Brexit Thread

[Beskar]

You say the NHS has had a 15% cut in real-terms in the last five years? Well, the NHS had massive cash injections during the Blair years and it didn't perform much better then - so just throwing money at the problem won't help. Every other department has received bigger cuts, cuts which have resulted in job losses amongst other things, and we're still running a deficit. The NHS has been ring-fenced for a long time, a practice with ideological motives, not practical ones.

Yet our funding based on GDP is decreasing further, lower than countries such as Greece and Slovenia. We are getting a very good healthcare service for what we are paying, but if we want it to be the best, you need to actually invest in it, especially with a growing and aging population, rather than cutting it, closing beds and units. This makes the costs even higher, because patients have to use private hospital beds. The cost difference for these beds are roughly treated in NHS £300~ per night, compared to Private £700~. Big American healthchains such as Acadia are buying up local private healthcare providers to cash in on the opportunities.

But I guess you are correct. I am guessing your support for 'further austerity', further cuts to corporation tax is the solution, renewing trident even though it fails its testing, and the mass selling/privatisation of our infrastructure to French and China, even though it hasn't worked and the countries debt has got worst, not better, in the last 10 years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yet our funding based on GDP is decreasing further, lower than countries such as Greece and Slovenia. We are getting a very good healthcare service for what we are paying, but if we want it to be the best, you need to actually invest in it, especially with a growing and aging population, rather than cutting it, closing beds and units. This makes the costs even higher, because patients have to use private hospital beds. The cost difference for these beds are roughly treated in NHS £300~ per night, compared to Private £700~. Big American healthchains such as Acadia are buying up local private healthcare providers to cash in on the opportunities.

But I guess you are correct. I am guessing your support for 'further austerity', further cuts to corporation tax is the solution, renewing trident even though it fails its testing, and the mass selling/privatisation of our infrastructure to French and China, even though it hasn't worked and the countries debt has got worst, not better, in the last 10 years.

Where did I say I supported any of the above? I just said I don't support ring-fencing the NHS budget at the expense of other departments.

Here's something I found on NHS funding from the BMA: https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/working%20for%20change/shaping%20healthcare/funding/nhsfundingandefficiencybriefing30032016.pdf?la=en

Key points
– The £10 billion increase in NHS spending by 2020/21 initially seemed a very generous settlement
for the NHS. However, the Nuffield Trust, The Health Foundation and The King’s Fund have calculated
that total health spending in England will rise by only £4.5 billion in real terms between 2015/16
and 2020/21. This puts the NHS half way through the most austere decade in its history, with public
spending on health as a proportion of GDP falling to 6.7 per cent by 2020/21.
– The £4.5 billion real increase in health spending is far less than the £8 billion of extra funding called for
by the Five Year Forward View. This is further exacerbated by the provider sector deficit and the fact that
the funding increase is also expected to cover the transition to a seven-day NHS. The Government has
yet to acknowledge this or come up with credible proposals for how the funding gap will be filled.
– Recent funding announcements in technology, mental health and general practice are confusing
and, when analysed in more detail, seem to be a case of re-assigning money that had already
been announced. We call for greater transparency to accompany future funding announcements,
particularly around where funding will be taken from as well as how and when it will be distributed.
– In 2016/17 there is a lack of available funding for transformation. The investment needed to achieve
the vision and scale of efficiency savings set out in the Five Year Forward View will be pushed back to
2017/18 onwards, where there are much smaller increases to NHS funding. It is difficult to see how the
NHS will be able to make real progress on transformation in the short to medium term.
– As NHS provider deficits continue to increase we remain concerned that even more money will be
diverted from transformation to help reach financial balance.
– There is still no credible plan for the majority of the £22 billion efficiency savings that the NHS needs
to make by 2020/21. Even if we assume that all the measures the Government has announced so far
achieve the savings predicted and generate no additional costs, which seems unlikely, this only results
in £6.5 billion of savings for the NHS.
– The measures used by the NHS to achieve efficiency savings over the last Parliament are no longer
viable. The NHS needs to come up with an alternative plan to achieve sustainable efficiency savings
on this scale, without this taking priority over the need to maintain patient safety, clinical quality and
consistently improve performance.
– This Government has funded the increase to NHS funding by making cuts to Department of Health
spend outside of NHS England. This includes cuts to budgets for public health, education and training,
capital spend and national bodies such as NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence).
Spending in these areas is being cut by more than £3 billion over the next five years. There is very little
information on how this decrease in spending will be managed.
– The Government’s decision to cut spending outside of NHS England’s budget is incredibly shortsighted.
Budget cuts in all of these areas will result in increased costs for the NHS and the taxpayer in the future.
Once again, the announcements in this area were not transparent. By referring to what most would
consider to be core NHS services, health visiting, drug and alcohol services and sexual health services,
as “Whitehall budgets”, the Government has not set out the true extent of the funding cuts.
– Another route for the NHS to save money would be to look more widely at the efficiency of care
across the system and, in particular, at the scope to moderate pressures on the system as a result of
improved population health. However, the Spending Review revealed a cut to public health budgets
of 3.9 per cent a year. It is very unclear how this fits with the Five Year Forward View’s call for ‘a radical
upgrade in prevention and public health’.
British Medical Association Funding and efficiency 3
– NHS England has repeatedly made it clear that a lack of investment in social care will have a significant
impact on the NHS. Yet the social care funding gap is likely to be somewhere between £2.8 billion
and £3.5 billion by the end of the Parliament, with spending on social care as a proportion of GDP at
0.9 per cent. The lack of clarity around recent changes to social care funding means there is still a
great deal of uncertainty about what social care funding will look like over the next five years.
– The shift towards a social care system based on locally-raised revenue emphasises the growing
difference in how health and social care are funded, despite the Government’s commitment to join up
health and social care across the country by 2020.
– Combined spending on health and social care is predicted to be 7.6 per cent as a proportion of GDP by
2020/21, far below the proposal in the Barker Report that there is a ringfenced budget for both health
and social care that represents 11 per cent to 12 per cent of GDP.

The last point is very important - given that it's generally felt that government spending should be around 40% of GDP and never more than 50% except in time of war 11-12% of GDP equates to roughly 1/4 of total government spending, or more. The NHS is not the only service under-funded, the Armed Forces suffers from chronic under-funding that has resulted in, among other things, ridiculous white-elephant carriers and too few destroyers and frigates to meet our needs and commitments in relation to defence and maritime anti-piracy. That's to say nothing of the staffing cuts that have left many young men, in particular, without a viable alternative career and veterans without the care they need to cope with injuries and battle-stress. The last point is particularly pregnant because the NHS will never be properly equipped to deal with soldiers, they need specialised hospitals staffed my army doctors and army nurses.

Meanwhile, despite decades of apple funding the NHS was losing money even before the last budget.

[Pannonian]

Council ‘shock’ at Growth Deal announcement (https://www.businesscornwall.co.uk/news-by-industry/public-sector-news-categories/2017/02/council-shock-at-growth-deal-announcement/)


The Council has expressed its disappointment that Cornwall is set to receive just £18 million in Growth Deal investment over the next three years, despite being one of the poorest parts of the UK.

The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) had been encouraged to make “an ambitious” bid into the Growth Deal and consequently asked for £127 million.
...
The funding settlement is significantly less than the previous Growth Deal allocation given to Cornwall and falls far short, says the Council, of the investment required if Government is going to ensure that Cornwall does not lose out when European funding ceases as a result of the UK leaving the EU. EU funding currently provides £60 million per year to develop vital local projects such as superfast broadband and business support.

What was that I said?


If the country mice are so confident about life outside the EU, then they should accept whatever the UK government hands out to them rather than ask for assurances, including any loss of investment as the price to be paid for reasserting national sovereignty. As with the cited example of Liverpool, back in the days before the EU took an interest in promoting regional identities, the UK government were free to carry out a policy of starving regions that were deemed to be politically undesirable or irrelevant. That kind of policymaking was, of course, what estranged Scotland from England, with the Scots deemed to be a suitable test bed for policies that the UK government wanted to try out on a limited scope before introducing them to England. With the Europeans out of the equation, the UK government is free to resume this strategy, free from any worry that the EU may make up for what they deliberately set out to deprive the regions of.

Serves them right.

[LittleGrizzly]

PVC 1stparagrph.

I have to disagree with your assertion that Blair is more popular than Corbyn, given the group of people that actually have a chance of voting Labour I'd imagine many more would prefer Corbyn over Blair.

If you mean Corbyn now versus Blair then and by popularity you mean vote winning then Corbyn from back then would also beat the Corbyn of now as well as the circumstances were far more favourable.

2nd Paragraph

If you think Brown is somehow radically different from Blair then you think differently to me and the majority of potential Labour voters. Gordon Brown certainly would come under the grouping of Blairite. By the time Miliband came in after years of the Blairites it was far too late.

Beskar
'It was the Scottish wanted a more left wing government'

Exactly!

People seem outraged about this one seat but blasé about the tens of seats lost, its almost as if the many conservatives and UKIP voters I hear criticising Corbyn don't genuinely care about Labour winning but actually just dislike the Labour leaders views.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to disagree with your assertion that Blair is more popular than Corbyn, given the group of people that actually have a chance of voting Labour I'd imagine many more would prefer Corbyn over Blair.

If you mean Corbyn now versus Blair then and by popularity you mean vote winning then Corbyn from back then would also beat the Corbyn of now as well as the circumstances were far more favourable.

Corbyn was popular as a back-bench radical, he's not popular as a leader - his attitude to leadership and his more extreme views (like Republicanism) make him fundamentally unelectable.

I should also make the point that "vote winning" is popularity, any other measure amounts to "abstract admiration" or "general good feeling". What's more, the more you learn about Corbyn the less appealing he becomes - his ties to anti-Semitics, his multiple marriages, his refusal to give his children the grammar education he enjoyed, his ties to Trots...

In reality Blair is unpopular now because of Iraq, and the handling of the Foot and Mouth outbreak - those were "big issues" but quite specific ones.


If you think Brown is somehow radically different from Blair then you think differently to me and the majority of potential Labour voters. Gordon Brown certainly would come under the grouping of Blairite. By the time Miliband came in after years of the Blairites it was far too late.

As Labour has moved further to the Left it has become less popular and less electable. Winning elections isn't about the people "likely to vote Labour", it's about the people unlikely to vote Labour, that's how you win the election - by convincing the broadest possible cross-section of society you have the right ideas.

You do that by occupying the place most normal people occupy - the centre - not the Left or Right.


Exactly!

People seem outraged about this one seat but blasé about the tens of seats lost, its almost as if the many conservatives and UKIP voters I hear criticising Corbyn don't genuinely care about Labour winning but actually just dislike the Labour leaders views.

Would it surprise you if I said I rather think we'd be better off if a Left of Centre party won in 2020?

[Beskar]

Would it surprise you if I said I rather think we'd be better off if a Left of Centre party won in 2020?

Depends on what you define as Left of Centre. Blair is considered right of centre. This is mostly down to the argument of "Different shades of neo-liberalism".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Depends on what you define as Left of Centre. Blair is considered right of centre. This is mostly down to the argument of "Different shades of neo-liberalism".

I was thinking of the more Centrist wing of the party before Blair - as opposed to the pro-Russian Left-Wing from which Corbyn, McDonnell and the late Michael Foot come from.

[Pannonian]

Depends on what you define as Left of Centre. Blair is considered right of centre. This is mostly down to the argument of "Different shades of neo-liberalism".

