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.
Like putin, he's the human equivalent of that strain of dog shit that just can't be scrubbed off one's shoe. I can see him sticking around for a while yet.
If I were a betting man I’d bet on Putin outlasting Johnson. From what I’m reading he might be gone within a week. Really it’s extraordinary how little substance the man has, he’s depiction of the ‘amiable but cunning buffoon’ regardless.
Reply to sime Yes, but they’re a bad look. Just the kind of thing that riles the public, who will ignore more substantial issues that take some concentration to understand.
'They' ( conservative MPs) are debating quietly when to make their move. What no one wants is a leadership contest that The Cunt wins, because then he is safe for year. So are the numbers stacking up now, or do they wait for.... whatever, the Met report, the Gray report, possible prosecutions, the next scandal, a wave of mass starvation, WW3?
Reply to unenlightened well they better do it before they (the conservative party) become the 'boris johnson party' - like the republicans are now the trump party :sad:
This is the only thread where Boris Johnson is discussed so it seems an appropriate thread to post news of the no-confidence vote against him. As I write this, the vote is still some hours away but the commentary seems to indicate that he's in serious peril. And, from everything I've gleaned, bloody well ought to be. :brow:
Reply to Wayfarer It's rare for a conservative leader to actually lose a vote of confidence, but for most not winning by a large margin is enough to make them resign fairly quickly. However, Boris is another matter. I have even seen the suggestion that if he scrapes a win, he might call a snap election and lose all his detractors their seats, in a political mutual assured destruction gesture - Après moi, le déluge. The is very unlikely, but an unedifying attempt to cling to power is quite on the cards. There are a couple of by-elections coming up that he is set to lose too, and that will be concentrating minds, so it is just possible that he will actually lose the confidence vote outright. (This is an internal party vote not a full government vote in which the other parties also get to vote.)
The killer for Johnson is that Brexit is unravelling. It could only have worked for Ireland if we had basically a free trade deal with the EU, that May negotiated, and that's what Boris was brought in to prevent. Unfortunately, the other alternatives turn out to be either a trade war with Europe or a return to civil war in Ireland, or both.
Johnson won 60/40 - near enough; and now he's safe for the next 12 months.
In theory. In practice, he's an election liability and the Tories are likely to find a way to get rid before the next election, which means in the next year. There is no way they want to get to election year with a new no-confidence vote looming.
Reply to Benkei Bring back monarchy, at least there's a chance of getting a decent leader.
How? They cannot have another no confidence vote for a year. They knew this when they voted today; they chose who will lead them into the next election.
They can change the rules, or push him under a bus; or 'exert some pressure', as they did with Thatcher and with May. I don't know how it works, bribery, blackmail, brainwashing?
Johnson has won that particular battle, but according to many accounts, will lose the war. Commentator just now recalled that Thatcher and May both lost the premiership shortly after winning confidence votes.
It's a shame, because at least some of Johnson's recent moves have been commendable, such as his forthright action on climate change and his full-throated support for Ukraine. But he really does seem to be a pathological liar and - how to put it - not a man of sound character.
some of Johnson's recent moves have been commendable
No. His moves are always and solely directed towards his own image and his own status.
[quote=Hannah Arendt]Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.[/quote]
Reply to unenlightened How much hypocrisy can one maintain without being rotten to the core? Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree (excepting thee and me, of course), so are they rotten just in spots?
How to distinguish between rotting and fermenting? She's rotting into slime; I'm fermenting into wine.
Reply to Bitter Crank Thee and me can see our bitterness, and our unenlightenedness because we are not entirely dead to another being. Thus we feel our hypocrisy and are ashamed. Rotten to the core is dead to the other and comes to believe their own bullshit. Shamelessness is the key to saying sorry, admitting fault, admitting being wrong, without remotely thinking that such things ought to be consequential except for the purposes of manipulating others. The hollowness is all there is.
But you should probably ask Hannah - I say what I see, and she was looking at something or someone (I think similar) in a different world.
When I saw Jacob Rees Mogg has a prominent ministry in the new Truss govt it dawned on me that we now have the true Brexiteers in power, and we're seeing what they really wanted to happen after winning the referendum. First the tax cuts to draw in overseas investors; next will come the cutting of red tape (code for workers' rights); the immigration doors are on their way open to anyone who can contribute money or talent. One unfortunate fly in the ointment is the death of the US trade deal Brexiteers trumpeted when Trump was still around. Another (connected one) is the NI protocol impasse. The Tory membership were clearly not smart enough to vote in a possible election winner (Sunak) rather than a no-hoper (Truss); but it's not the first time they've made that error (see Clarke vs Duncan Smith..) I've yet to see political commentators make the point, but now we're going to see the Brexiteer reality of post-Brexit Britain. Keir Starmer is probably smart enough not to use the B-word against Truss's heavies, all he needs to do is keep quiet and pick up the next election..
Keir Starmer is probably smart enough not to use the B-word against Truss's heavies, all he needs to do is keep quiet and pick up the next election..
I think the UK should get passed Brexit finally and tackle the present problems. It has been a nice thread, but Brexit is so Elizabethan. You already have some young Britons that have never lived under Elizabeth II's reign.
There can easily come a new "winter of discontent" with the inflation and all the problems. Then conservatives MPs have gotten so rowdy that they can think of change the prime minister if they don't like the person, which tells about their hubris.
I think labor can win the next elections. Assuming if Labour politicians don't do something insanely stupid, go hyper-woke, attack their traditional base and go ideologically full Marxist. If they really try, they can push their supporters to vote some other party. Yet, I think Sir Keir Starmer doesn't look like to declare himself non-binary and veer the Labor party even more to the left than Jeremy Corbyn.
A "return" to Thatcher and tired neoliberal policies. What a pity. But the Tories might as well go all-in while they can, before they're booted out a la 1997. Hopefully you don't end up with another Tony Blair. Starmer seems like a joke, but anything is an improvement over Truss.
javi2541997September 28, 2022 at 04:48#7430230 likes
He was one of the few brave politicians who critized Elizabeth II openly and publicly saying: the British monarchy needs a lot reforms according to modern world.
unenlightenedSeptember 28, 2022 at 06:48#7430280 likes
I think the UK should get passed Brexit finally and tackle the present problems.
Unfortunately, there is no getting past Brexit, hence the slogan 'Get Brexit done'. The Irish question cannot be resolved. As long as North and South were in the EU, the border could be open and thus demilitarised, and the EU functioned as an overseer of fair play. But separation entails a border, so the options are the breakup of the UK and reunification of Ireland, or the imposition of a manned border and resumption of civil war. The current fudge of a paper border in the Irish sea pleases no one and and cannot be sustained forever.
So no deal with the US at least while Biden is king. As far as I can see, the scheme is now to bankrupt the country and move to Panama or somewhere more conducive with the takings. There is no attempt to deal with the crisis at all.
Report from UK. I just completed a Government questionnaire for small businesses about data protection. Question 2 was: "Do you process any data outside the EU?" Answer: "Our data-processing happens inside the UK. The UK is outside the EU. Hadn't you heard?"
Unfortunately, there is no getting past Brexit, hence the slogan 'Get Brexit done'. The Irish question cannot be resolved. As long as North and South were in the EU, the border could be open and thus demilitarised, and the EU functioned as an overseer of fair play. But separation entails a border, so the options are the breakup of the UK and reunification of Ireland, or the imposition of a manned border and resumption of civil war.
I wouldn't see it on such dramatic terms.
I think the EU itself ought to look at this from a new light. OK, so the Union has now an ex. Yet it's an ex that everybody actually still likes. For example, for my country the UK is a very important trading partner. Hence the new "ex" should be approached just like other non-EU countries, like the US or Canada (or Norway), where good relations are an objective for the EU also. There's still so much to be done together with the ex, just like taking care of security issues, which just cannot be forgotten. The EU simply is in utter denial, if it thinks this ex of it's doesn't matter anymore.
