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

Rjd2

JeffKenna wrote: »

Tony Blair lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to influence MP's so I would certainly pin it on Blair.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report

Don't forget the Chilcot report which was damning on Blair a few years ago.

Chilcot was not exactly a Corbynite as he was as establishment as you can get, heck Blair knighted him!

That's what made it even more cutting.

On the Iraq war, I don't think its fair to suggest the opponents of it were portrayed as the "loony left",,,the daily mail opposed it as did plenty of Labour heavyweights like Cook and Mo who was not an MP at the time.

Then their was the marches.

Never been accountability for it, the neo-cons who supported it in America have survived either due to Trump hiring them or reinventing themselves (Boot and Kristol) while Campbell's career has never had a dip.

eire4

briany wrote: »

The U.S. : Let's destabilise the Middle East and North Africa.

Also the U.S.: Wow, the Middle East is a s**tshow. Why do people there hate us so much? Let's try more drone strikes, and more money to Israel and Saudi to fix this problem.

The U.S, as well: Lol. Nice migrant/'refugee' crisis ya got there, Europe. What? Take in some of these migrants? Why? Is it our fault their country's on fire? I think not.

All so very true and the same could be siad about the issues in central American in places like Honduras which they destroyed when they helped over throw the democratically elected Manuel Zelaya and replace him with a US backed
far right government which has been carrying out killings and other human rights abuses with impunity and completely destabilized Honduras leading to the large number of Hondurans trying to flee north.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

It was Iraq and Libya and everything since that caused the refugee crisis and subsequent rise of the right across Europe leading to Brexit. Such meddling for what.

The U.S. : Let's destabilise the Middle East and North Africa.

Also the U.S.: Wow, the Middle East is a s**tshow. Why do people there hate us so much? Let's try more drone strikes, and more money to Israel and Saudi to fix this problem.

The U.S, as well: Lol. Nice migrant/'refugee' crisis ya got there, Europe. What? Take in some of these migrants? Why? Is it our fault their country's on fire? I think not.

First Up

quokula wrote:

It is often written off as some kind of Tony Blair personal project these days and if not for him everything would have been fine.

The UK's involvement was very much a Tony Blair personal project.

Bush would very likely have gone ahead anyway with the same disastrous results. But that would not have included the collateral damage to the UK's political system which has directly resulted in Brexit.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Such meddling for what.

George W. Bush got a 10% boost in the polls for starting the war, and 10% again when Saddam Hussein was captured.

JeffKenna

quokula wrote: »

Exactly 2 politicians resigned. The vast majority of Labour and Conservatives voted for it (actually it was a higher percentage of Tories than Labour, because Labour had the rump of people like Corbyn who were against it), and the media were banging the drum in favour too.

It was not Tony Blair and Tony Blair alone, it was the entire British establishment who wanted it to go ahead. Many of those MPs are still in parliament today, on both sides of the aisle, though it suits them to pin it all on Blair.

There were of course protests, but those protesters were dismissed as the loony left even though they were on the right side of history, just as people like Corbyn continue to be treated in the media today.

Tony Blair lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to influence MP's so I would certainly pin it on Blair.

ElectronVolt

Just watching Sky News there and there's yet another commentator seemingly of the opinion that Ireland needs to turn itself inside out to facilitate a smooth Brexit.

It's as if the debate just hasn't moved on at all in the UK. The wheels are turning but they're going nowhere.

quokula

farmchoice wrote: »

and its not like this is all a case of hindsight being 20/20. at the time there was a cacophony of protest at the decision to go to war on what was even then obviously dodgy and disputed intelligence.
millions marched principled politicians resigned and less principled saw that not only was it morally wrong it was the middle east so principles aside it would probably turn out very badly anyway and still blair barrelled ahead.

Exactly 2 politicians resigned. The vast majority of Labour and Conservatives voted for it (actually it was a higher percentage of Tories than Labour, because Labour had the rump of people like Corbyn who were against it), and the media were banging the drum in favour too.

It was not Tony Blair and Tony Blair alone, it was the entire British establishment who wanted it to go ahead. Many of those MPs are still in parliament today, on both sides of the aisle, though it suits them to pin it all on Blair.

There were of course protests, but those protesters were dismissed as the loony left even though they were on the right side of history, just as people like Corbyn continue to be treated in the media today.

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Which is one of the reasons we now have Corbyn instead of a Blairite.

The UK has had very few Corbyns though. Chances are they were always going to invade Iraq in 2003 once Bush had made up his mind, no matter who the PM was.

