Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Leicester_Loyal

The Politics Thread 2020

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Milo said:

Not a Boris fan - but I think that line of thinking is lazy, inaccurate and unhelpful if you want to engage in debate.

 

It's just what you do nowadays, don't like a politician so you liken them to Trump. I've started doing it with Ed Davey.

Edited by Kopfkino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It's just what you do nowadays, don't like a politician so you liken them to Trump. I've started doing it with Ed Davey.

Facetious dismissal aside, there are massive parallels between the two acknowledged by both the Tory party and Trump himself. 

 

It's not a flippant remark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Facetious dismissal aside, there are massive parallels between the two acknowledged by both the Tory party and Trump himself. 

 

It's not a flippant remark. 

I accept that you see it that way, I just can't agree. I'm not sure how Trump's word is one to heed but the extent to which Trump acknowledged the 'massive parallels', according to your own source, was that he said "He's a different kind of guy, but they say I'm a different kind of guy, too". Seems a hop, step, and a jump to get from that to him acknowledging 'massive parallels'.

Edited by Kopfkino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I accept that you see it that way, I just can't agree. I'm not sure how Trump's word is one to heed but the extent to which Trump acknowledged the 'massive parallels', according to your own source, was that he said "He's a different kind of guy, but they say I'm a different kind of guy, too". Seems a hop, step, and a jump to get from that to him acknowledging 'massive parallels'.

Donald Trump has literally called him Britain Trump. If that isn't identify massive parallels then I don't know what is. 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/12/trump-boris-johnson-relationship-083732

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Donald Trump has literally called him Britain Trump. If that isn't identify massive parallels then I don't know what is. 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/12/trump-boris-johnson-relationship-083732

Fair enough, you didn't provide that as your initial source. But still, how come Trump's word is now gospel? Is it just that when Trump says something to confirm your prior beliefs that his word is relevant?

 

I could sit here and make significant parallels between Boris and Blair, and Trump and Macron. I wouldn't go around calling Macron 'Trump lite' nor Boris 'Blair lite'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Fair enough, you didn't provide that as your initial source. But still, how come Trump's word is now gospel? Is it just that when Trump says something to confirm your prior beliefs that his word is relevant?

 

I could sit here and make significant parallels between Boris and Blair, and Trump and Macron. I wouldn't go around calling Macron 'Trump lite' nor Boris 'Blair lite'. 

Its not gospel, its just added weight to my argument. 

 

There are too many core similarities in policy, personality, even the way they look. It's not a huge coincidence. I mean you can find tonnes of evidence if you keep looking of people, involved in a professional capacity, acknowledging their deep seated similarities. 

 

The reason tories don't want to acknowledge this is because doing so really acknowledges the fact that we've got someone in charge who is okay with racism, homophobia, and sexism (there are multiple public sources for this, please don't make me go and find them). Far rather dissociate the two and deny it than accept that, morally, we're becoming a right wing nationalist state. 

 

Boris = Trump connects our leader (just a bloody good British chap salt of the earth etc) to quite possibly the worst ever president. I get why this might not be ideal to accept but it doesn't make it any less accurate. 

 

Edited by foxile5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To throw in my own two pennyworth in on this particular topic...

 

There are certainly some similiarities between Boris and Trump in the way they conduct themselves and their personalities, and it's a matter of record that they see each other as kindred spirits, it would seem.

 

However, there is a pretty critical difference in terms of actual governance in that when it comes to policy, Trump has various Republican politicians backing him who are, frankly, in favour of views so bigoted and unscientific they would make even the most hardened Farage-style nationalists in the UK blush. This means that Trump is able to actually put such viewpoints into the mainstream (as well as appealing to them as he does when he denies the effects of Covid, climate change and goes on about "law and order") and there is a much bigger chance of those viewpoints actually affecting the populace at large through policy.