For the EU the stance that "I don't have anything to do with you now after we broke up" simply doesn't cut it.
For the EU the stance that "I don't have anything to do with you now after we broke up" simply doesn't cut it.
The EU has never said anything like that, though. It is the UK which is separating, and not taking their relationship with the EU seriously enough.
As for NI, there's no way out of the dilemma highlighted by @unenlighted. The best and simplest solution in my view would be to reunite Ireland.
unenlightenedSeptember 28, 2022 at 14:49#7430970 likes
Reply to ssu I'm with @Oliver5. The EU has to have some control of its external borders; We could have agreed to stick with the single market, but we didn't, we could have stuck with the customs union but we didn't, we could have stuck with free movement but we didn't. And now there is complaint that because we don't want to cooperate on any these issue, the EU insists on having some checks on the flow of goods into its territory. How very dare they!
(I think I might have to change my handle to 'undelighted'. )
And now there is complaint that because we don't want to cooperate on any these issue, the EU insists on having some checks on the flow of goods into its territory. How very dare they!
Ok.
How about the border between Finland and Sweden and non-EU member Norway? If I move to Norway or a Norwegian moves to Helsinki, the only thing I have to do is to change my address. That's right, no applications, no passports, no permits needed. No control at the border. After changing my address, then tax officials notice it and I'll start to pay taxes to the new country where I live.
The EU-Norwegian border hasn't been a problem. Absolutely none.
Why?
Because Norway is part of the European Economic Area, the EEA.
This was an option that was thought about in the case of the UK, but for some reason, this wasn't OK for either UK or others. Perhaps being a member of EEA would have been too much for the Brexiteers, I don't know. So you ended up with a clean table. That's the problem here.
Indeed. The EU has so far tolerated a country that has chosen not to be a member of EU not being a member of the EU. Even the UK is finding it hard to tolerate itself not being a member of the EU and the UK is the country that left. I suppose we should remember that it was equally intolerable when the UK was a member. A lot of crockery was flying around and the shouting bothered the neighbours. But at least we were together. Sort of. Ever Closer Union and all that.
javi2541997September 29, 2022 at 18:12#7434200 likes
But at least we were together. Sort of. Ever Closer Union and all that.
Brexit completely disappointed me in terms of democracy. How can a country like UK what fought for the allies has left and countries who cause World Wars (as Germany) remains? Wow
I'm very fond of Germany. But I don't want us to get married. Lisbon was putting a ring on it and somehow it seemed too big a step. I voted to stay in the EU but I think it's better as a practical flatshare rather than a joint mortgage.
Indeed. The EU has so far tolerated a country that has chosen not to be a member of EU not being a member of the EU.
It's not like they had any choice in that matter of course. (In addition, some pro-Eu folks do actually agree that the UK never really belonged in the EU, not the way other members try to belong and contribute. Why then not separate agreeably if you can, like in a divorce based on mutual agreement, to use a metaphor you seem to like?)
What I meant was that all during the protracted (read endless) negotiations, the EU tolerated inordinate amounts of crass incompetence, dishonesty and political shallowness from over the Channel.
crass incompetence, dishonesty and political shallowness
Oh, you know what we're like. Doing the metaphor to death, perhaps they thought their love could change us? It should always have been just a practical arrangement. Getting on in life and thinking of the family and being faithful is not really the UK's strength. If you want a no-rules fight or you suddenly need a bunch of money no questions asked where it came from, the UK is the boyfriend to have.
some pro-Eu folks do actually agree that the UK never really belonged in the EU,
I remember an interview with an academic shortly after the 2016 vote who said that 'The UK is currently in but half out - no single currency, no Schengen, rebates - and after this is all over it will end up out but half in.' I can see that happening.
Doing the metaphor to death, perhaps they thought their love could change us?
Thanks for that pearl and the chuckle. And it's true: certainly the EU project is transformative. It's meant to reconnect folks in a broader and more consensual narrative for instance. Hence the 'EU speech', a parlance replete with notions of togetherness and solidarity that all continental politicians can speak. It doesn't mean they all mean it all the time, it can behave as a mantra, a pretense even. But enough of them mean enough of time that the project goes on.
I remember an interview with an academic shortly after the 2016 vote who said that 'The UK is currently in but half out - no single currency, no Schengen, rebates - and after this is all over it will end up out but half in.' I can see that happening.
There's a lot of wisdom packed there., And perhaps a bit too much wisdom. We should remember that Brexit always has been and remains an irrational project, not one based on a cold calculus of risks and opportunities, but a protest, a desire for something else, for something more out there, an irresistible élan towards one more glorious, heroic, perhaps hopeless act of sheer irrationality. An attempt at jumping in the unknown.
Understood as inherently irrational, Brexit or some of its features become strangely easier to understand.
The NI protocols for instance the UK trying to have its cake and eat it too: the UK ought to be both a unitary state from a regulatory standpoint, and honor its obligations in the Good Friday agreement for a lack of hard border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, all the while creating a hard border between itself and the EU, of which the Republic of Ireland is a member.
That is an irrational expectation. Which is perfectly normal and to be expected in a wholly irrational process.
The NI protocols for instance the UK trying to have its cake and eat it too: the UK ought to be both a unitary state from a regulatory standpoint, and honor its obligations in the Good Friday agreement for a lack of hard border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, all the while creating a hard border between itself and the EU, of which the Republic of Ireland is a member.
You have put your finger on something that I do really care about. As for half-in, half-out, we can work it out in time and if we'd stayed in there would still be grieving and rows and crying to leave just as now we've left there is still crying. Oh, but Ireland. When I think of our Michael Gove telling us that there would be a virtual border managed by technological wizardry - and then threats of violence in Liverpool and Belfast - and my goodness, these people are not playing with delays at Dover or with logical curiosities, they are playing with lives and terror.
I used to play a game when listening to interviews with politicians. I would draw a quick sketch map of the islands from Ireland to the Channel Isles and then from listening to what the politician said I would try to draw the border between the UK and the EU. I never managed. All fine, till I got the Irish Sea. Then dotted lines and question marks everywhere. As far as I know it's still like that.
d my goodness, these people are not playing with delays at Dover or with logical curiosities, they are playing with lives and terror.
Why yes. The EU and its predecessors were/are a peace building project, meant to ensure peace at last in Europe after two world wars and zillions other conflicts of old. And it has been reasonably successful in doing so. It follows that undermining the EU entails a very real risk of rekindling old conflicts like the one in NI.
From a modern historical perspective, UK's colonisation of Ireland is a rather awful story, of which NI is a remnant. It would make a lot of sense for the UK to give up NI, allow Irish reunification, , repatriate a few orangists, and call it a clean slate, a new begining.
Pending such a radical repair of the historical injustice of colonisation, the UK could try and make the agreement with the EU work, by aligning economic regulations in NI with those in effect in the Republic of Ireland. This requires a 'hard border' in the Irish Sea. A bitter pill to swallow but it's the only alternative.
allow Irish reunification, repatriate a few orangists ... 'hard border' in the Irish Sea.... bitter pill to swallow
I am afraid that the bitterness would not be blows to the pride of politicians or unionists or even the nations but violence on the streets. I think the pill to swallow slowly over time will be the fiction that there is a UK / EU border. Endless protraction of protocols, crass incompetence, dishonesty and political shallowness may work in this case, too, but it's a situation the UK should not have created. The UK did not have to sign up for ever closer union, QMV and the rest and it is not the only country with tensions between national and European identities. Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, for example. Grexit crisis. This is not a simple case of an isolationist Britain versus all the rest.
This is not a simple case of an isolationist Britain versus all the rest.
Technically speaking, Brexit was precisely about the UK vs all the rest, and note that the 'rest' stuck together during the negotiations.
At a deeper, political philosophy level, I see it as clinching to the past in an overly irrational way, as explained. And sure enough, every country has its traditionalists and blaming Brussels is always convenient. But you guys really lived your isolationist dream.
note that the 'rest' stuck together during the negotiations
Sure. Nothing brings a family together like a common enemy. To revisit the old metaphor. But the tensions remain and anti-'ever closer' sentiment is a political theme throughout the union. I was thinking about our conversation today and an old Thurber cartoon came to mind - man to wife - 'Well, who made the magic go out of our marriage - you or me?'
