British politics

Page 49 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep Brullnix, what did the Brexiteers really want or expect?

The schizo view of EU inside the Tory Party - they want "Johnny Foreigners" money, but not anything to do with him - was obvious before and now is on the verge of splitting in two the Tories.

"if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand" - which UKIP & other anti-EU forces exploited to push Cameron into a fateful decision over pizza in O'Hare airport.

It all seems to me to be a lot like Trump's MAGA promises of "it was better before" - did not a lot of older people vote for Brexit? Reality is a b**** sometimes.
 
It is driven by fear of invasion by swarthy-skinned hordes (hence imagery of Spitfires over White cliffs of Dover, and talk of the need for a Churchillian figure of unity) coupled with a mealy-mouthed distrust of former enemies (the Frogs and the Hun/Nazis) and feelings that they are trying to bully/defeat/trick us. "Us" being 52% of those who voted.

I'm pretty embarrassed, frankly.
 
https://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/brittisk-minister-al-qaida-planerar-nya-attacker-mot-passagerarflyg/
A “resurgent” Al-Qaeda is targeting Europe for terror attacks against airliners and airports, the security minister has warned.

Ben Wallace said the decline of Isis – after becoming “the latest terrorist boy band” – had created renewed space for the group made infamous by the September 11 atrocity in 2001.

He revealed the government was ploughing £25m into a research programme to protect planes from new methods of explosion and “insider threats”.

And he warned: “The aviation threat is real. Aviation is still a blue riband event for these terrorists.

“Al-Qaeda are resurgent. They have reorganised. They are pushing more and more plots towards Europe and have become familiar with new methods and still aspire to aviation attacks.”

Speaking to The Sunday Times, Mr Wallace said improvements in airport security meant terrorists were less likely to smuggle explosive through terminal security systems:

“They have explored other ways of getting bombs on planes. We've talked publicly about an insider threat issue. If you can't get in the front door, you're going to try to get in the back door,” the minister said.

He pointed to a failed attack against an Australian airliner in July 2017 as evidence that aviation targets are still a favourite with terrorists:

“In 2019, we should be alert to al-Qaeda. They are re-energising some previous links and support and their ambition towards aviation is real. We saw in Australia that terrorists do what works and they don't give up.”

And he added: “Al-Qaeda sat quietly in the corner and tried to work out what the 21st century looked like, while Isis became the latest terrorist boy band, but they have not gone away.
... and Gatwick can be shut down by a couple of cheap drones. :mad:
Has this man been on the egg-nog or does he think we're all idiots?
 
Labour have their Brexit problems too with the young uns not too happy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/22/corbyn-faces-furious-backlash-over-backing-brexit
Jeremy Corbyn is facing a storm of criticism from Labour activists and MPs after suggesting he would press ahead with Brexit if the party won a snap general election.

In a sign that he is losing backing among overwhelmingly pro-remain Labour supporters, Corbyn was also accused of betraying the party membership by appearing reluctant to back the idea of supporting remain in a second referendum.

The first signs of a serious internal revolt from party members on the left, who helped propel him to the leadership, came after Corbyn gave an interview to the Guardian in which he suggested he thought Brexit should go ahead and said EU state-aid rules would prevent a Labour government intervening to support UK industries.

His anti-EU tone drew immediate criticism from party supporters and members who had successfully persuaded the leadership to back the possibility of a second referendum at Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool in September.

Richard Brooks, a Labour member, activist and co-founder of For our Future’s Sake (FFS), a pro-remain youth and student-led organisation, said Corbyn risked losing the backing of young people as well as the mass Labour membership he had promised to empower. “Jeremy Corbyn is in danger of betraying and losing the support of millions of young people and students who very nearly propelled him to Downing Street last year, and whose support he needs if he is to ever to become prime minister.
For our Future’s Sake?! Good one :D
 
Corbyn seems to have the same problems as May -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-christmas-recess-brexit-deal-vote-recall-parliament-commons-a8699596.html
With just 91 days remaining until Britain formally leaves the European Union, Mr Corbyn also reiterated it is a matter of “when, not if” Labour attempts to force a general election by tabling a motion of no confidence in the government, which he signalled will come in the aftermath of Ms May’s deal failing to receive MPs’ backing.

