Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Wasn't that Ken Livingstone being Ken Livingstone, rather than any evidence of a anti-semitic cabal at the heart of Labour?
I don't think anyone is asserting that there's some shadowy anti-Jewish group in Labour.
It's more the case that 'anti-zionism' and opposition to Israel slops over into generalist comments about Jews. Livingstone has just made several such remarks publicly over the course of his career. There are others. See for example, Jackie Walker, the Oxford University Labour club investigation (see Baroness Royall's report), Naz Shah sharing comments about deporting Israelis to America, and so on.
Christ, even Chakrabarti's whitewash of an investigation says that they need to stop calling people 'Zios' and breaking Godwin's Law when talking about Jews. If it's that common they need to make a recommendation against doing it, that says a lot.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Wasn't that Ken Livingstone being Ken Livingstone, rather than any evidence of a anti-semitic cabal at the heart of Labour?
I don't think anyone is asserting that there's some shadowy anti-Jewish group in Labour.
It's more the case that 'anti-zionism' and opposition to Israel slops over into generalist comments about Jews. Livingstone has just made several such remarks publicly over the course of his career. There are others. See for example, Jackie Walker, the Oxford University Labour club investigation (see Baroness Royall's report), Naz Shah sharing comments about deporting Israelis to America, and so on.
Christ, even Chakrabarti's whitewash of an investigation says that they need to stop calling people 'Zios' and breaking Godwin's Law when talking about Jews. If it's that common they need to make a recommendation against doing it, that says a lot.
There are numerous promiment Tories, who when at Oxford, were members of a society that supported Aparthied South Africa, and were quite happy to call for the death of one Nelson Mandela...
You can imagine their embaressment years later when President Mandela visited the UK.
Point is this: any anti-semitic individuals should be booted out of the Labour party, no question, but the double standards of the British Press when dealing with this issue, and turning a blind eye to the pasts of various senior Tories...well...I'll say no more...
.....Five new Labour Party members have won a High Court battle over their legal right to vote in the leadership contest between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith.
Labour's NEC had ruled that party members who joined after 12 January could not vote in the contest.
The group that brought the legal challenge argued this amounted to a breach of contract, saying they had "paid their dues" for a right to vote.....
I was torn on this. Eager supporters would flock to ensure a vote for Corbyn, distorting the results, but on reflection if they have paid their dues they should be eligible to vote. Labour are happy to have their coin swelling their coffers so they should accept that these supporters want their choice to count too.
Still, the party for the people is in the news for the wrong reasons.
Ninja'd!
yup no changing the rules after taking the money
if they subsequently wanted to impose a 6 month requirement fair enough, but they needed to accept everybody who joined under the old T&C could vote
There are numerous promiment Tories, who when at Oxford, were members of a society that supported Aparthied South Africa, and were quite happy to call for the death of one Nelson Mandela...
You can imagine their embaressment years later when President Mandela visited the UK.
Point is this: any anti-semitic individuals should be booted out of the Labour party, no question, but the double standards of the British Press when dealing with this issue, and turning a blind eye to the pasts of various senior Tories...well...I'll say no more...
But see, that's where I disagree, actually. You call it double standards, as if the Press are picking on Labour and only Labour. Unless you're just commenting on the fact that the media are only interested in human rights when it's topical (in which case ignore my remarks here), the Tories get just as harsh a run of it as Labour. Remember the pig-screwing story about Cameron? That was completely made up and it got far more airtime than the Union election rigging that was going on about the same time IIRC.
They're picking on Corbyn right now because he's the leader of the opposition. His party ARE the opposition. They are total fair game for whatever muck the newspapers can dredge out. And that's right and proper. I'm certain many Tories hold less than salubrious views, but how many of them are prominent people who have been daft enough to voice them in public recently? You can say, 'It doesn't have to be recent', but there are plenty of skeletons in Labour not being dragged about right now (Diane 'Only white people can be racist' Abbott, anyone?)
Corbyn himself has been dragged into this anti-semitism thing because of things he personally, has said, and the very obvious antipathy he's shown over the whole thing (much like the Brexit vote).Ken Livingstone is the ex Mayor of London, Naz Shah is an MP, Corbyn's most senior aide cropped up in the Sunday Times yesterday as ranting about Israel. These are not nobodies. And they're not alone either, there are at least half a dozen more minor incidents around student Unions and Momentum members floating about at the moment.
If right now, Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, one of Theresa May's aides, and Boris Johnson (as ex-mayor of London) were making lots of vague implicatory comments about muslim terrorists and Syria, and May was being all mealy mouthed about it, I don't doubt for a minute that the press would be crawling all over it like ants on a picnic lunch. But they're not. And sadly, Labour is. So I totally, totally disagree with the whole 'Oh, the press are just out to get Corbyn' angle on this. It's not so much a case of 'where there's smoke there's probably fire' as it is so much 'Labour Party HQ is on fire with three tv cameras pointed at it'.
The media whilst biased in many,many regards, are totally in the right to be focusing on this, and Labour are doing it to themselves. Sadly, they don't seem able to keep their 'Down with zionism' traps shut for five minutes to let the media blow over, instead we seem to have a new example every other week. Which again, says something in and of itself about the Labour Party right now.
Ketara, I agree with what you say - the Labour opposition should be held to account, and there are a ton of skeletons in the Labour party.
For the record, I'm no Labour supporter. Being a SNP supporter, I welcome any attack on the Labour party and it's eventual demise as a electoral force.
But I still can't shake off this feeling that the press, as usual, are being one-sided about their reporting these days.
for example, why aren't we hearing more about the Tory election funds scandal during the General Election? Numerous police forces are investigating upwards of 100+ Tory MPs and with the honourable exception of Channel 4 news, not a cheep from the press. You can bet if that were 100+ Labour MPs, they'd be all over it like a bad rash...
Another example. Liam Fox, as usual up to his old tricks. This time getting cosy with the regime in Azerbaijan, a country with some horrific human rights abuses.
Now, the UK getting cosy with despostic regimes is not nothing new, but the fact that I had to look away from mainstream news to find this out, speaks voulmes IMO.
Do i not like that the "alledged" election fraud is as you say being investigated by the police therefore its an ongoing case and there are restrictions on what can he reported in case of biasing any future trial.
For me i just wish all oposition partys would get there fingers out and actually do what there there for and question the goverment and hold it to account. As the torys have managed to have a leadership election form a working goverment, set up a new department and implement stuff while the main opposition havent even got the rules for a leadership vote sorted yet its just embaressing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara, I agree with what you say - the Labour opposition should be held to account, and there are a ton of skeletons in the Labour party.
For the record, I'm no Labour supporter.
I think we're in roughly the same place politically. Namely, the 'I'm a vaguely decent mildly left wing inclined sort of bloke, where the hell is my representation and what happened to Labour!?' sort of place.
But I still can't shake off this feeling that the press, as usual, are being one-sided about their reporting these days.
I think what you're perceiving is that the Press has good and bad stories about the Tories, but only bad about Labour/Corbyn right now. Which is very much the case. They're just as happy to jump on the Blues for any muck that comes their way, but there's a certain willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, and plenty of neutral stories about going ons in government to balance out the 'Let's drag up Boris Johnson's past gaffes' style columns.
Labour meanwhile, has nothing particularly positive said about it. But frankly? I'm sort of the opinion it has itself to blame for that. Corbyn has no coherent PR policy beyond preaching to his own supporters. Him and his are throwing every piece of mud they can find at the PLP, who are in turn frantically leaking everything they can find which will make Corbyn look bad to try and oust him.
The natural result being that there's actually no positive news coming out of the Labour Party to be reported! They're all so busy sticking knives in each others backs that nobody is actually doing the job of being the opposition and working out coherent strategy. The only bloke who seems to even be vaguely trying to rise above it all is Corbyn's current rival Owen Smith, and he's a nobody who probably won't be here in a month.
On top of everything else, it is now "Silly Season" and only the Olympics are there to distract people's attention from the Labour Party clown car pile-up.
Skullhammer wrote: Do i not like that the "alledged" election fraud is as you say being investigated by the police therefore its an ongoing case and there are restrictions on what can he reported in case of biasing any future trial.
For me i just wish all oposition partys would get there fingers out and actually do what there there for and question the goverment and hold it to account. As the torys have managed to have a leadership election form a working goverment, set up a new department and implement stuff while the main opposition havent even got the rules for a leadership vote sorted yet its just embaressing.
You put that very well. (Though use of a spell checker might be advisable.)
But I still can't shake off this feeling that the press, as usual, are being one-sided about their reporting these days.
I think what you're perceiving is that the Press has good and bad stories about the Tories, but only bad about Labour/Corbyn right now. Which is very much the case. They're just as happy to jump on the Blues for any muck that comes their way, but there's a certain willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, and plenty of neutral stories about going ons in government to balance out the 'Let's drag up Boris Johnson's past gaffes' style columns.
Labour meanwhile, has nothing particularly positive said about it. But frankly? I'm sort of the opinion it has itself to blame for that...
I would also suggest that who owns the vast majority of the press has something to do with it.
Skullhammer wrote: Do i not like that the "alledged" election fraud is as you say being investigated by the police therefore its an ongoing case and there are restrictions on what can he reported in case of biasing any future trial.
For me i just wish all oposition partys would get there fingers out and actually do what there there for and question the goverment and hold it to account. As the torys have managed to have a leadership election form a working goverment, set up a new department and implement stuff while the main opposition havent even got the rules for a leadership vote sorted yet its just embaressing.
I agree that it's important not to prejudice a case, but even before the police investigations were announced, the level of investigative journalism into this was non-existant, with the honourable exception of channel 4.
Think about it. There's a potential for a massive story about electoral fraud, and yet, only 1 media outlet looks into it to see if it's worth following...
But I still can't shake off this feeling that the press, as usual, are being one-sided about their reporting these days.
I think what you're perceiving is that the Press has good and bad stories about the Tories, but only bad about Labour/Corbyn right now. Which is very much the case. They're just as happy to jump on the Blues for any muck that comes their way, but there's a certain willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, and plenty of neutral stories about going ons in government to balance out the 'Let's drag up Boris Johnson's past gaffes' style columns.
Labour meanwhile, has nothing particularly positive said about it. But frankly? I'm sort of the opinion it has itself to blame for that...
I would also suggest that who owns the vast majority of the press has something to do with it.
Partly.
However whatever sells papers and clicks is what is best for business. And what is business is Labours seeming implosion and civil war. You cannot blame the owners of the press for a problem solely of the parties making.
When Boris cocks up there will be front page headlines and hours of talking heads discussing in minutiae his previous gaffes. Until then a party which cannot agree on its own rules will be leading the news.
Craig Murray asks why Liam Fox is back in government, given his past scandals, and given the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Adam Werrity.
It's an interesting state of affairs, but here's the short version. Fox's pal, with links to the UK government, was serving the interests of a foreign power, and not his own country...
The fact that it's taken an ex-Ambassdor to bring this up, should also speak volumes...
Why aren't we hearing about this in the press? Fox's pal acting on behalf of a foreign power is a pretty serious story when you think about it...
It's another example of what I'm talking about when it comes to press bias...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Craig Murray asks why Liam Fox is back in government, given his past scandals, and given the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Adam Werrity.
It's an interesting state of affairs, but here's the short version. Fox's pal, with links to the UK government, was serving the interests of a foreign power, and not his own country...
The fact that it's taken an ex-Ambassdor to bring this up, should also speak volumes...
Why aren't we hearing about this in the press? Fox's pal acting on behalf of a foreign power is a pretty serious story when you think about it...
It's another example of what I'm talking about when it comes to press bias...
Hasn't been a lot of talk concerning some of the more.... concerning... issues with regards to the charity he helps run that sends soldiers/similar on holidays.
I was intrigued enough by this to look into the methodology used in the above study. It would appear that the method used was to take specific publications (in this case the Daily Star, Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Mirror, Evening Standard, Daily Telegraph and Guardian), decide which articles were 'pro', 'neutral', or 'anti' Corbyn (something somewhat open to debate, no serious methodology used bar opinion for this), and then add them all together and divide to produce an average. I'm curious as to why the Times was not included.
The article was produced by a single academic and his PhD students, so it's not entirely the group effort all the names might imply it to be.
On the whole, I found the report started well, but I found it a bit troublesome when they automatically assumed descriptions of Corbyn as being hard left were offensive/untrue, labelled an opinion column which called Corbyn's opposition to disarmament 'naive' as Corbyn being ';ridiculed' and so forth regardless of the veracity of such statements. There's certainly some truth to the general thrust of their argument, but things like this immediately start to shine a light on it as having reached a conclusion that that authors wanted to reach.
The publications examined were mainly the low denominator tabloids, so I'm not entirely unsurprised that they turn out to sensationalise things like Abbotts' relationship with Corbyn.
Another point of concern is the automatic assumption that anything which calls Corbyn's view 'unrealistic' or 'outdated' as the Press 'discrediting' Corbyn. It seems to be the case that the study assumes that anything critical of Corbyn is ridicule or attempting to discredit, and has no method for attempting to sift genuinely thoughtful pieces from 'Look at that wozzer Corbyn'. Instead it just lumps them all in one statistic.
All in all, I'm not very impressed. Purely as an academic reading an academic piece, it appears to have a very poor methodology for evaluating the data collated, and a very undiscerning method for categorising that data to begin with. In both cases, it reads as if the reason for this is a predetermined result. I was actually originally inclined to agree with the statistical premise of the article to begin with(that Corbyn gets a lot of flak in the press), but found this study a rather poor substantiation as it appears inclined to exaggerate the figures for effect.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Craig Murray asks why Liam Fox is back in government, given his past scandals, and given the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Adam Werrity.
It's an interesting state of affairs, but here's the short version. Fox's pal, with links to the UK government, was serving the interests of a foreign power, and not his own country...
The fact that it's taken an ex-Ambassdor to bring this up, should also speak volumes...
Why aren't we hearing about this in the press? Fox's pal acting on behalf of a foreign power is a pretty serious story when you think about it...
It's another example of what I'm talking about when it comes to press bias...
Hasn't been a lot of talk concerning some of the more.... concerning... issues with regards to the charity he helps run that sends soldiers/similar on holidays.
If we had a proper press, with a serious focus on investigative journalism, like we used to, these things would see the light of day...
Three more issues of national interest that have been ignored.
1. According to the Mail's Peter Hitchens, British troops have been sighted in the Ukraine, yes the Ukraine...
Ukraine is not a NATO member, so why are they there, and why hasn't parliament been consulted on this?
2. What are the links between British firms selling weapons to the Saudis, and these weapons being responsible for human rights violations in Yemen? The weapons in question are cluster bombs/mines... Thank God for the SNP banging the drum on this one.
3. Helmand Provence is more or less under de facto Taliban control. Many brave British troops died there, and yet, their sacrifice has been in vain, and coverage of the Taliban's resurgence has been swept under the carpet.
By all means attack the Labour party, but in the absence of an opposition, we ned the press to hold the government to account.
They have spectacularly failed in that duty to the British public, and that's what makes me angry, that I have to do my own digging...
r_squared wrote:I would also suggest that who owns the vast majority of the press has something to do with it.
As far as I can observe, most deliberate ommittals in the mainstream press only tend to occur when either the papers don't think people are interested, or when they directly cross the interests of the owners, so Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers, and so on. If there's a big enough outcry about something, they tend to report it, even if it's just to try and put a favourable/negative slant on it as appropriate.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
By all means attack the Labour party, but in the absence of an opposition, we ned the press to hold the government to account.
They have spectacularly failed in that duty to the British public, and that's what makes me angry, that I have to do my own digging...
I personally find Private Eye to be my publication of choice for when I want to read about who's being corrupt, obstructive, or deceitful this week. Ian Hislop isn't the most sued man in britain for nothing. They err on the side of suspicion a little too much, but they don't tend to be beholden to anyone, and everyone is fair game, be it the Government, opposition, Press, local council, celebrity, and so on.
I found one very interesting thing in there the other day about how the only reason South Eastern Railway wasn't breaching the terms of their franchise was because the Railway Minister altered them about two weeks ago at Southern's request. Aforementioned minister then stood up and bleated in Parliament a week later that her hands were tied because Southern hadn't violated their franchise terms!
Little tidbits like that are easily worth the £1.80 every fortnight.
r_squared wrote:I would also suggest that who owns the vast majority of the press has something to do with it.
As far as I can observe, most deliberate ommittals in the mainstream press only tend to occur when either the papers don't think people are interested, or when they directly cross the interests of the owners, so Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers, and so on. If there's a big enough outcry about something, they tend to report it, even if it's just to try and put a favourable/negative slant on it as appropriate.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
By all means attack the Labour party, but in the absence of an opposition, we ned the press to hold the government to account.
They have spectacularly failed in that duty to the British public, and that's what makes me angry, that I have to do my own digging...
I personally find Private Eye to be my publication of choice for when I want to read about who's being corrupt, obstructive, or deceitful this week. Ian Hislop isn't the most sued man in britain for nothing. They err on the side of suspicion a little too much, but they don't tend to be beholden to anyone, and everyone is fair game, be it the Government, opposition, Press, local council, celebrity, and so on.
I found one very interesting thing in there the other day about how the only reason South Eastern Railway wasn't breaching the terms of their franchise was because the Railway Minister altered them about two weeks ago at Southern's request. Aforementioned minister then stood up and bleated in Parliament a week later that her hands were tied because Southern hadn't violated their franchise terms!
Little tidbits like that are easily worth the £1.80 every fortnight.
I do rate Private Eye quite highly, and although Hislop can be a smug git at times, his defence of a free press during the Leveson inquiry was something to behold...
An informed citizenry is a fundamental part of a vibrant democracy IMO, and part of that is self-knowledge, and the other part is a half decent press, but IMO, the press in this country are corrupt, too cosy with government, incompetent, and have thrown a hissy fit at social media catching them out with awkward things like facts and truth...
A rogue activist has taken over a Labour Bristol website and used it to attack party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The Labour Bristol website now carries the title "What Happened to the Labour Party?"
Underneath is a long post saying Mr Corbyn will be the "death of Labour" and claiming he is a career politician who is "ill-equipped" to lead the country.
It also turns on James Schneider and Jon Lansman, the leaders of the Momentum group which supports Mr Corbyn, claiming they are "elitists" who are using the movement to seize power.
Follow
Bristol Labour @LabourBristol
We are aware that our website has been taken over and are unable to access it. We know who is responsible and are taking action against them
12:36 PM - 9 Aug 2016
4 4 Retweets 1 1 like
The activist claims to be the owner of the domain name and says they have reclaimed the site because Labour refused to buy the name from them.
In the post, they say: "The domain was being loaned to the Bristol Labour party. Repeated efforts to get them to take ownership of the domain failed. With the current situation, I am no longer inclined to keep loaning it to them. I will likely re-purpose this domain for Bristol based Labourers information."
Labour Bristol has said it is aware of the issue. It said: "We know who is responsible and we are taking action against them."
However, a South West Labour spokesperson said: "This website is not connected to or endorsed by the Labour Party and does not represent the views of the Labour Party."
Previous cache records of the LabourBristol.org website reveal that it was used as a blog for the Labour Bristol area, featuring blog posts and event information.
The domain LabourBristol.org is registered to Bristolian Ben Lock and was registered in 2010.
A rogue activist has taken over a Labour Bristol website and used it to attack party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The Labour Bristol website now carries the title "What Happened to the Labour Party?"
Underneath is a long post saying Mr Corbyn will be the "death of Labour" and claiming he is a career politician who is "ill-equipped" to lead the country.
It also turns on James Schneider and Jon Lansman, the leaders of the Momentum group which supports Mr Corbyn, claiming they are "elitists" who are using the movement to seize power.
Follow
Bristol Labour @LabourBristol
We are aware that our website has been taken over and are unable to access it. We know who is responsible and are taking action against them
12:36 PM - 9 Aug 2016
4 4 Retweets 1 1 like
The activist claims to be the owner of the domain name and says they have reclaimed the site because Labour refused to buy the name from them.
In the post, they say: "The domain was being loaned to the Bristol Labour party. Repeated efforts to get them to take ownership of the domain failed. With the current situation, I am no longer inclined to keep loaning it to them. I will likely re-purpose this domain for Bristol based Labourers information."
Labour Bristol has said it is aware of the issue. It said: "We know who is responsible and we are taking action against them."
However, a South West Labour spokesperson said: "This website is not connected to or endorsed by the Labour Party and does not represent the views of the Labour Party."
Previous cache records of the LabourBristol.org website reveal that it was used as a blog for the Labour Bristol area, featuring blog posts and event information.
The domain LabourBristol.org is registered to Bristolian Ben Lock and was registered in 2010.
One of the many surprises of post-Brexit politics has been the cull of big personalities. Practically overnight, Westminster’s most vivid characters – from the Notting Hill set to Nigel Farage – vanished. One of the few recognisable names still left on Labour’s front bench is Tom Watson, whose charismatic reputation and geeky glamour should therefore elevate him to celebrity status in this colourless new political landscape. But ever since the early hours of 24 June, Labour’s deputy leader has retreated behind a blank facial glaze so opaque as to render him completely inscrutable.
Trotskyists 'twisting arms' of young Labour members to back Corbyn, Watson says
Read more
When appearing beside Jeremy Corbyn, he wears an expression normally reserved for funerals, which of course only makes me all the more curious to know what he is thinking. I ask about his thoughts while he watched Theresa May demolish Corbyn at her first prime minister’s questions, and he starts to chuckle.
“Well, at PMQs I always try to get myself into a Buddha-like state. I try not to have any facial expression at all. Because if I laugh at a Jeremy joke, two hours later on social media it’s either interpreted as me laughing at Jeremy, or laughing at an opposition joke. Or, if I scowl at something someone says, people are accusing me of scowling at Jeremy. So I try to keep a straight face, which everyone always interprets as me looking really sad and miserable. That’s actually not the case. I’m generally just trying to remain expressionless.”
Watson does a good job at keeping it up for most of this interview, too. When we speak before the high court ruling on Labour’s leadership contest, the detached serenity he affects is disconcertingly implausible. But, as he points out several times, he will have to serve as deputy to whichever leader his party elects. “I’m 50 next year, so I’ve learned not to worry about the things you’ve got no control of. I’ve not really been in control of events in the last few weeks, and if I can’t control events, I can’t worry about them.”
He certainly did not predict them. Watson had no idea that Labour’s leader would call for article 50 to be triggered at once, within hours of the referendum result. “But if I’m being honest, I’d not focused a lot on the plan B in the planning meetings that I’d had with him.”
Failing to anticipate the impact Corbyn’s words would have on Labour MPs – “At that point I was so exhausted, I didn’t take it in on the Friday” – he made his way to Glastonbury.
Watson was offline in a silent disco when Corbyn sacked Hilary Benn late that Saturday night, and remained blissfully unaware of the unfolding crisis until he awoke the next morning to a “whole load of missed calls and texts”.
He spent the day on the phone, hurrying back to London, “trying to find out what was happening”. Remarkably, he didn’t speak to Corbyn. Did he even try? “I can’t remember, actually,” he offers vaguely. I’m not sure which would be more bizarre: Corbyn refusing to take his deputy’s call, or Watson not even bothering to phone. When they met the next day, “As ever with Jeremy, it was business-like and friendly.” Watson told him the resignations could have been prevented, had Corbyn only reached out to his shadow team and addressed their concerns. Corbyn disagreed, convinced it was a premeditated coup. “He didn’t seem angry. Just puzzled and sorrowful.”
When Watson heard that a no-confidence motion had been tabled, “I didn’t pay it much heed. I thought it wouldn’t have legs.” He won’t say which way he voted, but the result came as a shock. Even then, it didn’t occur to him that Corbyn would defy the PLP’s indictment. “I thought he would realise that to lose the confidence of 80% of your MPs means that you can’t lead the Labour party.” Watson tried to say so in private two days later, but was thwarted when two Corbyn aides made an unscheduled appearance in their car.
“I was told we would have the journey on our own, and they came. I did suggest that they didn’t, and they said we’re coming in the car. So it became very difficult to have the conversation.” Was he angry? Watson looks conflicted. “You know, at any point in time I want to put my arms around him and hug him and say it’s going to be all right, but also sort of shout and say, we need to talk about this. So I was actually feeling great sorrow for him.”
It wasn’t until six days after the no-confidence vote that Watson met Corbyn privately. “It was very sad, really. But it was also, as ever, polite. I said, I don’t think you can lead the Labour party if you’ve lost 80% of your MPs, and he said, well, look, you’ve said what you have to say, and thank you for saying it. I think he actually said, thank you for saying it in such a polite way. It was still friendly. I did my duty. I did what I could. What else can you do?”
e answers his own question minutes later, after protestations of reluctance that may or not be genuine. His plans “are at a nascent stage”, he says several times, “and I probably shouldn’t even begin to talk to Decca Aitkenhead of the Guardian about them”. But he does.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
Watson wants to reverse Ed Miliband’s “terrible error of judgment” and reinstate the old electoral college system, which accorded one-third of the votes in a leadership election to the PLP and a third each to the unions and the members. He is also drawing up proposals for an agreement “to have women holding some of the key offices of state. My personal view is if you don’t give a proper gender representation on the frontbench you’re in trouble, and either Owen or Jeremy will have to make sure that those big offices have women in them.”
Most significantly, Watson wants to reintroduce elections to the shadow cabinet. Is he sure that MPs who resigned, or refused to serve under Corbyn, would reconsider if elected by the PLP? “I have no idea. But I think if Owen wins it’s still important to do it, because a new leader has got to reshape and rebuild the PLP, and that means giving respect and dignity back to a lot of colleagues.”
How much time he will have to effect any of this is uncertain, if Watson is right about his next point. “I think it’s highly likely there’ll be an early election. I mean, if you’re Theresa May, with a majority of 12, with your Brexit fanatics already saying you’re not going quickly enough to get us out of the European Union, with having sacked too many people from the frontbench who are just looking for the opportunity for her to stumble, and with a double-digit lead in the polls, then even though on day one you might not think you’re going to have an early election, I think it’s almost inevitable you’ll get to a point where you have to. If you were Theresa May, why wouldn’t you? Honestly, why wouldn’t you? You’d get your own mandate, you’d have the easiest run at the election you could imagine, and in all likelihood you’d come back with a bigger majority. Why wouldn’t you do that?”
Could whoever wins the leadership election survive a defeat in a general election? “Well, I don’t know. I don’t know. I mean, it’s highly unlikely, isn’t it? Most leaders resign after losing an election.” Most leaders, I point out, resign after losing the confidence of 80% of MPs. “Well, yes. So it’s still possible, isn’t it?”
Watson is conspicuously reluctant to apportion blame for the crisis facing Labour, but when pressed, he acknowledges, “There are Trots that have come back to the party, and they certainly don’t have the best interests of the Labour party at heart. They see the Labour party as a vehicle for revolutionary socialism, and they’re not remotely interested in winning elections, and that’s a problem. But I don’t think the vast majority of people that have joined the Labour party and have been mobilised by the people that are in Momentum are all Trots and Bolsheviks.
“Some months ago, I described Momentum as ‘a bit of a rabble’, and although leading lights in Momentum privately acknowledged to me that they were a bit of a rabble, it caused great offence to everyone that had signed up to Momentum. Some of these people are deeply interested in political change, in building a more equal society, and are just on a journey in politics that they’re new to, and I don’t want them to feel that I’m labelling them because I’m not. But there are some old hands twisting young arms in this process, and I’m under no illusions about what’s going on. They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that’s how Trotsky entryists operate. Sooner or later, that always end up in disaster. It always ends up destroying the institutions that are vulnerable, unless you deal with it.”
What can Watson say to Guardian readers angry with him for betraying the mandate party members invested in him to serve as a loyal deputy to the leader they elected? By asking Corbyn to stand down, didn’t Watson serve the will of self-important MPs instead?
“I don’t think many Guardian readers would think that. I hope most Guardian readers would have a modicum of sympathy for the situation I find myself in. I don’t want us to be here. I don’t want us to be in this position. I didn’t want Hilary to be sacked. I didn’t want there to be a whole set of resignations. I didn’t want us to be 16 points behind in the polls. I didn’t want any of this. I’m not in control of events, but I’m doing what I can.”
He is adamant that the party will not split in the event of Corbyn’s re-election. “I don’t know of any MPs who think the party should split, and frankly I think the claim that there’s a plan out there to split the party is propaganda which actually undermines a lot of people in the PLP. Every single person I talk to on the left and right of the party thinks this is a bad idea. I’ve not had anyone muse with me about it. I’ve not had anyone gossip with me about it. I’ve not heard anyone raising it as an issue.”
Watson remains in contact with Corbyn, though it sounds rather semi-detached. “We still send the odd text to each other. It’s usually about family stuff, you know. My dad’s ill, and he’s always asking about my dad. My dad’s a big supporter of Jeremy. It’s a sort of chat really.”
Such is Watson’s reputation as master of dark arts, some observers have speculated that behind the careful facade of neutrality he is issuing coded messages via his Twitter feed. In recent weeks, it has become increasingly eccentric, featuring links to months’ old articles, such as one headlined: “Why Bad Ideas Refuse to Die.”
Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson has been accused of "peddling baseless conspiracy theories" by Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign.
It came after Mr Watson told the Guardian Labour was being infiltrated by "Trotsky entryists" who had "come back" to bolster Mr Corbyn.
Mr Corbyn's campaign team said he should be trying to "unite" the party, rather than "patronising" members.
The Labour leader is embroiled in a contest with challenger Owen Smith.
Former Labour leader Ed Miliband earlier announced he is supporting Mr Smith in the leadership contest, the outcome of which is due on 24 September.
Labour to appeal against voting rights ruling
Guide to the Labour leadership contest
Corbyn supporters elected to Labour's NEC
There has been Labour in-fighting over the massive influx of new members that have signed up to the party since Mr Corbyn became leader last September, under new rules introduced by Mr Miliband.
'Disaster'
Mr Corbyn's supporters have repeatedly faced claims by "moderate" Labour MPs - always firmly denied - that they are attempting to take over the party and transform it into a revolutionary socialist movement, in the way that the secretive Militant faction tried to do in the 1980s.
Momentum - the grassroots network that supports Mr Corbyn - insists they are trying to democratise the party's structures and give ordinary members more of a say.
Ed MilibandImage copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Ed Miliband said Owen Smith was the candidate best placed to rise to the challenge of Brexit and unite the party
Mr Watson said he did not believe that the "vast majority" of Labour members that have joined the party are "all Trots and Bolsheviks".
But he added: "But there are some old hands twisting young arms in this (leadership) process, and I'm under no illusions about what's going on.
"They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that's how Trotsky entryists operate."
"Sooner or later", he added, "that always ends up in disaster. It always ends up destroying the institutions that are vulnerable, unless you deal with it."
Mr Watson said the "Trots" did not have the party's "best interests at heart", but saw it as a "vehicle for revolutionary socialism" and were "not remotely interested in winning elections".
'Patronising'
A spokesperson for the Jeremy for Labour campaign said Mr Watson's remarks were "disappointing" and that Labour members wanted a "politics of hope" rather than "Project Fear".
"Rather than patronising members and peddling baseless conspiracy theories about 'Trotsky entryists', he should be working with Jeremy to unite our party so that we can get back to campaigning to dislodge this Tory government, and help elect a Labour government in its place," the spokesperson added.
In a further signs of the deepening rift in the party, Mr Watson also revealed in the interview that he now has little contact or communication with Mr Corbyn, bar the "odd text" - mainly about "family stuff".
He has called for Labour to replace the "one member one vote" system in Labour leadership elections with the old electoral college system - which gave a block vote to MPs, unions and members. He also wants MPs - not the party leader - to choose who to sit in the shadow cabinet.
'Desire for change'
Meanwhile, six supporters of Mr Corbyn won a clean sweep in elections to the party's ruling National Executive Committee on Monday, giving the Labour leader a majority on the body.
All six places in the section voted for by constituency parties went to members of pro-Corbyn group, Momentum, in what is being seen as a boost for the Labour leader. But these NEC elections have no bearing on the leadership contest itself.
Blairite group Progress and Labour First, which represents "moderate" Labour members, did not get their candidates elected in the section but Labour First saw two of its candidates elected in the local government section.
A spokesman for Mr Corbyn's leadership campaign said the results showed "a desire for real and genuine change in our party".
The NEC consists of the Labour leader, deputy leader, frontbenchers, trade union representatives, constituency party representatives, councillors and members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
It is the body that governs the Labour Party, but its relationship with the leadership has been under strain in recent months.
The NEC's Procedures Committee is to appeal a High Court ruling giving recent members a vote in its leadership contest between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith - a decision which has been attacked by Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell and other allies of Mr Corbyn.
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
I freely admit to being biased on this, but the SNP should be given the official title of her majesty's opposition. They're the only UK party that seems to know what they're doing and where they're going.
Labour are a shambles, UKIP are a shambles, the Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Who else is there? And at the risk of sounding like the neo lib, fascist. media baron$ - am I doing that right? - you can flip that same question, and it has been. If Jeremy is not on speaking terms with members of his cabinet how can he fulfil his duties?
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
I freely admit to being biased on this, but the SNP should be given the official title of her majesty's opposition. They're the only UK party that seems to know what they're doing and where they're going.