Thatcher happened. And in the post-Thatcher world, Blair can't in any shape or form be regarded as right of centre. It is the insistence that Blair is right of centre that has led to Labour moving further and further away from the worldview as seen by the British electorate (as opposed to the Labour membership). The Labour electorate elects the Labour leader. But the British electorate elects the British government.

And "neo-liberalism" gets thrown around too easily, as a label to discredit anything the Left doesn't like. FWIW, pure neo-liberalism has never been willingly enacted by any government, and certainly not by Blair (his Labour government poured money into public services, which is the antithesis of neo-liberalism). Even Thatcher, who shifted the political environment towards neo-liberalism, was never a pure neo-liberal. What the hardline Brexiters are advocating would be a significant shift towards a purer neo-liberalism, but Major has noted that the British people, once the implications are understood, will never stand for it. That's why the accusations of Blair and neo-liberalism are inaccurate and lazy, used as a meme to dismiss a huge tract of the political scene.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Concepts of "Left" and "Right" don't always track onto corresponding policies, either.

Grammar Schools - a wholly State-funded education which strives to provide a quality of instruction approaching that of expensive fee paying schools with the only criteria for entry being academic merit. It's an inherently Left-Wing policy that has produced many of Labour's best Politicians and yet it is loathed by the "Left" today, including the current Leader of the Opposition who was himself a beneficiary.

Yes, I know all about the "game the system with tutors" argument but right now the well off just game the system by buying up all the houses in a catchment area and then getting "their lot" in as the School Governors. Which is a darn site easier than getting ten-year old Timmy to pay attention to that Tutor you're spending £50 an hour on.

[LittleGrizzly]

PFH

TBH when I said people likely to vote Labour more precisely I meant those that have a moderate chance of voting Labour (with the right things in place) as opposed to those who would struggle to vote for Labour even if they could write the policy out word for word.

I do not think Corbyn will get elected but I don't think any of his Blairite opponents stand a chance either and would probably receive far less votes than Corbyn.

It Is all well and good the Labour party shifting to the right in order to win votes from the right of the electorate but Labour needs the left wing vote to have a chance of winning an election. There aren't enough Blairites and Tories who would consider swapping parties to make it work.

Of course you can stick anyone at the head of the Tories or Labour and they'll get lots of votes and seats but there just aren't enough people for the Blairites to win an election, I certainly won't be voting for one in anything but extreme circumstances.

[Shaka_Khan]

I don't live in the UK, so my knowledge in this situation is very limited. And I visited England before the Brexit.
I met a guy from England recently. He is half English half Filipino. He told me that racism increased ever since the Brexit. He was punched at a sidewalk by a random pedestrian, for example.

On the other hand, Theresa May's administration is very different from Trump's, which is contrary to what a lot of the Brexit supporters believe. For example, many of the Brexit supporters have no idea who Steve Bannon is. This I got the impression from the Brexit supporters I met.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Labour doesn't need to shift to "The Right" it needs to shift to "The Centre".

Corbyn enjoyed some initial popularity due to being seen as "honest" and a "decent bloke" but after the faff that was "Train Gate" he's lost that advantage. His leadership is just poor, he tries to drag people with him rather than lead then and when they refuse to follow he doesn't punish them or resign, he just gives a grumpy interview about how he's saying AND he was right. He should have resigned after failing to convince Labour to back disarmament, or he should have accepted the decision of the party.

Nope, just gave a grumpy TV interview.

For God's sake, his son is being employed by his shadow Chancellor, which is Nepotism! At least Nepotistic Tories have the decency to just send Toby to work quietly in Agriculture for a few years, not station him at one remove from your own department!

Look - Theresa May is not popular, she wasn't the leader at the last election, she's further to the Right than Cameron and - bluntly - she's not very likeable. Despite all those disadvantages she has Corbyn beat coming and going.

[Greyblades]

Without a credible opposition: what reason does may have to restrain herself? Would it be beetter or worse that she did?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An excellent question - one would like to argue that her own morality should restrain her in some ways but morality doesn't always stop you making poorly thought out choices.

[Greyblades]

I used to think anyone would be better than another Blair, I still do for the position of majority government, but I fear that I am starting to wonder if I was wrong in my assessment for the position of effective opposition.

[Pannonian]

Labour doesn't need to shift to "The Right" it needs to shift to "The Centre".

Corbyn enjoyed some initial popularity due to being seen as "honest" and a "decent bloke" but after the faff that was "Train Gate" he's lost that advantage. His leadership is just poor, he tries to drag people with him rather than lead then and when they refuse to follow he doesn't punish them or resign, he just gives a grumpy interview about how he's saying AND he was right. He should have resigned after failing to convince Labour to back disarmament, or he should have accepted the decision of the party.

Nope, just gave a grumpy TV interview.

For God's sake, his son is being employed by his shadow Chancellor, which is Nepotism! At least Nepotistic Tories have the decency to just send Toby to work quietly in Agriculture for a few years, not station him at one remove from your own department!

Look - Theresa May is not popular, she wasn't the leader at the last election, she's further to the Right than Cameron and - bluntly - she's not very likeable. Despite all those disadvantages she has Corbyn beat coming and going.

Right now, Labour needs someone competent. Even halfway competent would be far better than the current leader (Blair was ridiculously competent). See the horror stories from people who've worked with Corbyn and have resigned as they found his incompetence intolerable. See Corbyn refusing 9am meetings during the referendum campaign because they were far too early (one of his aides described the 11am Virgin train as early). If this were a real world job, Corbyn would have been fired for incompetence, slacking, and everything else, not long after they'd applied the Peter Principle to him. But this isn't the real world, so Momentum keeps him in the highly paid job of leader of the oppo, despite doing neither of the job descriptions.

[Elmetiacos]

Council ‘shock’ at Growth Deal announcement (https://www.businesscornwall.co.uk/news-by-industry/public-sector-news-categories/2017/02/council-shock-at-growth-deal-announcement/)

What was that I said?

If the country mice are so confident about life outside the EU, then they should accept whatever the UK government hands out to them rather than ask for assurances, including any loss of investment as the price to be paid for reasserting national sovereignty. As with the cited example of Liverpool, back in the days before the EU took an interest in promoting regional identities, the UK government were free to carry out a policy of starving regions that were deemed to be politically undesirable or irrelevant. That kind of policymaking was, of course, what estranged Scotland from England, with the Scots deemed to be a suitable test bed for policies that the UK government wanted to try out on a limited scope before introducing them to England. With the Europeans out of the equation, the UK government is free to resume this strategy, free from any worry that the EU may make up for what they deliberately set out to deprive the regions of.

Serves them right.
Well, who'd have thought it, apart from everyone? Indeed, an turkyow a-wruk ragleva dhe nadilek*, as I believe they in that part of the country...

*the turkeys voted for Christmas

[Greyblades]

Its almost as if they expect the remaining 2-3 years of eu funding to cover the need of the next 3 years, or something.

[LittleGrizzly]

The repeated calls for Corbyn to resign for a difference of opinion are quite amusing given he has very recently crushed his opponents in leadership contests not once but twice, given that maybe it is not actually him who has the problem.

I tried to look it up and I'm guessing what you are referring to is the fact that it didn't get enough support to get voted on or are my search engine skills just lacking...?

One place they did have a vote on it was Scotland, Scottish Labour went 70-30, quite relevant given our discussion earlier.

Labour barring something dramatic are not going to win the next election, whether it was Corbyn, David Milliband or whoever, a shift over to the right, or what some on the right might call the centre though, will just continue to lose Labour votes in the long term it would be a killer for them.

I'm not saying there aren't any votes that can be picked up by moving to the right just that they result in a net loss of votes. Now if the Tories start to lose it a bit that could start to change a bit, lots of votes would still be lost, maybe even still a net loss overall but the numbers might work if they come in the right places. Although I do wonder what that fuelling the smaller parties could mean long term.

Although to be perfectly honest if it meant another Blair I'd rather not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The repeated calls for Corbyn to resign for a difference of opinion are quite amusing given he has very recently crushed his opponents in leadership contests not once but twice, given that maybe it is not actually him who has the problem.

I tried to look it up and I'm guessing what you are referring to is the fact that it didn't get enough support to get voted on or are my search engine skills just lacking...?

One place they did have a vote on it was Scotland, Scottish Labour went 70-30, quite relevant given our discussion earlier.

Labour barring something dramatic are not going to win the next election, whether it was Corbyn, David Milliband or whoever, a shift over to the right, or what some on the right might call the centre though, will just continue to lose Labour votes in the long term it would be a killer for them.

I'm not saying there aren't any votes that can be picked up by moving to the right just that they result in a net loss of votes. Now if the Tories start to lose it a bit that could start to change a bit, lots of votes would still be lost, maybe even still a net loss overall but the numbers might work if they come in the right places. Although I do wonder what that fuelling the smaller parties could mean long term.

Although to be perfectly honest if it meant another Blair I'd rather not.

Corbyn is Far-Left, there's a lot of Left to go before you even get to the Centre, let alone the Right.

Labour should be able to win the next election, if they don't it's down to the Labour Leadership. It's important to recognise that.

Here - don't take my word for it: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/01/corbyn-staying-not-good-enough

[Pannonian]

Corbyn is Far-Left, there's a lot of Left to go before you even get to the Centre, let alone the Right.

Labour should be able to win the next election, if they don't it's down to the Labour Leadership. It's important to recognise that.

Here - don't take my word for it: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/01/corbyn-staying-not-good-enough

Even apart from where he is on the political spectrum, Corbyn is staggeringly incompetent. I've posted enough stories from people who've worked with him, and they were dismissed as coming from sources that were too close to him and thus biased and invalid. Leadership and the economy are usually the two key issues that decide an election. Every economic expert who has worked with Corbyn and McDonnell has quit, with stories of aimlessness and a leadership that has no interest in what they say (or indeed in the subject of Britain's economy). A number of shadow cabinet ministers have reported agreeing policy positions with Corbyn, then having him unilaterally contradict them on air shortly afterwards. And there's more if you care to go into it (I've already mentioned how Corbyn's team regards a 9am start as far too early). Oh, and have I mentioned his unwillingness to meet anyone who isn't in his inner circle?

Watch or read a seminar on leadership and management. Then check just how many of the boxes Corbyn not only fails to tick, but actively does the opposite of. Unable to get on top of his brief, unprofessional, little interest in areas outside his pet topics, inability to delegate, and more. And that's just assessing his effectiveness as leader, without looking at his past (which, from all reports, was the decisive factor in losing Copeland).

[LittleGrizzly]

Sorry I am supposed to take the word off some angry little man who writes for the Guardian?!

They would claim black is white if they could somehow make out the Corbyn is to blame for it.

I also question why you have wrote that Labour could win the next election but if they don't it will be down to the leadership and then said don't take my word for it and linked an article...

Where it never actually says Labour can win the next election...

It points out that many of Corbyn's left wing polices are popular (something you demand he move away from)

It points out that his rival in the last leadership election would have probably done even worse

It even argues for replacing Corbyn with someone similarly left wing...

If Labour moved one iota to the right they might gain votes what I am referring to is a massive lurch back rightwards under a Blairite.

[Gilrandir]

The Lords pull in the reins.

http://news.sky.com/story/governments-brexit-bill-defeated-in-the-house-of-lords-10786634

I wonder were there any cases the Lords balked such important decisions? I mean since their power became rather ceremonial.

[Pannonian]

Even apart from where he is on the political spectrum, Corbyn is staggeringly incompetent. I've posted enough stories from people who've worked with him, and they were dismissed as coming from sources that were too close to him and thus biased and invalid.

