Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mark

The Politics Thread 2019

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HappyHamza said:

The report talks about actual difficulties in making the alternatives reality, not just not liking them.

One and the same if it can't get voted through, aren't they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Don't mean to be "that guy" but the government has difficulties with the current backstop too. :unsure:

 

As HappyHamza points out, there's a big difference....

 

- The current backstop is functionally workable. It's just that it is politically unacceptable to the ERG & DUP - and now to the Govt.

- This leaked report, prepared for the UK Govt, suggests that none of the potential alternatives to the backstop is workable, individually or jointly

 

Johnson's central objection to the WA is the backstop. He's demanded that it be ditched. The EU has made clear that it would only accept that if a workable alternative is put on the table.

The EU does not believe that such a workable alternative exists - after 2 years of debate and joint analysis with the May Govt....hence the backstop.

Johnson has not presented any alternative.....we now see why - because he, too, is being told that there is no workable alternative (apart from a closer EU/UK relationship or checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea).

 

It shows that Johnson's talk of negotiating a deal is bollocks.

He is seeking to manoeuvre towards (a) No Deal; and/or (b) A  general election in which he can gain a majority by whipping up mob hatred against our democratic parliament and against 48%+ of the population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As HappyHamza points out, there's a big difference....

 

- The current backstop is functionally workable. It's just that it is politically unacceptable to the ERG & DUP - and now to the Govt.

- This leaked report, prepared for the UK Govt, suggests that none of the potential alternatives to the backstop is workable, individually or jointly

 

Johnson's central objection to the WA is the backstop. He's demanded that it be ditched. The EU has made clear that it would only accept that if a workable alternative is put on the table.

The EU does not believe that such a workable alternative exists - after 2 years of debate and joint analysis with the May Govt....hence the backstop.

Johnson has not presented any alternative.....we now see why - because he, too, is being told that there is no workable alternative (apart from a closer EU/UK relationship or checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea).

 

It shows that Johnson's talk of negotiating a deal is bollocks.

He is seeking to manoeuvre towards (a) No Deal; and/or (b) A  general election in which he can gain a majority by whipping up mob hatred against our democratic parliament and against 48%+ of the population.

You might want to read back through the last dozen or so pages here. Plenty of mob hatred to go around. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Against at least 48% of the population.

 

A lot is made about the 17 million who voted to Leave but that only equates to circa 25% of the population and is a snapshot of opinion taken three years ago. Our children's future is being decided by a substantial albeit vociferous minority bent on an act of collective self-harm for reasons that are difficult to understand in any other terms but right-wing nationalism and xenophobia.

 

Er, I wrote "48%+"....

 

I'm not keen on counting non-voters in calculations to reduce the percentage. If some people can't be arsed to participate in such a massive vote - or choose to abstain - they forfeit the right for their views to be considered (if they have any).

 

Likewise, I don't find the argument that it was 3 years ago convincing. We knew at the time that it would take more than 2 years to sort out - and all votes remain valid for several years (5 years for general elections).

A more convincing argument for reconsideration of Brexit as a whole is that we voted Leave, but without specifying how - and giving Govt the task of negotiating a deal and Parliament the task of approving a solution.

 

If Parliament could somehow agree a deal, I'd reluctantly accept that as a democratic outcome, though I'd prefer to Remain.

If Parliament cannot agree a solution, we need to take a different democratic route (second referendum or election) - not to have an unelected executive abuse our democratic parliament to impose a solution for which it has no mandate, or manoeuvre for a divisive, populist election based on the "people"/mob having the power to over-rule representative democracy. 

 

I can see reasons other than nationalism/xenophobia for the Govt strategy:

- Achieve a long-term structural change in British society, bringing it more in line with the US model of laissez-faire capitalism, deregulation, reduced public services, greater wealth inequality, redistribution from people to corporations etc. (all after a few cynical election pledges of more cash for public services to win power, of course). Big corporate lobbyists & financial institutions devote so much time to lobbying govt & make such big donations for a reason.....they want more money, regardless of the social costs.

