Off Topic The Politics Thread

[rangercol]

Hi Col. I'll say one thing that you probably [well, almost certainly] won't like, and then hopefully something more conciliatory. I stand by my comment that it is somewhat reprehensible for those (it wasn't just you) who have strong views on Brexit to be entirely unwilling to engage on the topic of the Irish border, and to simply sweep this issue aside by claiming its 'above your pay grade'. Not only is this at the very crux of the whole Brexit issue, it's an issue which until 2002 was directly responsible for the deaths of individuals in Ireland and the UK. We've seen from other posters (predominantly QPRNUTS) how alive this serious issue still is, and so to be unwilling to really engage on it - beyond a skin deep argument for 'technology' which doesn't exist - is, to me, was utterly frustrating. I don't expect you to design the solution yourself, but to at least be able to point towards other workable solutions - from any interested body, be it Vote.Leave, the ERG, any think tank - and if you can't source those solutions anywhere, to be able recognise the inherent challenge, and have sensible dialogue about why that might, and what sensible next steps are. From my perspective, it felt like you were perfectly happy to throw out questions about sovereignty etc, but were entirely unwilling to engage on this very important topic.

I hope, however, that my very pointed (and possibly raving as you point out!) comments and questions on the topic played a small part in your reflections and entirely sensible new(?) point of view. [The ? in square brackets as I'm not sure if you were supportive of a soft Brexit before the weekend and don't want to assume].

Which brings me on to the point which is hopefully conciliatory. I entirely agree that a 'soft' Brexit is the most sensible way forwards for the country, although, of course, there is room to disagree about what a soft Brexit entails. Putting aside my personal view that Brexit is a significant mistake and the wrong solution to the real challenges which many people in the UK face, there are a few facts, as follows, which to my mind, can only be reconciled by a soft Brexit:

1. As leavers are happy and right to highlight, a democratic process took place and the vote was to leave. A second vote would solve nothing, almost certainly because leave would win again, and because I think that a population which already feels disengaged and disenfranchised would feel [potentially rightly] seriously angry, and look for solutions with the likes of UKIP
2. However, that vote was not for any specific 'type' of Brexit, and I don't buy the argument that leave = exiting the customs union etc. They are plenty of attributable quotes to leave leaders, arguing for a very close relationship, some even advocating for single market membership
3. Ireland border - as discussed ad nauseum. No need to say more!
4. Based on the available evidence, as others have posted, a hard Brexit would be economically disastrous, and damage the lives of a great many people, hurting the least well off the most

As such, I agree a soft Brexit is the only possible way forward, and I suspect is what we will end up with. It's not what I would choose if I was dictator for the day, but that's democracy.

My intense frustration on Thursday was with leavers who are knocking May's deal without recognising the multiple complex challenges which it tries to address [Ireland being high or top on that list]. I posted a long time ago on this thread about how Chequers may be looked back upon in the future as a very clever move - I still think that when analysing this from a 'realpolitik' perspective.

I don't particular enjoy it when debate gets personal, even online, so hope that the clear rationale above helps to underline that my frustration was nothing personal towards you, but was in regard to the dismissal of an important argument by some posters. Now that we are scarily aligned on what the sensible path forward is, hope we can carry on talking and perhaps even agree further in future!

PS - This is a long post and I've not proofed it as the little one needs a bath. Hope it all makes sense.

PPS - I know the 'can you read' etc really was silly and crossed the line. Heat of the moment - sorry.

Thanks for this.

We'll never agree as almost half the Country won't ever agree on this issue.

I have put forward arguments concerning the Irish border during this thread, but I can't be arsed to find them. I've also said that Ireland deserves to be treated as a special case concerning their border. I believe there are examples elsewhere in the World where friction-less borders seem to work between Nations.
I stand by my comment that I'm not qualified to offer a solution, but that I have every right to comment as it is connected to Brexit, which effects us all in the UK.

You put forward very reasoned arguments and I have certainly softened my stance somewhat during this process.
However, I have lived (IMO) in a very Euro sceptic Country all my adult life. Government after Government avoided having a referendum because they feared the outcome. That complete weasel Cameron finally took the plunge, mainly for selfish reasons and look what happened.
I feel that we have always been lied to by the ruling elite concerning the "common market". If it was only a "common market" then I wouldn't have a problem. It's the political side of the EU's aspirations that I'll never agree with. There is little doubt in my mind that those at the helm of the EU and Germany and France desire a United States Of Europe and that's something that this tired old patriot could never agree to. It's also now clear that an EU army is looking very likely, which imo is another step to a Federal State of Europe. I don't feel (and never have) European and I don't want to be part of that political project, which I think would be doomed to fail anyway.
That's always been the crux of the matter for me, not immigration, although there's certainly a debate to be had on how too much immigration has badly affected some areas of this Country. No, I just want my Country to be purely independent and not run by people in the EU.
Close trading links are sensible and I have no problem with this. I don't dislike foreigners and I have absolutely no truck with the far right Nationalists.
However, I don't like the closed shop EU where members can't make favourable trade deals with Nations outside their club. I find that undemocratic and protectionist. I also view the EU as a corrupt organisation who can never get their books signed off.

