Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit
'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'
Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?
Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?
No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
That’s a non-sequitur
“Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests
You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin
At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
Disagree
There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome
It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
What has happened was entirely predictable. People who had no idea about how the EU works, how integrated the UK is into EU institutions and supply chains, and who did not have the faintest idea about international trade agreements just assumed it would all be OK and therefore sold a totally false prospectus to voters.
Nothing wrong with conclusion, even if not all the premises stack up.
As much as one can see a transparent attempt to create an Islamophobic meme, equate it to fascism, and smear Boris Johnson with it - Boris is a narcissistic cretin and pretty much deserves what he gets.
Johnson has been happily sending out racist and islamaphobic dog whistles for years. As with Corbyn, there comes a time when you just have to accept the evidence rather than look for excuses.
“Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests
You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin
At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
Disagree
ission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome
It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
What has happened was entirely predictable. People who had no idea about how the EU works, how integrated the UK is into EU institutions and supply chains, and who did not have the faintest idea about international trade agreements just assumed it would all be OK and therefore sold a totally false prospectus to voters.
There certainly seems to have been an implicit assumption among some Leave voters (though by no means all) that leaving the EU would be little more complicated than just flicking a switch.
Leaving is easy. The hard bit is leaving without inflicting significant self-harm.
Agreed. Leaving should have taken place over a number of years. I would have preferred going into the EEA and, wrongly, expected something like this to happen if the vote was for Brexit, which I equally did not expect to happen.
Nothing wrong with conclusion, even if not all the premises stack up.
As much as one can see a transparent attempt to create an Islamophobic meme, equate it to fascism, and smear Boris Johnson with it - Boris is a narcissistic cretin and pretty much deserves what he gets.
Johnson has been happily sending out racist and islamaphobic dog whistles for years. As with Corbyn, there comes a time when you just have to accept the evidence rather than look for excuses.
Yes, but would you counter him with an “anti-Nazism league”?
The debate continues to coarsen, polarise, and fester on both left and right.
'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'
Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?
Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?
No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
That’s a non-sequitur
“Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests.
No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
Disagree
ission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome
It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
What has happened was entirely predictable. People who had no idea about how the EU works, how integrated the UK is into EU institutions and supply chains, and who did not have the faintest idea about international trade agreements just assumed it would all be OK and therefore sold a totally false prospectus to voters.
There certainly seems to have been an implicit assumption among some Leave voters (though by no means all) that leaving the EU would be little more complicated than just flicking a switch.
Indeed. Several well educated and apparently intelligent Leavers of my acquaintance took that view. Surpising some of them travelled regularly to homes on the Continent.
Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit
Nothing wrong with conclusion, even if not all the premises stack up.
As much as one can see a transparent attempt to create an Islamophobic meme, equate it to fascism, and smear Boris Johnson with it - Boris is a narcissistic cretin and pretty much deserves what he gets.
Johnson has been happily sending out racist and islamaphobic dog whistles for years. As with Corbyn, there comes a time when you just have to accept the evidence rather than look for excuses.
Yes, but would you counter him with an “anti-Nazism league”?
The debate continues to coarsen, polarise, and fester on both left and right.
I fear that the general level of debate continues to etc.
Either the UK is going to shake itself and come to its senses, or we are heading towards some sort of cataclysm.
Maybe be Enoch was right, although for the wrong reason.
Nothing wrong with conclusion, even if not all the premises stack up.
As much as one can see a transparent attempt to create an Islamophobic meme, equate it to fascism, and smear Boris Johnson with it - Boris is a narcissistic cretin and pretty much deserves what he gets.
Johnson has been happily sending out racist and islamaphobic dog whistles for years. As with Corbyn, there comes a time when you just have to accept the evidence rather than look for excuses.
Yes, but would you counter him with an “anti-Nazism league”?
The debate continues to coarsen, polarise, and fester on both left and right.
Yep, on left and right the poison is growing. There is an end of days feel about things currently. Johnson will welcome McDonnell’s tweet as it sends a clear message to the demographic he is clearly targetting.
Pro-EU politicians also denied claims we'd given away too much power or were excessively integrated or lacked sovereignty.
Except that this is a value judgment. It is perfectly coherent for Nick Clegg (to pick on him for a second) to “deny” that we have “given away” too much power.
I use quotes by the way to highlight your own emotional framing of the argument.
Clegg presumably has his own, subjective view on what “too much” means, which he would be happy to defend.
However, the idea we can leave the EU without damage was, is, and remains to be a lie.
Indeed, like some kind Gresham’s law for political discourse, it has spawned an even more virulent lie - that we can “No Deal” without damage.
Pro-EU politicians also denied claims we'd given away too much power or were excessively integrated or lacked sovereignty.
Except that this is a value judgment. It is perfectly coherent for Nick Clegg (to pick on him for a second) to “deny” that we have “given away” too much power.
I use quotes by the way to highlight your own emotional framing of the argument.
Clegg presumably has his own, subjective view on what “too much” means, which he would be happy to defend.
However, the idea we can leave the EU without damage was, is, and remains, a lie.
Indeed, like some kind Gresham’s law for political discourse, it has spawned an even more virulent lie - that we can “No Deal” without damage.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Pro-EU politicians also denied claims we'd given away too much power or were excessively integrated or lacked sovereignty.
Except that this is a value judgment. It is perfectly coherent for Nick Clegg (to pick on him for a second) to “deny” that we have “given away” too much power.
I use quotes by the way to highlight your own emotional framing of the argument.
Clegg presumably has his own, subjective view on what “too much” means, which he would be happy to defend.
However, the idea we can leave the EU without damage was, is, and remains, a lie.
Indeed, like some kind Gresham’s law for political discourse, it has spawned an even more virulent lie - that we can “No Deal” without damage.
'However, the idea we can leave the EU without damage was, is, and remains, a lie.’