- Johnson is actively seeking a confrontation with "our undemocratic Remainer Parliament" and the "intransigent EU" so as to trigger a "People" v. "Parliament/EU" election, seeking a majority on the back of a wave of nationalist populism and "let's get Brexit over with"....so as to have 5 years of untrammeled power. This is the man, after all, who, as a boy said that he wanted to be "King of the World"....

 

Of course, I agree with you on the deeply damaging, deeply worrying outlook - for several decades ahead - if Johnson succeeds in this project.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Er, I wrote "48%+"....

 

I'm not keen on counting non-voters in calculations to reduce the percentage. If some people can't be arsed to participate in such a massive vote - or choose to abstain - they forfeit the right for their views to be considered (if they have any).

 

Likewise, I don't find the argument that it was 3 years ago convincing. We knew at the time that it would take more than 2 years to sort out - and all votes remain valid for several years (5 years for general elections).

A more convincing argument for reconsideration of Brexit as a whole is that we voted Leave, but without specifying how - and giving Govt the task of negotiating a deal and Parliament the task of approving a solution.

 

If Parliament could somehow agree a deal, I'd reluctantly accept that as a democratic outcome, though I'd prefer to Remain.

If Parliament cannot agree a solution, we need to take a different democratic route (second referendum or election) - not to have an unelected executive abuse our democratic parliament to impose a solution for which it has no mandate, or manoeuvre for a divisive, populist election based on the "people"/mob having the power to over-rule representative democracy. 

 

I can see reasons other than nationalism/xenophobia for the Govt strategy:

- Achieve a long-term structural change in British society, bringing it more in line with the US model of laissez-faire capitalism, deregulation, reduced public services, greater wealth inequality, redistribution from people to corporations etc. (all after a few cynical election pledges of more cash for public services to win power, of course). Big corporate lobbyists & financial institutions devote so much time to lobbying govt & make such big donations for a reason.....they want more money, regardless of the social costs.

- Johnson is actively seeking a confrontation with "our undemocratic Remainer Parliament" and the "intransigent EU" so as to trigger a "People" v. "Parliament/EU" election, seeking a majority on the back of a wave of nationalist populism and "let's get Brexit over with"....so as to have 5 years of untrammeled power. This is the man, after all, who, as a boy said that he wanted to be "King of the World"....

 

Of course, I agree with you on the deeply damaging, deeply worrying outlook - for several decades ahead - if Johnson succeeds in this project.

 

I was actually referencing the vociferous minority of voters rather than the government - the government are merely harnessing that xenophbic nationalism for its own ends, which I agree are as you speculated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I know, mate. On multiple occasions, I've made it clear that I don't find it helpful - or accurate - for Remainers to abuse Leave voters generally as "racists", "morons" or whatever......or for Leave voters to jeer at Remainers as losers who should leave the country if they don't like the referendum result.

 

Even so, there is something a lot more sinister about the PM stoking division and attacking democratic institutions/representatives. Among Joe Public, you'll always get some people - on both sides - who'll make hot-headed, divisive comments.

But senior politicians should be capable of much better than that - and, in particular, should not be cynically abusing democracy & fanning hatred in order to gain power or force through policies without scrutiny for which they have no mandate (No Deal). 

One of the more sensible posts on here, fair play.

 

When MPs voted to trigger article 50 though, were they not aware that if a deal couldn't be reached within 2 years we would exit on WTO terms?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Against at least 48% of the population.

 

A lot is made about the 17 million who voted to Leave but that only equates to circa 25% of the population and is a snapshot of opinion taken three years ago. Our children's future is being decided by a substantial albeit vociferous minority bent on an act of collective self-harm for reasons that are difficult to understand in any other terms but right-wing nationalism and xenophobia.

In fairness though it isn't just a 'right wing' thing. Xenophobic maybe but not right wing, there are also Left Wing Xenophobes.

 

Corbyn and McDonnell are two of the biggest leavers out there, a thing many Labour voters seem to forget. They campaigned the last election on leaving the EU and now they want to remain.

 

I don't agree with Brexit myself but to believe these 2 proven liars is just a joke.