I think this whole thing has been handled terribly and firmly believe that Brexit could and should have been negotiated much, much better.
We've ended up with a deal that no one likes, although as I've said, I'd accept the withdrawal deal on the table if we could have the final say over when WE leave (although I fear I've only reached that conclusion because I'm so heartily sick to death of the whole bloody thing!!).

Reading this back through I realise that, as I've said before, we just go over and over the same old arguments.

I respect your views, but respectfully, I don't think we'll ever agree on this subject.

 

[sb_73]

I saw a poll last week that had stay in EU on 54% and both No Deal and the Cabinet approved deal way behind. I was in the UK most of September and other than in the media I heard little mention of Brexit, what there was mostly people calling it for what it is a huge mess, and wanting it stopped. But toxic - after 2.5 years there didn't seem much left.

Fair enough. I think people don’t talk about it in daily life so much for two reasons - first that they are exhausted by it and second that discussing it leads to conflict with their friends and acquaintances, for no gain for anyone involved. With respect I also think that 54% in a poll is meaningless. Polls said the original referendum would be remain and got the last 3 general election results wildly wrong as well, plus you would need a much bigger margin of victory to make a material difference to the mandate.

Don’t get me wrong, if I thought another referendum would work I’d be all for it. But no one can deny that the terms of the 2016 one were very clear - it was binding, not consultative like the Irish ones, and the Government of the time made it very clear, as a part of Project Fear, that we would leave all the EU institutions and mechanisms. Cameron ****ed it up royally. I’m not usually one to put principle ahead of real life, but in this instance I can only see downsides of essentially annulling the original referendum.

 

[ELLERS]

Thanks for this.

We'll never agree as almost half the Country won't ever agree on this issue.

I have put forward arguments concerning the Irish border during this thread, but I can't be arsed to find them. I've also said that Ireland deserves to be treated as a special case concerning their border. I believe there are examples elsewhere in the World where friction-less borders seem to work between Nations.
I stand by my comment that I'm not qualified to offer a solution, but that I have every right to comment as it is connected to Brexit, which effects us all in the UK.

You put forward very reasoned arguments and I have certainly softened my stance somewhat during this process.
However, I have lived (IMO) in a very Euro sceptic Country all my adult life. Government after Government avoided having a referendum because they feared the outcome. That complete weasel Cameron finally took the plunge, mainly for selfish reasons and look what happened.
I feel that we have always been lied to by the ruling elite concerning the "common market". If it was only a "common market" then I wouldn't have a problem. It's the political side of the EU's aspirations that I'll never agree with. There is little doubt in my mind that those at the helm of the EU and Germany and France desire a United States Of Europe and that's something that this tired old patriot could never agree to. It's also now clear that an EU army is looking very likely, which imo is another step to a Federal State of Europe. I don't feel (and never have) European and I don't want to be part of that political project, which I think would be doomed to fail anyway.
That's always been the crux of the matter for me, not immigration, although there's certainly a debate to be had on how too much immigration has badly affected some areas of this Country. No, I just want my Country to be purely independent and not run by people in the EU.
Close trading links are sensible and I have no problem with this. I don't dislike foreigners and I have absolutely no truck with the far right Nationalists.
However, I don't like the closed shop EU where members can't make favourable trade deals with Nations outside their club. I find that undemocratic and protectionist. I also view the EU as a corrupt organisation who can never get their books signed off.

I think this whole thing has been handled terribly and firmly believe that Brexit could and should have been negotiated much, much better.
We've ended up with a deal that no one likes, although as I've said, I'd accept the withdrawal deal on the table if we could have the final say over when WE leave (although I fear I've only reached that conclusion because I'm so heartily sick to death of the whole bloody thing!!).

Reading this back through I realise that, as I've said before, we just go over and over the same old arguments.

I respect your views, but respectfully, I don't think we'll ever agree on this subject.

You forgot to mention the Euro anthem and that stupid Euro flag. To be honest Col I cannot be bothered to debat on this thread much more. I think it’s run it’s course, As you said it’s like going over and over the same stuff. Lines are drawn and No matter what you bring to the table some will just dismiss it. Many times I have posted information or made a valid point and I am told I am ‘talking sh2te’ yet when it turns out to be correct you never hear those coming back with ‘you were right on that’. Sadly that is due to the type of person you are debating with. As I get told I am a hard Brexiteers (which I’m not) I believe we have 2-3 Euro huggers who probably have the same vision as Macron.
I have noticed that I use this thread more when we have international breaks from. Hopefully I can avoid this thread after Thursday as I will be more interested in QPR.

Today a new poll is out having remain just ahead but they think it could neck and neck... this is why things are so hard.

