Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Ok, perhaps only sharing part of the article allows me to read that into it?
My point is that dislike of the EU has nothing to do with party politics, left or right. There are many reasons to like or dislike it, therefore people from all backgrounds and political leanings will have similar thoughts for or against.
There are likely to be just as many people who's politics and morals I like who support the EU as those I dislike that oppose it. That has no influence on my thinking about the EU either way.
We are never going to agree on the principal of the merits of the EU but I am sure that we might well agree on many other matters in politics, life and Charlton.
Yes. I agree. From your posts across the entire board I take you to be a reasonable person with moderate honourable views on what kind of country and what kind of football club we should aspire to be part of.
In the early stages of this debate on CL, I urged reasonable people like you to look carefully at the people most pushing Brexit, and ask yourself whether you associate with their other political stances and general values. If that answer is "no" then at the very least, a person of moderate political views should ask themselves how and why they found themselves being 'represented' by Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove, Aaron Banks, Nigel Lawson, Corbyn, McDonnell, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, the UK Communist Party and the SWP (yes, both still exist).
I would urge a moderate thoughtful Brexiteer like you, and several others on here, to look carefully at that motley crew I have listed above, and ask yourself how you fell in with that crowd. And then to conclude that for you the best form of Brexit is the one being promoted by moderate politicians. Not extremists.
This is an interesting article, which ends with a devastating question: "How did a cautious and conservative investment manager become the most reckless person on the planet?"
303 Error
If you can't open it it's a write up of another report...
Basically it's pointing out that the strangely beloved chairman of an influential lobby...sorry...research group of MP's that is actively pushing for the hardest Brexit option possible stands to benefit massively from the UK leaving the EU on the hardest possible Brexit terms available.
Running a manor house doesn't come cheap you know...
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Ok, perhaps only sharing part of the article allows me to read that into it?
My point is that dislike of the EU has nothing to do with party politics, left or right. There are many reasons to like or dislike it, therefore people from all backgrounds and political leanings will have similar thoughts for or against.
There are likely to be just as many people who's politics and morals I like who support the EU as those I dislike that oppose it. That has no influence on my thinking about the EU either way.
We are never going to agree on the principal of the merits of the EU but I am sure that we might well agree on many other matters in politics, life and Charlton.
Yes. I agree. From your posts across the entire board I take you to be a reasonable person with moderate honourable views on what kind of country and what kind of football club we should aspire to be part of.
In the early stages of this debate on CL, I urged reasonable people like you to look carefully at the people most pushing Brexit, and ask yourself whether you associate with their other political stances and general values. If that answer is "no" then at the very least, a person of moderate political views should ask themselves how and why they found themselves being 'represented' by Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove, Aaron Banks, Nigel Lawson, Corbyn, McDonnell, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, the UK Communist Party and the SWP (yes, both still exist).
I would urge a moderate thoughtful Brexiteer like you, and several others on here, to look carefully at that motley crew I have listed above, and ask yourself how you fell in with that crowd. And then to conclude that for you the best form of Brexit is the one being promoted by moderate politicians. Not extremists.
It's interesting to speculate what the UK would look like if it were run by a coalition of the people you list, post-Brexit.
There would be more jobs and higher taxes. But the jobs wouldn't be much fun because they'd be the jobs we were no longer able to get immigrants to do. And not everyone would pay the higher taxes, as offshore tax exemptions would proliferate.
We would all be equally, uniformly and equitably poor, except for those living or running companies abroad, who'd continue to tell us how well off we all are.
We wouldn't "waste" money by contributing to overseas aid; and we'd save all the bother that such aid creates for us, like being a well-respected global "citizen", being invited to compete for infrastructure projects and being an aspirational country.
We wouldn't have to worry about the border in Ireland. Because, after unification there wouldn't be one. And our friends overseas in Scotland could help our balance of payments by importing some products from us (although I'm not sure what).