 

Its about time the Remainers got savvy, if there is a general election don't waste time voting for a leaver who has changed his mind (his voting record says it all), the Lib Dems are the only consistently remain and proper remain party.  I wouldn't put it past Labour to change their mind when it suits. The Labour front bench are bigger leavers than even Boris, the blind loyalty is baffling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Er, I wrote "48%+"....

 

I'm not keen on counting non-voters in calculations to reduce the percentage. If some people can't be arsed to participate in such a massive vote - or choose to abstain - they forfeit the right for their views to be considered (if they have any).

 

Likewise, I don't find the argument that it was 3 years ago convincing. We knew at the time that it would take more than 2 years to sort out - and all votes remain valid for several years (5 years for general elections).

A more convincing argument for reconsideration of Brexit as a whole is that we voted Leave, but without specifying how - and giving Govt the task of negotiating a deal and Parliament the task of approving a solution.

 

If Parliament could somehow agree a deal, I'd reluctantly accept that as a democratic outcome, though I'd prefer to Remain.

If Parliament cannot agree a solution, we need to take a different democratic route (second referendum or election) - not to have an unelected executive abuse our democratic parliament to impose a solution for which it has no mandate, or manoeuvre for a divisive, populist election based on the "people"/mob having the power to over-rule representative democracy. 

 

I can see reasons other than nationalism/xenophobia for the Govt strategy:

- Achieve a long-term structural change in British society, bringing it more in line with the US model of laissez-faire capitalism, deregulation, reduced public services, greater wealth inequality, redistribution from people to corporations etc. (all after a few cynical election pledges of more cash for public services to win power, of course). Big corporate lobbyists & financial institutions devote so much time to lobbying govt & make such big donations for a reason.....they want more money, regardless of the social costs.

- Johnson is actively seeking a confrontation with "our undemocratic Remainer Parliament" and the "intransigent EU" so as to trigger a "People" v. "Parliament/EU" election, seeking a majority on the back of a wave of nationalist populism and "let's get Brexit over with"....so as to have 5 years of untrammeled power. This is the man, after all, who, as a boy said that he wanted to be "King of the World"....

 

Of course, I agree with you on the deeply damaging, deeply worrying outlook - for several decades ahead - if Johnson succeeds in this project.

This terrifies me considerably more than xenophobia/nationalism.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I was actually referencing the vociferous minority of voters rather than the government - the government are merely harnessing that xenophbic nationalism for its own ends, which I agree are as you speculated.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I wonder, though, exactly why that vociferous minority so fervently want an immediate Brexit, deal or no deal? Few or no Leavers have offered any serious explanation on here....

 

I actually see less xenophobia & nationalism now than 2-3 years ago (though I'm sure it'll be back, particularly if Boris triggers a vile, toxic People v. Parliament/EU election).

I can't remember the last time anyone argued that Brexit, still less No Deal, was necessary to control/reduce immigration or to stop freedom of movement.

 

Part of it, I think, is that however they voted, many people just want Brexit over with.....not realising that it's not going away any time soon, regardless of what happens in October.

Part of it, also, is that only a minority of people have any understanding of how democracy works. So, the argument that "parliament is undemocratically blocking the will of the people" cuts through for a lot of people. Even though all parliament has done is try (and so far fail) to find an agreed Brexit solution......when the referendum didn't provide one, but merely instructed parliament/govt to negotiate or make arrangements to Leave, on terms unspecified.

 

The "democratic will of the people" argument feeds into this. Although the referendum was only "advisory", I don't think any govt could ignore that "advice". The public expectation was that the "advice" (to Leave, means unspecified but almost certainly with a deal) should be heeded - so, people expect their democratic representatives to "do as they're told", when (a) it's unclear what they've been told - except to Leave, means unspecified; (b) MPs are elected, as people with some supposed expertise, to make judgments on how policies should be implemented, not just to "do as they're told"....even if "the people's orders" had been clear, which they weren't.

 

The logic for some is that we should eliminate representative democracy and have a strong, autocratic leader who does the bidding of "the people" via direct democracy/referendums.....doubtless manipulating "the will of the people" in doing so.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

In fairness though it isn't just a 'right wing' thing. Xenophobic maybe but not right wing, there are also Left Wing Xenophobes.