But he refused to be drawn on whether a Labour government would seek to extend Article 50, given that just weeks would remain for any renegotiation of Britain’s exit from the bloc, and claimed: “Lots of things are possible, the EU has longform on reopening and extending negotiations, but let’s not jump too many hoops when we haven’t arrived at them.”
...
Now Mr Corbyn is facing demands from anti-Brexit activists within the party to convene an emergency conference to reevaluate the party’s strategy in the coming weeks – ahead of any vote – but the Labour leader said he did not “at this stage see the need for a special conference”.

“A special conference would take some time to organise anyway,” he added. “I think we do have the agreement of conference on the overall position, and we do have a very large and representative national executive. But obviously if the national executive wanted to hold a special conference they would say so, but I have not had any indications of that from members.”
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
The Hitch said:
Robert5091 said:
Robert5091 said:
https://www.thenation.com/article/britain-brexit-crisis-eu/
Indeed, the government’s own reports show that every version of leaving the EU harms the UK economy; the differences are only ones of degree. Such damage will hit hardest exactly the section of the population least able to afford it.
So who exactly gains by Brexit?
Well the "Masters of the Universe" in the City, want Brexit to make bets come good.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/10/hedge-funds-make-big-bets-against-post-brexit-uk-economy
A pair of hedge funds owned by prominent Brexit supporters have made significant bets against companies exposed to the British consumer including big high street names.

Odey Asset Management, part-owned by Crispin Odey, and Marshall Wace, part-owned by Sir Paul Marshall, have declared short positions against consumer-exposed companies, including retailers, estate agents and banks, equivalent to £149m and £572m respectively – as rising political uncertainty threatens the economy.

The retail sector is facing particular scrutiny from short sellers, who in effect wager significant sums on certain shares falling in value. Uncertainty among consumers, with the Brexit process reaching a crunch point, comes at a time when retailers are already struggling to adjust to the move from physical shops to online.
IIRC the City, the banks, the financial world, was all very anti Brexit, so your attempt to find the "rich bad guys vs good poor guys" narrative here, feels pretty ridiculous.

King Boonen said:
[quote="Merckx index":11o8wx9o] Leave winning left the Government in an impossible position due to the amount of bollocks and lies told to the public by the leave campaign, effectively promising them something completely unachievable.
Lets address this claim, "leave only one because of lies". One hear's this a lot, still, even 2 years after the fact and its pretty incredible.

Every election since the history of elections has involved lies and people being lied too. Yet I never heard this complaint so much.

And i find it pretty pathetic, because it implies a) that you know why people voted the way they did, which is the kind of patronising elitism that has turned many away from the modern left. How do you know why people voted why they did. They clearly have vastly different attitudes and opinions to you. It fits so well with the main archetype that surrounded Brexit, which was the shock of the political class, at just how much they distanced themselves from the average person. Who they now portray as stupid.

Which makes sense as "leave only won because of lies" also of course implies b) that the people that voted for Brexit are stupid or at least enough of them are stupid to fall for the bad lies of the bad guys.

And worst of all it implies c) that your candidates don't lie, they are morally superior because your tribe is superior and the other tribe is evil. People seem to really believe that their side of this election was fair, or that when in the past their candidates won elections, they were good and above politics and moral but now the forces of Sauron have taken back politics.

I used to hear this argument, 2 years ago, from friends and relations in their early 20's, some of whom didnt even know what "MEP" stands for but they just knew that the bad guys were racists, old, cheated, lied etc.

But now we hear it increasingly from politicians or activists on forums and its silly.

Maybe leave won because that's simply what a majority of the people wanted?
Ah but then the world wouldn't be so conveniently black and white I guess
Several comments on this.

Firstly the remark about people turning away from "modern left" because they are patronising is irrelevant. The Remain campaign has nothing to do with the Left. It is a cross-party issue. This is why we are in political stasis.

We DO know who voted, which way they voted, and the reasons they gave. There are two comments to be made about this. Firstly there is a correlation between educational achievement and voting patterns. We know that Remain voters havs a higher level of education. There may be some truth in the accusation that Leave voters are thick!

However you are absolutely correct when you imply that telling Leave voters that they are stupid will not win them over. The problem for the Remain campaign is to promote a message that is stronger than the seductive and emotive lies and promises made to them by the fly-by-night charlatan politicians of Vote Leave.


Secondly, it is unequivocal that Leave voters based their votes on an unprovable hypothesis, namely that the UK would somehow be "better" out of the EU. "Better" has still not been defined by Leave voters or advocates.

