When I was a frustrated 15 year old boy, full of repressed testosterone in dull provincial England decades ago, I went through a weird hawkish Cold War phase. When I wanted to fight Russia
I would argue with my Dad and he’d wearily explain nuclear war and deterrence to me. And then I’d say “but I don’t care let’s attack them! Are we cowards??!” Then he’d wearily explain deterrence AGAIN and I’d say “that’s pathetic, let’s hit them first!” And so on
This is the level of most PB commentary on Ukraine A bunch of 15 year old wankers with low understanding but a need to look macho. Fight Putin to the end! Fire our nukes!
I’ve no desire to spend another working day arguing with foolish adolescents, so I shall bid you all goodbye, for now
"Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, previously known as Festival UK* 2022 is a national celebration in the United Kingdom first announced in 2018 by the Conservative government following the Brexit referendum.[1][2]
The concept was first proposed as a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and referred to by Jacob Rees-Mogg, later minister for Brexit opportunities, as the Festival of Brexit—a nickname which became widely used—but was rebranded as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, and all mention of Brexit was avoided. It is taking place from March to 6 November 2022,[3] at a reported cost of £120 million.[4][5][6]
By 1 September 2022, 238,000 visitors had attended, 0.36% of the 66 million target.[7] The "Festival of Brexit" name has been blamed for failing to attract visitors by politicising the event.[8]"
I see it's very Brexity right down to scheduling and screwups:
'The opening of Weston’s ‘See Monster’ has been delayed for the second time.
The long-awaited art installation which was supposed to be the town’s top summer attraction now won’t open fully until after the school summer holidays.'
'It was Jacob Rees-Mogg who christened it a festival of Brexit – a moniker that might well have cursed it from the beginning.
Announced by Theresa May in the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on EU membership, and supposedly inspired by the 1851 Great Exhibition and 1951’s Festival of Britain, the then prime minister heralded a programme of events to be held this year to “showcase what makes our country great today”.
But four years on – and after two re-brandings – the public spending watchdog is to investigate what became known as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, amid concern that visitor numbers have been less than 1% of early targets.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will examine how the £120m project was managed. About 240,000 visitors are reported to have visited events, in contrast to an early target of 66 million.'
The concept itself is fine but should not have been badged as it was. Far too political for a visitor attraction - calling it Festival of Britain for instance would have tripled numbers on its own
No good. You need to include NI, as was required of the organisers, it seems. Mission to cover the whole of the UK, including the bit where the word 'Britain' is divisive.
Edit: as the OP linked, Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was the original title - slightly surprisingly given the length.
ok then The UK Festival - my point is not to include brexit
Quite so.
Also Brexit is a negative action - the withdrawing of a membership - Festivals are about positivity - unless you are a strong leaver (and they generally are too old to travel far) then why go to a festival where you think you will be emersed in a sea of pompous union jack wearing elderly men (the image you get ) telling you its great there are no foreigners here or we can stop immigration . Festivals are about fun, positivity and invention - just needed the name changed
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
Spot on. You weren't allowed to just think that the EU has faults but also has benefits for the UK. You had to prove your EUphobia and the person who was most virulently anti-EU won. As indeed was the case and still is in the Cons Party.
Hence our current pickle. Certainly since 2016, "Brexit without being a dick about it" ought to have been a winning policy that kept most of the public reasonably content. There really aren't that many people with the sort of emotional attachment to the EU than Brexit backers have to the concept of Brexit.
For whatever reason (hardball negotiation tactics? frustration at the lack of cake'n'eat it? a deeper resentment than most of us realised?), being a dick about it became part of the point of the project for some.
There was fault on all sides. But a lot of the blame lies with the second referendum campaign. In an alternative history if they had said let’s accept we are out but go for EEA or whatever then they could have won the war even if they lost the battle.
Similarly if the EU had been willing to compromise on immigration (which would have effectively meant a two speed Europe) either before or after the vote then, again, we would have ended up in a better place.
Fundamentally, I think the UK voters would want an economic arrangement without the political stuff. That’s not on offer. But can someone tell me why not? The only logical reason I can see is that the EU centralisers believe it would be too attractive and would undermine their plans to move to a single EU state? Is there another reason why it isn’t possible?
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
When I was a frustrated 15 year old boy, full of repressed testosterone in dull provincial England decades ago, I went through a weird hawkish Cold War phase. When I wanted to fight Russia
I would argue with my Dad and he’d wearily explain nuclear war and deterrence to me. And then I’d say “but I don’t care let’s attack them! Are we cowards??!” Then he’d wearily explain deterrence AGAIN and I’d say “that’s pathetic, let’s hit them first!” And so on
This is the level of most PB commentary on Ukraine A bunch of 15 year old wankers with low understanding but a need to look macho. Fight Putin to the end! Fire our nukes!
I’ve no desire to spend another working day arguing with foolish adolescents, so I shall bid you all goodbye, for now
Says someone who has comprehensively lost the arguments he has engaged in here....
“I expect NATO aircraft to patrol inside Ukraine in a defensive capacity”
I really hope you are wrong - and I am sure you are - because this is the perfect recipe for World War 3. NATO planes directly meeting Russian planes in a hot war zone. They will fight each other. That’s how you start nuclear war
This is Basic Deterrence Theory. It’s why NATO and the USSR fought countless wars by proxy. Direct confrontation was too dangerous. And even the loons in the Kremlin realised this
The fact that the adolescent would-be SAS warriors of PB, sitting in Cheshire or Dubai, have totally forgotten this, will - I hope and expect - not influence anyone in Washington.
Not attacking Russia, defending Ukraine from within Ukraine.
Unlike the many armchair warriors sitting in London or on a ‘holiday’ by a nice beach, some of us actually have a stake in this conflict, have already had to replace one load of windows, and don’t want to have to do it again!
No, I think Leon is right on this one. The difference between "defence" and "offence" is far less clear than we like to think (witness the Ukraine defensive/preemptive strikes on arms dumps just inside Russia), and will be further eroded by individual commanders making split-second decisions. "There's a plane that might be about to attack, let's shoot it down" = "Our reconnaissance aircraft conducting a non-offensive mission was shot down". Direct fighting between Western and Russian forces is open war. It's possible to argue for open war, but we shouldn't do it by accident or with a half-plausible excuse - if WW3 starts, nobody will be interested in who started it.
Moreover, Ukraine seems to be winning anyway - why escalate?
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
Singapore on Thames won't win if Labour win the next general election. Instead it will be back to a largely redwall Brexit as Boris was elected to do, ie still out of the single market so EU migration can be controlled but Starmer will align more with EU regulations and with Reeves increase taxes and spending compared to Truss and
When I was a frustrated 15 year old boy, full of repressed testosterone in dull provincial England decades ago, I went through a weird hawkish Cold War phase. When I wanted to fight Russia
I would argue with my Dad and he’d wearily explain nuclear war and deterrence to me. And then I’d say “but I don’t care let’s attack them! Are we cowards??!” Then he’d wearily explain deterrence AGAIN and I’d say “that’s pathetic, let’s hit them first!” And so on
This is the level of most PB commentary on Ukraine A bunch of 15 year old wankers with low understanding but a need to look macho. Fight Putin to the end! Fire our nukes!
I’ve no desire to spend another working day arguing with foolish adolescents, so I shall bid you all goodbye, for now
yes its a world still filled with goodies and baddies - the world is not like that - you can not always win
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
Spot on. You weren't allowed to just think that the EU has faults but also has benefits for the UK. You had to prove your EUphobia and the person who was most virulently anti-EU won. As indeed was the case and still is in the Cons Party.
Hence our current pickle. Certainly since 2016, "Brexit without being a dick about it" ought to have been a winning policy that kept most of the public reasonably content. There really aren't that many people with the sort of emotional attachment to the EU than Brexit backers have to the concept of Brexit.
For whatever reason (hardball negotiation tactics? frustration at the lack of cake'n'eat it? a deeper resentment than most of us realised?), being a dick about it became part of the point of the project for some.
There was fault on all sides. But a lot of the blame lies with the second referendum campaign. In an alternative history if they had said let’s accept we are out but go for EEA or whatever then they could have won the war even if they lost the battle.
Similarly if the EU had been willing to compromise on immigration (which would have effectively meant a two speed Europe) either before or after the vote then, again, we would have ended up in a better place.
Fundamentally, I think the UK voters would want an economic arrangement without the political stuff. That’s not on offer. But can someone tell me why not? The only logical reason I can see is that the EU centralisers believe it would be too attractive and would undermine their plans to move to a single EU state? Is there another reason why it isn’t possible?
Interestingly, it seems the EU is willing to compromise now over Northern Ireland (in a way they obstinately refused to do so for several years, and insisted was utterly impossible) that would have saved so much heartache had they done so earlier.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with the EU.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Won a few lucky victories but ultimately loses the war and sees her side wiped within a generation.
She's going to roam about causing devastation for a decade?!
I need horses. Sorry all out of horses. Sold the last one yesterday. How about elephants? Haven’t had any elephants in for months. What have you got? I’ve got a Kwarteng. How many? Oh you only need the one.
I have some horse arriving today - for the freezer. I believe it is South American.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
Which is as it should be.
The will of the people, democratically expressed, should be respected.
But politicians should have the option to be brave and go against that, if they think it is necessary (eg due to changing circumstances) but then they may need to face the wrath of the voters if they do.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
If it gets the blessing of the voters in a Rejoin referendum (ideally after terms are negotiated) then fine
"Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, previously known as Festival UK* 2022 is a national celebration in the United Kingdom first announced in 2018 by the Conservative government following the Brexit referendum.[1][2]
The concept was first proposed as a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and referred to by Jacob Rees-Mogg, later minister for Brexit opportunities, as the Festival of Brexit—a nickname which became widely used—but was rebranded as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, and all mention of Brexit was avoided. It is taking place from March to 6 November 2022,[3] at a reported cost of £120 million.[4][5][6]
By 1 September 2022, 238,000 visitors had attended, 0.36% of the 66 million target.[7] The "Festival of Brexit" name has been blamed for failing to attract visitors by politicising the event.[8]"
I see it's very Brexity right down to scheduling and screwups:
'The opening of Weston’s ‘See Monster’ has been delayed for the second time.
The long-awaited art installation which was supposed to be the town’s top summer attraction now won’t open fully until after the school summer holidays.'