 

Corbyn and McDonnell are two of the biggest leavers out there, a thing many Labour voters seem to forget. They campaigned the last election on leaving the EU and now they want to remain.

 

I don't agree with Brexit myself but to believe these 2 proven liars is just a joke.

 

Its about time the Remainers got savvy, if there is a general election don't waste time voting for a leaver who has changed his mind (his voting record says it all), the Lib Dems are the only consistently remain and proper remain party.  I wouldn't put it past Labour to change their mind when it suits. The Labour front bench are bigger leavers than even Boris, the blind loyalty is baffling. 

If Corbyn and McDonnell are leavers, it's not because they're xenophobes, it's because they want to implement a socialist manifesto free of the the EU's capitalist model. To call them xenophobic is bizarre. 

 

The biggest lesson from all of this is that they'll all lie in order to gain power. People are sheep and quite frankly stupid. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If Corbyn and McDonnell are leavers, it's not because they're xenophobes, it's because they want to implement a socialist manifesto free of the the EU's capitalist model. To call them xenophobic is bizarre. 

 

The biggest lesson from all of this is that they'll all lie in order to gain power. People are sheep and quite frankly stupid. 

To be clear I am not calling them Xenophobes that was a separate comment in the context, although they do have an irrational hate of Americans and the west. 

 

What I am saying is the xenophobia is not confined to the so called 'right wing' I know ex miners who were born and bred labour voters and union members who are absolute racists and xenophobes, they wont even eat 'foreign food' like Pizzas. 

Edited by Foxin_Mad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

When MPs voted to trigger article 50 though, were they not aware that if a deal couldn't be reached within 2 years we would exit on WTO terms?

 

They were aware of that. So, if Parliament either votes for No Deal or allows it to happen by not voting for something else, that would be a democratic outcome......a terrible one, in my view, but democratic.

 

But the assumption has always been that Parliament, as our supreme representative democratic institution, would have the opportunity to make that decision.

It could allow the 2-year deadline to pass, leading to No Deal - or it could vote through a negotiated deal or vote for some other solution (extension, election, 2nd referendum, whatever).

 

That's the seriously anti-democratic bit: that the Govt is using every possible ruse to limit the opportunity for our democratic representatives to make that decision: Deal, No Deal or alternative.

Presumably, Boris either wants No Deal or (more likely, I suspect) he wants to provoke a toxic, divisive general election that he believes will give him a parliamentary majority for 5 years....and is happy to abuse democracy to achieve that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I wonder, though, exactly why that vociferous minority so fervently want an immediate Brexit, deal or no deal? Few or no Leavers have offered any serious explanation on here....

 

I actually see less xenophobia & nationalism now than 2-3 years ago (though I'm sure it'll be back, particularly if Boris triggers a vile, toxic People v. Parliament/EU election).

I can't remember the last time anyone argued that Brexit, still less No Deal, was necessary to control/reduce immigration or to stop freedom of movement.

 

Part of it, I think, is that however they voted, many people just want Brexit over with.....not realising that it's not going away any time soon, regardless of what happens in October.

Part of it, also, is that only a minority of people have any understanding of how democracy works. So, the argument that "parliament is undemocratically blocking the will of the people" cuts through for a lot of people. Even though all parliament has done is try (and so far fail) to find an agreed Brexit solution......when the referendum didn't provide one, but merely instructed parliament/govt to negotiate or make arrangements to Leave, on terms unspecified.

 

The "democratic will of the people" argument feeds into this. Although the referendum was only "advisory", I don't think any govt could ignore that "advice". The public expectation was that the "advice" (to Leave, means unspecified but almost certainly with a deal) should be heeded - so, people expect their democratic representatives to "do as they're told", when (a) it's unclear what they've been told - except to Leave, means unspecified; (b) MPs are elected, as people with some supposed expertise, to make judgments on how policies should be implemented, not just to "do as they're told"....even if "the people's orders" had been clear, which they weren't.

 

The logic for some is that we should eliminate representative democracy and have a strong, autocratic leader who does the bidding of "the people" via direct democracy/referendums.....doubtless manipulating "the will of the people" in doing so.