Sorry I am supposed to take the word off some angry little man who writes for the Guardian?!


Owen Jones was one of the original inner circle, having associated with McDonnell (and thus Corbyn) since the 1980s.

I wrote this last year about another Corbyn supporter.


I wonder if all Corbyn supporters are like this, in how they equate difference in opinion with treason, and dismiss dissent because dissent is by definition biased. AFAIK an echo chamber exists because different opinions are either shut out, or are dismissed because said difference defines it as discreditable, thus ensuring that only opinions one agrees with are deemed creditable, resulting in only said opinions being admitted to any "discussion" (which exist only for the purpose of reinforcing one's opinion).

Compare with this.


They would claim black is white if they could somehow make out the Corbyn is to blame for it.

I also question why you have wrote that Labour could win the next election but if they don't it will be down to the leadership and then said don't take my word for it and linked an article...

Where it never actually says Labour can win the next election...

It points out that many of Corbyn's left wing polices are popular (something you demand he move away from)

It points out that his rival in the last leadership election would have probably done even worse

It even argues for replacing Corbyn with someone similarly left wing...

If Labour moved one iota to the right they might gain votes what I am referring to is a massive lurch back rightwards under a Blairite.

[LittleGrizzly]

There are so many flaws here I don't even know where to begin...

Okay so firstly. What PFH claimed regarding Owen Jones, that Labour could gain more votes by moving to the right isn't even claimed by Owen Jones (or at least not in the article linked)

Being close to Corbyn, or having been close to Corbyn previously does not qualify him as some expert in election predictions, especially when changing one of the variables (moving Labour to the right) quite frankly people who are actually experts in the field of predicting elections get plenty of things wrong without changing variables...

So why does this man's predictions (which he didn't actually make) have to be taken as gospel?!

Which is a slightly different way of asking why do I have to take his word for it.

Maybe lets try a hypothetical, instead I am a committed Blairite but I still don't believe Labour will win the next election by moving right (which I assume isn't a contradiction) and I won't take Owen Jones word on it....

Does that then make me a Corbyn supporter who see's dissent as treason?

The logic fails on so many levels.....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If Labour moved one iota to the right they might gain votes what I am referring to is a massive lurch back rightwards under a Blairite.

Nobody is suggesting that.

Clement Atlee was less Left-Wing than Corbyn.

[Pannonian]

Nobody is suggesting that.

Clement Atlee was more Left-Wing than Corbyn.

Attlee was competent. His portion of the cabinet was up to the task of running a Total War. Attlee also had a past outside politics, with a real job and everything. Corbyn is utterly incompetent, and he doesn't even know he is, as he's spent his entire adult life in politics. The last time Corbyn had a paying job outside politics was when he was a teenager (some fifty years ago).


There are so many flaws here I don't even know where to begin...

Okay so firstly. What PFH claimed regarding Owen Jones, that Labour could gain more votes by moving to the right isn't even claimed by Owen Jones (or at least not in the article linked)

Being close to Corbyn, or having been close to Corbyn previously does not qualify him as some expert in election predictions, especially when changing one of the variables (moving Labour to the right) quite frankly people who are actually experts in the field of predicting elections get plenty of things wrong without changing variables...

So why does this man's predictions (which he didn't actually make) have to be taken as gospel?!

Which is a slightly different way of asking why do I have to take his word for it.

Maybe lets try a hypothetical, instead I am a committed Blairite but I still don't believe Labour will win the next election by moving right (which I assume isn't a contradiction) and I won't take Owen Jones word on it....

Does that then make me a Corbyn supporter who see's dissent as treason?

The logic fails on so many levels.....

Being close to Corbyn gives him a close up view of how well (or otherwise) Corbyn works (or doesn't). An awful lot of stories coming from people who've worked with Corbyn since he's become leader, who've since become disillusioned with his utter lack of basic competence, such as you'd expect from a local branch manager, never mind the Leader of the Opposition (who's being paid a six figure salary by the taxpayer for doing this job). I refer you to his former economic advisers, his former shadow cabinet ministers, his former campaign managers, etc, all of them with stories of how he isn't fit to run a shop, let alone the Official Opposition.

[LittleGrizzly]

That still doesn't add up to his word being gospel regarding Labour electoral fortunes should they move to the right....

Knowing Corbyn or having worked with Corbyn isn't a skill set which makes you an expert at knowing how people will vote.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All indications are that Labour is less popular when headed by Corbyn than otherwise, or when headed by any previous leader in recent memory.

Face it - Labour has been out of power for almost seven years and the parties fortunes are still sinking, and every time the party moves further to the Left it gets worse. Yes, Corbyn has attracted a lot of political anoraks, at the expense of the general public.

[Pannonian]

That still doesn't add up to his word being gospel regarding Labour electoral fortunes should they move to the right....

Knowing Corbyn or having worked with Corbyn isn't a skill set which makes you an expert at knowing how people will vote.

You reckon people will vote for an incompetent as Prime Minister, with John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry and Diane Abbott as the other three top jobs in government?

[LittleGrizzly]

You reckon people will vote for a Blairite?

In the present day that is, not back in the late 90's.

There's a reason they all got defeated at the leadership elections, because outside of a thin margin of people such as Pannonian the majority of people who cheerlead for the Blairites are usually Tory voters, its completely pointless making a huge surge to the right under a new Blair for the sake of pleasing a group of people who mostly aren't going to vote for you anyway.

[Pannonian]

You reckon people will vote for a Blairite?

In the present day that is, not back in the late 90's.

There's a reason they all got defeated at the leadership elections, because outside of a thin margin of people such as Pannonian the majority of people who cheerlead for the Blairites are usually Tory voters, its completely pointless making a huge surge to the right under a new Blair for the sake of pleasing a group of people who mostly aren't going to vote for you anyway.

I'd happily vote for a left winger if they were competent. I won't vote for someone who's even less competent at managerial work than I am, and I'm not exactly a high powered chief executive. Every manager I've worked under has been far, far better at their job than Corbyn has been at his. If Corbyn were my manager, I'd complain to his superior about his utter lack of competence at his job, making mine unnecessarily harder. If Corbyn were my manager, I'd complain to his superior about his lack of professionalism and work ethic.

[Pannonian]

All indications are that Labour is less popular when headed by Corbyn than otherwise, or when headed by any previous leader in recent memory.

Face it - Labour has been out of power for almost seven years and the parties fortunes are still sinking, and every time the party moves further to the Left it gets worse. Yes, Corbyn has attracted a lot of political anoraks, at the expense of the general public.

Labour are more trusted on the NHS than the Tories. Nothing unusual about that, as it's Labour's natural territory. Add the leaders into the mix, and May's Tories are more trusted than Corbyn's Labour on the NHS. Polled on whether they think Corbyn is doing a good job, Corbyn is net negative in every single demographic. Even among Labour voters.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You reckon people will vote for a Blairite?

In the present day that is, not back in the late 90's.

There's a reason they all got defeated at the leadership elections, because outside of a thin margin of people such as Pannonian the majority of people who cheerlead for the Blairites are usually Tory voters, its completely pointless making a huge surge to the right under a new Blair for the sake of pleasing a group of people who mostly aren't going to vote for you anyway.

"The Labour Party" aren't "The People". They're a small section of the people. Labour has picked up a lot of far-Left Socialists, even some Trots in Momentum. Yes, Party membership has gone up but it's still a tiny fraction of the electorate.

[Brenus]

"If Corbyn were my manager, I'd complain to his superior about his utter lack of competence at his job, making mine unnecessarily harder. If Corbyn were my manager, I'd complain to his superior about his lack of professionalism and work ethic." And if you had my manager as his superior, she would tell you to shut-up, stop complaining and work as a team player. And if you are not happy with it, take it or leave (put-up or shut-up, I think it is)...

[Pannonian]

"If Corbyn were my manager, I'd complain to his superior about his utter lack of competence at his job, making mine unnecessarily harder. If Corbyn were my manager, I'd complain to his superior about his lack of professionalism and work ethic." And if you had my manager as his superior, she would tell you to shut-up, stop complaining and work as a team player. And if you are not happy with it, take it or leave (put-up or shut-up, I think it is)...

Are we talking about Jeremy Corbyn here, the most rebellious MP still in Parliament, who has voted against the Labour party on 500+ occasions? The guy who challenged the then current Labour leader (and Prime Minister) less than a year after the British people had elected them to government with a huge Commons majority?

During my brief stint as a manager, I made sure I was first to the office, the last to leave, supported my subordinates to the best of my ability, and wherever there were gaps, I worked my arse off to cover them. It didn't mean I was any good, but my work ethic already meant I showed far more leadership quality than Corbyn has done. The Corbyn who doesn't start work until far later than your average worker, takes zero responsibility, and regularly undermines his subordinates. And this guy is being paid a six figure salary by the taxpayer for this.

[Gilrandir]

During my brief stint as a manager, I made sure I was first to the office, the last to leave, supported my subordinates to the best of my ability, and wherever there were gaps, I worked my arse off to cover them.

Perhaps that is why it was so brief. You were too soft to them.

[Pannonian]

Perhaps that is why it was so brief. You were too soft to them.

I believed in doing my job and implementing corporate policy to the best of my ability, however limited that may be. I did not pretend to do the job whilst doing less than the minimum expected (9am was far too early for him, when others were starting work at 6am), and jumping at the chance to implement the opposite of agreed on policy, as Corbyn has done. However bad I may have been, at least I knew my failings, and at least I was hard working. Corbyn fails at every aspect of leadership, and were this anything other than politics, he'd have been fired long ago.

[Gilrandir]

I believed in doing my job and implementing corporate policy to the best of my ability, however limited that may be. I did not pretend to do the job whilst doing less than the minimum expected (9am was far too early for him, when others were starting work at 6am), and jumping at the chance to implement the opposite of agreed on policy, as Corbyn has done. However bad I may have been, at least I knew my failings, and at least I was hard working. Corbyn fails at every aspect of leadership, and were this anything other than politics, he'd have been fired long ago.

However despicable Corbyn's work ethics/moral code might be, we are here discussing Corbyn as one of the leading societal figures, not you. Perhaps he has done something right?

[Pannonian]

However despicable Corbyn's work ethics/moral code might be, we are here discussing Corbyn as one of the leading societal figures, not you. Perhaps he has done something right?

He's in politics. In every other area of life, one's performance is judged by objective metrics. As I've demonstrated, Corbyn supporters define their metrics by the conclusion they wish to draw. They want their man to be in control of the Labour party. So that's what they've got.

[Gilrandir]

He's in politics. In every other area of life, one's performance is judged by objective metrics.

Not really. Like there are some sports (gymnastics, highboard jumping, synchronized swimming, callisthenics) where the winner is often chosen very arbitrarily. The same can be said of music contests, beauty pageants, nobel prize.... Subjectivity rules.

[Pannonian]

Not really. Like there are some sports (gymnastics, highboard jumping, synchronized swimming, callisthenics) where the winner is often chosen very arbitrarily. The same can be said of music contests, beauty pageants, nobel prize.... Subjectivity rules.

Gymnasts, athletes, etc. don't govern me, nor do they allow the government free rein to govern me. All I want is an opposition party I can vote for. My standards are set so low that I'd have been content even with an opposition party that will campaign for a position that they said they'd campaign for. Instead, the Labour party campaigns for a position that's the opposite of what they'd promised in the last election, simply because that's the position the leader takes. And all evidence of his incompetence and duplicity is dismissed by his supporters because they have the conclusion that he is their man, and all evidence contrary to that is inadmissible. See Littlegrizzly's assertion in this thread that just because someone has worked with Corbyn for decades, doesn't mean he is an authority on the man's workings. Or another assertion in the dedicated thread that people who've worked with Corbyn are too close to the subject to be free from bias, and thus their accounts are also to be dismissed.