'It was Jacob Rees-Mogg who christened it a festival of Brexit – a moniker that might well have cursed it from the beginning.
Announced by Theresa May in the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on EU membership, and supposedly inspired by the 1851 Great Exhibition and 1951’s Festival of Britain, the then prime minister heralded a programme of events to be held this year to “showcase what makes our country great today”.
But four years on – and after two re-brandings – the public spending watchdog is to investigate what became known as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, amid concern that visitor numbers have been less than 1% of early targets.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will examine how the £120m project was managed. About 240,000 visitors are reported to have visited events, in contrast to an early target of 66 million.'
The concept itself is fine but should not have been badged as it was. Far too political for a visitor attraction - calling it Festival of Britain for instance would have tripled numbers on its own
I think the entire concept was deeply misconceived. They seem to have wanted something like the Edinburgh Fringe, but that Festival grew up over years on the fringes of the International Festival. I think a touring arena show would have been better. Something like Shen Yun crossed with Andre Rieu crossed with the Royal Military Tattoo. It's easier to get your point across coherently in a 90 minute performance. It's almost impossible in the way that they tried to do it.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
Spot on. You weren't allowed to just think that the EU has faults but also has benefits for the UK. You had to prove your EUphobia and the person who was most virulently anti-EU won. As indeed was the case and still is in the Cons Party.
Hence our current pickle. Certainly since 2016, "Brexit without being a dick about it" ought to have been a winning policy that kept most of the public reasonably content. There really aren't that many people with the sort of emotional attachment to the EU than Brexit backers have to the concept of Brexit.
For whatever reason (hardball negotiation tactics? frustration at the lack of cake'n'eat it? a deeper resentment than most of us realised?), being a dick about it became part of the point of the project for some.
There was fault on all sides. But a lot of the blame lies with the second referendum campaign. In an alternative history if they had said let’s accept we are out but go for EEA or whatever then they could have won the war even if they lost the battle.
Similarly if the EU had been willing to compromise on immigration (which would have effectively meant a two speed Europe) either before or after the vote then, again, we would have ended up in a better place.
Fundamentally, I think the UK voters would want an economic arrangement without the political stuff. That’s not on offer. But can someone tell me why not? The only logical reason I can see is that the EU centralisers believe it would be too attractive and would undermine their plans to move to a single EU state? Is there another reason why it isn’t possible?
I want to give this comment more than one like...
What seems to be forgotten from the FBPE side "an economic arrangement without the political stuff" is what we had (or people thought we had) right up until Maastricht, and people were very happy with it - Euroscepticism barely existed at all until Maastricht showed that either "Europe" was changing into something different, or that it never actaully was what most people thought it was.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
If there's an organised boycott then it isn't "under Brexit rules"...
"Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, previously known as Festival UK* 2022 is a national celebration in the United Kingdom first announced in 2018 by the Conservative government following the Brexit referendum.[1][2]
The concept was first proposed as a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and referred to by Jacob Rees-Mogg, later minister for Brexit opportunities, as the Festival of Brexit—a nickname which became widely used—but was rebranded as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, and all mention of Brexit was avoided. It is taking place from March to 6 November 2022,[3] at a reported cost of £120 million.[4][5][6]
By 1 September 2022, 238,000 visitors had attended, 0.36% of the 66 million target.[7] The "Festival of Brexit" name has been blamed for failing to attract visitors by politicising the event.[8]"
I see it's very Brexity right down to scheduling and screwups:
'The opening of Weston’s ‘See Monster’ has been delayed for the second time.
The long-awaited art installation which was supposed to be the town’s top summer attraction now won’t open fully until after the school summer holidays.'
'It was Jacob Rees-Mogg who christened it a festival of Brexit – a moniker that might well have cursed it from the beginning.
Announced by Theresa May in the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on EU membership, and supposedly inspired by the 1851 Great Exhibition and 1951’s Festival of Britain, the then prime minister heralded a programme of events to be held this year to “showcase what makes our country great today”.
But four years on – and after two re-brandings – the public spending watchdog is to investigate what became known as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, amid concern that visitor numbers have been less than 1% of early targets.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will examine how the £120m project was managed. About 240,000 visitors are reported to have visited events, in contrast to an early target of 66 million.'
How could anyone have ever believed they would get 66 million visitors? Given that close to half the country would not have been seen dead near such an event and that the vast majority of the rest don't 'do' these sorts of things (very few people overall do do things like festivals) then the idea that they would get even 1/10th of that number is ludicrous. Bloody stupid idea.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
Which is as it should be.
The will of the people, democratically expressed, should be respected.
But politicians should have the option to be brave and go against that, if they think it is necessary (eg due to changing circumstances) but then they may need to face the wrath of the voters if they do.
That is the system working as intended.
Whilst I respect the drive for self-determination I think Scottish independence would be a massive leap in the dark. So I will vote No. My problem is that unless we have a formal UK-sanctioned referendum, Yes will win. And once that happens it is over. That the cowards in the Tory party - the faction you heartily support - are selective democrats backing it when it suits them is a big problem. And Labour have a track record of also being frit when it comes to trying to reform this mess of a state.
I am not optimistic if the SC approves the referenda. Which I agree with you it should do.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It doesn't mean it 100%, but it almost certainly does though.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK that will be global news leading news bulletins around the globe. Americans, Europeans, even Russians and Chinese etc will all instantly get that news. Britain is still, despite what some think, a major power that people are interested in around the planet, especially when it comes to stuff like that.
The agenda will become "how" and "when", not "if", which is precisely what it should be if that's the democratic will of the Scottish public.
Simply ignoring that would turn the UK into pariahs, like China over Hong Kong, or Russia.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It would be impossible to refuse the Scots if they won that referendum both democratically and logically
For clarification I do not support independence but recognise reality when it comes to this matter
There may come a time when we frantically scrabble for de-escalation, which may fix in place a status quo with serious defensive oomph behind it. For every square inch of Ukraine Russia might gain by that, the hope of gaining another square inch ever should in turn be extinguished.
But, we're not going to go from a conventional war of conquest / defence to mutually assured destruction in one bound. So, though we shouldn't escalate beyond supporting the defence of Ukraine at this stage - it is working, the time to de-escalate beyond that is not yet.
Quite an interesting little insight into Nicola Sturgeon's trans quagmire (is it a quagmire?), and the wholly self-referential nature of some elements of that lobby.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
1 - The chap is still in his job. 2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of". “I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
Spot on. You weren't allowed to just think that the EU has faults but also has benefits for the UK. You had to prove your EUphobia and the person who was most virulently anti-EU won. As indeed was the case and still is in the Cons Party.
Hence our current pickle. Certainly since 2016, "Brexit without being a dick about it" ought to have been a winning policy that kept most of the public reasonably content. There really aren't that many people with the sort of emotional attachment to the EU than Brexit backers have to the concept of Brexit.
For whatever reason (hardball negotiation tactics? frustration at the lack of cake'n'eat it? a deeper resentment than most of us realised?), being a dick about it became part of the point of the project for some.
There was fault on all sides. But a lot of the blame lies with the second referendum campaign. In an alternative history if they had said let’s accept we are out but go for EEA or whatever then they could have won the war even if they lost the battle.
Similarly if the EU had been willing to compromise on immigration (which would have effectively meant a two speed Europe) either before or after the vote then, again, we would have ended up in a better place.
Fundamentally, I think the UK voters would want an economic arrangement without the political stuff. That’s not on offer. But can someone tell me why not? The only logical reason I can see is that the EU centralisers believe it would be too attractive and would undermine their plans to move to a single EU state? Is there another reason why it isn’t possible?
Interestingly, it seems the EU is willing to compromise now over Northern Ireland (in a way they obstinately refused to do so for several years, and insisted was utterly impossible) that would have saved so much heartache had they done so earlier.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with the EU.
The people who have risen to the top.....
Same as the Conservative Party, really. The country sadly misses the old Conservative Party - which was often mistaken, of course, but at heart, decent and well-meaning.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
There's night and day between a SC granted (Probably won't be but let's run with it) advisory referendum and the Brexit referendum. Absolutely noone was arguing about how the referendumn was "advisory" prior to it being lost by remain whereas it's clearly front and centre of the Unionist likely boycott prior to the vote taking place if granted by the SC.
If you go back to the early Coronavirus PB threads, the people who were most oblivious of the risk, or in the deepest angriest denial, the “just a bad flu season, STFU” types - they are the ones most uncaring of the risks in the Ukraine war now. And want to beat a path to Moscow to lynch Putin
It’s quite striking
Of course you could say that’s because the opposing side are by definition the panicky types. The “hold on, this looks ominous” brigade. Maybe these “fucking appeasers” freak out at everything
Hmm
And people like you - or rather to be specific - YOU - were claiming it was the end of the world and you were off to hide in a hut in Sout Wales because civilisation was going to collapse and we were all going to die.
You come out of the Pandemic no better than the bad flu season nutters.
This is embarrassingly juvenile. Sorry
Yes you were embarrassingly juvenile over the Pandemic and apparently continue to be so over Ukraine. As the late great Douglas Admas once wrote:
You went to pieces so fast people were getting hit by the shrapnel.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
If there's an organised boycott then it isn't "under Brexit rules"...
Of course it is. The majority of voters did not vote to leave the EU. But the only votes that count are the ones actually cast. We discarded the opinions of those who abstained in that referendum or in General Elections. Why is this any different?
I have to recognise that here, in Brussels, the Americans were telling us “They will attack, they will attack”, and we were quite reluctant to believe it. And I remember very well when [US Secretary of State] Tony Blinken phoned me and told me “well, it is going to happen this weekend”. And certainly, two days later, at five o’clock in the morning, they started bombing Kyiv. We did not believe that this was going to happen, and we did not foresee that Ukraine was ready to resist as fiercely and as successfully as they are doing.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
Spot on. You weren't allowed to just think that the EU has faults but also has benefits for the UK. You had to prove your EUphobia and the person who was most virulently anti-EU won. As indeed was the case and still is in the Cons Party.
Hence our current pickle. Certainly since 2016, "Brexit without being a dick about it" ought to have been a winning policy that kept most of the public reasonably content. There really aren't that many people with the sort of emotional attachment to the EU than Brexit backers have to the concept of Brexit.
For whatever reason (hardball negotiation tactics? frustration at the lack of cake'n'eat it? a deeper resentment than most of us realised?), being a dick about it became part of the point of the project for some.