 

Brexit has become an opportunity for  MP's/  Parties to lie, cojule , manipulate, and particularly apply self interests,  feed off the media hyperbole all in the so called name of democracy. 

Our parliament over the past three years has been anything but democratic .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I know, mate. On multiple occasions, I've made it clear that I don't find it helpful - or accurate - for Remainers to abuse Leave voters generally as "racists", "morons" or whatever......or for Leave voters to jeer at Remainers as losers who should leave the country if they don't like the referendum result.

 

Even so, there is something a lot more sinister about the PM stoking division and attacking democratic institutions/representatives. Among Joe Public, you'll always get some people - on both sides - who'll make hot-headed, divisive comments.

But senior politicians should be capable of much better than that - and, in particular, should not be cynically abusing democracy & fanning hatred in order to gain power or force through policies without scrutiny for which they have no mandate (No Deal). 

It's not just the people on here is it? There's been plenty out there ramping the crazy meter up to 11, including other senior politicians. The shift from "this is going to damage us" to "this is the end of days" hasn't even been subtle. What Boris is doing isn't right and I've made it clear I don't agree with it already, but it's not just Boris. He's in power and thus, having more success at it. But to me, it's no different than trying to get a Scottish judge to stop a clearly legal (if absolute shit house) act. Or to constantly leak internal documents, intentionally to further spread hatred and division and undermine the negotiations. 

 

We've got senior lib dem politicians roaming the streets yelling "we can't let them do this!". And yet when given an out in making corbyn a temp pm to call an election they've turned round and gone naaaaaah, you're alright ta. Does that scream greater good for you? Or cynically not giving labour the political points? 

 

Imo, they're all a bunch of power hungry cvnts and it's about time we purged the lot of them and started over. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I mean they were born and raised in 'the West', follow an ideology (Socialism) created in 'the West' and serve constituents, who routinely keep them in Parliament, from 'the West'.

 

The idea of 'the West' and therefore of being 'against/hating the West' developed principally as pro-democracy propaganda against Nazi Germany in the Second World War and then as pro-capitalist against the Soviet Union. It's been used since the dissolution of the USSR it's been utilised foremost by Conservatives and then the Far Right (ironically the first group it was used against) to stifle any particularly Socialist or Progressive stance. Genuinely it would be interesting what part of the West you think he hates.

 

In terms of Americans I don't blame him. I find it hard to take seriously a country that's the richest in the world yet has a mass shooting for every day of the year, an ongoing homeless and opioid epidemic and Donald Trump as President. 

 

 

Spot on, it's an obsolete Cold War relic dichotomy that is trotted out purely for self serving purposes and needs to die out, both because it's served its time and because it does nothing but divide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Spot on, it's an obsolete Cold War relic dichotomy that is trotted out purely for self serving purposes and needs to die out, both because it's served its time and because it does nothing but divide.

Especially when the architects of brexit are in bed with the Russians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

 

Brexit has become an opportunity for  MP's/  Parties to lie, cojule , manipulate, and particularly apply self interests,  feed off the media hyperbole all in the so called name of democracy. 

Our parliament over the past three years has been anything but democratic .

 

 

Yep, there's certainly been some devious, manipulative behaviour on all sides. Not good for a healthy democracy or society.

 

I disagree that parliament has been undemocratic, though. I really think that a lot of the blame can be traced back to Cameron for his flawed referendum set-up - and to parliament for approving his referendum bill as drafted.

 

The referendum merely said we'd leave the EU, with terms to be negotiated and Parliament to finalise the outcome. So, all those who sought particular types of Brexit (May, Corbyn, ERG Hard Brexiteers, Soft Brexiteers, No Dealers) were within their democratic rights to seek their particular kind of exit......leading to an impasse and massive public frustration. That includes those, like the Lib Dems, who wanted a second referendum. There was nothing in the referendum legislation to preclude a second referendum. In fact, it might have been better if that had been made specific - either that there would be a confirmatory referendum once negotiations were complete, or that there definitely would not.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It's not just the people on here is it? There's been plenty out there ramping the crazy meter up to 11, including other senior politicians. The shift from "this is going to damage us" to "this is the end of days" hasn't even been subtle. What Boris is doing isn't right and I've made it clear I don't agree with it already, but it's not just Boris. He's in power and thus, having more success at it. But to me, it's no different than trying to get a Scottish judge to stop a clearly legal (if absolute shit house) act. Or to constantly leak internal documents, intentionally to further spread hatred and division and undermine the negotiations. 