[Gilrandir]

Gymnasts, athletes, etc. don't govern me, nor do they allow the government free rein to govern me.

You claimed existence of objective metrics IN ALL SPHERES OF LIFE except politics. I pointed to the fact that subjectivity is much more ubiquitous than you believe.

But as for politics, it is ultimately the voters who decide whether a politician or a party should have the power. If you are not satisfied with any of them, you have only two choices - to abstain (until you find the one you like) or set up your own party and promote it to the top.

[Pannonian]

You claimed existence of objective metrics IN ALL SPHERES OF LIFE except politics. I pointed to the fact that subjectivity is much more ubiquitous than you believe.

But as for politics, it is ultimately the voters who decide whether a politician or a party should have the power. If you are not satisfied with any of them, you have only two choices - to abstain (until you find the one you like) or set up your own party and promote it to the top.

I guess England will be a one party state for the foreseeable future then.

[rory_20_uk]

I guess England will be a one party state for the foreseeable future then.

The biggest party is Labour. It is just the members prefer a circular firing squad and dreams rather than distasteful reality.

I hope we see a resurgence of the Whigs since both Labour and UKIP have served their stated reasons for creation and need to disband.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

I guess England will be a one party state for the foreseeable future then.

You mean the party you are going to found?

[Pannonian]

You mean the party you are going to found?

Pointless continuing when a poster turns facetious.

[Gilrandir]

Pointless continuing when a poster turns facetious.

Never stopped being that.

On a seriuos note, you are selling doom and gloom. The parties the UK is blessed with will yet continue bickering for the votes for years to come without count.

[Pannonian]

Never stopped being that.

On a seriuos note, you are selling doom and gloom. The parties the UK is blessed with will yet continue bickering for the votes for years to come without count.

The British governing system is supposed to operate with a government and an opposition, with the latter holding the former to account. The latter does not exist in any effective form, but the latter's election system ensures that no change will occur, as evidence does not factor into their decisionmaking (see my complaints about post-truth politics and the self-contained circle). Which means a governing party with no restrictions on what they want to do. The checks and balances in British democracy have been institutionally taken away. Hell, even Tories are of the opinion that Britain would be better off with a more effective Labour party, something which never happen due to its current constitution.

As an example of this, past PMs have taken up the slack in arguing the case against a hard Brexit which the government is bent on, something which the official Opposition should have been doing as part of its job. In response, the Labour leadership has criticised Blair for sticking his oar in. There is no effective official Opposition. The Labour leadership is intent only on maintaining its control of its own party. The combination of post-truth politics and Labour's constitution means it will be able to do this without external factors (such as election results, cf. Copeland) being able to affect things.

[Gilrandir]

The British governing system is supposed to operate with a government and an opposition, with the latter holding the former to account. The latter does not exist in any effective form, but the latter's election system ensures that no change will occur, as evidence does not factor into their decisionmaking (see my complaints about post-truth politics and the self-contained circle). Which means a governing party with no restrictions on what they want to do. The checks and balances in British democracy have been institutionally taken away. Hell, even Tories are of the opinion that Britain would be better off with a more effective Labour party, something which never happen due to its current constitution.

As an example of this, past PMs have taken up the slack in arguing the case against a hard Brexit which the government is bent on, something which the official Opposition should have been doing as part of its job. In response, the Labour leadership has criticised Blair for sticking his oar in. There is no effective official Opposition. The Labour leadership is intent only on maintaining its control of its own party. The combination of post-truth politics and Labour's constitution means it will be able to do this without external factors (such as election results, cf. Copeland) being able to affect things.

Don't worry. The opposition and the government will yet find a bone to pick with each other as soon as the next election looms ahead.

[Pannonian]

Don't worry. The opposition and the government will yet find a bone to pick with each other as soon as the next election looms ahead.

Check out the Labour leadership and their histories. Diehard Tories are gleeful at Labour's state of affairs, while anyone with any sense of balance despair. There is no effective opposition, and there can be no effective opposition. And Labour's constitution ensures there will be no change.

[Beskar]

Check out the Labour leadership and their histories. Diehard Tories are gleeful at Labour's state of affairs, while anyone with any sense of balance despair. There is no effective opposition, and there can be no effective opposition. And Labour's constitution ensures there will be no change.

https://i.imgur.com/5cbrLd2.gif
"You have no power here, Corbyn!"

[Pannonian]

Beskar, what do you think of your MP's claim that the Copeland result was an "incredible result" for Labour?

[Beskar]

Beskar, what do you think of your MP's claim that the Copeland result was an "incredible result" for Labour?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvSDTDofXLc

Her point is valid in the context that the polls nationally put Conservatives in a significant lead over Labour, so the fact they were only 2000 votes behind, proportionally, wasn't bad. However, the fact Copeland has been Labour owned for so long, even it was rather neck-neck last election, shows that the campaigning was left to be desired considering the clusterduck which has been occurring nationally by the Conservatives.


I do have some private opinions of Cat Smith from around 10-9 years ago, but people change in that time. I know for myself I have changed a lot in my real life situation over the last 3 years so would be unfair to compare her current situation as being similar to back then. But for the sake of getting asked repeatedly, I will give some details.

Cat Smith was very ideological driven, but she has her heart in the right place. She cares and wants to do the right thing, she would be at the front of the parade demanding equal rights, she would promise reform such as the night-bus for women, etc (when LUSU Woman's Officer), and she would deliver on this. She is someone who would do the job and get her hands dirty. However, sometimes the ideological beliefs would interfere and can make her slightly unapproachable/off-putting. An example was when I held this heavy door open when walking through it, she made a point of standing absolutely still, refusing to walk through. This could be more one of those radical feminist moments, but it amused me the way we compromised was that she went first through the doors. I am sure Cat has become a lot more moderate since, because as an MP, I would probably expect a lot of people open doors for her because of her 'rank'. I also had an ideological falling out with her, as LUSU was reforming its Sabbatical Officers to remove the Woman's Officer role. I argued whilst there was an need for a Welfare/Liberation style role, I didn't see the need for it to be a woman. The actual proposal that went through was a mandated man and woman role, which was rather terrible anyway. But Cat did see it as a betrayal/unimpressed that I voiced my view on that, instead of supporting her position as were kind of friends. On balance, those moments were a minority and are part of growing up. What I would expect of her, ie: fighting and supporting the area like an MP does, she does seem to deliver on this, and have a passion in the area. She isn't someone who goes off to Westminster and forgets all about the area..

[Pannonian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvSDTDofXLc

Her point is valid in the context that the polls nationally put Conservatives in a significant lead over Labour, so the fact they were only 2000 votes behind, proportionally, wasn't bad. However, the fact Copeland has been Labour owned for so long, even it was rather neck-neck last election, shows that the campaigning was left to be desired considering the clusterduck which has been occurring nationally by the Conservatives.


I do have some private opinions of Cat Smith from around 10-9 years ago, but people change in that time. I know for myself I have changed a lot in my real life situation over the last 3 years so would be unfair to compare her current situation as being similar to back then. But for the sake of getting asked repeatedly, I will give some details.

Cat Smith was very ideological driven, but she has her heart in the right place. She cares and wants to do the right thing, she would be at the front of the parade demanding equal rights, she would promise reform such as the night-bus for women, etc (when LUSU Woman's Officer), and she would deliver on this. She is someone who would do the job and get her hands dirty. However, sometimes the ideological beliefs would interfere and can make her slightly unapproachable/off-putting. An example was when I held this heavy door open when walking through it, she made a point of standing absolutely still, refusing to walk through. This could be more one of those radical feminist moments, but it amused me the way we compromised was that she went first through the doors. I am sure Cat has become a lot more moderate since, because as an MP, I would probably expect a lot of people open doors for her because of her 'rank'. I also had an ideological falling out with her, as LUSU was reforming its Sabbatical Officers to remove the Woman's Officer role. I argued whilst there was an need for a Welfare/Liberation style role, I didn't see the need for it to be a woman. The actual proposal that went through was a mandated man and woman role, which was rather terrible anyway. But Cat did see it as a betrayal/unimpressed that I voiced my view on that, instead of supporting her position as were kind of friends. On balance, those moments were a minority and are part of growing up. What I would expect of her, ie: fighting and supporting the area like an MP does, she does seem to deliver on this, and have a passion in the area. She isn't someone who goes off to Westminster and forgets all about the area..

Just because it was neck and neck in the last election doesn't mean it was irrevocably going to be even more in the Tories' favour in this, even if we ignore the fact that sitting governments very, very rarely take seats from the opposition (the last time was in the 1980s when the SDP split the vote, and other than that was several decades before that). The chief spokesperson for Momentum, James Schneider, campaigned for the Tories against the Labour candidate in his constituency, with the Labour candidate winning by a few hundred votes (closer than Copeland in the last election). This Labour candidate, now the sitting MP, increased his majority in the last election, with Schneider again campaigning for someone else. So just because Copeland was a narrow victory for Labour in 2015 doesn't mean it was an incredible result for Labour to lose by just 2000 votes in 2017. The above constituency was an even narrower victory for Labour in 2010, partly due to the likes of Tory now Momentum James Schneider, but Labour managed to increase their majority in a subsequent election.

Also, what do you think of the assertion from Copeland campaigners that the most frequently mentioned negative that came up was Corbyn?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvSDTDofXLc

Her point is valid in the context that the polls nationally put Conservatives in a significant lead over Labour, so the fact they were only 2000 votes behind, proportionally, wasn't bad. However, the fact Copeland has been Labour owned for so long, even it was rather neck-neck last election, shows that the campaigning was left to be desired considering the clusterduck which has been occurring nationally by the Conservatives.


I do have some private opinions of Cat Smith from around 10-9 years ago, but people change in that time. I know for myself I have changed a lot in my real life situation over the last 3 years so would be unfair to compare her current situation as being similar to back then. But for the sake of getting asked repeatedly, I will give some details.

Cat Smith was very ideological driven, but she has her heart in the right place. She cares and wants to do the right thing, she would be at the front of the parade demanding equal rights, she would promise reform such as the night-bus for women, etc (when LUSU Woman's Officer), and she would deliver on this. She is someone who would do the job and get her hands dirty. However, sometimes the ideological beliefs would interfere and can make her slightly unapproachable/off-putting. An example was when I held this heavy door open when walking through it, she made a point of standing absolutely still, refusing to walk through. This could be more one of those radical feminist moments, but it amused me the way we compromised was that she went first through the doors. I am sure Cat has become a lot more moderate since, because as an MP, I would probably expect a lot of people open doors for her because of her 'rank'. I also had an ideological falling out with her, as LUSU was reforming its Sabbatical Officers to remove the Woman's Officer role. I argued whilst there was an need for a Welfare/Liberation style role, I didn't see the need for it to be a woman. The actual proposal that went through was a mandated man and woman role, which was rather terrible anyway. But Cat did see it as a betrayal/unimpressed that I voiced my view on that, instead of supporting her position as were kind of friends. On balance, those moments were a minority and are part of growing up. What I would expect of her, ie: fighting and supporting the area like an MP does, she does seem to deliver on this, and have a passion in the area. She isn't someone who goes off to Westminster and forgets all about the area..

