Germany told us what to do in the EU anyway and France vetoed our original application to join the EEC, EFTA is based on trading rather than political and monetary union which is what we thought we were joining the Common Market for
Charles de Gaulle never wanted us to join because he thought our political culture wasn't compatible with Eurofederalism and that we'd just end up being trouble.
CDG was an astute man indeed.
Yes he was right, we are a trading nation looking towards the Atlantic and the open sea with links to the Commonwealth and our Anglo Saxon cousins in the USA. We were not meant to be part of a Federal continental European superstate
Germany told us what to do in the EU anyway and France vetoed our original application to join the EEC, EFTA is based on trading rather than political and monetary union which is what we thought we were joining the Common Market for
Charles de Gaulle never wanted us to join because he thought our political culture wasn't compatible with Eurofederalism and that we'd just end up being trouble.
CDG was an astute man indeed.
It wasn't anything to do with that, and in any case De Gaulle wasn't a federalist. If that were his logic he'd have welcomed us for the same reason we pushed for expansion.
Yet those who saw themselves as English AND British were closest to the actual referendum result in the way they voted
I am inclined to classify anyone who particularly sees themselves as one or the other or both as a nutter. I say English in response to spoken questions because it's dual purpose ( answers both language and nationality questions) and UK in writing because it has the fewest letters.
Germany told us what to do in the EU anyway and France vetoed our original application to join the EEC, EFTA is based on trading rather than political and monetary union which is what we thought we were joining the Common Market for
Charles de Gaulle never wanted us to join because he thought our political culture wasn't compatible with Eurofederalism and that we'd just end up being trouble.
CDG was an astute man indeed.
Yes he was right, we are a trading nation looking towards the Atlantic and the open sea with links to the Commonwealth and our Anglo Saxon cousins in the USA. We were not meant to be part of a Federal continental European superstate
We're a deluded relic of a decaying empire that looks on with envy at what it falsely believes are the simplicities of the New World.
De Gaulle’s opposition to UK membership was about a lack of commitment to the EEC’s political objectives. The UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the US meant at best an obstructive partner too powerful to be ignored, at worst an agent for the US within the EEC.
A major attraction of the EEC for many was its status as a purely European interest bloc in a continent dominated by NATO, which was and remains an American vehicle.
The precise numbers are of course a legitimate question and much explored in scholarly debate given the incomplete nature of the records and the destruction of so much of the physical evidence. The 6 million figure is the one the Nazis themselves (to be exact, Eichmann) gave and is therefore generally considered the ceiling. Most research puts the numbers slightly lower, at around 5.1-5.5 million.
(I fully appreciate that's not what you meant!)
Yad Vashem has a brief intro to this on its FAQ site:
A fascinating and truly shocking number I've seen was estimates for the number of excess deaths caused by the first and second world wars.
18 million deaths in World War one 80 million deaths in World War two
Add into that
25 million killed by the Holodomor and Great Terror in the Soviet Union 45 million died during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in China
The 20th Century was ridiculous.
I have just finished reading Anne Applebaum’s book on the Ukrainian famine - Red Famine. Utterly chilling: both in the deliberate evil that was inflicted on the Ukrainian people and in the way that the truth was denied for decades and decades. How anyone could think that Marxism has anything remotely good about it in the face of evil such as this or the Gulags or the famines inflicted by Mao or the mass murders of Pol Pot beats me.
And yet the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor are perfectly content to speak in front of banners with the faces of these murderers, to call themselves Marxists (McDonnell) and to praise Mao for reducing poverty (Corbyn in a recent interview with Andrew Marr).
I would have said personally that Mao considerably increased poverty. He even took away kitchen utensils in order to fulfil his vanity project of increased steel production. He left vast swathes of China more or less destitute through his bungled agricultural reforms and failed economic plans, not to mention the vast destruction unleashed during the Cultural Revolution. It wasn't until Deng came along with his reforms in both the 1960s and 1980s that that was reversed.
How does Corbyn justify saying the opposite?
There is, of course, no justification for Corbyn challenging your historical judgement, Mr. ydoethur.
Well, if it was purely a matter of interpretation I would agree with you that there is legitimate scope for disagreement. As these are matters of recorded fact it's difficult to see what basis his claim has.
And frankly I would back my judgement against Corbyn's given he is (a) a dogmatist and (b) not noted for his intelligence.
Germany told us what to do in the EU anyway and France vetoed our original application to join the EEC, EFTA is based on trading rather than political and monetary union which is what we thought we were joining the Common Market for
Charles de Gaulle never wanted us to join because he thought our political culture wasn't compatible with Eurofederalism and that we'd just end up being trouble.
CDG was an astute man indeed.
Yes he was right, we are a trading nation looking towards the Atlantic and the open sea with links to the Commonwealth and our Anglo Saxon cousins in the USA. We were not meant to be part of a Federal continental European superstate
We're a deluded relic of a decaying empire that looks on with envy at what it falsely believes are the simplicities of the New World.
These claims that we are archaic fossils, are themselves archaic fossils. Look Back in Anger was 1956.
Here's the thing. If you define Zionism as 'the right of the Jewish population to have a homeland'. They by anti-zionist, you want Isreal to not exist as a state.
Given that it does exist, and it has a population of about 9m people. What do anti-zionist's want done about it? Unless you mean it needs to be forcably destroyed?
What I don’t understand is this: if the existence of a state for the Jewish people is, ipso facto, racist then surely this applies to any other state which is for a particular people, a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, for instance. Either both of them are racist endeavours or neither of them are.
