EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

Remember whne David Cameron wanted to sell off all those forests and then had to agree not to after the public outcry.

We live in a democracy - if the NHS gets privatised it will ultimately because those supporting the public sector option have lost the argument - and that's a fair-ways off.

Unless you no longer believe we are a democracy, in which case maybe you should be fleeing to somewhere like France or Germany.

Mission creep. During the referendum campaign, the talk of Brexit was a Norway type solution. After a few years of trying to implement Brexit, the next PM will be a no dealer (most of the Tory candidates and in particular the favourites are competing for the no deal Tory member vote). And now you're rationalising selling off the NHS as democracy in action.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905329_BRISTOL_ENGLAND_-_MAY_14__Conservative_MP_Boris_Johnson_speaks_as_he_visits_Bristol_on_May_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqKjggCdpv XjoraOzAlyzu1MOSRhbr0ZABex7Vh5dC_YU.jpg?imwidth=480

Trump has openly backed this guy, the bookie' favourite, to be the next PM. Trump has openly said that the NHS will be part of any future US-UK trade deal. The kingmaker, Farage, has said that the UK should follow the US model of healthcare.

All the evidence of mission creep will be dismissed as Campaign Fear until they're actually here, and then the arguments will change to will of the people. And Leavers will still blame the EU and tell Remainers to go and live in France and Germany.

[rory_20_uk]

The main concrete example of mission creep I've seen so far has been the last 30 years with the EU.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

All the evidence of mission creep will be dismissed as Campaign Fear until they're actually here, and then the arguments will change to will of the people. And Leavers will still blame the EU and tell Remainers to go and live in France and Germany.

The main concrete example of mission creep I've seen so far has been the last 30 years with the EU.

~:smoking:

Told you Leavers would continue to blame the EU.

An example of what Trump wants to do with the NHS. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/)


Donald Trump is ready to use trade talks to force the National Health Service to pay more for its drugs as part of his scheme to "put American patients first”.

Mr Trump has claimed that the high costs faced by US patients are a direct result of other countries’ health services “freeloading” at America’s expense.

Alex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.

"On the foreign side, we need to, through our trade negotiations and agreements, pressure them," Azar said on CNBC.

"And so we pay less, they pay more. It shouldn't be a one-way ratchet. We all have some skin in this game."

He continued: "The reason why they are getting better net prices than we get is their socialised system."

If we get this post-Brexit, will Leavers own responsibility for this? Or will it still be the fault of the EU?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Any bilateral trade deal would take months to negotiate. We are currently at an impasse over chlorinated chicken -- I think you can safely rest on your government's negotiators not selling off the NHS for beads and wampum in any kind of a hurry.

BTW chickens washed in what is, essentially, pool water, does not strike me as much of a health risk. I'd be far more concerned over the possibility of shoddy personal sanitation and cleaning efforts at the chicken processing plants (we never have enough inspectors to watch over everything) than I would be about the chlorine water thing.

[Furunculus]

It is not really about chlorine, all the drama is really about animal welfare. in theory the eu regulatory model aims to keep animals disease free throughout the life cycle, where the us regulatory model aims to ensure that meat is disease free beyond the point of processing.

both result in safe chicken drumsticks - anyone telling you otherwise is mistaken - but the objectors cant frame the debate on grounds of animal welfare because nobody really cares. give people a choice and they'll buy the cheaper (us) chicken.

... which would lead to aneurisms of moral outrage.

[rory_20_uk]

Told you Leavers would continue to blame the EU.

It wasn't blame. It was a fact. A fact you seem to be extremely reluctant to face.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Any bilateral trade deal would take months to negotiate. We are currently at an impasse over chlorinated chicken -- I think you can safely rest on your government's negotiators not selling off the NHS for beads and wampum in any kind of a hurry.

BTW chickens washed in what is, essentially, pool water, does not strike me as much of a health risk. I'd be far more concerned over the possibility of shoddy personal sanitation and cleaning efforts at the chicken processing plants (we never have enough inspectors to watch over everything) than I would be about the chlorine water thing.

Chlorinated chicken is an issue because, in the US, it's the sanitation catch all at the end of a production process where large parts fail current UK regulations. The chlorine isn't the issue. The reason why chlorination is required in the US is the issue. As an example, there was an investigation last year after salmonella caused 300 cases of sickness and 1 death in the UK. In the US, around 450 die each year from salmonella. No chlorination, and bad production processes is harder to hide. US production methods reduce costs by around 20%. AFAIK one of the US demands is that location of origin is not mandatory labelling.

On the unlikelihood of the UK government selling off the NHS: this is what Trump wants. The most likely next PM, Boris Johnson, is Trump's favoured candidate. The man who has influenced the Tories on Brexit more than any other, Nigel Farage, has Bannon's and Trump's support, and is on record as saying that the UK should adopt the US healthcare system. In short, May is going soon (this Friday), and the next government will likely look favourably on Trump's ideas for the UK.

[Pannonian]

It wasn't blame. It was a fact. A fact you seem to be extremely reluctant to face.

~:smoking:

So are you going to be demanding a vote on the US-UK trade deal? Are you going to be demanding a vote on NATO and Five Eyes membership as well? If not, why not?

[rory_20_uk]

So are you going to be demanding a vote on the US-UK trade deal? Are you going to be demanding a vote on NATO and Five Eyes membership as well? If not, why not?

[Sigh]

Because these two entities - along with NATO amongst others - the ability to have judicial supremacy over UK courts.

Every time I say the same thing. And every time you ignore it since it doesn't fit your narrative.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

So are you going to be demanding a vote on the US-UK trade deal? Are you going to be demanding a vote on NATO and Five Eyes membership as well? If not, why not?

we've been over this, yes?

[Pannonian]

[Sigh]

Because these two entities - along with NATO amongst others - the ability to have judicial supremacy over UK courts.

Every time I say the same thing. And every time you ignore it since it doesn't fit your narrative.

~:smoking:

Do you want us to withdraw from the ECHR, the ICJ, and their parent organisations (the Council of Europe, the United Nations)? They have limited jurisdiction over areas of UK law, and we never had referendums on joining these organisations. Doubly so when you count the numerous conventions under the UN banner, such as that on maritime law, and similar. Are you going to apply your principled arguments across the board?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you want us to withdraw from the ECHR, the ICJ, and their parent organisations (the Council of Europe, the United Nations)? They have limited jurisdiction over areas of UK law, and we never had referendums on joining these organisations. Doubly so when you count the numerous conventions under the UN banner, such as that on maritime law, and similar. Are you going to apply your principled arguments across the board?

Again - mission creep.

And, indeed, the UK is less keen on the ECHR now that they've started telling us prisoners should get the vote - i.e. interfering directly in our democratic processes.

As to Leaver Mission Creep - the current deal is stuck because of the backstop, which actually precludes a Norway-style deal with the UK because a Norway-style deal envisages us NOT being part of a common Customs Regime.

So, really, the mission creep is rhetoric - a substantial portion of Leavers support No Deal as a prerequisite to a Norway-Style deal.

[Pannonian]

Again - mission creep.

And, indeed, the UK is less keen on the ECHR now that they've started telling us prisoners should get the vote - i.e. interfering directly in our democratic processes.

As to Leaver Mission Creep - the current deal is stuck because of the backstop, which actually precludes a Norway-style deal with the UK because a Norway-style deal envisages us NOT being part of a common Customs Regime.

So, really, the mission creep is rhetoric - a substantial portion of Leavers support No Deal as a prerequisite to a Norway-Style deal.

If the back stop is so unacceptable, does this mean that Leavers would like the UK to be able to unilaterally revoke international treaties? Since that is why Ireland (backed by the EU) insists on the continuation of the GFA.

Do you want us to leave the United Nations as well? There are a host of international conventions under the UN banner that rule over UK citizens, such as that on maritime law that I cited. They do not currently clash with UK law, as they are enshrined in UK law, but when the international law changes, UK law follows suit, and international courts rule on their application. Is this unacceptable to you as well?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the back stop is so unacceptable, does this mean that Leavers would like the UK to be able to unilaterally revoke international treaties? Since that is why Ireland (backed by the EU) insists on the continuation of the GFA.

Do you want us to leave the United Nations as well? There are a host of international conventions under the UN banner that rule over UK citizens, such as that on maritime law that I cited. They do not currently clash with UK law, as they are enshrined in UK law, but when the international law changes, UK law follows suit, and international courts rule on their application. Is this unacceptable to you as well?

The mere institution of border-checks does not itself breach the GFA. It makes it harder to operate certain parts of the GFA but it is not a breach in and of itself, the GFA merely mandates no militarisation of the border. Indeed, many do not want to sign up to the backstop precisely because they do not want to be in the process of abrogating an international treaty (the Withdrawal Agreement) in the future.

This is why many, including myself, would want a timed backstop - one that lasts (say) five years after the end of the transitional period. Had this been enacted it would have given us a further seven years to sort out the problem. As it is, the EU demands a perpetual backstop, which means potentially perpetual limbo - making leaving the EU economically impractical.

I'm sure at this point you'll want to point out how this shows that we should stay, but remember that it is the EU that has created these circumstances that make leaving so hard - they are not intrinsic - this is a manufactured crisis.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/04/hope-left-next-tory-pm-call-election-go-no-deal-brexit/

YANIS VAROUFAKIS says "No Deal".

*Shrug*

[Husar]

And, indeed, the UK is less keen on the ECHR now that they've started telling us prisoners should get the vote - i.e. interfering directly in our undemocratic processes.

Corrected that for you.

[Pannonian]

The mere institution of border-checks does not itself breach the GFA. It makes it harder to operate certain parts of the GFA but it is not a breach in and of itself, the GFA merely mandates no militarisation of the border. Indeed, many do not want to sign up to the backstop precisely because they do not want to be in the process of abrogating an international treaty (the Withdrawal Agreement) in the future.

This is why many, including myself, would want a timed backstop - one that lasts (say) five years after the end of the transitional period. Had this been enacted it would have given us a further seven years to sort out the problem. As it is, the EU demands a perpetual backstop, which means potentially perpetual limbo - making leaving the EU economically impractical.

I'm sure at this point you'll want to point out how this shows that we should stay, but remember that it is the EU that has created these circumstances that make leaving so hard - they are not intrinsic - this is a manufactured crisis.

The EU doesn't demand a perpetual backstop. It's until the UK comes up with the technological solution they say is there to be implemented. Once that technological solution they tout is in place, the backstop can be cancelled. How is this perpetual? The Leavers say that the solution is there and can be enacted. The EU says, prove it, but until you've proved it, let's have the backstop. Why do you blame the EU for holding Brexiteers to their promises?

[Pannonian]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/04/hope-left-next-tory-pm-call-election-go-no-deal-brexit/

YANIS VAROUFAKIS says "No Deal".

*Shrug*

Wasn't the EU's mistreatment of Greece one of your main arguments against it? How does that picture against Greece siding with the EU against the UK?

[Pannonian]

Are private citizens allowed to negotiate with foreign states without the sanction of the government?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Chlorinated chicken is an issue because, in the US, it's the sanitation catch all at the end of a production process where large parts fail current UK regulations. The chlorine isn't the issue. The reason why chlorination is required in the US is the issue. As an example, there was an investigation last year after salmonella caused 300 cases of sickness and 1 death in the UK. In the US, around 450 die each year from salmonella. No chlorination, and bad production processes is harder to hide. US production methods reduce costs by around 20%. AFAIK one of the US demands is that location of origin is not mandatory labelling.

On the unlikelihood of the UK government selling off the NHS: this is what Trump wants. The most likely next PM, Boris Johnson, is Trump's favoured candidate. The man who has influenced the Tories on Brexit more than any other, Nigel Farage, has Bannon's and Trump's support, and is on record as saying that the UK should adopt the US healthcare system. In short, May is going soon (this Friday), and the next government will likely look favourably on Trump's ideas for the UK.

While the death rate you note is much higher per capita in the USA, the incidence of Salmonella is not. Link (https://www.rightdiagnosis.com/s/salmonella_food_poisoning/stats-country.htm#extrapwarning) While these are extrapolated statistics which seek to account for unreported incidence, the extrapolation system was the same for both. In a comparison, the USA has 514.8 cases per 100,000 people each year, while the UK is at 514.7 cases per 100,000 people. Given the closeness in rate of incidence, this suggests that the salmonella linked deaths in the USA are NOT the result of the food processing industry/growers/distributors but of something on the treatment (or lack thereof) side. That is still a problem for the USA, but would not likely be imported.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Corrected that for you.

Says the man whose Government has banned referendums lest its people backslide into Fascism.


The EU doesn't demand a perpetual backstop. It's until the UK comes up with the technological solution they say is there to be implemented. Once that technological solution they tout is in place, the backstop can be cancelled. How is this perpetual? The Leavers say that the solution is there and can be enacted. The EU says, prove it, but until you've proved it, let's have the backstop. Why do you blame the EU for holding Brexiteers to their promises?

So a backstop with no time limit that will remain in place unless and until it is superseded?

Presumably if the alternative solution does not meet EU approval, regardless of whether it works the backstop will also remain in place.

The backstop is worded in such a way that the UK will inevitably be hostage to it unless and until the EU says otherwise.

So... perpetual in fact.


Wasn't the EU's mistreatment of Greece one of your main arguments against it? How does that picture against Greece siding with the EU against the UK?

Do not confuse a government with its people, be it Israel, America, or Greece.

[Pannonian]

Says the man whose Government has banned referendums lest its people backslide into Fascism.

So a backstop with no time limit that will remain in place unless and until it is superseded?

Presumably if the alternative solution does not meet EU approval, regardless of whether it works the backstop will also remain in place.

The backstop is worded in such a way that the UK will inevitably be hostage to it unless and until the EU says otherwise.

So... perpetual in fact.

Do not confuse a government with its people, be it Israel, America, or Greece.

If your fear is that the EU will kibosh any solution as unsatisfactory, why not request that the Brexiteers publish their plans for the technological solutions for peer review? Get them to test their solution by implementing it in a small but representative area, test its workability, and show its findings and costs. That's how all technological solutions work, with a blueprint, a prototype, and findings leading back into the feedback loop. The EU doesn't need to be involved at this stage, let alone any backstop. If the Brexiteers are so confident about their solution, they can go ahead and implement a prototype with plans for how to scale it up to full size. Why blame the EU without even taking the first steps that are entirely within your hands? Do you even want to practically break free from the EU, or are you only interested in blaming them for anything and everything whilst taking no responsibility on your side?

[Pannonian]

Does anyone have any views on Farage's reported plans to engage in trade talks with the US administration?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Does anyone have any views on Farage's reported plans to engage in trade talks with the US administration?

Is Kerrygold from Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland?

If it's the former, I don't need anything from you lot. Otherwise, send more.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If your fear is that the EU will kibosh any solution as unsatisfactory, why not request that the Brexiteers publish their plans for the technological solutions for peer review? Get them to test their solution by implementing it in a small but representative area, test its workability, and show its findings and costs. That's how all technological solutions work, with a blueprint, a prototype, and findings leading back into the feedback loop. The EU doesn't need to be involved at this stage, let alone any backstop. If the Brexiteers are so confident about their solution, they can go ahead and implement a prototype with plans for how to scale it up to full size. Why blame the EU without even taking the first steps that are entirely within your hands? Do you even want to practically break free from the EU, or are you only interested in blaming them for anything and everything whilst taking no responsibility on your side?

The priority is to negotiate the treaty and get it passed. Then worry about the implementation during the transition period.

Except it's now obvious there's unlikely to be a deal by October, so we need to be planning for the cliff-edge.


Does anyone have any views on Farage's reported plans to engage in trade talks with the US administration?

No.


Is Kerrygold from Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland?

If it's the former, I don't need anything from you lot. Otherwise, send more.

It's from the Republic - showing the ease with which trade flows between the US and Europe without a deal.

[Husar]

Says the man whose Government has banned referendums lest its people backslide into Fascism.

Where did you get that from? Some Brexit fake news website?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Germany

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where did you get that from? Some Brexit fake news website?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Germany

Actually, I believe it was something relating to how there couldn't have been a referendum on the EU Constitution in Germany.

I stand corrected.

However, this now raises the question of why the German people allow their sovereignty to be progressively stripped away without a peep.

[Beskar]

Where did you get that from? Some Brexit fake news website?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Germany

You are not wrong, the Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3663863/Now-Far-Right-demands-Dexit-poll-Deutschland-referendums-banned-HITLER-abused-polls-claimed-Jews-supported-Dachau.html).

[Husar]

However, this now raises the question of why the German people allow their sovereignty to be progressively stripped away without a peep.

I have a completely different (world) view on sovereignty than you do.
You obviously mean national sovereignty, but Germany was once >50 little sovereign nations, some of which did or did not elect a German king. Up to 1871 states like Bavaria and Saxony were their own sovereign nations, which also didn't want to give up their sovereignty to the "Saupreißn" as the Bavarians called them. So now it's not even 150 years and two world wars (in which Germany already got chipped quite a bit, depending on your POV, after all especially the eastern parts previously had other owners as well) and I'm supposed to see the current nation of Germany as the ultimate arbiter of sovereignty, even if I disagree with quite a lot of things in that nation?

Tell me, why should I reject you, edyzmedieval, Beskar and many other people as my peers, but somehow celebrate some old geezer from Bavaria who doesn't share any of my values and does not even use the internet as my national peer who I feel so connected to? The fact is that I don't feel connected to him at all while my connection to you is quite obvious since we are at the very least communicating with one another here.

It's not that I don't have any national pride at all, but even if we assume that Germany did ban referendums entirely, would I be forced to feel proud and patriotic about that even though I would disagree with it? Germany has 82 million people and the EU ~500 million, the difference in sovereignty on a purely democratic level is not really that big and I don't even have any friends in the village where I currently live, so why would I even want any sovereignty on that level? It's not like I feel the other villagers would agree with me anyway. So what's the sovereignty good for if my village votes against everything I want?

And then there is another view on sovereignty entirely that bothers me a lot more. And that is when you enter corporations into the mix, especially large ones that directly talk to the national (or any smaller) government whenever they think about moving 5000 jobs abroad. This power to move jobs around, heavily influence unemployment statistics and investments etc. gives them enormous leverage and power. Additionally, job positions in our federal government and the car industry are often switched between by certain people (aka lobbyists), giving these industries further leverage in our law-making process that is undermining the choice of voters. So if you want sovereignty of voters, you want a more powerful government that doesn't have parties dependent on corporate money and decision-making. The EU is not ideal here, but closer to that ideal than pretty much any national government, it's also the only one that constantly penalizes big international corporations for unfair business practices.

I don't see a world where the government hires private corporations to write laws and asks other corporations for permission to enact these laws as one where I have more sovereignty. The smaller the government (in terms of the market and territory it controls), the more likely it is that a big international corporation will have more power. For proof, just look at how the tobacco industry sued some small countries into submission so even children can smoke there. How is that for sovereignty in these countries? My country may not be there yet, but we're moving in that direction, the EU is a consolidation of power that can (if used correctly) counter this. That's why I see more potential sovereignty of the people in the EU than any national government.

Competition between nations only leads down the path of more corporate power, Trump as a corporate president dfemonstrates that when he says a trade deal between the US and UK after Brexit will have to involve the UK changing its inner setup to accommodate US businesses. How does that in any way make the UK more sovereign? Yes, you can not make a deal, but then who will you trade with? Sovereignty isn't worth anything if power can bully you into submission or make your life miserable. Power is also in unity, as unions and industry organizations clearly show (it's funny in that regard how worker unions are frowned upon, but you never see a libertarian argue against capitalists having industry organizations where they coordinate for their own interests in the same way). Herd and pack animals use the same principles against their foes. The EU is such a union that has more power due to the unity of its members. Whether I disagree about politics with a Hungarian libertarian or a Saxon libertarian is relatively inconsequential to me in that regard.

[Pannonian]

The priority is to negotiate the treaty and get it passed. Then worry about the implementation during the transition period.

Except it's now obvious there's unlikely to be a deal by October, so we need to be planning for the cliff-edge.


How does prioritisation preclude Brexiteers from showing how their technological solution works? Different people would be working on preparing for Brexit at the Dover end, and preparing for it on the RoI-NI border. And even if you don't want to implement a prototype, what's stopping you from publishing the blueprint for that solution?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thanks for a clearly expressed point Husar.

I am, as you might well know by now, far more of a patriot in the traditional sense than are you.

Nor do I presume that competition is inherently problematic. How it is managed and channeled, of course, matters a great deal. It is not a slippery slope to violence in all cases.

Our President is probably the least sophisticated negotiator we have had in some time. Part of why his base support likes him so is that THIS is the kind of negotiation style they can understand -- even though most of them cannot do it well. Trump's repertoire includes virtually all of the tactics Fisher, Ury, and Patton label as "dirty tricks" that they coach negotiators how to maneuver around. Trump likes it to be all about willpower as he presumes he has more than anyone. THAT is the kind of competitive attitude that can yield bad things.

I must disagree with you implied allusion that Trump is a pack animal. He differs significantly -- pack animals are actually loyal to their pack.

[Montmorency]

Actually, I believe it was something relating to how there couldn't have been a referendum on the EU Constitution in Germany.

I stand corrected.

However, this now raises the question of why the German people allow their sovereignty to be progressively stripped away without a peep.

Husar's post is a good primer on the existence of differing standards, but what it comes down to is that you disagree with the sovereignty traded to the EU and condone - or don't mind - the sovereignty traded to other multilateral bodies, treaties, or pacts, or even the basic political and economic framework of your "democracy". You just don't like the EU and like the other things, that's all. Sovereignty is your fig leaf for noses flying.

I got around to dealing with the Telegraph paywall, Varoufakis merely thinks negotiating a comprehensive deal is more likely when both sides have the concrete burden or negative incentive of implementing No Deal, not that Hard Brexit is a good scenario; AFAIK he's been beating that drum for years. As he makes clear here and everywhere else, he is a "radical Remainer" personally and wants the Labour Party to adopt that stance.


Thanks for a clearly expressed point Husar.

I am, as you might well know by now, far more of a patriot in the traditional sense than are you.

Nor do I presume that competition is inherently problematic. How it is managed and channeled, of course, matters a great deal. It is not a slippery slope to violence in all cases.

Sure, we can have some friendly competition, of the sort that exists in well-managed high school sports matches. Anything more, such as all of history up to now, is the recipe for destruction. As always.


I must disagree with you implied allusion that Trump is a pack animal. He differs significantly -- pack animals are actually loyal to their pack.

Husar is saying we should be more like pack animals.

Edit: Although I'm not sure it's a great model for humans, since the pack mechanism in herbivores is to my knowledge one that is profligate with the lives and well-being of individuals to promote the survival of the collective. Doesn't sound great, and it probably doesn't sound great to you either, right Seamus?

If you don't want a resort to Stalinist emergency response, advocate for less competition and more cooperation ASAP :stare:

[Husar]

Nor do I presume that competition is inherently problematic. How it is managed and channeled, of course, matters a great deal. It is not a slippery slope to violence in all cases.