Most people would be better off. Not better off than they are today, of course, but, because most people would be poor, and we would have generous benefits, most people, over time, would cone to see themselves as being better off. Except the people that work, who will have to pay for everything. Apart from those rich enough to stash their dough abroad. In short, if you're stupid enough to work, you would be worse off (but it would be your own fault).
We would live in peace, because we wouldn't be able to afford to fight wars. So we would just have to hope no-one wanted to invade us. (That would be a pretty safe bet).
But, compared to the rest of the world we would have, undeniably, the bluest passports on the planet.
Croatia have blue passports whilst being in the EU anyway, which makes the whole celebration of that supposed great achievement for Brexit look very silly.
Don't get the EU = Religion analogy at all. It is completely ridiculous. The EU is the antithesis of Religion.
On the other hand I can see an analogy between Brexit and religion because both are based on blind faith and both reject all fact based evidence that does not support their view.
This is where I am too. I'm pretty sure no Remainers have the same attitude to anything said by Junker or Barnier or Merkel as many Leavers seem to have towards Farage or Boris or Fox or Gove or Moggy or Raab or any of the others. The whole Leave movement is still based on blind faith that the grass is going to be greener despite all the evidence that there's going to be a hosepipe ban on the other side!
Charlton Life, it's like a free Sunday paper. Thanks Grapevine. This is the key part for me: EU countries will not and cannot cede freedoms & advantages to a "competitor" they themselves cannot enjoy in their own market. It would distort the market for all of their own manufacturers, service providers and financial institutions. If any party were granted the benefits of the community without embracing the associated disciplines, why would anybody bother remaining in the community? It is the matter-of-fact wall that the blindly optimistic are running headlong into.
Yeah...but they need us more than we need them don't forget...
@Chizz you forgot to mention that we would all feel happier because our media would no longer be full of furious argument and dissent.
What these people also share is an authoritarian streak. It is the mark of the political extremist. That is why Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany deployed very similar tools of repression.
I reckon if there was a second referendum Remain would win. And I reckon if there was a third referendum Leave would win again.
When boiled down to its root, the spirit of Brexit - its central sacrament, if you will - is a desire to wield actual political power. We are a people starved of the ability to change things. So when a big, concrete thing like Brexit comes along, with hifalutin promises and an openly xenophobic hook (let's not ignore the decades of anti-immigration propaganda that paved the way for this - moderate Brexiters, you are the exceptions), of course the people are going to go for it. Compared to this golden egg, the AV referendum was a pointless fudge. Here, in black and white: CHANGE HISTORY FOREVER (and get rid of the Romanians). With increasingly moribund political choices elsewhere, here's at last was something - no matter how tragically misguided.
Of course, a second referendum would CHANGE HISTORY once again. I reckon the people would buy Remain. Not because they suddenly trust experts or love Eastern Europeans, but because it contradicts the status quo.
I'm personally hoping that the other great reaction against neoliberal ennui - Corbynism - prevails before Brexit can really take hold, but for all you despairing centrists out there who want neither, my advice: offer a tangible difference.
@Chizz you forgot to mention that we would all feel happier because our media would no longer be full of furious argument and dissent.
What these people also share is an authoritarian streak. It is the mark of the political extremist. That is why Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany deployed very similar tools of repression.
There's zero chance of media fury being ratcheted down, post-Brexit. The point at which it becomes transparently irrational to blame everything on the EU, the next set of targets will be put firmly in the newpapers' cross-hairs.
The only thing we don't yet know is the order in which the papers will single out, vilify and demonize its next set of targets.
Who is next up? Judges? Lords? Magistrates? Healthcare workers? Commuters? Having seen the way the Telegraph, Mail, Andrew Pierce and others have treated the "story" about George Soros inviting people to a dinner at his home in London, I can imagine what the next group to face media castigation will be. And it will be very obviously copied from a certain European playbook from eighty odd years ago.
I reckon if there was a second referendum Remain would win. And I reckon if there was a third referendum Leave would win again.