Denying the right to a homeland only to Jews - which seems to be the view of some of the Corbynistas - seems to me to be a very clear example of racism in action.
Not a Corbynista, but I don't think Palestinian is a race. A state for black people, or a state for white people, or a state for Arab people, sounds like it might well be a racist project, and if it started enshrining differential treatment for that race in law - for example, by privileging people of that race in immigration decisions - then it would definitely be racist.
You'd be right if you're saying that countries are often racist, and I'd say the Corbynistas' particular interest in Israel is, varying from person to person, a combination of 1) Holding democracies to higher standards 2) Siding with the underdog against America and/or former colonial powers 3) Anti-Semitism
I think that you are missing the main motivation which is undermining Western power and influence in order to facilitate the socialist transformation of the world. Corbyn himself has a vehemently held simplistic outlook based on Lenin's theory of imperialism which is probably the modern book that has contributed most to human misery. Mein Kampf was a warning but immaterial but Lenin's work had a massive influence and provided the theoritical underpinning for many a disaster.
De Gaulle’s opposition to UK membership was about a lack of commitment to the EEC’s political objectives. The UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the US meant at best an obstructive partner too powerful to be ignored, at worst an agent for the US within the EEC.
A major attraction of the EEC for many was its status as a purely European interest bloc in a continent dominated by NATO, which was and remains an American vehicle.
It’s hard to argue now that de Gaulle was wrong.
De Gaulle was doing us a favour, had we eyes to see it.
Not a Corbynista, but I don't think Palestinian is a race. A state for black people, or a state for white people, or a state for Arab people, sounds like it might well be a racist project, and if it started enshrining differential treatment for that race in law - for example, by privileging people of that race in immigration decisions - then it would definitely be racist.
You'd be right if you're saying that countries are often racist, and I'd say the Corbynistas' particular interest in Israel is, varying from person to person, a combination of 1) Holding democracies to higher standards 2) Siding with the underdog against America and/or former colonial powers 3) Anti-Semitism
I think that you are missing the main motivation which is undermining Western power and influence in order to facilitate the socialist transformation of the world. Corbyn himself has a vehemently held simplistic outlook based on Lenin's theory of imperialism which is probably the modern book that has contributed most to human misery. Mein Kampf was a warning but immaterial but Lenin's work had a massive influence and provided the theoritical underpinning for many a disaster.
You may be right, in which case put that in at (4), but I don't know Corbyn well enough to say. Anecdotally I know quite a few Corbynistas and I don't think any of them are great readers of Lenin.
De Gaulle’s opposition to UK membership was about a lack of commitment to the EEC’s political objectives. The UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the US meant at best an obstructive partner too powerful to be ignored, at worst an agent for the US within the EEC.
A major attraction of the EEC for many was its status as a purely European interest bloc in a continent dominated by NATO, which was and remains an American vehicle.
It’s hard to argue now that de Gaulle was wrong.
Now you're getting somewhere. The UK and France took opposite lessons from the Suez crisis. I think there's merit in both sides' interpretation of the geopolitical lessons, but arguably the Trump era shows that the British view has now run out of road.
As if illiberal racism on the left wasn’t bad enough, we also have illiberal racism on the right on the march. And, ironically, one of its key leaders is Viktor Orban who shares one thing in common with Corbyn - he too refuses to accept the IHRA definition in full.
That's the problem with Conservatives. No matter how many times you vote for them they never put the clocks back one single second.
It depends. Conservatives repealed much of the nationalisation legislation of the post war Labour Government, which was certainly regarded as retrograde by its critics.
But, most political parties only win by looking to the future.
Can anyone tell me what ‘a supposed anti-semitism problem’ is? I thought Labour had a problem, They have had expulsions, disciplineries, investigations, changes in policy to address the issue - if its only a ‘supposed anti-semitism problem’ then they have done a great deal to address something that doesn’t exist.
This is what is so funny - the "supporters" of Corbyn continue to defend a "There. Is. No. Antisemitism." Peter Willsman line even after Jeremy himself sends all members a video message saying there is an anti-semitism problem. The rationale being that poor Jeremy has been forced into saying this by the evil Blairite plot.
On the biggest Labour Facebook group this morning. A smear against Tom Watson claiming that donations made to him by a prominent Jew are part of the 'Israeli global interference in other countries' - they just don't know when to stop such is their hatred for Israel.
The current Israeli government is abhorrent, but they don't really care about Netanyahu or any small issue like that - their issue is that there is an Israeli PM not what the current incumbent does. When I point out that Labour policy IS support of the state of Israel via our two state solution policy, all I get is abuse for some reason...
Well said.
I have no time at all for Antisemitism but do seriously doubt that we would be experiencing the current internal Labour party turmoil were Israel still in the hands of BenGurion , Golda Meier, Simon Perez or Yitzak Rabin.
"[B]ut" of the year. Well done.
The point is that a state which was formerly in the hands of civilised people is now controlled by sinister forces little different from the South African Apartheid regime.
De Gaulle’s opposition to UK membership was about a lack of commitment to the EEC’s political objectives. The UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the US meant at best an obstructive partner too powerful to be ignored, at worst an agent for the US within the EEC.
A major attraction of the EEC for many was its status as a purely European interest bloc in a continent dominated by NATO, which was and remains an American vehicle.
It’s hard to argue now that de Gaulle was wrong.
Now you're getting somewhere. The UK and France took opposite lessons from the Suez crisis. I think there's merit in both sides' interpretation of the geopolitical lessons, but arguably the Trump era shows that the British view has now run out of road.
