nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

This is the tenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread, so Ive copied ACDs comments from the last thread to here. Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Cameron deciding to cash in on Brexit with his book.

The article I read said all profits would go to charities.

woohoo!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Cameron deciding to cash in on Brexit with his book.

The article I read said all profits would go to charities.

That's fair enough. And no doubt the timing is uncomfortable for Johnson et al.

LeinsterDub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The article I read said all profits would go to charities.

And the profits from the speaking appearances generated of the back of the book?

[Deleted User]

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And the profits from the speaking appearances generated of the back of the book?

Will go to him, I suppose. He's not a criminal whose story has been legally held as something that cannot make money.

The man made mistakes. He instigated this entire thing. But, it is what it is.. If he gives his book's profits to charity, that's good.

Sierra Oscar

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Will go to him, I suppose. He's not a criminal whose story has been legally held as something that cannot make money.

The man made mistakes. He instigated this entire thing. But, it is what it is.. If he gives his book's profits to charity, that's good.

I’m not entirely convinced it’s all that fair to just heap the blame for Brexit at Cameron’s feet.

A Brexit referendum was always on the horizon with or without Cameron. The divisions within the Conservative party on Europe had been building for decades and UKIP’s influence was growing. UKIP and the hardcore leavers would have gotten up to their usual dirty tricks with or without Cameron being PM.

I reckon it would be interesting to do a study looking at the rise of English nationalism in recent years and it’s association with the Monarchy. We’ve had an ever growing number of monarchy related celebrations over the last two decades and a major scaling up of events such as the Commonwealth games. The hosting of the London Olympics added to the sense of self-importance too and a nation ready to ‘go it alone’. Now in no way do I think the Monarchy is anti-Europe or anything like that, but I do think there has been consequences for English nationalism as a result of such events. I remember being in London for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and you could actually sense the old fogeys harping back to the ‘good old empire days’ at the time. Then you had that ridiculous ‘flotilla’ sailing up the Thames which Farage tried to replicate during the referendum. Madness altogether when you look back on it.

lawred2

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I’m not entirely convinced it’s all that fair to just heap the blame for Brexit at Cameron’s feet.

A Brexit referendum was always on the horizon with or without Cameron. The divisions within the Conservative party on Europe had been building for decades and UKIP’s influence was growing. UKIP and the hardcore leavers would have gotten up to their usual dirty tricks with or without Cameron being PM.

I reckon it would be interesting to do a study looking at the rise of English nationalism in recent years and it’s association with the Monarchy. We’ve had an ever growing number of monarchy related celebrations over the last two decades and a major scaling up of events such as the Commonwealth games. Now in no way do I think the Monarchy is anti-Europe or anything like that, but I do think there has been consequences for English nationalism as a result of such events. I remember being in London for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and you could actually sense the old fogeys harping back to the ‘good old empire days’ at the time. Then you had that ridiculous ‘flotilla’ sailing up the Thames which Farage tried to replicate during the referendum. Madness altogether.

The whole annual exhibition of poppy fascism too..

Military demonstrations at sports events...

It's all gone a bit jingoistic, triumphalist and right wing really

A Shropshire Lad

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I’m not entirely convinced it’s all that fair to just heap the blame for Brexit at Cameron’s feet.

.

If only he wasnt the Prime Minister who actually decided to hold the referendum

A Shropshire Lad

Deleted User wrote: »

The article I read said all profits would go to charities.

He will have gotten paid a huge advance for that book.

murphaph

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

If only he wasnt the Prime Minister who actually decided to hold the referendum

And with absolutely no preparation.

It would be similar if Varadkar had just asked "Should all references to abortion be removed from the constitution?"instead of there being a long public debate and indeed citizen's assembly about the matter beforehand.

It was an irresponsible gamble of immense proportions.

Leroy42

There is no doubt Cameron makes multiple mistakes but I agree that he was simply the guy that pressed the button. Farage even said that if Remain won he would continue the fight.

And we have seem over the last three years that simply leaving is not enough. It was 'stay in the SM', 'Norway +' and now it's to the point of a total crash out.