Just rolled a cigarette and please to see the 'E' symbol for weight guarantee is on the packet. Not sure I'd trust UK measures...
But the tensions remain and anti-'ever closer' sentiment is a political theme throughout the union. I was thinking about our conversation today and an old Thurber cartoon came to mind - man to wife - 'Well, who made the magic go out of our marriage - you or me?'
I don't consider the "ever closer union" as actual policy. European integration has been stalled for two decades, its electroencephalogram is flat. It just phraseology.
The real policy is more something like: "When it's really important, we can come together. Or not."
Every polity has problems, in final analysis.. There's no such thing as a perfect political system. So yeah, the EU has plenty of issues. The real question is not whether it's perfect, but whether it's better than what was there before or what one could go back to. And if yes, whether and how it can be further improved and respond to emerging challenges.
Same with the UK. Ain't perfect by any means and some Scots want out. So the polity has to reform and improve, or it will become obsolete.
At a deeper, political philosophy level, I see it as clinching to the past in an overly irrational way, as explained. And sure enough, every country has its traditionalists and blaming Brussels is always convenient. But you guys really lived your isolationist dream.
I would point out another dimension to the Brexit debate. That it was also about an existential crisis within the Conservative party. The majority of the British people had no concerns with EU membership before they had their ears turned by disingenuous politicians.
The accession of Eastern European nations in the EU in 2004 did result in a large influx of EU workers into the U.K. It was poorly managed and provided fuel for populists, who had emerged from the Tory party. This is when it became a live issue.
Reply to Punshhh I agree the expansion eastward was too quick. But history called, and the EU answered something, something they were confortable with: markets.
javi2541997October 03, 2022 at 04:15#7443100 likes
Reply to javi2541997 Maybe slow down the expansion, based on more stringent criteria? Or maybe the expansion was the only choice not to miss the "historical moment" of the fall of the USSR. I don't know.
javi2541997October 03, 2022 at 06:35#7443350 likes
Reply to Olivier5 As I see it, it wasn’t that expansion which caused the issue in the U.K. It was the total open door policy without any organised provision of housing, services infrastructure to accommodate the newcomers.
This resulted in exploitation by gang masters, community tensions and immigrants retreating into sink towns. All good breeding ground for populists.
@Olivier5
[quote=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7230/]The objective of “ever closer union” was retained in the Preamble to the 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty):
Resolve to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.[/quote]
Well, perhaps it's just sweet words. But not to many people. 'Ever closer union' means that if you're not already as close as you can get, then you can get closer. And for States that means being the same State. Under what circumstances do two different things become one thing? Can things become ever more similar without becoming the same thing? This is the metaphysics of Brexit.
The real policy is more something like: "When it's really important, we can come together. Or not."
We start with shared vision and no more war and common purpose. Now it's 'let's do it if it suits us'. So Brexit is not so much an aberration as just one side of a tension that runs through the whole project. We have that in common with the USA. I submit my case.
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2022 at 09:05#7452700 likes
So Brexit is not so much an aberration as just one side of a tension that runs through the whole project. We have that in common with the USA. I submit my case.
I don't see much sign of the US breaking up. My theory is that Brexit is a manipulation of the xenophobic tendencies and imperial nostalgia by the disaster profiteers who have taken over the conservative party. The market manipulation continues with the disaster budget. Expect more crises. It would have been so easy to make a deal with the EU, by simply agreeing to the trade rules - but no, we were so desperate to have the US's chlorinated chicken and fake cheese. But then we couldn't even make that deal, because we 'forgot' the Irish border. I say sabotage!
The market manipulation continues with the disaster budget. Expect more crises. It would have been so easy to make a deal with the EU, by simply agreeing to the trade rules - but no, we were so desperate to have the US's chlorinated chicken and fake cheese. But then we couldn't even make that deal, because we 'forgot' the Irish border. I say sabotage!
I'd say Right-wing fanaticism rather than sabotage. But the Truss disaster illustrates the fallacy of the whole concept. The question is whether Brexiteers and the new PM can hold fast to their no-immigration policy in face of chronic labour shortages, and the no-EU-trade-deal if the N.Irish Unionists keep on suffocating the NI govt. The labour shortage is masking the loss of EU-export-trade jobs too. Unemployment is surely going to surge next year.
Boris is for tax rises to placate the masses. We know that; but it's not Tory, so can he win? Maybe Sunak can chart a middle-way, but the Tories are so split I doubt even an economic upturn can prevent him losing the 2024 election. Only then can we get a fresh start and work out a realistic vision of the future.
A good documentary. Shows just how long it takes for the effects to be noticed
Shouldn't there be some time limit to causation? I haven't heard of cases where a man hit on the head 50 years ago pressing charges against the assailant for a brain hemorrhage now.
Reply to Benkei There are bigger problems than Brexit at the moment. All public services and a lot of sectors are in crisis, or collapsing. Brexit adds a bit to this, but this failure along with economic failure is more as a result of a decade of austerity followed by the pandemic.
The idea that Brexit was a mistake is spreading, which is now a majority view. But neither of the big two political party’s are talking about any attempt to forge closer links with the EU. Both ruling out rejoining SM, or CU.
Shouldn't there be some time limit to causation? I haven't heard of cases where a man hit on the head 50 years ago pressing charges against the assailant for a brain hemorrhage now.
This is a Philosophy forum, so you know that causation isn't structurally related (or confined) to time, especially a time limit.
But politicians use extensively (or abuse) the short memory of the public. Hence policies that didn't work the last time can be used again in the same fashion, when it's just old people or historians noticing that the present won't work because it's already tried.
(A very important thing when you have stagflation and negative real interest rates, btw.)
Agent SmithFebruary 07, 2023 at 06:49#7792010 likes
Reply to ssu :up: So, if there's no time limit to causation, the Brexit problem could be due to Queen Victoria' policies!? :chin:
Reply to Agent Smith You then should convince us just why Queen Victoria's policies have still effect today, and having more effect than for example the decision of the conservative party of the present holding a referendum on the issue thinking it won't get the reply from the people that it did.
Simple as that.
And I would think the prime ministers and the leaders (political and economic) and their policies and decisions would be more important as Queen Victoria wasn't an autocrat.
Agent SmithFebruary 07, 2023 at 07:37#7792080 likes
You then should convince us just why Queen Victoria's policies have still effect today, and having more effect than for example the decision of the conservative party of the present holding a referendum on the issue thinking it won't get the reply from the people that it did.
Simple as that.
And I would think the prime ministers and the leaders (political and economic) and their policies and decisions would be more important as Queen Victoria wasn't an autocrat.
Does Queen Victoria not have a legacy? All powerful people leave their mark on the country or so I hear. I dunno! :confused:
Someone who has a time of age named after them surely has a legacy.
But how much of that is of her political decisions is a different thing. I assume that later Elizabeth II's reign will be talked about the Elizabethan era too. Especially if Britain in the time of the current and future monarchs is very different.
Agent SmithFebruary 07, 2023 at 09:58#7792220 likes
Someone who has a time of age named after them surely has a legacy.
But how much of that is of her political decisions is a different thing. I assume that later Elizabeth II's reign will be talked about the Elizabethan era too. Especially if Britain in the time of the current and future monarchs is very different
Well, in line with your beliefs, I'm inclined towards a no-time-limit view of causation (re chain of causation). Intriguingly, if I'm correct, some things become effectless i.e. their causal power diminishes with time to zero.
Perhaps we could take a more nuanced approach and talk about remote and proximate causes of Brexit. Let's meet at the halfway point, eh?