Remain voters knew exactly what they were voting for, because they were voting for the status quo.

From what I can see of Leave voters reasoning, it is largely based on emotion rather than rational thought (hardly surprising given that they are less educated). We are still seeing these emotive arguments, even now..."the EU are taking the piss and trying to bully us etc. "

There is a contradiction at the heart of the Leave economic argument, that we will secure better trade deals outside of the EU. You cannot say this when we have favourable trading arrangements within the EU for trading with EU countries AND the majority of our trade is with EU members.

My view? I think Leave voters identified a legitimate grievance....but they are blaming it on the wrong people.

The huge irony is that it is EU law which helps prevent the less-advantaged members of UK society be exploited by employers in terms of wages, conditions, health and safety and environmental protection.[/quote]

I find your fetishization of education disturbing.

Do not confuse being educated with being right. Especially not in modern Britain where education just means - spent a few years partying at Uni. Especially since having an education is still to a large degree dictated by social class. And a degree in just about any subject classifies as "an education".

Nevermind its just one step removed from the authoritarian argument of - since the voters are stupid, lets just rule for them.

Now I do agree that certain "educated" people are the best candidates to make certain decisions, run companies, governments etc. But that's not all educated people. Id probably take 10 random working class lads, who had a work ethic instilled in them when they were young and have life experience, to run my local council over 10 random "educated" kids, knowing what kind of entitlement and arrogance the latter group may hold.

Have you even taken a look at whats going on in the universities recently, with the protests verging on violence against people being even allowed to speak, and extremists getting onto student bodies.

But even if educated people may know more about what the best decision is, you seem to forget that people vote for their own interest.

When "educated" voters vote for something its just as likely that they are voting for it because it will benefit their group, rather than because they are some benevolent warriors looking to help society.
 
I think you probably spent a little too long on your post given that it is in reply to what was largely a tongue in cheek remark, certainly the element about voter stupidity.

Nevertheless, the correlation between voting pattern and educational level is there and cannot be waved away quite so glibly. If higher education is not about learning to look at detail in order to arrive at a rational conclusion then what is it? Anecdotally, every conversation I have had with Leave voters has been unedifying precisely because of the emotive level of their reasoning and the lack of actual knowledge upon which to base their decision.

There is much in your post with which I agree, particularly about the link between educational level and social class and I think we all know that social institutions, such as education, are heavily geared towards favouring the dominant class via various mechanisms.

Your seemingly axiomatic remark about voters voting for their own interests needs refining. Voters vote for what they think is in their best interest, but frequently discover that it turns out not to be the case. Just ask anybody on lower incomes who voted Conservative in 2010. Equally, it seems to me that for a plethora of reasons, it will be the poorer voters who stand to be most exposed to the effects of Brexit, with the potential for removal of workers' rights and environmental protections in what is actually an extreme neo-liberal project. Are they voting to be poorer whilst the elite get richer, because this is the likely outcome?
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/01/04/britain-clings-imperial-nostalgia-brexit-looms/
Imperial nostalgia has always shadowed the push for Brexit. Diehard Brexiteers conjured visions of Britain restored to its former glory once free of the E.U.'s bureaucratic shackles; government officials spoke of an “Empire 2.0,” anchored by new trade deals with Commonwealth countries.

Even as Brexit teetered on the verge of collapse last month, the old colonial hubris wasn’t far from view. “We simply cannot allow the Irish to treat us like this,” an anonymous Tory grandee told the BBC, referring to Ireland’s maneuvering over the future status of its border with Britain. “The Irish really should know their place.”

Those convictions — as much as Brexiteer anger over immigration and E.U. regulations — have long animated a segment of the British press and public. “After more than four decades in the EU we are in danger of persuading ourselves that we have forgotten how to run the country by ourselves,” noted an editorial in the Sunday Times over the weekend. “A people who within living memory governed a quarter of the world’s land area and a fifth of its population is surely capable of governing itself without Brussels.”
...
But along with imperial nostalgia comes a fair amount of delusion. If Brexit takes place with no deal, Britain’s politicians won’t have the luxury to launch new projects away from Europe: They’ll be bogged down by a seemingly endless bureaucratic and political struggle with the continent, wrangling over everything from finalized trade arrangements to Britain’s border with Ireland to the status of hundreds of thousands of E.U. citizens on British soil.

