking away, rejoining the EU.
As much as we'd like, I think it's clear now that character is not a prequisite to win and lies no longer disqualify you. That's how cynical the view of voters apparently is of politics that the things that normally matter in any relationship, have no meaning in our relationship to society as a whole as mediated through the political process.
Reply to Brett I don't trust people to be decent if things get too abstract. And centralised politics is very abstract. It's more an issue of the system not fitting our moral and behavioural constitution. It requires an inordinate amount of time to think through the implications of centralised policy and what a person thinks is morally right and any personal consequences. I then certainly do not expect people to regularly choose morality over negative (usually financial) consequence for themselves.
No not the UK, but Great England. The poles spell it out that NI and Scotland will leave to remain in Europe. Johnson will be the last Prime Minister of the UK. We will be known as Boris Isles.
Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, to whom he made populist promises. Let's see if he forgets all about them now he's in control. Andrew Niel regarded as the most erudite commentator in the UK, asked Tory's repeatedly through the night what they will do for these poor people and received no answer and little comprehension of the issue.
Reply to Brett I gave a considered response. Your attempts to reduce it to a one liner either means you're being obtuse or don't understand the difference between your one liner and my actual reasoning.
I already did. Instead of attempting to understand me you prefer to cherrypick sentences to fit your narrative to box in people who disagree with whatever you think you need to disagree with me on. Apparently that I blame voters but you don't. Newsflash: I don't blame voters. I generally think most people are good people where it concerns their immediate surroundings. Voters are cynical. Why else vote into power a party that has a documented, total disregard for the truth since 2016? And this doesn't disqualify politicians because we expect politicians to lie. If that isn't cynical I don't know what is.
You equivocate that assessment of voters being cynical with blame. I don't blame voters for being cynical as little as I blame people for not spending the time to be politically informed when it's boring and an act of futility when politicians don't listen anyway. The people have spoken but the body politic is deaf.
And I don't blame politically informed people chosing personal gain over the greater good, as I see it. I can disagree with it but that's something different then blaming them for a specific outcome.
There are a multitude of causes as to why the system has developed the way it has, with a political elite removed from the common man, the rise of populism despite macro-economic figures being up. That's historically quite new and speaks about inequality and the lack of shared progress when economies are doing well. Bureacracy, centralisation, 24/7 news with so much less analysis as before, etc. etc.
There's no easy fix but I do think systems that result in compulsive liars being at the helm are broken. I want leaders that inspire, that bring out the best in people and that starts, as in any (sub)culture, with the tone at the top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_at_the_top
The working class prioritised and voted for Brexit, many for good reason, and now they've got it. That's totally fair. They'll lose out in other ways and I expect they know that. And the very silver linings for the rest of us are the destruction of Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems and the utter annihilation and humiliation of Farage who got 2% of the vote and zero seats.
Boris can and probably will swing back to the center now and stuff the far right Brexiteers he no longer needs with a softer trade deal etc.
"If you consistently state policies which are on the left, we have the majority of supporters, it's just a question of getting the message out there" - leftists a month ago.
"Well shit" - leftists now.
Still, a failure of the left, just a different flavour from usual. Poor marketing decisions.
SophistiCatDecember 13, 2019 at 11:11#3625980 likes
Voters are cynical. Why else vote into power a party that has a documented, total disregard for the truth since 2016?
What this and other recent and not-so-recent events show, I think, is that in times of stress people often act irrationally; self-destructive forces prevail, and when it comes to voting, people end up voting against their self-interest. In this, collectives act not unlike individuals: they lash out, become dysfunctional, and end up digging themselves even deeper.
It is important not to forget that the master stroke of Johnson's advisors is to conflate Brexit with domestic issues and the threat of a socialist government. If we had had a second referendum on leaving the EU, we would have voted remain, this is widely known and is the reason why brexiters were vehemently against a second referendum.
I don't accept that a 2nd referendum would have supported Remain. In the face of a big swing away from the main ref supporting party, Labour, it seems absurd to maintain that. Pollsters like Sir John Curtis repeatedly say that the Leave/Remain split remains near 50/50. That being so, there is clearly no mandate to revisit the original decision anyway.
The 'threat of a socialist govt' did not strike me as the Tories' primary focus. The fact that Labour's sums and Corbyn himself were mistrusted by voters is clear from the doorstep responses many Labour activists and MPs reported. People are not so stupid as to believe Corbyn's trumpeting of hope over the reality of the costs of his plans. It was naiive of Labour to expect they would fall for this emotive plea. Had they spent more time explaining how their promises could be paid for maybe more voters would have stuck by them.
As an aside I noticed how often journalists on TV did not manage to get any senior Tories to interview about policy detail along with those of other parties. Has the (winning) campaign now gone wholly online? This has been claimed. If so the future of informed decision making is bleak.
What this and other recent and not-so-recent events show, I think, is that in times of stress people often act irrationally; self-destructive forces prevail, and when it comes to voting, people end up voting against their self-interest. In this, collectives act not unlike individuals: they lash out, become dysfunctional, and end up digging themselves even deeper.
I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them.
I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them.
Agreed. I think some of us fail to understand the rationale by which less intelligent people make decisions.. What one person calls self-interest another calls stupidity.
SophistiCatDecember 13, 2019 at 11:32#3626050 likes
I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them.
You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.)
You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.)
The problem with your argument is that you define what is 'rational'. I suspect that decisions are not made the same way by all people - there is no universal 'rationality' which governs them - or more importantly, that should govern them. ..
Reply to Tim3003 They're not even less intelligent. I can disagree on a multitude of policies with @Hanover and he's not much less intelligent than I am. :yum:
SophistiCatDecember 13, 2019 at 11:49#3626100 likes
You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.)
That's one way to define it.
I look at it differently but we might be meaning the same thing. I think often it's a matter of different values leading to different conclusions. I'm more of a collectivist than most people and have voted against my interest because I think the result would be better for society as a whole. Case in point is the mortgage rent tax deduction available in the Netherlands. I'm in the highest income bracket so I could deduct my mortgage rent from my income and avoid paying 52% over that amount. People in lower incomes can only benefit up to 28% more or less. So it's typically a tax deduction that favours the rich who already don't have a problem financing mortgages to begin with. Not to mention that it really just drives up prices, thus higher mortgages and in the end is macro-economically nothing more than a subsidy to banks. I voted for ending the deduction, which obviously goes against my direct economic interests. To more individualist inclined people, that vote is probably considered a stupid vote. But it's still rational.
That's not a problem, that's a feature. Of course I define what is 'rational', as does everyone else.
So you see 'rational' as a subjective term. In that case it's meaningless to use it. You might as well say 'thinking the same way as I do' instead. Using 'rational' infers to me that you think there is a higher and objective logic behind your argument, one you believe all sensible people should agree with - rather than just your viewpoint. And any refutation of your argument would thus be 'irrational'..
The working class prioritised and voted for Brexit, many for good reason, and now they've got it. That's totally fair.
This is the main problem with the modern day socialists: they've forgotten their old supporters in the working class and too much focused on the "woke" people. As I'm no leftist, hopefully the new left continues to forget them later too.
And btw, as I noted earlier, it was peculiar how little was talked about the polls which gave the conservatives a huge lead prior to the election.
Boris can and probably will swing back to the center now and stuff the far right Brexiteers he no longer needs with a softer trade deal etc.
Why?
First of all, likely "the Brexiteers" aren't so far right as you imply. That's your first error. Shouldn't believe the portrayal of those who oppose them. Just as I don't believe that leftists are dominated by 'Cultural Marxists'.
First of all, likely "the Brexiteers" aren't so far right as you imply. That's your first error. Shouldn't believe the portrayal of those who oppose them. Just as I don't believe that leftists are dominated by 'Cultural Marxists
Your error is misinterpreting what I said. I said he'll stuff the far right Brexiteers not Brexiteers in general, who come from a variety of political backgrounds.
Why? Because he's a pragmatist, if also an opportunist. And he's done the latter part already.
Boris can and probably will swing back to the center now and stuff the far right Brexiteers he no longer needs with a softer trade deal etc.
Agreed, Johnson will take the path of least resistance, which will be a softer Brexit, probably along the lines of May's deal, because anything harder will throw up some intractable problems. Including the destruction of the Union, although that may be lost already.
Also the working class are as I said earlier going to have quite a hangover.
I guess they chose Brussels over their own country. What a shame.
Not at all, I acknowledge that you are looking on from afar. But for Scotland, it would give them autonomy, to be free of a Westminster with overbearing control, little accountability and little concern for the plight of the Scott's. They would join the EU as an independent country cooperating with 27 partner countries.
This is not something they wished to do, but rather is a remedy to a chaotic destructive Westminster.
Reply to Tim3003 I wasn't talking of any mandate for a second referendum. Only what would be the likely result. You should consider that there would be a campaign before the vote and that the demographic would have moved on( the young reaching the voting age).
The Tory's didn't need to mention Corbyn, or their socialist policies much, as the anti socialist ideology is quite widespread already. But it is what they were banking on. Interestingly there is a weakness in Labour's approach which has become evident today. That they were banking on the poor and those concerned about public services etc, but forgot the slightly better off in their traditional seats, "the managing", rather than "the just about managing". These people really didn't want socialism and had become supporters of New Labour, they thought the party had left them and moved to the left.
The lack of holding Tory's to account during the campaign is unfortunate, but their strategy was honed down to two or three slogans, so they avoided the media. It was populism what swung it.
It's possible that the reason the conservatives won is because their position is the correct one. Sometimes you have to get beyond trying to explain why the result was wrong and just admit it was you who was wrong.
If we had had a second referendum on leaving the EU, we would have voted remain, this is widely known and is the reason why brexiters were vehemently against a second referendum.
I disagree. Show me some evidence..
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2019 at 17:22#3626650 likes
The big question for us namby-pamby socialists is, 'why do turkeys vote for Christmas?'
Can it really be that they hate sprouts more than they love life?
Reply to unenlightened Its the power of populism. I say this more in reference to the overwhealming feeling amongst these voters that Corbyn is the Devil incarnate. There is also Brexit and I have some sympathy as I have said before, with the anti immigration vote, because I have seen the towns where you can walk down the street and only hear people speaking Polish
I can have a look later, but I thought people think that a snap referendum would be 52/48 the other way. Media commentators have been saying this for over a year. Also why are the brexiters so vehemently against it and have been saying that the people who were making the case for a confirmatory vote, where doing it to stop Brexit. Surely they wanted more democracy now that we are better informed.
Yet there are liberal rich. Are they suicidal or principled? Can't the same hold true for working class conservatives?
Sure, people can vote against class interests on principle. But usually, most of the time, most don't. Unless there is some other factor.The virtue of the rich and the poor is not that great, which is why there are left and right constituencies and areas.
Not at all, I acknowledge that you are looking on from afar. But for Scotland, it would give them autonomy, to be free of a Westminster with overbearing control, little accountability and little concern for the plight of the Scott's. They would join the EU as an independent country cooperating with 27 partner countries.
This is not something they wished to do, but rather is a remedy to a chaotic destructive Westminster.
I guess the question is whether people voted for SNP to have another referendum or did so in order to give a big middle finger to Labour.
Yet there are liberal rich. Are they suicidal or principled? Can't the same hold true for working class conservatives?
I’d say the rich have the financial luxury to be principled. They’re hardly going to struggle if their taxes go up. But poorer voters are going to have a much harder time if food prices go up or any welfare they rely on is reduced, and maybe it’s just me being pragmatic and worrisome (having relied on government assistance in the past), but I struggle to understand how these concerns aren’t the priority for the working class.
Your error is misinterpreting what I said. I said he'll stuff the far right Brexiteers not Brexiteers in general, who come from a variety of political backgrounds.
Why? Because he's a pragmatist, if also an opportunist. And he's done the latter part already.
What are the 'far right Brexiteers'? How many 'far right Brexiteers' are there? I presume it is something similar as the number far left Stalinists in the Labour party. Or perhaps it's the 856 members of the Communist Party of Britain that is the far left in the UK.
And just how is he going to swing back to the center? Why would he do anything like that?
If you get a landslide victory, one of the biggest since the 1980's, why on Earth would any politician start 'moving' anywhere and changing the objectives and a winning narrative? The only thing, which Boris Johnson said publicly in his victory speech, is that he (and the conservative party) will never take those pro-Brexit votes from otherwise Labor leaning voters for granted. That doesn't sound like reeling to the left.
Reply to BenkeiThere are many cultured and intelligent leftist here. But few if any aren't for or praise how Marxism has historically played out in the multitude of leftist revolutions in history. What lacks is the previous fanatic belief in the ideology. And as there is no stigma attached to Marxism and the stench of all those killed in the name of that cause doesn't irritate us (unlike with fascism and nazism), people are happy to use the trademark.
1) Centre not left.
2) It doesn't matter what Johnson says.
3) Because he's a pragmatist and the context has just changed dramatically.
4) You presume that why?
5) I don't know how many there are.
6) "Brextremists" might be a more accurate term as they're not all on the right.
So, my claim is (and it's just a theory, obviously) that Johnson will pivot away from his hard Brexit line because that will make it easier for him to make a trade deal and allay the risk of a new no-deal exit, which would have disastrous economic implications. He can drop the pretence of ideological commitment now because he has castrated Farage as a political player. And his history shows he's generally pro-European, so I expect his focus to be on maintaining his economic bona-fides rather on trying to win any more Brextremist beauty contests. This is all just another way of saying it's about realpolitik.
Unfortunately not. Mogg was sidelined and told to shut up after being too much of a posh twit even for the Conservatives. And, yes, long may that continue.
Me neither. Likely the number is as obscure as the number of 'Cultural Marxists' in universities brainwashing new generations of students to the leftist/woke cause.
6) "Brextremists" might be a more accurate term as they're not all on the right.
Ok. But that number is small, I will still argue. Especially after Brexit has happened. If people would be logical, you would need a new definition. But perhaps not. Perhaps "Brexiteers" will continue to be present after decades from now: those Britons/english who cherish Brexit and think that Brexit was equivalent of winning the Battle of Britain in 1940 against the German Luftwaffe. That surely sound "Brextremism" today. Who knows.
So, my claim is (and it's just a theory, obviously) that Johnson will pivot away from his hard Brexit line because that will make it easier for him to make a trade deal and allay the risk of a new no-deal exit, which would have disastrous economic implications. He can drop the pretence of ideological commitment now because he has castrated Farage as a political player. And his history shows he's generally pro-European, so I expect his focus to be on maintaining his economic bona-fides rather on trying to win any more Brextremist beauty contests. This is all just another way of saying it's about realpolitik.
Forgetting about the UKIP/Brexit Party/Farage nonsense surely happens, because the Brexit party is already something of the past. In the end they have nothing to do with the conservative party. I don't think that this even means going anywhere on the political spectrum, left or right.
And a lot of people that voted for Brexit have nothing against being "pro-European", if that "pro-European" means trade with Europe (and participation in NATO). It's trade just like with the US or other countries.
I think Europeans will both get over very quickly with the UK not being a member of the EU. The UK has always been a separate island from Europe, literally, and it was a late comer to the EEC. Soon it will be seen as the historical 'normal' of the UK being separate from the EU. And things will be rather OK.
Semantics alert! >>'Going left' can mean moving left and aiming for the center or moving left and aiming for the left, with the latter being the more natural interpretation and also the one that could make my point seem less plausible. So, I was disambiguating.
I think ‘Brexit’ is settled. (What an ugly neologism it has been, by the way.) It’s not done, but it’s decided, Of course the details will now be thrashed out over years but with Johnson’s win, it’s no longer a ‘will it happen or not’ cliff-hanger. ‘All over bar the shouting’ might be an appropriate cliche.
Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, to whom he made populist promises. Let's see if he forgets all about them now he's in control. Andrew Niel regarded as the most erudite commentator in the UK, asked Tory's repeatedly through the night what they will do for these poor people and received no answer and little comprehension of the issue.
I'll qualify it by saying blue collar voters rather than "the poor".
I guess the question is whether people voted for SNP to have another referendum or did so in order to give a big middle finger to Labour.
Scotland is drifting away from England politically, so there doesn't seem to be a point for Labour, or Conservative party's there anymore. This mirrors Northern Ireland, where there are none.
Following this debacle the independence of both from the UK has dramatically increased.
Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, to whom he made populist promises.
Not familiar enough to know if this is true or not. Though they do seem to have picked up a lot of Labour seats. However in elections I tend to think people vote against a party when they vote. So, the blue collar voters were very unhappy with what Labour stood for or the ideas they embraced. Either a mistake on Labour’s part or the blue collar voters no longer believe they are represented by Labour.
Reply to ssu It can be difficult to convey the subtleties of a situation to people looking in from elsewhere. The Tory party is the sort of party which always returns to the centre and consolidates with pragmatism following the crisis. The only reason that they lurched to the right was due to the failure of Theresa May to secure a majority in 2017. This left her a lame duck dependent on NI politicians and held hostage by the ERG ( the hard right anti EU faction in her party, there are about 20 or 30 of them).
Now Johnson has total freedom and clear space to fashion and restore a "one nation" Conservative party in the centre ground.
Also I should point out that Johnson will turn on a sixpence on any of his promises, if it suits his purpose and everyone knows it. He now has free reign for a number of years, or at least until he gets snarled up in the EU negotiations etc.
The problem is that there is little blue collar work. Large masses of people working in the same place and able to communicate, form bonds and recognise common interests no longer exist. The solidarity of Northern mining communities has not survived the closure of the mines and steelworks. Nobody wears a blue collar any more.
What there is instead are heartless, crumbling communities full of toxic masculinity - chavs and perverts. Corbyn does not appeal to men who depend on their racer-boy drug- pushing image for their sense of worth; Johnson is much more their style.
I really do think the blue collar workers are waking up to things. The problem for them is that you don’t realise that they are.
Edit: so much so that we can’t even define them.
Yes, you have a point, in the constituencies we are discussing the situation is complex. Because the large industries they used to work in have gone and some people have picked themselves and their communities up and become more prosperous, but many haven't. Others think their deprived neighbourhoods are the normality with no idea of the large belts of prosperity in the affluent areas, predominantly in the south.
It is imerging that the reason these areas supported Johnson is, apart from "get Brexit done", is that they feel that the Labour Party has moved away from them moving further to the left with a metropolitan ideological socialism and don't anymore represent them.
Your observation of my ignorance is misplaced, I am well aware of the situation. I have been putting the case from the position that leaving the EU is a bad idea, that the Tory party was incompetent in carrying it out and that a more left wing government would be a good idea at the moment, following 10 years of austerity. I'm not partisan.
Yes, and the women. I'm characterising the culture as was and the radical economic change; women have never been unionised labour to the same extent, but they partake of the community that results.
What there is instead are heartless, crumbling communities full of toxic masculinity - chavs and perverts. Corbyn does not appeal to men who depend on their racer-boy drug- pushing image for their sense of worth; Johnson is much more their style.
I meant do you regard the women in the same light?
unenlightenedDecember 14, 2019 at 12:04#3630270 likes
I meant do you regard the women in the same light?
No, I think men and women are different and have different histories. The psychological problem of these communities is that the masculinity of the working man has become toxic. I think you are displaying with your questioning a middle-class sensibility to equality language. Toxic masculinity is a problem for women; ask Boris's exes. But what is your point?
Perhaps I should explain some. In the good old days, men went down the pit and knew they were the salt of the Earth, the engine of civilisation, the forge of Empire, and the repository of all good things. They formed trade unions, working men's clubs, cooperative societies, public libraries, and the Labour Party, from their communal existence at work. In essence, Socialism was founded on a positive image of the worker as valuable derived from fact, and thus realistic. This becomes a conscious power in the community because of the proximity of the workplace.
The pit has closed, and the source of positive identity and of social solidarity is no more. Positive masculinity has become functionless; bravery and strength are useless. One is left with senseless empty machismo expressed in driving fast and loudly nowhere, and other feats of strength. No social good can come of such a hollow fantasy of an identity.
"What about women?", you say. And my response is that this is what has become of socialism; it has become identity politics, but a negative identity politics of a fantasy solidarity of the oppressed, where the disabled, women, immigrants, the working-class itself, are supposed to be united by their negative self-images as 'the oppressed'. And as an image it does not appeal the way 'salt of the Earth' does.
I can have a look later, but I thought people think that a snap referendum would be 52/48 the other way. Media commentators have been saying this for over a year. Also why are the brexiters so vehemently against it and have been saying that the people who were making the case for a confirmatory vote, where doing it to stop Brexit. Surely they wanted more democracy now that we are better informed.
The speculation of commentators is not hard evidence. Given that all the forecasts were for the 1st ref to vote Remain, and at the last minute Leave won, a 52/48 forecast would presage an exact rerun.
Brexiteers are scared they might lose, not convinced they would. They also see a 2nd ref as an affront to democracy, which, despite being a Remainer, I have to agree with..
Anyway, as Heseltine admitted today, that battle is lost.. :fear: Time to move on.
It is imerging that the reason these areas supported Johnson is, apart from "get Brexit done", is that they feel that the Labour Party has moved away from them moving further to the left with a metropolitan ideological socialism and don't anymore represent them.
I think that's too sophisticated. The reasons, besides Brexit, for Labour's loss of northern working-class voters I have heard from Labour MPs and voters alike are:
They disliked Corbyn as a leader, also seeing him as a possible security risk and not a good ambassador for the UK internationally.
They did not believe Labour's huge spending promises could ever be paid for.
What's galling is the huge arrogance of the left-wing leadership in refusing to accept this. They are blaming solely Brexit; as ever remaining convinced their socialist idealism is right, and the world just has to be coached in realising it. It's just like the way Corbyn refuses to even address the issue of anti-semitism beyond bland restatements of his anti-racist credentials. The likes of Margaret Hodge, Straw, Mandelson are crying out for the party to change and remove this Momentum clique, but will it? I think a new Blair figure needs to appear to catalise the change first..
unenlightenedDecember 14, 2019 at 14:15#3630430 likes
They who? Some of 'them' revered him as an almost Christ-like figure. Remember how the party membership increased. An analysis needs to account for both sides. I strongly suspect that the antisemitism thing cut little ice on the red wall, and what they objected to in Corbyn was the pacifist wimpy effeminate image. No one with any objection to racism would have voted Tory on that principle. Au contraire, Rotherham man, I suspect, rather liked the Yorkshire bluntness of 'letterboxes' and 'piccaninnies'.
It's the economy, stupid, as they say. We used to have a working class in manufacturing, and now we have a working class in service industries. We need a rhetoric that valorises and validates service and servants, and a organisation that can represent them. Trade Unions never did, and caring has no status.
They who? Some of 'them' revered him as an almost Christ-like figure. Remember how the party membership increased.
'They' who the Labour MPs and activists talked to on the doorsteps and who said they were voting Tory or Brexit Party for the first time ever..
Yes the membership is 500,000. But it is mainly made up of the hard-left, not the millions of lifelong voters up north and is out of touch. For example the membership is predominently Remain, well out of kilter with the balance of Labour voters generally.
Reply to unenlightened Well said.
I hark from Yorkshire, but have picked up the southern sensibilities and to a degree live amongst the privelidged classes now. I am a bit out of touch with the north, my knowledge now is of the east. There is not much depravity around here compared to the midlands and the north. However there is a profound difference from the truly privelidged regions of Surrey, Berkshire, Hampshire etc. Here the issue is more to do with the influx of Polish people. I suspect that over 90% of the voters who voted in my polling station voted leave and primarily for this reason. On reflection I realise that socialism of the kind proposed is not favoured by many outside metropolitan Labour supporters.
unenlightenedDecember 14, 2019 at 17:11#3630750 likes
the membership is 500,000. But it is mainly made up of the hard-left,
No, I don't think so. Left, sure, but not hard. They are not ex Socialist Workers Party, but ex apathetics by and large.What I am coming to think is that the economic policy was popular, but the images were insulting. "Vote for the cripples dossers and loonies party because we are all oppressed, and only a middle-class do-gooder can save us." There's no dignity in that.
They disliked Corbyn as a leader, also seeing him as a possible security risk and not a good ambassador for the UK internationally.
They did not believe Labour's huge spending promises could ever be paid for.
I agree with this. I was discussing a slower long term shift of the traditional Labour heartlands away from traditional socialism.
Yes I heard Heseltine, I agree with him and have already moved on. For me I will benefit from continued Conservative government to the extent of a six figure sum, from a heafty inheritance. Which I would almost certainly not have had if Corbyn had got in and removed the tax free allowance. But for me it was worth the sacrifice if the health of the society were to be restored. I am not all that concerned about Brexit provided a sensible approach is adopted*. I was expecting it to happen at some point, perhaps in another 10 or 15 years. But I still think it is a mistake and a poor strategy for our long term future. I agree with the your assessment of the Labour front bench, but I don't see them as any worse than the Tory front bench, just the opposite side of the political divide.
* I will be entitled to a Scottish passport, so I expect to get an EU passport when Scotland leaves the UK.
As an aside I believe that if Heseltine had become PM the world would be a different place now. The best prime minister we never had.
As an aside I believe that if Heseltine had become PM the world would be a different place now. The best prime minister we never had.
I'd choose Kenneth Clarke - or maybe Healey? But I wouldn't vote against MH..
It's a shame that I too, as a disillusioned Remainer am selfishly thinking: 'Oh well, I won't be worse off - my money is global investments (not that that seems to be helping much at the moment!), when the majority who think they have won will almost certainly suffer for it. I sometimes wonder if one-man-one-vote democracy is really the best way. But in the end, I suspect however the 'system' is set up the simple will always be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous clever.
Depends how you define 'hard left'. I'd say Corbyn represents it. If he doesn't, who does? Surely the SWP aren't big enough to reserve the term for them alone.
unenlightenedDecember 15, 2019 at 13:19#3632790 likes
I'd say Corbyn represents it. If he doesn't, who does?
I suggest to you that the hard left is best represented by the red wall, the voters who for generations have voted Labour and found it until now unthinkable to do otherwise. The soft left is the middle-class identity obsessed chattering class who have thought they knew how to run the Labour party and that they could take the poor in the North for granted forever. Nowhere is the North/South divide so extreme as in the Labour party and that is the reason they lost the election. Denis Skinner was hard left, Corbyn is the ultimate softie, and that's why he was defeated by a blustering bully. And now everyone thinks the answer is a woman. Corbyn was already a woman!
Reply to Tim3003
I suggest you listen to the Peter Hennessy interview with Heseltine, you can see his vision for the country there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m5gwm
Johnson has already said that he wants to model his vision on Heseltine, somehow I don't think he is up to it, but he might well surprise us.
I thought it despicable that Johnson's first celebratory visit was to Sedgfield, Blair's seat. Rubbing salt into the wound like that is not Heseltine's style.
I thought it despicable that Johnson's first celebratory visit was to Sedgfield, Blair's seat. Rubbing salt into the wound like that is not Heseltine's style.
On the contrary. I saw it partly as saying that he thinks he can be as transformative a leader as Blair. So in that respect it was a compliment - albeit a pretty ego-driven one..
I'm guessing not. But give him his due, I think Boris wants to inspire people via optimism and his own leadership qualities. I don't think mean-spirited revenge and triumphalism is his way of thinking. Trump would do it, yes, and for the reasons you give.
But I'm hoping Boris may prove himself a more inclusive Tory leader than any since Churchill. Now that he has his big majority he can dispense with cynical populist tactics if he wants and do whatever he likes. For now I think he does want to reach out to all and become a national hero for uniting the country again. 'Commeth the hour, commeth the man' may well be his motto. Whether events will allow him to do all that remains to be seen.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, Johnson might deliver, I'm sure he has the talent, unlike Trump. However he has a large and difficult brief with some quite excruciating tensions built in. So when push comes to shove, I expect he will put party before country again and push his new converts under the bus. But these people might be the very people he needs to keep onside if he is to save the party. So here is the first tension. Between his traditional support which is privelidged, inward looking, wealth and business oriented and his new support which is crying out for investment, welfare and a wholesale reconstruction of deprived areas. There is more to this tension, but I will leave it at that for now.
Secondly, the issue of the Union, Johnson will be desperate to retain Scotland in the Union, he doesn't give a toss about Northern Ireland, which he said before the election. But in reality the only way he can keep Scotland is to deliver a soft Brexit. While his backers and base want a hard Brexit. If however Northern Ireland unifies with Ireland, that in itself might make keeping Scotland impossible.
Historians still might say that it was the infighting of the Conservative party which broke up the Union.
Looking forward to making you eat this when the Dems win the Whitehouse. :halo:
I guess it's obviously true that the democracy does not determine truth, meaning it's entirely possible (and often likely) that the voters choose a wrong course, but I do think there's some denial in this thread that perhaps the voters actually voted exactly as they wanted, as they believed, and they did it with their eyes wide open. I'm sure both sides are guilty of this, but trying to describe one's opponents as manipulated and deceived every time they vote in opposition to you appears as a refusal to accept that there might be another legitimate way of looking at things.
In the US we dont trust simple majorities to decide things. Would you argue that we should?
Should a simple majority decide who the president is?
This question strikes me as a strained attempt to bring about a discussion about the electoral college. In the UK, they elect representatives who then pick a prime minister, which seems even further removed from a directly democratic system.
Regardless, I'm fine with the current system of both countries, and do believe the decisions of elections represent the will of the people, controlled by various rules designed to protect minority interests or whatnot.
Do you think that every member of the House and Senate should be elected as an at large representative of the entire nation? I mean we do wish that each vote from each representative represent the entire will of the nation don't me? We don't want to disproportionately advance the interests of some small district in some far away state somewhere, right?
This question strikes me as a strained attempt to bring about a discussion about the electoral college.
John Oliver did a show about how Brexit was really too technical to put to a simple majority vote. He showed actual British people complaining that they didn't have the background to decide the issue.
So it's not crazy to say that British voters might have been somewhat bamboozled with lies since the average British person wouldn't have a super informed opinion.
My point to you was that it would be bizarre if the US put a question like that to the public without at least requiring a 2/3 majority. Am I wrong?
but I do think there's some denial in this thread that perhaps the voters actually voted exactly as they wanted, as they believed, and they did it with their eyes wide open
You may be right, as I am clearly on one side of the argument. I would like to debate it with someone on the other side but they haven't turned up. I don't think that you would be able to say that I don't understand the arguments though, or don't rehearse them.
I would point out that there are probably as many different forms of Brexit as there are leave voters. The referendum was perhaps too simple a proposition and one which Cameron assumed would vote to remain. He didn't consider that it would go the other way and was intending to use it as a way to silence UKIP which was poaching his support. There was no detail about what Leave would mean, which resulted in 2 years of squabbling about what leaving meant in terms of future trade, legal and citizen circumstances that we would get.
Now we have an election which Johnson called "the Brexit election", surely the impasse should have been broken by a confirmatory referendum. But it is widely acknowledged among commentators that the result would probably go the other way. This means of deciding the way forward on Brexit confuses the vote with other election issues and disenfranchises many voters who would like their vote to indicate the view on the issue of Brexit. For example, nearly everyone I know of my own age voted remain and all of them, except two, live in safe Tory seats, so they were disenfranchised in the decision on "the Brexit election". Also, now that Johnson has a large majority, he is at liberty to bring on any kind of Brexit he likes with no redress to the electorate, or effective opposition in Parliament.
So when push comes to shove, I expect he will put party before country again and push his new converts under the bus. But these people might be the very people he needs to keep onside if he is to save the party.
I don't think Boris is from the party-first mould. I think that he sees himself as Churchill did - above party identities and able to appeal to the people over the top of that loyalty. So far he's being proved right. There will be much trumpeting of investment in the Northern Powerhouse I'm sure, as he seeks to fulfill promises to the ex-Labour voters, but it will be interesting to see if he coughs up for HS2, considered a vital part of that project, but hugely expensive.
He also faces a test on Brexit phase 2. The only realistic route to meeting his Dec 2020 target for an EU trade deal is maintaining close alignment in standards and tarifs with them. The ERG won't like that, but he now has the majority to say f*** you to them. The problem is that if, as he has previously shown, he wants a US trade deal, that approach with the EU won't satisy Trump at all. If he does want to appease Trump and depart from EU standards his loudly promised EU deadline looks unfeasible. However history to date shows that once he's made a promise, he'll do almost anything to keep it, so maybe he'll choose the EU over Trump if it comes to it. No doubt voters would want him to too. And who knows if Trump will even be around in 2021?
This is a way longer answer than you deserve so Happy Christmas (or Hannah’s Car, or whatever).
Broad generalizations in either direction aren't informative and tend to do no more than reflect the opposing ideologies of the winners and losers. The winners will almost always say "The people got what they wanted" and the losers will very often say "The people were duped". Any decent analysis is going to look much deeper than either non-answer above to the question of what happened in a given election.
Re that, this latest UK poll is a nice one to analyze because of its dual-layer nature and the strategies that were taken advantage of to maximize political outcomes, particularly by the Conservatives (Labour might as well have been trying to minimize political outcomes though that was as much to do with the rock/hard place they were stuck in as incompetence). So, the dual layers were Brexit and everything else and they were interwoven in a complex way. The "everything else", which is normally all there is, can be sub-layered into party personality and party policy. First, the party personality or party "brand" is normally led by and embodied in the party leader and can be anything, but in this case the choices showed an unusual level of polarity (Boris’s brand was the (alpha) male—loud, forceful, closed, active. And Corbyn’s, as @un pointed out, the female—quiet, restrained, open, passive). Second, the party policies are the functional aspect of the election outcomes and in judging whether or not the voters acted in a rational/self-interested manner are all that matters. So, if you can roughly determine self-interest by demographic according to a reasonably refined number of social and economic criteria and then look at voter behaviour, you can form a credible thesis as to the extent to which voters acted rationally, and the inverse, which is to what degree they were manipulated/deceived into acting irrationally (leaving out for simplicity’s sake cases where they were simply mistaken in a way that did not at all depend on political influence).
But even here, we’re over-simplifying things, and Brexit is useful in making clear how. So, voters can be manipulated into voting against their best interests by, first of all, obscuring/masking a policy, so they vote for a policy that's in not in their interest because they think they’re voting for something else or voters can be manipulated into wanting a policy that’s not in their interest so they get what they want but it has a negative effect on them down the line in a way they may or may not become directly aware of.
From a strategic point of view, it’s better to make voters want a policy that’s not in their interest rather than to simply temporarily mask a policy that’s not, as in the latter case the deception is immediately revealed upon policy implementation whereas in the former the negative outcomes can be drip-fed and gradually spun so that voters may find it hard to discern what’s happening and the extent to which they are responsible for it vs. the extent to which it was a deliberate manipulation. Of course, that’s harder to achieve and takes a more sophisticated level of deception, but given the current deregulated, polarised, and diverse state of the media landscape and the technological tools available to inject ideology at an almost surgical level, it’s as doable as ever.
So, there’s a bunch of abstract, how do we tie it to the this election? Well, first a caveat, we’re dealing with a first-past-the-post system in the UK rather than a PR system and that determines to a large extent how the results are viewed, and yet both systems are accepted as being vanilla democratic. To give a quick example of this, the SNP killed it in Scotland; they got something like 80% of the seats, and the other three major parties had to share the crumbs of the remainder between them. The natural interpretation (and the most dominantly purveyed one in the media) is that Scotland has overwhelmingly spoken in favour of independence, it’s a juggernaut that can’t be stopped etc. Change the format of the election to equally democratic PR and the SNP get less than half of the seats. Suddenly, the narrative drastically changes. What remains the same though are the political inclinations of the population. Similarly for Boris’s victory. A stonking roasting of the opposition and a huge mandate turns into a hung parliament under PR. If you think PR is fairer, and it just is in terms of pure percentages because as the name suggests, it’s more proportional, then that’s food for thought. But leaving that aside for now...
As mentioned above, the Brexit issue was interwoven with policy/personality. One very important point to make here is that the alpha male Conservative brand (personality) tied well into pro-Brexit feeling, which was often driven by a tough anti-immigrant, nationalist sentiment that bonded (and was one of the few things that could) class and geographic divisions. So, you had coherence there (and ancillary reach) which was added in emotional strength to by the fact that the Leavers who won the original plebiscite were faced with not a respected enemy but a bunch of namby pamby liberals trying to do them out of their victory (cue personal-historic associations in working-class leavers screwed by the neoliberal elite etc.). So, not only is the strength of emotion particularly intense in losing something you’ve fought for and fairly gained (from your perspective) in general, but in this case, among the personality type that was more likely to vote Brexit, the prospect was akin to an ideological castration by an enemy that was already threatening death by a thousand cuts. And this is what created the countervailing force necessary to smash through Labour’s red wall and ensure the Conservatives not just victory over but utter destruction of their traditional foe.
Getting back to the question at hand though, were voters manipulated/deceived etc? and breaking that down a little in light of the above. First of all, the brand/personality is always to an extent a deceit as its a deliberate strategized mask pulled over the policy platform, and it was reinforced by the vast majority of popular newspapers of the type read by Labour voters in its strongholds. But in concert with that, the dominant policy itself, Brexit, as mentioned above cohered perfectly with the brand anyway. So, to a very real extent the voters did get what they wanted and really wanted what they wanted notwithstanding the desire being much intensified by the Conservative/media alliance where it mattered.
On the other side, ill-feeling towards Corbyn was deliberately stoked and the conservative media cleverly managed to portray him both as a passive, weak, feminine figure and a dark socialist, anti-semitic, terrorist-loving threat. No mean feat. Again though, whether they had pulled this off to the extent they did or not, Corbyn was handicapped by conflicting wings of his party; roughly, the Northern wing, which leaned Brexit, and the Southern wing, which leaned remain. Seeing as the Northern wing was what the Conservatives needed for a majority, and potentially the angrier at an anti-referendum betrayal, it might have made more sense to have favoured that side, but the Remain camp fearing a Lib-Dem attack from the liberal flank made that impossible, and Corbyn was forced to sit incoherently on the fence without a strong message and without the strong brand to deliver it even if he had one. Recipe for disaster and as much a function of political reality as deception.
Last point, removing Brexit and brand and looking at regular and economic and social policies of the type that regularly take center stage in an election, did the defecting firewall voters (to take just one loosely-defined group) get what they voted for? Well, if you hypothesize that they simply prioritized Brexit and were willing to sacrifice themselves economically for that, yes. They went in eyes open. If you hypothesize that Johnson won their trust on Brexit and they believed his economic spin of his platform on that basis, probably not. So, it's complicated, and that’s just one group measured against an uncertain economic future under an unpredictable leader. But the more you dig, the more answers you get.
BTW, don’t dare tl;dr me or Santa won’t come down your chimney this year.
Regardless, I'm fine with the current system of both countries, and do believe the decisions of elections represent the will of the people, controlled by various rules designed to protect minority interests or whatnot.
Ah, you mean how that significant remain minority doesn't get to remain?
Reply to Baden Nice summary, I would add that the drip feeding of anti socialism poison goes right back to the origin of the Labour Party and has become endemic now everywhere except for the metropolitan socialist elite and the younger educated voter.
I predict a shift to the left as the demographic changes
I can't see the likelihood that the Tory's can recruit sufficient numbers from anyone under 45 years old, due to the fallout and rise of personal debt, and poor economic prospects amongst the young since the credit crunch. Also the gradual failing of the real economy and inexorable rise in the national debt. This is the existential crisis which the party faces and why I keep saying that the Tory's are struggling to save their party. Brexit was their latest effort, which has worked in that it brought an extra layer of support for them in the election from leavers who wanted to "get it done" and castrated UKIP/Brexit party. The next stage, although probably not intended, is the break up of the union, purging the SNP, leaving a strongly Tory little England.
Ah, you mean how that significant remain minority doesn't get to remain?
I'm not sure I completely understand this comment, but I think you're saying I want to kill the minority. I deny that charge.
If I wanted to eliminate the minority, I would get rid of all districts and my vote would be watered down with the west coast votes and northeast votes, and we'd have a single party in all the US. That's not what I want, unless it benefits me somehow, in which case I'd be in favor of it, until it no longer was to my benefit, then I'd change my mind and pretend I never wanted things the way they were. You'd have some transcripts of me saying one thing on one day and another on another, but I'd deny I said what I said and half the people would believe me, or at least pretend they did, because they agree with what I'm saying now, but not before.
I can't see the likelihood that the Tory's can recruit sufficient numbers from anyone under 45 years old,
They'll just wait for them to turn 45 years old. Older people are more conservative because they like the way things were, even though things weren't like the way they remembered them. I can say this because I'm over 45 and I remember things being better even though they weren't.
, I would add that the drip feeding of anti socialism poison goes right back to the origin of the Labour Party and has become endemic now everywhere except for the metropolitan socialist elite and the younger educated voter.
Poison? The only poison has been fed to that metropolitan socialist elite and the younger 'educated' voter. It's their hubris, the idea that some of the previous supporters have been duped, that is the problem it. You have it totally the wrong way.
We wake up to the exciting (not) news that the cliff edge no deal is back on the table. Johnson is going to legislate to make it illegal to extend beyond December 2020. The idea being to crank up the pressure on the EU to capitulate. Talk about burning your bridges.
Reply to ssu Well the evidence is there in print, the bias and attack of any consideration of socialism by the right wing media. I don't see any left wing media generating bias in the other direction which is being fed to the metropolitan socialists and the young. The magazine Socialist Worker, the only populist left wing paper I know of was desolved in April this year. There is one left leaning mainstream newspaper The Gardian, but this paper gives politically balanced intellectual analysis of politics and is only left leaning by contrast to the right wing papers which predominate. It is widely regarded as having the highest standards of reporting in the UK. Here are some of the front pages of high circulation papers in the run up to polling day. There is one tabloid facing the other way politically, the Mirror, but it doesn't criticise right wing politics.
I like sushiDecember 17, 2019 at 08:17#3639010 likes
Boris was, and is, more politically savvy than Corbyn. If they both had the same ideologies Boris would still win out because of this.
Anyway, doesn’t matter now. Boris has it and he’ll push Brexit through. He’s adamant about untangling the UK completely from EU rule - if he fails to deliver that he won’t last too long.
There is one left leaning mainstream newspaper The Gardian, but this paper gives politically balanced intellectual analysis of politics and is only left leaning by contrast to the right wing papers which predominate. It is widely regarded as having the highest standards of reporting in the UK.
But?
And what is the problem you have with the Guardian when you say "but this paper gives politically balanced intellectual analysis"? Is that really the problem? Perhaps you don't notice how condescending you come out with your remarks here. It is as if the (right wing) tabloid papers made distinct people not to vote Corbyn. Because...they are more stupid than you. They could be just lied to and that was it. Nothing else. That if (when) the other side, at least in your opinion, goes with propaganda, lies and fake news, is then the answer to have your own equivalent of propaganda, lies and fake news? Would you think that would be the answer? Or perhaps you mean that the Guardian isn't leftist at all. It just looks like it because of the contrast.
If it would be just the right wing tabloid press, basically the it would just backfire on them and create more support for labour, just like Trump bashing just makes Trump supporters love their "God Emperor" even more. Yet when you have the most successful labour politician of the past giving interviews like the one below, you cannot deny that there is a very serious problem. I cannot think of a more damning view coming from a previous prime minister of the party:
You might think high of Corbyn, you might think he's even too moderate. But the simple fact is labour voters, just as euro-social democrats they relate to, aren't in the far left. They are far more closer to the center than people may not think. This is because the most vocal people in parties don't actually reflect the majority of the party. Hence in a right wing party the loudest are far away on the right and in a leftist party the loudest are the those on the far left. The so-called purists.
unenlightenedDecember 17, 2019 at 08:57#3639060 likes
I predict a shift to the left as the demographic changes
Your graphic shows that it's the NHS what lost it. Once that's been privatised, the average age will drop and Labour will romp home, by natural selection.
I like sushiDecember 17, 2019 at 09:00#3639090 likes
Tbh when ever I see cries of ‘anti-semitism’ I assume they’re false. The reason being when I’ve looked further they are usually comments taken out of context and/or criticisms of the Israeli government.
Politics has always been a dirty game. It’s good to angry about this, but let’s not pretend to be shocked when these sort of ‘tactics’ are used.
Tbh when ever I see cries of ‘anti-semitism’ I assume they’re false. The reason being when I’ve looked further they are usually comments taken out of context and/or criticisms of the Israeli government.
Sure, but above with Blair you have a former leader of the Labour party saying: "The door was locked to those elements with a kind of 'not wellcome' sign on the door. And the truth is now because the leadership is from that tradition, the door is with a wellcome mat. And what's happened is you have had a whole lot of people come in to the Labour Party with these views" Later he says that singling out Israel "seeps into anti-semitism".
That's from a former leader of the party, a former prime minister. Not Labour's opponents.
The other thing is that the Brexit vote years ago didn't go by party lines. Roughly a quarter of the "Leave" vote was from voters that otherwise had voted for Labour.
Reply to ssu Ok, I'm listening, but the original point I was making that you replied to was about a long term (over a 100 year period) stream of anti socialism dogma. I wasn't really referring to recent developments, but rather that recent developments sit on the top of an edifice of anti socialist dogma and prejudice, Comy', Marxist, Trotskyist. They will let the Comy's in by the back door.
I am aware of Blair's thoughts on this and accept that there is some anti-semitism in the Labour Party, but not as much as claimed by the media. The subtlety of the distinction between "anti-Israeli foreign policy" sentiment and "anti-Israel" sentiment. Has been exploited by critics and sometimes mistakenly blurred by those being criticised. This story is then blown up into some massive crisis by the populist media and lots of their loyal readers take it as read.
As an aside, the interviewer in the video you linked to, James OBrian, who has worked as a reporter on one of the papers I highlighted ( The Express) agrees with me on the media bias and the ways in which over years it turns their readers in the direction these lead them in. Also that it has effected the result of this election.
I agree that this was not pivotal in the result and that there were a number of other important factors, which we can look at.
Actually, I am not partisan, or a supporter of Corbyn particularly. I am actually a supporter of the Green Party. My beef in this is that I am anti-Brexit and Corbyn was our best hope if somehow stopping it.
I like sushiDecember 17, 2019 at 09:35#3639190 likes
My beef in this is that I am anti-Brexit and Corbyn was our best hope in somehow stopping it.
If he’d resigned several months ago, then yeah. If and buts don’t matter now.
Reply to ssu He said, she said, don’t much care he was PM. Like every other human being he has his point of view, and I remember many within the Labour party complaining about him being too centrist/right-leaning ... so it therefore must be his fault then? - joke*
Doesn’t matter. The bigger problem was the disintegration of the Lib Dems. Popular vote - even under Clegg - was 6% less than Labour, but they had 200 more seats. The travesty was the negative propaganda surrounding the proposed overhaul of the electorate system by the Lib Dems.
Personally I don’t think ONLY the popular vote should determine members of parliament but it seems ridiculous to treat a marginal win in this or that county as a victory and shut out half of the population of that constituency.
I guess commonsense isn’t exactly synonymous with politics though.
Ok, I'm listening, but the original point I was making that you replied to was about a long term (over a 100 year period) stream of anti socialism dogma. I wasn't really referring to recent developments, but rather that recent developments sit on the top of an edifice of anti socialist dogma and prejudice, Comy', Marxist, Trotskyist. They will let the Comy's in by the back door.
Well, there might be reason why especially from the historical point of view people would oppose socialism. It hasn't been all dancing on roses and happiness. In my family, two of my great grandfathers were nearly killed by the Red Guard during our War of Independence. They were defined to be the 'class enemy' by the dictatorship of the proletariat, hence the violent side of marxism (and especially Trotskyism) is something really true and not something that "just got understood the wrong way". And my grandfathers fought the Soviets in WW2. Back then the Workers Paradise was intent on annexing my little country. (The other grandfather was a surgeon, so he didn't literally fight).
I am aware of Blair's thoughts on this and accept that there is some anti-semitism in the Labour Party, but not as much as claimed by the media. The subtlety of the disitinction between "anti-Israeli foreign policy" sentiment and "anti-Israel" sentiment. Has been exploited by critics and sometimes mistakenly blurred by those being criticised.
But this is politics 1.0. It's basically quite arrogant not to understand how the other side will take your views. A mainstream party ought to look at what it says.
My beef in this is that I am anti-Brexit and Corbyn was our best hope in somehow stopping it.
I'm not sure if he was your best hope. I put my hope on politicians that take extremely seriously and treat with respect the people who oppose them and think differently. Far too often we just dismiss the opposing views and start to believe our own biased views.
If he’d resigned several months ago, then yeah. If and buts don’t matter now.
Perhaps if a remain alliance had been formed and they had held back in their manifesto, which was seen as to good to be true. I lay the blame for a failure to do either of these at the door of Corbyn and McDonnell respectively.
"Labour party complaining about him being too centrist/right-leaning"
Yes, I regard Blair as Tory light, he just carried the Tory batton for a few years.
"Personally I don’t think ONLY the popular vote should determine members of parliament but it seems ridiculous to treat a marginal win in this or that county as a victory and shut out half of the population of that constituency."
Agreed, we need Proportional representation now. The tragic duplicity of this election is that Johnson used it as a solution to the Brexit stalemate, by calling it a Brexit election and campaigning on that ticket. Thus settling the developing questioning of the wisdom of the referendum and its result, as the reality was emerging. But in a way which conflates the issue with other things and disenfranchised millions of voters through the constituency system.
"I guess commonsense isn’t exactly synonymous with politics though."
I'm not sure I completely understand this comment, but I think you're saying I want to kill the minority. I deny that charge.
No, I'm saying that in a winner takes all system like the US and UK there is no protection for the losing side at all. The UK people were hopelessly split over Brexit in 2016 that one side "won" over the other didn't represent the facts on the ground back then and the general election vote wasn't just about Brexit either.
And if the argument is that it was, I still fail to see a political mandate for Brexit with the Scots overwhelmingly voting for SNP. Together with the LibDems, who were pro-Remain as well, 52 of the Scottish 59 seats (88%) are against Brexit. 75% of voters voted for parties who campaigned on remain. So the Scottish minority is getting shafted.
Where exactly are those rules you mentioned to protect minorities then?
But this is politics 1.0. It's basically quite arrogant not to understand how the other side will take your views. A mainstream party ought to look at what it says.
Yes of course, but I don't know if you were aware, there is an equally pervasive issue with Islamophobia in the Tory party and opposition MPs repeatedly called this out, but it didn't cut through in the media and was repeatedly laughed off by Tory politicians. While the media couldn't stop talking about the media circus they had created around anti semitism in the Labour Party.
"I'm not sure if he was your best hope. I put my hope on politicians that take extremely seriously and treat with respect the people who oppose them and think differently. Far too often we just dismiss the opposing views and start to believe our own biased views."
Did you notice that Johnson and his team would say one thing and then the opposite in the next sentence, or the next day. Just repeat meaningless populist slogans constantly, ignore any kind of critical questioning. The problem for people who were opposed to Brexit, is that once article 50 was triggered there was a ticking clock, so all the government needed to do was distract and delay until the clock ran out.
Talking about views on the Brexit issue, can anyone name a tangible benefit to leaving the EU?
Where exactly are those rules you mentioned to protect minorities then?
Eventually there will be a loss for one side or the other. That's inevitable. Either Britain was going to stay in the EU or they weren't.
Polarization typically leads to gridlock, not just a trouncing of the minority. When the Democrats controlled both houses and the White House, all they got through was half ass health insurance reform that has since been weakened. What really has Trump changed, even during the time when the Republicans controlled everything?
And what I've referred to above is when all houses were controlled by one party, but typically (as in now), one house is controlled by the other party, which then protects that party. And of course the courts serve as another protection. The reason the Senate rules of filibuster were changed which previously required 60% approval wasn't so much that they wanted to destroy the minority party, but it's that the minority party created complete gridlock. But still, to what great end? All the Republicans have ever achieved is the appointment of a right leaning Justice.
My point is that real change is very difficult to bring about in the American system, and it seems the same in the UK, where they've been bickering about Brexit long after they supposedly decided to exit.
They'll just wait for them to turn 45 years old. Older people are more conservative because they like the way things were, even though things weren't like the way they remembered them. I can say this because I'm over 45 and I remember things being better even though they weren't.
I gave my reasons for why that won't happen, in my opinion. Although I expect a proportion to switch for financial reasons like, pensions, or inheritance tax relief. But I see a loss of confidence in the usefulness of a free market capitalist model following the global financial crisis.
Also regarding change, our system is such that now Johnson has lots of power and can do almost anything he wants and no one can stop him for the next five years.
Talking about views on the Brexit issue, can anyone name a tangible benefit to leaving the EU?
It's probably as good an idea as the Scots leaving Britain, which is as much based upon their desire for independence and desire to lose their association with England than it is whether they'll actually economically benefit.
I think independence has value in its own right, even if means a loss of economic benefit. It's entirely possible that Canada, for example, would economically benefit if it ceded certain powers to the US, but I can fully understand why Canada wouldn't do that.
My point is that real change is very difficult to bring about in the American system, and it seems the same in the UK, where they've been bickering about Brexit long after they supposedly decided to exit.
I'd say real change would be very much possible in the US if there would be a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans. The system doesn't provide any protections for the losing party accept a filibuster. In other words, any 60% majority means you're scotfree to do whatever you like.
Except that didn't happen following the Great Recession.
What didn't happen? The pick up in interest in heterogenuous economics and Marx and works from the likes of Pickety since 2008 clearly indicate a shift in economic thinking. At least in the Netherlands.
I like sushiDecember 17, 2019 at 14:35#3639630 likes
My point is that real change is very difficult to bring about in the American system, and it seems the same in the UK, where they've been bickering about Brexit long after they supposedly decided to exit.
The reason was parliament was particularly weak. Now the Conservatives have a whooping majority it’ll be easy to ‘change’. Don’t forget that May assumed she’d get a clean sweep and be able to push through Brexit much earlier - her plan backfired stupendously.
Overall I reckon it’s been a good period of shake up. Once the Brexit train is well and truly rolling perhaps the opposition parties will accept this and restructure their policies rather than pandering to popular opinion - for that Corbyn was certainly a breath of fresh air. The difference in the UK is the lesser parties. The Lib Dems have suffered massively, but they can still rise up again with a half-decent leader. Now Labour is imploding it may lead to my dream finally coming true ... an election where THREE parties have a decent chance of winning out. In terms of the popular vote the Lib Dems have been there or there about (even though the number of seats has never shown this support).
Anyway, enough of all that from me. I jumped the ship Blighty 8 years ago and have no intention of living there again :) it is still part of me though, but having it at a distance helps me put things into perspective (people don’t appreciate what they have most of the time).
Reply to Benkei From what I've seen happen is that the economy has boomed, with unemployment at record lows, and a regained confidence in the system, notwithstanding the massive blow back from Marxist Dutch academics who are so critical to worldwide economic policy.
I'd say real change would be very much possible in the US if there would be a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans.
If there's no difference, then why can't anything get passed?Quoting Benkei
The system doesn't provide any protections for the losing party accept a filibuster. In other words, any 60% majority means you're scotfree to do whatever you like.
Nice pun with the scotfree comment in light of the Scots claiming they're not free. I'm just asking though what the Democrats have to complain about right now in terms of Republican policy being forced down their throat? They really haven't taken any big hits.
From what I've seen happen is that the economy has boomed, with unemployment at record lows, and a regained confidence in the system, notwithstanding the massive blow back from Marxist Dutch academics who are so critical to worldwide economic policy.
Which metric are you using to say the economy has boomed?
Second, inequality has risen, so full time jobs but lower living standards especially for manual labour.
Third, full employment is a Keynesian metric and goal which is debatable as a measure for an economy's health. Quite a few argue we should be concerned with full production.
Talking about views on the Brexit issue, can anyone name a tangible benefit to leaving the EU?
Unless the area gets bargained away in the trade deal our fishing industries should gain substantially, and ergo many coastal communities. As an island, if we have control of our own waters we stand to gain much in quota once all the spanish and french boats are excluded.
Also, one reason for some wanting to leave is the overarching influence of the EU courts. I have yet to see an example of where they dictated to the UK what to do in the face of clear opposition here. But presumably there is one somewhere?..
Thirdly I recall hearing our livestock transportation welfare standards are higher than the EU, and as we can't enforce them currently we have to 'trade down' to compete on price. The livestock would benefit if our prefered standards were enforced. Maybe they're the ones who voted for Brexit!
Yes of course, but I don't know if you were aware, there is an equally pervasive issue with Islamophobia in the Tory party and opposition MPs repeatedly called this out, but it didn't cut through in the media and was repeatedly laughed off by Tory politicians. While the media couldn't stop talking about the media circus they had created around anti semitism in the Labour Party.
When you can laugh off things, things are good. But in the example I gave Blair wasn't laughing it off. And this was just one issue from many.
Here is the thing that is the problem of our time.
We assume that every political question divides by the juxtaposition of the left and right.
They simply don't, but the most vocal voices assume they do. Their argument creates the siren song of everything being part of a culture war and people being tribal. Yet Labour voter (and social democrats) and Conservatives in general simply don't fit such simplistic stereotype molds.
Just look at Brexit. A quarter of Leave-voters were supporters of Labour. Same is with any question on immigration, which was a major issue in the whole Brexit debate. Yes, I understood that you were talking about Islamophobia, but the general context of this debate is immigration policy. And it isn't as simplistic that the left is for open borders and the right is islamophobic or basically xenophobic nativists.
The worst thing is when we take some difficult area of environmental policy and then start to divide it along similar silly lines.
But there sure is a drive to dumb down the debate and cling to the most eccentric stereotypes that one can find on either side to show just how out of whack the other side is. The social media makes this so easy.
It's probably as good an idea as the Scots leaving Britain, which is as much based upon their desire for independence and desire to lose their association with England than it is whether they'll actually economically benefit.
Scotland would gain a great deal of independence, as currently it is almost entirely controlled from Westminster. Britain is already independent of the EU, except for certain treaties of cooperation between a number of independent countries.
I think independence has value in its own right, even if means a loss of economic benefit. It's entirely possible that Canada, for example, would economically benefit if it ceded certain powers to the US, but I can fully understand why Canada wouldn't do that.
In the case of Britain about 40% of our trade is through and benefits from the common market, plus the thing I value most, total freedom of movement throughout the European Union, including access to all benefits.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes there are some benefits which are in reality small beer. The fishing rights would benefit only a few hundred boats at most. Those rights in question were granted when we entered the EU, but for some strange reason, the fishermen sold the quoters or rights to the EU fishermen. Effectively they voluntarily gave them away. Also I expect the fishing rights would be one of the first concessions to be thrown under the bus during the negotiations.
I have never heard of a case where the EU courts caused a problem and a forthright Prime minister would probably be able to demand a change in the rules on live animal exports.
I've heard that we will get back our Blue passports, but it turns out we don't need to leave the EU to do that. As far as I know all the benefits suggested are not actively prevented by the EU except for divergence on regulation, tariffs and the liberty to have total control of the movement of citizens and their benefits.
Of all the benefits I have come across, the freedom to control the movement of citizens and their benefits is the greatest and certainly from my experience this is the primary reason for the vote to leave.
However it has been pointed out following the vote that there were a number of means of controlling these citizens while in the EU, but they were never exercised by the government, during the critical periods of mass immigration. So it was the incompetence of our government which caused the circumstances which lead to the referendum.
Of all the benefits I have come across, the freedom to control the movement of citizens and their benefits is the greatest and certainly from my experience this is the primary reason for the vote to leave.
However it has been pointed out following the vote that there were a number of means of controlling these citizens while in the EU, but they were never exercised by the government, during the critical periods of mass immigration. So it was the incompetence of our government which caused the circumstances which lead to the referendum.
I have thought all along that the freedom of movement issue was a red herring as control of immigration is really an illusion. Isn't it strange how none of the Brexiteers talk about reducing immigration any more, still less of setting ambitious targets as in the past? No. The major incompetence was of the Remain campaign, which failed to make this point during the lead up to the referendum. The concept of 'benefits tourism' was a fiction and a disgraceful scare story pedalled by the Leave campaign.
In Brussels yesterday, Blair met Guy Verhofstadt and learnt how Belgium handles freedom of movement for European citizens who want to work and live in Belgium. Measures include identity cards, registration when a European arrives or moves homes, the obligation to leave Belgium after three months without a job, a requirement to take out health care, unemployment and other insurance.
As a result, although Belgium has about one third more of its population from other EU member states than Britain, there is none of the obsession with other Europeans that was central to the Brexit debate.
I agree that ideas like benefit tourism and tight control of immigration are a myth. They don't go on about immigration anymore because it is toxic, they can be accused of racism. They simply reduced all discussion about Brexit to two slogans, "get it done" and "the will of the people". There were more remainers in parliament than leavers and yet no one took the government to task on the issue. There was an open goal, but we required a statesman/woman to lead the opposition. Corbyn failed in this, even though he was also a leaver, he could have taken the initiative and won the argument and given us a Labour deal. I know that his party and support was split down the middle, which left him hamstrung, but that was no excuse for in action.
They don't go on about immigration anymore because it is toxic, they can be accused of racism.
I think the Tories don't go on about it any more because it's so patently obvious that with the NHS short by 100,000 staff and everyone saying they want a better NHS the new staff have to come from abroad. And maybe people have twigged that as EU immigration has been falling over the past year so non-EU figures have risen to compensate. I also think that peoples' fears of immigration have been molified by the prospect of being able to control it. The so-called aussie-style points system which Boris proffers will be a fig-leaf for a while, but when his hospital and rail building plans stipulates we'll need 5000 new brickies and plumbers as well as NHS cleaners, social care workers - plus of course fruit pickers, people may begin to realise. The 'control' is illusory if we want our job positions filled, and the points system will become simply a means to this end. Additonally, working-age immigration is of course a big help when it comes to offsetting our ageing population - many of whom who are the most vulnerable themselves being the most virulently against it!
unenlightenedDecember 19, 2019 at 11:17#3645590 likes
Quite so, remember Johnson's plans for a bridge between Scotland and Ireland. So that EU citizens can move seamlessly between parts of the EU without having to go via Little England. We wouldn't want pesky EU nationals sneaking in by the back door.
I came here to point out a cynical development. The government is proposing cross party talks to come up with a solution to social care. This is a trap to blame their own failure to deal with it on opposition parties. So if the opposition parties cooperate, then when the government fails, they can blame the opposition. Alternatively if the opposition refuses to cooperate, then they will get the blame for not caring about social care.
This government is showing its colours, integrity, truth, honesty has left the building. They will use any underhand tactics they can to hold on to power. Next we can expect them to mimic the Labour Party so as to move onto Labour political territory, leaving them politically homeless. The fact that it will only be hollow promises and they won't deliver is irrelevant, because they will just bluff and bluster and claim black is white, or white is black.
Reply to Punshhh Yes. Cross party talks are bad. Far better to take the stance they have in the US: do not do anything with the administration if you are in opposition. If nothing works, that's good for you. :shade:
Honestly speaking there's a good path to follow here: be simply consistent on your agenda when talking to the administration. Don't flip flop here and there.
Reply to ssu Yes, but if the opposition doesn't agree to cross party talks the government will start shouting that they don't care about social care. Although if the Labour Party gets a good orator he/she should be able to stand their ground, it will be a few years before social care becomes an acute crisis.
Judging by the Queen's speech today Johnson is not a good orator, he's not over the detail, or the subject even. He's nothing more than a showman, UK Trump.
Unwarranted cynicism at this stage I think. It's a huge problem. At least give Boris the chance to address it before shooting him down..
Perhaps you are right, although since I wrote that, Eddie Mair was interviewing a political commentator who spelt out what I said. This understanding of the government is already in the political discourse.
I suggest you need to get on board with what it means for an administration to be lacking in integrity, truth and honesty. Have you noticed that Johnson in the House of Commons and all the government ministers who were on the media today are saying 36 billion for the NHS and that it's a big increase in spending and 40 new hospitals. That it will be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU in 11 months, because we are in perfect alignment on tariffs and regulations etc. All which have been proven to be untruthful by analysts and fact checkers. They are not going to let up, they are just getting going.
Oh and we won't know if he actually addresses it, rather than just claiming to have done so.
Reply to Punshhh Well - we are having a family wedding today, 60km north of Sydney. Yesterday, the getting everyone and their luggage into cars day, the temperature hit 45c and the smoke haze as thick as a fog. Sydney is ringed by bushfires, and in fact my younger sister has been unable to make it to this wedding because of road closures. There's nothing in our immediate vicinity, in fact no fires east of the Pacific Highway, so we're lucky in that respect.
I don't think at this point it's topped the destruction visited on California, but it's horribly destructive and I think in the popular imagination is a stark testimony to climate change. And, the Australian government is one of the most retrograde in the world on that front. In fact today's headline is, PM Scott Morrison Returns Early from Pre-Christmas Break, due to popular perception of him fiddling while Sydney burns.
Worst of all, this looks like the new normal, or an early foretaste of an even worse new normal.
Reply to Wayfarer I hope your wedding goes ok and that it doesn't get much hotter. We are getting large amounts of rain at the moment, it feels like it has been raining for two months, the weather is definitely becoming less stable. I would start a thread on climate change, but I'm no expert on it.
Have you noticed that Johnson in the House of Commons and all the government ministers who were on the media today are saying 36 billion for the NHS and that it's a big increase in spending and 40 new hospitals. That it will be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU in 11 months, because we are in perfect alignment on tariffs and regulations etc. All which have been proven to be untruthful by analysts and fact checkers.
You can't say these claims have been proven to be untruthful simply because fact checkers dispute them. These are doubtless the same people who said Boris could not get a Brexit deal.. Anyway, no claim about future events can be called 'untruthful' any more than 'a lie'; 'absurd' or 'implausible' yes.
Re the care crisis: I think it is acute now. Part of the cause of the chronic shortage of beds and nurses in the NHS is the use of faciltiites on the long term care needs of those who cannot survive alone at home, and for whom no care provider beds are avialable. The problem is that whatever system the govt comes up with to address the crisis will be a vote loser, because it entails taking extra money either by general taxes or from those directly needing care - meaning they have to sell their houses, give up their childrens' inheritances etc. The piftfalls any govt faces were shown by Theresa May's attempt - it immediately became labelled as the dementia tax, although it was a viable idea, and quickly got buried. So the only way through is a cross-party agreement on the basic strategy, that way all parties take any hit in popularity and the 'political football' aspect of the issue is removed. As we face more unpopular decisions in future this cross-party approach will be more needed: most immediate example; to tackle climate change by a rapid de-carbonisation programme.
unenlightenedDecember 20, 2019 at 14:25#3649210 likes
So the only way through is a cross-party agreement
When there was no overall majority, that was a possibility, but not now. The tories have their majority, they can damn well take the responsibility with it.
Reply to Tim3003 What about " there will be no checks in the Irish Sea"? Or a five week prorogation seven weeks before a crash out of the EU is "its business as usual"? I could go on. It's certainly fast and loose while vehemently claiming that its normal behaviour.
About working cross party, before this administration I would have agreed with you, although Theresa May wouldn't have been much better. But now, no way. The government has demonstrated that they will sell anyone under the bus to keep power. Not simply to remain in No10, but to rubbish the opposition at every opportunity so that they can never be seen as a viable government.
Regarding the NHS, this is what I was discussing with my son earlier,
The trouble is if Johnson gets into a pickle while negotiating trade deals with the EU and the US at the same time (which seems inevitable), he will reach a point of desperation where the stakes become so high that his government becomes at risk. When he fears this he will play fast and loose and the hard nosed capitalists in the US will get their foot in the door. We will become a piggy in the middle between the US and the EU. The US will see us as a lever into the EU and the EU will see us as a shield against the US. This is when Johnson and his right wing backers will bring out the populist tactics again. As long as we have the Labour Party up and running again with an outspoken leader, they can be ready to pick up the pieces when it collapses.
There is an interesting film made by John Pilger on this, I will link it later.
Oh and we won't know if he actually addresses it, rather than just claiming to have done so.
He mentioned setting up a cross-party Social Care group, which would presumably produce a report. Admittedly he could ignore that report, but unless he has a better alternative he'll look pretty stupid. Besides, the small increases in NHS funding he's announced won't do more than plug some holes in the dyke for long. Five years is a long time to keep making excuses with a big majority. That is of course unless Brexit proves a big economic problem.. I still think it's odds on he'll end up hoist by one of his many own petards..
Reply to Tim3003
Yes Johnson has already called for a charge to see your GP, or call an ambulance. This should be a sharp petard, but it can only become one if the media promote it, most of them won't, it will be "nothing to see here". But sooner or later an event will happen which will pierce the media curtain and they will turn on him.
Thanks for pointing out the climate change thread, I could find one before, I'll give it a look.
Well Johnson will be back from his champagne fuelled celebrations on the Island of Mustique with his billionaire friends tomorrow.
Presumably he will have been doing some thinking. Will he now put any effort into preventing Scotland leaving the UK? I doubt he will want to be the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and go down as the PM who presided over the break up of the Union.
But how will he achieve this? Surely the only way is to deliver a soft Brexit, but he has sold a hard Brexit. So what does he do?
Or perhaps he doesn't give two hoots about Scotland.
Will he now put any effort into preventing Scotland leaving the UK? I doubt he will want to be the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and go down as the PM who presided over the break up of the Union.
But how will he achieve this? Surely the only way is to deliver a soft Brexit, but he has sold a hard Brexit. So what does he do?
His indyref strategy to date has been: 'Just say no'. Perhaps he hopes his 'One nation' post Brexit UK will be so successful the majority of Scots will not want to leave it. His New Year resolution seems to be to stoke up Project Positive. This will be fine for say 6 months, but then the honeymoon period will be over and he'll have to start producing. Luckily the opposition are effectively dead..
Reply to Tim3003 Well "just say no" is going to go well with a hard Brexit, with the inevitable brinkmanship we are going to see towards the end of the year when Johnson starts to behave recklessly with the EU again. Whenever Johnson responds to questions about indyref2 from Scottish representatives, they become incensed as he rubs them up the wrong way, with his petulant arrogance.
Well, regarding the honeymoon period, he has already been overtaken by events. I expect he will support Trump in secret while, while pretending to stand up to him in the British media. Facing both ways as before the election. I expect he will not appear on the media much, basically hiding from any kind of exposure or accountability.
He means it when he says the word Brexit will be banned, we won't hear anything about the negotiations, it will all be done in secret, with a policy of encouraging the media and public to only discuss other issues. Nothing to see here.
If the US goes to war, it might become a bit tricky, again he will face both ways, deceiving the public, while sending British troops anyway.
Well, regarding the honeymoon period, he has already been overtaken by events. I expect he will support Trump in secret while, while pretending to stand up to him in the British media. Facing both ways as before the election. I expect he will not appear on the media much, basically hiding from any kind of exposure or accountability.
I think the nearest he'll get to a middle position (to judge by his comments on the murder of General Suleimani) as if he limits himself in public to kissing his Great Maters feet, at least in public!
I think the nearest he'll get to a middle position (to judge by his comments on the murder of General Suleimani) as if he limits himself in public to kissing his Great Maters feet, at least in public!
'Master's', of course. I suppose he did have a Mother, despite my prejudices!
If the US goes to war, it might become a bit tricky, again he will face both ways, deceiving the public, while sending British troops anyway.
I don't think that's likely.
Remember that the British already said "No" to US when Obama wanted to bomb Syria. Remember that "red line" Obama draw and then didn't do anything? That was because of a firm NO from other countries on that occasion.
Boris would not win absolutely anything by supporting Trump with engaging the British military in the fight.
Boris would not win absolutely anything by supporting Trump with engaging the British military in the fight.
He might loose something, if he doesn't remember that he is about to go grovelling on his knees to Trump for his trade deal which is going to save our economy when he gets his high tariff, regulatory divergent trade deal with the EU.
when he gets his high tariff, regulatory divergent trade deal with the EU.
He's probably not going to get that in a year, as the new EU President reiterated today. If he wants a quick deal it will need to be by keeping the 'level playing field' - which seems to be the EU's new favourite phrase. It remains to be seen how much Boris will threaten with the no-deal option to bully the EU into a quick agreement. But will they back down? Given that the UK has far more to lose in a no-trade deal scenario it seems unlikely. Expect the Brexiteers to pipe up too, about the money we're still paying in - for no say, if the Dec 31st deadline looks to be slipping..
Interesting too that the Iran flare-up shows the govt firmly siding with Europe in response, and having had no prior warning of the assasination from Trump, there seems no other option - Boris could not get away with adopting the loyal Trump-poodle stance..
Reply to Tim3003 I agree with the first paragraph. With the second it shows that johnson is still running scarred of appearing with, or endorsing Trump. He is probably on the phone to Trump making excuses.
More importantly Trump will be waiting for Johnson's endorsement, especially if there is an escalation in tension. If Johnson wants his trade deal he has to get into bed with Trump, which will require committing UK soldiers in any crackpot wars Trump gets involved in. If he commits troops, the protests will dwarf the stop the war march we had the last time.
I expect the Johnson has been begging Trump to hold off any escalation until after leaving Day on January 31st. Once we're past that point Johnson will come out of hiding and get into bed with Trump, because Brexit will be done and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
I expect the Johnson has been begging Trump to hold off any escalation until after leaving Day on January 31st. Once we're past that point Johnson will come out of hiding and get into bed with Trump, because Brexit will be done and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
But Brexit won't be done. The trade deal is the main part. Regardless of Iran I think Johnson has to tread a fine line between keeping close enough to the EU for a speedy trade deal, and close enough to Trump for a deal the US will go for. Anyway, with it now looking like the Iranians are militarily inept enough to shoot down passenger jets in their own skies I suspect they will want to 'de-escalate' as quick as they can, leaving Trump to crow about the US's surgical precision in contrast.
When I say Brexit will be done, I mean we will have legally left the EU on that date. Before that date we are still members and could in theory revoke article 50. After that day, our membership is history and to remain in any sense of the word is impossible.
You may be right about the next stage and Iran, but I don't think Trump is going to back down. The problem with Iran is that they are now going to get a nuclear bomb, which the US will not allow under any circumstances. The reasons for this are complex and include the paranoia of Israel. In fact I expect that Israel will probably launch a preemptive strike on Iran before the US if it looks like the Iranians are close to acquiring the bomb. So in such scenarios, it is not Iran who starts the war, all they do is continue with their ambition to acquire the bomb and I see no sign that they are going to stop in that.
The trouble with Brexit bias, many of us don't know if it is right, or wrong. Was it the right thing to do, is it better for our country, is the EU going to collapse in debt, or are we. When one is so uncertain to then have xenophobic populism etc shoved down your throat doesn't feel right either way.
Well unless you're certain it was the right thing to do, in which case everything is rosy. But that can be nothing more than a wing and a prayer, because no one really knows if it was the right thing to do and if they think it was they are being deceitful in some way.
?Brett
"And yet you argue against what Johnson has done. With what knowledge do you do that?"
That's easy, it's politics. But with Brexit, no one knows what the long consequences are either of staying in the EU, or leaving, it hasn't been done before and in a world in such flux no one really knows what's going to happen. It reminds me of captain Oates, on captain Scott's expedition to the South Pole. Who left the tent at a point of crisis in a ferocious blizzard saying, "I am just going outside and may be some time" and was never seen again. It is a haunting image of a person somewhere between life and death choosing oblivion. I get this sense of foreboding about Brexit, as do many others. Are we in a hipnotic state, blind folded, walking towards the clifftop?
I will paste this post into the Brexit thread, it should be there rather than here.
That's easy, it's politics. But with Brexit, no one knows what the long consequences are either of staying in the EU, or leaving, it hasn't been done before and in a world in such flux no one really knows what's going to happen.
No-one knows, but economic forecasts predict something like a .5% annual hit to UK GDP going forward due to increased hassle trading with Europe from outside its single market and customs union. The Lib Dems forecasted it at £10 billion per year in their election manifesto. I've not heard the Leave campaign assert the 'gains' from new trade deals outside the EU will make up even in part for this loss. They centre on emotive feel-better effects and greater freedoms and control over UK decisions.
With the ongoing Brexit apparently never coming to a conclusion, are we now also witnessing a Megxit in the British Isles? It looks like we can already give to Prince Harry the 2020 "cuck of the year" trophy!
With the ongoing Brexit apparently never coming to a conclusion, are we now also witnessing a Megxit in the British Isles? It looks like we can already give to Prince Harry the 2020 "cuck of the year" trophy!
Yes it's going to happen.
I don't know if you are aware of the nature of the British media. But Harry and Meghan have been hit by a tsunami of racist hatred and personal attacks from the right wing Zenophobic newspapers. Who have raised a campaign of hatred amongst their loyal readers, this has also spilled out occasionally onto the mainstream media.
The debate at the moment, is about the problem of hate news and persecution of royalty in the UK. A topic which rarely comes to the surface, as criticism of the media, is avoided by the media.
But Harry and Megan have been hit by a tsunami of racist hatred and personal attacks from the right wing Zenophobic newspapers.
Not sure that it is about race, really.
There has been a hundred times more talk about racist remarks than any actual racist remarks. I am sure that you can find such remarks, if you diligently dig for them. You can always find someone who makes them, if you look hard enough.
Still, these "racist remarks" seems to be much more of a convenient excuse used to draw the attention away from the fact that Mrs. "Strong and Independent" has bailed out, dragging the royal child in tow, several continents away from where the child is supposed to be, i.e. at the royal palace, under the watchful eye of her majesty the queen. Furthermore, isn't a married woman supposed to be living with her husband? Since she can apparently do as she pleases, whenever she pleases, I wonder what that marriage was supposed to be about?
The next step will obviously be a divorce, after which her already non-existent obligations completely cease, while his (financial) obligations will be made to continue. He has signed a rotten contract, with obnoxious terms and conditions, with an even more rotten person. Prince Harry is an idiot. Sorry to say.
The debate at the moment, is about the problem of hate news and persecution of royalty in the UK. A topic which rarely comes to the surface, as criticism of the media, is avoided by the media.
That's because it's an impossible situation. The concept of a Royal family, wealthy and influential, but with no achievements and abilities to give any weight to their views - nor any right to express them, is absurd. It leaves them wide open to tabloid hatred. That unexceptional individuals cannot cope with the pressure the media puts on them to satisfy the public appetite for this living soap opera is totally unsurprising, so I don't blame them at all for flouncing off in a huff. The whole institution is anachronistic, and impossibly hard on the Royal family members if they have any individuality. Once the Queen is gone I expect this will become more obvious.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, I agree with every point except the one that they don't achieve anything. They do achieve a lot, certainly enough to justify their privelidge. Harry has for example created the Invictus games and the whole veteran rehabilitation programme around it. Also he has picked up the batton in campaigning against land mines started by Diana. There are many other good causes. I think we can only judge their privelidge in terms of monetary advantage, because the celebrity aspect of it is these days as much a curse as a privelidge, as it was in the past.
Take Prince Charles for example, the contribution he has personally made to the country would amount to a list more than a page in length.
Reply to alcontali I wasn't expecting that bile from you. I didn't find much in your post which I can agree with. And I repeat the barrage of abuse she has received from the press is unbearable. Yes she may be a bit self obsessed and can't understand what Royal duties are about, but I am sure she would have made a success of it had the press attacks not been so overbearing.
Reply to alcontali I don't think anyone can understand what it is like to be a Royal in the public eye unless you are born into it. Also Meghan did not know the extent of press scrutiny in the UK before she got married. She was perhaps a little naive, but no one's perfect.
A wife who has naturally pair-bonded with her husband would not deliberately choose to live two continents away separate from him. It's not that they "grew apart" barely one year after their wedding. Someone who has lost her natural ability to pair bond, does not really "grow apart", because a real bond simply never forms.
Of course, she could not have known beforehand that she would deem the daily presence of the prince, or any other husband for that matter, to be suffocating -- maybe she actually did know from experience -- and that she would prefer to be on her own, two continents away, but the royal family should have advised the prince that this behaviour was to be expected, given the fact that she has a long and well-documented personal-life history of doing exactly that.
They do achieve a lot, certainly enough to justify their privelidge. Harry has for example created the Invictus games and the whole veteran rehabilitation programme around it. Also he has picked up the batton in campaigning against land mines started by Diana.
Take Prince Charles for example, the contribution he has personally made to the country would amount to a list more than a page in length.