For such complex event as Brexit giving single reason is simply stupid. Remote/proximate or major/minor reasons is the way to go. And of course, it's the questions one asks that define what you answer.
unenlightenedFebruary 07, 2023 at 11:34#7792300 likes
Perhaps we could take a more nuanced approach and talk about remote and proximate causes of Brexit. Let's meet at the halfway point, eh?
I suggest a single "Elizabethan age", subtitled "the age of Empire" to stretch from Liz 1. to Liz 2. Brexit is the thus the last gasp of Colonial sentimentality and the final end of British dominance in the world, orchestrated by the same buccaneering (rapaciously exploiting) spirit that built the Empire in the first place, turned full force on the populace and accumulated wealth of the mother country.
Agent SmithFebruary 07, 2023 at 11:38#7792330 likes
I suggest a single "Elizabethan age", subtitled "the age of Empire" to stretch from Liz 1. to Liz 2. Brexit is the thus the last gasp of Colonial sentimentality and the final end of British dominance in the world, orchestrated by the same buccaneering (rapaciously exploiting) spirit that built the Empire in the first place, turned full force on the populace and accumulated wealth of the mother country.
Brexit is the thus the last gasp of Colonial sentimentality and the final end of British dominance in the world, orchestrated by the same buccaneering (rapaciously exploiting) spirit that built the Empire in the first place, turned full force on the populace and accumulated wealth of the mother country.
How is joining (and then exiting) the European Union the last gasp of Colonial sentimentality I don't understand. But you are right that during Elizabeth II's reign the last traces of the British Empire, and the aspirations for that empire came to an end. The reign of Charles III is really the post-imperial UK, even I would put the final nail was put into the coffin of the Empire in the Suez crisis.
The buccaneering started in 1066. A thousand years of empire.
You put so much on the shoulders of ex-vikings, the Normans? The invasions for Ireland started only in the 12th Century and I don't know just how English were the Norman and the Plantagenet kings were.
And I'm not so sure if English rulers would have been less bellicose if Harold Godwinson would have won the battle of Hastings. But the English surely have fought nearly everybody anywhere, yet drinking that cup of tea and all the polite English manners makes them not seem so bellicose as they actually have been in history. (For some reason it's the German who get the bad reputation.)
unenlightenedFebruary 11, 2023 at 09:56#7800490 likes
How is joining (and then exiting) the European Union the last gasp of Colonial sentimentality I don't understand.
Joining was an attempt to create a new European Empire, and when the French and Germans refused to be subserviently grateful for our presence, they became an oppressive bureaucracy responsible for holding us back. It's the same thinking that considers our independence from Europe is a great boon and natural right, but Scotland's independence from England is insulting and unthinkable. It's all sentimentality, and that's why it has the consistency of porridge - thick, but easily stirred.
Joining was an attempt to create a new European Empire, and when the French and Germans refused to be subserviently grateful for our presence, they became an oppressive bureaucracy responsible for holding us back. It's the same thinking that considers our independence from Europe is a great boon and natural right, but Scotland's independence from England is insulting and unthinkable. It's all sentimentality, and that's why it has the consistency of porridge - thick, but easily stirred.
I think you shouldn't overestimate this. First of all, even if they were the eurosceptics right from the start in the Conservative Party (starting with Thatcher), the Conservative Party (and the Labor Party) have actually been for the EU and EU membership until Brexit happened. It's this unfortunate miscalculation that the Conservative leadership made that the Brexit vote wouldn't go the way they planned and give the opportunity for the populists and for the people to give a finger to the elite.
Besides, I don't think that there was so much hubris among the British politicians when joining an organization like the EU that they could walz in and take control: The UK had been in the UN and other organizations, so the idea of the UK taking the control of EU was a silly, idiotic idea.
This isn't imperialism, this is basically the English attitude of seeing them apart from the "Continental Europe". You have to be filthy rich like Norway or the Swiss to tag along yet not be a member. And apart from I guess France and the Benelux countries, every goddam EU memberstate feels being apart from the EU core. Germany has it's own problems in the closet, for Spain and Portugal Brussel's is far away, so is this for the other Southern European countries, the East European countries and the Nordic members of EU. Us versus Brussells is an universal attitude, not something just in the English mind.
And actually the British Brexit example has shown many European countries how stupid the "independence" is from the EU, how much workforce integration there already is and how the positive aspects of EU membership still do outweigh the negative aspects.
javi2541997February 11, 2023 at 13:32#7800810 likes
And apart from I guess France and the Benelux countries, every goddam EU memberstate feels being apart from the EU core. Germany has it's own problems in the closet, for Spain and Portugal Brussel's is far away, so is this for the other Southern European countries, the East European countries and the Nordic members of EU. Us versus Brussells is an universal attitude, not something just in the English mind.
:up:
It is true that thanks to Pedro Sánchez, Spain has been in the core of Brussels’s interests or at least more visible. Nonetheless, we are aware that we are not so important as much as France. But it is better being in the club than outside. We accept that thanks to EU, Spain experienced a big development and I am thankful, even I wish EU organisms control us rigorously because our politicians tend to be corrupt, inefficient and incompetent (at least, more than the rest)
unenlightenedFebruary 11, 2023 at 14:00#7800850 likes
so the idea of the UK taking the control of EU was a silly, idiotic idea.
I agree with your analysis of the political thinking. But my explanation is of the failure of that calculation. Idiotic ideas are the rule for popular thinking; the mantra, "take back control", is still being recited. that is the same idiotic idea. Independence good - isolation bad: trade deal good - harmonisation bad: and so on. Membership makes good economic sense, but has been trumped by xenophobia. Idiotic for sure, but actively fostered and exploited by the Conservatives for decades.
You put so much on the shoulders of ex-vikings, the Normans? The invasions for Ireland started only in the 12th Century and I don't know just how English were the Norman and the Plantagenet kings were.
And I'm not so sure if English rulers would have been less bellicose if Harold Godwinson would have won the battle of Hastings.
I go back to that event because for most of that thousand years those Norman baron’s colonised and controlled British society. It did fade into the aristocracy in recent centuries. However we still live very much under their legacy. And their direct decedents were and in some cases still are major land owners.
It’s not so important who they were, but more that the reigns of power were held by this group for most of our recent history(post 1066).
But it is better being in the club than outside. We accept that thanks to EU, Spain experienced a big development and I am thankful, even I wish EU organisms control us rigorously because our politicians tend to be corrupt, inefficient and incompetent (at least, more than the rest)
We here don't have that problem with our politicians, they aren't corrupt, people feel they are simply just incompetent (in what democracy people wouldn't feel so?). Ordinary folks think that our politicians are far too naive and the "South-European countries" simply fuck us when it comes to financing the EU budgets, especially the Greeks with all the assistance they have gotten.
But it should be totally evident to all that European countries are so different mentally and economically that the idea of a real federation, just like with the US, isn't going to happen. Yet as a confederation of independent states, which it actually is, it works quite well... starting with the fact Europeans usually have been fighting each other.
unenlightenedApril 02, 2023 at 10:29#7948470 likes
[quote=Keith Hart]Brexit needed to be placed in the context of the UK's violent, sometimes revolutionary history since its foundation 300 years ago; that what happens after the UK breaks up has been the primary issue ever since the collapse of empire, not Europe as such; and that there is a creeping constitutional crisis on many fronts, focusing on parliament's prerogatives, the monarchy, the house of lords, the voting system and centralization of everything in London at the expense of the regions, so that the main political issue, after Scotland's secession and the reunification of Ireland, will be and already is to some extent, decentralization and a new federation for the ex-UK. Britain is now in some ways the most unstable major polity in the world.[/quote]
Anyone knows if this poll is real? Because I tried to find it at: Poll Results | Omnisis and it doesn't appear.
unenlightenedApril 11, 2023 at 19:12#7983250 likes
Reply to javi2541997 That is the ring of approximate truth you have there, from what I hear. But it ain't going to happen, because the EU is well rid, and DeGaulle has been proved right that the UK is not capable of equal partnerships. The EU was a bit of a brake on the rabid right, it turns out, despite being all about capitalism and markets.
The details are in VI 28 and can be downloaded by statistics nerds on the omnisis site above.
Reply to unenlightened Thank you for sharing your view. It is palpable. To be honest, I wish for a friendly relationship between the UK and all European countries because we share the same problems or crises: inflation, stock out, Russian threat, young generations, etc...
I mean, it is not the time to put borders on or increase rivalry among us.
On the other hand, I am aware that it is not only on the UK's side, but Brussels's too. Both sides need to understand each other.
Spain and the UK agreed that it is necessary to reach an agreement on this point and establish a pacific relationship in Gibraltar's post-Brexit era.
Spain aspires to create a zone of shared prosperity with neighboring "Campo de Gibraltar". According to London, the two have agreed on the need to reach an agreement "as soon as possible."
I do not know what your thoughts are on Gibraltar, or if you folks care at all. Yet, it is important to highlight how both democracies want to resolve this issue diplomatically.
That's how discrepancies should always be resolved.
I thought Brexit would cause a strained relationship between both. But no, this didn't happen and I guess it is due to the fact that our democracies are mature.
Inconveniences (e.g. traveling, moving to / studying in the EU, other difficulties)?
Daily life changed (e.g. jobs, prices, availabilities)?
New freedoms not as originally thought (e.g. rash decision, bregret, less influence on the EU)?
UK security concerns?
...?
The 2024 United Kingdom general election is today! Are you ready, mates?
Most of the opinion polls say Labour will win a large number of seats. Let’s see what happens.
I think my first reaction to the result is not to emphasise the victory of the labour party, but more the quite astonishing rise of the small parties. If you are not familiar with the electoral system of the UK, we have a 'first past the post system', and this massively favours there being 2 parties. So, for example, in my local constituency, labour won the seat comfortably with just over 33% of the vote. I think the figure nationwide is about 34%. So labour have won two thirds of the seats with only one third of the votes.
Given this situation, the fact that there are over 100 third, fourth, fifth party and independents is highly significant. I hope this will persuade Labour towards some electoral reform. but I doubt they will see that it is in their interests, as one of the big two.
So, for example, in my local constituency, labour won the seat comfortably with just over 33% of the vote.
Let me guess. Your constituency is Chatham and Aylesford. :smile: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jul/04/uk-general-election-results-2024-live-in-full
Given this situation, the fact that there are over 100 third, fourth, fifth party and independents is highly significant. I hope this will persuade Labour towards some electoral reform.
Although, it is not in the same context, be careful with those small parties. We have independent parties in our Congress, and they persuade the main party (PSOE, that is the Labour Party), but just for personal benefits, forgetting the common and national goals.
Although, it is not in the same context, be careful with those small parties. We have independent parties in our Congress, and they persuade the main party (PSOE, that is the Labour Party), but just for personal benefits, forgetting the common and national goals.
Yes, it is not particularly good news, but a sign of the fragmentation of society. It would be nice if one could campaign for Palestine recognition, or the environment or immigration control or whatever without having to form a party but have influence on the existing parties. There is no principle any more, only "interests" and "opinion"; for want of moral consensus we are prey to ideologues.
It cannot be stable to have a minority of 34% of a turnout of 60% which I think comes out to a government with just 20% of the electorate supporting, and some of that a reluctant "they can't be worse than the last lot" support. With a little help from a hostile and scandal-hungry press, that support can vanish almost overnight.
It cannot be stable to have a minority of 34% of a turnout of 60% which I think comes out to a government with just 20% of the electorate supporting, and some of that a reluctant "they can't be worse than the last lot" support. With a little help from a hostile and scandal-hungry press, that support can vanish almost overnight.
That's just what I was thinking earlier. Beyond the hype, only one in five actually voted for Labour. And the Rupert Murdoch party winning again is hardly going to be transformative. If it were, his press would quickly decide they're no longer his party and that would probably be the end of them.
I doubt they will see that it is in their interests, as one of the big two.
If the same percentage-wise results occurred in Ireland which has a more proportional system, the largest party would be facing a forced coalition now. If I recall correctly, at least 45% is realistically required for a majority and no one party has achieved that in decades.
Look, mates, hmm… 649 of the 650 possible seats are already declared, but there is one left. I don’t know if I am able to say this, but that seat is mine, actually. I won it to Liz Truss in East Londonderry. So, due to these exceptional circumstances and chaotic situation, I vow to declare my seat, if only His Majesty the King and Starmer allow me to do the following:
The VAT has to be reduced, and the price of a pint of beer will be £1 from now on. @unenlightened will be the only real assessor for internal and external disputes. @BadenRob has to be the next Speaker of the House of Commons and appointed ambassador to Spain. @Jamal has to be the next president of the Scottish Supreme Court.
The full recognition of Palestine as a state.
No more pollution in the atmosphere. With the aim of achieving this, I plead with His Majesty the King to make the metro and bus free. @Sir2u has to be the next Chancellor of Oxford University to teach Spanish there.
This letter has already been sent to ‘The Telegraph’ …
The VAT has to be reduced, and the price of a pint of beer will be £1 from now on.
I remember when we used to go out with three quid and go home very happy (drunk), well fed and sometimes even with a bird after dancing all night. We all got pissed off when the price went up to 10 pence a pint. Them was the days mate....
Sir2u has to be the next Chancellor of Oxford University to teach Spanish there.
Porque me está molestando con esto, puesto de basura. Dame el puesto de primer ministro y rapidito arreglo el país.
Y la mitad que van a este universidad ni saben bien el inglés.
I am still so glad I left England when I did, that place is fucked up
It will no longer be a wrecked country. With Starmer as PM and my seat, everything will be OK. I see a re-accession to the European Union on the horizon.
I see a re-accession to the European Union on the horizon.
Now that is funny. The UK population would vote for it of course with the benefit of hindsight, but the EU, perhaps, would not be so keen to welcome home the prodigal Isles, and break out the fatted calf again.
Reply to unenlightened It will not be easy, that's for granted. But we all (EU members included, absolutely) need to fix something that couldn't have ever happened. Sometimes politicians lie to us, making us think one way is better than the other, but at the end of the day, the population ends up paying the price. I could understand that some EU bureaucrats can't be trusted at all. Germany has its own interests too, etc. I guess there will not be any issue on the Mediterranean nations side. I care about Europe. I also believe there is a possibility of getting through. The citizens are always the ones who sweep up the mess of the politicians. It is not the time to be divided. We already had that time back in past years. Wars of religion, nationalism, political ideologies, etc. It is something we no longer deserve. We are the candle of civilisation, and we don't need to be heavily dependent on the USA or China. We can do it on our own. If we couldn't reach it via politics, we could try it via culture, at least.
*That was a tiny excerpt from my address at Westminster. Sorry if there are any grammatical hiccups.
If Labour wins and Biden wins, then with Melenchon in France, the globalist establishment could be under real threat of being reworked. I’m interested to see what happens in France. Instead of the far-right taking over and simply ousting immigrants, the Popular Front “seems” primed to shake up the current. Anyone have an opinion?
Comments (3111)
Like putin, he's the human equivalent of that strain of dog shit that just can't be scrubbed off one's shoe. I can see him sticking around for a while yet.
Yes, but they’re a bad look. Just the kind of thing that riles the public, who will ignore more substantial issues that take some concentration to understand.
Any evidence of that, or should we take your word for it?
'They' ( conservative MPs) are debating quietly when to make their move. What no one wants is a leadership contest that The Cunt wins, because then he is safe for year. So are the numbers stacking up now, or do they wait for.... whatever, the Met report, the Gray report, possible prosecutions, the next scandal, a wave of mass starvation, WW3?
Hell hath no fury like a senior adviser scorned.
And more to the point of the OP
Brexit has been ‘big success’ says government – despite 60% of exporters struggling with red tape
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/26/boris-johnson-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol
How they got brexit done, and why Britain has a cockwomble as prime minister.