 

[sb_73]

You forgot to mention the Euro anthem and that stupid Euro flag. To be honest Col I cannot be bothered to debat on this thread much more. I think it’s run it’s course, As you said it’s like going over and over the same stuff. Lines are drawn and No matter what you bring to the table some will just dismiss it. Many times I have posted information or made a valid point and I am told I am ‘talking sh2te’ yet when it turns out to be correct you never hear those coming back with ‘you were right on that’. Sadly that is due to the type of person you are debating with. As I get told I am a hard Brexiteers (which I’m not) I believe we have 2-3 Euro huggers who probably have the same vision as Macron.
I have noticed that I use this thread more when we have international breaks from. Hopefully I can avoid this thread after Thursday as I will be more interested in QPR.

Today a new poll is out having remain just ahead but they think it could neck and neck... this is why things are so hard.

Sorry Ellers, but you have repeatedly asked for recognition, on this and other threads, for stuff you have written. I don’t think internet discussion boards work like that, particularly on politics. There is no obligation on anyone to respond at all, let alone in a thoughtful way.

I give this thread a rest occasionally, it is circular, it is divisive, it won’t solve anything, it gets frustrating and that leads to bad behaviour, including from me. When it consists of 90% insults I walk away for a bit. But it is also a good reflection of the ‘state of the nation’. And you contribute to that, so what you write on here is important. You don’t like being called a ‘hard brexiter’ but your continual use of ‘remoaner’, asserting that ‘no deal’ is better than what is on the table, eagerness to run down every aspect of the EU etc mean that you very much look like one. You might be taking a position to make a point, but it gives a powerful impression.

You like to comment on other posters without naming them, I’m not that shy. I see you and Turkish, with his cries of outrage, as the representatives of the Rees Mogg tendency on this board. While we have arrived at this from opposite ends of the spectrum, and with varying degrees of reluctance, I think Col and myself and even, I think, Goldie, are prepared to compromise and end up with something that none of us thinks is ideal out of a wish to get it done with, but with no real expectation that we will be free of the arguments for years. I’m not really sure where Strolls stands, but I make the assumption that anyone calling for a second referendum, like Ossie, does so out of the hope that we end up remaining. Apologies to the many posters I haven’t named!*

We need all the perspectives to have a discussion. It would be nice to do it civilly, but I think this is too much to expect in this context. There is a debate on the radio now about the closing down of debates in Universities, no platforming etc. One of the good things about the internet and discussion boards like this is that we can have genuine debates, we should treasure that. The downside is that we tend to debate with the idea of ‘winning’. That ain’t going to happen for any of us, ‘victory’ is impossible. At best you might make a fellow poster think.

End of lesson.

*Stainsey - the authentic voice of the revolutionary left, from his armchair.
DT - unclassifiable maniac

 

[DT’s Socks]

I think this idea that the EU runs any country needs to be put to bed ... it never has any country

The mistake Brexiteers have been very ill informed about the entire subject and I stand that the Anglo Saxon blame culture has well and truly taken over

Successive UK governments have let our country down by selling off almost everything and handing it all over to business which we have all learnt to our cost are run to make profit for share holders who can afford to invest

Business is the real power we all know that and dictates everything. Having one of the worlds top financial cities carry’s our nation

London is almost a country within a country
Greed rules there and the rest of our country has been terribly neglected

I maintain the vote was a protest to that
It came up often

Democracy? Then we all have to agree that NI and Scotland must have the option to decide if they want to remain in the EU. To say we rule over them is old fashioned and out of touch

Add to that to the apathy that UK has adopted into its culture about politics and I believe you have many of the answers

To me that is why I find myself firmly on the remain camp and do not and cannot ever agree with a Brexiteer without any plan ... just a ideal that can never be reconstructed

UK Euro MPs have not well enough historically within the system no one has said that

The default is blame which is correct but also drags us all down
The talent and skills of UK politics has been completely exposed ... look at it now
The joke of the world !

Soon we will no say in Europe
Large areas of the UK who never wanted out
Brexiteers with no plan just an idea who has faith in that? A divided nation without the drive of say Germany look what they have done in 40 years for example.

A shambles and I have no faith in Brexiteers and their idea of no idea

 

[DT’s Socks]

Sorry Ellers, but you have repeatedly asked for recognition, on this and other threads, for stuff you have written. I don’t think internet discussion boards work like that, particularly on politics. There is no obligation on anyone to respond at all, let alone in a thoughtful way.

I give this thread a rest occasionally, it is circular, it is divisive, it won’t solve anything, it gets frustrating and that leads to bad behaviour, including from me. When it consists of 90% insults I walk away for a bit. But it is also a good reflection of the ‘state of the nation’. And you contribute to that, so what you write on here is important. You don’t like being called a ‘hard brexiter’ but your continual use of ‘remoaner’, asserting that ‘no deal’ is better than what is on the table, eagerness to run down every aspect of the EU etc mean that you very much look like one. You might be taking a position to make a point, but it gives a powerful impression.

You like to comment on other posters without naming them, I’m not that shy. I see you and Turkish, with his cries of outrage, as the representatives of the Rees Mogg tendency on this board. While we have arrived at this from opposite ends of the spectrum, and with varying degrees of reluctance, I think Col and myself and even, I think, Goldie, are prepared to compromise and end up with something that none of us thinks is ideal out of a wish to get it done with, but with no real expectation that we will be free of the arguments for years. I’m not really sure where Strolls stands, but I make the assumption that anyone calling for a second referendum, like Ossie, does so out of the hope that we end up remaining. Apologies to the many posters I haven’t named!