That may sound fine to you, but why should these individuals be able so powerfully to promote the good causes that they personally support? We all have our pet causes, but don't have the money or influence to raise their profiles in the way the Royal family can. For anyone to be in a position of this power, they should - in my opinion, have earned the success and influence they exert over public money, not just happen to be born or marry a Windsor..
Reply to Tim3003 They have the misfortune to be born into the role, the're just making the best of a rum deal. I would'nt wish it on anyone.
Anyway back to Brexit, Stormont is back, I didn't see Johnson's speech, but I expect he will be encouraging them to rejoin Ireland, intentionally, or not.
Anyway back to Brexit, Stormont is back, I didn't see Johnson's speech, but I expect he will be encouraging them to rejoin Ireland, intentionally, or not.
Isn't it odd how the DUP - now that they no longer have any influence with the Westminster govt, have swallowed their allergy to the Irish language, and the NI Assembly is working again? ..
I can only surmise that it is due to a cultural difference.
By keeping the child away from its relatives, it will never become a true member of the royal family. It will not properly bond with the other children of the family, such as the ones of prince William. It will never really learn how to think like them, speak like them, or behave as expected from a Mountbatten-Windsor. She is now actively creating a cultural difference in the next generation instead of diligently overcoming hers. In the end, it is she who married into the royal family and not the other way around.
if you can't fix it....brexs it.
Brexit is a rouse to keep people occupided from the real issue that draining England.
With this many posts, they've done a great job in missleading people. Wake up islanders!
The real problem is right in front of you!
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, they have all fallen into line, there is talk of a bung 2 or 3 billion. Also the people in NI are demanding Stormont should sit, anything is better than Blojo.
I see the EU are already hinting the UK will have to keep the trade goalposts unmoved for a trade deal, meanwhile the US are saying BJ should support a new Trumpist Iran nuclear deal if he wants a US trade deal. So far the Tory rhetoric is that the EU will back down when the hard talking starts. It will be a tricky balancing act. We'll see if Boris's diplomatic skills have improved since his time as Foreign Secretary.
Wouldn't it be a shame if the 'Bung a bob for Big Ben's Brexit bong' campaign fails ?! I'd say the moronic Populist phrasology alone should be enough to end that idea. Other events are planned - so maybe the funeral march should be played instead?.
Yes it looks like we're going to get a pincer movement between the EU and the US. No surprise there, but who are the Populists going to blame for that lack of foresight, I wonder.
As for the bongs, it looks like Farage is going to throw the party in Trafalgar Square, I'll be watching for the fisticuffs.
P.s. It's been confirmed that the bung for Stormont is 2 billion.
Yes it looks like we're going to get a pincer movement between the EU and the US. No surprise there, but who are the Populists going to blame for that lack of foresight, I wonder.
Sajid Javed's announcement of the anti-Google tax ahead of the OECD examination of the problem has annoyed the US - as it was bound to, so it's starting to look like the govt is prioritising a trade deal with the EU over the US. David Gaulke on Newsnight said the hit from no EU deal would be 7% of GDP, whereas that from no US deal would be 0.2%. Also, the govt won't have the manpower to negotiate with both of them at once, despite that being the stated plan. Maybe too the chance of Trump losing this year's election is increasing the appeal of letting a deal wait until the US's future is clear..
Reply to Tim3003 It will be interesting once reality hits with the EU negotiations. I suspect we will hear very little as Johnson's way is to hide from the media and scrutiny. Interesting if they are expecting a change of president in the US. Javid might be tangling us in the US China trade war, over tech and internet commerce etc.
It occurs to me that far from cosying up to Trump the new govt is echoing his priorities with a 'UK first' outlook, which is bound to make enemies internationally - but crucially not of the UK voters, with whom the govt's main loyalty lies. Expect increased jingoism and flag-waving if the going gets rough. One populist govt vs another sounds like a recipe for war to me though, with only its scale to be decided..
It feels like a con from here, Johnson still has to square at least two enormous circles to pull this off. In fact when I think about it there are more circles to square, a lot more. Certainly a lot more than any tangible benefits of leaving the EU.
Johnson talks squircles like they actually exist, with that petulant Trump grin on his face.
Ah, the time when Scotland will be Independent again.
I myself will allways opt for Brussells rule to Moscow rule. The cacophony of the EU is far better than the single voice of Mr Putin. You see, all alone we'd have to listen to Vlad.
I don't support Brexit, though I think the way in which it has been carried out is perhaps just as large an issue as the operation itself. A good deal of the campaigning carried out for Brexit focused on xenophobia and patriotism rather than the detailed economic and political consequences. For many (though not all), it was a hubristic move, not a calculated one. The more relevant and less prejudiced reasons for leaving were, in part, ignored. This is the tragedy. It now represents a movement that it needn't: the return of segregated, isolated nation states.
By giving up its membership, the UK will also lose part of its global influence and economic income, not to mention the loss of cultural diversity. The EU currently accounts for 44 percent of all UK exports and 53 percent of all imports; 3.1 million jobs are directly linked to these exports.
I could go on with further details, though I think the wider point is more pressing. We are finally reaching, with the aid of organisations such as the EU, a more extensive and inclusive democracy. This does not ensure but certainly encourages peace and diplomacy among nations. Given the history of the 20th century, is it the right move to place this on the rocks by coming out of the EU? Not only this, but is it the right move to do this without knowing all the terms of leaving? Much is yet unknown. Its riskiness lies largely in the unkempt manner in which it is being handled.
Now that the negotiations with the EU has started. Johnson and Gove are jibering about not having any alignment with the EU because we need unfettered freedom to stride the world. They have both just said that we don't need a trade deal with the EU, implying that they will just have to accept whatever we offer them.
Yesterday the government told some journalists from certain media establishments they were not allowed into Downing St because the officials inside are now going to decide which favoured journalists they let in. At this point all the journalists walked out and it's now a news story.
Also today it has emerged that Ryan Air is starting a recruitment drive and the applicatants must have full unrestricted right to live and work in any of the EU countries which they fly to. So does that exclude all UK nationals from applying?
People need to think about what exactly the win-win answer is to this situation. The UK needs to decide what it means to take back sovereignty. Every treaty ends up being a limitation to it as you agree to something and you're expected to keep your word out you'll soon find yourselves without any agreement.
The EU is not going to offer an a la carte option for the UK. Access to the single market means meeting each and every rule associated with it and ensuring UK imports meet EU standards or any company in the world could circumvent EU rules by exporting to the EU via the UK. Obviously, the final arbiter on whether EU laws are met cannot be a non-EU court. Simple and logical.
So single market is out. That means a bespoke agreement on trade tariffs. That's not going to happen in the remaining 11 months. That automatically means that it's in both parties best interest to identify what industries have the highest priorities for them and see whether some agreement can be reached. And there we might stumble on another piece of national politics in the UK. It's pretty clear the financial services industry is the most important sector in the UK. But Johnson opens himself up to a lot of criticism if that is the first thing he's going to negotiate.
The other political issue is of course border control in Northern Ireland. That needs to be resolved before the end of the year as well but no obvious solution presents itself.
Meanwhile, indyref2 remains a continuing threat to the UK, which probably won't materialise this year but even so. Sturgeon will remind everyone regularly.
Reply to Benkei
Interestingly as the COP26 climate change summit which will be held in Scotland in November is being arranged there is a stand off between the government and the SNP. Apparently the government is trying to exclude Nicola Sturgeon from the event. Johnson is terrified of appearing on stage with her, just as he was during the election campaign.
He is the best asset of the SNP, everything he does hastens indyref2.
The UK needs to decide what it means to take back sovereignty. Every treaty ends up being a limitation to it as you agree to something and you're expected to keep your word out you'll soon find yourselves without any agreement.
Benkei, it's just like with Trump and the greatness of the USA.
All needed to 'Make America Great Again' was to elect Trump. Then America was great again. And it's similar here too. All needed was to resign from the union. That act is enough, never mind the reality.
Once not a member of the EU the UK is "Sovereign again", free to do whatever it wants! That's all. This has NOTHING to do with the reality that every international treaty and deal limits that 'independence' of sovereign states. Nothing to do with the UK economy is quite interconnected with the European economy. Nothing about the real impact on the strength of the UK when it has to deal now with it's biggest trading partner from position of being outside the union. All that doesn't matter at all. Just like MAGA, the whole reason for Brexit is quite an empty shell and was more about feelings than facts. When your dealing with feelings, not facts, why on Earth would the facts be important?
And if in this position the EU can say this or that to the UK, who's going to make the argument? Nigel Farage? Why would the Brexiteers start to bitch about the present situation now when they just have had their Trafalgar / Waterloo / Battle of Britain -moment where the independence of the island nation has been again saved from the fangs of evil continental Europeans. They want to make Brexit one of those defining moments of British history and it's consequences have to be great. Have to. And if bad things happen, it isn't because of Brexit.
In a way, the only thing the Brexiteers have succeeded in is that they now cannot blame Brussels for everything that sucks anymore.
In a way, the only thing the Brexiteers have succeeded in is that they now cannot blame Brussels for everything that sucks anymore.
Not yet. The blame for problems with the EU trade deal will be placed firmly with the EU, eg for not allowing a Canada-style free-trade + full market-access option - which the EU have said is not possible. But the Brexiteer govt as usual wants to have its cake and eat it. Doubtless when the economy tanks in a year or 2 that will be Brussells' fault too for restricting our trade or sneakily enticing our manufacturers to relocate there..
He is the best asset of the SNP, everything he does hastens indyref2.
Luckily the English aren't the Spanish.
They'll will deal with this issue with silk gloves and shrewd intelligence. Yet the "we love you so much, please don't leave" moment of the first referendum has now passed and the response will start being more like the Spanish had with the Catalonians. Trying to avoid Nicola is a start. Yet it's unlikely that Nicola and the SNP leadership will end up in jail or in exile like the Catalan leadership.
Getting your independence without a fight is still very rare.
ChangelingFebruary 07, 2020 at 07:24#3797350 likes
I myself will allways opt for Brussells rule to Moscow rule. The cacophony of the EU is far better than the single voice of Mr Putin. You see, all alone we'd have to listen to Vlad.
Reply to Evil
The issue is about sovereignty. How much country loses sovereignty in being in the EU. The fundamental question in Brexit.
Finland being in the EU can have a totally different foreign policy towards the Russia if it would be not a member of the EU. As a EU member it can refer to EU policies: "We're part of EU, so we have to do these sanctions". Just compare Russia's "Near Abroad": Baltic States (EU members, NATO members) to those which aren't either in EU or NATO (Ukraine, Georgia). Ukraine's and Georgia's sovereignty has been truly challenged by Russia... far more than the EU would do.
Hence my sentence my preferment to "Brussels rule than Moscow rule".
So single market is out. That means a bespoke agreement on trade tariffs. That's not going to happen in the remaining 11 months. That automatically means that it's in both parties best interest to identify what industries have the highest priorities for them and see whether some agreement can be reached. And there we might stumble on another piece of national politics in the UK. It's pretty clear the financial services industry is the most important sector in the UK. But Johnson opens himself up to a lot of criticism if that is the first thing he's going to negotiate.
Financial services it is then: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/barnier-tells-uk-dont-kid-yourself-about-financial-services-deal
They've correctly identified the most important sector and the sector that has the most to lose. UK companies can still sell goods into the EU even without a deal but at increased costs that are relatively straight-forward. UK financial companies simply won't be allowed to operate in the EU after the transition period without an agreement to the contrary. That will require staffed subsidiaries, two regulatory regimes to adhere to setting up parallel risk management systems, etc. etc.
Reply to Benkei Yes, financial services is going to be disastrous for the negotiations, when it comes to the fore. Yesterday Michael Gove gave a speech laying out the governments policy to abandon any efforts to maintain frictionless trade. They are starting plans to have customs checks on all imports into the country from the EU. I expect they had already abandoned any hopes that there wouldn't be customs checks for goods leaving UK bound for the EU. Just in time supply chains are going to be difficult to protect now and manufacturers who rely on such supply chains are going to be planning to move their factories to the EU now.
All this was vehemently denied by the Leave campaign (government), indeed up to a few weeks, or days, ago Johnson swore blind that we will secure frictionless trade.
More evidence of the dishonesty and duplicity of the PM and his government.
Sajid Javid, the chancellor of the exchequer, the second highest office in the government has resigned this morning. Having been given an ultimatum requiring him to dismiss his key advisers and accept some others appointed by No10.
Or in other words he refused to take direction from Johnson and Cummings. Interestingly he has been replaced by Rishi Sunak, who has had a meteoric rise recently, a talented hawk, who is married to the daughter of Indian billionaire Nagavara Ramarao Narayana Murthy.
More evidence of the new administration consolidating power in order to push forward a hard right agenda. Or it is a sign of the paranoia of Johnson and Cummings, turning inwards and demanding to hold all the reigns from the centre.
More evidence of the new administration consolidating power in order to push forward a hard right agenda. Or it is a sign of the paranoia of Johnson and Cummings, turning inwards and demanding to hold all the reigns from the centre.
The latter I think. Like any demagogue populist leader Boris wants yes-men in his cabinet. Unlike Trump he has the wit not to lose his temper publicly with those who stand up to him.The NI secretary Julian Smith also went, despite universal praise for getting the assembly working again. His crime? Having some thoughts of his own. Cummings seems to be becoming drunk with power, almost Rasputin-like. I wonder how long before he goes off the Boris-rails?
Reply to Tim3003 Nice summary. Yes I expect Cummings to be found unconscious in some gutter somewhere around Fleet st, worse for wear.
There is talk about the border poll in Ireland and that it is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement that the pole be held should public opinion in Northern Ireland demand it. This is under international law. Next Scotland, these are unstoppable forces and Johnson knows it, but he is prepared to throw the Union under the buss to get his term in No10 and save the Party*.
* I reiterate my view that there is a wider agenda than this. That it is imperative for the Tory party to do this on the back of Brexit to force the country to the right, while demonising Labour in order to secure Tory dominance for another generation. Because they have looked over the edge of the abyss of a turn to the left and socialism.
RegularGuyFebruary 14, 2020 at 07:20#3825340 likes
What is the root cause of all of these right wing party takeovers of Western democracies?
Reply to Noah Te Stroete
I see it as a reaction to the subprime mortgage crash of 2008. The dominance of Capitalism was put under question, to restore the economies and the remedy the problem socialism might be in order. The trouble is the powerful vested interests within the establishments are becoming protectionist, they will fight against any move towards socialism, because it weakens them both politically and financially.
To them, the privileged, more equality feels like repression, a loss of that privilege and they will fight to keep their privilege even if it is bad for the economy, or the country. The answer in their eyes is populism.
What is the root cause of all of these right wing party takeovers of Western democracies?
People are getting smarter about the left? :smirk:
The left is in a bad place. It's losing it's traditional supporters in the working class by going woke, leaving the immigration issue only to the right as it condemns the discussion on immigration to be racist and xenophobic. With a condemnation you won't get far in a debate, especially if the issue is important to the voters. And if any criticism of EU is also portrayed to be nativist/xenophobic/racist, then again you are leaving the field to the right. Here also the right has had it's problems, but it has been far better in engaging the issue. Hence if you have only the old rhetoric added with silly wokeness, there's not much you are giving. And of course, not many people work in the factories and the coal mines anymore.
And if you ever have noticed, right wing parties have been in power. I think Sweden is one of those examples of where the left has been in power for a long time in a Western democracy. Sweden is the perfect example of what a genuine leftist non-Soviet style pro-free market social democracy looks like. Yes, the last sentence sounds like an oxymoron, but it really isn't.
What is totally amazing is that after a long time in power in the UK, the conservatives could get such a huge victory in the elections. They'll surely be now happy with Boris.
What is totally amazing is that after a long time in power in the UK, the conservatives could get such a huge victory in the elections. They'll surely be now happy with Boris.
I'm afraid I blame the blinkered left-wingers in the Labour party for this catastrophic dereliction of duty. In the '80s Labour swung left and spent a decade in the wildnerness. Now they've done it again under Corbyn. What is the definition of a fool? Someone who does the same thing twice and expects different results. (Or is that 'insanity'? I forget). If there's one thing to be said for populism it's that its politicians do listen to the voters. Boris has won on that simple realisation..
There is talk about the border poll in Ireland and that it is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement that the pole be held should public opinion in Northern Ireland demand it. This is under international law. Next Scotland, these are unstoppable forces and Johnson knows it, but he is prepared to throw the Union under the buss to get his term in No10 and save the Party*.
This is Sinn Fein sabre-rattling isn't it? It's not clear whether the poll they favour would involve the Irish voters too (if they get to decide, it will). Doesnt the GF agreement stipulate a poll for NI voters alone?
unenlightenedFebruary 14, 2020 at 12:31#3825990 likes
Yeah but no but. N Ireland has to vote for unification, but that becomes possible with Brexit together with the change in demographics. The rest of the UK would be fairly comfortable with a united Ireland, except for the encouragement it would give Scotland. But the people who will hate it are the, ahem Conservative and Unionist Party. So there is at least a chance that when the breakup shit hits the brexit fan, the Tories themselves will find it convenient to dump Boris. He's well hated already. Tory leaders quite often end up on the sacrificial altar.
I'm afraid I blame the blinkered left-wingers in the Labour party for this catastrophic dereliction of duty. In the '80s Labour swung left and spent a decade in the wildnerness. Now they've done it again under Corbyn. What is the definition of a fool? Someone who does the same thing twice and expects different results. (Or is that 'insanity'? I forget). If there's one thing to be said for populism it's that its politicians do listen to the voters. Boris has won on that simple realisation..
And do notice how much hatred there is for Blair. Centrism is abhorred, yet centrism has gotten the left to power. From the graph below you can see that UK has been dominated by conservative governments and the labour governments have been the exception:
The real problem is that political parties are stubborn to realize when they have gone wrong, because there is constantly a power struggle going on. If the leadership would accept that it has made serious mistakes, then naturally it couldn't continue (there isn't so much forgiveness in politics). So it's easier just to blame the media, the Russians, whatever,... than to admit that the course of the party hasn't been the optimal one.
That these problems are noted in leftist circles and debated can be seen for example from this interview:
Reply to ssu
Yes, this is the issue. The traditional Labour voter has largely disappeared, due to social economic changes. Blair only got in because he managed to court the middle ground and moderate Tory vote, while the Conservatives were in a mess. So the majority is in the middle and soft right and has been so since Thatcher.
The demographic is changing though now. There is little support for the Tory's in the young and they have no strategy to win their support. There is an existential crisis around the corner for the Tory's and they know this. Which is why we have been conned into Brexit and a hard right agenda to try and force the country to the right.
Yes, there is the demographic transition. British (as Europeans) aren't having many babies anymore with the fertility rate being 1,8 so only immigration is making the population grow.
There is little support for the Tory's in the young and they have no strategy to win their support.
This is something similar to the US. Simply put it, as nobody under 29 has lived when there was the Soviet Union, the 20th Century left is only a vague history, which every older leftist can now brush aside. When you listen to Bernie Sanders or even Zizek, they aren't your classic marxist-leninists. What you people have experienced from the "left" has been is basically been a centrist agenda done by leftist parties. For young people, Thatcher and Blair seem to be quite same: both have been part of the establishment.
There is an existential crisis around the corner for the Tory's and they know this.
Two things. People grow old and change their views and voter can be dismayed by poor performance. Only a few hippies stayed hippies. A lot of the radicalized youths later came yuppies and middle class. And that existential panic is actually good for any political party. One shouldn't rest on one's laurels.
The traditional Labour voter has largely disappeared, due to social economic changes.
This! The working class used to be something to identify with/as. Real men with real jobs, salt of the earth, aspirational, and wielding a collective power.
Nobody wants to identify with the foreign, the downtrodden the sick, the disabled, the unemployed, the insane, the useless takers of society. Especially not those who are any of those. They'd rather vote for a fantasy.
Two things. People grow old and change their views and voter can be dismayed by poor performance. Only a few hippies stayed hippies. A lot of the radicalized youths later came yuppies and middle class. And that existential panic is actually good for any political party.
This crisis is real, it's deep and they can't see a way to avoid it. The younger generation is saddled with student debt and can't buy their own houses. They have become financially disenfranchised from the older, baby boomers, who benefited from the good times in the 1980's and 90's and the big increases in house prices. Not only this, but they have seen through the capitalism promised by the Tory's and can see how they represent the greedy and privileged. They look at the crises in public services and the lack of management of them by the Tory's. What is in it for them if they vote Tory?
This crisis is real, it's deep and they can't see a way to avoid it. The younger generation is saddled with student debt and can't buy their own houses. They have become financially disenfranchised from the older, baby boomers, who benefited from the good times in the 1980's and 90's and the big increases in house prices. Not only this, but they have seen through the capitalism promised by the Tory's and can see how they represent the greedy and privileged. They look at the crises in public services and the lack of management of them by the Tory's. What is in it for them if they vote Tory?
Then the talk ought to be about the issues they face.
I'm starting to think that all the wokeness is noise to distract the left. An evil conspiracy to get the people entangled into some culture war and not to face real issues. And it might be working.
Not only this, but they have seen through the capitalism promised by the Tory's and can see how they represent the greedy and privileged. They look at the crises in public services and the lack of management of them by the Tory's. What is in it for them if they vote Tory?
The cringe-making film of the new Cabinet's first meeting, reciting Boris's mantra of '40 new hospitals, 20,000 new police officers,' etc like kids in kindergarten answers that. Removing the obstruction in the Treasury to the new bribe-the-new-Tory-voters policy makes it clear to me what Boris's 'govt of the people' will prioritise. We will probably soon have Tories criticising this wreckless spending. How ironic!
NobeernolifeFebruary 16, 2020 at 15:33#3833990 likes
Congratulation to Brexit. I hope we soon have an Itaxit, Spexit, Swexit, Fixit, and more.
Let Merkel and Macaron enjoy their lovey dovey relationship in their shrunken empire.
Well Brexit is going to be interesting from Thursday when the government is going to spell out its negotiating position.
Today the NFU (National Farmers Union), has woken up from its slumber following the fact that the majority of farmers voted for Brexit. The Brexit scales have fallen from their eyes now that reality bites. Today they have asked for an exemption of 70,000 low wage EU seasonal workers to help bring in the crops. When the government announced that there will only be an allowance of 10,000. They have also had a wake up call following the widespread floods and the damage to crops and farmland caused by the new weather. Slowly they are realising that once there is regulatory and tariff divergence from the EU, that many farmers will have tariffs of around 40% imposed from their main markets. And that when the lower US food standards flood the market with cheaper food, which has been acknowledged this week by the trade secretary. The farmers will be unable to compete and most of them will go out of business.
It's unfortunate that the government doesn't care about such smallfry and is going full steam ahead to a low regulation, low tariffs race to the bottom, so as to make Britain great again.
from the EU, that many farmers will have tariffs of around 40% imposed from their main markets. And that when the lower US food standards flood the market with cheaper food, which has been acknowledged this week by the trade secretary. The farmers will be unable to compete and most of them will go out of business.
Well, if the EU wants to impose punishing tariffs, you might want to blame the EU for that and not your government. And mentioning the highly bureacratic EU in the same sentence as "free market" is a bit strange.
Fwiw, I am not against the original EEC. I am against the EU with its imperalistic overreach.
NobeernolifeFebruary 26, 2020 at 14:14#3862140 likes
I presume you are in the US?, as you don't sound to be familiar with European politics.
Presume what you want; that is not an argument. But since we are speculating.... I presume you are a consumer of the BBC, Guardian, Independent and CNN? Your talking points sound pretty familiar.
Slowly they are realising that once there is regulatory and tariff divergence from the EU, that many farmers will have tariffs of around 40% imposed from their main markets. And that when the lower US food standards flood the market with cheaper food, which has been acknowledged this week by the trade secretary. The farmers will be unable to compete and most of them will go out of business.
I believe the 40% figure is for UK lamb exports, and assumes no EU trade deal is reached and we fall back to WTO rules. That doesnt seem likely, especially as the EU fishermen want some of the 35% of UK fisheries they catch to be maintained. Some sort of bargain should be reached I think. The big hit for the UK could be dominance of London's financial services, which the EU wants to reign back. I think Boris will reflect he has fewer voters to lose in the City than in the shires and coastal towns..
As for cheap US food imports, you talk as if the trade deal has already been done. It hasn't..
David Frost the chief UK negotiator has responded to requests to extend the implementation period, which must be requested at the end of June, has said there is no way an extension will be requested and has been legislated for on that timescale. So basically the government is saying the UK will leave the EU agreed trade deal, or no trade deal on 31st December 2020.
Considering the pandemic and subsequent economic depression with no certainty on how it will develop, this is highly irresponsible and will cause an almighty row once it gets into the media.
Now we see the rightwing fundamentalists in No10 in their true light and the people who voted for these snake oil salesmen are going to regret it.
Reply to Benkei From the perspective of the hard Brexiters it is a political master stroke. But they were never in the majority, they relied on a large group of soft Brexiters who were not ideologically motivated, but they thought that leaving was beneficial in terms of immigration, or sovereignty. These people did not sign up to a no trade deal Brexit with the collateral damage it would result in.
Also and the reason I say the proverbial will hit the fan, it will cause a split at the heart of the Conservative party, putting at risk the majority in Parliament.
So present those moderate Brexiters with a no trade deal, an up yours EU strategy with the irresponsibility of continuing on this course during an existential pandemic. I seriously doubt the government could maintain its support.
Remember that the government majority was built on a fear of socialism, rather than a wholehearted support for Brexit. That that threat is now reduced and the government is now inadvertently implementing those very policies, in essence and we are not going to hell in a hand cart, the threat of socialism has lost traction.
I suspect that Johnson will present a moderate tone when he returns to work. His place in history is in serious peril at the moment, he won't want to keep digging.
unenlightenedApril 18, 2020 at 10:46#4029480 likes
Get Covid done. As Machiavelli said, get the nasty stuff done quickly at the beginning of your reign, and then you can be the kind generous leader afterwards to the folks that are left. Dead men do not rebel, and nor do they vote. Give the NHS the clap! And stay at home til it's too late.
soft Brexiters who were not ideologically motivated, but they thought that leaving was beneficial in terms of immigration, or sovereignty. These people did not sign up to a no trade deal Brexit with the collateral damage it would result in.
Maybe. The other probability is, that they've already said A and therefore will say B. In the art of persuasion a small concession opens the way to larger ones. So you look at this from a psychological perspective where you never agreed to the initial plan, but the soft Brexiteers already conceded to that. It's psychologically much more likely for them to acquiesce to a hard Brexit as a result.
Reply to Benkei Yes, mission creep. It can take you from agreeing to Brexit on the understanding that it will be economically beneficial and returns the sovereignty lost to the EU. To being ok with an economic recession, a falling out with the EU and only having basic World Trade Organisation trade arrangements with any country in the world and having no better access to Europe than a third country.
Get Covid done. As Machiavelli said, get the nasty stuff done quickly at the beginning of your reign, and then you can be the kind generous leader afterwards to the folks that are left.
I think this is a great time to do your Brexit. It can be possible that nobody will notice anything!
The world economy is already collapsing to an economic depression and the reasons aren't solely the pandemic. In fact the pandemic was just a trigger. You simply cannot notice anything happening because of the Brexit now, already there are far bigger transformations happening. There isn't going to be a "V"-shaped recovery from this. Hence to reshuffle your trade with the EU isn't going to be on lips of every voter, they will be far more worried about the dire economic situation even without a Brexit.
Reply to ssu I have to agree with you to a degree here. There is a significant difference between the two kinds of economic failure though. The Covid failure is essentially a state of economic stasis, life support. Whereas the Brexit failure is systemic, with a large proportion of the UK's economic interaction having to be restructured. In ways which are very uncertain and to a large degree dependent on a set of incompetent, protracted and I predict increasingly hostile, negotiations.
For example there are many goods crossing the Channel both ways which will or will not be viable depending on the future tarif and regulatory frameworks. Details which are treated with contempt and indifference on the UK side and of importance on the EU side. So what happens to the UK fishermen, or sheep farmers during this tussle? Or service providers?
The very fact that the UK administration is cavalier in its behaviour is destructive of both politics and livelihoods in a deeply irresponsible way. Not to mention the Union, the United Kingdom.
Reply to Punshhh Every country is going now to the unknown. And this changes things a lot. Because for the UK the Brexit was a self induced problem. Just think of it, for how much time has the UK administrations (this one and the previous) have been focused on the Brexit issue? I do assume that there would be other things for the administration to focus on too. Now there's one that has really sidelined Brexit. Or is the TV news talking about Brexit every day there? I assume not.
Anyway, let's remember that the EU was founded as the EEC in 1957 and only in 1973 the UK joined in. The UK never felt to be a team player as it has had the juxtaposition to being the British Isles vs. the European Continent throughout it's history. Only perhaps the Angevin kings had other views about "Continental Europe". And especially with Thatcher it was evident that there was nothing like the French-German axis, no UK lead group in the EU or a possibility that the UK would be the leader of the pack. That would have meant a dramatically different history in the UK to be true. The EEC wasn't a British idea developed in the City of London or in the halls of Oxford or Cambridge and created from a necessity. Yes, there was Churchill with the idea of a Council of Europe, but he adamantly saw the UK as Great Power. Federalism was never a British objective, only the reality of a confederation among independent sovereign states. And that's the sad part of the UK leaving.
Yet just like with Norway or Switzerland, not being a member of the EU isn't so important. You simply cannot make the populist complains about Brussels as we do anymore. (Or you can, but they don't have anything to do with reality.)
Reply to ssu Yes, it is only the way the Tory's have handled Brexit following the referendum which I am highly critical of. The decision itself I am reconciled with, while continuing to see it as a mistake for the reasons I have laid out in this thread.
The problem, as I have highlighted, now is the wreckless behaviour of the government which will destroy the goodwill between the UK and Europe and looks like it will destroy the UK Union as well.
This destructive aspect is not at all necessary and will damage the country. They are like demented children, mad Conquistadors.
Now that they have been thrust into the midst of a global pandemic in which the solution means destroying your own economy they find themselves in their ultimate nightmare. They are having to follow a course directly oppsing that which they were intending. They are now more socialist than Corbyn, because there is no alternative, while just a few weeks ago they condemned that kind of socialism as dementedly destructive.
Their heads are spinning and in the media today, the media is beginning to turn on Johnson and his government. Especially the rightwing tabloid press who supported him to get into power and secure Brexit.
Yesterday Michel Barnier gave a speech pointing out that there has been no progress in the trade talks between the UK and the EU. That the UK team is not engaging seriously and repeatedly presents its dogmatic starting position as the way it is going to be, or no deal. The concerns presented by the EU negotiators are ingnored. Basically the talks are going nowhere and the UK refuses to discuss the possibility that the transition period might be extended, which must be requested by the end of June.
"EU refuses to negotiate with Britain on fair terms, leading to no deal arrangement"
"If only the EU were willing to negotiate with us fairly, openly, honestly, we could have had a fair deal on the table. No deal is better than a bad deal."
Our lords and masters get to look like heroes reluctantly doing what they must, when it was really what they intended all along, while vilifying the EU even more.
My earlier post seems to have vanished...the main point is the key benefit of Brexit is that we will have less politicians interfering in our lives. Too many politicians are as bad as too few, they become a separate elite out of touch with the realities of normal people...you only have to look at their wages and expenses to realise this.
Reply to fdrake Quite, and they are probably lining up Coronavirus to blame for the economic hit.
There are some big holes in this strategy though and a risk that they will alienate some of their support by pushing ahead while supposedly straining every sinew to save lives and livelihoods in the throws of a global pandemic.
James O Brian draws a comparison with some Brexit slogans, such as, "you lost get over it", now it could be, "they died get over it". Or the idea that according to Brexiters, it's ok to have economic damage in return for blue passports, whereas it's not ok to have economic damage and save lives in a global pandemic (some Brexiters have come out now to say that the lockdown is doing to much damage and we should get back to work).
Brexit was power consolidation of the political class you're railing against. The same people that want the UK out of EU trading and tax transparency standards have bought a government that wants the UK to default to international law on the matter.
Reply to fdrake It's the opposite of a political power grab...it clearly involves less politicians that will become more accountable to their electorate.
You have to really doubt the motives of those that want more , less accountable politicians, you have to doubt those that seek to create an elite , highly paid ,group of politicians that are ever more isolated from the people ...it's the opposite of democracy..
Reply to Chester Where have you been the last three years, I need someone to debate with. Brexiters are thin on the ground around here. I wonder why that is?
Reply to fdrake I have a theory that too many politicians becomes as bad as too few...especially when they become ever more separated from the electorate. The EU is a perfect example where commissars get to decide on what politicians can vote on. That's why the EU is generally at odds with the majority of EU citizens. The EU is also appallingly corrupt and expensive to run ...I believe there are at least 10,000 bureaucrats within the EU establishment that earn more than the British Prime minister.
Reply to Punshhh Brexiteers probably get fed up listening to the condescending attitude of dickwads like O Brien...and the debate is already won, we have left.
People aren't as stupid as those on the liberal left think, just because most Brexiteers haven't been to Uni and learned the art of talking absolute bollox (I'm an exception lol:)) people like you shouldn't underestimate the will of most people to leave an organisation that is clearly utterly corrupt.
I don't think your theory makes much sense, it doesn't respect thresh-holds. Say the limit is 10 politicians, and that can be a just arrangement, suddenly 1 more gets employed and they're necessarily corrupt.
But you probably don't mean it like that, you're looking at them and saying "look at all that bureaucracy, it's so inefficient!". But inefficient compared to what? I mean, do you believe that the UK will somehow magically become more efficiently run by defaulting to international law arrangements on trade, despite all the border problems that will kill businesses
The EU is a perfect example where commissars get to decide on what politicians can vote on. That's why the EU is generally at odds with the majority of EU citizens.
What specifically do you think the EU has influence over in a member state that violates the interests of its members?
People aren't as stupid as those on the liberal left think, just because most Brexiteers haven't been to Uni and learned the art of talking absolute bollox (I'm an exception lol:)) people like you shouldn't underestimate the will of most people to leave an organisation that is clearly utterly corrupt.
And you shouldn't underestimate the effects of a gigantic, personalised-ad style propaganda campaign and a political class that lied, over and over again, about the effects the EU are having on the UK on public opinion on the matter. It's not that people are stupid, it's that if you saturate discourse with lies and misinformation, people will believe lies and misinformation. If everyone ends up believing that everyone else is informed by lies and misinformation, so much the better for promoting a state of numb apathetic helplessness. Like rats in a cage who get shocked randomly.
Besides vague sentiments about sovereignty and small government being better, what do you actually think will be better off after Brexit? What are your predicted improvements?
We're going to have the same loopy political class that's intent on turning Britain into rich man's playground, only now it won't have to try and keep to EU human rights legislation (not that Britain has a great record on that on all fronts), and it won't benefit from EU trading rules regarding medicine.
I mean, these people blamed all of Britain's ills on the EU despite being exactly those who made policy that promoted the shambles Britain is turning into. We had enough autonomy to make stupid fucking decisions
Reply to Punshhh Corruption is writ large over the EU. It is a gravy train of totally unnecessary politicians and their legions of pen pushers. I gave one example ...over 10,000 of the bastards earn more than the UK Prime Minister...if that doesn't alert you to its corrupt nature then nothing will. The love of money and power corrupts and the EU has been amassing that by the shovel fulls...now , starting with the UK, things are changing.
Reply to fdrake I don't think the EU has achieved anything of real value for the people of Europe...but it has wasted vast sums . It has also usurped power from the more accountable national governments (often with their assistance)...the people never asked for any of this shit ...the British people were clearly lied to, we were told this was purely an economic club when it clearly not.
Reply to Chester So the EU is a gravy train, well you'd better hold on tight because we're in for Trumpian scale gravy now that people like you voted these clowns into government.
Are you still happy with the way that Johnson and Cummings are running things right now? ( oh yes we'll have a brilliant trade deal now by the end of the year (with all the self same benefits of course) because the Covid crisis is going to focus the minds of the EU leaders, which Gove intimated today).
I don't think the EU has achieved anything of real value for the people of Europe.
(1) It facilitated freedom of movement agreements. You didn't need a Visa to go on holiday to France or visit relatives in Germany. You should probably like this if you like free trade, rather than borders. If you dislike what's going on at the Irish border and its impact on businesses due to major efficiency losses, you like free travel.
(2) EU convention on human rights (our government want to weaken this sneakily and has tried).
(3) Paris agreement on climate change. Better air quality, less pollution, some amount of work to mitigate the chances of the collapse of human civilsation itself.
(4) Mandatory paid holidays for workers (UK government resisted this)
(5) Capping the working week at 48 hours (UK government resisted this).
(6) Legislation to stop massive tax avoidance (UK government resisted this).
There are six things for you. Our government doesn't like the EU convention on human rights, it doesn't want tax transparency legislation, it didn't like mandatory paid holidays at the time, it didn't like limiting the amount of hours people are required to work.
These are tangible things the EU has done, much to the chagrin of the British government. You're imagining how much better things would be without it. We can imagine differently; no paid holidays, no Paris agreement, no capped work hour requirements, less tax transparency and less effective enforcement of it [hide=*](we know how readily the government downsizes tax authorities, as "beaurocrats", and the revolving door between the HMRC upper management and financial institutions, the reason isn't because they don't work, the reason is because enforcing tax transparency laws goes against party donors and their corporate interests)[/hide].
I'll take tangible results most people find favourable over your baseless speculations any time.
Reply to fdrake An interesting angle in regard to point 6 is the legislation which would limit the tax avoidance gravy train of the billionaire backers of the Tory party and owners of the rightwing populist rags.
Here is a summary of the legislation,
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/anti-tax-avoidance-package/?fbclid=IwAR2drGJ-E_lT16dgf0FcWS4bLPPNqyIOslxyXXCdK30o4a2iQdyLC3DQUzk
I'm quite convinced that the timing is not a coincidence. I wonder what populist right driven campaign was backed by those same populist right rags and donors at the time that would allow the UK to stop implementing the agreement. :chin:
Reply to Punshhh The EU is very obviously a gravy train...10,000 people earning more than the UK PM...that's acceptable to you is it? Do you think their "jobs" are as difficult and stressful as the UK's PM?
I like the fact that Cummings and the PM get under the skin of the liberal left, I like that Johnson looks serious about Brexit. I would prefer a real Tory like Mogg in charge though...Johnson is too liberal for my taste...eg, I don't like the way he has joined the leftists into turning the NHS into some kind of religion that can't be criticised, or when he was Mayor he wanted to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants.
I like Cummings because I believe he is highly intelligent and could potentially really change things for the better...but we will see...this virus has altered much.
I only want a trade deal with the EU if it does not bind us into any of their regulations/rules/laws. I'd be more than happy going to wto trade...as we already do with the US, our biggest single trade partner.
Reply to fdrake 1) Freedom of movement involves the weakening of national borders (obviously), that is a direct "attack" on national independence so damn free movement. I don't mind a few checks next time I travel to Europe.
2) We lead Europe on human rights...now the EU rights are going too far, eg, giving the vote to prisoners.Only a moron could defend that.
3) The Paris agreement is a complete joke, none of its target will get reached...because China and India will carry on polluting.
4) We've had paid holidays in the UK for decades...nothing to do with EU membership.
5) Why should the working week be capped at 48 hours? That's only two days out of seven.
6) One tax we can avoid is paying those thousands of EU bureaucrats.
Reply to Chester You are in a tiny minority, a hard Brexiter who is not wealthy, appears to be politically informed and place yourself where Rees Mogg is on the political spectrum. Really I should not even engage with you as you are in the realms of the looney right.
Do you accept that the referendum was won on the back, of lies, political manipulation, and whipped up fear and xenophobia?
Also, do you have an idea of what the UK economy will look like after a few years on WTO?
Reply to Punshhh According to you 90% of people that work on building sites are lunatics...quite a sweeping statement. Normal , working class people measure life by more than materialist measures (unlike leftists who always seem obsessed with money) , they are more in tune with greater values...that's why working people tend to be more nationalist but also less willing to trust politicians (leftists love their politicians , the right not so much...unless they prove themselves) . Most working class people that voted Conservative didn't because they trusted them, they did it because they despise what the lib dems and Labour have become...parties absolutely willing to sell their nation, culture and society out. They might not express it like me , but trust me, they fucking hate these liberal, middle class ,know-nothings.
1) Freedom of movement involves the weakening of national borders (obviously), that is a direct "attack" on national independence so damn free movement. I don't mind a few checks next time I travel to Europe.
Are you imagining that people can come to the country and stay indefinitely without work in the current situation? If someone stays, they have a job or get deported (or other much more circumstantial stuff). If someone stays and works illegally; do you think that's the fault of the person coming to the country for a better life and being exploited by a business to undercut wages and worker's contract induced "monetary risks"? Or is it the fault of opportunistic businesses undercutting the fair price of labour? I'm gonna go with the latter. If businesses didn't stand to gain by illegal contractless hiring, they're not going to bloody do it are they.
Even within Schengen, if you lose your job and can't find another within a year (or other much more circumstantial stuff), countries will deport you. You will have a residence permit revoked.
Are you imagining that a defaulting to international laws on immigration and migrant work would curtail the amount of illegal immigration and illegal contractless jobs? All this would do is act as a disincentive for citizens of EU member states to come to Britan. It does absolutely nothing for the majority of the right's bugbear immigrant nations. Don't you dare tell me when you talk about cutting immigration you're imagining less Swedish people coming in...
We have mandatory unpaid labour under the name of "workfare" (if you've ever been in that position, it's quite possible to be perpetually working for free and then fired when the workfare period ends for that job). We have zero hours contracts.
The Paris agreement is a complete joke, none of its target will get reached...because China and India will carry on polluting.
You can add the US to that list, it shows no signs of stopping and resists any measures that would slow their emissions growth.
But, it's actually the majority of Paris agreement signatories that are failing to meet emission reduction targets, which they lowball compared to what is necessary anyway.
It's a largely symbolic gesture, insofar as there are not punitive measures on countries that fail to meet them. If you want to reduce global carbon emissions, it takes a sustained organised effort over the entire world, and everyone needs to do their share. The Paris agreement is a first step, though taken very late, in that direction. It requires much more global cooperation and the mandatory imposition of climate taxes over the majority of the world's major polluters (or something similar) to do the full job. That requires an even larger legislative body than the EU to generate such a binding agreement, and it would continue to be resisted by any and all corporations that benefit from unsustainable emissions growth.
We've had paid holidays in the UK for decades...nothing to do with EU membership.
Wrong. Making it a legal right to have at least 11 hours between shift end and shift start (with exceptions based on job nature), having a maximum working week of 48 hours (with exceptions based on job nature), and a minimum of 20 days paid annual leave per year were not enforceable claims in Britain before the EU working time directive in 2003. There's an opt out if you don't want it, those considerate commisars and their respect for individual autonomy!
There are no plans or promises to keep this. Even as it gets circumvented by endless zero hours contracts and revolving door temporary ones. I wonder what will happen?
Why should the working week be capped at 48 hours? That's only two days out of seven.
As said, you can (could) opt out if you like, or if your job nature requires it. It isn't so much that it's capped, it's that you're legally entitled not to work more than that if the job's very nature doesn't require it. Putting these things in the law, in an ideal world anyway, allows workers to use them.
I'm quite convinced that the timing is not a coincidence. I wonder what populist right driven campaign was backed by those same populist right rags and donors at the time that would allow the UK to stop implementing the agreement.
I don't think the whole Brexit thing was timed in this relation to the EU's actions, but rather the opportunity arose and the fanatical anti EU Tory grandees jumped at the chance. They had been gunning to leave the EU right from our joining in the 1970's. They couldn't believe their luck when Blair made the mistake of "unfettered access" for the new east European accession states in 2004. This was what the populist rags jumped on and the rest is history.
Interestingly in 2015 very few people in the UK were critical of the EU, had even thought of leaving, or thought it was a sensible thing to do. What changed during the following year? A populist campaign employing lies, political manipulation, xenophobia and fear of Turkey joining (our streets would be flooded with Turks). Pushed every day by the right wing rags and populists like Farage. And hey presto, all those people who weren't concerned about the EU, suddenly hated it and wanted to leave whatever the cost.
. They might not express it like me , but trust me, they fucking hate these liberal, middle class ,know-nothings.
Careful you'll be spitting teeth next. You've got what you want, politically, we're set to leave the EU without a trade deal, Corbyn is a laughing stock. What have you got to be angry about?
What the right wing rags didn't allow for is what these people on "building sites" are going to be angry about next. Now that they have got what they were demanding, what will these angry people have left to be angry about. They have to keep them angry because they've invested a decade of hard graft grooming them to that state.
The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph were all lining up to start misrepresenting the EU and lumping hate on them during the negotiations this year. But something's gone wrong, now they are turning on Johnson, the golden boy is going to be fattened up for the slaughter. But wait a minute, they've just spent a year telling all these people that Boris is the very definition of Brexit, he is the golden boy who is going to make Britain great again. They see more capital now in lumping the blame for the high death count on Johnson, than to soil themselves by supporting an administration presiding over the highest death toll in Europe and one of the highest in the world.
Did you know that Cummings's plan is for most of the old people in care homes to die, freeing them of the imminent NHS and social care crisis, which was going to bankrupt Brexit Britain.
Interestingly in 2015 very few people in the UK were critical of the EU, had even thought of leaving, or thought it was a sensible thing to do. What changed during the following year? A populist campaign employing lies, political manipulation, xenophobia and fear of Turkey joining (our streets would be flooded with Turks). Pushed every day by the right wing rags and populists like Farage. And hey presto, all those people who weren't concerned about the EU, suddenly hated it and wanted to leave whatever the cost.
Pushed every day by the right wing rags and populists like Farage. And hey presto, all those people who weren't concerned about the EU, suddenly hated it and wanted to leave whatever the cost.
What was the goal of the populists? I thought originally it was just to take over, but they really wanted to leave the EU. Why?
Reply to frank A combination of a tribal fear of becoming a state in a united Europe and rightwing wealthy privelidged classes wanting to hold onto their wealth and move the country to the right, as opposed to the gradual move towards a more socially inclusive social democratic state which is the case in the larger EU countries.
So basically a tribal fear and the perpetuation of a rightwing capitalist agenda. Both of which were perceived to be threatened by the EU, or continued membership of the EU.
There is a kernel of truth in both fears, but the benefits of membership, provided we don't loose our autonomy far outweigh the risk engendered in these fears.
Reply to fdrake Interesting the use of social media grooming ( minute17) and the way he lays into criticism of the Tory party at the end. Exposing the disingenuous motives of the Tory grandees who commissioned the vote Leave campaign.
It's interesting to pay attention to exactly what he doesn't say, because it reflects badly on him.
"We used Facebook's terrible user privacy standards to get people to fill out questionnaires that allow us access to their and all their friends' feeds and data, then we stored all that, used a bunch of machine learning algorithms to learn about them, we tested survey parameters to see if they were reposted (and other engagement metrics), then we maximised those for each demographic we could.
BTW, we leveraged all this research in the week before the vote to tailor personalised ads to prime voting our way"
combination of a tribal fear of becoming a state in a united Europe and rightwing wealthy privelidged classes wanting to hold onto their wealth and move the country to the right, as opposed to the gradual move towards a more socially inclusive social democratic state which is the case in the larger EU countries.
It still feels to me like there's something about Brexit that I'm not getting. Is there an underlying truth? Something more deeply seated? Or did the populists sort of randomly win?
The Cummings video I posted above is quite informative on how they got people to engage with the Brexit is good narrative, they cite a few catastrophes in framing public opinion; what happened to Greece during its economic crisis (which was partly forced on them by EU banking interest) and the Syria/refugee crisis, the 2008 recession and a resulting resentment towards a class of "political elites" that they capitalised on majorly (they got to frame it like the EU is full of political elites, and weaponise class identity in their favour, which is a strong force in the UK).
They happened upon a narrative which spans liberal left and liberal right reactions to the crisis, blamed the EU for the disintegration of faith in politics (and Brexit will RESTORE it apparently!), but also resonates with the far left's class thinking on the matter and the far right's "national sovereignty with less immigrants" narrative. They politicised a common kernel of truth (people being sold out and fucked by their governments since 2008) and spinned it in their favour.
It still feels to me like there's something about Brexit that I'm not getting. Is there an underlying truth? Something more deeply seated? Or did the populists sort of randomly win?
There is a deep seated fear, one which goes back in history to the time when foreign powers did come and conquer the country. Principally in 1066 when the French colonised Britain and handed out lordships amongst themselves covering the whole country, these overlords became the upper classes.
But these days this fear is residual rather like the fear of snakes, or spiders some people have. There has been a strong rivalry for the last few hundred years, including England ruling parts of France. Along with fears about the motives of the Germans following the war.
So there is a deep seated love hate relationship. But with the EU all this historic baggage was put behind us/them. Many people moved and worked freely around Europe including Britain, EU legislation has been very well thought out and is very progressive, but there are problems, as one would expect with a Union especially when they joined the Euro. But many British people were very happy with it and felt more European as a result. The sentiment to leave resided in a few minority groups, who gradually poisoned the discourse regarding the EU and our membership, boulstered by the immigration crisis during the Blair years, these forces grew and those who were content weren't aware of this, or didn't match it with pro EU sentiment, so were caught napping.
People didn't realise that the UK MEP's (UK EU representatives) had become populated by anti EU rebels, who insulted and criticised the EU continually for many years. Mystifying their EU counterparts.
Reply to fdrake That video is fascinating. I'll need to watch it again. It's a new idea for me that exiting the EU may have taken the steam out of some toxic elements of UK politics.
Reply to Punshhh
Would you say that the UK and the EU have always been oil and water, and it took a set of crises, immigration, 2008, along with apathy on the part of the Conservative Party, to provide the impetus to shake them apart? But still, it was close?
I read recently (I was looking at COVID-19 info) that the NHS has been accused by multiple of women of being denied pain medication for childbirth. Apparently some women have considered abortion rather than face it again. The article said that at least part of the problem is staffing. I thought of that while watching fdrake's video: "Take back control." Maybe that resonates way beyond membership in the EU.
It's a new idea for me that exiting the EU may have taken the steam out of some toxic elements of UK politics.
Eh, he frames it like the government being in a position to tighten borders and make immigration (only from the EU!) and migrant labour (only from the EU!) have more red tape is a favour to immigrants. The campaign also weaponised ideas of Britain protecting its sovereignty from Turkish and Greek "invaders". Vocal people on the right were quite happy thinking of asylum seekers as "parasites" during the campaign (a phrase featured in a major news outlet, despite asylum being a lot different from legal travel...) and the Turks and Kurds as "invaders", the EU countries were a "threat". It is no surprise that hate crimes soared afterwards, the far right and their racism-lite conservative allies like "I'm not racist I buy Chinese food sometimes" @Chester here were given so much breathing room by it, and energised to act upon it. He's a smart man, I think he knew what he was spinning.
Reply to fdrake So Brexit reinforced racism? It was seen as a stamp of approval on it? Hasn't the EU changed its rules about immigration since the UK decided to leave?
It promoted it, yes. It weaponised British identity stereotypes (white, working class) against the PEOPLE from some countries, and piggybacked off previous racist narratives that were prevalent; Syrians and nebulously defined middle-eastern threats, and the enduring narrative of the Polish, Pakistanis and Indians "coming here and taking our jobs".
Just a note: it doesn't have to hang together like a logical argument, it just has to resonate like a good story.
People group into larger organisation when they can derive some benefit from it. The benefit of cooperation must be greater than the benefit of defection.
There is no reason why people shouldn't be lone wolfs roaming the world on their own. They can organise into tribes, villages, cities, countries and federations.
It's also about power balance. During the second world war, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China were at war with each other. Then when the Japanese attacked, all of a sudden they united and cooperated under a single China. Then when the Japanese left, they went back to war.
You can bet that if aliens showed up tomorrow, then all of sudden a one world government would form for defense.
You can agree or disagree with the UK leaving the EU, but it's a bet they made and only the future will tell if it's the right one. Also, within every single country there's many people, and the policy is determined as an interplay of all the interests and agenda individual people have. So naturally, for every decision there are losers and winners.
Decisions are the outcome of local optima in a single group. The more small groups you have, the higher likelihood it is that they will reach a local optimum different from a global optimum. Even if the global optimum would result in higher utility overall than the sum of various local optima.
My bet is that the UK will become something like Singapore with Scotland and Ireland breaking off. They will thrive by subverting EU regulations, just like Singapore thrives by subverting Chinese regulations.
Reply to frank As to whether Brexit will remove some toxicity in UK politics is a very hard question to answer because there are so many different angles to this. It certainly will remove those angry Brexiters, but it will cause all kinds of other problems. One could view the EU as a moderating influence on UK politics, or the reverse depending on what you are commenting on, or what your view is. Also there is the difference between the idea of leaving, on the assumption that it will be carried out in a considerate amicable way resulting in a constructive partnership. As opposed to the up yours EU petulant destructive Leaving we are now facing. 90% of my criticism is of the way we are leaving and not necessarily to leaving in principle.
Reply to frank Punshhh and fdrake display a complete misconception of what motivated many people to decide that leaving the political institution was a good idea. They just regurgitate the same old racism crap...I'll give you a list that motivated me and probably many others...
1) Freedom of movement led to the mass importation of labour, predominately low skilled cheap labour which obviously puts downward pressure on wages and increased pressure on services (schooling ,housing, cultural differences etc etc). The numbers coming in were huge, far bigger than Tony Blair said. Middle class people quite liked it, their cleaners, plumbers, drivers and builders were cheaper.
2) The EU is very obviously corrupt, they haven't had their books signed off for years. As I have said , they pay each other very well too...lovely big fat expense accounts. Brexit MP's that were elected to go out there were amazed by the extravagant lifestyle.
3) The commissars are not elected by the people but they decide what the EU politicians get to vote on...does that sound like democracy to you ?
4) There was a very obvious lie (which we can see with the benefit of hindsight) told to the British people when we joined in '73 and had our first referendum in '75... we were told that this is just an economic club where as it's clearly empire building...they lied through their fucking teeth. Older people remember that.
5) Another concept that goes right over the head of middle class virtue signalling lefties is that your neighbour isn't necessarily your friend. The French sold weapon systems to the Argentines when we were at war with them in '82...can you imagine Canada selling weapons to Iraq during the gulf war? The Germans would be more than happy to take all our manufacturing capacity to their shores. Look how Italy was treated by the other member states during the height of this virus disaster in its time of dire need.
Reply to bizso09 Empire building is always a bad idea if the people never voted for it. In that the EU is very close to the old soviet empire...just a softer form of it but still bad.
Reply to Chester
Empire building by itself is not a problem I think. Many would agree that living in the Roman Empire was more prosperous than living in some germanic tribe. The USA is also an empire of its states, but people are quite happy there. Soviet Union with its communism was quite misguided...
There are some corrupt elements to the EU, such as the CAP subsidy system favouring large landowners, such as the Queen and Saudi sheikhs, and the lack of auditing of financials, which I think is a pretty huge problem. They also appoint the commissioner rather than go with the Spitzenkanidate, which is a true disrespect to democracy.
However, in my opinion, the goal should be reform, not disintegration. The UK will be ruled by the elite hiding in their "non-UK" offshore jurisdictions even more than before, and there will be no EU counterweight to protect everyday people. So certain elites will benefit a lot.
The middle class in the UK will be clearly at a disadvantage, as I'd argue they were one of the big beneficiaries of EU membership.
The lower class will benefit too, but only in the short term. If they were non-competitive with EU workers, the right solution would be to increase competitiveness and learn a new skill, and not to resort to isolationism and protectionism. As the former will increase overall wealth much more than the latter. So it's only a short term win for them.
unenlightenedApril 29, 2020 at 18:38#4073990 likes
I am old enough to remember when the UK kept applying to join the EEC as it then was, and DeGaulle (the ungrateful bastard) kept saying "Non." He was famous for it and well resented for it by the peasantry and chattering classes alike.
I read recently (I was looking at COVID-19 info) that the NHS has been accused by multiple of women of being denied pain medication for childbirth. Apparently some women have considered abortion rather than face it again. The article said that at least part of the problem is staffing. I thought of that while watching fdrake's video: "Take back control." Maybe that resonates way beyond membership in the EU.
There have been many worrying reports about maternity units and midwifery over the last few years in the UK, including many unnecessary deaths of newborns, due to negligent midwifery. I'm not surprised by what you say. There are some very odd things happening in hospitals at the moment. A friend of mine who has Addisons disease was admitted to hospital about a week ago for his Addisons symptoms. He told a scary story about confusion about his symptoms amongst the healthcare workers. After a couple of days he got the impression that he was going to be put into a Covid ward. He tried to discharge himself and they locked the doors and refused to let him out, eventually he managed to escape by going through the services entrance. He won't be going back.
Reply to Chester All your criticisms of the EU are myths peddled by anti EU activists, or rumour amongst friends. I know because I briefly became hoodwinked by them in the early 1990's and then when I looked into it, they were never actually correct, or true, or accentuated a small imbalance or problem, so as to sway people to start questioning our membership.
There is a real issue about the number of mainly Polish people who came over from 2004. But the government at the time could have limited the numbers and imposed conditions to control their access to longer term residency and welfare services, as many other EU countries did and still do. It was Tony Blair who allowed "unfettered access" to EU citizens which was the root of the problem. It was never necessary to leave the EU to solve this problem.
I agree with what you refer to about the choice as it was laid out in 1973, that it was just for a single market. Fortunately due to the flexibility of the EU, it has repeatedly agreed to arrangements for the UK to remain outside the closer integrations, between the other members. There hasn't been at any point an insistence that the UK should integrate in these ways. The ways in which greater integration has occurred were always agreed to, even led by the UK government.
The systemic demographic problems which have developed in the UK following 2004 and pressure on housing and public services etc, are due to poor management of taxation, investment and funding by UK governments, the EU was not responsible for these problems.
There are some issues with EU policy particularly the common agricultural policy, which does require overhauling. It's not perfect, but I don't see how the alternative is going to be any better?
Reply to frank As you're interested in the back story here, I happened to watch an interesting programme lastnight by my favourite TV historian Michael Wood. In which he delved deep into the history of the French invasion of Britain in 1066. It confirmed what I had been thinking for a while now, that Britain was ruled with an iron fist by invaders who divided up the land between them and turned many in the population into tenants on what had hitherto been their own land. This persisted for over two hundred years culminating in a civil war (not the larger civil war of 1648), but widespread revolt against the French rulers, which was eventually quashed with some horrific slaughters and the reimposition of an apartheid, which they had been living with for two hundred years.
Such resentment can remain in the population for many generations and I'm sure is the basis for a lot of the mistrust of certainly the French.
Anyway going back to the story, Michael Wood focused on a small town in central England called Kibworth and its surrounding area, for which there is a complete and unbroken record of every event which happened going back to 1066 in the parish registers and records kept in a purpose built library in Merton College Oxford. It is the oldest continually used library in the world built in the 14th century. There is real life testimony documenting the apartheid system which was introduced in which the Britons where second class citizens and the ruling elite where portrayed as superior overlords. The vestiges of this class division still remain in this country and is partly responsible for the deep class divisions and wealth inequality of the UK today. This is the backdrop to this existential issue in the psyche of the British people.
I had thought that in the modern world intelligent grown up people were able to put such historic divisions behind them and begin to work towards a common good, in peace and prosperity and certainly the EU project is a serious and concerted effort to achieve such progress. People who are critical of it should remember the reasons for which it was established, to end countless centuries of war and division and to move forward in mutual cooperation.
The real toxicity in UK politics is the divisive identity politics of the liberal left, the non-stop shit stirring.
This is a typical populist straw man argument. Oh, look at those looney left over there in the corner, it's all their fault. Not our fault who have been in power for the last 40 years. It glosses over the fact that those looneys in the corner haven't got anywhere near power during the period in question.
Have you seen Ian Duncan Smith being interviewed recently, it's so toxic that he regularly threatens the interviewer. Also did you watch the power drunk swagger of Geoffrey Cox in parliament following the preroging of parliament verdict. Followed by Johnson's violent rant ripping up any decency left in parliament, insulting the memory of Joe Cox, the MP murdered by a crazed Brexiter, following on from two years of the Tory Brexit psycho drama.
Oh no, it's those looney left over there in the corner, it's all their fault, their doing.
And now this vitriol is going to be turned on the EU commissioners and European leaders by Johnson and his stooges. Haven't we learnt anything from 2000 years of war and pillage and tyranny?
Punshhh and fdrake display a complete misconception of what motivated many people to decide that leaving the political institution was a good idea. They just regurgitate the same old racism crap...I'll give you a list that motivated me and probably many others...
Apologies about the previous post, I made an assumption somewhere in it that was extremely wrong, will retract it if you've already read it.
The Migration Observatory at Oxford university estimates that the effects of immigration on wages and unemployment of natives between the years 1993 and 2017 have been quite minor. The worst effects, which you are right in attributing to the poorest people, are still quite minor over this period.
The overall picture is that the effects depend upon the demographics of immigrants; if all the immigrants were Indian computer programmers for UK sponsored coding projects, you wouldn't expect there to be much effect on roofers' wages from that. The review I've linked suggests that effects of low skilled migrant work on wages paid for low skilled jobs is negative, but it's actually minor, the decreases being estimated at between about 5% over the 1993-2017 period for the 10th percentile of wages.
The MAC (2018) estimated that an increase in the number of EU migrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in a 0.8% decrease in UK-born wages at the 5th and 10th percentiles (i.e. people in the bottom 5-10% of earners), and a 0.6% increase at the 90th percentile (i.e. high earners). In practice, this means that between 1993 and 2017, the total effect of EU migration on the wages of UK-born workers was estimated to be a 4.9% reduction in wages for those at the 10th earnings percentile, a 1.6% reduction at the 25th percentile, a 1.6% increase at the 50th percentile, and a 4.4% increase at the 90th percentile.The calculation of the total impact should be interpreted with caution, however, because the model estimates the short-run response to migration, which is expected to disappear over time (MAC, 2018: 32).
Let's be incautious with interpreting this, and say the effects calculated wouldn't average out over the years as the paper tells us they are expected to.
Currently, the 10th percentile of earners (the maximum stated effected group) make about £8160, which would mean they had £34 per monthly wage packet less than they would if there were absolutely no immigration from EU countries (holding all else fixed in the background, which is not a reasonable assumption). In this hypothetical, they would go from £680 to £646 per month.
For people in the 25th percentile in this same hypothetical, they go from £15840 per year to £15650 per year, monthly difference of about £16, so just over a starbucks a week.
In terms of unemployment, the picture is similar.
For example, Dustmann et al. (2005) concluded that immigration had no effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers but did find adverse effects on the employment of UK-born workers with intermediate education and a positive impact on those with A-levels or university degrees. Lemos and Portes (2008) analysed the impact of labour immigration of EU-8 workers on claimant unemployment, finding little evidence of an adverse effect. Another study focusing on London, the region with the highest levels of migration over the past few decades, also found no negative effects (Fingleton et al, 2019).
MAC (2018) also produced new results, suggesting that immigration from EU countries during the 34-year period from 1983 to 2017 had reduced the employment rate of the UK-born working age population by around 2 percentage points and increased unemployment by 0.6 percentage points. However, it also noted that with employment rates at a historic high towards the end of this period, one should “be cautious in suggesting these outcomes could be much better than they already are.”
The effects of immigration on employment levels are negligible or inconclusive.
If what's happened so far is "mass migration", as the tabloids like to present it, the economic effects on the poor and those in low skilled jobs have been very minor; the fucked are still fucked, the minimum wage people would have to order a small rather than a tall at Starbucks to make up the difference.
It's much, much more the case that what news media you consume predicts both what you assume to be true and your overall opinion on immigration.
The immiseration that people are blaming on the EU and on immigration are much more adequately explained by living in a finance capital bubble since 2008 (which just burst catastrophically) with our real economy failing to recover much since then.
Reply to Punshhh You accuse me of spreading myths then don't bother pointing out my "myths" with evidence to back your arguments...because you know that what I have said is factual.
Then you accuse me of pointing the finger at the liberal left when the liberal left do nothing but point and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transism, Islamophobia etc , etc , etc .The liberal left has abandoned the working class for new , woke, identitarian politics and wonders why it is dying as a political force. We should also remember that some real leftists were very much anti-EU , being anti-EU does not imply being right-wing.
I'll say again, it is the political liberal left that has caused division and hate in our society. It comes from an arrogance born of middle class (spoiled) upbringing combined with liberal, identity obsessed university education. The funny thing is that these types really believe they have a higher intellect because of their "education"...but I'll let you into a secret...most people that struggle through life are often a lot more savvy in their views than the effete middleclass sprogs of over-paid middle level public sector "workers".
The EU can not be reformed because it is not democratic.
The idea that pumping the economy with millions of low skilled workers is good for the economy is a joke...the economy grows as the population grows ...woopy fucking doo. The middleclass loves to suppress working class wages and travel more in Europe, we all know that...did you know there are now more servants in the UK than during Victorian times, the middleclass social justice warriors love that too.
Reply to fdrake What you are not taking into account (even assuming those numbers you quoted are correct) is that massively increasing the population pumps the housing market (both buying and rental) increasing costs, increases population density, thus roads become congested and taxes rise to compensate, schooling and health care costs increase etc. The amount of money that someone earns is not the measure of whether they are better off...it is how things combine together in a rapidly increasing population density situation.
Another quick point...the liberal left hates Johnson, he's virtually Hitler to them but it is because he is popular and much of the population despises the "leaders" of the liberal left...Clegg, Cameron, Blair , Brown , Corbyn...what a bunch of cunts.
Reply to Baden But they are a bunch of cunts...also a tiny over represented part of the population causing most of the problems...so we can be divisive with them.
Ah I see, you can't provide evidence for your opinions because you've got a life. I appreciate that you're busy and you have constraints on your time, I do not appreciate you equating baseless speculations with sourced statements. Do you even take time to check what you're saying is right?
Reply to fdrake So you are saying there are no costs to increasing population density? Bear in mind that England is already one of the most crowded parts of Europe...4 times the population density of Germany or France (from what I recall).
There's no evidence that immigration has made a difference in the economic status of UK natives.
You're doing the thing where you don't want to respond to a bunch of sourced stuff, so you try and reframe the discussion to ground you're more comfortable on; stuff you don't have to research or fact check, you can just improvise.
Reply to Baden Misleading...population density in England is far higher than the UK, population density in se England far higher still. Also Netherlands has its issues with population growth too.
Reply to fdrake It would be insane to assert that rapidly increasing the population with low skilled workers from different cultures has no effect on wages ,costs and social unity...it is just a fact that increasing supply of labour lowers wages and increasing population density beyond the point where a country can feed itself has costs...including increased costs of housing and travel. Sometimes those costs are indirect so wont show on wages...eg, increase in taxes for roads, schools, hospital etc.
1) Freedom of movement led to the mass importation of labour, predominately low skilled cheap labour which obviously puts downward pressure on wages and increased pressure on services (schooling ,housing, cultural differences etc etc). The numbers coming in were huge, far bigger than Tony Blair said. Middle class people quite liked it, their cleaners, plumbers, drivers and builders were cheaper.
You explicitly emphasized the economic impacts of "mass importation"/mass migration from EU countries to the UK on UK natives.
I gave you a sourced argument refuting that claim; there is no evidence of any substantial economic impact (either on lifestyle or employment) on UK natives from EU immigration through the years 1993-2017.
Are you willing to retract the claim? Are you willing to believe that EU migration has had negligible economic impacts on UK natives based on the evidence?
Reply to Chester
I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply pointed out that the failings of the EU you mention are mythical. You can google each of them and find out yourself if they are genuine issues effecting Britain as a result of being a member of the EU. There are some genuine issues, but they are rarely cited by EU skeptics, for example systemic problems with the common agricultural policy. They usually cite things like immigration and EU corruption, or something to do with fishing. Issues which have been selected by the anti EU propagandists as emotive issues which will spread well and are easily believed and gossiped about by the population.
If the "liberal left" are dying as a political force, then what's the problem? They will soon loose their power and influence and not be a problem anymore. Oh wait a minute, they have no power and have little influence. Again you are trying to dump problems and issues wrong in the country on a powerless group, to distract any focus on the political grouping which has been in power and presided over all this hollowing out of society, running down of services, the failures in the housing crisis, the rise of populism and this divisive Brexit nightmare.
It's not their fault (the liberal left), it's all the fault of the Tory's. Got it?
Interestingly you claim to know that I am some kind of privelidged academic middle class person who doesn't know how the other half lives. You couldn't be further from the truth. I guarantee that my background is more working class than yours. I am a tradesman with no academic training and I come from four generations of Irish navies who lived in the slums of Huddersfield.
I generally tend to feel that governments will find a way to make pretty much anything work and come out the other side, basically because that's their job. So I didn't vote in the referendum because really I don't think that a huge difference will be seen in the long run leave or remain, at least not in most people's lives anyway.
Reply to frank It will drift to the left, the "loads of money" days of the Tory's are over. The public has seen through their wheeze about keeping the population down as wage/consumer slaves while they live it up in their privelidge.
What I found laughable was that down to earth working class folk, grafters, thought Johnson was one of them. How did he pull that off? I think back to William the Conquerer pulling off the same trick a thousand years ago, we fell for it then and we fell for it now.
Reply to Punshhh That's a seriously deluded view...the British public have become far more conservative in their politics...look at the lead the Tories have established in the latest polls...Conservatives are on over 50% . People have seen through the social democratic (slow imposition of marxism ) model pushed by the liberal left...open borders, divisive identity politics and the climate catastrophe that can only be remedied with socialism lie. It's a busted flush, the game is up, the western world has started to recognise the damage caused by the internationalism (aka globalism ) of the liberal left.
The EU epitomises everything wrong with the liberal left (social democracy) model...that's why the EU will disintegrate unless it becomes what it said it was originally, a club of independent trading nations.
Reply to fishnchips You have a lot of faith in politicians mate...luckily most Brits are very sceptical about them. Only those of the liberal left persuasion want more of them , another unnecessary layer of politics...they really can't get enough of them.
Reply to BenkeiReply to Benkei Unlike you I didn't claim to speak for the whole Dutch population...but a assume you agree that not all dutch people are happy with the EU and open borders (which in itself turned out to be a lie...the borders are not open now are they).
Reply to Chester Not everybody is happy about paying taxes. Some aren't even happy to be alive. What's your point if not to say that it was a predominant problem?
Only a maximum of 20% voted right wing due to immigration, probably a lot less.
Reply to Benkei Just out of interest...the population of the Netherlands was 11 million in 1960, it's over 17 million now...would you be happy for it to be 30 million in 20 years time? Is population density of no importance to you?
Here you can see the difference between population density of England as opposed to the UK. SE England has a higher density than England as a whole....it's the part of the country that most EU immigrants have come to.
1) Freedom of movement led to the mass importation of labour, predominately low skilled cheap labour which obviously puts downward pressure on wages
That immigration puts downward pressure on wages. I responded with this, that shows the effects on wages of immigration in the years 1993-2017 have been negligible. It was sourced. You now assert:
Sometimes those costs are indirect so wont show on wages...eg, increase in taxes for roads, schools, hospital etc.
That it wasn't about the wages. It's actually about taxes. You can't keep your story straight.
But let's talk about taxes. In their report "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration", the Oxford Migration observatory estimates that the effects of immigration upon UK government resources have been negligible on the whole.
Studies examining the fiscal impact of migrants have produced different results, although in all cases, the impacts have been estimated at less than +/- 1% of GDP
It also notes that migrants from EU-15 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden; payed more on average in taxes than UK natives. Furthermore it says of EEA nationals:
In the past few years, the government has started to publish data derived from HMRC and DWP records of amounts actually paid and received by foreign nationals. For example, HMRC data show that in FY2015/16, EEA nationals paid £15.5bn more in income tax and national insurance than they took out in tax credits and child benefit (HMRC, 2018).
Immigrants are net contributors by these statistics. As the paper notes, this isn't a magical property of immigrants, it's more to do with the demographics of immigrants being younger than the ageing UK population. You could come away from reading this study with the impression that the evidence is inconclusive; which means that there's no evidence that they (EU immigrants in general) improve the previously stated things or that they worsen the previously stated things. But:
If the UK's government deficit is something you care about, immigration reduces that too:
One of the key drivers behind these results is that incoming migrants are more likely to be of working age than the population in general and therefore more likely to be working and contributing to public finances.
Simply because they're more likely to do more work (and pay more taxes! And spend money on real stuff!) than the ageing UK population.
You might claim, as in the re-emerging right wing narrative, that immigrants are ruining our NHS. This is very wrong for two reasons. Firstly, the increased use of services from immigration has negligible effects on NHS functioning, and secondly that the NHS uses so much labour of EU nationals it would face devastating staff shortages without them:
Across the UK, EU immigrants make up 10% of registered doctors and 4% of registered nurses. Immigrants from outside the EU make up larger proportions. Restrictions on non-EU immigrants have affected NHS recruitment, suggesting that the same could happen if there were limits on EU immigration. However, these restrictions did not trigger a process of existing healthcare workers fleeing the UK
The immigration of EU nationals is vital for the functioning of the NHS. If you want that in a slogan, immigration keeps the NHS alive.
I'll repeat something from before, if you want to contextualise the strain on the NHS, think about it in terms of the austerity program the UK government has been following for years and years and the effect that cutting healthcare spending has on the basic functioning of the NHS. Though it is better to think of the NHS's strain as resulting from privatizingit ("it" link has more discussion of effects) and cutting spending on the public parts.
Note: if you want to justify the NHS spending cuts because they were needed to reduce the defecit, you should want immigrant labour too.
Brexit is actually more of the same from the establishment. If you read the report I mentioned, it speaks about the big variance explaining demographics of support being those who voted for leave being less educated lower income people who feel they've suffered from globalisisation and the distinct wealthy Euroskeptics vs middle class (middle income) more educated liberals.
"Wealthy Euroskeptic" describes the leave campaigners in the government. The people who support it are also for US style libertarian ideas, or making the UK more like that. IE; they're actually supporters of the "free market" and corporate globalism in disguise. Boris Johnson is the person that's sticking up for "free trade" in response to the coronavirus pandemic, for an indicator. That they managed to sell a national sovereignty argument is still somewhat astounding to me.
I imagine it was a difficult sell to get their corporate backers down with the idea, considering that Brexit fears produced immediate downturns in the value of the pound and UK company shares, but public support for those who wanted to Leave also means public support for the people who want to market-ise the UK's social and healthcare sectors and profit off international trade (not from the EU) in the agricultural and industrial machine production sectors more.
Either that, or they found backers that stand to gain better UK market penetration or share and avoid tarrifs (through promised trade deals) in those sectors.
I guarantee that my background is more working class than yours. I am a tradesman with no academic training and I come from four generations of Irish navies who lived in the slums of Huddersfield.
And yet we let you post here on equal terms, to show how open hearted and fair-minded we are. :rofl:
Reply to fdrake God almighty, you really don't get it. I said mass immigration puts downward pressure on wages...that is an obvious fact. You then point out that wages have only dropped slightly and may level out over time... completely missing the fact that wages would have probably grown. You ask an average taxi driver how good mass immigration has been for his career.
You have to be very careful with statistics and who is behind their interpretation when they are broadcast by biased media outlets.
Two basic economic facts for you...
1) An over abundance of labour creates downward pressure on wages. There is no logical dispute on this.
2) A rapid increase in population density, without pre-planning (ie, our situation) , increases demand on services, thus increasing costs. There is no logical argument against this fact.
Now you can link to some organisation's interpretation of the statistics but those two points I have made clear for you are obvious facts.
Reply to Benkei So you are absolutely fine with mass inward migration to the Netherlands ...and most Dutch people are up for it too. I guess from your perspective the bigger the world's population gets the better...because that's what you want for your own country!
The talk of EU nationals being vital to the NHS misses some facts too...
1)The NHS is guilty of poaching skilled health workers from poorer countries who have often paid to train them.
2) The increase in low paid EU workers puts a greater strain (in numbers) on the NHS. Many of these workers qualify for benefits (housing , tax credits etc) so do not contribute greatly towards the cost of the NHS.
I'm not against managed inward migration though...if we need to steal nurses and doctors from poorer countries so be it.
Reply to unenlightened Tbh, I'm not particularly keen on jocks, especially the gobby lefty ones that dominate message boards...I think you understand that.
The Scots have declined as a people...they are the biggest whining bunch of lazy , alcoholic bastards in Europe...that's why I'd really like you chaps to get your "FREEDOM!" as Mel Gibson said.
Reply to Chester I'm fine with something that's never going to happen as is everybody else in the Netherlands,. Just like we don't worry about being attacked by dragons.
I said mass immigration puts downward pressure on wages...that is an obvious fact.
It isn't. Repeatedly asserting something doesn't justify it, evidence does. You have provided no evidence, and the evidence contradicts what you've said.
You then point out that wages have only dropped slightly and may level out over time... completely missing the fact that wages would have probably grown.
I didn't write that; the effect on average wages has been negligible. The effect on the lowest 10% has been negative, the effect on the lowest 25% has been negative. The differences to those percentages come out as "We're still fucked and need government aid for food and a roof over our heads" and "Mate, give me the small Americano over the tall one please this week, I'm trying to save money".
You have to be very careful with statistics and who is behind their interpretation when they are broadcast by biased media outlets.
...
Said about the Oxford Migration Observatory. Which briefs the current UK government. And fullfact.org, which is a fact checking charity independent of the press and government in the UK.
1) An over abundance of labour creates downward pressure on wages. There is no logical dispute on this.
The evidence disagrees with you, and says it depends upon demographics of the immigrant labourers, and that the effects regardless of what they are tend to average out over time.
Now you can link to some organisation's interpretation of the statistics but those two points I have made clear for you are obvious facts.
It's quite clear that something being obvious to you (or to anyone) does not provide evidence for it, or justify it. Why you would think you have special intuition into these matters when you can't even be bothered to fact check what you write I have no idea.
2) The increase in low paid EU workers puts a greater strain (in numbers) on the NHS. Many of these workers qualify for benefits (housing , tax credits etc) so do not contribute greatly towards the cost of the NHS.
I literally gave you numbers on that. The effects on NHS function from immigration are negligible and immigration is vital for staffing it.
What evidence would it take for you to change your mind about anything you've said? When direct, sourced counterarguments are dismissed immediately.
Reply to Benkei So you don't mind if your population density is going up...therefore you don't care if the World's population density goes up...at least be honest about it. I thought you Dutch people were a bit "greener" than that... you learn something every day.
Reply to fdrake You really don't get reality do you ? You think taxi drivers are earning more than ever don't you? You think delivery drivers are richer than they've ever been , that labourers are creaming it in, that shop workers are loaded compared to the past. Oh deary me.
Reply to fdrake If I saw people around me telling me that their wages and costs of living are getting better, then I'd say that you might have a point ...but they are not and you don't.
There is an inclination on the liberal left to trust the output of large organisations and governments rather than just look around themselves...that probably explains why they want more politicians and bureaucrats in their lives.
Reply to Chester You only make unsubstantiated claims about things you apparently think are true. Educate yourself. You can start with this : Factfulness
You're wrong about wordwide population growth and you're wrong about mass immigration somehow leading to... What exactly? The extrapolation of past population growth you attempted is wrong and the effects of mass immigration grossly exaggerated.
Unless your next reply contains substantiated projections on population growth and mass immigration for the Netherlands I think we can safely conclude you shouldn't be having an opinion on the matter one way or the other.
If I saw people around me telling me that their wages and costs of living are getting better, then I'd say that you might have a point ...but they are not and you don't.
Ok!
Other than things you have not provided evidence for and have been disconfirmed, what makes you think this is due to immigration specifically, rather than living through a recession since 2008 that was never recovered from, and an even longer program of austerity (and privitisation) putting massive strain on all UK public services?
If you expect the Tories to deliver you better wages and a lower cost of living, you are off your nut Georgey-boy. Yes, the EU is avowedly neoliberal, but there are some breaks there, whereas Boris's plan is to turn you into the U.S. The mass of the population will be looted for all they've got.
Reply to Benkei The world's population is projected to grow to nearly 11 billion by the end of this century...I guess to you that is good news, the more people the better.The growth in the dutch population of 7 million people since 1950 has been great, no costs involved.All is rosy in the Netherlands.