When boiled down to its root, the spirit of Brexit - its central sacrament, if you will - is a desire to wield actual political power. We are a people starved of the ability to change things. So when a big, concrete thing like Brexit comes along, with hifalutin promises and an openly xenophobic hook (let's not ignore the decades of anti-immigration propaganda that paved the way for this - moderate Brexiters, you are the exceptions), of course the people are going to go for it. Compared to this golden egg, the AV referendum was a pointless fudge. Here, in black and white: CHANGE HISTORY FOREVER (and get rid of the Romanians). With increasingly moribund political choices elsewhere, here's at last was something - no matter how tragically misguided.
Of course, a second referendum would CHANGE HISTORY once again. I reckon the people would buy Remain. Not because they suddenly trust experts or love Eastern Europeans, but because it contradicts the status quo.
I'm personally hoping that the other great reaction against neoliberal ennui - Corbynism - prevails before Brexit can really take hold, but for all you despairing centrists out there who want neither, my advice: offer a tangible difference.
It's all there in the final two chapters of Robert Peston's latest book. I commend it to all reasonable people.
Regrettably, RP has no intention of entering politics. In a European republic, he would be a shoe-in for President.
@Chizz you forgot to mention that we would all feel happier because our media would no longer be full of furious argument and dissent.
What these people also share is an authoritarian streak. It is the mark of the political extremist. That is why Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany deployed very similar tools of repression.
There's zero chance of media fury being ratcheted down, post-Brexit. The point at which it becomes transparently irrational to blame everything on the EU, the next set of targets will be put firmly in the newpapers' cross-hairs.
The only thing we don't yet know is the order in which the papers will single out, vilify and demonize its next set of targets.
Who is next up? Judges? Lords? Magistrates? Healthcare workers? Commuters? Having seen the way the Telegraph, Mail, Andrew Pierce and others have treated the "story" about George Soros inviting people to a dinner at his home in London, I can imagine what the next group to face media castigation will be. And it will be very obviously copied from a certain European playbook from eighty odd years ago.
Sure, but I took your previous post to be half-humorous and was responding in kind. My point is that the authoritarians, once in power, focus on the common enemy, and instruct the people on what that common enemy is. The hapless Jews were the common enemy of both the Nazis and the Soviet-led Communists, for example. And we can see echoes of that right now, both in the Daily Telegraph and within the Labour Party. It is both depressing and chilling.
@Chizz you forgot to mention that we would all feel happier because our media would no longer be full of furious argument and dissent.
What these people also share is an authoritarian streak. It is the mark of the political extremist. That is why Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany deployed very similar tools of repression.
There's zero chance of media fury being ratcheted down, post-Brexit. The point at which it becomes transparently irrational to blame everything on the EU, the next set of targets will be put firmly in the newpapers' cross-hairs.
The only thing we don't yet know is the order in which the papers will single out, vilify and demonize its next set of targets.
Who is next up? Judges? Lords? Magistrates? Healthcare workers? Commuters? Having seen the way the Telegraph, Mail, Andrew Pierce and others have treated the "story" about George Soros inviting people to a dinner at his home in London, I can imagine what the next group to face media castigation will be. And it will be very obviously copied from a certain European playbook from eighty odd years ago.
Sure, but I took your previous post to be half-humorous and was responding in kind. My point is that the authoritarians, once in power, focus on the common enemy, and instruct the people on what that common enemy is. The hapless Jews were the common enemy of both the Nazis and the Soviet-led Communists, for example. And we can see echoes of that right now, both in the Daily Telegraph and within the Labour Party. It is both depressing and chilling.
I'm sorry. It was.
It just seems that there are now three groups of people. Those who can see some of what's coming and are worried about the outcome; those that can't see what's coming and are in blissful ignorance; and those that can see it, welcome it, support it and intend to do everything they can to exacerbate it.