We need all the perspectives to have a discussion. It would be nice to do it civilly, but I think this is too much to expect in this context. There is a debate on the radio now about the closing down of debates in Universities, no platforming etc. One of the good things about the internet and discussion boards like this is that we can have genuine debates, we should treasure that. The downside is that we tend to debate with the idea of ‘winning’. That ain’t going to happen for any of us, ‘victory’ is impossible. At best you might make a fellow poster think.

End of lesson.

Very good stuff G as usual
Democracy should dictate a must for a second vote imo to simply dismiss the Irish and Scottish issues is very naive and the source of my frustration on this all
Without the DUP we wouldn’t even have this lot in power now

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Which side will you be on when the Gammons turn on the proletariat?

Which are you, Strolls?

 

[ELLERS]

End of lesson.

Your post was going okay until the last line... I am not your student and you are not a teacher (well you could be but you are not mine).
My stance is that May's deal is no good and we need to renegotiate. And yes I believe a no deal is better than the one she has. Although I have made it clear that free trade deal is the way to go.
As for your other comments... I don't need recognition, I am saying just be man enough to admit things when you are wrong, it doesn't need to be to me but to the debate in general. That way they would be respected more.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

We've been threatened with blood on the streets if Brexit is denied.

Old, white (red faced) males (mostly) versus young people and women (mostly).

Which side of the barricades are you on?

You may laugh, Strolls, but Jo Cox was murdered by a hard right zealot. If you give these people a justified sense of grievance as well, there may well be more blood on the street. And you say, bring it on?

 

[sb_73]

Your post was going okay until the last line... I am not your student and you are not a teacher (well you could be but you are not mine).
My stance is that May's deal is no good and we need to renegotiate. And yes I believe a no deal is better than the one she has. Although I have made it clear that free trade deal is the way to go.
As for your other comments... I don't need recognition, I am saying just be man enough to admit things when you are wrong, it doesn't need to be to me but to the debate in general. That way they would be respected more.

End of Lesson was a reference to what they say in church after the Lesson, not a classroom. It was intended to be a self mocking reference to what I assume is the widely held, and doubtless accurate, view that I am patronising and condescending. I should have written ‘Here endeth the lesson’.

Clearly I am also obscure. Oh well.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Sorry Ellers, but you have repeatedly asked for recognition, on this and other threads, for stuff you have written. I don’t think internet discussion boards work like that, particularly on politics. There is no obligation on anyone to respond at all, let alone in a thoughtful way.

I give this thread a rest occasionally, it is circular, it is divisive, it won’t solve anything, it gets frustrating and that leads to bad behaviour, including from me. When it consists of 90% insults I walk away for a bit. But it is also a good reflection of the ‘state of the nation’. And you contribute to that, so what you write on here is important. You don’t like being called a ‘hard brexiter’ but your continual use of ‘remoaner’, asserting that ‘no deal’ is better than what is on the table, eagerness to run down every aspect of the EU etc mean that you very much look like one. You might be taking a position to make a point, but it gives a powerful impression.

You like to comment on other posters without naming them, I’m not that shy. I see you and Turkish, with his cries of outrage, as the representatives of the Rees Mogg tendency on this board. While we have arrived at this from opposite ends of the spectrum, and with varying degrees of reluctance, I think Col and myself and even, I think, Goldie, are prepared to compromise and end up with something that none of us thinks is ideal out of a wish to get it done with, but with no real expectation that we will be free of the arguments for years. I’m not really sure where Strolls stands, but I make the assumption that anyone calling for a second referendum, like Ossie, does so out of the hope that we end up remaining. Apologies to the many posters I haven’t named!*

We need all the perspectives to have a discussion. It would be nice to do it civilly, but I think this is too much to expect in this context. There is a debate on the radio now about the closing down of debates in Universities, no platforming etc. One of the good things about the internet and discussion boards like this is that we can have genuine debates, we should treasure that. The downside is that we tend to debate with the idea of ‘winning’. That ain’t going to happen for any of us, ‘victory’ is impossible. At best you might make a fellow poster think.

End of lesson.

*Stainsey - the authentic voice of the revolutionary left, from his armchair.
DT - unclassifiable maniac

Yes, Stan, I'd go with Chequers if they can resolve the Hotel California clause that could keep us in the Custom's Union against our wishes.

 

[ELLERS]

End of Lesson was a reference to what they say in church after the Lesson, not a classroom. It was intended to be a self mocking reference to what I assume is the widely held, and doubtless accurate, view that I am patronising and condescending.

On another note, David Davis was interviewed on Bloomberg today and said May's deal should go to the house first (before Brussels) as otherwise, it will have time implications. By that, I think he is saying she will get her deal through as MP's will cave in due to not having enough time and would want to avoid a no deal. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Stroller]

Sorry Ellers, but you have repeatedly asked for recognition, on this and other threads, for stuff you have written. I don’t think internet discussion boards work like that, particularly on politics. There is no obligation on anyone to respond at all, let alone in a thoughtful way.