First Up

farmchoice wrote: »

and its not like this is all a case of hindsight being 20/20. at the time there was a cacophony of protest at the decision to go to war on what was even then obviously dodgy and disputed intelligence.
millions marched principled politicians resigned and less principled saw that not only was it morally wrong it was the middle east so principles aside it would probably turn out very badly anyway and still blair barrelled ahead.

Yes, a bit like Brexit really...…..

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

you could argue the Iraq fiasco would have happened no matter what, not unless Labour had had a left wing, anti-war PM.

Which is one of the reasons we now have Corbyn instead of a Blairite.

Strazdas

First Up wrote: »

Nobody is deleting the gains but the consequences of Blair's disastrous decisions on Iraq are far from finished.

To the chaos in the Middle East, you can add the chaos and re-radicalisation of the Labour Party, including first choosing the wrong Miliband (leading to a Tory win and the Brexit referendum), then choosing the unelectable Corbyn (leading to totally ineffective opposition to Brexit.)

Blair and the repulsive Alastair Campbell should be in jail for Iraq but they also carry much of the blame for the UK's descent into chaos since.

A Tory PM would have backed George Bush 100%....you could argue the Iraq fiasco would have happened no matter what, not unless Labour had had a left wing, anti-war PM.

quokula

lawred2 wrote: »

as if Tories would have done any different

When the Iraq war comes up it's often forgotten that it was overwhelmingly supported across both main parties at the time, and of course it was primarily an American exercise that would have happened with or without the UK.

It is often written off as some kind of Tony Blair personal project these days and if not for him everything would have been fine.

farmchoice

First Up wrote: »

Nobody is deleting the gains but the consequences of Blair's disastrous decisions on Iraq are far from finished.

To the chaos in the Middle East, you can add the chaos and re-radicalisation of the Labour Party, including first choosing the wrong Miliband (leading to a Tory win and the Brexit referendum), then choosing the unelectable Corbyn (leading to totally ineffective opposition to Brexit.)

Blair and the repulsive Alastair Campbell should be in jail for Iraq but they also carry much of the blame for the UK's descent into chaos since.

and its not like this is all a case of hindsight being 20/20. at the time there was a cacophony of protest at the decision to go to war on what was even then obviously dodgy and disputed intelligence.
millions marched principled politicians resigned and less principled saw that not only was it morally wrong it was the middle east so principles aside it would probably turn out very badly anyway and still blair barrelled ahead.

Joe_ Public

quokula wrote: »

Similar (though less hard line) sentiment in this article:

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-remainers-can-no-longer-take-yes-for-an-answer-11790224

If you're a British remainer and you put aside any irrational prejudice and look at the actual policy, Labour are basically giving you everything you could possibly reasonably ask for.

I read Lewis Goodall's book a few weeks back. Wasnt expecting much from it tbh, and starts off with him praising Blair to the hilt (as he got into journalism on the back of a scheme implemented by New Labour). Have to say, though, it developed into a rather good insight into how the party historically got to the point it is now at and was more than fair to Corbyn and every other leader. A lot of good sense written in that article imo.

First Up

listermint wrote:

Deleting all of the massive gains that the average punter got during that time is very questionable. I always look on blanket statements like 'but the iraq war' with suspicion.

Nobody is deleting the gains but the consequences of Blair's disastrous decisions on Iraq are far from finished.

To the chaos in the Middle East, you can add the chaos and re-radicalisation of the Labour Party, including first choosing the wrong Miliband (leading to a Tory win and the Brexit referendum), then choosing the unelectable Corbyn (leading to totally ineffective opposition to Brexit.)

Blair and the repulsive Alastair Campbell should be in jail for Iraq but they also carry much of the blame for the UK's descent into chaos since.

lawred2

listermint wrote: »

Iraq war is a big optics game amongst most people on the Internet. A big fat flag to sit under.

Blairs goverments oversay the biggest lift felt across the board by the british public in decades. It was a golden era in the country where all boats were lifted.

Hanging coats on a war to overshadow nearly 2 decades of prosperity is nonsense. Wars do happen and yes it should not have happened but it did.

Deleting all of the massive gains that the average punter got during that time is very questionable. I always look on blanket statements like 'but the iraq war' with suspicion.

as if Tories would have done any different

Joe_ Public

listermint wrote: »

Iraq war is a big optics game amongst most people on the Internet. A big fat flag to sit under.