Because in the 2017-19 parliament, failing to be a dick about it would have seen the anti-democrats win. Sometimes when one side goes low the other side really has to go lower.
The key was identifying when to switch tack - but that requires both the EU as well as HMG to identify that co-operation is actually a good idea, and whilst the latter has shown some signs of coming around, I'm not at all sure that the former has.
Its the "anti-democrats" thing that baffles me. We had an election and voted in MPs. Who in our representative democracy can do whatever they can get through parliament - which happened to be nothing.
The argument against the 2017 parliament is usually "none of them stood on a manifesto of stopping Brexit" - not that half of the rejected proposals would stop us leaving the EU, just a hard as nails version of Brexit.
But those same people who bemoaned the lack of democratic mandate also laud the Truss government's total mandate to tear up the 2019 manifesto and go economically mad because they have a majority. Erm, you can't have it both ways. When you are out-argued by Nadine Fucking Dorries you have lost the argument.
As an analogy think of the Commons as the management team of a business.
They have freedom/authority to do what they want. If they mess it up at some point the Board (the voters) will notice and will kick them out at an election.
But if the management team goes to the Board and says “what should I do about X?” then they need to follow those instructions.
And if they show signs of not doing so then the Board will sack them
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
If there's an organised boycott then it isn't "under Brexit rules"...
Of course it is. The majority of voters did not vote to leave the EU. But the only votes that count are the ones actually cast. We discarded the opinions of those who abstained in that referendum or in General Elections. Why is this any different?
Beacasue an organised boycott is not the same thing as an abstention, this is basic stuff.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It would be impossible to refuse the Scots if they won that referendum both democratically and logically
For clarification I do not support independence but recognise reality when it comes to this matter
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It doesn't mean it 100%, but it almost certainly does though.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK that will be global news leading news bulletins around the globe. Americans, Europeans, even Russians and Chinese etc will all instantly get that news. Britain is still, despite what some think, a major power that people are interested in around the planet, especially when it comes to stuff like that.
The agenda will become "how" and "when", not "if", which is precisely what it should be if that's the democratic will of the Scottish public.
Simply ignoring that would turn the UK into pariahs, like China over Hong Kong, or Russia.
Sorry but no, the whole basis of Sturgeon's argument to the SC is that the referendum does not have legal force. A unionist boycott is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and Truss (Or AN Other Con leader) will not allow Scotland to become independent after such a referendum. Starmer might acquiesce to a Westminster granted referendum if he needs the numbers. But if he has a majority then that's out too. Anyway this is academic since I think the SC will not grant such a referendum. But if they do it will clearly be stated that - though they can not stop Sturgeon it is no more than a large scale opinion polling exercise.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
There's night and day between a SC granted (Probably won't be but let's run with it) advisory referendum and the Brexit referendum. Absolutely noone was arguing about how the referendumn was "advisory" prior to it being lost by remain whereas it's clearly front and centre of the Unionist likely boycott prior to the vote taking place if granted by the SC.
Was it advisory? Its a binary yes / no answer.
Legally yes. And nobody claimed it was legally binding. Because it wasn't. Politically no. And the same would be true of a Scexit vote. And politicians claiming it can be ignored will mostly be the ones who said the legally identical Brexit vote couldn't be ignored.
Its a mess. If the SC allow it. Which legally they should do as its does not legally bind the Westminster government who reserve those powers...
EDIT because I have seen your other similar post: "Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force." As David Cameron did. In 2014 his government made the Sindy referendum legally binding. In 2016 he made the Brexit referendum advisory. He knew the difference.
"Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, previously known as Festival UK* 2022 is a national celebration in the United Kingdom first announced in 2018 by the Conservative government following the Brexit referendum.[1][2]
The concept was first proposed as a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and referred to by Jacob Rees-Mogg, later minister for Brexit opportunities, as the Festival of Brexit—a nickname which became widely used—but was rebranded as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, and all mention of Brexit was avoided. It is taking place from March to 6 November 2022,[3] at a reported cost of £120 million.[4][5][6]
By 1 September 2022, 238,000 visitors had attended, 0.36% of the 66 million target.[7] The "Festival of Brexit" name has been blamed for failing to attract visitors by politicising the event.[8]"
I see it's very Brexity right down to scheduling and screwups:
'The opening of Weston’s ‘See Monster’ has been delayed for the second time.
The long-awaited art installation which was supposed to be the town’s top summer attraction now won’t open fully until after the school summer holidays.'
'It was Jacob Rees-Mogg who christened it a festival of Brexit – a moniker that might well have cursed it from the beginning.
Announced by Theresa May in the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on EU membership, and supposedly inspired by the 1851 Great Exhibition and 1951’s Festival of Britain, the then prime minister heralded a programme of events to be held this year to “showcase what makes our country great today”.
But four years on – and after two re-brandings – the public spending watchdog is to investigate what became known as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, amid concern that visitor numbers have been less than 1% of early targets.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will examine how the £120m project was managed. About 240,000 visitors are reported to have visited events, in contrast to an early target of 66 million.'
How could anyone have ever believed they would get 66 million visitors? Given that close to half the country would not have been seen dead near such an event and that the vast majority of the rest don't 'do' these sorts of things (very few people overall do do things like festivals) then the idea that they would get even 1/10th of that number is ludicrous. Bloody stupid idea.
If you were asked to put up an argument in its defence, you could though?
I could, visitor numbers is a red herring, money to the arts is important for healthy society - we can’t scrap all money for the arts by saying MRI machines and Trident and food banks is far more important.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
"Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, previously known as Festival UK* 2022 is a national celebration in the United Kingdom first announced in 2018 by the Conservative government following the Brexit referendum.[1][2]
The concept was first proposed as a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and referred to by Jacob Rees-Mogg, later minister for Brexit opportunities, as the Festival of Brexit—a nickname which became widely used—but was rebranded as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, and all mention of Brexit was avoided. It is taking place from March to 6 November 2022,[3] at a reported cost of £120 million.[4][5][6]
By 1 September 2022, 238,000 visitors had attended, 0.36% of the 66 million target.[7] The "Festival of Brexit" name has been blamed for failing to attract visitors by politicising the event.[8]"
I see it's very Brexity right down to scheduling and screwups:
'The opening of Weston’s ‘See Monster’ has been delayed for the second time.
The long-awaited art installation which was supposed to be the town’s top summer attraction now won’t open fully until after the school summer holidays.'
'It was Jacob Rees-Mogg who christened it a festival of Brexit – a moniker that might well have cursed it from the beginning.
Announced by Theresa May in the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on EU membership, and supposedly inspired by the 1851 Great Exhibition and 1951’s Festival of Britain, the then prime minister heralded a programme of events to be held this year to “showcase what makes our country great today”.
But four years on – and after two re-brandings – the public spending watchdog is to investigate what became known as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, amid concern that visitor numbers have been less than 1% of early targets.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will examine how the £120m project was managed. About 240,000 visitors are reported to have visited events, in contrast to an early target of 66 million.'
How could anyone have ever believed they would get 66 million visitors? Given that close to half the country would not have been seen dead near such an event and that the vast majority of the rest don't 'do' these sorts of things (very few people overall do do things like festivals) then the idea that they would get even 1/10th of that number is ludicrous. Bloody stupid idea.
If you were asked to put up an argument in its defence, you could though?
I could, visitor numbers is a red herring, money to the arts is important for healthy society - we can’t scrap all money for the arts by saying MRI machines and Trident and food banks is far more important.
Winners in art, culture and heritage shouldn't be the preserve of government. They need to convince the public and philanthropists to vote with their feet and wallets. Which leads me to the conclusion the license fee should probably be binned.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
EU population: 450 million USA population: 325 million
Quite an interesting little insight into Nicola Sturgeon's trans quagmire (is it a quagmire?), and the wholly self-referential nature of some elements of that lobby.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
1 - The chap is still in his job. 2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of". “I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
I mean people say hyperbolic stuff on their social media all the time. But also - this article claims that terfs is a "derogatory term used against women who do not recognise the gender identity of trans women" when it is actually a term that they coined for themselves and stopped liking being associated with once they all started going weird on the main online.
Would we have an issue with someone saying "I wanna beat up homophobes" especially if it was known that person was queer and had experienced abuse from homophobes? Would we have an issue with "I wanna beat up racists" if they had friends or knew a community who had just been attacked by racists? Imagine Tommy Robinson crying about people online saying "they're thugs for saying that sort of stuff about racists" and the Sun printing it.
Hate crimes against LGBT+, but especially trans people, are going through the roof. As a queer person, that makes me both scared and furious, for myself and my friends. So yeah, going on social media and being a bit mouthy is not a big deal to me.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
If there's an organised boycott then it isn't "under Brexit rules"...
Of course it is. The majority of voters did not vote to leave the EU. But the only votes that count are the ones actually cast. We discarded the opinions of those who abstained in that referendum or in General Elections. Why is this any different?
Beacasue an organised boycott is not the same thing as an abstention, this is basic stuff.
We vote for a named individual. Not a political party. Not the leader of a political party. This is also basic stuff. Yet the democratic mandate problem the current PM has is that a large number of voters *believe* they vote for a PM or a party. What the law says doesn't matter, its what the politics allow that matters.
Also, think about what such a boycott would be. I'm sure DRoss will lead the ScotCons to say "don't vote". I think Alex Cole-Hamilton may try and get ScotLDs to do the same. Labour? Dunno. But that is party politics which is what a referendum is there to bypass.
Bank of England warns of risk to financial stability
Is the BBC headline.
PB is mulling over a 2016 referendum.
The 2016 referendum has cost the Tories three Prime Ministers. It was not without significance and still isn't. It looks likely to cost them a fourth and for those who believe in retribution it could bring about the destruction of the party.
“I expect NATO aircraft to patrol inside Ukraine in a defensive capacity”
I really hope you are wrong - and I am sure you are - because this is the perfect recipe for World War 3. NATO planes directly meeting Russian planes in a hot war zone. They will fight each other. That’s how you start nuclear war
This is Basic Deterrence Theory. It’s why NATO and the USSR fought countless wars by proxy. Direct confrontation was too dangerous. And even the loons in the Kremlin realised this
The fact that the adolescent would-be SAS warriors of PB, sitting in Cheshire or Dubai, have totally forgotten this, will - I hope and expect - not influence anyone in Washington.
Not attacking Russia, defending Ukraine from within Ukraine.