It’s not a ‘lie’ as such, it’s a fantasy. However, anyone who knew what they were talking about who repeated it must have known they were peddling rocking horse s**t.
An excellent article thanks Mike, and a great piece of analysis by Gizmodo.
Twitter should be ignored; it is nearly as meaningless as a ConHome poll ....
ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on in its final members poll
And I keep on pointing out why that's meaningless ...
It isn't meaningless just you will believe a poll with Cameron ahead but not Boris ahead
It's nothing to do what I believe; it's do with that fact it's a load of nonsense.
No ConHome polls have largely reflected Yougov polls of Tory members in the past and record voters membership status or whether they are just Tory voters etc. As I said you will only believe polls which reinforce your belief of who should be next Tory leader
No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
Disagree
There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome
It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
You had irrational faith in the ability of politicians, a faith that many of us saw well in advance was completely unjustified. Shrugging your shoulders and claiming this is nothing to do with your own irresponsible assessment of likely outcomes just isn't good enough.
With the greatest respect, you are slightly rewriting history there. I am sure you have said repeatedly that you might well have got behind Leave had there been a different sort of Leave campaign. I don’t think you have ever said what sort of Leave campaign you might have supported (and I am not criticising you for that, though I would be interested to know). So clearly had there been such a different Leave campaign and it had won, you would have been on the other side of this argument.
But the difficulties of negotiating Britain’s departure would still be there.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
@William Glenn has a coherent answer to this. We should become enthusiasts for ever-closer Union. However, very few voters agree.
So, we're left with a choice between leaving, or staying in an organisation we dislike, because the costs of leaving are high.
King Cole, that's true. It's still remarkable how atrocious both campaigns were.
Mr. Walker, there's nothing emotional about it. You said yourself it was a value judgement.
Edited extra bit: as an aside, concern over economic turbulence made me hesitate rather more than expected before I cast my vote.
Reflecting on the year 2016 I am struck by how many people, myself included, missed the significance of the PCC elections about 5 weeks before the Referendum and the strength, particularly in the East, of the UKIP vote.
No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
Disagree
There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome
It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
You had irrational faith in the ability of politicians, a faith that many of us saw well in advance was completely unjustified. Shrugging your shoulders and claiming this is nothing to do with your own irresponsible assessment of likely outcomes just isn't good enough.
With the greatest respect, you are slightly rewriting history there. I am sure you have said repeatedly that you might well have got behind Leave had there been a different sort of Leave campaign. I don’t think you have ever said what sort of Leave campaign you might have supported (and I am not criticising you for that, though I would be interested to know). So clearly had there been such a different Leave campaign and it had won, you would have been on the other side of this argument.
But the difficulties of negotiating Britain’s departure would still be there.
An integral part of any Leave campaign that I could have got behind was a clearly spelt-out vision of what post-Brexit Britain was aiming for (rather than running away from). That would have given a negotiating strategy and also identified in advance the areas where Britain was going to need to work hardest.
Instead, Leave offered a campaign based entirely on hatred of the EU and immigration, with no constructive idea to offer in its place. All Britain's current problems flow from that.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
We don't have to leave quickly though. Given 10-12 years we can get out with minimal disruption. Why the hurry? There wasn't a timescale on the ballot paper.
An excellent article thanks Mike, and a great piece of analysis by Gizmodo.
Twitter should be ignored; it is nearly as meaningless as a ConHome poll ....
ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on in its final members poll
And I keep on pointing out why that's meaningless ...
It isn't meaningless just you will believe a poll with Cameron ahead but not Boris ahead
It's nothing to do what I believe; it's do with that fact it's a load of nonsense.
No ConHome polls have largely reflected Yougov polls of Tory members in the past and record voters membership status or whether they are just Tory voters etc. As I said you will only believe polls which reinforce your belief of who should be next Tory leader
You may have said it, but it's rubbish. I don't have a fixed view on who should be next Tory leader: all the named runners are deeply flawed to one degree or another.
My issue isn't with the results of the poll; my issue is that it is a load of rubbish. Your extreme faith in it is faintly ridiculous.
'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'
Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?
Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?
No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
That’s a non-sequitur
“Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests
You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin
At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
Disagree
There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome
It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
To be clear then, in your view the transfer of one factory with a transfer value of, let’s call it $1bn, took you a year and is equivalent to negotiating exit terms from the EU. That’s as simplistic as the halfwits who suggest that there would be no government budget deficit if there were no international aid or “waste”.
No. It was just making the point that nothing is impossible.
I have a sense that some very dark forces are behind what's going on in the Labour Party at the moment. It all started when Mark Regev was appointed Israeli Ambassador to London in 2015. A strange appointment. Why send the head of your propaganda Ministry to be ambassador to an ally?
For those not well versed in Israeli politics they might remember him best as the man who appeared regularly during the Gaza invasion to tell the world that for instance the 4 infants playing football on the beach killed by Israeli shells were up to no good and the boy and his father shot by Israeli soldiers while hiding from crossfire was a staged event despite it being filmed and witnessed by a Reuters cameraman.
A much more dangerous figure than Comical Ali because to the credulous he seemed credible. Employed because his urbane manner would be more amenable to allies in the West than the heavily accented East European who preceded him.
It could be no more than coincidence that having served as Netanyahus propagandist since 2007 he should arrive in the UK just months after Corbyn's election and from tha moment on the drip drip drip of stories to Guido and other right wing publications should begin
But I doubt it because the more you think about what's happening the more far fetched it becomes. The left of the Labour Party has always been the political home for the majority of Jews and their cause has more often than not been support fot the oppressed as it was in South Africa. I'm sure many will be turning in their graves watching this manipulation continue
The Corbyn dilemma: 1. The make-up of the PLP means that a Corbyn-led Labour government would find it very hard to implement important parts of its programme. 2. Mass deselection of sitting MPs creates a de facto new party & makes winning a GE next to impossible.