Blairs goverments oversay the biggest lift felt across the board by the british public in decades. It was a golden era in the country where all boats were lifted.

Hanging coats on a war to overshadow nearly 2 decades of prosperity is nonsense. Wars do happen and yes it should not have happened but it did.

Deleting all of the massive gains that the average punter got during that time is very questionable. I always look on blanket statements like 'but the iraq war' with suspicion.

"Lifted all boats." Hmm, i'm not so sure about that. The regime that was famously "relaxed about people getting filthy rich" was also one in which inequality in British society grew sharply throughout its longish reign. I think there is definitely a case to be made for the claim that the vote to leave, while its roots surely precede the arrival of blairism by at least a generation, was certainly fomented all the time he was in charge.

listermint

Rjd2 wrote: »

None of May, Johnson or Cameron are worse PMS than Blair.

Blair did good things, but ultimately his role in Iraq an illegitimate war was responsible for so many deaths and its effects are still been felt in 2019 and it cancels out his good deeds domestically.

Brexit is a ****show and if it happens which thankfully I feel it won't, will cause a lot of pain, but its not going to rival the horror of the Iraq war.

Corbyn isn't exactly perfect, but to his credit his foreign policy views are actually pretty sensible. Swinson I like was rambling like a neocon about Venezuela regime change the other day ffs.

Iraq war is a big optics game amongst most people on the Internet. A big fat flag to sit under.

Blairs goverments oversay the biggest lift felt across the board by the british public in decades. It was a golden era in the country where all boats were lifted.

Hanging coats on a war to overshadow nearly 2 decades of prosperity is nonsense. Wars do happen and yes it should not have happened but it did.

Deleting all of the massive gains that the average punter got during that time is very questionable. I always look on blanket statements like 'but the iraq war' with suspicion.

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I agree with Ian Dunt's take on all this.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1174314709849432070

Similar (though less hard line) sentiment in this article:

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-remainers-can-no-longer-take-yes-for-an-answer-11790224

If you're a British remainer and you put aside any irrational prejudice and look at the actual policy, Labour are basically giving you everything you could possibly reasonably ask for.

quokula

VinLieger wrote: »

The second referendum has only been part of their policy since last years conference when Corbyn got overruled by the membership and still it took him several months to actually come out and confirm it.

You're right, it's only been explicit policy since last year, though he was talking about the idea in 2017

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/corbyn-heads-to-portugal-as-u-k-labour-develops-ties-with-eu

But the thrust of their position, a deal with the closest ties possible to the EU while honouring the referendum has long been set. Which is by far the best situation for Ireland and the rest of Europe, though you can certainly argue in the UK that it would be pointless as things would basically be the same except they'd lost their influence.

Their support for a second referendum came later (though still some time ago now) as Theresa May's red lines were hardened and the country had become more polarised, making it harder for the sensible middle ground option.

Joe_ Public

I agree with Ian Dunt's take on all this.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1174314709849432070

Rjd2

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can we really say the worst ever, while Teresa May and Boris Johnson still draw breath?

None of May, Johnson or Cameron are worse PMS than Blair.

Blair did good things, but ultimately his role in Iraq an illegitimate war was responsible for so many deaths and its effects are still been felt in 2019 and it cancels out his good deeds domestically.

Brexit is a ****show and if it happens which thankfully I feel it won't, will cause a lot of pain, but its not going to rival the horror of the Iraq war.

Corbyn isn't exactly perfect, but to his credit his foreign policy views are actually pretty sensible. Swinson I like was rambling like a neocon about Venezuela regime change the other day ffs.

VinLieger

quokula wrote: »

He did answer it - he said they would negotiate an EFTA style deal (he didn't say EFTA but all the elements basically add up to something like that), and that they would have a referendum between that deal and remain, at which point the people will decide. The type of deal they want to negotiate has been their consistent position from the beginning, and the second referendum has always been part of their policy with the only question being about sequencing. The UK media has repeatedly misrepresented Labour's position throughout. Just because it is nuanced and can't be reduced to a catchy slogan.

The second referendum has only been part of their policy since last years conference when Corbyn got overruled by the membership and still it took him several months to actually come out and confirm it.

Inquitus

Supreme court verdict rally next week.

quokula

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I am getting a bit senior but I was wondering where the hell your post went Nice input as always. Always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree on the Lib Dem approach, but I admire that at least they've got a conviction on where they want to go, which at the moment is more than you can say for either the Tories (hopelessly divided and falling apart by the day) or Labour, who have flip-flopped on this more times than I can count. Corbyn refused to answer a simple question yesterday on which way Labour would go if it came to either remaining or leaving with a deal.