I give this thread a rest occasionally, it is circular, it is divisive, it won’t solve anything, it gets frustrating and that leads to bad behaviour, including from me. When it consists of 90% insults I walk away for a bit. But it is also a good reflection of the ‘state of the nation’. And you contribute to that, so what you write on here is important. You don’t like being called a ‘hard brexiter’ but your continual use of ‘remoaner’, asserting that ‘no deal’ is better than what is on the table, eagerness to run down every aspect of the EU etc mean that you very much look like one. You might be taking a position to make a point, but it gives a powerful impression.

You like to comment on other posters without naming them, I’m not that shy. I see you and Turkish, with his cries of outrage, as the representatives of the Rees Mogg tendency on this board. While we have arrived at this from opposite ends of the spectrum, and with varying degrees of reluctance, I think Col and myself and even, I think, Goldie, are prepared to compromise and end up with something that none of us thinks is ideal out of a wish to get it done with, but with no real expectation that we will be free of the arguments for years. I’m not really sure where Strolls stands, but I make the assumption that anyone calling for a second referendum, like Ossie, does so out of the hope that we end up remaining. Apologies to the many posters I haven’t named!

We need all the perspectives to have a discussion. It would be nice to do it civilly, but I think this is too much to expect in this context. There is a debate on the radio now about the closing down of debates in Universities, no platforming etc. One of the good things about the internet and discussion boards like this is that we can have genuine debates, we should treasure that. The downside is that we tend to debate with the idea of ‘winning’. That ain’t going to happen for any of us, ‘victory’ is impossible. At best you might make a fellow poster think.

End of lesson.

Good post. As you say, the debate on here - even when it descends to insults and bad behaviour (of which I am as guilty as anyone) - probably reflects the state of the nation. Our own referendum did, after all, very accurately reflect the result of the real one. I had a very good Brexit discussion with some pals in the pub yesterday afternoon - the first time for a few months that we'd broached the subject. Out of six of us, there were three who voted Leave and three Remain voters, but we were all able to agree on one point - that the whole thing was a colossal ****-up. I took the opportunity to conduct a mini second referendum and, whilst no one had completely changed their minds, two of the Leave voters said they were unsure how they would vote if they were given another opportunity. Their original votes, they were happy to admit, had been based on immigration issues.

I'm a little surprised that that you are unsure about my position. For the record, I think there should be another referendum now that people are much clearer about what we are letting ourselves in for. Three options - May's Deal, No Deal, or No Brexit. I would vote for No Brexit.

 

[ELLERS]

I'm a little surprised that that you are unsure about my position. For the record, I think there should be another referendum now that people are much clearer about what we are letting ourselves in for. Three options - May's Deal, No Deal, or No Brexit. I would vote for No Brexit.

How about another deal? No one seems to ever want to mention that. The BDI has apparently said that there must not be a 'no deal', that would give us the opportunity to negotiate. This second referendum is just a way for 'remainers' to get what they want. Other than a few 'remainers'. no one wants another referendum.

 

[Stroller]

Which are you, Strolls?

Neither, I'm one of the liberal metropolitan elite (apparently).

You may laugh, Strolls, but Jo Cox was murdered by a hard right zealot. If you give these people a justified sense of grievance as well, there may well be more blood on the street. And you say, bring it on?

Of course it's not a laughing matter Goldie, but the argument that people should refrain from campaigning for a new vote because some other people might get violent if it happens, is not one that I am prepared to accept. There's also a danger of violence if our elected representatives allow us to crash out with no deal, I would say.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Neither, I'm one of the liberal metropolitan elite (apparently).



Of course it's not a laughing matter Goldie, but the argument that people should refrain from campaigning for a new vote because some other people might get violent if it happens, is not one that I am prepared to accept. There's also a danger of violence if our elected representatives allow us to crash out with no deal, I would say.

The threat of a highly negative, possibly violent reaction to Brexit frustrated by a narrow Remain vote in a second referendum has to be a major consideration for our lawmakers.

The No Deal option would certainly be managed in coordination with the EU. I agree there could be some violent reaction, but not on the scale of Brexit denied. This is why a deal now is much the best option if it can be amended to satisfy Parliament. Negotiations on the withdrawal deal are not yet over imho, whatever May and the EU may say. It will go to the wire.

 

[sb_73]

On another note, David Davis was interviewed on Bloomberg today and said May's deal should go to the house first (before Brussels) as otherwise, it will have time implications. By that, I think he is saying she will get her deal through as MP's will cave in due to not having enough time and would want to avoid a no deal. What are your thoughts on that?

I’d guess that if she takes it to the House, and loses, there won’t be a meeting in Brussels. And that Davis indulged in a lot of game playing with the process (as did the EU negotiators) which has cost us loads of time. This is a gamble which the visible maths and all the commentators say she would lose. I’ll think she’ll go for the Kamikaze Option - sign off from Brussels, lose vote in Commons, sit back and see the markets implode, take it back for second vote when MPs are ****ting themselves. This option is of course the definition of the failure of politics.

Good post. As you say, the debate on here - even when it descends to insults and bad behaviour (of which I am as guilty as anyone) - probably reflects the state of the nation. Our own referendum did, after all, very accurately reflect the result of the real one. I had a very good Brexit discussion with some pals in the pub yesterday afternoon - the first time for a few months that we'd broached the subject. Out of six of us, there were three who voted Leave and three Remain voters, but we were all able to agree on one point - that the whole thing was a colossal ****-up. I took the opportunity to conduct a mini second referendum and, whilst no one had completely changed their minds, two of the Leave voters said they were unsure how they would vote if they were given another opportunity. Their original votes, they were happy to admit, had been based on immigration issues.

I'm a little surprised that that you are unsure about my position. For the record, I think there should be another referendum now that people are much clearer about what we are letting ourselves in for. Three options - May's Deal, No Deal, or No Brexit. I would vote for No Brexit.

unsure in that I wasn’t clear as to whether you think there is a deal which is acceptable or just want a straight remain. I am now clear!

Presumably your 3 option referendum would include a transferable second choice vote. The whole idea fills me with gloom.

 

[Stroller]

I’d guess that if she takes it to the House, and loses, there won’t be a meeting in Brussels. And that Davis indulged in a lot of game playing with the process (as did the EU negotiators) which has cost us loads of time. This is a gamble which the visible maths and all the commentators say she would lose. I’ll think she’ll go for the Kamikaze Option - sign off from Brussels, lose vote in Commons, sit back and see the markets implode, take it back for second vote when MPs are ****ting themselves. This option is of course the definition of the failure of politics.


unsure in that I wasn’t clear as to whether you think there is a deal which is acceptable or just want a straight remain.

Presumably your 3 option referendum would include a transferable second choice vote. The whole idea fills me with gloom.

Yes, it would have to have a transferable second choice.

 

[Stroller]

An interesting piece by John Harris in the Guardian reflecting the frustration that many Labour supporters (myself included) feel over Corbyn's reluctance to support a new referendum...

Brexit is a class betrayal. So why is Labour colluding in it?

Over the past two and a half years, while the most vocal leave and remain campaigners have endlessly yelled at each other, Brexit has often presented itself as a case study in contradiction and complexity. Certainly, whenever I have spent time in leave-voting areas, I have always felt deeply ambivalent: sick and tired of the delusions that sit at Brexit’s heart, but also keenly aware that in some of the most neglected parts of England and Wales, a huge chunk of the people who voted for it did so because they had not been listened to for decades. As the whole saga groaned on, if I had a position, it was that Brexit probably had to happen– but that in its inevitably awful consequences might lie some eventual realignment of our politics, and the final death of an exceptionalist English fantasy with no place in the 21st century.

Now, as much as similar thoughts still arrive on a daily basis, I wonder. Most of the Conservative politicians who championed leaving the EU and were then given the job of carrying it out have deserted their posts. The story of how key leave campaigners cheated their way to success may only just have started to unfold. And every month brings stories, too often overlooked, of how Brexit will blight the places that supported it: this week it was news about a doomed ball-bearing factory in Plymouth, in business for 50 years and now owned by the German company Schaeffler, but set to close with the loss of more than 350 jobs – partly, says the company, because of the “uncertainties surrounding Brexit”.

This much we know: whatever the stories of the millions of people who ended up backing it, Brexit originated in the failure of successive Conservative leaders to adequately deal with a tribe of uncontrollable Tory ideologues, and in the ingrained tendency of post-Thatcher Conservatives to play fast and loose with the livelihoods and security of the rest of us. In an awful instance of irony, the misery and resentment sown by the deindustralisation the Tories accelerated in the 1980s and the austerity they pushed on the country 30 years later were big reasons why so many people decided to vote leave. What also helped was a surreal campaign of lies and disinformation, both during and after the referendum campaign, waged by entitled people with their eyes only on the main chance.

These things are part of a vast charge sheet not only against the modern Conservative party, but an alliance of old and new money that has set the basic terms of British politics for the past 40 years. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson were educated at the same exclusive school as the prime minister whose idiotic decision to hold a referendum gave them their opportunity. Nigel Farage and Arron Banks are archetypal examples of the kind of spivs who were given licence to do as they pleased in the 80s. For all their absurd bleating about “elites”, we all know what these people represent: the two faces of the modern English ruling class, who have long combined to be nothing but trouble.

Which brings us to the question that, for all my lingering ambivalence, I cannot shake off: if the Labour party leadership is so radical, and allied with the best leftwing traditions, where is its anger about what these people have done?

While some of us have been spitting feathers about the deceptions perpetrated by rightwing leavers, Jeremy Corbyn has seemed barely interested. Is there some kind of awful equivalence between the rightwing Brexiteers, who see national crisis as the ideal seedbed for a free-market utopia, and leftwingers who think socialism is similarly best assisted by disaster? Whatever the explanation, and whatever the levels of support for leave among Labour voters, a supposed party of opposition – and a leftwing one at that – accepting a project birthed and then sustained in the worst kind of rightwing political circles is a very odd spectacle indeed. This, surely, will also be the verdict of history.