I think it's certainly true that we shouldn't rely on the special relationship during the Trump era, and it was on pretty shaky ground under Obama too.
But even then, I think it's hard to argue the UK can be dealt with as a partner with a reliably Eurocentric worldview. Atlanticism is hard-coded into the DNA of the UK body politic, as is the Commonwealth, and I just don't see that changing regardless of what outrages Trump visits on us.
Goodwin's entire point (if you read it) is that the 2016 referendum was not the cause of Brexit - but a long chain of events stretching back decades. Its Remainers who regard the 2016 vote as all defining - hence their tireless attempts to overturn it or run it again, in the forlorn hope of getting a different outcome.......the result was a symptom, not the cause.
It's a record that gets shockingly little rotation. But polls have consistently shown a majority of UK adults in favour of either a reduction in the EU's competencies or outright departure since the early 90s.
This is not some recent spasm of stupidity fed by Boris's idiotic bus-borne lies, but a deep-rooted but lowkey euroscepticism that took hold in the early 90s and never went away.
Failure of pro-EU governments, especially Blair's and Cameron's, to engage honestly with that is another contributing factor to the mess we're in now.
It feels weird to say this, but HYUFD has a point. The UK was never going to be a willing participant in a federal EU, and a federal EU has always been the end goal.
If British politicians had been honest, we should have realised a long time ago that our place was in some sort of EEA or Swiss bilateral arrangement and worked towards that.
I wish Eurofederalism well. I just don't think the UK will ever be part of it. So we need to find our place and make our peace with that. And we should have done it in the 90s.
I agree, and I have a long memory of politicians like Blair, Kennedy and Clarke saying we needed to engage honestly with euroscepticism throughout the late 1990s and 2000s.
That never got beyond them telling the public they were wholly wrong, and blaming the tabloid press, with a good dose of sneering thrown in.
It’s like when you hear, “we need to have an honest debate about immigration”, where what is meant is a public platform for one side to consistently tell the public how mistaken they are.
Can anyone tell me what ‘a supposed anti-semitism problem’ is? I thought Labour had a problem, They have had expulsions, disciplineries, investigations, changes in policy to address the issue - if its only a ‘supposed anti-semitism problem’ then they have done a great deal to address something that doesn’t exist.
This is what is so funny - the "supporters" of Corbyn continue to defend a "There. Is. No. Antisemitism." Peter Willsman line even after Jeremy himself sends all members a video message saying there is an anti-semitism problem. The rationale being that poor Jeremy has been forced into saying this by the evil Blairite plot.
On the biggest Labour Facebook group this morning. A smear against Tom Watson claiming that donations made to him by a prominent Jew are part of the 'Israeli global interference in other countries' - they just don't know when to stop such is their hatred for Israel.
The current Israeli government is abhorrent, but they don't really care about Netanyahu or any small issue like that - their issue is that there is an Israeli PM not what the current incumbent does. When I point out that Labour policy IS support of the state of Israel via our two state solution policy, all I get is abuse for some reason...
Well said.
I have no time at all for Antisemitism but do seriously doubt that we would be experiencing the current internal Labour party turmoil were Israel still in the hands of BenGurion , Golda Meier, Simon Perez or Yitzak Rabin.
"[B]ut" of the year. Well done.
The point is that a state which was formerly in the hands of civilised people is now controlled by sinister forces little different from the South African Apartheid regime.
That's offensive. My wife grew up in apartheid South Africa. Schools in her town were divided between the school for black kids, the school for white Afrikaans kids and the school for white English speaking kids. The black kids from Township were not permitted to go to white only schools.
Is that what you think is happening in Israel?
You demean the legacy of apartheid and the struggles that those who really suffered under it by calling what is happening today the same.
Got dragged all the way to the Gherkin for a 20 minute meeting. Could easily have had the whole conversation over the phone as well. What a waste of a perfectly nice afternoon. Bloody hate it when people do that.
De Gaulle’s opposition to UK membership was about a lack of commitment to the EEC’s political objectives. The UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the US meant at best an obstructive partner too powerful to be ignored, at worst an agent for the US within the EEC.
A major attraction of the EEC for many was its status as a purely European interest bloc in a continent dominated by NATO, which was and remains an American vehicle.
It’s hard to argue now that de Gaulle was wrong.
Now you're getting somewhere. The UK and France took opposite lessons from the Suez crisis. I think there's merit in both sides' interpretation of the geopolitical lessons, but arguably the Trump era shows that the British view has now run out of road.
I think it's certainly true that we shouldn't rely on the special relationship during the Trump era, and it was on pretty shaky ground under Obama too.
But even then, I think it's hard to argue the UK can be dealt with as a partner with a reliably Eurocentric worldview. Atlanticism is hard-coded into the DNA of the UK body politic, and I just don't see that changing regardless of what outrages Trump visits on us.
That dilemma goes away as the EU grows into becoming a global geopolitical actor in its own right. I think it's faulty logic to think that the UK is uniquely outward looking, certainly if you're talking about Western Europe.
The fact that Trump is always banging on about the European Union is a sign itself that the EU has arrived. You'd never have heard any previous president talking in those terms, either positively or negatively.
Germany told us what to do in the EU anyway and France vetoed our original application to join the EEC, EFTA is based on trading rather than political and monetary union which is what we thought we were joining the Common Market for
Charles de Gaulle never wanted us to join because he thought our political culture wasn't compatible with Eurofederalism and that we'd just end up being trouble.
CDG was an astute man indeed.