In theory. In practice, he's an election liability and the Tories are likely to find a way to get rid before the next election, which means in the next year. There is no way they want to get to election year with a new no-confidence vote looming.
Bring back monarchy, at least there's a chance of getting a decent leader.
They can change the rules, or push him under a bus; or 'exert some pressure', as they did with Thatcher and with May. I don't know how it works, bribery, blackmail, brainwashing?
It's a shame, because at least some of Johnson's recent moves have been commendable, such as his forthright action on climate change and his full-throated support for Ukraine. But he really does seem to be a pathological liar and - how to put it - not a man of sound character.
No. His moves are always and solely directed towards his own image and his own status.
[quote=Hannah Arendt]Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.[/quote]
How to distinguish between rotting and fermenting? She's rotting into slime; I'm fermenting into wine.
Boris should resign post haste.
But you should probably ask Hannah - I say what I see, and she was looking at something or someone (I think similar) in a different world.
I believe you. There's an editorial in today's Sydney Morning Herald saying he ought to resign. And he should.
I think the UK should get passed Brexit finally and tackle the present problems. It has been a nice thread, but Brexit is so Elizabethan. You already have some young Britons that have never lived under Elizabeth II's reign.
There can easily come a new "winter of discontent" with the inflation and all the problems. Then conservatives MPs have gotten so rowdy that they can think of change the prime minister if they don't like the person, which tells about their hubris.
I think labor can win the next elections. Assuming if Labour politicians don't do something insanely stupid, go hyper-woke, attack their traditional base and go ideologically full Marxist. If they really try, they can push their supporters to vote some other party. Yet, I think Sir Keir Starmer doesn't look like to declare himself non-binary and veer the Labor party even more to the left than Jeremy Corbyn.
But you know better, I'm just a foreigner...
A "return" to Thatcher and tired neoliberal policies. What a pity. But the Tories might as well go all-in while they can, before they're booted out a la 1997. Hopefully you don't end up with another Tony Blair. Starmer seems like a joke, but anything is an improvement over Truss.
He was one of the few brave politicians who critized Elizabeth II openly and publicly saying: the British monarchy needs a lot reforms according to modern world.
Unfortunately, there is no getting past Brexit, hence the slogan 'Get Brexit done'. The Irish question cannot be resolved. As long as North and South were in the EU, the border could be open and thus demilitarised, and the EU functioned as an overseer of fair play. But separation entails a border, so the options are the breakup of the UK and reunification of Ireland, or the imposition of a manned border and resumption of civil war. The current fudge of a paper border in the Irish sea pleases no one and and cannot be sustained forever.
So no deal with the US at least while Biden is king. As far as I can see, the scheme is now to bankrupt the country and move to Panama or somewhere more conducive with the takings. There is no attempt to deal with the crisis at all.
I wouldn't see it on such dramatic terms.
I think the EU itself ought to look at this from a new light. OK, so the Union has now an ex. Yet it's an ex that everybody actually still likes. For example, for my country the UK is a very important trading partner. Hence the new "ex" should be approached just like other non-EU countries, like the US or Canada (or Norway), where good relations are an objective for the EU also. There's still so much to be done together with the ex, just like taking care of security issues, which just cannot be forgotten. The EU simply is in utter denial, if it thinks this ex of it's doesn't matter anymore.
For the EU the stance that "I don't have anything to do with you now after we broke up" simply doesn't cut it.
The EU has never said anything like that, though. It is the UK which is separating, and not taking their relationship with the EU seriously enough.
As for NI, there's no way out of the dilemma highlighted by @unenlighted. The best and simplest solution in my view would be to reunite Ireland.
(I think I might have to change my handle to 'undelighted'. )
Well, not literally, just as the UK hasn't been referred to the 'ex'.
Quoting unenlightened
Ok.
How about the border between Finland and Sweden and non-EU member Norway? If I move to Norway or a Norwegian moves to Helsinki, the only thing I have to do is to change my address. That's right, no applications, no passports, no permits needed. No control at the border. After changing my address, then tax officials notice it and I'll start to pay taxes to the new country where I live.
The EU-Norwegian border hasn't been a problem. Absolutely none.
Why?
Because Norway is part of the European Economic Area, the EEA.
This was an option that was thought about in the case of the UK, but for some reason, this wasn't OK for either UK or others. Perhaps being a member of EEA would have been too much for the Brexiteers, I don't know. So you ended up with a clean table. That's the problem here.
I mean that the EU never said it won't cooperate with the UK. In fact it has been extremely patient.
Indeed. The EU has so far tolerated a country that has chosen not to be a member of EU not being a member of the EU. Even the UK is finding it hard to tolerate itself not being a member of the EU and the UK is the country that left. I suppose we should remember that it was equally intolerable when the UK was a member. A lot of crockery was flying around and the shouting bothered the neighbours. But at least we were together. Sort of. Ever Closer Union and all that.
Brexit completely disappointed me in terms of democracy. How can a country like UK what fought for the allies has left and countries who cause World Wars (as Germany) remains? Wow
It's not like they had any choice in that matter of course. (In addition, some pro-Eu folks do actually agree that the UK never really belonged in the EU, not the way other members try to belong and contribute. Why then not separate agreeably if you can, like in a divorce based on mutual agreement, to use a metaphor you seem to like?)
What I meant was that all during the protracted (read endless) negotiations, the EU tolerated inordinate amounts of crass incompetence, dishonesty and political shallowness from over the Channel.
Oh, you know what we're like. Doing the metaphor to death, perhaps they thought their love could change us? It should always have been just a practical arrangement. Getting on in life and thinking of the family and being faithful is not really the UK's strength. If you want a no-rules fight or you suddenly need a bunch of money no questions asked where it came from, the UK is the boyfriend to have.
Quoting Olivier5
I remember an interview with an academic shortly after the 2016 vote who said that 'The UK is currently in but half out - no single currency, no Schengen, rebates - and after this is all over it will end up out but half in.' I can see that happening.
Thanks for that pearl and the chuckle. And it's true: certainly the EU project is transformative. It's meant to reconnect folks in a broader and more consensual narrative for instance. Hence the 'EU speech', a parlance replete with notions of togetherness and solidarity that all continental politicians can speak. It doesn't mean they all mean it all the time, it can behave as a mantra, a pretense even. But enough of them mean enough of time that the project goes on.
Quoting Cuthbert
There's a lot of wisdom packed there., And perhaps a bit too much wisdom. We should remember that Brexit always has been and remains an irrational project, not one based on a cold calculus of risks and opportunities, but a protest, a desire for something else, for something more out there, an irresistible élan towards one more glorious, heroic, perhaps hopeless act of sheer irrationality. An attempt at jumping in the unknown.
Understood as inherently irrational, Brexit or some of its features become strangely easier to understand.
The NI protocols for instance the UK trying to have its cake and eat it too: the UK ought to be both a unitary state from a regulatory standpoint, and honor its obligations in the Good Friday agreement for a lack of hard border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, all the while creating a hard border between itself and the EU, of which the Republic of Ireland is a member.
That is an irrational expectation. Which is perfectly normal and to be expected in a wholly irrational process.
You have put your finger on something that I do really care about. As for half-in, half-out, we can work it out in time and if we'd stayed in there would still be grieving and rows and crying to leave just as now we've left there is still crying. Oh, but Ireland. When I think of our Michael Gove telling us that there would be a virtual border managed by technological wizardry - and then threats of violence in Liverpool and Belfast - and my goodness, these people are not playing with delays at Dover or with logical curiosities, they are playing with lives and terror.
I used to play a game when listening to interviews with politicians. I would draw a quick sketch map of the islands from Ireland to the Channel Isles and then from listening to what the politician said I would try to draw the border between the UK and the EU. I never managed. All fine, till I got the Irish Sea. Then dotted lines and question marks everywhere. As far as I know it's still like that.
Why yes. The EU and its predecessors were/are a peace building project, meant to ensure peace at last in Europe after two world wars and zillions other conflicts of old. And it has been reasonably successful in doing so. It follows that undermining the EU entails a very real risk of rekindling old conflicts like the one in NI.