Unlike the many armchair warriors sitting in London or on a ‘holiday’ by a nice beach, some of us actually have a stake in this conflict, have already had to replace one load of windows, and don’t want to have to do it again!
No, I think Leon is right on this one. The difference between "defence" and "offence" is far less clear than we like to think (witness the Ukraine defensive/preemptive strikes on arms dumps just inside Russia), and will be further eroded by individual commanders making split-second decisions. "There's a plane that might be about to attack, let's shoot it down" = "Our reconnaissance aircraft conducting a non-offensive mission was shot down". Direct fighting between Western and Russian forces is open war. It's possible to argue for open war, but we shouldn't do it by accident or with a half-plausible excuse - if WW3 starts, nobody will be interested in who started it.
Moreover, Ukraine seems to be winning anyway - why escalate?
There's a very strong case for the immediate supply of medium range missile batteries (NASAMS; Patriot etc) for the defence of Ukraine population centres, though. As far as I can see, the only reason we've held back on this is an unwillingness of western militaries to part with any of their existing stock. Which is to some extent understandable, as they are rapidly used up in conflicts like Ukraine, and at current rates of production take some time to replace.
Even within those constraints, it ought to be possible to do rather more than we have. And such a move ought not to be escalatory.
Quite an interesting little insight into Nicola Sturgeon's trans quagmire (is it a quagmire?), and the wholly self-referential nature of some elements of that lobby.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
1 - The chap is still in his job. 2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of". “I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
I mean people say hyperbolic stuff on their social media all the time. But also - this article claims that terfs is a "derogatory term used against women who do not recognise the gender identity of trans women" when it is actually a term that they coined for themselves and stopped liking being associated with once they all started going weird on the main online.
Would we have an issue with someone saying "I wanna beat up homophobes" especially if it was known that person was queer and had experienced abuse from homophobes? Would we have an issue with "I wanna beat up racists" if they had friends or knew a community who had just been attacked by racists? Imagine Tommy Robinson crying about people online saying "they're thugs for saying that sort of stuff about racists" and the Sun printing it.
Hate crimes against LGBT+, but especially trans people, are going through the roof. As a queer person, that makes me both scared and furious, for myself and my friends. So yeah, going on social media and being a bit mouthy is not a big deal to me.
The difference is that any woman who dissents regardless of her actions is classified as terf, therefore fascist, therefore a valid target for male violence.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
EU population: 450 million USA population: 325 million
EU GDP: $17.9 trillion USA GDP: $20.9 trillion
EU GDP per capita: $39.8k USA GDP per capita: $63.5k
The EU Single Market, as used by the EU, is a failure. Its taken a Europe that was economically bigger than America, and made it one much smaller than America.
Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadoviy says the western Ukrainian city has again been hit by Russian missiles. "As a result of the missile strike, 30% of Lviv is temporarily without electricity. There are also water supply interruptions," he says. He urges residents to stock up on water. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1579774547754389505
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
There's night and day between a SC granted (Probably won't be but let's run with it) advisory referendum and the Brexit referendum. Absolutely noone was arguing about how the referendumn was "advisory" prior to it being lost by remain whereas it's clearly front and centre of the Unionist likely boycott prior to the vote taking place if granted by the SC.
Was it advisory? Its a binary yes / no answer.
Legally yes. And nobody claimed it was legally binding. Because it wasn't. Politically no. And the same would be true of a Scexit vote. And politicians claiming it can be ignored will mostly be the ones who said the legally identical Brexit vote couldn't be ignored.
Its a mess. If the SC allow it. Which legally they should do as its does not legally bind the Westminster government who reserve those powers...
EDIT because I have seen your other similar post: "Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force." As David Cameron did. In 2014 his government made the Sindy referendum legally binding. In 2016 he made the Brexit referendum advisory. He knew the difference.
What was legally binding about the 2014 referendum?
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
If there's an organised boycott then it isn't "under Brexit rules"...
Of course it is. The majority of voters did not vote to leave the EU. But the only votes that count are the ones actually cast. We discarded the opinions of those who abstained in that referendum or in General Elections. Why is this any different?
Beacasue an organised boycott is not the same thing as an abstention, this is basic stuff.
We vote for a named individual. Not a political party. Not the leader of a political party. This is also basic stuff. Yet the democratic mandate problem the current PM has is that a large number of voters *believe* they vote for a PM or a party. What the law says doesn't matter, its what the politics allow that matters.
Also, think about what such a boycott would be. I'm sure DRoss will lead the ScotCons to say "don't vote". I think Alex Cole-Hamilton may try and get ScotLDs to do the same. Labour? Dunno. But that is party politics which is what a referendum is there to bypass.
I mean, an organised boycott would just be used to create the veneer of acceptability for the idea of ignoring the result. If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum I don't imagine Leavers would have lost any sleep over it and have declared victory. It's a cheap tactic because the Unionists aren't 100% certain they will win, so they will muddy the waters beforehand to allow themselves to declare victory no matter what. I also think a boycott doesn't make sense when Scotland keeps returning parties locally and to Westminster on a platform of holding a referendum - you can't say there is no mandate for the SNP to push for IndyRef2 when they keep winning elections.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It would be impossible to refuse the Scots if they won that referendum both democratically and logically
For clarification I do not support independence but recognise reality when it comes to this matter
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It doesn't mean it 100%, but it almost certainly does though.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK that will be global news leading news bulletins around the globe. Americans, Europeans, even Russians and Chinese etc will all instantly get that news. Britain is still, despite what some think, a major power that people are interested in around the planet, especially when it comes to stuff like that.
The agenda will become "how" and "when", not "if", which is precisely what it should be if that's the democratic will of the Scottish public.
Simply ignoring that would turn the UK into pariahs, like China over Hong Kong, or Russia.
Sorry but no, the whole basis of Sturgeon's argument to the SC is that the referendum does not have legal force. A unionist boycott is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and Truss (Or AN Other Con leader) will not allow Scotland to become independent after such a referendum. Starmer might acquiesce to a Westminster granted referendum if he needs the numbers. But if he has a majority then that's out too. Anyway this is academic since I think the SC will not grant such a referendum. But if they do it will clearly be stated that - though they can not stop Sturgeon it is no more than a large scale opinion polling exercise.
I do wonder if part of what will take the SC months to consider is this boundary between a legally large scale polling exercise - "Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union or remain in the European Union" - and the political reality of once people give their opinions on that scale they are politically binding.
Legally there is no argument against them granting a non-binding referendum as it does not take over reserved power. So any ruling against must be considering the political reality. That is the can of worms that 2016 opened.
We would be better not granting any further referenda. We are a representative democracy - our elected representatives are supposed to be sovereign.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
If there's an organised boycott then it isn't "under Brexit rules"...
Of course it is. The majority of voters did not vote to leave the EU. But the only votes that count are the ones actually cast. We discarded the opinions of those who abstained in that referendum or in General Elections. Why is this any different?
Beacasue an organised boycott is not the same thing as an abstention, this is basic stuff.
We vote for a named individual. Not a political party. Not the leader of a political party. This is also basic stuff. Yet the democratic mandate problem the current PM has is that a large number of voters *believe* they vote for a PM or a party. What the law says doesn't matter, its what the politics allow that matters.
Also, think about what such a boycott would be. I'm sure DRoss will lead the ScotCons to say "don't vote". I think Alex Cole-Hamilton may try and get ScotLDs to do the same. Labour? Dunno. But that is party politics which is what a referendum is there to bypass.
Exactly - what the voters believe is what matters. So voters believed that the Brexit referendum would be definitive because the government said it would in its multi-million pound pro-Remain propaganda leaflet. And whilst with an organised boycott one side might believe a second Scottish referendum would be definitive, the other side wouldn't accept it before the vote, so couldn't be pressured into accepting it afterwards,
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
Which is as it should be.
The will of the people, democratically expressed, should be respected.
But politicians should have the option to be brave and go against that, if they think it is necessary (eg due to changing circumstances) but then they may need to face the wrath of the voters if they do.
That is the system working as intended.
Whilst I respect the drive for self-determination I think Scottish independence would be a massive leap in the dark. So I will vote No. My problem is that unless we have a formal UK-sanctioned referendum, Yes will win. And once that happens it is over. That the cowards in the Tory party - the faction you heartily support - are selective democrats backing it when it suits them is a big problem. And Labour have a track record of also being frit when it comes to trying to reform this mess of a state.
I am not optimistic if the SC approves the referenda. Which I agree with you it should do.
No it isn't. See Spain and Catalonia, any referendum without Westminster consent will be irrelevant and Westminster will correctly tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result.
If the SC decides the Union, including a referendum on the Union, is a reserved power to Westminster then if Sturgeon tried to hold such a referendum it would be illegal and she could be arrested for contempt of court
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
Spot on. You weren't allowed to just think that the EU has faults but also has benefits for the UK. You had to prove your EUphobia and the person who was most virulently anti-EU won. As indeed was the case and still is in the Cons Party.
Hence our current pickle. Certainly since 2016, "Brexit without being a dick about it" ought to have been a winning policy that kept most of the public reasonably content. There really aren't that many people with the sort of emotional attachment to the EU than Brexit backers have to the concept of Brexit.
For whatever reason (hardball negotiation tactics? frustration at the lack of cake'n'eat it? a deeper resentment than most of us realised?), being a dick about it became part of the point of the project for some.
There was fault on all sides. But a lot of the blame lies with the second referendum campaign. In an alternative history if they had said let’s accept we are out but go for EEA or whatever then they could have won the war even if they lost the battle.
Similarly if the EU had been willing to compromise on immigration (which would have effectively meant a two speed Europe) either before or after the vote then, again, we would have ended up in a better place.
Fundamentally, I think the UK voters would want an economic arrangement without the political stuff. That’s not on offer. But can someone tell me why not? The only logical reason I can see is that the EU centralisers believe it would be too attractive and would undermine their plans to move to a single EU state? Is there another reason why it isn’t possible?
Interestingly, it seems the EU is willing to compromise now over Northern Ireland (in a way they obstinately refused to do so for several years, and insisted was utterly impossible) that would have saved so much heartache had they done so earlier.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with the EU.
I thought it was our government that's taking a different position? If I recall correctly the Johnson government was against negotiation, the current 'government' isn't.