Capt'n Midnight

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I’m not entirely convinced it’s all that fair to just heap the blame for Brexit at Cameron’s feet.

A Brexit referendum was always on the horizon with or without Cameron. The divisions within the Conservative party on Europe had been building for decades and UKIP’s influence was growing. UKIP and the hardcore leavers would have gotten up to their usual dirty tricks with or without Cameron being PM.

He was warned no to do this. But he went ahead.

It was non binding. So no oversight.

No need to accept the result was fair given the

And besides no need to accept the result as it was non binding.

Didn't get the party on board. Could have easily have threatened any Tories campaigning for Leave.

Didn't consult the other parties.

Allowed leave to change the wording from Yes / No.

Resigning when Plan B would have been to get the parliament and then public to decide what type of Brexit they wanted, knowing that would take years. There was no need to resign and hand control to the leavers.

PropJoe10

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

If only he wasnt the Prime Minister who actually decided to hold the referendum

Should never have gone to a referendum at all. Those types of decisions on major economic matters need to be made by politicians, not the general public that mostly don't understand what it involves.

AngryHippie

Deleted User wrote: »

The article I read said all profits would go to charities.

Would that it were true for brexit itself.

Its a slow play money grab.
Creating a good old fashioned war too risky...Create some chaos instead.

Depress the economoy
Buy depressed shares
Profit

Follow the god-damned money and its painfully obvious who the crooks and benefactors are. The British people are being played for utter fools.

This is the effective end of the democratic experiment.
As predicted by Keynes at Bretton Woods.

It is nothing short of treason.
They should hang.

trellheim

Pandoras box was well and truly opened. Even thatcher never went full loony bin with that referendum she was much much smarter when it came to Europe . I cant help but feel Cameron was a little shafted by the EU but the FO should have seen it coming when Merkel had her own politics, and its big boy games too. Nevertheless.

Tim Shipman's two books and shortly third are mandatory reading about the journey to here are tremendous he has tremendous contacts in the Tories . Tim's a bit pro-Tory and it shows in his twitter, but not so much in the books.

Craig Olivers book is a good account of this period too.

All Out War is the first and very apt Tim Shipman title

looksee

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Should never have gone to a referendum at all. Those types of decisions on major economic matters need to be made by politicians civil servants, economists, legal experts, not the general public that mostly don't understand what it involves.

Just adjusted that a bit, otherwise you are right, though public opinion should have been taken into account. The referendum would have been ok if it had been used as advisory, accompanied by an in-depth investigation into the consequences, advantages and disadvantages.

Robert McGrath

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The DUP are the equivalent of FF, except even more pig headed.
Religious loons supporters, check.
Talk out of both sides of mouth, check.
Links to dodgy set ups and dodgy money, check.
Wrap the flag around them whenever needed, check.

No doubt they'd be horrified of their similarities but both assume that their truth is gospel, to keep out the other/enemy. Just as for FF, when the bubble bursts, the fall out will be spectacular.

Brilliant entertainment, awful political judgement.

I don’t agree.

What defines the modern FF is their pragmatism and willingness to be all things to all people.

The DUP on the other hand seem to value the purity of their ideology above all else, even though it is clear to an outside observer that the ideology in this situation could be harmful to their voters.

If the DUP were like FF, then Teresa May’s NI only backstop WA would have been accepted and probably voted through last year and we wouldn’t be in this mess

trellheim

right so FT is reporting it will be a ram job

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1172611126355533825

Tomorrow’s @FinancialTimes: Downing Street increasingly optimistic about a Brexit breakthrough, and senior Johnson aides have a plan to get it through Parliament in 10 days flat

As widely expected they are going to try a soft backstop I reckon (whatever you want that to mean ). I cant see the numbers in the Commons for it, and I wonder what pressure will be put on Leo for this.

BonnieSituation

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

He will have gotten paid a huge advance for that book.

He got £800,000 which is a far cry from Blair's £4.6m

briany

looksee wrote: »

The referendum would have been ok if it had been used as advisory, accompanied by an in-depth investigation into the consequences, advantages and disadvantages.