I don't believe that either, I was mainly talking about competition between governments. When governments compete for corporate jobs for example, then they cannot execute the will of the people in terms of e.g. corporate taxation. Especially if the country is small enough that a multinational corporation and investors can easily ignore it. In the end the country will have to do things that the majority of people don't really want (they vote for them anyway because they're blackmailed in the sense that they won't get jobs/business/investment otherwise), or live in the stone age. In the end, the democratic will is forcefully aligned with the will of corporate owners who own the means of production but are a tiny fraction of the population or even foreign individuals. The only ones exercising any sort of sovereignty here are the investors.
Of course I'm aware that certain investment securities are important, it's not fun when you invest your entire family savings to start a medium-sized business in country X and then the government takes everything away, but on the other hand it shouldn't mean you now control the government of that country to the same extent as ~10,000 of its voters, i.e. have the same power. The latter is extremely anti-democratic in my opinion.


I must disagree with you implied allusion that Trump is a pack animal. He differs significantly -- pack animals are actually loyal to their pack.

I didn't want to imply that in any way, except perhaps if he is in some "US association of real estate investors" or similarly named lobbying group to extend his influence on politics before he became president. That doesn't make him a herd animal as much as he is using the advantages of a herd for his own personal benefit. Then again that's the case in quite a few herds, group protection can easily be sold on a selfish level. Vaccination provides herd protection, but most people probably primarily get it so they don't die themselves.
Being part of a herd and being selfish are not mutually exclusive, especially if you can convince a significant part of the herd that you're also selfish on their selfish behalf. :clown:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't believe that either, I was mainly talking about competition between governments. When governments compete for corporate jobs for example, then they cannot execute the will of the people in terms of e.g. corporate taxation. Especially if the country is small enough that a multinational corporation and investors can easily ignore it. In the end the country will have to do things that the majority of people don't really want (they vote for them anyway because they're blackmailed in the sense that they won't get jobs/business/investment otherwise), or live in the stone age. In the end, the democratic will is forcefully aligned with the will of corporate owners who own the means of production but are a tiny fraction of the population or even foreign individuals. The only ones exercising any sort of sovereignty here are the investors.
Of course I'm aware that certain investment securities are important, it's not fun when you invest your entire family savings to start a medium-sized business in country X and then the government takes everything away, but on the other hand it shouldn't mean you now control the government of that country to the same extent as ~10,000 of its voters, i.e. have the same power. The latter is extremely anti-democratic in my opinion.



I didn't want to imply that in any way, except perhaps if he is in some "US association of real estate investors" or similarly named lobbying group to extend his influence on politics before he became president. That doesn't make him a herd animal as much as he is using the advantages of a herd for his own personal benefit. Then again that's the case in quite a few herds, group protection can easily be sold on a selfish level. Vaccination provides herd protection, but most people probably primarily get it so they don't die themselves.
Being part of a herd and being selfish are not mutually exclusive, especially if you can convince a significant part of the herd that you're also selfish on their selfish behalf. :clown:

Been watching Trump play that "man of the people/outsider like you" card successfully since 2015. I just don't get it -- how naïve can you be? Using "blue" language in a campaign rally and always coming back aggressively at any perceived slight does not make you a salt of the earth type. Yet they love it from him. [shaking head].

[Pannonian]

Husar, there is another aspect of sovereignty that was taken for granted in the past, in the era of moderate politics, but which is now abused to destruction by Brexit, Corbyn, Trump, and other manifestations of extremism. That is constitutionality. The formal and informal rules that everyone worked by, because if people stepped outside these bounds whilst observing legalities, society would no longer work. I defined moderate politics earlier in this thread as politics that observes customs and respects the losing side, whereas extremism is whatever it can get away with.

Let's take the example of Brexit, as personified (and personification is a common aspect of this) by Nigel Farage. UK democracy is based on governments formed by parties elected on manifestos that the opposition and the press can hold them to. If there is abuse of the electoral system, the candidate who abused the system is disqualified and another election held in the area. Compare with Leave, who made promises that their supporters now claim they should not be held to, who use their referendum victory to claim a mandate for things that they assured the electorate would not happen, and who abused the legalities and customs of normal electoral process yet, because the referendum was supposedly merely advisory, are not subject to the checks of normal electoral process. In the face of this, there is another, equally democratically valid check, that of Parliament. But even here, the organisers of Leave identified that Parliamentary authority is merely custom, and not legal, and despite the flagrant disregard of democratic authority this represented, ignored Parliament's requests to answer their questions.

And what has happened since the Leave victory in the referendum? The architects of Leave, Farage and his close associates in particular, have kept clear of those trying to implement it. Instead, they keep making nebulous claims whilst saying that it is the fault of others that things are not working, culminating in Farage's new Brexit party getting a third of the vote whilst explicitly saying that they do not have a manifesto. In addition to this absence of constructive plans or identity other than opposition, they have also encouraged a culture of seeing divergence from them as treason, and the identification of their ill-defined cause with a personality.

In the UK, Brexit has polarised the country. Politics is no longer the constructive debate of ideas, tested for their workability. It is now whatever whoever gets a momentary backing of a majority can legally get away with. And the tragedy is that there are actually mechanics to correct this. But the Left have themselves enacted a form of the above, which albeit is less extreme than that enacted by Brexiteers, is nonetheless equally uncorrectable within traditional means.

[Pannonian]

Been watching Trump play that "man of the people/outsider like you" card successfully since 2015. I just don't get it -- how naïve can you be? Using "blue" language in a campaign rally and always coming back aggressively at any perceived slight does not make you a salt of the earth type. Yet they love it from him. [shaking head].

It can be equally puzzling. People despise David Cameron for being a representative of the establishment, given his social background. Yet they love Boris Johnson for being a man of the people, despite having the exact same background as Cameron.

[Montmorency]

I don't believe that either, I was mainly talking about competition between governments. When governments compete for corporate jobs for example, then they cannot execute the will of the people in terms of e.g. corporate taxation. Especially if the country is small enough that a multinational corporation and investors can easily ignore it. In the end the country will have to do things that the majority of people don't really want (they vote for them anyway because they're blackmailed in the sense that they won't get jobs/business/investment otherwise), or live in the stone age. In the end, the democratic will is forcefully aligned with the will of corporate owners who own the means of production but are a tiny fraction of the population or even foreign individuals. The only ones exercising any sort of sovereignty here are the investors.
Of course I'm aware that certain investment securities are important, it's not fun when you invest your entire family savings to start a medium-sized business in country X and then the government takes everything away, but on the other hand it shouldn't mean you now control the government of that country to the same extent as ~10,000 of its voters, i.e. have the same power. The latter is extremely anti-democratic in my opinion.

You could frame it in terms of the conflict (https://bostonreview.net/forum/economics-after-neoliberalism/corey-robin-uninstalling-hayek) between the ideas of contemporaries Karl Polanyi (socialism) and Friedrich Hayek (neoliberalism). Hayek believed that economics is the locus of public morality and therefore politics, so the polity ought to negotiate its pluralistic values in the sphere of the consumer market. The market therefore arbitrates social costs and goods. Polanyi believed something the opposite, that while economic materiality is central to modern life individuals participating in collective political decision-making should negotiate the priorities and parameters of market or any economic activity. Political planning therefore arbitrates social costs and goods.

Hayek's ideas put us on the road to serfdom as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The socialistic ideas are necessary for our survival but are hindered by the lack of any large-scale (i.e. millions of actors) model for democratic collectives. Switzerland doesn't count, the Swiss are not to my knowledge directly responsible for economic management as political actors. Let alone global...


By the mid-1930s, Hayek believed his beleaguered band of brothers—Ludwig von Mises, Lionel Robbins, and others—had won the economic debate of socialism versus capitalism. They had demonstrated—not just once (in Red Vienna after the First World War), but twice (in 1930s Britain)—that it was not possible for socialist planners to gather and process the necessary information to anticipate and provide for the needs of a modern society without private property, the price mechanism, and other market institutions.

But that victory, Hayek came to realize, was pyrrhic. For the questions at stake weren’t just technical; they were moral and political. As he put it in a pioneering article from 1939:


[The] belief in the greater efficiency of a planned economy cannot any longer be defended on economic grounds. . . . But it can rightly be said that this is not the decisive question. Many planners would be willing to put up with a considerable decrease of efficiency if at that price greater distributive justice could be achieved. And this, indeed, brings us to the crucial question. The ultimate decision for and against socialism cannot rest on purely economic grounds, and cannot be based merely on the determination of whether a greater or smaller output of society is likely to be obtained under the alternative systems in question. The aims of socialism as well as the costs of its achievement are mainly in the moral sphere. The conflict of ideals is one of ideals other than merely material welfare. . . . it is on considerations like those discussed here that we shall have to base our final choice.

Far from resting neoliberalism on the authority of the natural sciences or mathematics (forms of inquiry Hayek and Mises sought to distance their work from) or on the technical knowledge of economists (as Naidu and his co-authors claim), Hayek recognized that the argument for capitalism had to be won on moral and political grounds through the political arts of persuasion.

Here’s where things get interesting. Though Hayek famously abandoned formal economics for social theory after the 1930s, his social theory remained dedicated to elaborating what he saw as the essential problem of economics: how to allocate finite resources between different purposes when society cannot agree on its most basic ends. With its emphasis on the irreconcilability of our moral ends—the fact that members of a modern society do not and cannot agree on a scale of values— Hayek’s point was fundamentally political, the sort of insight that has agitated everyone from Thomas Hobbes to John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. Hayek was unique, however, in arguing that the political point was best addressed, indeed could only be addressed, in the realm of the economic. No other discourse—not moral philosophy, political theory, psychology, or theology—understood so well that our ultimate moral values and political purposes get expressed to others and revealed to ourselves only under conditions of radical economic constraint—when one is forced to assign a limited set of resources to different ends, ends that favor different sectors of society.

Morals are not really morals if they are not material, Hayek believed. Outside the constraining circumstance of the economy, our moral claims are so much wind. Inside the economy, they assume force and depth, achieving a revelatory clarity and profundity. “The sphere where material circumstances force a choice upon us,” Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom (1944), “is the air in which alone moral sense grows and in which moral values are daily re-created [emphasis added].” It is for that reason, Hayek concluded in that 1939 article, that “economic life is not a sector of human life which can be separated from” other spheres of life, including our moral life. Economic life “is the administration of the means for all our different ends. Whoever takes charge of these means must determine which ends shall be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower—in short, what men should believe and strive for.”

The intrinsic links between moral and economic life as well as the intractability of moral conflict, the incommensurability of our moral views, were the kernels of insight that animated Hayek’s most far-reaching writing against socialism. The socialist presumes an agreement on ultimate ends: the putatively shared understanding of principles such as justice or equality is supposed to make it possible for state planners to conceive of their task as technical, as the neutral application of an agreed upon rule. But no such agreement exists, Hayek insisted, and if it is presumed to exist, nothing will reveal its non-existence more quickly than the attempt to implement it in practice, in the distribution of finite resources toward whatever end has been agreed upon.

Now we come back to Naidu, Rodrik, and Zucman. What strikes me about their text is its boldness at the level of policy, but its modesty at the level of public philosophy. That may be deliberate. But if it is, it may reinforce the very neoliberalism that it is meant to contest, insofar as it presumes that what the economist has to offer is neutral or technical authority on behalf of assumed moral ends such as justice or equality or inclusiveness—values for which we don’t have shared definitions. That was precisely the claim that Hayek sought to refute, and I’m not sure if Naidu and his co-authors have a response. Conversely, I fear that if they continue the course they have set on, showing that alternative policies are technically feasible, they may find themselves foundering on the same shoals as Hayek did before his turn to social theory: invoking economic knowledge when the field of play is in fact moral and political.

Hayek translated moral and political problems into an economic idiom. What we need now, I would argue, is a way to uninstall or reverse that translation.

Karl Marx attempted just such a project, but his answers were notoriously elusive. In a fascinating, but little-known 1927 essay, “On Freedom,” Karl Polanyi also attempted such a project, giving us a stylized rendition of what it would mean for a political collective, rather than a firm or a consumer, to make an economic decision—not in the marketplace, where price helps determine our decisions, but in a deliberative assembly, where other considerations are at play. One part of the assembly, representing the interests of the collective, will want to make an investment in a long-term good; healthcare was the example Polanyi chose. Another part of the assembly, representing the workers who would have to make the specific sacrifices for that good, resists that decision. What to do? Argue it out, says Polanyi. Whatever is the final decision, it will be:


a direct, internal choice, for here ideals within people are confronted with their costs; here everyone has to decide what his ideals are worth to him. No state and no market intervene between the two sides of our consciousness; here there can be no shifting of responsibility, and nothing outside of ourselves can be made responsible for our fate. The individual only confronts himself because his fate is in his own hands [emphasis added].

Notice that Polanyi doesn’t presume any agreement about moral and political ends, as Hayek claimed socialists must. Notice how insistent he is that decisions about production must confront the question of costs. Like Hayek, Polanyi is attuned to the materiality of moral choice, only he believes the question of costs and constraints is best mediated through moral and political arguments in the public square.

Hayek persuaded generations of elites that it is only the individual in the market who can engage in such a process. In a modern society, with a plurality of ends and purposes, the combination of informational challenges, on the one hand, and the intractability of moral conflict, on the other, was seen as too great to make decisions about economic life through public deliberation. Like an earlier generation of leftists from the early twentieth century, Naidu and his co-authors have an opportunity to reopen this question not just for elites (Hayek’s preferred audience) but for society as a whole: to ask whether it should be a political collective rather than the market that makes decisions about social value.

Polanyi thought that nothing less than human freedom was at stake in how we answer that question. Hayek, coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, did as well. Maybe it’s time for us to ask why and start talking about it again.


Been watching Trump play that "man of the people/outsider like you" card successfully since 2015. I just don't get it -- how naïve can you be? Using "blue" language in a campaign rally and always coming back aggressively at any perceived slight does not make you a salt of the earth type. Yet they love it from him. [shaking head].

The cruelty is the point. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/)

I'm not saying Thompson (https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/) has the number, but that she has a solid approach. We know that most Trump supporters know (https://psmag.com/news/why-so-many-trump-supporters-are-ok-with-the-presidents-lies) that he lies to them, and that they don't care. Vice can be virtue if embodied in a friend, or vice versa. This is rational if you assume they vest their whole identity and worldview in a strong-coded authority figure who they feel can destroy their perceived enemies. The irrational part is that the gestures and the performance of "owning the libs" hold more weight with them than the results.* I suggest a hypothetical fascist dictator who enslaved or eliminated all the leftists and minorities while raising the living standards of his stakeholder groups could not draw as much support as a failure in these regards, IF the successful one did it quietly and unceremoniously.

I'm pretty sure Hannah Arendt wrote a lot about this, the theater of totalitarianism. See also (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/05/scripted-reality):


(2) A particularly interesting form of scripted reality is professional wrestling — a massively popular pseudo-sport, in which what is presented as athletic competition is actually, as Andre the Giant once put it, an Aristotelian mimesis masquerading as something else.

The mental state of the pro wrestling audience is a weird (to an outsider at least) mixture of the psychology of sports fans with that found in a theater: a kind of doubled or meta suspension of disbelief, in which the audience both believes and does not believe what it is witnessing is “real” outside the confines of the mimetic script.

(3) Politics and in particular political journalism have been infected by these various hybrid performance genres. Political conflict has long been reported as if it were a traditional athletic contest, in which the entire significance of the event is reduced to its competitive outcome (aka horse race coverage), or conversely as if it were a mimetic performance, judged in essentially aesthetic terms (aka theater criticism).

But the contemporary American political climate is marked by an increasing psychological hybridization, in which the mental states associated with reality television and scripted reality — that is, genres in which it what is “real” is presented in a deceptive and/or ambiguous way to the audience — become increasingly commonplace. (ETA: Nick never Nick in comments: “Another thing that should be included here is the blurring of comedy and news. The Daily Show and its numerous spin-offs and imitators have changed news consumption into something very different from what it used to be — they combine shows like Kids in the Hall with Walter Cronkite; and they have an amplifier in Facebook and Twitter.”)

(4) Exhibit A of all this is of course the career of Donald Trump — a man whose supposed competitive successes in the quasi-sport of Who Wants to Be a Plutocrat were actually pure scripted reality, as opposed to what used to be known as reality simpliciter. Indeed Trump’s political career resembles nothing so much as the classic trajectory of of the dramatically fascinating yet morally repulsive heavy in a crime melodrama — think Ralphie Ciffareto rather than Vito Corleone — or the “heel” of in a long-running wrestling character script. (In regard to the latter identity, Trump is clearly living the gimmick).

Trump is an almost literally cartoonish, melodramatic character, whose political success is only possible in a decadent political culture, within which politics has come to be treated as some sort of particularly baroque reality television show by both a large portion of the audience, and by the journalist-critics who help create and maintain that culture. It’s a culture in which the catharsis offered by schadenfreude becomes the prime aesthetic-political value, and which kidding on the square — joking but also meaning it — becomes as epidemic as it is on a pro wrestling internet discussion forum, or 4chan.

*This is not to say there haven't been results to witness. Those wishing to see the government put the hurt on Mexicans and queers have a lo to like so far this term.


In the UK, Brexit has polarised the country. Politics is no longer the constructive debate of ideas, tested for their workability. It is now whatever whoever gets a momentary backing of a majority can legally get away with. And the tragedy is that there are actually mechanics to correct this. But the Left have themselves enacted a form of the above, which albeit is less extreme than that enacted by Brexiteers, is nonetheless equally uncorrectable within traditional means.

Maybe you need new traditional means? The ideal you hew to was never really how the world (or even the UK for more than a few decades, I'd venture) worked. You've called yourself a socialist, right? You should have a historically-rooted notion why "moderation" has not been long for this world. The times are polarized. What are you gonna do about it?

[Pannonian]

Maybe you need new traditional means? The ideal you hew to was never really how the world (or even the UK for more than a few decades, I'd venture) worked. You've called yourself a socialist, right? You should have a historically-rooted notion why "moderation" has not been long for this world. The times are polarized. What are you gonna do about it?

What I call moderation has been how UK politics has worked for centuries, since Parliament took over from the monarchy. Stability based on respect for the collective customs of government, with changes brought in to address issues, framed in those traditions. There might even be an argument that it goes back to English/Anglo-Saxon Common Law, with protections established under the Magna Carta and reaffirmed in the Civil War. What we have now is akin to the absolute monarchy, except it's the far right under the guise of a People's Mandate. Like the absolute monarchy, Brexit is not based on constitutionalism or custom, but is an absolute right based on what it can do without being stopped.

What am I going to do about it? What do you suggest? Armed uprising? That's not for me, nor for most Brits. The Loyal Opposition should be opposing the government and forcing it to test its plans against reality, but instead it's collaborating, and as IA and others have illustrated here, even that is not enough, and IA and his ilk regard Parliament as traitors. Since the Loyal Opposition are not doing their job, I'm voting at every opportunity for openly pro-Remain candidates. If this means a united far right gets a plurality; the collaborationist opposition, and the willingness of Brexiters to interpret the opposition as support for their cause (see PFH) leaves little alternative. I expect hard Brexit to go through courtesy of Farage and his kind and their influence on a Parliament where they have not been elected. At the very least I will remind Brexiteers of their responsibility for what Britain will become.

[Montmorency]

What I call moderation has been how UK politics has worked for centuries, since Parliament took over from the monarchy. Stability based on respect for the collective customs of government, with changes brought in to address issues, framed in those traditions. There might even be an argument that it goes back to English/Anglo-Saxon Common Law, with protections established under the Magna Carta and reaffirmed in the Civil War. What we have now is akin to the absolute monarchy, except it's the far right under the guise of a People's Mandate. Like the absolute monarchy, Brexit is not based on constitutionalism or custom, but is an absolute right based on what it can do without being stopped.

Identifying moderation with the British deep constitutional superstructure itself is - I'm not even sure what the metonymy is supposed to be. The volatile history of the British Isles before the Union to time immemorial certainly doesn't resemble your definition of


politics that observes customs and respects the losing side, whereas extremism is whatever it can get away with.

And while Parliament was a gentlemanly establishment at least in the class sense during the 18th and 19th centuries, the politics of the street was no such thing. An anarchist might cynically say that the state always does "whatever it can get away with", but the relationship of government to subjects was much less one of moderation (of coercion) and respect for liberty than it has been in living memory. Whatever specific traditions you favor, I doubt you can show them to be very ancient, stable, or even functional today.


What am I going to do about it? What do you suggest? Armed uprising? That's not for me, nor for most Brits.

By no means. But insofar as you value a certain status quo and this no longer obtains, and cannot be restored, declamations alone aren't worth much. Maybe I'm premature, but it seems like a new and improved arrangement needs to be advanced. Or if you believe the politics of your veneration is still extant or still to be salvaged, first consider why it was so easily and quickly subverted by a little extremism.

[Pannonian]

Identifying moderation with the British deep constitutional superstructure itself is - I'm not even sure what the metonymy is supposed to be. The volatile history of the British Isles before the Union to time immemorial certainly doesn't resemble your definition of

And while Parliament was a gentlemanly establishment at least in the class sense during the 18th and 19th centuries, the politics of the street was no such thing. An anarchist might cynically say that the state always does "whatever it can get away with", but the relationship of government to subjects was much less one of moderation (of coercion) and respect for liberty than it has been in living memory. Whatever specific traditions you favor, I doubt you can show them to be very ancient, stable, or even functional today.

By no means. But insofar as you value a certain status quo and this no longer obtains, and cannot be restored, declamations alone aren't worth much. Maybe I'm premature, but it seems like a new and improved arrangement needs to be advanced. Or if you believe the politics of your veneration is still extant or still to be salvaged, first consider why it was so easily and quickly subverted by a little extremism.

What is this historically revolutionary Britain that you seem to have in mind? Can you cite examples of what you mean?

[Montmorency]

Immoderate =/= revolutionary, but OK:

*The Civil War and the Glorious Revolution
*Like, all the wars and revolts ever (monarchy is a hell of a drug)
*Mass unionism and labor and franchise agitation and its violent suppression from the Luddites to the general strikes to Scargill riots
*Enforced intolerance against liberalism and republicanism after the French Revolution until - what, 1848? - including periodic crackdowns on anti-monarchy speech and association such as William Pitt's Treason Trials

And I'm sure you're aware of all the nasty stuff like the government pretty much owning the bodies of the poor and the criminal (including political dissidents) until the world wars, repression of the Scottish, Irish (how many rebellions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798)?), and Welsh peoples, and the white man's burden. None of this was unique to Britain, but that Britain was not unique is just what I'm saying. How was any of this moderate except in the sense that it was uncontroversial to the aristocratic and mercantile ruling elite?