I'm sorry, but I think she sounds dreadful. If you were holding a door for her which you had already passed through then her refusal to pass the portal is just rude. It's not like you're going ahead of her and holding the door open whilst she passes through it, is it?

Reminds me of a funny conversation I had about the existential crisis this causes for many men with a friend (who is a female lawyer from the US and handles workplace harassment cases) and her response ultimately was "what did you mother teach you?"

Hold the door.

We have a "welfare" officer here but no "Equality" officer. https://www.exeterguild.org/sabbs/ One must note that the current bunch of jokers all appear to be Middle Class men, which is interesting.

Regardless, losing a seat to a sitting party that has been in government for six years and presided over cuts and a chronic deficit is an unmitigated disaster.

[Beskar]

I'm sorry, but I think she sounds dreadful. If you were holding a door for her which you had already passed through then her refusal to pass the portal is just rude. It's not like you're going ahead of her and holding the door open whilst she passes through it, is it?

For my usual door-holding habits, I simply hold the door till the next person takes it off me, which they usually do. I never run ahead, open a door, and wait for everyone to pass through as a makeshift doorman or butler. Only time I have held the door is when I am with someone else, and I am waiting for them to leave, but they had to quickly go back for a bag or similar.

It is pretty simple. You walk up to the door, you push it open, you keep your left/right hand upon it for the brief second the person behind you puts their hand on the door, and you let go. This isn't something I discriminate between the sexes other. It is simply to prevent the door slamming back into peoples faces due to fire-door suspension and similar.

I think it was my bewildered look at Cat which made her reply "Alright, I am going through, but I am opening up the next two", but it was one of a few similar experiences I have had at Lancaster University. It might have been a trend going around at the same time?


Hold the door.

Hodor?

[Brenus]

Labour wants Labour to lose.

https://youtu.be/r1cCgOwMeQs

[Beskar]

Labour wants Labour to lose.

https://youtu.be/r1cCgOwMeQs

Posted that earlier. Labour wants Labour to lose, to lose Corbyn.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Posted that earlier. Labour wants Labour to lose, to lose Corbyn.

So.....

Labour's love's lost?

[Elmetiacos]

The biggest party is Labour. It is just the members prefer a circular firing squad and dreams rather than distasteful reality.

I hope we see a resurgence of the Whigs since both Labour and UKIP have served their stated reasons for creation and need to disband.

~:smoking:
All the political parties are now Whigs.

[Beskar]

When reading this, I imagined Pannonian was writing most of these tweets.
https://twitter.com/i/moments/841985570427478016

The cringe and desperation as Corbyn fails to deliver, again.

[Pannonian]

When reading this, I imagined Pannonian was writing most of these tweets.
https://twitter.com/i/moments/841985570427478016

The cringe and desperation as Corbyn fails to deliver, again.


The British governing system is supposed to operate with a government and an opposition, with the latter holding the former to account. The latter does not exist in any effective form, but the latter's election system ensures that no change will occur, as evidence does not factor into their decisionmaking (see my complaints about post-truth politics and the self-contained circle). Which means a governing party with no restrictions on what they want to do. The checks and balances in British democracy have been institutionally taken away. Hell, even Tories are of the opinion that Britain would be better off with a more effective Labour party, something which never happen due to its current constitution.


Faced with backtracking on a budget a week after it was released, May had it so easy, she even took time to remind Corbyn he was supposed to ask questions for her to try and answer. Do Corbyn's supporters still maintain that he is competent for the job of Leader of the Opposition?

[Husar]

On the topic of the Brexit, it looks like the Nexit is not next: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/high-turnout-dutch-vote-europe-test-170315195346496.html


The Netherlands' main exit poll suggests Prime Minister Mark Rutte has won the Dutch elections, easily beating anti-Islam firebrand Geert Wilders.

For the two-time Prime Minister Rutte, the poll indicated an economic recovery and his hardline handling of a diplomatic dispute with Turkey over the past week had won him support.

The Ipsos polling company gave Rutte's party 31 of the 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, compared to 19 seats for Wilders' PVV.

Not a final poll, but I assume we can assume that the final result will not switch their positions or so.

[Pannonian]

On the topic of the Brexit, it looks like the Nexit is not next: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/high-turnout-dutch-vote-europe-test-170315195346496.html



Not a final poll, but I assume we can assume that the final result will not switch their positions or so.

Will Frag be moving to the UK, given his enthusiasm for EUxits and his happiness that Britain got its Brexit?

[Greyblades]

Wilders was doomed when every other party made a pact against him, still it didnt stop his party gaining 5 seats while the winning VVD lost 8 and Labour crashed and burned by losing 29. Puts him in the position to become leader of the opposition, or the dutch equivalent anyway.

Better hope the VVD can turn things around in it's 3+ party coalition.

[Husar]

Wilders was doomed when every other party made a pact against him, still it didnt stop his party gaining 5 seats while the winning VVD lost 8 and Labour crashed and burned by losing 29. Puts him in the position to become leader of the opposition, or the dutch equivalent anyway.

Better hope the VVD can turn things around in it's 3+ party coalition.

Why?
Essentially you're saying the government lost 37 seats and the vast majority of those voters did not go to Wilders, who only gained 4 seats of those 37. If we're to believe the article, the idea of Wilders even motivated a lot of people to go and vote against him. The VVD doesn't have to turn anything around as long as Wilders cannot find partners for a coalition or get 50% of the vote himself. Maybe the next government would just include the VVD as a junior partner with a completely different party taking the main stage. That party may prove itself in the upcoming coalition if they can find one.

[Greyblades]

I do not imagine for a second that the people's distaste for wilders will outweight the dismay of the top 3-4 alternatives continuing the political direction that resulted in the gutting of the dutch labour party.

Wilders is where UKIP was in 2015, if his main appeal is not usurped by a more competent party or made irrelevant by a radical change in situation his party will keep growing until he has the majority.

[Gilrandir]

A new referendum is imminent?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39422747

[Idaho]

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8Bvsc9XUAAmjuw.jpg&imgrefurl=https://twitter.com/protohedgehog?lang=en-gb&h=756&w=1200&tbnid=HRaMA7IVtpiUmM&tbnh=178&tbnw=283&usg=__BOS6gnSumz9fpfhhZrAgVqfgwVo=&docid=4SKn8SjggSHuEM#h=756&imgrc=HRaMA7IVtpiUmM:&tbnh=178&tbnw=283&w=1200

Can't get it to show... Ignore.

[Elmetiacos]

A new referendum is imminent?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39422747
Now depending on how far each side is prepared to go with brinkmanship, this could be where the proverbial hits the fan.

[Kagemusha]

Apparently UK will not allow the referendum to take place before the Brexit is concluded. Such might play to the hand of the Scottish separatists.

[Husar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhiMNCyXcFg

:creep:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhiMNCyXcFg

:creep:

I made the point a while ago that posting a video on its own should be seen as spam.

Who is this and what debate was this? I assume it was something related to Junker's proposals

It seems he cannot tell the difference between the EU and Europe, and if the subtitles are correct he cannot tell the difference between the British and the English, either.

Also - his cleaving to "Europe" appears to be motivated primarily by fear of the "Other" and a siege mentality.

[Fragony]

Common mistake, Europe is a continent, the EU a unnecesary undemocratic atrocity. The EU is only important for the EU. They are at least consistant, it's true that if there isn't more EU there isn't as much EU after all. Can't argue with that.

It's funny to see how hysterical eurolords are. The UK will be fine and that's going to discredit their use even more. Most hilarious is Juncker (who???? well Juncker, THE. Seriously who is that, ah ok that guy who is always drunk now I know thx)

Just for hilarity's sake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU

take me to your leader!
-uhm that's him.... sorry
ok next

[Husar]

I made the point a while ago that posting a video on its own should be seen as spam.

Who is this and what debate was this? I assume it was something related to Junker's proposals

It seems he cannot tell the difference between the EU and Europe, and if the subtitles are correct he cannot tell the difference between the British and the English, either.

Also - his cleaving to "Europe" appears to be motivated primarily by fear of the "Other" and a siege mentality.

Well, in that case I'm glad that you're not a moderator. ~;p

Who that is can be found out by reading the youtube video description. I did not include it because it is not important for the message.
The Brexit itself came about due to a siege mentality, fear of the "other" and millions of British people being unable to tell the difference between a serious argument and a lie on a bus... And not to forget British people being unable to tell the difference between a troll vote and a serious vote with consequences, aka telling democracy apart from Eurovision. So what goes around comes around I guess.

[Fragony]

What comes around goes around came, it's called the Brexit. The English have little to worry about really, the EU all the more. Analysts (or rather trendwatchers) already predicted something like this 20 years ago, they put the year when the EU would economically (southern-europe) and geo-politically (the Ukraine) overstretch earlier but they weren't all that wrong, the UK would be first to leave, after that the Netherlands or the Visegrad-zone. The Netherlands is unlikely right now sadly, but the visegrad-zone isn't exactly very happy with Brussel's commands

[Pannonian]

What comes around goes around came, it's called the Brexit. The English have little to worry about really, the EU all the more. Analysts (or rather trendwatchers) already predicted something like this 20 years ago, they put the year when the EU would economically (southern-europe) and geo-politically (the Ukraine) overstretch earlier but they weren't all that wrong, the UK would be first to leave, after that the Netherlands or the Visegrad-zone. The Netherlands is unlikely right now sadly, but the visegrad-zone isn't exactly very happy with Brussel's commands

Since the English have little to worry about really, are you planning to come over here to live any time soon? This is, after all, the utopia you advocated.

[Husar]

What comes around goes around came, it's called the Brexit. The English have little to worry about really, the EU all the more. Analysts (or rather trendwatchers) already predicted something like this 20 years ago, they put the year when the EU would economically (southern-europe) and geo-politically (the Ukraine) overstretch earlier but they weren't all that wrong, the UK would be first to leave, after that the Netherlands or the Visegrad-zone. The Netherlands is unlikely right now sadly, but the visegrad-zone isn't exactly very happy with Brussel's commands

That's just islander mentality. You can go to a tiny island in the north of Germany and they will probably tell you how they "do things differently around here" and how they're "a special kind of people". Or go talk to submariners of any nation. Of course none would tell you that "we cry a lot because we're lonely" or "we are afraid of our own weakness so we prefer to be alone". It's perfectly normal to try and turn your quirks and faults into strengths because you're afraid to get eaten otherwise in this darwinistic world. The ratio of special islanders is just higher in Britain because they haven't had regular friendly contact with continentals for as long as the Netherlands.

The so-called "increase in nationalism" is just a panicking of the vanishing. It is likely not to increase any further, but to implode as it dies out and gets replaced.

[Fragony]

Maybe the islanders aren't all that stupid and your rather obvious dédain for them is, just saying.

THE offence to be given by eurocrats, 'populism!'. I'd advice them to look up what populism really means, and consider what they are themselves, no not populists, anything but, eurocrats are the exact opposite they should wear toga's really

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Since the English have little to worry about really, are you planning to come over here to live any time soon? This is, after all, the utopia you advocated.

Americans just love your accent and get all "ooooh-aaaah" about it. They automatically credit you folks with 25 IQ points more than you have if you speak with that "Eton" twang.

[Husar]

Maybe the islanders aren't all that stupid and your rather obvious dédain for them is, just saying.

Maybe you're hallucinating about what I said if you think there was "obvious disdain" in my post or that I called them "stupid", just saying.
You also saw the anti-EU forces winning in the Netherlands for a Nexit and then they got what? 13%? :rolleyes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39465631

There will be no deal.