Yes he was right, we are a trading nation looking towards the Atlantic and the open sea with links to the Commonwealth and our Anglo Saxon cousins in the USA. We were not meant to be part of a Federal continental European superstate
We're a deluded relic of a decaying empire that looks on with envy at what it falsely believes are the simplicities of the New World.
Do we? I don't. You are Assertion Man and I claim my £5. Or is it €5. Who knows.
Now you're getting somewhere. The UK and France took opposite lessons from the Suez crisis. I think there's merit in both sides' interpretation of the geopolitical lessons, but arguably the Trump era shows that the British view has now run out of road.
But it's also arguable that the Trump era has shown the underlying strength of UK-US relations. Even the most bizarre President ever hasn't destroyed NATO, or undermined 5-Eyes. There have often been differences at the top, but instinctively the mid-level officials are always happiest working with each other in security and defence matters.
The main threat to this isn't Trump, it's the UK's undermining of its own armed forces since 1990.
Germany told us what to do in the EU anyway and France vetoed our original application to join the EEC, EFTA is based on trading rather than political and monetary union which is what we thought we were joining the Common Market for
Charles de Gaulle never wanted us to join because he thought our political culture wasn't compatible with Eurofederalism and that we'd just end up being trouble.
CDG was an astute man indeed.
Yes he was right, we are a trading nation looking towards the Atlantic and the open sea with links to the Commonwealth and our Anglo Saxon cousins in the USA. We were not meant to be part of a Federal continental European superstate
We're a deluded relic of a decaying empire that looks on with envy at what it falsely believes are the simplicities of the New World.
Do we? I don't. You are Assertion Man and I claim my £5. Or is it €5. Who knows.
It's only possible to debate with HYUFD in a kind of call-and-response manner so give me a break.
The precise numbers are of course a legitimate question and much explored in scholarly debate given the incomplete nature of the records and the destruction of so much of the physical evidence. The 6 million figure is the one the Nazis themselves (to be exact, Eichmann) gave and is therefore generally considered the ceiling. Most research puts the numbers slightly lower, at around 5.1-5.5 million.
(I fully appreciate that's not what you meant!)
Yad Vashem has a brief intro to this on its FAQ site:
A fascinating and truly shocking number I've seen was estimates for the number of excess deaths caused by the first and second world wars.
18 million deaths in World War one 80 million deaths in World War two
Add into that
25 million killed by the Holodomor and Great Terror in the Soviet Union 45 million died during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in China
The 20th Century was ridiculous.
I have just finished reading Anne Applebaum’s book on the Ukrainian famine - Red Famine. Utterly chilling: both in the deliberate evil that was inflicted on the Ukrainian people and in the way that the truth was denied for decades and decades. How anyone could think that Marxism has anything remotely good about it in the face of evil such as this or the Gulags or the famines inflicted by Mao or the mass murders of Pol Pot beats me.
And yet the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor are perfectly content to speak in front of banners with the faces of these murderers, to call themselves Marxists (McDonnell) and to praise Mao for reducing poverty (Corbyn in a recent interview with Andrew Marr).
There is, of course, no justification for Corbyn challenging your historical judgement, Mr. ydoethur.
Well, if it was purely a matter of interpretation I would agree with you that there is legitimate scope for disagreement. As these are matters of recorded fact it's difficult to see what basis his claim has.
And frankly I would back my judgement against Corbyn's given he is (a) a dogmatist and (b) not noted for his intelligence.
(PS, it's spelled 'Y Doethur.')
Corbyn is more academically qualified than John Major given that he left school in 1967 with 2 A Levels - at a time when 30% of pupils sitting such exams failed to obtain the minimum E grade pass.
Can anyone tell me what ‘a supposed anti-semitism problem’ is? I thought Labour had a problem, They have had expulsions, disciplineries, investigations, changes in policy to address the issue - if its only a ‘supposed anti-semitism problem’ then they have done a great deal to address something that doesn’t exist.
This is what is so funny - the "supporters" of Corbyn continue to defend a "There. Is. No. Antisemitism." Peter Willsman line even after Jeremy himself sends all members a video message saying there is an anti-semitism problem. The rationale being that poor Jeremy has been forced into saying this by the evil Blairite plot.
On the biggest Labour Facebook group this morning. A smear against Tom Watson claiming that donations made to him by a prominent Jew are part of the 'Israeli global interference in other countries' - they just don't know when to stop such is their hatred for Israel.
The current Israeli government is abhorrent, but they don't really care about Netanyahu or any small issue like that - their issue is that there is an Israeli PM not what the current incumbent does. When I point out that Labour policy IS support of the state of Israel via our two state solution policy, all I get is abuse for some reason...
Well said.
I have no time at all for Antisemitism but do seriously doubt that we would be experiencing the current internal Labour party turmoil were Israel still in the hands of BenGurion , Golda Meier, Simon Perez or Yitzak Rabin.
"[B]ut" of the year. Well done.
The point is that a state which was formerly in the hands of civilised people is now controlled by sinister forces little different from the South African Apartheid regime.
That's offensive. My wife grew up in apartheid South Africa. Schools in her town were divided between the school for black kids, the school for white Afrikaans kids and the school for white English speaking kids. The black kids from Township were not permitted to go to white only schools.
Is that what you think is happening in Israel?
You demean the legacy of apartheid and the struggles that those who really suffered under it by calling what is happening today the same.
Are you not aware of the recent vote by the Knesset which effectively makes the indigenous Arabs second class citizens? The direction of travel under the Likud extremists is very clear.
This is utter nonsense. Goodwin is wet behind the ears and seems to think the world began in 1997.