(Extremism doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it extremism)

[Pannonian]

Immoderate =/= revolutionary, but OK:

*The Civil War and the Glorious Revolution
*Like, all the wars and revolts ever (monarchy is a hell of a drug)
*Mass unionism and labor and franchise agitation and its violent suppression from the Luddites to the general strikes to Scargill riots
*Enforced intolerance against liberalism and republicanism after the French Revolution until - what, 1848? - including periodic crackdowns on anti-monarchy speech and association such as William Pitt's Treason Trials

And I'm sure you're aware of all the nasty stuff like the government pretty much owning the bodies of the poor and the criminal (including political dissidents) until the world wars, repression of the Scottish, Irish (how many rebellions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798)?), and Welsh peoples, and the white man's burden. None of this was unique to Britain, but that Britain was not unique is just what I'm saying. How was any of this moderate except in the sense that it was uncontroversial to the aristocratic and mercantile ruling elite?

(Extremism doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it extremism)

I left out the Glorious Revolution because I didn't know enough about it, but the first group is the only bit that does not fit what I defined as moderate politics, and I specifically cited the Civil War as a time when the idea of absolute monarchy was overturned. On the others, I note that you define anti-moderate politics to include illiberal politics. Here you fall into the same habits as the Brexiteers, in defining sensible politics to include your side, but condemn the others. I've tried to avoid this, by defining it in philosophical terms, and applying it across the board, to what I would call my side as well as the opposing side.

I've excluded armed struggles, from the state or from demonstrators, as the exception than the rule, and not systemic. I've only included examples as anti-moderate politics where the rules themselves are shown to be useless, not people's non-observance of such. Hence I asked you, what do you suggest I do about it? You were dismissive of my observation of how the rules are being abused and made useless, so I described what I do about it, how that's within the rules but made ineffective because the rules themselves are being abused, and asked you for your suggested solution instead. Your response is that Britain has never been moderate, and that I should get used to this as the norm. So I've answered your question of what I am going to do about it. Can you answer my question of what do you suggest I do about it?

Edit: And don't fill your answer with technical terms like metonym that most people don't know. To me, an essay filled with dictionary words merely suggests the responder is trying to bluff with long worded BS, not provide a sensible answer.

[Gilrandir]

Tell me, why should I reject you, edyzmedieval, Beskar and many other people as my peers, but somehow celebrate some old geezer from Bavaria who doesn't share any of my values and does not even use the internet as my national peer who I feel so connected to? The fact is that I don't feel connected to him at all while my connection to you is quite obvious since we are at the very least communicating with one another here.




In any community (I expect even in your neighborhood or even among your family members) you will find a person who doesn't share your worldview and values. Will you stop considering him your uncle or your roommate or your next door neighbor because of it?

[Husar]

In any community (I expect even in your neighborhood or even among your family members) you will find a person who doesn't share your worldview and values. Will you stop considering him your uncle or your roommate or your next door neighbor because of it?

No, but that also wasn't my point. My point was that I don't have illusions about how I'd be a lot more sovereign/better off if only that small circle were to decide about the politics that govern my life.

[Gilrandir]

No, but that also wasn't my point. My point was that I don't have illusions about how I'd be a lot more sovereign/better off if only that small circle were to decide about the politics that govern my life.

But the small circle knows your needs and problems more, so their governing your life may be more beneficial for you. No?

[Husar]

But the small circle knows your needs and problems more, so their governing your life may be more beneficial for you. No?

No, I don't see how, especially if the whole village doesn't have the same job, the same medical issues, the same digestion, the same way to work, the same hobbies, the same face, etc.
Even in an inbred village of farmers they'd probably all have different needs from their inbreeding issues. ~;)
And just because someone knows about your needs, it doesn't mean they care, quite a few people may also use it against you.

[Furunculus]

Husar, there is another aspect of sovereignty that was taken for granted in the past, in the era of moderate politics, but which is now abused to destruction by Brexit, Corbyn, Trump, and other manifestations of extremism. That is constitutionality. The formal and informal rules that everyone worked by, because if people stepped outside these bounds whilst observing legalities, society would no longer work. I defined moderate politics earlier in this thread as politics that observes customs and respects the losing side, whereas extremism is whatever it can get away with.

Let's take the example of Brexit, as personified (and personification is a common aspect of this) by Nigel Farage. UK democracy is based on governments formed by parties elected on manifestos that the opposition and the press can hold them to. If there is abuse of the electoral system, the candidate who abused the system is disqualified and another election held in the area. Compare with Leave, who made promises that their supporters now claim they should not be held to, who use their referendum victory to claim a mandate for things that they assured the electorate would not happen, and who abused the legalities and customs of normal electoral process yet, because the referendum was supposedly merely advisory, are not subject to the checks of normal electoral process. In the face of this, there is another, equally democratically valid check, that of Parliament. But even here, the organisers of Leave identified that Parliamentary authority is merely custom, and not legal, and despite the flagrant disregard of democratic authority this represented, ignored Parliament's requests to answer their questions.

And what has happened since the Leave victory in the referendum? The architects of Leave, Farage and his close associates in particular, have kept clear of those trying to implement it. Instead, they keep making nebulous claims whilst saying that it is the fault of others that things are not working, culminating in Farage's new Brexit party getting a third of the vote whilst explicitly saying that they do not have a manifesto. In addition to this absence of constructive plans or identity other than opposition, they have also encouraged a culture of seeing divergence from them as treason, and the identification of their ill-defined cause with a personality.

In the UK, Brexit has polarised the country. Politics is no longer the constructive debate of ideas, tested for their workability. It is now whatever whoever gets a momentary backing of a majority can legally get away with. And the tragedy is that there are actually mechanics to correct this. But the Left have themselves enacted a form of the above, which albeit is less extreme than that enacted by Brexiteers, is nonetheless equally uncorrectable within traditional means.

you get too excited by the idea of farage as some pied piper character .

i think you will agree i'm as committed a brexiteer as they come, yet i have no time for farage and have nevef considered myself a kipper.
i had my own reasons long before he was on my scene, and i didnt much care for him once he waz.

[Montmorency]

I left out the Glorious Revolution because I didn't know enough about it, but the first group is the only bit that does not fit what I defined as moderate politics, and I specifically cited the Civil War as a time when the idea of absolute monarchy was overturned. On the others, I note that you define anti-moderate politics to include illiberal politics. Here you fall into the same habits as the Brexiteers, in defining sensible politics to include your side, but condemn the others. I've tried to avoid this, by defining it in philosophical terms, and applying it across the board, to what I would call my side as well as the opposing side.

I've excluded armed struggles, from the state or from demonstrators, as the exception than the rule, and not systemic. I've only included examples as anti-moderate politics where the rules themselves are shown to be useless, not people's non-observance of such. Hence I asked you, what do you suggest I do about it? You were dismissive of my observation of how the rules are being abused and made useless, so I described what I do about it, how that's within the rules but made ineffective because the rules themselves are being abused, and asked you for your suggested solution instead. Your response is that Britain has never been moderate, and that I should get used to this as the norm. So I've answered your question of what I am going to do about it. Can you answer my question of what do you suggest I do about it?

Edit: And don't fill your answer with technical terms like metonym that most people don't know. To me, an essay filled with dictionary words merely suggests the responder is trying to bluff with long worded BS, not provide a sensible answer.

Metonymy is not a technical term, you can double-click > right-click > search [engine] for "metonymy"

You're not a reactionary, right? You provided a definition:


observes customs and respects the losing side, whereas extremism is whatever it can get away with.

I don't see how you can think what I listed clears your definition.


I've excluded armed struggles, from the state or from demonstrators, as the exception than the rule, and not systemic.

But they were systemic. State policy of repression and coercion is not respectful of the "side" that isn't in power, or of people who are so weak they weren't even counted as political agents in "polite society".


I've only included examples as anti-moderate politics where the rules themselves are shown to be useless, not people's non-observance of such.

What's the distinction? Was Nazi fascism not counted as immoderate because they weren't observing Weimar rules? (Not that the Weimar government was gentle to those out of power.) And wait a minute, your consistent complaint with Brexiteers is that they don't observe your norms. Am I misunderstanding the quoted sentence?


Can you answer my question of what do you suggest I do about it?

I'm not ultimately confident in how much can be accomplished, but there is no return to the specific arrangements that have existed as the "international liberal order" and its national systems. Leaving aside your view of pre-Brexit UK, what do you think the UK's political system and civil-societal relations ought to look like? Ideally you could build a comprehensive program off that and influence politics with it. A more limited step might be to adopt a "radical Remainer" orientation and try to sell Labour and/or the LibDems politicians and voters on the UK as an activist government within the EU, but that might not be your predilection and it doesn't really address how the internal politics and civil society of the UK should function and how to achieve that. You would probably know better what you want and what is reasonable. The point is you have to be more imaginative than bemoaning the decline of a status quo ante, you can't go home again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Go_Home_Again).

[Gilrandir]

No, I don't see how, especially if the whole village doesn't have the same job, the same medical issues, the same digestion, the same way to work, the same hobbies, the same face, etc.
Even in an inbred village of farmers they'd probably all have different needs from their inbreeding issues. ~;)
And just because someone knows about your needs, it doesn't mean they care, quite a few people may also use it against you.

So, people in Berlin know more what road in this Bavarian village needs repairment or what school bus in this village needs replacement?

[Viking]

I have a completely different (world) view on sovereignty than you do.
You obviously mean national sovereignty, but Germany was once >50 little sovereign nations, some of which did or did not elect a German king. Up to 1871 states like Bavaria and Saxony were their own sovereign nations, which also didn't want to give up their sovereignty to the "Saupreißn" as the Bavarians called them. So now it's not even 150 years and two world wars (in which Germany already got chipped quite a bit, depending on your POV, after all especially the eastern parts previously had other owners as well) and I'm supposed to see the current nation of Germany as the ultimate arbiter of sovereignty, even if I disagree with quite a lot of things in that nation?

Tell me, why should I reject you, edyzmedieval, Beskar and many other people as my peers, but somehow celebrate some old geezer from Bavaria who doesn't share any of my values and does not even use the internet as my national peer who I feel so connected to? The fact is that I don't feel connected to him at all while my connection to you is quite obvious since we are at the very least communicating with one another here.

There are old geezers in Hermival-les-Vaux, Ashcott and Dobrzyca that don't like you because you are German. You'd likely prefer to work with the old geezer from Bavaria.


I don't see a world where the government hires private corporations to write laws and asks other corporations for permission to enact these laws as one where I have more sovereignty. The smaller the government (in terms of the market and territory it controls), the more likely it is that a big international corporation will have more power. For proof, just look at how the tobacco industry sued some small countries into submission so even children can smoke there. How is that for sovereignty in these countries? My country may not be there yet, but we're moving in that direction, the EU is a consolidation of power that can (if used correctly) counter this. That's why I see more potential sovereignty of the people in the EU than any national government.

You don't need the EU for that. You can have separate intergovernmental organizations (don't even have to be European) where member states can cooperate to achieve shared goals; and where they can join, leave or create alternative organizations as they see fit.


Power is also in unity, as unions and industry organizations clearly show (it's funny in that regard how worker unions are frowned upon, but you never see a libertarian argue against capitalists having industry organizations where they coordinate for their own interests in the same way). Herd and pack animals use the same principles against their foes.

Members of unions are not expected to give up their sovereignty. A union does not decide how its members should live their lives.

[Husar]

There are old geezers in Hermival-les-Vaux, Ashcott and Dobrzyca that don't like you because you are German. You'd likely prefer to work with the old geezer from Bavaria.

Why? The Bavarian doesn't like foreigners either.


You don't need the EU for that. You can have separate intergovernmental organizations (don't even have to be European) where member states can cooperate to achieve shared goals; and where they can join, leave or create alternative organizations as they see fit.

Can, but don't. Why abandon a framework we have a for a pipe dream we may never get? Not to mentions that intergovernmental organizations like the UN are not exactly known for their life-changing powers. They may do some good, but far less than is necessary. And with the same argument you could disband every federal Republic like the US and Germany, the UK and probably a lot of centralized nations as well. I was talking about a balance of powers and what you suggest only creates more imbalance. I'm trying to reduce competition between governments and you propose competing intergovernmental organizations. It becomes more laughable the more I think about it.
Without any power bloc, it will be as sturdy as leaves in the wind.


Members of unions are not expected to give up their sovereignty. A union does not decide how its members should live their lives.

Way to miss what I was talking about in that context. And the EU doesn't dictate how to live your life any more than the Norwegiuan government does. If you join a union and miss every strike they call for because you're too afraid to make your boss unhappy, then you're sovereign, but you still won't get a raise. So if a union is to work and achieve something, it will have to dictate parts of your life.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Members of unions are not expected to give up their sovereignty. A union does not decide how its members should live their lives.


600k of my fellow Americans ended up dead in asserting just the opposite.

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Uu5eyN6VU

[Viking]

Why? The Bavarian doesn't like foreigners either.

Because he will be more receptive, all else being equal.


Can, but don't. Why abandon a framework we have a for a pipe dream we may never get? Not to mentions that intergovernmental organizations like the UN are not exactly known for their life-changing powers. They may do some good, but far less than is necessary. And with the same argument you could disband every federal Republic like the US and Germany, the UK and probably a lot of centralized nations as well. I was talking about a balance of powers and what you suggest only creates more imbalance. I'm trying to reduce competition between governments and you propose competing intergovernmental organizations. It becomes more laughable the more I think about it.
Without any power bloc, it will be as sturdy as leaves in the wind.

If the UN is for all countries, it cannot be more united than the countries of the world are.

We already have influential/effective intergovernmental organizations that serve specific purposes, like NATO and the European Space Agency. I imagine the early forms of the EU belonged to this category as well; not just the current version.

Different intergovernmental organizations don't have to compete; there is in principle nothing that prevents them from cooperating and forming unions.

If there are strongly different views within an intergovernmental organization on the organization's purpose, however, splitting the organization or booting member states can be less dramatic if the scope of the organization is narrow, and lesser still if useful alternatives exist that leaving member states can join.


Way to miss what I was talking about in that context. And the EU doesn't dictate how to live your life any more than the Norwegiuan government does. If you join a union and miss every strike they call for because you're too afraid to make your boss unhappy, then you're sovereign, but you still won't get a raise. So if a union is to work and achieve something, it will have to dictate parts of your life.

The members of the metaphorical EU union are of course its member states. The more the EU turns into the USE, the more it it will dictate what members states can and cannot do.

[Husar]

Because he will be more receptive, all else being equal.

So?
That's a big if and being more receptive still doesn't mean he will actually listen.
What exactly is your point other than a vague potential based on a very uncertain assumption?
If a Bavarian hates foreigners, he might hate me just as much since I'm not a Bavarian and thus a foreigner to him. I'm not part of Bavarian sovereignty.



If the UN is for all countries, it cannot be more united than the countries of the world are.

We already have influential/effective intergovernmental organizations that serve specific purposes, like NATO and the European Space Agency. I imagine the early forms of the EU belonged to this category as well; not just the current version.

Different intergovernmental organizations don't have to compete; there is in principle nothing that prevents them from cooperating and forming unions.

If there are strongly different views within an intergovernmental organization on the organization's purpose, however, splitting the organization or booting member states can be less dramatic if the scope of the organization is narrow, and lesser still if useful alternatives exist that leaving member states can join.

You could abolish marriage with the same argument. Or nation states. Then every person can join the inter-person-organization that they like best and no border controls are necessary because there are no borders and no hard feelings. If you're not happy in one inter-person-organization, you can just find another.


The members of the metaphorical EU union are of course its member states. The more the EU turns into the USE, the more it it will dictate what members states can and cannot do.

Except that the USE is made up of the member states so the members states will dictate to the member states what the member states can do. And since all member states have to agree to the rules of what the member states can dictate the members states to do, they're basically dictating themselves and somehow you're trying to make a problem of it. So you're basically trying to dictate to the inter-governmental organizations to what extent they may coordinate and consolidate? do you deny them the sovereignty to decide about the degree of integration for themselves?

[Viking]

You could abolish marriage with the same argument. Or nation states. Then every person can join the inter-person-organization that they like best and no border controls are necessary because there are no borders and no hard feelings.

This is slippery slope argumentation, and not particularly interesting. If you have ever bought a snack bar from Nestlé, you are a member of the Nestlé snack bar buyer's association, right?


If you're not happy in one inter-person-organization, you can just find another.

Sounds like reality.


Except that the USE is made up of the member states so the members states will dictate to the member states what the member states can do. And since all member states have to agree to the rules of what the member states can dictate the members states to do, they're basically dictating themselves and somehow you're trying to make a problem of it. So you're basically trying to dictate to the inter-governmental organizations to what extent they may coordinate and consolidate? do you deny them the sovereignty to decide about the degree of integration for themselves?

Just as unions don't have to dictate what TV shows their members watch, cooperation between European countries does not have to involve an entity like the EU.

[Husar]

This is slippery slope argumentation, and not particularly interesting. If you have ever bought a snack bar from Nestlé, you are a member of the Nestlé snack bar buyer's association, right?

So what? Your argument didn't tell me much either. Yes, you can have inter-governmental organizations, but why would you want to and what would be the benefits over closer integration? And why would you not see the EU in its current form as a closely integrated inter-governmental organization? You talked about leaving them and joining others, but Britain is currently doing that. So where exactly is your point? You think the EU is fine as it is?

As for the slippery slope, did you forget all the terrorist organizations and other efforts of regions to leave their nation states? Most recently Catalonia and Eastern Ukraine...The Scottish are considering a referendum about leaving the UK as well. It seems quite a few countries have slipped on it.


Just as unions don't have to dictate what TV shows their members watch, cooperation between European countries does not have to involve an entity like the EU.

It does not have to, but it should. So what's your point?
I already argued why it should.

[Gilrandir]

As for the slippery slope, did you forget all the terrorist organizations and other efforts of regions to leave their nation states? Most recently Catalonia and Eastern Ukraine...

(A part of) Easten Ukraine (as well as Crimea) was hijacked by Russia, not left by itself.

[Strike For The South]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/07/tommy-robinson-filmed-punching-man-to-ground-outside-england-football-match

Maybe milkshakes are a measured response?Obviously no one is the same person but I hardly see the same kind of pearl clutching going on.

[Husar]

(A part of) Easten Ukraine (as well as Crimea) was hijacked by Russia, not left by itself.

So noone there helped Russia and wanted that to happen?

[Viking]

So what? Your argument didn't tell me much either. Yes, you can have inter-governmental organizations, but why would you want to and what would be the benefits over closer integration? And why would you not see the EU in its current form as a closely integrated inter-governmental organization?

[...]

So where exactly is your point? You think the EU is fine as it is?

I think the EU should be abandoned, and that no new organization that effectively aspires to become a new pan-European republic should take its place.

Obviously, there could be a new organization for trade and other forms of economic cooperation. Countries that wish to have the same currency could cooperate on that, separately. Those that wish to cooperate militarily can organize that, either through organizations or treaties.

In the long term, I'm worried that closer European integration could lead to (civil) war. National governments will lose more and more power to the central institutions of the EU in the process (essentially becoming more like regional authorities), and will likely be seen as less legitimate by the local populace. Add in some economic hardship and a spark, and you have a war.


You talked about leaving them and joining others, but Britain is currently doing that.

Which alternative to the EU is the UK joining?


As for the slippery slope, did you forget all the terrorist organizations and other efforts of regions to leave their nation states? Most recently Catalonia and Eastern Ukraine...The Scottish are considering a referendum about leaving the UK as well. It seems quite a few countries have slipped on it.

115 years ago I'd be living in Sweden. C'est la vie.

Smaller countries are weaker, as are countries with bigger internal differences. It's not so that you can just annex another country and expect to become stronger, yet this seems to be the strategy that the EU is pursuing currently (the bigger union, the better).

It's in the interest of any country to settle internal differences so that they can retain their current size, but they might just not be able to do so.


It does not have to, but it should. So what's your point?
I already argued why it should.

The essence of your argument is really that international cooperation is necessary, but nowhere do you demonstrate that an organization like the EU of today is necessary.

[Husar]

I think the EU should be abandoned, and that no new organization that effectively aspires to become a new pan-European republic should take its place.

Obviously, there could be a new organization for trade and other forms of economic cooperation. Countries that wish to have the same currency could cooperate on that, separately. Those that wish to cooperate militarily can organize that, either through organizations or treaties.

In the long term, I'm worried that closer European integration could lead to (civil) war. National governments will lose more and more power to the central institutions of the EU in the process (essentially becoming more like regional authorities), and will likely be seen as less legitimate by the local populace. Add in some economic hardship and a spark, and you have a war.

Why would that war not happen without the EU? I would argue without the EU such a war is more likely because the countries would coordinate less, wouldn't have EU programs that work against the hardship, etc.
You're also still forgetting that the national governments don't "lose" power and the EU doesn't "aspire" to that, it's the national governments that give their power to the EU and the mandate to do what it does.
Trade deals like CETA, TTIP and so on also included super-national courts so the trade deals that would replace the EU would likely do many of the same things, but with a bigger focus on investment security than national interests. The citizens could lose even more power.
So I don't see how that would alleviate the issue of citizens losing trust in their national governments. Not to forget that if citizens wanted out of the EU they could vote for parties promising an exit, much like Britain did. Apparently that is not the case in most other countries.


Which alternative to the EU is the UK joining?

We don't know yet, it's leaving the EU though.


Smaller countries are weaker, as are countries with bigger internal differences. It's not so that you can just annex another country and expect to become stronger, yet this seems to be the strategy that the EU is pursuing currently (the bigger union, the better).

It's in the interest of any country to settle internal differences so that they can retain their current size, but they might just not be able to do so.

How many counbtries did the EU annex? How many joined the EU willingly and how many voted against a change in how the EU works and how many of these changes were implemented anyway?
You can't just put words in the same sentence as EU and then expect me to think they apply to the EU.


The essence of your argument is really that international cooperation is necessary, but nowhere do you demonstrate that an organization like the EU of today is necessary.

It is necessary for the consolidation of power that it represents. It can enact laws that count for all members countries, it can ban goods in all member countries and so on. The tight integration, the hard introduction process and the complicated process of leaving give the EU more coherence. A relatively loose set of countries in some trade organization can more easily be divided and conquered by corporations by giving them something in their national interest in return for leaving the organization, etc. You hinted earlier that Britain was not joining another organization, maybe that is because few of them exist for that very reason. How many inter-governmental organizations can you name that exist or have rules to curb corporate influence?

[Montmorency]

I'd like to bring the thread back to Brexit politics for a moment. It's a followup (https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/27909/britain-s-labour-party-has-tried-to-appeal-to-everyone-on-brexit-and-failed) to an article (https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/27256/why-britain-s-labour-party-is-locked-into-a-broken-strategy-on-brexit) I posted a few months ago about Labour's conundrum in courting a relatively pro-Brexit electorate in most of the swing seats compared to the safe Remain seats generally being safe Labour seats. Well, the EU elections have brought the results of Corbyn's gamble on "constructive ambiguity" for us to review:


When the last of the ballots had finally been counted in the recent European Parliament elections, it became abundantly clear that one of the biggest losers was Britain’s Labour Party, and its Brexit strategy most of all. The party finished in third place, behind both Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and the ardently pro-Remain Liberal Democrats, with a mere 14.1 percent of the total vote. If the results are anything to go by, then Labour’s attempts to appeal to both Leavers and Remainers by being as ambiguous as possible about Brexit have actually had the opposite effect and alienated both sides of this deep divide in the United Kingdom.