"After reported lobbying from Spain, the EU's Brexit negotiation strategy is that decisions affecting Gibraltar will be run past the Spanish government."

That's it - the Spanish will screw us - might as well give up on a compromise now.

[Pannonian]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39465631

There will be no deal.

"After reported lobbying from Spain, the EU's Brexit negotiation strategy is that decisions affecting Gibraltar will be run past the Spanish government."

That's it - the Spanish will screw us - might as well give up on a compromise now.

The irony is, Gibraltar voted 96% remain.

[Fragony]

Maybe you're hallucinating about what I said if you think there was "obvious disdain" in my post or that I called them "stupid", just saying.
You also saw the anti-EU forces winning in the Netherlands for a Nexit and then they got what? 13%? :rolleyes:

Second biggest party but nobody wants to work with them, it's (nexit supporters/general EU-haters) is going to be bigger eventually as there is a new kid in town (two really, one is loved by women, one really isn't) to harvest the Fortuyn-voters who think the Freedom-party is too extreme on some things (they are). We will see in the next elections,a nexit is now highly unlikely. But you are misinterpetating results, almost a handfull voted for being in the EU as a first thought

[Fragony]

The irony is, Gibraltar voted 96% remain.

They should be allowed to split off if they did, works both ways

[Kagemusha]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39465631

There will be no deal.

"After reported lobbying from Spain, the EU's Brexit negotiation strategy is that decisions affecting Gibraltar will be run past the Spanish government."

That's it - the Spanish will screw us - might as well give up on a compromise now.

So would you rather negotiate with EU or Spain?

[Husar]

Second biggest party but nobody wants to work with them, it's (nexit supporters/general EU-haters) is going to be bigger eventually as there is a new kid in town (two really, one is loved by women, one really isn't) to harvest the Fortuyn-voters who think the Freedom-party is too extreme on some things (they are). We will see in the next elections,a nexit is now highly unlikely. But you are misinterpetating results, almost a handfull voted for being in the EU as a first thought

Second biggest party but AFAIK the only one for a Nexit. Which is one reason none of the others want to work with them. Of course it's quite possible that the first thought of the voters was not to vote for the racists or to punish the workers' party, but then their second thought was obviously not to vote for the Nexiters/racists. Either way it seems clear that ~87% of the Dutch don't want to have a PVV government, which may have something to do with their party program. :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

Nobody wants to work with them because established parties are glued to their seats like a chicken sits on it's egg. The SP (socialist party) is also strictly excluded, not part of the old-boy's netwerk, or kartel as some call it. Europhiles think the Dutch vote was pro-Brussels, forget it nobody likes Brussels except for a few rabid europhiles, and these got less votes than those who are downright anti-EU. A referendum on leaving the EU will be a very close call, I think it will become a reluctantt stay but that won't be a reason for any optimism for europhiles, like the Brittish the Dutch reallyyyyy don't like being told what to do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So would you rather negotiate with EU or Spain?

The Spanish want Gibraltar - we won't give them Gibraltar because the locals want to be British. The Spanish Government, given their own current domestic situation, have more to lose by "giving up" Gibraltar than by torpedoing a future UK-EU trade agreement.

So, it doesn't matter what I want, only what the Spanish want, because the British Government will not sacrifice 30,000 citizens for a deal.

[Kagemusha]

The Spanish want Gibraltar - we won't give them Gibraltar because the locals want to be British. The Spanish Government, given their own current domestic situation, have more to lose by "giving up" Gibraltar than by torpedoing a future UK-EU trade agreement.

So, it doesn't matter what I want, only what the Spanish want, because the British Government will not sacrifice 30,000 citizens for a deal.

Not really answering my question, but thank you for opening your line of thought.

As long as Britain was in EU this issue was for example a non issue as it could be moderated within EU. Now that you are outside of EU, EU can only support its member nation, in which case Britain suffers. One way or another.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really answering my question, but thank you for opening your line of thought.

As long as Britain was in EU this issue was for example a non issue as it could be moderated within EU. Now that you are outside of EU, EU can only support its member nation, in which case Britain suffers. One way or another.

Well, I confess I didn't quite understand it.

In any case, there will be no negotiation, we negotiated and held a Referendum on "joint sovereignty", 99% voted in favour of the status quo.

It has not been a "non issue" since then, though. Last summer the Spanish started carrying our prohibitively long checks at the border, forcing people to wait for hours in their overheating cars and Spanish Navy ships frequently violate Gibraltarn waters.

It's like with the Argentinians and the Falklands, except with ten times the British Citizens involved.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....It's like with the Argentinians and the Falklands, except with ten times the British Citizens involved.

But with a much smaller RN.

[Kagemusha]

Well, I confess I didn't quite understand it.

In any case, there will be no negotiation, we negotiated and held a Referendum on "joint sovereignty", 99% voted in favour of the status quo.

It has not been a "non issue" since then, though. Last summer the Spanish started carrying our prohibitively long checks at the border, forcing people to wait for hours in their overheating cars and Spanish Navy ships frequently violate Gibraltarn waters.

This was before or after 23.06.2017? Dont you understand. You had a platform in EU where this kind of issues were easy to settle, but you decided to walk out from it, because of various reasons. You are now reaping what you sow and this is just a one issue. I surely hope your reasoning for Brexit will offer you more then what you are about to loose.


It's like with the Argentinians and the Falklands, except with ten times the British Citizens involved.

So you want to fight the Spanish over it?

[Fragony]

Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay, nothing is going to really change except cutting of a human traffic route, 'refugees' are Spain's problem if it's Spanish territory, pure win if you look at it pragmatically

[Brenus]

It's like with the Argentinians and the Falklands, except with ten times the British Citizens involved.
At least the Spanish planes won't be at the limit of their range, and their Aircraft Carrier unsinkable...

[Pannonian]

Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay, nothing is going to really change except cutting of a human traffic route, 'refugees' are Spain's problem if it's Spanish territory, pure win if you look at it pragmatically

You sound like the neolibs more and more. "(Whatever) is a small price to pay for upholding these theories, as I'm not the one who has to pay it."

[Fragony]

You sound like the neolibs more and more. "(Whatever) is a small price to pay for upholding these theories, as I'm not the one who has to pay it."

It's all a game and giving up Gilbraltar would be a queen-sacrifice

It's perfect, you gave up a disputed territory, you would have done enough to feed the wolves, stfu very please what more do you want???? Forces in the EU want to punish you brits you know that, they don't want other net-payers to stop paying their comfortable bliss

I prefer neo-machi btw

[Pannonian]

It's all a game and giving up Gilbraltar would be a queen-sacrifice

It's perfect, you gave up a disputed territory, you would have done enough to feed the wolves, stfu very please

I prefer neo-machi btw

Again, it's the British who are paying the price, not you. To you it is a game, as you're not among those who have to face the consequences. Just like when the neolibs instructed Yeltsin to tear his country apart with no social backup, just to see how their theories play out in the real world.

[Fragony]

Again, it's the British who are paying the price, not you. To you it is a game, as you're not among those who have to face the consequences. Just like when the neolibs instructed Yeltsin to tear his country apart with no social backup, just to see how their theories play out in the real world.

Of course tbe Dutch are going to feel the consquences, as a net-payer we are going to cough up even more to pay their despot-paradise. You have gained a lot be happy, a brexit just about reduces tarrifs from countries outside the EU with more than a little bit, the UK can make associations as they see fit, and neglect all imposed rules of that atrocious cancer that is the EU. I am so glad the UK did what it did, the Dutch love the Brits but will always obey others and I hope that stops from now, especially if the Brexit turns out to be a very very good decision. The EU is not a free market youknow, it's a protected one. It makes no sense for the UK to be part of it, half or so of your trade is gone because of tarrifs out of the Brussel-zone

[Gilrandir]

Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay, nothing is going to really change except cutting of a human traffic route, 'refugees' are Spain's problem if it's Spanish territory, pure win if you look at it pragmatically


You sound like the neolibs more and more. "(Whatever) is a small price to pay for upholding these theories, as I'm not the one who has to pay it."

Next thing Fragony is gonna say is "Scotland/Northern Ireland is a small price for being free from Brussels".

[Fragony]

Next thing Fragony is gonna say is "Scotland/Northern Ireland is a small price for being free from Brussels".

No I will just say that your country already has been sacrificed, you can't say I didn't tell you that it would be

[Kagemusha]

Of course tbe Dutch are going to feel the consquences, as a net-payer we are going to cough up even more to pay their despot-paradise. You have gained a lot be happy, a brexit just about reduces tarrifs from countries outside the EU with more than a little bit, the UK can make associations as they see fit, and neglect all imposed rules of that atrocious cancer that is the EU. I am so glad the UK did what it did, the Dutch love the Brits but will always obey others and I hope that stops from now, especially if the Brexit turns out to be a very very good decision. The EU is not a free market youknow, it's a protected one. It makes no sense for the UK to be part of it, half or so of your trade is gone because of tarrifs out of the Brussel-zone

So leaving a bigger market and becoming a smaller will guarantee one better trade terms? Sorry but world does not work that way. Larger the market, better terms it can get.

[Fragony]

So leaving a bigger market and becoming a smaller will guarantee one better trade terms? Sorry but world does not work that way. Larger the market, better terms it can get.


What bigger market would that be, the economies that are struggling with the EU printing more fictional money or the areas that are actually growing? The UK was so right.

[Pannonian]

So leaving a bigger market and becoming a smaller will guarantee one better trade terms? Sorry but world does not work that way. Larger the market, better terms it can get.

Funny thing is, May's argument for Scotland to remain within the Union could, word for word, be the argument for the UK to remain within the EU.

[Gilrandir]

No I will just say that your country already has been sacrificed, you can't say I didn't tell you that it would be

You mean Ukraine was sacrificed to Russia so that the UK could exit the EU? :dizzy2:

[Fragony]

You mean Ukraine was sacrificed to Russia so that the UK could exit the EU? :dizzy2:

No I'am saying that you are fucked, I can go alll Pillatus on what's commingfor you very soon

[Gilrandir]

No I'am saying that you are fucked, I can go alll Pillatus on what's commingfor you very soon

Enlighten me, oh Vanga the Omniscient on the future that awaits me.:hail:

[Kagemusha]

What bigger market would that be, the economies that are struggling with the EU printing more fictional money or the areas that are actually growing? The UK was so right.

The worlds largest single market with over 500 million consumers. Exports worth of 2415 Bn € and imports worth 2188 Bn €. That one.

[Fragony]

Enlighten me, oh Vanga the Omniscient on the future that awaits me.:hail:

wtf do you expect will happen, whatever Russia does it can get away with because it was always a gentlemens-agreement to never get too close to them and the EU fucked that up, and you are the one who's going to pay, why do you think the majority of the Dutch were so against an association-agreement, no not because we care about you, much more selfish than that, never wake bears when they are having a nap

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But with a much smaller RN.

And a potential to start WWIII.

So let's hope the Spanish aren't that stupid.


This was before or after 23.06.2017? Dont you understand. You had a platform in EU where this kind of issues were easy to settle, but you decided to walk out from it, because of various reasons. You are now reaping what you sow and this is just a one issue. I surely hope your reasoning for Brexit will offer you more then what you are about to loose.

What is there to settle? We negotiated, we held a referendum, the people voted to be British but still the Spanish want the rock, and they have been goading us every summer since. The right thing for the EU to do would be to tell the Spanish that it has been British for over three centuries and to drop it. In fact, they have not, instead their negotiating position "acknowledges" the Spanish claim, as though it was somehow legitimate.