You must log in or register to see images

‘Labour would have to sideline the anti-EU mindset of its own leader.’ Jeremy Corbyn, left, and John McDonnell. Photograph: Will Oliver/EPA
As things stand, Labour’s position is apparently built on two fairly incredible beliefs: that it could somehow negotiate a much better Brexit, and that it wants a general election, which parliament is very unlikely to grant. Even if a contest did happen, unless the Tories were mad enough to plunge us into the chaos of no-deal, what exactly would it be about? With Brexit both falling apart and defining the entirety of day-to-day politics, Labour’s crafty fudging of the issue in 2017 would be impossible. Would its central offer be the difference between the current plan, to stay in a customs union for an unspecified period, or Labour’s guarantee to do so permanently? Might voters basically be asked to choose between the negotiating nous of Tories and the supposedly superior talents of Corbyn, Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry? Contrary to Labour’s hype, there is no chance of any deal delivering “the exact same benefits” as the status quo, nor of the party’s fabled “jobs-first” Brexit: with his usual bloodless candour, Donald Tusk this week reminded us that our passage out of the EU is “a lose-lose situation and that our negotiations are only about damage control”. As if anyone needed reminding, this would apply to a Labour government as well.

The country currently has three options, and parliament seems unlikely to be able to sensibly choose between them: the current withdrawal deal or something very like it, the unimaginable chaos of no-deal, or no Brexit. Self-evidently, leaving the EU without an agreement would be by far the most nightmarish, which is one of the reasons why Labour’s determination to vote down May’s deal is not without hazards. But in the midst of such imperfect options, and with heavy reservations, I think I know what we need to avoid national disaster: a Labour party ready to move beyond Corbyn’s hollow claim on Sunday that another referendum is merely “an option for the future”, and embrace what is now known as a people’s vote, with a recommendation that Britain should stay in the EU.

Given that the Labour leadership has seemingly dug in, the only hope of any such move lies with MPs, and pressure that could be exerted by the party’s vast membership. Clearly, after two wasted years, even beginning to embed the idea of questioning and then abandoning Brexit in places where a majority voted for it would be an onerous task. Doing so would require enough working-class voices – where, for example, have the big unions been? – to convincingly speak to people and places that voted to leave the EU but have the most to lose from its consequences.

Labour would have to find a courage that it has so far failed to discover, and sideline the anti-EU mindset of its own leader. Vocal remainers both inside and outside the party would need to realise that any move in this direction would have to be part of a policy offer that even the boldness of, say, John McDonnell has so far only skirted. All told, it would involve something to which even these supposed radicals are averse: risk.

But what is the alternative: to carry on swallowing not just the endless deceptions of the leave elite but the also the disastrous effects their awful arrogance will have on people and places across the country?

British Conservatism is in decay and disarray; to mark its gravest postwar crisis by accepting its most heinous project would be a strange thing to do, and an evasion of our politics’ central fact: that Brexit is a class issue, and all else follows from that.

 

[sb_73]

An interesting piece by John Harris in the Guardian reflecting the frustration that many Labour supporters (myself included) feel over Corbyn's reluctance to support a new referendum...

Brexit is a class betrayal. So why is Labour colluding in it?

Over the past two and a half years, while the most vocal leave and remain campaigners have endlessly yelled at each other, Brexit has often presented itself as a case study in contradiction and complexity. Certainly, whenever I have spent time in leave-voting areas, I have always felt deeply ambivalent: sick and tired of the delusions that sit at Brexit’s heart, but also keenly aware that in some of the most neglected parts of England and Wales, a huge chunk of the people who voted for it did so because they had not been listened to for decades. As the whole saga groaned on, if I had a position, it was that Brexit probably had to happen– but that in its inevitably awful consequences might lie some eventual realignment of our politics, and the final death of an exceptionalist English fantasy with no place in the 21st century.

Now, as much as similar thoughts still arrive on a daily basis, I wonder. Most of the Conservative politicians who championed leaving the EU and were then given the job of carrying it out have deserted their posts. The story of how key leave campaigners cheated their way to success may only just have started to unfold. And every month brings stories, too often overlooked, of how Brexit will blight the places that supported it: this week it was news about a doomed ball-bearing factory in Plymouth, in business for 50 years and now owned by the German company Schaeffler, but set to close with the loss of more than 350 jobs – partly, says the company, because of the “uncertainties surrounding Brexit”.

This much we know: whatever the stories of the millions of people who ended up backing it, Brexit originated in the failure of successive Conservative leaders to adequately deal with a tribe of uncontrollable Tory ideologues, and in the ingrained tendency of post-Thatcher Conservatives to play fast and loose with the livelihoods and security of the rest of us. In an awful instance of irony, the misery and resentment sown by the deindustralisation the Tories accelerated in the 1980s and the austerity they pushed on the country 30 years later were big reasons why so many people decided to vote leave. What also helped was a surreal campaign of lies and disinformation, both during and after the referendum campaign, waged by entitled people with their eyes only on the main chance.