 

We've got senior lib dem politicians roaming the streets yelling "we can't let them do this!". And yet when given an out in making corbyn a temp pm to call an election they've turned round and gone naaaaaah, you're alright ta. Does that scream greater good for you? Or cynically not giving labour the political points? 

 

Imo, they're all a bunch of power hungry cvnts and it's about time we purged the lot of them and started over. 

 

Yep, plenty of irresponsible comments by politicians as well as Joe Public.

 

For me, though, there really is a massive step change between a Brexit Deal and No Deal - and another massive step change to No Deal achieved without a mandate through the abuse of democracy.

 

I voted Remain (a decision only taken 10 days before the vote) but was reluctantly OK about accepting a negotiated Brexit deal, once the vote was to Leave. I viewed it as pointless, damaging but democratic - and not "the end of days", as you put it.

 

I see a big difference between leaving the EU in an organised way while maintaining a co-operative relationship, and creating a hostile relationship by refusing to pay our debts, causing chaos for EU citizens in the UK and Brits in the EU, risking a resurgence of violence in Ireland, causing massive disruption and expense to traders, manufacturers, retailers, farmers and others (some of whom are likely to go bust), thereby ruining the public finances & causing more austerity etc.

 

There is then another big difference between that happening because Parliament allows it to happen (in which case I'd be very critical of Parliament) - and it happening because a demagogue of a PM seeks to force it through, despite having no mandate, by severely limiting our elected parliament's chance to take decisions, by threatening rebels, by stirring up dangerous mob sentiments etc. Did you see that Gove even refused to confirm that the Govt would comply with any No Deal legislation passed by parliament? That is effectively moving from the limitation of democracy (by proroguing) to the abolition of democracy by refusing to implement democratic decisions.....pretty close to "the end of days".

 

Anyone is entitled to bring anything before a court. If it is clearly legal, then any objection will be thrown out of court.

 

Leaks happen to all govts. Not good, but it's down to the Govt to identify and discipline culprits. I'm not sure, though, how leaking docs about the impact of No Deal or about there being no viable alternatives to the backstop "spread hatred and division". Such docs only confirm in detail claims already in the public domain from credible sources. As for "negotiations", what negotiations? All sources make clear that Boris has not submitted any alternatives to May's Deal, beyond calling for a new deal and for the backstop to be ditched - without offering any alternatives and while saying we'll leave at Halloween regardless.

 

The Lib Dems are certainly showing cynicism in rejecting the idea of Corbyn as temporary PM - because they mainly hope to take Tory seats at the election, so getting into bed with Jezza isn't a good look! But they do have a point, too: very few Tory rebels are likely to support Corbyn even as temporary PM, whereas many of them might well support someone else (an experienced Labour or Tory moderate).

 

Once the Brexit outcome is sorted, we might end up with a completely different party system. The divisions within Labour are well known, but are Tory moderates seriously going to be able to continue to co-exist in the same party as Johnson and his anti-democratic populists....who are seeking to throw them out of the party for rebelling, when they themselves (Boris & the Hard Brexiteers) were repeatedly rebelling against May without facing expulsion? Fvck knows what we'd end up with. That might depend partly on the outcome of any early election: if Boris gets a 5-year majority, that's a very different scenario from an autumn election producing another hung parliament.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yep, there's certainly been some devious, manipulative behaviour on all sides. Not good for a healthy democracy or society.

 

I disagree that parliament has been undemocratic, though. I really think that a lot of the blame can be traced back to Cameron for his flawed referendum set-up - and to parliament for approving his referendum bill as drafted.