Our prosperity has been based on cheap energy coming from Russia. Russian gas – cheap and supposedly affordable, secure, and stable. It has been proved not [to be] the case. And the access to the big China market, for exports and imports, for technological transfers, for investments, for having cheap goods. I think that the Chinese workers with their low salaries have done much better and much more to contain inflation than all the Central Banks together.
So, our prosperity was based on China and Russia – energy and market. Clearly, today, we have to find new ways for energy from inside the European Union, as much as we can, because we should not change one dependency for another. The best energy is the one that you produce at home. That will produce a strong restructuring of our economy – that is for sure. People are not aware of that but the fact that Russia and China are no longer the ones that [they] were for our economic development will require a strong restructuring of our economy.
What scenario is there where moving out of London improves your chances that much?
Isn’t it pretty much either just:
1) Putin doesn’t use nukes 2) Putin uses one in the Black Sea or similar, as ‘the ultimate warning’ to NATO, showing how serious he is 3) WW3 and apocalypse
I don’t see a scenario where, for example, London and Birmingham are nuked but the rest of the UK manages to carry on just fine. Frankly, having seen Threads like a lot of you, if WW3 starts I will be very glad to be in London and hopefully vaporised fairly quickly.
In light of the above: policy makers and the Gov should take this threat very seriously. Should the rest of us let it affect our day-to-day? There’s really not much we can do.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It doesn't mean it 100%, but it almost certainly does though.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK that will be global news leading news bulletins around the globe. Americans, Europeans, even Russians and Chinese etc will all instantly get that news. Britain is still, despite what some think, a major power that people are interested in around the planet, especially when it comes to stuff like that.
The agenda will become "how" and "when", not "if", which is precisely what it should be if that's the democratic will of the Scottish public.
Simply ignoring that would turn the UK into pariahs, like China over Hong Kong, or Russia.
China and Russia make up 2/3 of the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, add the UK that is most people the Security Council. Hardly pariahs.
Spain completely ignored the Catalan independence referendum with little international condemnation
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
The EU27 economy is $20trn and the US is $23trn, so I wouldn't say the EU is "vastly" smaller than the US. Still a useful sized market to have easy access too, and handily we even share a land border with it. Twenty years ago the EU27 was $10trn and the US was $11trn. So the two have grown more or less in line with each other. Hardly suggests sinking. Still, don't let facts stand in your way!
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
EU population: 450 million USA population: 325 million
EU GDP: $17.9 trillion USA GDP: $20.9 trillion
EU GDP per capita: $39.8k USA GDP per capita: $63.5k
The EU Single Market, as used by the EU, is a failure. Its taken a Europe that was economically bigger than America, and made it one much smaller than America.
Eh ? The USA operates very much within a single market. The logical conclusion to your implied lemma is that Florida should implement a customs barrier with Georgia. The EU is currently being absolutely stuffed due to energy, specifically gas - which will be sorted in the next few years by the inevitable arbitrage collapse of LNG.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
EU population: 450 million USA population: 325 million
EU GDP: $17.9 trillion USA GDP: $20.9 trillion
EU GDP per capita: $39.8k USA GDP per capita: $63.5k
The EU Single Market, as used by the EU, is a failure. Its taken a Europe that was economically bigger than America, and made it one much smaller than America.
Well, it's a good thing she didn't mention nominal GDP then.
"Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, previously known as Festival UK* 2022 is a national celebration in the United Kingdom first announced in 2018 by the Conservative government following the Brexit referendum.[1][2]
The concept was first proposed as a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and referred to by Jacob Rees-Mogg, later minister for Brexit opportunities, as the Festival of Brexit—a nickname which became widely used—but was rebranded as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, and all mention of Brexit was avoided. It is taking place from March to 6 November 2022,[3] at a reported cost of £120 million.[4][5][6]
By 1 September 2022, 238,000 visitors had attended, 0.36% of the 66 million target.[7] The "Festival of Brexit" name has been blamed for failing to attract visitors by politicising the event.[8]"
I see it's very Brexity right down to scheduling and screwups:
'The opening of Weston’s ‘See Monster’ has been delayed for the second time.
The long-awaited art installation which was supposed to be the town’s top summer attraction now won’t open fully until after the school summer holidays.'
'It was Jacob Rees-Mogg who christened it a festival of Brexit – a moniker that might well have cursed it from the beginning.
Announced by Theresa May in the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on EU membership, and supposedly inspired by the 1851 Great Exhibition and 1951’s Festival of Britain, the then prime minister heralded a programme of events to be held this year to “showcase what makes our country great today”.
But four years on – and after two re-brandings – the public spending watchdog is to investigate what became known as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, amid concern that visitor numbers have been less than 1% of early targets.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will examine how the £120m project was managed. About 240,000 visitors are reported to have visited events, in contrast to an early target of 66 million.'
How could anyone have ever believed they would get 66 million visitors? Given that close to half the country would not have been seen dead near such an event and that the vast majority of the rest don't 'do' these sorts of things (very few people overall do do things like festivals) then the idea that they would get even 1/10th of that number is ludicrous. Bloody stupid idea.
CHecked back re the Millennium Dome on Wiki to get some sort of comparison. The millennium thingy cost some 1.5bn in modern money, but it did get 6.5m visitors - still something like £200-250 per visitor, although much of that came from the lottery, and you did get a Dome afterwards.
Festival of Britain 1951 was 10m visitors, Empire Exhib 1938 was 12m - so 66m is a massive figure even allowing for improved transport [edit] and population increase, as the two former were extremely high profile and prestigious (mum told me about going to the 1938 one!). And the effective audience pool as you say was halved once Mr R-M did his Ratner thing (as far as the other half were concerned).
Bank of England warns of risk to financial stability
Is the BBC headline.
PB is mulling over a 2016 referendum.
The 2016 referendum has cost the Tories three Prime Ministers. It was not without significance and still isn't. It looks likely to cost them a fourth and for those who believe in retribution it could bring about the destruction of the party.
eh? It cost them Cameron, certainly. You could argue TMay was brought down by Brexit - though I would put a lot of her downfall down to her inability to win a majority in 2017. Which you could put down to many things, chief among which I would put Dementia Tax (which I still think sat on the right side of the wrong/right thing to do balance, but was clearly unpopular). Boris was in no way whatsoever brought down by Brexit. And Liz won't be brought down by Brexit either; she will be brought down by not having sufficient support for her particular approach to economics - like what politics used to be about.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
No it wouldn't, as the future of the Union would still be reserved to Westminster even if a non binding referendum was allowed by the SC
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
Which is as it should be.
The will of the people, democratically expressed, should be respected.
But politicians should have the option to be brave and go against that, if they think it is necessary (eg due to changing circumstances) but then they may need to face the wrath of the voters if they do.
That is the system working as intended.
Whilst I respect the drive for self-determination I think Scottish independence would be a massive leap in the dark. So I will vote No. My problem is that unless we have a formal UK-sanctioned referendum, Yes will win. And once that happens it is over. That the cowards in the Tory party - the faction you heartily support - are selective democrats backing it when it suits them is a big problem. And Labour have a track record of also being frit when it comes to trying to reform this mess of a state.
I am not optimistic if the SC approves the referenda. Which I agree with you it should do.
No it isn't. See Spain and Catalonia, any referendum without Westminster consent will be irrelevant and Westminster will correctly tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result.
If the SC decides the Union, including a referendum on the Union, is a reserved power to Westminster then if Sturgeon tried to hold such a referendum it would be illegal and she could be arrested for contempt of court
Oops. HYUFD is getting his tanks and his granny beaters ready again.
Quite an interesting little insight into Nicola Sturgeon's trans quagmire (is it a quagmire?), and the wholly self-referential nature of some elements of that lobby.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
1 - The chap is still in his job. 2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of". “I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
I mean people say hyperbolic stuff on their social media all the time. But also - this article claims that terfs is a "derogatory term used against women who do not recognise the gender identity of trans women" when it is actually a term that they coined for themselves and stopped liking being associated with once they all started going weird on the main online.
Would we have an issue with someone saying "I wanna beat up homophobes" especially if it was known that person was queer and had experienced abuse from homophobes? Would we have an issue with "I wanna beat up racists" if they had friends or knew a community who had just been attacked by racists? Imagine Tommy Robinson crying about people online saying "they're thugs for saying that sort of stuff about racists" and the Sun printing it.
Hate crimes against LGBT+, but especially trans people, are going through the roof. As a queer person, that makes me both scared and furious, for myself and my friends. So yeah, going on social media and being a bit mouthy is not a big deal to me.
Wow, just wow. So you have no objection to a man going on social media and threatening to beat up women, using a derogatory term for women?
I'm sorry but if instead of "terfs" it had been "fags" would you be as blasé?
Anyone who threatens to beat up women, or gay people, or anyone else is utterly disgusting and has no place being an "equalities office" two years later, especially when he's not apologised to the community he threatened to beat up.
The idea you think "terfs" are like "racists" shows something rather broken about your mindset. Yes gay people can be victims of crime and need protection. So are women too though, and crimes against women are just as serious a problem, which is what what you dismiss as "terfs" are dealing with.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It would be impossible to refuse the Scots if they won that referendum both democratically and logically
For clarification I do not support independence but recognise reality when it comes to this matter
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It doesn't mean it 100%, but it almost certainly does though.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK that will be global news leading news bulletins around the globe. Americans, Europeans, even Russians and Chinese etc will all instantly get that news. Britain is still, despite what some think, a major power that people are interested in around the planet, especially when it comes to stuff like that.
The agenda will become "how" and "when", not "if", which is precisely what it should be if that's the democratic will of the Scottish public.
Simply ignoring that would turn the UK into pariahs, like China over Hong Kong, or Russia.
Sorry but no, the whole basis of Sturgeon's argument to the SC is that the referendum does not have legal force. A unionist boycott is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and Truss (Or AN Other Con leader) will not allow Scotland to become independent after such a referendum. Starmer might acquiesce to a Westminster granted referendum if he needs the numbers. But if he has a majority then that's out too. Anyway this is academic since I think the SC will not grant such a referendum. But if they do it will clearly be stated that - though they can not stop Sturgeon it is no more than a large scale opinion polling exercise.
I do wonder if part of what will take the SC months to consider is this boundary between a legally large scale polling exercise - "Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union or remain in the European Union" - and the political reality of once people give their opinions on that scale they are politically binding.
Legally there is no argument against them granting a non-binding referendum as it does not take over reserved power. So any ruling against must be considering the political reality. That is the can of worms that 2016 opened.