 

As such, I'm not 100% sure that Boris has the same views on race, sexism and homophobia as Trump does, but even if he did it would be much more difficult for him to craft policy on it that would make things more difficult for people of colour, LGBT people and women (as Trump has done or thought to do) because thankfully there aren't as many people in high places that share the same views (or are willing to act on them) as there are Stateside.

 

One more thing:

 

38 minutes ago, Dunge said:

A few things I fancy throwing into this argument:

 

Firstly, if the president of America considers Boris a “kindred spirit”, as it suggests in the article, then I think Boris is doing something right. The best way to get what you want from Trump is to massage his ego and tell him he’s wonderful. That’s what Putin did in their meeting and he had Trump on a string. Those who fight against Trump energise him. Those who he thinks are his friends disarm him. Hopefully if Biden gets in then Boris can convince him of all the things they have in common too. But that’s up to the American voters. We just have to deal as best we can with their choice.

 

I think there are certain similarities between Boris and Trump, the most concerning being a disdain for difficult but fair questions. Also Boris should have a serious think before he goes down the line of trying to link Starmer to the IRA again. Hopefully that s... won’t go down so well here. But aside from that I don’t see that there are any /significant/ similarities. They both have a big ego - so do loads of politicians. I don’t see Boris about to back white supremacists or deny science like Covid or Climate change. I don’t see Boris as having an authoritarian instinct. Quite the opposite.

 

All the article says is about the ex-ambassador saying Boris was fascinated by Trump and his rhetoric. I expect that’s true, and I’d be surprised if he wasn’t. A politician, particularly a populist one, would be interested to see what was working and what wasn’t in terms of communication to a supporter base. That doesn’t mean that he idolises Trump. And I don’t see anything in his past or present to suggest that he would.

 

Boris is Boris. He’s not really like anyone else to me, although maybe some odd combination of Tory caricature, pie-in-the-face clown and Prince Phillip. There’s plenty that can be levelled at him - he’s lazy, over-promoted and struggles with details. Ideally he shouldn’t have become leader of the Conservatives, but there’s a distinct lack of talent in those ranks right now. Boris as Trump lite? Not in my book. Not in the ways that matter.

Agree with most of this, Dunge, but the bolded doesn't resonate. As I've said before, I don't think Trump has friends at all, or very few - he has rivals that need to be challenged and surpassed, and he has subordinates that need to be dictated to. He doesn't strike me as a man who has the capacity of empathy for genuine friendship. What happened with Putin was simply Putin outplaying Trump at what he thought was his own game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dunge said:

A few things I fancy throwing into this argument:

 

Firstly, if the president of America considers Boris a “kindred spirit”, as it suggests in the article, then I think Boris is doing something right. The best way to get what you want from Trump is to massage his ego and tell him he’s wonderful. That’s what Putin did in their meeting and he had Trump on a string. Those who fight against Trump energise him. Those who he thinks are his friends disarm him. Hopefully if Biden gets in then Boris can convince him of all the things they have in common too. But that’s up to the American voters. We just have to deal as best we can with their choice.

 

I think there are certain similarities between Boris and Trump, the most concerning being a disdain for difficult but fair questions. Also Boris should have a serious think before he goes down the line of trying to link Starmer to the IRA again. Hopefully that s... won’t go down so well here. But aside from that I don’t see that there are any /significant/ similarities. They both have a big ego - so do loads of politicians. I don’t see Boris about to back white supremacists or deny science like Covid or Climate change. I don’t see Boris as having an authoritarian instinct. Quite the opposite.

 

All the article says is about the ex-ambassador saying Boris was fascinated by Trump and his rhetoric. I expect that’s true, and I’d be surprised if he wasn’t. A politician, particularly a populist one, would be interested to see what was working and what wasn’t in terms of communication to a supporter base. That doesn’t mean that he idolises Trump. And I don’t see anything in his past or present to suggest that he would.