In any case Blair never promised a referendum on EU membership, and I don't think Clegg did other than in a dodgy Lib Dem leaflet. I'm not here to defend either of them.
Clegg repeatedly pledged an EU membership referendum. He did so on TV too. It was his get out for signing Lisbon without one thinking (incorrectly) that neither Labour nor the Tories would actually back one so he could yet it would never happen. Mendacious.
That dilemma goes away as the EU grows into becoming a global geopolitical actor in its own right. I think it's faulty logic to think that the UK is uniquely outward looking, certainly if you're talking about Western Europe.
The fact that Trump is always banging on about the European Union is a sign itself that the EU has arrived. You'd never have heard any previous president talking in those terms, either positively or negatively.
That being the case, we should offer ourselves to the US and the EU as a necessary Pontifex between Pax Americana and Pax Europa more than ever before?
The point is that a state which was formerly in the hands of civilised people is now controlled by sinister forces little different from the South African Apartheid regime.
That's offensive. My wife grew up in apartheid South Africa. Schools in her town were divided between the school for black kids, the school for white Afrikaans kids and the school for white English speaking kids. The black kids from Township were not permitted to go to white only schools.
Is that what you think is happening in Israel?
You demean the legacy of apartheid and the struggles that those who really suffered under it by calling what is happening today the same.
Are you not aware of the recent vote by the Knesset which effectively makes the indigenous Arabs second class citizens? The direction of travel under the Likud extremists is very clear.
Yes I am. It officially makes Israel a Jewish state in the same way as the Vatican is a Catholic one, that Iran is a Muslim one etc but as far as I know it isn't actually saying that non-Jews have to go to separate schools etc like happened under Apartheid. Do you seriously not see the difference?
I'll happily condemn Likud but let's not be absurd.
That dilemma goes away as the EU grows into becoming a global geopolitical actor in its own right. I think it's faulty logic to think that the UK is uniquely outward looking, certainly if you're talking about Western Europe.
The fact that Trump is always banging on about the European Union is a sign itself that the EU has arrived. You'd never have heard any previous president talking in those terms, either positively or negatively.
That being the case, we should offer ourselves to the US and the EU as a necessary Pontifex between Pax Americana and Pax Europa more than ever before?
Unless we're firmly part of the European wing of the transatlantic alliance and see ourselves as such we can't play that role. We should have seen the Special Relationship as being between Europe and America rather than jealously trying to claim it only for ourselves. It would have been a much more credible position to exercise leadership from too.
This is utter nonsense. Goodwin is wet behind the ears and seems to think the world began in 1997.
In any case Blair never promised a referendum on EU membership, and I don't think Clegg did other than in a dodgy Lib Dem leaflet. I'm not here to defend either of them.
Clegg repeatedly pledged an EU membership referendum. He did so on TV too. It was his get out for signing Lisbon without one thinking (incorrectly) that neither Labour nor the Tories would actually back one so he could yet it would never happen. Mendacious.
Fair enough. I shouldn't try to defend the Lib Dems.
This is utter nonsense. Goodwin is wet behind the ears and seems to think the world began in 1997.
In any case Blair never promised a referendum on EU membership, and I don't think Clegg did other than in a dodgy Lib Dem leaflet. I'm not here to defend either of them.
Clegg repeatedly pledged an EU membership referendum. He did so on TV too. It was his get out for signing Lisbon without one thinking (incorrectly) that neither Labour nor the Tories would actually back one so he could yet it would never happen. Mendacious.
Ironically, if Cameron and Clegg had stood in the Rose Garden together and said they were calling a once-and-fo-all, let's settle the UKs role in Europe vote, they would most likely have got it through.
Instead, Clegg said "Non!" - and the rise of the machines UKIP was the result. Epic fail by the Libdems.
If you define Zionism as 'the right of the Jewish population to have a homeland'. They by anti-zionist, you want Isreal to not exist as a state.
The second sentence very clearly doesn't follow from the first.
Jezza has explicitly advocated a two state solution to the conflict, of which clearly one is Israel, and has seperately confirmed that he does not propose ending Israel.
Anti-Zionism in its modern context is about opposition to continued explansion beyond the 1967 borders.
This is utter nonsense. Goodwin is wet behind the ears and seems to think the world began in 1997.
In any case Blair never promised a referendum on EU membership, and I don't think Clegg did other than in a dodgy Lib Dem leaflet. I'm not here to defend either of them.
Clegg repeatedly pledged an EU membership referendum. He did so on TV too. It was his get out for signing Lisbon without one thinking (incorrectly) that neither Labour nor the Tories would actually back one so he could yet it would never happen. Mendacious.
Ironically, if Cameron and Clegg had stood in the Rose Garden together and said they were calling a once-and-fo-all, let's settle the UKs role in Europe vote, they would most likely have got it through.
Instead, Clegg said "Non!" - and the rise of the machines UKIP was the result. Epic fail by the Libdems.
Yes, I think if the referendum had been called in 2010 remain would have won by a fairly large margin.
If you define Zionism as 'the right of the Jewish population to have a homeland'. They by anti-zionist, you want Isreal to not exist as a state.
The second sentence very clearly doesn't follow from the first.
Jezza has explicitly advocated a two state solution to the conflict, of which clearly one is Israel, and has seperately confirmed that he does not propose ending Israel.
Anti-Zionism in its modern context is about opposition to continued explansion beyond the 1967 borders.
This is utter nonsense. Goodwin is wet behind the ears and seems to think the world began in 1997.