Barnier's bullying tactics will only strengthen the Brexit vote in my humble opinion1
Barnier has been clear and consistent in terms of his brief, well informed, polite and as conciliatory as possible, not holding a gun to anybody's head (the UK set the timetable), prepared to interview in more than one language. Not bullying tactics but grown up stuff.
@Chizz you forgot to mention that we would all feel happier because our media would no longer be full of furious argument and dissent.
What these people also share is an authoritarian streak. It is the mark of the political extremist. That is why Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany deployed very similar tools of repression.
There's zero chance of media fury being ratcheted down, post-Brexit. The point at which it becomes transparently irrational to blame everything on the EU, the next set of targets will be put firmly in the newpapers' cross-hairs.
The only thing we don't yet know is the order in which the papers will single out, vilify and demonize its next set of targets.
Who is next up? Judges? Lords? Magistrates? Healthcare workers? Commuters? Having seen the way the Telegraph, Mail, Andrew Pierce and others have treated the "story" about George Soros inviting people to a dinner at his home in London, I can imagine what the next group to face media castigation will be. And it will be very obviously copied from a certain European playbook from eighty odd years ago.
Barnier's bullying tactics will only strengthen the Brexit vote in my humble opinion1
I disagree with you @Chizz on the bit in bold because as we can see our press has generated such a deep underlying resentment towards the EU that I can see them being blamed for all the UK's failings for decades after Brexit. Farage et al will still be blaming the EU for any economic downturn or them standing in our way for years and years yet. I see no signs in our Brexit loving press of any acknowledgement that things might not be the sunny uplands, cake and eating it, promised land set out by Boris and the rest.
When the negotiations fail (and they look set to imo) it won't be because the UK government still has no idea what it wants, how to achieve this or refuses to accept what it is asking for cannot be remotely possible...it'll be because of the EU's intransigence.
Barnier set out recently that as part of any transition deal there has to be some form of penalty should the UK breach the terms of that deal. If we stick to the agreed terms there's no sanctions, so nothing to worry about.
I'd expect nothing less from a competent negotiator (would be nice to have one!) yet others view setting out each sides obligations as "bullying".
@Chizz you forgot to mention that we would all feel happier because our media would no longer be full of furious argument and dissent.
What these people also share is an authoritarian streak. It is the mark of the political extremist. That is why Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany deployed very similar tools of repression.
There's zero chance of media fury being ratcheted down, post-Brexit. The point at which it becomes transparently irrational to blame everything on the EU, the next set of targets will be put firmly in the newpapers' cross-hairs.
The only thing we don't yet know is the order in which the papers will single out, vilify and demonize its next set of targets.
Who is next up? Judges? Lords? Magistrates? Healthcare workers? Commuters? Having seen the way the Telegraph, Mail, Andrew Pierce and others have treated the "story" about George Soros inviting people to a dinner at his home in London, I can imagine what the next group to face media castigation will be. And it will be very obviously copied from a certain European playbook from eighty odd years ago.
Barnier's bullying tactics will only strengthen the Brexit vote in my humble opinion1
I disagree with you @Chizz on the bit in bold because as we can see our press has generated such a deep underlieing resentment towards the EU that I can see them being blamed for all the UK's failings for decades after Brexit. Farage et al will still be blaming the EU for any economic downtur or standing in our way for years and years yet. If the negotiations fail (and they look set to imo) it won't be because the UK government still has no idea what it wants or refuses to accept what is asking for cannot be possible...it'll be because of the EU's intransigence.
Barniers set out recently that as part of any transition deal there has to be some form of penalty should the UK breach the terms if that deal. If we stick to the agreed terms there's no sanctions so nothing to worry about.
I'd expect nothing less from a competent negotiator (would be nice to have one!) yet others view setting out each sides obligations as "bullying".
I agree that the EU will continue to be blamed long after we've left. I just think that some factions of the media will turn their attention to the next set of targets too.
@Chizz you forgot to mention that we would all feel happier because our media would no longer be full of furious argument and dissent.