Although the Brexit Party was the big winner of the night, topping the polls with 31.6 percent and winning every region in England except London, Farage’s outfit fell 8.8 points short of the combined total accrued by parties seeking to overturn the 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union. This may not serve as resounding proof that the national consensus on Brexit has shifted, but it does show that the country is still irreparably polarized and that those politicians who advocate compromise appeal to the smallest of constituencies.

It appears that the Labour leadership has finally gotten the message, as Jeremy Corbyn seems to be coming around to the idea of putting any final Brexit deal to the public in a new referendum. Of course, Corbyn has made similar noises in the past before backpedaling. This time, however, things feel different. Having lost such a sizable portion of its core vote to parties committed to remaining in the EU, it looks like Corbyn has little other choice.

As I’ve written here before, the Labour Party finds itself in a unique and unenviable position. Although its base is ardently pro-European, with 65 percent backing Remain in 2016, 61 percent of the party’s parliamentary seats are located in Leave-voting constituencies, as are a further 87 percent of seats narrowly held by the Conservative Party that Labour would like to flip. For nearly three years now, the Labour leadership has strained to endear itself to Brexit voters in the hopes of winning a sizable parliamentary majority in the next election. That has come at the expense of the party’s Remain base, who were widely believed to have nowhere else to go: The Tories are unequivocally the party of Brexit, while the Lib Dems were regarded as too tainted by their time in government under Prime Minister David Cameron—the man who promised the Brexit referendum—to pose a serious threat. The Lib Dems’ miserable performance in the 2017 general election only confirmed that. But last weekend’s election seems to indicate that Remainers in the Labour Party are fed up and the Lib Dems are no longer quite so toxic.

According to the respected pollster Lord Ashcroft, 22 percent of 2017 Labour voters defected to the Lib Dems in last month’s European Parliament elections. A further 17 percent switched to the Greens. A mere 13 percent lent their vote to the Brexit Party. Although elections for the European Parliament hardly see the same turnout and dynamics as parliamentary ballots, and are instead often used as a safe arena to register a protest vote, what the results do show is that Labour has more to lose from turning its back on Remainers than on Leavers.

The endless fascination in the British media with white, working-class, Labour-voting Brexiters seriously inflates the significance of this demographic. Just 20.7 percent of the Leave vote, which is some 3.5 million people, came from voters who backed Labour in the 2015 general election. This is marginally less than the 3.6 million Leave votes that came from the supporters of smaller parties and people who don’t usually vote at all. It’s also often overlooked that, at 39 percent, a slightly higher proportion of Conservatives—4 percent more—voted for Remain than the other way around. Labour could potentially offset the loss of its Leave voters by appealing to Tory Remainers. It already did this successfully in 2017, when 1.1 million of them defected to Labour, compared to the 850,000 that went the other way.

There should be no doubt that if Labour came out firmly against Brexit, it would eat into a significant slice of the vote for the Lib Dems, Greens and the new, centrist Change UK party, which was founded by Labour MPs disaffected with Corbyn’s leadership. Although in all likelihood that still wouldn’t win the party a majority in Parliament, Labour is well positioned to top the polls, which would hand it democratic legitimacy and the right to govern either as a minority government or as the head of a chaotic, anti-Brexit coalition. In such a bitterly polarized country, this is arguably the party’s only route to power—especially at a time when all signs seem to indicate that the era of the big parliamentary majority is over. The Conservatives haven’t achieved one since 1987, when they had Margaret Thatcher at the helm. Labour managed to do so more recently, in 2005, but that was an entirely different political era that bears no resemblance to the current electoral landscape. Hung parliaments and paper-thin majorities are Britain’s new reality.

Up to 45% of 2017 Labour voters voting in the recent EU elections switched to other, pro-Remain, parties. Not more than a sixth switched to Brexit Party or other pro-Leave.


At a time when the Conservative Party is collapsing (https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/05/my-euro-election-post-vote-poll-most-tory-switchers-say-they-will-stay-with-their-new-party/), it's hard to get around interpreting this as anything other than a colossal cock-up on Corbyn's part. Two years ago there seemed to be a real electoral dividend in Labour's end in part due to audacious policy messaging and canvassing from the party. Maybe ambiguity on Brexit when it was more popular and more nebulous made sense relative to bashing Tory austerity, but those conditions have shifted in the past year. Ironically enough the Labour leadership seems to have thrown the electoral dividend away by retreat to a caricature of the exact sort of cowardly, noncommittal centrism that Corbyn's ascent was alleged to discredit.

Crikey.

(Now when I first presented the stuff about Brexit polling in Labour/Con swing districts, my interpretation accepted the existence of a pro-Brexit Labour swing vote and the assumption that pro-Remain Labour voters "had nowhere else to go". As has been shown through experience the real marginal Labour voter is the Remain voter, in part because unlike America, UK is multi-party. In my defense, I was making a snap judgement based on one article, and I don't work as a party analyst or anyone who would have the responsibility to use electoral data toward strategic action.)


Corbyn and the Labour leadership need to look beyond the mirage of parliamentary majorities and focus on winning the battle of values.

Again, super-ironic that the ostensible vanguard of the rejuvenated Left would need to be told the thing they for years kept telling the Third-Wayers and Blairites.


Hung parliaments and paper-thin majorities are Britain’s new reality.

Welcome to the club.




Just as unions don't have to dictate what TV shows their members watch, cooperation between European countries does not have to involve an entity like the EU.

Some of your premises would support an anarchist position. Structures create and support individual cooperation, not autonomous self-motivated decision-making by individuals. The same applies to states and governments. Collective action needs to be 'locked in' and path-dependent to be systematic. Intergovernmental bodies for purposes of narrow regional cooperation can be useful for what they're worth, but because they place so few constraints and obligations on members there is limited path-dependence and what cooperation there is tends to be passive and driven by external events.


In the long term, I'm worried that closer European integration could lead to (civil) war.

What do you think is going to happen long-term in general?


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/07/tommy-robinson-filmed-punching-man-to-ground-outside-england-football-match

Maybe milkshakes are a measured response?Obviously no one is the same person but I hardly see the same kind of pearl clutching going on.

If you and Furunc want to have this discussion we should do it in a new thread, but to summarize the reactionary logic: when leftists use social shaming or embarrassment to contest the will of the right to dominate them, the right interpret this as an escalation worthy in turn of a preemptively even more violent response than was already being discussed among them. 'Show me deference, or I will have no choice but to kill you.'


Why would that war not happen without the EU? I would argue without the EU such a war is more likely because the countries would coordinate less, wouldn't have EU programs that work against the hardship, etc.
You're also still forgetting that the national governments don't "lose" power and the EU doesn't "aspire" to that, it's the national governments that give their power to the EU and the mandate to do what it does.


I think to actually be viable you do have to de-emphasize the power of national governments in favor of more direct popular sovereignty in supranational government, because only a universal and aggressive pursuit of common interest on the part of individuals embedded in communities can assure enduring global prosperity. Elites and bureaucrats can't do it on their own, even if they wanted to. National governments just aren't coherent, committed, or powerful enough to look out for human interests no matter what body they're part of. The trick is how to bootstrap it...

[Gilrandir]

So noone there helped Russia and wanted that to happen?

There are always collaborators who did and do. The same as before and during WWII. But no one speaks of "efforts of Sudetenland" to leave Czechoslovakia, somehow.

[Pannonian]

I'd like to bring the thread back to Brexit politics for a moment. It's a followup (https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/27909/britain-s-labour-party-has-tried-to-appeal-to-everyone-on-brexit-and-failed) to an article (https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/27256/why-britain-s-labour-party-is-locked-into-a-broken-strategy-on-brexit) I posted a few months ago about Labour's conundrum in courting a relatively pro-Brexit electorate in most of the swing seats compared to the safe Remain seats generally being safe Labour seats. Well, the EU elections have brought the results of Corbyn's gamble on "constructive ambiguity" for us to review:

Up to 45% of 2017 Labour voters voting in the recent EU elections switched to other, pro-Remain, parties. Not more than a sixth switched to Brexit Party or other pro-Leave.

At a time when the Conservative Party is collapsing (https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/05/my-euro-election-post-vote-poll-most-tory-switchers-say-they-will-stay-with-their-new-party/), it's hard to get around interpreting this as anything other than a colossal cock-up on Corbyn's part. Two years ago there seemed to be a real electoral dividend in Labour's end in part due to audacious policy messaging and canvassing from the party. Maybe ambiguity on Brexit when it was more popular and more nebulous made sense relative to bashing Tory austerity, but those conditions have shifted in the past year. Ironically enough the Labour leadership seems to have thrown the electoral dividend away by retreat to a caricature of the exact sort of cowardly, noncommittal centrism that Corbyn's ascent was alleged to discredit.

Crikey.

(Now when I first presented the stuff about Brexit polling in Labour/Con swing districts, my interpretation accepted the existence of a pro-Brexit Labour swing vote and the assumption that pro-Remain Labour voters "had nowhere else to go". As has been shown through experience the real marginal Labour voter is the Remain voter, in part because unlike America, UK is multi-party. In my defense, I was making a snap judgement based on one article, and I don't work as a party analyst or anyone who would have the responsibility to use electoral data toward strategic action.)

Again, super-ironic that the ostensible vanguard of the rejuvenated Left would need to be told the thing they for years kept telling the Third-Wayers and Blairites.

Corbyn's position isn't a "retreat to a caricature of the exact sort of cowardly, noncommittal centrism that Corbyn's ascent was alleged to discredit". It has been, and remains, allowing Brexit to break Britain, and for Labour under Corbyn to pick up the pieces of a broken Britain ripe for reshaping. That has been Marxist theory since the early 20th century, but it has never been popular in the mainstream Labour party because it has never been willing to condone real life suffering to enable some enacting of political theory. Because of the demonisation of Blair, it is now politically viable within the Labour party to pursue that course, and when faced with concrete evidence that it's not going to work, chant "Blair", "neo-liberals" and firm up support for the leader wherever he wants to take them. And because Corbyn is an idiot who has wasted the privileged position he was born with, his handlers like his CoS Seumas Milne (a man who was expelled by the British Communist Party for being too hard line Stalinist) get to direct the Labour party.

Remainers have abandoned the Labour party because they have repeatedly given the leadership notice that they expect Labour to pursue a course opposite to that of the government, and been repeatedly rebuffed. On the last occasion, this was made clear policy by the Labour conference, which Corbyn had previously promised would make policy for the party that the leadership would follow. Rather than follow through with his promise to enact membership-directed policy, he ignored it in the following months. There has been an increasing and unignorable build up of evidence that Corbyn is pursuing Brexit for ideological ends. Which has been expected by those of us who have done research on his past. And the Labour party is still pursuing this course, as the shadow foreign secretary, who urged the party to learn from their mistakes and to back a second referendum, has been demoted for doing so.

All this has been no surprise to those of us who have been keeping close tabs on the affairs of the Labour party. And that stat about a majority of Labour constituencies voting Leave? Even there, a majority of Labour voters support Remain. And let's not forget, Corbyn was the first politician to call for the immediate invocation of article 50, before any studies came to light. His support for Brexit isn't the result of considered study of electoral mathematics. It is ingrained, barely covered by pretended support for Remain that he dropped as soon as he saw the opportunity.

Leave voters will never vote for Corbyn. He represents a political position that they utterly loathe. Remain voters who would normally vote Labour have been repeatedly ignored by Corbyn, who is fundamentally pro-Brexit. Their vote for Labour, which they'd intended as opposition to the government, has been interpreted as the 80% in support of the government. So in order for their opposition to the government to register, they have to vote elsewhere.

[Husar]

Some of your premises would support an anarchist position. Structures create and support individual cooperation, not autonomous self-motivated decision-making by individuals. The same applies to states and governments. Collective action needs to be 'locked in' and path-dependent to be systematic. Intergovernmental bodies for purposes of narrow regional cooperation can be useful for what they're worth, but because they place so few constraints and obligations on members there is limited path-dependence and what cooperation there is tends to be passive and driven by external events.

You truly have the best words. I wanted to say that earlier (last paragraph of post #2812), but I guess I just can't express myself as well as you do. :shame:

I shall shamefully retreat and memorize expressions to better myself. :creep:



There are always collaborators who did and do. The same as before and during WWII. But no one speaks of "efforts of Sudetenland" to leave Czechoslovakia, somehow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans


After 1945, most ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia to Germany and Austria.

Well, yeah, after the ethnic cleansing, they're now demanding their rights from the safety of Germany. One of the reasons they were expelled might be that Hitler used them as a reason to invade.


Konrad Henlein met with Hitler in Berlin on 28 March 1938 and was instructed to raise demands unacceptable to the Czechoslovak government. In the Carlsbad Decrees, issued on 24 April, the SdP demanded complete autonomy for the Sudetenland and freedom to profess Nazi ideology. If Henlein's demands had been granted, the Sudetenland would have been in a position to align itself with Nazi Germany.

So nowadays there are no efforts to secede there anymore because they have all been driven out and replaced by locals. There are still organizations that demand retribution and so on though. Same for Poland where more or less the same thing happened after Eastern Prussia and some other areas were given to Poland.

[Gilrandir]

So nowadays there are no efforts to secede there anymore because they have all been driven out and replaced by locals. There are still organizations that demand retribution and so on though. Same for Poland where more or less the same thing happened after Eastern Prussia and some other areas were given to Poland.

I must have been unclear. I don't mean that now people want to leave. I mean that we now don't say that back in 1938 people of Sudetenland wanted to leave. Unless (as your quote proves) they WERE TOLD FROM THE OUTSIDE they wanted to leave. Exactly what happened in Donbas. They were instigated by false rumors of Ukranian nazi atrocities which was coupled with the open intrusion by Girkin's (aka Strelkov's) group who captured police departments in Kramatorsk and Slovyansk thus triggering the military stage (by Girkin's own admission).

[Husar]

I must have been unclear. I don't mean that now people want to leave. I mean that we now don't say that back in 1938 people of Sudetenland wanted to leave. Unless (as your quote proves) they WERE TOLD FROM THE OUTSIDE they wanted to leave.

Not quite, that quote can be misleading if you do not read it carefully. The guy went to Hitler to get advice on how to secede or something like that. See the relevant parts before:


In 1935 the Sudeten German Home Front became the Sudeten German Party (Sudetendeutsche Partei) (SdP) and embarked on an active propaganda campaign. In the May election, the SdP won more than 60% of the Sudeten German vote.
[...]
The party represented itself as striving for a just settlement of Sudeten German claims within the framework of Czechoslovak democracy. Henlein, however, maintained secret contact with Nazi Germany and received material aid from Berlin. The SdP endorsed the idea of a Führer and mimicked Nazi methods with banners, slogans, and uniformed troops. Concessions offered by the Czechoslovak government, including the installation of exclusively Sudeten German officials in Sudeten German areas and possible participation of the SdP in the cabinet, were rejected. By 1937 most SdP leaders supported Hitler's pan-German objectives.
[...]
On 13 March 1938, the Third Reich annexed Austria, a "union" known as the Anschluss. Immediately thereafter many Sudeten Germans supported Henlein.
[...]
Only the Social Democrats continued to champion democratic freedom. The masses, however, supported the SdP.

They were initially not about secession, but with a little bit of propaganda it seems that people were easily led that way. This is a good example for how dangerous identity politics and divisive propaganda can be. ;)

[Viking]

Some of your premises would support an anarchist position. Structures create and support individual cooperation, not autonomous self-motivated decision-making by individuals. The same applies to states and governments. Collective action needs to be 'locked in' and path-dependent to be systematic. Intergovernmental bodies for purposes of narrow regional cooperation can be useful for what they're worth, but because they place so few constraints and obligations on members there is limited path-dependence and what cooperation there is tends to be passive and driven by external events.

There is no dichotomy here. By some standards, the current organization of the EU is loose, by others, it is tight.


What do you think is going to happen long-term in general?

Fewer wars. I don't know if Pinkers' data analysis is correct, but I find it plausible that his conclusion regarding a decline in violence is, regardless.

More wars in Europe are likely - it's not so long ago a new one started in Eastern Ukraine - but it should be possible to avoid some of them. True long-term trends can also be interrupted by periods where the measured value shortly trends strongly in the opposite direction.


Why would that war not happen without the EU? I would argue without the EU such a war is more likely because the countries would coordinate less, wouldn't have EU programs that work against the hardship, etc.

Because now separatist motivations are mixed in. If the government is located in the capital, you can go there to protest against it. If the government is located in a different country, so to speak, heading to the capital in your own country is less efficient, and parts of the population may start to seriously think about secession instead. The more powers that have been handed over to the EU, the more likely such a conflict should be, because then the local government will seem like more of a puppet regime, while at the same time it has less control over the situation (e.g. in terms of the economy).


You're also still forgetting that the national governments don't "lose" power and the EU doesn't "aspire" to that, it's the national governments that give their power to the EU and the mandate to do what it does.

You lose what you give away.


Trade deals like CETA, TTIP and so on also included super-national courts so the trade deals that would replace the EU would likely do many of the same things, but with a bigger focus on investment security than national interests. The citizens could lose even more power. [...]
Not to forget that if citizens wanted out of the EU they could vote for parties promising an exit, much like Britain did.

So they should vote for parties that go against such trade deals, according to your own recipe.


We don't know yet, it's leaving the EU though.

Painfully.



How many counbtries did the EU annex?

By analogy.



It is necessary for the consolidation of power that it represents. It can enact laws that count for all members countries, it can ban goods in all member countries and so on. The tight integration, the hard introduction process and the complicated process of leaving give the EU more coherence. A relatively loose set of countries in some trade organization can more easily be divided and conquered by corporations by giving them something in their national interest in return for leaving the organization, etc.

A corporation might be able to bribe a municipality or a city that way, but a group of corporations generally don't have much to offer an entire country, except for the smallest and poorest ones.

It also needs to be explained how the countries coming together in the shape of the EU are less likely to steer off course than if they instead were members of more loosely organized organizations. I.e. that a European organization for food safety somehow would be less capable of banning toxic food packaging than the EU.

[Beskar]

Conservatives are lining up to get appointed as head of the UK Super Villain Society.

You look at the list and there is only despair with the choices on offer.
"You failed at Education, You certainly failed at Health, and... well, for you... 'former foreign secretary' doesn't summarise the colossal mess you did."

I would be in favour of an outsider for sure. At least they haven't had the opportunity to screw-up yet.

22657

Is that really the number 1 choice on that list?

[Pannonian]

22657

Is that really the number 1 choice on that list?

He certainly is. And if you don't believe him, he's got photos of the MPs' ballot papers. Secret ballots isn't a necessary part of democracy according to our next PM. Heck, our former Brexit secretary doesn't think this country needs a Parliament at all, and would rather suspend it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He certainly is. And if you don't believe him, he's got photos of the MPs' ballot papers. Secret ballots isn't a necessary part of democracy according to our next PM. Heck, our former Brexit secretary doesn't think this country needs a Parliament at all, and would rather suspend it.

You do know how a secret ballot works, right?

Also - you do know elections in the UK aren't actually by secret ballot? They give you a numbered ballot paper and record it against your name.

Anyway - of the other contenders who passed through to the next stage one has dropped out, four are more loathed than Boris for various reasons and almost nobody had heard of Rory Stewart until a couple of weeks ago.

So, really what did you expect?

[Pannonian]

You do know how a secret ballot works, right?

Also - you do know elections in the UK aren't actually by secret ballot? They give you a numbered ballot paper and record it against your name.

Anyway - of the other contenders who passed through to the next stage one has dropped out, four are more loathed than Boris for various reasons and almost nobody had heard of Rory Stewart until a couple of weeks ago.

So, really what did you expect?

Do candidates generally ask for photographic proof that you've voted for them?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do candidates generally ask for photographic proof that you've voted for them?

Maybe people sent them to show loyalty?

[Pannonian]

Maybe people sent them to show loyalty?

Reports are that he asked for them. Why did he feel able to ask for them? Why did they feel obliged to do so? The 1922 committee have now banned phones from wherever it is that they vote, so it's definitely not regarded as above board. But he will win and be our next PM regardless. I wonder what the UN's relevant body would make of an election involving something like this.

[Furunculus]

I wonder what the UN's relevant body would make of an election involving something like this.

i imagine we would take the UN's thoughts on the internal electoral processes of the tory party with just as much seriousness as we do of their 'special' rapporteurs wailing's on the subject of the UK social benefits system.

seriously, why would the UN be deemed to have any legitimacy to speak on the subject...?

[Pannonian]

i imagine we would take the UN's thoughts on the internal electoral processes of the tory party with just as much seriousness as we do of their 'special' rapporteurs wailing's on the subject of the UK social benefits system.

seriously, why would the UN be deemed to have any legitimacy to speak on the subject...?

Minimum international standards no longer matter to you now? Having looked it up, the UK has an Electoral Commission that takes care of such things, although the referendum infamously circumvented its workings (as we have a parliamentary democracy that is not designed for referendums). EU-related elections has its own body as established by the Council of Europe. I'm pretty sure both bodies would, in any elections overseen by them, disqualify any candidate requiring voters to provide proof that they've cast their vote accordingly. It's one of the basic principles of democracy, to protect voters from intimidation.

[Furunculus]

Minimum international standards no longer matter to you now?

Now...? They have never mattered to me.
I care about british standards when it comes to evaluating whether british expectations from its democratic processes and institutions are up to scratch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Reports are that he asked for them. Why did he feel able to ask for them? Why did they feel obliged to do so? The 1922 committee have now banned phones from wherever it is that they vote, so it's definitely not regarded as above board. But he will win and be our next PM regardless. I wonder what the UN's relevant body would make of an election involving something like this.

You know you're technically allowed to photograph your own ballot and post it on facebook, right?

Whether you should or not is a different question.

[Husar]

You know you're technically allowed to photograph your own ballot and post it on facebook, right?

Have to prove it's your own by having the signature on the photo though. :sweatdrop:

[Beskar]

You know you're technically allowed to photograph your own ballot and post it on facebook, right?
Whether you should or not is a different question.

Phillippus, I hope you voted for the Beskar Party or I am going to make things very difficult for you. Forget about that promotion you rightfully deserve. You need to clearly sign your voting slip and provide it to me. I demand complete loyalty, you are either with me or against me. Doesn't matter if it is called a 'Secret Ballot' or not. Do it or prepare for the consequences. :whip: [now add some actual teeth to this threat.]


As you see, you are not having a choice in voting. It is pure intimidation. Inspired by your comment, loathsome tactics by loathsome people. Makes my jokey hyperbole about them being the 'Villain Society' scarier than the cartoony implication.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phillippus, I hope you voted for the Beskar Party or I am going to make things very difficult for you. Forget about that promotion you rightfully deserve. You need to clearly sign your voting slip and provide it to me. I demand complete loyalty, you are either with me or against me. Doesn't matter if it is called a 'Secret Ballot' or not. Do it or prepare for the consequences. :whip: [now add some actual teeth to this threat.]