Nor will Britain’s small military count for much, no matter where it is posted. “Symbolic frigates and infantry battalions scattered across the territories of the old British empire may comfort golf club Tories, and pander to service traditions, but they are strategically worthless,” wrote Paul Mason in the New Statesman.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/01/04/britain-clings-imperial-nostalgia-brexit-looms/
Imperial nostalgia has always shadowed the push for Brexit. Diehard Brexiteers conjured visions of Britain restored to its former glory once free of the E.U.'s bureaucratic shackles; government officials spoke of an “Empire 2.0,” anchored by new trade deals with Commonwealth countries.

Even as Brexit teetered on the verge of collapse last month, the old colonial hubris wasn’t far from view. “We simply cannot allow the Irish to treat us like this,” an anonymous Tory grandee told the BBC, referring to Ireland’s maneuvering over the future status of its border with Britain. “The Irish really should know their place.”

Those convictions — as much as Brexiteer anger over immigration and E.U. regulations — have long animated a segment of the British press and public. “After more than four decades in the EU we are in danger of persuading ourselves that we have forgotten how to run the country by ourselves,” noted an editorial in the Sunday Times over the weekend. “A people who within living memory governed a quarter of the world’s land area and a fifth of its population is surely capable of governing itself without Brussels.”
...
But along with imperial nostalgia comes a fair amount of delusion. If Brexit takes place with no deal, Britain’s politicians won’t have the luxury to launch new projects away from Europe: They’ll be bogged down by a seemingly endless bureaucratic and political struggle with the continent, wrangling over everything from finalized trade arrangements to Britain’s border with Ireland to the status of hundreds of thousands of E.U. citizens on British soil.

Nor will Britain’s small military count for much, no matter where it is posted. “Symbolic frigates and infantry battalions scattered across the territories of the old British empire may comfort golf club Tories, and pander to service traditions, but they are strategically worthless,” wrote Paul Mason in the New Statesman.
Ahhh ... feck!!!

Where's William Jardine, thousands of chests of opium and buncha gun boats when you need 'em!?!
 
The Brexiteer mentality is that of the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that others are out to try and cheat or control them. I'd love to see a Venn diagram of the overlap of Brexit voters and climate change sceptics.
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/u-k-economy-under-pressure-as-brexit-deadline-approaches?srnd=premium-europe
The first week of the new year brought a slew of bleak reports for the U.K. economy, highlighting the scale of the challenges to come as Britain prepares to leave the European Union.

Data Friday showed the housing market had its worst 12 months since 2013 last year, consumers remained reticent about borrowing and a gauge of services, the largest part of the economy, stayed sluggish. The latter report, combined with measures of construction and manufacturing, indicates growth may have slowed to 0.1 percent in the final quarter of last year, according to IHS Markit.

“The economy effectively has ground to a halt, primarily due to mounting concerns about Brexit,” said Samuel Tombs, an economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.
Everyone's waiting to see what happens, or does not happen. Time to restock the Anderson Shelter just in case.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Well I've bought an extra couple of bog rolls....just in case
I'd get one of those big family packs if I were you :D

From October 2018 -
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the-brexit-risk-to-toilet-paper-1-5754027
There are fears that the United Kingdom could run out of toilet roll in the event of Brexit – especially if it crashes out of the European Union in five months’ time.

According to Denis MacShane each Brit consumes 110 toilet rolls a year – that is two and a half times the European average.

The former Europe minister said that the UK only has one day’s supply of toilet paper in stock at any time, and that stockpile would soon be wiped out if it crashes out of the EU customs union and single market.

MacShane told Prospect: “If Britain leaves the EU Customs Union and single market in five months’ time and the trucks transporting toilet paper are held up at Calais or Dover, British bottoms will have to be wiped with torn-up newspapers as in bygone days.”
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46777987
MPs will vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal on Tuesday, 15 January, government sources have confirmed.

Meanwhile, more than 200 MPs have signed a letter to Theresa May, urging her to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

It comes as a major exercise involving more than 100 lorries is being carried out in Kent to test out how to manage traffic queues near the Channel ports in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Popcorn ready? The circus is back in town! :)
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46789601

I hope we've reached peak Brexit, because if this goes further it's worrying.
Is it really though?

How many 'protesters' were there? I counted 8. All men. All look like morons.

I'm wondering why this deserves air time. When Johnson or Gove get heckled nobody gives a stuff.

....and I say this as an arch-Johnson/Gove hater.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
King Boonen said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46789601

I hope we've reached peak Brexit, because if this goes further it's worrying.
Is it really though?