 

Boris is Boris. He’s not really like anyone else to me, although maybe some odd combination of Tory caricature, pie-in-the-face clown and Prince Phillip. There’s plenty that can be levelled at him - he’s lazy, over-promoted and struggles with details. Ideally he shouldn’t have become leader of the Conservatives, but there’s a distinct lack of talent in those ranks right now. Boris as Trump lite? Not in my book. Not in the ways that matter.

 

An interesting contribution - and I agree with some points (the disdain & ego similarity; lack of attention to detail; less scope for mud-throwing in UK; the difference re. science denial & racist politics; the need to assess Trump's rhetoric seriously).

 

There's also some truth - but only partial truth - in there being value in massaging Trump's ego. That can work in the short-term. Putin might be an example of that - though Trump still expelled dozens of Russian diplomats to promote his strong-guy image. Kim Jong-Un is another - he got Trump off his back by massaging his ego and what concessions did Trump actually gain from that (maybe he got some good, if meaningless publicity)?

 

But the bottom line with Trump is that it's "America First" - and beneath that, it's "Trump First". Trump might have expressed some fondness for Johnson, but has the UK gained anything from this? Some Brexiteers hoped for a quick, generous trade deal, but that hasn't been forthcoming.....because it's "America First". If there is ever a US-UK trade deal under Trump, he'd want the best possible deal for the USA - and to suit his personal interests. Massaging his ego wouldn't improve the deal.

 

I wonder if you've been conned by Boris' PR in saying that he's "quite the opposite" from Trump in not having authoritarian instincts? His allies like to paint him as a "natural libertarian". He might have liberal instincts on sexuality and race (though some of his comments bring this into question). But this is also the PM who prorogued parliament to try to force through his will. This is the leader whose manifesto called for a review of "the relationship between Govt, parliament and the courts" - widely seen as a threat to curtail the powers of the courts that had thwarted his will. One of the criticisms of his politics in government - particularly over Covid - has been the desire of his Govt to control everything from the centre, even when local authorities might be better placed to take decisions. He also expelled numerous experienced MPs, including highly-reputed and principled politicians, from the Tory party for trying to prevent a No Deal Brexit.

 

On ego, I think there's a similarity with Trump - and a major difference. The similarity is that they're both massively ego-driven. It's also unclear what their respective core beliefs or core missions are, beyond promoting their personal status. That's pretty unusual to have leaders like that. Thatcher was very driven, but she clearly had a political mission. Blair had a big ego, but also had a political mission. You could disagree with either of them or say that both had an ego, but they were also largely in it to change the country according to their beliefs. Can we really believe that Johnson has a passionate commitment to Brexit or a burning desire to "level up the North"? Like Trump, he'll do/say whatever it takes to promote his personal career/status.

 

The big psychological difference between Trump and Johnson, I think, is that Trump absolutely welcomes conflict and being unpopular with a large chunk of his electorate. Whereas Boris wants the attention of the crowd, but wants people to adulate him or at the very least be entertained and amused, thinking he's a great guy and "one of them" in some strange way. He's uncomfortable with criticism or unpopularity, whereas Trump loves the opportunities for conflict with opponents.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, foxile5 said:

Its not gospel, its just added weight to my argument. 

 

There are too many core similarities in policy, personality, even the way they look. It's not a huge coincidence. I mean you can find tonnes of evidence if you keep looking of people, involved in a professional capacity, acknowledging their deep seated similarities. 

 

The reason tories don't want to acknowledge this is because doing so really acknowledges the fact that we've got someone in charge who is okay with racism, homophobia, and sexism (there are multiple public sources for this, please don't make me go and find them). Far rather dissociate the two and deny it than accept that, morally, we're becoming a right wing nationalist state. 

 

Boris = Trump connects our leader (just a bloody good British chap salt of the earth etc) to quite possibly the worst ever president. I get why this might not be ideal to accept but it doesn't make it any less accurate. 

 

 

 

I said I accept what you say, I just think it's simplest. Thankfully people subsequently have put a bit more effort into make their argument either way than 'it is cos I say it is'. Presumably you think Macron is also Trump lite?