As you see, you are not having a choice in voting. It is pure intimidation. Inspired by your comment, loathsome tactics by loathsome people. Makes my jokey hyperbole about them being the 'Villain Society' scarier than the cartoony implication.

I think you're confusing fear and sycophancy.

I don't approve but, really, Boris is not some evil genius. If people are trying to impress him it's because they know he's going to win and they think they'll benefit.

In your comparison your threats only work if I WANT to work for you. I have another option - I can wait you out, when you have a breakdown or burnout I can approach your replacement and ask HIM to give me the job nobody wants.

In thee meantime I can sit back and enjoy my coffee in peace.

[Pannonian]

Police are investigating five allegations of electoral irregularities related to the Peterborough byelection, which Labour won by 683 votes.

Three of these relate to postal votes, one allegation is of bribery and corruption and the fifth is of a breach of the privacy of the vote, Cambridgeshire police have confirmed.
...
Police have been asked to investigate a claim, made on social media, that an individual burned more than 1,000 votes destined for the Brexit party; and that some voters were observed taking photographs of ballot papers, leading to concerns that they were fulfilling some form of contract.



Police look into claims of irregularities at Peterborough byelection (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/17/police-look-into-claims-of-irregularities-at-peterborough-byelection)

[InsaneApache]

Colour me surprised.

Effin Labour at it again.

[Beskar]

Conservatives are all about that Brexit (Except for when it comes to Corbyn).
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9U4AJxWsAEef47.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9U4hWOWkAElywL.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9U5n5aWkAAEuAq.jpg:large

[Pannonian]

Colour me surprised.

Effin Labour at it again.

Any thoughts on Johnson doing the same?

And BTW, do you agree that 52-48 is not a decisive enough margin to be the end of the matter?

[Pannonian]

Do the Brexiteers agree with the Tory members? Would you be happy to see the break up of the UK if that was the price of Brexit?

[rory_20_uk]

How much evidence is required that the system in the UK is broken beyond redemption in its current form?

Bring in PR at both local and national level - if required get GCP Grey in as an expert to advise which approach!

For this level of root and branch change would require either a very brave Government who might well be turkeys voting for Christmas or the Monarch doing something besides reading prepared speeches / giving out awards to Government picked cronies and supporting Good Works.

So... I'm not super optimistic.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Any thoughts on Johnson doing the same?

And BTW, do you agree that 52-48 is not a decisive enough margin to be the end of the matter?

No idea what you're on about with Johnson. LBJ perhaps?

As for the second one, I assume you mean the referendum result.

Seriously mate go and get some help.

[rory_20_uk]

Do the Brexiteers agree with the Tory members? Would you be happy to see the break up of the UK if that was the price of Brexit?

I think we should just continue to pay Northern Ireland and Scotland money, let them have their own laws and patiently wait until they choose to leave.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

No idea what you're on about with Johnson. LBJ perhaps?

As for the second one, I assume you mean the referendum result.

Seriously mate go and get some help.

Do you agree with Farage on Brexit?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you agree with Farage on Brexit?

If Brexit is not legitimate because of the referendum result then neither is the Maastricht Treaty.

The Referendum result was valid within the terms set down by the relevant law on holding the referendum which was supported by all parties.

ALL parties.

Look, if you think Brexit is a bad idea and has proven to be a bad idea and therefore we should hold another referendum then fine - you're entitled to that opinion.

HOWEVER, the members here who supported Brexit are not necessarily "Farageists" or racists, or idiots. For the last hundred pages you've been asking the same questions and getting the same answer.

At least twice you've tried to attack me with Hong Kong and twice I've said it was wrong to hand the territory back to China.

You keep bringing up NATO and the UN and we have to keep reminding you that we are opposed to the EU because it perpetually drags people towards a federal European State without any major parties in any country really opposing it, and it enacts treaty reform to CREATE that state without Referendums.

It's really less that the EU is bad per se and much more that is doesn't work because the ruling class are pushing reform and integration faster than the people will except - hence Germany "loaning" Greece money after the crash as opposed to the ECB or EU Commission simply "making funds available". That happened because the German people are unwilling to accept a lower standard of living for the sake of the Greeks.

[Pannonian]

If Brexit is not legitimate because of the referendum result then neither is the Maastricht Treaty.

The Referendum result was valid within the terms set down by the relevant law on holding the referendum which was supported by all parties.

ALL parties.

Look, if you think Brexit is a bad idea and has proven to be a bad idea and therefore we should hold another referendum then fine - you're entitled to that opinion.

HOWEVER, the members here who supported Brexit are not necessarily "Farageists" or racists, or idiots. For the last hundred pages you've been asking the same questions and getting the same answer.

I'm asking this specifically of IA though, as he's said that Farage is a good bloke whom he agrees with. So I'm asking him if he agrees with Farage on Brexit.

Edit: what do you think of the poll results on what Tory members are willing to accept for Brexit? They're the people who will choose our next PM.

[Furunculus]

This is and always has been as question of who is “us”.

To which group are we willing to trust there is sufficient convergence of aims and expectations that can subsume our personal ambitions to that of the group.
that applies to the uk in the EU, just as it applies to scotland in the uk.

that poll of tory members is not about choosing to eject scotland so we can exit the eu, that remains a [choice] for scotland to make.

I'm a unionist, i hope they remain in the union because i consider scotland “us”.

[Pannonian]

This is and always has been as question of who is “us”.

To which group are we willing to trust there is sufficient convergence of aims and expectations that can subsume our personal ambitions to that of the group.
that applies to the uk in the EU, just as it applies to scotland in the uk.

that poll of tory members is not about choosing to eject scotland so we can exit the eu, that remains a [choice] for scotland to make.

I'm a unionist, i hope they remain in the union because i consider scotland “us”.

The Tory members (those in the poll) will choose the next PM, who will set out the government's plans for Brexit. Said PM will take his vote into account when setting out those plans, and his constituency has indicated that it will be willing to accept the loss of Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Tory party and significant damage to the economy as part of those plans, as long as the government takes the UK out of the EU. It's democratically pious to say that it's Scotland's decision whether or not to stay in the UK, but that is, once again, evading responsibility for the UK's policies that influence that decision.

Throughout my life, I have always regarded myself as dual British and European. Thanks to Brexit, I may no longer be either. Ich bin ein Unionist.

[Montmorency]

It's really less that the EU is bad per se and much more that is doesn't work because the ruling class are pushing reform and integration faster than the people will except - hence Germany "loaning" Greece money after the crash as opposed to the ECB or EU Commission simply "making funds available". That happened because the German people are unwilling to accept a lower standard of living for the sake of the Greeks.


This is and always has been as question of who is “us”.

To which group are we willing to trust there is sufficient convergence of aims and expectations that can subsume our personal ambitions to that of the group.
that applies to the uk in the EU, just as it applies to scotland in the uk.

that poll of tory members is not about choosing to eject scotland so we can exit the eu, that remains a [choice] for scotland to make.

I'm a unionist, i hope they remain in the union because i consider scotland “us”.

In all this time, setting aside contesting the ideological content of these positions, I just haven't been able to understand the logical connection from the above to desiring Brexit in real world conditions. I sympathize with those who seek prison abolition because they think it is a fundamentally unjust practice for the state to incarcerate people. That doesn't mean I'm going to support emptying all the prisons tomorrow without contingency just because the political power to do so exists and "abolition means abolition". And at least abolition is conceptually simple to implement: there are people in prison; make them not be in prison by physically moving them out. Making Britain not be in EU is not as simple, and likely carries a much higher social and economic cost.

For a lark, imagine PM Corbyn obtained a narrow-majority referendum result to "nationalize every corner shop." I guess that's the will of the people. Let no one here say they're not a radical...

It profits a man nothing to lose the world for his soul - but for England?

[Furunculus]

It's democratically pious to say that it's Scotland's decision whether or not to stay in the UK, but that is, once again, evading responsibility for the UK's policies that influence that decision.

no, it is... quite literally... their decision.
we even let them have referendums and border polls to decide whether [we] are [us] to [them].

[Pannonian]

no, it is... quite literally... their decision.
we even let them have referendums and border polls to decide whether [we] are [us] to [them].

So we implement a decision that they're overwhelmingly against, overriding their constitutional rights in doing so, and you pass off any subsequent vote for independence as their decision and nothing to do with you? Do Brexiteers ever take ownership of the consequences of their decisions?

[Furunculus]

In all this time, setting aside contesting the ideological content of these positions, I just haven't been able to understand the logical connection from the above to desiring Brexit in real world conditions.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053792687&viewfull=1#post2053792687
"I am a negative-liberty classical liberal, believing in:

The market economy rather than social democracy
Taxation to achieve public services rather redistribution
Regulation by demonstrable-harm rather than the precautionary-principle
An activist foreign policy rather than platitudes about soft-power
A majoritarian electoral system with adversarial politics rather than coalitions and consensus politics

EU membership might suit those who take the opposite view, but I see it as a ratchet that ceaslessly works to lever british society from the norms that are my preference."

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053792539&viewfull=1#post2053792539
"Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)"

[Furunculus]

So we implement a decision that they're overwhelmingly against, overriding their constitutional rights in doing so, and you pass off any subsequent vote for independence as their decision and nothing to do with you? Do Brexiteers ever take ownership of the consequences of their decisions?

welcome to the crux of the demos problem; being able to live with the kratos.
you'd work to let that lunatic corbyn be prime minister which i think is insane, but i'm not gonna throw my toys out the pram and insist you live in another country.

[Montmorency]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053792687&viewfull=1#post2053792687
"I am a negative-liberty classical liberal, believing in:

The market economy rather than social democracy
Taxation to achieve public services rather redistribution
Regulation by demonstrable-harm rather than the precautionary-principle
An activist foreign policy rather than platitudes about soft-power
A majoritarian electoral system with adversarial politics rather than coalitions and consensus politics

EU membership might suit those who take the opposite view, but I see it as a ratchet that ceaslessly works to lever british society from the norms that are my preference."

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053792539&viewfull=1#post2053792539
"Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)"

You don't have to repeat yourself. Prison abolition is consistent with a society that respects the liberty of individuals, but there's a missing link between the ideology and what's actually happening in the world. There's a missing link between 'I don't like the norms and politics of EU membership' and 'leaving the EU under any circumstances realizes my independent preferences.' To say nothing of the costs you would impose on others.

[Pannonian]

welcome to the crux of the demos problem; being able to live with the kratos.
you'd work to let that lunatic corbyn be prime minister which i think is insane, but i'm not gonna throw my toys out the pram and insist you live in another country.

Does the Scottish Parliament get a say in altering the status of the citizens over which it has authority?

And since when have I ever worked to let that lunatic Corbyn be prime minister? I despise the man, probably with more grounding in knowledge of him than you do.

[Pannonian]

You don't have to repeat yourself. Prison abolition is consistent with a society that respects the liberty of individuals, but there's a missing link between the ideology and what's actually happening in the world. There's a missing link between 'I don't like the norms and politics of EU membership' and 'leaving the EU under any circumstances realizes my independent preferences.' To say nothing of the costs you would impose on others.

Try the congress of the state of Indiana voting to set pi to 3.2.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In all this time, setting aside contesting the ideological content of these positions, I just haven't been able to understand the logical connection from the above to desiring Brexit in real world conditions. I sympathize with those who seek prison abolition because they think it is a fundamentally unjust practice for the state to incarcerate people. That doesn't mean I'm going to support emptying all the prisons tomorrow without contingency just because the political power to do so exists and "abolition means abolition". And at least abolition is conceptually simple to implement: there are people in prison; make them not be in prison by physically moving them out. Making Britain not be in EU is not as simple, and likely carries a much higher social and economic cost.

For a lark, imagine PM Corbyn obtained a narrow-majority referendum result to "nationalize every corner shop." I guess that's the will of the people. Let no one here say they're not a radical...

It profits a man nothing to lose the world for his soul - but for England?

Personally, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed, and that Britain is not compatible with the EU. We've had one foot out the door for two decades and our leaving would seem to be inevitable by default - unless we adopt the Euro and abolish the monarchy.


Does the Scottish Parliament get a say in altering the status of the citizens over which it has authority?

Yes - it does.

The English and Welsh largely voted to leave, the Irish were split between those who live near the border and those who live near the coast. The only regions that voted very strongly for Remain were Scotland and Greater London - the Irish vote was less enthusiastic. So, we're currently leaving because of that. If the Scottish collectively decide that they're more European than British then they will secede from the UK, as they are entitled to do.

You want Brexiteers (horrible word, hate it) to "take responsibility" but all the Leave vote did was vote differently to the Remain vote. This may give the Scottish Nationalists enough wind to secede but it's won't be "because of Brexit", it will be because many of them want to secede anyway because they no longer feel British and don't want to be part of Great Britain anymore.

I would hazard that the ultimate collapse of the UK has been coming since 1997 when Tony Blair gave the Scots their own Parliament, giving the Scottish ultra-nationalists a platform that allowed Alex Salmond to pretend to be a real politician and not a racist bigot who likes to feel up his secretary and take Russian money.

[Furunculus]

You don't have to repeat yourself. Prison abolition is consistent with a society that respects the liberty of individuals, but there's a missing link between the ideology and what's actually happening in the world. There's a missing link between 'I don't like the norms and politics of EU membership' and 'leaving the EU under any circumstances realizes my independent preferences.' To say nothing of the costs you would impose on others.

there is no missing link.

i look at the enormous acceleration of criminal law and regulation and I see harmonisation to the eu norm.
i look at over-regulation in pursuit of the precautionary principle and i see the same.

I also see us as a thorn in the side of our good neighbours in that we're holding them back from their ambition in how they want to see their society operate.

everyone wins.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

there is no missing link.

i look at the enormous acceleration of criminal law and regulation and I see harmonisation to the eu norm.
i look at over-regulation in pursuit of the precautionary principle and i see the same.

I also see us as a thorn in the side of our good neighbours in that we're holding them back from their ambition in how they want to see their society operate.

everyone wins.

The acceleration of criminal law is a British fetish - not an EU one. Consider, for example, the sale of firearms and knives in other countries.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Personally, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed, and that Britain is not compatible with the EU. We've had one foot out the door for two decades and our leaving would seem to be inevitable by default - unless we adopt the Euro and abolish the monarchy.

Mate, it's looking like Britain is not even compatible with itself.

As long as you keep sending Bond movies and Samuel Smith over to my corner of California, you do you.

[InsaneApache]

I'm asking this specifically of IA though, as he's said that Farage is a good bloke whom he agrees with. So I'm asking him if he agrees with Farage on Brexit.

OK one last time then I'm done.

This is no longer about Brexit but rather about the legislators ignoring the will of the people. It's about democratic principles.

You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. You can no more be a 'little bit' democratic then you can be a 'little bit' pregnant.

Democracy relies on the losers accepting the result, which you obviously don't.

How about this then.

A general election is called and Labour win. Then all those who didn't vote Labour say that there should be a second general election because all the people who voted Labour were low information, didn't know what they were voting for and a bit thick. If not bigoted.

Can you see now the dangers inherent in that way of thinking?

Perhaps you ought to move to North Korea, they think like that over there. You'd fit right in.

[Pannonian]

OK one last time then I'm done.

This is no longer about Brexit but rather about the legislators ignoring the will of the people. It's about democratic principles.

You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. You can no more be a 'little bit' democratic then you can be a 'little bit' pregnant.

Democracy relies on the losers accepting the result, which you obviously don't.

How about this then.

A general election is called and Labour win. Then all those who didn't vote Labour say that there should be a second general election because all the people who voted Labour were low information, didn't know what they were voting for and a bit thick. If not bigoted.

Can you see now the dangers inherent in that way of thinking?

Perhaps you ought to move to North Korea, they think like that over there. You'd fit right in.

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.” (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017)


(Nigel Farage is a) Top man who believes in democracy, unlike the main parties. This is no longer about Brexit it is now about the political class declaring war on democracy. They will get it good and hard this Thursday.

Do you agree with Nigel Farage on Brexit? Do you agree with Nigel Farage on democracy, for that matter?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.” (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017)



Do you agree with Nigel Farage on Brexit? Do you agree with Nigel Farage on democracy, for that matter?

The difference between what Farage said and what you are saying is that he said a narrow result would not be "the end" whereas you are saying a narrow result was illegitimate.

=/=

[Husar]

You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. You can no more be a 'little bit' democratic then you can be a 'little bit' pregnant.

Well, if a non-binding referendum can be binding, who knows what else is possible. :clown:

[Pannonian]

The difference between what Farage said and what you are saying is that he said a narrow result would not be "the end" whereas you are saying a narrow result was illegitimate.

=/=


And BTW, do you agree that 52-48 is not a decisive enough margin to be the end of the matter?

Please explain. And BTW, I directed the question specifically at IA because, on the one hand, he thinks highly of Farage as an icon of democracy. And on the other hand, IA reckons we should have to wait 40 years before we revisit this matter.

I accept that we will be leaving the EU as a result of the referendum. I demand only that those who wanted to leave should be held responsible for the consequences of leaving, and that Leave politicians, as the side that won, should be held to what they said during the campaign. Is this undemocratic as IA accuses me of being?

Youse lot won. Take ownership of your victory, instead of trying to evade responsibility.

[Pannonian]

Another note for IA: you reckon that not accepting the will of the victors amounts to the denial of democracy. I disagree. It may have escaped your attention that we do not only have a loyal government, but we also have a loyal opposition. You are denying that any kind of opposition can be loyal, that we should all get behind the victors.

[InsaneApache]

I'm beginning to lose the will to live. :sweatdrop:


Another note for IA: you reckon that not accepting the will of the victors amounts to the denial of democracy. I disagree. It may have escaped your attention that we do not only have a loyal government, but we also have a loyal opposition. You are denying that any kind of opposition can be loyal, that we should all get behind the victors.

It's too late for that. The time for opposing the departure of the EU was before the vote not after it. Jesus wept lad wtf is wrong with you.


I demand only that those who wanted to leave should be held responsible for the consequences of leaving

OK now I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Do you hold the electorate to same standards in a general election? If not, why not? I voted for an outcome not a process.

By your thinking anyone who voted for New Labour is a corrupt fascist warmonger and as entertaining as that might be, it's plain wrong.

Just because the politicians have cocked up doesn't make me or anyone who voted culpable.

Oh and the main consequences of us leaving is that we get to fire those onanists in Parliament when they behave in such a manner.


Well, if a non-binding referendum can be binding, who knows what else is possible.

There's an old adage in England usually ascribed to the legal profession.

"Don't ask a question unless you know the answer."

BTW I see Herr Merkell was doing the 'shake and vac' yesterday, do her batteries need replacing?

[Pannonian]

I'm beginning to lose the will to live. :sweatdrop:

It's too late for that. The time for opposing the departure of the EU was before the vote not after it. Jesus wept lad wtf is wrong with you.

Can you read?


I accept that we will be leaving the EU as a result of the referendum. I demand only that those who wanted to leave should be held responsible for the consequences of leaving, and that Leave politicians, as the side that won, should be held to what they said during the campaign. Is this undemocratic as IA accuses me of being?

Youse lot won. Take ownership of your victory, instead of trying to evade responsibility.

BTW, do you agree that 52-48 is too small a margin for this to be the end of the matter?

[InsaneApache]

cross post.


BTW, do you agree that 52-48 is too small a margin for this to be the end of the matter?

The majority won so yes, it is the end of the matter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please explain. And BTW, I directed the question specifically at IA because, on the one hand, he thinks highly of Farage as an icon of democracy. And on the other hand, IA reckons we should have to wait 40 years before we revisit this matter.

I accept that we will be leaving the EU as a result of the referendum. I demand only that those who wanted to leave should be held responsible for the consequences of leaving, and that Leave politicians, as the side that won, should be held to what they said during the campaign. Is this undemocratic as IA accuses me of being?

Youse lot won. Take ownership of your victory, instead of trying to evade responsibility.

The consequence of voting to Leave is that we are Leaving.

"Demanding" that Leave voters "take responsibility" for Scotland possibly seceding is rather like me demanding you and Husar take responsibility for the UK Brexiting because you support the Lisbon Treaty.

Let's look at this another way:

If Brexit results in a customers border between NI and RI is that the responsibility of Leave voters?

Answer: Yes.

If Brexit results in an uptick in paramilitary violence due to the prospect of the return of a customs border, is that the responsibility of Leave voters?

Answer: No.

Individual responsibility and collective responsibility end when the next individual or collective makes a decision. Otherwise responsibility could regress backwards to the beginning of recorded history.

So, there you go - Julius Caesar is responsible for Brexit.

[Pannonian]

cross post.



The majority won so yes, it is the end of the matter.

Do you agree with Farage on Brexit and the exercise of democracy?

[InsaneApache]

Do you agree with Farage on Brexit and the exercise of democracy?

I agree with Dave.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M80YDSDr4JU

[Pannonian]

The consequence of voting to Leave is that we are Leaving.

"Demanding" that Leave voters "take responsibility" for Scotland possibly seceding is rather like me demanding you and Husar take responsibility for the UK Brexiting because you support the Lisbon Treaty.

Let's look at this another way:

If Brexit results in a customers border between NI and RI is that the responsibility of Leave voters?

Answer: Yes.

If Brexit results in an uptick in paramilitary violence due to the prospect of the return of a customs border, is that the responsibility of Leave voters?

Answer: No.

Individual responsibility and collective responsibility end when the next individual or collective makes a decision. Otherwise responsibility could regress backwards to the beginning of recorded history.

So, there you go - Julius Caesar is responsible for Brexit.

What about the Tory members? Direct questions on the price they are willing to pay in order to get Brexit. A majority are willing to accept the break up of the union if that is the price of Brexit. That possibility was certainly raised during the campaign, that the indy ref vote was contingent on then current conditions, that one of the major arguments against independence, that Scotland would not be automatically in the EU post independence as the UK would inherit this status, would be moot in the event of Brexit. Despite that argument being raised, you lot voted Leave anyway. Should you not be responsible for ignoring this? You've tried to hive off responsibility to the Scots. Shouldn't you accept at least part of the responsibility, by ignoring the effects that your vote would have on Scotland?

BTW, you say that Scotland split away from the UK as a result of 1997. From what Scots said before that, it was Thatcher and her experiments in Scotland, notably the poll tax, that made them look away from the UK. That Westminster used Scotland as a testbed for potentially unpopular policies that may or may not see light of day in England. And now, with Brexit, you've imposed the granddaddy of unpopular policies on Scotland. But no, it's the will of the Scots, and nothing to do with you. Even though you were told the Scots didn't want it, and you decided to give it to them anyway.

[Pannonian]

I agree with Dave.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M80YDSDr4JU

I asked specifically about Nigel Farage. Why are you talking about David Starkey?


(Nigel Farage is a) Top man who believes in democracy, unlike the main parties. This is no longer about Brexit it is now about the political class declaring war on democracy. They will get it good and hard this Thursday.

Do you agree with Farage on democracy?