30 years of concerted tabloid spin, and a decade of austerity turned the Brexit imp into a monster that the British government didn't see until it was too late.
When the time came for a referendum, patience had just about run out, and the forces behind Cameron's decision to hold this referendum were not interested in waiting around. That's why they hijacked it, and declared it the decisive will of the people.

Kermit.de.frog

trellheim wrote: »

right so FT is reporting it will be a ram job

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1172611126355533825

As widely expected they are going to try a soft backstop I reckon (whatever you want that to mean ). I cant see the numbers in the Commons for it, and I wonder what pressure will be put on Leo for this.

NI must remain in the customs union otherwise border infrastructure will be needed.

It's as simple as that.

There is no hard or soft, just reality.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

30 years of concerted tabloid spin, and a decade of austerity turned the Brexit imp into a monster that the British government didn't see until it was too late.
When the time came for a referendum, patience had just about run out, and the forces behind Cameron's decision to hold this referendum were not interested in waiting around. That's why they hijacked it, and declared it the decisive will of the people.

A referendum was always going to end badly. A brainwashed and austerity hit public coupled with a lying, corrupt media was a toxic mix.

Cameron underestimated how malevolent the Eurosceptics were and how stupid the British public were (he practically admits as much in the extracts we've seen).

Strazdas

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

He was warned no to do this. But he went ahead.

It was non binding. So no oversight.

No need to accept the result was fair given the

And besides no need to accept the result as it was non binding.

Didn't get the party on board. Could have easily have threatened any Tories campaigning for Leave.

Didn't consult the other parties.

Allowed leave to change the wording from Yes / No.

Resigning when Plan B would have been to get the parliament and then public to decide what type of Brexit they wanted, knowing that would take years. There was no need to resign and hand control to the leavers.

Ruling out a second referendum was disastrous. It created the English far right narrative that a second referendum was "anti-democratic".

Saying he would trigger A50 immediately (a lie) was another monumental error. It created the idea that Brexit needed no planning or cross party agreement or consultation with the public.

ElectronVolt

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I don’t agree.

What defines the modern FF is their pragmatism and willingness to be all things to all people.

The DUP on the other hand seem to value the purity of their ideology above all else, even though it is clear to an outside observer that the ideology in this situation could be harmful to their voters.

If the DUP were like FF, then Teresa May’s NI only backstop WA would have been accepted and probably voted through last year and we wouldn’t be in this mess

I'd agree with that, none of the main stream parties in the Republic are ideologically driven. They have slight leanings, but they're very much informed by what they think will win seats. The DUP is about national identity politics and a very right wing religious outlook. In the Irish political system in the Republic, narrowly ideological parties tend to get flung to the edges or irrelevancy, as the whole Irish proportional democracy system tends to be about finding consensus and compromise. If you take a dogmatic point of view, you can't do that so, you become rapidly irrelevant : see Renua and various other attempts to do that over the years.

Even in the Republic, Sinn Fein isn't appealing to a defined audience based on identity politics, it has to compete on policy. Whereas in the North a large part of their vote is automatic, because it's a society divided in half by ethnic identity, be it defined as religious or political.

FF, FG or frankly any party operating in the Republic has very, very little in common with the DUP.

It's also why the DUP have found some common ground with the English far right and Brexit. It's very much about the narrow politics of national identity and nothing else. There's nothing pragmatic about those driving "do or die" Brexit. They're just extreme nationalists, willing to put symbols, notions of patriotism and so on ahead of all else, including the economy and stability of the country.

There's also no moral or political hazard for the DUP taking dogmatic and inflexible positions and refusing to budge. They will just bolster their core vote. In normal societies, parties engaging in multi year long shutdowns of government (suspension of Stormont) would rapidly lose support, but in NI that doesn't happen on either side, and there's no perception of a practical consequence to not having the assembly working, thus this goes on and on and on and on. It's still a completely dysfunctional political system.