Edited by Kopfkino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

An interesting contribution - and I agree with some points (the disdain & ego similarity; lack of attention to detail; less scope for mud-throwing in UK; the difference re. science denial & racist politics; the need to assess Trump's rhetoric seriously).

 

There's also some truth - but only partial truth - in there being value in massaging Trump's ego. That can work in the short-term. Putin might be an example of that - though Trump still expelled dozens of Russian diplomats to promote his strong-guy image. Kim Jong-Un is another - he got Trump off his back by massaging his ego and what concessions did Trump actually gain from that (maybe he got some good, if meaningless publicity)?

 

But the bottom line with Trump is that it's "America First" - and beneath that, it's "Trump First". Trump might have expressed some fondness for Johnson, but has the UK gained anything from this? Some Brexiteers hoped for a quick, generous trade deal, but that hasn't been forthcoming.....because it's "America First". If there is ever a US-UK trade deal under Trump, he'd want the best possible deal for the USA - and to suit his personal interests. Massaging his ego wouldn't improve the deal.

 

I wonder if you've been conned by Boris' PR in saying that he's "quite the opposite" from Trump in not having authoritarian instincts? His allies like to paint him as a "natural libertarian". He might have liberal instincts on sexuality and race (though some of his comments bring this into question). But this is also the PM who prorogued parliament to try to force through his will. This is the leader whose manifesto called for a review of "the relationship between Govt, parliament and the courts" - widely seen as a threat to curtail the powers of the courts that had thwarted his will. One of the criticisms of his politics in government - particularly over Covid - has been the desire of his Govt to control everything from the centre, even when local authorities might be better placed to take decisions. He also expelled numerous experienced MPs, including highly-reputed and principled politicians, from the Tory party for trying to prevent a No Deal Brexit.

 

On ego, I think there's a similarity with Trump - and a major difference. The similarity is that they're both massively ego-driven. It's also unclear what their respective core beliefs or core missions are, beyond promoting their personal status. That's pretty unusual to have leaders like that. Thatcher was very driven, but she clearly had a political mission. Blair had a big ego, but also had a political mission. You could disagree with either of them or say that both had an ego, but they were also largely in it to change the country according to their beliefs. Can we really believe that Johnson has a passionate commitment to Brexit or a burning desire to "level up the North"? Like Trump, he'll do/say whatever it takes to promote his personal career/status.

 

The big psychological difference between Trump and Johnson, I think, is that Trump absolutely welcomes conflict and being unpopular with a large chunk of his electorate. Whereas Boris wants the attention of the crowd, but wants people to adulate him or at the very least be entertained and amused, thinking he's a great guy and "one of them" in some strange way. He's uncomfortable with criticism or unpopularity, whereas Trump loves the opportunities for conflict with opponents.

 

 


For the most part I agree with all this, and hear what you and Mac say about the value that can be obtained - or rather not - of a relationship with Trump.

 

With regard to the bolder bit, I personally don’t judge Boris as authoritarian because of this. At least not to the wider public. Without wanting to delve down that particular complex rabbit hole too far, the country found itself last year in the midst of the Battle of Brexit. The Leave side looked at what was going on, some of which came from the Conservative backbenches - the Letwin amendment springs to mind for one - and saw traps being set all over the place. Essentially, if you’re a hard Remainer you see the last attempts of elected parliament to prevent a disaster; if you’re a hard Leaver you see the last attempts of arrogant parliament to block the proven will of the people.
 

I didn’t like Boris and co’s actions at that time. Neither of the two things you mentioned reflected well on them and in normal times the illegal prorogation of parliament should have been a resignation offence. But I understand them as a response to perceived opposing dirty tricks. I think it’s perspective: On one side, Boris is subverting the democracy of parliament by illegally preventing it from sitting. On the other side, he’s trying to protect democracy in the country by fighting those who are trying to subvert it. Which side you sit on that I think depends on your own political opinions. But either way I think his actions then should be taken in that context, instead of being part of a wider pattern of authoritarian instincts.