Let me put this in a language you won't dismiss as being middle class, now that we're swearing at each other based on UK nationality.
You gravy bathing fuckwits in the English working class got so duped you're holding up a bimbo in a wig who became a Tory because he hated British miners as a champion of the English working class.
You're getting a bit pervy now...are you on the shant already?
It's bevvies dear boy, short for beverages. Enough of this parade of working-class credentials already. We're gently mocking your sensibilities; there's no need for you to mock yourself.
He'll take care of you, son, long as you shine his top hat for him. You poor dupe. They used your ignorant xenophobic tendencies to get you to lick upper-class boots and you like the taste so much, you can't shut up about it.
Reply to fdrake The reality is that most immigrants from Europe have taken low paid jobs...so jobs like the ones I keep pointing out are less well paid (in real terms ) than they used to be. Many of these jobs are also subsidised by the state through such low paid workers getting tax credits, housing benefits etc. Everyone that I know and work with work with EU migrants, my neighbours are Romanian, I don't dislike these people but I can see that the EU is set up in such a way as to supply cheap labour and undercut wage costs for business and public sector employment .
The liberal left has no loyalty to its own nation , its own people, it considers such things vulgar. The trouble is that most people still have a preference for their own and can see what the EU has been attempting.
The liberal left has no loyalty to its own nation , its own people
Hear the rubbish they've got you spouting, so you won't notice when they turn you around and bend you over. But maybe you like that sort of thing, Luv?
Reply to Baden It's funny you say that Boris will turn the UK into the US...but most immigrants in the world would rather go to the US than be smothered by the anti-democratic ,low economic growth zone known as the EU. Thank God we're out!
Reply to Baden I like JRM, great man , hopefully one day he'll be our prime minister so that whiners like you can cry yourselves to sleep every night dreaming of your socialist empire that will never materialise.
I like JRM, great man , hopefully one day he'll be our prime minister so that whiners like you can cry yourselves to sleep every night dreaming of your socialist empire that will never materialise.
Oh, I'm sure he'll throw you a few scraps. But I'm not from the UK, so I'll miss out. Damn...
Reply to Baden You Irish are going to be in the shit too...that will be an even bigger laugh when your German masters tell you to bring your tax rates into line...brilliant.
Ireland's GDP is 6 times larger since the instantiation of the EU in 1992, so no matter what happens, we're huge winners. Anyway, carry on. But your position is an English nationalist one. And that's all. You've provided no substance to the argument that you'll be economically better off, and particularly none to the argument that the working class would be better off under the Tory Brexit.
Reply to Baden Seems most working class disagree with you , most of them voted Tory.
You Irish never learn...but Germany will teach you the hard way...comply or die. You are a dependent nation, you could never just leave the EU now. You're fucked.
Reply to Baden The Irish make me laugh, you inhabit a tiny country that has tried to become an offshore base for big multinationals ...then pretend that you are left wing and care about the workers that you are replacing...Germany's going to want those businesses mate, like I said , you're fucked.
Reply to Baden I put my country first but I like us to get on well with other like minded countries and have a controlled immigration system. You're the weirdos lol.
Brexit is actually more of the same from the establishment. If you read the report I mentioned, it speaks about the big variance explaining demographics of support being those who voted for leave being less educated lower income people who feel they've suffered from globalisisation and the distinct wealthy Euroskeptics vs middle class (middle income) more educated liberals.
So the EU represents a loss of identity and a loss of autonomy. Middle class liberals are ok with that (or just don't fear it).
The EU is legitimately blamed for some problems by workers and Euroskeptics, while the advantages of being a member are obscure to most people.
A lot of this sounds familiar to me as an American, but I hesitate to take that too far because the UK society and government really are more different than I realized.
I'm not sure why you say this is more of the same from the establishment?
Reply to frank Your sum up is correct frank. There are some positives to being in the EU, like easy holiday travel, but those advantages come at the cost of a less democratic , less accountable internationalist (globalist) elite. And you are right that the more "educated" middle class are prepared to throw their working class compatriots to the wolves...it comes with the internationalist outlook...they have no problem helping a Romanian get a job over a Briton especially if the Romanian is cheaper, they really don't care about national identity. The working class do care about national identity but the liberal left dress that up as racism.
Reply to Chester I don't have a lot of faith in politicians, but I tend to have faith in the civil servants who work behind them (and for whose work I'm sure the politicians take the credit a lot of the time). We'll see I guess.
So the EU represents a loss of identity and a loss of autonomy.
That is what it represented to people with the politics of @Chester I think. People who identify as working class and losing from globalisation, people who feel like leaving the EU would give the UK more power to look after "its own".
The EU is legitimately blamed for some problems by workers and Euroskeptics,
Yes, few of which were heavily relied upon in the "vote leave" narrative. The less educated poor (stereotyping) seem to blame it for the immiseration of the British working classes since 2008 [hide=*](which goes with Dominic Cumming's video we've watched and what @Chester has used to justify his beliefs)[/hide], the wealthy Euroskeptics dislike it for more mixed reasons; you have the national sovereignty explicitly anti-immigration people like UKIP and the "small government" libertarian group like the Leave backing Tories - they have substantial overlap, and you see that in whether someone is "anti state welfare" like 70% (estimated) of Leave voters were.
while the advantages of being a member are obscure to most people.
I agree with that. The old stories of "the people of Earth are one people", "we're not having war any more with each other in Europe" and "we want a unified geopolitical bargaining unit for the administration of the world market" don't resonate as loudly now in the UK.
Couple that with legitimate concerns, like the EU imposing crippling austerity measures on the Greek populace in 2008 (another of Cumming's touchstones) despite a resounding "no" from their people's referendum on the matter.
It also didn't help Remain's case that people like @Chester got to make bold, memorable assertions; restatements of a narrative backed up by the Daily Express, the Mirror and the Sun and Sky News (this gave that narrative the dominant place in UK news media).
And unfortunately, people like me spent their time demanding an evidential basis for these people's claims, and "Give me the evidential basis for these claims" does not travel as far or as fast as "Take back control".
I'm not sure why you say this is more of the same from the establishment?
The UK government's domestic policies are likely to be the same as they were before. The UK's new points system for immigration is still very flexible, allowing migrant labour in low skilled jobs (not well defined!) when there is a shortage (not well defined!) and will be essentially the same as the international immigration system we currently have for non-EU citizens:
Under the proposed immigration system, freedom of movement – by which EU citizens have since 1992 been able to move freely to the UK to live, work, or study – will end. In its place will be a system which treats EU citizens the same as those from the rest of the world.
and there are no current plans to start the mass deportation of EU migrants that don't fit the very vague new requirements set of them:
The government says employers of migrant workers who do not meet the skills or pay requirements will have to adjust, such as by investing in labour saving technologies like automation. It also points to the more than three million EU citizens already in the UK, many working in lower-skilled jobs, who will remain eligible to live and work in the UK.
and
Alternatively, employers might use strictly temporary, short-term visa schemes that do not have any skills or salary requirements. This includes the two-year Youth Mobility Scheme (Tier 5) visa – the ‘backpacker visa’ – which is currently open to eight countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and attracts around 20,000 people a year, but may in future be extended to EU countries. There will also be a dedicated work visa programme for seasonal agricultural workers.
There are no plans to "fill the gap" in hiring left by immigrants with British citizens. And they have left open the means by which immigrants allegedly crowd out low skilled jobs, just put in policies for acceptance that are expected to change immigration demographics and possibly rights upon arrival.
If you work in a sector where you feel like temporary foreign labour is a problem for you, it will still be a problem for you after Brexit.
But there have been effects on EU immigration (maybe) since the country voted leave:
“The overall story the data tell on EU migration is clear: Britain is not as attractive to EU migrants as it was a couple of years ago. That may be because of Brexit-related political uncertainty, the falling value of the pound making UK wages less attractive, or simply the fact that job opportunities have improved in other EU countries. EU net migration happened to be unusually high in the run-up to the referendum, so at least some of this decline would probably have happened anyway even without Brexit.”
Reply to Benkei Psst, there's a liberal left conspiracy to pack you all in like sardines before the sea levels rise above your dikes. So you must leave the EU.
Reading through a lot in this thread is quite the comedy.
I have a fairly straight forward question. What is to gain by Brexit? I understand the feeling of autonomously being free from dealing with other people. It's a feeling I have most days against the stupidity of other people. But I'm curious to what is to actually gain in the long run. Think past corporations, globalism, capitalism. There are far too many empty phrases thrown around and in most cases not very well understood in the context so the question again is, what is there to gain by cutting yourself off from a larger group? Looking forward, into the future, what is there to gain?
The world is not the same as before, so what is to gain when thinking about where we are heading?
Reply to Baden
We've asked Chester what tangible benefits there are to leaving the EU, what we have to look forward to and he has drawn a blank. He can only tell us about the things he hates. The Murdock press has done its job.
The "coup", if you want to put it like that, was by the anti-immigration "small government" wing of the Tory party (figurehead: Bojo) against the "free trade and movement is still good for us" wing of the Tory party (figurehead: David Cameron). They appear to agree on how to govern in almost all other matters. UK political discourse (not necessarily opinion) I think has shifted to that terrain too, and the place has become more hostile to UK nonwhites (evidenced by the surge of hatecrimes).
Edit: I should throw Windrush in there with the hostility to nonwhites in Brexit Britain.
Reply to fishnchips I guess we will see, but I have very little faith in either group...they tend to be risk averse and so don't think big , or outside the box.
Reply to Christoffer The gain was mentioned a while back...less over paid politicians and less unaccountable commissars getting to decide what the over paid politicians get to vote on. Leaving guarantees nothing except UK politicians get to take the blame or credit for what happens...if they fuck up it's easier to get rid of them because they are elected.
People keep saying how small the UK is and how much we need Germany (which is the driving force of the EU) but other countries do just fine outside of it.
Thanks! I think I understand it a little better now.
I should also say that David Cameron's policies were pretty libertarian lite too; the "Big Society" was his strategic spin on it. It is worthwhile remembering, for context, that the same measures the EU imposed on Greece during the financial crisis the UK government imposed, in a restricted form, on the UK; Bojo and Cameron were down with what happened to the Greeks, and probably would not have put it (austerity measures) to a referendum were the UK in Greece's place.
Reply to frank I agree with fdrake on this. The degree of coup depends on how far one delves into possible conspiracies about the divisive nature of parts of the Conservative party. I wrote about this last year (in this thread).
Let me give an example, I don't subscribe to this as a conscious conspiracy, but there are many who do, but rather a general drift towards a free market economy. The kind of Conservatism we have been subjected to in recent years (actually going back 40 years) has been making government, the civil service etc smaller, a small state, creeping privatisation has been eating into public services along with the state funded parts being repeatedly cut and hollowed out. The house price boom and crisis stemmed from this due to no building of council housing, state housing. As the public services become strained an opportunity presents itself for xenophobic groups to blame it on an increase in immigration putting a strain on the services. This switches the blame from the government who starved the organisation of funds, causing the strain and places it on those people over there, those immigrants. The de-regulation of business, erosion of Union power etc leads to workers being exploited more and more, again this is blamed on the immigrants in the same way. So the harder the government starves the economy, the more blame can be lumped on the immigrants and the less blame is attributed to the government. Alongside this is a growth in US style profiteering, profit based privatisations and large amounts of wealth draining out of the country to offshore accounts, or into the estates of wealthy Tory backers who are expert at tax avoidance etc. And if you can start blaming all this on the EU as well, then the more the merrier.
The problem, which is why I suggest politics will drift to the left is Coronavirus, it has shone a light on all this hollowing out destruction of institutions hard won.
Here, Johnson seems to be saying that he supports social programs, but that the UK is constrained by the need to compete with countries that have lower taxes:
'I'm a one-nation Tory. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work."
He was the Mayor of London at the time. Is this just rhetoric meant to hide a desire to abandon social programs? Or is the need to compete real?
Here, Johnson seems to be saying that he supports social programs, but that the UK is constrained by the need to compete with countries that have lower taxes:
Is a response to Punshhh, but also relevant for @frank, I think. It's a bit of a rant because I can't be bothered sourcing everything I'm saying this time, and the "financialisation of global capital" is something you will find discussed only by the farthest left of journalists in mainstream media and far left alt media.
The financialisation of global capital's my go to bugbear for all this @Punshhh.
When the interests of an economy follow the interests of corporate shareholders, the concrete assets that keep the work being done are less important than shareholder returns. Those people who stand to gain materially from short term increases in corporate shares are overwhelmingly the very richest in society (like, making over £100k per year).
Bojo's wing and their associated media fought really hard during the recent election (2019 December) to discredit the necessity of investment in UK industry and construction, their renationalisation, and repealing the massive spending cuts to social care, social housing and the NHS that have been going on since Blair. Read: investing in creating "low skill" jobs on British soil with fair pay while providing "low skill" workers with highly employable skills in a situation of high unemployment for that demographic, for context in this discussion. They did not support measures that (1) the British public believes will address those issues when polled and (2) have compelling evidence that they would address those issues.
Your quote from Bojo is essentially the same narrative that was used in the 1970's with Thatcher, of whom he (and David Cameron's wing) are big fans; we need to be competitive in international markets, and we can't do that by propping up (allegedly) inefficient nationally owned business and services in the UK.
Bojo's party has implemented massive spending cuts in social programs and healthcare. Our government has overseen massive closures of UK clinics and social care homes (like, for abused kids). They've cut back a lot on the construction of affordable housing. They've made it more difficult for the unemployed to receive state benefits. If you trust their justification, this is because they do not believe that social programs are productive investments in reducing the national deficit.
The role the national deficit plays in UK politics from the conservative party (and the Blairite wing of the Labour party) is to cut public expenditures, Cameron made a famous argument comparing the UK economy to a credit card and the deficit being a negative balance. "We have to cut the things that make us go more negative and increase the things that make us go more positive" - leading to those cuts, and framing investment in the commons insofar as they are nationally owned (healthcare, social care, welfare programs, affordable housing) as bad for this end. It was an argument on the level of framing.
(They've also overseen a gigantic growth of the national deficit over those years...)
They also do things like quietly cut 20,000 nurse positions over the country in a bill, then reinstate 5000, and it gets reported as "5000 new positions for nurses in the NHS!" by Sky News, the Daily Express, the Sun, the Record and the Mirror (giving Bojo's wing supporting news coverage).
Simultaneously. the government has overseen the privatisation of these sectors. The Guardian is one of the few newspapers here that covers this trend. The rest of the newspapers report largely decontextualised information wondering why the NHS' performance metrics like accident and emergency waiting time are getting worse, and fit it in with the immigrant narrative @Chester 's adopted. They do not make the journalistic connection between "hospitals are being closed and nurses layed off" to "the waiting times are going to increase".
This gets put back into the narrative of "inefficient spending" to promote more cuts. It's a very well oiled machine, a symbiosis between major news media, the finance capitalist donors, and our government officials who receive money from those backers (in return for shaping policy!) and get employed in their corporations before/after being in power.
The gain was mentioned a while back...less over paid politicians and less unaccountable commissars getting to decide what the over paid politicians get to vote on. Leaving guarantees nothing except UK politicians get to take the blame or credit for what happens...if they fuck up it's easier to get rid of them because they are elected.
I asked for answers to the question in terms of long term, in terms of 50 to 100 years. People seems to only think a few years ahead, not civilization as a whole over longer spans. Like the span of peace from when the EU was first formed until modern times. I'm not interested in short term ideas.
Reply to Christoffer The idea that countries getting together to form post-democratic empires is somehow good for the long term is farcical. The idea that the EU has saved Europe from war is farcical..NATO did that...Japan ain't in the EU ...have they been at war since WW2 ?
The point is that no one can forecast the future but we can decide how we get there, like choosing not to go down the post-democratic empire building route for instance. You only have to go back through some posts here to realise that the people who want the EU are overwhelmingly leftists...leftists love authority, big government and all the corruption that comes with it.
Here's something for leftists to consider...there's fuck all difference between big government and big business, that's why they get along so well in China.
And separating from the EU makes it easier for them to continue this trend?
I don't really know if it will make it easier for them or not. It's a mixed bag I think. The Tories are in the unenviable position of having donors and policy shapers that are firmly globalist, but a good chunk of their voter base are suffering from the effects of globalisation and believe so. The Tories aren't really "anti-globalist", they're doing nothing to stop migrant labour from non-EU countries, and favour outsourcing labour internationally whenever it benefits the bottom line, and they're very happy with the UK's role in international finance.
I think maybe it's a concession of some sort, a misdirection; it's preferable for their policy shapers to blame immigration and the "centralisation of politics" than the alternative; recognizing the catastrophic role the financialisation of global capital has played, and the UK's role in it as launderers for these flows (which Brexit will likely not change). They agree with the EU's overall economic policies and the globalisation of labour markets; they're Thatcherites/Reaganites with anti-immigration rhetoric. I have no idea how this makes sense as a consistent ideology; it probably is not.
think maybe it's a concession of some sort, a misdirection; it's preferable for their policy shapers to blame immigration and the "centalisation of politics" than the alternative; recognizing the catastrophic role the financialisation of global capital has played, and the UK's role in it as launderers for these flows
Scapegoating. That's what I was suspecting. Do you know of any resources for info on financialization of global capital?
Financialization (or Financialisation in British English) is a term sometimes used to describe the development of financial capitalism during the period from 1980 to present, in which debt-to-equity ratios increased and financial services accounted for an increasing share of national income relative to other sectors.
Financialization describes an economic process by which exchange is facilitated through the intermediation of financial instruments. Financialization may permit real goods, services, and risks to be readily exchangeable for currency, and thus make it easier for people to rationalize their assets and income flows.
And quoted in the same article,
"only debts grew exponentially, year after year, and they do so inexorably, even when—indeed, especially when—the economy slows down and its companies and people fall below break-even levels. As their debts grow, they siphon off the economic surplus for debt service (...) The problem is that the financial sector's receipts are not turned into fixed capital formation to increase output. They build up increasingly on the opposite side of the balance sheet, as new loans, that is, debts and new claims on society’s output and income.
[Companies] are not able to invest in new physical capital equipment or buildings because they are obliged to use their operating revenue to pay their bankers and bondholders, as well as junk-bond holders. This is what I mean when I say that the economy is becoming financialized. Its aim is not to provide tangible capital formation or rising living standards, but to generate interest, financial fees for underwriting mergers and acquisitions, and capital gains that accrue mainly to insiders, headed by upper management and large financial institutions. The upshot is that the traditional business cycle has been overshadowed by a secular increase in debt. Instead of labor earning more, hourly earnings have declined in real terms. There has been a drop in net disposable income after paying taxes and withholding "forced saving" for social Security and medical insurance, pension-fund contributions and–most serious of all–debt service on credit cards, bank loans, mortgage loans, student loans, auto loans, home insurance premiums, life insurance, private medical insurance and other FIRE-sector charges. ... This diverts spending away from goods and services.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization
It is a house of cards and when the house falls ordinary workers and tax payers have to pick up the tab, as in 2008.
Reply to frank I have a slightly different take to fdrake on what the Conservative party is up to. It is only a minority of the party who are true Brexiters. But from 2015 when they won the election with a majority they have taken advantage of the Anti EU sentiment whipped up by the populists, as a mechanism to save the party from electoral oblivion, by piggybacking on the back of the anti EU sentiment in the EU referendum in 2016. Once the referendum delivered a majority for leave the Brexiters in the party went into overdrive and there was no stopping them, because the the more disruption, the bigger the row, the louder they shouted, the more oxygen of publicity they got. This also included the way they described the EU and treated the EU representatives. The more they insulted the EU there more the EU wanted to get rid of them (this is evidenced by how difficult it was for Theresa May to stand up to them in her own party because they were literally rabid. In the end she tried to work with the opposition to reach a majority for the withdrawal bill because that was easier).
This is also the time when the vicious attacks against Corbyn started, the more they could discredit him the better because if he could not beat them in an election they're rabid hard Brexit was assured and the Tory party would be triumphant, having neutralised the Brexit party which was tearing their party apart, which would have let Labour in.( no one in the party or the Brexit party could countenance Labour getting into power, so they would unite)
My reason for why the party was set for electoral oblivion was that following the financial crash of 2008, the Conservative party has gradually begun to nose dive, as the dream of financial and capitalist success which they stand for had failed and they were having to impose stringent austerity on the population. Eventually the population would turn away from this and go with Labour who would turn on the money taps again. This trend can be seen in the demographic, the young who now distrust their capitalist dream and who are saddled with debt and can't buy a house, are overwhelmingly supporting Labour. Whereas the older wealthier voter who owns property has a good pension etc overwhelmingly supports Conservative. Unfortunately the latter don't have time on their hands and the former can see the shambles in front of their eyes.
This rabid hard Brexit kamicaze trajectory we are now on is their last gasp, their last throw of the dice to restore their party relying on a restoration of free market capitalism modelled on the US and propped up directly by the US. Literally a Singapore on Thames.
It's doomed to failure though, especially thanks to Corona.
It was fascinating. It puts the globalisation/immigration right narrative alongside the globalisation/finance capital narrative in a much richer context, very similar to the one @Punshhhand I have been talking about. (Also intimately tied up with issues in your recent chats with @Baden and @StreetlightX about neoliberalism).
But from 2015 when they won the election with a majority they have taken advantage of the Anti EU sentiment whipped up by the populists, as a mechanism to save the party from electoral oblivion, by piggybacking on the back of the anti EU sentiment in the EU referendum in 2016.
My reason for why the party was set for electoral oblivion was that following the financial crash of 2008, the Conservative party has gradually begun to nose dive, as the dream of financial and capitalist success which they stand for had failed and they were having to impose stringent austerity on the population.
I don't think this was a strictly Tory thing, my impression at the time was that faith in politicians and politics itself was being eroded. Labour was losing its heartlands too; Gordon Brown backing the banker bailouts hit really hard, and the recession effects in Scotland were countered in the political imagination by the hope of a better, independent Scotland. So the populist centre-left in Scotland (the SNP), branded themselves as an anti-establishment party and played the same class card as the right populists did in Brexit. While the source and target of the class narrative were different, the symbolic structure was not much different. It was portrayed as scottish working class vs London elites for the Scottish independence referendum, British working class vs Middle class and London elites in Brexit.
This trend can be seen in the demographic, the young who now distrust their capitalist dream and who are saddled with debt and can't buy a house, are overwhelmingly supporting Labour.
I guess I agree with you then, the political context was decided by a reaction to a crisis of capitalism, all the political parties offered more of the same, so populists on left and right filled the vacuum in public confidence (not that this has restored faith in politics in the UK). The thing is, the center really is failing, and it's not all hot air; there's even kernels of truth in what @Chester is saying for crying out loud. It's "socialism or barbarism" on the level of political narrative (though I'm sure if you asked Chester he'd say it's "nationalism or barbarism" and equate "barbarism" with "socialism" in his pie shaped head)..
For ROI per unit time/cognitive effort invested best explanation of "why-we-got-into-bed-with-neoliberalism-and-why-we-need-to-get-the-fuck out-now" I've seen/read/heard. And I'm only half an hour in. :starstruck: :100:
Reply to fdrakeReply to Baden I can't remember if it was in this video or another, but he talks about how the UK basically had almost of the good bits of the EU (open borders, trade standards, etc) without the bad (the monetary union).
I can't remember if it was in this video or another, but he talks about how the UK basically had almost of the good bits of the EU (open borders, trade standards, etc) without the bad (the monetary union).
Yes we had the best of both worlds. But there were still problems, they were internal to the UK though, not due to our membership of the EU. Our failing politicians had repeatedly blamed their failure to act on the EU. The public was happy to lap up this blame game too, following rows with the EU over the cod wars and repeated impatience with dictates like we all have to weigh produce in Kilogrammes now and ditch pounds and ounces for example.
But the real problem behind all of this was not Europe, it was the combination of the effects of globalisation, wealth being taken offshore and massive tax avoidance practices like the double Irish and the effects of financialisation etc.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich.asp.
But the real problem behind all of this was not Europe, it was the combination of the effects of globalisation, wealth being taken offshore and massive tax avoidance practices like the double Irish and the effects of financialisation etc.
AKA neoliberal capitalism, but yes :) There's a rather incredible video by - of all people - Maggie Thatcher, where she outlines, almost point by point, the problems a monetary union would cause: transfers of wealth from richer to poorer EU countries, extremist political parties, mass migration, institutional distrust and so on. It's uncannily prescient:
She does end up spouting Hayek's rubbish at the end there, but that's to be expected. I suppose that even having the exceptional status they did, the UK still could not brook the effects that spilled over from the continent, and put to use by the populists to screw the nation further.
I don't think this was a strictly Tory thing, my impression at the time was that faith in politicians and politics itself was being eroded. Labour was losing its heartlands too;
Yes, there is a big issue with Labour losing its heartlands, but not due to the financial crisis specifically. What I was focusing in on was is the way in which the Conservative party has had one of its legs knocked out from under it. By the chaos and capitalist failure of the financial crisis and the measures they then had to implement to balance the books. This was not supposed to happen. The problems of debt amongst the young had already started before the crash, but were compounded by it. This has resulted in many young people in Tory heartlands relying on handouts from their parents to buy their houses, bail them out from their student debt, while they are not getting those well paid jobs they were expecting, well enough that is to maintain a nice house and family with a couple of labradors in the Tory heartlands. Not nearly enough, and this is the touchstone of a healthy Tory ideal.
The Conservative party is limping along and having to present a brave face to hold on to its credibility.
This thread cheers me up , it confirms what I have always suspected, that the EU is a leftist project (judging by the fact that you are all, without exception , leftists). The good news is that it also confirms my belief that leftist pseudo intellectuals are so busy navel gazing that they do not see that their empire is collapsing from the inside...a growing number of citizens over whom it has power no longer want it...if they ever did.
Reply to Chester Ok, I can go with the idea that the EU is in a sense a socialist project. Which justifies why you would want to leave the EU. So what is the alternative, something to the right of the moderate Conservatives?
'I'm a one-nation Tory. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work."
He was the Mayor of London at the time. Is this just rhetoric meant to hide a desire to abandon social programs? Or is the need to compete real?
Yes as fdrake says they have to minimise the spending on social welfare etc, so they can capitalise everything and compete on the global free market stage. But it's a myth, they can't compete with the Philippines, South Koreans, or Chinese etc etc, because they are basically built on bonded labour with no workers rights, or safety and will always undercut us. The model is broken, hence all this nationalism and protectionism.
Johnson says whatever the audience wants to hear, or what his strategists say fits in with their agenda. You can't take a single word that comes out of his mouth seriously, like Trump.
He has shown a little genuine sentiment after staring Covid19 in the face, but it won't last.
Reply to Punshhh I'm anti big government and big business ...although I accept that some projects require the scale that they offer (a small business couldn't build a Jumbo jet, small government might not be able to push through huge projects like HS2). But if it were down to me I'd give massive incentives to small businesses, lower the tax burden on them and make it easier for them to fire people . On the other hand I'd gradually raise the minimum wage and encourage those that choose not to work to get off their asses by making them do something for their welfare.
I also think that we need to be more self sufficient as a country, grow more of our own food, make more of our own products even if that increases costs. It may mean that we have a bit less, but that would probably do us good.
We also need more housing for those that can't afford to buy, but council housing should also come with rules...ie, regular inspections (as in the past) to make sure you're looking after the place...so many council tenants trash their housing.
Basically I believe in a combination or rights with responsibilities and have a preference for smaller businesses over multi-nationals, a preference for the rights of individuals over groups.
That just gives you an idea of my domestic politics...I'm not getting into writing a treatise.
Reply to Chester I agree with your economic outlook but I fail to see how leaving the EU contributed to it or indeed how the Tories will. Tories might be small government but definitely pro big business.
Also, what parts of government should be diminished/abolished? NHS? Public transport? The army? State departments?
Reply to Benkei I see the EU as part of a process of tying up big politics with big business, it's becoming a form of soft fascism .The EU works against small business by burying them in paperwork and expensive legislation. For instance, imo, much of the health and safety regulation around the construction industry is more about raising costs for small business than the safety of workers. It squeezes the small businesses into a position where they can't price for big jobs they can only bind themselves into low profit ,high risk, sub-contract work. That's why the big construction companies basically run a cartel.
I wouldn't necessarily do away with any part of UK government as it stands, though I'd make sure there are strict rules in place to ensure government does not expand beyond what is necessary...that could include doing away with public funded quangos , doing away with foreign aid unless it is direct humanitarian need.
The thing about the NHS puzzles me. I'm 53 now so I have had the misfortune of watching some of my older relatives die in the care of the NHS...it was not nice. The rest of Europe seems to do fine without it, at least no worse than us.I'm not the sort of person who bangs pots and pans for NHS workers put it that way. As for the armed forces ,it's one area I'd expand. 1) It makes the country safer, 2) it's a great place for young people to train and learn self-discipline... you'd probably find that countries with compulsory services have better over all youth behaviour...Britain can be a bit of a zoo on Saturday night.
I see the EU as part of a process of tying up big politics with big business, it's becoming a form of soft fascism
I agree with that, except calling it fascism. I guess I don't understand what "big politics" means to you though. Something I really don't understand is why you people on the right think the EU is a leftist project; like, you guys see the EU as socialist; economically they act in the interest of finance capital all over Europe. Letting banks and shareholder interest set your politics is not a left thing.
The idea that countries getting together to form post-democratic empires is somehow good for the long term is farcical. The idea that the EU has saved Europe from war is farcical..NATO did that...Japan ain't in the EU ...have they been at war since WW2 ?
How do you know that the post-democratic form was an intentional form and not a symptom of bureaucracy? How do you know that only military security through Nato was the single reason and not also that national ideals of being part of a larger group formed less nationalist movements which lowered the ideologies of nationalist empires?
Aren't you assuming your premises correct before a conclusion? I see a lot of ignored possible reasons and moving parts here.
The point is that no one can forecast the future but we can decide how we get there, like choosing not to go down the post-democratic empire building route for instance.
So you are saying that no one can forecast the future, but you forecast that EU is bad? What about trying to improve the problems with bureaucracy and moving away from post-democracy within EU? You assume that EU equals post-democracy, but I see no link there other than it has the symptoms. The idea of EU is not post-democratic by definition. So why wouldn't improving the coalition that is EU be better than dismantling it or abandoning it? You must first prove that EU is undeniably unable to change to the better before knowing your decision to leave EU to be the right choice.
Otherwise, you are doing just the kind of forecasting of the future that you say is impossible. In light of other options, abandoning the EU project is so far only ideologically based, not based on reasoning and rational thought. I'm not saying leaving isn't a conclusion of rational thought, I'm saying that the induction argument for leaving is so far very ill-supported in evidence outside ideological opinion.
You only have to go back through some posts here to realise that the people who want the EU are overwhelmingly leftists...leftists love authority, big government and all the corruption that comes with it.
Here's something for leftists to consider...there's fuck all difference between big government and big business, that's why they get along so well in China.
Which you prove about your reasoning by these statements of labeling the other side of the argument.
I'm interested in hearing you put your ideas through philosophical scrutiny, not ideological opinions. We are writing on a philosophical forum after all.
Reply to Chester I agree with your comments on small business support. The Tory's have often said that themselves, and they have tried but failed to deliver. Your prejudice comes out here,
On the other hand I'd gradually raise the minimum wage and encourage those that choose not to work to get off their asses by making them do something for their welfare.
You can't come on a site with intelligent people and come out with that kind of nonsense. There may be a handful of people who choose not to work, but they are a tiny minority. What sort of encouragement do you suggest to get them off their arses?
It may mean that we have a bit less, but that would probably do us good
You do realise, I suppose that it will only be the ordinary folk who would have a bit less. You really should have a look at how the other side lives. If you live near Chester, you should be aware of the affluence around there. In the affluent areas in the south they live it up like the French aristocracy or hadn't you noticed?
Are you aware of the extent of the housing crisis? And how it stifles growth, creates social division and widens the wealth gap. Not to mention the rental nightmare a lot of young people have to endure. I suspect Blojo doesn't notice such issues, his sort just pocket the increases in equity to fund those lifestyles I mentioned.
The cult of the individual is not going well either.
Oh and sorry to be a bore, but what does any of this have to do with leaving the EU? Most of what you are proposing has already been adopted and is working very nicely in European countries. It's just this country who can't seem to get it right.
Also there are fundamental systemic problems underlying and causing a lot of these problems which I and fdrake mentioned in our replies to Frank. I won't repeat them here.
Something I really don't understand is why you people on the right think the EU is a leftist project
If you're on the right it's a very steep slope until your head is in the clouds like Rees Mogg. If you're on that slope anything left of Johnson or Cameron is socialism.
It was fascinating. It puts the globalisation/immigration right narrative alongside the globalisation/finance capital narrative in a much richer context, very similar to the one Punshhhand I have been talking about. (Also intimately tied up with issues in your recent chats with @Baden and @StreetlightX about neoliberalism).
Awesome. He's written some books I'm going to read.
One of the running themes in this thread is the jealousy of the pro-EU leftists . There is a real hatred for those that earn or have a lot of wealth...they very easily forget that many of the leading EUers are extremely rich too. So it's ok to attack Mogg, but no negative words about Blair, it would be ok to attack Dyson but not Gates...it's ok to bleat on about workers rights but sweep under that rug the fact that many thousands who work for the EU earn more than the "toff Tory scum" Johnson.
It's almost as if the fans of a vast bureaucracy of very well paid officials and its billionaire supporters are being a bit two-faced ...
Reply to Chester Nice article and so the solution is a great big up yours. Nice.
No one ever said it was going to be easy to unify Europe, so they can work together. No one said it would be easy to leave the EU did they. Oh wait a minute, the Brexiters did, we would have the exact same benefits, we would have the sunlit uplands of free trade with the world, we would have our cake and eat it etc etc.
We would train our own to do the jobs of the EU workers after they have left, dream on.
I know we can get all those workers who are going to lose their jobs juring the lockdown to pick cabbages and cauliflowers 12 hours a day, or wipe arses. Good honest graft. Just what this country needs.
Reply to Punshhh At least you are tacitly admitting that there are billionaires on your side...not very nice ones at that.
It would have been a piece of piss to leave the EU...apart from the fact that our political/media class did all in their power to block it..those that blocked it are anti-democratic scum. That's another down-tick for the EU...anti-democrats love it.
Wanting to use eastern Europeans as cheap slave labour isn't a nice trait mate.
At least you are tacitly admitting that there are billionaires on your side...not very nice ones at that.
There are billionaires on both sides. Screw Blair and Bojo. The UK is not going to get a better deal with the EU than the one it had while in it. The Tory government is putting in huge amounts of effort to maintain the benefits of international trade and finance flows to their moneyed interests. If you think them supporting Brexit makes them amazingly democratic, look at them bailing out all these companies that do fuck all for the people of Britain in response to the pandemic; no vote, no accountability, another huge wealth transfer. Them and their friends on the liberal left and populist right are doing absolutely fine.
Reply to Chester Has something been blocked? I noticed that the Spartans tried to block something.
I saw Steve Baker, a spartan, on the box today desperate to get us out of lockdown. All his Singapore on Thames dreams in tatters.
I wonder why we were enlisting slaves to do our nursing, and countless low paid frontline jobs. It must be globalisation undercutting our industries that did it.
Reply to fdrake There is this obsession with pro-EU'ers with us needing to get a deal...we don't need one. Our biggest single trading partner is the US and we actually have a trade surplus with them...but no trade deal. I'd like us to increase our trade with the US and level it out more (so import more from them) in order to replace trade with the EU .Much of what we import from the EU can be sourced elsewhere , if they want to play hardball with us they are going to lose their Treasure Island.
Reply to Punshhh The extent of this lockdown is an example of the risk averse, feminised society that we have become. The whole point of the lockdown was not to overwhelm the nhs, it isn't overwhelmed so time to loosen up restrictions ...like your mates the Swedes.
I am not a massive Tory fan , they are just the best of what's available. I don't trust any politician. As an example , all this talk about having a tracer app is pathetic, it's a sign that these people are out of touch with reality...just not as out of touch as the labour/limp dick clowns.
Reply to Chester The exports to the EU are almost 2.5 times than to the US. A country by country comparison doesn't make sense. Whether a trade deficit is good or bad is not something economists agree on so your comment is baseless. Empirical research in the matter show that countries with large capital inflows don't need to worry about it (like the US and UK). See for some preliminary info: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/051515/pros-cons-trade-deficit.asp
So sure, you don't need a trade deal, but why make Brexit cost more than necessary?
I am not a massive Tory fan , they are just the best of what's available.
Nice, now these clowns are presiding over the highest death count in Europe and we're not finished yet, as the death toll in carehomes is still increasing.
Your careless support for these clowns is costing people's lives.
Reply to Benkei When people talk about UK trade they like to say that EU trade is greater than US trade with the UK. That is true to a degree but we have a greater trade surplus with the US...but more importantly it totally ignores the fact that the UK does and can trade with the rest of the world.
A few facts...
The UK has more trade with China than Spain...and in both cases the trade involves twice as much coming to the UK than going out.
The UK sells twice as much to the US as we do to Germany.
We trade more with Japan than we do with Sweden.
We have more trade with Hong Kong than we do with Poland.
We have more trade , and sell more to, South Korea than we do with Denmark.
Sweden and Ireland are the only EU countries that we have a trade surplus with.
We have more trade with Taiwan than Romania.
More trade with Thailand than Greece.
More trade with Russian than the Czech republic.
In reality the UK trades more with the rest of the world than we do with the EU...and on top of that there is far more potential for growth.
As an aside , I was in Berlin last year and happened to walk into a very large department store. I went to the huge cheese counter, hundreds of cheeses from around the world...just one little piece of Stilton in the whole stinking pile. It said a lot to me about how much Europeans like us and our culture...just one little piece of evidence.
Reply to Punshhh Total BS, some countries are not as aggressive in their counting methods...do you remember the Germans counting methods with their diesel emissions? You can't trust these numbers...if anything the UK government is deliberately counting people dying with rather than because of. I heard on the radio the other day that a chap involved in a serious car accident , in a critical condition , died of his injuries...but he happened to have the virus so his was a covid 19 death.
I think it is despicable that people like you seek to blame Western governments for a Chinese crime ...it says a lot about your ilk.
Where have I lied? Point my lies out to me or shut the fuck up.
I'm not going to repeat all the work @fdrake and @Benkei have put in trying to help you understand the economics. I will, however link you their posts to help.
Your facts are not contrary to my facts. So what's your point? Is the EU an important trading partner to the UK or not? The rest of the world is 6.75 billion people and the EU just 750 million. Those 750 make up about 50% of UK trade. Not relevant?
Does FDI make trade deficits irrelevant or not? Has FDI fallen sharply thanks to Brexit or not? Do you understand the effect of that? If so, what does that mean for the UK?
According to this we have a trade surplus with the rest of the world and about £28 billion more over all trade ...so don't intimate that I'm a liar.
The 2017 figures (your Wikipedia source) have not yet been summarised by the ONS and so may require interpretation. If you prefer up-to-date figures over analysed ones, then the figures for 2018 show a 37,000 total trade in favour of the EU. No-one is calling you a liar (as in knowingly propagating things which aren't true). People are - quite patiently and understandingly, given your provocation - pointing out where you are in error, or where you could be better informed.
Now can you explain why we're comparing the EU to the 'rest of the world'. We don't make trade deals with 'the rest of the world'. I'm sure if we compared EU trade to trade with Alabama, there'd be a substantial imbalance too. So what's this supposed to show with regards to the economics of brexit?
Reply to Benkei The EU is a good trading partner to a point...obviously they sell us a lot more than we sell them and there was not an open market for UK services in Europe. Given that we are a service driven economy that's not a great deal for us ...but a great one for the likes of German car manufacturers. It was a badly balanced deal. Also , as I've shown, it looks like Germany is in for a bad time with its banking sector in a mess and its manufacturing sector about to get blown to bits by this virus...the UK on the other hand isn't as dependent on exports as Germany...last time I looked exports made up about 15% of our economy, for Germany it was about 60%. If Germany has an economic crash it's hard to see how the EU will be financed.
Foreign investment in this country is a double edged sword. The Chinese have bought vast tracts of London real estate...not so great I'd argue...but I'm not against foreign companies creating jobs by "saving" our manufacturing here provided they don't just do it as a cover to "steal" our ideas or to asset strip.
Reply to Isaac It will be far easier for us to form trade deals with smaller nations than it will be to get a sensible one with an empire that is more concerned with preserving itself as a post-democratic political entity than the well being of its citizens.
Reply to Punshhh I'm not from up north...nor am I a socialist. Me and you couldn't be more different in our outlooks. My whole life has been one of physical labour (apart from now lol) , I've probably shifted thousands of tons with my body, that has helped keep me in touch with reality...I doubt if you have done much more than "push a pen"... but, tbh, I don't care.
"I know all about the effects of the EU on the UK because I put tiles on a roof"
That is absolutely ridiculous. Identity politics at its finest.
You're in your 50's, your entire working life has been one where the working class in the UK is getting more and more squeezed; the cost of living is perpetually on the rise, government institutions have faced cut after cut, small businesses operate perpetually close to their bottom line. Money is hoovered out of the country through tax avoidance and international ownership of what once were national assets. The Tories and Labour see it as the best of all possible worlds, and have lost all credibility as a result.
You've read news stories about immigration, and seen more European born people going about the country, and more European born people working in the UK than ever before. You've put two and two together, I don't blame you.
You know what would make your perspective have more value? Actually studying what you already claim privileged insights into.
Without a lot of immigrants your country will die, not just economically, but in every way. Like most Western European countries, you're not reproducing yourselves enough to maintain economic growth. And the Tories know this. So, what's going to happen is simply that the immigrants you didn't like from Europe are going to be replaced by immigrants you don't like from somewhere else. Apart from everything else, you realize this, right?
It will be far easier for us to form trade deals with smaller nations than it will be to get a sensible one with an empire that is more concerned with preserving itself as a post-democratic political entity than the well being of its citizens.
Probably would, but the issue with that proposition is not the conditional itself but the existence of the entity to which it refers.
The cost of living is not on the rise with all goods and services...for instance most people can afford electrical appliances that older generations could only dream of, food's got cheaper in real terms cars are cheaper in real terms . One of the biggest cost growths has been in housing, and guess what causes the cost of housing to go up? Increased population and smaller family groups.
As it happens I have never blamed immigrants for coming here, but let's not pretend that the huge, unprecedented, scale of immigration hasn't caused severe issues ...pull your head out of the sand.
Reply to Baden Complete BS. The Uk is over populated and mechanisation means many menial jobs will be done by machines over time (taxi driving for instance).The idea that an ever expanding population is a good thing is utter madness.
Reply to Baden Something else...my wife works in a care home ...everyone that works there is British apart from one African born lady, 20 people work there...so much for Brits not willing to do dirty jobs hey.
E.g.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11030/1/20090203155203_SCOPE2008-3_2_JoanMuyken.pdf
You don't hit the replacement rate, you not only end up with a huge burden of economically unproductive elderly to pay for (especially with increased life-spans), you eventually just die out. You're currently below the replacement rate. You need immigrants to survive.
Reply to Baden The constant population growth idea would end in disaster for individual countries and the planet. Do you think these younger workers stay young forever? Other solutions to ageing populations must and are being found.
Reply to Baden Ah, but if the old people unfortunately die of Corona, it's not a problem anymore. We need less immigrants then because there's less work for them to do. Win win. I'm sure that Cummings is thinking of the economic boom after the Black Death in the Middle Ages. It literally solves all their problems. No wonder Steve Baker and the Tory Grandees (billionaire backers) are calling for the lockdown to be lifted.
Oh and that one about robots doing the menial jobs is a classic ( I reminisce about Frank Zappa' Joe's Garage, cyborg). They'll be wiping our arses and various other roles I don't want to mention.
and guess what causes the cost of housing to go up?
Speculation on the property market, financialisation of property through banks offering lower threshold mortgages, government incentives to support homeowners as opposed to renters.
Very little to do with overpopulation as new home-building coupled with renovation has almost completely kept pace with population growth.
What are you going to do, force people to have kids? Below the replacement rate, the English are dying out. That's fine by me, but I thought for some odd reason it might bother you.
Reply to Baden Funny thing about [mod edit: verbal diarrhoea follows].
Nice one Baden...you're almost a dictator here...your dreams are coming true in a very small way lol. You're still basically English though, that you can't change.:)
I mentioned that Oliver Cromwell ensured that most "Irish" are basically English.
Population growth combined with smaller family units (single occupants etc).
No. Speculation on the property market, financialisation of property through banks offering lower threshold mortgages, government incentives to support homeowners as opposed to renters.
It's fairly standard economics.
From the LSE report put together with Migration Advisory Committee .
"the impact on house prices of the accumulated increase in Tier 2 type immigrants over a five-year period is likely to be well below 1%. This might generate some transfer of properties to the rented sector but the effect on total new supply is likely to be very limited."
The cost of living is not on the rise with all goods and services...for instance most people can afford electrical appliances that older generations could only dream of, food's got cheaper in real terms cars are cheaper in real terms . One of the biggest cost growths has been in housing, and guess what causes the cost of housing to go up? Increased population and smaller family groups.
(from London School of Economics). Real wages adjusted by a consumer price index that does not include rent or mortgage repayments. This is a measure of how easy it is to buy groceries if that's all you bought. The long term story looks like: stuff gets easier because of imports, then the Great Recession happens, and your wage doesn't buy groceries as well.
That's not a complete picture though, as it doesn't include rents and mortgages (or transport costs). The majority of people are switching to private sector rented housing. Here's how the median monthly price of rented housing goes: from Shelter for England.
A secular decline in the grocery purchasing power of wages (since 2011) occurs at the same time as an aggregate 20% hike in median rents. These are median rents, the above are mean wages; the mean is effected more by the highly skewed to the top income distribution. You have a similar story for trying to get a sensible house on a lower salary (insofar as using house price ratio-ed to earnings is a good indicator for this):
Used to be a cheap house price is about 4 times a yearly salary. Now it flatlined at 7 despite all the other crap going on. (For lower wages and lower housed prices). So basically; better have had a mortgage before all this recession shenanigans started otherwise you're fucked. I'm guessing you were in that position, maybe you even owned your house, and that's why you're not particularly sensitive to how the ground's shifting under your feet. For you, it literally isn't.
Except all those bloody immigrants 'eh, it's all them. Too many of 'em. :roll:
Reply to Baden There are "facts" and there are facts. The LSE is a leftist organisation that generates "facts" that back up its faulty political prejudices .I can not accept anything they generate as being truthful.
You leftists love "facts"...you generate them in the same way that horses generate manure.
Reply to fdrake Nice posts, I'm not surprised Chester has reacted this way. The populists have to distance their supporters from any real data because it can contradict their message. In order to do this they foster a them and us rift between them and the establishment. Thus any specialist analysis of data is establishment propaganda, all experts are in on it. The only true and reliable source of information is through the populist channels of right wing rags and social media. They perceive a threat from nearly everyone, except people like them who think like them. The well off poor unite!
Interestingly before Corona the government rejected experts because it suited their agenda to win an election, which required aligning with the populists. Now we have Corona they rely on the specialists again, indeed they follow the advice from the experts. Presumably it is advantageous to have the capability to put the blame on the specialists later on when it all goes wrong.
It was a quier state of affairs where privelidged establishment Tory toffs where in alignment with working class anti establishment anti truth populists. The Tory's played them for fools for their own agendas.
Reply to fdrake Chester probably works on the roofs of those massive distribution warehouses where people work on minimum wages, on zero hour contracts.
Just because the government happen to be carrying out the very broad recommendation (to have some kind of lockdown), I wouldn't confuse that in any way for a shift in emphasis to a reliance on experts. Experts vary a lot (even those within SAGE) on the details and Cummings will, without doubt, be steering the whole thing in favour of his preferred option - his presence in a expert advisory panel is disgraceful.
Yes, the stark nature of the crisis has set more constrained parameters than otherwise, but I think we can be sure that within those parameters, it's business as usual - select the scientist telling you what you want to hear, dismiss the rest.
Reply to Isaac Yes I know, we do need to see this through a Vote Leave prism ( Vote Leave is now in government, Cummings, Johnson, Gove and their entourage). They are saying we rely on the experts, but what the experts tell them then goes through the prism of a spin group headed by Cummings. It must be in their interest to portray themselves as following closely the advice. Yesterday Patrick Vallance, one of the experts said that they, the experts, give the government a range of scenarios and strategies, for them to consider. Also he said interestingly that he thought that the pull back from testing at the point of lockdown around 23rd of March was a mistake. The reason given at the time was that it was now pointless to test as the virus was spreading more widely in the community and the focus now was to flatten the curve by social distancing. They still had the herd immunity strategy ringing in their ears as well at that time.
So Cummings and Co are spinning the advice for their own purposes, whatever those are.
It's that old chestnut fake news. Anything said by the other side, in this case lefty's, remoaners, establishment figures, their rags, or reports. It's all fake news. Fact has become fake.
We, the wealthy (and well fed) poor, unite! Against those charlatans, betrayers of our country, who want to give it all away to those faceless European bureaucrats. The're all fake the lot of them, fake news.
and there was not an open market for UK services in Europe.
In what way?
And even if it were true, would that be more or less open then with other countries in the world?
And even if that were worse than with other countries in the world, does it matter if the rules and regulations were the same for everyone in the EU? E.g. if anything, wasn't there at least a level playing field? And will a no deal Brexit improve or worsen the access for service companies in the EU?
Reply to Benkei Basically on paper there is a single market for services within the EU, however each country has different rules and regulations concerning services...for instance different countries recognise different qualifications. So in effect there is only a partial free market within the EU which means that countries like the UK which are overwhelmingly service industry economies do not fare as well as countries like Germany which primarily trade in manufactured goods.
A no deal Brexit may well negatively effect our trade with the EU, but it will also negatively effect EU trade with us. It's in both parties interests to come up with a sensible deal ...but I'd take no deal, I don't like the idea of the EU blackmailing us and in any case I think we can make up for any losses by trading more with the rest of the world. 80% of the world is not the EU after all.
The EU really is constructed for the benefit of Germany...but once the effects of this virus have played out that may well change .I really do think the EU is on borrowed time, this virus may well be the bail of straw that breaks the camel's back...but we shall see.
Reply to Chester You really should educate yourself about these prejudices you hold against the EU. Passporting has enabled easy low regulation services access across Europe for UK service providers.
We will of course lose it entirely when we leave and will find it almost impossible to trade in services as a third country across the EU. We will also lose all the agreements we benefitted from around the world via the EU trade deals. So will have to start from scratch with every country in the world in trying to come to some accommodation for services access. All of which will take many years as it's far more complex to agree than trade in goods. In the meantime UK financial services will disappear abroad, or die out.
Are you aware what will happen every time our negotiators go to a country to start negotiating? The first thing they will say is show me the agreements and trade deals you have with the EU and then we can talk. So no deal means no deals anywhere until we crawl back to the EU and accept whatever they decide to offer us.
Double whammy, the EU won't agree to a quick simplified trade deal which Johnson is hoping for and the best that's possible by 31st December. Because the UK intends to move further away in terms of agreements, alignments etc over time and won't agree to anything which prevents this moving away to happen, making a no deal more or less inevitable.
Also these other countries will turn to the negotiators and say look at the divisive and untrustworthy way you have gone about leaving the EU. Do you think we are going to trust you with a favourable deal and trust you to stand by your word when you insult the EU from day to day regarding things you signed up to in the withdrawal agreement, which you are now ripping up? You guys want to have your cake and eat it, you can have a basic trade access until we can trust you again.
Do some reading up on what you denigrate for once.
https://www.bba.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/webversion-BQB-3-1.pdf
I just thought I would mention that if we are subjected to a no trade deal scenario on the back of the Covid economic hit. Our economy will be a basket case because there will be no way to sustain the inflated house prices upon which most of our wealth depends. If house prices crash then millions of just about managing mortgage holders will find themselves in serious negative equity. That will just be one of the dominoes which will fall and those folk in negative equity will find it increasingly impossible to service those mortgages. There will be no way to hold interest rates down. So the repayments will sky rocket. Within a couple of years we will be as broken as Greece was at the height of the Grexit crisis. But we won't have the EU to bail us out. England will be finished, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will leave the UK and rejoin the EU.
but I'd take no deal, I don't like the idea of the EU blackmailing us and in any case I think we can make up for any losses by trading more with the rest of the world. 80% of the world is not the EU after all.
On what time scale? Is the rest of the world spontaneously going to want UK goods if the UK is out of the EU? Unlikely no?
Probably that trade will first decline because a lot of the trade deals you have via the EU will no longer be valid, making English good more expensive. So exporters are going to have to take a haircut on their profits to maintain sales, if possible. Even if all things remained the same: where's the increased demand for UK goods going to come from?
Average time for negotiating comprehensive trade deals is 15 years by the way. And the UK is not going to be the first in line with many players because there are bigger trade blocs out there so replacing on the existing trade deals the UK has via the EU will take probably 30 years, from a position with far less bargaining power because the UK market is much smaller than the EU's.
I also don't recognise EU blackmail for the country that had by far the most exemptions to various rules and contributions than any other country in the EU and a financial services industry that has done very well, in large part thanks to freedom of capital and services within the EU. When did the EU blackmail the UK?
Reply to Zophie Well, Sturgeon has been demanding an indyref2. And I do see a unification of Ireland eventually. I think those two could happen, especially considering the voting with regards to Brexit there. I'd say more likely than not (more than 50%).
I doubt this. This is not an ideal world for stragglers. Unless you're Switzerland.
This was on the assumption that the UK would leave with no trade deal in place on 31st December and all the attendant chaos which would come from that. If that happens they will leave trust me, and becoming small states in the EU would be better than the alternative (staying in the UK)
Reply to Benkei I have a feeling that many Europeans are wilfully blind to the internal fault lines within the EU. Europeans like to be led , it's in their nature, the British however are naturally suspicious and doubtful of politicians ...we tend to think they couldn't organise a fuck in a whorehouse , so why would we want more of them, but hey-ho.
Even assuming there are going to be costs to the UK economy in relation to not getting a deal with the EU I'd be ok with that because I put national independence above pure financial gain...a financial gain that has costs of its own which I have pointed out.
I linked to a post earlier that showed Germany is already breaking EU rules to protect its manufacturing base...Italy and Spain can't afford to do that so guess who will be waiting in the wings to snap up Spanish and Italian companies... German companies. You Europeans never learn whereas the UK, especially England, is usually ahead of the game.
Just out of interest, are you Dutch? If so why do you care if the UK leaves?
Reply to NOS4A2 Quite and the body which decides which drugs are procured for the NHS and which are to expensive, meaning many people don't get the treatment they could have is called NICE.
Just out of interest, are you Dutch? If so why do you care if the UK leaves?
I'm Dutch and I've worked in the financial industry about half of my professional life. What do I care? I have friends in the UK and I liked how easy it was to visit them. Or working for UK companies being easy. From a regulatory perspective the BoE and FCA had a much richer history and experience that is now lost, which will definitely make financial regulations in the EU worse. The Dutch and UK pension schemes are similar so they were an important partner in certain negotiations. The UK is an important trading partner as well.
Europeans like to be led , it's in their nature, the British however are naturally suspicious and doubtful of politicians ...we tend to think they couldn't organise a fuck in a whorehouse , so why would we want more of them, but hey-ho.
This is just fairy tales. It's much more likely that the consensus building with a multi-party system leads to decisions a larger majority actually likes than the winner takes all system you have in the UK. Brexit had a statistically irrelevant majority. So about 50% isn't happy about Brexit at all. So yeah, I get it that if that happens regularly half of the time you think you're not getting what you want and therefore politicians stuck.
Even more, we actually had real revolutions in Europe resulting in more meaningful democracies where the UK was stuck with nobs and aristocracy continuing to lord it over the rest (how much land do they own again?). So yeah, those English are really ahead of the curve with a pseudo-feudal system.
taly and Spain can't afford to do that so guess who will be waiting in the wings to snap up Spanish and Italian companies... German companies
Highly unlikely. You don't seem to understand that German manufacturing base is one of SME's, often family owned. The large all-consuming corporations are an anglo-saxon thing which has found willing copycats in mainly Asian countries. Europe has tended to answer, overall, with more specialised or bespoke production and service economies.
Which is why, if it hasn't been done before, hire a Dutch company.
Reply to Benkei The British people were misled when they voted to join the EEC, had they known that it was really an exercise in empire building they would never have voted to join. We are ahead of the game because we can see the direction of travel for the EU...an overbearing state apparatus that seeks ever greater control over the populace... and so we have voted to leave.
I know 2 people who work at a very high level in financial services. One of them voted for Brexit and the other for remain. The one who voted remain voted remain because of the fear of economic cost not love for the EU. Both of them could get work anywhere in the world without restriction, they do not need the EU for work. You will have no problems visiting or working in the UK in the future.
I used to like the idea of proportional representation but I have come to the conclusion that it would lead to unending compromise...it hasn't exactly made the EU positive in the eyes of many of its citizens has it? Funnily enough it led to a huge influx to the EU of Brexiteer politicians ...if other countries had done the same and sent Euro sceptic politicians the whole edifice would have possibly come to a standstill .First past the post means that British citizens get to see who exactly to blame and credit .The idea that they "lord it over " us is a joke ...the British are the most politician sceptic people in Europe , we think most of them are cunts...I hate my local Tory MP even though I voted for her!
Some German SME's...Volkswagen, Siemens, BASF, Bayer...plenty of buying power there. What do you think about the Germans flouting EU regulations and bailing out their manufacturing sector whilst the rest of the EU can't afford to?
To help pin down the lie that most people who voted Brexit were uneducated oafs I thought I would link to this poll that was taken shortly after the referendum. One of the big lies is founded on the fact that older people tended to vote for Brexit and older people tended not to go to university...when I was a teenager in the 80's only 5% went to uni, now half the population goes...probably why standards have dropped and why the students are far easier to mislead lol.
If you're into numbers this makes interesting reading, it shows how the narrative has been hijacked.
The British people were misled when they voted to join the EEC, had they known that it was really an exercise in empire building they would never have voted to join. We are ahead of the game because we can see the direction of travel for the EU...an overbearing state apparatus that seeks ever greater control over the populace... and so we have voted to leave.
Who's "we"? Only half did of those who voted. Statistically you cannot even conclude there was a majority. See: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.03387&ved=2ahUKEwjzk-r_9qPpAhVJzqQKHXTxBHAQFjAAegQIAhAC&usg=AOvVaw2rWPxFyt4m9J4I_5mnXiCj
Second, when you voted for it in the past, if you were lied to, you were lied to by your own politicians which is not the fault is the EU. Quoting Chester
I know 2 people who work at a very high level in financial services. One of them voted for Brexit and the other for remain. The one who voted remain voted remain because of the fear of economic cost not love for the EU. Both of them could get work anywhere in the world without restriction, they do not need the EU for work. You will have no problems visiting or working in the UK in the future.
So what? This isn't even relevant. Nobody requires anyone to love the EU to realise its benefits. I don't love my Dutch politicians either. I guess you get off on the patriotic flag waving and salutes.
Aside from the economic benefits, the original political aim was peace. Considering how many wars we've had in Europe alone, this has been fantastically successful.
I used to like the idea of proportional representation but I have come to the conclusion that it would lead to unending compromise...it hasn't exactly made the EU positive in the eyes of many of its citizens has it?
"Unending" compromise is another word for win - win negotiations. Maybe take a cue from the Harvard negotiation method. And yes, the EU has problems that it does well to address.
Some German SME's...Volkswagen, Siemens, BASF, Bayer...plenty of buying power there. What do you think about the Germans flouting EU regulations and bailing out their manufacturing sector whilst the rest of the EU can't afford to?
Of course you can name the large corporations. Maybe because they're large? It doesn't change the fact the German industry base is one of SMEs. Which you would know if you'd care to be interested in your trading partners. https://www.gtai.de/gtai-en/invest/business-location-germany/economic-profile/economic-backbone-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises-81856
What bail out? And even so, is the EU doing this? No. While we're at it: What do you think about the monetary financing by the BoE through the ways and means facility now? (it's only day to day, until you start rolling it forward on a daily basis, which makes it a long term loan worth a daily floating rate). What do you think about Spain and Italy not following the budgetting rules for years which is why they cannot afford bail outs?
Pot meet kettle.
A no deal Brexit is going to be bad and it will be blamed on Covid-19.
Reply to Chester Also, more generally: for someone who's so wary about politicians as you say you are you certainly have swallowed the Tory story hook line and sinker. If only you'd be as critical in all areas and not only with respect to those things you happen to disagree with a priori.
Reply to Benkei I'll give you a quote from the piece I linked to ...
"Finally, to my second myth: that the vote was too close for the mandate to be meaningful.
On a first-past-the-post basis this is a rout. Remain wins in only three of the 12 regions. This is an over-simplification, so I will refer to the excellent statistical modelling work by Chris Hanretty, Reader of Politics at the University of East Anglia who determined (based on modelling the actual local authority results down to constituency level) that if “Vote Leave” had been a political party it would probably have won 421 seats. A landslide representing 65 per cent of all seats (including Scotland) and 73 per cent of seats in England and Wales. If higher turnout in London and Scotland had tipped Remain over 50 per cent nationally, the result would have lacked a mandate in three-quarters of seats in England and Wales, leading to an historic democratic disaster."
You say that the EU has kept peace in Europe...are you suggesting Nato wasn't responsible? Are you suggesting that Japan has been at war since WW2 because it's not in the EU?
Do you now accept that large German corporations exist ? That if they are bailed out against EU rules
that they will be in a powerful position with regard to Italian or Spanish businesses?
Covid 19 makes the economic impact of Brexit negligible.
Reply to Benkei I don't trust politicians...as an example I think the Tory handling of this virus crisis has been awful. The majority of the population should no longer be locked down, so the Tories are creating terrible economic damage...but so would Labour and the Lib Dems (probably worse damage due to the innate risk-averseness of the liberal left).
I have a feeling that many Europeans are wilfully blind to the internal fault lines within the EU. Europeans like to be led , it's in their nature, the British however are naturally suspicious and doubtful of politicians ...we tend to think they couldn't organise a fuck in a whorehouse , so why would we want more of them, but hey-ho.
This is rubbish. Not only that but it weakens the case against the EU, as if the EU is only bad for the English, or that they're the only ones who can see it. The fact is that there is a lot of opposition to the EU in Europe outwith England, in e.g., France, Italy, and obviously Greece.
(Cue a rant about lazy Greeks and French or something)
Reply to Chester Did you read the statistical research paper proving your point wrong? Or is actual research a problem for you? The referendum wasn't first past the post, so the entire premisse is irrelevant.
You say that the EU has kept peace in Europe...are you suggesting Nato wasn't responsible? Are you suggesting that Japan has been at war since WW2 because it's not in the EU?
Kept the peace? No, economic interdependence had been the greatest contributor to peace as some historic awareness would teach you. If you have more to lose from war, you won't go to war. It's as simple as that. So indeed. NATO didn't do shit with regards to peace between its members and was build to defend against another German or Soviet attack and was slowly expanded as a result from the peace existing between EU countries
Raising Japan is a logical fallacy. That's like saying vaccines don't work because someone else who didn't get one recovered from the measles. Don't be silly.
Do you now accept that large German corporations exist ? That if they are bailed out against EU rules
that they will be in a powerful position with regard to Italian or Spanish businesses?
Do you actually read what I write or are you having a monologue? I didn't say any of this and asked for which bail out you're talking about and pointed out how unlikely it will be. Stop being an ass.
Covid 19 makes the economic impact of Brexit negligible.
LOL. How much has the UK government spent on covid-19 so far? What will a no deal Brexit cost the UK? What does the word negligible mean in nobby English?
LOL. How much has the UK government spent on covid-19 so far? What will a no deal Brexit cost the UK? What does the word negligible mean in nobby English?
Yes, England is going to hell in a handcart and people who have been conned like Chester want to bring it on asap. Note he doesn't agree with the UK lockdown, that it's an over reaction. No lockdown followed by a no trade deal Brexit is hell in a hand cart for the English. Just as we fall off the economic cliff, Scotland and Northern Ireland will leave the UK, tempting the Welsh to follow. Fortunately I will be getting my Scottish passport. The nobs will be happy whatever happens, they have their offshore accounts and will turn the wreckage into the 51st of the US.
Reply to jamalrob If you bothered to notice I said "many Europeans", that clearly means "not all". There is a growing EU scepticism growing throughout Europe...this virus could well take it to boiling point, we shall see.
Reply to Benkei In a two horse race it's definitely a first past the post situation.
So in your world NATO hasn't kept the peace , the Dutch have wasted their time being members? Economic interdependence can keep the peace to a degree, but we don't need the EU for that...China undermines your points...we are economically dependent on it whilst it is not an UE member and we could be headed to a cold war with it. My using Japan as an example of not needing the EU for peace still stands..it's a perfectly good example that you don't need to be in an economic cartel in order to be peaceful.
The Germans are seeking to bail out their businesses. link
No one knows if a no deal Brexit will cost the UK anything...also I very much doubt if there will be a no deal...unless the EU wants to make a political rather than economically sensible point.If it goes for the former hopefully European citizens who lose their jobs because of an obviously political decision will take actions against the EU. We shall see.
Reply to Punshhh I think the lockdown was correct for the first 4 weeks ...until we knew what we were up against...after that the lockdown has treated the UK citizenry like children. The Swedes have shown the right approach, but the Swedish approach tied to the British first 4 week lockdown would have been correct imo.
Your attitude towards "nobs" is so 1970's mate , really it's daft. That's not to say a great many of them aren't total cunts but they are like the general population, good and bad. One man being rich does not necessitate anyone else being poor, often the very opposite is true.
In a two horse race it's definitely a first past the post situation.
Not at district level as you pretended. The results of the referendum as a reflection of the will of the people were inconclusive, since not everybody voted. You need a statistically relevant majority for that and 52% wasn't it. Even if you take the results at face value, I consider it problematic any way for obvious reasons: the majority is tiny and the consequences huge.
My using Japan as an example of not needing the EU for peace still stands..it's a perfectly good example that you don't need to be in an economic cartel in order to be peaceful.
The Germans are seeking to bail out their businesses. link
I can't open the link. This is the third time I'm trying to find more on this via Google. I either have the wrong key words or the article is sensational and hasn't been picked up anywhere else. Can you post the relevant bit? In any case, all countries are bailing out industries at the moment, so I'm not sure what's special about the Germans. There's a temporary framework : https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/sa_covid19_temporary-framework.pdf
And here are all the approved state aid programs: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/covid_19.html
No one knows if a no deal Brexit will cost the UK anything...also I very much doubt if there will be a no deal...unless the EU wants to make a political rather than economically sensible point.If it goes for the former hopefully European citizens who lose their jobs because of an obviously political decision will take actions against the EU. We shall see.
You mean you don't know. Everybody with experience in business knows this.
The reverse of your statement is that nobody knows the effect of trade treaties and you don't need an agreement with the US or any other country in the world.
Reply to Benkei The Brexit side clearly won by well over a million votes. Bearing in mind the absolute avalanche of anti-Brexit propaganda coming from the main stream media that is an amazing result. Since the referendum the Tory vote share has gone through the roof and the party most in favour of remaining (the lib dems) are absolutely nowhere. People like you don't seem to understand that the foundation of the remain argument was fear, that most people who voted to remain did so out of fear not love for the EU (Brexit voters are far more passionate and voted for it despite the risks) .That fear has dispersed, especially since this virus outbreak has put things in perspective. As an aside, London was the main remain voting area, hardly surprising given that many Londoners are of European/ foreign heritage...ie, not particularly pro-British. English people voted overwhelmingly to leave.
There was never going to be another major war between Western European countries after WW2, there was no desire for such a thing from anyone. If anything the EU is causing greater animosity between nations due to its obvious power grab...its attempts at post-democratic empire building. NATO kept peace between the Eastern bloc and Western Europe...and now it has former Eastern bloc countries as members because they see the benefit.
Whether you like it or not Japan illustrates that a war like country can develop into a peace loving country without being part of a trade cartel.
"Everybody in business knows this" , like fuck they do. They may believe it but they have no more idea of the future than you or I. None of them saw this virus coming did they? None of them knows where this disaster is leading...nor do they know the full ups and downs of Brexit. Only hubris on a monumental scale leads people into believing they know the future...that hubris is one of the markers of remain fanatics.
The EU is already under massive internal strain , this virus could bring it down.
"Everybody in business knows this" , like fuck they do.
So, trade deals don't matter? Why bother getting one with other countries then? Oh wait...
You just bleat whatever fits your current argument and lose sight of consistency. Quoting Chester
The Brexit side clearly won by well over a million votes. Bearing in mind the absolute avalanche of anti-Brexit propaganda coming from the main stream media that is an amazing result.
It didn't reflect a majority as that paper showed. It seems you don't understand statistics.
Also, the anti immigration bullshit being fed for years and the brexit lies didn't play a role either of course. Its the fact that referenda are woefully inadequate to reduce a complex issue to a binary choice.
Reply to Benkei "everybody in business knows this" is a bullshit statement...many people in business voted for Brexit. And to imply they know the future is the shit icing on shit cake.
Leave won by over a million votes , the English voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, I can't make it any clearer than that for you...and I'll tell you something else for free...most British people accept the result, it seems to be foreigners like yourself that have a problem with democracy.
I'm in the construction industry so I've already been hit with the costs of EU membership...low wages due to over supply of labour. In the 70's and 80's roofers earned far more in real terms than they do today.
Here's a link to a young Brexiteer's view of the current situation with regard to the British/EU trade negotiations. You'll notice that he's completely different to the kind of description that the liberal left try to push regarding who voted for Brexit. (You should also realise that the biggest single group who voted to remain were white over 65's).
Anyway, this is a video that will give you some perspective , some balance, if you've been buying into the narrative.
Reply to Chester That's bullshit, the draft agreement sets out positions so that the Britain can have its cake and eat it. All Barnier wants to do is maintain the integrity of the single market and Union, so he can't agree to anything which compromises that. It's not his job to look out for the interests of a member state that chooses to leave, the integrity of the single market is far and away more important than that. So if the UK can't come up with something credible in this regard they won't negotiate.
The UK team along with the government has no intention of presenting anything credible because they want to heap the blame for everything on the EU and these sham talks enable them to do it. They have to heap the blame because the people who lended them their vote will be looking for someone to blame when the shit hits the fan and it's better for the government to blame the same old bogeyman.
Meanwhile there are secret trade talks going on in the US intended to throw something together without passing it by congress, or the senate, or parliament in the UK. To sneak a trade deal with the US through the back door. The problem is that Johnson will have to sell our soul for the yanks to agree to this and that includes the NHS.
Although, I gather you don't rate the NHS either, might as well sell it to the US if we get our freedom back.
Oh have you got the new slogan from the PM for releasing the lockdown, it's just use your common sense. Cummings's master plan to blame the victims of Covid for their own demise, namely they died because they didn't use their common sense.
Just like Rees Mogg claiming the the victims of the Grenfell tower tragedy died because they didn't use their common sense and run out of the building.
Reply to Punshhh Britain just thinks it is reasonable that it should be treated as well as Canada, South Korea etc. Given what a huge market the UK is for EU goods (compared to those countries) that is not too much to expect, is it?
I think that the Germans will ensure there will be a reasonable deal, they'll override those within the EU (and those like you within the UK) who seek punishment for the UK from the EU, the Germans know how important we are to them.
There is vast scope for trade increases with the USA. If elements of competition , and therefore US in put ,are allowed within the NHS that can only be a good thing. When people bleat about how wonderful the NHS is they never compare it ,to say ,the German system...a German system that has been doing far better with this virus than the NHS.
Reply to Punshhh There is only a tiny chance of being killed by covid 19 , almost all deaths are people already in a bad way in hospital and care homes...so releasing elements of the lockdown are a good idea.
There is only a tiny chance of being killed by covid 19 , almost all deaths are people already in a bad way in hospital and care homes...so releasing elements of the lockdown are a good idea.
Yes this is a great idea if you're Dominic Cummings, or a Tory Grandee. It solves the problem of the demographic time bomb which was going to bankrupt Brexit Britain, because they were going to have to foot the bill for looking after all the old folk. It solves the NHS crisis, what's not to like. It gets the economy going so we can steal an advantage over the Europeans. It's genius.
Oh until someone points out that there are 2 million vulnerable people currently shielding with health conditions, disabled, or on immunosuppressants who will have a mortality rate above around 18%. Might as well get rid of that lot as well, because they cost the NHS a lot by definition. Genius!
Britain just thinks it is reasonable that it should be treated as well as Canada, South Korea etc. Given what a huge market the UK is for EU goods (compared to those countries) that is not too much to expect, is it?
I think that the Germans will ensure there will be a reasonable deal, they'll override those within the EU (and those like you within the UK) who seek punishment for the UK from the EU, the Germans know how important we are to them.
The EU would happily give the UK a Canada like deal, they've said that all along. They were waiting two years for the Tories to fight it out amongst themselves about what kind of future relationship they wanted (and don't go blaming Labour, they were not in power throughout this whole sorry saga). Theresa May did a remarkable job of somehow squaring the circle of how to remain close to the EU and not in it. But the Tories skuppered every attempt to reach consensus. The EU looked on in bewilderment as the Tories descended into a group of cats in a sack squabbling and lashing out at the EU from time to time. It really is disgraceful the way the Tories have brought our country to its knees on the world stage. And you think any other countries would try and strike a deal with those clowns and sycophants. The only country that will is the US and their corporations will suck us dry like a spider devouring a fly.
The German car industry etc didn't come to the rescue did they when we kept forcing a cliff edge. Get this, if anything the Germans industrialists are not going to come to our rescue, they value the integrity of the single market far more.
There is vast scope for trade increases with the USA. If elements of competition , and therefore US in put ,are allowed within the NHS that can only be a good thing. When people bleat about how wonderful the NHS is they never compare it ,to say ,the German system...a German system that has been doing far better with this virus than the NHS.
I won't get into the folly of selling of the NHS right now, I don't have the time. I will point out that in the US patients pay about four times the price for the same US drugs we get through the NHS and they need private health insurance to afford it.
Reply to Punshhh You are a typical leftist...you actually believe the Conservative party have hatched a plot to kill off millions of old people...complete delusion on your part. Do you believe the Spanish and Italians are also engaged in genocide of old and ill people, or is it just the nasty Tories? The death rate per million in the UK is less that Belgium, Spain or Italy...and Germany are probably counting differently. The CCP are the cause of the initial spread of this virus and they may be responsible for the virus itself...but you probably see the CCP as the model for a future UK government.
The fact that there are vulnerable people does not imply that the non-vulnerable can not start to have greater freedoms...but I have noticed that leftists like the population being locked down and controlled...it's your sort of thing .
You must be the only person in the UK that thinks May did a good job! She was the most hated PM in modern British history, you were literally her only fan lol. The UK does not need the EU to the point where it must surrender its sovereignty to it...Germany needs us more than we need Germany...and as I have shown , Germany is already undermining the single market with mass bail-outs (against EU rules) in the pipeline.
This obsession with leftists about the US healthcare system is merely to deflect from the fact that there are better healthcare models than their new religion the NHS...it's so fucking obvious.
Reply to Chester You don't seem to be able to link a post to its response. I was agreeing with you that a few old people will die, but being a bit more realistic.
Nearly the entire population is a leftist to you, so calling me one is meaningless.
You really are stupid if you think Germany is coming to the rescue, or the US won't rip us off.
You only need to read up on the TTIP negotiations between the US and the EU to see how the US operates in this way. We will be eaten alive from a point of weakness, worse than What happened in Greece, because there will be no one to bail us out.
Reply to Punshhh Being told to wake up by a hard core leftist is a bit rich...you're still living the 1970's over and over like the fucking ground hog day lol. Most of the English population are politically conservative by nature. The old labour party once had the well being of workers at its heart (though it often had the wrong answers to problems) but now it is more about promoting the rights of certain groups over others. I fall into the white, middle-aged, straight, working class bracket ...that means that the Labour party does not represent my interests in any way...it also explains why a working class area (like where I live) constantly returns Conservative MP's. The "red wall" has also collapsed up north because the only people that vote Labour are public sector workers (teachers etc), students and transexuals. The Labour party is dead , it has abandoned its base.
The Labour party is in a bad way, but there are many public sector workers/students who have nothing to lose by voting for the cretins so it will not drop below a certain level...the staunchly pro-EU lib dems are politically finished...what's that say about the English "love" for the EU?
Germany isn't coming to our rescue, it will come to its own...it needs our market more than we need its.The threat facing Germany is that we can source much of what we get from there from the US and elsewhere.
We already have a great trading relationship with the US, a far better one than we have with Germany...an extension of that relationship will almost certainly bring benefit to both countries.
Reply to Chester There you go again having a rant about the Labour Party, while the clowns in government are going to drive us of a cliff in December. Oh yeah it's all the Labour party's fault.
They couldn't (or wouldn't) prevent the carnage in the carehomes, what makes you think they can get something workable with the EU. Everything Johnson touches turns to dust.
The way it works on this forum is you ask or answer a debating point and someone responds on that point. It's not a place for ranting and ignoring the questions or answers provided.
Going back to Germany(which has one of the best healthcare services apparently, (with a socialist government)). Put this in your pipe and smoke it. Germany doesn't need our custom, with tariffs and mountains of red tape etc attached. It has a massive emerging market in the Eastern European accession countries. And the great thing is, these countries are fully integrated members of the single market. What's not to like.
Reply to Punshhh The labour party are an absolute disgrace...they have abandoned the very people they were originally created to represent...they have moved on to represent middle class public sector "workers", students and any minority group that it can stir up against the majority.
How ironic it will be for you if that leftist religion , the NHS, turns out to be responsible for unloading old people with covid 19 into the care homes.
Did you know that the German healthcare system is a public / private partnership? That very thing that leftists like you despise, that you do all you can to block in the UK.People like you must take some of the blame for the poor performance of the NHS...your dogma has handcuffed it.
We have great trade with the US on WTO, we trade more with the US than we do with Germany...explain to me why we can't trade just as well with Germany outside the EU as we do with the US. Do you literally think the Germans are going to stop selling us stuff and that they will also block our sales to them?
Reply to Chester Look at it this way the US manufactures its cars for sale in the UK actually in the UK, so as to avoid the costs of importing them from a third country, so does Japan. In fact Japan manufactures cars in the UK to sell in the EU. When we leave with no amenable deal with the EU, those Japanese factories will relocate into the EU. If Germany wanted to sell large numbers of Mercedes, or VWs in the UK after we leave with no trade deal, it would only be cost effective for them to build new factories in the UK to manufacture them. But they won't, it's not profitable enough to justify building new factories. They will just develop their markets in Eastern Europe instead, with the added benefit of consolidating and developing those markets inside the single market.
All this stuff is basic economics. Something that the Tory Brexiters don't want you to know. They just want you to keep going on about sovereignty, or hating on immigrants, while they do their shady tax haven deals with their billionaire palls. They don't give a shit about ordinary British workers. We will just become a cash cow, like the US population is over there.
Reply to Punshhh I'd shoot myself in the head before I took economic advice from a socialist.
I see Nissan are suggesting that Renault should manufacture in the UK....it's fantastic that foreign businesses manufacture here in order to sell here.
I see Nissan are suggesting that Renault should manufacture in the UK....it's fantastic that foreign businesses manufacture here in order to sell here.
Duh! You've just agreed with me, that car manufacturers need to manufacture in the market they need to sell into to be cost effective. Renault obviously wouldn't expect to sell many cars here which it manufactured in France because of tariffs, red tape etc. So they would contemplate building an expensive factory in the UK to do so.
Can't you think rationally, your arguments don't compute, you constantly contradict yourself.
Human beings are tribal creatures. I, We, and Them are the categories of social life, like space, time and causality in the natuof ral order. Where the lines are is a matter of sentiment (as Mill saw). Very many Brits think of thems as Brits rather than Europeans, and I suspect the same is true of many people elswhere in Europe (Greece for example). Lovers of democracy should not lament the decline of the
EU, in which bureaucrats ruled on behalf of bankers.
It looks like the government is now descending into chaos. There are rows in cabinet around plans to unlock, some schools refuse to open and many distrust the government. A report has come out this morning that HS2 is becoming derailed, the costs are spiralling and the first stage won't be completed until the 2030's. The Brexit talks have gone no where fast this week as predicted, as it is becoming evident that the British negotiating stance is a sham, a concoction designed to skupper the talks and blame the EU for the chaos and the resulting economic hit to come.
Reply to Phil Devine
I would have the governance of the EU anytime compared to the shower of chaos the UK is having to endure at the moment.
The fact remains. The EU is fundamentally unsound. The only basis for union I know of -- Europe's shared Christian heritage -- the Eurosecularists scornfully reject. And the European Union was as much a defeat for democracy as the fall of Communism was its triumph. (As a philosopher, I had better not advise the Brits on how to handle their economic problems.)
So what are you going ro replace it with? If you didn't know, the stock of the Enlightenment is very low, especially in Europe (the collapse of Marxism is part of the story). And there are still lots of Christians in Europe, if only you would stop dumping on them. Pope Francis, for one.
Reply to Phil Devine what needs replacing? I function spectacularly well without religion as do 60% of Dutch people. There will always be people that believe in fairy tales. Not a good reason to start to take them seriously.
What Christianity used to do for Europe was to provide it with an understanding of what it meant to be European. Personal belief is another matter: many atheists and agnostics have acknowledged the cultural value of religion, And quite intelligent people believe in "fairy tales" (and for that matter fairy tales like Snow White may encode significant truths). So far as I can see all the EU has to offer is the rule of bureaucrats on behalf of bankers.
Reply to Phil Devine Yawn. The EU wasn't started to give people a feeling of being European but to avoid wars. And Christianity certainly didn't provide an understanding of what it was to be European, pace every fucking war fought since 0 AD.
Talking about a shared European identity is as misplaced as talking about an Asian one. It's not interesting because it's a stupid idea currently gaining traction because it's easier to then go on and say, "oi, no Muslims wanted here because they're not like us".
Meanwhile, we have enjoyed the longest period of peace since written history thanks to the EU. It's the most successful peace initiative the world had known. Unsound my ass.
Yesterday Priti Patel said in reference to the immigration bill,
"It will end free movement and open up global Britain".
Today Mat Hancock said the second time,
"We put a protective ring around care homes".
Priti Patel in one swoop ended our privelidge of free movement around Europe and made anyone who earns less than £25,600 per annum a second class citizen. Interestingly Polish builders who are allowed to stay here are more privelidged than us, they will get a British passport and retain full privelidges throughout Europe.
More evidence that Brexit is an act of self harm. Most of our privelidged access to the European market will thrown under the bus in the next few months to be replaced with a begging bowl to hold out for Trump to throw some scraps into.
Mat Hancock has now fallen from grace in uttering those words in the house.
Reply to Punshhh The way this virus is playing out the last thing we are going to need are vast numbers of eastern Europeans (or third worlders for that matter) milling about in a society with huge numbers of people out of work. Same goes for the rest of the Western world too. Free movement must end, anyone with common sense can see that, it's just that Brexiteers were ahead of the curve, we could see the problems that are inherent to open borders...especially in times like this.
Reply to Chester Times like this happened after the referendum. And all those immigrants who came here before the end of Jan 2020 from Europe will be able to stay and have free movement and privelidges throughout Europe. They will have the best of both worlds. It's only the British who will be denied freedom of movement throughout Europe.
Although it will prevent EU nationals who are not already here, moving here, if they earn less than £25,600, they still retain their freedom of movement around Europe. And now there are going to be exceptions for nurses, care home workers farm labourers, the list gets longer and longer. Alongside more people coming in from the rest of the world, there will probably be about the same number coming in anyway and we will be stuck here with them.
Well when Scotland leaves, at least I won't be stuck, I will be rejoining the EU.
My bet is that there will be another independence referendum in the near future. And that it will be very close, but edge on leave. Scotland is very very pro-EU.
Reply to Benkei Europe wasn't created to give people an identitty but it needs an identity to to support solidarity among its members (and thus prevent war). Between Germans and Greeks, for example. Not everyone accepts such an identity: the majority of the English do not, and others are likely to join them as the rulers of Europe, who are in no sense democratic, become more and more intrusive in their demands. The one definition of Europe -- God's Continent as Phillip Jenkins called it -- has been treated with scorn by the people on this site. It is not a matter of belief, necessarily: people are sometimes united by the religion in which they do not believe. As witness the Irish joke, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant atheist?
Reply to Phil Devine Solidarity is a socialist concept. Definitely an issue now but so is Southern Europe's repeated flaunting of various rules. The Dutch would be happy to help the Italians if they agree to adhere to other agreements already made in the past. Without those assurances I'm afraid the solidarity will not be there.
How likely is that in the meantime? I haven't been paying much attention to that for awhile now.
Yes it has gone quiet, I expect the SNP are giving all their time to the Covid crisis and biding their time regarding Brexit. In the knowledge that Johnson and Co are so incompetent that it will be a bad Brexit, which will fuel calls for Scottish independence. Johnson almost daily insults the Scotts and discriminates against them.
Reply to Punshhh Lol...I'm sure the EU has enough members that are complete economic wackjobs, what makes you think they want to add Scotland to the list ? I really hope Scotland switches from English "domination" to real German domination...most English would be happy to see the back of 'em, a weight off our shoulders.
Reply to Benkei I'll make a prediction for you...the jocks will not vote to leave the UK in my lifetime...they are all talk and bluster. I hope they do leave but I'm afraid that they are too dependent on us (they benefit from the UK tax system at the expense of the English, we're by far their biggest export market and the rest of the UK supplies 90% of Scottish tourism)...most of them also know how useless the SNP is. It's a shame, but there you go.
Reply to Punshhh I make a prediction that the EU will buckle (I think they've already conceded on fishing)...they need treasure Island. If they don't ,even better, I want the UK to be far less dependent on the EU...they have never been our friends.They can carry on with their wilting dreams of socialist empire building .
I'll make a prediction for you...the jocks will not vote to leave the UK in my lifetime...they are all talk and bluster. I hope they do leave but I'm afraid that they are too dependent on us (they benefit from the UK tax system at the expense of the English, we're by far their biggest export market and the rest of the UK supplies 90% of Scottish tourism)...most of them also know how useless the SNP is. It's a shame, but there you go.
Here's your hypocrisy again. You assume the Scott's won't fall in behind nationalism, while people like you and most Brexiters did just that and you won't reconsider even while your country is going down the plug hole. They will do the same especially when a Johnson keeps sticking it up to them.
Reply to Punshhh But the SNP form of "nationalism" is bat shit crazy...you will end up being a tiny cog in a big franco-german machine rather than a big cog in the back of the English lol.
Modern nationalism is different...it's not like your leftist internationalism, it doesn't seek to expand in the form of empire (like your leftism) and modern nationalism is intensely democratic (again unlike your leftism).
Reply to Chester Not only are you hypocritical, you're topsy turvy.
"Modern nationalism is intensely democratic"
That's actually the opposite of the reality. You really have fallen for the populism hook line and sinker.
Do you think that hoodwinking the population to vote for a hidden agenda against their interests is democratic? I suppose Trumpism is incredibly democratic too!
I see there are Tory rebels who cannot share the govt's hypocrisy over the immigration bill, and its lack of financial help for foreign care-workers and NHS support staff. Populist Patel predictably takes the view that the Brexit vote's anti-immigration mandate is the greater force than the realisation Covid-190 has brought that care workers are underpaid and the whole care sector depends on immigration.
Those of us with a brain have long known that any new immigration system, whatever it sets out to do (or pretends to), will result in zero reduction in immigration. All those nasty incomers came here to do vital jobs that the Brits considered too low paid to bother with. The immigrant pay floor of ~ £25k p.a. is already starting to look laughably stupid, simply barring some of those the country needs.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, those dastardly Eastern Europeans stealing our jobs and benefits at the same time.
Nice U turn though, Johnson had no choice, it wasn't a change of heart. When he announced it he used exactly the same language as he used yesterday when he said that the levy was vital to maintain the funding for the NHS.
About the care home debacle, Therese Coffey blamed the scientists the other day, then she was slapped down from Downing St the next day. The classic Trumpian sleight of hand. Which ever way the dice falls on that one they can claim they made the right call.
It's like shouting heads and tails when the coin is tossed so you called the right side when it lands.
Even Yesterday in parliament it's remarkable how people can still appear to take anything the government says seriously. It's engrained I think.
Even Yesterday in parliament it's remarkable how people can still appear to take anything the government says seriously. It's engrained I think.
That's the advantage of being in power. Even when you talk utter rubbish like Trump everyone has to take you seriously and respond as if you know what you're talking about.
Yes it has gone quiet, I expect the SNP are giving all their time to the Covid crisis and biding their time regarding Brexit. In the knowledge that Johnson and Co are so incompetent that it will be a bad Brexit, which will fuel calls for Scottish independence. Johnson almost daily insults the Scotts and discriminates against them.
Early on in the Coronavirus pandemic Sturgeon was reading off the daily figures and news at her briefings and looking impatient and bored, as if she wasn't interested in the whole thing. When the opportunity of the Scots diverging from Westminster policy arose she seemed to get her mojo back and now seems to be enjoying flexing her muscles again. Strange that..
Reply to Professor Death It seems that the real story behind the DC debacle is emerging. Underlings within government were attempting to extend the Brexit transition period (obviously with the aim of keeping us within the EU's orbit for ever) whilst Johnson and Cummings were ill...Cummings put a stop to their treachery and this is why they are using their friends in the msm to attack him now. It looks like their attempt at a coup has failed...and most British people couldn't care less whether Cummings pushed the limits of lockdown rules...because most of us are already sensible enough to be doing that too.
We have a leftist deep state in the UK too it seems...drain the swamp Boris!
Reply to Benkei That ends up being the left's answer to all the problems it is incapable of fixing...that's why anyone with a brain despises the leftist scum that crawl out of Western universities and infiltrate the establishment.
The left is now the establishment , the establishment the enemy of the people.
Reply to Professor Death Lol, surprising how many labour party members , students, union members and other assorted morons there are...none of whom matter because they never vote Conservative!
Watching the press conference with DC, he's pissing all over them and their 6th form questions. The British media really are a pathetic bunch...hopefully he'll punish them in time...do away with the license fee for the bbc would be a great start. Let some time pass ...revenge is a dish best served cold after all.
Reply to Professor Death But Chester is using his common sense, this is the new government policy. The common sense thing to do like what Dominic Cummings did is to bend the rules to suit your own situation. All those people who did what they were told and stayed at home are morons. Cummings is now telling them by example to break the rules.
I went to Southend today, I was surrounded by morons, using their common sense, it was scary.
Reply to Professor Death If it wasn't for the English the Scots would now be living in a socialist hell hole ruled over by a Franco-German empire lol. Thank God for the natural , sensible , conservative leaning of the English...the jocks will thank us later...once the morons realise that Braveheart wasn't real lol.
Reply to Punshhh The British population tends not to blindly obey rules, it's part of our nature...I think Cummings knew that when these rules were applied . We are not like Swedes who wait for the green man light to let them cross the road, we are not like the Germans who obey the strong leader when he bans jews from park benches...we are different from them , we believe in the rights of the individual to push the boundary of rules which are very often crass and badly thought out. I think many of the lockdown rules were there to be broken, it is obvious that we have to build an element of herd immunity.
For leftists it is different, they tend not to be as bright as they think they are, they follow rules like the drones they are, and point the finger like little Stasi slags when someone breaks the rules who they don't like. .
Reply to Chester it's annoying because I have an old friend from school who sometimes talks a bit like you... how can I still remain friends with him if he acts all weird and xenophobic and keeps banging on about 'the left'?
Reply to Professor Death One of my best mates is a bit of a lefty ...he's vegan and pretends to be hard left to his wife (who is hard left lol) ...but typical virtue signalling lefty that he is he's climbed quite a long way up the greasy pole of the multinational capitalist firm he works for...we generally get together to see a gig...less chance to talk, apart from taking the piss out of each other and reminiscing.
When it comes to politics he's always been wrong...he's clever in many ways but politics ain't one of them lol.
The real joke here is that the media political class pretend that they are really upset about Cummings breaking lockdown rules whereas the reality is that they despise his politics, foresight and drive. They know he will do a good job with Brexit, he will not extend the transition period.
The good news is that this saga is exposing the media for what it is...
"It is understood that a letter from the UK chief negotiator David Frost to Mr Barnier, sent on May 21, in which Mr Frost said he was “perplexed” by the EU’s refusal to offer Britain the sort of deal it had offered other countries, sounded the alarm bell for some EU members and made them realise just how risky it could be for the EU to continue marking time."
Reply to Chester The EU has been waiting for over two years for the incompetent English government to get their act together and explain what the fuck they wanted. There was an agreement that got voted down several times. Then the UK backpedaled on earlier commitments. If anybody is making sure deadlines are missed you don't need to look beyond the pond.
But seriously, nobody in the European member states gives a shit about the UK anymore. Either a deal happens within the framework of the earlier commitments or it doesn't. Nobody in the EU seriously thinks a no deal Brexit will be the fault of Barnier or his team.
It's nice to see though that the Conservative media is already insulating the Conservative party from criticism and fools lap it up like kittens drink milk. Good riddance.
Reply to Benkei I'm with you on this...the best way forward is to accept "no deal", deals will emerge over time, we'll just have to accept some economic fall-out which will be dwarfed by the economic fall-out from the virus in any case. In other words, a Brexit deal no longer matters.
My only difference with you is that I think the EU have been played very well by the UK government, that ultimately the UK government sees no deal as far superior to some half-baked deal that ties us to EU rules.I also think that the EU is on the path to its own implosion...but time will tell.
My only difference with you is that I think the EU have been played very well by the UK government
The choice of words alone demonstrate you have little to no experience in negotiations. If you want a long term relationship, regardless of what it's going to look like, "playing" the other party is not going to help your own cause. Zero sum games are inane and a lost opportunity every time it's pursued.
People in the UK are generally sick of economic estimates related to a no deal Brexit, it is pretty obvious that pro-EUers will give as negative an estimate of costs as possible. Most Brits are now willing to see, we are willing to accept no deal even if there are short term costs.
I have a very low opinion of the EU and when you see that they will only give us a reasonable trade deal if we concede sovereignty to them, you should be able to see why. No other country in the world expects us to surrender any level of sovereignty in order to have a trade deal. Fuck the EU, it is clearly anti-democratic.
Reply to Chester Benkei is right. It was embarrassing to watch the Tory party pulling their own hair out and scrapping like cats in a sack over what they want out of Brexit, what sort of Brexit they want, or how to get out of the hole they had dug for themselves. At every turn in their indecision they lost more and more negotiating cards until they are now in the position of having to beg for some scraps to cobble together some kind of deal.
Because as I said before, no other country will accommodate the UK until they have sorted out their relationship with the EU first. At every stage the UK will have to go back to Barnier on their knees.
What an unholy mess.
Oh, it's all Banier's fault, or it's those lefties over there.
Reply to Punshhh The problem with the Conservative party is that at the time when May was PM the Westminster party (MP's) did not reflect the membership (that's why the Brexit party bloomed). Most Tory MP's wanted to remain bound to the EU...that's all changed now. I firmly believe that we will leave the transition situation and become a sovereign country again at the end of the year.
Now on 6th of June 2020, we have a speech by Michel Barnier, in which he points out in detail how the British negotiators are pulling back from the commitments in the withdrawal agreement past last December. That the withdrawal agreement and the commitments agreed and signed up to by both sides in its formulation, will form the basis of the EU negotiating position.
So as predicted the talks are going nowhere, the British side is conducting a sham of a negotiation, so as to blame the other side when no agreement is reached and we are heading for a no trade deal Brexit.
This morning Nissan said that if there is no deal, then its manufacturing presence in the UK would become unsustainable. This issue is widely regarded as the canary in the coal mine, whereby if Nissan pulls the plug, the whole thing will go up in smoke.
Somehow I can't see the government surviving to 31st December, or if by some miracle they do, they will sink shortly afterwards.
Somehow I can't see the government surviving to 31st December, or if by some miracle they do, they will sink shortly afterwards.
If Boris learned one thing from the Brexit negotiations last year it's that running the clock down focuses minds on both sides - and I suspect, his in particular. Expect much more activity as the October deadline for a framework deal approaches and Covid-19 pressures ease, but brinkmanship will be the main tactic again..
I've had a change of heart after reading this on Quora;
Is Brexit going to make the UK more powerful?
So in that spirit, I will answer, yes of course it will. Guaranteed. We will have all the easiest deals in history and a landmass full of Big Red Buses proclaiming how the original Big Red Bus was not only telling the truth, but was exactly perfect in it’s predictions, remarkably accurate. In fact, accurate to the penny.
After the German car makers have done a surprise above and beyond delivery of an EU deal that’s even sweeter than what was promised by Vote Leave, there will be nothing stopping the UK as those fantastically favourable international trade deals roll in for our liberated nation. Each nation around the world will be desperately trying to out-bid the other nations in their attempts to be the most favoured trading nation for the UK. It will be open competition of giveaway deals that are eyewateringly profitable to the UK.
This will power a renewed era of British expansionalism that will see the UK sweep the globe as a benevolent, highly respected super power. The respect for the UK’s social savvy will only be matched by the admiration that the world has for how cohesive and united our society is but towering above this will be the respect, globally for how completely uncorrupt we are, with nothing but fair play and not the faintest hint of collusion in tax avoidance, money laundering, dark money and criminal money anywhere near any British jurisdiction or dependency.
It’s only onwards and upwards from here. Rule Brittania!
Gavin Williamson* can't resign, or be sacked, however bad the mess gets, because if he does, the spell is broken. Going right back to the lie on the side of the bus and the breaking point poster.
The Rubicon was crossed at Barnard Castle, there is no way back now, no resignations, no apologies, no accountability, no sign of the Prime Minister. They can only accelerate, the closer to the cliff edge we get, the faster we must go.
*Gavin Williamson is the education secretary in the UK, presiding over the A level grade debacle. One of the Yes men in Johnson's populist government.
By Brandon Lewis's own admission the govt is about to row back on the NI aspect the Brexit withdrawal treaty, in contravention of international law. As this will mean a total ruination of the UK's trust as a negotiator with the EU (and anyone else) we must assume the trade deal is dead; we'll leave without one and Boris will blame the EU. Quite how he justifies what being seen to be untrustworthy will imply for any future agreement his govt enters into remains to be seen. Maybe his populist instincts tell him his 'base' - (yes it's the Trump term for ignorant reactionary voters, looking more and more valid in the UK too..) couldn't care about such niceties as our national reputation as long as they get to keep the nasty foreigners out of our fishing grounds..
Well, if we're talking bonds, reneging on promises happens quite often with sovereigns. Takes about 3 to 5 years to win the trust of the capital markets back but that's often driven by the opportunity of profit. Institutional memories last longer and political gears move slower. If the UK follows through with this, it will sour EU and UK relations for at least a decade. Costs to be borne by taxpayers as usual.
Reply to Baden Nobody gives a fuck about HK any way. It's barely in the news. I've stopped buying Chinese stuff or products with Chinese sourced parts. Difficult, time consuming and expensive.
unenlightenedSeptember 09, 2020 at 09:17#4505960 likes
Apart from the economic meltdown, the loss of trust, status and integrity, the end of the United Kingdom is assured; I think even most of the Unionists will see that a united Ireland in the EU is preferable to an isolated UK in chaos and the inevitable hard border and associated civil unrest. And Scotland will follow, with Wales wishing it had suggested a United Republic of Fuck the English.
I think even most of the Unionists will see that a united Ireland in the EU is preferable to an isolated UK in chaos
It seems not. I heard a DUP MP interviewed last night and his view was effectively that anything that strengthens the links between NI and the UK is a good thing. Whether the Unionists can keep hold of power is another thing altogether though..
What strikes me is the total lack of fuss with which the govt made this announcement. I remember too that a year ago Boris kept insisting the EU departure treaty he'd negotiated did not necessarily mean greater customs checks and paperwork between NI and the UK, when everyone else could see it did. So I think this new bill was envisaged even back then, and Boris never meant to stick to what he'd just signed..
We are still awaiting the EU response to the bill. It should be fun!
unenlightenedSeptember 09, 2020 at 22:20#4508520 likes
It seems not. I heard a DUP MP interviewed last night and his view was effectively that anything that strengthens the links between NI and the UK is a good thing.
Yes, that would be a a real problem for the secret agenda to rid ourselves of that pesky province. But we have ways of getting the IRA to persuade the Unionists. Have a vote for hard border and troubles, or unification of the Island of Ireland with EU guarantees, and see who gets elected...
Sounds like more Boris bluff and bluster. Does he really want to make the UK a pariah state just when he needs the world to trust it on crucial international trade deals?
Woah, the GBP is currently being massacred against the Euro/USD on expectations Britain will go rogue. I just lost about 50 euro on the paltry amount I have in a British bank account. Thanks, PM Cummings, you prick.
I don't know how it will pan out for the UK, but 1) my money has been on a no deal Brexit from day one, on account of the blatant incompetence and bad faith of the UK side; 2) I think Brexit is a chance for the EU to reform and improve, so as a European, I take it as a blessing in disguise.
Interesting that the EU are so angry with Boris that they're threatening legal action - not 'no deal'.. That could be seen as a sign of weakness by Boris; but Barnier is too smart to leave the EU open to being labelled deal-wreckers this early in the negotiating game of bluff.
Also, from the House of Lordds responses so far to the new bill it seems very unlikely that the govt will ever get it into law, so it could all be academic. Are the EU aware of this?
Oh who could've possibly seen Bojo favouring no-deal coming at some point over the last few years. Not sarcasm at you, it's simply extremely frustrating to watch the almost inevitable unfold.
I wish for a successful Brexit, followed by Itaxit, Swexit, Fixit, Grexit, Spexit and many more. Best of Course would be a Germanexit, because that would be the end of the EU imperalist project right there.... without the financier, Macaron is left sitting on a a bankrupt half-empire.
So is this Internal Market bill going to be stopped or what?
The House of Lords may block it. If not it looks to me like it will deliberately be delayed until after the Brexit trade talks are completed or collapse. Boris is going to hold it as an axe over Barnier's head in the talks. I'm not sure what happens if, as they're threatening, the EU take legal action against the UK govt in the meantime though..
ChangelingSeptember 16, 2020 at 21:08#4529600 likes
Reply to Tim3003 Johnson (not Boris, will call him Johnson) seemed to back down a bit after Ed Miliband took him to task on the bill:
Reply to Tim3003 I'd call that bluff. Even without the good faith negotiating obligations of the withdrawal agreement, it's still a breach of the Good Friday agreement. I'm pretty sure treaty trumps local law so it will never survive a court case even if the bill was passed.
Boris is going to hold it as an axe over Barnier's head in the talks.
It's an axe over his own head. Apart from EU sanctions that will cause economic and logistical chaos in the UK, Biden and Pelosi will scupper any possibility of a trade deal with Britain if he goes through with this. This has Brexiteers paying for a Trump victory, which won't help them as Pelosi is pretty much guaranteed the House. Stupid, stupid, Boris...
I'm not clear on the Good Friday agreement. The US Democrats certainly seem to be up in arms about it. In what way does the new bill threaten it? The Bill is intended to stop the EU imposing trade barriers between UK and NI, I'm not aware if it prejudices the relationship between NI and Eire.
Anyway, I think BJ is banking on the whole EU affair being tied up way before he needs to worry about finalising the US trade deal. Cross one bridge at a time..
unenlightenedSeptember 17, 2020 at 11:53#4531510 likes
Keeping it really simple, the Good Friday agreement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is the treaty that ended the civil war in Northern Ireland. It is founded on power sharing both within the province of Northern Ireland, (between Catholic Republicans and Protestant Unionists) and between the Irish and UK governments. A central plank is that there shall be no hard border between North and South.
This means that all matters pertaining to movement of goods and people need to be harmonised between the two jurisdictions.
However, the whole project of Brexit relies on ending the harmonised jurisdictions on just these matters between the UK and Europe. This gives rise to an immediate contradiction between the separate internal markets of the EU (including the Republic of Ireland), and the UK (including Northern Ireland).
Both sides are committed to a free internal market, and The EU in particular, needs to control its external borders.
Applications of fudge in the form of backstops, imaginary borders, and imaginary brexits, have failed to resolve or cover over this contradiction, and we face the prospect of a hard border followed by a renewal of violence and/or the breakup of the UK and the reunification of the Island of Ireland. I think that's about right, but maybe @Baden can make any corrections and add subtleties and complications ...
I know the GF agreement's background. But in what way does the new bill threaten the agreement? It could be said that in the case of no deal it is the EU who will put up trade barriers between NI which is part of the UK still and Eire..
unenlightenedSeptember 17, 2020 at 12:12#4531540 likes
It could be said that in the case of no deal it is the EU who will put up trade barriers between NI which is part of the UK still and Eire..
Yes, it could be said. I don't know what would be done and by whom, but I do know that the EU cannot leave that border open without a deal of some sort. They cannot allow, for example, US chlorinated chicken to flow across that border and compete with the higher standard chicken mandated in the EU. So the EU will probably eventually have to put up a hard border itself if the UK breaks its commitments to maintain harmony between North and South trade regulations. That's after punitive trade war on other fronts amounting to almost a blockade, I imagine. Blaming the EU is already the main policy of this government, so I doubt more blame will cause much anguish in the EU.
The new bill (illegally) breaks the deal the UK agreed too. That deal guaranteed an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It also put a border in the Irish sea. Again, the UK agreed to that rather than the options of a customs union, the backstop, or no deal. Boris put the border in the Irish sea because he didn't want the backstop and he called that a fantastic deal and he's now on an Orwellian Mission to pretend it's a horrible deal and this is somehow the EU's fault. It won't end well for him.
Kind of like if you offer me a banana and I say, "no, no, I want a pineapple", so you give it to me and then I run around screaming, "look, look, he's trying to give us a pineapple! We can't accept that!"
Kenosha KidSeptember 17, 2020 at 13:21#4531610 likes
I know the GF agreement's background. But in what way does the new bill threaten the agreement? It could be said that in the case of no deal it is the EU who will put up trade barriers between NI which is part of the UK still and Eire..
That's rather like saying if I go outside my family erects a wall between me and them.
Looks like people with UK bank accounts living in the EU/EEA might get their UK accounts closed after the transition period ends. Too little progress on negotiations. Thanks, you shits.
We had a similar thing in the UK with Brexit. The leavers won 51:49%. Because David Gammeron was too thickly cut to consider the possibility that the majority might be comparable to the sort of result variance that would be time-averaged out, we were stuck unable to contest what ought to have been a highly contestable result.
Yes, Cameron was naive, he didn't realise how much anti-EU sentiment had been developing beneath the surface over the previous 12 years. He was Boyed up with the arrogance that he had won the Scottish Independence referendum and would win the Brexit referendum in the same way. There was little thought of losing it and what the consequence would be. It was a fatal flaw to leave to a simple majority, it should have been a super majority of 60%, or more for a win. Once the referendum was called the right wing populist machine went into overdrive and forced the vote through on paranoia, misinformation and false promises.
Now we have an equivalent to Trump in the UK, with the same worrying trends emerging. Even today it has been leaked that Paul Dacre the disgraced former editor of the Daily Mail, is being groomed for chairman of Ofcom. And a former editor of The Telegraph for director general of the BBC. With Government Ministers on the media this morning saying that it's time for right wing biased media in the UK. This administration is gunning for the BBC in a big way.
My take on it is that the economy has been in trouble since the financial crisis of 2008. People are starting to think of alternatives to free market capitalism, which has spooked the Conservative base and the big money backers of the party. They have all feathered their nests for a generation and now the rot has set in to the economy and the country, they don't want to give away any of their wealth to help put it right and the younger generation is turning left on mass. The Conservative party is heading for oblivion, which will allow socialists into office. Once that happens the game is up and the wealth will be clawed back for the good of the whole country. The solution in the eyes of these Conservatives is a lurch to the right with maximum acceleration of rightwing ideology and policies to force the country to the right and hoodwink the population into believing it is the only way to govern. It is high stakes and combined with the disastrous Brexit situation there is going to be much gnashing of teeth and upheaval over the next few years.
The Conservative party is heading for oblivion, which will allow socialists into office.
You did have elections just last year, didn't you? How did those go?
I wouldn't say any party is heading for oblivion, as it just assumes that other parties will take their place without any effort. The political landscape and politics is far more dynamic and more complex than that in any country. If you think that younger generations are more leftist than older ones, well, they were so also in the 1960's and 1970's.
Uh...the World economy has been in trouble since the financial crisis of 2008, even if China and India have put respectable growth numbers.
Yes, that doesn't diminish my point though. As always in my comments in the Brexit thread, my focus is on the UK politics from the perspective of an insider who has followed UK politics for a generation. My perspective might have a narrow focus sometimes and ignore wider global trends, but if you understand this you can interpret it this way, as a window into internal UK politics from an insider and draw the implications of wider more global politics from your own knowledge.
I have explained my reasoning for my conclusions in this thread about a year to 18 months ago. But to recap.
In the UK, the left right political divide has been, for the last half century or so, in line with a class divide. So the right wing is primarily the middle and upper middle classes, who are privelidged and dominate the establishment, hold all the wealth and to a lesser extent the professions, arts and media. The left wing has been bottom up from the working classes. There is some movement into privelidge and establishment from this social class, but it is limited. Also the majority of the working classes have improved their circumstances over the last generation and become more middle class. But they are still held at arms length by the traditional privelidged classes by an ingrained, largely unconscious, bias and code. Often based on where people live, what schools and colleges they went to etc. This may be the same in other countries, I don't know, perhaps you can help me there, but in the UK it is still very dominant and skews politics towards the right.
Anyway the financial crisis was blamed on the City of London in the UK, just as much as US banks had been blamed. The spell, the magic of British capitalism was burst, exstinguished, in the minds of many people in the UK and subsequently knowledge of what the privelidged classes in the City were up to is more widely known. Then we had 10years of austerity imposed by the same establishment that was blamed for allowing and benefitting from the conditions which caused the crisis.
The young grew up during this and are now impoverished by continuing inflation in the housing market, meaning only privelidged young can purchase property*, with the help of their parents. Also they are in debt when they leave university due to having to pay for all their fees and accommodation etc. critically this impoverishment has affected large numbers of the young of the privelidged as well now. This has resulted in an en-mass move to the left among the young, which is also enmeshed in the newly developed ideologies around combatting climate change and protecting the environment. Issues which are largely denied by the privelidged (largely over 50 years of age) establishment, in favour of more free market capitalism.
Also the Conservative party is not covering itself in glory at the moment and is becoming a laughing stock.
The problem with our recent election is that the alternative was possibly even more scary than the Conservative party. A Corbyn government would have been a radically left leaning government and there just aren't enough people in the population who could vote for that kind of radical change.
* this trend is exacerbated by the housing crisis in general in which young who don't own their own house are forced to pay ever increasing rent for small properties. Meaning they can't pay back their higher education debt, or save money for a deposit to buy a house.
Kenosha KidSeptember 28, 2020 at 09:20#4569490 likes
Then we had 10years of austerity imposed by the same establishment that was blamed for allowing and benefitting from the conditions which caused the crisis.
And, knowing all this, the electorate handed the Tories in their most ridiculous incarnation a landslide victory, all because they hate brown-skinned people. I don't think the spell has broken, rather, in order to survive, it has had to divorce itself entirely from reality.
Also the majority of the working classes have improved their circumstances over the last generation and become more middle class. But they are still held at arms length by the traditional privelidged classes by an ingrained, largely unconscious, bias and code. Often based on where people live, what schools and colleges they went to etc. This may be the same in other countries, I don't know, perhaps you can help me there
What makes the UK different is a deeper class divide than other countries, starting from even such things as the language/accent people use or even what sports they follow. British I think are very class conscious and not just the upper class. I think this might be changing though. And yes, it goes through party lines too this class divide. You could see this from Boris Johnson that he acknowledged humbly in his election victory that the conservatives had gotten "labor" votes from labor areas. Usually no politicians would make this kind of remark.
The young grew up during this and are now impoverished by continuing inflation in the housing market, meaning only privelidged young can purchase property*, with the help of their parents.
This asset inflation is typical in many countries and a result of the economic and monetary policies implemented after the financial crisis all over the world.
. This has resulted in an en-mass move to the left among the young, which is also enmeshed in the newly developed ideologies around combatting climate change and protecting the environment. Issues which are largely denied by the privelidged (largely over 50 years of age) establishment, in favour of more free market capitalism.
I think environmentalism broke through in the 1980's in other countries with Green parties. With tory and labor governments this might not have been so apparent in the UK.
The problem with our recent election is that the alternative was possibly even more scary than the Conservative party. A Corbyn government would have been a radically left leaning government and there just aren't enough people in the population who could vote for that kind of radical change.
This might be the real bungle up in British politics. Indeed, it likely would have been a moment for the conservatives to lick their wounds after a long time as the ruling party go to the opposition after everything, but the labor party itself get carried away.
And yes, it goes through party lines too this class divide. You could see this from Boris Johnson that he acknowledged humbly in his election victory that the conservatives had gotten "labor" votes from labor areas. Usually no politicians would make this kind of remark.
Yes, but they leant him their support (the majority of them) on condition that he would get Brexit done. They will swing back behind a moderate Labour Party at the next election. So it was not for conservative policies (other than Brexit) that they voted that way, they held their noses when they voted.
This asset inflation is typical in many countries and a result of the economic and monetary policies implemented after the financial crisis all over the world.
In the UK it is particularly acute, the housing crisis has been developing for 40 years now with an end to any provision of social housing over this whole period. Not only prices being unaffordable, we have no kerbs on rental fees, which are strangling the young with debt. While many large properties have one or two old people living there. The young are really in a bad place financially and they are wary of trusting the Conservatives when they promise to solve the problem. Because they caused and presided over it for the 40 years.
I think environmentalism broke through in the 1980's in other countries with Green parties. With tory and labor governments this might not have been so apparent in the UK.
It was not mainstream in the UK until Greta came along and Sir David Attenborough started speaking out more directly. Now it is widespread and there is little confidence that the Conservatives will make any progress in this direction.
This might be the real bungle up in British politics. Indeed, it likely would have been a moment for the conservatives to lick their wounds after a long time as the ruling party go to the opposition after everything, but the labor party itself get carried away.
Yes, there is a deep split in the Labour Party between the moderates and the radicals, which keeps coming to the fore and prevents them getting into office. They need a strong leader to break this curse, Blair did it and many people hope that Kier Starmer can pull it off now. God knows it's needed now.
Yes, but they leant him their support (the majority of them) on condition that he would get Brexit done. They will swing back behind a moderate Labour Party at the next election. So it was not for conservative policies (other than Brexit) that they voted that way, they held their noses when they voted.
And this tells a lot about how class based even British politics is. Because usually people who vote for a certain party are defined to be the supporters of that party. Not some people that are "just now" voting for them.
In the UK it is particularly acute, the housing crisis has been developing for 40 years now with an end to any provision of social housing over this whole period. Not only prices being unaffordable, we have no kerbs on rental fees, which are strangling the young with debt. While many large properties have one or two old people living there. The young are really in a bad place financially and they are wary of trusting the Conservatives when they promise to solve the problem. Because they caused and presided over it for the 40 years.
Add there the quite rapid population growth and economic growth being concentrated on few larger cities.
Yes, there is a deep split in the Labour Party between the moderates and the radicals, which keeps coming to the fore and prevents them getting into office. They need a strong leader to break this curse, Blair did it and many people hope that Kier Starmer can pull it off now. God knows it's needed now.
It is always the "extremist fringe" or the "traditionalists" that create problems to mainstream political party, which alienate a lot of people not closely attached to the ideological side of the party, be the parties either on the right or on the left.
Yet the old class divide may not work so well today. Simply put, all parties need to evolve as the society evolves in order to exist in the long run.
Add there the quite rapid population growth and economic growth being concentrated on few larger cities.
Yes, this population growth is predominantly from the EU, while there is very little housing being built to house them, no provision of healthcare resources and schools in the areas where they move to. So the local population perceives them as depleting their resources (I wrote at length about this in this thread about 18 months ago). Also, some towns, a number near where I live, now resemble Polish towns. Again the local population is not happy about the way their towns have changed and they feel like they live in a foreign country. It is these demographic forces which have resulted in many of the voters who leant their vote to the Conservatives, voting that way. This is largely why we have Brexit. I notice that now Switzerland has had a vote, due to people wanting to end freedom of movement. The vote was lost, but would have been very disruptive if it had been won.
One British historian, who has written about the history of London, said aptly about how Britons feel about foreigners, which can be generalized to all people: "As long as foreigners are seen to bring money to the community, they are tolerated in Britain".
And this is true. Nobody hates the vast swarms of tourists as they bring money to the country, as they create jobs for the local population. Yet if the foreigners are seen to compete with the local population for jobs, immediately emerges a resentment against the foreigners which we call xenophobia (or racism, as that is so popular today). And worst of all, if foreigners seem to be literally stealing our wealth, it is likely we call them the occupiers, the enemy, and the young men are up in arms fighting them.
The historian thought that the English, or at least Londoners hadn't change much from the sixteenth century and from the times of the Evil May Day riots (in 1517), when the scum of the Earth foreigners were the hated Dutch. When times are bad, foreigners are the perfect culprit.
And this is true. Nobody hates the vast swarms of tourists as they bring money to the country, as they create jobs for the local population. Yet if the foreigners are seen to compete with the local population for jobs, immediately emerges a resentment against the foreigners which we call xenophobia
Tourists don't stay, and they also tend to be wealthy, respectful and support local businesses. Those who come and 'take our jobs' are the ones hated by the Farage mob. I see today Boris has marked out our lack of brickies, welders and butchers; and there are calls for the govt to lower the immigration restrictions for these occupations post-Brexit. Like all populists he's quite okay with contradicting his earlier views. There should already be some Brexiteers thinking: 'Hang on...'.
I see today Boris has marked out our lack of brickies, welders and butchers; and there are calls for the govt to lower the immigration restrictions for these occupations post-Brexit.
Yes and there are approx 120,000 vacancies in the social care sector and about 40,000 nursing vacancies, not to mention all the crops which need harvesting. Boris should be encouraging the million or three who are going to become unemployed to fill these roles. Plus they don't require a lot of training (with the exception of nurses).
Brexit is going to provide sufficient vacancies for all the unemployed we will have from Covid, genius!
The only problem is that most shop workers won't make good brickies or welders! As for butchers, I don't see why there is a shortage. Surely they're losing their retail businesses too.
Tourists don't stay, and they also tend to be wealthy, respectful and support local businesses.
And if they would not be so, people would be against them. You can just imagine if the those tourists wouldn't spend a dime, but on the contrary would be begging on the streets. It wouldn't matter if those beggars would just stay a while and be replaced with others. You could briefly notice this during the German unification when the border between the East and West collapsed. The Easterners were naturally interested to see West Germany, but weren't the typical wealthy tourist. They filled the tourist attractions but ate from their own meager lunchboxes and didn't spend as normal tourists for the simple reason as they came from a socialist country. The West German shopkeepers etc. weren't enthusiastic about it. Hence, Mexicans wouldn't tolerate American spring breakers, if those youngsters wouldn't create income. And neither the Spanish wouldn't tolerate northerners on their beaches if it wouldn't support the local economy.
I see today Boris has marked out our lack of brickies, welders and butchers; and there are calls for the govt to lower the immigration restrictions for these occupations post-Brexit.
Yes and there are approx 120,000 vacancies in the social care sector and about 40,000 nursing vacancies, not to mention all the crops which need harvesting.
Especially the health care sector is the area where the country with higher wages becomes a magnet for health care professionals as they are in a permanent shortage as the population gets older.
Also, the simple fact is that in a prosperous society there simply are jobs that people won't take. Especially here where there is a tight social security net and welfare state: you will get perpetual unemployment benefits, the state will pay your rent and hence provide housing. People will start calculating if it's really profitable to work in a crappy job and have less free time, yet have exactly basically same amount of money to spend. Fruit picking is a traditional example of this, as the job is too difficult for low priced robots to do.
And finally it is a fact that much needed professionals are sought after everywhere. And if I recall correctly, at least in the 1990's if you could show that you invested enough pounds in the UK, you got your permit to immigrate to the UK immediately no matter where you came. Money talks.
People will start calculating if it's really profitable to work in a crappy job and have less free time, yet have exactly basically same amount of money to spend. Fruit picking is a traditional example of this.
Yes, I see the problem there. In the UK though social security is so low that it won't have that effect. The problem is more likely going to be due the people just refusing to do a lot of these job, because they think it is beneath them, or they can't do a day's physical work.
Yesterday the EU rejected the UK request for cars with less than 50% of the parts in them being made in the UK, or the EU, to be classed as made in the UK, therefore being tariff free potentially when exported to the EU. Because the UK could become an offshore assembly hub for non EU parts, with open access to the EU markets. This is probably the death nail of the UK car industry (most of the parts involved are made in Japan, which has just agreed a trade deal with the EU).
Also today Ursula Von der Layen, formally announced that the EU is taking the UK to court for legislating to break the withdrawal agreement.
Reply to Punshhh
If the EU would be truly a Federation and controlled by a singular entity that would drive the objectives of the EU itself, it would be worse. Luckily it really isn't the US of Europe.
If a member decides to leave and this is somehow accepted, then the logical response would make it as utterly devastating for the leaving member as possible. Hence in the UK example, the answer would have been to say to Scotland that is totally free to join the EU and it will be considered as a member state already with the only requirement of being that as a EU country it has to treat it's southern border as frontier of the EU in every way.
That would have sent a message to every member state that "If you leave us, we promise we will rip apart your country by luring the richest parts of your country into the EU". With Italy it would be the north, with Spain, Catalonia (of course!) and with Germany, lets say Bavaria.
Also a well functioning federation would nip right from the bud any secessionist or exiting-EU ideas as so crazy that the people saying those kind of things ought to be in a mental asylum. Or if not there, at least they are inherently racist, nativist, violent skinhead types and simply deranged evil people. After all, how many know that there's a Texas Nationalist Movement? The state has already been independent and was recognized by at least Belgium and Netherlands to be an independent country.
Of course this didn't happen as the EU is still a semi-loose union of independent nation states. And member being independent states means that there is few if any control of the EU over them in the domestic political arena. As nation states control the EU it was Spain that was utterly panicked about the possibility of Scotland waltzing into the EU and creating an example for Catalonia to continue. Hence the EU gave the Scottish Independence a cold response without any kind of contemplation of an independent Scotland continuing with the all the agreements of the EU-Britain, which was what the Scottish nationalists wanted.
And from this example you can notice, that the EU as a truly functioning "United States of Europe" would be a far sinister player than it is now.
I was wondering in what court the EU's legal action against the UK govt will be heard.. If it's the EU Court surely the UK can just say it no longer has jurisdiction as we've left the EU. If it's the UN Court its verdict might carry some weight..
Reply to Tim3003 With sovereign states court decisions are a minor issue, what the real issue is how other sovereign countries respond in things like trade policy etc.
Good example is to compare present Israel to Apartheid era South Africa. Once for US the Apartheid system came to be a more important factor than having a Western ally in the African continent, things changed dramatically. For the white ruling class it was more sound to do away with apartheid than face the sanctions. Yet some international court or even the UN general assembly taking a stance on Israel's occupation of territories doesn't matter as the US stands obediently with Israel and Western countries are eager to trade with Israel.
In any situation the UK won't face something like the South Africe faced even from the EU member states. For example for my puny little country the UK one of it's largest trading partners, hence the country has absolutely no desire of punishing the UK trade... we've already have had the burden of limiting our trade with our Eastern neighbor because of the events in Ukraine.
Kenosha KidOctober 02, 2020 at 14:54#4581470 likes
Reply to Tim3003 The UK is breaking international law, not EU law. The Withdrawal Agreement has the status of a treaty.
Reply to Tim3003 I've heard that the EU is seeking to prosecute the UK, for their intention to breach the contract of the withdrawal agreement, as a signal to the rest of the world that they stand by their commitments and expect their neighbour's who they do business with to do the same. That it is not making much difference in the negotiations, apart from indicating who threatened to renage on the commitments in the agreement and acted in a disingenuous manner, incase the talks breakdown and a blame game begins. The EU has noticed that the UK government has been spreading claims and rumours that the EU is behaving unreasonably, which is actually incorrect. So they are preparing for the blame game
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, it will be heard at the ECJ and Britain has agreed to abide by any decision of the court until 31st of December 2020 and for fours years thereafter. I couldn't say if it will be a judge who decides, but I expect so, as it it a court.
Almost unnoticed amid the Covid panic the trade deal talks deadline has passed with no agreement, and each side blaming the other for not moving. In their meeting the EU leaders did not exactly express confidence and optimism that the talks should keep going, but had no option but to agree to it. Is there now a mechanism for the EU to ratify a deal even if one is reached?
With von der Leyen now self-isolating it is surely obvious that the deadline should be delayed, but there's no way Boris will agree to that, so we'll presumably get a rushed conclusion and likely a flawed deal. Or no-deal..
Johnson has said now that we are heading for an "Australia deal", code for no deal. It might be a handfisted attempt at brinkmanship, but sounds more like he is drifting away from seriously seeking a deal.
Quite, I do think he wanted a deal, but only on unreasonable terms. He always wanted to have his cake and eat it. So it's just as likely that he has been signalling to the EU that he doesn't want a deal in his actions. Namely breaking the commitments in the withdrawal agreement and spaffing any trust there was up the wall. By now the EU will regard him as an entirely unreliable, if not duplicitous negotiating partner.
A Downing st spokesman has said this evening, that the talks are over.
Officially over, yes. The 2 sides seem to have fixed positions and both are unwilling to move. But with 6 weeks still to go there is room for informal initiatives. It wouldn't surprise me if Boris is pushing it to the brink in order to maximise his own gain from miraculously pulling a last minute deal out of the fire. With the increasing hits he's taking over his Covid policies he's badly in need of a distraction. I bet he'd love to 'save Christmas' again..
Reply to Tim3003 Both Christmas's are going to fall over the precipice. It's a slow motion car crash. I'll get out my Tom Waites albums, (Clue, The Piano has been drinking)
It looks as though Johnson is totally cornered, it's like checkmate, there's no where for him to turn, now that Biden is president elect. Either he takes the country down with him with a no deal Brexit and no US trade deal, but temporarily saves face with his party. Or he capitulates and begs for a closer trade deal with the EU and betrays the Brexiters, splitting his party, but saves the country and paves the way for Starmer.
Interesting article on how the political class failed to rescue the Brexit debacle. To the stent that we now have looney government with absolute power trashing the country. Good job we haven't got a Trump to make it worse. Oh hang on that's what we've got, UK Trump, Johnson.
Well commentators (and ERG MPs) are forecasting a trade deal in the next week. Time for EU members to ratify the deal is running down fast. Maybe Boris's loss of his US bum-chum has weakened his knees, and fear of Biden's retribution if he reneges on the Brexit deal has weakened his bowels.. As he puts his foot in it in a new way every day (yesterday he called devolution a disaster) he can hardly afford to fail now.
Reply to Baden Implode is more appropriate and the ERG will attack the corpse like rabid dogs. In the meantime, a paper thin deal might, or might not be agreed.
Reply to Tim3003
Johnson is between a rock and a hard place. He would like to capitulate and reach a compromise with the EU, but he is hostage to the ERG and the perception that the amount of sovereignty that would need to be given away at the last minute to reach the paper thin deal, is to much to countenance. Better to cut free with a no deal and have pure untarnished sovereignty, no matter what the chaos that will ensue.
While there are a growing number who think that the Brexiters should be given their holy grail (clean break Brexit) and be made to own it. As that is the only way to lance the boil.
Kenosha KidNovember 18, 2020 at 12:08#4725850 likes
While there are a growing number who think that the Brexiters should be given their holy grail (clean break Brexit) and be made to own it. As that is the only way to lance the boil.
Yes, I occasionally veer this way, but obviously I feel bad for those who voted for Remain who are going to feel that pain.
but he is hostage to the ERG and the perception that the amount of sovereignty that would need to be given away at the last minute to reach the paper thin deal, is to much to countenance. Better to cut free with a no deal and have pure untarnished sovereignty, no matter what the chaos that will ensue.
Well I heard Peter Bone, who I think is ERG sounding quite upbeat about wanting a deal and expecting the compromises would be made. Anyway, with an 80+ majority Boris isn't in hoc to the ERG any more. A few zealots are standing up for the UK fishermen, just as Macron is for his own, but the money they make is so small compared to the no-trade-deal hit I can't see that swaying the decision.
Reply to Tim3003 You may be right there, but somehow I doubt by compromise he means any from the UK side. The lead negotiator David Frost threatened to resign the other day when the moderates started considering making real compromise to get a deal over the line, in Downing Street, following the Biden win. Frost is quite a hard Brexiter. There was definitely a stand off of some sort in Downing St, Cummings and Cain either jumped, or were pushed during the same episode.
Perhaps the moderates have won, it would put Frost in a difficult position.
Yes, I occasionally veer this way, but obviously I feel bad for those who voted for Remain who are going to feel that pain.
Likewise, also I am conflicted because I will qualify for a Scottish passport should Scotland leave the Union. So part of me looks for that as a way out.
There was definitely a stand off of some sort in Downing St, Cummings and Cain either jumped, or were pushed during the same episode.
Yes, we havent heard much speculation about the background to that. I suppose Brexit is the most likely one as Cummings was such a die-hard Leaver. Boris though is a pragmatic politician and knows when to accept a partial victory. He's had few even of those recently!
I don't think there is going to be a debate for much longer about whether the Scots deserve a 2nd referendum; just whether the govt can get away with not giving them one. But as Sturgeon says, it's a lose-lose situation for Westminster, as the more they refuse, the more angry and insistent the independents will get, and the more of the undecided vote will swing their way.
Kenosha KidNovember 18, 2020 at 22:57#4727300 likes
Likewise, also I am conflicted because I will qualify for a Scottish passport should Scotland leave the Union. So part of me looks for that as a way out.
A good update from someone with his finger on the pulse. The rollercoaster (ghost train) is loaded up now and ready to roll. I expect it will set off just as Parliament goes into festive recess, they don't return until 7th January, so they will miss the starting gun.
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2020/11/zenos-brexit.html
Interesting link in there to George Mombiot about the role of disaster capitalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/24/brexit-capitalism
One which I have many answers to, but few can be blamed for the act of Brexit itself, we may have to wait for the historians to give an answer. To me it goes back to William the Conquerer, although it probably goes back a lot further and has something to do with fish.
My take is: the crime of anachronistic nationalism.
Yes, but that's just a symptom of the even deeper crime; fear and ignorance, one that man will sadly never find redemption from. Of course - and even more sadly - it's not a crime really..
fear and ignorance, one that man will sadly never find redemption from. Of course - and even more sadly - it's not a crime really..
It's a crime when it is engineered. Murdoch made sure that every 1 in 2 native English speakers in this world ends up a total moron by the age he or she can watch the tely.
It's a crime when it is engineered. Murdoch made sure that every 1 in 2 native English speakers in this world ends up a total moron by the age he or she can watch the tely.
"Engineered"? Murdoch simply sells papers by giving readers what they want, which is not challenging their ill-formed views and promoting fear of the unknown, but reinforcing them to promote outrage against the 'known' foreigners - simplistic stereotypes though they are.
"You can lead a horse to water..."
unenlightenedDecember 01, 2020 at 15:13#4759760 likes
"Engineered"? Murdoch simply sells papers by giving readers what they want, which is not challenging their ill-formed views and promoting fear of the unknown, but reinforcing them to promote outrage against the 'known' foreigners - simplistic stereotypes though they are.
Engineered! The rich minority maintain their power by sowing dissension and setting the poor against the destitute, the slum-dwellers against the homeless, the Northerner against the Southerner, black against white, worker against sick or disabled, indigenous against incomer and so on and on and on.
Readers want what they are convinced to want and that is the basis of advertising, propaganda, and manipulation. And you know all this perfectly well and are spreading the same divisive propaganda yourself. Blame the people with the power and influence for the state of the world; blame the people who inform the ill-informed with simple stereotypes - blame yourself. Drink the water, leader of horses.
"Engineered"? Murdoch simply sells papers by giving readers what they want, which is not challenging their ill-formed views and promoting fear of the unknown, but reinforcing them to promote outrage against the 'known' foreigners - simplistic stereotypes though they are.
Reenforced at least, if not engineered. Manipulated. Lied to. Flattered and fooled. Day after day, for years.
Another ‘crime’ of the UK, in my view, the original sin happened in the seventies: the UK joined a project it did not believe in. It joined the European project not to support it genuinely and positively, but to avoid being left out. Their heart was not in it. Hence they never invested much cultural and political capital in it.
unenlightenedDecember 01, 2020 at 20:52#4760500 likes
the UK joined a project it did not believe in. It joined the European project not to support it genuinely and positively, but to avoid being left out. Their heart was not in it. Hence they never invested much cultural and political capital in it.
Yes. I think that was the price of thinking 'we won the war.' Britain was never humiliated the way the rest of Europe was, by invasion, defeat, or collaboration. The Swiss have the same problem. Still struggling to think we ever did anything wrong.
Reply to unenlightened I have to agree with everything you say. It's about the privelidged classes maintaining their iron grip on the ordinary man/woman. Cracking the whip to keep them in their place, the place where they diligently work hard to generate the profits for their betters to cream it off.
The rot set in with Blair because he was not one of them (ideologically). He endangered the project with his welcoming in of the workers from the new Eastern European members of the EU. This was then compounded by the financial crisis of 2008. Leaving the rump of the privelidged dangerously exposed. Their grip of the reigns has been slipping ever since, to the extent that they are now desperate.
This is evidenced in the possibility that Corbyn could have won the election a year ago. The Tory's took a huge sigh of relief when they won and dodged that calamity. Now they will have to reassert their iron grip. They are well equipped with the means of whipping the prolls and the prolls lap it up and buckle down again.
They are doomed to failure though and the Tory's are now imploding, they will lash out any way they can as they sink. The problem is as can be observed in the polls and when one talks to the younger generation, that they have no political support amongst the young and are not portraying themselves in a good light at the moment. Indeed, it has become a horror show, guaranteed to put off any young voter.
Once Scotland leaves the Union, all hope will be lost, for the privelidged classes.
Their heart was not in it. Hence they never invested much cultural and political capital in it.
I have to agree, although there is a sizeable proportion of the UK population who does value the EU. Everyone I know, for example, except a few older folk. I would hazard a guess that over 20% of the population, it could be higher. The problem which lead to Brexit is that the ruling party, is constituted of ideological fanatics due to their anachronistic schooling, who despised membership of the EU from the beginning. The mass of the population was largely indifferent and was happy with the status quo.
Going back to why we joined in the 70's, it was a move to save our economy, as the sick man of Europe, we were in a desperate state and membership provided a well needed lifeline.
Going back to why we joined in the 70's, it was a move to save our economy, as the sick man of Europe, we were in a desperate state and membership provided a well needed lifeline.
Didn’t know that. It’s a pretty good reason to join a trading block. And not to leave it I guess.
Reply to Benkei I doubt it. It would take an extraordinary reversal of mindset from the Brits to even ask to go back in the EU. They would need to adore what they burnt, burn what they adored, etc. Not gona happen. Also, the EU is unlikely to let them in a second time. Too much trouble.
Reply to Benkei
I'm inclined to agree, although I think it is is highly unpredictable in the short term. It will depend on the fortunes of the Conservative party, who are burning a lot of bridges and have little support from the young. Along with how it plays out with Scotland. Scotland may be knocking at the EU's door in only a few years time.
So even after - what is it - 5 years, it's still a cliffhanger. Deal or no deal? What was that cowboy film where the hero took 32 bullets while staggering across a river? It's like that. The only reason it's not much in the news is that it doesn't have Trump's 'color and movement' factor.
So even after - what is it - 5 years, it's still a cliffhanger. Deal or no deal?
There will be a deal, no sweat. The failure would be too huge for either side to justify it. Both would be villified by their own supporters, and all their opponents. They'd be humiliated and taunts of 'resign' would be in the air. Only a few rabid Farragists would be happy.
Reply to Wayfarer The talks are frenetic as both sides think that the deadline is the end of Sunday, in two days time. Rumours are flying around about concessions, breakthroughs and the sides moving farther apart rather than closer. So in reality it's headless chickens running around in circles.
Johnson might have a bit of a compromise in mind on the level playing field in state aid, but it's not going to be enough and only if the UK gets all the fish. Yesterday France came down solidly behind protecting their fisheries. Macron is under intense pressure from the right wing in France not to buckle on this point and he has elections in the summer.
If they don't reach an agreement by Sunday the UK parliament is to bring back the internal market bill, the bill to break the withdrawal agreement and a finance statement which will drive a wedge through any trust on Tuesday.
So no one can see anything close to a deal at this stage, while tempers are rising and a breakdown in talks is imminent.
If you want a sober commentary check out @tconnellyRTE, #TonyConnelly.
So - this Sunday is the actual, final, drop-dead, once-and-for-all deadline. It seems there have been so many missed deadlines, so many moving goalposts, in this saga.
Reply to Wayfarer
Well really the deadline is 10.59pm GMT 31st December, but it's not that simple, I've heard talk of crashing the deadline and softening up the other side with a bit of cold hard reality for a few months and then restart next spring, or summer.
The problem we are all going to have to face, is that Johnson and the government is disingenuous and can't be trusted to honour any agreement. So the EU is looking for cast iron legal text of sanction when Johnson reneges. Even with that and it happens the relations will continue to sour.
Reply to Punshhh well Starmer seems a much more likely prospect than Corbyn ever did, from where I sit, but the Tories have a huge majority, don't they? I mean, again and again, it just seems to me that the whole Brexit idea has been an unmitigated disaster from the start, and now that COVID-19 has been added to the situation, it's going from bad to worse.
Reply to Wayfarer Yes it's a perfect storm and very scary. We just have to hope we can avoid economic collapse. The one bit of positivity which there may be is that the people who brought this about will feel the pain and have to own it and that it breaks the stranglehold of the Tory's who have been hollowing out the country for a generation.
So - this Sunday is the actual, final, drop-dead, once-and-for-all deadline. It seems there have been so many missed deadlines, so many moving goalposts, in this saga.
Is this Sunday the final deadline? We'll see. 4 weeks are still left and it's amazing how seemingly fixed barriers can move. Still, the fact that Boris is getting involved is indeed a sign. Remember the Brexit talks? He stepped in at the last moment and pulled a deal out of the fire, basically by removing one of his own red-lines. It's true that his support among Tories isn't as cast-iron as it was then, but he's a risk taker, so it's a precedent I suspect..
Reply to Tim3003 Following Johnson's phone call with von der Leyen the mood is down beat. The talks can't go anywhere now and the Internal market bill comes back to the commons on Monday.
The talks are definitely breaking down. Following a briefing of European leaders over the last couple of days by Barnier, they are expressing concern that Barnier could go to far in attempts to try and get something agreed. Many have said that if the deal is not water tight on the level playing field they will veto any deal during ratification. France is getting tougher on fish for pressing internal reasons and due to a lack of trust that the UK would try to stick his them up on fish.
This is what dampened optimism yesterday with the UK now accusing the EU of bringing new demands to the table, for once they are right. Suggests Johnson lost his rag during call with Von der Layen.
There is talk of the ERG buoyed by the sight of no deal, going for ripping up the Withdrawl agreement next so as to pay none of the agreed outstanding payments to the EU for ongoing projects and commitments.
The EU is feeling more cautious now as they realise that they are negotiating with entirely unreliable actors, who will say anything to get a concession and then backtrack later. They will not be bullied. There will be lots of shouting now.
Reply to Baden
Johnson has just taken a bite of the shit, but the're kicking the can down the road on the Northern Ireland issue. We may be back to 50:50, but I expect pushback from France and Co, tomorrow.
Pantomime. It all has to look like Boris is fighting the British Bulldog's corner and has pulled a stonking last-minute compromise out of the intransigent EU eggheads.
Reply to Baden
Well I would say that's the optimistic perspective. For me it's more like the politics before the First World War. We just need someone to approach someone with a poison tipped umbrella and its game over.
"Boris Johnson backs down by offering to drop law-breaking Brexit clauses
Boris Johnson has backed down and offered to drop the clauses in the Brexit Bill that would break international law, in a bid to break the deadlock in the talks."
See how the pantomime works? Leak some tough guy BS to your right-wing press poodles to grab the morning headlines and cloak the fact that you've begun capitulation as per the above which came later.
"Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove has been reminded that he swore on his job that the government would not back down on the Internal Market Bill.
Hours after MPs voted to reinstate clauses which break international law into the Brexit bill after the Lords rejected them, Gove announced that it would drop parts of the legislation after reaching an "agreement in principle" on the Northern Ireland protocol.
The minister said he was "delighted" to have reached an agreement, meaning controversial parts of the Bill would be withdrawn.
The u-turn has prompted people to remind Gove of the comments he made on Sky News when the bill was first proposed in September.
Back then presenter Sam Coates told the Brexiteer: "This government is known, famed perhaps even, for its u-turns.
"Do you swear, on your job, that the government will not back down on this?"
Gove agreed with his remarks. He replied: "Yes, I made it perfectly clear to vice president Šef?ovi? that we will not be withdrawing this legislation, and he understood that, and of course he regretted that."
Reply to Baden So they'll eat shit burgers and say how delicious the cake is, cakism.
I doubt they can smuggle it past the rabid dogs, but will the right wing rags throw those dogs under the bus, or support them to the hilt? Perhaps it's Murdock who gets to decide, rather than Blojo.
The right wing rags would suffer financially from Brexit too but, like Boris, they also gain by pretending
they're Turkey's who want Christmas. Both are up to their eyeballs in the same BS.
Reply to Baden I get what you’re saying about Johnson’s strategy, but I take a more pessimistic view, in reference to getting a deal. EU member states are moving in the direction of no deal, to cut Johnson loose as toxic.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336403947163164673
Also Johnson will have to swallow the whole package from the EU, I can’t see him doing that. Although I can see him having a complete about turn in a few days time when the experts remind him how damaging and counterproductive no deal will be.
I see Johnson as a lazy clown who believes in nothing, and so will cave rather than deal with the destruction Brexit will wreak on the UK (which will also make him look like an idiot for his claims that a no-deal would be just fine). That's more or less the extent of my reasoning here. I could be wrong and he's more of a self-destructive ideologue, but I've seen nothing to change my mind yet.
Reply to Baden
So he may cave when the experts spell it out to him what a shitshow no deal is. I can go with that. But it will throw a lit match into the dead wood of his party.
Breaking news, Honda has shut down production due to importation delays. The show is already starting. I heard of three or four other stories like this today.
I could be wrong and he's more of a self-destructive ideologue, but I've seen nothing to change my mind yet.
He's not personally affected by Brexit so there's nothing destructive about it. Blair is still around and making money despite giving support to the Iraqi war. It's just a job and since he's not there for the best interest of the country but because he craved power this will blow up. He doesn't care, like most Brexiteers.
I could be wrong and he's more of a self-destructive ideologue, but I've seen nothing to change my mind yet.
No way. Boris is much more like Trump. He will do whatever it takes to hold on to power. If that means contradicting past policies, snubbing the right wingers in his party - as long as he thinks the tabloid readers see him as Winston Churchill - the saviour of Britain - and vote for him next time, he'll do it.
The analyisis now seems to be that the fisheries differences can be managed over time, and the level playing field simply needs an independent body to rule on future law changes by either party that lead to a divergance. This is not uncommon in trade agreements. So a deal is there to be done if both sides want one. Does Boris want one or the disaster of trade tariffs? Could he sell the 'taking back control' platitude to voters who'll see wholesale price rises, job losses and shortages in shops next year? No. But with even a compromise deal he'll still be able to sell Brexit itself as 'taking back control'. Some Brexiteers will moan he's sold out but they won't matter any more - certainly not by the time of the next election. That will do for Boris..
As before the UK and the EU can’t square the circle. I remember the look on Johnson’s and Gove’s faces the morning after the referendum. You could see in those faces that they were lost and dumbfounded, as to what they were to do next and what they were going to have to spend the next few years trying to deliver. Between then and now the Conservative party has been going around in circles, fighting amongst themselves, becoming more and more chaotic, to the point now where the Prime Minister has humiliated himself in front of the EU leaders professing cakism.
I’m not so optimistic, but let’s see what happens tonight. Will Boris hand her the shit hamburger, or roll over to have his tummy tickled.
I'm starting to share your pessimism now. Does Boris really think he'll keep the red wall voters Tory with the Rule Britannia crap about sovereignty in the face of tarifs etc? Is he really going to reject any deal rather than risk backing down on sovereignty?
It strikes me that the only reason the fishing issue has not been put to bed already is that the level playing field stand-off on its own would not be enough to satisfy the tabloid readers and Brexiteers Boris is pandering to. To justify no-deal he needs at least 2 good reasons, and 1 of them must be understandable to the layman. So the level of disagreement with the EU is being exagerated for public consumption.
Maybe his Churchill delusion is now overcoming his common sense..
Reply to Tim3003 The brexiters in the Tory party are a cult with all the warped ideology, (I was there during the eighties and nineties, I saw the ideology spawn and grow within the party). It shouldn’t be a surprise that Johnson has lost any common sense he might have had. It’s a cult with some very wealthy an influential backers. He will have to keep his base happy, or they will turn on him and spit him out. This includes pandering to the right wing mags who can sway the red wall. So he can only go for the hardest clean break Brexit. But it’s an express train about to run out of track, he is doomed just as surely as are the Tory party themselves. The people will not forgive them when they start to feel the pain, it’s the miners strike and the pole tax all rolled into one and then some. With Scottish independence as the cherry on the top.
I wonder if Boris's thinking is that to leave with no deal now will mean hardship, but he'll be able to blame some of it on Covid. In 3 years time it'll be water under the bridge and he can trumpet the opportunities of being a free country in the next election campaign. The EU have offered a no tarifs deal now, and only the risk of imposing them later if there's a disagreement about the playing field tilting. That sounds better now, but in the next election campaign amid Tory plans to cut burocracy to increase competitiveness it may harm Tory chances. So Boris is bolstering his own prospects long term. If the country's 2% per year poorer, well he'll say the Brexit vote showed people want freedom more..
Reply to Tim3003 Following the bad smell last week (Johnson insulting Von der Leyen and Barnier over dinner), things are smelling rosier now. The mood music is that a deal is beginning to form, both sides have moved a little on level playing field. No mention of fish, as folk say it was never about fish (I doubt that myself). The important development though is that it is now to late for ratification, so some kind of delay process is going to happen along with the contingency plans which the EU had put in place in preparation for no deal. This will be a bare bones set of arrangements to keep planes in the air and lorries moving. Anything agreed in the meantime can be ratified in the new year, although it would take a few months. The EU is talking of 6 months for this to play out.
The upshot of this is that Johnson has now lost control, he has played his last card (unless he has a card hidden up his sleeve with a fish on it). As this process pans out, it will be the EU spoon feeding the UK towards something sensible and the UK will become less and less able to dictate terms.
Expect at some point Johnson to throw a fish out of the Pram when the rabid dogs bite back, but the UK is now powerless and adrift in relation to the EU. And the boil hasn’t been lanced.
I think it's so that even if it's No deal on Jan 1st, the situation could be reviewed soon thereafter. So maybe we'll get a few months of tarifs and a swift reconsideration by both sides in the light of all the problems.
Otherwise, given how far apart and absolute the entrenched positions are, I fail to see how a deal can be reached. The climbdown needed by either side would be too large and humiliating, and would undermine their having pushed the negotiations this far.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, although I would point out that the climb down will have to come from the UK side, because it is they who are not happy with the rules as laid out by the members of the market they are seeking access to. These rules are simple and practical trading terms, whereas the UK position is conflating some vague notion of sovereignty with these conditions, thereby falsely concluding that by agreeing to these rules, the UK will become trapped or enslaved somehow by the EU. This is entirely unreasonable, illogical and stupid.
Interesting interpretation here, suggesting that Johnson is hiding behind the bluster and looking for an opportunity to fold.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/boris-johnson-fold-brexit-negotiations-level-playing-field
Reply to Baden I know, but Johnson will be toast, unless he can somehow put the ERG etc on the naughty step. I suspect they have him in a headlock, so they would take him down with them.
Don't know much about the internal dynamics of the ERG, but I suspect at least some of them are sick of this shit too and looking for a face-saving exit (and Johnson has close personal allies there like JRM, so there's that too).
Yes, although I would point out that the climb down will have to come from the UK side, because it is they who are not happy with the rules as laid out by the members of the market they are seeking access to. These rules are simple and practical trading terms, whereas the UK position is conflating some vague notion of sovereignty with these conditions, thereby falsely concluding that by agreeing to these rules, the UK will become trapped or enslaved somehow by the EU. This is entirely unreasonable, illogical and stupid.
I don't think you can describe the level-playing-field as trading terms, and that's what the Tories object to. The EU wants to force the UK to follow whatever rules it has now or in future on govt subsidies, environmental, wildlife and labour welfare standards etc. I think the Tory view is bone-headed, but it's an entirely consistent one to insist that these are political matters and that if it's to be a sovereign nation the UK should have complete control of them.
This is where the problem with sovereignty comes in. The EU is not doing this, the UK is free to adopt its own terms for the interaction it has with other countries. But when it agrees trade deals with those countries it negotiates a set of common terms, which it agrees to abide by.
I agree that some of it could be interpreted as political issues, but they all have affects on trade. Trade deals are very complex because they involve all the ramifications of various standards, regulations, state aid etc.
There is a particular problem evidenced in this negotiation caused by the hostile dishonest, caniving approach by one party, the UK. As a result there is very little trust and the EU, understandably wants every term legally binding. Particularly while the UK government states that it seeks to diverge from the terms when expedient to its own interests.
As one commentator said today, the level playing field is only problematic to a country which intends to lower standards, to deregulate, to diverge. If that country was intending to maintain high standards maintain good regulations and be cooperative with its partners, the level playing field would be no problem at all. There is a sliding scale here which has implications for trade.
There is a particular problem evidenced in this negotiation caused by the hostile dishonest, caniving approach by one party, the UK. As a result there is very little trust and the EU, understandably wants every term legally binding. Particularly while the UK government states that it seeks to diverge from the terms when expedient to its own interests.
As one commentator said today, the level playing field is only problematic to a country which intends to lower standards, to deregulate, to diverge. If that country was intending to maintain high standards maintain good regulations and be cooperative with its partners, the level playing field would be no problem at all. There is a sliding scale here which has implications for trade.
Yes I agree. The UK govt has ruined the relationship with the EU, with that absurd NI lets-break-the-law bill (threat), which it has had to pull at the last minute. And no-one in Brussells trusts the ERG to maintain high standards when given the freedom to lower them.
That's why I said a few messages back that I can't see either side compromising at this late stage. Without trust the EU won't, and Boris cant with the ERG and Brexiteers yapping at his tails. I don't know why the 2 sides are still talking, except for the fact that neither wants to be the one to give up first and take the blame. That short-sightedness is making the Jan 1st cliff-edge even worse. I wonder if they'll carry on over Xmas?!
Reply to Tim3003 I sense that the government is getting worried about the chaos of no deal and are looking for a way out. There’s a small chance that the EU might find a way to help them out, but it’s not looking good.
Yes, it looks that there is a way through, but I expect a lot more ping pong yet and the possibility that Johnson will fumble it at the last moment.
Ratification will feature when we reach the new year, as it is to late for full ratification now. So the contingency plans which the EU agreed yesterday will be implemented, unless an extension is agreed, which I doubt. Meaning that the terms become gradually more and more dictated by the EU. Contingency is wafer thin, so there will be a lot of chaos in January even with a deal.
For example, many hauliers are not planning to send any lorries come January.
This one caught me by surprise. Most of the farmers around me grow sugar beet and sell it to a large sugar factory just up the road. I was thinking that these farmers, who mostly voted leave, would be ok after brexit, as there is strong demand for sugar in the UK. But already they’ve been sold down the river following a sweetener of tariffs reductions to start the US trade deal.
https://twitter.com/DPMcBride/status/1339227869957005314
State of the negotiations over the last week. There seems to be a significant deadline tomorrow night Sunday 20th. If a way through doesn’t happen by then, the talks may stall.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1219/1185362-brexit-trade-talks/
Reply to Benkei Yes, but if there is a breakdown over fish it could lead to a protracted period of tit for tat.
This morning Barnier is going back to the EU leaders to float the idea of giving back 25% of access, up from 18% (scaling down over 10 years). I expect he will get a frosty reception.
Meanwhile Johnson would find it a hard sell to accept anything less than 80% ( scaling down over 3 years).
Both sides are unlikely to move any further than that due to the political costs at home. Some people suggest Johnson will fold at the last second, some the the EU will.
The sh*t show has started!
All traffic across the channel has been stopped. This is due to the emergence of a virulent strain of the virus in Kent (near the channel crossings). The part of the UK which is going to have to accommodate many thousands of stranded lorries is going into lockdown. Meanwhile parliament has gone home for Christmas and Jacob Rees Mogg has effectively prorogued parliament by introducing strict rules in debate and voting restricting remote access for MPs.
I expect the top of the Conservative party will be either turning on each other, or in a blind panic. While our supply chains are going into catastrophic crisis.
Oh and breaking news, the talks have stalled and there won’t now be a deal by 1st January, meaning we will be going into contingency plans dictated by the EU.
Reply to Wayfarer Talks haven’t been officially called off, so there is a small chance of something being agreed, I expect. But somehow I can’t see any way back from here. The way it was phrased when I read it was that yesterday was the deadline for any deal being implemented by 1st of January, so a period of no deal is inevitable.
There are two other possibilities, either there is some kind of extension of the transition period (being called for by all opposition leaders (nothing from Starmer yet) and Nicola Sturgeon). Or some kind of over arching bridging agreement directly from the EU leaders (not looking likely).
Reply to Punshhh Thanks. There’s hardly been reporting on the talks, it was eclipsed by the ‘new strain of COVID’ story and the related border-closing. Diabolical confluence of circumstances.
Reply to Wayfarer Oh, that new strain that we've had in the Netherlands back in September exactly once? I think the fact pubs and stores were open is much more likely the culprit, combined with a superspreader event.
Reply to Benkei There’s a lot of confusion in the UK about how virulent the new strain is. Because at the weekend government spokesmen were saying its a lot more virulent, that it’s out of control, that it was spreading exponentially during the November lockdown. It is comments like this which may have resulted in the travel bans. There is a wide spread view that they hyped up the new variant to justify their U turn on easing restrictions over Christmas and going back into lockdown.
Also there is the possibility that they are using the new variant as a pawn in a high risk negotiation tactic in the trade deal negotiations. By goading EU countries into taking strong measures against the UK and then painting them as trying to control, or punish us and creating the image of Johnson as our saviour. This works with either a deal, or a no deal. Also it creates a smoke screen of chaos, classic divide and rule tactics.
There’s a lot of confusion in the UK about how virulent the new strain is. Because at the weekend government spokesmen were saying its a lot more virulent, that it’s out of control, that it was spreading exponentially during the November lockdown. It is comments like this which may have resulted in the travel bans. There is a wide spread view that they hyped up the new variant to justify their U turn on easing restrictions over Christmas and going back into lockdown.
Also there is the possibility that they are using the new variant as a pawn in a high risk negotiation tactic in the trade deal negotiations. By goading EU countries into taking strong measures against the UK and then painting them as trying to control, or punish us and creating the image of Johnson as our saviour. This works with either a deal, or a no deal. Also it creates a smoke screen of chaos, classic divide and rule tactics.
What confusion? Whose 'wide-spread view'? Look at the number of cases reported daily. Before lockdown it was around 23000. That came down to 16000. Now it's shot up to 35000. That increase cant be explained just by the end of lockdown. The fact that the new variant seems to have hit the UK hardest could be explained by the excellence of the UK genomics scientists, who have identified it faster than their foreign equivalents.
Reply to Tim3003 The genomes of the various varieties have been tracked from the beginning across the globe. The variant now being blamed in the UK has been around since September already and only now is high-lighted as problematic. As of yet, there's not definitive proof that the strain really is more contagious than other strains. I personally find it highly unlikely considering how long the strain has already been around. We've should've seen spikes in other areas before but we haven't. The Netherlands had exactly 1 confirmed case of this strain back in September.
CBS article:Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies program, said it was unclear if the increase in spread in the U.K. is due to the mutation or human behavior.
“We’ve seen an estimate of a small increase in the reproductive number by the U.K.,” he said, meaning the virus is spreading faster, which could mean it is more contagious or spreads more easily in colder months. It could also mean people are getting lax about following public health protocols. “It remains to be seen how much of that is due to the specific genetic change in the new variant. I suspect some.”
The area of the UK suspected of having to deal with the new strain was in Tier 2 restrictions until 17 December. Which means basically everything was open.
Reply to Tim3003 Yes, it could be twaddle, but Johnson is definitely squirming. Apparently he spoke to Von der layen twice yesterday. The UK has gone to about 60% and 6 years phasing out on fish and the EU about 30% and 5 years. It’s very close, but this morning the British made a final offer and the EU rejected it and Johnson is vociferous that there is no compromise on fish. There are wild rumours of white smoke, we seem to be at crunch point.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/u-k-s-latest-brexit-offer-on-fish-rejected-by-eu-officials
By goading EU countries into taking strong measures against the UK and then painting them as trying to control, or punish us and creating the image of Johnson as our saviour. This works with either a deal, or a no deal. Also it creates a smoke screen of chaos, classic divide and rule tactics.
Also there is the possibility that they are using the new variant as a pawn in a high risk negotiation tactic in the trade deal negotiations. By goading EU countries into taking strong measures against the UK and then painting them as trying to control, or punish us and creating the image of Johnson as our saviour. This works with either a deal, or a no deal. Also it creates a smoke screen of chaos, classic divide and rule tactics.
By 'using the new variant into goading...' do you mean somehow deliberately egging on the EU countries' individual bans on UK road export traffic, resulting in the tailbacks outside Dover? If so I fail to see how this could benefit Boris. All it does is give us a preview of the Jan 1st chaos, thus making everyone here more desperate than ever for a deal. If Boris fails to get one he looks worse, not better.
Either Barnier or VDL seems to be quoted every day as saying this is the crunch point. It's getting so that I just ignore them now. 'Crying wolf' it's called, not least because we know the EU is happy for the talks to go into 2021. If it gets to Dec 31st with a deal close Boris is going to find it very hard to insist on ending the talks at that point. Especially if we're still short of fresh veg etc. Another reason the current Dover chaos is bad news for no-deal supporters.
Reply to ssu I consider it unlikely as well because they couldn't time this but I'm wondering why you think it is so. Certainly not because it would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible?
Reply to Baden Yes, he folded from 80% to 30% on fish and was told to get lost. Macron has got him on the run now. Teach him to threaten gunships.
It’s win win for Macron, good for the French elections and defrocks a confrontational populist on the periphery of the EU. Remember he has grand hopes and plans for EU reform, this is his agenda and pushing back against the populists is key.
Reply to Tim3003 I was only saying that Johnson would spin the disruption against Macron. Rather than any strategy, I’m suggesting that Johnson’s modus operandi is to keep blustering until most options have evaporated leaving a basic choice and then jump at the last minute.
Certainly not because it would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible?
The UK administration isn't similar to the Trump tirade. I think managing a country through a pandemic has been a burden for Johnson and if he earlier could be a "reckless" person in the conservative party, he as prime minister isn't one now. A true sociopath like Trump can (and will) stay the same, because Trump is utterly incapable of feeling responsibility. Putting a country again to a lock-down and dealing with the Brexit talks likely is overwhelming as just one would take all the focus of the administration to handle.
Of course any administration will try to portray the deal, any deal, that they in the end get as the best one possible. Yet there's no way now to take back all the rosy Brexit talk when the whole thing was just political discourse and not impending reality.
Yet the thing is, thanks to the pandemic the Global economy is already in the gutter, hence the feared "Brexit recession" felt only by the UK, which would have been the worst thing for Boris, will not happen. So might be a great time to do the Brexit, already thanks to the new pandemic strain UK is quarantined. So, what's a Brexit in all of this hassle?
thanks to the pandemic the Global economy is already in the gutter, hence the feared "Brexit recession" felt only by the UK, which would have been the worst thing for Boris, will not happen. So might be a great time to do the Brexit, already thanks to the new pandemic strain UK is quarantined. So, what's a Brexit in all of this hassle?
A no-deal Brexit is estimated to take 2% off UK GDP next year, and tariffs will have an effect for many years. Covid-19's effect is bad but hopefully only short-term; but + Brexit it'll be even worse.
. Covid-19's effect is bad but hopefully only short-term
You think this is short-term?
Why?
Just when do think the global economy will roar back to a state that nothing has happened? All those service sector jobs just magically reappear back again? This year is lost, totally lost. The US has unemployment levels only similar seen in the Great Depression. You think Americans are going to rush to consume in six months or so?
In a situation where 40 countries have banned arrivals from the UK (and think vice versa how it affects tourism to the UK), I find it odd to worry about Brexit implications. But I'm open to change my mind on this view. Perhaps more convincing argument is a combo of Covid+Brexit. That's a whammy!
Yet the thing is, thanks to the pandemic the Global economy is already in the gutter, hence the feared "Brexit recession" felt only by the UK, which would have been the worst thing for Boris, will not happen. So might be a great time to do the Brexit, already thanks to the new pandemic strain UK is quarantined. So, what's a Brexit in all of this hassle?
Yes the pandemic gives Johnson something to hide behind politically. However economically the hit of Brexit is systemic and hits different sectors of the economy. Compounding the economic fallout. There will be a long term shrinkage across financial services, industrial investment and farming will need to be propped up. With Tory’s in power there is a suspicion that they will not cough up the money for the farmers and so they will suffer gradual decline as well. Although there may well be some growth in some areas due to the more global approach, I can’t think of anything at the moment. The government is talking up green technologies as a way to forge a way forward, but I can see their incompetence resulting in a failure on that one.
Just when do think the global economy will roar back to a state that nothing has happened? All those service sector jobs just magically reappear back again? This year is lost, totally lost.
Yes, this year is lost, but assuming the vaccines are successful in bringing Covid under control all those restaurants and air flights will be required again by 2022. People's jobs (at least in the UK) have been fairly well protected by furlough, and even if not; people won't suddenly give up eating out or flying abroad for their holidays, so those industries will expand to take up the slack, re-employing many of those made redundant. I'm not saying everything will be as if Covid never happened, but there is no reason to assume it will have a permanent effect on longer term growth is there?
As for the banning of UK citizens travelling. This is a panic response. The French have already realised it's absurd. Nothing we in the west have tried has stopped the virus spreading so far. It's likely that the new strain is already far more widely spread than just the UK, but other countries haven't realised it yet. Anyway, there's now a new South African strain which looks just as infectious. Random mutations can happen anywhere, and likely there will be more yet. The UK is ironically suffering for having the world's best genome sequencing industry..
Can't comment on Brexit details at all, and so will offer a hopeful bottom line reminder to our Brit friends across the pond.
Britain was a very successful country for centuries before the European Union. Brexit doesn't make sense to me, but if all goes wrong and the worst happens, the chaos will pass at some point and the grit and brains which have long defined your people will succeed at adapting to whatever the new environment turns out to be.
If there is any value to Brexit, it might be to remind you of who you are in times of crisis. When everyone else was running and hiding and making criminal deals, you raised your middle finger and jammed it in the eye of the Nazis. That's who you still are.
Here in the looney colonies across the pond we are now counting down the final month of the Trump presidency. 29, 28, 27.... So we've had a contest to see which our countries could be the stupidest, and while it's not clear who won, there is light emerging at the end of the long dark tunnel.
It doesnt make sense to anyone who has any sense - except a few rabid right-wing free-marketeers. But then over here we are still scratching our head wondering how such an appalling human being as Trump could ever get elected! The sad fault with democracy is that its politicians often have to lie to win, and when they all stoop to it the most brazen liers win..
ChangelingDecember 24, 2020 at 16:24#4825730 likes
There's a deal now, apparently. Does anyone care to explain it?
Reply to The Opposite Its best to wait a few days for the reporters to read it and tell us what’s in it. But folk are saying that it’s similar to the “Canada deal”. There is tariff and quota free access to the single market, no passporting on financial services and less fish than the Brexiters wanted. Oh and Northern Ireland has been kicked down the road.
Less fish too than the fishermen wanted. Part of the advantage of announcing the deal just before Xmas is that no-one wil be able to plough through the 2000-odd pages too thoroughly before the Commons vote. I forecast one or two unwelcome surprises for Brexiteers when it is examined. Boris says no red-lines crossed. We'll see..
What was up with the fish? I gather the image of a sovereign nation with deep historical links to the sea and to the times when territory was most important. Fishing is a rather small venue for the British economy.
Well, at least Dublin, Frankfurt and other smaller financial centers are very happy about Brexit, if we look for those who are the winners.
From 1st of October this year:
Financial services firms operating in the U.K. have shifted about 7,500 employees and more than 1.2 trillion pounds ($1.6 trillion) of assets to the European Union ahead of Brexit -- with more likely to follow in coming weeks, according to EY.
About 400 relocations were announced in the past month alone, the consulting firm said in a report on Thursday that tracks 222 of the largest financial firms with significant operations in the U.K. Since Britain voted to leave the bloc in 2016, the finance industry has added 2,850 positions in the EU, with Dublin, Luxembourg and Frankfurt seeing the biggest gains.
That's something like 1/10 of the assets managed in the City of London. Wonder how that impacts the economy of greater London.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I agree, but most Commonwealth countries are a long way from Britain, so won’t replace a lot of the day to day trade we have with the EU.
Well, at least Dublin, Frankfurt and other smaller financial centers are very happy about Brexit, if we look for those who are the winners.
I think this is more to the point. Whilst trumpeting a not-as-bad-as-it-might-have-been deals for goods, the govt conveniently overlooks the 80% of UK exports that are services, not goods. The deal doesn't cover these.
Not sure about the figures re shifting assets though. Other than staff, what assets can you move overseas except cash? And with the internet nowadays cash does not really have a location - it can be shifted anywhere immediately.
Not sure about the figures re shifting assets though.
I would think similar. I assume that it gives just a figure in the ballpark of the amount of assets now transferred to be managed under EU jurisdiction. London was such a convenient place for asset management, you know. Likely it's about portfolio's of institutional or private investors. You see, a hedge fund has still to have a home place.
Looking forward to prospering mightily. Here is an example of what businesses will have to do to trade with the EU.
https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1344691904164855816
A. Gill (Sunday Times journalist and food critic) writing about Brexit before his death in Dec 2016.
“It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”
It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”
Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.
We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.
The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.
And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.
All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.
There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.
The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.
Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty
We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.
Nine out of 10 economists say ‘remain in the EU’
You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.
Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.
The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.
No time for walls: the best of Europe, from its music and food to IM Pei’s pyramid at the Louvre, depends on an easy collision of cultures
There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.
The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.
Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?
I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in.”
Somewhat red-faced, I have to admit that the saga of Covid vaccine procurement in UK and the EU has added weight to the idea that Brexit was a good thing! The slow, bureaucratic - and now bitter - efforts of the EU have made the UK's quick regulatory approval of the vaccines and swift ordering look very impressive. I'm surprised Boris hasn't made more of this - maybe he knows he has so much ground to make up in his overall handling of the pandemic that he daren't blow his own trumpet yet.
Reply to Tim3003 Well, I found some time to look up the contract with the EU. https://globalnews.ca/news/7607304/eu-astrazeneca-contract-vaccine/ (there's a link at the bottom, which opens a pdf which links to the contract at the bottom).
So it seems the UK production sites were in scope to deliver to the EU as well and Astrazeneca gave a representation they did not have any obligations to another party that would impede the complete fulfilment. Unfortunately, the timing and language of the delivery of the initial 300 million doses is partially blacklined and it's not clear what the latest date is for delivery.
The best reasonable efforts for astrazeneca allow for considerations of efficacy and safety. But that's not general efficacy but efficacy related to performance under the contract. Governing law is Belgian law. So you don't have a too literal interpretation and adjustments for reasonableness and equity by a judge if it would go to court. My estimation is that the representation is what screws Astrazeneca if this goes to court.
Reply to Tim3003 Don’t be to hasty, I could give you a list as long as your arm of the political and administrative failures of the UK government in relation to Brexit. Including a threat from Johnson to trigger article 16 two weeks ago. Don’t forget who is the villain here.
Anyway the value of the EU is as an overarching agreement of cooperation and unity among the nations of Europe. Without it Europe would still be beset with squabbles, rivalries and even wars. Imagine the breakdown in relations between Britain and the EU multiplied 27 times. This is why the EU was created and in spite of its overbearing bureaucracy, it works and is a good foundation from which Europe can grow in mutual cooperation.
Kenosha KidJanuary 30, 2021 at 23:28#4948980 likes
There was a Daily Express (I know, but it's good) interview yesterday with a woman in exports bemoaning the amount of bureaucracy, the amount of parked up lorries, the amount of traffic, and the drop in custom on the continent. She said if she'd known it was going to be like this, she wouldn't have voted for Brexit.
Reply to Kenosha Kid Yes trade with the EU has dropped by about half overnight. Different sectors hit as the penny drops. The fishing industry has virtually died and last week it was pig farmers and pork exports. When the sheep farmers go under in a few weeks the reckoning will start. mainstream UK media has kept quiet during January, you would think Brexit hadn’t happened.
The slow, bureaucratic - and now bitter - efforts of the EU have made the UK's quick regulatory approval of the vaccines and swift ordering look very impressive.
Why is speed approving a new drug an "impressive" thing? I could approve anything with tremendous speed by just rubber-stamping it, would you be impressed?
Wasn’t a big part of the rationale about ‘ditching the Eurocrats’?
Aye, I genuinely think they'd expected that ending freedom of movement would somehow only effect brown-skinned people. I mean, we're British! Surely we can do what we want!
Why is speed approving a new drug an "impressive" thing? I could approve anything with tremendous speed by just rubber-stamping it, would you be impressed?
Given that the EU has taken a month longer to come to the same approval of the Covid drugs as the UK did, they have probably allowed thousands more deaths than if they had started vaccinating when the UK did...
Anyway the value of the EU is as an overarching agreement of cooperation and unity among the nations of Europe. Without it Europe would still be beset with squabbles, rivalries and even wars. Imagine the breakdown in relations between Britain and the EU multiplied 27 times. This is why the EU was created and in spite of its overbearing bureaucracy, it works and is a good foundation from which Europe can grow in mutual cooperation.
I wasnt saying the EU is a bad thing, merely that in the Covid vaccine rollout the UK has benefitted from being outside and free to move at a speed a large beaurocracy can't match.
The clumsy attempt at vaccine exit controls enacted and then removed by the EU shows it is rattled by its failures over this issue. As for the claim that all they want is transparency re vaccine exports - what happens if they do see Astra Zeneca exporting vaccine outside the EU ? Do they just ignore it? As the NI Unionists have said, for all the insistance on no hard border throughout the Brexit negotiations, as soon as the EU sees its own supply possibly affected by vaccine coming in From Eire it slams up a border. This casts Brussells in a very bad light. I wonder if Von Der Leyen will survive?
Given that the EU has taken a month longer to come to the same approval of the Covid drugs as the UK did, they have probably allowed thousands more deaths than if they had started vaccinating when the UK did...
Obviously. But it's only possible to say that in hindsight, so it's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the action was right or not. Had there been a severe reaction, putting pressure on hospital services just at a time when they're already overstretched, it may have been the other way around and we'd be condemning the recklessness of the UK.
It's daft to judge the rightness of an approach which we all know was a gamble on the basis of whether that gamble paid off.
If I sent a load of people over an unsafe bridge to save money would my actions suddenly become right if, by chance, they all made it across OK?
I don't think the UK's medicine regulators would agree with you that they took a gamble..
Really. So you think they considered there to be a zero chance that an increase in the amount of time they took would have yielded anything. What reason can you suggest as to why, on purely scientific grounds, the regulators in Britain seemed to be of this view whilst the regulators from the continent not so. Is it something in the water perhaps? Something affecting the continental brain that they can't see scientific certainty of this kind?
Reply to Tim3003 The UK’s procurement was independent of the joint EU scheme. But this is nothing to do with Brexit, the UK would have been independent anyway if we were in the EU. The UK is more independent in this way. It was the experts in Oxford who made the vaccine in record time which presented the opportunity.
It is understandable that the EU reacted the way they did, it is an extreme global crisis. The UK government has been just as chaotic time after time. Also the reckless act of forcing the Brexit arrangements during a pandemic has destabilised relations between the UK and EU. This sort of thing will keep happening in the chaos. It was inevitable that there would be some delays in the EU vaccine procurement due to the size and number of countries involved. Within an hour of the triggering of article16 by an EU official the Irish prime minister and Von Deleyen on a conference call cancelled the action and defused the issue. Preferable to the headless chickens we have on this side of the channel.
I expect Johnson to trigger the same article any day now as the tsunami of Brexit chaos breaks. Today there are port officials in NI considering closing of ports due to aggression from couriers stuck due to NI protocol, making them unworkable. Today leaders of the fashion industry wrote to the PM saying that they are on the verge of collapse due to a total lack of preparation of any kind of agreement enabling fashion shows to go ahead, alongside a mountain of paperwork, just like the musician and artist crisis. Also the EU has just slapped a ban on tens of thousands of tonnes of shellfish which UK fishermen had to freeze, because they couldn’t ship them fresh, from being imported to the processing plants in the EU. All this chaos is going to explode at some point over the next few weeks.
Oops, I should have said that the EU has banned the import of live shellfish from the UK. This will put the whole industry out of business.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/exclusive-eu-tells-british-shellfish-traders-that-a-post-brexit-export-ban-is-indefinite-not-temporary
ChangelingFebruary 03, 2021 at 03:46#4962270 likes
Reply to The Opposite No, I don’t do anything like that, I’m mainly a cartoonist. The only other platform you’ll find me on is Twitter. #punshhh and I’m not the shady Russian on that tag, I’m the other one.
ChangelingFebruary 04, 2021 at 17:29#4968470 likes
Report on Brexit effects from Private Eye:
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/58
"Richard Brooks has been on a pilgrimage to Kent to uncover the hidden chaos of Brexit; Tim Minogue reveals the unexpected downsides of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and Francis Wheen laments the departure of one of the Telegraph's finest hacks, who also happens to be the Chinese ambassador to Britain."
Index of business and jobs lost due to Brexit. This not exhaustive, but is a good illustration of the trends.
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/the-digby-jones-index/
A catch up on Brexit Britain.
The trade situation is dire, small businesses are finding it expensive and with long delays, things getting lost etc, selling anything into EU. Larger companies are having to open warehouses, offices etc on the continent. Our imports are still not being checked, which is the only reason a lot of them are still coming in. Once they are following all the rules re’ imports, a lot will stop coming.
Good summary from Chris Grey.
Now that Biden's in town maybe we'll see some progress. If the US manages to separate the issue of the NI protocol from the Good Friday agreement he may soften his pro-EU tone. Whether the EU will accept climbing down from the letter of the protocol to help NI may depend on their accepting their hardline stance is causing loyalist unrest and so jeopardising the peace..
It's typical of Boris to have signed up to something he didn't fully understand at the time, and now be trying to unpick the problems he stored up then. One day his 'optimism first detail last' philosophy will break him. As yet the voters haven't tired of him putting his foot in it. I predict the Covid-19 enquiry will add further weight to the case for his cavalier attitude causing problems. Maybe then an analysis of the number of unneccessary deaths will wake up the public and the chickens will come home to roost. But I wouldnt bet against him wriggling out of it. He knows the public cant grasp detail either.
Now that Biden's in town maybe we'll see some progress. If the US manages to separate the issue of the NI protocol from the Good Friday agreement he may soften his pro-EU tone. Whether the EU will accept climbing down from the letter of the protocol to help NI may depend on their accepting their hardline stance is causing loyalist unrest and so jeopardising the peace..
Why does the EU have to back up from a deal where it's the UK breaking a promise the UK willingly signed up to? I'm not saying there aren't alternative solutions but it's up to the UK to offer an alternative that effectively meets the concern for which the original promise was made. If the EU just moves that is tantamount to inviting the UK to break more promises to get concessions from the EU.
Why does the EU have to back up from a deal where it's the UK breaking a promise the UK willingly signed up to? I'm not saying there aren't alternative solutions but it's up to the UK to offer an alternative that effectively meets the concern for which the original promise was made. If the EU just moves that is tantamount to inviting the UK to break more promises to get concessions from the EU.
The problem is that whatever the UK suggests it is shot down because it isnt sticking to the letter of the agreement. Fair enough. But in that case the EU has to come up with a way to stop the tension escalating among NI loyalists - either within the protocol or outside it; or take the risk of insisting on the letter of the agreement and incurring Biden's wrath for the riots that could follow.. This is Boris's tactic - sidestep the issue of what's just and force your opponents to negotiate an expedient fix via the threat of a bigger problem down the road. 'Realpolitik' it's called.
Reply to Tim3003 The problem for the EU is that if they make a concession the U.K. gov’ will grab it and ask for more while shouting even louder that the EU is bullying them and that the concession proves this. Because by admitting to the concession, they are admitting that the fault is with them.
Meanwhile Johnson is making hay in his culture war and EU blaming at home.
The best strategy for the EU, as is best in dealing with a bully, is to stand firm on what was negotiated. Because to concede won’t improve the situation, it will only deepen the crisis. It would give ammunition to those who seek to legitimise U.K. position and sully EU position. By dragging EU into a dirty slanging match.
The best strategy for the EU, as is best in dealing with a bully, is to stand firm on what was negotiated. Because to concede won’t improve the situation,
And standing firm will? In what way is escalating tension in NI improving things? Boris knows he can simply blame riots on the EU for being intransigent. The Good Friday agreement is bigger than the NI Protocol. Boris knows this. Biden believes it. The EU may have to concede it. A face-saving fudge will doubtless be found in time.
Anyway, any alternative to implementation of the protocol is no solution. Except, for NI leaving U.K. and rejoining IRL.
Perhaps you can describe such an alternative?
You won’t find any Brexit supporters on a philosophy forum.
Haven't we seen them passionately debate that side in this very thread when things were still moving? Just noticing that there are very few of them left now that everything is done.
There are also very few philosophers on this philosophy forum. The quality of logic is rare.
Harsh words regarding the membership of a philosophy forum there. Surely there are plenty of amateur philosophers here.
It's an open forum where everyone can join. There are far more posts made by people who don't know how to form arguments by philosophical standards. The whole point of a philosophy forum is to have a higher quality discussion that doesn't end up being "just another reddit thread". I would still say that amateur philosophers should at least know the basics of philosophical dialectics, it should be the minimum requirement in my book.
Quite. I wonder where the philosophers congregate?
Probably places like here and the halls of universities. But that doesn't help if there are thousands of people that just want to say their opinions and think that's philosophy. I guarantee that there's a majority here of people who don't know anything about philosophy, a minority of people who autodidact philosophy, and a fraction that are actually philosophy scholars.
But philosophical scrutiny should be applied to all. Regardless of the level of knowledge.
?Christoffer
You won’t find any Brexit supporters on a philosophy forum.
I thought the same thing. Then again, given the idea that pre-Brexit there were some but they've now disappeared I may have appeared (falsely) to be one myself! I find it interesting as an student of people and their motivations to dissect and argue the pros and cons of the issue from a neutral point of view. Those who cling to one side of an argument often seem filled with resentment and anger to me - as if cursing the world for refusing to realise they're right. If things really were so clear cut there would be no disagreements. Any familiarity with philosphy will soon convince even the most radical that there are no universally agreed truths.
Regardless of whether we're educated in philosophy or laymen however, I think that the use of the word 'philosophy' in the forum name is useful to put off would-be contributors who have nothing original or thought-through to say. No post of less than 3 lines should be allowed . :wink:
"Post-Brexit Britain should abandon the EU’s “excessively cautious” approach to regulation and light a bonfire of red tape to fuel economic growth, a task force commissioned by Boris Johnson has said...."
Reply to counterpunch That article requires subscription to read. I wouldn’t support the telegraph because it is little more than a Brexiter pamphlet now.
Reply to Tim3003 Quite, I am ambivalent on the question of UK’s membership of EU in principle. But see the current situation as a train wreck and more about a psychotic episode in the Tory party, than any rational process about the UK’s position in world affairs.
In fact the train is shortly going to run out of track. Time to reach for the popcorn.
Quite, I am ambivalent on the question of UK’s membership of EU in principle. But see the current situation as a train wreck and more about a psychotic episode in the Tory party, than any rational process about the UK’s position in world affairs.
In fact the train is shortly going to run out of track. Time to reach for the popcorn.
You have often spoken about this implosion of the Tory party as a cause of our ills. And I still don't understand the reasons for your conclusion, or your forecast that its effect will be so disasterous! Yes it's now the Boris party, just as 35 years ago it was the Maggie party. So what?
The Aussie trade deals shows post-Brexit Britain is outward- and forward- looking. Farmers may have reservations, but I've yet to hear any concrete reasons why the deal is very disadvantageous.
The Aussie trade deals shows post-Brexit Britain is outward- and forward- looking. Farmers may have reservations, but I've yet to hear any concrete reasons why the deal is very disadvantageous.
I think it's more backward looking than forward looking. We had deals with the old colonies before joining the EEC as was, and the economy was doing badly. The protectionist stand of Europe wrt agriculture was and still is advantageous. Free trade between fertile plains and rugged hills doesn't really work unless there is an underlying commonality to the economy, such as a common currency and tax system.
The perfect storm is on the horizon. We have the three crisis happening at once. The effects of Brexit on trade with EU(fresh produce, just in time supply chains). The effects of COVID(massive economic upheaval) and now the knock on effects of the suez container pile up.
https://twitter.com/vivamjm/status/1405171792369627141?s=20
It feels as though we are about to go over the waterfall in a barrel. Just as we go into a third wave with the Johnson variant(Delta variant). Hold on tight and stock up on a few essentials.
Reply to Tim3003 My rationale is that Tory’s have been in crisis following the growth of UKIP and the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008. Alongside these issues, the apparent success of Corbyn put the wind up em and their policy of austerity has started to attract criticism as a failed policy.
A generation of anti EU sentiment had matured among a section of their base and the parliamentary party. There was a steady stream of these Euro skeptics out of the party in favour of UKIP. This was partly responsible for the growing call for a referendum. In reality Cameron had little choice but to call the referendum because of this split. We don’t know what discussions and rows were going on behind the scenes
Whatever happened in the party, though resulted in the party offering a referendum and then embracing Brexit, following the result. Theresa May was continually pressured by the ERG, indeed she appeared to be far more scarred of them than the opposition. However a majority of Tory MP’s were openly in favour of remaining in the EU. By this point there were open rows in the party about what kind of Brexit should be delivered. May and the ERG quashed this repeatedly, splitting the party further.
By this point the issue was becoming polarised, the party and the population began to divide into leave and remain camps and serious discussion and argument increasingly became less and less possible as positions became entrenched.
Pro EU Tory’s found themselves in a position in which they had no choice but to back the government, whatever the government line. While the direction of Brexit was being steered by a small group at the top under intense pressure from a fanatical ERG. A handful of Tory MP’s could not accept this authoritarian line and others were thrown out of the party, the rest just kept their heads down and blindly supported the government whatever the dictat. As May’s Brexit began to founder a group of hardline anti EU Tory’s split from the May government and started to form behind Johnson. They recruited the vote leave campaigners and began to employ the populism which they had used to win the referendum.
This is where the Johnson camp crossed the line into ruthless populism. I’m sure that many Tory MP’s looked on in horror at these developments. But they had already sold their souls to this Brexit project and again put their heads down and kept quiet.
The fact that the government is now riding rough shod over the principles, values and integrity of the Conservative party and embracing power driven populism is a symptom of this crisis within the party. If there were no such crisis, there would be no populist coup. Onlookers and I’m sure party members can see the integrity of the party being torn up, that it is dividing the country and storing up untold social and political problems for the future. But feel powerless, or impotent to stop or moderate this rampant power grab.
It seems pretty psychotic to me.
Edit,
I thought I would add this article, which lays out the populism which the conservatives have embraced. A political strategy which trashes their reputation and reliability as a good/safe pair of hands in Governing the country. MP’s and supporters of the party, to an extent, have gone along with this, others haven’t and others feel betrayed.
My rationale is that Tory’s have been in crisis following the growth of UKIP and the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008...
I agree with all you say, but as I said. It was once the Maggie party, now it's the Boris party. In time it will evolve again under a new leader. Look at how Labour party policy and ideology has flip-flopped under its widely differing leaders over the past 4 decades. I don't think we can expect our parties to remain set in aspic in such a fast changing world. When the public tire of Boris he'll fall and maybe Hunt or someone more moderate will re-establish the integrity and genuine political philosophy the party has lost.
Reply to Tim3003 Well the difference between us then is that I see this as a significant departure from the norm and you see it as part of the normal rebranding of the Conservative party.
I agree with you about the rebranding and that the Tory’s will regroup with a new leader and develop a collective amnesia for what has happened in the past. The reestablishment of one nation Conservatism etc. This is a cyclical process which rinses and whitewashes the Tory’s, occasionally having an opposition party in power for a term or two (but only a moderate one, not socialists), before the return of our rulers rebranded, clean and fresh, ready to put their safe pair of hands on the tiller again.
My point is that this time they have lost the plot and gone to far. You do presumably accept that this is possible? That a ruling party can go to far, can break the system and the established cycle. If you agree that there is this possibility where do you draw the line, beyond which the cycle is broken? For me it is the trashing, demonstrable on the ground, of the core principles of One Nation Conservatism.
These are (not exhaustive)
Pro business.
A safe pair of hands with the economy.
Levelling up (the inclusion of the poor, or deprived groups)
Managing a moderate/constructive capitalism, entrepreneurship etc.
An ambassador for the important position and role of the U.K. on the world stage.
Governance of the highest integrity, reliability and honesty at home and abroad.
Now all of these principles has been trashed over the last 5 years. Indeed we now have Boris laughing at us as he does it with that petulant grin on his face as he blusters and waffles it away.
As I say there are two main drivers of this destruction.
The embracing of Brexit,
The adoption of manipulative populism
Since Johnson has been resident in No10, the proroguing of parliament, lying to the Queen, the vilification of the EU. The chaos and lies in management of various crises, The lying in plain sight, the mass corruption and misappropriation of public money during the pandemic etc has hammered home this destruction.
Is this all going to be whitewashed away while Starmer has a brief stint in Downing Street? Somehow I doubt it.
Then there is the demographic time bomb. The young just don’t get the Tory’s anymore. The gravy train in which the young turn Tory when they feel a bit of wealth and financial comfort has ended, or at least been drastically reduced. Young people don’t believe the government on the their lies about green issues, levelling up etc. Both which are going to become big issues over the next few years.
The other prong of the demographic time bomb is that their base is dying off of old age. They rely on comfortably off retired people who are insulated from the failings in the economy. But every year they die off by about half a million.
I see their days as numbered and I’m sure they have seen this as a possibility, hence their selling out to populism.
0) Pro business.
1) A safe pair of hands with the economy.
2) Levelling up (the inclusion of the poor, or deprived groups)
3) Managing a moderate/constructive capitalism, entrepreneurship etc.
4) An ambassador for the important position and role of the U.K. on the world stage.
5) Governance of the highest integrity, reliability and honesty at home and abroad.
Now all of these principles has been trashed over the last 5 years.
Other than 5), I think it's a bit early to convict Boris of all these crimes. He's only been in power for 18 months, and that period has been totally unprecedented in peace-time history due to the pandemic.
1). Too early to say, given the pandemic.
2) As it's his own mantra, he deserves a bit of leeway - we have the social care paper coming out soon, so he says..
0) & 3) Again, hard to judge yet. What is your evidence to the contrary?
4): He would say he's doing that, his redefining of what that role is may not be too everyone's taste. I don't think anyone trusts him, but no-one believed the U.S. was just Trump...
The demographic time-bomb: if there's one difference between the young and the old politiclly, it's the young's greater openness to Green politics. He's making the right noises there; although, again, too early to tell if real actions follow them.
Since I've never been a Tory voter I don't feel the pain of betrayal that you apparently do, so my outlook is more measured. Where going too far is concerned, I'd say this govt is less extreme than Maggie Thatcher's in economic and social policies. Who was it caused the current housing crisis by selling off all the council houses? Not Boris. That one policy is as much the cause of your gravy-trainless young would-be Tories as anything.
On the issue of integrity and lying, peddling half-truths, lack of concern about means when the end is expedient, and ignoring fact-based arguments on the basis that the pleb-voters he seeks won't understand or care about them, then yes, Boris has gone too far. I think this will bring him down in the end. Trump has gone; Bolsonaro's in dire trouble. I even hear Marine Le Penn has now retreated from her rabidly anti-EU position. We will see how long populism can survive...
Yes, in policy terms the gov is no worse than Thatcher. Although following 10yrs of austerity with another 10 to come, the effect on the institutions and services, affected is equally as stark/destructive.
Going back to the numbered points, the effect of political decisions by Tory’s and this gov to deliver a chaotic hard Brexit in itself is anti business, destructive to the economy and has trashed our international standing.
For anyone who has a modicum of interest in politics, presumably it has become clear by now that Tory’s don’t care about the poor, the wealth divide, or reviving sink towns and areas. They’ve had 10yrs to address these issues and have made the situation demonstrably worse. Now we have all this debt from The pandemic, it is clear there is going to be a further round of austerity, which will hit those on median and low incomes.
You write about the gov in a way that the promises they make might have some credibility, that they might just do what they say. I understand this as it is how political discourse has been conducted for decades in this country. But surely by now you realise that these promises are laughable, especially on levelling up, global trade and Green issues.
I agree with your thoughts about populism, it always falls down when people realise it is built on hollow promises, lies and division.
There is an interesting thread here listing the emerging issues with the unfolding Brexit, just to give a flavour.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/1407936175885754373?s=20
You write about the gov in a way that the promises they make might have some credibility, that they might just do what they say. I understand this as it is how political discourse has been conducted for decades in this country. But surely by now you realise that these promises are laughable, especially on levelling up, global trade and Green issues.
Well how else is Boris going to win the next election? We agree that that is his overwhelming priority. If he just leaves a string of broken promises between now and then not even the most stupid voters will be fooled. It didn't work for Trump despite his willingness to bolster his promises by whipping up racist and leftist phobias.
Boris may be a lier but unlike Trump he's no fool. You can bet he has planned a strategy for the economic reckonning in the years ahead beyond just hoping people will forget. I think that by then he will have very little trust left anyway, so he'll be having to produce evidence for every claim he makes.
Too late, surely. When was the Conservative party last the steward of a strong economy? Certainly not Thatcher's 15% interest rate which killed investment and growth. And let's not forget that her decision to close down manufacturing and bet everything on a deregulated financial sector didn't work out that well in the long run.
The myth of the strong Tory economy seems to be entirely down to the older, broader belief that our superiors are more competent, a belief that survives all evidence to the contrary.
But it's conceivably much worse. The Boris economy is the same as the Cameron/Gideon economy, based on the principle that the purpose of government is to transfer money from taxpayers to friends. Can't be an improvement.
Reply to Tim3003 As I have said, the Tory’s are finished once they are demonstrably an economic failure. All they’ve got now is more austerity, this cuts the legs out from under the struggling public services, and social security, delivering crisis after crisis. Johnson’s trick of blaming failure on others will soon wear thin. Their solution to this is more free market involvement. But it always ends in crony gravy trains.
They might have been able to scrape by if Brexit had not happened. But now we have a chaotic hard Brexit it will compound all these problems and add a whole layer more on top.
He will increasingly become cornered into relying on raw populism, like Trump.
I can’t see any way back for the Tory’s for a decade, or more now. An opposition coalition will have to pick up the pieces and hopefully break the stranglehold of Murdoch et al and bring in PR.
Reply to Kenosha Kid Quite, I could never understand why Thatcher didn’t produce a sustainable industrial strategy. Had we not been in the EU she would probably have neglected farming too.
I can see interest rates rising again now, I can’t see how it can be avoided. And with our over-leveraged population, this is a dangerous corner to find ourselves in.
I could never understand why Thatcher didn’t produce a sustainable industrial strategy.
Thatcher hated the very idea of an industrial strategy, sustainable or not. Hers was a laissez-faire policy; she believed that state interventions in the economy were almost always counter-productive.
Thatcher hated the very idea of an industrial strategy, sustainable or not. Hers was a laissez-faire policy; she believed that state interventions in the economy were almost always counter-productive.
Thatcher closed the coal mines - and devastated large parts of the north of England. One can argue, it was a sustainable industrial strategy, but I think it was about breaking the power of the unions - which is far from lassiez faire.
Sure, you could always see it differently, but this is at least what she was saying at the time.
Cameron said he was a Remainer. Politicians lie all the time. They say one thing and do another; so better to judge them by what they do. Closing the coal mines, and shifting to gas was justified in terms of sustainability, but as an intervention in the market - and destruction of the unions, it was not lassiez faire.
Fair enough. Even no industrial policy is a sort of industrial policy, in effect.
Hmm, and I thought you'd pick up on the interesting question of whether unions are consistent with lassiez faire economics - or, if not that, you'd deny that Cameron was actually a brexiteer. Y'know that, even no reply is a sort of reply, in effect!
Reply to Olivier5 She should have been advised that without an industrial strategy U.K. industry would be undercut through the development of globalisation and the rise of Chinese manufacturing.
Likewise the evolution of US style management ideology and its reliance on exploitation of employees for profit.
As a result we now have an economy and society ravaged by globalisation and deregulated business practices and offshore IT corporations. And stuck with an incompetent Tory party with only one strategy to remedy this situation, Austerity. Oh and further free market capitalism, now global. Which will embed the failure and crisis further.
Reply to Kenosha Kid Yes, and we still have not dealt with the subprime mortgage crisis. House prices are rising at the fasted rate for years and rental costs for those who aren’t fortunate enough to be on the property ladder are by far their largest expenditure.
Add to this rising interest rates and it could burst and this time it will not just be froth, but mass repossessions and bankruptcy.
Reply to Punshhh I agree that the nations that move forward are generally those that do NOT implement a laissez faire policy, but more frequently those who can develop a clear view of where they want to go. This said, France always had an industrial policy and it nevertheless went through pretty much the same de-industrialization as the UK. Though I guess we kept the car makers...
Cameron wanted a referendum since 2005, when he wrote the Tory manifesto for Michael Howard.
Correct. But the question is why he wanted it.
One theory has it that he did it (1) to win the elections and (2) because he thought that the Remainer camp would win.
"Cameron had to promise a referendum on the EU issue. Without the promise of a referendum, Cameron would not have won the general election because a vast number of eurosceptic Tory voters would have voted for UKIP candidates. Cameron only became Prime Minister because he promised a referendum"
https://www.vernoncoleman.com/remaincamp.htm
"The departure of former Prime Minister David Cameron, a staunch Remainer, delayed the Brexit process from even beginning when the Tory leader announced he could not lead Britain through its exit ..."
Reply to Olivier5 I can’t comment much on France as I don’t receive much news from there. I would expect that there was also some industrial decline in the face of globalisation. The main difference I think is that France didn’t deregulate, shrink the state and reduce taxation, like in the U.K.
So France still has its nationalised services and social support in place. By contrast, here in the U.K. these have been starved of resources until they are in crisis, or have been shrunk to the point of crisis. On the alter of free market capitalism, or something.
The last time I was in France, I experienced this first hand, in a small way, but I was shocked by it. I was walking for the day and caught a train back to the start of the walk, in a small provincial town. As I walked into the station building, I was expecting to come across a ticket machine, but was surprised to find a person in the ticket office. I had been conditioned to think that such staffing had been cut due to cost cutting measures as in U.K. In the U.K. you would be lucky to find a ticket office open in a large town.
Reply to counterpunch I appreciate your thoughts on the issue and that you would rather not talk about it.
I would agree with you in regard of a number of Conservatives, although I had the impression that Cameron was a moderate. Although I would in hindsight consider that his and Osbourne’s pro EU mutterings might have been lies.
My experience of anti EU politics was from the eighties and early nineties through family connections. I didn’t fall for it and saw it as a prejudice alongside a naive interpretation of the EU. I also concluded that once infected with this anti EU sentiment, Tory’s would hardly ever reject it, only believe it all the more, on very little evidence, in a preference for spurious rumour.
I would echo the points made by Apollodorus, that it was the fear of the Tory party being torn apart by UKIP which drove the talk of a referendum. Also that the promise of one swung the 2015 election in Cameron’s favour.
It has been acknowledged by commentators at the time that Cameron, had expected to remain in coalition with the Lib Dem’s in 2015 and that the Lib Dem’s would block any referendum. And that Cameron was surprised at the size of the Brexit bounce in his favour.
Reply to Punshhh The referendum still chaps my hide - because it was crooked AF. People have no idea. But what good does it do to dwell? It's done - and now we can but make the best of it. I was an ardent Remainer - and protested right through to the 2019 general election, where the public had the option of voting LibDem, and revoking Article 50. The public didn't vote for that - they voted for a Brexiteer, and that's when I accepted the inevitable - but a bitter distaste for David Cameron still lingers!
I knew Cameron was a brexiteer. You only have to examine his political history - and it's completely obvious that he should never have been the spokesman for Remain.
He was a brexitter - holding the Remain camp down while letting his pals in the Tax Payer's Alliance run rampant with the Leave campaign. Cameron's media strategist - Suzi Squire, worked for Dominic Cummings at the Tax Payer's Alliance - and the TPA ran the Leave campaign. Cameron was in bed with the Leave campaign.
He provided for the referendum, made that impossible 'tens of thousands' pledge on immigration - "or vote me out." His renegotiation was doomed to fail from the outset - and as soon as he touched back down on British soil, a failure - he announced he would be the face of Remain.
Cameron lost on purpose for Remain. And I haven't even scratched the surface. The Brexit referendum was the most corrupt piece of political theater in modern political history.
Did you happen to catch the report produced by "a task force commissioned by Boris Johnson" recommending a "bonfire of red tape." Sounds so much better than "a race to the bottom on workers rights, wages, health and safety, food standards, animal welfare and environmental standards."
You didn't need to tell me. You're right, but I can't do this. It's done now, we may as well just get on with it. What you need to realise is - two things; first - that the EU accepted the withdrawal notice without a word of complaint on behalf of sixteen million of their loyal citizens. And secondly, the public voted for brexit at the 2019 general election. It is a fait accompli - forget it. Move on!
Move on to what? A bonfire of red tape - to undercut the EU, and further exclude British business from the second largest free market in the world? Sounds great!
I don't know. Globally, the US and China together are a lot bigger than the EU, and they're not at all keen on the kind of tight regulation the EU produces by the metric tonne. I mean - we'll probably kill the planet in the process, but at least our tomb will be decorated with gold!
That's some cold consolation! The EU was the ideal vehicle for tackling climate change. They had the ability to coordinate the policies of 28 nation states - including Britain. And now, we're racing to the bottom to compete with India and China - who are far more populous, and a lot poorer. Remember when Jeremy Hunt said "Britons will be working like Chinese sweatshop labourers"?
Remember when Jeremy Hunt said "Britons will be working like Chinese sweatshop labourers"?
And that was before Covid! You've gotta laugh; if you don't you'll cry! What I've noticed is - that over the longer term, these things tend to pan out more moderately than the worst case scenario might suggest. EU businesses will want access to the UK market; and so reciprocally, will have to allow British business access to EU markets. It'll all settle down into some not quite satisfactory compromise, and we'll muddle through - at least, until the sky bursts into flames!
You and I are very much of the same mind; but I still think you need to let it go. Harbouring resentment over the conduct of the 2016 referendum - to get back on topic, is probably not good for you. The 2019 general election decided the matter! The public had the chance to vote to repeal Article 50 - and they declined. You can't argue with that. Anyhow, nice talking with you, but I have to split!
Reply to counterpunch Yes, I agree. Fortunately I have a get out clause, I will qualify for Scottish citizenship.
The U.K. EU relations will settle down and I expect we will rejoin the single market after a decade, or possibly sooner. For me this episode is more about a struggle for survival in the Conservative party, following the catastrophic failure of the financial crash in 2008. We are still reeling from the fallout and the financial bubble has not yet burst.
Reply to karl stone We have been highjacked by the rise of populism, so you/we can’t blame the voting public. They are innocent and very few understand what is really going on here. The blame lies fairly and squarely with the Tory’s who jumped on the populist bandwagon and sold their country down the river so Blojo could be king for a day and usher in another generation of Tory rule.
But, as is dawning on some of them, they have gone to far, lost trust with reality and destroyed the trust upon which the government and constitution is built. That this embarrassment of a government populated by Eton twits is a disgrace and has probably finished their party off for a generation.
Yes, I agree. Fortunately I have a get out clause, I will qualify for Scottish citizenship. The U.K. EU relations will settle down and I expect we will rejoin the single market after a decade, or possibly sooner.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you saying we'll rejoin the EU? Or gain free access to the single market? Either way, I don't think so. Listen to the speech of Guy Verhofstadt from the day after the referendum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJF0V2Z_soU
They were delighted to see us go, because we have a monarchy and a sovereign Parliament that made EU federalism politically difficult, if not impossible. Rejoining the EU would be entirely on their terms - and that would be impossible. The EU will now treat the UK as a third country; and their protectionist policies will work against us.
Reply to counterpunch I am working on the assumption of a Labour, or coalition Labour government for two, perhaps three terms. Which would result in a genuinely EU friendly policy. When I say rejoin single market, I’m thinking of the Norway model.
I am working on the assumption of a Labour, or coalition Labour government for two, perhaps three terms. Which would result in a genuinely EU friendly policy. When I say rejoin single market, I’m thinking of the Norway model.
What makes you think Labour are EU friendly? Half the party are anti-capitalists - who view the EU as a neo liberal institution. Have you not wondered why Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, on the basis of a populist social media campaign, and £2 entryism - running in parallel to the right wing populism of the Leave campaign? And you think they'd sign up to full membership fees, to be bound by all EU laws, but have no representation in the EU Parliament, Council or Commission? I mean, never say never, but not in a million years! It was Corbyn's communist manifesto in the 2019 general election that scared the shit out of Tory Remainers, and forced them to vote for Boris's brexit!
Reply to counterpunch Pragmatism, I agree about the excesses of Corbyn mania, but the current leadership is moderate on EU membership.
A pragmatic approach to deal with the adverse effects of Brexit, which are beginning to emerge and will become much worse. I am suggesting an economic crisis for which the solution will only lie in greater economic alignment with the EU.
I can see Tory’s refusing to aligning, because power is their only modus operandi. Labour is more concerned with the health of the nation and we are about to step back into our shoes as the sick man of Europe.
As regards Corbyn’s manifesto, when voters are asked about policies in isolation they are broadly supportive of such policies. It was the perception of Corbyn as fed by the Murdoch press and Tory rags to voters. Not to mention the anti socialism we are endemically groomed and conditioned with from cradle to grave, which fed that perception. Culminating in the myth that Corbyn could not be trusted with the nuclear codes and that he would welcome in the worlds despots.
I agree about the excesses of Corbyn mania, but the current leadership is moderate on EU membership. A pragmatic approach to deal with the adverse effects of Brexit, which are beginning to emerge and will become much worse. I am suggesting an economic crisis for which the solution will only lie in greater economic alignment with the EU.
Because the EU was "in on it" in 2016; accepting the withdrawal notice without a word of complaint on behalf of 16m loyal UK EU citizens crying foul, I cannot see the EU taking any stance that would precipitate the kind of economic crisis that would force the UK to rejoin. You can see Verhofstadt's delight at removing the UK as an obstacle to EU federalism in the video posted above. So long as the UK can establish trade links around the world - and I see no reason why not, I think we'll be okay.
One of the things I love about politics is the paradoxical way in which, left wing economic policies are kinder to people - but ultimately, less economically successful. And right wing policies are harder, but it works. At least for a while. Then, after a while, right wing policies exhaust social capital - and Labour need to step in a reinvest in education, health and so on, until - after a while, the public debt is out of control and we need the Tories firm hand on the tiller again.
Problem is, Labour are in disarray. They still haven't come to terms with the fall of communism in the 1990's. Blair tried to re-root socialist values in a 'third way' compromise with capitalism, but the 2008 financial crisis derailed his program. Then Labour elected Corbyn, who produced a manifesto that went way beyond Clause IV - and they've blown any trust they had with middle England, and cannot win an election without that middle class vote.
That's quite aside from the red wall constituencies that abandoned Labour wholesale to effect brexit. And that again, is aside from the overly broad church Labour have created with these young, idealistic, politically correct Corbynites - that they could lose both middle England - and the young idealist constituencies, and the red wall constituencies in the north. If they don't get their act together real fast, Labour could be wiped out. Final thing - you say Labour care, but you seem to be praying for a disaster to befall us so that you can steal power for Labour. That registers with people.
Reply to counterpunch Perhaps you haven’t been following the negative effects of Brexit closely. They are mounting daily, for example and there are hundreds of stories like this affecting most sectors.
https://twitter.com/CoppetainPU/status/1410727085903990784?s=20
The big farming issue around me is sugar beet. Seems they will soon be in crisis.
Or that Sunak announced yesterday that they have given up on seeking equivalence on financial services within the EU.
I would counter your assessment of left bad and right good on economic policy. It is right wing policy which has brought us to this point after all and which was responsible for 2008.
I do to have time to go into greater depth today, so can return to this later.
France didn’t deregulate, shrink the state and reduce taxation, like in the U.K.
So France still has its nationalised services and social support in place.
Indeed, and the railways are an apt example. I actually think the rail network in France is an asset for the future. But the price to pay for such a nationalized service is the power of the unions to stop the service.
Perhaps you haven’t been following the negative effects of Brexit closely. They are mounting daily, for example and there are hundreds of stories like this affecting most sectors.
I really haven't, no! I am very much "brexited out" after campaigning against it from 2015 through to the 2019 general election. I advised remainers to vote LibDem in 2019, but IMO, Comrade Corbyn's communist manifesto forced disaffected Tories back into the brexit fold. They couldn't risk voting Lib Dem for fear of the loony left gaining control. So, four years issuing warnings about phytosanitary measures, cross channel interconnectors, and a race to the bottom - I know where the tensions lie, but I haven't been watching the news for proof of my arguments. I rather hope I'm wrong. And like I say, over time - things usually tend to settle down into some middling scenario. Unless there's a pandemic or something! Then we'd really be in trouble!
Reply to counterpunch I agree about the fear of the left with Corbyn, that it pushed people to vote Tory. But I differ in that I see this as primarily due to a smearing of Corbyn in the press. I don’t think there are the numbers to deliver Tory governments on the fear of socialism alone. Also there is a demographic shift to the left going on. As the voters who remember the winter of discontent are beginning to die off. To be replaced by young voters who have a different outlook on the world and what the priorities of the country are.
The Brexit problems are beginning to bite and due to Johnson’s decision not to delay Brexit until after the pandemic, which was offered by the EU, has guaranteed a winter of discontent at the end of this year. His reckless boosterism is bound to become unstuck at some point. And the numbers of people who will never forgive him and his party is growing.
I agree about the fear of the left with Corbyn, that it pushed people to vote Tory. But I differ in that I see this as primarily due to a smearing of Corbyn in the press. I don’t think there are the numbers to deliver Tory governments on the fear of socialism alone.
You would say that, but I remember Neil Kinnock twice unable to score past a very tired post Thatcher Tory government. Tony Blair ditched Clause IV; won middle England and three elections in a row for Labour.
Also there is a demographic shift to the left going on. As the voters who remember the winter of discontent are beginning to die off. To be replaced by young voters who have a different outlook on the world and what the priorities of the country are.
I don't think people vote for anyone - I think they vote against; and do so primarily on the basis of their economic well being. If the economy is doing well - all is well. Or as Clinton put it - "it's the economy, stupid!" Tony Blair didn't cause capital flight. Corbyn would have, and people know that. Kinnock would have. People don't want socialism even if they value socialist values. That's why Blair's Third Way project should have been built upon - rather than swinging way out left in order to dupe a load of kids with starry eyed idealism!
Reply to counterpunch I agree about the third way. Although it may have been The Sun giving Blair their endorsement which really swung it.
Going back to the demographic shift, post 2008 the world and the economy in the U.K. has changed. The foundational pillars supporting the Tory’s have faltered. They have shown now that they cannot sustainably manage the public services, the Home Office, social care etc etc. Now they have thrown business and prosperity under the Brexit bus, just to neuter UKIP. They really are a busted flush.
Talk to a young person, someone who has recently qualified to vote, what reasons there are to vote Tory?
We used to say that the young are ideologically to the left until they feel a bit of wealth, success, own their own home. That they turn Tory to maintain that level of comfort. How many of our young (now) are going to reach that degree of comfort?
Enough to deliver a Tory government? On the assumption that they are a safe pair of hands?
Chris Grey’s Brexit blog.
https://t.co/wS92ePJqYu?amp=1
“ As the BBC’s Home editor Mark Easton put it, it is “the paradox of Brexit that taking control of your borders requires more international co-operation, not less”. That doesn’t just apply to control of borders, of course. It exposes the entire fantasy of a sovereignty that can be exercised without regard for that of others, and the lie inherent in the ‘take back control’ slogan. It really is time that David Frost and Boris Johnson understood this, but there’s absolutely no sign that they will.”
So it looks as though the Brexit chickens are all coming home to roost....or rather, they would be, but regrettably were on the Continent when the boomgate closed and now can't get visas......
Reply to The Opposite Sorry, I’ve been busy on Twitter.
I’m fine, I’m insulated from Brexit fallout. I came to the forum today as this week is going to be important for the future relations between U.K. and E.U.
Lord Frost is getting ready to put an ultimatum to the EU tomorrow. There’s been lots of talk of a trade war with the EU over the past few days. Tory’s are ebullient in their brinkmanship, however they may be arrogant in thinking that the EU won’t turn the screws. There is talk in Brussels that it is time to hang U.K. out to dry for a while in the hope that it will bring them to their senses.
U.K. government is actually in chaos, scared of their electorate and being thrown from crisis to crisis. The E.U. Has been concerned for the U.K. economy and people, rather than seeking to punish U.K. in some way.
Major high energy use industry is on the verge of collapse due to the gas price having risen 10 fold, the government is still in denial about the depth of the energy crisis. To start a trade war at this point would throw the country into turmoil.
Watch this space, Chris Grey is worth a follow for a sober analysis.
https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/status/1447260026767396870
His blog from a few days ago.
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/
It's interesting to me that Boris has actually come up with a believeable rationale for Brexit, and something of a vision - which I thought was well beyond him. I mean; his idea of a high wage, high skills labour force, no longer dependent on immigration to fill its gaps and achieving the necessary extra productivity. It would need huge investment - our industry's past lack of will to make which is what has caused the dependence on cheap labour, so it's probably all pie in the sky and aimed mainly at the Party faithful. Whatever, it surely won't bear fruit before the next election. However if instead we get galloping inflation and continuing shortages it might be a petard by which Starmer can hoist him ..
Reply to Tim3003 I see this policy as a naive, incoherent day dream of a populist. It has some nice sounding phrases in it and it might be something which an enlightened society could achieve. But it is so out of touch with the reality in the U.K, that it smacks of insanity. Indeed the Tory government we have had for the last eleven years has moved us in the opposite direction, to a low wage, deregulated, over leveraged, imbalanced economy. With hollowed out and struggling public services and support mechanisms.
With the twin crises of COVID and Brexit, we are staring at an economic rollercoaster ahead of us. With a deluded, incompetent government in denial of the depth of the issues coming home to roost day by day.
Like a slow motion car crash, it’s difficult to avert one’s gaze.
Reply to The Opposite I haven’t had time yet to watch the video. But I can answer the question it poses. Johnson can’t afford a trade war. He is becoming weaker and weaker and may become a helpless witness to an economic collapse of his own making.
No quick UK response to the EU's compromise attempts re the NI protocol... Presumably Frost daren't welcome it as it doesnt go all the way, but daren't reject it as it does greatly reduce the amount of red tape for GB to NI exports. The sticking point still seems the oversight of the ECJ. Hopefully that won't poison the whole deal..
It was clear the EU would have to abandon their stance of 'you signed it, so it must be fine'; which they did in the light of NI citizens' complaints of course, not the UK govt's. Boris can chalk that up as a minor win, the EU as a climbdown..
unenlightenedOctober 25, 2021 at 11:07#6115410 likes
Reply to Punshhh I am alas old enough to remember the good old days when the economy was tanking and we were applying to join the EEC as then was, and DeGaulle kept notoriously saying "Non." How right he turned out to be.
But the UK economy was well fucked to the extent that cash limits were set on foreign holidays because the currency was nosediving. We had already gone from being the richest economy in the world to this parlous state and Europe eventually rescued us. It's the period of history that Brexiteers forget or ignore in favour of the good old days of Empire and children down the mines.
Nice article, explaining simply the inevitable result of our Tory Brexit.
In a way Brexit has just showed the consequences of a globalized economy then made to de-globalize. The effects are easy to see...in hindsight. The root cause is that nobody defends globalism, hence either right-wing populism or left-wing populism (that can happen too, take the case of Venezuela as the example) takes over and simply creates a far bigger mess than was to be solved in the first place.
With Brexit it's partly the same as with COVID-19. Suddenly implemented huge restrictions basically cause these complex delivery systems to falter, which are the true foundations that globalization depends on. The basic problem is that the business environment made to focus on the next quarter just looks at what is profitable in the next quarter, again an idea for a globalized world. Hence with travel restrictions for example whole fleets of new passenger aircraft with long service life ahead were sold to scrap. To simply have the planes sitting on the ground and to move them a bit that the tires won't become flat was deemed far too costly. As if to rent or simply make make a concrete/asphalt parking area would be too costly for planes that is basically costs 100 million dollars to replace per item. Better to scrap the planes, get the recycling money and have no worries about the basically planned frenzy for new planes...and higher flight fares of today and tomorrow.
Perhaps a better example of this insanity can be seen in the markets when oil price went negative: people were literally giving money to people take physical oil, because naturally they weren't actually thinking of having the physical stuff, but just playing in the casino with the resource.
Brexit was this kind of experiment with populist democracy that simply made underlying problems apparent: that the UK had relied on a large foreign workforce. Brexit, In my view, was the dear child of the UKIP where then opportunist tories jumped on the populism train.
Wasn't Brexit about this? (Perhaps on the background there ought to have been a mass of truck drivers...)
Perhaps to defend the EU or any economic integration, we should simply shut all trade between countries for a month or two in the winter and then put the populist nationalists to solve the problems by purely domestic solutions. Because...globalization and free trade are so bad. The multi-national corporations are so evil. So when poorer people literally start seeing hunger and rationing food is implemented when in other places the problem is how to get rid of the produce before it becomes a safety hazard, we can all rejoice how good it is to be self reliant and buy only local produce. And how bad globalization and economic integration is.
Reply to ssu Yes I totally agree. It’s interesting that they don’t mention the so called problems caused by globalisation. Or in U.K. 42 years of Tory incompetence. But blame false enemies, which the educated can see don’t exist.
I do think though that there we’re issues with high rates of immigration between 2004 and 2016 and this made it easy for UKIP to employ xenophobia. However there were solutions to this issue without leaving the EU, but it would require competent government to achieve it. Tory incompetence wasn’t up to the job.
ChangelingNovember 05, 2021 at 15:51#6171020 likes
I do think though that there we’re issues with high rates of immigration between 2004 and 2016 and this made it easy for UKIP to employ xenophobia. However there were solutions to this issue without leaving the EU, but it would require competent government to achieve it. Tory incompetence wasn’t up to the job.
Well, they were not so incompetent to lose the elections. Which likely they can thank the opposition.
If someone can be gloomy it is Tony Blair and the Blairites, who are (I guess?) still bitterly opposed in the labor party. So bitterly opposed, that the Labor lost the election when by all means it should have won. As if social democracy that speaks to the masses and wins elections is so bad. But of course, idealists don't care about what other people think, because they are right and everybody else is wrong.
Of course, now it's other people in the leadership of the Labour party.
ChangelingNovember 12, 2021 at 03:36#6195890 likes
unenlightenedNovember 12, 2021 at 14:39#6196630 likes
Reply to The Opposite The Tories have always stood for greed and selfishness, and most people most of the time are greedy and selfish. So they mostly win. The labour party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tories, that functions as a political equivalent of a tax loss.
ChangelingNovember 12, 2021 at 17:27#6196850 likes
I don't know what you mean by this; mainly because I don't know what a tax loss is.
unenlightenedNovember 12, 2021 at 18:49#6197040 likes
Reply to The Opposite If you have a company that chops down trees and sells the wood, you are likely to make a lot of money, and the government will want lots of tax. so you add on another business that plants trees and doesn't sell anything, and that loses money and reduces the tax bill.
Similarly, if the government want to remain popular while ripping everyone off, they need a second party that people can vote for when they get fed up with being ripped off, that will rip them off even more. It's called 'democracy', and it's a very smart wheeze.
ChangelingNovember 12, 2021 at 19:51#6197270 likes
Reply to unenlightened you sound disillusioned... what if the UK gets proportional representation?
unenlightenedNovember 12, 2021 at 20:02#6197290 likes
Vacuous, rather than centrist. Obviously labour is divided, and Corbyn is an old school socialist. And the other half is Tory-light and campaigns for the tories whenever there is a socialist trend in the labour party. Michael Foot got the same treatment.
Minorities can rule because they prevent solidarity amongst the poor. They infiltrate and undermine, they sow dissent, they foster racism, and factional disputes. This is how the i% controls the 99%. Don't over-personalise it.
ChangelingNovember 13, 2021 at 00:58#6197860 likes
Reply to unenlightened well, that's quite the grim problem you've painted. Is there a solution or only a problem?
Is a solution to live simply, to not get involved, and to abstain from voting?
unenlightenedNovember 13, 2021 at 16:44#6199180 likes
Reply to The Opposite I wouldn't say that at all. Well, live simply by all means, but vote -always vote unless the vote is rigged. Vote for the decent candidate, or the least sleazy one. vote for the most honest, the least proud and boastful Change your vote if the smile turns out to be fake. Prioritise the qualities of the candidate over the policies of the party.
ChangelingDecember 12, 2021 at 02:17#6303140 likes
Reply to unenlightened what do you think about the whole... situation now? At this point it feels like the tories (and the spineless morons who vote for them) are leading the UK down a path to authoritarian rule.
I like sushiDecember 12, 2021 at 02:31#6303190 likes
Prioritise the qualities of the candidate over the policies of the party.
No thanks! The UK does not want to fall further into US popularism. The greatest benefit of the system in the UK is that people care about the policies and expect parties to present their plans in plain language. One of the main failings of the US system is the complete lack of policies and/or any cohesive plan.
I have always found it shocking that in the US ‘candidates’ can just use empty rhetoric without even the slightest attempt to show any plans or implementation of said plans.
unenlightenedDecember 12, 2021 at 09:48#6303830 likes
I have always found it shocking that in the US ‘candidates’ can just use empty rhetoric without even the slightest attempt to show any plans or implementation of said plans.
You think UK politicians are short on empty rhetoric? Like 'get brexit done.'? Our prime minister's declared policy is to have his cake and eat it. Don't vote for lies and bullshit. Don't vote for dishonest greedy politicians, and if you do it once by mistake, change your vote next time.
I like sushiDecember 12, 2021 at 10:08#6303880 likes
Reply to unenlightened In the UK governments set out a manifesto stating not merely what they'll do but how they'll do it. Some parties do better presentations than others from election to election.
My point was that in the US the whole system is run on sensationalist stories in the media circles and based on the characters of an individual rather than an actual plan.
I think willfully siding with a system that looks towards popularism rather than policies (which is at its heart what you are suggesting) is a wrong turn.
That is all. You don't have to agree.
Agent SmithDecember 12, 2021 at 10:35#6303930 likes
I've always wanted to ask this to Boris Johnson, PM incumbent, UK. Isn't Boris a Russian name?
unenlightenedDecember 12, 2021 at 20:34#6305820 likes
I think willfully siding with a system that looks towards popularism rather than policies (which is at its heart what you are suggesting) is a wrong turn.
Reply to Punshhh So, it's looking awfully like Waterloo for Boris, ain't it? From here in the Antipodes, he really does seem an empty suit, and one who's time is just about up.
It's amusing how much air-time the BBC has devoted to shaming Boris's breaking of Covid rules, given that five years ago they barely raised an eyebrow over the BMJ's study that linked 120 thousand deaths to needless Tory austerity and benefits custs that even provoked UN condemnation - policies that the BBC were happy to promote in the name of journalistic neutrality, the same BBC that has previously devoted thousands of hours to climate skepticism and the benefits of Brexit.
Comments (3111)
They were outmanoeuvred. The Leave vote was united. The Remain vote was split. And Workington man couldn't give a toss that Boris is an areshole. In fact, he probably likes it.
Populism wins. We better get used to it, I suppose. Whoever's with stupid will be running the UK for the forseeable future and probably several other countries too. On the positive side, I'll probably be a grand or two up when I transfer my Sterling back to Euros.
Let's get Scottish and Northern Irish independence done.
UKxit
Where are all the liberal populists at?
It was won by disenfranchising voters who wish to remain in the EU via the electoral system. So we have a Brexit election piggy backing on and doubling down on a domestic issue general election. Focussing on the fear of a socialist government. It has worked, but it will betray and anger more than half the population. We are in for a rollercoaster ride now, which will probably result in the break up of the Union with the pieces breaking away, rejoining the EU.
Well, if you can't trust the voters then it's all over.
Right, so you have no faith in the voters.
Those damn voters.
Are you familiar with British politics?
Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, to whom he made populist promises. Let's see if he forgets all about them now he's in control. Andrew Niel regarded as the most erudite commentator in the UK, asked Tory's repeatedly through the night what they will do for these poor people and received no answer and little comprehension of the issue.
I guess they chose Brussels over their own country. What a shame.
Quoting Punshhh
So it’s the stupid poor responsible for this?
It’s because you keep blaming the people who voted in an election, as if they’re incompetent. Why? That’s how a Democracy works.
That is not this:
Quoting Brett
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Punshhh
So clarify for me.
How cynical are the voters?
Did the poor vote in ignorance for the Conservatives
Edit: what you could have said is that the people have spoken.
I already did. Instead of attempting to understand me you prefer to cherrypick sentences to fit your narrative to box in people who disagree with whatever you think you need to disagree with me on. Apparently that I blame voters but you don't. Newsflash: I don't blame voters. I generally think most people are good people where it concerns their immediate surroundings. Voters are cynical. Why else vote into power a party that has a documented, total disregard for the truth since 2016? And this doesn't disqualify politicians because we expect politicians to lie. If that isn't cynical I don't know what is.
You equivocate that assessment of voters being cynical with blame. I don't blame voters for being cynical as little as I blame people for not spending the time to be politically informed when it's boring and an act of futility when politicians don't listen anyway. The people have spoken but the body politic is deaf.
And I don't blame politically informed people chosing personal gain over the greater good, as I see it. I can disagree with it but that's something different then blaming them for a specific outcome.
There are a multitude of causes as to why the system has developed the way it has, with a political elite removed from the common man, the rise of populism despite macro-economic figures being up. That's historically quite new and speaks about inequality and the lack of shared progress when economies are doing well. Bureacracy, centralisation, 24/7 news with so much less analysis as before, etc. etc.
There's no easy fix but I do think systems that result in compulsive liars being at the helm are broken. I want leaders that inspire, that bring out the best in people and that starts, as in any (sub)culture, with the tone at the top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_at_the_top
Boris can and probably will swing back to the center now and stuff the far right Brexiteers he no longer needs with a softer trade deal etc.
And so it starts:
Wales is less clear. Labour majority and significant amount of greens but also Conservatives in the north.
"Well shit" - leftists now.
Still, a failure of the left, just a different flavour from usual. Poor marketing decisions.
What this and other recent and not-so-recent events show, I think, is that in times of stress people often act irrationally; self-destructive forces prevail, and when it comes to voting, people end up voting against their self-interest. In this, collectives act not unlike individuals: they lash out, become dysfunctional, and end up digging themselves even deeper.
I don't accept that a 2nd referendum would have supported Remain. In the face of a big swing away from the main ref supporting party, Labour, it seems absurd to maintain that. Pollsters like Sir John Curtis repeatedly say that the Leave/Remain split remains near 50/50. That being so, there is clearly no mandate to revisit the original decision anyway.
The 'threat of a socialist govt' did not strike me as the Tories' primary focus. The fact that Labour's sums and Corbyn himself were mistrusted by voters is clear from the doorstep responses many Labour activists and MPs reported. People are not so stupid as to believe Corbyn's trumpeting of hope over the reality of the costs of his plans. It was naiive of Labour to expect they would fall for this emotive plea. Had they spent more time explaining how their promises could be paid for maybe more voters would have stuck by them.
As an aside I noticed how often journalists on TV did not manage to get any senior Tories to interview about policy detail along with those of other parties. Has the (winning) campaign now gone wholly online? This has been claimed. If so the future of informed decision making is bleak.
I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them.
Agreed. I think some of us fail to understand the rationale by which less intelligent people make decisions.. What one person calls self-interest another calls stupidity.
You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.)
The problem with your argument is that you define what is 'rational'. I suspect that decisions are not made the same way by all people - there is no universal 'rationality' which governs them - or more importantly, that should govern them. ..
That's not a problem, that's a feature. Of course I define what is 'rational', as does everyone else.
That's one way to define it.
I look at it differently but we might be meaning the same thing. I think often it's a matter of different values leading to different conclusions. I'm more of a collectivist than most people and have voted against my interest because I think the result would be better for society as a whole. Case in point is the mortgage rent tax deduction available in the Netherlands. I'm in the highest income bracket so I could deduct my mortgage rent from my income and avoid paying 52% over that amount. People in lower incomes can only benefit up to 28% more or less. So it's typically a tax deduction that favours the rich who already don't have a problem financing mortgages to begin with. Not to mention that it really just drives up prices, thus higher mortgages and in the end is macro-economically nothing more than a subsidy to banks. I voted for ending the deduction, which obviously goes against my direct economic interests. To more individualist inclined people, that vote is probably considered a stupid vote. But it's still rational.
So you see 'rational' as a subjective term. In that case it's meaningless to use it. You might as well say 'thinking the same way as I do' instead. Using 'rational' infers to me that you think there is a higher and objective logic behind your argument, one you believe all sensible people should agree with - rather than just your viewpoint. And any refutation of your argument would thus be 'irrational'..
This is the main problem with the modern day socialists: they've forgotten their old supporters in the working class and too much focused on the "woke" people. As I'm no leftist, hopefully the new left continues to forget them later too.
And btw, as I noted earlier, it was peculiar how little was talked about the polls which gave the conservatives a huge lead prior to the election.
Quoting Baden
Why?
First of all, likely "the Brexiteers" aren't so far right as you imply. That's your first error. Shouldn't believe the portrayal of those who oppose them. Just as I don't believe that leftists are dominated by 'Cultural Marxists'.
I'm a cultured Marxist. Not a typo.
Your error is misinterpreting what I said. I said he'll stuff the far right Brexiteers not Brexiteers in general, who come from a variety of political backgrounds.
Why? Because he's a pragmatist, if also an opportunist. And he's done the latter part already.
You didn't answer my question?
Agreed, Johnson will take the path of least resistance, which will be a softer Brexit, probably along the lines of May's deal, because anything harder will throw up some intractable problems. Including the destruction of the Union, although that may be lost already.
Also the working class are as I said earlier going to have quite a hangover.
Not at all, I acknowledge that you are looking on from afar. But for Scotland, it would give them autonomy, to be free of a Westminster with overbearing control, little accountability and little concern for the plight of the Scott's. They would join the EU as an independent country cooperating with 27 partner countries.
This is not something they wished to do, but rather is a remedy to a chaotic destructive Westminster.
The Tory's didn't need to mention Corbyn, or their socialist policies much, as the anti socialist ideology is quite widespread already. But it is what they were banking on. Interestingly there is a weakness in Labour's approach which has become evident today. That they were banking on the poor and those concerned about public services etc, but forgot the slightly better off in their traditional seats, "the managing", rather than "the just about managing". These people really didn't want socialism and had become supporters of New Labour, they thought the party had left them and moved to the left.
The lack of holding Tory's to account during the campaign is unfortunate, but their strategy was honed down to two or three slogans, so they avoided the media. It was populism what swung it.
Looking forward to making you eat this when the Dems win the Whitehouse. :halo:
What position anyway? Brexit? Boris's ban on combs? Michael Gove's proposal to make lying compulsory?
I disagree. Show me some evidence..
Can it really be that they hate sprouts more than they love life?
Yet there are liberal rich. Are they suicidal or principled? Can't the same hold true for working class conservatives?
I can have a look later, but I thought people think that a snap referendum would be 52/48 the other way. Media commentators have been saying this for over a year. Also why are the brexiters so vehemently against it and have been saying that the people who were making the case for a confirmatory vote, where doing it to stop Brexit. Surely they wanted more democracy now that we are better informed.
I was unaware of the proposal to make lying compulsory, but i'd be in favor of that. Or would I?
Sure, people can vote against class interests on principle. But usually, most of the time, most don't. Unless there is some other factor.The virtue of the rich and the poor is not that great, which is why there are left and right constituencies and areas.
I guess the question is whether people voted for SNP to have another referendum or did so in order to give a big middle finger to Labour.
I’d say the rich have the financial luxury to be principled. They’re hardly going to struggle if their taxes go up. But poorer voters are going to have a much harder time if food prices go up or any welfare they rely on is reduced, and maybe it’s just me being pragmatic and worrisome (having relied on government assistance in the past), but I struggle to understand how these concerns aren’t the priority for the working class.
Oh, you know the reasons why people voted the way they did? I don’t claim to so that’s why I’m raising the question. But I’d love to hear it.
What are the 'far right Brexiteers'? How many 'far right Brexiteers' are there? I presume it is something similar as the number far left Stalinists in the Labour party. Or perhaps it's the 856 members of the Communist Party of Britain that is the far left in the UK.
And just how is he going to swing back to the center? Why would he do anything like that?
If you get a landslide victory, one of the biggest since the 1980's, why on Earth would any politician start 'moving' anywhere and changing the objectives and a winning narrative? The only thing, which Boris Johnson said publicly in his victory speech, is that he (and the conservative party) will never take those pro-Brexit votes from otherwise Labor leaning voters for granted. That doesn't sound like reeling to the left.
I'll take these in reverse order.
1) Centre not left.
2) It doesn't matter what Johnson says.
3) Because he's a pragmatist and the context has just changed dramatically.
4) You presume that why?
5) I don't know how many there are.
6) "Brextremists" might be a more accurate term as they're not all on the right.
So, my claim is (and it's just a theory, obviously) that Johnson will pivot away from his hard Brexit line because that will make it easier for him to make a trade deal and allay the risk of a new no-deal exit, which would have disastrous economic implications. He can drop the pretence of ideological commitment now because he has castrated Farage as a political player. And his history shows he's generally pro-European, so I expect his focus to be on maintaining his economic bona-fides rather on trying to win any more Brextremist beauty contests. This is all just another way of saying it's about realpolitik.
Unfortunately not. Mogg was sidelined and told to shut up after being too much of a posh twit even for the Conservatives. And, yes, long may that continue.
Quoting Baden
Going from right to the center is going left.
Quoting Baden
Right. The implementation of policies and their outcome takes a long time. Yet discourse is important in politics.
Quoting Baden
Me neither. Likely the number is as obscure as the number of 'Cultural Marxists' in universities brainwashing new generations of students to the leftist/woke cause.
Quoting Baden
Ok. But that number is small, I will still argue. Especially after Brexit has happened. If people would be logical, you would need a new definition. But perhaps not. Perhaps "Brexiteers" will continue to be present after decades from now: those Britons/english who cherish Brexit and think that Brexit was equivalent of winning the Battle of Britain in 1940 against the German Luftwaffe. That surely sound "Brextremism" today. Who knows.
Quoting Baden
Forgetting about the UKIP/Brexit Party/Farage nonsense surely happens, because the Brexit party is already something of the past. In the end they have nothing to do with the conservative party. I don't think that this even means going anywhere on the political spectrum, left or right.
And a lot of people that voted for Brexit have nothing against being "pro-European", if that "pro-European" means trade with Europe (and participation in NATO). It's trade just like with the US or other countries.
I think Europeans will both get over very quickly with the UK not being a member of the EU. The UK has always been a separate island from Europe, literally, and it was a late comer to the EEC. Soon it will be seen as the historical 'normal' of the UK being separate from the EU. And things will be rather OK.
Semantics alert! >>'Going left' can mean moving left and aiming for the center or moving left and aiming for the left, with the latter being the more natural interpretation and also the one that could make my point seem less plausible. So, I was disambiguating.
The rest I won't quibble with.
Quoting Punshhh
Sorry, @Punshhh, I didn’t see your last question. Give it to me again.
Of course I never asked what the SNP ran on. And I know you don’t have magical powers
Are you familiar with British politics?
Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, to whom he made populist promises. Let's see if he forgets all about them now he's in control. Andrew Niel regarded as the most erudite commentator in the UK, asked Tory's repeatedly through the night what they will do for these poor people and received no answer and little comprehension of the issue.
I'll qualify it by saying blue collar voters rather than "the poor".
Scotland is drifting away from England politically, so there doesn't seem to be a point for Labour, or Conservative party's there anymore. This mirrors Northern Ireland, where there are none.
Following this debacle the independence of both from the UK has dramatically increased.
Quoting Punshhh
Not familiar enough to know if this is true or not. Though they do seem to have picked up a lot of Labour seats. However in elections I tend to think people vote against a party when they vote. So, the blue collar voters were very unhappy with what Labour stood for or the ideas they embraced. Either a mistake on Labour’s part or the blue collar voters no longer believe they are represented by Labour.
Now Johnson has total freedom and clear space to fashion and restore a "one nation" Conservative party in the centre ground.
Also I should point out that Johnson will turn on a sixpence on any of his promises, if it suits his purpose and everyone knows it. He now has free reign for a number of years, or at least until he gets snarled up in the EU negotiations etc.
I really do think the blue collar workers are waking up to things. The problem for them is that you don’t realise that they are.
Edit: so much so that we can’t even define them.
The problem is that there is little blue collar work. Large masses of people working in the same place and able to communicate, form bonds and recognise common interests no longer exist. The solidarity of Northern mining communities has not survived the closure of the mines and steelworks. Nobody wears a blue collar any more.
What there is instead are heartless, crumbling communities full of toxic masculinity - chavs and perverts. Corbyn does not appeal to men who depend on their racer-boy drug- pushing image for their sense of worth; Johnson is much more their style.
And the women?
So not knowing that you can then perhaps start to see why your "question" is the wrong one.
It is imerging that the reason these areas supported Johnson is, apart from "get Brexit done", is that they feel that the Labour Party has moved away from them moving further to the left with a metropolitan ideological socialism and don't anymore represent them.
Your observation of my ignorance is misplaced, I am well aware of the situation. I have been putting the case from the position that leaving the EU is a bad idea, that the Tory party was incompetent in carrying it out and that a more left wing government would be a good idea at the moment, following 10 years of austerity. I'm not partisan.
Quoting Punshhh
Yes, fair enough.
Yes, and the women. I'm characterising the culture as was and the radical economic change; women have never been unionised labour to the same extent, but they partake of the community that results.
Quoting unenlightened
I meant do you regard the women in the same light?
No, I think men and women are different and have different histories. The psychological problem of these communities is that the masculinity of the working man has become toxic. I think you are displaying with your questioning a middle-class sensibility to equality language. Toxic masculinity is a problem for women; ask Boris's exes. But what is your point?
Perhaps I should explain some. In the good old days, men went down the pit and knew they were the salt of the Earth, the engine of civilisation, the forge of Empire, and the repository of all good things. They formed trade unions, working men's clubs, cooperative societies, public libraries, and the Labour Party, from their communal existence at work. In essence, Socialism was founded on a positive image of the worker as valuable derived from fact, and thus realistic. This becomes a conscious power in the community because of the proximity of the workplace.
The pit has closed, and the source of positive identity and of social solidarity is no more. Positive masculinity has become functionless; bravery and strength are useless. One is left with senseless empty machismo expressed in driving fast and loudly nowhere, and other feats of strength. No social good can come of such a hollow fantasy of an identity.
"What about women?", you say. And my response is that this is what has become of socialism; it has become identity politics, but a negative identity politics of a fantasy solidarity of the oppressed, where the disabled, women, immigrants, the working-class itself, are supposed to be united by their negative self-images as 'the oppressed'. And as an image it does not appeal the way 'salt of the Earth' does.
The speculation of commentators is not hard evidence. Given that all the forecasts were for the 1st ref to vote Remain, and at the last minute Leave won, a 52/48 forecast would presage an exact rerun.
Brexiteers are scared they might lose, not convinced they would. They also see a 2nd ref as an affront to democracy, which, despite being a Remainer, I have to agree with..
Anyway, as Heseltine admitted today, that battle is lost.. :fear: Time to move on.
I think that's too sophisticated. The reasons, besides Brexit, for Labour's loss of northern working-class voters I have heard from Labour MPs and voters alike are:
What's galling is the huge arrogance of the left-wing leadership in refusing to accept this. They are blaming solely Brexit; as ever remaining convinced their socialist idealism is right, and the world just has to be coached in realising it. It's just like the way Corbyn refuses to even address the issue of anti-semitism beyond bland restatements of his anti-racist credentials. The likes of Margaret Hodge, Straw, Mandelson are crying out for the party to change and remove this Momentum clique, but will it? I think a new Blair figure needs to appear to catalise the change first..
They who? Some of 'them' revered him as an almost Christ-like figure. Remember how the party membership increased. An analysis needs to account for both sides. I strongly suspect that the antisemitism thing cut little ice on the red wall, and what they objected to in Corbyn was the pacifist wimpy effeminate image. No one with any objection to racism would have voted Tory on that principle. Au contraire, Rotherham man, I suspect, rather liked the Yorkshire bluntness of 'letterboxes' and 'piccaninnies'.
It's the economy, stupid, as they say. We used to have a working class in manufacturing, and now we have a working class in service industries. We need a rhetoric that valorises and validates service and servants, and a organisation that can represent them. Trade Unions never did, and caring has no status.
'They' who the Labour MPs and activists talked to on the doorsteps and who said they were voting Tory or Brexit Party for the first time ever..
Yes the membership is 500,000. But it is mainly made up of the hard-left, not the millions of lifelong voters up north and is out of touch. For example the membership is predominently Remain, well out of kilter with the balance of Labour voters generally.
I hark from Yorkshire, but have picked up the southern sensibilities and to a degree live amongst the privelidged classes now. I am a bit out of touch with the north, my knowledge now is of the east. There is not much depravity around here compared to the midlands and the north. However there is a profound difference from the truly privelidged regions of Surrey, Berkshire, Hampshire etc. Here the issue is more to do with the influx of Polish people. I suspect that over 90% of the voters who voted in my polling station voted leave and primarily for this reason. On reflection I realise that socialism of the kind proposed is not favoured by many outside metropolitan Labour supporters.
No, I don't think so. Left, sure, but not hard. They are not ex Socialist Workers Party, but ex apathetics by and large.What I am coming to think is that the economic policy was popular, but the images were insulting. "Vote for the cripples dossers and loonies party because we are all oppressed, and only a middle-class do-gooder can save us." There's no dignity in that.
I agree with this. I was discussing a slower long term shift of the traditional Labour heartlands away from traditional socialism.
Yes I heard Heseltine, I agree with him and have already moved on. For me I will benefit from continued Conservative government to the extent of a six figure sum, from a heafty inheritance. Which I would almost certainly not have had if Corbyn had got in and removed the tax free allowance. But for me it was worth the sacrifice if the health of the society were to be restored. I am not all that concerned about Brexit provided a sensible approach is adopted*. I was expecting it to happen at some point, perhaps in another 10 or 15 years. But I still think it is a mistake and a poor strategy for our long term future. I agree with the your assessment of the Labour front bench, but I don't see them as any worse than the Tory front bench, just the opposite side of the political divide.
* I will be entitled to a Scottish passport, so I expect to get an EU passport when Scotland leaves the UK.