2. Will never happen.
1. Which important parts do you have in mind? I think the argument within labour has been won on rail nationalisation, raising corporation tax, income tax on top earners, looking into some form of wealth/land value tax etc. And obviously everyone will get behind reversing cuts, investing in NHS. Top up fees would be a battle but I suspect there's enough support. I don't think Corbyn will get enough support for scrapping trident and probably not for nationalising water utilities. But that's actually a great deal of common ground and certainly plenty for a govt to crack on with.
An excellent article thanks Mike, and a great piece of analysis by Gizmodo.
Twitter should be ignored; it is nearly as meaningless as a ConHome poll ....
ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on in its final members poll
And I keep on pointing out why that's meaningless ...
It isn't meaningless just you will believe a poll with Cameron ahead but not Boris ahead
It's nothing to do what I believe; it's do with that fact it's a load of nonsense.
No ConHome polls have largely reflected Yougov polls of Tory members in the past and record voters membership status or whether they are just Tory voters etc. As I said you will only believe polls which reinforce your belief of who should be next Tory leader
You may have said it, but it's rubbish. I don't have a fixed view on who should be next Tory leader: all the named runners are deeply flawed to one degree or another.
My issue isn't with the results of the poll; my issue is that it is a load of rubbish. Your extreme faith in it is faintly ridiculous.
The word faintly is clearly redundant in your final sentence.
No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
Disagree
There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome
It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
You had irrational faith in the ability of politicians, a faith that many of us saw well in advance was completely unjustified. Shrugging your shoulders and claiming this is nothing to do with your own irresponsible assessment of likely outcomes just isn't good enough.
But the difficulties of negotiating Britain’s departure would still be there.
An integral part of any Leave campaign that I could have got behind was a clearly spelt-out vision of what post-Brexit Britain was aiming for (rather than running away from). That would have given a negotiating strategy and also identified in advance the areas where Britain was going to need to work hardest.
Instead, Leave offered a campaign based entirely on hatred of the EU and immigration, with no constructive idea to offer in its place. All Britain's current problems flow from that.
Indeed. And we *still* don’t have that vision.
Brexit was poisoned at birth with this irrational hatred of Europe and immigrants. It was enough to get over the line, but destroyed any chance of creating a positive future for the country.
May had a fleeting chance to re-set and re-frame. She did not, partly through lack of imagination, and mostly through fear of the extremists in her own party.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
@William Glenn has a coherent answer to this. We should become enthusiasts for ever-closer Union. However, very few voters agree.
So, we're left with a choice between leaving, or staying in an organisation we dislike, because the costs of leaving are high.
We'll just have to pay the cost.
And send the bill to those loud Remainers who wound us ever tighter into the EU, without voter consent.
The true cost is hard to fathom at this point, whilstever those tasked with minimising that cost are still wandering round wearing their THE END IS NIGH sandwich boards, trying to overturn a democratic vote. Once it FINALLY gets conceded that we are actually leaving, I suspect that - whilst undoubtedly disruptive - ways will magically be found to mitgate some of the worst of that disruption.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
@William Glenn has a coherent answer to this. We should become enthusiasts for ever-closer Union. However, very few voters agree.
So, we're left with a choice between leaving, or staying in an organisation we dislike, because the costs of leaving are high.
And the benefits of leaving are extremely low.
I backed Remain because I did not (do not) believe the damage that will be done to the UK’s economy, its internal cohesion and international standing are worth the notional gains in sovereignty we will obtain. The power to have sub-optimal trade agreements dictated to us is not worth it, in my view - especially given the near certainty that immigration levels are likely to remain high if the economy is not to tank totally.
There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome
It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
You had irrational faith in the ability of politicians, a faith that many of us saw well in advance was completely unjustified. Shrugging your shoulders and claiming this is nothing to do with your own irresponsible assessment of likely outcomes just isn't good enough.
With the greatest respect, you are slightly rewriting history there. I am sure you have said repeatedly that you might well have got behind Leave had there been a different sort of Leave campaign. I don’t think you have ever said what sort of Leave campaign you might have supported (and I am not criticising you for that, though I would be interested to know). So clearly had there been such a different Leave campaign and it had won, you would have been on the other side of this argument.
But the difficulties of negotiating Britain’s departure would still be there.
An integral part of any Leave campaign that I could have got behind was a clearly spelt-out vision of what post-Brexit Britain was aiming for (rather than running away from). That would have given a negotiating strategy and also identified in advance the areas where Britain was going to need to work hardest.
Instead, Leave offered a campaign based entirely on hatred of the EU and immigration, with no constructive idea to offer in its place. All Britain's current problems flow from that.
Thank you. I agree that the failure to set out a vision of a post-Brexit Britain and how to get there has been the critical failing. It should have happened - at the latest - before Article 50 was triggered. I thought May, plodding though she is, would have had the sense to do the sort of detailed analysis of what would be needed. But she has turned out to be both plodding and empty-headed. It is a mess.
Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit
I have a sense that some very dark forces are behind what's going on in the Labour Party at the moment. It all started when Mark Regev was appointed Israeli Ambassador to London in 2015. A strange appointment. Why send the head of your propaganda Ministry to be ambassador to an ally?
For those not well versed in Israeli politics they might remember him best as the man who appeared regularly during the Gaza invasion to tell the world that for instance the 4 infants playing football on the beach killed by Israeli shells were up to no good and the boy and his father shot by Israeli soldiers while hiding from crossfire was a staged event despite it being filmed and witnessed by a Reuters cameraman.
A much more dangerous figure than Comical Ali because to the credulous he seemed credible. Employed because his urbane manner would be more amenable to allies in the West than the heavily accented East European who preceded him.