It's why I don't see NI coming up with any solution to the backstop. It's going to have to be agreed over the parties' heads and put to the NI people without the backdrop of party politics. The NI public are a lot more pragmatic than their political parties

A Shropshire Lad

BonnieSituation wrote: »

He got £800,000 which is a far cry from Blair's £4.6m

Hes needs a better agent

Charles Babbage

ElectronVolt wrote: »

There's also no moral or political hazard for the DUP taking dogmatic and inflexible positions and refusing to budge. They will just bolster their core vote. In normal societies, parties engaging in multi year long shutdowns of government (suspension of Stormont) would rapidly lose support, but in NI that doesn't happen on either side, and there's no perception of a practical consequence to not having the assembly working, thus this goes on and on and on and on. It's still a completely dysfunctional political system.

The DUP bolster their core vote, in an aging segment of the population that is forming a smaller percentage of the total every year. Not a great long term strategy.

ElectronVolt

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The DUP bolster their core vote, in an aging segment of the population that is forming a smaller percentage of the total every year. Not a great long term strategy.

The long term isn't really relevant to them though - just the next elections and we need a solution by Halloween, not 2050. Hence the problem...

An Claidheamh

SeaBreezes wrote: »

As far as retorts to British insults, the Irish government: The Irish government are reasoned, intelligent, measured and considered in their responses ... there, fixed that for you...

Fixed what?

Considering the Irish government have been betrayed by Brexit Britain, their responses are timid, I hope if Britain try to force us to put up a border the Irish government's actions (or the EU's) are not

An Claidheamh

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I’m not entirely convinced it’s all that fair to just heap the blame for Brexit at Cameron’s feet.

A Brexit referendum was always on the horizon with or without Cameron. The divisions within the Conservative party on Europe had been building for decades and UKIP’s influence was growing. UKIP and the hardcore leavers would have gotten up to their usual dirty tricks with or without Cameron being PM.

I reckon it would be interesting to do a study looking at the rise of English nationalism in recent years and it’s association with the Monarchy. We’ve had an ever growing number of monarchy related celebrations over the last two decades and a major scaling up of events such as the Commonwealth games. The hosting of the London Olympics added to the sense of self-importance too and a nation ready to ‘go it alone’. Now in no way do I think the Monarchy is anti-Europe or anything like that, but I do think there has been consequences for English nationalism as a result of such events. I remember being in London for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and you could actually sense the old fogeys harping back to the ‘good old empire days’ at the time. Then you had that ridiculous ‘flotilla’ sailing up the Thames which Farage tried to replicate during the referendum. Madness altogether when you look back on it.

Those who claim the British commonwealth is about peace and democracy are those who claimed planned famines, concentration camps and terror were civilising.
It's just nonsense.

Apparently, its apologists used to claim that the plan was that the likes of Indians, Canadians, etc would be allowed run for election as head of the British commonwealth after the Queen of England, but recently it was decided Prince Charles will be instead.

So much for democracy and fair play then.

I believe the Royals are sometimes regarded as 'liberal' Tories.

I doubt also they're anti-Europe.

20silkcut

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Those who claim the British commonwealth is about peace and democracy are those who claimed planned famines, concentration camps and terror were civilising.
It's just nonsense.

Apparently, its apologists used to claim that the plan was that the likes of Indians, Canadians, etc would be allowed run for election as head of the British commonwealth after the Queen of England, but recently it was decided Prince Charles will be instead.

So much for democracy and fair play then.

I believe the Royals are sometimes regarded as 'liberal' Tories.

I doubt also they're anti-Europe.

Can’t imagine prince Charles with his concern for the environment or the queen, who is fond of David Attenborough, having much time for the policy’s of Donald trump and by extension Boris Johnson.
Also there is the whole break up of her kingdom aspect.

ElectronVolt

Whatever about the politics of the Commonwealth, the reality of it is that it's a symbolic organisation of almost no purpose. The arguments that get made about using the Comonwealth as some kind of modern trade bloc just don't make any sense, yet you hear it trotted out again and again in the UK media.

The Commonwealth heads of government did actually have a meeting about a replacement for the Queen and the possibility of an elected head, but they seem to have just agreed to retain the status quo and go with the next hereditary British monarch.

It's an odd club and one that I think we were better off out of. I don't really see it as much more than an attempt at window-dressing the legacy of empire and a good old excuse for bowing and scaping to one's betters and all that.