Edited by Dunge
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dunge said:


For the most part I agree with all this, and hear what you and Mac say about the value that can be obtained - or rather not - of a relationship with Trump.

 

With regard to the bolder bit, I personally don’t judge Boris as authoritarian because of this. At least not to the wider public. Without wanting to delve down that particular complex rabbit hole too far, the country found itself last year in the midst of the Battle of Brexit. The Leave side looked at what was going on, some of which came from the Conservative backbenches - the Letwin amendment springs to mind for one - and saw traps being set all over the place. Essentially, if you’re a hard Remainer you see the last attempts of elected parliament to prevent a disaster; if you’re a hard Leaver you see the last attempts of arrogant parliament to block the proven will of the people.
 

I didn’t like Boris and co’s actions at that time. Neither of the two things you mentioned reflected well on them and in normal times the illegal prorogation of parliament should have been a resignation offence. But I understand them as a response to perceived opposing dirty tricks. I think it’s perspective: On one side, Boris is subverting the democracy of parliament by illegally preventing it from sitting. On the other side, he’s trying to protect democracy in the country by fighting those who are trying to subvert it. Which side you sit on that I think depends on your own political opinions. But either way I think his actions then should be taken in that context, instead of being part of a wider pattern of authoritarian instincts.

 

Thanks for your reasoned response.

 

But your argument is based on polarising things into Hard Remainers and Hard Leavers more than is reasonable. The MPs whose actions Johnson was combating mainly started off as Remainers in 2016, but were largely resigned to Brexit since losing the referendum. They were seeking to prevent the risk of No Deal, a policy that had never won any democratic mandate from either the people or parliament. That is not the subversion of democracy/proven will of the people. Most, if not all of them had voted for May's Deal or softer versions of Brexit. So they can hardly be characterised as Hard Remainers. The idea that they were up to dirty tricks to prevent ANY form of Brexit - for which there was a mandate - is in the realms of conspiracy theory for me.

 

I can understand the frustration of No Deal supporters that their preferred policy was being thwarted, but as they didn't already have a referendum mandate for that and couldn't win one in parliament, that's democracy and hard cheese, I'm afraid. I've been frustrated by all sorts of policies over the years from Thatcher to Blair's Iraq War to the Brexit vote, but there was a democratic mandate for those things, sadly.

 

I struggle to see how a Govt can "protect democracy" by suspending parliament with the aim of forcing through a policy that has no majority in parliament and no electoral/referendum mandate.

That seems to me like the very definition of authoritarian, not to mention anti-democratic.

If Corbyn had been elected with a mandate to nationalise a few public utilities and had proceeded to suspend parliament so as to nationalise all private firms so as to bypass parliamentary opposition, would he have been "protecting democracy"?

 

On a personal level, I voted Remain (though I didn't decide until a week before the referendum) but then supported Brexit going ahead - preferably in a Soft form - for most of the crisis. So, I wouldn't see myself as a Hard Remainer either, only a Hard Democrat (UK, not US sense!).

 

Anyway, a rabbit hole, as you say.....and one that events have moved on from, though authoritarian, anti-democratic precedents may have been set for the future. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks for your reasoned response.

 

But your argument is based on polarising things into Hard Remainers and Hard Leavers more than is reasonable. The MPs whose actions Johnson was combating mainly started off as Remainers in 2016, but were largely resigned to Brexit since losing the referendum. They were seeking to prevent the risk of No Deal, a policy that had never won any democratic mandate from either the people or parliament. That is not the subversion of democracy/proven will of the people. Most, if not all of them had voted for May's Deal or softer versions of Brexit. So they can hardly be characterised as Hard Remainers. The idea that they were up to dirty tricks to prevent ANY form of Brexit - for which there was a mandate - is in the realms of conspiracy theory for me.