Labour are a shambles, UKIP are a shambles, the Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
I could get behind that. Even though I disagree. I know what the policy positions of the SNP are.
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
I freely admit to being biased on this, but the SNP should be given the official title of her majesty's opposition. They're the only UK party that seems to know what they're doing and where they're going.
Labour are a shambles, UKIP are a shambles, the Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
Funnily enough, I expect the Lib dems to make a comeback next election. They'll probably steal back one or two of their Scottish seats, and swallow up a good chunk of Labour's vote. Like many people, their stance on Europe was the only thing stopping me voting Lib Dem. If we've left Europe by the time the next election swings around, there's not really a problem in voting for them anymore.The funny thing is that they've actually got more MP's with actual government experience these days than Labour.
It would be sad to see Labour sink into third, but you know? I honestly think that young people in general these days are more natural Liberal voters than anything else. Labour's big problem is that it won it's class struggle. If my thoughts on the matter are even remotely accurate, than the lashback at Clegg will just be a blip as the Lib Dems rise again.
Who else is there? And at the risk of sounding like the neo lib, fascist. media baron$ - am I doing that right? - you can flip that same question, and it has been. If Jeremy is not on speaking terms with members of his cabinet how can he fulfil his duties?
A fair point, if Watson steps down/gets the sack then it'll just be someone like Thornberry or Abbot. I don't see how they can come back from this. Corbyn and his circle seem to be going out of their way to make sure they don't make any new friends and the PLP seem to have run out of ideas of how get rid of him. If Corbyn wins, which seems likely, then what? It'll just be more of the same.
If the Corbyns faction gets his way, purges the PLP and stacks the various committees and other party bodies with their mates then Labour will end up like Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece (before they became the government). A shrieking irrelevancy.
Ketara, what will the Lib Dems' raison d'etre be, though?
Farron is claiming a vote for the Lib Dems will see the UK back in Europe. Never going to happen, and besides, BREXIT will probably be a done deal by the next election. What then for the Lib Dems? They're a walking policy vacuum.
As for Scotland, don't underestimate the loathing for the Lib Dems up here. The Carmichael affair, his punitive actions against his constituents, and his lack of remorse, have poisoned a lot of Lib Dem support up here...
Who else is there? And at the risk of sounding like the neo lib, fascist. media baron$ - am I doing that right? - you can flip that same question, and it has been. If Jeremy is not on speaking terms with members of his cabinet how can he fulfil his duties?
A fair point, if Watson steps down/gets the sack then it'll just be someone like Thornberry or Abbot. I don't see how they can come back from this. Corbyn and his circle seem to be going out of their way to make sure they don't make any new friends and the PLP seem to have run out of ideas of how get rid of him. If Corbyn wins, which seems likely, then what? It'll just be more of the same.
If the Corbyns faction gets his way, purges the PLP and stacks the various committees and other party bodies with their mates then Labour will end up like Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece (before they became the government). A shrieking irrelevancy.
I think if things continue as they are, we'll see the Labour party split and a new breakaway party formed.
I think if things continue as they are, we'll see the Labour party split and a new breakaway party formed.
I just don't see it, the shadow of the SDP still looms large. Also FPTP votiing.
The brand name is still strong, despite the recent shambles.
But what's the alternative. As bad as the Tories are, Middle England will never elect Corbyn. Add in the boundary changes, the loss of Scotland, the loss of the NE to UKIP, and Labour are facing another kicking in 2020.
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
I freely admit to being biased on this, but the SNP should be given the official title of her majesty's opposition. They're the only UK party that seems to know what they're doing and where they're going.
Labour are a shambles, UKIP are a shambles, the Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
Absolutely not, they only represent the interests of Scotland, as is their stated purpose. They have absolutely no support, candidate, or mandate outside of Scotland.
The Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
That's not really the whole picture though because of our rather antiquated first past the post system. The Lib Dems had a million more votes at the last general election overall but ended up with 48 less seats (8 compared to 56) and the same goes for the Green party whol only got 300k less votes than SNP but ended up with 55 less seats. To put it another way Lib Dems got the same number of seats as the DUP with 2.4m vs 184k votes. In reality we need a proportional representation system to balance this all out. The Tories are going to change boundaries before the next general election but I am in no doubt that these boundaries will be used to make it even more difficult for other smaller parties to make any headway - those in close swing seats will be made as safe as possible etc. At the moment a third of the votes can give one party (Tories) the majority in parliament which no other party can achieve (I do not expect this number to improve after the next boundary 'fix'). We're never going to get round this until we have a fairer proportional representation system.
As for the papers they are happy to sling a bit of mud around when nowhere near an election because most people can't remember yesterdays headlines nevermind from two years ago apart from a couple. However near election times the papers all swing behind the parties the owners wish them to (IIRC one even changed sides from Labour to Tory over the non-dom issue) and there are examples of blatantly misleading headlines which are then retracted after the event. (I posted one from the Sun a few weeks ago). I don't think it's poor investigatory journalism to blame but more what the owners allow them to because of their vested interest; hence embarrassing stories are covered up by one side and exposed by the other (but people only read the paper they are attuned to). As such we don't really have any independent press and that's where people's views can be altered. The exception to some extent is Channel 4 and some of the smaller independents (Private Eye) because they have less vested interested from either side. Unfortunately being more independent doesn't mean they are listened to as they should be.
I think if things continue as they are, we'll see the Labour party split and a new breakaway party formed.
I just don't see it, the shadow of the SDP still looms large. Also FPTP votiing.
The brand name is still strong, despite the recent shambles.
But what's the alternative. As bad as the Tories are, Middle England will never elect Corbyn. Add in the boundary changes, the loss of Scotland, the loss of the NE to UKIP, and Labour are facing another kicking in 2020.
I cannot see where Labour gain a victory from...
No clue! It's something I've been thinking about though. Maybe this is the end of Labour as one of the big two parties? But probably not, imo.
Farron is claiming a vote for the Lib Dems will see the UK back in Europe. Never going to happen, and besides, BREXIT will probably be a done deal by the next election. What then for the Lib Dems? They're a walking policy vacuum.
They can still say they want to take the UK back in as soon as possible and it's quite possible that they will pick up a lot of votes this way. There are a lot of people that don't want to leave the EU (lets face it there was only a 700k swing in the vote required) and if they are disgruntled enough then they could swing behind the one party that is actively supporting remaining in the EU (I already know I'll only vote for a party next time that want's to remain in the EU or get back in and I know of others). We also have to remember many EU citizens were 'banned' from voting in the EU even if they had been living here for years but likely be eligible to vote in the next General Election - that's another 3 million people that could fall in behind Lib Dems if they felt strongly enough about the EU.
Also many people that didn't vote Lib Dems did so because they sacrificed their soul and went right wing which Liberal voters definitely didn't want. Of course by not voting they gave the keys to an even more right wing bunch of muppets that Liberals would have liked even less - if these people stream back to Lib Dems to ensure that we don't have another 5 years of right politics then LDs could gain quite a bit of additional traction leading to a hung parliament again (though this time if the Lib Dems had any sense they would not share power and just stick to their principles)
Absolutely not, they only represent the interests of Scotland, as is their stated purpose. They have absolutely no support, candidate, or mandate outside of Scotland.
It would be reasonable though for them to have a greater say in the politics of the whole country. A better system in my mind would be made up all the relevant parties to represent all the people in the Country. So SNP should have some of their members in the cabinet, so should Labour, NI parties and Welsh etc politicians. For example the PM could be from the leading party and the Deputy PM be cycled between an English/Welsh/NI/Scottish MP over the time of the government etc.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Ketara, what will the Lib Dems' raison d'etre be, though?
Farron is claiming a vote for the Lib Dems will see the UK back in Europe. Never going to happen, and besides, BREXIT will probably be a done deal by the next election. What then for the Lib Dems? They're a walking policy vacuum.
The Lib Dems will be the same thing they've always been. Europe has only ever been a slim part of their manifesto. They champion a continued switch towards environmentally friendly energy generation and construction, human rights, maximum possible funding for the NHS, a balanced budget, more taxation on the financial sector, reduced income tax at the bottom of the bracket, funnelling more money into education and less on defence, support for carers, etcetc.
The Lib Dems have a fairly extensive manifesto. It basically boils down to, 'less taxation for the poor, more for the rich and big business, less money on guns and more on schools and hospitals and the environment'.
Whilst the Lib Dems lost a lot of seats, most of them only require a small shift in voter numbers to shuffle them back over to Lib dem control again, and with all the Europe stuff and people hating the Tories, but feeling unable to vote Labour with all its shennanigans, the tactical vote this election may well turn out to be for Lib Dems. We might well see them gain a hundred seats as quickly as they shed fifty. They still retain a core voter base in the millions, and more importantly, a coherent and organised party framework and funding.
Assuming May doesn't screw up too badly and Labour keeps flailing, I see the Lib Dems doing quite nicely next election.
The GMB union has backed Owen Smith to become Labour leader, after balloting its membership.
Mr Smith, who is challenging incumbent Jeremy Corbyn for the job, was endorsed by 60% of union members who took part, while Mr Corbyn received 40% support.
GMB general secretary Tim Roache said he would "proudly campaign" alongside Mr Smith in the contest.
The union is one of the biggest affiliated to the party, with about 641,000 members.
Is this a case of seeing Smith as the more stable candidate or do they think he will be more malleable to the Unions' cause?
The Lib Dems will be the same thing they've always been. Europe has only ever been a slim part of their manifesto. They champion a continued switch towards environmentally friendly energy generation and construction, human rights, maximum possible funding for the NHS, a balanced budget, more taxation on the financial sector, reduced income tax at the bottom of the bracket, funnelling more money into education and less on defence, support for carers, etcetc.
Ketara, are you sure you haven't been reading the Labour manifesto from 6 years ago?
The GMB union has backed Owen Smith to become Labour leader, after balloting its membership.
Mr Smith, who is challenging incumbent Jeremy Corbyn for the job, was endorsed by 60% of union members who took part, while Mr Corbyn received 40% support.
GMB general secretary Tim Roache said he would "proudly campaign" alongside Mr Smith in the contest.
The union is one of the biggest affiliated to the party, with about 641,000 members.
Is this a case of seeing Smith as the more stable candidate or do they think he will be more malleable to the Unions' cause?
Ever since Ed Miliband's one member one vote reforms, the unions have lost their way a bit in the Labour party. This is symbolic, but I think Corbyn's base, many of whom will be GMB members, will carry the day for him...
Farron is claiming a vote for the Lib Dems will see the UK back in Europe. Never going to happen, and besides, BREXIT will probably be a done deal by the next election. What then for the Lib Dems? They're a walking policy vacuum.
They can still say they want to take the UK back in as soon as possible and it's quite possible that they will pick up a lot of votes this way. There are a lot of people that don't want to leave the EU (lets face it there was only a 700k swing in the vote required) and if they are disgruntled enough then they could swing behind the one party that is actively supporting remaining in the EU (I already know I'll only vote for a party next time that want's to remain in the EU or get back in and I know of others). We also have to remember many EU citizens were 'banned' from voting in the EU even if they had been living here for years but likely be eligible to vote in the next General Election - that's another 3 million people that could fall in behind Lib Dems if they felt strongly enough about the EU.
Also many people that didn't vote Lib Dems did so because they sacrificed their soul and went right wing which Liberal voters definitely didn't want. Of course by not voting they gave the keys to an even more right wing bunch of muppets that Liberals would have liked even less - if these people stream back to Lib Dems to ensure that we don't have another 5 years of right politics then LDs could gain quite a bit of additional traction leading to a hung parliament again (though this time if the Lib Dems had any sense they would not share power and just stick to their principles)
Absolutely not, they only represent the interests of Scotland, as is their stated purpose. They have absolutely no support, candidate, or mandate outside of Scotland.
It would be reasonable though for them to have a greater say in the politics of the whole country. A better system in my mind would be made up all the relevant parties to represent all the people in the Country. So SNP should have some of their members in the cabinet, so should Labour, NI parties and Welsh etc politicians. For example the PM could be from the leading party and the Deputy PM be cycled between an English/Welsh/NI/Scottish MP over the time of the government etc.
IMO, any Lib Dem plan to hold another referendum or pull a parliamentary vote to get us back into Europe, is dead in the water.
The country wouldn't stand for it, and many people still see the Lib Dems through the prism of the Coalition...
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
I freely admit to being biased on this, but the SNP should be given the official title of her majesty's opposition. They're the only UK party that seems to know what they're doing and where they're going.
Labour are a shambles, UKIP are a shambles, the Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
Absolutely not, they only represent the interests of Scotland, as is their stated purpose. They have absolutely no support, candidate, or mandate outside of Scotland.
You're spot on with your point, and as an SNP supporter myself, I obviously can't deny that the SNP strategy is to break up Britain...
But it's an easy win for us to say that we're still UK citizens with all the legal rights that go with it, and if you deny our MPs the right to influence or make policy for the whole of the UK, then it's not a United Kingdom and that only helps the cause of Scottish independence...
Mr. Burning wrote: PMQ's would probably be better with Sturgeon across from May. Make the Tory front bench squirm a bit.
During the Blair years, when Tony was romping to victory, and the Tories best response was Michael Howard or IDS or even William Hague
you can argue that the Tories were in a wretched state, with a terrible run of bad luck.
And then they lucked out. Cameron had Gordon brown, Clegg acted as a human shield, then Cameron had Ed and his tombstone , and now the Tories have got Corbyn and a Labour civil war, with UKIP doing their Basil Fawlty impression
So yeah, it's come full circle, but the pendulum will swing the other way, and the bad luck will return for the Tories...I hope...
The Lib Dems will be the same thing they've always been. Europe has only ever been a slim part of their manifesto. They champion a continued switch towards environmentally friendly energy generation and construction, human rights, maximum possible funding for the NHS, a balanced budget, more taxation on the financial sector, reduced income tax at the bottom of the bracket, funnelling more money into education and less on defence, support for carers, etcetc.
Ketara, are you sure you haven't been reading the Labour manifesto from 6 years ago?
Either that, the Lib Dems did a cut and paste job
It's more that Labour cut and paste the Lib Dem one from the previous twenty years. The Lib Dems have been in the political centre ground for decades. It's why they're literally called the 'Liberal' Democrats, they espouse liberalism in all it's slightly naive glory. It's only recently both the Tories and Labour have started squatting there and trying to edge them out.
IMO, any Lib Dem plan to hold another referendum or pull a parliamentary vote to get us back into Europe, is dead in the water.
I think if they somehow won power before we left, they'd try and stop it, but if it were afterwards, I don't think they'd try and rejoin. There'd be little point by that stage.
r_squared wrote: They have absolutely no support, candidate, or mandate outside of Scotland.
Yet Scotland still has a Tory government....
Either you've missed the fact that Tories throw up candidates in all the Scots constituencies, have a voterbase there measured in the hundreds of thousands, and possess a Scottish MP, unlike the SNP in reverse for the rest of Britain, or you're just trolling. I'll assume you're trying to make a genuine contribution to the discussion and interpret your statement as the former.
Nope, the UK has a Tory Government and Scotland is part of the U.K.
Scotland has a single Tory MP yet we have a Tory government (again). On that basis the SNP could easily form the official opposition as quite clearly you don't need anything like substantial support in all parts of the nations of the UK to be the government, although they obviously don't have the number of seats required. If a snap GE was held its even possible that the SNP would be the official opposition in terms of seats held.
Nationalists see the world in small compartmentalised ways, they like to throw up borders. feth that.
Not in the SNPs case. There are xenophobic nationalists and then there are self determinist nationalists; the SNP is the latter. You won't find the BNP welcoming immigrants......
I'm afraid that while I know there are racist nationalists but not all nationalists are racists, that wasn't my point.
Nationalists, of all flavours, whether racist or not, are focused entirely on a small, closed worldview which consists entirely of viewing the entire world as "us and them". "Us" are people who just happen to be born in an arbitrary geographic location, "them" being everyone else.
Somehow nationalists believe that geography is what defines a people. I think that's bollocks, it was one very small part of a society. A welder in Scarborough is much the same as a welder in Madrid.
Nationalists, of all flavours, whether racist or not, are focused entirely on a small, closed worldview which consists entirely of viewing the entire world as "us and them".
Why is the SNP so keen on the EU? Why is it so welcoming to immigrants? Why is it very keen to appeal to non Scots living in Scotland? Nationalism has a very bad name, with a lot of justification, but it can be a positive political force. The focal point of the SNPs political existence is to regain political power for Scotland from Westminster, not to arbitrarily build metaphorical walls. When Scotland does become independent the walls that may be erected will be due to Engllish nationalism and their Brexit 'victory'.
r_squared wrote: A welder in Scarborough is much the same as a welder in Madrid.
Yes but there are cultural and political differences between the two and when the welder in Scarborough gets to make all the decisions and the guy in Madrid gets routinely ignored then there is a problem.
The reason why the SNP is so successful is that it is far more than a single issue party. As it stands it is the only coherent and credible left wing party in the whole of the UK.
Nationalists, of all flavours, whether racist or not, are focused entirely on a small, closed worldview which consists entirely of viewing the entire world as "us and them".
Why is the SNP so keen on the EU? Why is it so welcoming to immigrants? Why is it very keen to appeal to non Scots living in Scotland? Nationalism has a very bad name, with a lot of justification, but it can be a positive political force. The focal point of the SNPs political existence is to regain political power for Scotland from Westminster, not to arbitrarily build metaphorical walls. When Scotland does become independent the walls that may be erected will be due to Engllish nationalism and their Brexit 'victory'.
r_squared wrote: A welder in Scarborough is much the same as a welder in Madrid.
Yes but there are cultural and political differences between the two and when the welder in Scarborough gets to make all the decisions and the guy in Madrid gets routinely ignored then there is a problem.
The reason why the SNP is so successful is that it is far more than a single issue party. As it stands it is the only coherent and credible left wing party in the whole of the UK.
I am not debating the specifics of the SNP's position on the EU, especially as I myself am a Remainer, however why is Scottish Nationalism good, but English Nationalism bad? In my mind, both are bad, because they create artificial divisions between people that the EU was seeking to break down. And to answer whose "fault" it will be if borders are built, it will be both the rUK and Scotland's. Wales and England for voting for Leave, and Scotland for voting for independence then re-applying to the EU.
However, getting back to my original point of why the SNP could never be the opposition, the referendum provides a solid example. Whilst the SNP did a stirling job in making the remain argument in Scotland, that was where their influence ended. They were unable to influence a single voter outside of Scotland on that one monumental issue, how can they act as opposition on anything else?
In fact the referendum is perhaps the defining issue which proves how disastrous a Nationalist pov is. If the SNP and UKIP did not exist, as in there was no Nationalist feelings in Scotland and England, and the other parties existed solely on their political outlooks, then it is highly likely that the referendum would not have happened at all.
We should have been able to counter the real problems in the UK, centralisation of wealth and influence in the South, the abondonment and decline of the regions, and quasi-unfettered neo-liberalism.
r_squared wrote: If the SNP and UKIP did not exist, as in there was no Nationalist feelings in Scotland and England
The SNP and UKIP are very different animals.
If there were no nationalism there would still be the problem of the differing political ideals of the Scottish and English populations. That is at the heart of the SNPs power. The 'Braveheart' nationalists of the 90's are few and far between these days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the SNP should put up candidates outside Scotland.
They would probably get a fair bit of support as well, no seats of course but they won't lose their deposit.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the SNP should put up candidates outside Scotland.
Their choice of name, and political aim, precludes them from doing so, because no matter what, they are defined by Scottish indepence and are unable to act in the interests of the UK, much as the absolutely ridiculous scenario we faced when some UKIP MEP's were representing the UK in the EU.
By their own standards a Welsh advertising executive living in Haywards Heath cannot be represented by a Scottish Nationalist.
Their choice of name, and political aim, precludes them from doing so, because no matter what, they are defined by Scottish indepence and are unable to act in the interests of the UK
They are though, for as long as Scotland is within the UK, the SNP will work to uphold their political vision within the UK as a whole from Westminster as that is the only way of effectively transferring that vision to Scotland. Independence is the end goal but they are quite obviously more than capable of fighting their Westminster battles on Trident, austerity and economic inequality.
r_squared wrote: I'm afraid that while I know there are racist nationalists but not all nationalists are racists, that wasn't my point.
Nationalists, of all flavours, whether racist or not, are focused entirely on a small, closed worldview which consists entirely of viewing the entire world as "us and them". "Us" are people who just happen to be born in an arbitrary geographic location, "them" being everyone else.
Somehow nationalists believe that geography is what defines a people. I think that's bollocks, it was one very small part of a society. A welder in Scarborough is much the same as a welder in Madrid.
I don't deny the unsavoury aspects of nationalism, the wars, the strife, and so on, but people overlook the fact that the SNP are pursuing civic nationalism. They want to remain part of the EU, are pro migrant and refugee, and Scotland was the first part of the UK to introduce same sex marriage.
I'm not accusing you of this, but there are other people, such as David Starkey, who have tried to equate the SNP's civic nationalism with the blood and soil nationalism of Nazi Germany, which is a ridiculous comparison...
And another point, you've declared your pro-EU, pro Remain stance, which is your right, but I find it ironic that the nationalistic tendencies of the EU have been overlooked.
I heard it said numerous times that if you were ant-EU, you were anti Europe, as if Europe and the EU were one and the same, which they are not...
And let's not mention the EU's aggressive expansion to the east, the stifling of democracy, and the sublimation of all states into one super state. That too is nationalism in my book...
r_squared wrote: They have absolutely no support, candidate, or mandate outside of Scotland.
Yet Scotland still has a Tory government....
Nope, the UK has a Tory Government and Scotland is part of the U.K. That's like saying Cornwall has a Tory Government.
Until the day Scotland votes to leave, you are still members of the United Kingdom, and thus are ruled from Westminster.
These are old arguments, but you're overlooking the special nature of the UK - Scotland was a soverign nation in its own right that joined with another sovereign nation to form the UK, we all know that. It's a partnership, not Greater England.
From the top of my head, I can count 3 violations of that act of Union:
1) The poll tax in the 1980s
2) The abolition of the Scottish mint
3) The establishment of a supreme court in London. Scots law is supposed to be a separate body, with the highest authority being the Lord advocate in Edinburgh, not a supreme court in London...
The Cornwall comparison is daft, becuase to the best of my knowledge, Cornwall has never been a sovereign nation, since at least AD 400, when the Romans left
Blogs on the network even include those of individual politicians such as Ukip’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, who asks to be paid in a rather unusual manner.
"The quirk about Douglas is that because he is such a fiscally responsible person, he wants payment in gold," Singh says. "Every month instead of sending him a wire transfer, we are sending him a gold nugget."
U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May faces a daunting array of demands from European Union nations when the time comes to negotiate Britain’s future relationship with the bloc, an analysis of the region’s 27 other members shows.
The Bloomberg survey, based on responses from ministries, public comments from government officials and interviews with policy makers, reveals European leaders are laying down their own red lines as May’s team weighs what it wants to seek in the Brexit talks.
The result is a complex patchwork of priorities -- from fishing to shipping, an insistence on freedom of movement to the sovereignty of Gibraltar -- that may run counter to what the U.K. wants to achieve. May will still have to seek to satisfy at least some of them if she is to meet her commitment of making a success of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.
“Clearly there are going to be different issues raised by all the different sides,” said Stephen Booth, co-director of Open Europe, a London-based research group. “The EU is ultimately a compromise of national interests so whatever the U.K. gets in the end will be that.”
Seven weeks since voters in the U.K. chose to quit the EU, Bloomberg News reporters in each of the region’s capitals have compiled the first comprehensive look at the main topics the 27 other governments want to raise in the negotiations. Two years of formal talks won’t begin until May invokes Article 50 of the bloc’s Lisbon Treaty.
Free Movement
Worryingly for May and her Brexit minister, David Davis, several countries including Germany, Portugal and the Czech Republic insist that the U.K. adhere to rules on free movement of labor in return for access to the single market in goods and services. Many who backed Brexit did so in the belief it would mean fewer immigrants.
Just three fellow EU members -- Denmark, Austria and Bulgaria -- cited a shared concern with Britain over immigration, suggesting that May will find sympathy in short supply.
France signaled it is ready to go even further and link freedom of movement to Britain’s ambition of retaining the passporting rights that allow the financial industry to sell services and raise money on the continent.
The U.K. has to accept that this will be a package deal and both freedom of capital and freedom of labor are part of the package, according to Sandro Gozi, Italy’s junior minister for European affairs. “It’s not take it or leave it,” Gozi said.
Another clash may loom over the determination of countries in eastern Europe as well as Greece to ensure the U.K. continues paying into EU coffers to maintain the flow of funds to their region. Pro-Brexit lawmakers campaigned to keep what they said was the equivalent of 350 million pounds ($460 million) per week the U.K. sends to the EU, although they have since walked away from that calculation.
Among the challenges for the U.K. that top the agenda in other capitals are the following:
Belgium is concerned about the potential for populist and separatist sentiment spreading to its restive region of Flanders
The government in Dublin wants to prevent a hard border with Northern Ireland
France and Denmark are concerned with reciprocal access for fishermen to their respective waters
Spain will press to assume joint sovereignty over Gibraltar
Austria wants to stop the U.K. from awarding power subsidies for the Hinkley Point nuclear plant, if it goes ahead
The chief concern among the 27 was ensuring continued protection for their citizens living in the U.K. About 200,000 Spaniards live in the U.K., with some 800,000 Britons resident in Spain, for example. May says she wants “to be able to guarantee the rights of those EU citizens living in the U.K.,” but that will only be possible if the rights of Britons are protected elsewhere.
Security Concerns
Baltic and eastern European states also want reassurances about continued security in the face of Russian aggression.
“It’s not just about trade,” said Booth. “Security, geopolitics are important too and put the niggly trade issues in perspective.”
There are also potential upsides for the U.K. Malta is among those keen to retain preferential access to British universities for its young people, and to specialist hospitals for its sick.
Ireland, which is the most vulnerable to the fallout from Brexit, wants to give Britain as much access to the single market as possible to avoid the imposition of costly tariffs on both sides. Germany, as Europe’s biggest economy, had a trade surplus with the U.K. of 51 billion euros ($56 billion) in 2015.
British Tourists
Estonia warned against taking retaliatory measures toward the U.K. Cyprus and Greece want to limit any economic fallout that would hurt the pound further and discourage the large numbers of British tourists who flock to both countries.
Still, several EU members are looking to profit from Brexit. Italy aims to poach institutions including the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency. Greece is keen to capitalize on Brexit to lure jobs in shipping, while Malta, an English-speaking former British territory, will pitch to be the U.K.’s “gateway” to Europe. Luxembourg wants to attract financial jobs from the City of London.
“After London, we are the first and obvious choice. We have already many British players in our country,” Luxembourg’s Finance Minister Pierre Gramegna told Bloomberg TV. “And we have a lot of political stability and hence a lot of predictability. That’s what investors are looking for.”
Also in doubt is who should lead the talks. While May will prefer to seek a deal with counterparts such as Germany’s Angela Merkel in the hope she can appeal to common interest, Sweden insists that she engage with the European Commission.
“There have been discussions, not least calls from various U.K corners, for separate agreements between the U.K. and different countries,” Swedish EU Minister Ann Linde said. “We want to counteract all such attempts; there shouldn’t be separate agreements but only with the EU as a whole.”
.. still , least we can all pay for new -- but BLUE ! -- passports eh ?
Liam Fox -- fresh from achieving absolutely nothing in the USA & avoiding questions about the charity he helps run, has announced that we'll seek to trade with the EU under WTO rules --- whilst there's some doubt about our membership of that staying as is, I think we're probably alright there.
Spoiler:
It seems that this would put us trading -- with the EU -- with a 10% levy on cars, 12% on clothes and more.
-- disclaimer -- totally going off other people/claims online here so ....
Its his twin brother. He was locked up in the attic at a young age, frothing at the mouth over those damn foreigners and making wild claims about taking down the EU. His sensible sibling wanted a promising career in the EU, mainly through working with the fisheries commission.
Regardless of Corbyn, retroactively applying a 6month wait to vote period is awful.
Even if Corbyn is unelectable, this idiocy is going to hurt Labours chances far more than getting behind and supporting the leader.
So just let the guy have his one general election, if he fails, then get rid of him, but until then how does anyone know what people are going to vote like in 4 years, he may have a chance, he may not. But infighting doesn't help anyone.
Also also are they then going to refund these people who now don't get to vote?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: So just let the guy have his one general election, if he fails, then get rid of him, but until then how does anyone know what people are going to vote like in 4 years, he may have a chance, he may not. But infighting doesn't help anyone.
The problem with that, from the Labour MPs point of view is that they want power and they want it now. I've never been anti Labour, although I've never voted for them, but every time one of them gives an interview at the moment it is all about power. I understand you need to be in a position of power to achieve your objectives, but the manner in which they talk about wanting power is, to me, disturbing.
This is why they aren't prepared to let Corbyn have a run at an election. They believe they'll lose again and not having that power is the worst outcome for them, even worse than splitting the party in to factions.
Blogs on the network even include those of individual politicians such as Ukip’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, who asks to be paid in a rather unusual manner.
"The quirk about Douglas is that because he is such a fiscally responsible person, he wants payment in gold," Singh says. "Every month instead of sending him a wire transfer, we are sending him a gold nugget."
.. what the feth ?
Yes, this is a thing, if you are of a mind that the world economy is heading for collapse, you get yourself paid in nuggets or those little ingots if paid enough, and squirrel them away for barter come the death of grass, Trump presidency, or whatever else triggers the meltdown of civilisation. Not saying that is Carswells motivation necessarily, but he wouldn't be alone.
Events will probably prove him wise in the long run. Even without the collapse of civilization, gold will probably retain its value better than FIAT currency as inflation rises. Right?
Gold is valuable because vast economic institutions agree that it is valuable. Originally it was favoured because it's pretty, somewhat rare and very difficult to mimic but it may take a while for that sort of thing to become relevant again should everything collapse. If you want to prepare for that sort of event you would be better off getting paid in medical supplies and equipment, camping equipment, clothes, sewing equipment, material to establish farming etc etc.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: So just let the guy have his one general election, if he fails, then get rid of him, but until then how does anyone know what people are going to vote like in 4 years, he may have a chance, he may not. But infighting doesn't help anyone.
The problem with that, from the Labour MPs point of view is that they want power and they want it now. I've never been anti Labour, although I've never voted for them, but every time one of them gives an interview at the moment it is all about power. I understand you need to be in a position of power to achieve your objectives, but the manner in which they talk about wanting power is, to me, disturbing.
This is why they aren't prepared to let Corbyn have a run at an election. They believe they'll lose again and not having that power is the worst outcome for them, even worse than splitting the party in to factions.
I'm no Corbyn fan, and I think he's fatally flawed, but I think his policy and principals first approach is the right thing? Why?
Becuase power for its own sake is not going to win Labour elections. They've lost Scotland, they've lost their old industrial heartlands to UKIP, and the boundary changes means that Labour have to win 20-30 more seats to get in power. Never going to happen.
Now, never in a million years will Middle England vote for Corbyn, but, none of the above is the fasting growing political party.
Going after millions of potential voters who don't vote makes more sense thatn going after the 250,000 Middle England voters in swing seats who do vote, but will never vote for you anyway...
Wholes swathes of Britain don't give two hoots for voting or our political parties, the SNP bucking the trend.
Appealing to people, giving them something to believe in, is not a bad strategy IMO.
Given how people have signed up purely to support Corbyn as a party leader, gathering entire new voters seems much more sensible than competing to fellate right-wingers. Scooping up the previously disenfranchised is kind of a historically obvious thing to do for leftists and usually the whole point.
Rosebuddy wrote: Given how people have signed up purely to support Corbyn as a party leader, gathering entire new voters seems much more sensible than competing to fellate right-wingers. Scooping up the previously disenfranchised is kind of a historically obvious thing to do for leftists and usually the whole point.
I agree. That said, I'm torn on the Big Brother approach to politics.
On one hand, I think it's great more people are getting involved, and like the idea of our leaders being picked more democratically. On the flip side of the coin though, I can't help but feel that giving the same weight to a vote by someone who paid the cost of a BB text message as you would a dedicated decades long party activist is somehow wrong. It also feels like it cheapens the (already cheapened) political system further and makes politics more about Blair style smoke and mirrors and celebrity over substance (so party loyalty, ideals, or history).
I think I would genuinely leave the country if Corbyn got into No.10. This is the sort of guy that would never give up his power as evidence by the shambles that's been going on post-Brexit.
Rosebuddy wrote: Given how people have signed up purely to support Corbyn as a party leader, gathering entire new voters seems much more sensible than competing to fellate right-wingers. Scooping up the previously disenfranchised is kind of a historically obvious thing to do for leftists and usually the whole point.
I agree. That said, I'm torn on the Big Brother approach to politics.
On one hand, I think it's great more people are getting involved, and like the idea of our leaders being picked more democratically. On the flip side of the coin though, I can't help but feel that giving the same weight to a vote by someone who paid the cost of a BB text message as you would a dedicated decades long party activist is somehow wrong. It also feels like it cheapens the (already cheapened) political system further and makes politics more about Blair style smoke and mirrors and celebrity over substance (so party loyalty, ideals, or history).