It could be no more than coincidence that having served as Netanyahus propagandist since 2007 he should arrive in the UK just months after Corbyn's election and from tha moment on the drip drip drip of stories to Guido and other right wing publications should begin
But I doubt it because the more you think about what's happening the more far fetched it becomes. The left of the Labour Party has always been the political home for the majority of Jews and their cause has more often than not been support fot the oppressed as it was in South Africa. I'm sure many will be turning in their graves watching this manipulation continue
That isn’t an anti-semitic post; it’s an anti-Israeli Government one.
Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit
The Corbyn dilemma: 1. The make-up of the PLP means that a Corbyn-led Labour government would find it very hard to implement important parts of its programme. 2. Mass deselection of sitting MPs creates a de facto new party & makes winning a GE next to impossible.
Does 2. follow ?
Some parts of the country would vote for a donkey with a red rosette on it.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
The Corbyn dilemma: 1. The make-up of the PLP means that a Corbyn-led Labour government would find it very hard to implement important parts of its programme. 2. Mass deselection of sitting MPs creates a de facto new party & makes winning a GE next to impossible.
2. Will never happen.
1. Which important parts do you have in mind? I think the argument within labour has been won on rail nationalisation, raising corporation tax, income tax on top earners, looking into some form of wealth/land value tax etc. And obviously everyone will get behind reversing cuts, investing in NHS. Top up fees would be a battle but I suspect there's enough support. I don't think Corbyn will get enough support for scrapping trident and probably not for nationalising water utilities. But that's actually a great deal of common ground and certainly plenty for a govt to crack on with.
I agree. I think a Labour government will be most constrained by the PLP on foreign and defence issues, rather than domestic ones. The problem for Corbyn (though not for McDonnell) is that these are the most important to him.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
@William Glenn has a coherent answer to this. We should become enthusiasts for ever-closer Union. However, very few voters agree.
So, we're left with a choice between leaving, or staying in an organisation we dislike, because the costs of leaving are high.
And the benefits of leaving are extremely low.
I backed Remain because I did not (do not) believe the damage that will be done to the UK’s economy, its internal cohesion and international standing are worth the notional gains in sovereignty we will obtain. The power to have sub-optimal trade agreements dictated to us is not worth it, in my view - especially given the near certainty that immigration levels are likely to remain high if the economy is not to tank totally.
The benefits are what people make of them. Hence Britain will do far better out of the EU than some of the other EU countries might.
Let's get on with the future. Embrace change don't cower in your kennel moping.
The Corbyn dilemma: 1. The make-up of the PLP means that a Corbyn-led Labour government would find it very hard to implement important parts of its programme. 2. Mass deselection of sitting MPs creates a de facto new party & makes winning a GE next to impossible.
Does 2. follow ?
Some parts of the country would vote for a donkey with a red rosette on it.
The Corbyn dilemma: 1. The make-up of the PLP means that a Corbyn-led Labour government would find it very hard to implement important parts of its programme. 2. Mass deselection of sitting MPs creates a de facto new party & makes winning a GE next to impossible.
Does 2. follow ?
Some parts of the country would vote for a donkey with a red rosette on it.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
What are your views? Remain or Leave in the EU? You seem to indulge daily in elaborate exercises in equivocation and obfuscation.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
Both can either be rebuilt or sabotaged depending on policy going forward. Almost like "taking back control".
People fear change - I get it - but this may well be the remaking of the Uk. A bit of gumption and protestant work ethic is going to be required.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
You work to improve democracy within the EU, which is a long way from perfect. As is our own democracy with our broken unfair voting system and an unelected second chamber.
The Corbyn dilemma: 1. The make-up of the PLP means that a Corbyn-led Labour government would find it very hard to implement important parts of its programme. 2. Mass deselection of sitting MPs creates a de facto new party & makes winning a GE next to impossible.
Does 2. follow ?
Some parts of the country would vote for a donkey with a red rosette on it.
They used to say that about Scotland.
Now they vote for orangutans in yellow rosettes..
Orang-utans are an endangered speiec. ScotNats aren’t!
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
I would argue that 90%+ of the people do not care about the exchange rate or the countries credit rating.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
I would argue that 90%+ of the people do not care about the exchange rate or the countries credit rating.
I imagine a large number don't, but is that because of ignorance of the consequences?
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
Both can either be rebuilt or sabotaged depending on policy going forward. Almost like "taking back control".
People fear change - I get it - but this may well be the remaking of the Uk. A bit of gumption and protestant work ethic is going to be required.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
I would argue that 90%+ of the people do not care about the exchange rate or the countries credit rating.
I imagine a large number don't, but is that because of ignorance of the consequences?
As I said - future governments will have to work hard to maintain and improve them. Should keep Gordon Brown style antics in check in future.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
I would argue that 90%+ of the people do not care about the exchange rate or the countries credit rating.
There are a lot of things that people don’t know or care about that have a direct impact on their daily lives.
I have a sense that some very dark forces are behind what's going on in the Labour Party at the moment. It all started when Mark Regev was appointed Israeli Ambassador to London in 2015. A strange appointment. Why send the head of your propaganda Ministry to be ambassador to an ally?
For those not well versed in Israeli politics they might remember him best as the man who appeared regularly during the Gaza invasion to tell the world that for instance the 4 infants playing football on the beach killed by Israeli shells were up to no good and the boy and his father shot by Israeli soldiers while hiding from crossfire was a staged event despite it being filmed and witnessed by a Reuters cameraman.
A much more dangerous figure than Comical Ali because to the credulous he seemed credible. Employed because his urbane manner would be more amenable to allies in the West than the heavily accented East European who preceded him.