 

I can understand the frustration of No Deal supporters that their preferred policy was being thwarted, but as they didn't already have a referendum mandate for that and couldn't win one in parliament, that's democracy and hard cheese, I'm afraid. I've been frustrated by all sorts of policies over the years from Thatcher to Blair's Iraq War to the Brexit vote, but there was a democratic mandate for those things, sadly.

 

I struggle to see how a Govt can "protect democracy" by suspending parliament with the aim of forcing through a policy that has no majority in parliament and no electoral/referendum mandate.

That seems to me like the very definition of authoritarian, not to mention anti-democratic.

If Corbyn had been elected with a mandate to nationalise a few public utilities and had proceeded to suspend parliament so as to nationalise all private firms so as to bypass parliamentary opposition, would he have been "protecting democracy"?

 

On a personal level, I voted Remain (though I didn't decide until a week before the referendum) but then supported Brexit going ahead - preferably in a Soft form - for most of the crisis. So, I wouldn't see myself as a Hard Remainer either, only a Hard Democrat (UK, not US sense!).

 

Anyway, a rabbit hole, as you say.....and one that events have moved on from, though authoritarian, anti-democratic precedents may have been set for the future. 


Yeah, as I say - I wouldn’t say that I agreed with his actions. And I accept I’m being simplistic saying there were two sides (actually there were three and not one of them could get a majority, which was a big part of the problem). But it’s more to say that the situation was a mess, the whole country had ground to a halt and I understand why he and his team fought the way they did given how the other side(s) were fighting as well. I thought it would end in a second, potentially complex or multi-way referendum. But then I also thought Theresa May’s deal would get through eventually as well and parliament blocked that too. Ultimately, whichever option was backed at that time was going to be something that hadn’t been expressly voted for, including - ironically - a second referendum.

 

I think it’s worth noting that the authoritarianism you’re referencing was more about the internals of the Conservative party than the country. I know the whole of Brexit has been expressed that way, but this specifically was internals - particularly the removal of the whip. That becomes more a question of the party, what it stands for and how it presents itself. I don’t think it impacts on personal freedoms. Similarly, the prorogation was (disgracefully) used as a political game to combat other political games rather than anything more sinister. The fact it opened the door for it to be used in the future for more sinister, potentially authoritarian means is precisely what I don’t like about it. But I still don’t see the action itself that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dunge said:


Yeah, as I say - I wouldn’t say that I agreed with his actions. And I accept I’m being simplistic saying there were two sides (actually there were three and not one of them could get a majority, which was a big part of the problem). But it’s more to say that the situation was a mess, the whole country had ground to a halt and I understand why he and his team fought the way they did given how the other side(s) were fighting as well. I thought it would end in a second, potentially complex or multi-way referendum. But then I also thought Theresa May’s deal would get through eventually as well and parliament blocked that too. Ultimately, whichever option was backed at that time was going to be something that hadn’t been expressly voted for, including - ironically - a second referendum.

 

I think it’s worth noting that the authoritarianism you’re referencing was more about the internals of the Conservative party than the country. I know the whole of Brexit has been expressed that way, but this specifically was internals - particularly the removal of the whip. That becomes more a question of the party, what it stands for and how it presents itself. I don’t think it impacts on personal freedoms. Similarly, the prorogation was (disgracefully) used as a political game to combat other political games rather than anything more sinister. The fact it opened the door for it to be used in the future for more sinister, potentially authoritarian means is precisely what I don’t like about it. But I still don’t see the action itself that way.

 

I'd better not get into the intricate ancient history of the parliamentary tussle over Brexit. Except to agree that it was a mess - for which Cameron's cynical party management machinations were largely to blame, leaving us with no clear mandate for anything specific (except to leave the EU on terms unspecified).