That's my main worry. A lot of people chucked a quid at the Labour party to get Corbyn elected as leader, and have had nothing else to do with Labour since. They've not donated any money, time, or effort to the party, and only appear when Corbyn is under fire. It feels less like they're members of the Labour party, and more like they're a Corbyn fan-club who couldn't really care less about the party as a whole. It's great that so many people--especially young people--are active in politics, but the sense of entitlement so many have brought with them, having paid £1 to 'join up', is irritating. Would I feel a bit miffed if it was happening to me? Maybe, but it makes sense that since I only once gave them a quid, and since then have done literally nothing else, that I shouldn't exactly be treated as some sort of valued member. I haven't earned anything even resembling that right.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think I would genuinely leave the country if Corbyn got into No.10. This is the sort of guy that would never give up his power as evidence by the shambles that's been going on post-Brexit.
I don't really see how you can suggest that, at all. He is standing by his democratic mandate. He was elected by the membership to do that job and he will continue to do that until the membership vote him out.
That is what political leaders, such as prime ministers, are meant to do.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think I would genuinely leave the country if Corbyn got into No.10. This is the sort of guy that would never give up his power as evidence by the shambles that's been going on post-Brexit.
I don't really see how you can suggest that, at all. He is standing by his democratic mandate. He was elected by the membership to do that job and he will continue to do that until the membership vote him out.
That is what political leaders, such as prime ministers, are meant to do.
I see what you're saying. Yes, he was elected by the membership. But if the majority of people who worked for him think he couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, then that doesn't really inspire confidence for running a country, ya know? Non-parliamentary Labour Party members aren't privy to the same level of information as the parliamentary folks.
Rosebuddy wrote: Given how people have signed up purely to support Corbyn as a party leader, gathering entire new voters seems much more sensible than competing to fellate right-wingers. Scooping up the previously disenfranchised is kind of a historically obvious thing to do for leftists and usually the whole point.
I agree. That said, I'm torn on the Big Brother approach to politics.
On one hand, I think it's great more people are getting involved, and like the idea of our leaders being picked more democratically. On the flip side of the coin though, I can't help but feel that giving the same weight to a vote by someone who paid the cost of a BB text message as you would a dedicated decades long party activist is somehow wrong. It also feels like it cheapens the (already cheapened) political system further and makes politics more about Blair style smoke and mirrors and celebrity over substance (so party loyalty, ideals, or history).
That's my main worry. A lot of people chucked a quid at the Labour party to get Corbyn elected as leader, and have had nothing else to do with Labour since. They've not donated any money, time, or effort to the party, and only appear when Corbyn is under fire. It feels less like they're members of the Labour party, and more like they're a Corbyn fan-club who couldn't really care less about the party as a whole. It's great that so many people--especially young people--are active in politics, but the sense of entitlement so many have brought with them, having paid £1 to 'join up', is irritating. Would I feel a bit miffed if it was happening to me? Maybe, but it makes sense that since I only once gave them a quid, and since then have done literally nothing else, that I shouldn't exactly be treated as some sort of valued member. I haven't earned anything even resembling that right.
If people care enough to actively join to vote then there's something there that the rest of the party would do well to engage with and nurture. If Corbyn supporters don't engage with the rest of the party then the reason for this has to be investigated. Is it because a lot of the Labour Party doesn't actually do anything for them and Corbyn is an exception? Is it because Corbyn's election is simply a matter they feel they really do have an influence on? Obviously the disenfranchised are a tough audience for a parliamentary party since they by definition don't vote so this may be a limitation of Labour as it currently exists. Swallowing their pride and re-evaluating who exactly they seek support among, who exactly they are for and of, might be the only thing Labour can do to remain relevant as a political force in general.
How to value seniority is one thing to think about, since both of you brought it up. Indeed, any political organisation has reason to be concerned with a sudden influx of new members who want to move in an entirely different direction than the established group. This can subvert or destroy a party (as we're witnessing now!). But does Labour want to be just a party, essentially a hobby club that lets people play power games and get consultation jobs? Or does Labour want to be labour, the sum total of all organised workers in the country? If the former, then no, new members who toss in a coupla quids for a laff shouldn't have the same say as those who've been in the game for decades. If the latter, then yes, a worker is a worker regardless of how long they have been truly aware of this fact.
If people care enough to actively join to vote then there's something there that the rest of the party would do well to engage with and nurture. If Corbyn supporters don't engage with the rest of the party then the reason for this has to be investigated. Is it because a lot of the Labour Party doesn't actually do anything for them and Corbyn is an exception? Is it because Corbyn's election is simply a matter they feel they really do have an influence on? Obviously the disenfranchised are a tough audience for a parliamentary party since they by definition don't vote so this may be a limitation of Labour as it currently exists. Swallowing their pride and re-evaluating who exactly they seek support among, who exactly they are for and of, might be the only thing Labour can do to remain relevant as a political force in general.
I personally (YMMV), think there's a touch of net activism about it. It's like signing petitions on the internet, people like to feel like they can influence affairs from their computer chairs, and £3 was little enough money that actually being able to choose the opposition party leader was too much to resist. I think it was also a protest vote, people are sick of career politicians, so they picked the one that looked least like one (ironically, considering Corbyn is the definition of a career politician).
The problem with such support is that it can melt as fast as it appears. It has no real stake in the Labour party, no actual involvement or dialogue, and no real interest in it.
How to value seniority is one thing to think about, since both of you brought it up. Indeed, any political organisation has reason to be concerned with a sudden influx of new members who want to move in an entirely different direction than the established group. This can subvert or destroy a party (as we're witnessing now!). But does Labour want to be just a party, essentially a hobby club that lets people play power games and get consultation jobs? Or does Labour want to be labour, the sum total of all organised workers in the country? If the former, then no, new members who toss in a coupla quids for a laff shouldn't have the same say as those who've been in the game for decades. If the latter, then yes, a worker is a worker regardless of how long they have been truly aware of this fact.
To be honest, I'm looking more down the line. Past Corbyn, to the Labour a decade hence. Whether Corbyn wins or loses in any election of any kind, the Labour leader will now be decided by a 'Celebrities on Ice' vote. And that sort of system is naturally inclined, in my eyes, to promote the worst excesses we associate with reality TV. The promotion of the outrageous, the showboating and the attention grabbing above substance. Fad voting if you will.
And if that's the case, that means that the activists and politicians of the Labour Party will be expected to change to whatever the person voted in by the mob is championing, regardless of whether or not that's actually what the party they joined and worked for stands for. If something is popular one year, and so you join the party and work your way up on the basis of that principle, you might find it's no longer popular ten years later and people are baying for your deselection.
Alternatively, you might find Tom Hiddleston join Labour and runs for leader and wins regardless of his qualification because enough girls find him pretty.
I just feel it's a really bad system for stability and continuity and good solid governance, y'know?
One supposes there's a slim chance she's using them against each other -- while Parliament is in recess/summer holidays -- so she can get rid of one/both/more with a quick reshuffle, having given them enough rope to hang themselves.
I have a somewhat random question about UK politics.
How come Queen Elizabeth's husband isn't the King of England? I was under the impression that marrying a King is how a woman becomes Queen. Doesn't it work the same way if the genders are reversed?
No. Making a Royal Spouse a Monarch in their own right confers onto them a degree of Constitutional power. The way our Constitutional Monarchy is set up, we concentrate that power and status in the Monarch, instead of sharing it out with their spouse. Cuts down on the potential for constitutional crises I suppose.
Imagine the potential crisis if Charles and Camilla had more children together after his first children William and Harry. Philip makes Camilla a Queen, then Philip dies, leaving Camilla on the throne. What if Camilla got the idea in her head to try to change the line of succession in favour of her own children.
Why is the Queen's husband Prince Philip not King Philip?
The husband of a queen is known as a Prince consort and does not become King. Queen Victoria's husband was Prince Albert, and Queen Elizabeth's husband is Prince Philip The Duke of Edinburgh. The wife of a king is a Queen consort and does take the title Queen although she does not rule as the monarch. The only exceptions were William III and Mary II who ruled jointly from 1689 until Mary's death in 1694
Okies, so marrying a King or Queen does not automatically confer the relevant position. Cool. Thanks. : D
So... When Elizabeth eventually passes, who will become King or Queen then?
What if Camilla got the idea in her head to try to change the line of succession in favour of her own children?
There would be a lot of high-priced lawyers arguing for years, like with every case where the person to receive a hugely important inheritance is in question.
Pouncey wrote: Okies, so marrying a King or Queen does not automatically confer the relevant position. Cool. Thanks. : D
So... When Elizabeth eventually passes, who will become King or Queen then?
What if Camilla got the idea in her head to try to change the line of succession in favour of her own children?
There would be a lot of high-priced lawyers arguing for years, like with every case where the person to receive a hugely important inheritance is in question.
Marrying a King confers the title of Queen, as a Queen consort (assuming the person marrying isn't male, I don't think that's happened before so I don't know what'd happen). Marrying a Queen generally does not confer the title of King, only Prince consort. Probably has something to do with the assumption in old times that a King would be the ruler, so to emphasize that the Queen was a Queen Regnant as opposed to a Queen consort the consort of the Queen was made a "mere" Prince consort.
Charles would then be next, however there is a not-insubstantial movement that Charles should immediately then abdicate and allow William and Kate to rule.
Pouncey wrote: Okies, so marrying a King or Queen does not automatically confer the relevant position. Cool. Thanks. : D
So... When Elizabeth eventually passes, who will become King or Queen then?
What if Camilla got the idea in her head to try to change the line of succession in favour of her own children?
There would be a lot of high-priced lawyers arguing for years, like with every case where the person to receive a hugely important inheritance is in question.
Marrying a King confers the title of Queen, as a Queen consort (assuming the person marrying isn't male, I don't think that's happened before so I don't know what'd happen). Marrying a Queen generally does not confer the title of King, only Prince consort. Probably has something to do with the assumption in old times that a King would be the ruler, so to emphasize that the Queen was a Queen Regnant as opposed to a Queen consort the consort of the Queen was made a "mere" Prince consort.
:: nodnod ::
Side note on the terminology, the USA might have to figure out what to call the husband of a President in a few months, as their President having a husband has never happened before. It'll be especially confusing because in this particular case, that husband will have been a former President himself.
Should be fun times.
Anyways, thanks for answering my random questions, please resume your thread. : D
Compel wrote: Charles would then be next, however there is a not-insubstantial movement that Charles should immediately then abdicate and allow William and Kate to rule.
Which would be fething disastrous and the final nail in the coffin for the British Monarchy. A Monarchy is not and should not be a Big Brother popularity contest. We're not the planet of Naboo.
Side note on the terminology, the USA might have to figure out what to call the husband of a President in a few months, as their President having a husband has never happened before. It'll be especially confusing because in this particular case, that husband will have been a former President himself.
Should be fun times.
Its pretty simple surely? A wife is a "First Lady". A husband would therefore be a "First Gentleman"?
Granted, the First Gentleman being a former President himself complicates matters. First Gentleman President Clinton?
I just feel it's a really bad system for stability and continuity and good solid governance, y'know?
Stability like the '08 crash, or an EU referendum called by a party leader motivated not by democracy but by the desire to shut down dissenters in his own ranks? Continuity like the previous, less public Blair v Brown civil war, or like the present vacillating incoherence from the Tories who can't even agree what the bloody Foreign Secretary's job is supposed to be? Good solid governance like de-industrialisation, right-to-buy, bank deregulation, flogging our gold reserves for a fraction of their value a couple of years later, the Iraq War, arming Syrian rebels who were Al Quada six months ago but are cool-beans now because they've "de-affiliated", Work Capability Assessments, NHS privatisation, etc etc etc etc?
We've had decades of "good solid governance", and it's been a gakshow.
As for how it relates to Labour specifically, if they're not capable of making a more democratic system work, that's their failing nobody else's. Local SNP branches practice mandatory reselection as a matter of course, broad policy decisions are ratified at the party conference, and they took a huge influx of new members as an opportunity, valuing the new ideas, new candidates, and new activists they gained, using those activists and their fees to deliver their 2015 General Election result(huge swings in "safe" seats, and an increase in young and C2DE voter turnout). EDIT: By way of example; the Deputy Leadership is currently up for grabs, and the lead condenders are Angus Robertson the WM leader who's been about for years and is playing as the "safe hands" candidate, Alyn Smith MEP who's obviously playing up the Europe issue, and Tommy Sheppard who's a former Labour man who only came to the SNP as a result of the referendum campaign but is now an MP and is pitching a green/left/even more democritisation of the party prospectus. So, two old hands and an "entryist"(the fourth gent is a local councillor, decent enough, but not setting the world aflame), and so far no sign of animosity or power struggles or press briefings or senior party officials ranting about "Trotsky" conspiracy theories. The problem with the PLP is the PLP.
Labour aren't afraid to democratise the running of the party because it's unstable, or bad governance, they're afraid to do it because the PLP don't represent the interests of the "core" voters that prop them up in their safe seats and they don't want to start.
I just feel it's a really bad system for stability and continuity and good solid governance, y'know?
Stability like the '08 crash, or an EU referendum called by a party leader motivated not by democracy but by the desire to shut down dissenters in his own ranks? Continuity like the previous, less public Blair v Brown civil war, or like the present vacillating incoherence from the Tories who can't even agree what the bloody Foreign Secretary's job is supposed to be? Good solid governance like de-industrialisation, right-to-buy, bank deregulation, flogging our gold reserves for a fraction of their value a couple of years later, the Iraq War, arming Syrian rebels who were Al Quada six months ago but are cool-beans now because they've "de-affiliated", Work Capability Assessments, NHS privatisation, etc etc etc etc?
We've had decades of "good solid governance", and it's been a gakshow.
I'll be blunt. You're having a rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I just said. Blair v Brown has nothing to do with the method of Labour leader selection, and neither does the global market crash. I'm talking about the longterm stability/continuity/good governance of a party. Not a country.
A party can do all sorts of good or horrible things, but that has nothing to do with what level of cohesion or ability to function as an organisation that party has.
As for how it relates to Labour specifically, if they're not capable of making a more democratic system work, that's their failing nobody else's.
And this is flat out wrong.
We could make it so everyone in the country got to vote on every sentence the Prime Minister gets to say in PM questions. We could have the nation vote on what visiting diplomats get served to eat on formal dinners. It would be extremely democratic. It would also be bloody stupid. This is an extreme example, but it should illustrate the point, that more democracy is not inherently a good thing in 100% of scenarios regardless, and a system is not automatically made better, easier, or more practical purely by making it more democratic.
The problem with the PLP is the PLP.
The problem with the Labour party is complex, manifold, and cannot be so easily reduced.
Labour aren't afraid to democratise the running of the party because it's unstable, or bad governance, they're afraid to do it because the PLP don't represent the interests of the "core" voters that prop them up in their safe seats and they don't want to start.
Not quite. I think they view it as unstable, because it's resulted in the instability of the current situation. Had Miliband not changed their process, they wouldn't be in this position. Whether it needed to happen, whether the rot was already there, regardless of all the other factors, the single irreducible fact here is that without that change in election procedure, the Labour Party would not have cracked open in the way it has and be suffering the instability it currently is.
And if they can't change it back, it could happen again. What if in ten years, the flood of BB style voters decide Corbyn's successor should be a popular defected Tory? Or a celebrity? Or someone who thinks the NHS should be privatised? It reduces the rest of the Labour Party (and by extension, their political position) to being at the whim of people with no stake in the Labour Party, which frankly, terrifies them. And so it should. That's why they're desperate to change it back, it renders them impotent and ineffective.
If you think the PLP is the problem, it may be worthwhile to consider that it only exists because its members managed to convince the Labour Party membership to select and support them as candidates, and they further managed to convince enough ordinary people to vote for them to actually get elected.
On the Corbyn Bb-style election, it wasn't just the disenfranchised he struck a chord with that swelled voting numbers. I know of plenty of Conservative supporters who signed up to vote, and voted for Corbyn as being likely to cause the most disruption to the labour party. One guy in particular still maintains it was the best three quid he's ever spent.
Kilkrazy wrote: Like Ketara said, it's so cheap that it's like phone-in voting for a reality TV popularity contest.
Making it expensive doesn't really jive with their supposed voter base.
I have seen plenty of comments on social media of people who signed up complaining they couldn't now vote because £25 is the difference between them eating for a couple of weeks or not.
I have seen plenty of comments on social media of people who signed up complaining they couldn't now vote because £25 is the difference between them eating for a couple of weeks or not.
A couple of weeks?! What are they eating, wallpaper paste?
I have seen plenty of comments on social media of people who signed up complaining they couldn't now vote because £25 is the difference between them eating for a couple of weeks or not.
A couple of weeks?! What are they eating, wallpaper paste?
Maybe! There are people who live and work in London that buy "industrial" bags of porridge oats for ~£5 that will feed them 3 meals a day for over a week, and they do that every month for the last week of the month. And these are young professionals we're talking about, so I can easily imagine people much further down the....food chain....doing something similar.
I used to work in an office next to an Eat outlet, every night when I left the office there would be people raiding the bags for all the leftovers from the day (as most of what is sold is fresh that day). We're not talking about tramps and such, just people on low pay that the city needs to function (a lot of them looked like couriers and bike messengers actually).
Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...
Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...
I just feel it's a really bad system for stability and continuity and good solid governance, y'know?
Stability like the '08 crash, or an EU referendum called by a party leader motivated not by democracy but by the desire to shut down dissenters in his own ranks? Continuity like the previous, less public Blair v Brown civil war, or like the present vacillating incoherence from the Tories who can't even agree what the bloody Foreign Secretary's job is supposed to be? Good solid governance like de-industrialisation, right-to-buy, bank deregulation, flogging our gold reserves for a fraction of their value a couple of years later, the Iraq War, arming Syrian rebels who were Al Quada six months ago but are cool-beans now because they've "de-affiliated", Work Capability Assessments, NHS privatisation, etc etc etc etc?
We've had decades of "good solid governance", and it's been a gakshow.
I'll be blunt. You're having a rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I just said. Blair v Brown has nothing to do with the method of Labour leader selection, and neither does the global market crash. I'm talking about the longterm stability/continuity/good governance of a party. Not a country.
A party can do all sorts of good or horrible things, but that has nothing to do with what level of cohesion or ability to function as an organisation that party has.
As for how it relates to Labour specifically, if they're not capable of making a more democratic system work, that's their failing nobody else's.
And this is flat out wrong.
We could make it so everyone in the country got to vote on every sentence the Prime Minister gets to say in PM questions. We could have the nation vote on what visiting diplomats get served to eat on formal dinners. It would be extremely democratic. It would also be bloody stupid. This is an extreme example, but it should illustrate the point, that more democracy is not inherently a good thing in 100% of scenarios regardless, and a system is not automatically made better, easier, or more practical purely by making it more democratic.
The problem with the PLP is the PLP.
The problem with the Labour party is complex, manifold, and cannot be so easily reduced.
Labour aren't afraid to democratise the running of the party because it's unstable, or bad governance, they're afraid to do it because the PLP don't represent the interests of the "core" voters that prop them up in their safe seats and they don't want to start.
Not quite. I think they view it as unstable, because it's resulted in the instability of the current situation. Had Miliband not changed their process, they wouldn't be in this position. Whether it needed to happen, whether the rot was already there, regardless of all the other factors, the single irreducible fact here is that without that change in election procedure, the Labour Party would not have cracked open in the way it has and be suffering the instability it currently is.
And if they can't change it back, it could happen again. What if in ten years, the flood of BB style voters decide Corbyn's successor should be a popular defected Tory? Or a celebrity? Or someone who thinks the NHS should be privatised? It reduces the rest of the Labour Party (and by extension, their political position) to being at the whim of people with no stake in the Labour Party, which frankly, terrifies them. And so it should. That's why they're desperate to change it back, it renders them impotent and ineffective.
And yet, the specific examples you excised from your quotes would seem to indicate the problem is not some insurmountable universal absolute. My initial comment, by the by, was more meant in the same vein as your comment above on democracy, ie to illustrate that in and of itself "good governance" and "stablity" etc are not universally good things, when you take those to extremes you get stagnation and excuses for cronyism, or to be specific again a Labour party that's lost the respect and alleigance of its traditional core vote and sees any attempt to move away from the current PLP orthodoxy of centrist tabloid appeasement as an existential threat.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you think the PLP is the problem, it may be worthwhile to consider that it only exists because its members managed to convince the Labour Party membership to select and support them as candidates, and they further managed to convince enough ordinary people to vote for them to actually get elected.
Really? Because when I consider the PLP I see a group that contains more than a few careerists parachuted into "safe" seats with shonky selection methods, giving them a built-in majority that's unlikely to be overturned in a FPTP system short of a major, generational political shift. "It's me or the Tories, take your pick" in a seat filled with people who the Tories have been relentlessly shafting for decades hardly demands high quality candidates, you should have seen the state of some of the cretinous floaters up here that finally got flushed away in the 2015 SNP landslide, most of them hadn't faced the prospect of reselection for over a decade, if ever.
Kilkrazy wrote: Like Ketara said, it's so cheap that it's like phone-in voting for a reality TV popularity contest.
Oh aye, heaven forfend a political party that ostensibly represents the interests of the worker, the poor, and the oppressed make joining affordable enough that those people can actually have a say in its running. By god, some of the uppity pleboids might get the idea they're capable of becoming candidates, then what would we do fnafafafafafafa!?!
If you guys turn your noses up any higher you're going to scalp yourselves.
I have seen plenty of comments on social media of people who signed up complaining they couldn't now vote because £25 is the difference between them eating for a couple of weeks or not.
A couple of weeks?! What are they eating, wallpaper paste?
Welcome to Britain in 2016, where we expect people with disabilities or no job to live on £70 a week, pensioners have to choose between eating and staying warn in winter, and some jobs pay so poorly that parents have to go without food so their kids don't.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...
Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...
If only it could have been predicted that forming two ministries with such a large overlap of duties could have been problematic when it came to them actually functioning
Eh, ministers in a spat over MAH AUTHORI-TAY is something eternal across all governments. Upto May to knock heads together and tell em to get on with it.
Would seem to be part of Fox brief imo.
And I see no need to rush article 50, only moon-howlers like Farage or Corbyn wanted to push the button straight away.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...
Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...
If only it could have been predicted that forming two ministries with such a large overlap of duties could have been problematic when it came to them actually functioning
Mr. Burning wrote: The only thing left for the true Tory Euro sceptic is to shout about when Article 50 should be invoked.
IMO, euro-sceptic as a term, is the biggest load of codswallop that British politics has seen for decades. You're either for the EU or against it. Euro-sceptic is a mealy mouthed cop out in my book. I hate that term, as you've probably guessed
But to address your point, May will have to do something about article 50 sooner or later, or the Tory backbenchers will claim another PM...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pistols at Dawn wrote: Eh, ministers in a spat over MAH AUTHORI-TAY is something eternal across all governments. Upto May to knock heads together and tell em to get on with it.
Would seem to be part of Fox brief imo.
And I see no need to rush article 50, only moon-howlers like Farage or Corbyn wanted to push the button straight away.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...
Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...
If only it could have been predicted that forming two ministries with such a large overlap of duties could have been problematic when it came to them actually functioning
Three. Dave Davis is Minister of Brexit remember.
For your information, I've also been calling for the article 50 button to be pushed ASAP.
The longer the delay, the more it seems the British public is getting stitched up...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...
Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...
If only it could have been predicted that forming two ministries with such a large overlap of duties could have been problematic when it came to them actually functioning
I've always been a critic of Fox, considering him to be borderline corrupt, but he seems far more effective than Bojo. It would have been easier to appoint Bojo minister for paperclips, and let Fox and Davis do the proper work, which they'll probably end up doing anyway...
Automatically Appended Next Post: And despite Ketara's skepticism, I remain utterly convinced that the dark hand of Alistair Campbell is at the back of some of Labour's recent woes...
His paw prints are all over the plotters and their 'strategy.'
I bring this up because I seen him on the news today talking about Labour's woes...
He's pulling the strings, mark my words...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have no proof, links, or evidence of Campbell's involvement, but politics has been a hobby of mine for a number of years, and your gut instinct is sometimes enough to get you through...
True, it won't impress a judge in a court of law, but I'm dealing with the court of public opinion here...
It's possible to be sceptical about aspects of the EU and want to reform or change them and keep the good bits without actually thinking all of it is the Devil's work.
Let's face it, the Brexiteers actually are trying to do that. They want as much as possible of the benefits of membership with some of the obligations and responsibilities taken away.
And yet, the specific examples you excised from your quotes would seem to indicate the problem is not some insurmountable universal absolute. My initial comment, by the by, was more meant in the same vein as your comment above on democracy, ie to illustrate that in and of itself "good governance" and "stablity" etc are not universally good things, when you take those to extremes you get stagnation and excuses for cronyism, or to be specific again a Labour party that's lost the respect and alleigance of its traditional core vote and sees any attempt to move away from the current PLP orthodoxy of centrist tabloid appeasement as an existential threat.
Sure. Stability and stagnation are the same side of the coin, with instability and rapid change on the other. The ideal (to continue the metaphor) is to try and find a way to balance the coin on the edge. It would appear that this modification in the Labour Party rules simply flipped our coin. That's why I'm torn on it. It's different, and better in some regards, yet worse in others.
Really? Because when I consider the PLP I see a group that contains more than a few careerists parachuted into "safe" seats with shonky selection methods, giving them a built-in majority that's unlikely to be overturned in a FPTP system short of a major, generational political shift. "It's me or the Tories, take your pick" in a seat filled with people who the Tories have been relentlessly shafting for decades hardly demands high quality candidates, you should have seen the state of some of the cretinous floaters up here that finally got flushed away in the 2015 SNP landslide, most of them hadn't faced the prospect of reselection for over a decade, if ever.
Sure. But there are also plenty of MP's who do try and work for their constituents. Of late though, anyone who questions Corbyn (the man who's spent thirty years refusing to do as he was told) is viewed as a traitor to the cause and threatened, whether they're a good MPor a careerist. Remember, 180 MP's voted to be shot of him, careerists and good MP's alike.
I find the shift disturbing. And you know, I actually am not convinced it comes so much from Corbyn? Whenever I read interviews, or accounts by people who were in his office (and are no longer), the impression I get is of a man who frankly, has his head in the sand. One who doesn't want to personally 'enforce' his will, because he's aware that he's spent thirty year evading such demands by leaders and knows it would be vastly hypocritical. But also one who is willing to turn a blind eye when other people do it on his behalf, and even reward them with promotion and position
And so you have to ask yourself who it is that's organising the less than salubrious aspect to his leadership campaign. Watson and many others say there's a bunch of old-school Trotskyites behind it, and I'm inclined to believe them. The proof? Firstly, Watson is no Blairite, he supported Corbyn at first, and willingly so I think until the vote of no confidence. Secondly, McCluskey, a self-declared Trotskyite is the main Union leader backing Corbyn. Thirdly, there's evidence of a number of Momentum campaigners with hard-left backgrounds being promoted within the Labour Party right now to work in Corbyn's office.
Oh aye, heaven forfend a political party that ostensibly represents the interests of the worker, the poor, and the oppressed make joining affordable enough that those people can actually have a say in its running. By god, some of the uppity pleboids might get the idea they're capable of becoming candidates, then what would we do fnafafafafafafa!?!
If you guys turn your noses up any higher you're going to scalp yourselves.
That sounds like the sort of thing a Tory facist class oppressorwould say to try and persuade workers into supporting self-harming political actions!
Or, you know, we could discuss this like reasonable adults, instead of resorting to disingenuous misrepresentation. I'm working class stock (first in my family to get a successful traditional education), the people who drafted the original rules for membership and structure of the Labour party were working class. My great grandparents were Durham miners who scrimped and saved and suffered to help kick-start and hold up the Labour Party. Compared to them, £25 today is chump change unless you're literally homeless (I've been on the dole).
Whilst that's not to say we should go back to those days, £25 is enough money to make you think twice about wasting it, but not so much a person can't raise it in need. There's also several Union based organisations which being a member of decreases the Labour Party membership fee substantially. I think it's slightly on the high side, £15-£20 would have been better, but the £3 text vote equivalent is ridiculous. So much so that they're having to literally weed Tories out by sifting new joiners on social media, and they've found thousands.
Asking that members have a real stake or belief in the principles of that party is not, I think, too absurd.
It's possible to be sceptical about aspects of the EU and want to reform or change them and keep the good bits without actually thinking all of it is the Devil's work.
Let's face it, the Brexiteers actually are trying to do that. They want as much as possible of the benefits of membership with some of the obligations and responsibilities taken away.
Not this Brexiteer.
Yes, I still want to trade with Europe, and co-operate with them on things like NATO, but out means out in my book. I want a clean break, none of this half-way house approach for me...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote: But the term 'Euro Sceptic' has so many positive connotations....
It's possible to be sceptical about aspects of the EU and want to reform or change them and keep the good bits without actually thinking all of it is the Devil's work.
Let's face it, the Brexiteers actually are trying to do that. They want as much as possible of the benefits of membership with some of the obligations and responsibilities taken away.
Not this Brexiteer.
Yes, I still want to trade with Europe, and co-operate with them on things like NATO, but out means out in my book. I want a clean break, none of this half-way house approach for me...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote: But the term 'Euro Sceptic' has so many positive connotations....
I'm of the opinion that people who wanted the article invoked right now before any kind of real prep is put in are either very foolish, or want the country to get shafted as hard as possible.
Get it done, but don't be a complete fool doing it.
Largely I believe -- present company excepted -- that they are people who don't understand the problems, or else do understand the problems and are worried that as the form of a possible agreement takes shape, the mood of the population will shift away from Leave. It started to the morning after the referendum.
MrDwhitey wrote: I'm of the opinion that people who wanted the article invoked right now before any kind of real prep is put in are either very foolish, or want the country to get shafted as hard as possible.
Get it done, but don't be a complete fool doing it.
In my defence as a leave voter, I was and still am, in favour of giving May a few months to get her feet under the table, plan a strategy, appoint a team etc etc
Late September, early October, is pretty reasonable in my view, but now we're getting wishy washy excuses about waiting for the French elections, or the German elections, or the elections in Timbuktu and so on...
Then it was article 50 at the end of 2016, then it was mid 2017, now it's the end of 2017, and tomorrow it'll probably be the year 2100 before we're ready...
If not now, when?
Are our politicians so used to out sourcing decisions to Brussels and other technocrats that they've forgotten how to do their jobs?
Good God almighty, the creation of the NHS was a decision was still reverberates in the UK to this day, and that was done in a matter of weeks!!!
Kilkrazy wrote: Largely I believe -- present company excepted -- that they are people who don't understand the problems, or else do understand the problems and are worried that as the form of a possible agreement takes shape, the mood of the population will shift away from Leave. It started to the morning after the referendum.
No buyer's remorse here.
I remain convinced, that our pro-EU parliament is prepared to do and say say anything to keep this country in the EU.
The Ruling elites have always been contemptuous of the great unwashed in this country, and the fact that a lot of working class voters voted to leave, only confirms their stereotypes. Leave voters were tricked, they're ignorant, racist, xenophobic etc etc We had months of that...
They think we're going to see the 'error' of our ways and come round to their way thinking. They're stalling for time...
That wasn't me having a go at you, it's just the general mood of our supposed liberal newspapers that annoys me and it's only gotten worse since June 24th...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Are our politicians so used to out sourcing decisions to Brussels and other technocrats that they've forgotten how to do their jobs?
Good God almighty, the creation of the NHS was a decision was still reverberates in the UK to this day, and that was done in a matter of weeks!!!
No. But they know they are hard pressed to get access to free trade market without allowing free people access. That ain't going to fly well in face of leave voters. 2 years will go in a rush. And Brits are the ones who need that contract cleanly so the 2 year time limit is bigger issue for them...
If they had their way they would sort out agreements BEFORE precisely to avoid that 2 year time limit. Failing that at least get as far as possible before triggering the timer.
Paradoxically, the longer we postpone BREXIT in the name of waiting for a 'strategy' the more economic uncertainty it will cause, because long-term investment will go out the window...
MrDwhitey wrote: I'm of the opinion that people who wanted the article invoked right now before any kind of real prep is put in are either very foolish, or want the country to get shafted as hard as possible.
Get it done, but don't be a complete fool doing it.
In my defence as a leave voter, I was and still am, in favour of giving May a few months to get her feet under the table, plan a strategy, appoint a team etc etc
Late September, early October, is pretty reasonable in my view, but now we're getting wishy washy excuses about waiting for the French elections, or the German elections, or the elections in Timbuktu and so on...
Then it was article 50 at the end of 2016, then it was mid 2017, now it's the end of 2017, and tomorrow it'll probably be the year 2100 before we're ready...
If not now, when?
Are our politicians so used to out sourcing decisions to Brussels and other technocrats that they've forgotten how to do their jobs?
Good God almighty, the creation of the NHS was a decision was still reverberates in the UK to this day, and that was done in a matter of weeks!!!
These are questions you really have insisted the various Brexit campaign leaders answer before the vote. The trouble is they clearly didn't have a clue.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Are our politicians so used to out sourcing decisions to Brussels and other technocrats that they've forgotten how to do their jobs?