So, from my perspective the EU has been no help in settling this over the last decade - the other EU countries essentially support the Spanish position and continue to do so. If anything we gain a benefit from leaving the EU as we are no longer required to tow a line which gives lip service to a Spanish claim.


So you want to fight the Spanish over it?

No, I fear they will be stupid enough to fight us over it. If this becomes a bigger issue than it already is it may well have a military aspect as we'll have to rush HMS Queen Elizabeth to service before we leave the EU and accelerate uptake of the F35B in order to have a credible carrier force to deter such stupidity.

At the very least I imagine the RN is asking if it needs to keep a Destroyer Squadron in the Med ping-ponging between Cyprus and the Rock.


Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay, nothing is going to really change except cutting of a human traffic route, 'refugees' are Spain's problem if it's Spanish territory, pure win if you look at it pragmatically

The abandonment of 30,000 British citizens and the gateway to the Med is in no way acceptable, from a humanitarian, economic, or military perspective. If the Spanish are bellicose enough to demand the Rock, are they bellicose enough to close the Straight to British shipping?


At least the Spanish planes won't be at the limit of their range, and their Aircraft Carrier unsinkable...

Sorry, care to explain? I honestly don't understand the reference, or rather it could mean one of three things at least.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lord Howard implies we would go to war over Gibraltar:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/theresa-may-would-go-war-defend-sovereignty-gibraltar-says-michael/


"35 years ago this week another woman Prime Minister sent a task force half way across the World to defend the freedom of another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country. I am absolutely certain our current Prime Minister will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar."


Another quote from said article:


Fabian Picardo told the BBC this morning that sharing sovereignty with Spain would be "absolutely awful" and comparable to "living in somebody else’s land."


Fabian Picardo is Gibraltar's Chief Minister.

[Husar]

So Gibraltar is basically proof of what happens when you don't exterminate an immigrant enclave fast enough?

Apparently it was taken in an opportune moment when there was internal turmoil, much like a peninsula that was formerly part of Ukraine (and also partially an immigrant enclave)... :inquisitive: :dizzy2:

[Gilrandir]

wtf do you expect will happen, whatever Russia does it can get away with because it was always a gentlemens-agreement to never get too close to them and the EU fucked that up, and you are the one who's going to pay, why do you think the majority of the Dutch were so against an association-agreement, no not because we care about you, much more selfish than that, never wake bears when they are having a nap

AFAIK, this "gentlemen's agreement" was concluded with NATO, not the EU. And for the last 2 years Russia hasn't made much progress in "doing something" to Ukraine. Your ideas of causes and consequences are beyond any criticism.

And if we adopt your viewpoint, it is the Neyherlands that are fucked up: the Nexit party has lost the elections and your are doomed to stay within the EU under the yoke of Brussels, so it is for you that the prospects aren't that bright.

[Pannonian]

So Gibraltar is basically proof of what happens when you don't exterminate an immigrant enclave fast enough?

Apparently it was taken in an opportune moment when there was internal turmoil, much like a peninsula that was formerly part of Ukraine (and also partially an immigrant enclave)... :inquisitive: :dizzy2:

To be fair, although I don't expect anyone to be fair to Britain, Spain has a couple of enclaves on the African continent as well. I expect Britain to be attacked for the unfairness of holding territory in Iberia, while Spain's holdings in North Africa will be ignored.

[Kagemusha]

Lord Howard implies we would go to war over Gibraltar:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/theresa-may-would-go-war-defend-sovereignty-gibraltar-says-michael/



Another quote from said article:



Fabian Picardo is Gibraltar's Chief Minister.

So in less then half a year there is talk about war in Western Europe. Im sure Putin is laughing himself senseless and Trump is ready to offer Britain the deal of their lives as vassal of US. This is exactly why EU should remain and the only redeeming factor is that anyone in Europe is idiot enough to actually start a war over few rocks at Gibraltar. Sometimes the amount of human stupidity is just too much to handle.

[Husar]

To be fair, although I don't expect anyone to be fair to Britain, Spain has a couple of enclaves on the African continent as well. I expect Britain to be attacked for the unfairness of holding territory in Iberia, while Spain's holdings in North Africa will be ignored.

They're all example of nations caring only about their own interests and conquest and oppression of others.
It's a terrible world, nothing we can do but wait for the flashes to end it all. :shrug:

What we can clearly see in any case is how the whole idea of "friendly separation" is a pipe dream the leave camp lied about whereas we remainers warned that separation is usually the path to conflict and potentially even war. And here we are, before the separation is even done, talking about uparmament and even the use of nukes over a conflict caused by the separation...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britains-navy-far-weaker-falklands-could-still-cripple-spain/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg

[Brenus]

Sorry, care to explain? I honestly don't understand the reference, or rather it could mean one of three things at least.
A joke referring to the distance between Argentina and the Falklands. The Argentine Air Forces were at the limit of fuel for their planes (Mirages and Daggers) and had limited Aerospace Exocet Missiles. So they could not be as efficient as possible, as their possibility of tactics were limited by the time they could be on the war theater.
And the aircraft carrier being Spain (not the Veinti Cinco de Mayo that was never engaged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinticinco_de_Mayo_(V-2) ) it is by definition unsinkable...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So Gibraltar is basically proof of what happens when you don't exterminate an immigrant enclave fast enough?

Apparently it was taken in an opportune moment when there was internal turmoil, much like a peninsula that was formerly part of Ukraine (and also partially an immigrant enclave)... :inquisitive: :dizzy2:

So this is fair, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/02/eu-will-not-go-soft-on-gibraltar-brexit-talks-diplomats-say-spain


The EU will not back down in its support for Spain’s demands when it comes to the Rock of Gibraltar in Brexit negotiations, senior European diplomats have said. The European council, whose members comprise the EU member states, shocked Downing Street by saying the British overseas territory could be included in a trade deal between London and Brussels only with Spain’s agreement.

A little background from Le Gruniard:


Ever since the Anglo-Dutch fleet captured Gibraltar 313 years ago during the war of Spanish succession, the small territory at the southern tip of Spain has been a bone of contention between Madrid and London. Although British sovereignty was formalised by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and Gibraltar became a British colony in 1830, Spain has always bristled at the idea of UK ownership. Two referendums - in 1967 and 2002 - have shown that the overwhelming majority of residents wish Gibraltar to remain British. Despite accusations of double standards given its two enclaves in north Africa, Spain has refused to relinquish its claim.


Your comparison with Ukraine is helpful, though, because it highlight why Lord Howard said what he did. The message seems to be lost on the Left but it is the same sentiment as with the Falklands viz:

"We will not abandon our citizens to you and we will not allow you to subjugate them by force."

This is not "sabre rattling", it is simply a grim statement of fact, we will not let our people be subjugated by force.

Despite this both Spain and Argentina inflict hardship upon enclaves that have been British longer than living memory primarily out of spite.

War with Spain is virtually impossible though because of the NATO treaty, if Spain were to invade Gibraltar the rest of NATO, including the EU would be honour-bound to oppose them.


So in less then half a year there is talk about war in Western Europe. Im sure Putin is laughing himself senseless and Trump is ready to offer Britain the deal of their lives as vassal of US. This is exactly why EU should remain and the only redeeming factor is that anyone in Europe is idiot enough to actually start a war over few rocks at Gibraltar. Sometimes the amount of human stupidity is just too much to handle.

That's one way to look at it, the other is to recognise this canker has been festering since 2002 and the EU just papered over it. That the EU now sides with Spain against the Gibraltarns after a referendum where 99% rejected joint sovereignty is, in my view, just another argument in favour of leaving.

[Pannonian]

That's one way to look at it, the other is to recognise this canker has been festering since 2002 and the EU just papered over it. That the EU now sides with Spain against the Gibraltarns after a referendum where 99% rejected joint sovereignty is, in my view, just another argument in favour of leaving.

You'd argue that anything in the world is yet another argument in favour of leaving. One of your clinching arguments was that, with the separation from the EU, Westminster no longer has that excuse for failing. Ie. that leaving is nothing to do with the EU, but entirely because Westminster has failed. If you find that your browser stopped working after the latest update, you'd say that it's just yet more reason why we need to leave the EU, as we need to eliminate that possibility from the reasons why your browser may have failed.

[Husar]

So this is fair, then?

Of course it is fair. Britain voted to leave the EU to take care of its own national interests. There were people on this forum saying it is better to have competing nations and the nation state is the ultimate soandso. Now that Britain is not in a bloc with Spain anymore, Spain is thinking about acting in its own self interest against a now-competing nation. The EU only acts in its own self interest when it supports the claims of a member over those of a leaving or non-member. British people claimed it's some holy form of behavior to act in national self-interest and are now crying about others doing the same? You've been warned and you said you wanted, preferred this. Now deal with it.

The whole hypocrisy thing is nonexistant and inconsequential in a world of self-interest and competition.
The argument about how long it has been British is even more true for Ceuta and Melilla, they have been Spanish for even longer. The thing is what changed ownership 300 years ago can do so again, that's the way of the world you voted for. And in whose favor was the referendum in 1713 anyway?

[Montmorency]

There's not much scope to fight anyway. Does Spain bomb out the entire peninsula? Do ships engage and get sunk around the strait, completely closing the Mediterranean to the world? Does Britain drop bombs and missiles just at the peninsula, or on targets throughout the mainland? What happens with Morocco?

If the world could in fact tolerate this war, then Spain would be in the position to win, i.e. achieve its goal of dominating Gibraltar. There would be no way to expel Spanish forces without obliterating the entire piece of land.

Funny to discuss, but not a real conflict for the time being.

[Fragony]

AFAIK, this "gentlemen's agreement" was concluded with NATO, not the EU. And for the last 2 years Russia hasn't made much progress in "doing something" to Ukraine. Your ideas of causes and consequences are beyond any criticism.

And if we adopt your viewpoint, it is the Neyherlands that are fucked up: the Nexit party has lost the elections and your are doomed to stay within the EU under the yoke of Brussels, so it is for you that the prospects aren't that bright.


You are wrong if you thinkt the nexit-camp lost, they are purists, and got a lot. They should. I will never support them but kudos

[Kagemusha]

So summa summarum. With aid of both Britain and Spain, the trade treaty between Britain and EU fall`s short. British pro Brexiters take that as evidence that Brexit was the righteous thing to do. British economy take`s a major hit. What next?

Britain with her problematic economical future take`s an adamant stand at NATO together with Trumpist US that all members have to commit to 2% spending of GDP, which Germany with some other countries reject, with arguments like their larger spending to overseas development aid, dividing the NATO, could such be possible next?

[Pannonian]

You are wrong if you thinkt the nexit-camp lost, they are purists, and got a lot. They should. I will never support them but kudos

So an ardent Dutch supporter of Brexit doesn't actually support Nexit, yet feels able to lecture Brits that their future will be worthwhile, whatever territories, prosperity or other things they'll have to give up. The hypocrisy stinks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You'd argue that anything in the world is yet another argument in favour of leaving. One of your clinching arguments was that, with the separation from the EU, Westminster no longer has that excuse for failing. Ie. that leaving is nothing to do with the EU, but entirely because Westminster has failed. If you find that your browser stopped working after the latest update, you'd say that it's just yet more reason why we need to leave the EU, as we need to eliminate that possibility from the reasons why your browser may have failed.

Oh, so you found that convincing, then?