From a modern historical perspective, UK's colonisation of Ireland is a rather awful story, of which NI is a remnant. It would make a lot of sense for the UK to give up NI, allow Irish reunification, , repatriate a few orangists, and call it a clean slate, a new begining.
Pending such a radical repair of the historical injustice of colonisation, the UK could try and make the agreement with the EU work, by aligning economic regulations in NI with those in effect in the Republic of Ireland. This requires a 'hard border' in the Irish Sea. A bitter pill to swallow but it's the only alternative.
I am afraid that the bitterness would not be blows to the pride of politicians or unionists or even the nations but violence on the streets. I think the pill to swallow slowly over time will be the fiction that there is a UK / EU border. Endless protraction of protocols, crass incompetence, dishonesty and political shallowness may work in this case, too, but it's a situation the UK should not have created. The UK did not have to sign up for ever closer union, QMV and the rest and it is not the only country with tensions between national and European identities. Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, for example. Grexit crisis. This is not a simple case of an isolationist Britain versus all the rest.
Technically speaking, Brexit was precisely about the UK vs all the rest, and note that the 'rest' stuck together during the negotiations.
At a deeper, political philosophy level, I see it as clinching to the past in an overly irrational way, as explained. And sure enough, every country has its traditionalists and blaming Brussels is always convenient. But you guys really lived your isolationist dream.
Sure. Nothing brings a family together like a common enemy. To revisit the old metaphor. But the tensions remain and anti-'ever closer' sentiment is a political theme throughout the union. I was thinking about our conversation today and an old Thurber cartoon came to mind - man to wife - 'Well, who made the magic go out of our marriage - you or me?'
Just rolled a cigarette and please to see the 'E' symbol for weight guarantee is on the packet. Not sure I'd trust UK measures...
I don't consider the "ever closer union" as actual policy. European integration has been stalled for two decades, its electroencephalogram is flat. It just phraseology.
The real policy is more something like: "When it's really important, we can come together. Or not."
Every polity has problems, in final analysis.. There's no such thing as a perfect political system. So yeah, the EU has plenty of issues. The real question is not whether it's perfect, but whether it's better than what was there before or what one could go back to. And if yes, whether and how it can be further improved and respond to emerging challenges.
Same with the UK. Ain't perfect by any means and some Scots want out. So the polity has to reform and improve, or it will become obsolete.
I would point out another dimension to the Brexit debate. That it was also about an existential crisis within the Conservative party. The majority of the British people had no concerns with EU membership before they had their ears turned by disingenuous politicians.
The accession of Eastern European nations in the EU in 2004 did result in a large influx of EU workers into the U.K. It was poorly managed and provided fuel for populists, who had emerged from the Tory party. This is when it became a live issue.
What should we have done then?
Completely agree. Good point :up:
This resulted in exploitation by gang masters, community tensions and immigrants retreating into sink towns. All good breeding ground for populists.
[quote=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7230/]The objective of “ever closer union” was retained in the Preamble to the 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty):
Resolve to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.[/quote]
Quoting Olivier5
Well, perhaps it's just sweet words. But not to many people. 'Ever closer union' means that if you're not already as close as you can get, then you can get closer. And for States that means being the same State. Under what circumstances do two different things become one thing? Can things become ever more similar without becoming the same thing? This is the metaphysics of Brexit.
Quoting Olivier5
We start with shared vision and no more war and common purpose. Now it's 'let's do it if it suits us'. So Brexit is not so much an aberration as just one side of a tension that runs through the whole project. We have that in common with the USA. I submit my case.
I don't see much sign of the US breaking up. My theory is that Brexit is a manipulation of the xenophobic tendencies and imperial nostalgia by the disaster profiteers who have taken over the conservative party. The market manipulation continues with the disaster budget. Expect more crises. It would have been so easy to make a deal with the EU, by simply agreeing to the trade rules - but no, we were so desperate to have the US's chlorinated chicken and fake cheese. But then we couldn't even make that deal, because we 'forgot' the Irish border. I say sabotage!
I'd say Right-wing fanaticism rather than sabotage. But the Truss disaster illustrates the fallacy of the whole concept. The question is whether Brexiteers and the new PM can hold fast to their no-immigration policy in face of chronic labour shortages, and the no-EU-trade-deal if the N.Irish Unionists keep on suffocating the NI govt. The labour shortage is masking the loss of EU-export-trade jobs too. Unemployment is surely going to surge next year.
Boris is for tax rises to placate the masses. We know that; but it's not Tory, so can he win? Maybe Sunak can chart a middle-way, but the Tories are so split I doubt even an economic upturn can prevent him losing the 2024 election. Only then can we get a fresh start and work out a realistic vision of the future.
Shouldn't there be some time limit to causation? I haven't heard of cases where a man hit on the head 50 years ago pressing charges against the assailant for a brain hemorrhage now.
The idea that Brexit was a mistake is spreading, which is now a majority view. But neither of the big two political party’s are talking about any attempt to forge closer links with the EU. Both ruling out rejoining SM, or CU.
This is a Philosophy forum, so you know that causation isn't structurally related (or confined) to time, especially a time limit.
But politicians use extensively (or abuse) the short memory of the public. Hence policies that didn't work the last time can be used again in the same fashion, when it's just old people or historians noticing that the present won't work because it's already tried.
(A very important thing when you have stagflation and negative real interest rates, btw.)
Simple as that.
And I would think the prime ministers and the leaders (political and economic) and their policies and decisions would be more important as Queen Victoria wasn't an autocrat.
Does Queen Victoria not have a legacy? All powerful people leave their mark on the country or so I hear. I dunno! :confused:
Someone who has a time of age named after them surely has a legacy.
But how much of that is of her political decisions is a different thing. I assume that later Elizabeth II's reign will be talked about the Elizabethan era too. Especially if Britain in the time of the current and future monarchs is very different.
Well, in line with your beliefs, I'm inclined towards a no-time-limit view of causation (re chain of causation). Intriguingly, if I'm correct, some things become effectless i.e. their causal power diminishes with time to zero.
Perhaps we could take a more nuanced approach and talk about remote and proximate causes of Brexit. Let's meet at the halfway point, eh?
For such complex event as Brexit giving single reason is simply stupid. Remote/proximate or major/minor reasons is the way to go. And of course, it's the questions one asks that define what you answer.
I suggest a single "Elizabethan age", subtitled "the age of Empire" to stretch from Liz 1. to Liz 2. Brexit is the thus the last gasp of Colonial sentimentality and the final end of British dominance in the world, orchestrated by the same buccaneering (rapaciously exploiting) spirit that built the Empire in the first place, turned full force on the populace and accumulated wealth of the mother country.
The death throes ...
How is joining (and then exiting) the European Union the last gasp of Colonial sentimentality I don't understand. But you are right that during Elizabeth II's reign the last traces of the British Empire, and the aspirations for that empire came to an end. The reign of Charles III is really the post-imperial UK, even I would put the final nail was put into the coffin of the Empire in the Suez crisis.
Quoting Punshhh
You put so much on the shoulders of ex-vikings, the Normans? The invasions for Ireland started only in the 12th Century and I don't know just how English were the Norman and the Plantagenet kings were.
And I'm not so sure if English rulers would have been less bellicose if Harold Godwinson would have won the battle of Hastings. But the English surely have fought nearly everybody anywhere, yet drinking that cup of tea and all the polite English manners makes them not seem so bellicose as they actually have been in history. (For some reason it's the German who get the bad reputation.)
Joining was an attempt to create a new European Empire, and when the French and Germans refused to be subserviently grateful for our presence, they became an oppressive bureaucracy responsible for holding us back. It's the same thinking that considers our independence from Europe is a great boon and natural right, but Scotland's independence from England is insulting and unthinkable. It's all sentimentality, and that's why it has the consistency of porridge - thick, but easily stirred.