Good God almighty, the creation of the NHS was a decision was still reverberates in the UK to this day, and that was done in a matter of weeks!!!
No. But they know they are hard pressed to get access to free trade market without allowing free people access. That ain't going to fly well in face of leave voters. 2 years will go in a rush. And Brits are the ones who need that contract cleanly so the 2 year time limit is bigger issue for them...
If they had their way they would sort out agreements BEFORE precisely to avoid that 2 year time limit. Failing that at least get as far as possible before triggering the timer.
I could never understand why a free trade deal involves free movement of people...
I'm the last person on Earth who likes agreeing with Farage, but his point about no other trade deal on earth involves free movement, was spot on...
We trade with Japan, but I've never seen or heard of thousands of Japanese migrants moving to Manchester or High Wycombe...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Are our politicians so used to out sourcing decisions to Brussels and other technocrats that they've forgotten how to do their jobs?
Good God almighty, the creation of the NHS was a decision was still reverberates in the UK to this day, and that was done in a matter of weeks!!!
No. But they know they are hard pressed to get access to free trade market without allowing free people access. That ain't going to fly well in face of leave voters. 2 years will go in a rush. And Brits are the ones who need that contract cleanly so the 2 year time limit is bigger issue for them...
If they had their way they would sort out agreements BEFORE precisely to avoid that 2 year time limit. Failing that at least get as far as possible before triggering the timer.
I could never understand why a free trade deal involves free movement of people...
I'm the last person on Earth who likes agreeing with Farage, but his point about no other trade deal on earth involves free movement, was spot on...
We trade with Japan, but I've never seen or heard of thousands of Japanese migrants moving to Manchester or High Wycombe...
It's called "not being able to cherry pick what you want". Want to enjoy benefits of EU? Play it's rules. Don't want to play by it's rules? Don't expect same benefits either.
You can get free trade IF you negotiate it individually by country like you have done with Japan. But if you want to get inside EU market(multiple countries with one contract) then surprise surprise you are expected to play by the same rules as rest of the guys. Would hardly be fair otherwise.
If you can arrange individual trade agreements with countries of course then rules are different.
MrDwhitey wrote: I'm of the opinion that people who wanted the article invoked right now before any kind of real prep is put in are either very foolish, or want the country to get shafted as hard as possible.
Get it done, but don't be a complete fool doing it.
In my defence as a leave voter, I was and still am, in favour of giving May a few months to get her feet under the table, plan a strategy, appoint a team etc etc
Late September, early October, is pretty reasonable in my view, but now we're getting wishy washy excuses about waiting for the French elections, or the German elections, or the elections in Timbuktu and so on...
Then it was article 50 at the end of 2016, then it was mid 2017, now it's the end of 2017, and tomorrow it'll probably be the year 2100 before we're ready...
If not now, when?
Are our politicians so used to out sourcing decisions to Brussels and other technocrats that they've forgotten how to do their jobs?
Good God almighty, the creation of the NHS was a decision was still reverberates in the UK to this day, and that was done in a matter of weeks!!!
These are questions you really have insisted the various Brexit campaign leaders answer before the vote. The trouble is they clearly didn't have a clue.
I don't think anybody from either side covered themselves in glory. There was better, informed debate here on dakka then most places I encountered...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Are our politicians so used to out sourcing decisions to Brussels and other technocrats that they've forgotten how to do their jobs?
Good God almighty, the creation of the NHS was a decision was still reverberates in the UK to this day, and that was done in a matter of weeks!!!
No. But they know they are hard pressed to get access to free trade market without allowing free people access. That ain't going to fly well in face of leave voters. 2 years will go in a rush. And Brits are the ones who need that contract cleanly so the 2 year time limit is bigger issue for them...
If they had their way they would sort out agreements BEFORE precisely to avoid that 2 year time limit. Failing that at least get as far as possible before triggering the timer.
I could never understand why a free trade deal involves free movement of people...
I'm the last person on Earth who likes agreeing with Farage, but his point about no other trade deal on earth involves free movement, was spot on...
We trade with Japan, but I've never seen or heard of thousands of Japanese migrants moving to Manchester or High Wycombe...
It's called "not being able to cherry pick what you want". Want to enjoy benefits of EU? Play it's rules. Don't want to play by it's rules? Don't expect same benefits either.
You can get free trade IF you negotiate it individually by country like you have done with Japan. But if you want to get inside EU market(multiple countries with one contract) then surprise surprise you are expected to play by the same rules as rest of the guys. Would hardly be fair otherwise.
If you can arrange individual trade agreements with countries of course then rules are different.
You'll probably disagree, but I can quite easily imagine a situation where the UK is given 'special status' within the EU, which will probably a lot of countries, but suit France and Germany, the real powers behind the EU throne...
MrDwhitey wrote: I'm of the opinion that people who wanted the article invoked right now before any kind of real prep is put in are either very foolish, or want the country to get shafted as hard as possible.
Get it done, but don't be a complete fool doing it.
In my defence as a leave voter, I was and still am, in favour of giving May a few months to get her feet under the table, plan a strategy, appoint a team etc etc
Late September, early October, is pretty reasonable in my view, but now we're getting wishy washy excuses about waiting for the French elections, or the German elections, or the elections in Timbuktu and so on...
Then it was article 50 at the end of 2016, then it was mid 2017, now it's the end of 2017, and tomorrow it'll probably be the year 2100 before we're ready...
If not now, when?
Are our politicians so used to out sourcing decisions to Brussels and other technocrats that they've forgotten how to do their jobs?
Good God almighty, the creation of the NHS was a decision was still reverberates in the UK to this day, and that was done in a matter of weeks!!!
I voted in favour of remain,
and even I agree with Do_I_Not_Like_That on this, allowing the new government a bit of time to bed in is fine
delay after delay before even starting the clock is not (especially since the EU has said no negociation before article 50 is invoked and so any theoretical agreements we get before then will be behind the scenes and totally deniable if they turn out to look bad to any of the member states)
and it will lead many leave voters to wonder if they heavily pro-remain powers that be are planning to cheat and say put anyway
Has it occurred to people that Britain's idea of a good deal and the EU's idea of a good deal, are unlikely to match?
Like Orlando said, any unofficial back room deal pre-article 50, could easily be denied, and their details leaked out to embarrass the UK government, or put pressure on them from the British public, if they're seen to be damaging to Britain.
And any damage or pressure to Britain, could give the EU the upper hand in negotiations...
If we invoke article 50, get it official, get it all in the open, there is less chance of this happening...
You don't think there's any merit in making sure that the UK is adequately prepared for this monumental shift?
Not being cynical, but an immediate jump for article 50 plays into the SNPs hands very nicely, a disorganised, chaotic exit will play to a Nationalist narrative about the misrule of Westminster.
If we are going to go ahead with this utter debacle, I'd rather the 48% weren't betrayed with a shambolic and harmful exit.
There's the possibility that the more we delay triggering article 50, the more advantage it'll give us in the negotiations, because by then the eurozone will have finally collapsed and died and the migrant crisis will have gotten worse, and perhaps some other countries will have made moves to leave too. In other words, the eu will be completely over a barrel and at our mercy. But I'm not that optimistic. I want article 50 triggered sooner than asap.
Also, Anjem Choudary has been found guilty of peddling support for Isis. Whilst I'm pleased at this, I fear that he's the type of person who'd do more damage in prison.
Radical cleric Anjem Choudary guilty of inviting IS support
....Radical UK cleric Anjem Choudary has been convicted of inviting others to support the so-called Islamic State group, it can now be reported.
Choudary, 49, drummed up support for the militant group in a series of talks posted on YouTube, the Old Bailey heard.
He was convicted alongside his confidant, Mohammed Mizanur Rahman.
The Met Police said many people tried for serious offences "attended lectures or speeches given by these men".
Counter-terrorism chiefs have spent almost 20 years trying to bring Choudary, a father of five, to trial, blaming him, and the proscribed organisations which he helped to run, for radicalising young men and women.
Both men were charged with one offence of inviting support for IS - which is contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - between 29 June 2014 and 6 March 2015. The verdict on the two defendants was delivered on 28 July, but for legal reasons can only now be reported.
How Anjem Choudary's mouth was finally shut
The trial heard how the men decided in the summer of 2014 that the group then known as Isis [Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham/the Levant] had formed a "Khilafah", or Islamic State, that demanded the obedience and support of Muslims.
'Turning point'
They then invited others to support IS through speeches and announced their own oath of allegiance to its leader.
The oath of allegiance was a "turning point" which meant they could be put on trial, police said.
Choudary was once the spokesman for al-Muhajiroun, an organisation that can be linked to dozens of terrorism suspects.
Its leader Omar Bakri Muhammad fled the UK after the London suicide bombings on 7 July 2005. Over the years since, Choudary has become one of the most influential radical Islamists in Europe and a string of his followers have either left the UK to fight in Syria or tried to do so......
Well, he had to mistake at some point.
He is being sentenced in September so lets see what he gets then.
I'm in favour of waiting until after the French elections to invoke it. France is our main opposition within the EU to us getting what we want, and Hollande is likely to be booted and replaced with someone more amenable. So it makes sense to wait for his replacement before proceeding with matters.
Talk of non-binding referendums, parliamentary sovereignty, we might have BREXIT in 2020 when it suits the Tory party etc etc
is neither here nor there...
To not invoke article 50 ASAP, would be a shameful betrayal of British democracy...
What are views though if the population as a whole change their minds? Are we bound by one vote and that's it? How long is it until you would consider an alternative view might become prevalent 1 year, 5, 10, 1000?
What happens if the view of the populace becomes more positive to the EU in a couple of years (say we are knee deep in a recession). Do you have another vote, carry on regardless and annoy your populace, ignore them completely or decide democracy isn't working and we get Empress May?
I still would not expect any leaving of the EU until after the next general election. It won't happen at the moment because the French/German elections would cause Chaos. Both Merkel and Hollande would then take a hard line view because if they take a soft approach they leave themselves open both to those EU pro parties saying they aren't looking out for the EU and by the anti-EU parties which will point at the UK and say that leaving the EU means a 'better deal'. So we are looking at the end of 2017 at the earliest, then 2 years from then is 2019 which is right before the next GE. Given the lack of MP competency we have leading the trade deals/exit negotiations and even then it's not likely everyone will get what they want (there will be compromises all round) which will mean the Tories will be open from attacks from all angles and loss of seats.
Future War Cultist wrote: Also, Anjem Choudary has been found guilty of peddling support for Isis. Whilst I'm pleased at this, I fear that he's the type of person who'd do more damage in prison.
Which should be grounds for indefinite solitary confinement, surely. Restrict his contact with other prisoners. The only people he should be permitted to see are his prison guards, visitors (vetted of course) and the prison Imam.
Future War Cultist wrote: Also, Anjem Choudary has been found guilty of peddling support for Isis. Whilst I'm pleased at this, I fear that he's the type of person who'd do more damage in prison.
Which should be grounds for indefinite solitary confinement, surely. Restrict his contact with other prisoners. The only people he should be permitted to see are his prison guards, visitors (vetted of course) and the prison Imam.
I completely agree but I'm sure the human rights brigade won't allow it.
Talk of non-binding referendums, parliamentary sovereignty, we might have BREXIT in 2020 when it suits the Tory party etc etc
is neither here nor there...
To not invoke article 50 ASAP, would be a shameful betrayal of British democracy...
What are views though if the population as a whole change their minds? Are we bound by one vote and that's it? How long is it until you would consider an alternative view might become prevalent 1 year, 5, 10, 1000?
What happens if the view of the populace becomes more positive to the EU in a couple of years (say we are knee deep in a recession). Do you have another vote, carry on regardless and annoy your populace, ignore them completely or decide democracy isn't working and we get Empress May?
A Counter argument to that however is how long do you wait for the populace to change their mind? What if 2 years from now the EU is in a right mess but having already lined up trade agreements with China and the USA for when we leave is it fair to wait around for 2 more years because the government was sitting twiddling it's thumbs waiting for the population to change it's mind?
I'm on the side of DINLT I voted leave but I'm happy to wait and get our ducks in order first, early to mid 2017 seems good to me.
As far as waiting for the next general election - do you really want a UKIP government? I voted leave and I don't want that. I truly believe however that if we haven't triggered article 50 by the next election this'll happen. To win a seat you normally only need around 35-40% of the vote. Outside London out won by around 55%. Even counting for people who change their mind, and people who go back to voting on party lines (which is dwindling by the day) can you honestly say that UKIP won't be able to convince this many people that out political masters are trying to renege of the referendum?
If out won the referendum before article 50 and we have a GE where most parties are saying remain and only one is voting out I can see UKIP winning by a large margin.
Ketara wrote: I'm in favour of waiting until after the French elections to invoke it. France is our main opposition within the EU to us getting what we want, and Hollande is likely to be booted and replaced with someone more amenable. So it makes sense to wait for his replacement before proceeding with matters.
Yes, the French National Front are now probably our closest political allies in Europe, if they can get in next year they'll want to give us a good deal so they can leave in turn.
Future War Cultist wrote: Also, Anjem Choudary has been found guilty of peddling support for Isis. Whilst I'm pleased at this, I fear that he's the type of person who'd do more damage in prison.
Which should be grounds for indefinite solitary confinement, surely. Restrict his contact with other prisoners. The only people he should be permitted to see are his prison guards, visitors (vetted of course) and the prison Imam.
I completely agree but I'm sure the human rights brigade won't allow it.
Prison can offer the chance for segregation for his own protection. This only means going onto a different wing which is populated with Sex offenders and those who may be attacked for being too weak or who have other issues.
There will be no solitary confinement.
Choudry can refuse or not bother to mention it, I think he will go on mains.
Ketara wrote: I'm in favour of waiting until after the French elections to invoke it. France is our main opposition within the EU to us getting what we want, and Hollande is likely to be booted and replaced with someone more amenable. So it makes sense to wait for his replacement before proceeding with matters.
Yes, the French National Front are now probably our closest political allies in Europe, if they can get in next year they'll want to give us a good deal so they can leave in turn.
Hardly. Both Sarkozy and Alain Juppé have said they'd be more amenable towards us.
Unless you were just trying to make some vaguely antagonistic point about separatists being political extremists or somesuch?
Ketara wrote: I'm in favour of waiting until after the French elections to invoke it. France is our main opposition within the EU to us getting what we want, and Hollande is likely to be booted and replaced with someone more amenable. So it makes sense to wait for his replacement before proceeding with matters.
Yes, the French National Front are now probably our closest political allies in Europe, if they can get in next year they'll want to give us a good deal so they can leave in turn.
Conversely, being seen to be giving us a good deal may not sit well with some of their supporters as it means that, until France leaves, they are getting a worse deal for France.
Also, if the French are the driving force behind giving a "good" deal for us, then why would the other countries who didn't want to give us a "good" deal then suddenly change their tune and give France a "good" deal when France tried to leave? It's not like this is a court of law where precedent can win your case, just because country X got a specific deal doesn't mean that Y will get that deal, too.
Ketara wrote: I'm in favour of waiting until after the French elections to invoke it. France is our main opposition within the EU to us getting what we want, and Hollande is likely to be booted and replaced with someone more amenable. So it makes sense to wait for his replacement before proceeding with matters.
Yes, the French National Front are now probably our closest political allies in Europe, if they can get in next year they'll want to give us a good deal so they can leave in turn.
The French NF as our allies, rampant Nationalism and the threat of a UKIP Govt? What the actual feth. Without exaggeration, this is the absolutely worst fething thing I have seen in my lifetime, and I've served in Afghanistan.
r_squared wrote: You don't think there's any merit in making sure that the UK is adequately prepared for this monumental shift?
Not being cynical, but an immediate jump for article 50 plays into the SNPs hands very nicely, a disorganised, chaotic exit will play to a Nationalist narrative about the misrule of Westminster.
If we are going to go ahead with this utter debacle, I'd rather the 48% weren't betrayed with a shambolic and harmful exit.
I doubt if you'll believe me, but I'm not seeing BREXIT as an opportunity for the SNP, even though I'm an SNP voter, I'm speaking first and foremost as a democrat...
The SNP are already gaining from BREXIT, so that's not my concern....
As I said weeks ago, my concern is the reaction on the streets and in the areas that were heaviliy in favour of Leave. A lot of these people are disllusioned with our leaders as it is, and election turnout is low at the best of times. If they feel their vote counted for nothing, feel betrayed, who knows what will happen...
Talk of non-binding referendums, parliamentary sovereignty, we might have BREXIT in 2020 when it suits the Tory party etc etc
is neither here nor there...
To not invoke article 50 ASAP, would be a shameful betrayal of British democracy...
What are views though if the population as a whole change their minds? Are we bound by one vote and that's it? How long is it until you would consider an alternative view might become prevalent 1 year, 5, 10, 1000?
What happens if the view of the populace becomes more positive to the EU in a couple of years (say we are knee deep in a recession). Do you have another vote, carry on regardless and annoy your populace, ignore them completely or decide democracy isn't working and we get Empress May?
I still would not expect any leaving of the EU until after the next general election. It won't happen at the moment because the French/German elections would cause Chaos. Both Merkel and Hollande would then take a hard line view because if they take a soft approach they leave themselves open both to those EU pro parties saying they aren't looking out for the EU and by the anti-EU parties which will point at the UK and say that leaving the EU means a 'better deal'. So we are looking at the end of 2017 at the earliest, then 2 years from then is 2019 which is right before the next GE. Given the lack of MP competency we have leading the trade deals/exit negotiations and even then it's not likely everyone will get what they want (there will be compromises all round) which will mean the Tories will be open from attacks from all angles and loss of seats.
There was 40 years between the EEC referendum and June's referendum. If people want another referendum in say, 40-50 years time, assuming there still is an EU, that would be a reasonable timeframe...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I'm in favour of waiting until after the French elections to invoke it. France is our main opposition within the EU to us getting what we want, and Hollande is likely to be booted and replaced with someone more amenable. So it makes sense to wait for his replacement before proceeding with matters.
I've always said that basing our strategy on what happens in another country is a bad idea, as it leaves us hostage to fortune. What if Hollande wins? What if all the presidential candidates run on a ticket that says they'll drive a hard bargain with Britain?
r_squared wrote: You don't think there's any merit in making sure that the UK is adequately prepared for this monumental shift?
Not being cynical, but an immediate jump for article 50 plays into the SNPs hands very nicely, a disorganised, chaotic exit will play to a Nationalist narrative about the misrule of Westminster.
If we are going to go ahead with this utter debacle, I'd rather the 48% weren't betrayed with a shambolic and harmful exit.
I doubt if you'll believe me, but I'm not seeing BREXIT as an opportunity for the SNP, even though I'm an SNP voter, I'm speaking first and foremost as a democrat...
The SNP are already gaining from BREXIT, so that's not my concern....
As I said weeks ago, my concern is the reaction on the streets and in the areas that were heaviliy in favour of Leave. A lot of these people are disllusioned with our leaders as it is, and election turnout is low at the best of times. If they feel their vote counted for nothing, feel betrayed, who knows what will happen...
...
I also know for a fact that Boston was the highest area in favour of leave, as the population has a high proportion of pensioners, I'd love to see what that riot would look like. Besides they'll be too busy fretting about the loss of their triple lock.
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Conversely, being seen to be giving us a good deal may not sit well with some of their supporters as it means that, until France leaves, they are getting a worse deal for France.
Also, if the French are the driving force behind giving a "good" deal for us, then why would the other countries who didn't want to give us a "good" deal then suddenly change their tune and give France a "good" deal when France tried to leave? It's not like this is a court of law where precedent can win your case, just because country X got a specific deal doesn't mean that Y will get that deal, too.
There are factors beyond giving a 'good' deal for us and a 'bad deal' for them.
Sarkozy has always hated Juncker, the current EU President, and actively blocked Juncker's attempt to become President of the EU Council in 2009. So sticking one in his eye is part of the equation. Sarkozy's line at the moment is that Brexit is a signal to begin reforming Europe, and that a new treaty needs to be drawn up. Sarkozy's view of Europe is the abolition of Schengen, a Euro-centric IMF, a reduction in the legislative powers of the Commission, greater veto powers to national Governments, the office of European President to become French or German only, and an end to ever increasing integration. Understandably, if free movement is no longer a priority, that opens the door to retaining us in the common market, but without freedom of movement.
Juppé, on the other hand, says that 'everything is up' for negotiation, including freedom of movement, and actively declares to want to keep us in the single market. He wants to move the Calais border back to Dover, halt any membership talks with Turkey, create pan-European defence forces, and harden the Schengen border.
In both cases, you have men with very specific goals and future visions of Europe. But in both cases, freedom of movement is not a priority, and keeping us involved in Europe economically and militarily is. If either of them win, there's absolutely nobody else who will stop us getting what we want. We'll have to swallow a few lumps (so the border being shifted back or somesuch), but if Juncker is the only looking to punish us, and all the national governments are willing to work with us, we'll be alright.
And it really is just France at this stage. Germany wants to work something out for everyone, as does Italy, and Spain doesn't want to get involved. If France, Britain, Germany, and Italy all get together on this, Juncker will be completely outmaneouvred.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've always said that basing our strategy on what happens in another country is a bad idea, as it leaves us hostage to fortune. What if Hollande wins? What if all the presidential candidates run on a ticket that says they'll drive a hard bargain with Britain?
Then what?
I'm not saying to 'base our strategy on it'. I'm just saying that it is entirely likely (and indeed, probable considering Hollande is the least popular French Premier since records began) that Hollande is about to be replaced, and most remaining obstruction to us getting what we want will dissolve with him. Doubly so if it's Sarkozy (who would do it just to spite Juncker if nothing else).
And if neither of them win and Hollande stays? We've lost nothing. Delaying until mid-next year gives us time to get our own house in order. Heck, we'd probably be doing it anyway. But if he loses? Massive advantage point to us. Watch and you'll see the FTSE gain half of it's lost value back in that one evening.
the office of European President to become French or German only
He wants appointees to the office of European President to be restricted to French or German nationals only. His reasoning was that the two countries account for more than half the existing trade within Europe once Britain has left, so the small countries should suck it up and accept Franco-deutsche dominance. And if they don't like it, the door is to their left...
the office of European President to become French or German only
He wants appointees to the office of European President to be restricted to French or German nationals only. His reasoning was that the two countries account for more than half the existing trade within Europe once Britain has left, so the small countries should suck it up and accept Franco-deutsche dominance. And if they don't like it, the door is to their left...
They reveal there true colours...
Its a French/german empire.
Britain made a good choice leaving the corrupt, undemocratic edifice that is thte EU.
Anyone else is welcome to join the rebellion.
Has it occurred to people that Britain's idea of a good deal and the EU's idea of a good deal, are unlikely to match?
Like Orlando said, any unofficial back room deal pre-article 50, could easily be denied, and their details leaked out to embarrass the UK government, or put pressure on them from the British public, if they're seen to be damaging to Britain.
And any damage or pressure to Britain, could give the EU the upper hand in negotiations...
If we invoke article 50, get it official, get it all in the open, there is less chance of this happening...
It isn't possible to invoke article 50 because it's meaningless. It was written with the thought in mind that no-one would ever leave the EU. The article is going to have to be rewritten to actually create a process for the UK to follow.
Kilkrazy wrote: Amazingly it seems that Brexiteers are not all that keen on the UKIP Party.
One is led to wonder what the feth they are thinking? I wish I could sometimes enter such a fantastic world without the use of mind-altering drugs.
You can dislike the EU without liking UKIP. It really isn't that hard. Not everything is black and white, if that's how you see the world then I'm sorry for you.
Every election I vote for someone - does this mean that I like every single thing that person says? Of cause it doesn't - I vote for the person who mosy represents my views. Just because someone voted leave doesn't make them a UKIP supporter.
the office of European President to become French or German only
He wants appointees to the office of European President to be restricted to French or German nationals only. His reasoning was that the two countries account for more than half the existing trade within Europe once Britain has left, so the small countries should suck it up and accept Franco-deutsche dominance. And if they don't like it, the door is to their left...
And yet weirdly, when I said that the EU was a Franco-German (mostly German) racket, some leavers called me a scare mongering liar.
Well, at least now the EU is really showing its true colours.
the office of European President to become French or German only
He wants appointees to the office of European President to be restricted to French or German nationals only. His reasoning was that the two countries account for more than half the existing trade within Europe once Britain has left, so the small countries should suck it up and accept Franco-deutsche dominance. And if they don't like it, the door is to their left...
And yet weirdly, when I said that the EU was a Franco-German (mostly German) racket, some leavers called me a scare mongering liar.
Well, at least now the EU is really showing its true colours.
Yes, one politician suggesting something that would benefit his own country truly is evidence that a huge organization is or is not in a certain manner, in the same manner that Donald Trump proves that all Americans are idiots, Jimmie Åkesson (leader of the Sweden Democrats) proves that all Swedes are racist donkey caves, and Nigel Farage proves that all Britons are leeching scumbags, i.e. not at all.
jhe90 wrote:They reveal there true colours... Its a French/german empire.
Britain made a good choice leaving the corrupt, undemocratic edifice that is thte EU.
Might I ask your opinion on Theresa May?
Anyone else is welcome to join the rebellion.
Ah yes, the valiant struggle that is putting down a mark on a piece of paper a couple of months ago in order to show Johnny Foreigner what's what. Fighting the good fight and all that. Shall I fetch the claymore from the shed? Perhaps we can put up a bulwark on the cliffs of Dover to fend off the EU's army of banned pesticides and standardised phone chargers.
jhe90 wrote:UKIP was a tool to deliver referendum and get a brexit. Farage plan was simple. He achiced it.
Become an MEP and leech the taxpayer to the tune of £84,000 a year for the forseeable future despite never actually turning up to do his job? Be a member of the fisheries commission, never actually go to the fisheries commission meetings, and then complain about how unfair the mean old fisheries commission is? Grow a stupid moustache to make the fascism insults a teeny bit more on-the-nose? What exactly did he "achice"?
Future War Cultist wrote:And yet weirdly, when I said that the EU was a Franco-German (mostly German) racket, some leavers called me a scare mongering liar.
Well, at least now the EU is really showing its true colours.
It's weird how a french presidential candidate who isn't currently in a position of power and is uninvolved with the EU is somehow indicative of the position of the entire organisation. It's like that time that the retired postman down the road from me was somehow a spokesman for Royal Mail, or Steve who got a caution from the police for loitering once was a voice of authority regarding prison system reform.
Well, Owen Smith has said something that puts almost everything implied about Corbyn to shame and suggested a dialogue with Daesh
One can only imagine how that would go:
OS: "What are your demands?"
Daesh: "The establishment of a Caliphate and the conversion or death of all infidels!"
OS: "Well, we could do maybe the conversion or death of 25% of infidels? Would that suit you? We can throw in immediate diplomatic ties if that would help?"
OS: "What are your demands?"
Daesh: "The establishment of a Caliphate and the conversion or death of all infidels!"
OS: "Well, we could do maybe the conversion or death of 25% of infidels? Would that suit you? We can throw in immediate diplomatic ties if that would help?"
It's like something out of a Monty Python sketch.
Smith has taken the logical stance since other than a dialogue we have more of the same hand wringing token efforts whilst ISIL do as they wish or going to war - which is hardly palatable.
JC has gone down the no talks route..I'll be waiting to see Jezzas bold strategy fleshed out (see above).
OS: "What are your demands?"
Daesh: "The establishment of a Caliphate and the conversion or death of all infidels!"
OS: "Well, we could do maybe the conversion or death of 25% of infidels? Would that suit you? We can throw in immediate diplomatic ties if that would help?"
It's like something out of a Monty Python sketch.
I disagree - I think there's an element of Realpolitik here. What you say about ISIL could be equally applied to Saudi Arabia, and yet, they're considered to be a key ally...
OS: "What are your demands?"
Daesh: "The establishment of a Caliphate and the conversion or death of all infidels!"
OS: "Well, we could do maybe the conversion or death of 25% of infidels? Would that suit you? We can throw in immediate diplomatic ties if that would help?"
It's like something out of a Monty Python sketch.
I disagree - I think there's an element of Realpolitik here. What you say about ISIL could be equally applied to Saudi Arabia, and yet, they're considered to be a key ally...
or we just send them unconditional surrender of all armed forces, territory, and cities in exchange for not killing them.
if not, let assad and russia lay seige and drive them out there own capital
Zero negotiation till they renounce violence , attacks on west and radicalization of western terorists.
might as well not plan on anything as never happen.
no legitimisation. there terrorists, and barbarians. they will be treated as such until they prove otherwise.
there choice to do so as they see fit. the path of peace or war.
or we just send them unconditional surrender of all armed forces, territory, and cities in exchange for not killing them.
That's a short term solution. All that will happen then is that ISIS will get crushed, rebrand itself and then pop again elsewhere.
Once you clear out the rats, you let Assad back and he knows how to keep the nut cases in line.
We might as well accept democrecy in the middle east is frankly a joke. coalitions can barely hold these fracuous countries remotely together.
Assad family kept Syria stable for decades. there not nice but we need strong leaders for stablity.
Gudaffi, we should never of got rid of him, he kept all the migrants, and the nut cases in country in line.
Assad family kept Syria stable for decades. there not nice but we need strong leaders for stablity.
Gudaffi, we should never of got rid of him, he kept all the migrants, and the nut cases in country in line.
Why? What's it got to do with us? Why does it matter to Britain if there's a dictator, a democracy, or a ragtag hodgepodge of regions run by warlords? We don't trade with the place, and the civilian population has already mostly relocated to other nations. Unless we're willing to commit cultural eradication through occupation, or genocide, there's nothing we can do longterm. So we might as well stay out of it.
jhe90 wrote: no legitimisation. there terrorists, and barbarians. they will be treated as such until they prove otherwise.
there choice to do so as they see fit. the path of peace or war.
Hopefully you aren't naive enough to think bombs will solve this issue? Because that is never, never, NEVER going to work.
The guy is both right and wrong. Discussions is THE only way that has realistic way of ever resolving this for good. Bombs will not work. End of story.
But the ISIS won't have to be on the table. But the discussions will have to end up in that support of ISIS will eventually go away.
Solve issues that drives people to ISIS and you solve the ISIS. As long as reason why ISIS thrives remains unsolved no amount of bombs will solve it unless you go for genocide and that's not an option anybody should contemplate.
The thing Islamic State is most desperate for is legitimacy. They want to be acknowledged as the legitimate Islamic Caliphate to which all [true] Muslims owe their allegiance. Negotiating with them and suing for peace will only ensure that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The thing Islamic State is most desperate for is legitimacy. They want to be acknowledged as the legitimate Islamic Caliphate to which all [true] Muslims owe their allegiance. Negotiating with them and suing for peace will only ensure that.
True. And that's why I don't think talking WITH them is going to work. However getting them out of picture will require talking(well and actions as well. But not action by bombs), not bombs.
Other party just won't be ISIS. But even then bombs won't solve the problem. Alas it might be neccessary for now but it won't solve it for good.
Part of that will and should involve talking with Assad.
Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.
Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.
That might be one of the most reasonable suggestions I've read in a while on Dakka.
Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.
That might be one of the most reasonable suggestions I've read in a while on Dakka.
Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.
Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.
That might be one of the most reasonable suggestions I've read in a while on Dakka.
Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.
With Putin involved regime change is out of the window anyway.
Really though, It wasn't likely even with kind words of encouragement being sent in droves from the west. And the red line defence shield being put in place.
r_squared wrote: Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.
If he starts to figure he might get overthrown he knows he will be facing trials for war crimes and very likely death penalty. People generally don't like idea of dying.
Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.
That might be one of the most reasonable suggestions I've read in a while on Dakka.
Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.
"Reasonable" as in "this could potentially work without nuking the Middle East" and "worth working towards", not "reasonable" as in "easy". As you say, the various rebel groups in Syria aren't exactly thrilled with al-Assad, and al-Assad in turn isn't thrilled about the rebels.
r_squared wrote: Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.
If he starts to figure he might get overthrown he knows he will be facing trials for war crimes and very likely death penalty. People generally don't like idea of dying.
If he starts to figure he might get overthrown he knows he will be facing trials for war crimes and very likely death penalty. People generally don't like idea of dying.
If that happens he'll just flee to some other country and live off the money he'll have been stashing away in swiss bank accounts. Then it is up to the new syrian government to try and get him extradited back, which can take a long time if it happens at all.
Look at the charts derived from their statistical models...
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
TL;DR: I pulled from the article that jumped out at me:
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.
I'm not sure what he is trying to prove, the real message from the data presented there is that the more educated someone is the more likely they are to have voted remain. Additionally looking at the Lord Ashcroft data the older the voter the more likely they are to have voted leave.
In other words the old and the 'ignorant' (in this case less educated) are to blame for Brexit.
I'm not sure what he is trying to prove, the real message from the data presented there is that the more educated someone is the more likely they are to have voted remain. Additionally looking at the Lord Ashcroft data the older the voter the more likely they are to have voted leave.
In other words the old and the 'ignorant' (in this case less educated) are to blame for Brexit.
Look at it in a different way... if you look at the distribution of those who wanted to stay, they'd essentially be Scotland, N. Ireland & London.