 

It may be up to the Tory Party to decide what it stands for (and the removal of the whip from the rebels served that purpose). But the  prorogation of parliament absolutely impacted on wider personal freedoms - such as the freedom of everyone to democratic representation on the biggest political issue for a generation! Anyway, I've made my case on Boris' centralising, authoritarian instincts (despite his bullshit PR about being a great libertarian as well as, supposedly, a lovable rascal). Time to move on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I struggle to see how a Govt can "protect democracy" by suspending parliament with the aim of forcing through a policy that has no majority in parliament and no electoral/referendum mandate.

I recognise this has been done to death and you're keen to move on but it had both a mandate from the people and parliament. It's implied consent. It had a mandate from the people because the people revealed a desire to leave the EU and thus to invoke Article 50 via a referendum. In practice although not law, parliament superseded its own sovereignty with the sovereignty of the people voted to allow the referendum, but even so parliament did vote to trigger Article 50. Article 50 stipulates that after 2 years, the default position is no deal. So in both cases, there was a vote that set in motion a process to leave the EU without a deal. 

 

I didn't agree with proroguing parliament to force through no deal, and I wouldn't say it was protecting democracy, but we had a situation where parliament refused to do its job. It refused to allow what the people and itself had voted to do in letting the Article 50 process reach its end, it refused to take the treaty presented before it, it refused wrestle backs its sovereignty by revoking Article 50, it refused to return to the people so they could get it right second time around, and it refused to dissolve itself. What we were destined to end up with, had it continued, was 3 years of parliament refusing to allow the instruction handed to it by the sovereign people to be completed. The problem really was that parliament believed itself to be above its station, maybe Cromwell's words are apt "Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you who were deputed by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance"

 

Anyway, the proroguing of parliament wasn't really about forcing anything through, the theatre and the optics were just part of a game that culminated rather successfully on December 12th. 

 

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

If Corbyn had been elected with a mandate to nationalise a few public utilities and had proceeded to suspend parliament so as to nationalise all private firms so as to bypass parliamentary opposition, would he have been "protecting democracy"?

It's nothing like the same though. Because a referendum creates a situation where the people are sovereign and handing instruction to the two parliamentary chambers, which means parliamentary sovereignty is trumped by popular sovereignty. Parliament can be in direct conflict with the people because when they hand the decision over to the people, it's entirely possible they parliament and the people could disagree, as with Brexit. In a general election, it's impossible for parliament to be in conflict with the people because the people ask MPs to represent them, they don't give them any specific instruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'd better not get into the intricate ancient history of the parliamentary tussle over Brexit. Except to agree that it was a mess - for which Cameron's cynical party management machinations were largely to blame, leaving us with no clear mandate for anything specific (except to leave the EU on terms unspecified).

 

It may be up to the Tory Party to decide what it stands for (and the removal of the whip from the rebels served that purpose). But the  prorogation of parliament absolutely impacted on wider personal freedoms - such as the freedom of everyone to democratic representation on the biggest political issue for a generation! Anyway, I've made my case on Boris' centralising, authoritarian instincts (despite his bullshit PR about being a great libertarian as well as, supposedly, a lovable rascal). Time to move on....


There’s something about the word “Libertarian” that I always initially read as “Librarian” and it throws me completely. 🙂

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

I recognise this has been done to death and you're keen to move on but it had both a mandate from the people and parliament. It's implied consent. It had a mandate from the people because the people revealed a desire to leave the EU and thus to invoke Article 50 via a referendum. In practice although not law, parliament superseded its own sovereignty with the sovereignty of the people voted to allow the referendum, but even so parliament did vote to trigger Article 50. Article 50 stipulates that after 2 years, the default position is no deal. So in both cases, there was a vote that set in motion a process to leave the EU without a deal. 

 

I didn't agree with proroguing parliament to force through no deal, and I wouldn't say it was protecting democracy, but we had a situation where parliament refused to do its job. It refused to allow what the people and itself had voted to do in letting the Article 50 process reach its end, it refused to take the treaty presented before it, it refused wrestle backs its sovereignty by revoking Article 50, it refused to return to the people so they could get it right second time around, and it refused to dissolve itself. What we were destined to end up with, had it continued, was 3 years of parliament refusing to allow the instruction handed to it by the sovereign people to be completed. The problem really was that parliament believed itself to be above its station, maybe Cromwell's words are apt "Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you who were deputed by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance"

 

Anyway, the proroguing of parliament wasn't really about forcing anything through, the theatre and the optics were just part of a game that culminated rather successfully on December 12th. 