It could be no more than coincidence that having served as Netanyahus propagandist since 2007 he should arrive in the UK just months after Corbyn's election and from tha moment on the drip drip drip of stories to Guido and other right wing publications should begin
But I doubt it because the more you think about what's happening the more far fetched it becomes. The left of the Labour Party has always been the political home for the majority of Jews and their cause has more often than not been support fot the oppressed as it was in South Africa. I'm sure many will be turning in their graves watching this manipulation continue
ROFL - you have to be kidding if you expect anyone sane to take your garbage seriously. however, send it to Seamus Milne and he will be made up.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
I would argue that 90%+ of the people do not care about the exchange rate or the countries credit rating.
90% don't care about things that cost them money, and impact their future wealth?
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
Both can either be rebuilt or sabotaged depending on policy going forward. Almost like "taking back control".
People fear change - I get it - but this may well be the remaking of the Uk. A bit of gumption and protestant work ethic is going to be required.
Look - we get it - like most Corbynistas you section up society into those that are goodies (anyone not white, all fans of magic Grandpa) and baddies (all Jews are evil, any mention of the Union Jack = Nazis etc..).
That's absolutely fine but you'll forgive me for thinking you are a total cretin.
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
Has the exchange rate really been a "casualty" - or a boon to business?
As for the credit rating - a Corbyn Govt. will have far greater consequences than Brexit has had. And a cynic might say that with Govt. borrowing coming down far faster than OBR forecast, Mr Market has been looking for an excuse to charge the Govt. a bit more to make up for that loss of revenue....
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
I would argue that 90%+ of the people do not care about the exchange rate or the countries credit rating.
I imagine a large number don't, but is that because of ignorance of the consequences?
They believe that Nice Mr Carney has it under control and the BoE has been OK over a long period, so trust has been earned. Interest rates would be another matter, because of mortgages. It would also be another matter if we were in the Euro because Mr Draghi would be the man.
You work to improve democracy within the EU, which is a long way from perfect. As is our own democracy with our broken unfair voting system and an unelected second chamber.
The problem with that position is we had two decades or more of successive British Governments preaching about "reforming the EU". One example was or is the European Parliament - it remains a weak and powerless entity next to the Commission which still rules the roost as far as I can see through appointees from national Governments.
That suits the national Governments just fine but it doesn't suit genuine democracy and reform with an EU Parliament that is more than a talking shop.
Conversely, the years from 1979-2010 saw a huge centralisation of Government in the UK with Westminster and Whitehall taking huge swathes of power and responsibility from accountable and democratically elected Councils at all levels.
The Coalition were happy to throw some bones (Public Health, Coroners Offices) back to local Councils but without adequate resources to make them work. The centralisation is now financial - local Councils have responsibility but no means of carrying out these functions.
Instead of wibbling on about Regional or an English Parliament we need a wholly independent funding agency who will allocate the funds required to all areas of Government both national and local and that means giving Councils real power to raise significant amounts of local revenue via a Local Income Tax, Local Land Value Tax or whatever means works.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
The problem with that argument is that while the referendum result clearly indicates that voters are unhappy, the things they are unhappy with are not resolved by leaving the EU.
I have a sense that some very dark forces are behind what's going on in the Labour Party at the moment. It all started when Mark Regev was appointed Israeli Ambassador to London in 2015. A strange appointment. Why send the head of your propaganda Ministry to be ambassador to an ally?
For those not well versed in Israeli politics they might remember him best as the man who appeared regularly during the Gaza invasion to tell the world that for instance the 4 infants playing football on the beach killed by Israeli shells were up to no good and the boy and his father shot by Israeli soldiers while hiding from crossfire was a staged event despite it being filmed and witnessed by a Reuters cameraman.
A much more dangerous figure than Comical Ali because to the credulous he seemed credible. Employed because his urbane manner would be more amenable to allies in the West than the heavily accented East European who preceded him.
It could be no more than coincidence that having served as Netanyahus propagandist since 2007 he should arrive in the UK just months after Corbyn's election and from tha moment on the drip drip drip of stories to Guido and other right wing publications should begin
But I doubt it because the more you think about what's happening the more far fetched it becomes. The left of the Labour Party has always been the political home for the majority of Jews and their cause has more often than not been support fot the oppressed as it was in South Africa. I'm sure many will be turning in their graves watching this manipulation continue
Yeah, it's definitely being controlled by Regev. It's not down to all the half-witted shit JC has spouted in his many decades of splendid irrelevance before he fell arse backwards into the leadership or any of the malevolent arseholes with whom he associated.
You work to improve democracy within the EU, which is a long way from perfect. As is our own democracy with our broken unfair voting system and an unelected second chamber.
The problem with that position is we had two decades or more of successive British Governments preaching about "reforming the EU". One example was or is the European Parliament - it remains a weak and powerless entity next to the Commission which still rules the roost as far as I can see through appointees from national Governments.
That suits the national Governments just fine but it doesn't suit genuine democracy and reform with an EU Parliament that is more than a talking shop.
Conversely, the years from 1979-2010 saw a huge centralisation of Government in the UK with Westminster and Whitehall taking huge swathes of power and responsibility from accountable and democratically elected Councils at all levels.
The Coalition were happy to throw some bones (Public Health, Coroners Offices) back to local Councils but without adequate resources to make them work. The centralisation is now financial - local Councils have responsibility but no means of carrying out these functions.
Instead of wibbling on about Regional or an English Parliament we need a wholly independent funding agency who will allocate the funds required to all areas of Government both national and local and that means giving Councils real power to raise significant amounts of local revenue via a Local Income Tax, Local Land Value Tax or whatever means works.
Didn't Osborne start that already by making business rates etc a local tax?
Ultimately the government should be seeking to abolish grants to local authorities and leave it up to the authorities to develop and encourage growth in their own area that leads to local taxes being raised locally.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
The problem with that argument is that while the referendum result clearly indicates that voters are unhappy, the things they are unhappy with are not resolved by leaving the EU.