 

The referendum merely said we'd leave the EU, with terms to be negotiated and Parliament to finalise the outcome. So, all those who sought particular types of Brexit (May, Corbyn, ERG Hard Brexiteers, Soft Brexiteers, No Dealers) were within their democratic rights to seek their particular kind of exit......leading to an impasse and massive public frustration. That includes those, like the Lib Dems, who wanted a second referendum. There was nothing in the referendum legislation to preclude a second referendum. In fact, it might have been better if that had been made specific - either that there would be a confirmatory referendum once negotiations were complete, or that there definitely would not.

 

 

 

Yep, plenty of irresponsible comments by politicians as well as Joe Public.

 

For me, though, there really is a massive step change between a Brexit Deal and No Deal - and another massive step change to No Deal achieved without a mandate through the abuse of democracy.

 

I voted Remain (a decision only taken 10 days before the vote) but was reluctantly OK about accepting a negotiated Brexit deal, once the vote was to Leave. I viewed it as pointless, damaging but democratic - and not "the end of days", as you put it.

 

I see a big difference between leaving the EU in an organised way while maintaining a co-operative relationship, and creating a hostile relationship by refusing to pay our debts, causing chaos for EU citizens in the UK and Brits in the EU, risking a resurgence of violence in Ireland, causing massive disruption and expense to traders, manufacturers, retailers, farmers and others (some of whom are likely to go bust), thereby ruining the public finances & causing more austerity etc.

 

There is then another big difference between that happening because Parliament allows it to happen (in which case I'd be very critical of Parliament) - and it happening because a demagogue of a PM seeks to force it through, despite having no mandate, by severely limiting our elected parliament's chance to take decisions, by threatening rebels, by stirring up dangerous mob sentiments etc. Did you see that Gove even refused to confirm that the Govt would comply with any No Deal legislation passed by parliament? That is effectively moving from the limitation of democracy (by proroguing) to the abolition of democracy by refusing to implement democratic decisions.....pretty close to "the end of days".

 

Anyone is entitled to bring anything before a court. If it is clearly legal, then any objection will be thrown out of court.

 

Leaks happen to all govts. Not good, but it's down to the Govt to identify and discipline culprits. I'm not sure, though, how leaking docs about the impact of No Deal or about there being no viable alternatives to the backstop "spread hatred and division". Such docs only confirm in detail claims already in the public domain from credible sources. As for "negotiations", what negotiations? All sources make clear that Boris has not submitted any alternatives to May's Deal, beyond calling for a new deal and for the backstop to be ditched - without offering any alternatives and while saying we'll leave at Halloween regardless.

 

The Lib Dems are certainly showing cynicism in rejecting the idea of Corbyn as temporary PM - because they mainly hope to take Tory seats at the election, so getting into bed with Jezza isn't a good look! But they do have a point, too: very few Tory rebels are likely to support Corbyn even as temporary PM, whereas many of them might well support someone else (an experienced Labour or Tory moderate).

 

Once the Brexit outcome is sorted, we might end up with a completely different party system. The divisions within Labour are well known, but are Tory moderates seriously going to be able to continue to co-exist in the same party as Johnson and his anti-democratic populists....who are seeking to throw them out of the party for rebelling, when they themselves (Boris & the Hard Brexiteers) were repeatedly rebelling against May without facing expulsion? Fvck knows what we'd end up with. That might depend partly on the outcome of any early election: if Boris gets a 5-year majority, that's a very different scenario from an autumn election producing another hung parliament.....

We will have to agree to disagree then. Although I would conceed decision making can be subjective, voting for the reasons I have stated is not 'In the interests of the country politics' it's more self interest and Party Politics.

Further, unfortunately repeating  comments I made just after the vote, if you want to blame Cameron the EU were equally culpable, knowing there was a referendum pending hardly gave sceptical remainers any confidence at all they would be making any significant reforms any time soom.

Edited by The Guvnor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I mean they were born and raised in 'the West', follow an ideology (Socialism) created in 'the West' and serve constituents, who routinely keep them in Parliament, from 'the West'.

 

The idea of 'the West' and therefore of being 'against/hating the West' developed principally as pro-democracy propaganda against Nazi Germany in the Second World War and then as pro-capitalist against the Soviet Union. It's been used since the dissolution of the USSR it's been utilised foremost by Conservatives and then the Far Right (ironically the first group it was used against) to stifle any particularly Socialist or Progressive stance. Genuinely it would be interesting what part of the West you think he hates.