I think you shouldn't overestimate this. First of all, even if they were the eurosceptics right from the start in the Conservative Party (starting with Thatcher), the Conservative Party (and the Labor Party) have actually been for the EU and EU membership until Brexit happened. It's this unfortunate miscalculation that the Conservative leadership made that the Brexit vote wouldn't go the way they planned and give the opportunity for the populists and for the people to give a finger to the elite.
Besides, I don't think that there was so much hubris among the British politicians when joining an organization like the EU that they could walz in and take control: The UK had been in the UN and other organizations, so the idea of the UK taking the control of EU was a silly, idiotic idea.
This isn't imperialism, this is basically the English attitude of seeing them apart from the "Continental Europe". You have to be filthy rich like Norway or the Swiss to tag along yet not be a member. And apart from I guess France and the Benelux countries, every goddam EU memberstate feels being apart from the EU core. Germany has it's own problems in the closet, for Spain and Portugal Brussel's is far away, so is this for the other Southern European countries, the East European countries and the Nordic members of EU. Us versus Brussells is an universal attitude, not something just in the English mind.
And actually the British Brexit example has shown many European countries how stupid the "independence" is from the EU, how much workforce integration there already is and how the positive aspects of EU membership still do outweigh the negative aspects.
:up:
It is true that thanks to Pedro Sánchez, Spain has been in the core of Brussels’s interests or at least more visible. Nonetheless, we are aware that we are not so important as much as France. But it is better being in the club than outside. We accept that thanks to EU, Spain experienced a big development and I am thankful, even I wish EU organisms control us rigorously because our politicians tend to be corrupt, inefficient and incompetent (at least, more than the rest)
I agree with your analysis of the political thinking. But my explanation is of the failure of that calculation. Idiotic ideas are the rule for popular thinking; the mantra, "take back control", is still being recited. that is the same idiotic idea. Independence good - isolation bad: trade deal good - harmonisation bad: and so on. Membership makes good economic sense, but has been trumped by xenophobia. Idiotic for sure, but actively fostered and exploited by the Conservatives for decades.
I go back to that event because for most of that thousand years those Norman baron’s colonised and controlled British society. It did fade into the aristocracy in recent centuries. However we still live very much under their legacy. And their direct decedents were and in some cases still are major land owners.
It’s not so important who they were, but more that the reigns of power were held by this group for most of our recent history(post 1066).
We here don't have that problem with our politicians, they aren't corrupt, people feel they are simply just incompetent (in what democracy people wouldn't feel so?). Ordinary folks think that our politicians are far too naive and the "South-European countries" simply fuck us when it comes to financing the EU budgets, especially the Greeks with all the assistance they have gotten.
But it should be totally evident to all that European countries are so different mentally and economically that the idea of a real federation, just like with the US, isn't going to happen. Yet as a confederation of independent states, which it actually is, it works quite well... starting with the fact Europeans usually have been fighting each other.
https://www.academia.edu/29662300/Where_once_was_an_empire_on_Brexit
The details are in VI 28 and can be downloaded by statistics nerds on the omnisis site above.
I mean, it is not the time to put borders on or increase rivalry among us.
On the other hand, I am aware that it is not only on the UK's side, but Brussels's too. Both sides need to understand each other.
Spain and the UK agreed that it is necessary to reach an agreement on this point and establish a pacific relationship in Gibraltar's post-Brexit era.
Spain aspires to create a zone of shared prosperity with neighboring "Campo de Gibraltar". According to London, the two have agreed on the need to reach an agreement "as soon as possible."
I do not know what your thoughts are on Gibraltar, or if you folks care at all. Yet, it is important to highlight how both democracies want to resolve this issue diplomatically.
That's how discrepancies should always be resolved.
I thought Brexit would cause a strained relationship between both. But no, this didn't happen and I guess it is due to the fact that our democracies are mature.
Referendum in 2016, departure in 2020.
• Share of people who think Brexit was the right or wrong decision 2020-2024 (Statista · May 13, 2024)
• Brexit (YouGov UK)
Inconveniences (e.g. traveling, moving to / studying in the EU, other difficulties)?
Daily life changed (e.g. jobs, prices, availabilities)?
New freedoms not as originally thought (e.g. rash decision, bregret, less influence on the EU)?
UK security concerns?
...?
Most of the opinion polls say Labour will win a large number of seats. Let’s see what happens.
The British think they're so great with their candidates who can speak in complete sentences.
One is speaking American and the other... not really sure.
Not unless Biden dies or is incapacitated.
So you probably didn't know today is Independence Day for Americans. Like maybe independence wasn't such a great idea. :sad:
Quoting Shawn
I didn't see the debate. I couldn't watch.
Say good morning to your new Prime Minister, lads.
Given this situation, the fact that there are over 100 third, fourth, fifth party and independents is highly significant. I hope this will persuade Labour towards some electoral reform. but I doubt they will see that it is in their interests, as one of the big two.
Quoting unenlightened
Let me guess. Your constituency is Chatham and Aylesford. :smile: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jul/04/uk-general-election-results-2024-live-in-full
Quoting unenlightened
Although, it is not in the same context, be careful with those small parties. We have independent parties in our Congress, and they persuade the main party (PSOE, that is the Labour Party), but just for personal benefits, forgetting the common and national goals.
Yes, it is not particularly good news, but a sign of the fragmentation of society. It would be nice if one could campaign for Palestine recognition, or the environment or immigration control or whatever without having to form a party but have influence on the existing parties. There is no principle any more, only "interests" and "opinion"; for want of moral consensus we are prey to ideologues.
It cannot be stable to have a minority of 34% of a turnout of 60% which I think comes out to a government with just 20% of the electorate supporting, and some of that a reluctant "they can't be worse than the last lot" support. With a little help from a hostile and scandal-hungry press, that support can vanish almost overnight.
That's just what I was thinking earlier. Beyond the hype, only one in five actually voted for Labour. And the Rupert Murdoch party winning again is hardly going to be transformative. If it were, his press would quickly decide they're no longer his party and that would probably be the end of them.
If the same percentage-wise results occurred in Ireland which has a more proportional system, the largest party would be facing a forced coalition now. If I recall correctly, at least 45% is realistically required for a majority and no one party has achieved that in decades.
So, no they won't.
Look, mates, hmm… 649 of the 650 possible seats are already declared, but there is one left. I don’t know if I am able to say this, but that seat is mine, actually. I won it to Liz Truss in East Londonderry. So, due to these exceptional circumstances and chaotic situation, I vow to declare my seat, if only His Majesty the King and Starmer allow me to do the following:
The VAT has to be reduced, and the price of a pint of beer will be £1 from now on.
@unenlightened will be the only real assessor for internal and external disputes.
@BadenRob has to be the next Speaker of the House of Commons and appointed ambassador to Spain.
@Jamal has to be the next president of the Scottish Supreme Court.
The full recognition of Palestine as a state.
No more pollution in the atmosphere. With the aim of achieving this, I plead with His Majesty the King to make the metro and bus free.
@Sir2u has to be the next Chancellor of Oxford University to teach Spanish there.
This letter has already been sent to ‘The Telegraph’ …
Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/general-election-2024/
Signed: Javier,
I remember when we used to go out with three quid and go home very happy (drunk), well fed and sometimes even with a bird after dancing all night. We all got pissed off when the price went up to 10 pence a pint. Them was the days mate....
Quoting javi2541997
Porque me está molestando con esto, puesto de basura. Dame el puesto de primer ministro y rapidito arreglo el país.
Y la mitad que van a este universidad ni saben bien el inglés.
I am still so glad I left England when I did, that place is fucked up.
It will no longer be a wrecked country. With Starmer as PM and my seat, everything will be OK. I see a re-accession to the European Union on the horizon.
:strong:
Now that is funny. The UK population would vote for it of course with the benefit of hindsight, but the EU, perhaps, would not be so keen to welcome home the prodigal Isles, and break out the fatted calf again.
*That was a tiny excerpt from my address at Westminster. Sorry if there are any grammatical hiccups.