As an aside I believe that if Heseltine had become PM the world would be a different place now. The best prime minister we never had.
I'd choose Kenneth Clarke - or maybe Healey? But I wouldn't vote against MH..
It's a shame that I too, as a disillusioned Remainer am selfishly thinking: 'Oh well, I won't be worse off - my money is global investments (not that that seems to be helping much at the moment!), when the majority who think they have won will almost certainly suffer for it. I sometimes wonder if one-man-one-vote democracy is really the best way. But in the end, I suspect however the 'system' is set up the simple will always be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous clever.
Depends how you define 'hard left'. I'd say Corbyn represents it. If he doesn't, who does? Surely the SWP aren't big enough to reserve the term for them alone.
I suggest to you that the hard left is best represented by the red wall, the voters who for generations have voted Labour and found it until now unthinkable to do otherwise. The soft left is the middle-class identity obsessed chattering class who have thought they knew how to run the Labour party and that they could take the poor in the North for granted forever. Nowhere is the North/South divide so extreme as in the Labour party and that is the reason they lost the election. Denis Skinner was hard left, Corbyn is the ultimate softie, and that's why he was defeated by a blustering bully. And now everyone thinks the answer is a woman. Corbyn was already a woman!
I suggest you listen to the Peter Hennessy interview with Heseltine, you can see his vision for the country there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m5gwm
Johnson has already said that he wants to model his vision on Heseltine, somehow I don't think he is up to it, but he might well surprise us.
I thought it despicable that Johnson's first celebratory visit was to Sedgfield, Blair's seat. Rubbing salt into the wound like that is not Heseltine's style.
On the contrary. I saw it partly as saying that he thinks he can be as transformative a leader as Blair. So in that respect it was a compliment - albeit a pretty ego-driven one..
I'm guessing not. But give him his due, I think Boris wants to inspire people via optimism and his own leadership qualities. I don't think mean-spirited revenge and triumphalism is his way of thinking. Trump would do it, yes, and for the reasons you give.
But I'm hoping Boris may prove himself a more inclusive Tory leader than any since Churchill. Now that he has his big majority he can dispense with cynical populist tactics if he wants and do whatever he likes. For now I think he does want to reach out to all and become a national hero for uniting the country again. 'Commeth the hour, commeth the man' may well be his motto. Whether events will allow him to do all that remains to be seen.
Good riddance!
It is now nothing else but a distraction for the UK and a way to polarize the Brits.
Secondly, the issue of the Union, Johnson will be desperate to retain Scotland in the Union, he doesn't give a toss about Northern Ireland, which he said before the election. But in reality the only way he can keep Scotland is to deliver a soft Brexit. While his backers and base want a hard Brexit. If however Northern Ireland unifies with Ireland, that in itself might make keeping Scotland impossible.
Historians still might say that it was the infighting of the Conservative party which broke up the Union.
I guess it's obviously true that the democracy does not determine truth, meaning it's entirely possible (and often likely) that the voters choose a wrong course, but I do think there's some denial in this thread that perhaps the voters actually voted exactly as they wanted, as they believed, and they did it with their eyes wide open. I'm sure both sides are guilty of this, but trying to describe one's opponents as manipulated and deceived every time they vote in opposition to you appears as a refusal to accept that there might be another legitimate way of looking at things.
Should a simple majority decide who the president is?
This question strikes me as a strained attempt to bring about a discussion about the electoral college. In the UK, they elect representatives who then pick a prime minister, which seems even further removed from a directly democratic system.
Regardless, I'm fine with the current system of both countries, and do believe the decisions of elections represent the will of the people, controlled by various rules designed to protect minority interests or whatnot.
Do you think that every member of the House and Senate should be elected as an at large representative of the entire nation? I mean we do wish that each vote from each representative represent the entire will of the nation don't me? We don't want to disproportionately advance the interests of some small district in some far away state somewhere, right?
John Oliver did a show about how Brexit was really too technical to put to a simple majority vote. He showed actual British people complaining that they didn't have the background to decide the issue.
So it's not crazy to say that British voters might have been somewhat bamboozled with lies since the average British person wouldn't have a super informed opinion.
My point to you was that it would be bizarre if the US put a question like that to the public without at least requiring a 2/3 majority. Am I wrong?
I would point out that there are probably as many different forms of Brexit as there are leave voters. The referendum was perhaps too simple a proposition and one which Cameron assumed would vote to remain. He didn't consider that it would go the other way and was intending to use it as a way to silence UKIP which was poaching his support. There was no detail about what Leave would mean, which resulted in 2 years of squabbling about what leaving meant in terms of future trade, legal and citizen circumstances that we would get.
Now we have an election which Johnson called "the Brexit election", surely the impasse should have been broken by a confirmatory referendum. But it is widely acknowledged among commentators that the result would probably go the other way. This means of deciding the way forward on Brexit confuses the vote with other election issues and disenfranchises many voters who would like their vote to indicate the view on the issue of Brexit. For example, nearly everyone I know of my own age voted remain and all of them, except two, live in safe Tory seats, so they were disenfranchised in the decision on "the Brexit election". Also, now that Johnson has a large majority, he is at liberty to bring on any kind of Brexit he likes with no redress to the electorate, or effective opposition in Parliament.
I don't think Boris is from the party-first mould. I think that he sees himself as Churchill did - above party identities and able to appeal to the people over the top of that loyalty. So far he's being proved right. There will be much trumpeting of investment in the Northern Powerhouse I'm sure, as he seeks to fulfill promises to the ex-Labour voters, but it will be interesting to see if he coughs up for HS2, considered a vital part of that project, but hugely expensive.
He also faces a test on Brexit phase 2. The only realistic route to meeting his Dec 2020 target for an EU trade deal is maintaining close alignment in standards and tarifs with them. The ERG won't like that, but he now has the majority to say f*** you to them. The problem is that if, as he has previously shown, he wants a US trade deal, that approach with the EU won't satisy Trump at all. If he does want to appease Trump and depart from EU standards his loudly promised EU deadline looks unfeasible. However history to date shows that once he's made a promise, he'll do almost anything to keep it, so maybe he'll choose the EU over Trump if it comes to it. No doubt voters would want him to too. And who knows if Trump will even be around in 2021?
This is a way longer answer than you deserve so Happy Christmas (or Hannah’s Car, or whatever).
Broad generalizations in either direction aren't informative and tend to do no more than reflect the opposing ideologies of the winners and losers. The winners will almost always say "The people got what they wanted" and the losers will very often say "The people were duped". Any decent analysis is going to look much deeper than either non-answer above to the question of what happened in a given election.
Re that, this latest UK poll is a nice one to analyze because of its dual-layer nature and the strategies that were taken advantage of to maximize political outcomes, particularly by the Conservatives (Labour might as well have been trying to minimize political outcomes though that was as much to do with the rock/hard place they were stuck in as incompetence). So, the dual layers were Brexit and everything else and they were interwoven in a complex way. The "everything else", which is normally all there is, can be sub-layered into party personality and party policy. First, the party personality or party "brand" is normally led by and embodied in the party leader and can be anything, but in this case the choices showed an unusual level of polarity (Boris’s brand was the (alpha) male—loud, forceful, closed, active. And Corbyn’s, as @un pointed out, the female—quiet, restrained, open, passive). Second, the party policies are the functional aspect of the election outcomes and in judging whether or not the voters acted in a rational/self-interested manner are all that matters. So, if you can roughly determine self-interest by demographic according to a reasonably refined number of social and economic criteria and then look at voter behaviour, you can form a credible thesis as to the extent to which voters acted rationally, and the inverse, which is to what degree they were manipulated/deceived into acting irrationally (leaving out for simplicity’s sake cases where they were simply mistaken in a way that did not at all depend on political influence).
But even here, we’re over-simplifying things, and Brexit is useful in making clear how. So, voters can be manipulated into voting against their best interests by, first of all, obscuring/masking a policy, so they vote for a policy that's in not in their interest because they think they’re voting for something else or voters can be manipulated into wanting a policy that’s not in their interest so they get what they want but it has a negative effect on them down the line in a way they may or may not become directly aware of.
From a strategic point of view, it’s better to make voters want a policy that’s not in their interest rather than to simply temporarily mask a policy that’s not, as in the latter case the deception is immediately revealed upon policy implementation whereas in the former the negative outcomes can be drip-fed and gradually spun so that voters may find it hard to discern what’s happening and the extent to which they are responsible for it vs. the extent to which it was a deliberate manipulation. Of course, that’s harder to achieve and takes a more sophisticated level of deception, but given the current deregulated, polarised, and diverse state of the media landscape and the technological tools available to inject ideology at an almost surgical level, it’s as doable as ever.
So, there’s a bunch of abstract, how do we tie it to the this election? Well, first a caveat, we’re dealing with a first-past-the-post system in the UK rather than a PR system and that determines to a large extent how the results are viewed, and yet both systems are accepted as being vanilla democratic. To give a quick example of this, the SNP killed it in Scotland; they got something like 80% of the seats, and the other three major parties had to share the crumbs of the remainder between them. The natural interpretation (and the most dominantly purveyed one in the media) is that Scotland has overwhelmingly spoken in favour of independence, it’s a juggernaut that can’t be stopped etc. Change the format of the election to equally democratic PR and the SNP get less than half of the seats. Suddenly, the narrative drastically changes. What remains the same though are the political inclinations of the population. Similarly for Boris’s victory. A stonking roasting of the opposition and a huge mandate turns into a hung parliament under PR. If you think PR is fairer, and it just is in terms of pure percentages because as the name suggests, it’s more proportional, then that’s food for thought. But leaving that aside for now...
As mentioned above, the Brexit issue was interwoven with policy/personality. One very important point to make here is that the alpha male Conservative brand (personality) tied well into pro-Brexit feeling, which was often driven by a tough anti-immigrant, nationalist sentiment that bonded (and was one of the few things that could) class and geographic divisions. So, you had coherence there (and ancillary reach) which was added in emotional strength to by the fact that the Leavers who won the original plebiscite were faced with not a respected enemy but a bunch of namby pamby liberals trying to do them out of their victory (cue personal-historic associations in working-class leavers screwed by the neoliberal elite etc.). So, not only is the strength of emotion particularly intense in losing something you’ve fought for and fairly gained (from your perspective) in general, but in this case, among the personality type that was more likely to vote Brexit, the prospect was akin to an ideological castration by an enemy that was already threatening death by a thousand cuts. And this is what created the countervailing force necessary to smash through Labour’s red wall and ensure the Conservatives not just victory over but utter destruction of their traditional foe.
Getting back to the question at hand though, were voters manipulated/deceived etc? and breaking that down a little in light of the above. First of all, the brand/personality is always to an extent a deceit as its a deliberate strategized mask pulled over the policy platform, and it was reinforced by the vast majority of popular newspapers of the type read by Labour voters in its strongholds. But in concert with that, the dominant policy itself, Brexit, as mentioned above cohered perfectly with the brand anyway. So, to a very real extent the voters did get what they wanted and really wanted what they wanted notwithstanding the desire being much intensified by the Conservative/media alliance where it mattered.
On the other side, ill-feeling towards Corbyn was deliberately stoked and the conservative media cleverly managed to portray him both as a passive, weak, feminine figure and a dark socialist, anti-semitic, terrorist-loving threat. No mean feat. Again though, whether they had pulled this off to the extent they did or not, Corbyn was handicapped by conflicting wings of his party; roughly, the Northern wing, which leaned Brexit, and the Southern wing, which leaned remain. Seeing as the Northern wing was what the Conservatives needed for a majority, and potentially the angrier at an anti-referendum betrayal, it might have made more sense to have favoured that side, but the Remain camp fearing a Lib-Dem attack from the liberal flank made that impossible, and Corbyn was forced to sit incoherently on the fence without a strong message and without the strong brand to deliver it even if he had one. Recipe for disaster and as much a function of political reality as deception.
Last point, removing Brexit and brand and looking at regular and economic and social policies of the type that regularly take center stage in an election, did the defecting firewall voters (to take just one loosely-defined group) get what they voted for? Well, if you hypothesize that they simply prioritized Brexit and were willing to sacrifice themselves economically for that, yes. They went in eyes open. If you hypothesize that Johnson won their trust on Brexit and they believed his economic spin of his platform on that basis, probably not. So, it's complicated, and that’s just one group measured against an uncertain economic future under an unpredictable leader. But the more you dig, the more answers you get.
BTW, don’t dare tl;dr me or Santa won’t come down your chimney this year.
tl;dr: Yes. And no.
Ah, you mean how that significant remain minority doesn't get to remain?
I predict a shift to the left as the demographic changes
I can't see the likelihood that the Tory's can recruit sufficient numbers from anyone under 45 years old, due to the fallout and rise of personal debt, and poor economic prospects amongst the young since the credit crunch. Also the gradual failing of the real economy and inexorable rise in the national debt. This is the existential crisis which the party faces and why I keep saying that the Tory's are struggling to save their party. Brexit was their latest effort, which has worked in that it brought an extra layer of support for them in the election from leavers who wanted to "get it done" and castrated UKIP/Brexit party. The next stage, although probably not intended, is the break up of the union, purging the SNP, leaving a strongly Tory little England.
I'm not sure I completely understand this comment, but I think you're saying I want to kill the minority. I deny that charge.
If I wanted to eliminate the minority, I would get rid of all districts and my vote would be watered down with the west coast votes and northeast votes, and we'd have a single party in all the US. That's not what I want, unless it benefits me somehow, in which case I'd be in favor of it, until it no longer was to my benefit, then I'd change my mind and pretend I never wanted things the way they were. You'd have some transcripts of me saying one thing on one day and another on another, but I'd deny I said what I said and half the people would believe me, or at least pretend they did, because they agree with what I'm saying now, but not before.
They'll just wait for them to turn 45 years old. Older people are more conservative because they like the way things were, even though things weren't like the way they remembered them. I can say this because I'm over 45 and I remember things being better even though they weren't.
Poison? The only poison has been fed to that metropolitan socialist elite and the younger 'educated' voter. It's their hubris, the idea that some of the previous supporters have been duped, that is the problem it. You have it totally the wrong way.
But by all means continue with it!
Anyway, doesn’t matter now. Boris has it and he’ll push Brexit through. He’s adamant about untangling the UK completely from EU rule - if he fails to deliver that he won’t last too long.
Oh the right wing media...is (ghasp) against a labour candidate? And it's ugly?
Goodness Gracious! How terrible!!!
How could they?
Quoting Punshhh
And could you think of a reason for this? Or is it a huge conspiracy?
Quoting Punshhh
But?
And what is the problem you have with the Guardian when you say "but this paper gives politically balanced intellectual analysis"? Is that really the problem? Perhaps you don't notice how condescending you come out with your remarks here. It is as if the (right wing) tabloid papers made distinct people not to vote Corbyn. Because...they are more stupid than you. They could be just lied to and that was it. Nothing else. That if (when) the other side, at least in your opinion, goes with propaganda, lies and fake news, is then the answer to have your own equivalent of propaganda, lies and fake news? Would you think that would be the answer? Or perhaps you mean that the Guardian isn't leftist at all. It just looks like it because of the contrast.
If it would be just the right wing tabloid press, basically the it would just backfire on them and create more support for labour, just like Trump bashing just makes Trump supporters love their "God Emperor" even more. Yet when you have the most successful labour politician of the past giving interviews like the one below, you cannot deny that there is a very serious problem. I cannot think of a more damning view coming from a previous prime minister of the party:
You might think high of Corbyn, you might think he's even too moderate. But the simple fact is labour voters, just as euro-social democrats they relate to, aren't in the far left. They are far more closer to the center than people may not think. This is because the most vocal people in parties don't actually reflect the majority of the party. Hence in a right wing party the loudest are far away on the right and in a leftist party the loudest are the those on the far left. The so-called purists.
Your graphic shows that it's the NHS what lost it. Once that's been privatised, the average age will drop and Labour will romp home, by natural selection.
Politics has always been a dirty game. It’s good to angry about this, but let’s not pretend to be shocked when these sort of ‘tactics’ are used.
Sure, but above with Blair you have a former leader of the Labour party saying: "The door was locked to those elements with a kind of 'not wellcome' sign on the door. And the truth is now because the leadership is from that tradition, the door is with a wellcome mat. And what's happened is you have had a whole lot of people come in to the Labour Party with these views" Later he says that singling out Israel "seeps into anti-semitism".
That's from a former leader of the party, a former prime minister. Not Labour's opponents.
The other thing is that the Brexit vote years ago didn't go by party lines. Roughly a quarter of the "Leave" vote was from voters that otherwise had voted for Labour.
I am aware of Blair's thoughts on this and accept that there is some anti-semitism in the Labour Party, but not as much as claimed by the media. The subtlety of the distinction between "anti-Israeli foreign policy" sentiment and "anti-Israel" sentiment. Has been exploited by critics and sometimes mistakenly blurred by those being criticised. This story is then blown up into some massive crisis by the populist media and lots of their loyal readers take it as read.
As an aside, the interviewer in the video you linked to, James OBrian, who has worked as a reporter on one of the papers I highlighted ( The Express) agrees with me on the media bias and the ways in which over years it turns their readers in the direction these lead them in. Also that it has effected the result of this election.
I agree that this was not pivotal in the result and that there were a number of other important factors, which we can look at.
Actually, I am not partisan, or a supporter of Corbyn particularly. I am actually a supporter of the Green Party. My beef in this is that I am anti-Brexit and Corbyn was our best hope if somehow stopping it.
If he’d resigned several months ago, then yeah. If and buts don’t matter now.
He said, she said, don’t much care he was PM. Like every other human being he has his point of view, and I remember many within the Labour party complaining about him being too centrist/right-leaning ... so it therefore must be his fault then? - joke*
Doesn’t matter. The bigger problem was the disintegration of the Lib Dems. Popular vote - even under Clegg - was 6% less than Labour, but they had 200 more seats. The travesty was the negative propaganda surrounding the proposed overhaul of the electorate system by the Lib Dems.
Personally I don’t think ONLY the popular vote should determine members of parliament but it seems ridiculous to treat a marginal win in this or that county as a victory and shut out half of the population of that constituency.
I guess commonsense isn’t exactly synonymous with politics though.
Well, there might be reason why especially from the historical point of view people would oppose socialism. It hasn't been all dancing on roses and happiness. In my family, two of my great grandfathers were nearly killed by the Red Guard during our War of Independence. They were defined to be the 'class enemy' by the dictatorship of the proletariat, hence the violent side of marxism (and especially Trotskyism) is something really true and not something that "just got understood the wrong way". And my grandfathers fought the Soviets in WW2. Back then the Workers Paradise was intent on annexing my little country. (The other grandfather was a surgeon, so he didn't literally fight).
Quoting Punshhh
But this is politics 1.0. It's basically quite arrogant not to understand how the other side will take your views. A mainstream party ought to look at what it says.
Quoting Punshhh
I'm not sure if he was your best hope. I put my hope on politicians that take extremely seriously and treat with respect the people who oppose them and think differently. Far too often we just dismiss the opposing views and start to believe our own biased views.
"Labour party complaining about him being too centrist/right-leaning"
Yes, I regard Blair as Tory light, he just carried the Tory batton for a few years.
"Personally I don’t think ONLY the popular vote should determine members of parliament but it seems ridiculous to treat a marginal win in this or that county as a victory and shut out half of the population of that constituency."
Agreed, we need Proportional representation now. The tragic duplicity of this election is that Johnson used it as a solution to the Brexit stalemate, by calling it a Brexit election and campaigning on that ticket. Thus settling the developing questioning of the wisdom of the referendum and its result, as the reality was emerging. But in a way which conflates the issue with other things and disenfranchised millions of voters through the constituency system.
"I guess commonsense isn’t exactly synonymous with politics though."
It went out of the window this time.
No, I'm saying that in a winner takes all system like the US and UK there is no protection for the losing side at all. The UK people were hopelessly split over Brexit in 2016 that one side "won" over the other didn't represent the facts on the ground back then and the general election vote wasn't just about Brexit either.
And if the argument is that it was, I still fail to see a political mandate for Brexit with the Scots overwhelmingly voting for SNP. Together with the LibDems, who were pro-Remain as well, 52 of the Scottish 59 seats (88%) are against Brexit. 75% of voters voted for parties who campaigned on remain. So the Scottish minority is getting shafted.
Where exactly are those rules you mentioned to protect minorities then?
Yes of course, but I don't know if you were aware, there is an equally pervasive issue with Islamophobia in the Tory party and opposition MPs repeatedly called this out, but it didn't cut through in the media and was repeatedly laughed off by Tory politicians. While the media couldn't stop talking about the media circus they had created around anti semitism in the Labour Party.
"I'm not sure if he was your best hope. I put my hope on politicians that take extremely seriously and treat with respect the people who oppose them and think differently. Far too often we just dismiss the opposing views and start to believe our own biased views."
Did you notice that Johnson and his team would say one thing and then the opposite in the next sentence, or the next day. Just repeat meaningless populist slogans constantly, ignore any kind of critical questioning. The problem for people who were opposed to Brexit, is that once article 50 was triggered there was a ticking clock, so all the government needed to do was distract and delay until the clock ran out.
Talking about views on the Brexit issue, can anyone name a tangible benefit to leaving the EU?
Eventually there will be a loss for one side or the other. That's inevitable. Either Britain was going to stay in the EU or they weren't.
Polarization typically leads to gridlock, not just a trouncing of the minority. When the Democrats controlled both houses and the White House, all they got through was half ass health insurance reform that has since been weakened. What really has Trump changed, even during the time when the Republicans controlled everything?
And what I've referred to above is when all houses were controlled by one party, but typically (as in now), one house is controlled by the other party, which then protects that party. And of course the courts serve as another protection. The reason the Senate rules of filibuster were changed which previously required 60% approval wasn't so much that they wanted to destroy the minority party, but it's that the minority party created complete gridlock. But still, to what great end? All the Republicans have ever achieved is the appointment of a right leaning Justice.
My point is that real change is very difficult to bring about in the American system, and it seems the same in the UK, where they've been bickering about Brexit long after they supposedly decided to exit.
Also regarding change, our system is such that now Johnson has lots of power and can do almost anything he wants and no one can stop him for the next five years.
It's probably as good an idea as the Scots leaving Britain, which is as much based upon their desire for independence and desire to lose their association with England than it is whether they'll actually economically benefit.
I think independence has value in its own right, even if means a loss of economic benefit. It's entirely possible that Canada, for example, would economically benefit if it ceded certain powers to the US, but I can fully understand why Canada wouldn't do that.
Except that didn't happen following the Great Recession.
I'd say real change would be very much possible in the US if there would be a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans. The system doesn't provide any protections for the losing party accept a filibuster. In other words, any 60% majority means you're scotfree to do whatever you like.
What didn't happen? The pick up in interest in heterogenuous economics and Marx and works from the likes of Pickety since 2008 clearly indicate a shift in economic thinking. At least in the Netherlands.
The reason was parliament was particularly weak. Now the Conservatives have a whooping majority it’ll be easy to ‘change’. Don’t forget that May assumed she’d get a clean sweep and be able to push through Brexit much earlier - her plan backfired stupendously.
Overall I reckon it’s been a good period of shake up. Once the Brexit train is well and truly rolling perhaps the opposition parties will accept this and restructure their policies rather than pandering to popular opinion - for that Corbyn was certainly a breath of fresh air. The difference in the UK is the lesser parties. The Lib Dems have suffered massively, but they can still rise up again with a half-decent leader. Now Labour is imploding it may lead to my dream finally coming true ... an election where THREE parties have a decent chance of winning out. In terms of the popular vote the Lib Dems have been there or there about (even though the number of seats has never shown this support).
Anyway, enough of all that from me. I jumped the ship Blighty 8 years ago and have no intention of living there again :) it is still part of me though, but having it at a distance helps me put things into perspective (people don’t appreciate what they have most of the time).
If there's no difference, then why can't anything get passed?Quoting Benkei
Nice pun with the scotfree comment in light of the Scots claiming they're not free. I'm just asking though what the Democrats have to complain about right now in terms of Republican policy being forced down their throat? They really haven't taken any big hits.
Which metric are you using to say the economy has boomed?
Second, inequality has risen, so full time jobs but lower living standards especially for manual labour.
Third, full employment is a Keynesian metric and goal which is debatable as a measure for an economy's health. Quite a few argue we should be concerned with full production.
Do you think that the financial crisis was a blip and in a year or two the world economy will be booming again?
Unless the area gets bargained away in the trade deal our fishing industries should gain substantially, and ergo many coastal communities. As an island, if we have control of our own waters we stand to gain much in quota once all the spanish and french boats are excluded.
Also, one reason for some wanting to leave is the overarching influence of the EU courts. I have yet to see an example of where they dictated to the UK what to do in the face of clear opposition here. But presumably there is one somewhere?..
Thirdly I recall hearing our livestock transportation welfare standards are higher than the EU, and as we can't enforce them currently we have to 'trade down' to compete on price. The livestock would benefit if our prefered standards were enforced. Maybe they're the ones who voted for Brexit!
When you can laugh off things, things are good. But in the example I gave Blair wasn't laughing it off. And this was just one issue from many.
Here is the thing that is the problem of our time.
We assume that every political question divides by the juxtaposition of the left and right.
They simply don't, but the most vocal voices assume they do. Their argument creates the siren song of everything being part of a culture war and people being tribal. Yet Labour voter (and social democrats) and Conservatives in general simply don't fit such simplistic stereotype molds.
Just look at Brexit. A quarter of Leave-voters were supporters of Labour. Same is with any question on immigration, which was a major issue in the whole Brexit debate. Yes, I understood that you were talking about Islamophobia, but the general context of this debate is immigration policy. And it isn't as simplistic that the left is for open borders and the right is islamophobic or basically xenophobic nativists.
The worst thing is when we take some difficult area of environmental policy and then start to divide it along similar silly lines.
But there sure is a drive to dumb down the debate and cling to the most eccentric stereotypes that one can find on either side to show just how out of whack the other side is. The social media makes this so easy.
In the case of Britain about 40% of our trade is through and benefits from the common market, plus the thing I value most, total freedom of movement throughout the European Union, including access to all benefits.
I have never heard of a case where the EU courts caused a problem and a forthright Prime minister would probably be able to demand a change in the rules on live animal exports.
I've heard that we will get back our Blue passports, but it turns out we don't need to leave the EU to do that. As far as I know all the benefits suggested are not actively prevented by the EU except for divergence on regulation, tariffs and the liberty to have total control of the movement of citizens and their benefits.
Of all the benefits I have come across, the freedom to control the movement of citizens and their benefits is the greatest and certainly from my experience this is the primary reason for the vote to leave.
However it has been pointed out following the vote that there were a number of means of controlling these citizens while in the EU, but they were never exercised by the government, during the critical periods of mass immigration. So it was the incompetence of our government which caused the circumstances which lead to the referendum.
I have thought all along that the freedom of movement issue was a red herring as control of immigration is really an illusion. Isn't it strange how none of the Brexiteers talk about reducing immigration any more, still less of setting ambitious targets as in the past? No. The major incompetence was of the Remain campaign, which failed to make this point during the lead up to the referendum. The concept of 'benefits tourism' was a fiction and a disgraceful scare story pedalled by the Leave campaign.
What are the means of control you mention?
(https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/opinion/tony-blair-is-right-on-immigration-but-did-nothing-to-control-freedom-of-movement/)
I agree that ideas like benefit tourism and tight control of immigration are a myth. They don't go on about immigration anymore because it is toxic, they can be accused of racism. They simply reduced all discussion about Brexit to two slogans, "get it done" and "the will of the people". There were more remainers in parliament than leavers and yet no one took the government to task on the issue. There was an open goal, but we required a statesman/woman to lead the opposition. Corbyn failed in this, even though he was also a leaver, he could have taken the initiative and won the argument and given us a Labour deal. I know that his party and support was split down the middle, which left him hamstrung, but that was no excuse for in action.
I think the Tories don't go on about it any more because it's so patently obvious that with the NHS short by 100,000 staff and everyone saying they want a better NHS the new staff have to come from abroad. And maybe people have twigged that as EU immigration has been falling over the past year so non-EU figures have risen to compensate. I also think that peoples' fears of immigration have been molified by the prospect of being able to control it. The so-called aussie-style points system which Boris proffers will be a fig-leaf for a while, but when his hospital and rail building plans stipulates we'll need 5000 new brickies and plumbers as well as NHS cleaners, social care workers - plus of course fruit pickers, people may begin to realise. The 'control' is illusory if we want our job positions filled, and the points system will become simply a means to this end. Additonally, working-age immigration is of course a big help when it comes to offsetting our ageing population - many of whom who are the most vulnerable themselves being the most virulently against it!
Only if Scotland votes to become part of Ireland!
IOW they don't have a potential partner already in the EU to lobby for them.
My comment was a joke!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Celticism
This government is showing its colours, integrity, truth, honesty has left the building. They will use any underhand tactics they can to hold on to power. Next we can expect them to mimic the Labour Party so as to move onto Labour political territory, leaving them politically homeless. The fact that it will only be hollow promises and they won't deliver is irrelevant, because they will just bluff and bluster and claim black is white, or white is black.
Honestly speaking there's a good path to follow here: be simply consistent on your agenda when talking to the administration. Don't flip flop here and there.
Unwarranted cynicism at this stage I think. It's a huge problem. At least give Boris the chance to address it before shooting him down..
Judging by the Queen's speech today Johnson is not a good orator, he's not over the detail, or the subject even. He's nothing more than a showman, UK Trump.
I suggest you need to get on board with what it means for an administration to be lacking in integrity, truth and honesty. Have you noticed that Johnson in the House of Commons and all the government ministers who were on the media today are saying 36 billion for the NHS and that it's a big increase in spending and 40 new hospitals. That it will be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU in 11 months, because we are in perfect alignment on tariffs and regulations etc. All which have been proven to be untruthful by analysts and fact checkers. They are not going to let up, they are just getting going.
Oh and we won't know if he actually addresses it, rather than just claiming to have done so.
I don't think at this point it's topped the destruction visited on California, but it's horribly destructive and I think in the popular imagination is a stark testimony to climate change. And, the Australian government is one of the most retrograde in the world on that front. In fact today's headline is, PM Scott Morrison Returns Early from Pre-Christmas Break, due to popular perception of him fiddling while Sydney burns.
Worst of all, this looks like the new normal, or an early foretaste of an even worse new normal.
You can't say these claims have been proven to be untruthful simply because fact checkers dispute them. These are doubtless the same people who said Boris could not get a Brexit deal.. Anyway, no claim about future events can be called 'untruthful' any more than 'a lie'; 'absurd' or 'implausible' yes.
Re the care crisis: I think it is acute now. Part of the cause of the chronic shortage of beds and nurses in the NHS is the use of faciltiites on the long term care needs of those who cannot survive alone at home, and for whom no care provider beds are avialable. The problem is that whatever system the govt comes up with to address the crisis will be a vote loser, because it entails taking extra money either by general taxes or from those directly needing care - meaning they have to sell their houses, give up their childrens' inheritances etc. The piftfalls any govt faces were shown by Theresa May's attempt - it immediately became labelled as the dementia tax, although it was a viable idea, and quickly got buried. So the only way through is a cross-party agreement on the basic strategy, that way all parties take any hit in popularity and the 'political football' aspect of the issue is removed. As we face more unpopular decisions in future this cross-party approach will be more needed: most immediate example; to tackle climate change by a rapid de-carbonisation programme.
When there was no overall majority, that was a possibility, but not now. The tories have their majority, they can damn well take the responsibility with it.
About working cross party, before this administration I would have agreed with you, although Theresa May wouldn't have been much better. But now, no way. The government has demonstrated that they will sell anyone under the bus to keep power. Not simply to remain in No10, but to rubbish the opposition at every opportunity so that they can never be seen as a viable government.
Regarding the NHS, this is what I was discussing with my son earlier,
The trouble is if Johnson gets into a pickle while negotiating trade deals with the EU and the US at the same time (which seems inevitable), he will reach a point of desperation where the stakes become so high that his government becomes at risk. When he fears this he will play fast and loose and the hard nosed capitalists in the US will get their foot in the door. We will become a piggy in the middle between the US and the EU. The US will see us as a lever into the EU and the EU will see us as a shield against the US. This is when Johnson and his right wing backers will bring out the populist tactics again. As long as we have the Labour Party up and running again with an outspoken leader, they can be ready to pick up the pieces when it collapses.
There is an interesting film made by John Pilger on this, I will link it later.
I did some weeks ago, entitled: 'Is climate change too large a problem for mankind to solve'. Depressingly, the unanimous view seems to be 'yes'..
Quoting Punshhh
He mentioned setting up a cross-party Social Care group, which would presumably produce a report. Admittedly he could ignore that report, but unless he has a better alternative he'll look pretty stupid. Besides, the small increases in NHS funding he's announced won't do more than plug some holes in the dyke for long. Five years is a long time to keep making excuses with a big majority. That is of course unless Brexit proves a big economic problem.. I still think it's odds on he'll end up hoist by one of his many own petards..
Yes Johnson has already called for a charge to see your GP, or call an ambulance. This should be a sharp petard, but it can only become one if the media promote it, most of them won't, it will be "nothing to see here". But sooner or later an event will happen which will pierce the media curtain and they will turn on him.
Thanks for pointing out the climate change thread, I could find one before, I'll give it a look.
Presumably he will have been doing some thinking. Will he now put any effort into preventing Scotland leaving the UK? I doubt he will want to be the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and go down as the PM who presided over the break up of the Union.
But how will he achieve this? Surely the only way is to deliver a soft Brexit, but he has sold a hard Brexit. So what does he do?
Or perhaps he doesn't give two hoots about Scotland.
His indyref strategy to date has been: 'Just say no'. Perhaps he hopes his 'One nation' post Brexit UK will be so successful the majority of Scots will not want to leave it. His New Year resolution seems to be to stoke up Project Positive. This will be fine for say 6 months, but then the honeymoon period will be over and he'll have to start producing. Luckily the opposition are effectively dead..
Well, regarding the honeymoon period, he has already been overtaken by events. I expect he will support Trump in secret while, while pretending to stand up to him in the British media. Facing both ways as before the election. I expect he will not appear on the media much, basically hiding from any kind of exposure or accountability.
He means it when he says the word Brexit will be banned, we won't hear anything about the negotiations, it will all be done in secret, with a policy of encouraging the media and public to only discuss other issues. Nothing to see here.
If the US goes to war, it might become a bit tricky, again he will face both ways, deceiving the public, while sending British troops anyway.
I think the nearest he'll get to a middle position (to judge by his comments on the murder of General Suleimani) as if he limits himself in public to kissing his Great Maters feet, at least in public!
'Master's', of course. I suppose he did have a Mother, despite my prejudices!
I don't think that's likely.
Remember that the British already said "No" to US when Obama wanted to bomb Syria. Remember that "red line" Obama draw and then didn't do anything? That was because of a firm NO from other countries on that occasion.
Boris would not win absolutely anything by supporting Trump with engaging the British military in the fight.
He's probably not going to get that in a year, as the new EU President reiterated today. If he wants a quick deal it will need to be by keeping the 'level playing field' - which seems to be the EU's new favourite phrase. It remains to be seen how much Boris will threaten with the no-deal option to bully the EU into a quick agreement. But will they back down? Given that the UK has far more to lose in a no-trade deal scenario it seems unlikely. Expect the Brexiteers to pipe up too, about the money we're still paying in - for no say, if the Dec 31st deadline looks to be slipping..
Interesting too that the Iran flare-up shows the govt firmly siding with Europe in response, and having had no prior warning of the assasination from Trump, there seems no other option - Boris could not get away with adopting the loyal Trump-poodle stance..
More importantly Trump will be waiting for Johnson's endorsement, especially if there is an escalation in tension. If Johnson wants his trade deal he has to get into bed with Trump, which will require committing UK soldiers in any crackpot wars Trump gets involved in. If he commits troops, the protests will dwarf the stop the war march we had the last time.
I expect the Johnson has been begging Trump to hold off any escalation until after leaving Day on January 31st. Once we're past that point Johnson will come out of hiding and get into bed with Trump, because Brexit will be done and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
But Brexit won't be done. The trade deal is the main part. Regardless of Iran I think Johnson has to tread a fine line between keeping close enough to the EU for a speedy trade deal, and close enough to Trump for a deal the US will go for. Anyway, with it now looking like the Iranians are militarily inept enough to shoot down passenger jets in their own skies I suspect they will want to 'de-escalate' as quick as they can, leaving Trump to crow about the US's surgical precision in contrast.
You may be right about the next stage and Iran, but I don't think Trump is going to back down. The problem with Iran is that they are now going to get a nuclear bomb, which the US will not allow under any circumstances. The reasons for this are complex and include the paranoia of Israel. In fact I expect that Israel will probably launch a preemptive strike on Iran before the US if it looks like the Iranians are close to acquiring the bomb. So in such scenarios, it is not Iran who starts the war, all they do is continue with their ambition to acquire the bomb and I see no sign that they are going to stop in that.
The trouble with Brexit bias, many of us don't know if it is right, or wrong. Was it the right thing to do, is it better for our country, is the EU going to collapse in debt, or are we. When one is so uncertain to then have xenophobic populism etc shoved down your throat doesn't feel right either way.
Well unless you're certain it was the right thing to do, in which case everything is rosy. But that can be nothing more than a wing and a prayer, because no one really knows if it was the right thing to do and if they think it was they are being deceitful in some way.
?Brett
"And yet you argue against what Johnson has done. With what knowledge do you do that?"
That's easy, it's politics. But with Brexit, no one knows what the long consequences are either of staying in the EU, or leaving, it hasn't been done before and in a world in such flux no one really knows what's going to happen. It reminds me of captain Oates, on captain Scott's expedition to the South Pole. Who left the tent at a point of crisis in a ferocious blizzard saying, "I am just going outside and may be some time" and was never seen again. It is a haunting image of a person somewhere between life and death choosing oblivion. I get this sense of foreboding about Brexit, as do many others. Are we in a hipnotic state, blind folded, walking towards the clifftop?
I will paste this post into the Brexit thread, it should be there rather than here.
No-one knows, but economic forecasts predict something like a .5% annual hit to UK GDP going forward due to increased hassle trading with Europe from outside its single market and customs union. The Lib Dems forecasted it at £10 billion per year in their election manifesto. I've not heard the Leave campaign assert the 'gains' from new trade deals outside the EU will make up even in part for this loss. They centre on emotive feel-better effects and greater freedoms and control over UK decisions.
Yes it's going to happen.
I don't know if you are aware of the nature of the British media. But Harry and Meghan have been hit by a tsunami of racist hatred and personal attacks from the right wing Zenophobic newspapers. Who have raised a campaign of hatred amongst their loyal readers, this has also spilled out occasionally onto the mainstream media.
The debate at the moment, is about the problem of hate news and persecution of royalty in the UK. A topic which rarely comes to the surface, as criticism of the media, is avoided by the media.
Not sure that it is about race, really.
There has been a hundred times more talk about racist remarks than any actual racist remarks. I am sure that you can find such remarks, if you diligently dig for them. You can always find someone who makes them, if you look hard enough.
Still, these "racist remarks" seems to be much more of a convenient excuse used to draw the attention away from the fact that Mrs. "Strong and Independent" has bailed out, dragging the royal child in tow, several continents away from where the child is supposed to be, i.e. at the royal palace, under the watchful eye of her majesty the queen. Furthermore, isn't a married woman supposed to be living with her husband? Since she can apparently do as she pleases, whenever she pleases, I wonder what that marriage was supposed to be about?
The next step will obviously be a divorce, after which her already non-existent obligations completely cease, while his (financial) obligations will be made to continue. He has signed a rotten contract, with obnoxious terms and conditions, with an even more rotten person. Prince Harry is an idiot. Sorry to say.
That's because it's an impossible situation. The concept of a Royal family, wealthy and influential, but with no achievements and abilities to give any weight to their views - nor any right to express them, is absurd. It leaves them wide open to tabloid hatred. That unexceptional individuals cannot cope with the pressure the media puts on them to satisfy the public appetite for this living soap opera is totally unsurprising, so I don't blame them at all for flouncing off in a huff. The whole institution is anachronistic, and impossibly hard on the Royal family members if they have any individuality. Once the Queen is gone I expect this will become more obvious.
Take Prince Charles for example, the contribution he has personally made to the country would amount to a list more than a page in length.
Agreed.
A wife who has naturally pair-bonded with her husband would not deliberately choose to live two continents away separate from him. It's not that they "grew apart" barely one year after their wedding. Someone who has lost her natural ability to pair bond, does not really "grow apart", because a real bond simply never forms.
Of course, she could not have known beforehand that she would deem the daily presence of the prince, or any other husband for that matter, to be suffocating -- maybe she actually did know from experience -- and that she would prefer to be on her own, two continents away, but the royal family should have advised the prince that this behaviour was to be expected, given the fact that she has a long and well-documented personal-life history of doing exactly that.
That may sound fine to you, but why should these individuals be able so powerfully to promote the good causes that they personally support? We all have our pet causes, but don't have the money or influence to raise their profiles in the way the Royal family can. For anyone to be in a position of this power, they should - in my opinion, have earned the success and influence they exert over public money, not just happen to be born or marry a Windsor..
btw: aren't we getting off topic again?
Anyway back to Brexit, Stormont is back, I didn't see Johnson's speech, but I expect he will be encouraging them to rejoin Ireland, intentionally, or not.
Isn't it odd how the DUP - now that they no longer have any influence with the Westminster govt, have swallowed their allergy to the Irish language, and the NI Assembly is working again? ..
By keeping the child away from its relatives, it will never become a true member of the royal family. It will not properly bond with the other children of the family, such as the ones of prince William. It will never really learn how to think like them, speak like them, or behave as expected from a Mountbatten-Windsor. She is now actively creating a cultural difference in the next generation instead of diligently overcoming hers. In the end, it is she who married into the royal family and not the other way around.
Brexit is a rouse to keep people occupided from the real issue that draining England.
With this many posts, they've done a great job in missleading people. Wake up islanders!
The real problem is right in front of you!
You know why?? ... he can't sleep because they killed his mother.
The deal was that if he shut up about what happened ... he could leave. My guess is that he will die accidently in a hunting accident.
Harry! Canada is not safe!
Do you mean draining money from England?
Wouldn't it be a shame if the 'Bung a bob for Big Ben's Brexit bong' campaign fails ?! I'd say the moronic Populist phrasology alone should be enough to end that idea. Other events are planned - so maybe the funeral march should be played instead?.
As for the bongs, it looks like Farage is going to throw the party in Trafalgar Square, I'll be watching for the fisticuffs.
P.s. It's been confirmed that the bung for Stormont is 2 billion.
Sajid Javed's announcement of the anti-Google tax ahead of the OECD examination of the problem has annoyed the US - as it was bound to, so it's starting to look like the govt is prioritising a trade deal with the EU over the US. David Gaulke on Newsnight said the hit from no EU deal would be 7% of GDP, whereas that from no US deal would be 0.2%. Also, the govt won't have the manpower to negotiate with both of them at once, despite that being the stated plan. Maybe too the chance of Trump losing this year's election is increasing the appeal of letting a deal wait until the US's future is clear..
I don't think our Sovereign frequents this site. We subjects gain nothing.
Johnson talks squircles like they actually exist, with that petulant Trump grin on his face.
https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/30/brexit-remainers-hoping-ode-to-joy-will-smash-uk-top-40-on-exit-day
Brexit: EU's official anthem Ode to Joy hits No1 on UK download chart
Yes, obviously Michael you have changed today to be a foreigner to me like all the Americans here.
At least I have Benkei, a fellow citizen of the union, with whom I will continue to build the great European home called the EU. :wink:
Ah, the time when Scotland will be Independent again.
I myself will allways opt for Brussells rule to Moscow rule. The cacophony of the EU is far better than the single voice of Mr Putin. You see, all alone we'd have to listen to Vlad.
By giving up its membership, the UK will also lose part of its global influence and economic income, not to mention the loss of cultural diversity. The EU currently accounts for 44 percent of all UK exports and 53 percent of all imports; 3.1 million jobs are directly linked to these exports.
I could go on with further details, though I think the wider point is more pressing. We are finally reaching, with the aid of organisations such as the EU, a more extensive and inclusive democracy. This does not ensure but certainly encourages peace and diplomacy among nations. Given the history of the 20th century, is it the right move to place this on the rocks by coming out of the EU? Not only this, but is it the right move to do this without knowing all the terms of leaving? Much is yet unknown. Its riskiness lies largely in the unkempt manner in which it is being handled.
Yesterday the government told some journalists from certain media establishments they were not allowed into Downing St because the officials inside are now going to decide which favoured journalists they let in. At this point all the journalists walked out and it's now a news story.
Also today it has emerged that Ryan Air is starting a recruitment drive and the applicatants must have full unrestricted right to live and work in any of the EU countries which they fly to. So does that exclude all UK nationals from applying?
The EU is not going to offer an a la carte option for the UK. Access to the single market means meeting each and every rule associated with it and ensuring UK imports meet EU standards or any company in the world could circumvent EU rules by exporting to the EU via the UK. Obviously, the final arbiter on whether EU laws are met cannot be a non-EU court. Simple and logical.
So single market is out. That means a bespoke agreement on trade tariffs. That's not going to happen in the remaining 11 months. That automatically means that it's in both parties best interest to identify what industries have the highest priorities for them and see whether some agreement can be reached. And there we might stumble on another piece of national politics in the UK. It's pretty clear the financial services industry is the most important sector in the UK. But Johnson opens himself up to a lot of criticism if that is the first thing he's going to negotiate.
The other political issue is of course border control in Northern Ireland. That needs to be resolved before the end of the year as well but no obvious solution presents itself.
Meanwhile, indyref2 remains a continuing threat to the UK, which probably won't materialise this year but even so. Sturgeon will remind everyone regularly.
Interestingly as the COP26 climate change summit which will be held in Scotland in November is being arranged there is a stand off between the government and the SNP. Apparently the government is trying to exclude Nicola Sturgeon from the event. Johnson is terrified of appearing on stage with her, just as he was during the election campaign.
He is the best asset of the SNP, everything he does hastens indyref2.
Benkei, it's just like with Trump and the greatness of the USA.
All needed to 'Make America Great Again' was to elect Trump. Then America was great again. And it's similar here too. All needed was to resign from the union. That act is enough, never mind the reality.
Once not a member of the EU the UK is "Sovereign again", free to do whatever it wants! That's all. This has NOTHING to do with the reality that every international treaty and deal limits that 'independence' of sovereign states. Nothing to do with the UK economy is quite interconnected with the European economy. Nothing about the real impact on the strength of the UK when it has to deal now with it's biggest trading partner from position of being outside the union. All that doesn't matter at all. Just like MAGA, the whole reason for Brexit is quite an empty shell and was more about feelings than facts. When your dealing with feelings, not facts, why on Earth would the facts be important?
And if in this position the EU can say this or that to the UK, who's going to make the argument? Nigel Farage? Why would the Brexiteers start to bitch about the present situation now when they just have had their Trafalgar / Waterloo / Battle of Britain -moment where the independence of the island nation has been again saved from the fangs of evil continental Europeans. They want to make Brexit one of those defining moments of British history and it's consequences have to be great. Have to. And if bad things happen, it isn't because of Brexit.
In a way, the only thing the Brexiteers have succeeded in is that they now cannot blame Brussels for everything that sucks anymore.
Not yet. The blame for problems with the EU trade deal will be placed firmly with the EU, eg for not allowing a Canada-style free-trade + full market-access option - which the EU have said is not possible. But the Brexiteer govt as usual wants to have its cake and eat it. Doubtless when the economy tanks in a year or 2 that will be Brussells' fault too for restricting our trade or sneakily enticing our manufacturers to relocate there..
Luckily the English aren't the Spanish.
They'll will deal with this issue with silk gloves and shrewd intelligence. Yet the "we love you so much, please don't leave" moment of the first referendum has now passed and the response will start being more like the Spanish had with the Catalonians. Trying to avoid Nicola is a start. Yet it's unlikely that Nicola and the SNP leadership will end up in jail or in exile like the Catalan leadership.
Getting your independence without a fight is still very rare.
How connected is Putin to Brexit?
The issue is about sovereignty. How much country loses sovereignty in being in the EU. The fundamental question in Brexit.
Finland being in the EU can have a totally different foreign policy towards the Russia if it would be not a member of the EU. As a EU member it can refer to EU policies: "We're part of EU, so we have to do these sanctions". Just compare Russia's "Near Abroad": Baltic States (EU members, NATO members) to those which aren't either in EU or NATO (Ukraine, Georgia). Ukraine's and Georgia's sovereignty has been truly challenged by Russia... far more than the EU would do.
Hence my sentence my preferment to "Brussels rule than Moscow rule".
Financial services it is then: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/barnier-tells-uk-dont-kid-yourself-about-financial-services-deal
They've correctly identified the most important sector and the sector that has the most to lose. UK companies can still sell goods into the EU even without a deal but at increased costs that are relatively straight-forward. UK financial companies simply won't be allowed to operate in the EU after the transition period without an agreement to the contrary. That will require staffed subsidiaries, two regulatory regimes to adhere to setting up parallel risk management systems, etc. etc.
All this was vehemently denied by the Leave campaign (government), indeed up to a few weeks, or days, ago Johnson swore blind that we will secure frictionless trade.
More evidence of the dishonesty and duplicity of the PM and his government.
Or in other words he refused to take direction from Johnson and Cummings. Interestingly he has been replaced by Rishi Sunak, who has had a meteoric rise recently, a talented hawk, who is married to the daughter of Indian billionaire Nagavara Ramarao Narayana Murthy.
More evidence of the new administration consolidating power in order to push forward a hard right agenda. Or it is a sign of the paranoia of Johnson and Cummings, turning inwards and demanding to hold all the reigns from the centre.
The latter I think. Like any demagogue populist leader Boris wants yes-men in his cabinet. Unlike Trump he has the wit not to lose his temper publicly with those who stand up to him.The NI secretary Julian Smith also went, despite universal praise for getting the assembly working again. His crime? Having some thoughts of his own. Cummings seems to be becoming drunk with power, almost Rasputin-like. I wonder how long before he goes off the Boris-rails?
There is talk about the border poll in Ireland and that it is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement that the pole be held should public opinion in Northern Ireland demand it. This is under international law. Next Scotland, these are unstoppable forces and Johnson knows it, but he is prepared to throw the Union under the buss to get his term in No10 and save the Party*.
* I reiterate my view that there is a wider agenda than this. That it is imperative for the Tory party to do this on the back of Brexit to force the country to the right, while demonising Labour in order to secure Tory dominance for another generation. Because they have looked over the edge of the abyss of a turn to the left and socialism.
I see it as a reaction to the subprime mortgage crash of 2008. The dominance of Capitalism was put under question, to restore the economies and the remedy the problem socialism might be in order. The trouble is the powerful vested interests within the establishments are becoming protectionist, they will fight against any move towards socialism, because it weakens them both politically and financially.
To them, the privileged, more equality feels like repression, a loss of that privilege and they will fight to keep their privilege even if it is bad for the economy, or the country. The answer in their eyes is populism.
People are getting smarter about the left? :smirk:
The left is in a bad place. It's losing it's traditional supporters in the working class by going woke, leaving the immigration issue only to the right as it condemns the discussion on immigration to be racist and xenophobic. With a condemnation you won't get far in a debate, especially if the issue is important to the voters. And if any criticism of EU is also portrayed to be nativist/xenophobic/racist, then again you are leaving the field to the right. Here also the right has had it's problems, but it has been far better in engaging the issue. Hence if you have only the old rhetoric added with silly wokeness, there's not much you are giving. And of course, not many people work in the factories and the coal mines anymore.
And if you ever have noticed, right wing parties have been in power. I think Sweden is one of those examples of where the left has been in power for a long time in a Western democracy. Sweden is the perfect example of what a genuine leftist non-Soviet style pro-free market social democracy looks like. Yes, the last sentence sounds like an oxymoron, but it really isn't.
What is totally amazing is that after a long time in power in the UK, the conservatives could get such a huge victory in the elections. They'll surely be now happy with Boris.
I'm afraid I blame the blinkered left-wingers in the Labour party for this catastrophic dereliction of duty. In the '80s Labour swung left and spent a decade in the wildnerness. Now they've done it again under Corbyn. What is the definition of a fool? Someone who does the same thing twice and expects different results. (Or is that 'insanity'? I forget). If there's one thing to be said for populism it's that its politicians do listen to the voters. Boris has won on that simple realisation..
This is Sinn Fein sabre-rattling isn't it? It's not clear whether the poll they favour would involve the Irish voters too (if they get to decide, it will). Doesnt the GF agreement stipulate a poll for NI voters alone?
Yeah but no but. N Ireland has to vote for unification, but that becomes possible with Brexit together with the change in demographics. The rest of the UK would be fairly comfortable with a united Ireland, except for the encouragement it would give Scotland. But the people who will hate it are the, ahem Conservative and Unionist Party. So there is at least a chance that when the breakup shit hits the brexit fan, the Tories themselves will find it convenient to dump Boris. He's well hated already. Tory leaders quite often end up on the sacrificial altar.
And do notice how much hatred there is for Blair. Centrism is abhorred, yet centrism has gotten the left to power. From the graph below you can see that UK has been dominated by conservative governments and the labour governments have been the exception:
The real problem is that political parties are stubborn to realize when they have gone wrong, because there is constantly a power struggle going on. If the leadership would accept that it has made serious mistakes, then naturally it couldn't continue (there isn't so much forgiveness in politics). So it's easier just to blame the media, the Russians, whatever,... than to admit that the course of the party hasn't been the optimal one.
That these problems are noted in leftist circles and debated can be seen for example from this interview:
Yes, this is the issue. The traditional Labour voter has largely disappeared, due to social economic changes. Blair only got in because he managed to court the middle ground and moderate Tory vote, while the Conservatives were in a mess. So the majority is in the middle and soft right and has been so since Thatcher.
The demographic is changing though now. There is little support for the Tory's in the young and they have no strategy to win their support. There is an existential crisis around the corner for the Tory's and they know this. Which is why we have been conned into Brexit and a hard right agenda to try and force the country to the right.
Somehow I don't think it is going to succeed.
Yes, there is the demographic transition. British (as Europeans) aren't having many babies anymore with the fertility rate being 1,8 so only immigration is making the population grow.
Quoting Punshhh
This is something similar to the US. Simply put it, as nobody under 29 has lived when there was the Soviet Union, the 20th Century left is only a vague history, which every older leftist can now brush aside. When you listen to Bernie Sanders or even Zizek, they aren't your classic marxist-leninists. What you people have experienced from the "left" has been is basically been a centrist agenda done by leftist parties. For young people, Thatcher and Blair seem to be quite same: both have been part of the establishment.
Quoting Punshhh
Two things. People grow old and change their views and voter can be dismayed by poor performance. Only a few hippies stayed hippies. A lot of the radicalized youths later came yuppies and middle class. And that existential panic is actually good for any political party. One shouldn't rest on one's laurels.
Given the last election they don't need the support of the young to win.
This! The working class used to be something to identify with/as. Real men with real jobs, salt of the earth, aspirational, and wielding a collective power.
Nobody wants to identify with the foreign, the downtrodden the sick, the disabled, the unemployed, the insane, the useless takers of society. Especially not those who are any of those. They'd rather vote for a fantasy.
This crisis is real, it's deep and they can't see a way to avoid it. The younger generation is saddled with student debt and can't buy their own houses. They have become financially disenfranchised from the older, baby boomers, who benefited from the good times in the 1980's and 90's and the big increases in house prices. Not only this, but they have seen through the capitalism promised by the Tory's and can see how they represent the greedy and privileged. They look at the crises in public services and the lack of management of them by the Tory's. What is in it for them if they vote Tory?
Student loan debt isn't real debt.
Give it a little time. The Tory's do now have to deliver on all those promises.
Yes I know that student debt can be seen that way. But try getting a mortgage and say that to your broker.
Then the talk ought to be about the issues they face.
I'm starting to think that all the wokeness is noise to distract the left. An evil conspiracy to get the people entangled into some culture war and not to face real issues. And it might be working.
The cringe-making film of the new Cabinet's first meeting, reciting Boris's mantra of '40 new hospitals, 20,000 new police officers,' etc like kids in kindergarten answers that. Removing the obstruction in the Treasury to the new bribe-the-new-Tory-voters policy makes it clear to me what Boris's 'govt of the people' will prioritise. We will probably soon have Tories criticising this wreckless spending. How ironic!
Let Merkel and Macaron enjoy their lovey dovey relationship in their shrunken empire.
Today the NFU (National Farmers Union), has woken up from its slumber following the fact that the majority of farmers voted for Brexit. The Brexit scales have fallen from their eyes now that reality bites. Today they have asked for an exemption of 70,000 low wage EU seasonal workers to help bring in the crops. When the government announced that there will only be an allowance of 10,000. They have also had a wake up call following the widespread floods and the damage to crops and farmland caused by the new weather. Slowly they are realising that once there is regulatory and tariff divergence from the EU, that many farmers will have tariffs of around 40% imposed from their main markets. And that when the lower US food standards flood the market with cheaper food, which has been acknowledged this week by the trade secretary. The farmers will be unable to compete and most of them will go out of business.
It's unfortunate that the government doesn't care about such smallfry and is going full steam ahead to a low regulation, low tariffs race to the bottom, so as to make Britain great again.
For real.
Well, if the EU wants to impose punishing tariffs, you might want to blame the EU for that and not your government. And mentioning the highly bureacratic EU in the same sentence as "free market" is a bit strange.
Fwiw, I am not against the original EEC. I am against the EU with its imperalistic overreach.
Presume what you want; that is not an argument. But since we are speculating.... I presume you are a consumer of the BBC, Guardian, Independent and CNN? Your talking points sound pretty familiar.
I don't know if the points I have made about Brexit over the last year can be reduced that way.
Can you give me a single tangible benefit of Brexit?
I believe the 40% figure is for UK lamb exports, and assumes no EU trade deal is reached and we fall back to WTO rules. That doesnt seem likely, especially as the EU fishermen want some of the 35% of UK fisheries they catch to be maintained. Some sort of bargain should be reached I think. The big hit for the UK could be dominance of London's financial services, which the EU wants to reign back. I think Boris will reflect he has fewer voters to lose in the City than in the shires and coastal towns..
As for cheap US food imports, you talk as if the trade deal has already been done. It hasn't..
ok... let's hope he's seeing Trump soon?
Considering the pandemic and subsequent economic depression with no certainty on how it will develop, this is highly irresponsible and will cause an almighty row once it gets into the media.
Now we see the rightwing fundamentalists in No10 in their true light and the people who voted for these snake oil salesmen are going to regret it.
I can't wait for the proverbial to hit the fan.
Also and the reason I say the proverbial will hit the fan, it will cause a split at the heart of the Conservative party, putting at risk the majority in Parliament.
So present those moderate Brexiters with a no trade deal, an up yours EU strategy with the irresponsibility of continuing on this course during an existential pandemic. I seriously doubt the government could maintain its support.
Remember that the government majority was built on a fear of socialism, rather than a wholehearted support for Brexit. That that threat is now reduced and the government is now inadvertently implementing those very policies, in essence and we are not going to hell in a hand cart, the threat of socialism has lost traction.
I suspect that Johnson will present a moderate tone when he returns to work. His place in history is in serious peril at the moment, he won't want to keep digging.
Maybe. The other probability is, that they've already said A and therefore will say B. In the art of persuasion a small concession opens the way to larger ones. So you look at this from a psychological perspective where you never agreed to the initial plan, but the soft Brexiteers already conceded to that. It's psychologically much more likely for them to acquiesce to a hard Brexit as a result.
Quoting unenlightened
I think this is a great time to do your Brexit. It can be possible that nobody will notice anything!
The world economy is already collapsing to an economic depression and the reasons aren't solely the pandemic. In fact the pandemic was just a trigger. You simply cannot notice anything happening because of the Brexit now, already there are far bigger transformations happening. There isn't going to be a "V"-shaped recovery from this. Hence to reshuffle your trade with the EU isn't going to be on lips of every voter, they will be far more worried about the dire economic situation even without a Brexit.
For example there are many goods crossing the Channel both ways which will or will not be viable depending on the future tarif and regulatory frameworks. Details which are treated with contempt and indifference on the UK side and of importance on the EU side. So what happens to the UK fishermen, or sheep farmers during this tussle? Or service providers?
The very fact that the UK administration is cavalier in its behaviour is destructive of both politics and livelihoods in a deeply irresponsible way. Not to mention the Union, the United Kingdom.
Anyway, let's remember that the EU was founded as the EEC in 1957 and only in 1973 the UK joined in. The UK never felt to be a team player as it has had the juxtaposition to being the British Isles vs. the European Continent throughout it's history. Only perhaps the Angevin kings had other views about "Continental Europe". And especially with Thatcher it was evident that there was nothing like the French-German axis, no UK lead group in the EU or a possibility that the UK would be the leader of the pack. That would have meant a dramatically different history in the UK to be true. The EEC wasn't a British idea developed in the City of London or in the halls of Oxford or Cambridge and created from a necessity. Yes, there was Churchill with the idea of a Council of Europe, but he adamantly saw the UK as Great Power. Federalism was never a British objective, only the reality of a confederation among independent sovereign states. And that's the sad part of the UK leaving.
Yet just like with Norway or Switzerland, not being a member of the EU isn't so important. You simply cannot make the populist complains about Brussels as we do anymore. (Or you can, but they don't have anything to do with reality.)
The problem, as I have highlighted, now is the wreckless behaviour of the government which will destroy the goodwill between the UK and Europe and looks like it will destroy the UK Union as well.
This destructive aspect is not at all necessary and will damage the country. They are like demented children, mad Conquistadors.
Now that they have been thrust into the midst of a global pandemic in which the solution means destroying your own economy they find themselves in their ultimate nightmare. They are having to follow a course directly oppsing that which they were intending. They are now more socialist than Corbyn, because there is no alternative, while just a few weeks ago they condemned that kind of socialism as dementedly destructive.
Their heads are spinning and in the media today, the media is beginning to turn on Johnson and his government. Especially the rightwing tabloid press who supported him to get into power and secure Brexit.
Can see it now.
"EU refuses to negotiate with Britain on fair terms, leading to no deal arrangement"
"If only the EU were willing to negotiate with us fairly, openly, honestly, we could have had a fair deal on the table. No deal is better than a bad deal."
Our lords and masters get to look like heroes reluctantly doing what they must, when it was really what they intended all along, while vilifying the EU even more.
There are some big holes in this strategy though and a risk that they will alienate some of their support by pushing ahead while supposedly straining every sinew to save lives and livelihoods in the throws of a global pandemic.
James O Brian draws a comparison with some Brexit slogans, such as, "you lost get over it", now it could be, "they died get over it". Or the idea that according to Brexiters, it's ok to have economic damage in return for blue passports, whereas it's not ok to have economic damage and save lives in a global pandemic (some Brexiters have come out now to say that the lockdown is doing to much damage and we should get back to work).
Brexit was power consolidation of the political class you're railing against. The same people that want the UK out of EU trading and tax transparency standards have bought a government that wants the UK to default to international law on the matter.
You have to really doubt the motives of those that want more , less accountable politicians, you have to doubt those that seek to create an elite , highly paid ,group of politicians that are ever more isolated from the people ...it's the opposite of democracy..
... Are you serious about the idea that less politicians means more accountability? Where did you get it?
People aren't as stupid as those on the liberal left think, just because most Brexiteers haven't been to Uni and learned the art of talking absolute bollox (I'm an exception lol:)) people like you shouldn't underestimate the will of most people to leave an organisation that is clearly utterly corrupt.
I don't think your theory makes much sense, it doesn't respect thresh-holds. Say the limit is 10 politicians, and that can be a just arrangement, suddenly 1 more gets employed and they're necessarily corrupt.
But you probably don't mean it like that, you're looking at them and saying "look at all that bureaucracy, it's so inefficient!". But inefficient compared to what? I mean, do you believe that the UK will somehow magically become more efficiently run by defaulting to international law arrangements on trade, despite all the border problems that will kill businesses
Quoting Chester
What specifically do you think the EU has influence over in a member state that violates the interests of its members?
.Quoting Chester
And you shouldn't underestimate the effects of a gigantic, personalised-ad style propaganda campaign and a political class that lied, over and over again, about the effects the EU are having on the UK on public opinion on the matter. It's not that people are stupid, it's that if you saturate discourse with lies and misinformation, people will believe lies and misinformation. If everyone ends up believing that everyone else is informed by lies and misinformation, so much the better for promoting a state of numb apathetic helplessness. Like rats in a cage who get shocked randomly.
Besides vague sentiments about sovereignty and small government being better, what do you actually think will be better off after Brexit? What are your predicted improvements?
We're going to have the same loopy political class that's intent on turning Britain into rich man's playground, only now it won't have to try and keep to EU human rights legislation (not that Britain has a great record on that on all fronts), and it won't benefit from EU trading rules regarding medicine.
I mean, these people blamed all of Britain's ills on the EU despite being exactly those who made policy that promoted the shambles Britain is turning into. We had enough autonomy to make stupid fucking decisions
Are you still happy with the way that Johnson and Cummings are running things right now? ( oh yes we'll have a brilliant trade deal now by the end of the year (with all the self same benefits of course) because the Covid crisis is going to focus the minds of the EU leaders, which Gove intimated today).
I can't wait for the new cliff edge.
(1) It facilitated freedom of movement agreements. You didn't need a Visa to go on holiday to France or visit relatives in Germany. You should probably like this if you like free trade, rather than borders. If you dislike what's going on at the Irish border and its impact on businesses due to major efficiency losses, you like free travel.
(2) EU convention on human rights (our government want to weaken this sneakily and has tried).
(3) Paris agreement on climate change. Better air quality, less pollution, some amount of work to mitigate the chances of the collapse of human civilsation itself.
(4) Mandatory paid holidays for workers (UK government resisted this)
(5) Capping the working week at 48 hours (UK government resisted this).
(6) Legislation to stop massive tax avoidance (UK government resisted this).
There are six things for you. Our government doesn't like the EU convention on human rights, it doesn't want tax transparency legislation, it didn't like mandatory paid holidays at the time, it didn't like limiting the amount of hours people are required to work.
These are tangible things the EU has done, much to the chagrin of the British government. You're imagining how much better things would be without it. We can imagine differently; no paid holidays, no Paris agreement, no capped work hour requirements, less tax transparency and less effective enforcement of it [hide=*](we know how readily the government downsizes tax authorities, as "beaurocrats", and the revolving door between the HMRC upper management and financial institutions, the reason isn't because they don't work, the reason is because enforcing tax transparency laws goes against party donors and their corporate interests)[/hide].
I'll take tangible results most people find favourable over your baseless speculations any time.
Here is a summary of the legislation,
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/anti-tax-avoidance-package/?fbclid=IwAR2drGJ-E_lT16dgf0FcWS4bLPPNqyIOslxyXXCdK30o4a2iQdyLC3DQUzk
I'm quite convinced that the timing is not a coincidence. I wonder what populist right driven campaign was backed by those same populist right rags and donors at the time that would allow the UK to stop implementing the agreement. :chin:
I like the fact that Cummings and the PM get under the skin of the liberal left, I like that Johnson looks serious about Brexit. I would prefer a real Tory like Mogg in charge though...Johnson is too liberal for my taste...eg, I don't like the way he has joined the leftists into turning the NHS into some kind of religion that can't be criticised, or when he was Mayor he wanted to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants.
I like Cummings because I believe he is highly intelligent and could potentially really change things for the better...but we will see...this virus has altered much.
I only want a trade deal with the EU if it does not bind us into any of their regulations/rules/laws. I'd be more than happy going to wto trade...as we already do with the US, our biggest single trade partner.
2) We lead Europe on human rights...now the EU rights are going too far, eg, giving the vote to prisoners.Only a moron could defend that.
3) The Paris agreement is a complete joke, none of its target will get reached...because China and India will carry on polluting.
4) We've had paid holidays in the UK for decades...nothing to do with EU membership.
5) Why should the working week be capped at 48 hours? That's only two days out of seven.
6) One tax we can avoid is paying those thousands of EU bureaucrats.
Do you accept that the referendum was won on the back, of lies, political manipulation, and whipped up fear and xenophobia?
Also, do you have an idea of what the UK economy will look like after a few years on WTO?
Are you imagining that people can come to the country and stay indefinitely without work in the current situation? If someone stays, they have a job or get deported (or other much more circumstantial stuff). If someone stays and works illegally; do you think that's the fault of the person coming to the country for a better life and being exploited by a business to undercut wages and worker's contract induced "monetary risks"? Or is it the fault of opportunistic businesses undercutting the fair price of labour? I'm gonna go with the latter. If businesses didn't stand to gain by illegal contractless hiring, they're not going to bloody do it are they.
Even within Schengen, if you lose your job and can't find another within a year (or other much more circumstantial stuff), countries will deport you. You will have a residence permit revoked.
Are you imagining that a defaulting to international laws on immigration and migrant work would curtail the amount of illegal immigration and illegal contractless jobs? All this would do is act as a disincentive for citizens of EU member states to come to Britan. It does absolutely nothing for the majority of the right's bugbear immigrant nations. Don't you dare tell me when you talk about cutting immigration you're imagining less Swedish people coming in...
Quoting Chester
Evidence please.
We have mandatory unpaid labour under the name of "workfare" (if you've ever been in that position, it's quite possible to be perpetually working for free and then fired when the workfare period ends for that job). We have zero hours contracts.
Quoting Chester
You can add the US to that list, it shows no signs of stopping and resists any measures that would slow their emissions growth.
But, it's actually the majority of Paris agreement signatories that are failing to meet emission reduction targets, which they lowball compared to what is necessary anyway.
It's a largely symbolic gesture, insofar as there are not punitive measures on countries that fail to meet them. If you want to reduce global carbon emissions, it takes a sustained organised effort over the entire world, and everyone needs to do their share. The Paris agreement is a first step, though taken very late, in that direction. It requires much more global cooperation and the mandatory imposition of climate taxes over the majority of the world's major polluters (or something similar) to do the full job. That requires an even larger legislative body than the EU to generate such a binding agreement, and it would continue to be resisted by any and all corporations that benefit from unsustainable emissions growth.
Quoting Chester
Wrong. Making it a legal right to have at least 11 hours between shift end and shift start (with exceptions based on job nature), having a maximum working week of 48 hours (with exceptions based on job nature), and a minimum of 20 days paid annual leave per year were not enforceable claims in Britain before the EU working time directive in 2003. There's an opt out if you don't want it, those considerate commisars and their respect for individual autonomy!
There are no plans or promises to keep this. Even as it gets circumvented by endless zero hours contracts and revolving door temporary ones. I wonder what will happen?
Quoting Chester
As said, you can (could) opt out if you like, or if your job nature requires it. It isn't so much that it's capped, it's that you're legally entitled not to work more than that if the job's very nature doesn't require it. Putting these things in the law, in an ideal world anyway, allows workers to use them.
I don't think the whole Brexit thing was timed in this relation to the EU's actions, but rather the opportunity arose and the fanatical anti EU Tory grandees jumped at the chance. They had been gunning to leave the EU right from our joining in the 1970's. They couldn't believe their luck when Blair made the mistake of "unfettered access" for the new east European accession states in 2004. This was what the populist rags jumped on and the rest is history.
Interestingly in 2015 very few people in the UK were critical of the EU, had even thought of leaving, or thought it was a sensible thing to do. What changed during the following year? A populist campaign employing lies, political manipulation, xenophobia and fear of Turkey joining (our streets would be flooded with Turks). Pushed every day by the right wing rags and populists like Farage. And hey presto, all those people who weren't concerned about the EU, suddenly hated it and wanted to leave whatever the cost.
Careful you'll be spitting teeth next. You've got what you want, politically, we're set to leave the EU without a trade deal, Corbyn is a laughing stock. What have you got to be angry about?
What the right wing rags didn't allow for is what these people on "building sites" are going to be angry about next. Now that they have got what they were demanding, what will these angry people have left to be angry about. They have to keep them angry because they've invested a decade of hard graft grooming them to that state.
The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph were all lining up to start misrepresenting the EU and lumping hate on them during the negotiations this year. But something's gone wrong, now they are turning on Johnson, the golden boy is going to be fattened up for the slaughter. But wait a minute, they've just spent a year telling all these people that Boris is the very definition of Brexit, he is the golden boy who is going to make Britain great again. They see more capital now in lumping the blame for the high death count on Johnson, than to soil themselves by supporting an administration presiding over the highest death toll in Europe and one of the highest in the world.
Did you know that Cummings's plan is for most of the old people in care homes to die, freeing them of the imminent NHS and social care crisis, which was going to bankrupt Brexit Britain.
:up:
What was the goal of the populists? I thought originally it was just to take over, but they really wanted to leave the EU. Why?
So basically a tribal fear and the perpetuation of a rightwing capitalist agenda. Both of which were perceived to be threatened by the EU, or continued membership of the EU.
There is a kernel of truth in both fears, but the benefits of membership, provided we don't loose our autonomy far outweigh the risk engendered in these fears.
It's interesting to pay attention to exactly what he doesn't say, because it reflects badly on him.
"We used Facebook's terrible user privacy standards to get people to fill out questionnaires that allow us access to their and all their friends' feeds and data, then we stored all that, used a bunch of machine learning algorithms to learn about them, we tested survey parameters to see if they were reposted (and other engagement metrics), then we maximised those for each demographic we could.
BTW, we leveraged all this research in the week before the vote to tailor personalised ads to prime voting our way"
It still feels to me like there's something about Brexit that I'm not getting. Is there an underlying truth? Something more deeply seated? Or did the populists sort of randomly win?
The Cummings video I posted above is quite informative on how they got people to engage with the Brexit is good narrative, they cite a few catastrophes in framing public opinion; what happened to Greece during its economic crisis (which was partly forced on them by EU banking interest) and the Syria/refugee crisis, the 2008 recession and a resulting resentment towards a class of "political elites" that they capitalised on majorly (they got to frame it like the EU is full of political elites, and weaponise class identity in their favour, which is a strong force in the UK).
They happened upon a narrative which spans liberal left and liberal right reactions to the crisis, blamed the EU for the disintegration of faith in politics (and Brexit will RESTORE it apparently!), but also resonates with the far left's class thinking on the matter and the far right's "national sovereignty with less immigrants" narrative. They politicised a common kernel of truth (people being sold out and fucked by their governments since 2008) and spinned it in their favour.
There is a deep seated fear, one which goes back in history to the time when foreign powers did come and conquer the country. Principally in 1066 when the French colonised Britain and handed out lordships amongst themselves covering the whole country, these overlords became the upper classes.
But these days this fear is residual rather like the fear of snakes, or spiders some people have. There has been a strong rivalry for the last few hundred years, including England ruling parts of France. Along with fears about the motives of the Germans following the war.
So there is a deep seated love hate relationship. But with the EU all this historic baggage was put behind us/them. Many people moved and worked freely around Europe including Britain, EU legislation has been very well thought out and is very progressive, but there are problems, as one would expect with a Union especially when they joined the Euro. But many British people were very happy with it and felt more European as a result. The sentiment to leave resided in a few minority groups, who gradually poisoned the discourse regarding the EU and our membership, boulstered by the immigration crisis during the Blair years, these forces grew and those who were content weren't aware of this, or didn't match it with pro EU sentiment, so were caught napping.
People didn't realise that the UK MEP's (UK EU representatives) had become populated by anti EU rebels, who insulted and criticised the EU continually for many years. Mystifying their EU counterparts.
Would you say that the UK and the EU have always been oil and water, and it took a set of crises, immigration, 2008, along with apathy on the part of the Conservative Party, to provide the impetus to shake them apart? But still, it was close?
I read recently (I was looking at COVID-19 info) that the NHS has been accused by multiple of women of being denied pain medication for childbirth. Apparently some women have considered abortion rather than face it again. The article said that at least part of the problem is staffing. I thought of that while watching fdrake's video: "Take back control." Maybe that resonates way beyond membership in the EU.
Eh, he frames it like the government being in a position to tighten borders and make immigration (only from the EU!) and migrant labour (only from the EU!) have more red tape is a favour to immigrants. The campaign also weaponised ideas of Britain protecting its sovereignty from Turkish and Greek "invaders". Vocal people on the right were quite happy thinking of asylum seekers as "parasites" during the campaign (a phrase featured in a major news outlet, despite asylum being a lot different from legal travel...) and the Turks and Kurds as "invaders", the EU countries were a "threat". It is no surprise that hate crimes soared afterwards, the far right and their racism-lite conservative allies like "I'm not racist I buy Chinese food sometimes" @Chester here were given so much breathing room by it, and energised to act upon it. He's a smart man, I think he knew what he was spinning.
It promoted it, yes. It weaponised British identity stereotypes (white, working class) against the PEOPLE from some countries, and piggybacked off previous racist narratives that were prevalent; Syrians and nebulously defined middle-eastern threats, and the enduring narrative of the Polish, Pakistanis and Indians "coming here and taking our jobs".
Just a note: it doesn't have to hang together like a logical argument, it just has to resonate like a good story.
There is no reason why people shouldn't be lone wolfs roaming the world on their own. They can organise into tribes, villages, cities, countries and federations.
It's also about power balance. During the second world war, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China were at war with each other. Then when the Japanese attacked, all of a sudden they united and cooperated under a single China. Then when the Japanese left, they went back to war.
You can bet that if aliens showed up tomorrow, then all of sudden a one world government would form for defense.
You can agree or disagree with the UK leaving the EU, but it's a bet they made and only the future will tell if it's the right one. Also, within every single country there's many people, and the policy is determined as an interplay of all the interests and agenda individual people have. So naturally, for every decision there are losers and winners.
Decisions are the outcome of local optima in a single group. The more small groups you have, the higher likelihood it is that they will reach a local optimum different from a global optimum. Even if the global optimum would result in higher utility overall than the sum of various local optima.
My bet is that the UK will become something like Singapore with Scotland and Ireland breaking off. They will thrive by subverting EU regulations, just like Singapore thrives by subverting Chinese regulations.
1) Freedom of movement led to the mass importation of labour, predominately low skilled cheap labour which obviously puts downward pressure on wages and increased pressure on services (schooling ,housing, cultural differences etc etc). The numbers coming in were huge, far bigger than Tony Blair said. Middle class people quite liked it, their cleaners, plumbers, drivers and builders were cheaper.
2) The EU is very obviously corrupt, they haven't had their books signed off for years. As I have said , they pay each other very well too...lovely big fat expense accounts. Brexit MP's that were elected to go out there were amazed by the extravagant lifestyle.
3) The commissars are not elected by the people but they decide what the EU politicians get to vote on...does that sound like democracy to you ?
4) There was a very obvious lie (which we can see with the benefit of hindsight) told to the British people when we joined in '73 and had our first referendum in '75... we were told that this is just an economic club where as it's clearly empire building...they lied through their fucking teeth. Older people remember that.
5) Another concept that goes right over the head of middle class virtue signalling lefties is that your neighbour isn't necessarily your friend. The French sold weapon systems to the Argentines when we were at war with them in '82...can you imagine Canada selling weapons to Iraq during the gulf war? The Germans would be more than happy to take all our manufacturing capacity to their shores. Look how Italy was treated by the other member states during the height of this virus disaster in its time of dire need.
Empire building by itself is not a problem I think. Many would agree that living in the Roman Empire was more prosperous than living in some germanic tribe. The USA is also an empire of its states, but people are quite happy there. Soviet Union with its communism was quite misguided...
There are some corrupt elements to the EU, such as the CAP subsidy system favouring large landowners, such as the Queen and Saudi sheikhs, and the lack of auditing of financials, which I think is a pretty huge problem. They also appoint the commissioner rather than go with the Spitzenkanidate, which is a true disrespect to democracy.
However, in my opinion, the goal should be reform, not disintegration. The UK will be ruled by the elite hiding in their "non-UK" offshore jurisdictions even more than before, and there will be no EU counterweight to protect everyday people. So certain elites will benefit a lot.
The middle class in the UK will be clearly at a disadvantage, as I'd argue they were one of the big beneficiaries of EU membership.