In any case Blair never promised a referendum on EU membership, and I don't think Clegg did other than in a dodgy Lib Dem leaflet. I'm not here to defend either of them.
Clegg repeatedly pledged an EU membership referendum. He did so on TV too. It was his get out for signing Lisbon without one thinking (incorrectly) that neither Labour nor the Tories would actually back one so he could yet it would never happen. Mendacious.
Ironically, if Cameron and Clegg had stood in the Rose Garden together and said they were calling a once-and-fo-all, let's settle the UKs role in Europe vote, they would most likely have got it through.
Instead, Clegg said "Non!" - and the rise of the machines UKIP was the result. Epic fail by the Libdems.
Yes, I think if the referendum had been called in 2010 remain would have won by a fairly large margin.
Which undermines the argument that the 2016 result was based on long-standing Euroscepticism.
Can anyone tell me what ‘a supposed anti-semitism problem’ is? I thought Labour had a problem, They have had expulsions, disciplineries, investigations, changes in policy to address the issue - if its only a ‘supposed anti-semitism problem’ then they have done a great deal to address something that doesn’t exist.
This is what is so funny - the "supporters" of Corbyn continue to defend a "There. Is. No. Antisemitism." Peter Willsman line even after Jeremy himself sends all members a video message saying there is an anti-semitism problem. The rationale being that poor Jeremy has been forced into saying this by the evil Blairite plot.
On the biggest Labour Facebook group this morning. A smear against Tom Watson claiming that donations made to him by a prominent Jew are part of the 'Israeli global interference in other countries' - they just don't know when to stop such is their hatred for Israel.
The current Israeli government is abhorrent, but they don't really care about Netanyahu or any small issue like that - their issue is that there is an Israeli PM not what the current incumbent does. When I point out that Labour policy IS support of the state of Israel via our two state solution policy, all I get is abuse for some reason...
Well said.
I have no time at all for Antisemitism but do seriously doubt that we would be experiencing the current internal Labour party turmoil were Israel still in the hands of BenGurion , Golda Meier, Simon Perez or Yitzak Rabin.
"[B]ut" of the year. Well done.
The point is that a state which was formerly in the hands of civilised people is now controlled by sinister forces little different from the South African Apartheid regime.
That's offensive. My wife grew up in apartheid South Africa. Schools in her town were divided between the school for black kids, the school for white Afrikaans kids and the school for white English speaking kids. The black kids from Township were not permitted to go to white only schools.
Is that what you think is happening in Israel?
You demean the legacy of apartheid and the struggles that those who really suffered under it by calling what is happening today the same.
That is the policy that Israel carries out in the West Bank, which is run like a Bantustan.
This is utter nonsense. Goodwin is wet behind the ears and seems to think the world began in 1997.
In any case Blair never promised a referendum on EU membership, and I don't think Clegg did other than in a dodgy Lib Dem leaflet. I'm not here to defend either of them.
Clegg repeatedly pledged an EU membership referendum. He did so on TV too. It was his get out for signing Lisbon without one thinking (incorrectly) that neither Labour nor the Tories would actually back one so he could yet it would never happen. Mendacious.
Ironically, if Cameron and Clegg had stood in the Rose Garden together and said they were calling a once-and-fo-all, let's settle the UKs role in Europe vote, they would most likely have got it through.
Instead, Clegg said "Non!" - and the rise of the machines UKIP was the result. Epic fail by the Libdems.
Yes, I think if the referendum had been called in 2010 remain would have won by a fairly large margin.
Especially if instead of trying (and failing) to renegotiate our membership they had instead called for a Commission of leavers to determine how we would leave akin to Australia's Republic referendum. They could have then spent years praising the EU as is while Leavers argued amongst themselves.
The point is that a state which was formerly in the hands of civilised people is now controlled by sinister forces little different from the South African Apartheid regime.
That's offensive. My wife grew up in apartheid South Africa. Schools in her town were divided between the school for black kids, the school for white Afrikaans kids and the school for white English speaking kids. The black kids from Township were not permitted to go to white only schools.
Is that what you think is happening in Israel?
You demean the legacy of apartheid and the struggles that those who really suffered under it by calling what is happening today the same.
That is the policy that Israel carries out in the West Bank, which is run like a Bantustan.
No it isn't the West Bank is largely ran by the Palestinian Authority. Certainly more than the Gaza Strip is as they are more peaceful than Corbyn's friends in Hamas.
For Arab Israeli citizens in Israel itself there is no apartheid. They are able to go to the same schools as Jewish children etc.
The precise numbers are of course a legitimate question and much explored in scholarly debate given the incomplete nature of the records and the destruction of so much of the physical evidence. The 6 million figure is the one the Nazis themselves (to be exact, Eichmann) gave and is therefore generally considered the ceiling. Most research puts the numbers slightly lower, at around 5.1-5.5 million.
(I fully appreciate that's not what you meant!)
Yad Vashem has a brief intro to this on its FAQ site:
A fascinating and truly shocking number I've seen was estimates for the number of excess deaths caused by the first and second world wars.
18 million deaths in World War one 80 million deaths in World War two
Add into that
25 million killed by the Holodomor and Great Terror in the Soviet Union 45 million died during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in China
The 20th Century was ridiculous.
And yet the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor are perfectly content to speak in front of banners with the faces of these murderers, to call themselves Marxists (McDonnell) and to praise Mao for reducing poverty (Corbyn in a recent interview with Andrew Marr).