What these people also share is an authoritarian streak. It is the mark of the political extremist. That is why Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany deployed very similar tools of repression.
There's zero chance of media fury being ratcheted down, post-Brexit. The point at which it becomes transparently irrational to blame everything on the EU, the next set of targets will be put firmly in the newpapers' cross-hairs.
The only thing we don't yet know is the order in which the papers will single out, vilify and demonize its next set of targets.
Who is next up? Judges? Lords? Magistrates? Healthcare workers? Commuters? Having seen the way the Telegraph, Mail, Andrew Pierce and others have treated the "story" about George Soros inviting people to a dinner at his home in London, I can imagine what the next group to face media castigation will be. And it will be very obviously copied from a certain European playbook from eighty odd years ago.
Barnier's bullying tactics will only strengthen the Brexit vote in my humble opinion1
I disagree with you @Chizz on the bit in bold because as we can see our press has generated such a deep underlying resentment towards the EU that I can see them being blamed for all the UK's failings for decades after Brexit. Farage et al will still be blaming the EU for any economic downturn or them standing in our way for years and years yet. I see no signs in our Brexit loving press of any acknowledgement that things might not be the sunny uplands, cake and eating it, promised land set out by Boris and the rest.
When the negotiations fail (and they look set to imo) it won't be because the UK government still has no idea what it wants, how to achieve this or refuses to accept what it is asking for cannot be remotely possible...it'll be because of the EU's intransigence.
Barnier set out recently that as part of any transition deal there has to be some form of penalty should the UK breach the terms of that deal. If we stick to the agreed terms there's no sanctions, so nothing to worry about.
I'd expect nothing less from a competent negotiator (would be nice to have one!) yet others view setting out each sides obligations as "bullying".
I've been very interested in David Davies' reaction to the EU27 position that any ongoing sanctions regime for any failure to comply with the common rules (there is an ECJ-based one for all member states) must be enforceable within the transition period, which requires speedier resolution than the ECJ would allow.
The Davies standpoint seems almost to suggest that it is the EU27 that is seeking the transition, and not the UK.
The transition period, if agreed, means continued Single Market access for the UK, on a par with that of members, when the UK is not a member. This requires the UK to be treated the same as the EU27 states.
It's the EU's Single Market, they set and enforce the rules (which evolve all the time) - it's completely disingenuous, assuming that it's not blind ignorance and stupidity, to assert that the UK should be in a position to sanction the EU27 for rule changes in its Single Market in the transition period.
Whilst both parties might wish for a transition period, seemingly, now, necessary to agree withdrawal, never mind future relationships, it is the UK (apparently) that cannot afford to do without one being agreed as soon as possible. At this stage, it is the UK that needs the EU27 far more than the EU27 needs the UK, we all need some kind of certainty for the economy in the short to medium term, no matter what the longer term objective is.
As an aside, there are noises in the Irish media about the reduction of access for road haulage between the UK and EU27 (there will be a tiny amount of licences available, relative to the volume of trade today). For example, Irish hauliers are making noises about changing routes to the continent; if this is matched by an express intention on the part of the Irish Government to create a container port in Ireland, we can expect either no deal, or very limited agreement.
Barnier's bullying tactics will only strengthen the Brexit vote in my humble opinion1
It's unbelievable but consistent with the way the Tories always try to find someone else to blame for their failings. The usual suspects, miners, benefit cheats or immigrants have not been mentioned yet.
Broke down into its basics Brexit is like this. You are a member of a golf, snooker or bowls club and decide you want to play elsewhere. But, you still want to play on certain days (that suit you), You do not wish to abide by the club rules and you don't want to pay a subscription. When they question your demands you accuse them of being unreasonable or bullying, Daft.
The bullying narrative is being invented by our right-wing media to try and divert attention away from the fact that the agenda they are trying to promote is totally fucking bonkers. And unfortunately there are enough poor fools gullible enough to believe it for them to carry on this falsehood.
Of course, but they won't fine me if I leave. Let's lighten this EU thread up a bit1 All these Remainers doom and gloom threads are so boring!
Hmm...maybe because it's a fecking serious business that will effect our financial and social wellbeing for decades to come?
I swear a lot of Leavers are maintaining their position for little reason than they know it winds up the "lefty, liberal snowflakes" in their minds . I know my old man acknowledges that Brexit is a right royal mess up and that he was lied to but still enjoys seeing it wind me up and ultimately that counts for more as he'll be largely unaffected at the end of the day. He may not think that when he's waiting longer for his hospital treatment of course.
Of course, but they won't fine me if I leave. Let's lighten this EU thread up a bit1 All these Remainers doom and gloom threads are so boring!
Not what I asked, but I assume there would be penalties for breaking the rules and that you would want to abide by the rules if you wanted to keep using the facilities?
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Ok, perhaps only sharing part of the article allows me to read that into it?
My point is that dislike of the EU has nothing to do with party politics, left or right. There are many reasons to like or dislike it, therefore people from all backgrounds and political leanings will have similar thoughts for or against.
There are likely to be just as many people who's politics and morals I like who support the EU as those I dislike that oppose it. That has no influence on my thinking about the EU either way.
We are never going to agree on the principal of the merits of the EU but I am sure that we might well agree on many other matters in politics, life and Charlton.
Yes. I agree. From your posts across the entire board I take you to be a reasonable person with moderate honourable views on what kind of country and what kind of football club we should aspire to be part of.
In the early stages of this debate on CL, I urged reasonable people like you to look carefully at the people most pushing Brexit, and ask yourself whether you associate with their other political stances and general values. If that answer is "no" then at the very least, a person of moderate political views should ask themselves how and why they found themselves being 'represented' by Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove, Aaron Banks, Nigel Lawson, Corbyn, McDonnell, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, the UK Communist Party and the SWP (yes, both still exist).
I would urge a moderate thoughtful Brexiteer like you, and several others on here, to look carefully at that motley crew I have listed above, and ask yourself how you fell in with that crowd. And then to conclude that for you the best form of Brexit is the one being promoted by moderate politicians. Not extremists.
That list isn't very inspiring I grant you @PragueAddick . I don't have a huge problem with having the same view on a single issue as those I might not agree on generally.
You do raise an interesting point though because in the run up to the referendum, I admit that i looked at those advocating Brexit and had to actually ask myself if I could vote the same as some of them.
You miss out the name of the person I had the biggest concern over, one George Galloway. I decided that I wasn't voting to support him, i didn't think of any of them as 'representing' me and even Galloway might be right once.
The bullying narrative is being invented by our right-wing media to try and divert attention away from the fact that the agenda they are trying to promote is totally fucking bonkers. And unfortunately there are enough poor fools gullible enough to believe it for them to carry on this falsehood.
I’ve already got people I know that voted brexit murmuring about the fact the gvt haven’t handled it well as if it will be their get out clause if it all goes tits up
Feeble imo. As if you could trust the current gvt to negotiate a discount at a boot fair, let alone unraveling 40 years of union and the diplomacy needed to engage with 27 other united states
Screw all this fault of the EU bollocks and them playing hardball etc. If they want to threaten sanctions and gang up on us then that’s like picking a fight with a bigger kid at school and then crying when he decides to carry on punching us whilst losing the fight
The bullying narrative is being invented by our right-wing media to try and divert attention away from the fact that the agenda they are trying to promote is totally fucking bonkers. And unfortunately there are enough poor fools gullible enough to believe it for them to carry on this falsehood.
I’ve already got people I know that voted brexit murmuring about the fact the gvt haven’t handled it well as if it will be their get out clause if it all goes tits up
Feeble imo. As if you could trust the current gvt to negotiate a discount at a boot fair, let alone unraveling 40 years of union and the diplomacy needed to engage with 27 other united states
Screw all this fault of the EU bollocks and them playing hardball etc. If they want to threaten sanctions and gang up on us then that’s like picking a fight with a bigger kid at school and then crying when he decides to carry on punching us whilst losing the fight
So you would dispute that the government have handled negotiations badly?
Why should leaving a club necessitate a fight with the bullying committee?
Comments
In the early stages of this debate on CL, I urged reasonable people like you to look carefully at the people most pushing Brexit, and ask yourself whether you associate with their other political stances and general values. If that answer is "no" then at the very least, a person of moderate political views should ask themselves how and why they found themselves being 'represented' by Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove, Aaron Banks, Nigel Lawson, Corbyn, McDonnell, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, the UK Communist Party and the SWP (yes, both still exist).
I would urge a moderate thoughtful Brexiteer like you, and several others on here, to look carefully at that motley crew I have listed above, and ask yourself how you fell in with that crowd. And then to conclude that for you the best form of Brexit is the one being promoted by moderate politicians. Not extremists.
https://thelondoneconomic.com/news/jacob-rees-mogg-line-huge-personal-windfall-britain-exits-single-market/07/02/
Basically it's pointing out that the strangely beloved chairman of an influential
lobby...sorry...research group of MP's that is actively pushing for the hardest Brexit option possible stands to benefit massively from the UK leaving the EU on the hardest possible Brexit terms available.Running a manor house doesn't come cheap you know...
There would be more jobs and higher taxes. But the jobs wouldn't be much fun because they'd be the jobs we were no longer able to get immigrants to do. And not everyone would pay the higher taxes, as offshore tax exemptions would proliferate.
We would all be equally, uniformly and equitably poor, except for those living or running companies abroad, who'd continue to tell us how well off we all are.
We wouldn't "waste" money by contributing to overseas aid; and we'd save all the bother that such aid creates for us, like being a well-respected global "citizen", being invited to compete for infrastructure projects and being an aspirational country.
We wouldn't have to worry about the border in Ireland. Because, after unification there wouldn't be one. And our friends overseas in Scotland could help our balance of payments by importing some products from us (although I'm not sure what).
Most people would be better off. Not better off than they are today, of course, but, because most people would be poor, and we would have generous benefits, most people, over time, would cone to see themselves as being better off. Except the people that work, who will have to pay for everything. Apart from those rich enough to stash their dough abroad. In short, if you're stupid enough to work, you would be worse off (but it would be your own fault).
We would live in peace, because we wouldn't be able to afford to fight wars. So we would just have to hope no-one wanted to invade us. (That would be a pretty safe bet).
But, compared to the rest of the world we would have, undeniably, the bluest passports on the planet.
What these people also share is an authoritarian streak. It is the mark of the political extremist. That is why Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany deployed very similar tools of repression.
When boiled down to its root, the spirit of Brexit - its central sacrament, if you will - is a desire to wield actual political power. We are a people starved of the ability to change things. So when a big, concrete thing like Brexit comes along, with hifalutin promises and an openly xenophobic hook (let's not ignore the decades of anti-immigration propaganda that paved the way for this - moderate Brexiters, you are the exceptions), of course the people are going to go for it. Compared to this golden egg, the AV referendum was a pointless fudge. Here, in black and white: CHANGE HISTORY FOREVER (and get rid of the Romanians). With increasingly moribund political choices elsewhere, here's at last was something - no matter how tragically misguided.
Of course, a second referendum would CHANGE HISTORY once again. I reckon the people would buy Remain. Not because they suddenly trust experts or love Eastern Europeans, but because it contradicts the status quo.
I'm personally hoping that the other great reaction against neoliberal ennui - Corbynism - prevails before Brexit can really take hold, but for all you despairing centrists out there who want neither, my advice: offer a tangible difference.
The only thing we don't yet know is the order in which the papers will single out, vilify and demonize its next set of targets.