These things are part of a vast charge sheet not only against the modern Conservative party, but an alliance of old and new money that has set the basic terms of British politics for the past 40 years. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson were educated at the same exclusive school as the prime minister whose idiotic decision to hold a referendum gave them their opportunity. Nigel Farage and Arron Banks are archetypal examples of the kind of spivs who were given licence to do as they pleased in the 80s. For all their absurd bleating about “elites”, we all know what these people represent: the two faces of the modern English ruling class, who have long combined to be nothing but trouble.

Which brings us to the question that, for all my lingering ambivalence, I cannot shake off: if the Labour party leadership is so radical, and allied with the best leftwing traditions, where is its anger about what these people have done?

While some of us have been spitting feathers about the deceptions perpetrated by rightwing leavers, Jeremy Corbyn has seemed barely interested. Is there some kind of awful equivalence between the rightwing Brexiteers, who see national crisis as the ideal seedbed for a free-market utopia, and leftwingers who think socialism is similarly best assisted by disaster? Whatever the explanation, and whatever the levels of support for leave among Labour voters, a supposed party of opposition – and a leftwing one at that – accepting a project birthed and then sustained in the worst kind of rightwing political circles is a very odd spectacle indeed. This, surely, will also be the verdict of history.

You must log in or register to see images

‘Labour would have to sideline the anti-EU mindset of its own leader.’ Jeremy Corbyn, left, and John McDonnell. Photograph: Will Oliver/EPA
As things stand, Labour’s position is apparently built on two fairly incredible beliefs: that it could somehow negotiate a much better Brexit, and that it wants a general election, which parliament is very unlikely to grant. Even if a contest did happen, unless the Tories were mad enough to plunge us into the chaos of no-deal, what exactly would it be about? With Brexit both falling apart and defining the entirety of day-to-day politics, Labour’s crafty fudging of the issue in 2017 would be impossible. Would its central offer be the difference between the current plan, to stay in a customs union for an unspecified period, or Labour’s guarantee to do so permanently? Might voters basically be asked to choose between the negotiating nous of Tories and the supposedly superior talents of Corbyn, Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry? Contrary to Labour’s hype, there is no chance of any deal delivering “the exact same benefits” as the status quo, nor of the party’s fabled “jobs-first” Brexit: with his usual bloodless candour, Donald Tusk this week reminded us that our passage out of the EU is “a lose-lose situation and that our negotiations are only about damage control”. As if anyone needed reminding, this would apply to a Labour government as well.

The country currently has three options, and parliament seems unlikely to be able to sensibly choose between them: the current withdrawal deal or something very like it, the unimaginable chaos of no-deal, or no Brexit. Self-evidently, leaving the EU without an agreement would be by far the most nightmarish, which is one of the reasons why Labour’s determination to vote down May’s deal is not without hazards. But in the midst of such imperfect options, and with heavy reservations, I think I know what we need to avoid national disaster: a Labour party ready to move beyond Corbyn’s hollow claim on Sunday that another referendum is merely “an option for the future”, and embrace what is now known as a people’s vote, with a recommendation that Britain should stay in the EU.

Given that the Labour leadership has seemingly dug in, the only hope of any such move lies with MPs, and pressure that could be exerted by the party’s vast membership. Clearly, after two wasted years, even beginning to embed the idea of questioning and then abandoning Brexit in places where a majority voted for it would be an onerous task. Doing so would require enough working-class voices – where, for example, have the big unions been? – to convincingly speak to people and places that voted to leave the EU but have the most to lose from its consequences.

Labour would have to find a courage that it has so far failed to discover, and sideline the anti-EU mindset of its own leader. Vocal remainers both inside and outside the party would need to realise that any move in this direction would have to be part of a policy offer that even the boldness of, say, John McDonnell has so far only skirted. All told, it would involve something to which even these supposed radicals are averse: risk.

But what is the alternative: to carry on swallowing not just the endless deceptions of the leave elite but the also the disastrous effects their awful arrogance will have on people and places across the country?

British Conservatism is in decay and disarray; to mark its gravest postwar crisis by accepting its most heinous project would be a strange thing to do, and an evasion of our politics’ central fact: that Brexit is a class issue, and all else follows from that.

I agree that Labour would do itself a favour by having a clear Brexit policy rather than hoping that everything will miraculously fall into its lap. Even if it comes out in favour of a referendum, it needs to say which way it is recommending people to vote. No chance, sadly.

The analysis was somewhat marred by ignoring the 13 years that the Labour Party was in control.

Excellent comment article in the Times today by Max Hastings, a Tory for most of his life, starting with:
“Three years ago any thoughtful citizen could identify the principal problems facing Britain: productivity; Londonification; the flagging education system; a society financially skewed in favour of the old and against the young; Islamist extremism; funding of the NHS and welfare; stagnation of real earnings; job losses to technology.”
And pointing out that none of these have anything to do with the EU, yet millions of people have somehow been convinced by a relatively small band of zealots that leaving it will address these fundamental issues.