 

It's nothing like the same though. Because a referendum creates a situation where the people are sovereign and handing instruction to the two parliamentary chambers, which means parliamentary sovereignty is trumped by popular sovereignty. Parliament can be in direct conflict with the people because when they hand the decision over to the people, it's entirely possible they parliament and the people could disagree, as with Brexit. In a general election, it's impossible for parliament to be in conflict with the people because the people ask MPs to represent them, they don't give them any specific instruction.

 

I'd accept your argument for a democratic mandate if No Deal had been triggered due to parliament allowing the 2-year deadline to expire or to some other circumstance (e.g. EU refusing extension & parliament not revoking or agreeing another way forward). But parliament democratically (and successfully) sought to block No Deal - and all other options, as you rightly say. It's certainly fair to criticise parliament's failure to agree a way forward, but that was a democratic process - and one that hadn't yet reached its conclusion. What conclusion it would otherwise have reached and when, I don't know, but something would have had to give sooner rather than later - not least as neither the British people nor the EU would have tolerated it continuing too much longer. Of course, Article 50 also allowed for extensions beyond 2 years by mutual UK/EU agreement, which had already happened under May.

 

Although parliament deserved criticism for failing to find a solution (to that point), it was government that got above its station in suspending parliament so as to force a policy through (even if that was a negotiating ploy and No Deal might not have actually happened). Nice - and relevant - Cromwell quote, but if a severely under-prepared UK had been deliberately or accidentally forced into No Deal at short notice due to prorogation, the people would also have had grievances against its odious govt, not just its odious parliament!

 

I agree with your point about Johnson cynically and successfully using the Brexit impasse as theatre to win 5 years of majority govt.

 

My Corbyn analogy is not quite the same, but you're overstating the difference. The referendum had advisory status, so the sovereign people were handing parliament a recommendation, not an instruction. Now, I absolutely agree that parliament had to follow that recommendation, even if it was technically "advisory". To have NOT left the EU would have been scandalous (and it's also why I opposed revocation throughout - or a 2nd referendum until the latter stages). But the recommendation/mandate was to leave the EU, without specifying on what basis - and, rightly or wrongly, the democratic debate about that basis was still ongoing.....and MPs without any specific instruction were representing their constituents in trying (very unsuccessfully) in seeking a way out of the Brexit mess created by Cameron's cynicism and stupid party management miscalculations.

 

Interesting stuff, but I really am out of this old debate now - though I'm sure we'll discuss the Brexit future (maybe even the past) in the Brexit thread in coming months.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Government openly admitting to outright breaking international law. 

 

Lovely. What a fine government we have in place, in charge of the country. Very respectable. 

Three thoughts strike me on this 

 

1. After hearing about the deceitful and untrustworthy Barnier and his EU buddies, we now have an act which is exactly those things pulled off by Johnson. 
 

2. Pulling off this trick now, hardly bodes well for any future trade negotiations. What partners would be willing to deal with a government happy to break international law and go on their word. 
 

3. The decision appears to have zero consultation and regard with the people it actually matters too. The Northern Irish public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

3. The decision appears to have zero consultation and regard with the people it actually matters too. The Northern Irish public. 

They have no regard for anyone in this country, or Ireland, or the rest of Europe. Johnson is solely interested in power, Cummings is interested in whatever weird vendettas he has. The WA was only a way to win an election. They have destroyed the reputation of the country, and are willing to seriously damage its economy, in order to further their careers. 

They'll be pissing themselves in autocratic regimes all over the World. 

 

Good job for them the British public are bored of Brexit.

Edited by bovril
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...