[Gilrandir]

I suggest celebrating it when the thread reaches the 100th page.

[InsaneApache]

I asked specifically about Nigel Farage. Why are you talking about David Starkey?



Do you agree with Farage on democracy?

Blimey.

You can admire a politician without agreeing with everything they stand for. I posted Starkey as that is more in tune with my view.

[Montmorency]

Personally, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed, and that Britain is not compatible with the EU. We've had one foot out the door for two decades and our leaving would seem to be inevitable by default - unless we adopt the Euro and abolish the monarchy.

Clearly leaving is not inevitable, but requires specific input and effort. What do you believe the EU has to do with abolishing monarchy? You will note there are numerous monarchies in EU or EEA.

Still the missing link remains, the connection between concluding that "the EU is fundamentally flawed" and "we can and shall revoke our membership." One cannot lead to the other alone unless you have no other political beliefs or principles.


cross post.

The majority won so yes, it is the end of the matter.

What a disturbingly-Orwellian conception of "democracy." Let us imagine a world in which Corbyn's Labour promulgated a referendum offering a binary of "Continue with capitalism" or "Transition to socialism", there was a 52% result in favor of socialism, and Labour proceeded on a quest to chaotically unravel the political system without any clear understanding of goals or underlying socioeconomics, and rebuked any dissent as a treasonous impediment to realizing "the will of the people" because "socialism means socialism" (and socialism is what the party says it is).

It is Orwellian because it rhetorically abuses the concept into inversion of its original meaning for the sake of repressing opponents, an anti-ideal that has no descriptive content but merely exists to be tautologically disappointed by those who don't conform with your vision.


Just because the politicians have cocked up doesn't make me or anyone who voted culpable.

The problem lies not with the politicians who cannot deliver what you desire, but with those desiring it in folly.


Individual responsibility and collective responsibility end when the next individual or collective makes a decision. Otherwise responsibility could regress backwards to the beginning of recorded history.

So, there you go - Julius Caesar is responsible for Brexit.

If using "responsibility" with the sense of accountability - you think people are responsible for decisions only up to the point those decisions have unfavorable consequences? On the contrary, if you choose to eat a kilogram of assorted cheeses and you do so despite being told that you are lactose intolerant, you are responsible for the eating of the cheese and any subsequent problems with digestion. If you set fire to a house, you are responsible for the consequence of the house burning and any collateral spread of fire; what you personally wished the fire would achieve is irrelevant and can only be a mitigating factor in terms of what liability is juridically assigned to you.

[Pannonian]

Clearly leaving is not inevitable, but requires specific input and effort. What do you believe the EU has to do with abolishing monarchy? You will note there are numerous monarchies in EU or EEA.

Still the missing link remains, the connection between concluding that "the EU is fundamentally flawed" and "we can and shall revoke our membership." One cannot lead to the other alone unless you have no other political beliefs or principles.

And in the poll of Tory members (who will be choosing our next PM), they are willing to see the union break up if this is the price of Brexit. Then look at the Leave arguments about how the EU is different from the UK, how the EU is fundamentally incompatible with the UK etc. If Brexit is fundamentally about the British identity, how does it square with the willingness to end Britain as an entity?

[Beskar]

So yeah... Boris Johnston as Prime Minister.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And in the poll of Tory members (who will be choosing our next PM), they are willing to see the union break up if this is the price of Brexit. Then look at the Leave arguments about how the EU is different from the UK, how the EU is fundamentally incompatible with the UK etc. If Brexit is fundamentally about the British identity, how does it square with the willingness to end Britain as an entity?

I note how you keep referencing the break up of the Union, which seems increasingly likely anyway, but have not said much about Conservatives being willing to destroy their own party.

It's pretty obvious from that Poll that the members see the EU as the biggest existential threat to British democracy except for Corbyn. Bit extreme, certainly, but that appears to be the view.

Brexit is fundamentally about self-determination, as is IndyRef2.

Shockingly, the English, welsh, Scots and Irish think the same way on this...

You keep talking about the "breakup of the Union" and "Brutishness" but you forget we've already lost most of Ireland and the Australians have declared us to be foreign aliens.

"Britishness" is already long-dead, you're mooning over the tattered remains.


So yeah... Boris Johnston as Prime Minister.

Least worst option, same as three years ago.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is no longer about Brexit but rather about the legislators ignoring the will of the people. It's about democratic principles.
One of the goals of indirect representation is purposely to give a class of citizens a monopoly on decision making, by definition it is less democratic than direct democracy. With that said that does not mean that it is less legitimate than acts of direct democracy. If they choose not to go forward with Brexit, that is the will of people as expressed by the general election which took place after the Brexit vote.



You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. You can no more be a 'little bit' democratic then you can be a 'little bit' pregnant.
So why have a Parliament? Either we hear from the people on what to do via endless referendums, or this isn't democracy. May isn't the kingdom, neither is the Conservative Party, it's the people who live in it.



Democracy relies on the losers accepting the result, which you obviously don't.
This is a flippant statement and is always said by the winning side. As if any vote or referendum is to be considered the point where politics ends and decisions are enacted. There is always the political will to support an agenda and then there is the political will to pursue it. You've barely edged out in the former, but are completely lacking in the latter and now you call others as anti-democratic to cover up this deficiency.



A general election is called and Labour win. Then all those who didn't vote Labour say that there should be a second general election because all the people who voted Labour were low information, didn't know what they were voting for and a bit thick. If not bigoted.
If Corbyn ends up nationalizing the banks and exiles the financial elite from London, they would have a strong point, right?



Can you see now the dangers inherent in that way of thinking?
No, because it seems as politics as usual that now once you have committed to saying something must be done, you must now go about the work of convincing people how you will go about doing it. And if you fail to make that case to the public, then you get to live in political frustration as there is no sense in rewarding ideas which people love but are not possible or financially tenable. When is the referendum on giving everyone an extra 3,000 pound every year? We all want it, therefore it must be gotten or truly we are no longer democratic.



Perhaps you ought to move to North Korea, they think like that over there. You'd fit right in.
Your complaint is the excessive stonewalling of political opposition, if that is what you want gone then maybe your mention of North Korea is less advice and more projection.

[Pannonian]

I note how you keep referencing the break up of the Union, which seems increasingly likely anyway, but have not said much about Conservatives being willing to destroy their own party.

It's pretty obvious from that Poll that the members see the EU as the biggest existential threat to British democracy except for Corbyn. Bit extreme, certainly, but that appears to be the view.

Brexit is fundamentally about self-determination, as is IndyRef2.

Shockingly, the English, welsh, Scots and Irish think the same way on this...

You keep talking about the "breakup of the Union" and "Brutishness" but you forget we've already lost most of Ireland and the Australians have declared us to be foreign aliens.

"Britishness" is already long-dead, you're mooning over the tattered remains.

If you believe in this argument, and still support Brexit as you've described above, then shouldn't you stop arguing about British identity, and how something is or isn't fundamentally British, or how the EU is incompatible with Britishness? There are those of us who still believe in a British identity and a British entity.

[Pannonian]

This is a flippant statement and is always said by the winning side. As if any vote or referendum is to be considered the point where politics ends and decisions are enacted. There is always the political will to support an agenda and then there is the political will to pursue it. You've barely edged out in the former, but are completely lacking in the latter and now you call others as anti-democratic to cover up this deficiency.

See also winning sides and not needing to take responsibility yet demanding that the losers should submit. IA wants Remainers to shut up about Remaining, yet excuses the Leavers from the consequences of Leaving - Farage recently ran an election whilst explicitly not having a manifesto to which he need commit. And more personally, IA trumpets how Farage will show the anti-democratic Parliament the what for, yet excuses himself from Farage's statement (that contradicts IA's wish that Remainers should shut up) that Farage's cohorts will not shut up in the event of a 52-48 Remain victory, that it would take a 2/3 majority to shut him up.

Democracy for Brexiteers does not mean due process and implementing the will of the majority whilst respecting the rights of the minority and holding politicians responsible for their actions. It means asserting the dominance of the winning side and denying that the losers have any rights at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you believe in this argument, and still support Brexit as you've described above, then shouldn't you stop arguing about British identity, and how something is or isn't fundamentally British, or how the EU is incompatible with Britishness? There are those of us who still believe in a British identity and a British entity.

Your idea of "Britishness" does not include the Commonwealth, or Ireland.

I recall two conversations I had with IA and Banquo years ago. IA demolished my concept of "Englishness" and Banquo showed me that our concept of "nationality" is not necessarily universal. Banquo considers NI a lost part of Ireland and I consider Ireland a lost part of Britain.

[Beskar]

I recall two conversations I had with IA and Banquo years ago. IA demolished my concept of "Englishness" and Banquo showed me that our concept of "nationality" is not necessarily universal...

or as I like to call it, a ploy by cartographers to prevent themselves from going out of business.

[Pannonian]

Your idea of "Britishness" does not include the Commonwealth, or Ireland.

I recall two conversations I had with IA and Banquo years ago. IA demolished my concept of "Englishness" and Banquo showed me that our concept of "nationality" is not necessarily universal. Banquo considers NI a lost part of Ireland and I consider Ireland a lost part of Britain.

Going by this argument, how can anything in the EU be fundamentally against British constitution, culture, or tradition? Even the hardline Leavers now accept that there is no material gain whatsoever from Brexit for the vast majority of people in the UK, with substantial loss in the event of no deal. I've seen arguments raised here and elsewhere that it is worth it nonetheless to protect some aspect of British identity. Yet you now argue that there is no such thing as British identity, so even this argument falls by the wayside. So is Brexit something that you must have because you say so, despite the material loss that it entails, and despite there being no philosophical argument for it? What is the point of Brexit?

[InsaneApache]

There's some interesting ideas on how democracy works by some posters on this thread.

The mental convolutions required to do this would end up with ones head up ones arse.

[Beskar]

I like the referendum which was won on the promise of implementing a Norway+ Model with the EU, then instead they dived straight into the worst horror stories of Project Fear going "Reeee" with the Mantra of Brexit means Brexit.

They also believe half the population no longer exists, or even those who wanted to exit on terms like Norway+. Supported by extremist and tabloid media, they completely obliterated political discourse for three years to the detriment of everything else.

These people also like to shout democracy, but when the suggestion of having a second referendum to break parliament deadlock with various options such as Norway+ being on the cards in an Alternative Vote format, they are completely against the democratic will of the people saying that giving people democratic will is not democratic.

It has also led to a situation that the two worst most untrustworthy individuals in British politics decided to pop-out from the Blue after screwing up the country to lead the charge with one leading the Brexit party and the other going to become our next Prime Minister. Both of these candidates support their American cheeto overlord equivalent too.

The idea that our politics are in such a sorry state is absolutely mind boggling. Second to only the individuals who say with a straight-face that these are good things without a single trace of irony. Dire straits indeed.

[Pannonian]

There's some interesting ideas on how democracy works by some posters on this thread.

The mental convolutions required to do this would end up with ones head up ones arse.

Do you think the winners should have to continue to explain and justify themselves? Should people be able to oppose the winners?

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's some interesting ideas on how democracy works by some posters on this thread.

The mental convolutions required to do this would end up with ones head up ones arse.I genuine thought the same towards your concept of democracy. What do you mean by you cany be a little democratic just as you cant be a little pregnant? To see that seems as an absolutist position when influence in politics always exists in degrees. Hence the comment on indirect vs direct democracy.

[rory_20_uk]

Going by this argument, how can anything in the EU be fundamentally against British constitution, culture, or tradition? Even the hardline Leavers now accept that there is no material gain whatsoever from Brexit for the vast majority of people in the UK, with substantial loss in the event of no deal. I've seen arguments raised here and elsewhere that it is worth it nonetheless to protect some aspect of British identity. Yet you now argue that there is no such thing as British identity, so even this argument falls by the wayside. So is Brexit something that you must have because you say so, despite the material loss that it entails, and despite there being no philosophical argument for it? What is the point of Brexit?

I think you will find there are hard-line Leavers who do think there are material gains to leave.

More example of glossing over things that do not fit your argument.

No one expects you to alter your mind since you clearly are not interested in facts that do not support your view.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

There's some interesting ideas on how democracy works by some posters on this thread.

The mental convolutions required to do this would end up with ones head up ones arse.

Well, not sure whether that includes me, but here's my take:

The change is, as I hope we can agree, on the level of a constitutional change or even above that concerning the impact it has.
It may not have started this way as it was implemented as a series of small changes over a long period of time, but changing it all at once is a pretty big deal, no?
Well, if it's not, then I don't see why you'd be so passionate about getting it done, and if it is, then we can probably agree that it's a constitutional-level change.
Now as far as democracies are concerned, many or even most of them require some type of two thirds majority for constitutional changes, usually in their parliament. Some also require a referendum. Apparently the UK thinks that 52% in a non-binding referendum and 51% in parliament are enough to enact potentially the biggest change in UK political direction of the century. And then wonders that there is a lot of trouble.

I mean, that's okay, you do you, but I do me and laugh at you because it's kinda crazy-funny in a way. :shrug:

[Pannonian]

I think you will find there are hard-line Leavers who do think there are material gains to leave.

More example of glossing over things that do not fit your argument.

No one expects you to alter your mind since you clearly are not interested in facts that do not support your view.

~:smoking:

When 90% of economists reckon there are no economic gains and only economic disadvantages, and there is no consistent logical argument for the 10%, do you point to the 10% and say that, look, it's not unanimous? Even the pet economist of the 10%, who is often quoted by Furunculus on the post-Brexit model to follow, says that there are economic costs, notably the disappearance of the car manufacturing industry, but says it's worth it. The disappearance of the car manufacturing industry has come to pass. Can you show me how it's worth it?

In Furunculus' posts, there are a number advocating our transition to the Singapore model, notwithstanding our very different social model to Singapore. The outgoing UK ambassador to Singapore, who presumably has some idea both of the UK and of Singapore, says that Singaporeans regard Brexit with disbelief. So even those who are currently following the Singaporean model reckon it's not a very good idea for the UK to follow suit.

So can you point me to reputable arguments for gains to be made from Brexit? Or are you just going to say, there are and therefore you are wrong, without detail?

[rory_20_uk]

Not defending your rhetoric then? Now it's 90% of economists not 100% of Leavers.

The relocation of car jobs was linked to the EU free trade agreement with Japan. But let's not let facts get in the way of narrative eh?

I can recognise the simplistic rhetoric in both misstating then pretending it is fact and now trying to reframe the argument on purely economic grounds. Either you are too stupid or senile to recall the many times I have seated it was not on economic grounds I voted leave or else you are intentionally misleading which is worse.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Not defending your rhetoric then? Now it's 90% of economists not 100% of Leavers.

The relocation of car jobs was linked to the EU free trade agreement with Japan. But let's not let facts get in the way of narrative eh?

I can recognise the simplistic rhetoric in both misstating then pretending it is fact and now trying to reframe the argument on purely economic grounds. Either you are too stupid or senile to recall the many times I have seated it was not on economic grounds I voted leave or else you are intentionally misleading which is worse.

~:smoking:

If you're going to present an argument, are you going to rely on the collective opinion of informed experts? You're in the medical field, so if the overwhelming majority of experts in the field state something is so, with backing arguments and evidence, while a tiny minority of experts state otherwise, with discredited arguments and evidence, do you point to non-experts who somehow believe the tiny minority of experts?

Rory, what do you think of homoepathy? Does it work? Is there an argument for its application in the medical world?

[Furunculus]

There are no 'experts' on the collection of values that define the socio cultural ambitions for how i want my country to interact with its citizens and the outside world.

perhaps vernan bogdanor could give it a decent crack... what did he say?

[rory_20_uk]

If you're going to present an argument, are you going to rely on the collective opinion of informed experts? You're in the medical field, so if the overwhelming majority of experts in the field state something is so, with backing arguments and evidence, while a tiny minority of experts state otherwise, with discredited arguments and evidence, do you point to non-experts who somehow believe the tiny minority of experts?

Rory, what do you think of homoepathy? Does it work? Is there an argument for its application in the medical world?

Ah but you didn't say that. You said all. Not all experts, not the majority of experts. All leavers.

What do I think of homeopathy? I would say that it is ineffective. I would not make the claim that all doctors think that Homeopathy is ineffective. Since that would be incorrect.

But homeopathy is something that has been used for over 100 years and the initial use was involving both dietary changes and it took place in Switzerland. Both retrospective evidence as well as clearly demonstrating that is being misused. And with medicines efficacy is a nice simple single variable.

Brexit has yet to happen. And only one variable is economic. And again... not the one I am primarily interested in. To use the example of homeopathy, if one would say it works because it tastes good then I would have to accept that based on that metric it is good.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Ah but you didn't say that. You said all. Not all experts, not the majority of experts. All leavers.

What do I think of homeopathy? I would say that it is ineffective. I would not make the claim that all doctors think that Homeopathy is ineffective. Since that would be incorrect.

But homeopathy is something that has been used for over 100 years and the initial use was involving both dietary changes and it took place in Switzerland. Both retrospective evidence as well as clearly demonstrating that is being misused. And with medicines efficacy is a nice simple single variable.

Brexit has yet to happen. And only one variable is economic. And again... not the one I am primarily interested in. To use the example of homeopathy, if one would say it works because it tastes good then I would have to accept that based on that metric it is good.

~:smoking:

Right. There are multiple variables. If one's society were organized around slavery, it would be reasonable to seek to dismantle that institution despite the cost of economic turbulence or social upheaval. Maybe a pacifist would compromise their principles to assist in the war effort against Hitler. Some radical leftists have a similar approach to capitalism and colonialism. More generally, if there is no peace without justice and no justice without peace, at some point you have to accept sacrifices in the name of your higher good.

But for an intelligent person to condone accelerating the demise of the United Kingdom over the :daisy: European Court of Justice is just bonkers to me.

[Pannonian]

Right. There are multiple variables. If one's society were organized around slavery, it would be reasonable to seek to dismantle that institution despite the cost of economic turbulence or social upheaval. Maybe a pacifist would compromise their principles to assist in the war effort against Hitler. Some radical leftists have a similar approach to capitalism and colonialism. More generally, if there is no peace without justice and no justice without peace, at some point you have to accept sacrifices in the name of your higher good.

But for an intelligent person to condone accelerating the demise of the United Kingdom over the :daisy: European Court of Justice is just bonkers to me.

Especially when the ECJ rules in the UK's favour 90-95% of the time due to us following the rules.

[Beskar]

Especially when the ECJ rules in the UK's favour 90-95% of the time due to us following the rules.

Don't even get started on how Brexiteers want to leave the European Court of Human Rights as well. Despite the fact Britain established it,.it is because they believe it is part of the evil EU and bullyboy Brussels.

[Pannonian]

Don't even get started on how Brexiteers want to leave the European Court of Human Rights as well. Despite the fact Britain established it,.it is because they believe it is part of the evil EU and bullyboy Brussels.

They want out of the single market despite Britain being instrumental in establishing it.

John Bird and John Fortune - Europe (from 1996) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6a_weyzkY4)

Mark Francois MP, 2019 (https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1088814152037138435?lang=en)

[Beskar]

John Bird and John Fortune - Europe (from 1996) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6a_weyzkY4)


Not seen this one before but crikey.. that is Boris Johnson!

And for his valiant supporters, yes, Boris is a utter-cockwomble. Google his remarks and you will even get the parliamentary questions this week when his remarks were brought up.

Not to say about reports/rumours that has been suggested on the front pages this week either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Going by this argument, how can anything in the EU be fundamentally against British constitution, culture, or tradition? Even the hardline Leavers now accept that there is no material gain whatsoever from Brexit for the vast majority of people in the UK, with substantial loss in the event of no deal. I've seen arguments raised here and elsewhere that it is worth it nonetheless to protect some aspect of British identity. Yet you now argue that there is no such thing as British identity, so even this argument falls by the wayside. So is Brexit something that you must have because you say so, despite the material loss that it entails, and despite there being no philosophical argument for it? What is the point of Brexit?

Only Furunculus looks forward to the sunny uplands of free-trading, Empire building, broadside-delivering Brexit.

So let's just dump the economic argument, OK?

You've missed the basic point though - Brexit is all about contesting what it means to be British.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not seen this one before but crikey.. that is Boris Johnson!

And for his valiant supporter, yes, Boris is a racist. Google his remarks and you will even get the parliamentary questions this week when his remarks were brought up.

Not to say about reports/rumours that has been suggested on the front pages this week either.

Oh come now Beskar - wife beating?

His admittedly left-wing neighbour stuck his oar in, called the police and sent the recording to the guardian.

The Police attended and found nothing amiss.

Most likely explanation - she thought he was cheating on her and started throwing plates at him. After all, that's how she got him away from his second wife, and how his second wife got him away from his first.

[Furunculus]

Don't even get started on how Brexiteers want to leave the European Court of Human Rights as well. Despite the fact Britain established it,.it is because they believe it is part of the evil EU and bullyboy Brussels.

if it wasnt for judicial activism whereby the court interprets well beyond what the text says wifhout accepting the margin for appreciation or the principle of subsidiarity then wed alk be fine with t.

[Furunculus]

Only Furunculus looks forward to the sunny uplands of free-trading, Empire building, broadside-delivering Brexit.

So let's just dump the economic argument, OK?

You've missed the basic point though - Brexit is all about contesting what it means to be British.

sure, i would be content with that as my natural preference, but please recall that i have always said that i recognized that the result wss not decisive enough to justify this 'dream' and that i was happy to maintain britain closely aligned as a (low end) social democracy rather than a market economy (like canada/oz).

im the very heart and soul of compromise. ;)

[Beskar]

Oh come now Beskar - wife beating?

I like how it was pointless to even contest the him being an utter-cockwomble rather than this weeks frontpages suggestion. :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

Don't even get started on how Brexiteers want to leave the European Court of Human Rights as well. Despite the fact Britain established it,.it is because they believe it is part of the evil EU and bullyboy Brussels.

We don't need it that's why. It was set up after WWII to make sure those bloody Europeans don't start any more wars.

Anyhoo the left wing case for Brexit, or as they call it Lexit…..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZb1dCc8AA

[Beskar]

Look's like Kenneth Clark agrees with what I said on his term of Foreign Secretary.
https://twitter.com/BBCPanorama/status/1143224771703955457

He also said he is a 'nicer version of Donald Trump'

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I like how it was pointless to even contest the racism rather than this weeks frontpages suggestion. :laugh4:

Not really worth addressing.

Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall, that extends to other people's culture.

I can't tell you if he's racist or not because I don't know him, nor can I peer inside his mind. However, I've seen no evidence of racism in his government record.

Unlike Sanjid Javid.

[Furunculus]

“Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall, that extends to other people's culture.”

and even if he is 'culturalist', as the product of peoples choices i hold it to be a distinct and separate thing, lesser in offence than views on immutable personal characteristics.

i hold that extending the definition of racism beyond that defined in the OED as counterproductive and encouraging of idiocy.

[Pannonian]

Not really worth addressing.

Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall, that extends to other people's culture.