We would be better not granting any further referenda. We are a representative democracy - our elected representatives are supposed to be sovereign.
That only works if viewpoints which have significant support have political representation. When the major parties agree with each other and disagree with the voters, that's when you have to step outside the general election system and decide the matter directly. This was the case with Euroscepticism and is definitely not the case with Scottish seperatism.
But in any case, the established principle worldwide for many decades has been that political secession should be by direct democracy. The problem with Scotland is that there was a decision, and the losers have never accepted it, and wouldn't accept it if they lost for a second time.
GDP per capita is higher in part because the USA stuffs its prisons with young men on both sides of the bars and makes them work for money, and in part because they work harder to pay for more medical care that makes no difference to their health outcomes. So you can go too far; living conditions are, to state the obvious, not 50% better in the USA than in the EU.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
Which is as it should be.
The will of the people, democratically expressed, should be respected.
But politicians should have the option to be brave and go against that, if they think it is necessary (eg due to changing circumstances) but then they may need to face the wrath of the voters if they do.
That is the system working as intended.
Whilst I respect the drive for self-determination I think Scottish independence would be a massive leap in the dark. So I will vote No. My problem is that unless we have a formal UK-sanctioned referendum, Yes will win. And once that happens it is over. That the cowards in the Tory party - the faction you heartily support - are selective democrats backing it when it suits them is a big problem. And Labour have a track record of also being frit when it comes to trying to reform this mess of a state.
I am not optimistic if the SC approves the referenda. Which I agree with you it should do.
No it isn't. See Spain and Catalonia, any referendum without Westminster consent will be irrelevant and Westminster will correctly tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result.
If the SC decides the Union, including a referendum on the Union, is a reserved power to Westminster then if Sturgeon tried to hold such a referendum it would be illegal and she could be arrested for contempt of court
Oops. HYUFD is getting his tanks and his granny beaters ready again.
Can't someone do an emoticon specially for him, so his regular posting doesn;t take up space?
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
Yes Unionists could in exactly the same way as Remainers said the EU referendum result was non binding and could be ignored from 2016 to 2019.
If Starmer allowed a legal referendum and lost it that would be his fault and he would have to resign. The Conservatives would instantly switch from a Unionist to an English Nationalist party to take as hard a line as possible with you SNP in any Scexit talks
Quite an interesting little insight into Nicola Sturgeon's trans quagmire (is it a quagmire?), and the wholly self-referential nature of some elements of that lobby.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
1 - The chap is still in his job. 2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of". “I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
I mean people say hyperbolic stuff on their social media all the time. But also - this article claims that terfs is a "derogatory term used against women who do not recognise the gender identity of trans women" when it is actually a term that they coined for themselves and stopped liking being associated with once they all started going weird on the main online.
Would we have an issue with someone saying "I wanna beat up homophobes" especially if it was known that person was queer and had experienced abuse from homophobes? Would we have an issue with "I wanna beat up racists" if they had friends or knew a community who had just been attacked by racists? Imagine Tommy Robinson crying about people online saying "they're thugs for saying that sort of stuff about racists" and the Sun printing it.
Hate crimes against LGBT+, but especially trans people, are going through the roof. As a queer person, that makes me both scared and furious, for myself and my friends. So yeah, going on social media and being a bit mouthy is not a big deal to me.
The difference is that any woman who dissents regardless of her actions is classified as terf, therefore fascist, therefore a valid target for male violence.
I mean, not all people who ask questions / are uncomfortable with trans people are fascist. But, increasingly, the people who actively campaign against trans rights are literally allying themselves with fascists, and far right pro life american evangelicals.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
Yes Unionists could in exactly the same way as Remainers said the EU referendum result was non binding and could be ignored from 2016 to 2019.
If Starmer allowed a legal referendum and lost it that would be his fault and he would have to resign. The Conservatives would instantly switch from a Unionist to an English Nationalist party to take as hard a line as possible with you SNP in any Scexit talks
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
EU population: 450 million USA population: 325 million
EU GDP: $17.9 trillion USA GDP: $20.9 trillion
EU GDP per capita: $39.8k USA GDP per capita: $63.5k
The EU Single Market, as used by the EU, is a failure. Its taken a Europe that was economically bigger than America, and made it one much smaller than America.
Well, it's a good thing she didn't mention nominal GDP then.
She did. "A single market ... bigger than the United States", markets tend to be measured in nominal GDP and in 1988 it was true. Measuring in GDP in 1988 the 12 nations of the EEC was considerably wealthier than the USA.
By 2016 the 28 nations the EU were not. America has grown in leaps and bounds, while the "Single Market" has ossified and failed to do so.
America has its problems, largely race based, but when it comes to the economy Europe absolutely has been sinking.
"Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, previously known as Festival UK* 2022 is a national celebration in the United Kingdom first announced in 2018 by the Conservative government following the Brexit referendum.[1][2]
The concept was first proposed as a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and referred to by Jacob Rees-Mogg, later minister for Brexit opportunities, as the Festival of Brexit—a nickname which became widely used—but was rebranded as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, and all mention of Brexit was avoided. It is taking place from March to 6 November 2022,[3] at a reported cost of £120 million.[4][5][6]
By 1 September 2022, 238,000 visitors had attended, 0.36% of the 66 million target.[7] The "Festival of Brexit" name has been blamed for failing to attract visitors by politicising the event.[8]"
I see it's very Brexity right down to scheduling and screwups:
'The opening of Weston’s ‘See Monster’ has been delayed for the second time.
The long-awaited art installation which was supposed to be the town’s top summer attraction now won’t open fully until after the school summer holidays.'
'It was Jacob Rees-Mogg who christened it a festival of Brexit – a moniker that might well have cursed it from the beginning.
Announced by Theresa May in the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on EU membership, and supposedly inspired by the 1851 Great Exhibition and 1951’s Festival of Britain, the then prime minister heralded a programme of events to be held this year to “showcase what makes our country great today”.
But four years on – and after two re-brandings – the public spending watchdog is to investigate what became known as Unboxed: Creativity in the UK, amid concern that visitor numbers have been less than 1% of early targets.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will examine how the £120m project was managed. About 240,000 visitors are reported to have visited events, in contrast to an early target of 66 million.'
How could anyone have ever believed they would get 66 million visitors? Given that close to half the country would not have been seen dead near such an event and that the vast majority of the rest don't 'do' these sorts of things (very few people overall do do things like festivals) then the idea that they would get even 1/10th of that number is ludicrous. Bloody stupid idea.
CHecked back re the Millennium Dome on Wiki to get some sort of comparison. The millennium thingy cost some 1.5bn in modern money, but it did get 6.5m visitors - still something like £200-250 per visitor, although much of that came from the lottery, and you did get a Dome afterwards.
Festival of Britain 1951 was 10m visitors, Empire Exhib 1938 was 12m - so 66m is a massive figure even allowing for improved transport [edit] and population increase, as the two former were extremely high profile and prestigious (mum told me about going to the 1938 one!). And the effective audience pool as you say was halved once Mr R-M did his Ratner thing (as far as the other half were concerned).
The World’s Fair last winter, got 24m visitors. https://www.expo2020dubai.com/ This was the largest attendance at any event for the last decade (since Expo 2010 in Shanghai, where 70m turned up!).
Our prosperity has been based on cheap energy coming from Russia. Russian gas – cheap and supposedly affordable, secure, and stable. It has been proved not [to be] the case. And the access to the big China market, for exports and imports, for technological transfers, for investments, for having cheap goods. I think that the Chinese workers with their low salaries have done much better and much more to contain inflation than all the Central Banks together.
So, our prosperity was based on China and Russia – energy and market. Clearly, today, we have to find new ways for energy from inside the European Union, as much as we can, because we should not change one dependency for another. The best energy is the one that you produce at home. That will produce a strong restructuring of our economy – that is for sure. People are not aware of that but the fact that Russia and China are no longer the ones that [they] were for our economic development will require a strong restructuring of our economy.
As is this. "On the other hand, we delegated our security to the United States. Who knows what will happen two years from now, or even in November? What would have happened if, instead of [Joe] Biden, it would have been [Donald] Trump or someone like him in the White House? What would have been the answer of the United States to the war in Ukraine? What would have been our answer in a different situation? "
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
Yes Unionists could in exactly the same way as Remainers said the EU referendum result was non binding and could be ignored from 2016 to 2019.
If Starmer allowed a legal referendum and lost it that would be his fault and he would have to resign. The Conservatives would instantly switch from a Unionist to an English Nationalist party to take as hard a line as possible with you SNP in any Scexit talks
There's a caveat - oil, gas and active wind installations of Scotland relative to their population are a stronger card than they were a couple of years ago. So I think there is a deal can be done post independence winning a Westminster sanctioned referendum. But it's a long way off yet.
In big political news of the day, unless I don’t understand Labour Party at all, looks like Starmer has lost his battle with the Union Paymasters to keep policy and communications in his own office, not lose it into Party HQ under the General Secretary. The Union Barons have chopped Starmer’s office and influence down to nothing, clearly excited by the opinion polls putting them in power. Park their tanks on the lawn in number ten, and get out their beer and sandwich’s - ironically with a lot of Tories voting Labour next time 🤣
I’m sure there will be some replies “Union Baron power in Labour? There’s no Union Baron Power in Labour!” 😇
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
If there has been a boycott by one side then the other needs to get 50% of voters on the electoral register to win, because the referendum otherwise lacks legitimacy.
A 60:40 win for Yes, on a reduced turnout of 55%, in the context of a Unionist boycott, so that Yes receives fewer votes than in 2014, is no mandate at all.
I don't personally advocate a boycott. I accept that the result of the last Holyrood election provides a mandate for a second referendum, but if a boycott happens the referendum isn't legitimate.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said new governments “always have issues” and U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss should be “given the benefit of the doubt” following a turbulent first month in office.
“I think every government should be focusing on growth — I would love to hear that out of their mouth every time a president or prime minister speaks,” Dimon said.
“Growth comes from proper tax policies, from proper investment policies, consistency of law ... being attractive to foreign investment, being attractive to companies and having strategy around industries,” he said.
Bank of England warns of risk to financial stability
Is the BBC headline.
PB is mulling over a 2016 referendum.