What I actually said was that having an over-arching authority that people feel is unaccountable is bad for democracy, and that with that removed we would, at least, be masters of our own destiny.


Of course it is fair. Britain voted to leave the EU to take care of its own national interests. There were people on this forum saying it is better to have competing nations and the nation state is the ultimate soandso. Now that Britain is not in a bloc with Spain anymore, Spain is thinking about acting in its own self interest against a now-competing nation. The EU only acts in its own self interest when it supports the claims of a member over those of a leaving or non-member. British people claimed it's some holy form of behavior to act in national self-interest and are now crying about others doing the same? You've been warned and you said you wanted, preferred this. Now deal with it.

The whole hypocrisy thing is nonexistant and inconsequential in a world of self-interest and competition.
The argument about how long it has been British is even more true for Ceuta and Melilla, they have been Spanish for even longer. The thing is what changed ownership 300 years ago can do so again, that's the way of the world you voted for. And in whose favor was the referendum in 1713 anyway?

So the 30,000 Gibraltarns should be used as a scapegoat when the talks fail?

If we agreed to stay in the single market Gibraltar should be excluded unless we hand over at least partial control to the Spanish?

I never argued for mercenary self-interest, others have argued that but I have been very clear that, for me, this was about the fact that I don't want to be part of an unaccountable, un-democratic Bloc.

Anyway, the EU is supposed to be about peace, prosperity and co-operation - internally and externally. You posted a video to that effect just a little while ago, did you not?

[Pannonian]

Oh, so you found that convincing, then?

What I actually said was that having an over-arching authority that people feel is unaccountable is bad for democracy, and that with that removed we would, at least, be masters of our own destiny.

Living in England, I don't feel like a master of my own destiny. At least not until the centre left successor to the Labour party runs for election. It's going to be a Tory government, most likely tending towards its right wing to placate the UKIP wing, until such an eventuality. I expect this to last at least another decade, possibly multiple, especially if Scotland splits off.

And BTW, self determination is a liberal (hence leftist) argument. Rightist arguments revolve around states.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So summa summarum. With aid of both Britain and Spain, the trade treaty between Britain and EU fall`s short. British pro Brexiters take that as evidence that Brexit was the righteous thing to do. British economy take`s a major hit. What next?

Britain with her problematic economical future take`s an adamant stand at NATO together with Trumpist US that all members have to commit to 2% spending of GDP, which Germany with some other countries reject, with arguments like their larger spending to overseas development aid, dividing the NATO, could such be possible next?

We shall see what actually happens.

I will be surprised if the EU actually allows Spain to choke Gibraltar by the throat. One would hope basic humanity would prevent that. On the other hand, the EU continues to throttle Greece.

[Pannonian]

We shall see what actually happens.

I will be surprised if the EU actually allows Spain to choke Gibraltar by the throat. One would hope basic humanity would prevent that. On the other hand, the EU continues to throttle Greece.

OTOH, any agreement needs to be ratified by all members. Spain doesn't need to choke Gibraltar. All they need to do is not ratify any agreement, and there is no UK-EU agreement (as has been the case with Canada and Belgium for quite some time). When the spectre of Turkish membership was raised by kippers, this basic mechanic should have been pointed out as our safeguard. The mechanic still exists, but it's likely to work against us as we're now the ones outside.

[Husar]

I never argued for mercenary self-interest, others have argued that but I have been very clear that, for me, this was about the fact that I don't want to be part of an unaccountable, un-democratic Bloc.

That's the thing, you can't have one without the other it seems and apparently you weighed your options and made your choice together with your fellow countrymen. The result is visible now.


Anyway, the EU is supposed to be about peace, prosperity and co-operation - internally and externally. You posted a video to that effect just a little while ago, did you not?

That video was full of useless rhetoric, or did you think I posted that unaware of my blaming Greyblades for using useless rhetoric just a few days earlier when the made a similarly useless statement? It was accompanied by a sneaking smiley for a reason. It would be nice if the EU could be about these things, but Brexit clearly showed the EU that it needs to be more competitive to keep its members since compassionate actions such as taking care of refugees triggered the Brexit and made other countries angry as well. The people of this world want the world to be this way and so it is, I just adapt to the will of the people and punch them in the face for my self-interest. :2thumbsup:

Maybe after the next World War they will want peace again and say this can't ever happen again until they get bored 70 years later and want more "self-interest" again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lord Howard implies we would go to war over Gibraltar....

I don't see Spain militarily annexing Gib.

Were they to try, the UK's military capability to stop or counterattack is much more limited than it was in 1982.

Could it be done?

Would the UK need to resort to a nuclear threat?

If the threat failed, could the UK actually launch nukes (obviously they have the technology, that's not what I see as an obstacle)?

[Fragony]

So an ardent Dutch supporter of Brexit doesn't actually support Nexit, yet feels able to lecture Brits that their future will be worthwhile, whatever territories, prosperity or other things they'll have to give up. The hypocrisy stinks.

It's not that, a lot of pvv supporters are just tired of the muslim-bashing as it's just not fair. When it comes to the EU things are different though, it aren't just pvv voters who dispise the EU, look for the referendum on the EU-consitution and the Associaton-Treaty with the Ukraine and you will kinda see how things are

[Pannonian]

I don't see Spain militarily annexing Gib.

Were they to try, the UK's military capability to stop or counterattack is much more limited than it was in 1982.

Could it be done?

Would the UK need to resort to a nuclear threat?

If the threat failed, could the UK actually launch nukes (obviously they have the technology, that's not what I see as an obstacle)?

The real practical threat is that, after an agreement has been made with the EU delegates, when it comes to ratifying the agreement, Spain will say No. And despite PFH's criticisms of the EU lacking democratic accountability, the EU as a body is subject to numerous vetoes, one for each member state. As Canada has found out, if one member says No, the EU as a body says No. And the default persists until an agreement is reached. In the face of this, the UK can't exactly threaten war, and it has far too little leverage for economic war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The UK is not threatening war - the UK is merely making it clear that it will not compromise on Gibraltar and sell its people out, even in the face of military action. It shouldn't need to be said, it should be taken as read, but better to say it now than in 18 months time.

[Fragony]

The UK is not threatening war - the UK is merely making it clear that it will not compromise on Gibraltar and sell its people out, even in the face of military action. It shouldn't need to be said, it should be taken as read, but better to say it now than in 18 months time.

For what purpose, it was strstegically important in 1700 or so, now it's just sentiment. What could go wrong if you gracefully just give it away. Sacrfifices are going to be made and this would be a small but very symbolic one, everyone has an instant stfu

[Greyblades]

Any Prime minister who abandons countrymen for expedience tends to find thier career comes to an end shortly afterwards.

I was willing to settle for no deal before the matter of territorial concession came into it, the spanish want to fuck the germans over gibraltar that's their problem.

Ce'st la vie.

[Brenus]

So the 30,000 Gibraltarns should be used as a scapegoat when the talks fail
Well, now now, what do you think I feel when T. May uses me and others EU foreigners in UK as human shield for the future negotiation? The silence of the British is deafening.

[Brenus]

Could it be done? Would the UK need to resort to a nuclear threat?
That will be suicidal. NATO would have the obligation to nuke UK.
And France being part of NATO and a Nuclear Weapons owner would be obliged to use them against UK, so at the end having 2 neighbours transformed in ashes, radioactives ones..:yes:

[Fragony]

lolwut the English are sending fleet

[Gilrandir]

Anyway, the EU is supposed to be about peace, prosperity and co-operation - internally and externally.

How can anyone in sober senses want to abandon "peace, prosperity and cooperation"?


That will be suicidal. NATO would have the obligation to nuke UK.
And France being part of NATO and a Nuclear Weapons owner would be obliged to use them against UK, so at the end having 2 neighbours transformed in ashes, radioactives ones..:yes:

Who will you fight for then?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For what purpose, it was strstegically important in 1700 or so, now it's just sentiment. What could go wrong if you gracefully just give it away. Sacrfifices are going to be made and this would be a small but very symbolic one, everyone has an instant stfu

30,000 people, that is the reason.


Well, now now, what do you think I feel when T. May uses me and others EU foreigners in UK as human shield for the future negotiation? The silence of the British is deafening.

I think the UK has said it will guarantee the status of EU nationals as soon as the EU reciprocates, and I think the EU has refused to discuss the issue up to know.


That will be suicidal. NATO would have the obligation to nuke UK.
And France being part of NATO and a Nuclear Weapons owner would be obliged to use them against UK, so at the end having 2 neighbours transformed in ashes, radioactives ones..:yes:

We're not going to attack Spain, nobody has said we will attack Spain.

If Spain invades Gibraltar will France support the UK?

[Husar]

30,000 people, that is the reason.

They can just move to the UK before Spain takes over. There's no need to abandon them.
If Spain gave up Ceuta and Melilla, the people living there now would probably move to Spain rather than become Moroccans, too.

[Franconicus]

30,000 people, that is the reason.



I am not very familiar with the people living at Gibraltar. However, what I heard is that most of them voted against the BREXIT and are afraid of it. I assume all they want is to live at Gibraltar and have good relations to the UK and Spain. Caused by the BREXIT, there will be a frontier to Spain. I doubt that the Gibraltarians really want to be defended in a war UK against Spain. Neither do they want to move to the UK (or they would have done already). Gibraltar is one of the losers of the BREXIT.

[Brenus]

Who will you fight for then?
I will be part of the ashes, most probably...

[Gilrandir]

I will be part of the ashes, most probably...

Burning yourself is not an option.

[Brenus]

Burning yourself is not an option.

No, but at 58 my options for fighting are limited...

[Gilrandir]

No, but at 58 my options for fighting are limited...

Guerilla warfare doesn't recognize age limits.

[Brenus]

Guerilla warfare doesn't recognize age limits.

Need to be in your own background...

[Gilrandir]

Need to be in your own background...

I don't know what background you consider your own. That is why I asked which side you would back in hypothetical France vs the UK conflict.

[Elmetiacos]

Right, stop this. It's silly.

[edyzmedieval]

This whole sabre rattling is drumming up support for political causes. Nobody is going to go to war - lest so Spain with the UK - it's a public spat between two countries who don't agree on the whole Brexit deal because Spain has a lot to lose out of Brexit and they have a ton of extra work to deal with the considerable amount of UK nationals living in Spain.

When you have a lot of domestic issues to solve, having a ton more on the external side to be added to your plate doesn't make it very cheerful.

[Sarmatian]

I don't know what background you consider your own. That is why I asked which side you would back in hypothetical France vs the UK conflict.

Knowing Brenus, he'd take control of the Isle of Man and declare it a separate country.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Knowing Brenus, he'd take control of the Isle of Man and declare it a separate country.

I don't think you are allowed separate status if the populace is outnumbered by their own sheep...

[Gilrandir]

I don't think you are allowed separate status if the populace is outnumbered by their own sheep...

Up with sheep suffrage.

[Sarmatian]

I don't think you are allowed separate status if the populace is outnumbered by their own sheep...

You've just revoked New Zealand's independence.

[Beskar]

Isle of Mann is currently governed independently except for matters involving foreign affairs and defense.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Isle of Mann is currently governed independently except for matters involving foreign affairs and defense.

It is a land of mutant house cats and replete with too many sheep. How can they be truly independent?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is a land of mutant house cats and replete with too many sheep. How can they be truly independent?

The sheep are allowed to vote.

[Sarmatian]

As they are everywhere.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The sheep are allowed to vote.

All hail the Ovine Republic of Mann.

[Strike For The South]

As they are everywhere.

So deep