How many 'protesters' were there? I counted 8. All men. All look like morons.

I'm wondering why this deserves air time. When Johnson or Gove get heckled nobody gives a stuff.

....and I say this as an arch-Johnson/Gove hater.
Yes, it is. Fascism is always worrying and that's what this is. It's not heckling.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
How does a small bunch of people shouting "Soubry is a Nazi" constitute fascism?
Suppression of democracy and opposition, racism and ultra-nationalism and collaboration with traditional elites are some of the basic tenents of Fascism on display in this group (and I'm not just referring to this one video). Paxton and Britt have given good examples/definitions of Fascism that can easily be found online I believe. It can look very similar to Colonialism.

It doesn't matter if it's a small group, two of the most prominent Facist governments of the past started with about 50 and 100 people. What matters is that people are becoming more comfortable expressing these views.
 
Suppression of democracy...now there's a good one.

There was a referendum remember?

Its hard to not to agree that undermining the referendum result, which is what Soubry and others (and me!) are doing is suppressing democracy. These people have legitimate grounds for complaint. With regards to the specifics of the individuals involved, I...a pretty savvy news reader...haven't heard much in the way of detail of their views. I would suggest this is because they arent getting air time. Who are they and what are they proposing?

What about these examples, are they fascism...

https://youtu.be/vBH9dJc7gkY

https://youtu.be/3tkQBv18cmA
 
I’m sorry, suppression of democracy by holding a vote? Seriously? Is a general election a suppression of democracy? Is it actually worth continuing this conversation?

I’m not going to go through examples and define Fascism for you. There are plenty of resources online for you to do that and draw your own conclusions. If you don’t agree with what I have said that’s fine, I’ll answer that, but I’m not going down the “what is X” rabbit hole.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
I’m sorry, suppression of democracy by holding a vote? Seriously? Is a general election a suppression of democracy? Is it actually worth continuing this conversation?
False equivalence.

A referendum with a promise to enact the result is exactly that and nothing else. A general election is part of our 5 year electoral system. They are not the same, and your argument is a fallacy.

Sorry, as much as I think Brexit is a terrible idea, I do think the referendum was a democratic decision. If you agree with democracy you have to agree with its outcomes whether you like it or not.. It's the paradox of democracy.

I’m not going to go through examples and define Fascism for you. There are plenty of resources online for you to do that and draw your own conclusions. If you don’t agree with what I have said that’s fine, I’ll answer that, but I’m not going down the “what is X” rabbit hole.
Which, in my view, amply demonstrates how fascism is not a clear cut term, and is widely misused. I'm sorry but if you want to use these terms you have to explain your understanding of them and demonstrate how the behaviours you cite fit within your definition.

I'm interested to know if you feel that the examples of behaviour I link to are fascism, or not, and if they are any different to these Soubry botherers.
 
The last election was a snap election. The referendum was advisory when people voted, they decided to make it binding afterwards and enacting the result could literally mean leaving the EU but signing up to agree to everything they decide inperpetuity. Both of those two things could be argued as subverting democracy or upholding it depending on which side you fall, especially compared to holding a vote to decide what final decision people wish to take. Democracy doesn’t end, people have a right to change their mind when new information comes to light and now we actually have specifics it seems to be the most logical thing to do.

No, fascism is not a clear cut term with a hard definition, just like the UK version of democracy isn’t the same as the French version, the US version, socialism can take on different forms and so on. Attempting to force a definition by defining it across different occurances doesn’t work. There are certain key things that underpin it. Fascist also are unlikely to come out and declare themselves fascists anymore. They will try to hide their real beliefs until they gain power or feel more confident they will be accepted. I’ve outlined why I believe this is an example of fascism (and you only questioned one point) , you are free to agree or disagree, but in reality it doesn’t matter. What matters in this discussion, at least to me, is if you feel it is wrong and should be stopped.

If you really want to debate definitions you can start a thread on ethics etc., but I generally don’t join those kinds of discussions, which is kind of why I’m not willing to turn this into one of those discussions. It’s fine in the abstract but in the specific it’s a way that people avoid actually discussing the problem. Look at the recent debates over who can be racist to who rather than actually addressing the racism that is a problem, or attempting to define the gender pay gap rather than working on closing it. I’m not saying this is what you’re doing, it’s just not a rabbit hole I want to jump down, instead of addressing the specific problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY