"So how much of this £350million is going to the NHS?"
"Well first we need to replicate literally everything that we centralised in the EU as we will lose access after Brexit."
"OK, and how much will that cost?"
"Oh, way, way more than £350million."
"So why are we doing this?!"
"Because some public school ex-city boy managed to convince a quarter of the country that Turkey is joining the EU and 76 million Muslims were imminently about to migrate into the UK."
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
Ok, I'll qualify that with "a large proportion", though I think it's implied that it's the ones claiming that "more democracy is bad for democracy" are the ones who cling most tightly to the "will of the people" reasoning.
Before the next referendum, let us remind ourselves of a few things claimed by the 'more democracy' Remainers:
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
-referenda are advisory only and not binding on the government
-Just because a Party has support for something in their manifesto does not mean they have to carry it out
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
-Rich and powerful people with control of or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
Then let us see how much of this they apply to their 'more democracy' referendum. I can guarantee that reasons will be found to reverse all of it.
It's clear that some people, having had their aspirations met by one referendum result, would prefer not to go ahead and have that luck tested again, by means of another referendum. It would be like getting a number up on a spin of the roulette wheel and leaving the winnings on the same number for another spin. So it's hardly surprising that @Southbank, having been on the "right" end of a narrow result two and a bit years ago, would feel very unfairly treated should the public be asked to confirm their decision, now that the implications are clearer. And @Southbank has every right to harrumph about some of the things that have been said (and even some that are only imagined to have been said) about the 2016 referendum.
But it's equally fair for someone who thinks that there is an unarguable demand for "People's Vote" (e;g; me) to gainsay some of the comments that @Southbank has made. So, I will.
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts A majority in a two-choice referendum is 50% plus one. All that was required to "win" the 2016 referendum was a simple majority, even though the turnout was so low, the total vote for the "winning" options was barely more than one-third of the population. Thus, the result was divisive, instead of decisive.
In the case of a transferable vote, with more than two options, 50% plus one. That means that the winning option will secure first- or second-choice votes from the majority of those who vote. And, to ensure that the turnout is sufficiently large to obviate the resultant bleating by the losing side(s), it would be great if everyone supported the idea of a zugzwang-ending, decisive vote, instead of moaning that the electorate is being consulted and the current will of the people is checked.
-referenda are advisory only and not binding on the government I don't know of anyone who has claimed this. If they have, they are wrong. Not all referenda are advisory. Although it is true to say that the 2016 referendum was.
A "People's Vote" should be held with the expressed intention of instructing an otherwise conflicted Parliament how to proceed. With a majority decided by a large electorate, choosing between three options, the vote would be decisive and a clear instruction to the Government to proceed with the decision: either to ignore Parliament's vote and continue with the current deal as agreed between the UK Government and the EU; to leave the EU immediately, without an agreement; or to revoke Article 50, end negotiations, remain in the EU and prepare for April's European elections.
The 2016 was advisory. The Parliamentary Act enabling the People's Vote should clarify that it is binding.
-Just because a Party has support for something in their manifesto does not mean they have to carry it out There has never been an automatic necessity for party manifestos to be carried out by the winning party. In fact, I do not remember there ever being an election manifesto that was carried out in full by the Government, without pledges being watered down, ignored or even denied.
Brexit is too important to be left to a general election where its standing is watered down by other, often conflicting pledges.
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong I don't know of anyone who has claimed this. (Although, I am prepared to believe there may well be empirical evidence that it's true).
What is demonstrably and unarguably true is that DMGT newspapers and Murdoch's press have influenced public opinion for decades with deliberate lies. It's the price we pay for a free press. But it's unfortunate that there are significant numbers of people who are swayed and suckered in by the tsunami of bias and obfuscation.
-Rich and powerful people with control of or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result Rich and powerful people with access to the media always have had - and always will have - influence over the result of votes.
But rich, powerful or, indeed, any other type of person should never be allowed to influence elections, outside the law. Tim Martin is worth hundreds of millions of pounds. He should be allowed to share his views - even if they're ill-informed and backward. James Dyson is worth ten times as much. He should be allowed to share his views - even to the extent that his hypocrisy becomes an embarrassment to the company that bears his name. Arron Banks is - apparently - very wealthy. He should be allowed to share his views - but he should not be allowed to acquire funds from outside the UK and funnel them into an illegally over-spending campaign.
In short: rich people having views - ok. Rich people sharing views - ok. Rich people breaking the law - not ok.
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh. If "things change" and Parliament needs instruction as to how to accommodate those changes, a referendum could be used to clarify that instruction. The same could be said even if "things" haven't changed.
But let's look at that word "lose" in a bit more detail. Who is "losing" right now? Certainly everyone who wants to remain (which some people believe is the majority). Also, everyone who wants no longer to be part of a customs union. And everyone who objects to a backstop. Everyone who wants certainty over the long-term Irish border. Fishermen. Farmers. People who like food. People who need medicine...
Almost everyone is losing right now. On that basis, wouldn't it be great if we could find a way to get the majority of people to be on the "winning" side by soliciting their decision and acting, swiftly and decisively on it?
The only reason I can see why some Brexiters oppose a second vote, including Farage and JRM who previously promoted having a second vote, is because they knew 2016 was a total fluke and there's no guarantee the British voters would fall for their lies a second time round, especially now the genie is out the bottle in terms of what an absolutely terrible idea Brexit is turning out to be.
It's very common for Brexiteers on this thread to complain that Remainers sneer at them and denigrate their views. It is apparently perfectly OK for Brexiteers to do that, though:
The Brexit deal offered to May is nothing but a punishment deal. Would love to know how all these 'expert' remainers know exactly what is going to happen if and state IF we ever are allowed to leave the corrupt and unelected EU!
The deal that May has "brokered" - not been offered, the EU would far rather it was not happening at all - is no surprise to anyone with the intelligence to understand what leaving a "club" entails. The UK has left the club, the EU are under no obligation whatsoever to make any compromise at all. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
I would love to know how all those 'expert' leavers know exactly what is going to happen if the UK is ever allowed to leave?
As for corrupt - look no further than a great deal of the leave campaign...
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
And me mate.
Could you remind me what your reasons are? What are you looking forward to in your personal life as a result of Brexit?
I meant that as a serious question, the same question I have put to @southbank several times. We have been told many times that Remainers don't listen to, still less respect, the viewpoint of Brexiters. Your own most frequent contribution on here is to make that claim. I genuinely want to know the answer to my question, so I can better understand your outlook on life, and how it is affected by the political climate.
But I/we am not important - It is a Charlton forum!
It is therefore the most important forum
True - but it probably doesn't register that high with most of the population - sadly
The only ones that count are those on here
Actually, being serious, over the course of two years and with just a few exceptions, the debate on this thread has been far superior to the coverage in the media and far far superior than that conducted by our political ‘leaders’.
Agreed - I have learnt a lot and it has helped keep me in touch with what's happening as it is likely to have a direct impact on me. Thanks to the regular contributors and to the moderators for keeping it on track.
@CharltonMadrid I can't remember exactly what your, @Algarveaddick, @PragueAddick and any other EU based forum member's circumstances are, but it's worth having a look at this thread on the Habitual Residence Test for benefits are, should you need to move back here. It's significantly more complicated than you might expect, and somewhat reliant on the DWP and HMRC not being officious arseholes.
It seems that AgeUK have been preparing for the possibility of a bunch of British pensioners moving back from Spain post-Brexit, as they've just issued a new fact sheet on the subject. While some of it won't apply if you're below pension age, it may bring up some stuff you've not thought of.
Yes I was aware as friends who have returned to the UK before have faced problems. But the leavers have told me not to worry and nothing will change, so we are okay here...
For those who are firmly behind Macron and awaiting a "third way" leader to emerge in the UK once Brexit is settled, you might want to take a read of this. The associated comments are fascinating. We should be very clear that in a four horse race in the first round both Macron and Le Pen secured just over 20% so polling at 26% is no disgrace today. But this article was foretold by Melenchon who refused to endorse Macron against Le Pen.
Many remainers assume that the answer is either BINO (remaining in the Single Market) or abort Brexit. But there is a more nuanced question about the Single Market and the four freedoms. Is it part of the problem which causes divisions and does the EU need to address this before drowning in a sea of populism? For that is the prospectus touted by @Southbank who suggests that the Alt-right polling is rising across Europe because the likes of Macron, Merkel and Renzi(now gone) are failing in some way.
This is not to condemn nor consone En Marche, but sometimes it helps to look abroad and watch the same philosophical debates, albeit within a differnt context and with different actors.
But I/we am not important - It is a Charlton forum!
It is therefore the most important forum
True - but it probably doesn't register that high with most of the population - sadly
The only ones that count are those on here
Actually, being serious, over the course of two years and with just a few exceptions, the debate on this thread has been far superior to the coverage in the media and far far superior than that conducted by our political ‘leaders’.
Agreed - I have learnt a lot and it has helped keep me in touch with what's happening as it is likely to have a direct impact on me. Thanks to the regular contributors and to the moderators for keeping it on track.
@CharltonMadrid I can't remember exactly what your, @Algarveaddick, @PragueAddick and any other EU based forum member's circumstances are, but it's worth having a look at this thread on the Habitual Residence Test for benefits are, should you need to move back here. It's significantly more complicated than you might expect, and somewhat reliant on the DWP and HMRC not being officious arseholes.
It seems that AgeUK have been preparing for the possibility of a bunch of British pensioners moving back from Spain post-Brexit, as they've just issued a new fact sheet on the subject. While some of it won't apply if you're below pension age, it may bring up some stuff you've not thought of.
Yes I was aware as friends who have returned to the UK before have faced problems. But the leavers have told me not to worry and nothing will change, so we are okay here...
Jesus. Watched the first episode of the Foreign Office last night. Johnson banging on about Global Britain. Ambassadors shown living in, of course, the plushest comfort that Rangoon or Kiev can offer. No "habitual residence test' for them, because they are 'abroad' in service to the UK State. But those of us who go abroad as private citizens, who seek not a penny from the State, ready to lose their access to the NHS, sending back money to the UK (e.g the £15k I have so far spent paying the Uni fees of my nephew and niece). The UK State treats us like traitors for daring to leave this sceptred isle.
Here is the thing. I didn't know about this , but I am working on the same shit in reverse. As we all know, despite being citizens, you and I have lost our vote. But here is what I have discovered in the last few weeks: Inheritance tax. Despite not being in the UK enough to vote, I am in the UK enough for HMRC to decide I am "domiciled" in the UK and thus they can charge IHT on my global assets. So not just my UK house,(and no spouse allowance on that, since my wife is considered not to be domiciled in UK even though I am) but my Czech one too. (Fortunately the Czech based UK lawyer who wrote my will, is still around and working to make sure that they certainly won't get their hands on the Czech assets). HMRC make it almost impossible to get a clear indication of whether an individual is domiciled in UK or not. They won't give you an answer. And you cannot fight them, if you have fucking snuffed it.
So there you have it. There is citizenship, which is meaningless in terms of participating in democracy if you move abroad. There is tax residency, which is fairly clear, although rich people can game the system to their advantage (Where is Abramovic tax-resident? his yacht, probably) Then there is the more obscure concept, unique to the UK, of "domicile", which means you can't vote, or access the NHS but HMRC can fill their boots and harass your bereaved foreign spouse. And now we learn that there is another one, Habitual Residency, which is used to avoid paying benefits to hapless pensioners who have been stitched up after their innocent decision to follow the fairy tales of "A Place in the Sun" went wrong.
Oh and then there is Osbourne's "Non-dom" exemption which allows Russian gangsters to live in peace in Kensington without any troublesome tax demands
I don't want to say that Britain has become a shitty little country, because there are still many fine institutions. But when it comes to Brits abroad, there are some really shitty little attitudes, embedded deep in the British State.
Well I have given you the reason Rees Mogg supports it. I know you already knew it, but maybe a little bit more important than Blackpool or Southbank.
My question is a genuine one, and nothing to do with the Cartoon Aristocrat. I am trying to listen to the Brexiteers on here, who complain that we don't listen to them. I genuinely want to know exactly what they expect from Brexit in their own personal circumstances. I want them to step out from behind their handles and help me understand their lives and why Brexit so dominates it.
Let them answer, please.
PS @blackpool72 if you are not like @southbank, who clearly enjoys a good argument on here, and worry that it will get into one with me, I promise to not reply at all, or to limit my reply to a follow up question to help me understand exactly what you are telling us.
I think it is wrong to characterise the populist upsurge as 'alt-right' even if some of them are. More importantly, it is the decline of the old parties and their replacement, currently, by parties that are outside the mainstream. The Greens in Germany, Corbyn/ momentum in the UK, Melenchon in France, Five Star in Italy all fit the bill, as do the more obviously right wing parties in East Europe.
Their voters do not necessarily have massive enthusiasm for their programmes, it is more that they have rejected the old centrist parties.
I think its more to do with Austerity and mass migration from new Eastern states coinciding, and providing a scapegoat/cover for the knock on effects of the banking crisis.
For those who are firmly behind Macron and awaiting a "third way" leader to emerge in the UK once Brexit is settled, you might want to take a read of this. The associated comments are fascinating. We should be very clear that in a four horse race in the first round both Macron and Le Pen secured just over 20% so polling at 26% is no disgrace today. But this article was foretold by Melenchon who refused to endorse Macron against Le Pen.
Many remainers assume that the answer is either BINO (remaining in the Single Market) or abort Brexit. But there is a more nuanced question about the Single Market and the four freedoms. Is it part of the problem which causes divisions and does the EU need to address this before drowning in a sea of populism? For that is the prospectus touted by @Southbank who suggests that the Alt-right polling is rising across Europe because the likes of Macron, Merkel and Renzi(now gone) are failing in some way.
This is not to condemn nor consone En Marche, but sometimes it helps to look abroad and watch the same philosophical debates, albeit within a differnt context and with different actors.
There really isn't a more nuanced question.
Particularly not for the UK or its Remainers.
Because wider issues of populism in the EU are of no import to the UK, unless and until the question of what Brexit the UK will achieve is resolved. And, even then....
But across the EU27 the Single Market and the four freedoms are not actually seen as problems. Where the populist right are highlighting migration, it is overwhelmingly non-European immigrants, often from sub-Saharan Africa, that exercise their voters.
Their political prospectus is that you can have the EU and Single Market without the, implied (and sadly not codified by EU Treaty, unlike the Four Freedoms), liberal democratic values that have underpinned the EEC/EC/EU project from its inception.
The Governments of both Hungary and Poland, for example, would quite happily retain every aspect of the EU, except for those parts that clash with their authoritarian instincts. In both Austria and Italy (and to a lesser extent Greece) there is a latent "fascist" influence in the national body politic, in part because, unlike Germany, they were not required to confront their own responsibility for their recent history (Austria being declared by the Allies as a victim of the Nazis). The French extreme right draws much of its legitimacy from the same strain of conservative Catholic orthodoxy that brought us the Dreyfus Affair and the Petainist Vichy regime, and also, with the first generation of Le Pen National Front, the OSS narrative of betrayal in Algeria. Changing the EU, or leaving it or the Euro, is not often high on the far right agenda.
Much of the appeal of the populist parties is that they offer simple and simplistic solutions for complex problems.
Personally, I'm not waiting with any kind of baited breath for a third way leader to emerge in the UK. It would be nice, however, for the Labour Party to find one somewhere (and, even though not my own personal political choice, the Conservatives also). Corbyn's stance on Brexit is, I fear, a virtual clone of Melenchon's refusal to endorse voting against the National Front (political opportunism, where the hope is for a disaster from which they would pick up the reins of government as some kind of saviour, dressed up as some kind of moral stance). It is this absence that has many scanning the horizon in desperation.
I think it is wrong to characterise the populist upsurge as 'alt-right' even if some of them are. More importantly, it is the decline of the old parties and their replacement, currently, by parties that are outside the mainstream. The Greens in Germany, Corbyn/ momentum in the UK, Melenchon in France, Five Star in Italy all fit the bill, as do the more obviously right wing parties in East Europe.
Their voters do not necessarily have massive enthusiasm for their programmes, it is more that they have rejected the old centrist parties.
I think it is wrong to characterise the populist upsurge as 'alt-right' even if some of them are. More importantly, it is the decline of the old parties and their replacement, currently, by parties that are outside the mainstream. The Greens in Germany, Corbyn/ momentum in the UK, Melenchon in France, Five Star in Italy all fit the bill, as do the more obviously right wing parties in East Europe.
Their voters do not necessarily have massive enthusiasm for their programmes, it is more that they have rejected the old centrist parties.
I actually agree with this.
People are rejected the centre-ground mainstream parties and politicians and it has little to do with policy but that the old parties have totally failed to maintain any common ground with large swathes of the voting public and, particularly in the UK, are largely made up of upper class half-wits getting the job with family connections and people who failed in their original career paths and turned to politics as a last resort. There are some honourable exceptions of course but especially in the last few years I hear more and more that people are sick of both Labour and the Tories.
The problem with the populist parties is that I fear an Animal Farm situation where once in power it will be business as usual with snouts in the trough, but the administration gets far, far worse as the populists have zero policy detail or any idea how to run a country, which is exactly what we are seeing with Trump's administration and what is starting to happen in Brazil.
I would suggest that everybody has things in their lives they don't like to a greater or lesser degree.
I hold the view that brexit voters were driven by voting on the basis that things piss them off, whether those things were down to the EU or not. The Meldrew motivation.
Brexit voters are not able to make positives explicit, not least because brexit hasn't happened yet. Also because remainer warnings are able to be dismissed as project fear, and the vague hopes of brexiters can be dismissed as project unicorn for the same reason.
There is nothing to be gained any more by rational argument, reasoning or facts. I still buy a lottery ticket even though rationally I have no hope of winning, the daydream is reward enough.
The most persuasive events will be actual phenomena.
It is quite enlightening to read from Prague and others about specific hurdles they must overcome. A bit of stark reality. Maybe and sadly and shockingly what is needed is some stark post brexit reality. The M20 as a lorry park, deportations and repatriations, no satnav any more, travel restrictions, shortages, barbed wire and machine guns on the Irish border and so on.
Brexiters will scream that these things will never (be allowed to) happen. Somehow there will be a work around or things will sort themselves out. However they will whisper about any future good things they hope for, wanting not to be heard and challenged.
When pondering all this I continually come back to the wider population voting brexit because they don't like foreigners. Simply don't like them, and they don't have to provide a reason. Just as they don't have to suggest any practical benefit from brexit because the anti foreigner signal sent is benefit enough for them.
I would want to remain myself, but in my bleak moments I want the hardest and most damaging brexit possible, not some kind of compromise or half way house.
I think it is wrong to characterise the populist upsurge as 'alt-right' even if some of them are. More importantly, it is the decline of the old parties and their replacement, currently, by parties that are outside the mainstream. The Greens in Germany, Corbyn/ momentum in the UK, Melenchon in France, Five Star in Italy all fit the bill, as do the more obviously right wing parties in East Europe.
Their voters do not necessarily have massive enthusiasm for their programmes, it is more that they have rejected the old centrist parties.
I think that’s really accurate.
I don't. I think it's just another @southbank glance at the newspapers "world" section and interpreting what he reads through his own very British prism.
To pick up on @Southbank assertion. He forgets that the Greens have been strong in Germany for far longer than the word Brexit has existed. Anyone who spends time in Germany knows this. Right now, the German public are scandalised not by refugees but by the discovery that their assiduous recycling of waste has been just that, a waste, because a TV expose showed them that in fact it is nearly all being burnt.
Perhaps @Southbank will provide more examples of a successful new party which does not have connections to "alt.right" or far right movements in other countries. Corbyn's Labour isn't a new party FFS. And Jeremy Corbyn is the same old Jeremy Corbyn I used to despise in the 80s. If I vote Labour next time it'll be in support of people like Yvette Cooper, Chuka Umuna, and my local MP Clive Efford. And I won't be alone in that.
It's odd that in his list Southbank chooses Melenchon and not Macron's en Marche as his example. Well not really, because en Marche was elected on a centrist platform, so they mess up his argument. But they are new, and they, um, won. Five Star is full of people with neo-Fascist views. Plenty of them in Italy unfortunately. One of them played for us...would be interesting to find out whom PdC voted for.
All the "obviously right wing" parties in East Europe are heavily reliant on a bloc of the population that fits demographically with a large bloc of Brexit voters, (older, less educated, tending to live outside the capital or biggest cities) and who are vulnerable to the same propaganda pumped at them by the alt.right. Steve Bannon has just completed a tour of such countries. Too late I discovered he was in Prague, I would have blagged my way in and confronted the ****.
And, behind the subscription paywall, a warning from Stephen Collins that Irish people not get too haughty when watching Brexit "unfold"...
Brexit is no excuse for bashing the British
Irish sneering at UK’s nervous breakdown is offensive and counter-productive
Brexit is the most compelling political drama of our age not only because the consequences will be with us for generations but because nobody knows what the next act in the coming weeks is going to bring us, never mind what the final scene will be.
Most political crises involve the fate of political parties or leading politicians and follow certain generally accepted rules of engagement which have little direct bearing on the lives of ordinary people, but the outcome of this one will affect the lives of more than 60 million people in a direct fashion.
It will also have a serious impact on the lives of people on both parts of this island and that is why it has absorbed so much attention from Irish politicians, officials and the media.
Some letter writers to this paper have bemoaned the sheer volume of the coverage but, given the overwhelming importance of the issue and the unpredictable nature of the outcome, it puts all other issues in the shade.
The official Irish response to Brexit has been tough but professional with senior politicians and diplomats working to protect the national interest by getting cast-iron assurances on the avoidance of a hard border while also being mindful of the need to ensure the best possible trading arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom in the long term.
However, some of the commentary around Brexit has provided a pretext for a return to the kind of nasty British bashing that in the past helped to sour relations between the people of the two islands and the two communities in the North. Of course the decision of the British people to leave the EU was a short-sighted one, facilitated by unscrupulous politicians like Boris Johnson, but there is no escaping the fact that, for whatever reason, a majority voted to leave.
That’s democracy.
Spurious grounds It is no harm to remember that twice since the beginning of this century the Irish people have voted down EU treaties on utterly spurious grounds. Given the positive image of the EU in this country, by contrast with the UK, and the clear economic benefits of membership, the No votes to the Nice and Lisbon treaties showed just how open electorates can be to manipulation.
Sneering at the foolishness of the British people and taking pleasure at the political contortions required of Theresa May and her ministers to make the best of a bad lot is not simply unneighbourly but potentially dangerous. Is the mirror image of the attitude of those in the UK who demonised the EU for so long.
We have always been very touchy in this country about the condescending attitude of some British politicians and commentators who struggle to understand our concerns. Now that the British are having what amounts to a political nervous breakdown, some of the sneering on this side of the Irish Sea is offensive as well as counter-productive.
At this stage it is strongly in the interests of the Irish people on both sides of the border that Theresa May can persuade the House of Commons to ratify the deal she has done with the EU. It appears very unlikely that she will be able to accomplish this on December 11th but the deal may well come back for a second vote shortly before or after Christmas.
There is an outside chance that the majority in the Commons who favour a continuing close relationship with the EU may prevail over the Tory ultras and the Labour hard-left and vote for a better alternative than the deal on offer, but a “crash out” hard Brexit is the more likely outcome if May does not prevail.
Ties of blood It is important that good relations between Ireland and the UK are maintained whatever the ultimate Brexit deal. This is not simply as a matter of economic self-interest. The ties of blood, language and culture that exist between the two islands are too important for relations to be soured.
One of the great benefits of the Belfast Agreement was that, whatever about its failure to deliver a stable administration in Northern Ireland, it facilitated the flowering of truly close and friendly relations between the governments in Dublin and London.
This simply reflected the reality of the relations that already existed between the vast majority of Irish and English people. Just look at the two big sporting announcements of the past week. One was that the Irish soccer team will again be managed by Mick McCarthy, a tough Yorkshire man who played his heart out for Ireland on the field and managed the team that got to the World Cup finals in 2002.
The other was the announcement that English rugby league legend Andy Farrell, father of current English rugby union star Owen Farrell, will succeed Joe Schmidt as manager of the Irish rugby team.
McCarthy and Farrell, whose surnames leave no doubt about their ancestry, represent the intertwined relationship of the two islands. Hopefully they will bring honour and glory to this country in the years ahead and, with luck, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg will be relegated to the margins of history.
"Are PPE graduates ruining Britain? In recent years, the ever-popular degree, which has produced a disproportionate number of senior British politicians, has come under criticism from all sides of the political spectrum."
"Are PPE graduates ruining Britain? In recent years, the ever-popular degree, which has produced a disproportionate number of senior British politicians, has come under criticism from all sides of the political spectrum."
As if I wasn't pissed off enough already by today's dose of Brexit, I read this.
So, let's take the first sentence : "Are PPE graduates ruining Britain?" "Ruin" in what way? The article goes on to demonstrate that these graduates are most likely to have voted Remain. So the very first sentence implies that to vote remain is to "ruin the country". Do you see the problem right there, with this piece of "analysis"?
Since the authors are both proud Oxbridge graduates, but would obviously have difficulty "analysing" the state of the League One table in order to make a conclusion about Bowyer's tenure, I think this article tells us only that a lot of our 'elite' graduates are as effective in the real world as the average Wetherspoons regular.
This is how I see it - firstly, whilst a no deal Brexit cannot be ruled out 100%, despite what we are being fed, it is the most unlikely option. The threat is currently being used to scare MPs into voting for May's deal, but it clearly isn't working. Whilst it is a threat to the more reasonable, it is welcome to the ERG loons so May also felt the need to warn of there possibly being no Brexit at all! You couldn't make it up.
In practice politics would almost certainly trump procedure though. Faced with the prospect of no deal, the government would be pressured to grant one or more of the following: a soft Brexit (European Economic Area membership), a second referendum, or an early general election.
What do you think is the most likely? To me it is the referendum. In such circumstances, the EU has already signalled, as clearly as it is possible to do, that it would be prepared to grant an extension to the Article 50 period (though this requires the unanimous approval of the 27 other EU member states). It would do this, because it would see the opportunity for no Brexit at all, which has always been its preferred position.
Having said that, what could make all this even messier and what makes it dangerous is May resigning after losing the vote, or even being pushed and being replaced by a hard Brexiter who appoints a hard Brexit cabinet. Ministers do have the ability to frustrate the will of Parliament and a total rebellion would be needed with a vote of no confidence to topple the government. Some Tories will be faced with the dilema of losing their jobs or falling off the Brexit cliff. I'm pretty sure that is the ERG plan in all this.I have confidence that there are enough decent Tories to scupper this, but it is a risk.
Comments
"So how much of this £350million is going to the NHS?"
"Well first we need to replicate literally everything that we centralised in the EU as we will lose access after Brexit."
"OK, and how much will that cost?"
"Oh, way, way more than £350million."
"So why are we doing this?!"
"Because some public school ex-city boy managed to convince a quarter of the country that Turkey is joining the EU and 76 million Muslims were imminently about to migrate into the UK."
But it's equally fair for someone who thinks that there is an unarguable demand for "People's Vote" (e;g; me) to gainsay some of the comments that @Southbank has made. So, I will.
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
A majority in a two-choice referendum is 50% plus one. All that was required to "win" the 2016 referendum was a simple majority, even though the turnout was so low, the total vote for the "winning" options was barely more than one-third of the population. Thus, the result was divisive, instead of decisive.
In the case of a transferable vote, with more than two options, 50% plus one. That means that the winning option will secure first- or second-choice votes from the majority of those who vote. And, to ensure that the turnout is sufficiently large to obviate the resultant bleating by the losing side(s), it would be great if everyone supported the idea of a zugzwang-ending, decisive vote, instead of moaning that the electorate is being consulted and the current will of the people is checked.
-referenda are advisory only and not binding on the government
I don't know of anyone who has claimed this. If they have, they are wrong. Not all referenda are advisory. Although it is true to say that the 2016 referendum was.
A "People's Vote" should be held with the expressed intention of instructing an otherwise conflicted Parliament how to proceed. With a majority decided by a large electorate, choosing between three options, the vote would be decisive and a clear instruction to the Government to proceed with the decision: either to ignore Parliament's vote and continue with the current deal as agreed between the UK Government and the EU; to leave the EU immediately, without an agreement; or to revoke Article 50, end negotiations, remain in the EU and prepare for April's European elections.
The 2016 was advisory. The Parliamentary Act enabling the People's Vote should clarify that it is binding.
-Just because a Party has support for something in their manifesto does not mean they have to carry it out
There has never been an automatic necessity for party manifestos to be carried out by the winning party. In fact, I do not remember there ever being an election manifesto that was carried out in full by the Government, without pledges being watered down, ignored or even denied.
Brexit is too important to be left to a general election where its standing is watered down by other, often conflicting pledges.
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
I don't know of anyone who has claimed this. (Although, I am prepared to believe there may well be empirical evidence that it's true).
What is demonstrably and unarguably true is that DMGT newspapers and Murdoch's press have influenced public opinion for decades with deliberate lies. It's the price we pay for a free press. But it's unfortunate that there are significant numbers of people who are swayed and suckered in by the tsunami of bias and obfuscation.
-Rich and powerful people with control of or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
Rich and powerful people with access to the media always have had - and always will have - influence over the result of votes.
But rich, powerful or, indeed, any other type of person should never be allowed to influence elections, outside the law. Tim Martin is worth hundreds of millions of pounds. He should be allowed to share his views - even if they're ill-informed and backward. James Dyson is worth ten times as much. He should be allowed to share his views - even to the extent that his hypocrisy becomes an embarrassment to the company that bears his name. Arron Banks is - apparently - very wealthy. He should be allowed to share his views - but he should not be allowed to acquire funds from outside the UK and funnel them into an illegally over-spending campaign.
In short: rich people having views - ok. Rich people sharing views - ok. Rich people breaking the law - not ok.
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
If "things change" and Parliament needs instruction as to how to accommodate those changes, a referendum could be used to clarify that instruction. The same could be said even if "things" haven't changed.
But let's look at that word "lose" in a bit more detail. Who is "losing" right now? Certainly everyone who wants to remain (which some people believe is the majority). Also, everyone who wants no longer to be part of a customs union. And everyone who objects to a backstop. Everyone who wants certainty over the long-term Irish border. Fishermen. Farmers. People who like food. People who need medicine...
Almost everyone is losing right now. On that basis, wouldn't it be great if we could find a way to get the majority of people to be on the "winning" side by soliciting their decision and acting, swiftly and decisively on it?
For the record he's also lying. He's talking about a role Carney held in Canada that was in fact a civil service position.
I would love to know how all those 'expert' leavers know exactly what is going to happen if the UK is ever allowed to leave?
As for corrupt - look no further than a great deal of the leave campaign...
Your response? An LOL.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/11/no-john-mcdonnell-isnt-changing-labour-policy-brexit?amp&__twitter_impression=true
Many remainers assume that the answer is either BINO (remaining in the Single Market) or abort Brexit. But there is a more nuanced question about the Single Market and the four freedoms. Is it part of the problem which causes divisions and does the EU need to address this before drowning in a sea of populism? For that is the prospectus touted by @Southbank who suggests that the Alt-right polling is rising across Europe because the likes of Macron, Merkel and Renzi(now gone) are failing in some way.
This is not to condemn nor consone En Marche, but sometimes it helps to look abroad and watch the same philosophical debates, albeit within a differnt context and with different actors.
Here is the thing. I didn't know about this , but I am working on the same shit in reverse. As we all know, despite being citizens, you and I have lost our vote. But here is what I have discovered in the last few weeks: Inheritance tax. Despite not being in the UK enough to vote, I am in the UK enough for HMRC to decide I am "domiciled" in the UK and thus they can charge IHT on my global assets. So not just my UK house,(and no spouse allowance on that, since my wife is considered not to be domiciled in UK even though I am) but my Czech one too. (Fortunately the Czech based UK lawyer who wrote my will, is still around and working to make sure that they certainly won't get their hands on the Czech assets). HMRC make it almost impossible to get a clear indication of whether an individual is domiciled in UK or not. They won't give you an answer. And you cannot fight them, if you have fucking snuffed it.
So there you have it. There is citizenship, which is meaningless in terms of participating in democracy if you move abroad. There is tax residency, which is fairly clear, although rich people can game the system to their advantage (Where is Abramovic tax-resident? his yacht, probably) Then there is the more obscure concept, unique to the UK, of "domicile", which means you can't vote, or access the NHS but HMRC can fill their boots and harass your bereaved foreign spouse. And now we learn that there is another one, Habitual Residency, which is used to avoid paying benefits to hapless pensioners who have been stitched up after their innocent decision to follow the fairy tales of "A Place in the Sun" went wrong.
Oh and then there is Osbourne's "Non-dom" exemption which allows Russian gangsters to live in peace in Kensington without any troublesome tax demands
I don't want to say that Britain has become a shitty little country, because there are still many fine institutions. But when it comes to Brits abroad, there are some really shitty little attitudes, embedded deep in the British State.
Global Britain? My arse.
Let them answer, please.
PS @blackpool72 if you are not like @southbank, who clearly enjoys a good argument on here, and worry that it will get into one with me, I promise to not reply at all, or to limit my reply to a follow up question to help me understand exactly what you are telling us.
Their voters do not necessarily have massive enthusiasm for their programmes, it is more that they have rejected the old centrist parties.
Particularly not for the UK or its Remainers.
Because wider issues of populism in the EU are of no import to the UK, unless and until the question of what Brexit the UK will achieve is resolved. And, even then....
But across the EU27 the Single Market and the four freedoms are not actually seen as problems. Where the populist right are highlighting migration, it is overwhelmingly non-European immigrants, often from sub-Saharan Africa, that exercise their voters.
Their political prospectus is that you can have the EU and Single Market without the, implied (and sadly not codified by EU Treaty, unlike the Four Freedoms), liberal democratic values that have underpinned the EEC/EC/EU project from its inception.
The Governments of both Hungary and Poland, for example, would quite happily retain every aspect of the EU, except for those parts that clash with their authoritarian instincts. In both Austria and Italy (and to a lesser extent Greece) there is a latent "fascist" influence in the national body politic, in part because, unlike Germany, they were not required to confront their own responsibility for their recent history (Austria being declared by the Allies as a victim of the Nazis). The French extreme right draws much of its legitimacy from the same strain of conservative Catholic orthodoxy that brought us the Dreyfus Affair and the Petainist Vichy regime, and also, with the first generation of Le Pen National Front, the OSS narrative of betrayal in Algeria. Changing the EU, or leaving it or the Euro, is not often high on the far right agenda.
Much of the appeal of the populist parties is that they offer simple and simplistic solutions for complex problems.
Personally, I'm not waiting with any kind of baited breath for a third way leader to emerge in the UK. It would be nice, however, for the Labour Party to find one somewhere (and, even though not my own personal political choice, the Conservatives also). Corbyn's stance on Brexit is, I fear, a virtual clone of Melenchon's refusal to endorse voting against the National Front (political opportunism, where the hope is for a disaster from which they would pick up the reins of government as some kind of saviour, dressed up as some kind of moral stance). It is this absence that has many scanning the horizon in desperation.
Fingers' crossed....
People are rejected the centre-ground mainstream parties and politicians and it has little to do with policy but that the old parties have totally failed to maintain any common ground with large swathes of the voting public and, particularly in the UK, are largely made up of upper class half-wits getting the job with family connections and people who failed in their original career paths and turned to politics as a last resort. There are some honourable exceptions of course but especially in the last few years I hear more and more that people are sick of both Labour and the Tories.
The problem with the populist parties is that I fear an Animal Farm situation where once in power it will be business as usual with snouts in the trough, but the administration gets far, far worse as the populists have zero policy detail or any idea how to run a country, which is exactly what we are seeing with Trump's administration and what is starting to happen in Brazil.
I hold the view that brexit voters were driven by voting on the basis that things piss them off, whether those things were down to the EU or not. The Meldrew motivation.
Brexit voters are not able to make positives explicit, not least because brexit hasn't happened yet. Also because remainer warnings are able to be dismissed as project fear, and the vague hopes of brexiters can be dismissed as project unicorn for the same reason.
There is nothing to be gained any more by rational argument, reasoning or facts. I still buy a lottery ticket even though rationally I have no hope of winning, the daydream is reward enough.
The most persuasive events will be actual phenomena.
It is quite enlightening to read from Prague and others about specific hurdles they must overcome. A bit of stark reality. Maybe and sadly and shockingly what is needed is some stark post brexit reality.
The M20 as a lorry park, deportations and repatriations, no satnav any more, travel restrictions, shortages, barbed wire and machine guns on the Irish border and so on.
Brexiters will scream that these things will never (be allowed to) happen. Somehow there will be a work around or things will sort themselves out. However they will whisper about any future good things they hope for, wanting not to be heard and challenged.
When pondering all this I continually come back to the wider population voting brexit because they don't like foreigners. Simply don't like them, and they don't have to provide a reason. Just as they don't have to suggest any practical benefit from brexit because the anti foreigner signal sent is benefit enough for them.
I would want to remain myself, but in my bleak moments I want the hardest and most damaging brexit possible, not some kind of compromise or half way house.
"Really accurate" is @NornIrishAddick response later (replying to @seriously_red)
To pick up on @Southbank assertion. He forgets that the Greens have been strong in Germany for far longer than the word Brexit has existed. Anyone who spends time in Germany knows this. Right now, the German public are scandalised not by refugees but by the discovery that their assiduous recycling of waste has been just that, a waste, because a TV expose showed them that in fact it is nearly all being burnt.
Perhaps @Southbank will provide more examples of a successful new party which does not have connections to "alt.right" or far right movements in other countries. Corbyn's Labour isn't a new party FFS. And Jeremy Corbyn is the same old Jeremy Corbyn I used to despise in the 80s. If I vote Labour next time it'll be in support of people like Yvette Cooper, Chuka Umuna, and my local MP Clive Efford. And I won't be alone in that.
It's odd that in his list Southbank chooses Melenchon and not Macron's en Marche as his example. Well not really, because en Marche was elected on a centrist platform, so they mess up his argument. But they are new, and they, um, won. Five Star is full of people with neo-Fascist views. Plenty of them in Italy unfortunately. One of them played for us...would be interesting to find out whom PdC voted for.
All the "obviously right wing" parties in East Europe are heavily reliant on a bloc of the population that fits demographically with a large bloc of Brexit voters, (older, less educated, tending to live outside the capital or biggest cities) and who are vulnerable to the same propaganda pumped at them by the alt.right. Steve Bannon has just completed a tour of such countries. Too late I discovered he was in Prague, I would have blagged my way in and confronted the ****.
Newton Emerson on the problem Brexit poses for the Common Travel Area.
Spain, Gibraltar and the privileges of membership.
How one youthful Remainer has sought to secure his future.
And, behind the subscription paywall, a warning from Stephen Collins that Irish people not get too haughty when watching Brexit "unfold"...
Brexit is no excuse for bashing the British
Irish sneering at UK’s nervous breakdown is offensive and counter-productive
Brexit is the most compelling political drama of our age not only because the consequences will be with us for generations but because nobody knows what the next act in the coming weeks is going to bring us, never mind what the final scene will be.
Most political crises involve the fate of political parties or leading politicians and follow certain generally accepted rules of engagement which have little direct bearing on the lives of ordinary people, but the outcome of this one will affect the lives of more than 60 million people in a direct fashion.
It will also have a serious impact on the lives of people on both parts of this island and that is why it has absorbed so much attention from Irish politicians, officials and the media.
Some letter writers to this paper have bemoaned the sheer volume of the coverage but, given the overwhelming importance of the issue and the unpredictable nature of the outcome, it puts all other issues in the shade.
The official Irish response to Brexit has been tough but professional with senior politicians and diplomats working to protect the national interest by getting cast-iron assurances on the avoidance of a hard border while also being mindful of the need to ensure the best possible trading arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom in the long term.
However, some of the commentary around Brexit has provided a pretext for a return to the kind of nasty British bashing that in the past helped to sour relations between the people of the two islands and the two communities in the North. Of course the decision of the British people to leave the EU was a short-sighted one, facilitated by unscrupulous politicians like Boris Johnson, but there is no escaping the fact that, for whatever reason, a majority voted to leave.
That’s democracy.
Spurious grounds
It is no harm to remember that twice since the beginning of this century the Irish people have voted down EU treaties on utterly spurious grounds. Given the positive image of the EU in this country, by contrast with the UK, and the clear economic benefits of membership, the No votes to the Nice and Lisbon treaties showed just how open electorates can be to manipulation.
Sneering at the foolishness of the British people and taking pleasure at the political contortions required of Theresa May and her ministers to make the best of a bad lot is not simply unneighbourly but potentially dangerous. Is the mirror image of the attitude of those in the UK who demonised the EU for so long.
We have always been very touchy in this country about the condescending attitude of some British politicians and commentators who struggle to understand our concerns. Now that the British are having what amounts to a political nervous breakdown, some of the sneering on this side of the Irish Sea is offensive as well as counter-productive.
At this stage it is strongly in the interests of the Irish people on both sides of the border that Theresa May can persuade the House of Commons to ratify the deal she has done with the EU. It appears very unlikely that she will be able to accomplish this on December 11th but the deal may well come back for a second vote shortly before or after Christmas.
There is an outside chance that the majority in the Commons who favour a continuing close relationship with the EU may prevail over the Tory ultras and the Labour hard-left and vote for a better alternative than the deal on offer, but a “crash out” hard Brexit is the more likely outcome if May does not prevail.
Ties of blood
It is important that good relations between Ireland and the UK are maintained whatever the ultimate Brexit deal. This is not simply as a matter of economic self-interest. The ties of blood, language and culture that exist between the two islands are too important for relations to be soured.
One of the great benefits of the Belfast Agreement was that, whatever about its failure to deliver a stable administration in Northern Ireland, it facilitated the flowering of truly close and friendly relations between the governments in Dublin and London.
This simply reflected the reality of the relations that already existed between the vast majority of Irish and English people. Just look at the two big sporting announcements of the past week. One was that the Irish soccer team will again be managed by Mick McCarthy, a tough Yorkshire man who played his heart out for Ireland on the field and managed the team that got to the World Cup finals in 2002.
The other was the announcement that English rugby league legend Andy Farrell, father of current English rugby union star Owen Farrell, will succeed Joe Schmidt as manager of the Irish rugby team.
McCarthy and Farrell, whose surnames leave no doubt about their ancestry, represent the intertwined relationship of the two islands. Hopefully they will bring honour and glory to this country in the years ahead and, with luck, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg will be relegated to the margins of history.
"Are PPE graduates ruining Britain? In recent years, the ever-popular degree, which has produced a disproportionate number of senior British politicians, has come under criticism from all sides of the political spectrum."
blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/11/14/mps-who-studied-ppe-at-university-are-among-the-most-pro-remain/
So, let's take the first sentence : "Are PPE graduates ruining Britain?" "Ruin" in what way? The article goes on to demonstrate that these graduates are most likely to have voted Remain. So the very first sentence implies that to vote remain is to "ruin the country". Do you see the problem right there, with this piece of "analysis"?
Since the authors are both proud Oxbridge graduates, but would obviously have difficulty "analysing" the state of the League One table in order to make a conclusion about Bowyer's tenure, I think this article tells us only that a lot of our 'elite' graduates are as effective in the real world as the average Wetherspoons regular.
In practice politics would almost certainly trump procedure though. Faced with the prospect of no deal, the government would be pressured to grant one or more of the following: a soft Brexit (European Economic Area membership), a second referendum, or an early general election.
What do you think is the most likely? To me it is the referendum. In such circumstances, the EU has already signalled, as clearly as it is possible to do, that it would be prepared to grant an extension to the Article 50 period (though this requires the unanimous approval of the 27 other EU member states). It would do this, because it would see the opportunity for no Brexit at all, which has always been its preferred position.
Having said that, what could make all this even messier and what makes it dangerous is May resigning after losing the vote, or even being pushed and being replaced by a hard Brexiter who appoints a hard Brexit cabinet. Ministers do have the ability to frustrate the will of Parliament and a total rebellion would be needed with a vote of no confidence to topple the government. Some Tories will be faced with the dilema of losing their jobs or falling off the Brexit cliff. I'm pretty sure that is the ERG plan in all this.I have confidence that there are enough decent Tories to scupper this, but it is a risk.