I would have said personally that Mao considerably increased poverty. He even took away kitchen utensils in order to fulfil his vanity project of increased steel production. He left vast swathes of China more or less destitute through his bungled agricultural reforms and failed economic plans, not to mention the vast destruction unleashed during the Cultural Revolution. It wasn't until Deng came along with his reforms in both the 1960s and 1980s that that was reversed.
How does Corbyn justify saying the opposite?
There is, of course, no justification for Corbyn challenging your historical judgement, Mr. ydoethur.
Well, if it was purely a matter of interpretation I would agree with you that there is legitimate scope for disagreement. As these are matters of recorded fact it's difficult to see what basis his claim has.
And frankly I would back my judgement against Corbyn's given he is (a) a dogmatist and (b) not noted for his intelligence.
(PS, it's spelled 'Y Doethur.')
I knew as soon as I'd posted you'd pick me up on that.
(edit) And you misinterpret my comment - there was no irony intended.
Especially if instead of trying (and failing) to renegotiate our membership they had instead called for a Commission of leavers to determine how we would leave akin to Australia's Republic referendum. They could have then spent years praising the EU as is while Leavers argued amongst themselves.
But hindsight is 20/20.
Cameron never really felt he had the political space to spend years praising the EU. That's why he sat on the fence all the way through until he was safely the other side of the election that he probably didn't expect to win.
Obviously he'd have had a better time in the referendum if he'd been standing up for what he believed during the preceding 10 years, rather than affecting to believe that Leave might be a perfectly viable option if he couldn't persuade it to change itself into something else, then failing to do that and suddenly turning around and telling everyone that remaining was perfectly fine and leaving would be a catastrophe.
This is utter nonsense. Goodwin is wet behind the ears and seems to think the world began in 1997.
In any case Blair never promised a referendum on EU membership, and I don't think Clegg did other than in a dodgy Lib Dem leaflet. I'm not here to defend either of them.
Clegg repeatedly pledged an EU membership referendum. He did so on TV too. It was his get out for signing Lisbon without one thinking (incorrectly) that neither Labour nor the Tories would actually back one so he could yet it would never happen. Mendacious.
Ironically, if Cameron and Clegg had stood in the Rose Garden together and said they were calling a once-and-fo-all, let's settle the UKs role in Europe vote, they would most likely have got it through.
Instead, Clegg said "Non!" - and the rise of the machines UKIP was the result. Epic fail by the Libdems.
Yes, I think if the referendum had been called in 2010 remain would have won by a fairly large margin.
If Blair had called a referendum on joining the Euro in about 1998, when his personal ratings were stratospheric, the country probably would have voted in favour by a fair margin. I think the polls at the time indicated as much.
Labour has been in a state of ‘implosion’ to some degree or another since 2015, when Corbyn first became leader. So Labour ‘tearing itself apart’ is not really a new story, but a continuation of a longer saga. And as we saw last year, Labour’s state of implosion for a two year period didn’t actually in the end prevent them from doing much better than people thought they would. The most united party has probably been the LDs, but it doesn’t seem to have gotten them anywhere.
Likewise, the ‘immortality of Labour’ under Corbyn has been a longstanding story now, going on for about three years. It’s ranged from Corbyn’s statements about Hamas, his association with Gerry Adams and all the IRA stories, to the antisemitism scandal. And even the latter didn’t actually begin this year - it originally took off with the whole story surrounding Ken Livingstone. So, I don’t quite get the arguments as to why voters, who seemingly weren’t moved by all of this will suddenly be moved by what’s come out since late July. The news that’s come out has been entirely in keeping with what we’ve heard before about Corbyn.
If the Tories want to beat Corbyn they shouldn’t rely on negative media stories to finish him off. They did that last time, and they lost their majority.
This is utter nonsense. Goodwin is wet behind the ears and seems to think the world began in 1997.
In any case Blair never promised a referendum on EU membership, and I don't think Clegg did other than in a dodgy Lib Dem leaflet. I'm not here to defend either of them.
Clegg repeatedly pledged an EU membership referendum. He did so on TV too. It was his get out for signing Lisbon without one thinking (incorrectly) that neither Labour nor the Tories would actually back one so he could yet it would never happen. Mendacious.
Ironically, if Cameron and Clegg had stood in the Rose Garden together and said they were calling a once-and-fo-all, let's settle the UKs role in Europe vote, they would most likely have got it through.
Instead, Clegg said "Non!" - and the rise of the machines UKIP was the result. Epic fail by the Libdems.
Yes, I think if the referendum had been called in 2010 remain would have won by a fairly large margin.
If Blair had called a referendum on joining the Euro in about 1998, when his personal ratings were stratospheric, the country probably would have voted in favour by a fair margin. I think the polls at the time indicated as much.
Na, the public have always been against Euro membership:
The point is that a state which was formerly in the hands of civilised people is now controlled by sinister forces little different from the South African Apartheid regime.
That's offensive. My wife grew up in apartheid South Africa. Schools in her town were divided between the school for black kids, the school for white Afrikaans kids and the school for white English speaking kids. The black kids from Township were not permitted to go to white only schools.
Is that what you think is happening in Israel?
You demean the legacy of apartheid and the struggles that those who really suffered under it by calling what is happening today the same.
That is the policy that Israel carries out in the West Bank, which is run like a Bantustan.
No it isn't the West Bank is largely ran by the Palestinian Authority. Certainly more than the Gaza Strip is as they are more peaceful than Corbyn's friends in Hamas.
For Arab Israeli citizens in Israel itself there is no apartheid. They are able to go to the same schools as Jewish children etc.