I admire the fact that the Lib Dems have gone a brave route on their stance but as to how it'll sit with voters in the long run remains to be seen. I think it'll probably depend on how shambolic on a scale of 1-10 the next 5 weeks are.

He did answer it - he said they would negotiate an EFTA style deal (he didn't say EFTA but all the elements basically add up to something like that), and that they would have a referendum between that deal and remain, at which point the people will decide. The type of deal they want to negotiate has been their consistent position from the beginning, and the second referendum has always been part of their policy with the only question being about sequencing. The UK media has repeatedly misrepresented Labour's position throughout. Just because it is nuanced and can't be reduced to a catchy slogan.

Their policy the only reasonable way not to alienate half the electorate, and the only sensible way forward as things stand (option between remain and least-worst Brexit).

The Lib Dem's cynical approach to only appeal to the 48% makes sense to double or even triple their number of MPs, but it is not an option for a party that is seriously trying to become a legitimate government and in reality it risks splitting the vote and putting the tories back in. Especially when they bizarrely refuse to work with other parties who want to stop Brexit.

Joe_ Public

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I am getting a bit senior but I was wondering where the hell your post went Nice input as always. Always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree on the Lib Dem approach, but I admire that at least they've got a conviction on where they want to go, which at the moment is more than you can say for either the Tories (hopelessly divided and falling apart by the day) or Labour, who have flip-flopped on this more times than I can count. Corbyn refused to answer a simple question yesterday on which way Labour would go if it came to either remaining or leaving with a deal.

I admire the fact that the Lib Dems have gone a brave route on their stance but as to how it'll sit with voters in the long run remains to be seen. I think it'll probably depend on how shambolic on a scale of 1-10 the next 5 weeks are.

Hah, i know those moments well enough!!
I couldnt claim to be all that clued in to the brexit phenomena compared to many here, but the politics of it does intrigue me. I mean, i would probably take a slightly different line to most in that i actually have quite a bit of time for labour's position here, whether that's through corbyns own strategy or a bit accidental in that they have kind of fallen into it. It's a compromise position between 2 extremes and just seems like common sense to me, almost as if, as one labour politician put it on bbc this morning, corbyn is actually the one grown up mature adult in the room. Doesnt make me a dyed in the wool corbynista or anything, just i can see the streak of wisdom in it.

Of course, the other side of that is, electorally how's it going to play and clearly many on the labour side are uneasy with it. Harold Wilson did famously play this neutral arbiter figure in the 1975 referendum and pulled it off, but whether corbyn could manage that remains to be seen. I suspect they'll have a fight about this at conference and get pulled further towards the remain side. But i'd never be convinced that having an argument simply between a hard brexit side and a full revoke side will get them very far. Seems a recipe for just deeper division to me.

PeadarCo

Memnoch wrote:

Now they're inviting those same Tories into their party. But unfortunately the propaganda against Corbyn is strong enough that they may get to do the same again.

I don't buy this propaganda angle. I Corbyn disliked by certain sections of the UK media. However when it has come to Brexit he has been incompetent. His only saving grace is that he hasn't been PM and had to make decisions. He has had no clear opinion on the biggest issue facing the UK in a generation. It's a complete absence of leadership. One of the reasons the Tories have got away with their nonsense is Corbyn refusal to call them out on it. The idea that you could have a multi year Tory civil war and even then Labour might not win an election says all you need to know about his leadership.

beggars_bush

robinph wrote: »

To which the EU should respond with, well sign up for the backstop then and after a year if you have another solution we can get rid of the backstop... exactly like the backstop is meant to operate in the first place... like a backstop.

yeah, but its undemocratic... etc

PropJoe10

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ah! I was going to edit it to explain a bit more, but decided to delete it instead and start over!

I am getting a bit senior but I was wondering where the hell your post went

Nice input as always. Always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree on the Lib Dem approach, but I admire that at least they've got a conviction on where they want to go, which at the moment is more than you can say for either the Tories (hopelessly divided and falling apart by the day) or Labour, who have flip-flopped on this more times than I can count. Corbyn refused to answer a simple question yesterday on which way Labour would go if it came to either remaining or leaving with a deal.

I admire the fact that the Lib Dems have gone a brave route on their stance but as to how it'll sit with voters in the long run remains to be seen. I think it'll probably depend on how shambolic on a scale of 1-10 the next 5 weeks are.