No the things they are unhappy with are resolved by politicians they elect taking control and fixing the problems. If they don't we kick them out and elect new ones.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?.
Ah but, its not proper democracy because the stupid racist proles don't know whats good for them the LEAVE campaign (which was significantly outspent by Remain, let alone Remain + HMG), may have spent a bit more than it should have......
No the things they are unhappy with are resolved by politicians they elect taking control and fixing the problems. If they don't we kick them out and elect new ones.
It's a concept called democracy.
Right.
And up till now, cowardly politicians have blamed "the EU" for their failure to act.
No the things they are unhappy with are resolved by politicians they elect taking control and fixing the problems. If they don't we kick them out and elect new ones.
It's a concept called democracy.
Right.
And up till now, cowardly politicians have blamed "the EU" for their failure to act.
Without that excuse they are flummoxed
Previously we could blame the EU for everything wrong with society, but now we have Brexit and the Brexiteers to blame. It makes a refreshing change.
No the things they are unhappy with are resolved by politicians they elect taking control and fixing the problems. If they don't we kick them out and elect new ones.
It's a concept called democracy.
Right.
And up till now, cowardly politicians have blamed "the EU" for their failure to act.
No the things they are unhappy with are resolved by politicians they elect taking control and fixing the problems. If they don't we kick them out and elect new ones.
It's a concept called democracy.
Right.
And up till now, cowardly politicians have blamed "the EU" for their failure to act.
Without that excuse they are flummoxed
Correct and this is why leave voters are happy. We believe that one of the benefits of Brexit is that the political class in the UK have to up their game. As we are seeing at the moment generically they are not very good, they seem to not even have grasped the basics that leave voters want them to make the decisions.
You work to improve democracy within the EU, which is a long way from perfect. As is our own democracy with our broken unfair voting system and an unelected second chamber.
The problem with that position is we had two decades or more of successive British Governments preaching about "reforming the EU". One example was or is the European Parliament - it remains a weak and powerless entity next to the Commission which still rules the roost as far as I can see through appointees from national Governments.
That suits the national Governments just fine but it doesn't suit genuine democracy and reform with an EU Parliament that is more than a talking shop.
Conversely, the years from 1979-2010 saw a huge centralisation of Government in the UK with Westminster and Whitehall taking huge swathes of power and responsibility from accountable and democratically elected Councils at all levels.
The Coalition were happy to throw some bones (Public Health, Coroners Offices) back to local Councils but without adequate resources to make them work. The centralisation is now financial - local Councils have responsibility but no means of carrying out these functions.
Instead of wibbling on about Regional or an English Parliament we need a wholly independent funding agency who will allocate the funds required to all areas of Government both national and local and that means giving Councils real power to raise significant amounts of local revenue via a Local Income Tax, Local Land Value Tax or whatever means works.
Didn't Osborne start that already by making business rates etc a local tax?
Ultimately the government should be seeking to abolish grants to local authorities and leave it up to the authorities to develop and encourage growth in their own area that leads to local taxes being raised locally.
Correct and this is why leave voters are happy. We believe that one of the benefits of Brexit is that the political class in the UK have to up their game. As we are seeing at the moment generically they are not very good, they seem to not even have grasped the basics that leave voters want them to make the decisions.
And that would be fine if our politicians were not totally useless.
Leave voters are not going to be "happy" when the planes stop and food runs out.
Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit
Correct and this is why leave voters are happy. We believe that one of the benefits of Brexit is that the political class in the UK have to up their game. As we are seeing at the moment generically they are not very good, they seem to not even have grasped the basics that leave voters want them to make the decisions.
And that would be fine if our politicians were not totally useless.
Leave voters are not going to be "happy" when the planes stop and food runs out.
Correct and this is why leave voters are happy. We believe that one of the benefits of Brexit is that the political class in the UK have to up their game. As we are seeing at the moment generically they are not very good, they seem to not even have grasped the basics that leave voters want them to make the decisions.
And that would be fine if our politicians were not totally useless.
Leave voters are not going to be "happy" when the planes stop and food runs out.
Luckily the UK has rarely relied on politicians for its successes.
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
Article 50 contemplates that Member States will leave. Exercising one's right to do so is not blackmail. Never make a promise unless you're prepared to honour it.
If EU membership is meant to be forever, then the Lisbon Treaty should have said so.
No the things they are unhappy with are resolved by politicians they elect taking control and fixing the problems. If they don't we kick them out and elect new ones.
It's a concept called democracy.
Right.
And up till now, cowardly politicians have blamed "the EU" for their failure to act.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
I would argue that 90%+ of the people do not care about the exchange rate or the countries credit rating.
90% don't care about things that cost them money, and impact their future wealth?
Odd.
Almost everyone has been downgraded by the credit rating agencies and the upshot is …..Governments can borrow more cheaply than for decades.
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
The exchange rate dropped far more because of the recession and Gordon Brown's mishandling of the economy than it has due to Brexit.
Actually it was the bank regulator (the FSA) who failed, although Gordon Brown did move bank regulation away from the Bank of England to the FSA.
The FSA have some of the blame true but then that was as you say Brown's creation. But the FSA isn't responsible for the fact that Brown had so dramatically increased spending and was running a 3% deficit in boom times despite all the taxes flowing in from the badly regulated banks and their bonuses. The FSA isn't responsible for a 175bn deficit that excluded bank bailouts. That's pure Brown.
Didn't Osborne start that already by making business rates etc a local tax?
Ultimately the government should be seeking to abolish grants to local authorities and leave it up to the authorities to develop and encourage growth in their own area that leads to local taxes being raised locally.
The problem is Newham isn't Surrey and Cornwall isn't Liverpool. Everywhere is different with different problems and opportunities.