The 2016 referendum has cost the Tories three Prime Ministers. It was not without significance and still isn't. It looks likely to cost them a fourth and for those who believe in retribution it could bring about the destruction of the party.
eh? It cost them Cameron, certainly. You could argue TMay was brought down by Brexit - though I would put a lot of her downfall down to her inability to win a majority in 2017. Which you could put down to many things, chief among which I would put Dementia Tax (which I still think sat on the right side of the wrong/right thing to do balance, but was clearly unpopular). Boris was in no way whatsoever brought down by Brexit. And Liz won't be brought down by Brexit either; she will be brought down by not having sufficient support for her particular approach to economics - like what politics used to be about.
It's not about Brexit any more.
You don't think Boris was brought down by Brexit? His whole political career was the result of Brexit. If it wasn't for Brexit we'd have never hardly registered the revolting man. Do you think the revulsion would have been what it was if the climate his Brexit created didn't exist?
Our prosperity has been based on cheap energy coming from Russia. Russian gas – cheap and supposedly affordable, secure, and stable. It has been proved not [to be] the case. And the access to the big China market, for exports and imports, for technological transfers, for investments, for having cheap goods. I think that the Chinese workers with their low salaries have done much better and much more to contain inflation than all the Central Banks together.
So, our prosperity was based on China and Russia – energy and market. Clearly, today, we have to find new ways for energy from inside the European Union, as much as we can, because we should not change one dependency for another. The best energy is the one that you produce at home. That will produce a strong restructuring of our economy – that is for sure. People are not aware of that but the fact that Russia and China are no longer the ones that [they] were for our economic development will require a strong restructuring of our economy.
If only we could have the same sort of critical self-reflection and honest analysis from our own politicians instead of the constant boosterism.
Quite an interesting little insight into Nicola Sturgeon's trans quagmire (is it a quagmire?), and the wholly self-referential nature of some elements of that lobby.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
1 - The chap is still in his job. 2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of". “I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
I mean people say hyperbolic stuff on their social media all the time. But also - this article claims that terfs is a "derogatory term used against women who do not recognise the gender identity of trans women" when it is actually a term that they coined for themselves and stopped liking being associated with once they all started going weird on the main online.
Would we have an issue with someone saying "I wanna beat up homophobes" especially if it was known that person was queer and had experienced abuse from homophobes? Would we have an issue with "I wanna beat up racists" if they had friends or knew a community who had just been attacked by racists? Imagine Tommy Robinson crying about people online saying "they're thugs for saying that sort of stuff about racists" and the Sun printing it.
Hate crimes against LGBT+, but especially trans people, are going through the roof. As a queer person, that makes me both scared and furious, for myself and my friends. So yeah, going on social media and being a bit mouthy is not a big deal to me.
The difference is that any woman who dissents regardless of her actions is classified as terf, therefore fascist, therefore a valid target for male violence.
I mean, not all people who ask questions / are uncomfortable with trans people are fascist. But, increasingly, the people who actively campaign against trans rights are literally allying themselves with fascists, and far right pro life american evangelicals.
This is a facile argument. If a fascist supports the NHS would you want to abolish the NHS?
Women are fighting for their own rights, that fascists are jumping on a good cause for women's rights to further their own agenda is neither here nor there. Protect women's rights and you cut away the fascists excuse to use that and they will need to find something else.
LGBT people absolutely should be protected, but so too should women.
Women need and deserve single-sex safe spaces. Women who have been raped or abused by men may need and deserve a safe space where they can seek refuge where no members of the male sex are present.
Trans people who have been abused may need refuge too. In which case they should get the help and support they need, but that help and support should not be in conflict with members of the female sex getting the help and support they need.
Protect LGBT rights and protect women's rights. If your answer is to cut away women's single-sex spaces then you have the wrong answer, there must be other solutions.
Our prosperity has been based on cheap energy coming from Russia. Russian gas – cheap and supposedly affordable, secure, and stable. It has been proved not [to be] the case. And the access to the big China market, for exports and imports, for technological transfers, for investments, for having cheap goods. I think that the Chinese workers with their low salaries have done much better and much more to contain inflation than all the Central Banks together.
So, our prosperity was based on China and Russia – energy and market. Clearly, today, we have to find new ways for energy from inside the European Union, as much as we can, because we should not change one dependency for another. The best energy is the one that you produce at home. That will produce a strong restructuring of our economy – that is for sure. People are not aware of that but the fact that Russia and China are no longer the ones that [they] were for our economic development will require a strong restructuring of our economy.
As is this. "On the other hand, we delegated our security to the United States. Who knows what will happen two years from now, or even in November? What would have happened if, instead of [Joe] Biden, it would have been [Donald] Trump or someone like him in the White House? What would have been the answer of the United States to the war in Ukraine? What would have been our answer in a different situation? "
I think Biden will get a second term. The approval/polling/likely midterms look much more like standard midterm US drift away from the Dems to me than say the rather more 'change of government' situation we have in the UK now.
Bank of England warns of risk to financial stability
Is the BBC headline.
PB is mulling over a 2016 referendum.
The 2016 referendum has cost the Tories three Prime Ministers. It was not without significance and still isn't. It looks likely to cost them a fourth and for those who believe in retribution it could bring about the destruction of the party.
eh? It cost them Cameron, certainly. You could argue TMay was brought down by Brexit - though I would put a lot of her downfall down to her inability to win a majority in 2017. Which you could put down to many things, chief among which I would put Dementia Tax (which I still think sat on the right side of the wrong/right thing to do balance, but was clearly unpopular). Boris was in no way whatsoever brought down by Brexit. And Liz won't be brought down by Brexit either; she will be brought down by not having sufficient support for her particular approach to economics - like what politics used to be about.
It's not about Brexit any more.
You don't think Boris was brought down by Brexit? His whole political career was the result of Brexit. If it wasn't for Brexit we'd have never hardly registered the revolting man. Do you think the revulsion would have been what it was if the climate his Brexit created didn't exist?
Why do you think anyone in 2016 cared what his position was on Brexit if he was such a nonentity?
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said new governments “always have issues” and U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss should be “given the benefit of the doubt” following a turbulent first month in office.
“I think every government should be focusing on growth — I would love to hear that out of their mouth every time a president or prime minister speaks,” Dimon said.
“Growth comes from proper tax policies, from proper investment policies, consistency of law ... being attractive to foreign investment, being attractive to companies and having strategy around industries,” he said.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It would be impossible to refuse the Scots if they won that referendum both democratically and logically
For clarification I do not support independence but recognise reality when it comes to this matter
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Not if the SC granted the referendum and independence won
Scotland would become independent
Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force. And unlike the Brexit referendum this is very much out in the open before the vote.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
It doesn't mean it 100%, but it almost certainly does though.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK that will be global news leading news bulletins around the globe. Americans, Europeans, even Russians and Chinese etc will all instantly get that news. Britain is still, despite what some think, a major power that people are interested in around the planet, especially when it comes to stuff like that.
The agenda will become "how" and "when", not "if", which is precisely what it should be if that's the democratic will of the Scottish public.
Simply ignoring that would turn the UK into pariahs, like China over Hong Kong, or Russia.
Sorry but no, the whole basis of Sturgeon's argument to the SC is that the referendum does not have legal force. A unionist boycott is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and Truss (Or AN Other Con leader) will not allow Scotland to become independent after such a referendum. Starmer might acquiesce to a Westminster granted referendum if he needs the numbers. But if he has a majority then that's out too. Anyway this is academic since I think the SC will not grant such a referendum. But if they do it will clearly be stated that - though they can not stop Sturgeon it is no more than a large scale opinion polling exercise.
I do wonder if part of what will take the SC months to consider is this boundary between a legally large scale polling exercise - "Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union or remain in the European Union" - and the political reality of once people give their opinions on that scale they are politically binding.
Legally there is no argument against them granting a non-binding referendum as it does not take over reserved power. So any ruling against must be considering the political reality. That is the can of worms that 2016 opened.
We would be better not granting any further referenda. We are a representative democracy - our elected representatives are supposed to be sovereign.
That only works if viewpoints which have significant support have political representation. When the major parties agree with each other and disagree with the voters, that's when you have to step outside the general election system and decide the matter directly. This was the case with Euroscepticism and is definitely not the case with Scottish seperatism.
But in any case, the established principle worldwide for many decades has been that political secession should be by direct democracy. The problem with Scotland is that there was a decision, and the losers have never accepted it, and wouldn't accept it if they lost for a second time.
Some of them absolutely wouldn't. But most? If we held a proper referendum. Where both Holyrood and Westminster agreed it was binding as they did for 2014, with an agreement up front that this genuinely is the last one for a political generation, then it wouldn't matter what the minority think because the majority would accept it.
Preferable would be to fix the mess that is the UK constitution, devolve the maximum powers to all 4 nations and let independence recede off into background noise.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Yes there is, the 2016 referendum result was irrelevant for 3 years until Boris got a majority to deliver it in the Commons in 2016.
Even in the unlikely event the SC allowed a Scottish independence referendum the result would be irrelevant unless Westminster respected it as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
I know that has been your historic line on this, but your historic lines on other issues have shifted recently, so stop and think rather just regurgitating "the line".
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
If there's an organised boycott then it isn't "under Brexit rules"...
Of course it is. The majority of voters did not vote to leave the EU. But the only votes that count are the ones actually cast. We discarded the opinions of those who abstained in that referendum or in General Elections. Why is this any different?
In order to have democracy both sides need to consent to the rules under which it is conducted. If Unionists don't consent to the referendum then it has no democratic legitimacy. This is the problem the US increasingly faces with its elections.
Quite an interesting little insight into Nicola Sturgeon's trans quagmire (is it a quagmire?), and the wholly self-referential nature of some elements of that lobby.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
1 - The chap is still in his job. 2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of". “I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
I mean people say hyperbolic stuff on their social media all the time. But also - this article claims that terfs is a "derogatory term used against women who do not recognise the gender identity of trans women" when it is actually a term that they coined for themselves and stopped liking being associated with once they all started going weird on the main online.
Would we have an issue with someone saying "I wanna beat up homophobes" especially if it was known that person was queer and had experienced abuse from homophobes? Would we have an issue with "I wanna beat up racists" if they had friends or knew a community who had just been attacked by racists? Imagine Tommy Robinson crying about people online saying "they're thugs for saying that sort of stuff about racists" and the Sun printing it.
Hate crimes against LGBT+, but especially trans people, are going through the roof. As a queer person, that makes me both scared and furious, for myself and my friends. So yeah, going on social media and being a bit mouthy is not a big deal to me.