I can't tell you if he's racist or not because I don't know him, nor can I peer inside his mind. However, I've seen no evidence of racism in his government record.

Unlike Sanjid Javid.

There's oodles and oodles of evidence of his complete incompetence though. His former boss says he can't think of a more unsuitable person for the role of PM. Ken Clarke, the last remaining big beast of the Thatcher-Major era, calls him the most incompetent foreign secretary of any party that he's ever seen. Johnson's only recommendation is the name recognition he's built on his HIGNFY appearances. The man makes Corbyn look focused and well informed.

[Beskar]

i hold that extending the definition of racism beyond that defined in the OED as counterproductive and encouraging of idiocy.

I assume that this is this: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism)

From his public track record, we do have the following:
Referring to black commonwealth citizens as "regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies", with "the tribal warriors… [who] all break out in watermelon smiles".
Papua New Guinea and their “orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing”.
On the topic about Libya being the next Dubai - "The only thing they’ve got to do is clear the dead bodies away and then we’ll be there."
Called the Continent of Africa as "That country".
Dismissed Barack Obama's views due to “part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire”
Praising alcohol at a Sikh temple.
Reciting a colonial-era poem in Myanmar which went down like a lead balloon.
Women in Burka's as Letter Boxes and Bank Robbers.

Then there is also the company he keeps, such as the like of Steve Bannon who believes people such wear the term 'Racist' as a medal. The people who do classify him as racist are his fellow MPs, in other parties and some even in his own.

However, Philippus Flavius Homovallumus is right. "Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall."

His track record on Homophobia and other issues are terrible too.

I just feel sorry for the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as he effectively dug her coffin and threw her in due to his remarks.

[Furunculus]

every thing you quote there demonstrates that you are part of the problem.

those things may be:
bigoted
xenophobic
downright rude
they my even be 'culturalist'

but you're stretching any useful definition of the term racism:
"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

call him those other things, but don't devalue the sanction that should rightly apply to actual real racism!

and no:
"I just feel sorry for the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as he effectively dug her coffin and threw her in due to his remarks."

it is the iranian state that is doing that.

[Pannonian]

If you want to nitpick, then let's go full Father Ted and call Boris Johnson a gobshite. I defy you to defend him from any definition of that word.

[Beskar]

every thing you quote there demonstrates that you are part of the problem.

I don't see the problem I am apparently apart of. You are effectively trying to reduce the definition of racism to an statement in such a way it can only be eligible in a set of very specific circumstances outside common and shared conceptualisation of the term. Given I quoted the Oxford Dictionary definition in my own post, many of the quoted statements meet that definition and point to a larger picture of that attitude.

Definition doesn't need to be restricted to those who are a card-carrying member of the Klu Klux Klan, proudly announcing your allegiance to the White Master Race to be eligible.

However, I will comply with your request, I have retracted my remarks (see edits) as per Pannonian's suggestion. I hope this meets your approval.


and no:
"I just feel sorry for the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as he effectively dug her coffin and threw her in due to his remarks."

it is the iranian state that is doing that.

Sure. But throwing fuel on the fire doesn't help matters at all. Made things even worse... ... ... as Foreign Secretary. You know, dangerously and recklessly incompetent at doing his job.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I assume that this is this: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism)

From his public track record, we do have the following:
Referring to black commonwealth citizens as "regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies", with "the tribal warriors… [who] all break out in watermelon smiles".
Papua New Guinea and their “orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing”.
On the topic about Libya being the next Dubai - "The only thing they’ve got to do is clear the dead bodies away and then we’ll be there."
Called the Continent of Africa as "That country".
Dismissed Barack Obama's views due to “part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire”
Praising alcohol at a Sikh temple.
Reciting a colonial-era poem in Myanmar which went down like a lead balloon.
Women in Burka's as Letter Boxes and Bank Robbers.

Then there is also the company he keeps, such as the like of Steve Bannon who believes people such wear the term 'Racist' as a medal. The people who do classify him as racist are his fellow MPs, in other parties and some even in his own.

However, @Philippus Flavius Homovallumus (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=12280) is right. "Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall."

His track record on Homophobia and other issues are terrible too.

I just feel sorry for the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as he effectively dug her coffin and threw her in due to his remarks.

You do realise Sikhs can drink alcohol, right?

[Beskar]

You do realise Sikhs can drink alcohol, right?

It is prohibited. It falls under the general Intoxication prohibition ?

I even doubted myself and googled to make sure. Every single link confirmed this. Whilst there are references to cultural Drinking Problems (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43505784), to quote from that article:
A new survey, commissioned by the BBC to investigate attitudes to alcohol among British Sikhs, found that - although drinking alcohol is forbidden in Sikhism - 27% of British Sikhs report having someone in their family with an alcohol problem. It's a problem which is rarely talked about openly in the community.

...those who practice, should not be drinking alcohol.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I assume that this is this: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism)

From his public track record, we do have the following:
Referring to black commonwealth citizens as "regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies", with "the tribal warriors… [who] all break out in watermelon smiles".
Papua New Guinea and their “orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing”.
On the topic about Libya being the next Dubai - "The only thing they’ve got to do is clear the dead bodies away and then we’ll be there."
Called the Continent of Africa as "That country".
Dismissed Barack Obama's views due to “part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire”
Praising alcohol at a Sikh temple.
Reciting a colonial-era poem in Myanmar which went down like a lead balloon.
Women in Burka's as Letter Boxes and Bank Robbers.

Then there is also the company he keeps, such as the like of Steve Bannon who believes people such wear the term 'Racist' as a medal. The people who do classify him as racist are his fellow MPs, in other parties and some even in his own.

However, @Philippus Flavius Homovallumus (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=12280) is right. "Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall."

His track record on Homophobia and other issues are terrible too.

I just feel sorry for the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as he effectively dug her coffin and threw her in due to his remarks.


It is prohibited. It falls under the general Intoxication prohibition ?

I even doubted myself and googled to make sure. Every single link confirmed this. Whilst there are references to cultural Drinking Problems (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43505784), to quote from that article:

...those who practice, should not be drinking alcohol.

Ehhh...

You are correct about the alcoholism but I do not believe there is actually a general prohibition on alcohol, although opinion on that seems to have changed in the last decade or so.

[Beskar]

Ehhh...

You are correct about the alcoholism but I do not believe there is actually a general prohibition on alcohol, although opinion on that seems to have changed in the last decade or so.

The Guru Granth Sahib forbids drinking alcohol. The Guru says:
"Drinking wine, his intelligence departs, and madness enters his mind;" "He cannot distinguish between his own and others," "He is struck down by his Lord and Master" (SGGS p554)
"Those who are deluded by sensual pleasures, are tempted by sexual delights and enjoy wine are corrupt." (SGGS p335)
"Even if wine is made from the water of the Ganges, O Saints, do not drink it." (SGGS p1293)
"Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell." (SGGS p1377)

[Furunculus]

I don't see the problem I am apparently apart of.

The problem you are part of is one of all-out-war; everyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong or misguided, but actually evidencing evil intent that justifies all possible means to diminish, discredit, and marginalise.

Essential reading for all engaged in politics:

1. Jonathan Haidt - The Coddling of the American Mind
2. Yascha Mounk - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

[Furunculus]

You are effectively trying to reduce the definition of racism to an statement in such a way it can only be eligible in a set of very specific circumstances outside common and shared conceptualisation of the term.

Given I quoted the Oxford Dictionary definition in my own post, many of the quoted statements meet that definition and point to a larger picture of that attitude.
No, I'm trying to keep the term meaningful. Right now, in modern political discourse I feel like branding someone with the term "racist" has zero impact on my opinion of them because I know it will be utterly without value. Hell, i'd have no problem being branded as racist myself as even the briefest moment of self-reflection would reveal it to be baseless nonsense.

No. Not a single one of those statements is racist. Pick another word, we're lucky to have quite a few that better fit and I even gave you a head start. p.s. we're both using the same definition, you have just chosen to focus on the first part and myself on the latter.

[Beskar]

The problem you are part of is one of all-out-war; everyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong or misguided, but actually evidencing evil intent that justifies all possible means to diminish, discredit, and marginalise.

When have I ever suggested you are evil, Furunculus? Or even seen you as a threat against humanity who needs to get rid of? You know I don't see you that way. Sure, I think you have differing values, but that is merely truth, you do.

You are jumping the gun quite a lot.

Now you are going to say something about how I dislike Boris, Trump and Nigel ( I am not a fan of Corbyn either ). But maybe, just maybe it is actually about those specific people than simply because they are my "opposite"? The fact they are such vile destestable incompetent cockwombles. (Sure, I would prefer Boris over Trump and Nigel, there is a heirachy here.)

You can pick someone like John McCain who is on the right and I can tell you thought I disagreed with some of his views, he was an upstanding and honourable person. I said Theresa May was incompontent citing her home office record but I hoped she would turn out to be somewhat decent and handle the brexit mess appropriately (she didn't) and never once accused her of being a racist or anything similar. What about David Cameron? I never did there even and I thought he was a better choice than Gordon Brown.

Also I did pick another word. I rather like this one.

[Furunculus]

When have I ever suggested you are evil, Furunculus? Or even seen you as a threat against humanity who needs to get rid of? You know I don't see you that way. Sure, I think you have differing values, but that is merely truth, you do.

You are jumping the gun quite a lot.

i'm not talking about me, i'm talking about the relentless attack profile you present against boris.
your war is total, justified by the 'evil' he represents.

[Beskar]

i'm not talking about me, i'm talking about the relentless attack profile you present against boris.
your war is total, justified by the 'evil' he represents.

Good thing I am on a total war website then.

So, I am not allowed to be against a vile incompetent buffoon who's only redeeming feature was the pleasure I had laughing at him on HIGNFY...? Or that time he got stuck on the Zip-line, that was pretty amusing too.

You are presenting a weird argument, Furunculus. Doesn't help when you keep moving the goalposts too.

[Furunculus]

seriously, read the articles/books. rethink.

moving the goalposts how?

[Beskar]

moving the goalposts how?

Initially, your argument was with use the term 'racist' as being part of the problem, which I met by changing the word.
You then change it to 'Everyone who disagrees with you...', which I reply I don't and cite examples. Which I assume you accept because you state it is not about you, even though we disagree, so it is not everyone.
Then you change it to 'relentless attack profile against Boris...'.

You haven't tried to counter the evidence such as his widely regarded incompetence as foreign secretary. You agree that he is 'bigoted' in your own posts... so your argument is now 'You attack Boris' and what is one meant to do with that?

I.. oppose Boris and find him as being a poor choice for prime minister, because he is, based on his incompetence and track record of various remarks. I feel justified in my opinion in my opposing him on these facts. I accept this point.

Are we satisfied?

[Furunculus]

sure.

[Beskar]

sure.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2018/04/RTRS0M7/lead_720_405.jpg

[InsaneApache]

If you want to nitpick, then let's go full Father Ted and call Boris Johnson a gobshite. I defy you to defend him from any definition of that word.

LOL I can live with that. Here's Boris a bit older....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zkL91LzCMc

[InsaneApache]

The problem you are part of is one of all-out-war; everyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong or misguided, but actually evidencing evil intent that justifies all possible means to diminish, discredit, and marginalise.

Essential reading for all engaged in politics:

1. Jonathan Haidt - The Coddling of the American Mind
2. Yascha Mounk - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

You forgot Thomas Sowell. :creep:

[Furunculus]

Is he the dude spouting wisdom on twitter? if yes i tend to agree with what he says.

apols, on a one bar 2g connection in the middle of rural poland, so connectivity is limited.

[Beskar]

One of the last times I looked on Twitter, Nigel posted a letter suspposed to have been written by a 10 year old (which clearly isn't).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Guru Granth Sahib forbids drinking alcohol. The Guru says:
"Drinking wine, his intelligence departs, and madness enters his mind;" "He cannot distinguish between his own and others," "He is struck down by his Lord and Master" (SGGS p554)
"Those who are deluded by sensual pleasures, are tempted by sexual delights and enjoy wine are corrupt." (SGGS p335)
"Even if wine is made from the water of the Ganges, O Saints, do not drink it." (SGGS p1293)
"Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell." (SGGS p1377)

Well, that just goes to show you the lies they reach you in RE to make you think all religions are basically the same, doesn't it?

[Furunculus]

One of the last times I looked on Twitter, Nigel posted a letter suspposed to have been written by a 10 year old (which clearly isn't).

may i trouble you for the context of this post?

[Beskar]

may i trouble you for the context of this post?

Sorry, it was a random tangent from your mentioning of twitter. But if you mean specifically what I was referring to about a letter, here are some of the news articles related to it.
Independent (https://www.indy100.com/article/nigel-farage-brexit-letter-10-year-old-twitter-response-8969961), Mirror (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-mocked-over-letter-16686536), Metro (https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/22/no-one-believes-letter-praising-nigel-farage-written-10-year-old-10028894/), Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7168083/Nigel-Farage-shares-letter-10-year-old-Brexiteer-thanking-launching-party.h) (pick your poison)

[Beskar]

Well, that just goes to show you the lies they reach you in RE to make you think all religions are basically the same, doesn't it?

Sure, I agree with that statement. It would strengthen the concept of universal truth if they were. Same hymn-sheet, etc.

Though, Methodists and it's various spin-offs such as the Salvation Army share similar views when it comes to intoxication and alcohol. Though I believe Methodists have relaxed their stance on it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I assume that this is this: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism)

From his public track record, we do have the following:
Referring to black commonwealth citizens as "regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies", with "the tribal warriors… [who] all break out in watermelon smiles".
Papua New Guinea and their “orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing”.
On the topic about Libya being the next Dubai - "The only thing they’ve got to do is clear the dead bodies away and then we’ll be there."
Called the Continent of Africa as "That country".
Dismissed Barack Obama's views due to “part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire”
Praising alcohol at a Sikh temple.
Reciting a colonial-era poem in Myanmar which went down like a lead balloon.
Women in Burka's as Letter Boxes and Bank Robbers.

Then there is also the company he keeps, such as the like of Steve Bannon who believes people such wear the term 'Racist' as a medal. The people who do classify him as racist are his fellow MPs, in other parties and some even in his own.

However, Philippus Flavius Homovallumus is right. "Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall."

His track record on Homophobia and other issues are terrible too.

I just feel sorry for the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as he effectively dug her coffin and threw her in due to his remarks.

And here I was, wondering what Trump saw to like in this particular Tory when compared to the rest. Now I know it is that they share the same measured and reasoned communication style.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sure, I agree with that statement. It would strengthen the concept of universal truth if they were. Same hymn-sheet, etc.

Though, Methodists and it's various spin-offs such as the Salvation Army share similar views when it comes to intoxication and alcohol. Though I believe Methodists have relaxed their stance on it.

If they were all the same and all got on I'd assume they were all lying.

[Beskar]

If they were all the same and all got on I'd assume they were all lying.

Off-topic.

Interesting. Why so?

I know technically off-topic, but I am curious as to why this is to you. Doesn't it significantly weaken the concept divine truth when there are many and contradictory ones?
Sciencific method has the self-recognisation of imperfection in attempting to find answers and constantly changes and adapts. So you can be plausibly 'wrong' and it doesnt discredit the process.

But divine truth is different in that it is the right/correct way, always, in many religions. If it is wrong, it essentially establishes a new religion. Now you have a bunch of different ones all saying different things. So which is the right one? It would really suck if you spent your entire life as a Catholic to reincarnate as a gnat at the end of it. At least with broad consistently you know you may be half-way right.

[Pannonian]

“At the beginning of October, if there is no prospect of a deal that can get through parliament, then I will leave at the end of October because that is our democratic promise to the British people,” Hunt told BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show.

Asked whether, under such a policy, he would be willing to look the owners of family businesses in the eye and say they should be prepared to see their companies go bust to ensure a no-deal Brexit, Hunt said: “I would do so but I’d do it with a heavy heart precisely because of the risks.”

Asked how he would explain this rationale, Hunt said he would tell business owners that a no-deal Brexit was necessary to maintain the UK’s image abroad as “a country where politicians do what the people tell them to do”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/30/jeremy-hunt-i-would-tell-bust-businesses-no-deal-brexit-was-worth-it



:daisy: business


The Conservative party, reputed to be the party of business.

[InsaneApache]

The Trotskyist Marr would know all about businesses and how they work wouldn't he? :dizzy2:

Cretin.

[Pannonian]

The Trotskyist Marr would know all about businesses and how they work wouldn't he? :dizzy2:

Cretin.

Why are you attacking the interviewer when these are the actual words of the Tory PM candidates?

[InsaneApache]

Why are you attacking the interviewer when these are the actual words of the Tory PM candidates?

I'll say it again. He's a no mark no nothing cretin who understand the square root of sod all to do with business.

A cretin.

[Pannonian]

I'll say it again. He's a no mark no nothing cretin who understand the square root of sod all to do with business.

A cretin.

What's that got to do with what Jeremy Hunt said?

[InsaneApache]

Both Hunt and Boris are also simpletons. I do my best not to listen to either of them.

The Bashing Brexit Corporation though is another matter. If I don't pay their tax I go to prison. My money pays for lunatics like the bat eared interviewer who opines about subjects he has no idea about.

As someone who ran a business for 13 years I can tell you this. Anyone who is worth their salt would have put in place plans for a no deal Brexit years ago. Not that it matters that much. The idea the businesses can only trade when the government sets up a trade deal is hilarious and just shows how nescient the elites are.

There again most of them would have trouble running a bath never mind a business.


What's that got to do with what Jeremy Hunt said?

Which part of your side lost don't you understand?

[CrossLOPER]

Which part of your side lost don't you understand?
It's very difficult to attribute sides when you are going full edge-mode and calling everyone cretins.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was bored today so I decided to look in my fridge to see what I regularly buy from the UK.

Salmon from the North Sea, Whisky from Scotland, Samuel Smith beer & Fentimen's Dandelion & Burdock soda. My gin is from Germany oddly enough, thank you Husar.

I have decided that I am fine with Scotland becoming independent as long as they annex everything above Leeds so I can keep my beer and soda in the EU.

South England needs to start making more things I find delicious.

EDIT: I thought my cod was from North Sea, in fact only my Salmon was. I am disappointed in myself, as I usually buy farmed salmon.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was bored today so I decided to look in my fridge to see what I regularly buy from the UK.

Salmon from the North Sea, Whisky from Scotland, Samuel Smith beer & Fentimen's Dandelion & Burdock soda. My gin is from Germany oddly enough, thank you Husar.

I have decided that I am fine with Scotland becoming independent as long as they annex everything above Leeds so I can keep my beer and soda in the EU.

South England needs to start making more things I find delicious.

EDIT: I thought my cod was from North Sea, in fact only my Salmon was. I am disappointed in myself, as I usually buy farmed salmon.

So, really, Scotland trades well with the US even without a trade deal.

Interesting, isn't it?

[Husar]

So, really, Scotland trades well with the US even without a trade deal.

Interesting, isn't it?

It's interesting that you believe you can make a general point using anecdotal evidence like that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's interesting that you believe you can make a general point using anecdotal evidence like that.

I don't have the statistics to hand, but Scotland trades far less with the EU than England - so (ironically) Scotland benefit far less from EU membership in terms of trade.

I was just using ACIN's anecdote as an opportunity to make that point.

[Pannonian]

I don't have the statistics to hand, but Scotland trades far less with the EU than England - so (ironically) Scotland benefit far less from EU membership in terms of trade.

I was just using ACIN's anecdote as an opportunity to make that point.

Does this mean that Scotland would be better off continuing to be joined to its biggest trading partner than to break off relations?

[Furunculus]

Does this mean that Scotland would be better off continuing to be joined to its biggest trading partner than to break off relations?

Are you referring to England/rUK or the EU? :p

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you referring to England/rUK or the EU? :p

He's arguing that the UK should stay in the EU for the same reasons Scotland should stay in the UK.

The difference is that, by and large, it is the Remain camp that make the economic argument vis a vis Brexit and the Leave camp that make the same vis IndyRef2.

Clearly, economics are never a good reason for leaving anything - it's always disruptive and therefore bad in at least the short term.

On the other hand, war is also terrible for the economy...

[InsaneApache]

I think I've discovered a lost chapter from George Orwell's 1984.
It involves a dedicated firefighter who goes to an entirely legal public rally in his own time and voices his personal opinion about an important issue of the day.
His opinion is so uncontroversial that it is shared by millions of other people in the country.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dark-days-democracy-you-can-17388243

Outrageous.

[rory_20_uk]

He was fine being in the self-serving clique when it suited his interests. Now he can finally see what many Unions are in fact - sucking up money to further their own political ends and of course continue to exist. The Union is not there for the people - the people are there to support the Union.

He spoke out against the (psudo)-State and was punished. No surprises there - any more than learning that businesses are not there to make the world a better place.

I ended my Union membership when I found out that there was no help when I needed them.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Brexit party politician denies that she was ever linked with Cambridge Analytica (data mining group that abused the heck out of social media data in the 2016 referendum, resulting in a Leave win and Facebook being fined 5 bn by US courts), claiming that she was in Kenya helping the democratic process. She threatens the journalist making this claim with libel. Cue recording in 2017 during the Kenyan election telling a friend that, should people find out she's working for Cambridge Analytica, there may be trouble.

NB. the 2017 Kenyan presidential election was annulled by the Kenyan court due to the ruling party's abuse of personal data. A new presidential election was ordered.

Do Brexiteers care about the above? Do they care that Leave campaigners abuse the heck out of democracy. Do they care that the actions of these campaigners have led to other countries recognising that elections influenced by them do not count as proper democratic processes? Nope. "You lost. Get over it."

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1151165049706299392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1151165049706299392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.channel4.com%2Fnews%2Fbrexit-party-mep-worked-for-cambridge-analytica

[rory_20_uk]

Brexit party politician denies that she was ever linked with Cambridge Analytica (data mining group that abused the heck out of social media data in the 2016 referendum, resulting in a Leave win and Facebook being fined 5 bn by US courts), claiming that she was in Kenya helping the democratic process. She threatens the journalist making this claim with libel. Cue recording in 2017 during the Kenyan election telling a friend that, should people find out she's working for Cambridge Analytica, there may be trouble.

NB. the 2017 Kenyan presidential election was annulled by the Kenyan court due to the ruling party's abuse of personal data. A new presidential election was ordered.

Do Brexiteers care about the above? Do they care that Leave campaigners abuse the heck out of democracy. Do they care that the actions of these campaigners have led to other countries recognising that elections influenced by them do not count as proper democratic processes? Nope. "You lost. Get over it."

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1151165049706299392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1151165049706299392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.channel4.com%2Fnews%2Fbrexit-party-mep-worked-for-cambridge-analytica

What have the UK or European courts done about this? What has the EU in general done about this? Nothing. The courts did find Boris not guilty since in their opinion basically all politicians are liars in the same way fish are wet.

But you're found an article. Best we call the whole thing off since an MEP's second job is clearly the smoking gun that everyone has overlooked and has overturned democracy.