£709 million out of £1.7 billion comes from Council Tax but £624 million comes from other grants. That's a huge gap to close and to do so would mean increasing Council Tax by 88% across Surrey which, I would argue, would go down like a lump of cold sick with the Conservative heartland.
Of course, the Government would then have £624 million to dole out in tax cuts or increased other spending.
As a comparison and because they are in the news here are the numbers for East Sussex:
On Page 2 it has the ESCC Budget summary. Of the £791.5 million raised, £373.6 million comes from Central Government with £342 million raised locally via fees, receipts and Council Tax so to meet the shortfall would mean a 121% Council Tax increase across East Sussex.
Yet I have saved central Government nearly a billion pounds from two shire councils - magnify that and you could see the potential saving and potential for tax cuts but it would mean a radical overhaul of the tax burden and one or two might complain.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
Imagine if Germany had decided it was fed up with not getting its own way in the EU and voted to leave, then adopted a negotiating position of asking for the bits of EU membership that it liked without the obligations. The rest of Europe would have a duty to say, "I'm sorry, but you still can't have everything your own way, even if you have voted for it."
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
You are ignoring my point. How do you reconcile membership of an organisation whose requirements are at odds with voters’s wishes? In a forced choice, which is more important: EU membership or democracy?
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
I think the reason Brexit is proving so difficult is partly that membership is not at odds with voters' wishes - people still expect the benefits of being part of an organisation like the EU to continue. If there were a genuine consensus that we wanted to leave there would be no problem. In your hypothetical forced choice I would choose democracy, but that doesn't impose obligations on any other states to make your democratic choice a palatable one.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
What benefits are the people expecting to continue?
Well you could start with the exchange rate and our credit rating, two of the first casualties of the referendum result.
Both can either be rebuilt or sabotaged depending on policy going forward. Almost like "taking back control".
People fear change - I get it - but this may well be the remaking of the Uk. A bit of gumption and protestant work ethic is going to be required.
Given both sides were guilty of it and it was a binary choice, 'voters' would seem an appropriate noun.
No
There is, or should be, a distinction between those who voted not knowing about the illegality, and those who now know and are still cheerleading the result
No the things they are unhappy with are resolved by politicians they elect taking control and fixing the problems. If they don't we kick them out and elect new ones.
It's a concept called democracy.
Right.
And up till now, cowardly politicians have blamed "the EU" for their failure to act.
Without that excuse they are flummoxed
Precisely the point of Brexit. It is a design feature not a flaw are you slowly starting to belatedly understand? Or do you still view it as a problem?
The difficulty I have with the argument put forward in that article, which is good at describing the woeful misunderstanding by most Leave leaders of what Brexit entails, is this. It implies that the UK should stay in the EU because leaving is so difficult /damaging even if continuing to stay in is causing real concerns to UK voters which are not being and will continue not to be addressed. Staying in an organisation faute de mieux is not really the basis for a successful policy. And it ignores the strains caused to our society and democracy by ignoring voters’ concerns.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
The problem with that argument is that while the referendum result clearly indicates that voters are unhappy, the things they are unhappy with are not resolved by leaving the EU.
No the things they are unhappy with are resolved by politicians they elect taking control and fixing the problems. If they don't we kick them out and elect new ones.
It's a concept called democracy.
Right.
And up till now, cowardly politicians have blamed "the EU" for their failure to act.
Without that excuse they are flummoxed
Precisely the point of Brexit. It is a design feature not a flaw are you slowly starting to belatedly understand? Or do you still view it as a problem?
It will be a problem when the current cabal are deposed in favour of Jezza.
Comments
The debate continues to coarsen, polarise, and fester on both left and right.
Surpising some of them travelled regularly to homes on the Continent.
Pro-EU politicians also denied claims we'd given away too much power or were excessively integrated or lacked sovereignty.
Either the UK is going to shake itself and come to its senses, or we are heading towards some sort of cataclysm.
Maybe be Enoch was right, although for the wrong reason.
It’s also clear that few people realised how integrated across the EU business and commerce, of all sorts, is. It’s not just the UK, either.
It is perfectly coherent for Nick Clegg (to pick on him for a second) to “deny” that we have “given away” too much power.
I use quotes by the way to highlight your own emotional framing of the argument.
Clegg presumably has his own, subjective view on what “too much” means, which he would be happy to defend.
However, the idea we can leave the EU without damage was, is, and remains to be a lie.
Indeed, like some kind Gresham’s law for political discourse, it has spawned an even more virulent lie - that we can “No Deal” without damage.
It is perfectly coherent for Nick Clegg (to pick on him for a second) to “deny” that we have “given away” too much power.
I use quotes by the way to highlight your own emotional framing of the argument.
Clegg presumably has his own, subjective view on what “too much” means, which he would be happy to defend.
However, the idea we can leave the EU without damage was, is, and remains, a lie.
Indeed, like some kind Gresham’s law for political discourse, it has spawned an even more virulent lie - that we can “No Deal” without damage.
Those who want Brexit to be stopped or reversed or want to campaign to rejoin the EU need I think to address these points.
It’s not a ‘lie’ as such, it’s a fantasy. However, anyone who knew what they were talking about who repeated it must have known they were peddling rocking horse s**t.
Mr. Walker, there's nothing emotional about it. You said yourself it was a value judgement.
Edited extra bit: as an aside, concern over economic turbulence made me hesitate rather more than expected before I cast my vote.
But the difficulties of negotiating Britain’s departure would still be there.
So, we're left with a choice between leaving, or staying in an organisation we dislike, because the costs of leaving are high.
Instead, Leave offered a campaign based entirely on hatred of the EU and immigration, with no constructive idea to offer in its place. All Britain's current problems flow from that.
The network of interdependence we have within the EU acts as an additional layer of constitutional checks and balances in the relations between European states, just as it was designed to be.