The lower class will benefit too, but only in the short term. If they were non-competitive with EU workers, the right solution would be to increase competitiveness and learn a new skill, and not to resort to isolationism and protectionism. As the former will increase overall wealth much more than the latter. So it's only a short term win for them.
There have been many worrying reports about maternity units and midwifery over the last few years in the UK, including many unnecessary deaths of newborns, due to negligent midwifery. I'm not surprised by what you say. There are some very odd things happening in hospitals at the moment. A friend of mine who has Addisons disease was admitted to hospital about a week ago for his Addisons symptoms. He told a scary story about confusion about his symptoms amongst the healthcare workers. After a couple of days he got the impression that he was going to be put into a Covid ward. He tried to discharge himself and they locked the doors and refused to let him out, eventually he managed to escape by going through the services entrance. He won't be going back.
There is a real issue about the number of mainly Polish people who came over from 2004. But the government at the time could have limited the numbers and imposed conditions to control their access to longer term residency and welfare services, as many other EU countries did and still do. It was Tony Blair who allowed "unfettered access" to EU citizens which was the root of the problem. It was never necessary to leave the EU to solve this problem.
I agree with what you refer to about the choice as it was laid out in 1973, that it was just for a single market. Fortunately due to the flexibility of the EU, it has repeatedly agreed to arrangements for the UK to remain outside the closer integrations, between the other members. There hasn't been at any point an insistence that the UK should integrate in these ways. The ways in which greater integration has occurred were always agreed to, even led by the UK government.
The systemic demographic problems which have developed in the UK following 2004 and pressure on housing and public services etc, are due to poor management of taxation, investment and funding by UK governments, the EU was not responsible for these problems.
There are some issues with EU policy particularly the common agricultural policy, which does require overhauling. It's not perfect, but I don't see how the alternative is going to be any better?
Such resentment can remain in the population for many generations and I'm sure is the basis for a lot of the mistrust of certainly the French.
Anyway going back to the story, Michael Wood focused on a small town in central England called Kibworth and its surrounding area, for which there is a complete and unbroken record of every event which happened going back to 1066 in the parish registers and records kept in a purpose built library in Merton College Oxford. It is the oldest continually used library in the world built in the 14th century. There is real life testimony documenting the apartheid system which was introduced in which the Britons where second class citizens and the ruling elite where portrayed as superior overlords. The vestiges of this class division still remain in this country and is partly responsible for the deep class divisions and wealth inequality of the UK today. This is the backdrop to this existential issue in the psyche of the British people.
I had thought that in the modern world intelligent grown up people were able to put such historic divisions behind them and begin to work towards a common good, in peace and prosperity and certainly the EU project is a serious and concerted effort to achieve such progress. People who are critical of it should remember the reasons for which it was established, to end countless centuries of war and division and to move forward in mutual cooperation.
This is a typical populist straw man argument. Oh, look at those looney left over there in the corner, it's all their fault. Not our fault who have been in power for the last 40 years. It glosses over the fact that those looneys in the corner haven't got anywhere near power during the period in question.
Have you seen Ian Duncan Smith being interviewed recently, it's so toxic that he regularly threatens the interviewer. Also did you watch the power drunk swagger of Geoffrey Cox in parliament following the preroging of parliament verdict. Followed by Johnson's violent rant ripping up any decency left in parliament, insulting the memory of Joe Cox, the MP murdered by a crazed Brexiter, following on from two years of the Tory Brexit psycho drama.
Oh no, it's those looney left over there in the corner, it's all their fault, their doing.
And now this vitriol is going to be turned on the EU commissioners and European leaders by Johnson and his stooges. Haven't we learnt anything from 2000 years of war and pillage and tyranny?
Apologies about the previous post, I made an assumption somewhere in it that was extremely wrong, will retract it if you've already read it.
The Migration Observatory at Oxford university estimates that the effects of immigration on wages and unemployment of natives between the years 1993 and 2017 have been quite minor. The worst effects, which you are right in attributing to the poorest people, are still quite minor over this period.
The overall picture is that the effects depend upon the demographics of immigrants; if all the immigrants were Indian computer programmers for UK sponsored coding projects, you wouldn't expect there to be much effect on roofers' wages from that. The review I've linked suggests that effects of low skilled migrant work on wages paid for low skilled jobs is negative, but it's actually minor, the decreases being estimated at between about 5% over the 1993-2017 period for the 10th percentile of wages.
Let's be incautious with interpreting this, and say the effects calculated wouldn't average out over the years as the paper tells us they are expected to.
Currently, the 10th percentile of earners (the maximum stated effected group) make about £8160, which would mean they had £34 per monthly wage packet less than they would if there were absolutely no immigration from EU countries (holding all else fixed in the background, which is not a reasonable assumption). In this hypothetical, they would go from £680 to £646 per month.
In terms of lifestyle differences, people on both rates are still unable to afford rent, bills and food at the same time in most areas of Britain. They will struggle without government aid and extremely cheap social housing in both scenarios.
For people in the 25th percentile in this same hypothetical, they go from £15840 per year to £15650 per year, monthly difference of about £16, so just over a starbucks a week.
In terms of unemployment, the picture is similar.
The effects of immigration on employment levels are negligible or inconclusive.
If what's happened so far is "mass migration", as the tabloids like to present it, the economic effects on the poor and those in low skilled jobs have been very minor; the fucked are still fucked, the minimum wage people would have to order a small rather than a tall at Starbucks to make up the difference.
It's much, much more the case that what news media you consume predicts both what you assume to be true and your overall opinion on immigration.
Interpret these intuitions you have about the squeeze on the British working class in the context of the 2008 recession and austerity programs. Britain has not been much better at recovering than Greece (also here), the British economy's been stagnant, the cost of living is increasing, and there are huge cuts on social care.
The immiseration that people are blaming on the EU and on immigration are much more adequately explained by living in a finance capital bubble since 2008 (which just burst catastrophically) with our real economy failing to recover much since then.
Then you accuse me of pointing the finger at the liberal left when the liberal left do nothing but point and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transism, Islamophobia etc , etc , etc .The liberal left has abandoned the working class for new , woke, identitarian politics and wonders why it is dying as a political force. We should also remember that some real leftists were very much anti-EU , being anti-EU does not imply being right-wing.
I'll say again, it is the political liberal left that has caused division and hate in our society. It comes from an arrogance born of middle class (spoiled) upbringing combined with liberal, identity obsessed university education. The funny thing is that these types really believe they have a higher intellect because of their "education"...but I'll let you into a secret...most people that struggle through life are often a lot more savvy in their views than the effete middleclass sprogs of over-paid middle level public sector "workers".
The EU can not be reformed because it is not democratic.
The idea that pumping the economy with millions of low skilled workers is good for the economy is a joke...the economy grows as the population grows ...woopy fucking doo. The middleclass loves to suppress working class wages and travel more in Europe, we all know that...did you know there are now more servants in the UK than during Victorian times, the middleclass social justice warriors love that too.
Come on man. I went through the effort of citing everything I said. All you've done is speculate without evidence.
Quoting Chester
LMAO.
Ah I see, you can't provide evidence for your opinions because you've got a life. I appreciate that you're busy and you have constraints on your time, I do not appreciate you equating baseless speculations with sourced statements. Do you even take time to check what you're saying is right?
Netherlands: 488 people per km squared
UK: 274 people per km2 squared
If you need a cliffnotes of my post:
There's no evidence that immigration has made a difference in the economic status of UK natives.
You're doing the thing where you don't want to respond to a bunch of sourced stuff, so you try and reframe the discussion to ground you're more comfortable on; stuff you don't have to research or fact check, you can just improvise.
Nonono, you introduced the topic:
Quoting Chester
You explicitly emphasized the economic impacts of "mass importation"/mass migration from EU countries to the UK on UK natives.
I gave you a sourced argument refuting that claim; there is no evidence of any substantial economic impact (either on lifestyle or employment) on UK natives from EU immigration through the years 1993-2017.
Are you willing to retract the claim? Are you willing to believe that EU migration has had negligible economic impacts on UK natives based on the evidence?
This looks like a good data driven breakdown of why the UK voted in Brexit the way it did.
I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply pointed out that the failings of the EU you mention are mythical. You can google each of them and find out yourself if they are genuine issues effecting Britain as a result of being a member of the EU. There are some genuine issues, but they are rarely cited by EU skeptics, for example systemic problems with the common agricultural policy. They usually cite things like immigration and EU corruption, or something to do with fishing. Issues which have been selected by the anti EU propagandists as emotive issues which will spread well and are easily believed and gossiped about by the population.
If the "liberal left" are dying as a political force, then what's the problem? They will soon loose their power and influence and not be a problem anymore. Oh wait a minute, they have no power and have little influence. Again you are trying to dump problems and issues wrong in the country on a powerless group, to distract any focus on the political grouping which has been in power and presided over all this hollowing out of society, running down of services, the failures in the housing crisis, the rise of populism and this divisive Brexit nightmare.
It's not their fault (the liberal left), it's all the fault of the Tory's. Got it?
Interestingly you claim to know that I am some kind of privelidged academic middle class person who doesn't know how the other half lives. You couldn't be further from the truth. I guarantee that my background is more working class than yours. I am a tradesman with no academic training and I come from four generations of Irish navies who lived in the slums of Huddersfield.
I'm curious about how UK politics will change going forward.
What I found laughable was that down to earth working class folk, grafters, thought Johnson was one of them. How did he pull that off? I think back to William the Conquerer pulling off the same trick a thousand years ago, we fell for it then and we fell for it now.
The EU epitomises everything wrong with the liberal left (social democracy) model...that's why the EU will disintegrate unless it becomes what it said it was originally, a club of independent trading nations.
Only a maximum of 20% voted right wing due to immigration, probably a lot less.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=mo4pjipima872_&met_y=population&idim=country:nl:be:se&hl=en&dl=en
Here you can see the difference between population density of England as opposed to the UK. SE England has a higher density than England as a whole....it's the part of the country that most EU immigrants have come to.
You wrote:
Quoting Chester
That immigration puts downward pressure on wages. I responded with this, that shows the effects on wages of immigration in the years 1993-2017 have been negligible. It was sourced. You now assert:
Quoting Chester
That it wasn't about the wages. It's actually about taxes. You can't keep your story straight.
But let's talk about taxes. In their report "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration", the Oxford Migration observatory estimates that the effects of immigration upon UK government resources have been negligible on the whole.
It also notes that migrants from EU-15 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden; payed more on average in taxes than UK natives. Furthermore it says of EEA nationals:
Immigrants are net contributors by these statistics. As the paper notes, this isn't a magical property of immigrants, it's more to do with the demographics of immigrants being younger than the ageing UK population. You could come away from reading this study with the impression that the evidence is inconclusive; which means that there's no evidence that they (EU immigrants in general) improve the previously stated things or that they worsen the previously stated things. But:
If the UK's government deficit is something you care about, immigration reduces that too:
Simply because they're more likely to do more work (and pay more taxes! And spend money on real stuff!) than the ageing UK population.
You might claim, as in the re-emerging right wing narrative, that immigrants are ruining our NHS. This is very wrong for two reasons. Firstly, the increased use of services from immigration has negligible effects on NHS functioning, and secondly that the NHS uses so much labour of EU nationals it would face devastating staff shortages without them:
The immigration of EU nationals is vital for the functioning of the NHS. If you want that in a slogan, immigration keeps the NHS alive.
I'll repeat something from before, if you want to contextualise the strain on the NHS, think about it in terms of the austerity program the UK government has been following for years and years and the effect that cutting healthcare spending has on the basic functioning of the NHS. Though it is better to think of the NHS's strain as resulting from privatizing it ("it" link has more discussion of effects) and cutting spending on the public parts.
Note: if you want to justify the NHS spending cuts because they were needed to reduce the defecit, you should want immigrant labour too.
My perspective on it:
Brexit is actually more of the same from the establishment. If you read the report I mentioned, it speaks about the big variance explaining demographics of support being those who voted for leave being less educated lower income people who feel they've suffered from globalisisation and the distinct wealthy Euroskeptics vs middle class (middle income) more educated liberals.
"Wealthy Euroskeptic" describes the leave campaigners in the government. The people who support it are also for US style libertarian ideas, or making the UK more like that. IE; they're actually supporters of the "free market" and corporate globalism in disguise. Boris Johnson is the person that's sticking up for "free trade" in response to the coronavirus pandemic, for an indicator. That they managed to sell a national sovereignty argument is still somewhat astounding to me.
I imagine it was a difficult sell to get their corporate backers down with the idea, considering that Brexit fears produced immediate downturns in the value of the pound and UK company shares, but public support for those who wanted to Leave also means public support for the people who want to market-ise the UK's social and healthcare sectors and profit off international trade (not from the EU) in the agricultural and industrial machine production sectors more.
Either that, or they found backers that stand to gain better UK market penetration or share and avoid tarrifs (through promised trade deals) in those sectors.
And yet we let you post here on equal terms, to show how open hearted and fair-minded we are. :rofl:
You have to be very careful with statistics and who is behind their interpretation when they are broadcast by biased media outlets.
Two basic economic facts for you...
1) An over abundance of labour creates downward pressure on wages. There is no logical dispute on this.
2) A rapid increase in population density, without pre-planning (ie, our situation) , increases demand on services, thus increasing costs. There is no logical argument against this fact.
Now you can link to some organisation's interpretation of the statistics but those two points I have made clear for you are obvious facts.
Could you translate that into proper middle-class English for me darling?
1)The NHS is guilty of poaching skilled health workers from poorer countries who have often paid to train them.
2) The increase in low paid EU workers puts a greater strain (in numbers) on the NHS. Many of these workers qualify for benefits (housing , tax credits etc) so do not contribute greatly towards the cost of the NHS.
I'm not against managed inward migration though...if we need to steal nurses and doctors from poorer countries so be it.
The Scots have declined as a people...they are the biggest whining bunch of lazy , alcoholic bastards in Europe...that's why I'd really like you chaps to get your "FREEDOM!" as Mel Gibson said.
It isn't. Repeatedly asserting something doesn't justify it, evidence does. You have provided no evidence, and the evidence contradicts what you've said.
Quoting Chester
I didn't write that; the effect on average wages has been negligible. The effect on the lowest 10% has been negative, the effect on the lowest 25% has been negative. The differences to those percentages come out as "We're still fucked and need government aid for food and a roof over our heads" and "Mate, give me the small Americano over the tall one please this week, I'm trying to save money".
Quoting Chester
...
Said about the Oxford Migration Observatory. Which briefs the current UK government. And fullfact.org, which is a fact checking charity independent of the press and government in the UK.
Quoting Chester
The evidence disagrees with you, and says it depends upon demographics of the immigrant labourers, and that the effects regardless of what they are tend to average out over time.
Quoting Chester
It's quite clear that something being obvious to you (or to anyone) does not provide evidence for it, or justify it. Why you would think you have special intuition into these matters when you can't even be bothered to fact check what you write I have no idea.
Quoting Chester
I literally gave you numbers on that. The effects on NHS function from immigration are negligible and immigration is vital for staffing it.
What evidence would it take for you to change your mind about anything you've said? When direct, sourced counterarguments are dismissed immediately.
You already have my words, you don't need to put ones I've not said in my mouth.
What evidence would it take for you to change your mind about anything you've said?
But you like being dominated, sweetie, and I am ever so understanding.
There is an inclination on the liberal left to trust the output of large organisations and governments rather than just look around themselves...that probably explains why they want more politicians and bureaucrats in their lives.
You're wrong about wordwide population growth and you're wrong about mass immigration somehow leading to... What exactly? The extrapolation of past population growth you attempted is wrong and the effects of mass immigration grossly exaggerated.
Unless your next reply contains substantiated projections on population growth and mass immigration for the Netherlands I think we can safely conclude you shouldn't be having an opinion on the matter one way or the other.
Ok!
Other than things you have not provided evidence for and have been disconfirmed, what makes you think this is due to immigration specifically, rather than living through a recession since 2008 that was never recovered from, and an even longer program of austerity (and privitisation) putting massive strain on all UK public services?
If you expect the Tories to deliver you better wages and a lower cost of living, you are off your nut Georgey-boy. Yes, the EU is avowedly neoliberal, but there are some breaks there, whereas Boris's plan is to turn you into the U.S. The mass of the population will be looted for all they've got.
Taxi drivers must be having it off there lol.
The Netherlands is doing a lot better than in the 1950s. What's your point?
Let me put this in a language you won't dismiss as being middle class, now that we're swearing at each other based on UK nationality.
You gravy bathing fuckwits in the English working class got so duped you're holding up a bimbo in a wig who became a Tory because he hated British miners as a champion of the English working class.
It's bevvies dear boy, short for beverages. Enough of this parade of working-class credentials already. We're gently mocking your sensibilities; there's no need for you to mock yourself.
@Chester's working-class hero:
He'll take care of you, son, long as you shine his top hat for him. You poor dupe. They used your ignorant xenophobic tendencies to get you to lick upper-class boots and you like the taste so much, you can't shut up about it.
The liberal left has no loyalty to its own nation , its own people, it considers such things vulgar. The trouble is that most people still have a preference for their own and can see what the EU has been attempting.
Hear the rubbish they've got you spouting, so you won't notice when they turn you around and bend you over. But maybe you like that sort of thing, Luv?
Keep spraying, Chester.
Oh, I'm sure he'll throw you a few scraps. But I'm not from the UK, so I'll miss out. Damn...
Not at all, he's moving his business to Ireland so he can stay in the EU.
You lucky, lucky people.
Oh, fair enough. Welcome to Ireland, Jacob.
Well, if we do go down, we'll go down with our eyes open and without blaming immigrants, who are responsible for much of our economic growth.
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-immigration-attitudes-3930048-Mar2018/
Ireland's GDP is 6 times larger since the instantiation of the EU in 1992, so no matter what happens, we're huge winners. Anyway, carry on. But your position is an English nationalist one. And that's all. You've provided no substance to the argument that you'll be economically better off, and particularly none to the argument that the working class would be better off under the Tory Brexit.
You Irish never learn...but Germany will teach you the hard way...comply or die. You are a dependent nation, you could never just leave the EU now. You're fucked.
Why would we do that? As I said, since 1992, our GDP has increased 6 times. Is that a bad thing in your topsy turvy world?
Yes, there's also economic equality, minimum wage etc. All significantly better here than the UK and the US.
There's nothing other to it than that, Chester. Be honest. The rest does not stand up.
We may become a neoliberal hellhole. But you're likely to beat us to it. Anyway, slán leat.
So the EU represents a loss of identity and a loss of autonomy. Middle class liberals are ok with that (or just don't fear it).
The EU is legitimately blamed for some problems by workers and Euroskeptics, while the advantages of being a member are obscure to most people.
A lot of this sounds familiar to me as an American, but I hesitate to take that too far because the UK society and government really are more different than I realized.
I'm not sure why you say this is more of the same from the establishment?
Drift to the left how?
The idea that the UK can successfully stand independently is fiction.
That is what it represented to people with the politics of @Chester I think. People who identify as working class and losing from globalisation, people who feel like leaving the EU would give the UK more power to look after "its own".
Quoting frank
Yes, few of which were heavily relied upon in the "vote leave" narrative. The less educated poor (stereotyping) seem to blame it for the immiseration of the British working classes since 2008 [hide=*](which goes with Dominic Cumming's video we've watched and what @Chester has used to justify his beliefs)[/hide], the wealthy Euroskeptics dislike it for more mixed reasons; you have the national sovereignty explicitly anti-immigration people like UKIP and the "small government" libertarian group like the Leave backing Tories - they have substantial overlap, and you see that in whether someone is "anti state welfare" like 70% (estimated) of Leave voters were.
I agree with that. The old stories of "the people of Earth are one people", "we're not having war any more with each other in Europe" and "we want a unified geopolitical bargaining unit for the administration of the world market" don't resonate as loudly now in the UK.
Couple that with legitimate concerns, like the EU imposing crippling austerity measures on the Greek populace in 2008 (another of Cumming's touchstones) despite a resounding "no" from their people's referendum on the matter.
It also didn't help Remain's case that people like @Chester got to make bold, memorable assertions; restatements of a narrative backed up by the Daily Express, the Mirror and the Sun and Sky News (this gave that narrative the dominant place in UK news media).
And unfortunately, people like me spent their time demanding an evidential basis for these people's claims, and "Give me the evidential basis for these claims" does not travel as far or as fast as "Take back control".
Quoting frank
The UK government's domestic policies are likely to be the same as they were before. The UK's new points system for immigration is still very flexible, allowing migrant labour in low skilled jobs (not well defined!) when there is a shortage (not well defined!) and will be essentially the same as the international immigration system we currently have for non-EU citizens:
and there are no current plans to start the mass deportation of EU migrants that don't fit the very vague new requirements set of them:
and
There are no plans to "fill the gap" in hiring left by immigrants with British citizens. And they have left open the means by which immigrants allegedly crowd out low skilled jobs, just put in policies for acceptance that are expected to change immigration demographics and possibly rights upon arrival.
If you work in a sector where you feel like temporary foreign labour is a problem for you, it will still be a problem for you after Brexit.
But there have been effects on EU immigration (maybe) since the country voted leave:
I have a fairly straight forward question. What is to gain by Brexit? I understand the feeling of autonomously being free from dealing with other people. It's a feeling I have most days against the stupidity of other people. But I'm curious to what is to actually gain in the long run. Think past corporations, globalism, capitalism. There are far too many empty phrases thrown around and in most cases not very well understood in the context so the question again is, what is there to gain by cutting yourself off from a larger group? Looking forward, into the future, what is there to gain?
The world is not the same as before, so what is to gain when thinking about where we are heading?
We've asked Chester what tangible benefits there are to leaving the EU, what we have to look forward to and he has drawn a blank. He can only tell us about the things he hates. The Murdock press has done its job.
The "coup", if you want to put it like that, was by the anti-immigration "small government" wing of the Tory party (figurehead: Bojo) against the "free trade and movement is still good for us" wing of the Tory party (figurehead: David Cameron). They appear to agree on how to govern in almost all other matters. UK political discourse (not necessarily opinion) I think has shifted to that terrain too, and the place has become more hostile to UK nonwhites (evidenced by the surge of hatecrimes).
Edit: I should throw Windrush in there with the hostility to nonwhites in Brexit Britain.
People keep saying how small the UK is and how much we need Germany (which is the driving force of the EU) but other countries do just fine outside of it.
Quoting Chester
You're right. It was Democratic. I meant "coup" poetically.
Glad to be of service! It makes obsessively reading the news worthwhile.
I should also say that David Cameron's policies were pretty libertarian lite too; the "Big Society" was his strategic spin on it. It is worthwhile remembering, for context, that the same measures the EU imposed on Greece during the financial crisis the UK government imposed, in a restricted form, on the UK; Bojo and Cameron were down with what happened to the Greeks, and probably would not have put it (austerity measures) to a referendum were the UK in Greece's place.
Let me give an example, I don't subscribe to this as a conscious conspiracy, but there are many who do, but rather a general drift towards a free market economy. The kind of Conservatism we have been subjected to in recent years (actually going back 40 years) has been making government, the civil service etc smaller, a small state, creeping privatisation has been eating into public services along with the state funded parts being repeatedly cut and hollowed out. The house price boom and crisis stemmed from this due to no building of council housing, state housing. As the public services become strained an opportunity presents itself for xenophobic groups to blame it on an increase in immigration putting a strain on the services. This switches the blame from the government who starved the organisation of funds, causing the strain and places it on those people over there, those immigrants. The de-regulation of business, erosion of Union power etc leads to workers being exploited more and more, again this is blamed on the immigrants in the same way. So the harder the government starves the economy, the more blame can be lumped on the immigrants and the less blame is attributed to the government. Alongside this is a growth in US style profiteering, profit based privatisations and large amounts of wealth draining out of the country to offshore accounts, or into the estates of wealthy Tory backers who are expert at tax avoidance etc. And if you can start blaming all this on the EU as well, then the more the merrier.
The problem, which is why I suggest politics will drift to the left is Coronavirus, it has shone a light on all this hollowing out destruction of institutions hard won.
One can also factor globalisation into this.
You brought it up, by labelling us as middle class academic elites. Suggesting that salt of the earth working class know better.
Really come on, your are squirming on the floor.
Give us some tangible benefits for the UK to leave the EU.
Ah, more reading for me.
Here, Johnson seems to be saying that he supports social programs, but that the UK is constrained by the need to compete with countries that have lower taxes:
'I'm a one-nation Tory. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work."
He was the Mayor of London at the time. Is this just rhetoric meant to hide a desire to abandon social programs? Or is the need to compete real?
Having looked deep into Johnson's heart, I'm of the impression he hasn't got one.
Quoting frank
Is a response to Punshhh, but also relevant for @frank, I think. It's a bit of a rant because I can't be bothered sourcing everything I'm saying this time, and the "financialisation of global capital" is something you will find discussed only by the farthest left of journalists in mainstream media and far left alt media.
The financialisation of global capital's my go to bugbear for all this @Punshhh.
When the interests of an economy follow the interests of corporate shareholders, the concrete assets that keep the work being done are less important than shareholder returns. Those people who stand to gain materially from short term increases in corporate shares are overwhelmingly the very richest in society (like, making over £100k per year).
Bojo's wing and their associated media fought really hard during the recent election (2019 December) to discredit the necessity of investment in UK industry and construction, their renationalisation, and repealing the massive spending cuts to social care, social housing and the NHS that have been going on since Blair. Read: investing in creating "low skill" jobs on British soil with fair pay while providing "low skill" workers with highly employable skills in a situation of high unemployment for that demographic, for context in this discussion. They did not support measures that (1) the British public believes will address those issues when polled and (2) have compelling evidence that they would address those issues.
Your quote from Bojo is essentially the same narrative that was used in the 1970's with Thatcher, of whom he (and David Cameron's wing) are big fans; we need to be competitive in international markets, and we can't do that by propping up (allegedly) inefficient nationally owned business and services in the UK.
Bojo's party has implemented massive spending cuts in social programs and healthcare. Our government has overseen massive closures of UK clinics and social care homes (like, for abused kids). They've cut back a lot on the construction of affordable housing. They've made it more difficult for the unemployed to receive state benefits. If you trust their justification, this is because they do not believe that social programs are productive investments in reducing the national deficit.
The role the national deficit plays in UK politics from the conservative party (and the Blairite wing of the Labour party) is to cut public expenditures, Cameron made a famous argument comparing the UK economy to a credit card and the deficit being a negative balance. "We have to cut the things that make us go more negative and increase the things that make us go more positive" - leading to those cuts, and framing investment in the commons insofar as they are nationally owned (healthcare, social care, welfare programs, affordable housing) as bad for this end. It was an argument on the level of framing.
(They've also overseen a gigantic growth of the national deficit over those years...)
They also do things like quietly cut 20,000 nurse positions over the country in a bill, then reinstate 5000, and it gets reported as "5000 new positions for nurses in the NHS!" by Sky News, the Daily Express, the Sun, the Record and the Mirror (giving Bojo's wing supporting news coverage).
Simultaneously. the government has overseen the privatisation of these sectors. The Guardian is one of the few newspapers here that covers this trend. The rest of the newspapers report largely decontextualised information wondering why the NHS' performance metrics like accident and emergency waiting time are getting worse, and fit it in with the immigrant narrative @Chester 's adopted. They do not make the journalistic connection between "hospitals are being closed and nurses layed off" to "the waiting times are going to increase".
This gets put back into the narrative of "inefficient spending" to promote more cuts. It's a very well oiled machine, a symbiosis between major news media, the finance capitalist donors, and our government officials who receive money from those backers (in return for shaping policy!) and get employed in their corporations before/after being in power.
I asked for answers to the question in terms of long term, in terms of 50 to 100 years. People seems to only think a few years ahead, not civilization as a whole over longer spans. Like the span of peace from when the EU was first formed until modern times. I'm not interested in short term ideas.
The point is that no one can forecast the future but we can decide how we get there, like choosing not to go down the post-democratic empire building route for instance. You only have to go back through some posts here to realise that the people who want the EU are overwhelmingly leftists...leftists love authority, big government and all the corruption that comes with it.
Here's something for leftists to consider...there's fuck all difference between big government and big business, that's why they get along so well in China.
I don't really know if it will make it easier for them or not. It's a mixed bag I think. The Tories are in the unenviable position of having donors and policy shapers that are firmly globalist, but a good chunk of their voter base are suffering from the effects of globalisation and believe so. The Tories aren't really "anti-globalist", they're doing nothing to stop migrant labour from non-EU countries, and favour outsourcing labour internationally whenever it benefits the bottom line, and they're very happy with the UK's role in international finance.
I think maybe it's a concession of some sort, a misdirection; it's preferable for their policy shapers to blame immigration and the "centralisation of politics" than the alternative; recognizing the catastrophic role the financialisation of global capital has played, and the UK's role in it as launderers for these flows (which Brexit will likely not change). They agree with the EU's overall economic policies and the globalisation of labour markets; they're Thatcherites/Reaganites with anti-immigration rhetoric. I have no idea how this makes sense as a consistent ideology; it probably is not.
Scapegoating. That's what I was suspecting. Do you know of any resources for info on financialization of global capital?
And quoted in the same article,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization
It is a house of cards and when the house falls ordinary workers and tax payers have to pick up the tab, as in 2008.
This is also the time when the vicious attacks against Corbyn started, the more they could discredit him the better because if he could not beat them in an election they're rabid hard Brexit was assured and the Tory party would be triumphant, having neutralised the Brexit party which was tearing their party apart, which would have let Labour in.( no one in the party or the Brexit party could countenance Labour getting into power, so they would unite)
My reason for why the party was set for electoral oblivion was that following the financial crash of 2008, the Conservative party has gradually begun to nose dive, as the dream of financial and capitalist success which they stand for had failed and they were having to impose stringent austerity on the population. Eventually the population would turn away from this and go with Labour who would turn on the money taps again. This trend can be seen in the demographic, the young who now distrust their capitalist dream and who are saddled with debt and can't buy a house, are overwhelmingly supporting Labour. Whereas the older wealthier voter who owns property has a good pension etc overwhelmingly supports Conservative. Unfortunately the latter don't have time on their hands and the former can see the shambles in front of their eyes.
This rabid hard Brexit kamicaze trajectory we are now on is their last gasp, their last throw of the dice to restore their party relying on a restoration of free market capitalism modelled on the US and propped up directly by the US. Literally a Singapore on Thames.
It's doomed to failure though, especially thanks to Corona.
@StreetlightX linked me this today:
It was fascinating. It puts the globalisation/immigration right narrative alongside the globalisation/finance capital narrative in a much richer context, very similar to the one @Punshhhand I have been talking about. (Also intimately tied up with issues in your recent chats with @Baden and @StreetlightX about neoliberalism).
I think you're probably right, I did overstate that.
Quoting Punshhh
:up: Agree with that.
Quoting Punshhh
I don't think this was a strictly Tory thing, my impression at the time was that faith in politicians and politics itself was being eroded. Labour was losing its heartlands too; Gordon Brown backing the banker bailouts hit really hard, and the recession effects in Scotland were countered in the political imagination by the hope of a better, independent Scotland. So the populist centre-left in Scotland (the SNP), branded themselves as an anti-establishment party and played the same class card as the right populists did in Brexit. While the source and target of the class narrative were different, the symbolic structure was not much different. It was portrayed as scottish working class vs London elites for the Scottish independence referendum, British working class vs Middle class and London elites in Brexit.
Quoting Punshhh
I guess I agree with you then, the political context was decided by a reaction to a crisis of capitalism, all the political parties offered more of the same, so populists on left and right filled the vacuum in public confidence (not that this has restored faith in politics in the UK). The thing is, the center really is failing, and it's not all hot air; there's even kernels of truth in what @Chester is saying for crying out loud. It's "socialism or barbarism" on the level of political narrative (though I'm sure if you asked Chester he'd say it's "nationalism or barbarism" and equate "barbarism" with "socialism" in his pie shaped head)..
For ROI per unit time/cognitive effort invested best explanation of "why-we-got-into-bed-with-neoliberalism-and-why-we-need-to-get-the-fuck out-now" I've seen/read/heard. And I'm only half an hour in. :starstruck: :100:
Yes we had the best of both worlds. But there were still problems, they were internal to the UK though, not due to our membership of the EU. Our failing politicians had repeatedly blamed their failure to act on the EU. The public was happy to lap up this blame game too, following rows with the EU over the cod wars and repeated impatience with dictates like we all have to weigh produce in Kilogrammes now and ditch pounds and ounces for example.
But the real problem behind all of this was not Europe, it was the combination of the effects of globalisation, wealth being taken offshore and massive tax avoidance practices like the double Irish and the effects of financialisation etc.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich.asp.
AKA neoliberal capitalism, but yes :) There's a rather incredible video by - of all people - Maggie Thatcher, where she outlines, almost point by point, the problems a monetary union would cause: transfers of wealth from richer to poorer EU countries, extremist political parties, mass migration, institutional distrust and so on. It's uncannily prescient:
She does end up spouting Hayek's rubbish at the end there, but that's to be expected. I suppose that even having the exceptional status they did, the UK still could not brook the effects that spilled over from the continent, and put to use by the populists to screw the nation further.
Yes, there is a big issue with Labour losing its heartlands, but not due to the financial crisis specifically. What I was focusing in on was is the way in which the Conservative party has had one of its legs knocked out from under it. By the chaos and capitalist failure of the financial crisis and the measures they then had to implement to balance the books. This was not supposed to happen. The problems of debt amongst the young had already started before the crash, but were compounded by it. This has resulted in many young people in Tory heartlands relying on handouts from their parents to buy their houses, bail them out from their student debt, while they are not getting those well paid jobs they were expecting, well enough that is to maintain a nice house and family with a couple of labradors in the Tory heartlands. Not nearly enough, and this is the touchstone of a healthy Tory ideal.
The Conservative party is limping along and having to present a brave face to hold on to its credibility.
Johnson says whatever the audience wants to hear, or what his strategists say fits in with their agenda. You can't take a single word that comes out of his mouth seriously, like Trump.
He has shown a little genuine sentiment after staring Covid19 in the face, but it won't last.
I also think that we need to be more self sufficient as a country, grow more of our own food, make more of our own products even if that increases costs. It may mean that we have a bit less, but that would probably do us good.
We also need more housing for those that can't afford to buy, but council housing should also come with rules...ie, regular inspections (as in the past) to make sure you're looking after the place...so many council tenants trash their housing.
Basically I believe in a combination or rights with responsibilities and have a preference for smaller businesses over multi-nationals, a preference for the rights of individuals over groups.
That just gives you an idea of my domestic politics...I'm not getting into writing a treatise.
Also, what parts of government should be diminished/abolished? NHS? Public transport? The army? State departments?
Actually, they definitely could. Just not the number of jets Boeing or Airbus build and not at a similar price point.
I wouldn't necessarily do away with any part of UK government as it stands, though I'd make sure there are strict rules in place to ensure government does not expand beyond what is necessary...that could include doing away with public funded quangos , doing away with foreign aid unless it is direct humanitarian need.
The thing about the NHS puzzles me. I'm 53 now so I have had the misfortune of watching some of my older relatives die in the care of the NHS...it was not nice. The rest of Europe seems to do fine without it, at least no worse than us.I'm not the sort of person who bangs pots and pans for NHS workers put it that way. As for the armed forces ,it's one area I'd expand. 1) It makes the country safer, 2) it's a great place for young people to train and learn self-discipline... you'd probably find that countries with compulsory services have better over all youth behaviour...Britain can be a bit of a zoo on Saturday night.
I agree with that, except calling it fascism. I guess I don't understand what "big politics" means to you though. Something I really don't understand is why you people on the right think the EU is a leftist project; like, you guys see the EU as socialist; economically they act in the interest of finance capital all over Europe. Letting banks and shareholder interest set your politics is not a left thing.
How do you know that the post-democratic form was an intentional form and not a symptom of bureaucracy? How do you know that only military security through Nato was the single reason and not also that national ideals of being part of a larger group formed less nationalist movements which lowered the ideologies of nationalist empires?
Aren't you assuming your premises correct before a conclusion? I see a lot of ignored possible reasons and moving parts here.
Quoting Chester
So you are saying that no one can forecast the future, but you forecast that EU is bad? What about trying to improve the problems with bureaucracy and moving away from post-democracy within EU? You assume that EU equals post-democracy, but I see no link there other than it has the symptoms. The idea of EU is not post-democratic by definition. So why wouldn't improving the coalition that is EU be better than dismantling it or abandoning it? You must first prove that EU is undeniably unable to change to the better before knowing your decision to leave EU to be the right choice.
Otherwise, you are doing just the kind of forecasting of the future that you say is impossible. In light of other options, abandoning the EU project is so far only ideologically based, not based on reasoning and rational thought. I'm not saying leaving isn't a conclusion of rational thought, I'm saying that the induction argument for leaving is so far very ill-supported in evidence outside ideological opinion.
Quoting Chester
Which you prove about your reasoning by these statements of labeling the other side of the argument.
I'm interested in hearing you put your ideas through philosophical scrutiny, not ideological opinions. We are writing on a philosophical forum after all.
You can't come on a site with intelligent people and come out with that kind of nonsense. There may be a handful of people who choose not to work, but they are a tiny minority. What sort of encouragement do you suggest to get them off their arses?
You do realise, I suppose that it will only be the ordinary folk who would have a bit less. You really should have a look at how the other side lives. If you live near Chester, you should be aware of the affluence around there. In the affluent areas in the south they live it up like the French aristocracy or hadn't you noticed?
Are you aware of the extent of the housing crisis? And how it stifles growth, creates social division and widens the wealth gap. Not to mention the rental nightmare a lot of young people have to endure. I suspect Blojo doesn't notice such issues, his sort just pocket the increases in equity to fund those lifestyles I mentioned.
The cult of the individual is not going well either.
Oh and sorry to be a bore, but what does any of this have to do with leaving the EU? Most of what you are proposing has already been adopted and is working very nicely in European countries. It's just this country who can't seem to get it right.
Also there are fundamental systemic problems underlying and causing a lot of these problems which I and fdrake mentioned in our replies to Frank. I won't repeat them here.
If you're on the right it's a very steep slope until your head is in the clouds like Rees Mogg. If you're on that slope anything left of Johnson or Cameron is socialism.
Awesome. He's written some books I'm going to read.
Are you talking to the hand? I didn't think I'd tried that approach yet :lol:
My hand never has much of worth to say.
It's almost as if the fans of a vast bureaucracy of very well paid officials and its billionaire supporters are being a bit two-faced ...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/12/eu-soviet-union-european-elections-george-soros
No one ever said it was going to be easy to unify Europe, so they can work together. No one said it would be easy to leave the EU did they. Oh wait a minute, the Brexiters did, we would have the exact same benefits, we would have the sunlit uplands of free trade with the world, we would have our cake and eat it etc etc.
We would train our own to do the jobs of the EU workers after they have left, dream on.
I know we can get all those workers who are going to lose their jobs juring the lockdown to pick cabbages and cauliflowers 12 hours a day, or wipe arses. Good honest graft. Just what this country needs.
It would have been a piece of piss to leave the EU...apart from the fact that our political/media class did all in their power to block it..those that blocked it are anti-democratic scum. That's another down-tick for the EU...anti-democrats love it.
Wanting to use eastern Europeans as cheap slave labour isn't a nice trait mate.
The modern face of the left...
There are billionaires on both sides. Screw Blair and Bojo. The UK is not going to get a better deal with the EU than the one it had while in it. The Tory government is putting in huge amounts of effort to maintain the benefits of international trade and finance flows to their moneyed interests. If you think them supporting Brexit makes them amazingly democratic, look at them bailing out all these companies that do fuck all for the people of Britain in response to the pandemic; no vote, no accountability, another huge wealth transfer. Them and their friends on the liberal left and populist right are doing absolutely fine.
Politics is like chess; it's the pawns that generally get sacrificed, and the players move on to the next game even if they lose.
I saw Steve Baker, a spartan, on the box today desperate to get us out of lockdown. All his Singapore on Thames dreams in tatters.
I wonder why we were enlisting slaves to do our nursing, and countless low paid frontline jobs. It must be globalisation undercutting our industries that did it.
I am not a massive Tory fan , they are just the best of what's available. I don't trust any politician. As an example , all this talk about having a tracer app is pathetic, it's a sign that these people are out of touch with reality...just not as out of touch as the labour/limp dick clowns.
So sure, you don't need a trade deal, but why make Brexit cost more than necessary?
I was definitely waving my hands.
Nice, now these clowns are presiding over the highest death count in Europe and we're not finished yet, as the death toll in carehomes is still increasing.
Your careless support for these clowns is costing people's lives.
A few facts...
The UK has more trade with China than Spain...and in both cases the trade involves twice as much coming to the UK than going out.
The UK sells twice as much to the US as we do to Germany.
We trade more with Japan than we do with Sweden.
We have more trade with Hong Kong than we do with Poland.
We have more trade , and sell more to, South Korea than we do with Denmark.
Sweden and Ireland are the only EU countries that we have a trade surplus with.
We have more trade with Taiwan than Romania.
More trade with Thailand than Greece.
More trade with Russian than the Czech republic.
In reality the UK trades more with the rest of the world than we do with the EU...and on top of that there is far more potential for growth.
As an aside , I was in Berlin last year and happened to walk into a very large department store. I went to the huge cheese counter, hundreds of cheeses from around the world...just one little piece of Stilton in the whole stinking pile. It said a lot to me about how much Europeans like us and our culture...just one little piece of evidence.
I think it is despicable that people like you seek to blame Western governments for a Chinese crime ...it says a lot about your ilk.
Why buck the trend now, you'd been going so well without any whatsoever!
The forum isn't Twitter, repeatedly spamming the thread with decontextualised single line posts gets them deleted.
I'm not going to repeat all the work @fdrake and @Benkei have put in trying to help you understand the economics. I will, however link you their posts to help.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/407677
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/407923
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/407955
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/407964
But just to help you with the last one.
Quoting Chester
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/articles/whodoestheuktradewith/2017-02-21
UK imports
EU 318 billion
Rest of the world 243 billion
UK exports
EU 235 billion
Rest of the world 284 billion
So net trade, we do trade 26 billion more with the EU than the rest of the world.
Your facts are not contrary to my facts. So what's your point? Is the EU an important trading partner to the UK or not? The rest of the world is 6.75 billion people and the EU just 750 million. Those 750 make up about 50% of UK trade. Not relevant?
Does FDI make trade deficits irrelevant or not? Has FDI fallen sharply thanks to Brexit or not? Do you understand the effect of that? If so, what does that mean for the UK?
The 2017 figures (your Wikipedia source) have not yet been summarised by the ONS and so may require interpretation. If you prefer up-to-date figures over analysed ones, then the figures for 2018 show a 37,000 total trade in favour of the EU. No-one is calling you a liar (as in knowingly propagating things which aren't true). People are - quite patiently and understandingly, given your provocation - pointing out where you are in error, or where you could be better informed.
Now can you explain why we're comparing the EU to the 'rest of the world'. We don't make trade deals with 'the rest of the world'. I'm sure if we compared EU trade to trade with Alabama, there'd be a substantial imbalance too. So what's this supposed to show with regards to the economics of brexit?
But I am of your ilk remember, I'm working class from up north.
Foreign investment in this country is a double edged sword. The Chinese have bought vast tracts of London real estate...not so great I'd argue...but I'm not against foreign companies creating jobs by "saving" our manufacturing here provided they don't just do it as a cover to "steal" our ideas or to asset strip.
This made me laugh a little because Romania doesn't have a single ocean port.
From the Black Sea you can get to an ocean. Here's a Romanian port.
"I know all about the effects of the EU on the UK because I put tiles on a roof"
That is absolutely ridiculous. Identity politics at its finest.
You're in your 50's, your entire working life has been one where the working class in the UK is getting more and more squeezed; the cost of living is perpetually on the rise, government institutions have faced cut after cut, small businesses operate perpetually close to their bottom line. Money is hoovered out of the country through tax avoidance and international ownership of what once were national assets. The Tories and Labour see it as the best of all possible worlds, and have lost all credibility as a result.
You've read news stories about immigration, and seen more European born people going about the country, and more European born people working in the UK than ever before. You've put two and two together, I don't blame you.
You know what would make your perspective have more value? Actually studying what you already claim privileged insights into.
Without a lot of immigrants your country will die, not just economically, but in every way. Like most Western European countries, you're not reproducing yourselves enough to maintain economic growth. And the Tories know this. So, what's going to happen is simply that the immigrants you didn't like from Europe are going to be replaced by immigrants you don't like from somewhere else. Apart from everything else, you realize this, right?
Probably would, but the issue with that proposition is not the conditional itself but the existence of the entity to which it refers.
The cost of living is not on the rise with all goods and services...for instance most people can afford electrical appliances that older generations could only dream of, food's got cheaper in real terms cars are cheaper in real terms . One of the biggest cost growths has been in housing, and guess what causes the cost of housing to go up? Increased population and smaller family groups.
As it happens I have never blamed immigrants for coming here, but let's not pretend that the huge, unprecedented, scale of immigration hasn't caused severe issues ...pull your head out of the sand.
It's the demographics not the numbers.
E.g.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11030/1/20090203155203_SCOPE2008-3_2_JoanMuyken.pdf
You don't hit the replacement rate, you not only end up with a huge burden of economically unproductive elderly to pay for (especially with increased life-spans), you eventually just die out. You're currently below the replacement rate. You need immigrants to survive.
Oh and that one about robots doing the menial jobs is a classic ( I reminisce about Frank Zappa' Joe's Garage, cyborg). They'll be wiping our arses and various other roles I don't want to mention.
Speculation on the property market, financialisation of property through banks offering lower threshold mortgages, government incentives to support homeowners as opposed to renters.
Very little to do with overpopulation as new home-building coupled with renovation has almost completely kept pace with population growth.
What are you going to do, force people to have kids? Below the replacement rate, the English are dying out. That's fine by me, but I thought for some odd reason it might bother you.
Nice one Baden...you're almost a dictator here...your dreams are coming true in a very small way lol. You're still basically English though, that you can't change.:)
I mentioned that Oliver Cromwell ensured that most "Irish" are basically English.
Population growth combined with smaller family units (single occupants etc).
It's not a problem... Really.
Quoting Chester
No. Speculation on the property market, financialisation of property through banks offering lower threshold mortgages, government incentives to support homeowners as opposed to renters.
It's fairly standard economics.
From the LSE report put together with Migration Advisory Committee .
Or should I ask some taxi drivers....?
...and using the LSE as proof of anything ...fuck me hang your head in shame...
Nice avatar. Makes you look a lot smarter than your posts would suggest.
Stick with it. It suits you. :up:
Wash those spuds properly mate or you'll get diarrhoea.:)
I think Chester got frustrated at the idea of having to argue using facts and reality and decided leprechauns would work better. Each to his own.
Old people don't get violent, right?
:lol:
Then what do people pay you for. Jesus. Can't even do your job and people pay you.
Quoting Chester
Literally "close your eyes and think of England" as a population growth strategy.
Quoting Chester
(from London School of Economics). Real wages adjusted by a consumer price index that does not include rent or mortgage repayments. This is a measure of how easy it is to buy groceries if that's all you bought. The long term story looks like: stuff gets easier because of imports, then the Great Recession happens, and your wage doesn't buy groceries as well.
That's not a complete picture though, as it doesn't include rents and mortgages (or transport costs). The majority of people are switching to private sector rented housing. Here's how the median monthly price of rented housing goes: from Shelter for England.
A secular decline in the grocery purchasing power of wages (since 2011) occurs at the same time as an aggregate 20% hike in median rents. These are median rents, the above are mean wages; the mean is effected more by the highly skewed to the top income distribution. You have a similar story for trying to get a sensible house on a lower salary (insofar as using house price ratio-ed to earnings is a good indicator for this):
Used to be a cheap house price is about 4 times a yearly salary. Now it flatlined at 7 despite all the other crap going on. (For lower wages and lower housed prices). So basically; better have had a mortgage before all this recession shenanigans started otherwise you're fucked. I'm guessing you were in that position, maybe you even owned your house, and that's why you're not particularly sensitive to how the ground's shifting under your feet. For you, it literally isn't.
Except all those bloody immigrants 'eh, it's all them. Too many of 'em. :roll:
My hobby: giving sermons in graveyards.
You leftists love "facts"...you generate them in the same way that horses generate manure.
1) It seems you can't imagine roofs other than tiled roofs.
2) Linking to an openly leftist organisation (LSE) as proof of how terrible the Tories are isn't in the slightest bit scientific or reasonable.
3) Poor people in the UK don't appear to be starving , in fact many of them look like they're eating like pigs.
Interestingly before Corona the government rejected experts because it suited their agenda to win an election, which required aligning with the populists. Now we have Corona they rely on the specialists again, indeed they follow the advice from the experts. Presumably it is advantageous to have the capability to put the blame on the specialists later on when it all goes wrong.
It was a quier state of affairs where privelidged establishment Tory toffs where in alignment with working class anti establishment anti truth populists. The Tory's played them for fools for their own agendas.
Really, though?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/27/uk-to-name-scientific-advisers-on-emergency-coronavirus-group-sage
Just because the government happen to be carrying out the very broad recommendation (to have some kind of lockdown), I wouldn't confuse that in any way for a shift in emphasis to a reliance on experts. Experts vary a lot (even those within SAGE) on the details and Cummings will, without doubt, be steering the whole thing in favour of his preferred option - his presence in a expert advisory panel is disgraceful.
Yes, the stark nature of the crisis has set more constrained parameters than otherwise, but I think we can be sure that within those parameters, it's business as usual - select the scientist telling you what you want to hear, dismiss the rest.
So Cummings and Co are spinning the advice for their own purposes, whatever those are.
Quoting Chester
Quoting Chester
I'm done now. You are impossible.
We, the wealthy (and well fed) poor, unite! Against those charlatans, betrayers of our country, who want to give it all away to those faceless European bureaucrats. The're all fake the lot of them, fake news.
In what way?
And even if it were true, would that be more or less open then with other countries in the world?
And even if that were worse than with other countries in the world, does it matter if the rules and regulations were the same for everyone in the EU? E.g. if anything, wasn't there at least a level playing field? And will a no deal Brexit improve or worsen the access for service companies in the EU?
A no deal Brexit may well negatively effect our trade with the EU, but it will also negatively effect EU trade with us. It's in both parties interests to come up with a sensible deal ...but I'd take no deal, I don't like the idea of the EU blackmailing us and in any case I think we can make up for any losses by trading more with the rest of the world. 80% of the world is not the EU after all.
The EU really is constructed for the benefit of Germany...but once the effects of this virus have played out that may well change .I really do think the EU is on borrowed time, this virus may well be the bail of straw that breaks the camel's back...but we shall see.
We will of course lose it entirely when we leave and will find it almost impossible to trade in services as a third country across the EU. We will also lose all the agreements we benefitted from around the world via the EU trade deals. So will have to start from scratch with every country in the world in trying to come to some accommodation for services access. All of which will take many years as it's far more complex to agree than trade in goods. In the meantime UK financial services will disappear abroad, or die out.
Are you aware what will happen every time our negotiators go to a country to start negotiating? The first thing they will say is show me the agreements and trade deals you have with the EU and then we can talk. So no deal means no deals anywhere until we crawl back to the EU and accept whatever they decide to offer us.
Double whammy, the EU won't agree to a quick simplified trade deal which Johnson is hoping for and the best that's possible by 31st December. Because the UK intends to move further away in terms of agreements, alignments etc over time and won't agree to anything which prevents this moving away to happen, making a no deal more or less inevitable.
Also these other countries will turn to the negotiators and say look at the divisive and untrustworthy way you have gone about leaving the EU. Do you think we are going to trust you with a favourable deal and trust you to stand by your word when you insult the EU from day to day regarding things you signed up to in the withdrawal agreement, which you are now ripping up? You guys want to have your cake and eat it, you can have a basic trade access until we can trust you again.
Do some reading up on what you denigrate for once.
https://www.bba.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/webversion-BQB-3-1.pdf
We're back to Boris Isles.
Quoting Punshhh
I doubt this. This is not an ideal world for stragglers. Unless you're Switzerland.
On what time scale? Is the rest of the world spontaneously going to want UK goods if the UK is out of the EU? Unlikely no?
Probably that trade will first decline because a lot of the trade deals you have via the EU will no longer be valid, making English good more expensive. So exporters are going to have to take a haircut on their profits to maintain sales, if possible. Even if all things remained the same: where's the increased demand for UK goods going to come from?
Average time for negotiating comprehensive trade deals is 15 years by the way. And the UK is not going to be the first in line with many players because there are bigger trade blocs out there so replacing on the existing trade deals the UK has via the EU will take probably 30 years, from a position with far less bargaining power because the UK market is much smaller than the EU's.
I also don't recognise EU blackmail for the country that had by far the most exemptions to various rules and contributions than any other country in the EU and a financial services industry that has done very well, in large part thanks to freedom of capital and services within the EU. When did the EU blackmail the UK?
This was on the assumption that the UK would leave with no trade deal in place on 31st December and all the attendant chaos which would come from that. If that happens they will leave trust me, and becoming small states in the EU would be better than the alternative (staying in the UK)
Even assuming there are going to be costs to the UK economy in relation to not getting a deal with the EU I'd be ok with that because I put national independence above pure financial gain...a financial gain that has costs of its own which I have pointed out.
I linked to a post earlier that showed Germany is already breaking EU rules to protect its manufacturing base...Italy and Spain can't afford to do that so guess who will be waiting in the wings to snap up Spanish and Italian companies... German companies. You Europeans never learn whereas the UK, especially England, is usually ahead of the game.
Just out of interest, are you Dutch? If so why do you care if the UK leaves?
SAGE? I bet they came up with the acronym before they came up with the name. Such is the hubris of experts.
Nice.
Which is it? Either we were so smart we managed to wrangle and cheat the English for decades as you've asserted or we're dim? We can't be both.
Quoting Chester
I'm Dutch and I've worked in the financial industry about half of my professional life. What do I care? I have friends in the UK and I liked how easy it was to visit them. Or working for UK companies being easy. From a regulatory perspective the BoE and FCA had a much richer history and experience that is now lost, which will definitely make financial regulations in the EU worse. The Dutch and UK pension schemes are similar so they were an important partner in certain negotiations. The UK is an important trading partner as well.
Quoting Chester
This is just fairy tales. It's much more likely that the consensus building with a multi-party system leads to decisions a larger majority actually likes than the winner takes all system you have in the UK. Brexit had a statistically irrelevant majority. So about 50% isn't happy about Brexit at all. So yeah, I get it that if that happens regularly half of the time you think you're not getting what you want and therefore politicians stuck.
Even more, we actually had real revolutions in Europe resulting in more meaningful democracies where the UK was stuck with nobs and aristocracy continuing to lord it over the rest (how much land do they own again?). So yeah, those English are really ahead of the curve with a pseudo-feudal system.
Quoting Chester
Highly unlikely. You don't seem to understand that German manufacturing base is one of SME's, often family owned. The large all-consuming corporations are an anglo-saxon thing which has found willing copycats in mainly Asian countries. Europe has tended to answer, overall, with more specialised or bespoke production and service economies.
Which is why, if it hasn't been done before, hire a Dutch company.
I know 2 people who work at a very high level in financial services. One of them voted for Brexit and the other for remain. The one who voted remain voted remain because of the fear of economic cost not love for the EU. Both of them could get work anywhere in the world without restriction, they do not need the EU for work. You will have no problems visiting or working in the UK in the future.
I used to like the idea of proportional representation but I have come to the conclusion that it would lead to unending compromise...it hasn't exactly made the EU positive in the eyes of many of its citizens has it? Funnily enough it led to a huge influx to the EU of Brexiteer politicians ...if other countries had done the same and sent Euro sceptic politicians the whole edifice would have possibly come to a standstill .First past the post means that British citizens get to see who exactly to blame and credit .The idea that they "lord it over " us is a joke ...the British are the most politician sceptic people in Europe , we think most of them are cunts...I hate my local Tory MP even though I voted for her!
Some German SME's...Volkswagen, Siemens, BASF, Bayer...plenty of buying power there. What do you think about the Germans flouting EU regulations and bailing out their manufacturing sector whilst the rest of the EU can't afford to?
If you're into numbers this makes interesting reading, it shows how the narrative has been hijacked.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/gary-bennett-stop-blaming-the-old-and-the-ignorant-for-brexit-the-statistics-just-dont-support-these-myths.html
Why the hell are you complaining about the LSE's biasedness when you're citing "conservativehome.com" as a source
Who's "we"? Only half did of those who voted. Statistically you cannot even conclude there was a majority. See: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.03387&ved=2ahUKEwjzk-r_9qPpAhVJzqQKHXTxBHAQFjAAegQIAhAC&usg=AOvVaw2rWPxFyt4m9J4I_5mnXiCj
Second, when you voted for it in the past, if you were lied to, you were lied to by your own politicians which is not the fault is the EU.
Quoting Chester
So what? This isn't even relevant. Nobody requires anyone to love the EU to realise its benefits. I don't love my Dutch politicians either. I guess you get off on the patriotic flag waving and salutes.
Aside from the economic benefits, the original political aim was peace. Considering how many wars we've had in Europe alone, this has been fantastically successful.
Quoting Chester
"Unending" compromise is another word for win - win negotiations. Maybe take a cue from the Harvard negotiation method. And yes, the EU has problems that it does well to address.
Quoting Chester
Of course you can name the large corporations. Maybe because they're large? It doesn't change the fact the German industry base is one of SMEs. Which you would know if you'd care to be interested in your trading partners. https://www.gtai.de/gtai-en/invest/business-location-germany/economic-profile/economic-backbone-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises-81856
What bail out? And even so, is the EU doing this? No. While we're at it: What do you think about the monetary financing by the BoE through the ways and means facility now? (it's only day to day, until you start rolling it forward on a daily basis, which makes it a long term loan worth a daily floating rate). What do you think about Spain and Italy not following the budgetting rules for years which is why they cannot afford bail outs?
Pot meet kettle.
A no deal Brexit is going to be bad and it will be blamed on Covid-19.
"Finally, to my second myth: that the vote was too close for the mandate to be meaningful.
On a first-past-the-post basis this is a rout. Remain wins in only three of the 12 regions. This is an over-simplification, so I will refer to the excellent statistical modelling work by Chris Hanretty, Reader of Politics at the University of East Anglia who determined (based on modelling the actual local authority results down to constituency level) that if “Vote Leave” had been a political party it would probably have won 421 seats. A landslide representing 65 per cent of all seats (including Scotland) and 73 per cent of seats in England and Wales. If higher turnout in London and Scotland had tipped Remain over 50 per cent nationally, the result would have lacked a mandate in three-quarters of seats in England and Wales, leading to an historic democratic disaster."
You say that the EU has kept peace in Europe...are you suggesting Nato wasn't responsible? Are you suggesting that Japan has been at war since WW2 because it's not in the EU?
Do you now accept that large German corporations exist ? That if they are bailed out against EU rules
that they will be in a powerful position with regard to Italian or Spanish businesses?
Covid 19 makes the economic impact of Brexit negligible.
This is rubbish. Not only that but it weakens the case against the EU, as if the EU is only bad for the English, or that they're the only ones who can see it. The fact is that there is a lot of opposition to the EU in Europe outwith England, in e.g., France, Italy, and obviously Greece.
(Cue a rant about lazy Greeks and French or something)
Quoting Chester
Kept the peace? No, economic interdependence had been the greatest contributor to peace as some historic awareness would teach you. If you have more to lose from war, you won't go to war. It's as simple as that. So indeed. NATO didn't do shit with regards to peace between its members and was build to defend against another German or Soviet attack and was slowly expanded as a result from the peace existing between EU countries
Raising Japan is a logical fallacy. That's like saying vaccines don't work because someone else who didn't get one recovered from the measles. Don't be silly.
Quoting Chester
Do you actually read what I write or are you having a monologue? I didn't say any of this and asked for which bail out you're talking about and pointed out how unlikely it will be. Stop being an ass.
Quoting Chester
LOL. How much has the UK government spent on covid-19 so far? What will a no deal Brexit cost the UK? What does the word negligible mean in nobby English?
Yes, England is going to hell in a handcart and people who have been conned like Chester want to bring it on asap. Note he doesn't agree with the UK lockdown, that it's an over reaction. No lockdown followed by a no trade deal Brexit is hell in a hand cart for the English. Just as we fall off the economic cliff, Scotland and Northern Ireland will leave the UK, tempting the Welsh to follow. Fortunately I will be getting my Scottish passport. The nobs will be happy whatever happens, they have their offshore accounts and will turn the wreckage into the 51st of the US.
So in your world NATO hasn't kept the peace , the Dutch have wasted their time being members? Economic interdependence can keep the peace to a degree, but we don't need the EU for that...China undermines your points...we are economically dependent on it whilst it is not an UE member and we could be headed to a cold war with it. My using Japan as an example of not needing the EU for peace still stands..it's a perfectly good example that you don't need to be in an economic cartel in order to be peaceful.
The Germans are seeking to bail out their businesses. link
No one knows if a no deal Brexit will cost the UK anything...also I very much doubt if there will be a no deal...unless the EU wants to make a political rather than economically sensible point.If it goes for the former hopefully European citizens who lose their jobs because of an obviously political decision will take actions against the EU. We shall see.
Your attitude towards "nobs" is so 1970's mate , really it's daft. That's not to say a great many of them aren't total cunts but they are like the general population, good and bad. One man being rich does not necessitate anyone else being poor, often the very opposite is true.
Not at district level as you pretended. The results of the referendum as a reflection of the will of the people were inconclusive, since not everybody voted. You need a statistically relevant majority for that and 52% wasn't it. Even if you take the results at face value, I consider it problematic any way for obvious reasons: the majority is tiny and the consequences huge.
Quoting Chester
Quoting Benkei
Difficulty reading again, I see.
Quoting Chester
Still a fallacy.
Quoting Chester
I can't open the link. This is the third time I'm trying to find more on this via Google. I either have the wrong key words or the article is sensational and hasn't been picked up anywhere else. Can you post the relevant bit? In any case, all countries are bailing out industries at the moment, so I'm not sure what's special about the Germans. There's a temporary framework : https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/sa_covid19_temporary-framework.pdf
And here are all the approved state aid programs: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/covid_19.html
Including those evil English.
Quoting Chester
You mean you don't know. Everybody with experience in business knows this.
The reverse of your statement is that nobody knows the effect of trade treaties and you don't need an agreement with the US or any other country in the world.
There was never going to be another major war between Western European countries after WW2, there was no desire for such a thing from anyone. If anything the EU is causing greater animosity between nations due to its obvious power grab...its attempts at post-democratic empire building. NATO kept peace between the Eastern bloc and Western Europe...and now it has former Eastern bloc countries as members because they see the benefit.
Whether you like it or not Japan illustrates that a war like country can develop into a peace loving country without being part of a trade cartel.
"Everybody in business knows this" , like fuck they do. They may believe it but they have no more idea of the future than you or I. None of them saw this virus coming did they? None of them knows where this disaster is leading...nor do they know the full ups and downs of Brexit. Only hubris on a monumental scale leads people into believing they know the future...that hubris is one of the markers of remain fanatics.
The EU is already under massive internal strain , this virus could bring it down.
“For the first time in history, the constitutional court has found that the actions and decisions of European bodies overstep their legitimate competence, and therefore have no validity in Germany,” said the court’s president, Andreas Vosskuhle. No country has dared to do this before since the creation of the Community in 1957. It is a revolutionary moment for the European project.
North and South are today pursuing radically different policies, according to their economic means, and this will lead to radically different outcomes when Europe emerges from the Covid-19 depression. “It destroys the argument that the EU is rule-compliant. It hits that narrative on the head,” says Prof Lorand Bartels, an expert on trade law and Brexit at Cambridge University.
So, trade deals don't matter? Why bother getting one with other countries then? Oh wait...
You just bleat whatever fits your current argument and lose sight of consistency.
Quoting Chester
It didn't reflect a majority as that paper showed. It seems you don't understand statistics.
Also, the anti immigration bullshit being fed for years and the brexit lies didn't play a role either of course. Its the fact that referenda are woefully inadequate to reduce a complex issue to a binary choice.
Leave won by over a million votes , the English voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, I can't make it any clearer than that for you...and I'll tell you something else for free...most British people accept the result, it seems to be foreigners like yourself that have a problem with democracy.
I'm done. I hope you're one of the people that gets hit by those costs and not people who are actually sensible about these things.
Anyway, this is a video that will give you some perspective , some balance, if you've been buying into the narrative.
UK Negotiator HUMILIATES EU's Michel Barnier On Twitter
The UK team along with the government has no intention of presenting anything credible because they want to heap the blame for everything on the EU and these sham talks enable them to do it. They have to heap the blame because the people who lended them their vote will be looking for someone to blame when the shit hits the fan and it's better for the government to blame the same old bogeyman.
Meanwhile there are secret trade talks going on in the US intended to throw something together without passing it by congress, or the senate, or parliament in the UK. To sneak a trade deal with the US through the back door. The problem is that Johnson will have to sell our soul for the yanks to agree to this and that includes the NHS.
Although, I gather you don't rate the NHS either, might as well sell it to the US if we get our freedom back.
Just like Rees Mogg claiming the the victims of the Grenfell tower tragedy died because they didn't use their common sense and run out of the building.
Clarity and leadership.
I think that the Germans will ensure there will be a reasonable deal, they'll override those within the EU (and those like you within the UK) who seek punishment for the UK from the EU, the Germans know how important we are to them.
There is vast scope for trade increases with the USA. If elements of competition , and therefore US in put ,are allowed within the NHS that can only be a good thing. When people bleat about how wonderful the NHS is they never compare it ,to say ,the German system...a German system that has been doing far better with this virus than the NHS.
Yes this is a great idea if you're Dominic Cummings, or a Tory Grandee. It solves the problem of the demographic time bomb which was going to bankrupt Brexit Britain, because they were going to have to foot the bill for looking after all the old folk. It solves the NHS crisis, what's not to like. It gets the economy going so we can steal an advantage over the Europeans. It's genius.
Oh until someone points out that there are 2 million vulnerable people currently shielding with health conditions, disabled, or on immunosuppressants who will have a mortality rate above around 18%. Might as well get rid of that lot as well, because they cost the NHS a lot by definition. Genius!
The EU would happily give the UK a Canada like deal, they've said that all along. They were waiting two years for the Tories to fight it out amongst themselves about what kind of future relationship they wanted (and don't go blaming Labour, they were not in power throughout this whole sorry saga). Theresa May did a remarkable job of somehow squaring the circle of how to remain close to the EU and not in it. But the Tories skuppered every attempt to reach consensus. The EU looked on in bewilderment as the Tories descended into a group of cats in a sack squabbling and lashing out at the EU from time to time. It really is disgraceful the way the Tories have brought our country to its knees on the world stage. And you think any other countries would try and strike a deal with those clowns and sycophants. The only country that will is the US and their corporations will suck us dry like a spider devouring a fly.
The German car industry etc didn't come to the rescue did they when we kept forcing a cliff edge. Get this, if anything the Germans industrialists are not going to come to our rescue, they value the integrity of the single market far more.
I won't get into the folly of selling of the NHS right now, I don't have the time. I will point out that in the US patients pay about four times the price for the same US drugs we get through the NHS and they need private health insurance to afford it.
The fact that there are vulnerable people does not imply that the non-vulnerable can not start to have greater freedoms...but I have noticed that leftists like the population being locked down and controlled...it's your sort of thing .
This obsession with leftists about the US healthcare system is merely to deflect from the fact that there are better healthcare models than their new religion the NHS...it's so fucking obvious.
Nearly the entire population is a leftist to you, so calling me one is meaningless.
You really are stupid if you think Germany is coming to the rescue, or the US won't rip us off.
You only need to read up on the TTIP negotiations between the US and the EU to see how the US operates in this way. We will be eaten alive from a point of weakness, worse than What happened in Greece, because there will be no one to bail us out.
Wake up!
The Labour party is in a bad way, but there are many public sector workers/students who have nothing to lose by voting for the cretins so it will not drop below a certain level...the staunchly pro-EU lib dems are politically finished...what's that say about the English "love" for the EU?
Germany isn't coming to our rescue, it will come to its own...it needs our market more than we need its.The threat facing Germany is that we can source much of what we get from there from the US and elsewhere.
We already have a great trading relationship with the US, a far better one than we have with Germany...an extension of that relationship will almost certainly bring benefit to both countries.
They couldn't (or wouldn't) prevent the carnage in the carehomes, what makes you think they can get something workable with the EU. Everything Johnson touches turns to dust.
The way it works on this forum is you ask or answer a debating point and someone responds on that point. It's not a place for ranting and ignoring the questions or answers provided.
Going back to Germany(which has one of the best healthcare services apparently, (with a socialist government)). Put this in your pipe and smoke it. Germany doesn't need our custom, with tariffs and mountains of red tape etc attached. It has a massive emerging market in the Eastern European accession countries. And the great thing is, these countries are fully integrated members of the single market. What's not to like.
How ironic it will be for you if that leftist religion , the NHS, turns out to be responsible for unloading old people with covid 19 into the care homes.
Did you know that the German healthcare system is a public / private partnership? That very thing that leftists like you despise, that you do all you can to block in the UK.People like you must take some of the blame for the poor performance of the NHS...your dogma has handcuffed it.
We have great trade with the US on WTO, we trade more with the US than we do with Germany...explain to me why we can't trade just as well with Germany outside the EU as we do with the US. Do you literally think the Germans are going to stop selling us stuff and that they will also block our sales to them?
All this stuff is basic economics. Something that the Tory Brexiters don't want you to know. They just want you to keep going on about sovereignty, or hating on immigrants, while they do their shady tax haven deals with their billionaire palls. They don't give a shit about ordinary British workers. We will just become a cash cow, like the US population is over there.
I see Nissan are suggesting that Renault should manufacture in the UK....it's fantastic that foreign businesses manufacture here in order to sell here.
Duh! You've just agreed with me, that car manufacturers need to manufacture in the market they need to sell into to be cost effective. Renault obviously wouldn't expect to sell many cars here which it manufactured in France because of tariffs, red tape etc. So they would contemplate building an expensive factory in the UK to do so.
Can't you think rationally, your arguments don't compute, you constantly contradict yourself.
EU, in which bureaucrats ruled on behalf of bankers.
I would have the governance of the EU anytime compared to the shower of chaos the UK is having to endure at the moment.
The fact remains. The EU is fundamentally unsound. The only basis for union I know of -- Europe's shared Christian heritage -- the Eurosecularists scornfully reject. And the European Union was as much a defeat for democracy as the fall of Communism was its triumph. (As a philosopher, I had better not advise the Brits on how to handle their economic problems.)
Yeah, maybe because we were done with the Christian lies and bullshit somewhere around the Enlightenment.
Talking about a shared European identity is as misplaced as talking about an Asian one. It's not interesting because it's a stupid idea currently gaining traction because it's easier to then go on and say, "oi, no Muslims wanted here because they're not like us".
Meanwhile, we have enjoyed the longest period of peace since written history thanks to the EU. It's the most successful peace initiative the world had known. Unsound my ass.
"It will end free movement and open up global Britain".
Today Mat Hancock said the second time,
"We put a protective ring around care homes".
Priti Patel in one swoop ended our privelidge of free movement around Europe and made anyone who earns less than £25,600 per annum a second class citizen. Interestingly Polish builders who are allowed to stay here are more privelidged than us, they will get a British passport and retain full privelidges throughout Europe.
More evidence that Brexit is an act of self harm. Most of our privelidged access to the European market will thrown under the bus in the next few months to be replaced with a begging bowl to hold out for Trump to throw some scraps into.
Mat Hancock has now fallen from grace in uttering those words in the house.
Although it will prevent EU nationals who are not already here, moving here, if they earn less than £25,600, they still retain their freedom of movement around Europe. And now there are going to be exceptions for nurses, care home workers farm labourers, the list gets longer and longer. Alongside more people coming in from the rest of the world, there will probably be about the same number coming in anyway and we will be stuck here with them.
Well when Scotland leaves, at least I won't be stuck, I will be rejoining the EU.
How likely is that in the meantime? I haven't been paying much attention to that for awhile now.
My bet is that there will be another independence referendum in the near future. And that it will be very close, but edge on leave. Scotland is very very pro-EU.
Quoting Phil Devine
Of course, because it's regressive. Reducing EU cultural identity to Christianity is simplistic. Why not Greek philosophy, Enlightenment and humanism?
Say no to "memento mori".
Yes it has gone quiet, I expect the SNP are giving all their time to the Covid crisis and biding their time regarding Brexit. In the knowledge that Johnson and Co are so incompetent that it will be a bad Brexit, which will fuel calls for Scottish independence. Johnson almost daily insults the Scotts and discriminates against them.
To me it looks more likely by the day.
Here's your hypocrisy again. You assume the Scott's won't fall in behind nationalism, while people like you and most Brexiters did just that and you won't reconsider even while your country is going down the plug hole. They will do the same especially when a Johnson keeps sticking it up to them.
Modern nationalism is different...it's not like your leftist internationalism, it doesn't seek to expand in the form of empire (like your leftism) and modern nationalism is intensely democratic (again unlike your leftism).
"Modern nationalism is intensely democratic"
That's actually the opposite of the reality. You really have fallen for the populism hook line and sinker.
Do you think that hoodwinking the population to vote for a hidden agenda against their interests is democratic? I suppose Trumpism is incredibly democratic too!
Those of us with a brain have long known that any new immigration system, whatever it sets out to do (or pretends to), will result in zero reduction in immigration. All those nasty incomers came here to do vital jobs that the Brits considered too low paid to bother with. The immigrant pay floor of ~ £25k p.a. is already starting to look laughably stupid, simply barring some of those the country needs.
Nice U turn though, Johnson had no choice, it wasn't a change of heart. When he announced it he used exactly the same language as he used yesterday when he said that the levy was vital to maintain the funding for the NHS.
About the care home debacle, Therese Coffey blamed the scientists the other day, then she was slapped down from Downing St the next day. The classic Trumpian sleight of hand. Which ever way the dice falls on that one they can claim they made the right call.
It's like shouting heads and tails when the coin is tossed so you called the right side when it lands.
Even Yesterday in parliament it's remarkable how people can still appear to take anything the government says seriously. It's engrained I think.
Clarity and leadership.
Common sense.
That's the advantage of being in power. Even when you talk utter rubbish like Trump everyone has to take you seriously and respond as if you know what you're talking about.
Quoting Punshhh
Early on in the Coronavirus pandemic Sturgeon was reading off the daily figures and news at her briefings and looking impatient and bored, as if she wasn't interested in the whole thing. When the opportunity of the Scots diverging from Westminster policy arose she seemed to get her mojo back and now seems to be enjoying flexing her muscles again. Strange that..
We have a leftist deep state in the UK too it seems...drain the swamp Boris!
The left is now the establishment , the establishment the enemy of the people.
Petition for Dominic Cummings to be sacked
But seriously you might be right. There's too many fucking idiots like @Chester around in the UK (mainly England) at the moment.
I went to Southend today, I was surrounded by morons, using their common sense, it was scary.
For leftists it is different, they tend not to be as bright as they think they are, they follow rules like the drones they are, and point the finger like little Stasi slags when someone breaks the rules who they don't like. .
...and there you see the real face of the left...the left despises the working class.
When it comes to politics he's always been wrong...he's clever in many ways but politics ain't one of them lol.
The good news is that this saga is exposing the media for what it is...
"It is understood that a letter from the UK chief negotiator David Frost to Mr Barnier, sent on May 21, in which Mr Frost said he was “perplexed” by the EU’s refusal to offer Britain the sort of deal it had offered other countries, sounded the alarm bell for some EU members and made them realise just how risky it could be for the EU to continue marking time."
But seriously, nobody in the European member states gives a shit about the UK anymore. Either a deal happens within the framework of the earlier commitments or it doesn't. Nobody in the EU seriously thinks a no deal Brexit will be the fault of Barnier or his team.
It's nice to see though that the Conservative media is already insulating the Conservative party from criticism and fools lap it up like kittens drink milk. Good riddance.
My only difference with you is that I think the EU have been played very well by the UK government, that ultimately the UK government sees no deal as far superior to some half-baked deal that ties us to EU rules.I also think that the EU is on the path to its own implosion...but time will tell.
By all estimates it's about 3 times as large as the consequences of no deal for the UK. I wouldn't call that dwarfed by any measure.
Quoting Chester
The choice of words alone demonstrate you have little to no experience in negotiations. If you want a long term relationship, regardless of what it's going to look like, "playing" the other party is not going to help your own cause. Zero sum games are inane and a lost opportunity every time it's pursued.
I have a very low opinion of the EU and when you see that they will only give us a reasonable trade deal if we concede sovereignty to them, you should be able to see why. No other country in the world expects us to surrender any level of sovereignty in order to have a trade deal. Fuck the EU, it is clearly anti-democratic.
Because as I said before, no other country will accommodate the UK until they have sorted out their relationship with the EU first. At every stage the UK will have to go back to Barnier on their knees.
What an unholy mess.
Oh, it's all Banier's fault, or it's those lefties over there.
Now on 6th of June 2020, we have a speech by Michel Barnier, in which he points out in detail how the British negotiators are pulling back from the commitments in the withdrawal agreement past last December. That the withdrawal agreement and the commitments agreed and signed up to by both sides in its formulation, will form the basis of the EU negotiating position.
So as predicted the talks are going nowhere, the British side is conducting a sham of a negotiation, so as to blame the other side when no agreement is reached and we are heading for a no trade deal Brexit.
This morning Nissan said that if there is no deal, then its manufacturing presence in the UK would become unsustainable. This issue is widely regarded as the canary in the coal mine, whereby if Nissan pulls the plug, the whole thing will go up in smoke.
Somehow I can't see the government surviving to 31st December, or if by some miracle they do, they will sink shortly afterwards.
If Boris learned one thing from the Brexit negotiations last year it's that running the clock down focuses minds on both sides - and I suspect, his in particular. Expect much more activity as the October deadline for a framework deal approaches and Covid-19 pressures ease, but brinkmanship will be the main tactic again..
Is Brexit going to make the UK more powerful?
So in that spirit, I will answer, yes of course it will. Guaranteed. We will have all the easiest deals in history and a landmass full of Big Red Buses proclaiming how the original Big Red Bus was not only telling the truth, but was exactly perfect in it’s predictions, remarkably accurate. In fact, accurate to the penny.
After the German car makers have done a surprise above and beyond delivery of an EU deal that’s even sweeter than what was promised by Vote Leave, there will be nothing stopping the UK as those fantastically favourable international trade deals roll in for our liberated nation. Each nation around the world will be desperately trying to out-bid the other nations in their attempts to be the most favoured trading nation for the UK. It will be open competition of giveaway deals that are eyewateringly profitable to the UK.
This will power a renewed era of British expansionalism that will see the UK sweep the globe as a benevolent, highly respected super power. The respect for the UK’s social savvy will only be matched by the admiration that the world has for how cohesive and united our society is but towering above this will be the respect, globally for how completely uncorrupt we are, with nothing but fair play and not the faintest hint of collusion in tax avoidance, money laundering, dark money and criminal money anywhere near any British jurisdiction or dependency.
It’s only onwards and upwards from here. Rule Brittania!
Chester where are you?
The Rubicon was crossed at Barnard Castle, there is no way back now, no resignations, no apologies, no accountability, no sign of the Prime Minister. They can only accelerate, the closer to the cliff edge we get, the faster we must go.
*Gavin Williamson is the education secretary in the UK, presiding over the A level grade debacle. One of the Yes men in Johnson's populist government.
Well, if we're talking bonds, reneging on promises happens quite often with sovereigns. Takes about 3 to 5 years to win the trust of the capital markets back but that's often driven by the opportunity of profit. Institutional memories last longer and political gears move slower. If the UK follows through with this, it will sour EU and UK relations for at least a decade. Costs to be borne by taxpayers as usual.
So, China can do what it likes with HK then and the Brits can't use the international law objection any more. Bad move.
It would be a great novelty.
Apart from the economic meltdown, the loss of trust, status and integrity, the end of the United Kingdom is assured; I think even most of the Unionists will see that a united Ireland in the EU is preferable to an isolated UK in chaos and the inevitable hard border and associated civil unrest. And Scotland will follow, with Wales wishing it had suggested a United Republic of Fuck the English.