Whereas the leave majority were in: N. East, N. West, Yorkshire & Humberside, W. Midlands, E. Midlands, Wales, East England, S. East and S. West.
Is it true (I know it's over simplifying this) if the 'leave' vote was a Political party, it'd be a landslide? If you buy that argument, the author's point was that this vote "wasn't that close".
I'm not sure what he is trying to prove, the real message from the data presented there is that the more educated someone is the more likely they are to have voted remain. Additionally looking at the Lord Ashcroft data the older the voter the more likely they are to have voted leave.
In other words the old and the 'ignorant' (in this case less educated) are to blame for Brexit.
Look at it in a different way... if you look at the distribution of those who wanted to stay, they'd essentially be Scotland, N. Ireland & London.
Whereas the leave majority were in: N. East, N. West, Yorkshire & Humberside, W. Midlands, E. Midlands, Wales, East England, S. East and S. West.
Is it true (I know it's over simplifying this) if the 'leave' vote was a Political party, it'd be a landslide? If you buy that argument, the author's point was that this vote "wasn't that close".
We had a political party that was basically "Vote Leave", UKIP. They got a single seat at the last general election.
The Florida election recount of 2000 was a period of vote recounting in Florida that occurred during the weeks after Election Day in the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The Florida vote was ultimately settled in Bush's favor by a margin of 537 votes when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the Florida Supreme Court. That in turn gave Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College and victory in the presidential election
A Town Called Malus wrote: We had a political party that was basically "Vote Leave", UKIP. They got a single seat at the last general election.
One seat. And 4 million votes. More than the SNP and Lib Dems.
Right, so all the article has done is highlight the problems of First Past The Post. It hasn't defeated the issue of the disparity in education level or age.
*proceeds to provide data showing that the old and less-educated are responsible for Brexit*
Then you aren't reading carefully enough.
Want to point out what I'm not understanding then, rather than just going "Well you're too dumb to get it!"
Because if you look at the data, older people were more likely to vote leave, and younger were more likely to vote remain.
And less educated people were more likely to vote leave, and more educated people were more likely to vote remain.
I hope people are not going to fall into the trap of thinking that every leave voter is a toothless simpleton
I'm not old, I'm not young, I have a masters degree, and as Harry Enfield's Yorkshireman said, I've also been to Leeds, so I'm sophisticared.
Point is, I have higher education qualifications, and I voted to leave...
I also live in an area that rarely sees an immigrant, so immigration barely effects me, and I still voted to leave...
Also, I don't read or buy the Sun, or the Daily Mail, so that's another leave voter stereotype shot down...
Seriously, I know my fellow dakka members won't fall into the trap of making sweeping generalizations and will be aware that there is always exceptions on both sides,
but I do get fed up of the whining, petulant tone of newspapers like the Guardian, and their editorial line that basically regards all leave voters as Murdoch stooges, and that BREXIT will unleash the four horsemen on us...
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: No, it was close, of the 72ish% that voted, it was 52% leave, 48% remain.
Call it roughly 30million voters, there's about a 2million difference in the votes. Otherwise known as quite close.
The difference in changing the result was approximately 700,000 votes. Not massive considering the total voting population. Remember it's always half the difference between the two results because you only need half the votes to swing the results (that's why at elections they talk about swings not actual numbers - it's how many that actually would be needed to change the result). The problem is that from a statistics perspective the result wasn't conclusive either way. If you take a sample (like the vote) you will always get a distribution of results even if you voted several times straight after each other because of chaotic changes in behaviour). The problem with a result this close is that it is quite possible that either result is the 'true result' because we don't know the error margin.
The article does show all that's wrong about first past the post. But in reality I fear there is a bit of picking the bit of statistics they like. Take the proportion per region, that's fine but it isn't reflective of the total population because the number of people in each bin aren't the same. London and the SE have a much larger proportion of the population, including all this area in one bin is misleading and makes it look like the Country as a whole apart from a few areas are pro leave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hope people are not going to fall into the trap of thinking that every leave voter is a toothless simpleton
No but statistically a significant fraction of people that didn't understand the issues but believed they did because they listened to politicians that spouted bigoted nonsense (or downright lies or possible promises according to IDS). This is in effect means the result was won on these issues because there is a large enough fraction of such people to sway the vote one way or the other.
Point is, I have higher education qualifications, and I voted to leave...
Actually, the point was more about true knowledge of how the EU works, what can UK really do alone and real consequences of a Brexit. I remember what you were saying before the vote, and after it. It wasn't the same tone, and it's not really surprising.
Usually, people bragging about their education are the most ignorant of all people. Blinded by their "knowledge", most of the time.
Point is, I have higher education qualifications, and I voted to leave...
Actually, the point was more about true knowledge of how the EU works, what can UK really do alone and real consequences of a Brexit. I remember what you were saying before the vote, and after it. It wasn't the same tone, and it's not really surprising.
Usually, people bragging about their education are the most ignorant of all people. Blinded by their "knowledge", most of the time.
I know how the EU works - it's a bureaucracy, and like every bureaucracy since the dawn of time, it wants more and more, and grows and grows...
And the evidence for this. Look at how much the EEC or the EU has changed since 1973 when Britain joined the common market.
There's no buyer's remorse on my part for voting to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the EU is a corrupt racket, a menace to democracy...
Democracy is Europe's greatest gift to the world, and by its actions, the EU showed itself to be anti-European. It's demise can't come soon enough for me... It's disdain for ordinary voters is sickening...
The alignment between corporate interests, and the EU hierarchy during the referendum is further proof in my eyes that the UK made the right decision to leave...
And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...
People should not underestimate this small island in the North Atlantic - it's heritage, it's knowledge, it's achievements in science, economics, literature, culture, et al, speak for themselves...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No but statistically a significant fraction of people that didn't understand the issues but believed they did because they listened to politicians that spouted bigoted nonsense (or downright lies or possible promises according to IDS). This is in effect means the result was won on these issues because there is a large enough fraction of such people to sway the vote one way or the other.
I think people greatly overestimate Farage's influence.
I was on the same side as Farage, and even I thought he was spouting horsegak most of the time...
The Government’s much vaunted Help to Buy Isa was on Friday described as a “scandal” after it emerged that first-time buyers will not be able to use it for an initial deposit on their new home.
More than 500,000 savers have opened the accounts after being told by George Osborne, the former chancellor, that it provided “direct government support” for those saving for a deposit, as a way of getting “Generation Rent” on to the housing ladder.
But on Friday it emerged that a flaw in the scheme means a 25 per cent government “bonus” on savings will not be paid out until the sale has completed.
Experts say this renders the scheme technically useless as it is designed for those who are struggling to find the initial outlay involved in buying a home and means they will still be reliant on loans from their parents, if available.
A maximum of £200 can be saved monthly, plus a £1,000 initial deposit
When the Isa balance is put towards buying a house, the Government adds a 25pc bonus
The bonus is paid out on a minimum balance of £1,600 and a maximum balance of £12,000
To save enough to claim the full £3,000 bonus would take an individual 55 months, not accounting for interest earned
The Isas are easy access and generally offer comparatively high rates, but these are variable meaning they are subject to change
Can only be used on sub £450k properties in London and sub £250k properties outside the capital
To qualify for the 25pc bonus the property must be in the UK and cost up to £250,000 (£450,000 if buying in London). It must not be a second home or a buy-to-let property and must be purchased with a mortgage
Buyers are usually required to provide a deposit of 10 per cent of the value of the home when they exchange contracts, and for many first-time buyers this is all the equity they have to put into the purchase.
The small print means the bonus cannot be used for this initial deposit, and can only be spent as part of the purchase cost, for example on mortgage payments, once the deal is completed.
The Treasury has been forced to admit that the clause was included to stop people benefiting from the bonus without actually buying a house.
The accounts, which were launched last year, let customers save £200 a month to which the Government adds £50, up to a final total of £15,000.
So far fewer than 1,500 people have used them to help buy a home as the limit on how much can be paid in means they have only just accrued a realistic amount to put toward a deposit.
Andrew Boast of SAM Conveyancing, said: “It is a scandal. The Government launched this scheme declaredly to help people save the large exchange deposit required to buy a home. But what unsuspecting first-time buyers are now horrified to discover is that under the scheme rules they cannot use the bonus as part of this deposit.”
Sources at high street banks said they were unaware of the restrictions, which state: “The bonus cannot be used for the deposit due at the exchange of contracts, to pay for solicitor’s, estate agent’s fees or any other indirect costs associated with buying a home.”
Banks and building societies have been selling the Isas on the premise that they can be used to boost home deposits. They may now be forced to change their advertising.
HSBC’s website reads: “Saving up for a deposit for your first home? Open an HSBC Help to Buy Isa and the UK Government will reward you with an additional 25 per cent of the amount you save, up to a maximum of £3,000.”
A promotional video by Halifax claims it helps customers “save for a bigger deposit”. Natwest provides an online tool to show how a Help to Buy Isa could “help save for the deposit on your first home”.
They echo Mr Osborne’s comments when he launched the scheme. He said: “This new Isa provides direct government support to anyone saving for the deposit on their first home.”
On Friday night the Treasury backtracked on the stated original aim, claiming it was never intended to boost deposits. A spokesman insisted the bonus was instead designed purely to reduce the size of buyers’ mortgages by boosting the equity they put in on completion.
After The Telegraph raised the issue, the Treasury updated its Help to Buy Isa web page to make the clause more prominent.
Experts who had previously praised the scheme criticised it for simply providing a “perk” to savers who could already afford a home.
The need for a large down payment remains the biggest block to home ownership, the intermediary mortgage lending association says. The average first-time deposit has risen to £33,000, according to Halifax.
There's more at the link if you can stomach it.
What a surprise.
It's like they're genetically incapable of helping anyone who doesn't already have money.
reds8n wrote: ..... There's more at the link if you can stomach it.
What a surprise.
It's like they're genetically incapable of helping anyone who doesn't already have money.
The current neo-liberal "meritocracy" is a funny old beast. You're only allowed to have nice things and "aspire" if you can struggle through the toughest artifical barriers they can create. Hence the bedroom tax et all.
I standby to see how Theresa May's interpretation of help for the Workers pans out. Although I'm not hopeful. Even in the face of a working class rebellion against the establishment dragging us out of the EU, we'll soon get the measure of whether any lessons have been learned.
Somehow, I doubt it. I think all those who thought the establishment needed a kick up the arse, and delivered it with a Leave vote, will see how hard the establishment will kick back when the dust settles.
reds8n wrote: ..... There's more at the link if you can stomach it.
What a surprise.
It's like they're genetically incapable of helping anyone who doesn't already have money.
The current neo-liberal "meritocracy" is a funny old beast. You're only allowed to have nice things and "aspire" if you can struggle through the toughest artifical barriers they can create. Hence the bedroom tax et all.
I standby to see how Theresa May's interpretation of help for the Workers pans out. Although I'm not hopeful. Even in the face of a working class rebellion against the establishment dragging us out of the EU, we'll soon get the measure of whether any lessons have been learned.
Somehow, I doubt it. I think all those who thought the establishment needed a kick up the arse, and delivered it with a Leave vote, will see how hard the establishment will kick back when the dust settles.
Help to buy ISA's CAN be used as deposit.
Before final exchange the HtBISA account is closed. The solicitor acting on behalf of the buyer sends the notice of closure to the government who then release the funds to the mortgage provider.
This deposit is taken into account at all stages of the house buying process. Lenders do not take deposit cash straight away. Both Lenders and Estate Agents may require proof of deposit though. (Standard practice).
My wife is an FC and has had clients using this ISA and its bonus complete on their exchanges.
EDIT:
"The bonus cannot be used for the deposit due at the exchange of contracts, to pay for solicitor’s, estate agent’s fees or any other indirect costs associated with buying a home.”
If this is the case my wife and many others in the industry may no longer advocate this product. Its no better than a standard ISA and the bonus being used for mortgage payments is really neither here or there for providers since all applicants are affordability tested.
There's no buyer's remorse on my part for voting to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the EU is a corrupt racket, a menace to democracy...
That sounds more like a bias than actual knowledge of what EU really does.
EU isn't just a huge bureaucracy - it is necessary to use an administration when you goes to such a huge organization, but it alone will not work.
It seems like you forget EU is actually ruled by people from governments of the countries being part of it. And UK was one of them (technically, it still is right now). The main difference is that they have to agree with each other, and that means some of the usual tricks nationalists are so fond of don't work well when faced with the reality of working with other countries. So that's why nationalists like to attack EU's administration; it's so convenient to have someone to blame for their own inability to solve things when they would be able to if they really wanted to.
Democracy is Europe's greatest gift to the world, and by its actions, the EU showed itself to be anti-European. It's demise can't come soon enough for me... It's disdain for ordinary voters is sickening...
Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.
Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.
I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.
The alignment between corporate interests, and the EU hierarchy during the referendum is further proof in my eyes that the UK made the right decision to leave...
And you think lobbies don't exist in UK? You should rather hunt your corrupt people in your country first before trying to give lessons to EU. Because, you know, that's your people you send to EU in the positions of power. So, maybe roots of corruption aren't exactly where you think they are...
And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...
People should not underestimate this small island in the North Atlantic - it's heritage, it's knowledge, it's achievements in science, economics, literature, culture, et al, speak for themselves...
Another case of forging your narrative from your own beliefs without actual arguments on that matter. UK is looking so fine right now, indeed. Remember, a glorious past doesn't mean the future is secured. Everyone thought the Roman Empire would be eternal at the time it was still there...we all know how it ended. Nations aren't eternal. Ireland is already stirring because of that mess. We'll see how much time UK's "unity" will last if they keep going like this, with that kind of misplaced arrogance.
I was on the same side as Farage, and even I thought he was spouting horsegak most of the time...
And you still voted for his side. Mind you, no matter how you justify it, the results are still there. When people in Germany voted for That Man before the World War 2, they sure thought it was in their interest. And in the end, they suffer so much for that terrible price.
You may say it's not the same thing. And it's true. But the consequences of your choice will still be there. Voting for a side with so many obvious holes while knowing fully of the horsegak they were saying is, to me, one of the worst things to do as a human. Because it just shows you are not better than EU you decry so much.
I think people greatly overestimate Farage's influence.
I was on the same side as Farage, and even I thought he was spouting horsegak most of the time...
Farage wasn't the main player though. It was Boris, Gove, IDS etc that provided a lot of support to the idea that immigrants are bad for the Country, the EU spends our money with no return etc without using quite the same wording. Nor did they ever challenge Farage on his approach, rather distanced themselves because even then they knew that his message was pandering to a certain crowd that they wanted to vote their way, even if their views were generally unpalatable to them. They manipulated the situation to help them win their goals of climbing the political ladder (either now or in the future).
Kilkrazy wrote: If the EU is such a huge bureaucracy how come it operates with a budget of 1% of the EU's GDP?
Obviously by stealing from UK's own treasury. After all, it's a given it's a corrupt organization. It's like the Mafia. Make UK great again and throw all those EU bureaucrats in jail!
And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...
Times change, Britain was well off in the last two hundred years off the back of an empire pre WWs. Those days are way gone. Realistically our economy was in absolute tatters in the period between the end of the 2nd World war and the early 80's. It's likely not a coincidence that things started improving after the EU became more integrated in the mid 80's.
Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.
Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.
I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.
Unfortunately the Democracy in the UK is a farce at the moment.
The first past the post system means a significant minority (30%) can give rise to a parliament with a majority.
You have policies and statements that are effectively meaningless because they are not ever held to account (the UK referendum showing this in it's extreme)
You have politicians can overspend the regulated amount per voting area and not be held to account (no new bi-election or police interest in the breach of regulations)
You have parties funded by rich organisations/individuals that have specific agendas they expect the parties to comply with (else they withdraw their funding)
You have a House of Lords (a second unelected parliament that can at least challenge legislation) being filled with friends of the individuals parties (with a strong concern that the more money they pay to the parties the more likely they will be made a lord)
And you have media system that the parties will fall over themselves to keep on side (the Tories being particularly influential/influenced in this area) - we only have to look at the phone hacking scandal and the farce of how things panned out.
There's no buyer's remorse on my part for voting to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the EU is a corrupt racket, a menace to democracy...
That sounds more like a bias than actual knowledge of what EU really does.
EU isn't just a huge bureaucracy - it is necessary to use an administration when you goes to such a huge organization, but it alone will not work.
It seems like you forget EU is actually ruled by people from governments of the countries being part of it. And UK was one of them (technically, it still is right now). The main difference is that they have to agree with each other, and that means some of the usual tricks nationalists are so fond of don't work well when faced with the reality of working with other countries.
I would contend that that was the case pre-Lisbon. The EU has begun to evolve into a separate power base in it's own right since then however, as opposed to just being the sum of several representative parts. The Five EU Presidents now exert power and influence of their own which is not aligned to or derived from any one specific nation. Whilst they are still only one component of the whole that is the EU machine, they are a set of cogs which are ultimately answerable to themselves as opposed to any individual or collective electorate or government.
Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.
Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.
I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.
You're talking about the ones which declared WW3 was a week away should the EU choose to leave?
Please, that entire campaign was morass of lies and misinformation on both sides. It was frankly embarassing, and shouldn't be used as evidence for anything except how a campaign should /not be run.
Another case of forging your narrative from your own beliefs without actual arguments on that matter. UK is looking so fine right now, indeed. Remember, a glorious past doesn't mean the future is secured. Everyone thought the Roman Empire would be eternal at the time it was still there...we all know how it ended. Nations aren't eternal. Ireland is already stirring because of that mess. We'll see how much time UK's "unity" will last if they keep going like this, with that kind of misplaced arrogance.
There are many countries outside of the EU who do just fine, and many who did just fine before it existed. So not so much 'arrogance' as evidence based reasoning.
Not to mention that national unity is not the be all and end all. Nation sizes are not fixed affairs. If Scotland chooses to do their own thing, whilst I'd like them to stay, I'd wish them the very best and get on with things. A border line going up and people deciding to run their own affairs a bit closer to home is not a personal insult unless you choose to take it as one. Labelling people exercising self-determination as 'traitors' is the sort of distasteful activity better left to people of extreme and narrow-minded outlooks. Like Juncker.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the EU is such a huge bureaucracy how come it operates with a budget of 1% of the EU's GDP?
Primarily by outsourcing most functions of Government to national governance. There's no EU army, welfare state, criminal judiciary, and so on. As it continues to absorb more of these responsibilities, this is likely to change, and indeed has done so. There's a reason the EU of today costs far more than the EU of 1980 (adjusted for inflation).
There's no buyer's remorse on my part for voting to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the EU is a corrupt racket, a menace to democracy...
That sounds more like a bias than actual knowledge of what EU really does.
EU isn't just a huge bureaucracy - it is necessary to use an administration when you goes to such a huge organization, but it alone will not work.
It seems like you forget EU is actually ruled by people from governments of the countries being part of it. And UK was one of them (technically, it still is right now). The main difference is that they have to agree with each other, and that means some of the usual tricks nationalists are so fond of don't work well when faced with the reality of working with other countries. So that's why nationalists like to attack EU's administration; it's so convenient to have someone to blame for their own inability to solve things when they would be able to if they really wanted to.
Democracy is Europe's greatest gift to the world, and by its actions, the EU showed itself to be anti-European. It's demise can't come soon enough for me... It's disdain for ordinary voters is sickening...
Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.
Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.
I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.
The alignment between corporate interests, and the EU hierarchy during the referendum is further proof in my eyes that the UK made the right decision to leave...
And you think lobbies don't exist in UK? You should rather hunt your corrupt people in your country first before trying to give lessons to EU. Because, you know, that's your people you send to EU in the positions of power. So, maybe roots of corruption aren't exactly where you think they are...
And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...
People should not underestimate this small island in the North Atlantic - it's heritage, it's knowledge, it's achievements in science, economics, literature, culture, et al, speak for themselves...
Another case of forging your narrative from your own beliefs without actual arguments on that matter. UK is looking so fine right now, indeed. Remember, a glorious past doesn't mean the future is secured. Everyone thought the Roman Empire would be eternal at the time it was still there...we all know how it ended. Nations aren't eternal. Ireland is already stirring because of that mess. We'll see how much time UK's "unity" will last if they keep going like this, with that kind of misplaced arrogance.
I was on the same side as Farage, and even I thought he was spouting horsegak most of the time...
And you still voted for his side. Mind you, no matter how you justify it, the results are still there. When people in Germany voted for That Man before the World War 2, they sure thought it was in their interest. And in the end, they suffer so much for that terrible price.
You may say it's not the same thing. And it's true. But the consequences of your choice will still be there. Voting for a side with so many obvious holes while knowing fully of the horsegak they were saying is, to me, one of the worst things to do as a human. Because it just shows you are not better than EU you decry so much.
Nationalism?
Before you accuse other people of being nationalists, you should look at what you're defending.
The EU has a flag, a national anthem, a parliament, and is committed to ever closer union. Logically, I can only conclude that the EU also wants to be a nation, all the signs are pointing to that, so it can't criticize Britain for exhibiting nationalist tendencies when the EU does exactly the same thing...
We all know that the EU has a shared currency, and we all know what the next logical step is...
And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...
Times change, Britain was well off in the last two hundred years off the back of an empire pre WWs. Those days are way gone. Realistically our economy was in absolute tatters in the period between the end of the 2nd World war and the early 80's. It's likely not a coincidence that things started improving after the EU became more integrated in the mid 80's.
Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.
Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.
I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.
Unfortunately the Democracy in the UK is a farce at the moment.
The first past the post system means a significant minority (30%) can give rise to a parliament with a majority.
You have policies and statements that are effectively meaningless because they are not ever held to account (the UK referendum showing this in it's extreme)
You have politicians can overspend the regulated amount per voting area and not be held to account (no new bi-election or police interest in the breach of regulations)
You have parties funded by rich organisations/individuals that have specific agendas they expect the parties to comply with (else they withdraw their funding)
You have a House of Lords (a second unelected parliament that can at least challenge legislation) being filled with friends of the individuals parties (with a strong concern that the more money they pay to the parties the more likely they will be made a lord)
And you have media system that the parties will fall over themselves to keep on side (the Tories being particularly influential/influenced in this area) - we only have to look at the phone hacking scandal and the farce of how things panned out.
I agree that the UK's democracy is not perfect, you'll get no argument from me, and I have called for the abolition of the House of Lords many a time on these pages. But our democracy can be changed if the British people so desire it...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If the EU is such a huge bureaucracy how come it operates with a budget of 1% of the EU's GDP?
That's still one heck of a sum. We're not talking about loose change down the back of the sofa...
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is a general point, and in no way attacking anybody on dakka...
I'm annoyed at the tone that been coming out of the remain side since June 23rd across the various remain supporting media outlets...
I know remain voters are hurt, angry, and bewildered at what happened, and I sympathize, because I've been there in 2014 when I was on the losing side...
I disagreed with the remain POV, but I always respected their right to believe in it and to listen to their views...
I never got into a slagging match or traded insults with anybody, because it was counter-productive...
Recently though, being branded a casual racist or an immigrant hater, or a UKIP supporter just because I voted leave, has started to annoy me...
Ii doesn't happen on here, but on other forums, and quite frankly, I'm going to stop wasting my time debating with those people, or reading Guardian opinion pieces, because I think they're just trolling people, now
I know it's bigger than your childrens' pocket money but in accounting terms it nearly counts as a rounding error. Hardly the sign of a massive bureaucracy. Consider that average government spending of EU governments is more like 40% of GDP.
Kilkrazy wrote: I know it's bigger than your childrens' pocket money but in accounting terms it nearly counts as a rounding error. Hardly the sign of a massive bureaucracy. Consider that average government spending of EU governments is more like 40% of GDP.
True, but in these average countries, there's a direct link between the populace and the government...
At every political level, local council, MSP, MP, I know what powers they have, and who I'm dealing with, and if need be, I can drive to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, or pay a visit to the House of Commons to air grievances...
But when it comes to the EU, I have no idea of where that link is. My MEP has about as much power as as a dead parrot...
And having been to Brussels and seen the EU buildings, It's like a modern day Kremlin - I wouldn't know where to start...
I agree that the UK's democracy is not perfect, you'll get no argument from me, and I have called for the abolition of the House of Lords many a time on these pages. But our democracy can be changed if the British people so desire it...
But that's the point approximately 67% of the population did want a change, but it was the 33% who voted one way that had the say. I suspect with the upcoming boundary changes that this will be made worse by the Tories because they will want to entrench their world views even further. If it's a rigged game and have a government (Labour/Tory system) that will rig it further to stay in power then no version of democracy will change things. This is why our democracy is a farce and at best is a pseudo-democracy.
That's still one heck of a sum. We're not talking about loose change down the back of the sofa...
But relatively to the whole sum a tiny proportion and much more efficient overall because many countries pay into it. As a comparison the UK spends about 40% of its GDP on state expenditure.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....
I'm annoyed at the tone that been coming out of the remain side since June 23rd across the various remain supporting media outlets...
I know remain voters are hurt, angry, and bewildered at what happened, and I sympathize, because I've been there in 2014 when I was on the losing side...
I disagreed with the remain POV, but I always respected their right to believe in it and to listen to their views...
I never got into a slagging match or traded insults with anybody, because it was counter-productive...
Recently though, being branded a casual racist or an immigrant hater, or a UKIP supporter just because I voted leave, has started to annoy me...
Ii doesn't happen on here, but on other forums, and quite frankly, I'm going to stop wasting my time debating with those people, or reading Guardian opinion pieces, because I think they're just trolling people, now
Since the 23rd I've heard Leave supporters complain that they are being attacked, however I'm not sure you quite understand exactly how Remain feel, despite being on the losing side of the Scottish referendum, there are many significant differences. For a start,
1. Whilst you lost, nothing actually changed, the status quo continued. That might have been disappointing for you, but you didn't have to face an uncertain future and some immediate financial repurcussions as a result of your loss.
2. You have hope for a further referendum in the future at some point, remain does not.
3. Whilst project fear was rampant, project abject lies was no where near as blatant
4. You didn't experience an upswing in racism directly attributable to the referendum straight afterwards
5. The closeness of the vote, and the lack of credible mandate is frustrating. 51.9% of 72.2% is impressive but it does mean that there is a huge chunk of the population that vehemently disagrees.
6. The SNP have sailed to an enormous electoral coup, salving nationalist sentiment somewhat.
So I'm afraid that you don't, and actually can't, understand how we feel. Not only did we lose, we feel that the vote was stolen, especially considering the outrageous racism and lies being used. It was despicable, and that rubs off on those who voted that way I'm afraid. In the eyes of many remain voters, those who voted leave maybe educated and reasonable, but they sided with racists and hate groups. It's tarnishing by association. It's the only time I've actually felt differently about some of my friends and colleagues.
But when it comes to the EU, I have no idea of where that link is. My MEP has about as much power as as a dead parrot...
I'm assuming of course that you have spoken to your MEP in person and had a discussion on what their responsibilities are. In reality though very few MPs, Scottish MPs, local authority councillors have much 'power'. For the most part they are there to put forward and debate different issues and then on those issues that have a vote, vote on them. Everyone can't have 'the power'. It's a lack of engagement that isn't happening as the MEPs are meant to represent the populace but generally end up representing their party.
Kilkrazy wrote: I know it's bigger than your childrens' pocket money but in accounting terms it nearly counts as a rounding error. Hardly the sign of a massive bureaucracy. Consider that average government spending of EU governments is more like 40% of GDP.
True, but in these average countries, there's a direct link between the populace and the government...
At every political level, local council, MSP, MP, I know what powers they have, and who I'm dealing with, and if need be, I can drive to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, or pay a visit to the House of Commons to air grievances...
But when it comes to the EU, I have no idea of where that link is. My MEP has about as much power as as a dead parrot...
And having been to Brussels and seen the EU buildings, It's like a modern day Kremlin - I wouldn't know where to start...
How does all this make a 1:40 ratio of budget "Massive".
Supporting a side that is clearly including a lot of racist people has consequences. It's normal to question about that people who did that, because they couldn't be ignorant of what was behind the arguments made in public, and repeated many times. That it is annoying, I can understand perfectly. But those are the consequences of your choice. You can try to ignore them, but that doesn't make them disappear.
Because it is right to question you about this choice and why the racist comments came from the "Leave" side, while you fully took it in all awareness. You can't blame ignorance on that, and maybe that's why it's even worse you still supported this side while fully knowing what was said and told (or even done) by people from it at that time.
I would contend that that was the case pre-Lisbon. The EU has begun to evolve into a separate power base in it's own right since then however, as opposed to just being the sum of several representative parts. The Five EU Presidents now exert power and influence of their own which is not aligned to or derived from any one specific nation. Whilst they are still only one component of the whole that is the EU machine, they are a set of cogs which are ultimately answerable to themselves as opposed to any individual or collective electorate or government.
This is trying to paint something that isn't exactly true and you know it. People chosen to be in positions of power for EU management aren't coming from nowhere; they are clearly taken from the countries that made EU. Sure, they all have influences on their own and they may not agree with the current policy in their country, but trying to say they don't have ties or aren't influenced at all by them isn't accurate.
Not even talking about all the jobs that are sure not really put into light by UK medias, but are still there and still important for the EU to work properly.
By leaving EU, however, there is certainty that there won't any guy from the country leaving in that position of power. So, leaving to "protest" may sound like a good idea on paper, but it's not really a good one on long term, IMHO. You don't change things by leaving them.
You're talking about the ones which declared WW3 was a week away should the EU choose to leave?
Please, that entire campaign was morass of lies and misinformation on both sides. It was frankly embarassing, and shouldn't be used as evidence for anything except how a campaign should /not be run.
Both sides were horrible, let's be clear. And that's why I believe it would have been better to cancel the referendum, because it was clearly biased and not informing the people for something that would have consequences no matter what for the future of UK (and also EU).
So when someone says the EU is a threat to democracy but still fought to the last minute to say the referendum must be kept and then after the more than questionable results keep saying the referendum must be respected...I'm not so sure the threat is really on EU on that matter. That's my point about this really sad campaign. And I feel quite bad for all the UK people who were tricked in such a despicable way to vote for something they didn't really want, just for that a small minority can satisfy their own personnal ambitions/ego.
Calling for unity is a joke. UK is quite divided now, and we can see acts of racism coming in the great light and trying to say "it's not a big deal!". Well, it is. I believe some people on this topic don't really understand the amount of suffering they're willing to inflict on their fellow countrymen just because they can't grasp the consequences of their political choices.
There are many countries outside of the EU who do just fine, and many who did just fine before it existed. So not so much 'arrogance' as evidence based reasoning.
Not to mention that national unity is not the be all and end all. Nation sizes are not fixed affairs. If Scotland chooses to do their own thing, whilst I'd like them to stay, I'd wish them the very best and get on with things. A border line going up and people deciding to run their own affairs a bit closer to home is not a personal insult unless you choose to take it as one. Labelling people exercising self-determination as 'traitors' is the sort of distasteful activity better left to people of extreme and narrow-minded outlooks. Like Juncker.
Yes, that's a common statement nowadays. "We will be better alone" or "we don't need others to keep living". This right wing nationalism is quite spreading through a lot of countries, mainly because nothing is really done to counter the demagogy of some parties that don't care at all for people but just want to follow their own agenda.
Nations are indeed not fixed, but the trouble here is assuming everything will be fine no matter what because, look, we managed to survive so far. You who like history, you should know how easy it is for countries and people to rise and fall just because of apparently small things happening and not reacting properly to them.
I think you don't really understand that the people talking about traitors that are really bothering aren't those in the EU who are quite angry at the mess UK made, but those inside of UK, those who really felt betrayed by their fellow countrymen they don't understand anymore because of the horrible things that were said. To me, that's the real danger inside...and talking about "unity" inside UK now isn't just about Ireland or Scotland. But really the "Leave" and "Remain" sides.
This is trying to paint something that isn't exactly true and you know it. People chosen to be in positions of power for EU management aren't coming from nowhere; they are clearly taken from the countries that made EU. Sure, they all have influences on their own and they may not agree with the current policy in their country, but trying to say they don't have ties or aren't influenced at all by them isn't accurate.
That's primarily because it wasn't what I said. Let me break it down differently.
In the earlier days, the policy of the EU was whatever the nations within the EU decided it was. If France had a priority/issue/desire (be it political, military, economic, or otherwise), that was expressed by France, through French employees/statesmen who happened to either work in the EU machine, or pull the strings to push it as an item on the agenda. The EU itself was not the originator of what went on that agenda.
These days, the EU has its own Central Bank. It has its own President. It has its own Foreign Secretary (if by a different title). The people who sit in these positions and propose legislation, initiatives, and policy do so for the good of the EU (collectively). Yes, they have to accommodate the national interests mentioned in the previous paragraph (which still very much exist), and yes, they are ultimately just one operator of the EU machine.
But the point is that previously, the EU was just the keyboard upon which national governments pushed the buttons. Now, its bureaucrats are one of the operators. And the primary goal of that operator (as evidenced by clear examination of the events of the last twenty years, the five presidents report, etc), is to increase the amount of time it gets to spend pushing the buttons on the machine, and reduce that of the other operators.
This has naturally entailed a burgeoning expenses cost and employee roster. The more responsibilities and power it has taken on, the higher the costs have grown. Yes, the cost is less than that of a national government. But that is because it has yet to assume anywhere near the responsibilities/power of a national government. The EU doesn't handle defence or economics. Yet. As it continues to acquire more power/responsibility, its costs will continue the trend, and continue to rise.
Not being directly responsible to an electorate however, the EU suffers the same financial bloat and wastage that any quango does with no real boss.
And I feel quite bad for all the UK people who were tricked in such a despicable way to vote for something they didn't really want, just for that a small minority can satisfy their own personnal ambitions/ego.
I find it mildly amusing that you assume that they were all 'tricked' (unlike yourself of course), in the same breath as you decry their ego. How do you know you are not the one that has been 'tricked'? How do you know that what Brexiteer politicians said is actually representative of the thoughts of most Brexiteers?
One of the most disgustingly egotistical things I have witnessed alongside the assumption all Brexiteers are uneducated racists is the parallel assumption that had they not all had the wool pulled over their eyes and seen the light, they'd have changed how they voted. It assumes that there was a 'correct' decision. That 50% of the country only voted the 'wrong' way because the poor fools couldn't see what was in their best interests, that they were all won over by Boris Johnson's sweet smiles and Gove's gentle cooing.
It's patronising, condescending, and odiously self-righteous.
Calling for unity is a joke. UK is quite divided now, and we can see acts of racism coming in the great light and trying to say "it's not a big deal!". Well, it is. I believe some people on this topic don't really understand the amount of suffering they're willing to inflict on their fellow countrymen just because they can't grasp the consequences of their political choices.
Or they do, and they disagree with you. Shocking concept, I know. Almost as heretical as the notion that the 'suffering' might not really be that extreme.
Yes, that's a common statement nowadays. "We will be better alone" or "we don't need others to keep living". This right wing nationalism is quite spreading through a lot of countries, mainly because nothing is really done to counter the demagogy of some parties that don't care at all for people but just want to follow their own agenda.
Is Japan run by right wing nationalists because they haven't joined the EU? Does Canada keep their economy afloat whilst apart from the EU by facist governance techniques?
Knowing that a country can survive and even flourish whilst separate from the EU isn't exactly a question of belief or nationalism here.
Nations are indeed not fixed, but the trouble here is assuming everything will be fine no matter what because, look, we managed to survive so far. You who like history, you should know how easy it is for countries and people to rise and fall just because of apparently small things happening and not reacting properly to them.
I know enough about history that to attempt to predict the future based upon it in anything bar the most vague generalities is a pointless exercise.
I think you don't really understand that the people talking about traitors that are really bothering aren't those in the EU who are quite angry at the mess UK made, but those inside of UK, those who really felt betrayed by their fellow countrymen they don't understand anymore because of the horrible things that were said. To me, that's the real danger inside...and talking about "unity" inside UK now isn't just about Ireland or Scotland. But really the "Leave" and "Remain" sides.
Frankly, I saw much the same reaction from much the same people when Cameron won the last election. Speaking as someone with a foot in both left and right wing political camps, the selfishness and inhumanity of the right wing is only matched by the staggeringly self-deceiving hypocrisy of your average liberal. 'Think as you like, so long as you think like us, because those are the right and just things to think. Or you're an intolerant racist/facist/nationalist/etcetc'.
Ketara wrote: I find it mildly amusing that you assume that they were all 'tricked' (unlike yourself of course), in the same breath as you decry their ego. How do you know you are not the one that has been 'tricked'? How do you know that what Brexiteer politicians said is actually representative of the thoughts of most Brexiteers?
One of the most disgustingly egotistical things I have witnessed alongside the assumption all Brexiteers are uneducated racists is the parallel assumption that had they not all had the wool pulled over their eyes and seen the light, they'd have changed how they voted. It assumes that there was a 'correct' decision. That 50% of the country only voted the 'wrong' way because the poor fools couldn't see what was in their best interests, that they were all won over by Boris Johnson's sweet smiles and Gove's gentle cooing.
It's patronising, condescending, and odiously self-righteous.
The ideas of democracy, sovereignty and independence were mere sprinkles on top of a sea of bile and racism. You might not have felt that, and it may not have been the reason you voted as you did, but the vast majority of your fellow leavers voted to get rid of immigrants.
You might not be racist, but you're on the same side as them, and you're defending their decision and attempting to legitimise it. It's why, for my part, I have a hard time accepting and trusting people who voted leave, even friends and family. Part of me sees a side to them that I am not happy with. Combined with the upsurge of Nationalism we are facing in this country, I feel that it is absolutely my duty to challenge and attack these ideas before they normalise and something worse comes of it.
I do not recognise Nationalism, however positively dressed up, as a legitimate political position. It divides people into us and them. Whether physical barriers exits or not, it creates devision, which leads to misunderstanding, fear, hatred and violence.
I genuinely fear for the UK. Not economically, as we'll probably be OK, but because I fear we are starting down a route that leads to a dark place.
I suspect that in 10 years we will be in about the same situation we are now, only somewhat worse off, politically and economically.
As for racism and nationalism, the Leave vote clearly was felt by a small number of racists and nationalists to legitimise their agenda, leading to an increase in hate crime before and an outbreak of more overt hate crime after the referendum. This impacted on Jewish and Muslim native UK citizens, and on white Christian Poles.
A big point of Leave was to reduce immigration. It probably can't, but if it did, where does that leave current "not properly British" (i.e. non-white, or non-Christian) citizens, and the couple of million white Euro citizens (Poles, French, Italians) who are likely to remain in the UK. What about other immigrants like my wife?
The ideas of democracy, sovereignty and independence were mere sprinkles on top of a sea of bile and racism. You might not have felt that, and it may not have been the reason you voted as you did, but the vast majority of your fellow leavers voted to get rid of immigrants.
Sorry, but no.
About 52% of the country voted to leave. I'll repeat that again. Fifty two percent. Mere sprinkles? Are you honestly asserting then, that the vast majority of that 52%, say 48% of the country, are merely racists? Really? You think so little of your countrymen that you reckon almost half of them are 'racist'? Absolutely preposterous. The claim is nothing more than ludicrous nonsense, and I'll dismiss it accordingly.
You might not be racist, but you're on the same side as them,
This is the thing. To paraphrase Rorshach, I'm not voting with them. They're voting with me.
You might find that some of them vote for the same political party as me. They might even enjoy the same cake as me occasionally. Both things mean as much as them voting the same way as me in a referendum. The concept of 'sides' here is simply feeding the absurd 'them and us' narrative propaganda distributed by politicians of both stripes throughout the entire campaign.
and you're defending their decision and attempting to legitimise it. It's why, for my part, I have a hard time accepting and trusting people who voted leave, even friends and family.
I'm attacking terrible logic and stating my reasons for voting the way I did. If you choose to interpret as somehow 'defending' people like Nick Griffin, then you're already splitting this into sides and being the most divisive person in the metaphorical room. It's like accusing all people who support the nationalisation of the trains as being intransigent Stalinists.
Combined with the upsurge of Nationalism we are facing in this country, I feel that it is absolutely my duty to challenge and attack these ideas before they normalise and something worse comes of it.
I do not recognise Nationalism, however positively dressed up, as a legitimate political position. It divides people into us and them. Whether physical barriers exits or not, it creates devision, which leads to misunderstanding, fear, hatred and violence.
Frankly, all I read here is that people voted differently to you for different reasons, and so you appear to have responded by splitting half the country into 'your' camp, and the rest into 'others'. That seems more like the sort of thing which promotes misunderstanding, fear, hatred, and violence to me. There's no room for compromise in your words, no understanding of the position of others. Just a tunnel vision with everyone who agrees with you labelled 'good people', and everyone else 'bad people'.
That, my friend, is the kind of thinking that genuinely leads to violence and strife.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I suspect that in 10 years we will be in about the same situation we are now, only somewhat worse off, politically and economically.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps it will be better than if we'd stayed in the EU, perhaps it will be worse than if we had.
More likely, we'll be better off in some regards, and worse in others. The world is constantly in flux, and all we can ever do is try and pick the best course of action at the time.
As for racism and nationalism, the Leave vote clearly was felt by a small number of racists and nationalists to legitimise their agenda, leading to an increase in hate crime before and an outbreak of more overt hate crime after the referendum. This impacted on Jewish and Muslim native UK citizens, and on white Christian Poles.
I have no doubt they will be squashed accordingly. There is no place for such things, and the relevant laws are on the books.
A big point of Leave was to reduce immigration. It probably can't, but if it did, where does that leave current "not properly British" (i.e. non-white, or non-Christian) citizens, and the couple of million white Euro citizens (Poles, French, Italians) who are likely to remain in the UK. What about other immigrants like my wife?
It leaves the European immigrants in the same position as every other immigrant to a country without a free trade agreement. That is to say, having to fill in a basic visa and needing a purpose for being in a country before applying for requisite citizenship if they meet the criteria. The rest of the world generally manages to make these systems operate without too much difficulty, much as they somehow manage to struggle on economically without being part of the Eurozone.
For those outside of the eurozone, they may find things actually get easier when it comes to getting visas approved in due time.
52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.
Amusingly, the BMA voted no to the the most recent contract, that was 37% against it, with 32ish% for, I recall Mr Hunt saying something along the lines of "not really a majority".
A little part of my dies every time someone tries to defend nationalism. It was a handy source of control for central powers in order to fulfill the large numbers of willing troops needed for wars. At least before the French revolutionaries and Bonaparte perfected the idea Europe had the sense to let professionals fight the petty squabbles caused by the glorious sovereign state system that people seem so eager to protect.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: 52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.
You know what? Fair point,
Amend my above statement to '37%', and 'one in three people' respectively. It doesn't change my view of the concept of a third of the country as being racists as ludicrous though.
Optio wrote:
A little part of my dies every time someone tries to defend nationalism. It was a handy source of control for central powers in order to fulfill the large numbers of willing troops needed for wars. At least before the French revolutionaries and Bonaparte perfected the idea Europe had the sense to let professionals fight the petty squabbles caused by the glorious sovereign state system that people seem so eager to protect.
Indeed. Soviet Supreme power for the future! Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the chains of Britain and Europe! For too long have these nationalistic entities oppressed the masses!
Optio wrote:
A little part of my dies every time someone tries to defend nationalism. It was a handy source of control for central powers in order to fulfill the large numbers of willing troops needed for wars. At least before the French revolutionaries and Bonaparte perfected the idea Europe had the sense to let professionals fight the petty squabbles caused by the glorious sovereign state system that people seem so eager to protect.
Indeed. Soviet Supreme power for the future! Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the chains of Britain and Europe! For too long have these nationalistic entities oppressed the masses!
Ah, my friend, you seem to have confused Liberalism and Nationalism together! The only thing condemning us to not have a Liberal Global order is this beast of called Nationalism. Sovietism well... shudder*
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: 52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.
You know what? Fair point,
Amend my above statement to '37%', and 'one in three people' respectively. It doesn't change my view of the concept of a third of the country as being racists as ludicrous though.
Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: 52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.
It's still a pretty good indicator of public opinion, though. If more people had bothered to vote, then perhaps we may have avoided "Brexit". More fool them if they didn't go and do it IMO.
Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.
Being pedantic I'd disagree that there are so many racists in the UK. Racism is prejudice based on someone's belief that their own race is superior and although there is small proportion of this in the Country I don't think it's present in a significant proportion of the populace. Most of arguments were over fear of losing jobs, or fear that the NHS is being overrun, or fear that our education system won't cope - this isn't racism because its fear, this is bigotry. There are significant numbers of bigoted people out there because of an irrational suspicion of a particular group (immigrants) of people which doesn't stack up when you look at the figures. There is no doubt that this issue 'won' it for the Leave vote (based on the massive shift of peoples opinions when they released the immigration figures a few weeks before).
The concern I have is that people are using it to justify more bigoted views (even in my only family). It seems to have shifted everyone who was very slightly to extremely immigration intolerant one step further to the right. So those very mildly bigoted have got a bit more because their views have been 'justified' by the referendum and this has happened across the board down to the extremely bigoted (and racist) people where they are using ever more aggressive tactics as they have been 'justified' by the vote.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: 52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.
You know what? Fair point,
Amend my above statement to '37%', and 'one in three people' respectively. It doesn't change my view of the concept of a third of the country as being racists as ludicrous though.
Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.
A third of the country is racist? Based on your personal experience and anecdotal evidence?
C'mon, you're better than this.
I have you links to soild evidence of your claims, then I take back what I said, but one third of the country? I'm not believing that for a minute.
But I do admit there is a problem with racism and there is a small minority of racists, but not on the scale of a third of the population.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: 52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.
It's still a pretty good indicator of public opinion, though. If more people had bothered to vote, then perhaps we may have avoided "Brexit". More fool them if they didn't go and do it IMO.
As I've said before, the Remain side had 40 years to make the case for Europe, but they failed. In this context, the number of voters is irrelevent IMO.
People simply didn't believe in Europe. Their argument was basically, the EU is a bit horsegak, but change is risky.
Not exactly a vote of confidence!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Optio wrote: A little part of my dies every time someone tries to defend nationalism. It was a handy source of control for central powers in order to fulfill the large numbers of willing troops needed for wars. At least before the French revolutionaries and Bonaparte perfected the idea Europe had the sense to let professionals fight the petty squabbles caused by the glorious sovereign state system that people seem so eager to protect.
And yet, the EU is becoming increasingly nationalist in its outlook, but nobody bats an eyelid, because it's 'progressive.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I suspect that in 10 years we will be in about the same situation we are now, only somewhat worse off, politically and economically.
As for racism and nationalism, the Leave vote clearly was felt by a small number of racists and nationalists to legitimise their agenda, leading to an increase in hate crime before and an outbreak of more overt hate crime after the referendum. This impacted on Jewish and Muslim native UK citizens, and on white Christian Poles.
A big point of Leave was to reduce immigration. It probably can't, but if it did, where does that leave current "not properly British" (i.e. non-white, or non-Christian) citizens, and the couple of million white Euro citizens (Poles, French, Italians) who are likely to remain in the UK. What about other immigrants like my wife?
I've said it, and you said it yourself a few months back: even if we had voted to stay in the EU, there are deep rooted structural problems within the UK economy that badly need fixed.
Hell, I was reading in the financial websites that Britain's pension defecit is ONE TRILLION POUNDS!!
Sorry for the caps, but that number shocked me. But like I said, staying or leaving the EU would not have changed a penny of that.
The advantage of BREXIT is that it's forcing the government to take a long hard look at the UK economy. Some good may come of this...
Without getting into an argument about semantics, the British have always been racist, its just unfashionable to say so and people who point it out are often decried as "guardian reading lefties" .
Our history is replete with examples that survive into the 21st century, anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.
Eastern Europeans are just the latest victims of a trend that continues from the Irish, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Indians, and West Indian and Caribbean immigrants.
Every time we faced a wave of immigration, there was resistance and complaints of being swamped, and how England is no longer England etcetera.
The nation accepted immigration recognising the necessity for a strong economy, but it's people have grumbled and complained. The only difference is that this time the bloody government gave these people a voice and a chance to kick out the latest pariahs.
How different would our country have been if in the late 50s the Govt would have given the people a vote to halt West Indian immigration. Post war they were essential for the rebuilding of the UK and filled the unpleasant, unpopular but essential jobs we needed, just as Eastern Europeans are doing today.
Unfortunately for vote leave, their victory will always be tainted by this fact. There may have been those who held ideals of nationalism and sovereignty, which of themselves are dubiously debatable positives, but it was immigration, racism and bigotry that won this vote.
You'd have to try bloody hard to prove that it was a glorious vision of the future which swayed the people.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: 52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.
You know what? Fair point,
Amend my above statement to '37%', and 'one in three people' respectively. It doesn't change my view of the concept of a third of the country as being racists as ludicrous though.
Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.
A third of the country is racist? Based on your personal experience and anecdotal evidence?
C'mon, you're better than this.
I have you links to soild evidence of your claims, then I take back what I said, but one third of the country? I'm not believing that for a minute.
But I do admit there is a problem with racism and there is a small minority of racists, but not on the scale of a third of the population.
...
As I said before, not all racism is frothing skinheads and bovva boots, there's a whole spectrum of racism as with any trait. I think a third of the population exhibiting racist or bigoted ideas or feelings is probably quite right in this context.
EDIT. Just as a little support for my argument that about a third of the UK is racist, this article adds some weight.
Hell, I was reading in the financial websites that Britain's pension defecit is ONE TRILLION POUNDS!!
Sorry for the caps, but that number shocked me. But like I said, staying or leaving the EU would not have changed a penny of that.
The advantage of BREXIT is that it's forcing the government to take a long hard look at the UK economy. Some good may come of this...
That is one positive, it is galling that the victims of cuts have for the last few decades been those in receipt of unemployment and disability benefits when the overwhelming majority of the budget for the DWP is pensions. The triple lock is unsustainable, and finally the Tories have recognised the fact and may do something about it.
Pensions and benefits for the elderly are effectively crippling the UK economy. To say nothing of the fact that those receiving the pensions, free TV licences, bus passes and heating allowances are the wealthiest and most pampered generation in history, the baby boomers.
As I've said before, the Remain side had 40 years to make the case for Europe, but they failed.
They did indeed but the UK has had a press that has been noticeably hostile to the EU for that time as well. 40 years of utter gak about the shape of carrots and 'Now Brussels will force us to do x!1!' fabrications seriously tainted public opinion. I wonder just how many people in the UK know how EU legislation is actually made? I would be amazed if it was over 5%.
One of the interesting things about the whole campaign was the depth of ignorance revealed even in myself who is pro-European and relatively well-informed about EU law and so on. I found out several important things I had been mistaken about. (Needless to say) the things I did not understand turned out to be based on lies by the Euro-sceptic press.
Optio wrote:
Ah, my friend, you seem to have confused Liberalism and Nationalism together! The only thing condemning us to not have a Liberal Global order is this beast of called Nationalism. Sovietism well... shudder*
That sounds like a trick of the oppressive running dog capitalists! All can tell that a global liberal order is nothing more than a new structure for nationalist fervour which believes itself superior to all alternatives!
r_squared wrote:
Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.
Silent Puffin? wrote:
r_squared wrote: Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it.
I agree with you as it matches my own experience in England and its fixation with immigration but its extremely difficult to prove.
I disagree strongly with you gents. Sorry.
r_squared wrote:Without getting into an argument about semantics, the British have always been racist, its just unfashionable to say so and people who point it out are often decried as "guardian reading lefties" .
Our history is replete with examples that survive into the 21st century, anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.
Eastern Europeans are just the latest victims of a trend that continues from the Irish, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Indians, and West Indian and Caribbean immigrants.
Every time we faced a wave of immigration, there was resistance and complaints of being swamped, and how England is no longer England etcetera.
Biologically speaking, the entire world is 'technically' racist, including you, it's genetically programmed in to favour those who look like you. Beyond that basic level, historically, I really don't agree with you. Certainly, there's always been racism. You just need to look at the Daily Mail complaining about Jamaicans at the tail end of the 1950's or Oswald Mosley.
But the flip side of the coin is that you cannot ever meaningfully judge the past by contemporary standards, or vice versa. The social factors surrounding those issues in the 1940's and 1950's are completely eroded for the most part in today's world, and trying to ascribe contemporary social issues to those factors is like trying to judge King Herod by contemporary morals. Pointless.
EDIT. Just as a little support for my argument that about a third of the UK is racist, this article adds some weight.
By our own admission, we're a third racist. It maybe a coincidence then that just over a third voted to Leave.
That's actually one link, the second one references the first as its source.
Digging into it, it's a survey of 3,000 people where it asked them if they considered themselves 'very or a little prejudiced' against people of other races. No definition of prejudice was offered by those asking the question. The article itself states:-
But there were warnings about drawing conclusions from people's verdict on their own prejudices.
Sunder Katwala, director of the identity and integration think tank British Future, said it was a "difficult measure to use".
"People who said they were not at all prejudiced in 1983 often held quite tough views about race", he said.
Today, younger people "hold themselves to a much higher bar", he said.
"It's quite a complicated way of doing it and not a good way to track things over time."
Politics lecturer Dr Rob Ford, of the University of Manchester, added: "The problem is there is no definition of 'prejudice' offered in the question".
I would argue that having problems with immigration is not the same thing as being a racist, and this seems to be something that everyone claiming a third of Britain is racist is conflating.
To use an exaggerated example to illustrate my point. I have a boat with sufficient water for ten people. I have ten people on it. If an eleventh wishes to get on, and I refuse, am I being racist? The answer is no; I'm simply concerned for the resource available. This is a demonstration of how it is possible one can have a reason for excluding the presence of others for factors beyond, 'dey be forners'.
Now many people DO believe immigration places a strain upon the resources of the country that they can access. Whether this is true or not, it is possible to believe this to be case, and vote against immigration accordingly without being a racist, in the same way as with the water example above. But there can be other reasons too, for example, wage depression (something intrinsically linked to the presence of cheap foreign labour). One could be anti-immigration as a result of that. I could list more.
My point here, is that logically speaking, one can be against immigration without being a racist/bigot. The two are not the one and same.
Racism is to some degree inherent in humans due to our cognitive psychological make-up which leads to the formation of groups based on very little differentiation with consequent pro-in-group and anti-out-group prejudices.
The second factor is the clear triumph of white European cultural history since 1500, leading to the "white man's burden" and other such notions. While these ideas are contestable on many grounds, they still existed and influenced people.
Despite the above we don't have to act on our racist impulses.
As I've said before, the Remain side had 40 years to make the case for Europe, but they failed.
They did indeed but the UK has had a press that has been noticeably hostile to the EU for that time as well. 40 years of utter gak about the shape of carrots and 'Now Brussels will force us to do x!1!' fabrications seriously tainted public opinion. I wonder just how many people in the UK know how EU legislation is actually made? I would be amazed if it was over 5%.
You're falling into the trap of thinking that people believe everything they read in the papers. I wouldn't use the Sun or the Mail for toilet paper, and I'd be the first to admit that Farage, Bojo, Gove et al, were spouting complete horsegak during the referendum...
It was unfortunate I was on the same side as them, but none the less, you can't blame the media.
The Mirror and the Guardian supported Remain, so it wasn't all one way traffic.
Eh. I think the media certainly had something to do with certain misconceptions held about the EU, the Mail has been leaking rubbish disguised as truth for years.
But then that begs the question, if someone believes immigration is bad because they've been supplied with regular material telling them it is (for various un-race related reasons), are they racists?
Kilkrazy wrote: Racism is to some degree inherent in humans due to our cognitive psychological make-up which leads to the formation of groups based on very little differentiation with consequent pro-in-group and anti-out-group prejudices.
The second factor is the clear triumph of white European cultural history since 1500, leading to the "white man's burden" and other such notions. While these ideas are contestable on many grounds, they still existed and influenced people.
Despite the above we don't have to act on our racist impulses.
I agree with this, but linking in with r_squared's point, was racism really an issue during the referendum?
Eastern Europeans were cited as an example, but they are nearly 99.9% white. Given that the majority population in the UK is also white, how could white people be racist towards other white people? Unless being Polish or Estonian or Latvian is now considred a 'race,' rather than a nationality.
I think the problem was cultural bigotry and intolerence towards East Europeans, rather than a problem of 'racism.'
Insert standard explanation of the concept of "cultural racism", followed by three pages of back-and-forth about whether such a concept is valid or not.
Ketara wrote: Eh. I think the media certainly had something to do with certain misconceptions held about the EU, the Mail has been leaking rubbish disguised as truth for years.
But then that begs the question, if someone believes immigration is bad because they've been supplied with regular material telling them it is (for various un-race related reasons), are they racists?
I would contend that they are not.
C'mon, the remain side weren't a few brave souls rallying against an unstoppable mass. Look at what the remain side had on their side:
Vast majority of MPs
40 years to make a case
Banks, corporations
And a ton of other orginisations supporting them...
They had a ton of advanatges, and if you can't win with a hand like that, you'll never win...
Remain lost because of inept leadership from Cameron, a pretty rubbish campaign, and an inability to make the case for Europe...
Blaming the media is a smokescreen for Remain's failings...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Insert standard explanation of the concept of "cultural racism", followed by three pages of back-and-forth about whether such a concept is valid or not.
So why do you think the British people had a problem with East Europeans?
East Europeans are:
White, Christian, and come from nations that are democratic.
Not exactly barriers to fitting into Britain which is also a majority white, Christain, and democratic...
Poles integrated well into the UK after the war, there was quite a few of them, so I don't think the UK is inherently anti East European.
I think the reasons are more complicated than that, and mostly to do with jobs and public services...
The standard "they're taking our jobs!", in conjunction with the 2008 financial crisis, is part of the explanation.
You're also not being entirely honest with your descriptions of both Eastern Europe and Great Britain as "majority white, Christian, and democratic" in that you're treating both the concept of democracy and Christianity as being monolithic entities without internal differences. Poland, for example, is overwhelmingly Catholic, whereas Great Britain isn't. Eastern Europe are also much more conservative than the UK. You can do better than this.
I agree with this, but linking in with r_squared's point, was racism really an issue during the referendum?
Eastern Europeans were cited as an example, but they are nearly 99.9% white. Given that the majority population in the UK is also white, how could white people be racist towards other white people? Unless being Polish or Estonian or Latvian is now considred a 'race,' rather than a nationality.
I think the problem was cultural bigotry and intolerence towards East Europeans, rather than a problem of 'racism.'
If I recall correctly the UK government includes discrimination on grounds of religion and nationality in racism.
The Polish were brought up because it's seen as more acceptable to discuss mass immigration from Poland than from nations outside of Europe.
You're falling into the trap of thinking that people believe everything they read in the papers.
No, I'm not. The print media has been consistently anti EU for decades, based largely on gak, and people obviously like what they read in news papers other wise they wouldn't buy them (its not as if they are buying them for objective news reporting...) and as they have an unfortunate ability to shape the political climate its far too simplistic to say that I am falling into some kind of trap.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The standard "they're taking our jobs!", in conjunction with the 2008 financial crisis, is part of the explanation.
You're also not being entirely honest with your descriptions of both Eastern Europe and Great Britain as "majority white, Christian, and democratic" in that you're treating both the concept of democracy and Christianity as being monolithic entities without internal differences. Poland, for example, is overwhelmingly Catholic, whereas Great Britain isn't. Eastern Europe are also much more conservative than the UK. You can do better than this.
A few thousand Catholics turning up in Britain never bothered me in the slightest.
You're falling into the trap of thinking that people believe everything they read in the papers.
No, I'm not. The print media has been consistently anti EU for decades, based largely on gak, and people obviously like what they read in news papers other wise they wouldn't buy them (its not as if they are buying them for objective news reporting...) and as they have an unfortunate ability to shape the political climate its far too simplistic to say that I am falling into some kind of trap.
At least print media is dying on its arse.
I wish I had a quid for everytime I said this, but I voted leave, and yet, I consider the right-wing press to be full of horsegak, and the the likes of Farage and Bojo to be buffoons...and I still voted leave...
I'm not unique, so there must be thousands of leave voters like me, who didn't give two hoots for the anti-EU agenda in the newspapers these past 40 years...
I'm not saying that the Sun and the Mail didn't influence some people to vote leave, but I think their influence is overated.
I wish I had a quid for everytime I said this, but I voted leave, and yet, I consider the right-wing press to be full of horsegak, and the the likes of Farage and Bojo to be buffoons...and I still voted leave...
I'm not unique, so there must be thousands of leave voters like me, who didn't give two hoots for the anti-EU agenda in the newspapers these past 40 years...
I'm not saying that the Sun and the Mail didn't influence some people to vote leave, but I think their influence is overated.
The issue is though because the result was so close then these papers actually only needed to influence a small minority to have changed the result. Even if only 2% of the voting population 'believed' the tripe these papers wrote (and to be fair calling them tripe gives that type of food a bad name!) then it affected the result. If the overall result had been 70:30 leave then fair enough, but with such a small margin you only needed a relative few number of people to be hoodwinked by these articles to make a difference to the outcome.
Kilkrazy wrote: Racism is to some degree inherent in humans due to our cognitive psychological make-up which leads to the formation of groups based on very little differentiation with consequent pro-in-group and anti-out-group prejudices.
The second factor is the clear triumph of white European cultural history since 1500, leading to the "white man's burden" and other such notions. While these ideas are contestable on many grounds, they still existed and influenced people.
Despite the above we don't have to act on our racist impulses.
I agree with this, but linking in with r_squared's point, was racism really an issue during the referendum?
Eastern Europeans were cited as an example, but they are nearly 99.9% white. Given that the majority population in the UK is also white, how could white people be racist towards other white people? Unless being Polish or Estonian or Latvian is now considred a 'race,' rather than a nationality.
I think the problem was cultural bigotry and intolerence towards East Europeans, rather than a problem of 'racism.'
I wish I had a quid for everytime I said this, but I voted leave, and yet, I consider the right-wing press to be full of horsegak, and the the likes of Farage and Bojo to be buffoons...and I still voted leave...
I'm not unique, so there must be thousands of leave voters like me, who didn't give two hoots for the anti-EU agenda in the newspapers these past 40 years...
I'm not saying that the Sun and the Mail didn't influence some people to vote leave, but I think their influence is overated.
The issue is though because the result was so close then these papers actually only needed to influence a small minority to have changed the result. Even if only 2% of the voting population 'believed' the tripe these papers wrote (and to be fair calling them tripe gives that type of food a bad name!) then it affected the result. If the overall result had been 70:30 leave then fair enough, but with such a small margin you only needed a relative few number of people to be hoodwinked by these articles to make a difference to the outcome.
You make a very good point, but the finger of blame has to pointed at the Remain camp - they ran a terrible campaign, it was bloody awful!
David Cameron was never a party leader, never mind PM, and having Nick Clegg visiting the North East of England to persuade people to vote remain, was rolling up the white flag, that's how desperate and inept the Remain side were...
With Cameron and Clegg, Remain were never going to win, never, never in a million years.
Kilkrazy wrote: Racism is to some degree inherent in humans due to our cognitive psychological make-up which leads to the formation of groups based on very little differentiation with consequent pro-in-group and anti-out-group prejudices.
The second factor is the clear triumph of white European cultural history since 1500, leading to the "white man's burden" and other such notions. While these ideas are contestable on many grounds, they still existed and influenced people.
Despite the above we don't have to act on our racist impulses.
I agree with this, but linking in with r_squared's point, was racism really an issue during the referendum?
Eastern Europeans were cited as an example, but they are nearly 99.9% white. Given that the majority population in the UK is also white, how could white people be racist towards other white people? Unless being Polish or Estonian or Latvian is now considred a 'race,' rather than a nationality.
I think the problem was cultural bigotry and intolerence towards East Europeans, rather than a problem of 'racism.'
Count the white faces in the picture.
I take your point, but I think the issue there was with the threat of terrorist infiltration, rather than the colour of their skin, but I do admit, there were racists on the BREXIT side, I don't deny that.
Again, I come back to my earlier point: Remain didn't lose because of Farage and one dodgy poster, they lost because their campaign was non-existant and ran by people who would struggle to organise a car boot sale...
The campaign was not non-existent. Until the Immigration issue was brought up by the various Leave campaigns, Remain was winning by a good margin on the economic points.
That was counter-productive and only ended up boosting the Leave campaign. If you keep on badgering and labelling voters racist for wanting to leave the EU, sooner or later that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
You make a very good point, but the finger of blame has to pointed at the Remain camp - they ran a terrible campaign, it was bloody awful!
David Cameron was never a party leader, never mind PM, and having Nick Clegg visiting the North East of England to persuade people to vote remain, was rolling up the white flag, that's how desperate and inept the Remain side were...
With Cameron and Clegg, Remain were never going to win, never, never in a million years.
their campaign was non-existant and ran by people who would struggle to organise a car boot sale...
I tend to agree their campaign was bad. I don't think it was organised badly; it was their tactics that was just plain wrong. Rather than focussing on the positive things the EU does bring in (for example no one mentions how much EU money the RSPB gets for protecting areas of national interest for example) they focussed on the 'big fears' that became more ridiculous as the weeks went by (such as WW3 comments etc etc). The problem with 'Project Fear' is that it only works if you have the thing that people fear the most - if you don't you tend to lose which is what happened here. However it won the Tories the last election with this strategy because they persuaded a small proportion of society that Labour sharing power with the SNP would be a disaster and we shouldn't let those people north of the border hold the Country to ransom as it will wreck the Country. The shame of it was that in effect the Tories were being bigoted against one part of its own Country and no one pulled them up on it.
But there is never going to be one group to blame.
The Remain camp were at fault for using a flawed strategy (and in the end for not calling out the Leave group for not having an actual plan, that in itself would likely have significantly swung the vote)
The Leave camp were at fault for deceiving and telling big fat lies to everyone that was listening (should be illegal IMHO)
The media (or a vast part of it) was at fault for peddling it's own biased opinions of its owners and not actually undertaking quality constructive journalism (again should be illegal IMHO rather than controlled by a weak government body)
The public was at fault for not questioning what they are being told and actually hold people to account over it.
That was counter-productive and only ended up boosting the Leave campaign. If you keep on badgering and labelling voters racist for wanting to leave the EU, sooner or later that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Ketara wrote: About 52% of the country voted to leave. I'll repeat that again. Fifty two percent. Mere sprinkles? Are you honestly asserting then, that the vast majority of that 52%, say 48% of the country, are merely racists? Really? You think so little of your countrymen that you reckon almost half of them are 'racist'? Absolutely preposterous. The claim is nothing more than ludicrous nonsense, and I'll dismiss it accordingly.
Ummm no 52% of country did not vote for leave. 52% votes were leave. There's world of difference.
More like under 40% voted "leave".
Anybody claiming majority of brits voted leave is either misinformed or lying.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps it will be better than if we'd stayed in the EU, perhaps it will be worse than if we had.
Well one thing is sure that history has shown. Many are stronger than few. And since economy is not plus game(ie where everybody can benefit) but one where others to be rich others have to be poor...Well you are trying to compete with multiple european countries now as your opponents.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Eastern Europeans were cited as an example, but they are nearly 99.9% white. Given that the majority population in the UK is also white, how could white people be racist towards other white people? Unless being Polish or Estonian or Latvian is now considred a 'race,' rather than a nationality.
I think the problem was cultural bigotry and intolerence towards East Europeans, rather than a problem of 'racism.'
Whilst you're correct in that strictly speaking 'racism' has to be discrimination/prejudice against a race, what actually qualifies as a race is a social construct to begin with. It doesn't have to necessarily be based on skin colour, indeed, practically every attempt to categorise 'races' by skin colour has failed/differed to every other attempt on account of the fact that they all tend to merge awkwardly in certain parts of the world (Iran, South America, Mongolia, etc).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
C'mon, the remain side weren't a few brave souls rallying against an unstoppable mass. Look at what the remain side had on their side:
Vast majority of MPs
40 years to make a case
Banks, corporations
And a ton of other orginisations supporting them...
They had a ton of advanatges, and if you can't win with a hand like that, you'll never win...
Remain lost because of inept leadership from Cameron, a pretty rubbish campaign, and an inability to make the case for Europe...
Blaming the media is a smokescreen for Remain's failings...
I wouldn't pin it on this government or the campaign necessarily, but rather that many people feel that they have had no material gain from being in the EU, and hope to realise some change by leaving it. Immigration was merely one factor relating to that. Freedom to work and travel and no tariffs is all very well and good if you're a nice middle class educated fellow working in the city, but for a factory worker in Scunthorpe, it's a bit less beneficial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote:
The issue is though because the result was so close then these papers actually only needed to influence a small minority to have changed the result. Even if only 2% of the voting population 'believed' the tripe these papers wrote (and to be fair calling them tripe gives that type of food a bad name!) then it affected the result. If the overall result had been 70:30 leave then fair enough, but with such a small margin you only needed a relative few number of people to be hoodwinked by these articles to make a difference to the outcome.
But how many people were hoodwinked by the (many) articles talking about WW3 or suchlike? It's imnpossible to quantify and say, 'If certain media sections and people had told less porkies the result would have been different', because for it to be meaningful, we have to say that should have been the case for the remain camp as well. Who were just as bad. When all is said and done, I suspect as many were swung one way as the other.
Whirlwind wrote:
The Remain camp were at fault for using a flawed strategy (and in the end for not calling out the Leave group for not having an actual plan, that in itself would likely have significantly swung the vote)
In all fairness, the Remain side were just as vulnerable to charges of not having a positive future plan, considering the alternative option to leaving was 'stay within an international entity that staggers from crisis to crisis like a drunk on early Sunday morning until it gets its crap together and unifies into a superstate'. There was no positive future for the EU portrayed because even the Government didn't think it could sell that.
tneva82 wrote:
Ummm no 52% of country did not vote for leave. 52% votes were leave. There's world of difference.
More like under 40% voted "leave".
Anybody claiming majority of brits voted leave is either misinformed or lying.
You're waaaaaay too late. Someone else already pointed out my mistake there, and I acknowledged it in a prior post.
Ketara wrote: .....
I wouldn't pin it on this government or the campaign necessarily, but rather that many people feel that they have had no material gain from being in the EU, and hope to realise some change by leaving it. Immigration was merely one factor relating to that. Freedom to work and travel and no tariffs is all very well and good if you're a nice middle class educated fellow working in the city, but for a factory worker in Scunthorpe, it's a bit less beneficial....
Remember Auf Wiedersehn Pet?
I would argue that the city gent is less likely to use freedom of movement to work, he's making big bucks in London after all, the tradesman from Scunthorpe is more likely the beneficiary. After all, the majority of workers from the EU are working class, labourers, plumbers, nurses etc.
My brother, for example, lives and works as a Chippie in the South East. As well as the work he gets locally, he often gets work in parts of Europe, and frequently drives his van all over the continent. Once we leave the EU, that may continue if we retain freedom of movement, but if not, there will likely be an added burden of visas, tariffs and administration which may make it harder for him to justify.
But how many people were hoodwinked by the (many) articles talking about WW3 or suchlike? It's imnpossible to quantify and say, 'If certain media sections and people had told less porkies the result would have been different', because for it to be meaningful, we have to say that should have been the case for the remain camp as well. Who were just as bad. When all is said and done, I suspect as many were swung one way as the other.
Agreed we don't know how many people were influenced by the media either way; however given how much the individual parties go to court the favours of the press we have to conclude anecdotally that it has a significant influence. We also don't know how many people chose to read these papers because they already 'confirmed' their view of the world. At worst some papers may have peddled certain lines because they thought it might increase their readers rather than put forward more balanced arguments. However as far as I am aware no pro-EU paper has had to retract articles it has released but I know of at least one example where they had to (after the event) which goes beyond media bias to just downright misleading.
In all fairness, the Remain side were just as vulnerable to charges of not having a positive future plan, considering the alternative option to leaving was 'stay within an international entity that staggers from crisis to crisis like a drunk on early Sunday morning until it gets its crap together and unifies into a superstate'. There was no positive future for the EU portrayed because even the Government didn't think it could sell that.
Now, now that's not particularly true is it. The EU has strategies for the future of which the UK is party to and influences, so in essence that was their future plan. You can also argue that DCs agreement with the EU on the future of the UK in the EU was also the future plan. After all we wouldn't have had the referendum until they had these discussions. The UK Government policies were also based on being within the EU, so there were at least policies and strategies in place for remaining in the EU (because they had to be because we were already there). This compares the Leave's plan of "It will probably be all right...erh...we think, but those things we told before the referendum probably won't happen...they were...erh...possible promises!"
Realistically none of the crisis that the EU are facing are directly as a result of the EU and are only being managed by the EU because if it was left to individual countries you would likely have much worse financial and regional instabilities. Without the EU Greece would probably be up excrement creek without a paddle, the refugee crisis would be a disaster as countries looked to their own well being first completely. The nature of a crisis means that it is unpredictable otherwise they wouldn't have occurred. The EU had effectively 20 years without any major hiccups, it is unfortunate that a couple have turned up all at once. It was Greece's mismanagement of it's own Finances that caused their issue (and all related to banking deregulation across the world as well), but if the EU had been intervening much earlier then there would have louder calls of the EU trying to be a 'superstate' so it can't win - either it gets involved in national affairs earlier to stop a future crisis at the risk of being 'federal' or you leave countries to manage their own affairs but get panned for not resolving the crisis whilst having no control over the causes.
Kilkrazy wrote: The campaign was not non-existent. Until the Immigration issue was brought up by the various Leave campaigns, Remain was winning by a good margin on the economic points.
I stand by what I said about shambolic campaigns and non-existent campaigns.
Why?
Because after the Scottish referendum, various insiders who had been on the campaigns for both sides, wrote books about the inside story, and the details were an eye-opener to say the least.
In the months to come, expect to see a whole raft of books from people who were at the heart of the BREXIT and Remain camps: PR Men/women, media advisers, analysts etc etc that sort of thing.
I can guarantee you that the revelations will shock you, and then you'll see how really bad both sides campaigns were.
Ketara wrote: .....
I wouldn't pin it on this government or the campaign necessarily, but rather that many people feel that they have had no material gain from being in the EU, and hope to realise some change by leaving it. Immigration was merely one factor relating to that. Freedom to work and travel and no tariffs is all very well and good if you're a nice middle class educated fellow working in the city, but for a factory worker in Scunthorpe, it's a bit less beneficial....
Remember Auf Wiedersehn Pet?
I would argue that the city gent is less likely to use freedom of movement to work, he's making big bucks in London after all, the tradesman from Scunthorpe is more likely the beneficiary. After all, the majority of workers from the EU are working class, labourers, plumbers, nurses etc.
My brother, for example, lives and works as a Chippie in the South East. As well as the work he gets locally, he often gets work in parts of Europe, and frequently drives his van all over the continent. Once we leave the EU, that may continue if we retain freedom of movement, but if not, there will likely be an added burden of visas, tariffs and administration which may make it harder for him to justify.
I agree. From a personal point of view, I work in a professional job in Oxford. Nice middle class office job. We have people from all over the world working here, and all after those jobs. Realistically I cannot just move to a job overseas as I would need to be bilingual, both conversationaly and in the technical language relating to my industry, and whilst it legaly should not be a problem, the chances are that companies in other contries will not recognise my professional qualifications to the same level as someone who qualified with their local awarding bodies.
My brother, however, is does general building and labouring. He works all over the UK doing various things like shop fitting and groundworks, but this year he has also worked in France, Slovenia and Bulgaria. In his job they care about the forman being bilingual (generally a local that speaks english) and that you can show you can do the work.
Because after the Scottish referendum, various insiders who had been on the campaigns for both sides, wrote books about the inside story, and the details were an eye-opener to say the least.
In the months to come, expect to see a whole raft of books from people who were at the heart of the BREXIT and Remain camps: PR Men/women, media advisers, analysts etc etc that sort of thing.
I can guarantee you that the revelations will shock you, and then you'll see how really bad both sides campaigns were.
Although I would advise some caution with such books. They are written and designed to shock so are likely to highlight the bad parts and diminish the better parts of the operation to make the book more shocking - this in turn means that they sell better.
If I picked at the bad parts of where I have worked I could make a book out of it and it wouldn't show the organisation in a good light. But it wouldn't be a fair representation as the poor elements only make up a small proportion of the overall picture. I'd always be cynical of any book relating to such events that are sold for shock and sale values.
Now, now that's not particularly true is it. The EU has strategies for the future of which the UK is party to and influences, so in essence that was their future plan. You can also argue that DCs agreement with the EU on the future of the UK in the EU was also the future plan.
It is totally the truth. The outlined future financial strategy of the EU is do whatever they have to in terms of financial stabilisation whilst they push for fiscal union. Check the Five Presidents Report. On immigration? Try and outsource the problem to Turkey whilst pushing for a joint EU border force. Military spending? Unification to cut costs (see the merging of the Dutch and German armies currently). Etc, etc.
So to reiterate, the future plan of the EU is to 'lurch from crisis to crisis like a drunk until it finally becomes a superstate'. I'm not pretending that Leave necessarily had a good plan, but the reason DC and the rest didn't try and promote a positive future vision/plan of the EU was because there isn't one that would be perceived as 'positive' within the UK.
I mean, let's be real here, everyone knew DC's agreement with the EU was subject to subsequent ratification and discounting by the EU later, and he asked for nothing and got half that to begin with.
Realistically none of the crisis that the EU are facing are directly as a result of the EU
The Euro?
and are only being managed by the EU because if it was left to individual countries you would likely have much worse financial and regional instabilities. Without the EU Greece would probably be up excrement creek without a paddle,
No, because if they had their own currency, they'd have been able to devalue it and introduce quantitative easing. The reason Greece is struggling so badly right now is because they can't control the basic fiscal levers of their economy because they reside in Brussels and Berlin. The people sitting in Brussels and Berlin, however, don't want to exercise those levers on Greece's part, because they would have a detrimental effect across the rest of the Eurozone. So they keep slapping financial band-aids on the problem and wait.
the refugee crisis would be a disaster as countries looked to their own well being first completely.
I guarantee you that if every country had a sealed border, not even a third of the immigrants currently sitting in Calais would get that far.
The nature of a crisis means that it is unpredictable otherwise they wouldn't have occurred.
No. It just means whoever was in charge ignored the warnings or didn't care.
The EU had effectively 20 years without any major hiccups, it is unfortunate that a couple have turned up all at once. It was Greece's mismanagement of it's own Finances that caused their issue (and all related to banking deregulation across the world as well), but if the EU had been intervening much earlier then there would have louder calls of the EU trying to be a 'superstate' so it can't win - either it gets involved in national affairs earlier to stop a future crisis at the risk of being 'federal' or you leave countries to manage their own affairs but get panned for not resolving the crisis whilst having no control over the causes.
That's precisely the issue. The EU wants to be a superstate, but because such a move is more or less universally opposed by the electorate of the EU, they have to edge there slowly. But that ends up with powers and responsibilities being very sloppily and inefficiently transferred from the national level, with the inevitable result that it causes massive problems.
Hence the comment at the start about the EU's goal being to stagger from crisis to crisis until its absorbed enough power that the crises which result from no one executive body having the appropriate levers cease to occur.
But I guarantee that if that had been the 'positive future' outlined by Remain during the referendum, Leave would have won by another ten percent at least. Which is why Remain focused solely on 'Look at how good you have it right now' and scaremongering.
The government spent £2 million of public money on online advertising as part of the doomed attempt to keep Britain in the European Union, with most of the cash going to major multinationals such as Facebook and Google.
As part of David Cameron’s failed attempt to win the EU referendum, the then prime minister authorised £9.3 million of spending on the official government leaflet setting out the case for Remain, which was sent to 27 million homes in the UK.
This headline amount included a substantial amount spent on targeted online advertising, showing how paid-for advertising on social media has become a key battleground for all major political campaigns in the UK – circumventing Britain’s traditional ban on paid political advertising on TV and radio.
In total, the government spent £1,939,548 buying online advertising “as part of public information activity” during the EU referendum campaign, according to information released following a freedom of information request by BuzzFeed News, with almost all the money going to overseas internet giants.
This spending is in addition to the millions of pounds spent on online advertising by EU referendum campaign groups such as Vote Leave, Stronger In, and Leave.EU.
Facebook, which has been criticised in the past for its UK tax arrangements, received £894,237 of public money for adverts around the EU referendum. The government ran adverts on the service advising people to look out for the pro-EU leaflet and suggesting cheery lists with titles such as “7 things you might not know about the EU”.
A further £219,947 went on buying up links around Google search results on the referendum, ensuring that when people searched for information on the referendum they were directed to the official government site.
The government also spent a further £462,803 buying adverts on YouTube, which is also owned by Google.
Some sites received less public money for advertising. The government spent just £46,559 pushing its message on Instagram, where government adverts confused some people who logged on to the service in the hope of seeing artfully taken holiday pictures and snaps of meals.
A further £304,174 was spent on online advertising with an entity known as the “government trading desk”, which could include smaller sites and general online display advertising.
Almost all the £2 million government advertising money went directly to sites owned by Facebook or Google, reflecting their dominance in the online advertising marketplace.
Microsoft’s Bing search engine took a paltry £10,768 from the advertising campaign, according to the figures, while the government did not bother to spend any money at all directly on Twitter advertising, suggesting it did not consider the social network to be a site that could win over floating voters.
Still, despite buying the adverts the government-backed Remain campaign was ultimately unsuccessful. What’s more, the top comments on sponsored posts were hijacked by hundreds of comments from people furious about the decision to spend government money advertising pro-EU arguments.
Because after the Scottish referendum, various insiders who had been on the campaigns for both sides, wrote books about the inside story, and the details were an eye-opener to say the least.
In the months to come, expect to see a whole raft of books from people who were at the heart of the BREXIT and Remain camps: PR Men/women, media advisers, analysts etc etc that sort of thing.
I can guarantee you that the revelations will shock you, and then you'll see how really bad both sides campaigns were.
Although I would advise some caution with such books. They are written and designed to shock so are likely to highlight the bad parts and diminish the better parts of the operation to make the book more shocking - this in turn means that they sell better.
If I picked at the bad parts of where I have worked I could make a book out of it and it wouldn't show the organisation in a good light. But it wouldn't be a fair representation as the poor elements only make up a small proportion of the overall picture. I'd always be cynical of any book relating to such events that are sold for shock and sale values.
That doesn't mean to say that everything they reveal should be discounted.
Joe Pike, who worked for Better Together during the Scottish referendum, wrote a book called Project Fear.
It was a pretty sober analysis, and was generally well received.
Yeah, former New Labour spin doctors might go for the sensationalist approach, but some good inside accounts of the EU referendum will emerge IMO.
On a serious note, I'm not laughing at public money going down the drain, I'm disappointed, but not in the least surprised.
I don't actually mind some public funds being used for election/referendum campaigns. I think it would be a much fairer system if both sides had been given the same funds but weren't allowed to take donations as I that leads to less impartiality (or being held to ransom depending on your point of view).
Really it's the tax system that is criminal - it's no real surprise that anybody uses Facebook, Twitter etc to advertise their cause. The only real way of reducing their power as companies is to stop using them and find alternatives.
That doesn't mean to say that everything they reveal should be discounted.
I didn't say discount, I said caution is advised. Like any media sales are driven by shock and telling tales which the book could be overly weighted in that regards to drive sales. If you inflate the importance by representing it more within an article it gives the impression of bigger wider issues than there really are. The media is the same, if something goes wrong in the NHS, Local Authority, Police Force etc they are all over it and it's main news which is repeated over and over. You never see front page news of "Person has successful heart operation and is now perfectly healthy again" because it simply doesn't sell. But it doesn't mean that there aren't 1000's of these operations each year and maybe only a handful that go wrong. The BBC does the same thing with Climate Change; whenever there is a debate there is usually one scientist and one person in denial debating the issue - but to the public this makes it appear that each argument is equally valid when in reality a proportional representation of the evidence would be one person arguing against a toenail of the 'sceptic'.
It is totally the truth. The outlined future financial strategy of the EU is do whatever they have to in terms of financial stabilisation whilst they push for fiscal union. Check the Five Presidents Report. On immigration? Try and outsource the problem to Turkey whilst pushing for a joint EU border force. Military spending? Unification to cut costs (see the merging of the Dutch and German armies currently). Etc, etc.
So to reiterate, the future plan of the EU is to 'lurch from crisis to crisis like a drunk until it finally becomes a superstate'. I'm not pretending that Leave necessarily had a good plan, but the reason DC and the rest didn't try and promote a positive future vision/plan of the EU was because there isn't one that would be perceived as 'positive' within the UK.
Ah, so you admit there was a plan and policy's in place as before you said "In all fairness, the Remain side were just as vulnerable to charges of not having a positive future plan". Whether that plan was positive and whether you agree with the policies is a different issue because it comes down to personal perspective. But it was more than the Leave camp had which amounted to watching "It will be alright on the Night" and hoping we're not the 'person' that swings head first into a tree.
You do also realise that the UK and France are sharing armed forces at the moment as well? The idea of sharing resources from a military perspective is not a bad idea. Do we think the Falklands would have happened if there was thought that they would only be fighting the UK but also 27 other nation states?
Ketara wrote: I mean, let's be real here, everyone knew DC's agreement with the EU was subject to subsequent ratification and discounting by the EU later, and he asked for nothing and got half that to begin with.
My understanding that the EU thought the opposite and was bringing back the Kitchen sink. I reality it was probably somewhere in between.
Ketara wrote: The Euro?
No, because if they had their own currency, they'd have been able to devalue it and introduce quantitative easing. The reason Greece is struggling so badly right now is because they can't control the basic fiscal levers of their economy because they reside in Brussels and Berlin. The people sitting in Brussels and Berlin, however, don't want to exercise those levers on Greece's part, because they would have a detrimental effect across the rest of the Eurozone. So they keep slapping financial band-aids on the problem and wait.
On that basis the Euro would have caused their economy to collapse when they joined in 2002. No, Greece's issues arise because it took the money from day one and then assumed it would never have to pay anything back. In essence they stuck everything on the credit card and ignored the due dates. They could have closed loop holes in their tax system to bring it to some semblance of order during those years (such as changing house property tax so that leaving a bit of the building unfinished exempts you from tax forever). Even if they had stayed out of the Euro but kept the same strategy then they would still be in debt up to their eyeballs and even devaluing their currency wouldn't have stopped this. All that does is encourage people to spend more money there because it is cheap, it's trying to resolve the issue rather after the event. In some ways you can understand Germany and France being a bit peeved because some countries raided the candy store and now they have to clear up the mess as they throw up everywhere.
I guarantee you that if every country had a sealed border, not even a third of the immigrants currently sitting in Calais would get that far.
Strange last time there was such a large wave of migration due to conflict was WW2. Unsurprisingly borders didn't seem to hamper movement then. I find this idea a bit naïve to be honest, once there are sufficient numbers of people there's going to no chance to stop the movement (unless you propose to machine gun any that get within a few metres of the beach). Where there is a will there is a way as the saying goes. Greece, Italy, Spain etc would find it damn near impossible to secure their borders completely and the easiest and cheapest solution for people that wanted to move on to the UK, Germany, France etc would be to give them a train/bus/airline ticket, take away their passport and let them travel to where they want to go because then it is not their problem. Calais probably wouldn't have happened without the EU because there would have been no reason to co-operate , just let them get on and cross the border, then it's the next Country's issue.
Also we're not the only areas being affected by the Syria crisis. South Africa has just as much of a problem of migrants entering the Country from places like Syria. People just buy a one way ticket, destroy their IDs on the flight out and then claim asylum when they get there. So being out of the EU does not solve the problem.
No. It just means whoever was in charge ignored the warnings or didn't care.
Again that seems cynical and a bit naïve. I don't think anyone 10 years ago would have predicted that Syria would have gone into melt down
Ketara wrote: That's precisely the issue. The EU wants to be a superstate, but because such a move is more or less universally opposed by the electorate of the EU, they have to edge there slowly. But that ends up with powers and responsibilities being very sloppily and inefficiently transferred from the national level, with the inevitable result that it causes massive problems.
I think you are mixing up some individuals views and the direction the EU would like to be. The idea of a Federal Europe has been diminishing fro some time now because as you say the populace don't really support it (and we are too divided as nations to achieve it). Everyone has policies that they would like to put in place but like with all things compromises have to be made so it at least try and works for the best for everyone. Surprisingly the EU isn't a dictatorship and few people with their views does not make a reality.
Ketara wrote: But I guarantee that if that had been the 'positive future' outlined by Remain during the referendum, Leave would have won by another ten percent at least.
But then that would have been an outright lie as there are no plans for this and we wouldn't expect our politicians to lie to the populace...oh wait the Leave campaign, I forget....
Generated by a PR company and which has nothing to do with the EU other than being employed by them from time to time. So it's accusation and guilt by association is it now?
In reality it's a PR exercise, they are advertising themselves having access to a large, competitive sporting base that's all. Companies do it all the time. On this basis next time the one the papers lies about something I suppose we have to assume that all the readers are just as guilty!
I suppose it shows good examples of people being hoodwinked by misleading titles such as
"The EU has sparked outrage after trying to take credit for Britain's incredible haul of olympic medals" (No the EU hasn't)
"It (EU) has placed itself at the top of an online Rio 2016 medal table after combining the 28 members of the bloc into a federal superstate. (No the EU hasn't)
"The table, created for the EU..." (No it wasn't)
I assume in tomorrows headlines the Express will be outraged that we are part of planet Earth
Ketara wrote: whilst pushing for a joint EU border force. Military spending? Unification to cut costs (see the merging of the Dutch and German armies currently). Etc, etc.
Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._German/Dutch_Corps In 1991 the defence ministers of The Netherlands and Germany decided to establish a binational unit to replace one German and one Dutch corps. In 1993 a treaty between the two countries was signed which resulted in two previously independent corps being amalgamated to form 1 (German/Netherlands) Corps or 1 (GE/NL) Corps consisting of one German and one Dutch division.
That's got nothing to do with the EU, it's a private National decision made between 2 Nations.
Ketara wrote: I'm not pretending that Leave necessarily had a good plan,
That's good, unless by good plan you mean No plan whatsoever. Which interestingly doesnt stop IDS et all demanding that we leap Now! Now godammit before someone changes their minds!
Ketara wrote: but the reason DC and the rest didn't try and promote a positive future vision/plan of the EU was because there isn't one that would be perceived as 'positive' within the UK.
I mean, let's be real here, everyone knew DC's agreement with the EU was subject to subsequent ratification and discounting by the EU later, and he asked for nothing and got half that to begin with.
That's politics, because, lets be fair, no one thought we'd be stupid enough to go through with it. Besides, it seemed that the benefits of being part of the single market seemed to be self evident. Obviously that wasn't the case, as it turns out one third of the country either didn't understand what the EU was about, or just didn't give a gak, and wanted to get rid of immigrants.
Ketara wrote: The reason Greece is struggling so badly right now is because they can't control the basic fiscal levers of their economy because they reside in Brussels and Berlin. The people sitting in Brussels and Berlin, however, don't want to exercise those levers on Greece's part, because they would have a detrimental effect across the rest of the Eurozone. So they keep slapping financial band-aids on the problem and wait.
The Greeks were in the gak because until the global financial crisis they were spending like billy-o, and were taking terrible tax receipts.
the refugee crisis would be a disaster as countries looked to their own well being first completely.
I guarantee you that if every country had a sealed border, not even a third of the immigrants currently sitting in Calais would get that far.
Is that the only thing that matters? That immigrants shouldn't be able to get to Britain? We should just let our partners closest to these tragedies deal with it, because we're all right Jack sat at the back?
The nature of a crisis means that it is unpredictable otherwise they wouldn't have occurred.
No. It just means whoever was in charge ignored the warnings or didn't care.
Of course, everyone just ignores crisis', because it's easy to spot them coming, but no one gives the slightest gak about loss of life, or financial apocalypse.
The EU had effectively 20 years without any major hiccups, it is unfortunate that a couple have turned up all at once. It was Greece's mismanagement of it's own Finances that caused their issue (and all related to banking deregulation across the world as well), but if the EU had been intervening much earlier then there would have louder calls of the EU trying to be a 'superstate' so it can't win - either it gets involved in national affairs earlier to stop a future crisis at the risk of being 'federal' or you leave countries to manage their own affairs but get panned for not resolving the crisis whilst having no control over the causes.
That's precisely the issue. The EU wants to be a superstate, but because such a move is more or less universally opposed by the electorate of the EU, they have to edge there slowly. But that ends up with powers and responsibilities being very sloppily and inefficiently transferred from the national level, with the inevitable result that it causes massive problems.
Hence the comment at the start about the EU's goal being to stagger from crisis to crisis until its absorbed enough power that the crises which result from no one executive body having the appropriate levers cease to occur.
So you believe that the EU just allows these Crisis' to happen to slowly eke power from nation states? That they somehow orchestrate these events? That's tinfoil hattery territory. Either that or you are actually Nigel Farage.
Ketara wrote: But I guarantee that if that had been the 'positive future' outlined by Remain during the referendum, Leave would have won by another ten percent at least. Which is why Remain focused solely on 'Look at how good you have it right now' and scaremongering.
Well yes, if Remain had focussed on building an EU superstate, that would have gone down like a cup of warm diarrhoea. However, Britain, as well as other nations in the Eu such as Poland have been resisting any notion of federalisation for decades. The French and Germans can bang on about it all they want, but without agreement from all Nation States, these proposals are just so much hot air. Obviously now we're out, that's one less anti-federalist nation involved in the discussion, which will strengthen the Federalist position.
Also we're not the only areas being affected by the Syria crisis. South Africa has just as much of a problem of migrants entering the Country from places like Syria. People just buy a one way ticket, destroy their IDs on the flight out and then claim asylum when they get there. So being out of the EU does not solve the problem.
More. Europe get's pittances in terms of refugees. If Finland would take as much as countries who are in REAL trouble(scaled to population) we would be talking 1.5 million. Not 30k most who are sent back to country finland doesn't even consider safe...
Europe thinks they have it bad but miss the real crisis.
Ah, so you admit there was a plan and policy's in place as before you said "In all fairness, the Remain side were just as vulnerable to charges of not having a positive future plan". Whether that plan was positive and whether you agree with the policies is a different issue because it comes down to personal perspective.
The plan wasn't positive, therefore the side didn't 'have' (or possess) it to deploy when the referendum was being debated. They didn't mention it all. That's the point. It wasn't 'positive' from the angle that most of the population would most likely have not regarded it as 'positive'. It's got nothing to do with my personal outlook here, unless you genuinely believe people would find British absorption into a superstate a 'positive' thing. In which case I'll have to beg to differ.
Not to mention that I doubt Cameron wants a superstate either, so it's not exactly a 'plan' per se, so much as a political movement in Brussels which has resulted in certain treaties being formed the way they have. I think Cameron's 'plan' extended about as far as 'Hope I win, finish my term, then piss off to the lecture circuit and leave someone else to carry on squabbling in Europe'. I'm not sure you can transfer the 'plan' of a number of people in Brussels to being the 'Plan' for the remain campaign.
You do also realise that the UK and France are sharing armed forces at the moment as well? The idea of sharing resources from a military perspective is not a bad idea. Do we think the Falklands would have happened if there was thought that they would only be fighting the UK but also 27 other nation states?
Funnily enough, we were a member of NATO then too. The whole point of the Falklands was that they thought nobody would fight, us included. If they had thought we'd dispatch a task force, they probably wouldn't have done it.
You're also jumping the gun, and ascribing positions to me I haven't assumed. Relax.
My understanding that the EU thought the opposite and was bringing back the Kitchen sink. I reality it was probably somewhere in between.
As far as the EU were concerned, any concession was a bad precedent. So they deliberately set it up in such a way that practically all concessions of consequence had to be ratified post-referendum by the EU. I don't believe for a minute most of them would have survived if we'd voted to remain.
Ketara wrote: The Euro?
On that basis the Euro would have caused their economy to collapse when they joined in 2002. No, Greece's issues arise because it took the money from day one and then assumed it would never have to pay anything back. In essence they stuck everything on the credit card and ignored the due dates. They could have closed loop holes in their tax system to bring it to some semblance of order during those years (such as changing house property tax so that leaving a bit of the building unfinished exempts you from tax forever). Even if they had stayed out of the Euro but kept the same strategy then they would still be in debt up to their eyeballs and even devaluing their currency wouldn't have stopped this. All that does is encourage people to spend more money there because it is cheap, it's trying to resolve the issue rather after the event. In some ways you can understand Germany and France being a bit peeved because some countries raided the candy store and now they have to clear up the mess as they throw up everywhere.
I hate to say it, but you're mixing up cause and effect here, and then throwing in a dose of misunderstanding to confuse it.
The reason Greece was able to borrow so much was because when they joined the Euro, they were essentially able to borrow far in excess of what they were capable of paying back, the obfuscation of the financial securities around the euro meant they were, in effect, borrowing using Germany and France's credit rating. The politicians then proceeded to run up huge debts, because as far as they could see, it would go on forever, and elections are more important than the financial health of the nation. Had they remained outside the Euro, they would never have had the werewithal to spend so far beyond their means as they did to begin with.
Generally speaking, in economics, when an economy crashes a government has certain fiscal tools available to it. Mass quantitative easing permits the deflation of currency, boosting exports, increasing tourism, the devaluing of debt, encouraging spending, employment on public works to stave off unemployment, and so on. It's generally regarded as the equaliser to these sorts of situations, an economic pressure valve, if you will. It's usually quite painful for savers and investors, but in the mid-term, it's able to undo the sort of hole Greece found themselves in.
Being in the euro however, Greece cannot do this. It quite literally does not control its own currency. That means that its economy is pegged to strong economies like Germany, which have absolutely no interest in allowing the euro to hit rock bottom. This has resulted in Greece being tied to ruinously high repayment rates, a curtailing of the Government's ability to exercise its spending discretion (the EU effectively decides Greece's budget at the moment), large scale unemployment, and so on.
This is an example of how being in the euro/EU is not necessarily a positive thing. The thing about the Euro is that it was a political project, if you'd suggested to an economist in the 1980's that you tie together so many disparate economies with no centralised fiscal control, they'd have laughed at you. Heck, they'd laugh at you now. It's a terrible idea, but like Schengen, it was conceived of as a political goal.
Sods law though, it would be a right bastard to unravel now. The only two options they have left are either scrapping the whole thing and letting the european market rebalance naturally, or centralising fiscal control. And if you follow the EU Five President's report, they've settled on the latter. Integration is the watchword of the day.
Strange last time there was such a large wave of migration due to conflict was WW2. Unsurprisingly borders didn't seem to hamper movement then. I find this idea a bit naïve to be honest, once there are sufficient numbers of people there's going to no chance to stop the movement ...
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, I was commenting on the basis that the more countries with sealed borders you have to cross, the more border guards you encounter and the higher odds there are of being halted, confined, and deported. Countries don't generally like unregistered people wandering around. If Schengen wasn't there, it would be more difficult to reach the UK on that basis.
That's all I was saying.
Again that seems cynical and a bit naïve. I don't think anyone 10 years ago would have predicted that Syria would have gone into melt down
Milton Friedman saw the euro crisis coming back in 1997. That was more what I had in mind.
I think you are mixing up some individuals views and the direction the EU would like to be. The idea of a Federal Europe has been diminishing fro some time now because as you say the populace don't really support it (and we are too divided as nations to achieve it). Everyone has policies that they would like to put in place but like with all things compromises have to be made so it at least try and works for the best for everyone. Surprisingly the EU isn't a dictatorship and few people with their views does not make a reality.
I can literally point to the Five President's plan as future intent in that direction, and Lisbon and further back as historical precedent. I'm not saying that 'everyone in the Europe wants a European superstate'. But I can say, 'The most powerful figures in the EU bureaucracy are proponents of ever-closer integration, and have been steadily working towards that goal with success' and I am neither lying nor exaggerating. The historical record and documentary evidence supports that statement on every level. Trying to characterise it as some fringe opinion held by a handful of unimportant people that will never get anywhere is downright incorrect.
But then that would have been an outright lie as there are no plans for this and we wouldn't expect our politicians to lie to the populace...oh wait the Leave campaign, I forget....
Seriously, do some research. There is no 'SUPER TOP SECRET PLAN FOR EU SUPERSTATE HAHAHA' file in Juncker's office. Nobody is claiming there is. But there is a very clear intent, a lot of paperwork, and a large number of people working towards integration indefinitely. At every stage, when one treaty has been signed, the formulation of another which cedes another fraction of power or authority to the EU begins. The office of EU President didn't come out of nowhere.
r_squared wrote: Sorry got to call you out on some of the utter tosh you're peddling here.
You're welcome to try. Something many people seem to forget in online debates is that the exchange of information is a good thing. If I can be proven wrong on something, I'm happy for that to be the case. Means I learned something.
Precisely. It's a band aid to try and ignore the problems of the porous EU border and Schengen zone. Not all immigrants come through Turkey, and all it takes is a crisis somewhere not on the other side of Turkey and there'll be equivalent wave that the Turkey treaty does nothing for.
The point here is that the Turkey treaty is a temporary band-aid political agreement whilst the underlying issue, that of open borders without political unification, remains untouched.
Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._German/Dutch_Corps In 1991 the defence ministers of The Netherlands and Germany decided to establish a binational unit to replace one German and one Dutch corps. In 1993 a treaty between the two countries was signed which resulted in two previously independent corps being amalgamated to form 1 (German/Netherlands) Corps or 1 (GE/NL) Corps consisting of one German and one Dutch division.
That's got nothing to do with the EU, it's a private National decision made between 2 Nations.
The Dutch army has precisely three corps, two of which are now integrated into the German armed forces. There's been a stated intent to merge the Navies of the two by 2018. This is seen as a first step by all involved. Don't worry, I'll substantiate.
The EU's foreign Affairs chief, the German Elmar Brok recently said (IIRC) that there needed to be a central EU military headquarters set up, and there's been talk recently of the Czech's getting involved in the existing integration between Germany and the Netherlands.
Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm. The EU will systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to create a solid European defence industry, which is critical for Europe’s autonomy of decision and action....When it comes to collective defence, NATO remains the primary framework for most Member States. At the same time, EU-NATO relations shall not prejudice the security and defence policy of those Members which are not in NATO.... The EU needs to be strengthened as a security community: European security and defence efforts should enable the EU to act autonomously while also contributing to and undertaking actions in cooperation with NATO...While defence policy and spending remain national prerogatives, no Member State can afford to do this individually: this requires a concerted and cooperative effort. Deeper defence cooperation engenders interoperability, effectiveness, efficiency and trust: it increases the output of defence spending. Developing and maintaining defence capabilities requires both investments
and optimising the use of national resources through deeper cooperation....Member States will need to move towards defence cooperation as the norm. Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, nationally-oriented defence programmes are insufficient to address capability shortfalls...
I could post more, but the general gist is one of deeper integration on a military level both on a procurement level and on a strategic level.
That's good, unless by good plan you mean No plan whatsoever. Which interestingly doesnt stop IDS et all demanding that we leap Now! Now godammit before someone changes their minds!
Doesn't know when to retire, does he?
The Greeks were in the gak because until the global financial crisis they were spending like billy-o, and were taking terrible tax receipts.
I answered this above, but to reiterate, that's the reason the Greeks landed in the gak. The euro is the reason they've stayed wading around in it.
Is that the only thing that matters? That immigrants shouldn't be able to get to Britain? We should just let our partners closest to these tragedies deal with it, because we're all right Jack sat at the back?
You're projecting a position onto me here. I was just responding to a point. That point being that if the EU didn't exist, the refugee crisis would be worse here.
Of course, everyone just ignores crisis', because it's easy to spot them coming, but no one gives the slightest gak about loss of life, or financial apocalypse.
Sometimes they do, when political principles are stake, or the times are so good now nobody wants to contemplate them getting worse. A sad recurrence throughout history.
So you believe that the EU just allows these Crisis' to happen to slowly eke power from nation states? That they somehow orchestrate these events? That's tinfoil hattery territory. Either that or you are actually Nigel Farage.
Oh God no. I don't think they're 'allowing' them, or orchestrating them. But I do think that the only way they could prevent them would be to dissolve the more integrated aspects of the EU, or to integrate fully. The former is unthinkable, and the latter vastly unpopular. So they just keep slapping temporary solutions on whatever problems show up, and keep integrating as fast they can. Eventually, the point will be reached where such problems stop occurring, because sufficient power is joined up in centralised EU hands, but it'll take another few decades at least to get there (I'd wager four or five personally).
I got to thinking about the fishing industry today. Scotland's in particular. If the Tories had any sense they'd give Scotland this simple choice; stay within the UK and enjoy devolved control over your fishing industry again, or go down the SNP route and let the EU take it over completely and quite likely make a balls up out of it. And if the former is chosen but the EU try to close the markets out of spite simply threaten German cars with a tariff along with similar measures. It amazes me how few politicians today actually know how to do politics.
I'm jumping the gun though. Article 50 comes first.
It's got nothing to do with my personal outlook here, unless you genuinely believe people would find British absorption into a superstate a 'positive' thing. In which case I'll have to beg to differ.
I'm a bit confused with your argument below you state there is no plan for a superstate yet here you say this is what the Remain plan is, so which is it. Regardless the remain did have a roadmap plan for the future. It presented plenty of documents as to where we would go; provided definitive proposals for staying in...the leave camp gave us a bus slogan that is a lie. I never intended to imply that the uks remain plan was the same as the EUs strategy, only that remain ar least had a plan in how to take forward the country's future in the EU. The leave camp had no idea what they would do and afterwards responded by saying it was the remain camps responsibility.
You're also jumping the gun, and ascribing positions to me I haven't assumed. Relax.
Never intended to be, just noting that I think that the negative implications of sharing armed forces is just wrong.
As far as the EU were concerned, any concession was a bad precedent. So they deliberately set it up in such a way that practically all concessions of consequence had to be ratified post-referendum by the EU. I don't believe for a minute most of them would have survived if we'd voted to remain.
I believe the opposite, suddenly changing the game afterwards would have shown the world that trusting the EU is risky, never mind all the court cases that would be heard. No, having worked in contract law myself the simple case will be that there was simply not enough time to ratify the agreement. I've worked on contract variations that were 'agreed' in principle years previously but the actual writing of the conditions takes years as you have to consider the links to other parts to ensure you're not breaking anything fundamentally or worse creating conflicting elements. It takes time to get these things right, but the principles will all have been set.
Had they remained outside the Euro, they would never have had the werewithal to spend so far beyond their means as they did to begin with.
This is an assumption, we don't know what would have happened if he stayed out of the Euro. They may still have been financed just as readily because of the rather gung Ho approach of the banks then (from consumers to governments). Iceland did a similar thing by quite happily taking unsustainable financial banking tax and spent it and they were never in the Euro. You could even level the same accusation at the UK that it was spending way beyond its means. In reality Germany has taken over Greeces finances because Greece has shown its incapable of doing so; a bit of fiscal prudence in the last 15 years on their part would have gone a long way, they acted like kids in a candy store, you reap what you sow.
This is an example of how being in the euro/EU is not necessarily a positive thing. The thing about the Euro is that it was a political project, if you'd suggested to an economist in the 1980's that you tie together so many disparate economies with no centralised fiscal control, they'd have laughed at you. Heck, they'd laugh at you now. It's a terrible idea, but like Schengen, it was conceived of as a political goal.
You can say the same about the dollar though and yet that works. If you look at the economic outputs from the us they are likely to be just as varied as is across the EU.
Sods law though, it would be a right bastard to unravel now. The only two options they have left are either scrapping the whole thing and letting the european market rebalance naturally, or centralising fiscal control. And if you follow the EU Five President's report, they've settled on the latter. Integration is the watchword of the day.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, I was commenting on the basis that the more countries with sealed borders you have to cross, the more border guards you encounter and the higher odds there are of being halted, confined, and deported. Countries don't generally like unregistered people wandering around. If Schengen wasn't there, it would be more difficult to reach the UK on that basis.
To where though? People just destroy their ID, they are told to do it by the gangs. There's nowhere to deport them to then this already happens. You can't then just return people to somewhere random on the basis of what they look like. In these cases it will be much easier then to put them on plane for their final destination and let that country deal with them.
Again that seems cynical and a bit naïve. I don't think anyone 10 years ago would have predicted that Syria would have gone into melt down
Milton Friedman saw the euro crisis coming back in 1997. That was more what I had in mind.
So, some people predicted the world would end in 2012, I predicted the housing crash, does that make me a genius or just lucky. The point being that statistically someone will guess right, for every person that predicted a crash, there'll be others that didn't. The difficulty is which ones you can predict. That's the issue with a crisis they are almost impossible to predict in terms of timing and scale.
I can literally point to the Five President's plan as future intent in that direction, and Lisbon and further back as historical precedent. I'm not saying that 'everyone in the Europe wants a European superstate'. But I can say, 'The most powerful figures in the EU bureaucracy are proponents of ever-closer integration, and have been steadily working towards that goal with success' and I am neither lying nor exaggerating. The historical record and documentary evidence supports that statement on every level. Trying to characterise it as some fringe opinion held by a handful of unimportant people that will never get anywhere is downright incorrect.
And yet the agreed changes the uk got were a reverse of this. Surely if these powerful had such sway then it would never have been agreed? You can have a plan and strategy of individuals but it doesn't mean that is the overall superstate you will get to. Maybe, just maybe countries agreed certain things because they felt it made them stronger overall. Claiming the only inevitable outcome is a superstate is just wrong because you are working on the principle that will only ever be the direction of travel.
Seriously, do some research. There is no 'SUPER TOP SECRET PLAN FOR EU SUPERSTATE HAHAHA' file in Juncker's office. Nobody is claiming there is. But there is a very clear intent, a lot of paperwork, and a large number of people working towards integration indefinitely. At every stage, when one treaty has been signed, the formulation of another which cedes another fraction of power or authority to the EU begins. The office of EU President didn't come out of nowhere.
But that doesn't make a superstate an inevitability does it? So they have a figurehead for the Eu, so what? Any future changes still have to be agreed by all members. Again the assumption is that because some powers have been ceded in the past then this will always happen and it is the only inevitable conclusion a more likely scenario is you will hit a point where the amount of power ceded satisfies everyone generally and there is no real appetite to cede powers further or conversely hand back those powers already ceded because it is more effective that way.
The Dutch army has precisely three corps, two of which are now integrated into the German armed forces. There's been a stated intent to merge the Navies of the two by 2018. This is seen as a first step by all involved. Don't worry, I'll substantiate.
The EU's foreign Affairs chief, the German Elmar Brok recently said (IIRC) that there needed to be a central EU military headquarters set up, and there's been talk recently of the Czech's getting involved in the existing integration between Germany and the Netherlands.
There are some misconceptions there. The Dutch army has only one army corps, and the Germans have three (both include the joined 1st Dutch German army corps). In fact the whole strength of the Dutch army is just three brigades, which makes it a bit tough to justify an army HQ that can control several divisions. Hence the cooperation with the Germans, it's a paper merger of forces that allows both countries a headquarters that looks impressive on paper in NATO (and provides 400 cushy jobs for officers), but don't tell the Americans. The armed forces themselves remain separate.
As for the naval merger: the Dutch MoD sold off the army's last remaining tanks, but then found out that soldiers missed having them around on peace keeping missions, so they leased a few from the Germans, in exchange for the Dutch Navy providing taxi services for the new German marine force (Seebattallion).
I'm a bit confused with your argument below you state there is no plan for a superstate yet here you say this is what the Remain plan is, so which is it.
I'll be frank, I think there was a miscommunication over the original phrasing several quotes back, so I'll try again.
The 'Leave campaign' had no future vision for what would be post-referendum. But equally, the 'Leave campaign' projected no future vision as to what remaining in the EU would entail beyond the status quo. This is because if one attempts to envision the future of the EU, one is forced to rely upon documents outlining further integration, and a historical trend towards 'ever-closer integration. There isn't really a 'UK future vision of the EU' (our politicians have been sorely lacking that regard in Europe), and even a 'future vision of the UK's role within the EU' would automatically be subservient to 'ever-closer integration' vision.
The result being that neither party had a plan or vision for the future feature in their campaign, one because they hadn't a clue, and the other because they most likely feared that it would drive people away.
Does that help to clarify?
Never intended to be, just noting that I think that the negative implications of sharing armed forces is just wrong.
I think the negative implications of clearly defined joint command structures aren't too bad personally, NATO has shown how it can be made to work (although there's been plenty of bumps along that road!). Sharing armed forces Netherlands/Germany style though? I think that's a bad move without general political union. YMMV.
I believe the opposite, suddenly changing the game afterwards would have shown the world that trusting the EU is risky, never mind all the court cases that would be heard.No, having worked in contract law myself the simple case will be that there was simply not enough time to ratify the agreement.
Half and half. Cameron's agreement had to be ratified by a specific congregation of various officials, which wasn't scheduled to take place until after the EU referendum. But they very deliberately left themselves a contractual backdoor whereby it could be easily be watered down.
Which, considering it was half of nothing, would have effectively meant nothing was really gained to begin with. Cameron's initial requirements for future UK participation were pretty meek.
This is an assumption, we don't know what would have happened if he stayed out of the Euro. They may still have been financed just as readily because of the rather gung Ho approach of the banks then (from consumers to governments). Iceland did a similar thing by quite happily taking unsustainable financial banking tax and spent it and they were never in the Euro.
Unlikely, but without writing a convoluted essay on the functioning of the european currency and it's relationships to international investors and suchlike, I doubt I'll convince you otherwise. And as I'm painting a tournament army whilst typing this, I can't quite be bothered.
You could even level the same accusation at the UK that it was spending way beyond its means. In reality Germany has taken over Greeces finances because Greece has shown its incapable of doing so; a bit of fiscal prudence in the last 15 years on their part would have gone a long way, they acted like kids in a candy store, you reap what you sow.
Eh. It was more that they told Greece that they were screwed, but if they tried to leave the EU, they'd be even more screwed and deliberately so by the EU. They slapped a financial band aid over the problem, waved a few carrots, gestured at a few large sticks menacingly and waited for the plebs to stop rioting. Greece is in a bad place now one way or the other, but if they'd never joined the Euro, they'd be in a better place now, that much is certain.
You can say the same about the dollar though and yet that works. If you look at the economic outputs from the us they are likely to be just as varied as is across the EU.
There are a few key differences, the primary one being political union.
To where though? People just destroy their ID, they are told to do it by the gangs. There's nowhere to deport them to then this already happens. You can't then just return people to somewhere random on the basis of what they look like. In these cases it will be much easier then to put them on plane for their final destination and let that country deal with them.
Who knows? My original point was just a counter to your assertion that were the borders not as soft as they were, immigration would be worse here (in the UK).
So, some people predicted the world would end in 2012, I predicted the housing crash, does that make me a genius or just lucky.
Puts you in the same bracket as Vince Cable.
The point being that statistically someone will guess right, for every person that predicted a crash, there'll be others that didn't. The difficulty is which ones you can predict. That's the issue with a crisis they are almost impossible to predict in terms of timing and scale.
I'd give Friedman a bit more credit than that, he's a pretty famous economist with more publications than you've probably had nice breakfasts this year. He's not alone either, any economist worth his salt could predict the problems with the euro cropping up. It's not really that challenging a prediction. Shared fiscal burden and responsibility without union is just plain daft.
And yet the agreed changes the uk got were a reverse of this. Surely if these powerful had such sway then it would never have been agreed?
So you're saying that the watered down agreement that was half of nothing with the option to cancel it or reduce it further at a later stage is proof that integrationist train in Brussels isn't very powerful?
I suppose if one is exceptionally idealistic, perhaps.
You can have a plan and strategy of individuals but it doesn't mean that is the overall superstate you will get to. Maybe, just maybe countries agreed certain things because they felt it made them stronger overall. Claiming the only inevitable outcome is a superstate is just wrong because you are working on the principle that will only ever be the direction of travel.
...But that doesn't make a superstate an inevitability does it? So they have a figurehead for the Eu, so what? Any future changes still have to be agreed by all members. Again the assumption is that because some powers have been ceded in the past then this will always happen and it is the only inevitable conclusion a more likely scenario is you will hit a point where the amount of power ceded satisfies everyone generally and there is no real appetite to cede powers further or conversely hand back those powers already ceded because it is more effective that way.
I'm sorry, but considering the phrase 'ever-closer integration', the reflexive defence of the euro and schengen in the face of all problems, and all paperwork and history, and projected plans to date, I don't see a stage short of one superpower at which the project will stop. It might take a roundabout way of getting there (going to a two-tier solution at first or something else), and it might take the next fifty years, but power is never given back. It's only ever taken.
Frankly, I think the ideal place to stop really, was pre-Lisbon if you don't want a superstate (in terms of bureaucracy). It had the right of level of integration and co-operation for us. I think the Euro was a mistake to begin with also. Once they brought that one in and determined to keep it, fiscal union became an absolute necessity. It might take another three recessions and half a dozen crises to get there, but the determination to keep the Euro has made fiscal union a bare requirement for economic functionality. And the EU knows it (it's literally in the FP report). It makes no sense to leave things as they are. But with abolishing the euro a political impossibility, that only leaves one road going forward. But never back. Never back.
There are some misconceptions there. The Dutch army has only one army corps, and the Germans have three (both include the joined 1st Dutch German army corps). In fact the whole strength of the Dutch army is just three brigades...
My mistake, I wrote 'corps' instead of 'brigades'.
Aye. I just finished the cloaks of a dozen Black Numenoreans and three heroes. I hate painting black, it takes forever to shade and highlight properly.
Try highlighting from black with vomit brown mixed in, then wash with black shade. Crazy I know but it works. I got that from Dead Marsh Spectre in the GBHL.
Future War Cultist wrote: I got to thinking about the fishing industry today. Scotland's in particular. If the Tories had any sense they'd give Scotland this simple choice; stay within the UK and enjoy devolved control over your fishing industry again, or go down the SNP route and let the EU take it over completely and quite likely make a balls up out of it.
Prior to the Brexit fiasco Micheal Gove said that Scotland should be granted full authority over Scottish agricultural and fisheries policy in the event of a leave vote. Granted that was Gove but May could still carry this through in an attempt to placate Scotland, and gain the 'united' approach to Brexit she apparently wants.
The EU hasn't made a balls up of it, the fishing industry did that all by itself by overfishing. There will still be quotas no matter what happens and while there will be fewer/no Spanish trawlers in inshore waters (probably) they will still be on the offshore grounds.
And it's true that the fishing industry did screw itself over but the EU only made things worse. Simple fact is, we can now keep the quota at the same level but give all of it to the UK fleet.
Nigel Farage screwed over the UK fishing industry.
He was the UK member on the EU Fisheries committee.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I almost forgot; if the EU aren't responsible for their claiming of the credit for the Olympic medals, why is the EU parliament tweeting it?
And it's true that the fishing industry did screw itself over but the EU only made things worse. Simple fact is, we can now keep the quota at the same level but give all of it to the UK fleet.
Huge congratulations to all the US athletes who had success at Rio.
Future War Cultist wrote: I almost forgot; if the EU aren't responsible for their claiming of the credit for the Olympic medals, why is the EU parliament tweeting it?
ROFLMAO! They are congratulating them. Not saying "EU did it".
"Congrats Japan for all the medals"
Just took the credit for Japan's medals there by your logic.
Ketara wrote: The result being that neither party had a plan or vision for the future feature in their campaign, one because they hadn't a clue, and the other because they most likely feared that it would drive people away.
So in effect you are saying Leave didn't have a plan, but Remain did they just didn't talk about it. So you are now agreeing with my point that started this which was "The Remain camp were at fault for using a flawed strategy (and in the end for not calling out the Leave group for not having an actual plan....")
Ketara wrote: I think the negative implications of clearly defined joint command structures aren't too bad personally, NATO has shown how it can be made to work (although there's been plenty of bumps along that road!). Sharing armed forces Netherlands/Germany style though? I think that's a bad move without general political union. YMMV.
I think that is going to be another area where we disagree. Working with friends and neighbours generally makes people better friends and neighbours. I suppose the fear is that if it breaks then whatever the other side was providing (say aircraft carriers) the other side no longer has access to. But being mutually beneficial then both sides will lose from a split, whilst working together each country can target the areas it is best at.
Ketara wrote: But they very deliberately left themselves a contractual backdoor whereby it could be easily be watered down.Which, considering it was half of nothing, would have effectively meant nothing was really gained to begin with. Cameron's initial requirements for future UK participation were pretty meek.
This is just fear-mongering, there is no evidence that that this was the intent, it just suspicion of strangers without the evidence (a natural human trait though). As I've said before the details of how it links to together would have had to be resolved but that doesn't mean it is 'watered down'. And as previously the idea is that they got half of nothing is just your opinion. For many people the UK got offered an awful lot out of a short negotiation period. What you are saying is that they didn't get what *you* would have liked, but that doesn't mean it was 'half of nothing' unless you are working on the principle that unless you get what you want everything else is worthless - but then that is the nature of working together as a group.
Ketara wrote: Unlikely, but without writing a convoluted essay on the functioning of the european currency and it's relationships to international investors and suchlike, I doubt I'll convince you otherwise. And as I'm painting a tournament army whilst typing this, I can't quite be bothered.
That's fine; I probably wouldn't have been bothered to read it all
Ketara wrote: Greece is in a bad place now one way or the other, but if they'd never joined the Euro, they'd be in a better place now, that much is certain.
This is a supposition. It assumes that we know how things would have been if they had stayed out of the Euro. They may have kept out of the Euro, but because of whatever circumstances their economy collapsed and the overall outcome is that their overall economic shape was still worse than it is today. Conversely they may have stayed out, prioritised the development of something else (lets say asteroid mining as an extreme example), found one that had a butt load of gold and platinum and made themselves the richest country on Earth. But the point is that it is a fallacy to take what we know today apply a different initial condition and then assume things develop in the same way. It doesn't happen like this - the system in itself is chaotic (as in not predictable) so changing the initial conditions can result in widely different outcomes. Attempting to assume the same outcomes with a different set up is a poor methodology.
Ketara wrote: Who knows? My original point was just a counter to your assertion that were the borders not as soft as they were, immigration would be worse here (in the UK).
Yet there is already evidence that shows that hard borders don't change things. In fact when Country's work in isolation for those areas where migrants are just passing through the quickest and simplest way to make things 'go away' is allow for people to transfer through as quickly as possible, because once the migrant arrives at the doorstep of their chosen destination they can destroy their ID and it's then that Country's issue. In all reality the immigration wouldn't be better or worse because the drivers of migration would still be the same. The difference would be how each Country managed the situation with those that are just transit countries doing their best to speed things along.
Ketara wrote: Puts you in the same bracket as Vince Cable.
To be fair one of the better Business Secretary's we've had in some time. Vastly superior to Sajid Javid who gave the impression of being pretty rudderless.
Ketara wrote: I'd give Friedman a bit more credit than that, he's a pretty famous economist with more publications than you've probably had nice breakfasts this year. He's not alone either, any economist worth his salt could predict the problems with the euro cropping up. It's not really that challenging a prediction. Shared fiscal burden and responsibility without union is just plain daft.
I don't know I 'm pretty keen on my breakfasts.... Unless he predicted exactly when, where, how and who caused each specific crisis then I stand by the point I am trying to make is that it is easy to predict calamity's and some happen and some don't. Statistically speaking some people will be more right than others. The issue is that doesn't provide any useful data points or predictions as to what to watch out for (other than it ain't going to work, which it never will if you don't work at it). All of us can make predictions and if we are sensible most will come true, but when, how, in what form, which location etc etc is actually the useful information. If you have this you can plan for the future and try and divert away from the crisis through understanding (and that doesn't mean the correct response is just don't do it). A prediction that at some point, something bad might happen to the Euro is meaningless because statistically even if it is only 1/100,000 chance, eventually it will happen. I can predict that sometime in the future the pound will both be in great and terrible shape and the England will eventually win the Euro's, but it's not particularly useful as it is just statistical inevitability (just like Leicester winning the Premier League was and will happen again to another unexpected team at some point in the future).
So you're saying that the watered down agreement that was half of nothing with the option to cancel it or reduce it further at a later stage is proof that integrationist train in Brussels isn't very powerful?
Again I'd argue that it wasn't half of nothing, it just didn't meet you expectations. As I've said before for some in the EU they thought we took home the kitchen sink. It's a matter of perspective.
Ketara wrote: I'm sorry, but considering the phrase 'ever-closer integration', the reflexive defence of the euro and schengen in the face of all problems, and all paperwork and history, and projected plans to date, I don't see a stage short of one superpower at which the project will stop. It might take a roundabout way of getting there (going to a two-tier solution at first or something else), and it might take the next fifty years, but power is never given back. It's only ever taken.
Again you are assuming that it is the only inevitable outcome which seems to be a rather jaded view. Just because there is plenty of room to make more effective/efficient cross working relationships initially doesn't mean that the only conclusion is one superstate. As less things are available to improve the changes become slower and eventually stop once everyone is comfortable with how far the joint working has gone.
There are some misconceptions there. The Dutch army has only one army corps, and the Germans have three (both include the joined 1st Dutch German army corps). In fact the whole strength of the Dutch army is just three brigades...
My mistake, I wrote 'corps' instead of 'brigades'.
r_squared wrote: Sorry got to call you out on some of the utter tosh you're peddling here.
You're welcome to try. Something many people seem to forget in online debates is that the exchange of information is a good thing. If I can be proven wrong on something, I'm happy for that to be the case. Means I learned something.
Precisely. It's a band aid to try and ignore the problems of the porous EU border and Schengen zone. Not all immigrants come through Turkey, and all it takes is a crisis somewhere not on the other side of Turkey and there'll be equivalent wave that the Turkey treaty does nothing for.
The point here is that the Turkey treaty is a temporary band-aid political agreement whilst the underlying issue, that of open borders without political unification, remains untouched.
Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._German/Dutch_Corps In 1991 the defence ministers of The Netherlands and Germany decided to establish a binational unit to replace one German and one Dutch corps. In 1993 a treaty between the two countries was signed which resulted in two previously independent corps being amalgamated to form 1 (German/Netherlands) Corps or 1 (GE/NL) Corps consisting of one German and one Dutch division.
That's got nothing to do with the EU, it's a private National decision made between 2 Nations.
The Dutch army has precisely three corps, two of which are now integrated into the German armed forces. There's been a stated intent to merge the Navies of the two by 2018. This is seen as a first step by all involved. Don't worry, I'll substantiate.
The EU's foreign Affairs chief, the German Elmar Brok recently said (IIRC) that there needed to be a central EU military headquarters set up, and there's been talk recently of the Czech's getting involved in the existing integration between Germany and the Netherlands.
Without conscription and with currently military hardware/development costs pooling and consolidating will be seen more and more. Heck you were months away from sharing aircraft carriers with the French.
Either you integrate with your close neighbours or there's only calling uncle sam for help.
Future War Cultist wrote: I almost forgot; if the EU aren't responsible for their claiming of the credit for the Olympic medals, why is the EU parliament tweeting it?
[Sarcasm on] Look at all these countries taking away the UKs glory, it's absolutely terrible and I'm indignant; those terrible people from Grenada fixing the table to make us look worse...[Sarcasm off]
On a more worrying/rational note I see this was in the news:-
I particularly find this quote worrying "And we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of parliament."
I see the Mays Government is living up to expectations (and previous comments as being for the people being just words).
If they wanted to congratulate all Eu member states at once that's fine. But the little graphic with the fictional team EU wasn't needed. That's why it looks like they're trying to claim credit for the medals.
Future War Cultist wrote: If they wanted to congratulate all Eu member states at once that's fine. But the little graphic with the fictional team EU wasn't needed. That's why it looks like they're trying to claim credit for the medals.
I realise you have a burning hatred for all things EU, but you're reaching a bit with that one.
The same people will be saying we need a plan, get a team together, don't spook the markets, it's non-binding etc etc
and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.
But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...
I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy
How much are you willing to bet? I mean, I've been out of 40K a while, but if you're willing to lay enough down I could do with a whole new everything-from-FW-ever.
I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy
How much are you willing to bet? I mean, I've been out of 40K a while, but if you're willing to lay enough down I could do with a whole new everything-from-FW-ever.
I think the evidence is overwhelming.
My head of state, and yours, incidentally, is an unelected monarch.
We have an un-elected Prime Minister, who got the job because of a Conservative party intrigue. The British people never got a say on this at a General Election
We have an un-elected second chamber, that can pass laws, the house of lords...
And now we have a concentrated campaign by lawyers, judges, the media, and the losing side, to over-turn a democratic referendum becuase they don't like the result.
I rest my case
Seriously, Democracy, they're going to talk about democracy in Britain!!! Don't make me laugh.
The same people will be saying we need a plan, get a team together, don't spook the markets, it's non-binding etc etc
and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.
But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...
I predict dark times ahead if this continues...
Dark times? Is that some sort of threat?
May has never said that article 50 will not be invoked, it's just a matter of when. However the country should not be prepared to jump ship without sorting things out to satisfy the twitchy pride of Euro-sceptic Leave hardliners.
You may have won, but we'll be fethed if we allow impatience to take the UK down the gakker to satisfy your bloody ego.
When I said 'dark times' I wasn't talking about myself. When it's all said and done, I'm a democrat at the end of the day who believes in non-violence.
The most extreme thing I would do would be to hold a banner outside of Parliament.
Unfortunately, you, I, and everybody else on dakka, don't speak for the rest of the nation.
Who knows what people will do if they feel betrayed by the result. That's the point I'm making. I wasn't advocating violence. Apologies if it came across that way.
To answer your other points r_squared, IMO, all this talk about us not being ready is pure horsegak. What have they been doing these past 2 months? painting the Sistine chapel?
and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.
But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...
I predict dark times ahead if this continues...
Well we are because a Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives", which we do have. The fact that it is significantly skewed to two large parties makes it a pseudo-democracy at best because the elected representatives don't fairly represent the voting population. What we can say though that having a referendum isn't actually democracy because it isn't a 'system of government'. It's about giving the public a voice on one particular issue; however the elected representatives are still responsible for running the Country, no referendum gives the population the say as to how it is run.
In reality if the Government decide to progress or not progress with leaving the EU that is their responsibility as the elected representatives and they are expected to do this on behalf of the Country. If by 2020 things are not proceeding satisfactorily then the Democracy in this Country indicates that you get to vote for an alternative elected representative (as we all do). In reality if we wanted a referendum based decision making system then everything should go to referendums (including speed limits, school opening times etc etc) but we don't because it would be chaos.
You have to remember that the Government not only has to consider those that wish to Leave, but those that wish to Remain as well. With a swing majority of only 700,000 they ended up with the worst possible result because no side is going to be content to sit back and let things flow.
To be honest given what is going on I'm starting to believe that the battle for the hearts and minds of the UK has only just started; the way both the Leave and Remain camps are ramping up the rhetoric makes me believe they do too.
and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.
But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...
I predict dark times ahead if this continues...
Well we are because a Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives", which we do have. The fact that it is significantly skewed to two large parties makes it a pseudo-democracy at best because the elected representatives don't fairly represent the voting population. What we can say though that having a referendum isn't actually democracy because it isn't a 'system of government'. It's about giving the public a voice on one particular issue; however the elected representatives are still responsible for running the Country, no referendum gives the population the say as to how it is run.
In reality if the Government decide to progress or not progress with leaving the EU that is their responsibility as the elected representatives and they are expected to do this on behalf of the Country. If by 2020 things are not proceeding satisfactorily then the Democracy in this Country indicates that you get to vote for an alternative elected representative (as we all do). In reality if we wanted a referendum based decision making system then everything should go to referendums (including speed limits, school opening times etc etc) but we don't because it would be chaos.
You have to remember that the Government not only has to consider those that wish to Leave, but those that wish to Remain as well. With a swing majority of only 700,000 they ended up with the worst possible result because no side is going to be content to sit back and let things flow.
To be honest given what is going on I'm starting to believe that the battle for the hearts and minds of the UK has only just started; the way both the Leave and Remain camps are ramping up the rhetoric makes me believe they do too.
That pre-referendum leaflet we all got said in black and white that the result would be implemented.
As I've said before, the British people voted in good faith on June 23rd. If their decision is not implemented, then British democracy is dead...
I get what you're saying, but this is too important to be left to lawyers, judges, newspapers, et al...
or 
or even William Hague 