My issue isn't with the results of the poll; my issue is that it is a load of rubbish. Your extreme faith in it is faintly ridiculous.
For those not well versed in Israeli politics they might remember him best as the man who appeared regularly during the Gaza invasion to tell the world that for instance the 4 infants playing football on the beach killed by Israeli shells were up to no good and the boy and his father shot by Israeli soldiers while hiding from crossfire was a staged event despite it being filmed and witnessed by a Reuters cameraman.
A much more dangerous figure than Comical Ali because to the credulous he seemed credible. Employed because his urbane manner would be more amenable to allies in the West than the heavily accented East European who preceded him.
It could be no more than coincidence that having served as Netanyahus propagandist since 2007 he should arrive in the UK just months after Corbyn's election and from tha moment on the drip drip drip of stories to Guido and other right wing publications should begin
But I doubt it because the more you think about what's happening the more far fetched it becomes. The left of the Labour Party has always been the political home for the majority of Jews and their cause has more often than not been support fot the oppressed as it was in South Africa. I'm sure many will be turning in their graves watching this manipulation continue
1. Which important parts do you have in mind?
I think the argument within labour has been won on rail nationalisation, raising corporation tax, income tax on top earners, looking into some form of wealth/land value tax etc. And obviously everyone will get behind reversing cuts, investing in NHS. Top up fees would be a battle but I suspect there's enough support.
I don't think Corbyn will get enough support for scrapping trident and probably not for nationalising water utilities. But that's actually a great deal of common ground and certainly plenty for a govt to crack on with.
Brexit was poisoned at birth with this irrational hatred of Europe and immigrants. It was enough to get over the line, but destroyed any chance of creating a positive future for the country.
May had a fleeting chance to re-set and re-frame. She did not, partly through lack of imagination, and mostly through fear of the extremists in her own party.
And send the bill to those loud Remainers who wound us ever tighter into the EU, without voter consent.
The true cost is hard to fathom at this point, whilstever those tasked with minimising that cost are still wandering round wearing their THE END IS NIGH sandwich boards, trying to overturn a democratic vote. Once it FINALLY gets conceded that we are actually leaving, I suspect that - whilst undoubtedly disruptive - ways will magically be found to mitgate some of the worst of that disruption.
I backed Remain because I did not (do not) believe the damage that will be done to the UK’s economy, its internal cohesion and international standing are worth the notional gains in sovereignty we will obtain. The power to have sub-optimal trade agreements dictated to us is not worth it, in my view - especially given the near certainty that immigration levels are likely to remain high if the economy is not to tank totally.
Some parts of the country would vote for a donkey with a red rosette on it.
I have to go out now. But will check in later. So don’t take my non-reply as rudeness.
Let's get on with the future. Embrace change don't cower in your kennel moping.
The challenge really is how to translate the desire for change at a European level into effective action in a democratic way. One state trying to blackmail the others isn't it.
People fear change - I get it - but this may well be the remaking of the Uk. A bit of gumption and protestant work ethic is going to be required.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/44618/Hooligans-1-5m-rampage
Odd.
That's absolutely fine but you'll forgive me for thinking you are a total cretin.
As for the credit rating - a Corbyn Govt. will have far greater consequences than Brexit has had. And a cynic might say that with Govt. borrowing coming down far faster than OBR forecast, Mr Market has been looking for an excuse to charge the Govt. a bit more to make up for that loss of revenue....
That suits the national Governments just fine but it doesn't suit genuine democracy and reform with an EU Parliament that is more than a talking shop.
Conversely, the years from 1979-2010 saw a huge centralisation of Government in the UK with Westminster and Whitehall taking huge swathes of power and responsibility from accountable and democratically elected Councils at all levels.
The Coalition were happy to throw some bones (Public Health, Coroners Offices) back to local Councils but without adequate resources to make them work. The centralisation is now financial - local Councils have responsibility but no means of carrying out these functions.
Instead of wibbling on about Regional or an English Parliament we need a wholly independent funding agency who will allocate the funds required to all areas of Government both national and local and that means giving Councils real power to raise significant amounts of local revenue via a Local Income Tax, Local Land Value Tax or whatever means works.
Ultimately the government should be seeking to abolish grants to local authorities and leave it up to the authorities to develop and encourage growth in their own area that leads to local taxes being raised locally.
It's a concept called democracy.
https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/233235-halifax-july-2018/
And up till now, cowardly politicians have blamed "the EU" for their failure to act.
Without that excuse they are flummoxed
What word should we use for people who support illegality in the referendum campaign?
Don't fear change Scott - embrace it.
Leave voters are not going to be "happy" when the planes stop and food runs out.
If EU membership is meant to be forever, then the Lisbon Treaty should have said so.
These are the Surrey numbers for 2018-19:
https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/156010/Council-tax-leaflet-2018-2019.pdf
£709 million out of £1.7 billion comes from Council Tax but £624 million comes from other grants. That's a huge gap to close and to do so would mean increasing Council Tax by 88% across Surrey which, I would argue, would go down like a lump of cold sick with the Conservative heartland.
Of course, the Government would then have £624 million to dole out in tax cuts or increased other spending.
As a comparison and because they are in the news here are the numbers for East Sussex:
https://www.hastings.gov.uk/content/council_tax/pdfs/ESCC_CouncilTax_leaflet_18-19.pdf
On Page 2 it has the ESCC Budget summary. Of the £791.5 million raised, £373.6 million comes from Central Government with £342 million raised locally via fees, receipts and Council Tax so to meet the shortfall would mean a 121% Council Tax increase across East Sussex.
Yet I have saved central Government nearly a billion pounds from two shire councils - magnify that and you could see the potential saving and potential for tax cuts but it would mean a radical overhaul of the tax burden and one or two might complain.
There is, or should be, a distinction between those who voted not knowing about the illegality, and those who now know and are still cheerleading the result