It seems not. I heard a DUP MP interviewed last night and his view was effectively that anything that strengthens the links between NI and the UK is a good thing. Whether the Unionists can keep hold of power is another thing altogether though..
What strikes me is the total lack of fuss with which the govt made this announcement. I remember too that a year ago Boris kept insisting the EU departure treaty he'd negotiated did not necessarily mean greater customs checks and paperwork between NI and the UK, when everyone else could see it did. So I think this new bill was envisaged even back then, and Boris never meant to stick to what he'd just signed..
We are still awaiting the EU response to the bill. It should be fun!
Yes, that would be a a real problem for the secret agenda to rid ourselves of that pesky province. But we have ways of getting the IRA to persuade the Unionists. Have a vote for hard border and troubles, or unification of the Island of Ireland with EU guarantees, and see who gets elected...
Very possible. I blame Cummings anyway. This is almost certainly his idea.
Ah, you mean the Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1302864160372527104
Also, from the House of Lordds responses so far to the new bill it seems very unlikely that the govt will ever get it into law, so it could all be academic. Are the EU aware of this?
Oh who could've possibly seen Bojo favouring no-deal coming at some point over the last few years. Not sarcasm at you, it's simply extremely frustrating to watch the almost inevitable unfold.
For me? Think it's a good idea. Whether I think it would be good for Scotland depends on how it's handled.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54145202
The House of Lords may block it. If not it looks to me like it will deliberately be delayed until after the Brexit trade talks are completed or collapse. Boris is going to hold it as an axe over Barnier's head in the talks. I'm not sure what happens if, as they're threatening, the EU take legal action against the UK govt in the meantime though..
It's an axe over his own head. Apart from EU sanctions that will cause economic and logistical chaos in the UK, Biden and Pelosi will scupper any possibility of a trade deal with Britain if he goes through with this. This has Brexiteers paying for a Trump victory, which won't help them as Pelosi is pretty much guaranteed the House. Stupid, stupid, Boris...
I'm not clear on the Good Friday agreement. The US Democrats certainly seem to be up in arms about it. In what way does the new bill threaten it? The Bill is intended to stop the EU imposing trade barriers between UK and NI, I'm not aware if it prejudices the relationship between NI and Eire.
Anyway, I think BJ is banking on the whole EU affair being tied up way before he needs to worry about finalising the US trade deal. Cross one bridge at a time..
Quoting Tim3003
Keeping it really simple, the Good Friday agreement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is the treaty that ended the civil war in Northern Ireland. It is founded on power sharing both within the province of Northern Ireland, (between Catholic Republicans and Protestant Unionists) and between the Irish and UK governments. A central plank is that there shall be no hard border between North and South.
This means that all matters pertaining to movement of goods and people need to be harmonised between the two jurisdictions.
However, the whole project of Brexit relies on ending the harmonised jurisdictions on just these matters between the UK and Europe. This gives rise to an immediate contradiction between the separate internal markets of the EU (including the Republic of Ireland), and the UK (including Northern Ireland).
Both sides are committed to a free internal market, and The EU in particular, needs to control its external borders.
Applications of fudge in the form of backstops, imaginary borders, and imaginary brexits, have failed to resolve or cover over this contradiction, and we face the prospect of a hard border followed by a renewal of violence and/or the breakup of the UK and the reunification of the Island of Ireland. I think that's about right, but maybe @Baden can make any corrections and add subtleties and complications ...
Yes, it could be said. I don't know what would be done and by whom, but I do know that the EU cannot leave that border open without a deal of some sort. They cannot allow, for example, US chlorinated chicken to flow across that border and compete with the higher standard chicken mandated in the EU. So the EU will probably eventually have to put up a hard border itself if the UK breaks its commitments to maintain harmony between North and South trade regulations. That's after punitive trade war on other fronts amounting to almost a blockade, I imagine. Blaming the EU is already the main policy of this government, so I doubt more blame will cause much anguish in the EU.
The new bill (illegally) breaks the deal the UK agreed too. That deal guaranteed an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It also put a border in the Irish sea. Again, the UK agreed to that rather than the options of a customs union, the backstop, or no deal. Boris put the border in the Irish sea because he didn't want the backstop and he called that a fantastic deal and he's now on an Orwellian Mission to pretend it's a horrible deal and this is somehow the EU's fault. It won't end well for him.
That's rather like saying if I go outside my family erects a wall between me and them.
Wtf? Time to rescue my cash!
Yes, Cameron was naive, he didn't realise how much anti-EU sentiment had been developing beneath the surface over the previous 12 years. He was Boyed up with the arrogance that he had won the Scottish Independence referendum and would win the Brexit referendum in the same way. There was little thought of losing it and what the consequence would be. It was a fatal flaw to leave to a simple majority, it should have been a super majority of 60%, or more for a win. Once the referendum was called the right wing populist machine went into overdrive and forced the vote through on paranoia, misinformation and false promises.
Now we have an equivalent to Trump in the UK, with the same worrying trends emerging. Even today it has been leaked that Paul Dacre the disgraced former editor of the Daily Mail, is being groomed for chairman of Ofcom. And a former editor of The Telegraph for director general of the BBC. With Government Ministers on the media this morning saying that it's time for right wing biased media in the UK. This administration is gunning for the BBC in a big way.
My take on it is that the economy has been in trouble since the financial crisis of 2008. People are starting to think of alternatives to free market capitalism, which has spooked the Conservative base and the big money backers of the party. They have all feathered their nests for a generation and now the rot has set in to the economy and the country, they don't want to give away any of their wealth to help put it right and the younger generation is turning left on mass. The Conservative party is heading for oblivion, which will allow socialists into office. Once that happens the game is up and the wealth will be clawed back for the good of the whole country. The solution in the eyes of these Conservatives is a lurch to the right with maximum acceleration of rightwing ideology and policies to force the country to the right and hoodwink the population into believing it is the only way to govern. It is high stakes and combined with the disastrous Brexit situation there is going to be much gnashing of teeth and upheaval over the next few years.
P.s. pasted from the Trump thread.
Uh...the World economy has been in trouble since the financial crisis of 2008, even if China and India have put respectable growth numbers.
Quoting Punshhh
You did have elections just last year, didn't you? How did those go?
I wouldn't say any party is heading for oblivion, as it just assumes that other parties will take their place without any effort. The political landscape and politics is far more dynamic and more complex than that in any country. If you think that younger generations are more leftist than older ones, well, they were so also in the 1960's and 1970's.
I have explained my reasoning for my conclusions in this thread about a year to 18 months ago. But to recap.
In the UK, the left right political divide has been, for the last half century or so, in line with a class divide. So the right wing is primarily the middle and upper middle classes, who are privelidged and dominate the establishment, hold all the wealth and to a lesser extent the professions, arts and media. The left wing has been bottom up from the working classes. There is some movement into privelidge and establishment from this social class, but it is limited. Also the majority of the working classes have improved their circumstances over the last generation and become more middle class. But they are still held at arms length by the traditional privelidged classes by an ingrained, largely unconscious, bias and code. Often based on where people live, what schools and colleges they went to etc. This may be the same in other countries, I don't know, perhaps you can help me there, but in the UK it is still very dominant and skews politics towards the right.
Anyway the financial crisis was blamed on the City of London in the UK, just as much as US banks had been blamed. The spell, the magic of British capitalism was burst, exstinguished, in the minds of many people in the UK and subsequently knowledge of what the privelidged classes in the City were up to is more widely known. Then we had 10years of austerity imposed by the same establishment that was blamed for allowing and benefitting from the conditions which caused the crisis.
The young grew up during this and are now impoverished by continuing inflation in the housing market, meaning only privelidged young can purchase property*, with the help of their parents. Also they are in debt when they leave university due to having to pay for all their fees and accommodation etc. critically this impoverishment has affected large numbers of the young of the privelidged as well now. This has resulted in an en-mass move to the left among the young, which is also enmeshed in the newly developed ideologies around combatting climate change and protecting the environment. Issues which are largely denied by the privelidged (largely over 50 years of age) establishment, in favour of more free market capitalism.
Also the Conservative party is not covering itself in glory at the moment and is becoming a laughing stock.
The problem with our recent election is that the alternative was possibly even more scary than the Conservative party. A Corbyn government would have been a radically left leaning government and there just aren't enough people in the population who could vote for that kind of radical change.
* this trend is exacerbated by the housing crisis in general in which young who don't own their own house are forced to pay ever increasing rent for small properties. Meaning they can't pay back their higher education debt, or save money for a deposit to buy a house.
And, knowing all this, the electorate handed the Tories in their most ridiculous incarnation a landslide victory, all because they hate brown-skinned people. I don't think the spell has broken, rather, in order to survive, it has had to divorce itself entirely from reality.
At least they didn't bungle up with economic growth when other countries in the West prospered. That would have been the thing.
Quoting Punshhh
This is actually similar to other countries, actually.
Quoting Punshhh
What makes the UK different is a deeper class divide than other countries, starting from even such things as the language/accent people use or even what sports they follow. British I think are very class conscious and not just the upper class. I think this might be changing though. And yes, it goes through party lines too this class divide. You could see this from Boris Johnson that he acknowledged humbly in his election victory that the conservatives had gotten "labor" votes from labor areas. Usually no politicians would make this kind of remark.
Quoting Punshhh
This asset inflation is typical in many countries and a result of the economic and monetary policies implemented after the financial crisis all over the world.
Quoting Punshhh
I think environmentalism broke through in the 1980's in other countries with Green parties. With tory and labor governments this might not have been so apparent in the UK.
Quoting Punshhh
This might be the real bungle up in British politics. Indeed, it likely would have been a moment for the conservatives to lick their wounds after a long time as the ruling party go to the opposition after everything, but the labor party itself get carried away.
In the UK it is particularly acute, the housing crisis has been developing for 40 years now with an end to any provision of social housing over this whole period. Not only prices being unaffordable, we have no kerbs on rental fees, which are strangling the young with debt. While many large properties have one or two old people living there. The young are really in a bad place financially and they are wary of trusting the Conservatives when they promise to solve the problem. Because they caused and presided over it for the 40 years.
It was not mainstream in the UK until Greta came along and Sir David Attenborough started speaking out more directly. Now it is widespread and there is little confidence that the Conservatives will make any progress in this direction.
Yes, there is a deep split in the Labour Party between the moderates and the radicals, which keeps coming to the fore and prevents them getting into office. They need a strong leader to break this curse, Blair did it and many people hope that Kier Starmer can pull it off now. God knows it's needed now.
And this tells a lot about how class based even British politics is. Because usually people who vote for a certain party are defined to be the supporters of that party. Not some people that are "just now" voting for them.
Quoting Punshhh
Add there the quite rapid population growth and economic growth being concentrated on few larger cities.
Quoting Punshhh
It is always the "extremist fringe" or the "traditionalists" that create problems to mainstream political party, which alienate a lot of people not closely attached to the ideological side of the party, be the parties either on the right or on the left.
Yet the old class divide may not work so well today. Simply put, all parties need to evolve as the society evolves in order to exist in the long run.
One British historian, who has written about the history of London, said aptly about how Britons feel about foreigners, which can be generalized to all people: "As long as foreigners are seen to bring money to the community, they are tolerated in Britain".
And this is true. Nobody hates the vast swarms of tourists as they bring money to the country, as they create jobs for the local population. Yet if the foreigners are seen to compete with the local population for jobs, immediately emerges a resentment against the foreigners which we call xenophobia (or racism, as that is so popular today). And worst of all, if foreigners seem to be literally stealing our wealth, it is likely we call them the occupiers, the enemy, and the young men are up in arms fighting them.
The historian thought that the English, or at least Londoners hadn't change much from the sixteenth century and from the times of the Evil May Day riots (in 1517), when the scum of the Earth foreigners were the hated Dutch. When times are bad, foreigners are the perfect culprit.
Tourists don't stay, and they also tend to be wealthy, respectful and support local businesses. Those who come and 'take our jobs' are the ones hated by the Farage mob. I see today Boris has marked out our lack of brickies, welders and butchers; and there are calls for the govt to lower the immigration restrictions for these occupations post-Brexit. Like all populists he's quite okay with contradicting his earlier views. There should already be some Brexiteers thinking: 'Hang on...'.
Brexit is going to provide sufficient vacancies for all the unemployed we will have from Covid, genius!
And if they would not be so, people would be against them. You can just imagine if the those tourists wouldn't spend a dime, but on the contrary would be begging on the streets. It wouldn't matter if those beggars would just stay a while and be replaced with others. You could briefly notice this during the German unification when the border between the East and West collapsed. The Easterners were naturally interested to see West Germany, but weren't the typical wealthy tourist. They filled the tourist attractions but ate from their own meager lunchboxes and didn't spend as normal tourists for the simple reason as they came from a socialist country. The West German shopkeepers etc. weren't enthusiastic about it. Hence, Mexicans wouldn't tolerate American spring breakers, if those youngsters wouldn't create income. And neither the Spanish wouldn't tolerate northerners on their beaches if it wouldn't support the local economy.
Quoting Tim3003
Quoting Punshhh
Especially the health care sector is the area where the country with higher wages becomes a magnet for health care professionals as they are in a permanent shortage as the population gets older.
Also, the simple fact is that in a prosperous society there simply are jobs that people won't take. Especially here where there is a tight social security net and welfare state: you will get perpetual unemployment benefits, the state will pay your rent and hence provide housing. People will start calculating if it's really profitable to work in a crappy job and have less free time, yet have exactly basically same amount of money to spend. Fruit picking is a traditional example of this, as the job is too difficult for low priced robots to do.
And finally it is a fact that much needed professionals are sought after everywhere. And if I recall correctly, at least in the 1990's if you could show that you invested enough pounds in the UK, you got your permit to immigrate to the UK immediately no matter where you came. Money talks.
Yes, I see the problem there. In the UK though social security is so low that it won't have that effect. The problem is more likely going to be due the people just refusing to do a lot of these job, because they think it is beneath them, or they can't do a day's physical work.
Also today Ursula Von der Layen, formally announced that the EU is taking the UK to court for legislating to break the withdrawal agreement.
Happy daze.
If the EU would be truly a Federation and controlled by a singular entity that would drive the objectives of the EU itself, it would be worse. Luckily it really isn't the US of Europe.
If a member decides to leave and this is somehow accepted, then the logical response would make it as utterly devastating for the leaving member as possible. Hence in the UK example, the answer would have been to say to Scotland that is totally free to join the EU and it will be considered as a member state already with the only requirement of being that as a EU country it has to treat it's southern border as frontier of the EU in every way.
That would have sent a message to every member state that "If you leave us, we promise we will rip apart your country by luring the richest parts of your country into the EU". With Italy it would be the north, with Spain, Catalonia (of course!) and with Germany, lets say Bavaria.
Also a well functioning federation would nip right from the bud any secessionist or exiting-EU ideas as so crazy that the people saying those kind of things ought to be in a mental asylum. Or if not there, at least they are inherently racist, nativist, violent skinhead types and simply deranged evil people. After all, how many know that there's a Texas Nationalist Movement? The state has already been independent and was recognized by at least Belgium and Netherlands to be an independent country.
Of course this didn't happen as the EU is still a semi-loose union of independent nation states. And member being independent states means that there is few if any control of the EU over them in the domestic political arena. As nation states control the EU it was Spain that was utterly panicked about the possibility of Scotland waltzing into the EU and creating an example for Catalonia to continue. Hence the EU gave the Scottish Independence a cold response without any kind of contemplation of an independent Scotland continuing with the all the agreements of the EU-Britain, which was what the Scottish nationalists wanted.
And from this example you can notice, that the EU as a truly functioning "United States of Europe" would be a far sinister player than it is now.
Good example is to compare present Israel to Apartheid era South Africa. Once for US the Apartheid system came to be a more important factor than having a Western ally in the African continent, things changed dramatically. For the white ruling class it was more sound to do away with apartheid than face the sanctions. Yet some international court or even the UN general assembly taking a stance on Israel's occupation of territories doesn't matter as the US stands obediently with Israel and Western countries are eager to trade with Israel.
In any situation the UK won't face something like the South Africe faced even from the EU member states. For example for my puny little country the UK one of it's largest trading partners, hence the country has absolutely no desire of punishing the UK trade... we've already have had the burden of limiting our trade with our Eastern neighbor because of the events in Ukraine.
With von der Leyen now self-isolating it is surely obvious that the deadline should be delayed, but there's no way Boris will agree to that, so we'll presumably get a rushed conclusion and likely a flawed deal. Or no-deal..
Assuming he ever was seriously seeking a deal.
Quite, I do think he wanted a deal, but only on unreasonable terms. He always wanted to have his cake and eat it. So it's just as likely that he has been signalling to the EU that he doesn't want a deal in his actions. Namely breaking the commitments in the withdrawal agreement and spaffing any trust there was up the wall. By now the EU will regard him as an entirely unreliable, if not duplicitous negotiating partner.
Officially over, yes. The 2 sides seem to have fixed positions and both are unwilling to move. But with 6 weeks still to go there is room for informal initiatives. It wouldn't surprise me if Boris is pushing it to the brink in order to maximise his own gain from miraculously pulling a last minute deal out of the fire. With the increasing hits he's taking over his Covid policies he's badly in need of a distraction. I bet he'd love to 'save Christmas' again..
Which is it?
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/who-killed-soft-brexit-eu-european-union-no-deal
@Punshhh thoughts?
He'll fold like a wet cardboard box.
Johnson is between a rock and a hard place. He would like to capitulate and reach a compromise with the EU, but he is hostage to the ERG and the perception that the amount of sovereignty that would need to be given away at the last minute to reach the paper thin deal, is to much to countenance. Better to cut free with a no deal and have pure untarnished sovereignty, no matter what the chaos that will ensue.
While there are a growing number who think that the Brexiters should be given their holy grail (clean break Brexit) and be made to own it. As that is the only way to lance the boil.
Yes, I occasionally veer this way, but obviously I feel bad for those who voted for Remain who are going to feel that pain.
Well I heard Peter Bone, who I think is ERG sounding quite upbeat about wanting a deal and expecting the compromises would be made. Anyway, with an 80+ majority Boris isn't in hoc to the ERG any more. A few zealots are standing up for the UK fishermen, just as Macron is for his own, but the money they make is so small compared to the no-trade-deal hit I can't see that swaying the decision.
Perhaps the moderates have won, it would put Frost in a difficult position.
Yes, we havent heard much speculation about the background to that. I suppose Brexit is the most likely one as Cummings was such a die-hard Leaver. Boris though is a pragmatic politician and knows when to accept a partial victory. He's had few even of those recently!
I don't think there is going to be a debate for much longer about whether the Scots deserve a 2nd referendum; just whether the govt can get away with not giving them one. But as Sturgeon says, it's a lose-lose situation for Westminster, as the more they refuse, the more angry and insistent the independents will get, and the more of the undecided vote will swing their way.
I wonder if I will... My mother's a Glasgae girl.
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2020/11/zenos-brexit.html
Interesting link in there to George Mombiot about the role of disaster capitalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/24/brexit-capitalism
Quoting Chris Grey
That’s a good question.
and chips...
My take is: the crime of anachronistic nationalism.
Yes, but that's just a symptom of the even deeper crime; fear and ignorance, one that man will sadly never find redemption from. Of course - and even more sadly - it's not a crime really..
It's a crime when it is engineered. Murdoch made sure that every 1 in 2 native English speakers in this world ends up a total moron by the age he or she can watch the tely.
"Engineered"? Murdoch simply sells papers by giving readers what they want, which is not challenging their ill-formed views and promoting fear of the unknown, but reinforcing them to promote outrage against the 'known' foreigners - simplistic stereotypes though they are.
"You can lead a horse to water..."
Engineered! The rich minority maintain their power by sowing dissension and setting the poor against the destitute, the slum-dwellers against the homeless, the Northerner against the Southerner, black against white, worker against sick or disabled, indigenous against incomer and so on and on and on.
Readers want what they are convinced to want and that is the basis of advertising, propaganda, and manipulation. And you know all this perfectly well and are spreading the same divisive propaganda yourself. Blame the people with the power and influence for the state of the world; blame the people who inform the ill-informed with simple stereotypes - blame yourself. Drink the water, leader of horses.
So they don't have the wit or desire to think for themselves. QED.
Twas ever thus I'm afraid. Doubtless you think Marx was right. Unfortunately he didn't understand human nature either.
Doubtless you think Hitler was right.
Reenforced at least, if not engineered. Manipulated. Lied to. Flattered and fooled. Day after day, for years.
Another ‘crime’ of the UK, in my view, the original sin happened in the seventies: the UK joined a project it did not believe in. It joined the European project not to support it genuinely and positively, but to avoid being left out. Their heart was not in it. Hence they never invested much cultural and political capital in it.
Yes. I think that was the price of thinking 'we won the war.' Britain was never humiliated the way the rest of Europe was, by invasion, defeat, or collaboration. The Swiss have the same problem. Still struggling to think we ever did anything wrong.
The rot set in with Blair because he was not one of them (ideologically). He endangered the project with his welcoming in of the workers from the new Eastern European members of the EU. This was then compounded by the financial crisis of 2008. Leaving the rump of the privelidged dangerously exposed. Their grip of the reigns has been slipping ever since, to the extent that they are now desperate.
This is evidenced in the possibility that Corbyn could have won the election a year ago. The Tory's took a huge sigh of relief when they won and dodged that calamity. Now they will have to reassert their iron grip. They are well equipped with the means of whipping the prolls and the prolls lap it up and buckle down again.
They are doomed to failure though and the Tory's are now imploding, they will lash out any way they can as they sink. The problem is as can be observed in the polls and when one talks to the younger generation, that they have no political support amongst the young and are not portraying themselves in a good light at the moment. Indeed, it has become a horror show, guaranteed to put off any young voter.
Once Scotland leaves the Union, all hope will be lost, for the privelidged classes.
Going back to why we joined in the 70's, it was a move to save our economy, as the sick man of Europe, we were in a desperate state and membership provided a well needed lifeline.
I know, but they are almost invisible in the media. I am unaware of any radically pro-European UK newspaper for instance.
You’re Swiss?
Didn’t know that. It’s a pretty good reason to join a trading block. And not to leave it I guess.
I'm inclined to agree, although I think it is is highly unpredictable in the short term. It will depend on the fortunes of the Conservative party, who are burning a lot of bridges and have little support from the young. Along with how it plays out with Scotland. Scotland may be knocking at the EU's door in only a few years time.
There will be a deal, no sweat. The failure would be too huge for either side to justify it. Both would be villified by their own supporters, and all their opponents. They'd be humiliated and taunts of 'resign' would be in the air. Only a few rabid Farragists would be happy.
Johnson might have a bit of a compromise in mind on the level playing field in state aid, but it's not going to be enough and only if the UK gets all the fish. Yesterday France came down solidly behind protecting their fisheries. Macron is under intense pressure from the right wing in France not to buckle on this point and he has elections in the summer.
If they don't reach an agreement by Sunday the UK parliament is to bring back the internal market bill, the bill to break the withdrawal agreement and a finance statement which will drive a wedge through any trust on Tuesday.
So no one can see anything close to a deal at this stage, while tempers are rising and a breakdown in talks is imminent.
If you want a sober commentary check out @tconnellyRTE, #TonyConnelly.
No sweat?!? I think there's literally buckets of sweat pouring out of the brows of a large number of people right about now.
Quoting Punshhh
So - this Sunday is the actual, final, drop-dead, once-and-for-all deadline. It seems there have been so many missed deadlines, so many moving goalposts, in this saga.
Boris will eat shit to get a deal and tell everyone how good the lobster was.
Well really the deadline is 10.59pm GMT 31st December, but it's not that simple, I've heard talk of crashing the deadline and softening up the other side with a bit of cold hard reality for a few months and then restart next spring, or summer.
The problem we are all going to have to face, is that Johnson and the government is disingenuous and can't be trusted to honour any agreement. So the EU is looking for cast iron legal text of sanction when Johnson reneges. Even with that and it happens the relations will continue to sour.
I'm guessing Boris isn't one of them.
Quoting Punshhh
Is this Sunday the final deadline? We'll see. 4 weeks are still left and it's amazing how seemingly fixed barriers can move. Still, the fact that Boris is getting involved is indeed a sign. Remember the Brexit talks? He stepped in at the last moment and pulled a deal out of the fire, basically by removing one of his own red-lines. It's true that his support among Tories isn't as cast-iron as it was then, but he's a risk taker, so it's a precedent I suspect..
We're going over the cliff edge.
This is what dampened optimism yesterday with the UK now accusing the EU of bringing new demands to the table, for once they are right. Suggests Johnson lost his rag during call with Von der Layen.
There is talk of the ERG buoyed by the sight of no deal, going for ripping up the Withdrawl agreement next so as to pay none of the agreed outstanding payments to the EU for ongoing projects and commitments.
The EU is feeling more cautious now as they realise that they are negotiating with entirely unreliable actors, who will say anything to get a concession and then backtrack later. They will not be bullied. There will be lots of shouting now.
Johnson has just taken a bite of the shit, but the're kicking the can down the road on the Northern Ireland issue. We may be back to 50:50, but I expect pushback from France and Co, tomorrow.
Pantomime. It all has to look like Boris is fighting the British Bulldog's corner and has pulled a stonking last-minute compromise out of the intransigent EU eggheads.
Well I would say that's the optimistic perspective. For me it's more like the politics before the First World War. We just need someone to approach someone with a poison tipped umbrella and its game over.
"Boris Johnson backs down by offering to drop law-breaking Brexit clauses
Boris Johnson has backed down and offered to drop the clauses in the Brexit Bill that would break international law, in a bid to break the deadlock in the talks."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-live-deal-boris-johnson-eu-b1767199.html#post-391971
"Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove has been reminded that he swore on his job that the government would not back down on the Internal Market Bill.
Hours after MPs voted to reinstate clauses which break international law into the Brexit bill after the Lords rejected them, Gove announced that it would drop parts of the legislation after reaching an "agreement in principle" on the Northern Ireland protocol.
The minister said he was "delighted" to have reached an agreement, meaning controversial parts of the Bill would be withdrawn.
The u-turn has prompted people to remind Gove of the comments he made on Sky News when the bill was first proposed in September.
Back then presenter Sam Coates told the Brexiteer: "This government is known, famed perhaps even, for its u-turns.
"Do you swear, on your job, that the government will not back down on this?"
Gove agreed with his remarks. He replied: "Yes, I made it perfectly clear to vice president Šef?ovi? that we will not be withdrawing this legislation, and he understood that, and of course he regretted that."
Yum yum...
I doubt they can smuggle it past the rabid dogs, but will the right wing rags throw those dogs under the bus, or support them to the hilt? Perhaps it's Murdock who gets to decide, rather than Blojo.
The right wing rags would suffer financially from Brexit too but, like Boris, they also gain by pretending
they're Turkey's who want Christmas. Both are up to their eyeballs in the same BS.
No quarter given on sovereignty!
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336403947163164673
Also Johnson will have to swallow the whole package from the EU, I can’t see him doing that. Although I can see him having a complete about turn in a few days time when the experts remind him how damaging and counterproductive no deal will be.
I see Johnson as a lazy clown who believes in nothing, and so will cave rather than deal with the destruction Brexit will wreak on the UK (which will also make him look like an idiot for his claims that a no-deal would be just fine). That's more or less the extent of my reasoning here. I could be wrong and he's more of a self-destructive ideologue, but I've seen nothing to change my mind yet.
So he may cave when the experts spell it out to him what a shitshow no deal is. I can go with that. But it will throw a lit match into the dead wood of his party.
Breaking news, Honda has shut down production due to importation delays. The show is already starting. I heard of three or four other stories like this today.
He's not personally affected by Brexit so there's nothing destructive about it. Blair is still around and making money despite giving support to the Iraqi war. It's just a job and since he's not there for the best interest of the country but because he craved power this will blow up. He doesn't care, like most Brexiteers.
No way. Boris is much more like Trump. He will do whatever it takes to hold on to power. If that means contradicting past policies, snubbing the right wingers in his party - as long as he thinks the tabloid readers see him as Winston Churchill - the saviour of Britain - and vote for him next time, he'll do it.
The analyisis now seems to be that the fisheries differences can be managed over time, and the level playing field simply needs an independent body to rule on future law changes by either party that lead to a divergance. This is not uncommon in trade agreements. So a deal is there to be done if both sides want one. Does Boris want one or the disaster of trade tariffs? Could he sell the 'taking back control' platitude to voters who'll see wholesale price rises, job losses and shortages in shops next year? No. But with even a compromise deal he'll still be able to sell Brexit itself as 'taking back control'. Some Brexiteers will moan he's sold out but they won't matter any more - certainly not by the time of the next election. That will do for Boris..
The emperor has no clothes.
I'm starting to share your pessimism now. Does Boris really think he'll keep the red wall voters Tory with the Rule Britannia crap about sovereignty in the face of tarifs etc? Is he really going to reject any deal rather than risk backing down on sovereignty?
It strikes me that the only reason the fishing issue has not been put to bed already is that the level playing field stand-off on its own would not be enough to satisfy the tabloid readers and Brexiteers Boris is pandering to. To justify no-deal he needs at least 2 good reasons, and 1 of them must be understandable to the layman. So the level of disagreement with the EU is being exagerated for public consumption.
Maybe his Churchill delusion is now overcoming his common sense..
The reality is looming......
The upshot of this is that Johnson has now lost control, he has played his last card (unless he has a card hidden up his sleeve with a fish on it). As this process pans out, it will be the EU spoon feeding the UK towards something sensible and the UK will become less and less able to dictate terms.
Expect at some point Johnson to throw a fish out of the Pram when the rabid dogs bite back, but the UK is now powerless and adrift in relation to the EU. And the boil hasn’t been lanced.
Otherwise, given how far apart and absolute the entrenched positions are, I fail to see how a deal can be reached. The climbdown needed by either side would be too large and humiliating, and would undermine their having pushed the negotiations this far.
Yes, the EU has that clown by the balls. Being a buffoon may work domestically but internationally it makes you roadkill.
Interesting interpretation here, suggesting that Johnson is hiding behind the bluster and looking for an opportunity to fold.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/boris-johnson-fold-brexit-negotiations-level-playing-field
Article outlines pretty much exactly how I see things. :up:
Is he a turkey who would vote for Christmas?
Don't know much about the internal dynamics of the ERG, but I suspect at least some of them are sick of this shit too and looking for a face-saving exit (and Johnson has close personal allies there like JRM, so there's that too).
I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
I don't think you can describe the level-playing-field as trading terms, and that's what the Tories object to. The EU wants to force the UK to follow whatever rules it has now or in future on govt subsidies, environmental, wildlife and labour welfare standards etc. I think the Tory view is bone-headed, but it's an entirely consistent one to insist that these are political matters and that if it's to be a sovereign nation the UK should have complete control of them.
That’s fine but then there will be tariffs to enter the common market.
I agree that some of it could be interpreted as political issues, but they all have affects on trade. Trade deals are very complex because they involve all the ramifications of various standards, regulations, state aid etc.
There is a particular problem evidenced in this negotiation caused by the hostile dishonest, caniving approach by one party, the UK. As a result there is very little trust and the EU, understandably wants every term legally binding. Particularly while the UK government states that it seeks to diverge from the terms when expedient to its own interests.
As one commentator said today, the level playing field is only problematic to a country which intends to lower standards, to deregulate, to diverge. If that country was intending to maintain high standards maintain good regulations and be cooperative with its partners, the level playing field would be no problem at all. There is a sliding scale here which has implications for trade.
Yes I agree. The UK govt has ruined the relationship with the EU, with that absurd NI lets-break-the-law bill (threat), which it has had to pull at the last minute. And no-one in Brussells trusts the ERG to maintain high standards when given the freedom to lower them.
That's why I said a few messages back that I can't see either side compromising at this late stage. Without trust the EU won't, and Boris cant with the ERG and Brexiteers yapping at his tails. I don't know why the 2 sides are still talking, except for the fact that neither wants to be the one to give up first and take the blame. That short-sightedness is making the Jan 1st cliff-edge even worse. I wonder if they'll carry on over Xmas?!
It's coming.
Ratification will feature when we reach the new year, as it is to late for full ratification now. So the contingency plans which the EU agreed yesterday will be implemented, unless an extension is agreed, which I doubt. Meaning that the terms become gradually more and more dictated by the EU. Contingency is wafer thin, so there will be a lot of chaos in January even with a deal.
For example, many hauliers are not planning to send any lorries come January.
https://twitter.com/DPMcBride/status/1339227869957005314
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1219/1185362-brexit-trade-talks/
This morning Barnier is going back to the EU leaders to float the idea of giving back 25% of access, up from 18% (scaling down over 10 years). I expect he will get a frosty reception.
Meanwhile Johnson would find it a hard sell to accept anything less than 80% ( scaling down over 3 years).
Both sides are unlikely to move any further than that due to the political costs at home. Some people suggest Johnson will fold at the last second, some the the EU will.
Wise folk find either possibility very unlikely.
All traffic across the channel has been stopped. This is due to the emergence of a virulent strain of the virus in Kent (near the channel crossings). The part of the UK which is going to have to accommodate many thousands of stranded lorries is going into lockdown. Meanwhile parliament has gone home for Christmas and Jacob Rees Mogg has effectively prorogued parliament by introducing strict rules in debate and voting restricting remote access for MPs.
I expect the top of the Conservative party will be either turning on each other, or in a blind panic. While our supply chains are going into catastrophic crisis.
Oh and breaking news, the talks have stalled and there won’t now be a deal by 1st January, meaning we will be going into contingency plans dictated by the EU.
There are two other possibilities, either there is some kind of extension of the transition period (being called for by all opposition leaders (nothing from Starmer yet) and Nicola Sturgeon). Or some kind of over arching bridging agreement directly from the EU leaders (not looking likely).
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1341054043792261124
Also there is the possibility that they are using the new variant as a pawn in a high risk negotiation tactic in the trade deal negotiations. By goading EU countries into taking strong measures against the UK and then painting them as trying to control, or punish us and creating the image of Johnson as our saviour. This works with either a deal, or a no deal. Also it creates a smoke screen of chaos, classic divide and rule tactics.
What confusion? Whose 'wide-spread view'? Look at the number of cases reported daily. Before lockdown it was around 23000. That came down to 16000. Now it's shot up to 35000. That increase cant be explained just by the end of lockdown. The fact that the new variant seems to have hit the UK hardest could be explained by the excellence of the UK genomics scientists, who have identified it faster than their foreign equivalents.
As for your second paragraph: twaddle.
The area of the UK suspected of having to deal with the new strain was in Tier 2 restrictions until 17 December. Which means basically everything was open.
My money is on human stupidity and lax rules.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/u-k-s-latest-brexit-offer-on-fish-rejected-by-eu-officials
That's what I see too.
Quoting Punshhh
Johnson folded and the EU said, "Non! Foldez plus!". French are playing hardball.
Quoting Punshhh
By 'using the new variant into goading...' do you mean somehow deliberately egging on the EU countries' individual bans on UK road export traffic, resulting in the tailbacks outside Dover? If so I fail to see how this could benefit Boris. All it does is give us a preview of the Jan 1st chaos, thus making everyone here more desperate than ever for a deal. If Boris fails to get one he looks worse, not better.
Either Barnier or VDL seems to be quoted every day as saying this is the crunch point. It's getting so that I just ignore them now. 'Crying wolf' it's called, not least because we know the EU is happy for the talks to go into 2021. If it gets to Dec 31st with a deal close Boris is going to find it very hard to insist on ending the talks at that point. Especially if we're still short of fresh veg etc. Another reason the current Dover chaos is bad news for no-deal supporters.
The one on the left is French.
Sorry, but this seems a bit too far fetched. But that's just my opinion.
If true, it would be the mother of all distractions or yelling "LOOK, A SQUIRREL!!!"
It’s win win for Macron, good for the French elections and defrocks a confrontational populist on the periphery of the EU. Remember he has grand hopes and plans for EU reform, this is his agenda and pushing back against the populists is key.
Full capitulation imminent.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1223/1186088-brexit-talks-latest/
Hey, it's Christmas. Maybe no one will notice!
You should move the US where unbelievable really embarrassing utterly crazy dangerous nonsense could never possibly happen.
The UK administration isn't similar to the Trump tirade. I think managing a country through a pandemic has been a burden for Johnson and if he earlier could be a "reckless" person in the conservative party, he as prime minister isn't one now. A true sociopath like Trump can (and will) stay the same, because Trump is utterly incapable of feeling responsibility. Putting a country again to a lock-down and dealing with the Brexit talks likely is overwhelming as just one would take all the focus of the administration to handle.
Of course any administration will try to portray the deal, any deal, that they in the end get as the best one possible. Yet there's no way now to take back all the rosy Brexit talk when the whole thing was just political discourse and not impending reality.
Yet the thing is, thanks to the pandemic the Global economy is already in the gutter, hence the feared "Brexit recession" felt only by the UK, which would have been the worst thing for Boris, will not happen. So might be a great time to do the Brexit, already thanks to the new pandemic strain UK is quarantined. So, what's a Brexit in all of this hassle?
Let's finally get over with it!
A no-deal Brexit is estimated to take 2% off UK GDP next year, and tariffs will have an effect for many years. Covid-19's effect is bad but hopefully only short-term; but + Brexit it'll be even worse.
You think this is short-term?
Why?
Just when do think the global economy will roar back to a state that nothing has happened? All those service sector jobs just magically reappear back again? This year is lost, totally lost. The US has unemployment levels only similar seen in the Great Depression. You think Americans are going to rush to consume in six months or so?
In a situation where 40 countries have banned arrivals from the UK (and think vice versa how it affects tourism to the UK), I find it odd to worry about Brexit implications. But I'm open to change my mind on this view. Perhaps more convincing argument is a combo of Covid+Brexit. That's a whammy!
Yes the pandemic gives Johnson something to hide behind politically. However economically the hit of Brexit is systemic and hits different sectors of the economy. Compounding the economic fallout. There will be a long term shrinkage across financial services, industrial investment and farming will need to be propped up. With Tory’s in power there is a suspicion that they will not cough up the money for the farmers and so they will suffer gradual decline as well. Although there may well be some growth in some areas due to the more global approach, I can’t think of anything at the moment. The government is talking up green technologies as a way to forge a way forward, but I can see their incompetence resulting in a failure on that one.
Yes, this year is lost, but assuming the vaccines are successful in bringing Covid under control all those restaurants and air flights will be required again by 2022. People's jobs (at least in the UK) have been fairly well protected by furlough, and even if not; people won't suddenly give up eating out or flying abroad for their holidays, so those industries will expand to take up the slack, re-employing many of those made redundant. I'm not saying everything will be as if Covid never happened, but there is no reason to assume it will have a permanent effect on longer term growth is there?
As for the banning of UK citizens travelling. This is a panic response. The French have already realised it's absurd. Nothing we in the west have tried has stopped the virus spreading so far. It's likely that the new strain is already far more widely spread than just the UK, but other countries haven't realised it yet. Anyway, there's now a new South African strain which looks just as infectious. Random mutations can happen anywhere, and likely there will be more yet. The UK is ironically suffering for having the world's best genome sequencing industry..
Britain was a very successful country for centuries before the European Union. Brexit doesn't make sense to me, but if all goes wrong and the worst happens, the chaos will pass at some point and the grit and brains which have long defined your people will succeed at adapting to whatever the new environment turns out to be.
If there is any value to Brexit, it might be to remind you of who you are in times of crisis. When everyone else was running and hiding and making criminal deals, you raised your middle finger and jammed it in the eye of the Nazis. That's who you still are.
Here in the looney colonies across the pond we are now counting down the final month of the Trump presidency. 29, 28, 27.... So we've had a contest to see which our countries could be the stupidest, and while it's not clear who won, there is light emerging at the end of the long dark tunnel.
It doesnt make sense to anyone who has any sense - except a few rabid right-wing free-marketeers. But then over here we are still scratching our head wondering how such an appalling human being as Trump could ever get elected! The sad fault with democracy is that its politicians often have to lie to win, and when they all stoop to it the most brazen liers win..
Less fish too than the fishermen wanted. Part of the advantage of announcing the deal just before Xmas is that no-one wil be able to plough through the 2000-odd pages too thoroughly before the Commons vote. I forecast one or two unwelcome surprises for Brexiteers when it is examined. Boris says no red-lines crossed. We'll see..
https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership/future-partnership/draft-agreement_en
Well, at least Dublin, Frankfurt and other smaller financial centers are very happy about Brexit, if we look for those who are the winners.
From 1st of October this year:
That's something like 1/10 of the assets managed in the City of London. Wonder how that impacts the economy of greater London.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal/goods
I think this is more to the point. Whilst trumpeting a not-as-bad-as-it-might-have-been deals for goods, the govt conveniently overlooks the 80% of UK exports that are services, not goods. The deal doesn't cover these.
Not sure about the figures re shifting assets though. Other than staff, what assets can you move overseas except cash? And with the internet nowadays cash does not really have a location - it can be shifted anywhere immediately.
I would think similar. I assume that it gives just a figure in the ballpark of the amount of assets now transferred to be managed under EU jurisdiction. London was such a convenient place for asset management, you know. Likely it's about portfolio's of institutional or private investors. You see, a hedge fund has still to have a home place.
Yes, we'll take your jobs and money. Thanks, Nigel. :up:
https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1344691904164855816
A. Gill (Sunday Times journalist and food critic) writing about Brexit before his death in Dec 2016.
“It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”
It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”
Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.
We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.
The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.
And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.
All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.
There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.
The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.
Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty
We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.
Nine out of 10 economists say ‘remain in the EU’
You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.
Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.
The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.
No time for walls: the best of Europe, from its music and food to IM Pei’s pyramid at the Louvre, depends on an easy collision of cultures
There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.
The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.
Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?
I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in.”
[tweet]https://twitter.com/alexbuxton/status/1344707831048634372[/tweet]
So it seems the UK production sites were in scope to deliver to the EU as well and Astrazeneca gave a representation they did not have any obligations to another party that would impede the complete fulfilment. Unfortunately, the timing and language of the delivery of the initial 300 million doses is partially blacklined and it's not clear what the latest date is for delivery.
The best reasonable efforts for astrazeneca allow for considerations of efficacy and safety. But that's not general efficacy but efficacy related to performance under the contract. Governing law is Belgian law. So you don't have a too literal interpretation and adjustments for reasonableness and equity by a judge if it would go to court. My estimation is that the representation is what screws Astrazeneca if this goes to court.
Anyway the value of the EU is as an overarching agreement of cooperation and unity among the nations of Europe. Without it Europe would still be beset with squabbles, rivalries and even wars. Imagine the breakdown in relations between Britain and the EU multiplied 27 times. This is why the EU was created and in spite of its overbearing bureaucracy, it works and is a good foundation from which Europe can grow in mutual cooperation.
:meh:
Wasn’t a big part of the rationale about ‘ditching the Eurocrats’?
Quoting Punshhh
Ironic, considering the noise that was made about it throughout the negotiations. Or maybe ‘irony’ is the wrong word.
Why is speed approving a new drug an "impressive" thing? I could approve anything with tremendous speed by just rubber-stamping it, would you be impressed?
I would think considering Boris’ track record on COVID to date, it would be better for him not to boast about anything connected with it.
Aye, I genuinely think they'd expected that ending freedom of movement would somehow only effect brown-skinned people. I mean, we're British! Surely we can do what we want!
Given that the EU has taken a month longer to come to the same approval of the Covid drugs as the UK did, they have probably allowed thousands more deaths than if they had started vaccinating when the UK did...
Quoting Punshhh
I wasnt saying the EU is a bad thing, merely that in the Covid vaccine rollout the UK has benefitted from being outside and free to move at a speed a large beaurocracy can't match.
The clumsy attempt at vaccine exit controls enacted and then removed by the EU shows it is rattled by its failures over this issue. As for the claim that all they want is transparency re vaccine exports - what happens if they do see Astra Zeneca exporting vaccine outside the EU ? Do they just ignore it? As the NI Unionists have said, for all the insistance on no hard border throughout the Brexit negotiations, as soon as the EU sees its own supply possibly affected by vaccine coming in From Eire it slams up a border. This casts Brussells in a very bad light. I wonder if Von Der Leyen will survive?
Obviously. But it's only possible to say that in hindsight, so it's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the action was right or not. Had there been a severe reaction, putting pressure on hospital services just at a time when they're already overstretched, it may have been the other way around and we'd be condemning the recklessness of the UK.
It's daft to judge the rightness of an approach which we all know was a gamble on the basis of whether that gamble paid off.
If I sent a load of people over an unsafe bridge to save money would my actions suddenly become right if, by chance, they all made it across OK?
I don't think the UK's medicine regulators would agree with you that they took a gamble..
Really. So you think they considered there to be a zero chance that an increase in the amount of time they took would have yielded anything. What reason can you suggest as to why, on purely scientific grounds, the regulators in Britain seemed to be of this view whilst the regulators from the continent not so. Is it something in the water perhaps? Something affecting the continental brain that they can't see scientific certainty of this kind?
It is understandable that the EU reacted the way they did, it is an extreme global crisis. The UK government has been just as chaotic time after time. Also the reckless act of forcing the Brexit arrangements during a pandemic has destabilised relations between the UK and EU. This sort of thing will keep happening in the chaos. It was inevitable that there would be some delays in the EU vaccine procurement due to the size and number of countries involved. Within an hour of the triggering of article16 by an EU official the Irish prime minister and Von Deleyen on a conference call cancelled the action and defused the issue. Preferable to the headless chickens we have on this side of the channel.
I expect Johnson to trigger the same article any day now as the tsunami of Brexit chaos breaks. Today there are port officials in NI considering closing of ports due to aggression from couriers stuck due to NI protocol, making them unworkable. Today leaders of the fashion industry wrote to the PM saying that they are on the verge of collapse due to a total lack of preparation of any kind of agreement enabling fashion shows to go ahead, alongside a mountain of paperwork, just like the musician and artist crisis. Also the EU has just slapped a ban on tens of thousands of tonnes of shellfish which UK fishermen had to freeze, because they couldn’t ship them fresh, from being imported to the processing plants in the EU. All this chaos is going to explode at some point over the next few weeks.
Brexit dividends.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/exclusive-eu-tells-british-shellfish-traders-that-a-post-brexit-export-ban-is-indefinite-not-temporary
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/58
"Richard Brooks has been on a pilgrimage to Kent to uncover the hidden chaos of Brexit; Tim Minogue reveals the unexpected downsides of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and Francis Wheen laments the departure of one of the Telegraph's finest hacks, who also happens to be the Chinese ambassador to Britain."
Good update by Chris Grey.
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2021/02/brexit-is-coming-apart-at-seams.html
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/the-digby-jones-index/
The trade situation is dire, small businesses are finding it expensive and with long delays, things getting lost etc, selling anything into EU. Larger companies are having to open warehouses, offices etc on the continent. Our imports are still not being checked, which is the only reason a lot of them are still coming in. Once they are following all the rules re’ imports, a lot will stop coming.
Good summary from Chris Grey.
https://t.co/MDaQlKMLNA?amp=1
The government is squirming.
https://t.co/8fcBLs2SQH?amp=1
It's typical of Boris to have signed up to something he didn't fully understand at the time, and now be trying to unpick the problems he stored up then. One day his 'optimism first detail last' philosophy will break him. As yet the voters haven't tired of him putting his foot in it. I predict the Covid-19 enquiry will add further weight to the case for his cavalier attitude causing problems. Maybe then an analysis of the number of unneccessary deaths will wake up the public and the chickens will come home to roost. But I wouldnt bet against him wriggling out of it. He knows the public cant grasp detail either.
Why does the EU have to back up from a deal where it's the UK breaking a promise the UK willingly signed up to? I'm not saying there aren't alternative solutions but it's up to the UK to offer an alternative that effectively meets the concern for which the original promise was made. If the EU just moves that is tantamount to inviting the UK to break more promises to get concessions from the EU.
The problem is that whatever the UK suggests it is shot down because it isnt sticking to the letter of the agreement. Fair enough. But in that case the EU has to come up with a way to stop the tension escalating among NI loyalists - either within the protocol or outside it; or take the risk of insisting on the letter of the agreement and incurring Biden's wrath for the riots that could follow.. This is Boris's tactic - sidestep the issue of what's just and force your opponents to negotiate an expedient fix via the threat of a bigger problem down the road. 'Realpolitik' it's called.
Meanwhile Johnson is making hay in his culture war and EU blaming at home.
The best strategy for the EU, as is best in dealing with a bully, is to stand firm on what was negotiated. Because to concede won’t improve the situation, it will only deepen the crisis. It would give ammunition to those who seek to legitimise U.K. position and sully EU position. By dragging EU into a dirty slanging match.
Observers know who is the villain of the peace.
And standing firm will? In what way is escalating tension in NI improving things? Boris knows he can simply blame riots on the EU for being intransigent. The Good Friday agreement is bigger than the NI Protocol. Boris knows this. Biden believes it. The EU may have to concede it. A face-saving fudge will doubtless be found in time.
You give Johnson an inch, he will take a mile.
Anyway, any alternative to implementation of the protocol is no solution. Except, for NI leaving U.K. and rejoining IRL.
Perhaps you can describe such an alternative?
Haven't we seen them passionately debate that side in this very thread when things were still moving? Just noticing that there are very few of them left now that everything is done.
There are also very few philosophers on this philosophy forum. The quality of logic is rare.
Yes, there aren’t any Brexit supporters now. I was being bold in my comment, party to flush out any Brexit supporters lurking.
Harsh words regarding the membership of a philosophy forum there. Surely there are plenty of amateur philosophers here.
It's an open forum where everyone can join. There are far more posts made by people who don't know how to form arguments by philosophical standards. The whole point of a philosophy forum is to have a higher quality discussion that doesn't end up being "just another reddit thread". I would still say that amateur philosophers should at least know the basics of philosophical dialectics, it should be the minimum requirement in my book.
Probably places like here and the halls of universities. But that doesn't help if there are thousands of people that just want to say their opinions and think that's philosophy. I guarantee that there's a majority here of people who don't know anything about philosophy, a minority of people who autodidact philosophy, and a fraction that are actually philosophy scholars.
But philosophical scrutiny should be applied to all. Regardless of the level of knowledge.
I thought the same thing. Then again, given the idea that pre-Brexit there were some but they've now disappeared I may have appeared (falsely) to be one myself! I find it interesting as an student of people and their motivations to dissect and argue the pros and cons of the issue from a neutral point of view. Those who cling to one side of an argument often seem filled with resentment and anger to me - as if cursing the world for refusing to realise they're right. If things really were so clear cut there would be no disagreements. Any familiarity with philosphy will soon convince even the most radical that there are no universally agreed truths.
Regardless of whether we're educated in philosophy or laymen however, I think that the use of the word 'philosophy' in the forum name is useful to put off would-be contributors who have nothing original or thought-through to say. No post of less than 3 lines should be allowed . :wink:
"Post-Brexit Britain should abandon the EU’s “excessively cautious” approach to regulation and light a bonfire of red tape to fuel economic growth, a task force commissioned by Boris Johnson has said...."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/15/post-brexit-britain-should-light-bonfire-eu-red-tape-fuel-economic/
Told you so!
In fact the train is shortly going to run out of track. Time to reach for the popcorn.
You have often spoken about this implosion of the Tory party as a cause of our ills. And I still don't understand the reasons for your conclusion, or your forecast that its effect will be so disasterous! Yes it's now the Boris party, just as 35 years ago it was the Maggie party. So what?
The Aussie trade deals shows post-Brexit Britain is outward- and forward- looking. Farmers may have reservations, but I've yet to hear any concrete reasons why the deal is very disadvantageous.
I think it's more backward looking than forward looking. We had deals with the old colonies before joining the EEC as was, and the economy was doing badly. The protectionist stand of Europe wrt agriculture was and still is advantageous. Free trade between fertile plains and rugged hills doesn't really work unless there is an underlying commonality to the economy, such as a common currency and tax system.
https://twitter.com/vivamjm/status/1405171792369627141?s=20
It feels as though we are about to go over the waterfall in a barrel. Just as we go into a third wave with the Johnson variant(Delta variant). Hold on tight and stock up on a few essentials.
A generation of anti EU sentiment had matured among a section of their base and the parliamentary party. There was a steady stream of these Euro skeptics out of the party in favour of UKIP. This was partly responsible for the growing call for a referendum. In reality Cameron had little choice but to call the referendum because of this split. We don’t know what discussions and rows were going on behind the scenes
Whatever happened in the party, though resulted in the party offering a referendum and then embracing Brexit, following the result. Theresa May was continually pressured by the ERG, indeed she appeared to be far more scarred of them than the opposition. However a majority of Tory MP’s were openly in favour of remaining in the EU. By this point there were open rows in the party about what kind of Brexit should be delivered. May and the ERG quashed this repeatedly, splitting the party further.
By this point the issue was becoming polarised, the party and the population began to divide into leave and remain camps and serious discussion and argument increasingly became less and less possible as positions became entrenched.
Pro EU Tory’s found themselves in a position in which they had no choice but to back the government, whatever the government line. While the direction of Brexit was being steered by a small group at the top under intense pressure from a fanatical ERG. A handful of Tory MP’s could not accept this authoritarian line and others were thrown out of the party, the rest just kept their heads down and blindly supported the government whatever the dictat. As May’s Brexit began to founder a group of hardline anti EU Tory’s split from the May government and started to form behind Johnson. They recruited the vote leave campaigners and began to employ the populism which they had used to win the referendum.
This is where the Johnson camp crossed the line into ruthless populism. I’m sure that many Tory MP’s looked on in horror at these developments. But they had already sold their souls to this Brexit project and again put their heads down and kept quiet.
The fact that the government is now riding rough shod over the principles, values and integrity of the Conservative party and embracing power driven populism is a symptom of this crisis within the party. If there were no such crisis, there would be no populist coup. Onlookers and I’m sure party members can see the integrity of the party being torn up, that it is dividing the country and storing up untold social and political problems for the future. But feel powerless, or impotent to stop or moderate this rampant power grab.
It seems pretty psychotic to me.
Edit,
I thought I would add this article, which lays out the populism which the conservatives have embraced. A political strategy which trashes their reputation and reliability as a good/safe pair of hands in Governing the country. MP’s and supporters of the party, to an extent, have gone along with this, others haven’t and others feel betrayed.
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/06/17/boris-johnson-and-the-rise-of-make-believe/
I agree with all you say, but as I said. It was once the Maggie party, now it's the Boris party. In time it will evolve again under a new leader. Look at how Labour party policy and ideology has flip-flopped under its widely differing leaders over the past 4 decades. I don't think we can expect our parties to remain set in aspic in such a fast changing world. When the public tire of Boris he'll fall and maybe Hunt or someone more moderate will re-establish the integrity and genuine political philosophy the party has lost.
I agree with you about the rebranding and that the Tory’s will regroup with a new leader and develop a collective amnesia for what has happened in the past. The reestablishment of one nation Conservatism etc. This is a cyclical process which rinses and whitewashes the Tory’s, occasionally having an opposition party in power for a term or two (but only a moderate one, not socialists), before the return of our rulers rebranded, clean and fresh, ready to put their safe pair of hands on the tiller again.
My point is that this time they have lost the plot and gone to far. You do presumably accept that this is possible? That a ruling party can go to far, can break the system and the established cycle. If you agree that there is this possibility where do you draw the line, beyond which the cycle is broken? For me it is the trashing, demonstrable on the ground, of the core principles of One Nation Conservatism.
These are (not exhaustive)
Pro business.
A safe pair of hands with the economy.
Levelling up (the inclusion of the poor, or deprived groups)
Managing a moderate/constructive capitalism, entrepreneurship etc.
An ambassador for the important position and role of the U.K. on the world stage.
Governance of the highest integrity, reliability and honesty at home and abroad.
Now all of these principles has been trashed over the last 5 years. Indeed we now have Boris laughing at us as he does it with that petulant grin on his face as he blusters and waffles it away.
As I say there are two main drivers of this destruction.
The embracing of Brexit,
The adoption of manipulative populism
Since Johnson has been resident in No10, the proroguing of parliament, lying to the Queen, the vilification of the EU. The chaos and lies in management of various crises, The lying in plain sight, the mass corruption and misappropriation of public money during the pandemic etc has hammered home this destruction.
Is this all going to be whitewashed away while Starmer has a brief stint in Downing Street? Somehow I doubt it.
Then there is the demographic time bomb. The young just don’t get the Tory’s anymore. The gravy train in which the young turn Tory when they feel a bit of wealth and financial comfort has ended, or at least been drastically reduced. Young people don’t believe the government on the their lies about green issues, levelling up etc. Both which are going to become big issues over the next few years.
The other prong of the demographic time bomb is that their base is dying off of old age. They rely on comfortably off retired people who are insulated from the failings in the economy. But every year they die off by about half a million.
I see their days as numbered and I’m sure they have seen this as a possibility, hence their selling out to populism.
Other than 5), I think it's a bit early to convict Boris of all these crimes. He's only been in power for 18 months, and that period has been totally unprecedented in peace-time history due to the pandemic.
1). Too early to say, given the pandemic.
2) As it's his own mantra, he deserves a bit of leeway - we have the social care paper coming out soon, so he says..
0) & 3) Again, hard to judge yet. What is your evidence to the contrary?
4): He would say he's doing that, his redefining of what that role is may not be too everyone's taste. I don't think anyone trusts him, but no-one believed the U.S. was just Trump...
The demographic time-bomb: if there's one difference between the young and the old politiclly, it's the young's greater openness to Green politics. He's making the right noises there; although, again, too early to tell if real actions follow them.
Since I've never been a Tory voter I don't feel the pain of betrayal that you apparently do, so my outlook is more measured. Where going too far is concerned, I'd say this govt is less extreme than Maggie Thatcher's in economic and social policies. Who was it caused the current housing crisis by selling off all the council houses? Not Boris. That one policy is as much the cause of your gravy-trainless young would-be Tories as anything.
On the issue of integrity and lying, peddling half-truths, lack of concern about means when the end is expedient, and ignoring fact-based arguments on the basis that the pleb-voters he seeks won't understand or care about them, then yes, Boris has gone too far. I think this will bring him down in the end. Trump has gone; Bolsonaro's in dire trouble. I even hear Marine Le Penn has now retreated from her rabidly anti-EU position. We will see how long populism can survive...
Going back to the numbered points, the effect of political decisions by Tory’s and this gov to deliver a chaotic hard Brexit in itself is anti business, destructive to the economy and has trashed our international standing.
For anyone who has a modicum of interest in politics, presumably it has become clear by now that Tory’s don’t care about the poor, the wealth divide, or reviving sink towns and areas. They’ve had 10yrs to address these issues and have made the situation demonstrably worse. Now we have all this debt from The pandemic, it is clear there is going to be a further round of austerity, which will hit those on median and low incomes.
You write about the gov in a way that the promises they make might have some credibility, that they might just do what they say. I understand this as it is how political discourse has been conducted for decades in this country. But surely by now you realise that these promises are laughable, especially on levelling up, global trade and Green issues.
I agree with your thoughts about populism, it always falls down when people realise it is built on hollow promises, lies and division.
There is an interesting thread here listing the emerging issues with the unfolding Brexit, just to give a flavour.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/1407936175885754373?s=20
Well how else is Boris going to win the next election? We agree that that is his overwhelming priority. If he just leaves a string of broken promises between now and then not even the most stupid voters will be fooled. It didn't work for Trump despite his willingness to bolster his promises by whipping up racist and leftist phobias.
Boris may be a lier but unlike Trump he's no fool. You can bet he has planned a strategy for the economic reckonning in the years ahead beyond just hoping people will forget. I think that by then he will have very little trust left anyway, so he'll be having to produce evidence for every claim he makes.
Too late, surely. When was the Conservative party last the steward of a strong economy? Certainly not Thatcher's 15% interest rate which killed investment and growth. And let's not forget that her decision to close down manufacturing and bet everything on a deregulated financial sector didn't work out that well in the long run.
The myth of the strong Tory economy seems to be entirely down to the older, broader belief that our superiors are more competent, a belief that survives all evidence to the contrary.
But it's conceivably much worse. The Boris economy is the same as the Cameron/Gideon economy, based on the principle that the purpose of government is to transfer money from taxpayers to friends. Can't be an improvement.
They might have been able to scrape by if Brexit had not happened. But now we have a chaotic hard Brexit it will compound all these problems and add a whole layer more on top.
He will increasingly become cornered into relying on raw populism, like Trump.
I can’t see any way back for the Tory’s for a decade, or more now. An opposition coalition will have to pick up the pieces and hopefully break the stranglehold of Murdoch et al and bring in PR.
I can see interest rates rising again now, I can’t see how it can be avoided. And with our over-leveraged population, this is a dangerous corner to find ourselves in.
Thatcher hated the very idea of an industrial strategy, sustainable or not. Hers was a laissez-faire policy; she believed that state interventions in the economy were almost always counter-productive.
Thatcher closed the coal mines - and devastated large parts of the north of England. One can argue, it was a sustainable industrial strategy, but I think it was about breaking the power of the unions - which is far from lassiez faire.
Sure, you could always see it differently, but this is at least what she was saying at the time.
Cameron said he was a Remainer. Politicians lie all the time. They say one thing and do another; so better to judge them by what they do. Closing the coal mines, and shifting to gas was justified in terms of sustainability, but as an intervention in the market - and destruction of the unions, it was not lassiez faire.
Hmm, and I thought you'd pick up on the interesting question of whether unions are consistent with lassiez faire economics - or, if not that, you'd deny that Cameron was actually a brexiteer. Y'know that, even no reply is a sort of reply, in effect!
Likewise the evolution of US style management ideology and its reliance on exploitation of employees for profit.
As a result we now have an economy and society ravaged by globalisation and deregulated business practices and offshore IT corporations. And stuck with an incompetent Tory party with only one strategy to remedy this situation, Austerity. Oh and further free market capitalism, now global. Which will embed the failure and crisis further.
Add to this rising interest rates and it could burst and this time it will not just be froth, but mass repossessions and bankruptcy.
It's been a joy speaking with you!
I'm leaving! Don't try and stop me!
Correct. But the question is why he wanted it.
One theory has it that he did it (1) to win the elections and (2) because he thought that the Remainer camp would win.
"Cameron had to promise a referendum on the EU issue. Without the promise of a referendum, Cameron would not have won the general election because a vast number of eurosceptic Tory voters would have voted for UKIP candidates. Cameron only became Prime Minister because he promised a referendum"
https://www.vernoncoleman.com/remaincamp.htm
"The departure of former Prime Minister David Cameron, a staunch Remainer, delayed the Brexit process from even beginning when the Tory leader announced he could not lead Britain through its exit ..."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1264069/brexit-latest-news-brexit-uk-eu-exit-remainer-boris-johnson-brexit-delay
I don't want to talk about it! It winds me up!
Anything else, Aplollodorus - elsewhere!
So France still has its nationalised services and social support in place. By contrast, here in the U.K. these have been starved of resources until they are in crisis, or have been shrunk to the point of crisis. On the alter of free market capitalism, or something.
The last time I was in France, I experienced this first hand, in a small way, but I was shocked by it. I was walking for the day and caught a train back to the start of the walk, in a small provincial town. As I walked into the station building, I was expecting to come across a ticket machine, but was surprised to find a person in the ticket office. I had been conditioned to think that such staffing had been cut due to cost cutting measures as in U.K. In the U.K. you would be lucky to find a ticket office open in a large town.
I would agree with you in regard of a number of Conservatives, although I had the impression that Cameron was a moderate. Although I would in hindsight consider that his and Osbourne’s pro EU mutterings might have been lies.
My experience of anti EU politics was from the eighties and early nineties through family connections. I didn’t fall for it and saw it as a prejudice alongside a naive interpretation of the EU. I also concluded that once infected with this anti EU sentiment, Tory’s would hardly ever reject it, only believe it all the more, on very little evidence, in a preference for spurious rumour.
I would echo the points made by Apollodorus, that it was the fear of the Tory party being torn apart by UKIP which drove the talk of a referendum. Also that the promise of one swung the 2015 election in Cameron’s favour.
It has been acknowledged by commentators at the time that Cameron, had expected to remain in coalition with the Lib Dem’s in 2015 and that the Lib Dem’s would block any referendum. And that Cameron was surprised at the size of the Brexit bounce in his favour.
I knew Cameron was a brexiteer. You only have to examine his political history - and it's completely obvious that he should never have been the spokesman for Remain.
He was a brexitter - holding the Remain camp down while letting his pals in the Tax Payer's Alliance run rampant with the Leave campaign. Cameron's media strategist - Suzi Squire, worked for Dominic Cummings at the Tax Payer's Alliance - and the TPA ran the Leave campaign. Cameron was in bed with the Leave campaign.
He provided for the referendum, made that impossible 'tens of thousands' pledge on immigration - "or vote me out." His renegotiation was doomed to fail from the outset - and as soon as he touched back down on British soil, a failure - he announced he would be the face of Remain.
Cameron lost on purpose for Remain. And I haven't even scratched the surface. The Brexit referendum was the most corrupt piece of political theater in modern political history.
Did you happen to catch the report produced by "a task force commissioned by Boris Johnson" recommending a "bonfire of red tape." Sounds so much better than "a race to the bottom on workers rights, wages, health and safety, food standards, animal welfare and environmental standards."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/15/post-brexit-britain-should-light-bonfire-eu-red-tape-fuel-economic/
Hate to say I told you so!
You didn't need to tell me. You're right, but I can't do this. It's done now, we may as well just get on with it. What you need to realise is - two things; first - that the EU accepted the withdrawal notice without a word of complaint on behalf of sixteen million of their loyal citizens. And secondly, the public voted for brexit at the 2019 general election. It is a fait accompli - forget it. Move on!
Move on to what? A bonfire of red tape - to undercut the EU, and further exclude British business from the second largest free market in the world? Sounds great!
I don't know. Globally, the US and China together are a lot bigger than the EU, and they're not at all keen on the kind of tight regulation the EU produces by the metric tonne. I mean - we'll probably kill the planet in the process, but at least our tomb will be decorated with gold!
That's some cold consolation! The EU was the ideal vehicle for tackling climate change. They had the ability to coordinate the policies of 28 nation states - including Britain. And now, we're racing to the bottom to compete with India and China - who are far more populous, and a lot poorer. Remember when Jeremy Hunt said "Britons will be working like Chinese sweatshop labourers"?
And that was before Covid! You've gotta laugh; if you don't you'll cry! What I've noticed is - that over the longer term, these things tend to pan out more moderately than the worst case scenario might suggest. EU businesses will want access to the UK market; and so reciprocally, will have to allow British business access to EU markets. It'll all settle down into some not quite satisfactory compromise, and we'll muddle through - at least, until the sky bursts into flames!
You and I are very much of the same mind; but I still think you need to let it go. Harbouring resentment over the conduct of the 2016 referendum - to get back on topic, is probably not good for you. The 2019 general election decided the matter! The public had the chance to vote to repeal Article 50 - and they declined. You can't argue with that. Anyhow, nice talking with you, but I have to split!
That was my line!
The U.K. EU relations will settle down and I expect we will rejoin the single market after a decade, or possibly sooner. For me this episode is more about a struggle for survival in the Conservative party, following the catastrophic failure of the financial crash in 2008. We are still reeling from the fallout and the financial bubble has not yet burst.
But, as is dawning on some of them, they have gone to far, lost trust with reality and destroyed the trust upon which the government and constitution is built. That this embarrassment of a government populated by Eton twits is a disgrace and has probably finished their party off for a generation.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you saying we'll rejoin the EU? Or gain free access to the single market? Either way, I don't think so. Listen to the speech of Guy Verhofstadt from the day after the referendum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJF0V2Z_soU
They were delighted to see us go, because we have a monarchy and a sovereign Parliament that made EU federalism politically difficult, if not impossible. Rejoining the EU would be entirely on their terms - and that would be impossible. The EU will now treat the UK as a third country; and their protectionist policies will work against us.
What makes you think Labour are EU friendly? Half the party are anti-capitalists - who view the EU as a neo liberal institution. Have you not wondered why Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, on the basis of a populist social media campaign, and £2 entryism - running in parallel to the right wing populism of the Leave campaign? And you think they'd sign up to full membership fees, to be bound by all EU laws, but have no representation in the EU Parliament, Council or Commission? I mean, never say never, but not in a million years! It was Corbyn's communist manifesto in the 2019 general election that scared the shit out of Tory Remainers, and forced them to vote for Boris's brexit!
A pragmatic approach to deal with the adverse effects of Brexit, which are beginning to emerge and will become much worse. I am suggesting an economic crisis for which the solution will only lie in greater economic alignment with the EU.
I can see Tory’s refusing to aligning, because power is their only modus operandi. Labour is more concerned with the health of the nation and we are about to step back into our shoes as the sick man of Europe.
As regards Corbyn’s manifesto, when voters are asked about policies in isolation they are broadly supportive of such policies. It was the perception of Corbyn as fed by the Murdoch press and Tory rags to voters. Not to mention the anti socialism we are endemically groomed and conditioned with from cradle to grave, which fed that perception. Culminating in the myth that Corbyn could not be trusted with the nuclear codes and that he would welcome in the worlds despots.
Because the EU was "in on it" in 2016; accepting the withdrawal notice without a word of complaint on behalf of 16m loyal UK EU citizens crying foul, I cannot see the EU taking any stance that would precipitate the kind of economic crisis that would force the UK to rejoin. You can see Verhofstadt's delight at removing the UK as an obstacle to EU federalism in the video posted above. So long as the UK can establish trade links around the world - and I see no reason why not, I think we'll be okay.
One of the things I love about politics is the paradoxical way in which, left wing economic policies are kinder to people - but ultimately, less economically successful. And right wing policies are harder, but it works. At least for a while. Then, after a while, right wing policies exhaust social capital - and Labour need to step in a reinvest in education, health and so on, until - after a while, the public debt is out of control and we need the Tories firm hand on the tiller again.
Problem is, Labour are in disarray. They still haven't come to terms with the fall of communism in the 1990's. Blair tried to re-root socialist values in a 'third way' compromise with capitalism, but the 2008 financial crisis derailed his program. Then Labour elected Corbyn, who produced a manifesto that went way beyond Clause IV - and they've blown any trust they had with middle England, and cannot win an election without that middle class vote.
That's quite aside from the red wall constituencies that abandoned Labour wholesale to effect brexit. And that again, is aside from the overly broad church Labour have created with these young, idealistic, politically correct Corbynites - that they could lose both middle England - and the young idealist constituencies, and the red wall constituencies in the north. If they don't get their act together real fast, Labour could be wiped out. Final thing - you say Labour care, but you seem to be praying for a disaster to befall us so that you can steal power for Labour. That registers with people.
https://twitter.com/CoppetainPU/status/1410727085903990784?s=20
The big farming issue around me is sugar beet. Seems they will soon be in crisis.
Or that Sunak announced yesterday that they have given up on seeking equivalence on financial services within the EU.
I would counter your assessment of left bad and right good on economic policy. It is right wing policy which has brought us to this point after all and which was responsible for 2008.
I do to have time to go into greater depth today, so can return to this later.
Indeed, and the railways are an apt example. I actually think the rail network in France is an asset for the future. But the price to pay for such a nationalized service is the power of the unions to stop the service.
I really haven't, no! I am very much "brexited out" after campaigning against it from 2015 through to the 2019 general election. I advised remainers to vote LibDem in 2019, but IMO, Comrade Corbyn's communist manifesto forced disaffected Tories back into the brexit fold. They couldn't risk voting Lib Dem for fear of the loony left gaining control. So, four years issuing warnings about phytosanitary measures, cross channel interconnectors, and a race to the bottom - I know where the tensions lie, but I haven't been watching the news for proof of my arguments. I rather hope I'm wrong. And like I say, over time - things usually tend to settle down into some middling scenario. Unless there's a pandemic or something! Then we'd really be in trouble!
The Brexit problems are beginning to bite and due to Johnson’s decision not to delay Brexit until after the pandemic, which was offered by the EU, has guaranteed a winter of discontent at the end of this year. His reckless boosterism is bound to become unstuck at some point. And the numbers of people who will never forgive him and his party is growing.
You would say that, but I remember Neil Kinnock twice unable to score past a very tired post Thatcher Tory government. Tony Blair ditched Clause IV; won middle England and three elections in a row for Labour.
Quoting Punshhh
I don't think people vote for anyone - I think they vote against; and do so primarily on the basis of their economic well being. If the economy is doing well - all is well. Or as Clinton put it - "it's the economy, stupid!" Tony Blair didn't cause capital flight. Corbyn would have, and people know that. Kinnock would have. People don't want socialism even if they value socialist values. That's why Blair's Third Way project should have been built upon - rather than swinging way out left in order to dupe a load of kids with starry eyed idealism!
Going back to the demographic shift, post 2008 the world and the economy in the U.K. has changed. The foundational pillars supporting the Tory’s have faltered. They have shown now that they cannot sustainably manage the public services, the Home Office, social care etc etc. Now they have thrown business and prosperity under the Brexit bus, just to neuter UKIP. They really are a busted flush.
Talk to a young person, someone who has recently qualified to vote, what reasons there are to vote Tory?
We used to say that the young are ideologically to the left until they feel a bit of wealth, success, own their own home. That they turn Tory to maintain that level of comfort. How many of our young (now) are going to reach that degree of comfort?
Enough to deliver a Tory government? On the assumption that they are a safe pair of hands?
https://t.co/wS92ePJqYu?amp=1
“ As the BBC’s Home editor Mark Easton put it, it is “the paradox of Brexit that taking control of your borders requires more international co-operation, not less”. That doesn’t just apply to control of borders, of course. It exposes the entire fantasy of a sovereignty that can be exercised without regard for that of others, and the lie inherent in the ‘take back control’ slogan. It really is time that David Frost and Boris Johnson understood this, but there’s absolutely no sign that they will.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/28/business/brexit-fuel-food-shortages/index.html
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/panic-buying-drains-britain-s-petrol-pumps-in-brexit-fuel-crisis-20210927-p58uyy.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/24/food-petrol-shortages-brexit-goods-johnson-botched-deal
The truth will out.
@Punshhh agree?
Hope he's ok.
I’m fine, I’m insulated from Brexit fallout. I came to the forum today as this week is going to be important for the future relations between U.K. and E.U.
Lord Frost is getting ready to put an ultimatum to the EU tomorrow. There’s been lots of talk of a trade war with the EU over the past few days. Tory’s are ebullient in their brinkmanship, however they may be arrogant in thinking that the EU won’t turn the screws. There is talk in Brussels that it is time to hang U.K. out to dry for a while in the hope that it will bring them to their senses.
U.K. government is actually in chaos, scared of their electorate and being thrown from crisis to crisis. The E.U. Has been concerned for the U.K. economy and people, rather than seeking to punish U.K. in some way.
Major high energy use industry is on the verge of collapse due to the gas price having risen 10 fold, the government is still in denial about the depth of the energy crisis. To start a trade war at this point would throw the country into turmoil.
Watch this space, Chris Grey is worth a follow for a sober analysis.
https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/status/1447260026767396870
His blog from a few days ago.
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/
With the twin crises of COVID and Brexit, we are staring at an economic rollercoaster ahead of us. With a deluded, incompetent government in denial of the depth of the issues coming home to roost day by day.
Like a slow motion car crash, it’s difficult to avert one’s gaze.
Come again? :D
It was clear the EU would have to abandon their stance of 'you signed it, so it must be fine'; which they did in the light of NI citizens' complaints of course, not the UK govt's. Boris can chalk that up as a minor win, the EU as a climbdown..
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/brexit-means-brexit-theresa-mays-slogan-was-truer-than-she-knew
But the UK economy was well fucked to the extent that cash limits were set on foreign holidays because the currency was nosediving. We had already gone from being the richest economy in the world to this parlous state and Europe eventually rescued us. It's the period of history that Brexiteers forget or ignore in favour of the good old days of Empire and children down the mines.
In a way Brexit has just showed the consequences of a globalized economy then made to de-globalize. The effects are easy to see...in hindsight. The root cause is that nobody defends globalism, hence either right-wing populism or left-wing populism (that can happen too, take the case of Venezuela as the example) takes over and simply creates a far bigger mess than was to be solved in the first place.
With Brexit it's partly the same as with COVID-19. Suddenly implemented huge restrictions basically cause these complex delivery systems to falter, which are the true foundations that globalization depends on. The basic problem is that the business environment made to focus on the next quarter just looks at what is profitable in the next quarter, again an idea for a globalized world. Hence with travel restrictions for example whole fleets of new passenger aircraft with long service life ahead were sold to scrap. To simply have the planes sitting on the ground and to move them a bit that the tires won't become flat was deemed far too costly. As if to rent or simply make make a concrete/asphalt parking area would be too costly for planes that is basically costs 100 million dollars to replace per item. Better to scrap the planes, get the recycling money and have no worries about the basically planned frenzy for new planes...and higher flight fares of today and tomorrow.
Perhaps a better example of this insanity can be seen in the markets when oil price went negative: people were literally giving money to people take physical oil, because naturally they weren't actually thinking of having the physical stuff, but just playing in the casino with the resource.
Brexit was this kind of experiment with populist democracy that simply made underlying problems apparent: that the UK had relied on a large foreign workforce. Brexit, In my view, was the dear child of the UKIP where then opportunist tories jumped on the populism train.
Wasn't Brexit about this? (Perhaps on the background there ought to have been a mass of truck drivers...)
Perhaps to defend the EU or any economic integration, we should simply shut all trade between countries for a month or two in the winter and then put the populist nationalists to solve the problems by purely domestic solutions. Because...globalization and free trade are so bad. The multi-national corporations are so evil. So when poorer people literally start seeing hunger and rationing food is implemented when in other places the problem is how to get rid of the produce before it becomes a safety hazard, we can all rejoice how good it is to be self reliant and buy only local produce. And how bad globalization and economic integration is.
I do think though that there we’re issues with high rates of immigration between 2004 and 2016 and this made it easy for UKIP to employ xenophobia. However there were solutions to this issue without leaving the EU, but it would require competent government to achieve it. Tory incompetence wasn’t up to the job.
Well, they were not so incompetent to lose the elections. Which likely they can thank the opposition.
If someone can be gloomy it is Tony Blair and the Blairites, who are (I guess?) still bitterly opposed in the labor party. So bitterly opposed, that the Labor lost the election when by all means it should have won. As if social democracy that speaks to the masses and wins elections is so bad. But of course, idealists don't care about what other people think, because they are right and everybody else is wrong.
Of course, now it's other people in the leadership of the Labour party.
I don't know what you mean by this; mainly because I don't know what a tax loss is.
Similarly, if the government want to remain popular while ripping everyone off, they need a second party that people can vote for when they get fed up with being ripped off, that will rip them off even more. It's called 'democracy', and it's a very smart wheeze.
I'll still be disillusioned.
Vacuous, rather than centrist. Obviously labour is divided, and Corbyn is an old school socialist. And the other half is Tory-light and campaigns for the tories whenever there is a socialist trend in the labour party. Michael Foot got the same treatment.
Minorities can rule because they prevent solidarity amongst the poor. They infiltrate and undermine, they sow dissent, they foster racism, and factional disputes. This is how the i% controls the 99%. Don't over-personalise it.
Is a solution to live simply, to not get involved, and to abstain from voting?
No thanks! The UK does not want to fall further into US popularism. The greatest benefit of the system in the UK is that people care about the policies and expect parties to present their plans in plain language. One of the main failings of the US system is the complete lack of policies and/or any cohesive plan.
I have always found it shocking that in the US ‘candidates’ can just use empty rhetoric without even the slightest attempt to show any plans or implementation of said plans.
You think UK politicians are short on empty rhetoric? Like 'get brexit done.'? Our prime minister's declared policy is to have his cake and eat it. Don't vote for lies and bullshit. Don't vote for dishonest greedy politicians, and if you do it once by mistake, change your vote next time.
My point was that in the US the whole system is run on sensationalist stories in the media circles and based on the characters of an individual rather than an actual plan.
I think willfully siding with a system that looks towards popularism rather than policies (which is at its heart what you are suggesting) is a wrong turn.
That is all. You don't have to agree.
I'm not, but let's drop it.