And let's just focus on this one election at this one time... One could almost think you're biased.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

What have the UK or European courts done about this? What has the EU in general done about this? Nothing. The courts did find Boris not guilty since in their opinion basically all politicians are liars in the same way fish are wet.

But you're found an article. Best we call the whole thing off since an MEP's second job is clearly the smoking gun that everyone has overlooked and has overturned democracy.

And let's just focus on this one election at this one time... One could almost think you're biased.

~:smoking:

Or that it's in the news. This is the MO of the new far right, with lies, hypocrisy and abuses dismissed as "they're all at it". Bannon and Trump on the US side, Farage and co on the UK side, spreading their creed around the world. And in this case, the Kenyan courts ruled that sharp practice, of the same kind seen in the referendum, invalidated the presidential election. Not that the American and British far right care about that.

Edit: "That's libellous" - Alexandra Phillips MEP, on a journalist's claim that (Phillips) worked for Cambridge Analytica. I'd like her to test that assertion in court.

[rory_20_uk]

Or that it's in the news. This is the MO of the new far right, with lies, hypocrisy and abuses dismissed as "they're all at it". Bannon and Trump on the US side, Farage and co on the UK side, spreading their creed around the world. And in this case, the Kenyan courts ruled that sharp practice, of the same kind seen in the referendum, invalidated the presidential election. Not that the American and British far right care about that.

Edit: "That's libellous" - Alexandra Phillips MEP, on a journalist's claim that (Phillips) worked for Cambridge Analytica. I'd like her to test that assertion in court.

Where is the EU? Where are the EU Courts? If this is such a problem why has no court in the UK or the EU done anything about this? Can you answer this question? It is pretty simple. There has been years for any branch of the judiciary to get involved.

Rather ironic you're doing exactly what you say the Far Right is - shouting about a Kenyan Court and incapable of explaining why the court of the EU or the UK has done anything.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Brexit party politician denies that she was ever linked with Cambridge Analytica (data mining group that abused the heck out of social media data in the 2016 referendum, resulting in a Leave win and Facebook being fined 5 bn by US courts), claiming that she was in Kenya helping the democratic process. She threatens the journalist making this claim with libel. Cue recording in 2017 during the Kenyan election telling a friend that, should people find out she's working for Cambridge Analytica, there may be trouble.

NB. the 2017 Kenyan presidential election was annulled by the Kenyan court due to the ruling party's abuse of personal data. A new presidential election was ordered.

Do Brexiteers care about the above? Do they care that Leave campaigners abuse the heck out of democracy. Do they care that the actions of these campaigners have led to other countries recognising that elections influenced by them do not count as proper democratic processes? Nope. "You lost. Get over it."

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1151165049706299392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1151165049706299392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.channel4.com%2Fnews%2Fbrexit-party-mep-worked-for-cambridge-analytica

do i care about what a non entity might say from a political party that didnt exist becore the referendum , who was previously employed by a company that had nothing to do with the official leave campaign, when my decision was made in january 2016 months before the official campaign begun...?

no, strangely, i do not care.

[Pannonian]

Whitehall sources say the presumptive prime minister was left “visibly shaken” after being briefed by civil servants to expect civil unrest if he goes through with his threat.

‎A senior government source revealed that importing fresh food through the port of Dover would be only the third highest priority in the event of no-deal, with clean water only fifth. Top of the list are lifesaving drugs, followed by medical devices and fresh food.

Nuclear power plant parts are then given priority over the import of chemicals to purify drinking water.

Welcome Brexit!

[Pannonian]

This clip of Brittany Kaiser giving evidence to parliament didn’t make the film (https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1152900226296029185)

Doesn't this contravene the Data Protection Act?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Welcome Brexit!

If Brexit ends up being that bad, the EU will rejoice to swoop in and save the day with rapid re-integration.

[Pannonian]

Boris Johnson is the new PM, without having been elected by the British people.

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister…

Boris Johnson could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, and on the implications of the no deal Brexit he wants. Let’s have an election without delay.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Boris Johnson is the new PM, without having been elected by the British people.

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister…

Boris Johnson could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, and on the implications of the no deal Brexit he wants. Let’s have an election without delay.

...It's normal. Most Prime Ministers pre-war were "not elected". Boris is not an elected President, demanding he get a personal mandate treats him like one.

[Pannonian]

...It's normal. Most Prime Ministers pre-war were "not elected". Boris is not an elected President, demanding he get a personal mandate treats him like one.

Hypocrisy is normal too.


It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Gordon Brown’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Gordon Brown as Prime Minister…

Gordon Brown could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, on the new EU treaty, and on the implications of the devolutionary settlement. Let’s have an election without delay.

[rory_20_uk]

Boris Johnson is the new PM, without having been elected by the British people.

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister…

Boris Johnson could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, and on the implications of the no deal Brexit he wants. Let’s have an election without delay.

Those aren't the laws of the land. They never have been. We didn't have an election when Tony Blair decided to take the country to war against Iraq. And that had protests of c. 2 million in London. The only one who can realistically sort this out is the Queen - who is more interested in keeping her family in power than rocking the boat.

To be clear - I think Boris is driven by rampant ambition bordering on narcissism. I wouldn't be surprised if he's got one eye on becoming the President of the USA in 2024.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Those aren't the laws of the land. They never have been. We didn't have an election when Tony Blair decided to take the country to war against Iraq. And that had protests of c. 2 million in London. The only one who can realistically sort this out is the Queen - who is more interested in keeping her family in power than rocking the boat.

To be clear - I think Boris is driven by rampant ambition bordering on narcissism. I wouldn't be surprised if he's got one eye on becoming the President of the USA in 2024.

~:smoking:

I was quoting Boris Johnson himself on Gordon Brown becoming PM in 2007. It's not illegal to be a hypocrite. It doesn't make Johnson any less of a hypocrite.

[rory_20_uk]

I was quoting Boris Johnson himself on Gordon Brown becoming PM in 2007. It's not illegal to be a hypocrite. It doesn't make Johnson any less of a hypocrite.

Yes, I know. I've read it repeatedly over the last few days as suddenly many people need to point out that he's a power hungry hypocrite. Did the two drafts, one pro and one anti-EU not show that he's only interested in benefiting himself?

But yeah... politicians are self serving. Thanks for pointing that out...!

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Boris Johnson is the new PM, without having been elected by the British people.

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister…

Boris Johnson could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, and on the implications of the no deal Brexit he wants. Let’s have an election without delay.
he has the mandate of te 2017 ge.

the arrogance!

[Furunculus]

i'm no fan of boris, but i am enormously encouraged by the appointment of cummings.

[Pannonian]

i'm no fan of boris, but i am enormously encouraged by the appointment of cummings.

You mean the bloke who held Parliament in contempt? He's an example of how Brexiteers see the art of the possible to be what they can get away with. Whereas previously, in the era of moderate politics, people had some thought of consensus.

[Pannonian]

he has the mandate of te 2017 ge.

the arrogance!

What is the Tory majority from 2017, BTW?

[Furunculus]

can they command a majority in parliament?

if not, we can have another ge and he'll get one then.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is the Tory majority from 2017, BTW?

It doesn't work like that and you know it.

Stop validating Boris Johnson's ego.

[Pannonian]

It doesn't work like that and you know it.

Stop validating Boris Johnson's ego.

Governments exist to pass laws. Laws are passed through Parliament with a majority of votes. Can Johnson command a majority to pass his desired laws?

[Furunculus]

If he can't, he'll call a general election and get one.

[Pannonian]

can they command a majority in parliament?

if not, we can have another ge and he'll get one then.

Are you looking forward to a Johnson majority?

[Don Corleone]

Boris Johnson announced this morning that negotiations over Brexit would not continue until the Irish Backstop was removed from the discussions (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu/british-pm-johnson-irish-backstop-must-be-abolished-for-a-brexit-deal-idUSKCN1UK0OG?il=0). Looks like DUP is punching more than their weight.

I know there is no hard and fast answer to this, only opinions. But I'm curious what the UK folks and the ROI folks think Arlene Foster is whispering in BoJo's ear right now? Is this simply putting the red line on the Province border and not in the Irish Sea? Or is this an attempt to undo Good Friday? Foster is a devoted Paisley disciple, correct?

[Furunculus]

Are you looking forward to a Johnson majority?

he is a middle of the road non ideological tory, employing cummings whose life goal is learning and high performance organisation's.

yes.

as an alternative to a corbynista government..... hell yes with bells on!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Boris Johnson announced this morning that negotiations over Brexit would not continue until the Irish Backstop was removed from the discussions (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu/british-pm-johnson-irish-backstop-must-be-abolished-for-a-brexit-deal-idUSKCN1UK0OG?il=0). Looks like DUP is punching more than their weight.

I know there is no hard and fast answer to this, only opinions. But I'm curious what the UK folks and the ROI folks think Arlene Foster is whispering in BoJo's ear right now? Is this simply putting the red line on the Province border and not in the Irish Sea? Or is this an attempt to undo Good Friday? Foster is a devoted Paisley disciple, correct?

Revd. Paisley was devoted to the Peace Process, strange as that may sound.

[Pannonian]

he is a midddle of the road non ideoligical tory, empliying cummings whose life goal is learning and high performance organisation's.

yes.

as an alternative to a corbynista government..... hell yes with bells on!

Didn't you blame everyone but yourself for May's deal not passing? Johnson voted against on all three occasions.

[Furunculus]

your whining again. every response is always a tangent away from the reply you quote.
like you keep trying to catch me out with some clever logical ruse. failing, and moving on to lay the next 'trap' in the hope i will fall into it.
if you were dealing with a half wit it might work, but that is the level we're operating at here.

but to directly answer your next tangent:

yes he did. as did most of labour. now we're looking at a harder brexit than we were heading to with may's deal.
pleased with yourself?
i did my bit - made my compromise - and things are now moving in a direction i am comfortable with. i'm not sure why you're looking for outrage from me...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One notes that both the EU and many in the UK insist they will not support "No Deal" and yet they refuse to negotiate any substantive change to "the deal".

This raises the question of how, exactly, we are supposed to leave with a deal if "the deal" cannot be reintroduced to Parliament this session.

[Pannonian]

One notes that both the EU and many in the UK insist they will not support "No Deal" and yet they refuse to negotiate any substantive change to "the deal".

This raises the question of how, exactly, we are supposed to leave with a deal if "the deal" cannot be reintroduced to Parliament this session.

When May set her red lines, the rules of the EU meant the deal she eventually got was the deal she was always going to get. Put data through a function, you can calculate the result that's going to come out. Why are you complaining about the result? If you don't like the result, start with different data.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When May set her red lines, the rules of the EU meant the deal she eventually got was the deal she was always going to get. Put data through a function, you can calculate the result that's going to come out. Why are you complaining about the result? If you don't like the result, start with different data.

Firstly, politics is not a science.

Secondly - that is not remotely my point.

At this stage there are only two options - Remain and No Deal?

So - why are both Britain and the EU continuing to demand the other move their position and why are pundits supporting this charade?

[Pannonian]

Firstly, politics is not a science.

Secondly - that is not remotely my point.

At this stage there are only two options - Remain and No Deal?

So - why are both Britain and the EU continuing to demand the other move their position and why are pundits supporting this charade?

The EU is rules based. If you want certain conditions, then in the main these are the options open. They published a map at the beginning detailing the conditions that a UK government may demand and what possible options there may be as a result of these conditions. May's deal fitted that map to a tee, as everyone paying attention could have predicted. Make certain demands, and you can have those but you'll rule out certain avenues.

The EU haven't demanded that the UK move their position. Quite the opposite. They've repeatedly said that the deal is the result of concluded negotiations which they entered into in good faith, and they'll keep up their end, and it's up to the UK to keep up theirs. There is no further movement. They've even disbanded the negotiation team. It's only the UK who's repeatedly demanded that the other side move their position.

If it does come down to Remain and No Deal, presumably you'd opt for No Deal, and blame the EU.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU is rules based. If you want certain conditions, then in the main these are the options open. They published a map at the beginning detailing the conditions that a UK government may demand and what possible options there may be as a result of these conditions. May's deal fitted that map to a tee, as everyone paying attention could have predicted. Make certain demands, and you can have those but you'll rule out certain avenues.

The EU haven't demanded that the UK move their position. Quite the opposite. They've repeatedly said that the deal is the result of concluded negotiations which they entered into in good faith, and they'll keep up their end, and it's up to the UK to keep up theirs. There is no further movement. They've even disbanded the negotiation team. It's only the UK who's repeatedly demanded that the other side move their position.

If it does come down to Remain and No Deal, presumably you'd opt for No Deal, and blame the EU.

You're not listening.

The EU says it wants "the Deal" and the UK must "get on with" passing "the deal.

This is clearly not going to happen before October 31st - but the EU has refused further extensions.

So - why does the EU claim it wants a deal so badly and yet refuse to countenance further negotiation?

The truth is either that the EU does not particularly want a deal, it is not particularly concerned about a "hard border" in Northern Ireland, or that the EU does not understand the situation in the UK and believes we will buckle at the last possible second.

Then you have all those in Parliament who say they want "a Deal" but not "the Deal" despite the EU saying "there is only The Deal".

So, are both sides stupid, insane, dishonest, or all of the above?

[Pannonian]

You're not listening.

The EU says it wants "the Deal" and the UK must "get on with" passing "the deal.

This is clearly not going to happen before October 31st - but the EU has refused further extensions.

So - why does the EU claim it wants a deal so badly and yet refuse to countenance further negotiation?

The truth is either that the EU does not particularly want a deal, it is not particularly concerned about a "hard border" in Northern Ireland, or that the EU does not understand the situation in the UK and believes we will buckle at the last possible second.

Then you have all those in Parliament who say they want "a Deal" but not "the Deal" despite the EU saying "there is only The Deal".

So, are both sides stupid, insane, dishonest, or all of the above?

This does not compute. The EU has said the negotiations are complete. The deal is the best the UK can have, given its own demands, and given the rules of the EU and treaties to which the UK is subject to (such as the GFA). Why do you equate the deal with further negotiation? The UK set its own rules, the EU has its own rules. The two were put together to find a position that satisfies both. May's deal is the result.

Also, why are you solely blaming the EU for the NI-RoI border? The issue is a bilateral agreement between the UK and the RoI. The EU guarantees it, but it's not just the EU that guarantees it, as the US has also (in the last week AFAIK) also guaranteed it. Yet you blame only the EU, not the US, not the UK. Again, it is not brinkmanship as you portray it. There are rules, and either the UK abides by these rules (the bilateral treaty between the UK and the RoI), or it can ignore those rules and take the hit to its international relations that being a rogue state that does not keep agreements involves.

When everything is at the instigation of the UK, and the EU is but one of a number of parties involved, why do Brexiteers still insist on blaming the EU and the EU only?

[Montmorency]

22756


Literary Boris (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/08/15/boris-johnson-ham-of-fate/#fn-1):

"Here, as always, Johnson claims the privileges of the clown while exercising the power of a politician."


This raises the two central questions about Johnson—does he believe any of his own claims, and do his followers in turn believe him? In both cases, the answer is yes, but only in the highly qualified way that an actor inhabits his role and an audience knowingly accepts the pretense. Johnson’s appeal lies precisely in the creation of a comic persona that evades the distinction between reality and performance.

The Greek philosophers found akrasia mysterious—why would people knowingly do the wrong thing? But Johnson knows the answer: they do so, in England at least, because knowingness is essential to being included. You have to be “in on the joke”—and Johnson has shown just how far some English people will go in order not to look like they are not getting it. The anthropologist Kate Fox, in her classic study Watching the English, suggested that a crucial rule of the national discourse is what she called The Importance of Not Being Earnest: “At the most basic level, an underlying rule in all English conversation is the proscription of ‘earnestness.’” Johnson has played on this to perfection—he knows that millions of his compatriots would rather go along with his outrageous fabrications than be accused of the ultimate sin of taking things too seriously.

“Boris being Boris” (the phrase that has long been used to excuse him) is an act, a turn, a traveling show. Johnson’s father, Stanley, was fired from his job at the World Bank in 1968 when he submitted a satiric proposal for a $100 million loan to Egypt to build three new pyramids and a sphinx. But the son cultivated in England an audience more receptive to the half-comic, half-convincing notion that the EU might be just such an absurdist enterprise.

What he honed in his Brussels years is the practice of political journalism (and then of politics itself) as Monty Python sketch. He invented a version of the EU as a gigantic Ministry of Silly Walks, in which crazed bureaucrats with huge budgets develop ever more pointlessly complicated gaits. (In the original sketch, the British bureaucrats are trying to keep up with “Le Marché Commun,” the Common Market.) Johnson’s Brussels is a warren of bureaucratic redoubts in which lurk a Ministry of Dangerous Balloons, a Ministry of Tiny Condoms, and a Ministry of Flavorless Crisps. In this theater of the absurd, it never matters whether the stories are true; what matters is that they are ludicrous enough to fly under the radar of credibility and hit the sweet spot where preexisting prejudices are confirmed.

This running joke made Johnson not just highly popular as a comic anti-politician but, for many of his compatriots, the embodiment of that patriotic treasure, the English eccentric. There is a long tradition of embracing the eccentric (though in reality only the upper-class male eccentric) as proof of the English love of liberty and individualism in contrast to the supposed slavishness of the European continentals. No less a figure than John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty (1859) that “precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric.” Mill associated eccentricity with “strength of character,” but Johnson has been able to turn it upside down—his very weakness of character (the chaos, the fecklessness, the mendacity) provides for his admirers a patriotically heartening proof that the true English spirit has not yet been chewed up in the homogenizing maw of a humorless and excessively organized EU.

Here we must bear in mind that Johnson really did learn a great deal from his boyhood hero Churchill. What he emulated was not any kind of steadfastness or ability to lead but a self-conscious political theatricality. “He was,” writes Johnson in The Churchill Factor, “eccentric, over the top, camp, with his own special trademark clothes.” Johnson’s use of “camp” is an astute insight—he understands very well the strain of louchely histrionic Toryism that runs from Benjamin Disraeli through Churchill to the intellectual father of Brexit, Enoch Powell. Johnson, too, has “his own special trademark clothes,” albeit that he is the anti-dandy whose slovenly dishevelment is carefully cultivated as a sartorial brand.

Johnson, moreover, uses Churchill to lend his own cynicism and mendacity a paradoxical kind of gravity. In his book, he argues that the great wartime leader

wasn’t what people thought of as a man of principle; he was a glory-chasing goal-mouth-hanging opportunist…. As for his political career—my word, what a feast of bungling!… His enemies detected in him a titanic egotism, a desire to find whatever wave or wavelet he could, and surf it long after it had dissolved into spume on the beach…. Throughout his early career he was not just held to be untrustworthy—he was thought to be congenitally untrustworthy.

This is not just Boris in drag as Winston. It is intended to suggest a crazed logic. Churchill was an unprincipled opportunist, a serial bungler, and a congenitally untrustworthy egotist; therefore, only someone who has all of these qualities in abundance can become the new Churchill that conservative England craves. It is a mark of how far Britain has fallen that, in what may indeed be its biggest crisis since 1940, so many Tories are willing to suspend disbelief in Johnson’s pantomime caricature of the man who gave it the courage to “stand alone” in that dark hour. So what if he has the V for Victory sign the wrong way around?
[...]
In November 2016 he claimed that “Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a titanic success of it.” In this weirdly akratic moment of British history, most of those who support Johnson actually know very well that Brexit is the Titanic and that his evasive actions will be of no avail. But if the ship is going down anyway, why not have some fun with Boris on the upper deck? There is a fatalistic end-of-days pleasure in the idea of Boris doing his Churchill impressions while the iceberg looms ever closer. When things are too serious to be contemplated in sobriety, send in the clown.

[InsaneApache]

I see the Irish are shitting themselves.

[Pannonian]

I see the Irish are shitting themselves.

Are the Brexiteers here looking forward to no deal?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are the Brexiteers here looking forward to no deal?

I'll let you know when I see one.

[rory_20_uk]

I see the Irish are shitting themselves.

They'll be fine. Being a Dependency of a large power is one exchanges sovereignty for protection.


Are the Brexiteers here looking forward to no deal?

More resetting a large bone that has been broken for over 30 years. It'll hurt like hell but it isn't the doctor's fault who resets it, it s those who broke it in the first place.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

They'll be fine. Being a Dependency of a large power is one exchanges sovereignty for protection.



More resetting a large bone that has been broken for over 30 years. It'll hurt like hell but it isn't the doctor's fault who resets it, it s those who broke it in the first place.

~:smoking:

How was it broken? How does your analogy work?

[rory_20_uk]

How was it broken? How does your analogy work?

Over the last 30 years or so - since the previous referendum - what the UK populace agreed to has morphed well past the tolerances that would have been expected at the time. Getting back to where we were is going to be difficult.

Would you prefer that the bone was incorrectly set in the first place?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Over the last 30 years or so - since the previous referendum - what the UK populace agreed to has morphed well past the tolerances that would have been expected at the time. Getting back to where we were is going to be difficult.

Would you prefer that the bone was incorrectly set in the first place?

~:smoking:

Couldn't the same be said about what Brexit means? Look at what Leave campaigners were promising at the time of the campaign, and compare with what they're promising now. Farage was promising Norway. Fox was promising the easiest trade deals ever. Others were promising single market benefits without the responsibilities. All of them were saying that the EU needed us more than we need them. Now we're looking at no deal. If you want to talk about changes in perceptions, there's been a greater change in what Brexit promises in a much shorter length of time.

Where is the broken bone? If EU membership is the broken bone because of changed perceptions, how would you describe Brexit?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This thread in a nutshell:

Pan: Do you still support Brexit?
Everyone: Yes
Pan: Why, it is going to give us X outcome.
Everyone: I dont see X outcome as bad.
Pan: Why?
Everyone: Here is an analogy.
Pan: No, that analogy actually means Brexit is bad!
Everyone: .......
Pan: Do you still support Brexit?

Every single week.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not even commenting how good the analogies are and what they accurately apply to. Just seeing a pattern.

[Pannonian]

This thread in a nutshell:

Pan: Do you still support Brexit?
Everyone: Yes
Pan: Why, it is going to give us X outcome.
Everyone: I dont see X outcome as bad.
Pan: Why?
Everyone: Here is an analogy.
Pan: No, that analogy actually means Brexit is bad!
Everyone: .......
Pan: Do you still support Brexit?

Every single week.

You've missed out one.

Pannonian: Are the Brexiteers going to take responsibility for the consequences of Brexit?
Brexiteers: It's the EU's fault.

You can see that on this very page, in PFH's posts. Arguably in rory's posts too, but PFH's posts fit the above to a tee. It's all the EU's fault. Never theirs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You've missed out one.

Pannonian: Are the Brexiteers going to take responsibility for the consequences of Brexit?
Brexiteers: It's the EU's fault.

You can see that on this very page, in PFH's posts. Arguably in rory's posts too, but PFH's posts fit the above to a tee. It's all the EU's fault. Never theirs.

No, I blame everyone.

[Pannonian]

No, I blame everyone.

Including remainers?