 

In terms of Americans I don't blame him. I find it hard to take seriously a country that's the richest in the world yet has a mass shooting for every day of the year, an ongoing homeless and opioid epidemic and Donald Trump as President. 

 

 

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Spot on, it's an obsolete Cold War relic dichotomy that is trotted out purely for self serving purposes and needs to die out, both because it's served its time and because it does nothing but divide.

Oh dear, or it could just be a simple geographical location the western nations, the others being in err the east...…...the left always finding something to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Just because you are raised somewhere doesn't mean necessarily they like it or want the best for it. I have seen little evidence from much of the Labour front bench that they are interested in their constituents or nation (mainly Northern who voted for Brexit).

 

Corbyn and McDonnell hate the free market economy often associated with 'the west' or sorry (geographically western nations), and wanted to replace it with a highly unionised, largely nationalised, state/worker owned, high taxation, big government state. He has positioned himself (righty or wrongly) as Anti-Israel, he is Pro-Iran, often appears on state run propaganda channels in Iran/Russia (for a fee). He is friends with Hamas and other dubious organisations. The man has doubted evidence supplied by our own intelligence services or (US or course) in favour of that supplied by Russia, Iran or wherever his next ideological beacon is. He frequently stands against everything this country or the US does whilst equally being supportive of some more questionable regimes. Hypocritical?!

 

I feel it is a bit ridiculous to 'hate' and refuse to trade with a nation based on a few personal preconceptions which may or may not be fully accurate in all cases. At the end of the day a lot of business in the UK is US owned and US funded, still the most powerful nation on earth. It is going to make us a lot more insignificant and all a lot poorer and create a lot more jobless if we decide we are not going to host a US president in our country whether we disapprove of him or not. 

 

I suppose it is better for the UK to trade with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea or course all of those nations have fine upstanding leaders and absolutely no human rights issues whatsoever!? Some European cities have high drug use and slum areas also, should we cut association with them?

 

You talk of creating divide, but the hate and vitriol spouted about 'the right' and Trump supporters is baffling and does also nothing but divide. Surely we are better to engage with our enemies and people we disagree with instead of stomping off and taking our ball home and shouting how much we hate them. Its bizarre! You all took of not wanting a divide on the left, whilst often further marginalising those you disagree with and pushing them further away! Its the same way some of the left talk about the rich as if they are all evil, hardly going to win them over!

 

No country or regime is perfect or successful; fully, nor will it ever be. Some however have a history of causing more inequality and suffering than others and the US and UK are far from the biggest sinners here. 

Edited by Foxin_Mad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The Lib Dems are certainly showing cynicism in rejecting the idea of Corbyn as temporary PM - because they mainly hope to take Tory seats at the election, so getting into bed with Jezza isn't a good look! But they do have a point, too: very few Tory rebels are likely to support Corbyn even as temporary PM, whereas many of them might well support someone else (an experienced Labour or Tory moderate).

 

Once the Brexit outcome is sorted, we might end up with a completely different party system. The divisions within Labour are well known, but are Tory moderates seriously going to be able to continue to co-exist in the same party as Johnson and his anti-democratic populists....who are seeking to throw them out of the party for rebelling, when they themselves (Boris & the Hard Brexiteers) were repeatedly rebelling against May without facing expulsion? Fvck knows what we'd end up with. That might depend partly on the outcome of any early election: if Boris gets a 5-year majority, that's a very different scenario from an autumn election producing another hung parliament.....

The first part is true enough, which is why it's also a negative point for the Labour bunch, they've said stop no deal in any way possible, but won't back someone else becoming temporary pm. It's the same thing, they want power to the party. To me it seems they've only flopped to remain because the lib dems were eating into their vote share. 

 

As for the second part I have no idea. Even I'd think twice about voting tory (not that it makes any difference in a guaranteed Labour seat) if they axed all the moderates, and I doubt I'd be the only one. It's a fine line winning the Brexit party vote back without alienating everyone else. Much like the line Labour walk with their moderates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...