The West Bank is much like a Bantustan with areas of Palestinian control, but with lots of settlements,there are separate schools, roads and a heavy IDF presence.
Now you're getting somewhere. The UK and France took opposite lessons from the Suez crisis. I think there's merit in both sides' interpretation of the geopolitical lessons, but arguably the Trump era shows that the British view has now run out of road.
But it's also arguable that the Trump era has shown the underlying strength of UK-US relations. Even the most bizarre President ever hasn't destroyed NATO, or undermined 5-Eyes. There have often been differences at the top, but instinctively the mid-level officials are always happiest working with each other in security and defence matters.
The main threat to this isn't Trump, it's the UK's undermining of its own armed forces since 1990.
There has been a small but definite and growing tendency for the European Defence Agency to do things that would have been the exclusive purview of NATO even 5-10 years ago. The US always bitterly opposed any replication of the NATO C2I structures outside. Now it's starting to happen via PESCO and EDA with the US not seeming to care very much at all. The signs are there...
I agree though, that there is a serious problem in Labour in regard to the fact it seems that many of Corbyn’s supporters actually consider any criticism of him as blasphemy. This kind of nonsense didn’t happen under Ed Miliband, and it does make me wonder how his supporters in Momentum are going to deal with knocking on doors. Or, it could be just a social media thing.
Especially if instead of trying (and failing) to renegotiate our membership they had instead called for a Commission of leavers to determine how we would leave akin to Australia's Republic referendum. They could have then spent years praising the EU as is while Leavers argued amongst themselves.
But hindsight is 20/20.
Cameron never really felt he had the political space to spend years praising the EU. That's why he sat on the fence all the way through until he was safely the other side of the election that he probably didn't expect to win.
Obviously he'd have had a better time in the referendum if he'd been standing up for what he believed during the preceding 10 years, rather than affecting to believe that Leave might be a perfectly viable option if he couldn't persuade it to change itself into something else, then failing to do that and suddenly turning around and telling everyone that remaining was perfectly fine and leaving would be a catastrophe.
Why spend years? A 2011 vote on the Referendum - without any renegotiation - would have had the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and (importantly) Ed Miliband as LotO all actively campaigning for Remain. Against probably just a less empowered Farage, the EU Parliamentary election win not thent under his belt.
Comments
A major attraction of the EEC for many was its status as a purely European interest bloc in a continent dominated by NATO, which was and remains an American vehicle.
It’s hard to argue now that de Gaulle was wrong.
And as for Clegg:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/eu-referendum-leaflet-will-haunt-clegg-today
And frankly I would back my judgement against Corbyn's given he is (a) a dogmatist and (b) not noted for his intelligence.
(PS, it's spelled 'Y Doethur.')
https://unherd.com/2018/08/far-rights-plans-capture-europe/?utm_source=UnHerd+Today&utm_campaign=4d16bda8ed-May1_Subject-Test_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_79fd0df946-4d16bda8ed-34706857
But, most political parties only win by looking to the future.
But even then, I think it's hard to argue the UK can be dealt with as a partner with a reliably Eurocentric worldview. Atlanticism is hard-coded into the DNA of the UK body politic, as is the Commonwealth, and I just don't see that changing regardless of what outrages Trump visits on us.
That never got beyond them telling the public they were wholly wrong, and blaming the tabloid press, with a good dose of sneering thrown in.
It’s like when you hear, “we need to have an honest debate about immigration”, where what is meant is a public platform for one side to consistently tell the public how mistaken they are.
Is that what you think is happening in Israel?
You demean the legacy of apartheid and the struggles that those who really suffered under it by calling what is happening today the same.
The fact that Trump is always banging on about the European Union is a sign itself that the EU has arrived. You'd never have heard any previous president talking in those terms, either positively or negatively.
The main threat to this isn't Trump, it's the UK's undermining of its own armed forces since 1990.
Yes I am. It officially makes Israel a Jewish state in the same way as the Vatican is a Catholic one, that Iran is a Muslim one etc but as far as I know it isn't actually saying that non-Jews have to go to separate schools etc like happened under Apartheid. Do you seriously not see the difference?
I'll happily condemn Likud but let's not be absurd.
Instead, Clegg said "Non!" - and the rise of
the machinesUKIP was the result. Epic fail by the Libdems.Anti-Zionism in its modern context is about opposition to continued explansion beyond the 1967 borders.
But hindsight is 20/20.
For Arab Israeli citizens in Israel itself there is no apartheid. They are able to go to the same schools as Jewish children etc.
(edit) And you misinterpret my comment - there was no irony intended.
Obviously he'd have had a better time in the referendum if he'd been standing up for what he believed during the preceding 10 years, rather than affecting to believe that Leave might be a perfectly viable option if he couldn't persuade it to change itself into something else, then failing to do that and suddenly turning around and telling everyone that remaining was perfectly fine and leaving would be a catastrophe.
Likewise, the ‘immortality of Labour’ under Corbyn has been a longstanding story now, going on for about three years. It’s ranged from Corbyn’s statements about Hamas, his association with Gerry Adams and all the IRA stories, to the antisemitism scandal. And even the latter didn’t actually begin this year - it originally took off with the whole story surrounding Ken Livingstone. So, I don’t quite get the arguments as to why voters, who seemingly weren’t moved by all of this will suddenly be moved by what’s come out since late July. The news that’s come out has been entirely in keeping with what we’ve heard before about Corbyn.
If the Tories want to beat Corbyn they shouldn’t rely on negative media stories to finish him off. They did that last time, and they lost their majority.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/emu-tracking-poll-january-1999
NEW THREAD