Who is next up? Judges? Lords? Magistrates? Healthcare workers? Commuters? Having seen the way the Telegraph, Mail, Andrew Pierce and others have treated the "story" about George Soros inviting people to a dinner at his home in London, I can imagine what the next group to face media castigation will be. And it will be very obviously copied from a certain European playbook from eighty odd years ago.
Regrettably, RP has no intention of entering politics. In a European republic, he would be a shoe-in for President.
It just seems that there are now three groups of people. Those who can see some of what's coming and are worried about the outcome; those that can't see what's coming and are in blissful ignorance; and those that can see it, welcome it, support it and intend to do everything they can to exacerbate it.
Not bullying tactics but grown up stuff.
When the negotiations fail (and they look set to imo) it won't be because the UK government still has no idea what it wants, how to achieve this or refuses to accept what it is asking for cannot be remotely possible...it'll be because of the EU's intransigence.
Barnier set out recently that as part of any transition deal there has to be some form of penalty should the UK breach the terms of that deal. If we stick to the agreed terms there's no sanctions, so nothing to worry about.
I'd expect nothing less from a competent negotiator (would be nice to have one!) yet others view setting out each sides obligations as "bullying".
The Davies standpoint seems almost to suggest that it is the EU27 that is seeking the transition, and not the UK.
The transition period, if agreed, means continued Single Market access for the UK, on a par with that of members, when the UK is not a member. This requires the UK to be treated the same as the EU27 states.
It's the EU's Single Market, they set and enforce the rules (which evolve all the time) - it's completely disingenuous, assuming that it's not blind ignorance and stupidity, to assert that the UK should be in a position to sanction the EU27 for rule changes in its Single Market in the transition period.
Whilst both parties might wish for a transition period, seemingly, now, necessary to agree withdrawal, never mind future relationships, it is the UK (apparently) that cannot afford to do without one being agreed as soon as possible. At this stage, it is the UK that needs the EU27 far more than the EU27 needs the UK, we all need some kind of certainty for the economy in the short to medium term, no matter what the longer term objective is.
As an aside, there are noises in the Irish media about the reduction of access for road haulage between the UK and EU27 (there will be a tiny amount of licences available, relative to the volume of trade today). For example, Irish hauliers are making noises about changing routes to the continent; if this is matched by an express intention on the part of the Irish Government to create a container port in Ireland, we can expect either no deal, or very limited agreement.
Broke down into its basics Brexit is like this.
You are a member of a golf, snooker or bowls club and decide you want to play elsewhere.
But, you still want to play on certain days (that suit you), You do not wish to abide by the club rules and you don't want to pay a subscription.
When they question your demands you accuse them of being unreasonable or bullying,
Daft.
I'm a member of Chestfield golf club, no problems playing anywhere else!
Let's lighten this EU thread up a bit1
All these Remainers doom and gloom threads are so boring!
I swear a lot of Leavers are maintaining their position for little reason than they know it winds up the "lefty, liberal snowflakes" in their minds . I know my old man acknowledges that Brexit is a right royal mess up and that he was lied to but still enjoys seeing it wind me up and ultimately that counts for more as he'll be largely unaffected at the end of the day. He may not think that when he's waiting longer for his hospital treatment of course.
You do raise an interesting point though because in the run up to the referendum, I admit that i looked at those advocating Brexit and had to actually ask myself if I could vote the same as some of them.
You miss out the name of the person I had the biggest concern over, one George Galloway. I decided that I wasn't voting to support him, i didn't think of any of them as 'representing' me and even Galloway might be right once.
Feeble imo. As if you could trust the current gvt to negotiate a discount at a boot fair, let alone unraveling 40 years of union and the diplomacy needed to engage with 27 other united states
Screw all this fault of the EU bollocks and them playing hardball etc. If they want to threaten sanctions and gang up on us then that’s like picking a fight with a bigger kid at school and then crying when he decides to carry on punching us whilst losing the fight
Why should leaving a club necessitate a fight with the bullying committee?