Wow, just wow. So you have no objection to a man going on social media and threatening to beat up women, using a derogatory term for women?
I'm sorry but if instead of "terfs" it had been "fags" would you be as blasé?
Anyone who threatens to beat up women, or gay people, or anyone else is utterly disgusting and has no place being an "equalities office" two years later, especially when he's not apologised to the community he threatened to beat up.
The idea you think "terfs" are like "racists" shows something rather broken about your mindset. Yes gay people can be victims of crime and need protection. So are women too though, and crimes against women are just as serious a problem, which is what what you dismiss as "terfs" are dealing with.
TERF is not synonymous with women - again, it would be like saying "I wanna bash some racists" is a threat to women because some racists are women. Men are much more likely to care about these issues, and to be openly transphobic. At demos, whilst fronted by some women, there are mostly men in the crowds, and a lot of the membership organisations are predominantly men.
TERF is an ideology, a belief, a political view, that has evolved over time and has become radicalised. In it's beginnings I would say it was an understandable if ultimately inaccurate position; now it is an active campaign of bigotry and misinformation. The links to the far right and other conspiratorial right wing politics are well mapped. Again, I see no difference between this and "bash the fash".
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
EU population: 450 million USA population: 325 million
EU GDP: $17.9 trillion USA GDP: $20.9 trillion
EU GDP per capita: $39.8k USA GDP per capita: $63.5k
The EU Single Market, as used by the EU, is a failure. Its taken a Europe that was economically bigger than America, and made it one much smaller than America.
Well, it's a good thing she didn't mention nominal GDP then.
She did. "A single market ... bigger than the United States", markets tend to be measured in nominal GDP and in 1988 it was true. Measuring in GDP in 1988 the 12 nations of the EEC was considerably wealthier than the USA.
By 2016 the 28 nations the EU were not. America has grown in leaps and bounds, while the "Single Market" has ossified and failed to do so.
America has its problems, largely race based, but when it comes to the economy Europe absolutely has been sinking.
Not true. The EU27 economy in 2021 was 87% of the size of the US economy ($20.3trn vs $23.3trn). Twenty years previously in 2001 it was 85% of the size ($9.0trn vs $10.6trn).
Our prosperity has been based on cheap energy coming from Russia. Russian gas – cheap and supposedly affordable, secure, and stable. It has been proved not [to be] the case. And the access to the big China market, for exports and imports, for technological transfers, for investments, for having cheap goods. I think that the Chinese workers with their low salaries have done much better and much more to contain inflation than all the Central Banks together.
So, our prosperity was based on China and Russia – energy and market. Clearly, today, we have to find new ways for energy from inside the European Union, as much as we can, because we should not change one dependency for another. The best energy is the one that you produce at home. That will produce a strong restructuring of our economy – that is for sure. People are not aware of that but the fact that Russia and China are no longer the ones that [they] were for our economic development will require a strong restructuring of our economy.
As is this. "On the other hand, we delegated our security to the United States. Who knows what will happen two years from now, or even in November? What would have happened if, instead of [Joe] Biden, it would have been [Donald] Trump or someone like him in the White House? What would have been the answer of the United States to the war in Ukraine? What would have been our answer in a different situation? "
I think Biden will get a second term. The approval/polling/likely midterms look much more like standard midterm US drift away from the Dems to me than say the rather more 'change of government' situation we have in the UK now.
So do I, FWIW. But neither we, nor the rest of Europe can base our defence policy on the assumption that there will always be a staunch defender of NATO in the White House. The isolationist strain of the Republican party extends well beyond Trump, and one day they might be in office again.
Quite an interesting little insight into Nicola Sturgeon's trans quagmire (is it a quagmire?), and the wholly self-referential nature of some elements of that lobby.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
1 - The chap is still in his job. 2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of". “I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
I mean people say hyperbolic stuff on their social media all the time. But also - this article claims that terfs is a "derogatory term used against women who do not recognise the gender identity of trans women" when it is actually a term that they coined for themselves and stopped liking being associated with once they all started going weird on the main online.
Would we have an issue with someone saying "I wanna beat up homophobes" especially if it was known that person was queer and had experienced abuse from homophobes? Would we have an issue with "I wanna beat up racists" if they had friends or knew a community who had just been attacked by racists? Imagine Tommy Robinson crying about people online saying "they're thugs for saying that sort of stuff about racists" and the Sun printing it.
Hate crimes against LGBT+, but especially trans people, are going through the roof. As a queer person, that makes me both scared and furious, for myself and my friends. So yeah, going on social media and being a bit mouthy is not a big deal to me.
Wow, just wow. So you have no objection to a man going on social media and threatening to beat up women, using a derogatory term for women?
I'm sorry but if instead of "terfs" it had been "fags" would you be as blasé?
Anyone who threatens to beat up women, or gay people, or anyone else is utterly disgusting and has no place being an "equalities office" two years later, especially when he's not apologised to the community he threatened to beat up.
The idea you think "terfs" are like "racists" shows something rather broken about your mindset. Yes gay people can be victims of crime and need protection. So are women too though, and crimes against women are just as serious a problem, which is what what you dismiss as "terfs" are dealing with.
TERF is not synonymous with women - again, it would be like saying "I wanna bash some racists" is a threat to women because some racists are women. Men are much more likely to care about these issues, and to be openly transphobic. At demos, whilst fronted by some women, there are mostly men in the crowds, and a lot of the membership organisations are predominantly men.
TERF is an ideology, a belief, a political view, that has evolved over time and has become radicalised. In it's beginnings I would say it was an understandable if ultimately inaccurate position; now it is an active campaign of bigotry and misinformation. The links to the far right and other conspiratorial right wing politics are well mapped. Again, I see no difference between this and "bash the fash".
Sorry but this is just bigotry, pure and simple. Sexist bigotry.
Women seeking to protect their own spaces are not "fash" anymore than gays are "fags".
Your resorting to insults because you can't answer the questions the women are raising about their concerns for their own physical safety and why they need single sex spaces is just depressing. Address legitimate concerns, don't violate the safety of single sex spaces, and move on.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
Verhofstadht or Junker were not British, and especially not in the Conservative Party.
Yes, there were (and are) pro-EU loons. But they're irrelevant for the disease that infested the Conservative Party. The disease that got rid of so many good politicians and left us with a pathetic rump. The fault lies entirely within the party, and particularly with the Europhobes within it.
"What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future"
What happens if that consensus is pro-EU?
It doesn't matter that Verhoftstadht and Jucker were not British, they were in the EU. Indeed the later was the President! If you want to be in the EU then you must take with that all of it, which is including Juncker etc, not just the British elements of it.
Indeed the fact that people like Juncker who weren't typical of anyone in British politics would become the President of the EU is precisely part of the problem of why Britain was an uncomfortable and unwilling member of the project.
We were talking about the EUphobia disease within the Conservative Party. Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln and the Dalai Lama could have been leading the EU, and the phobics within the party would have been frothing at the mouth about them.
*That's* the problem. The EUPhobics have winnowed out any talent; any reasonableness. MPs were not judged on their merits or ideas, but on how 'true' they were to being anti-EU. Even when they faked it, like Boris. Being hostile to the EU became the one issue that mattered.
But we didn't have EUphobia within the Conservative Party, we had quite rational Euroscepticism precisely because the EU being led by people like Juncker wasn't what the British public were voting for.
In 2016 the majority of the Conservative Party MPs were Remainers, despite the majority of the public not being, so your thesis is utterly false.
The only people who left were the frothing at the mouth extremists who voted against not extending Article 50 yet again even post-Brexit when it was put to a Confidence Vote in the Commons.
You're putting me off again with your posts this morning.
Stop it. Think more carefully about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
If you're referring to the frothing at the mouth comment, that phrase was in the post I was responding to.
Apologies if you think that went too far, but I was turning around what I was responding to.
Mouth foaming went on with both extremes as it does the extremes of any contentious issue. The point about Brexit-foamers was that the Singapore-on-Thames advocates have seized power - their views haven't been radicalised by Steve Bray have they? They wanted to do this thing before there was a Steve Bray.
I totally agree that all sides can be foaming. The Singapore on Thames advocates by and large aren't foamers, they've got a political agenda which they want to pursue which is the same as any.
The likes of Steve Bray didn't cause the Singapore on Thames advocates wanting what they want, but they did help them get in power by rejecting all alternatives.
When the likes of Bray were joined by the likes of Starmer in 2017 rather than repudiated that allowed the very soft Brexit Theresa May's backstop would have left us in (inside both the Single Market and Customs Union) to be replaced by a much cleaner Brexit deal instead outside the SM and CU.
When the "moderates" choose to align with their own "foamers", instead of other "moderates" then one set of "foamers" is going to win.
The exciting legacy of the referendum is that there is no such thing as an "advisory" referendum. If the SC grants the Scottish Government the power to hold a Brexit-rules referendum then that's it for the union.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Well, no, the legacy of the referendum is that all referenda are advisory, as per Miller, which has opened the door to allowing a Brexit-rules referendum. The Supreme Court must surely, following its own precedence, rule that Sturgeon does hold powers to hold a referendum precisely because as per Miller the referendum won't affect the Union or any other reserved matters.
What the politicians do after that, is up to the people we elect, just as it was in 2019. Hopefully a majority is elected to respect the vote, but we can choose not to if we choose. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to override democracy, but millions did in 2019 including yourself so it all remains possible.
It is this boundary between the legal and the political which the Brexit referendum has erased. The Brexit referendum did not legally bind the 2017 parliament. But politically it was the immovable object.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
If there has been a boycott by one side then the other needs to get 50% of voters on the electoral register to win, because the referendum otherwise lacks legitimacy.
A 60:40 win for Yes, on a reduced turnout of 55%, in the context of a Unionist boycott, so that Yes receives fewer votes than in 2014, is no mandate at all.
I don't personally advocate a boycott. I accept that the result of the last Holyrood election provides a mandate for a second referendum, but if a boycott happens the referendum isn't legitimate.
It would certainly make for fun political arguments! I do wonder how effective a unionist party political boycott would be. The ScotTories are absolutely riven as it is - would their electorate accept a "sit on your hands" edict from DRoss? What would Labour do - hard to see them just sitting the campaign out when it would give them the opportunity to try and reconnect with voters.
My own party (SLD, not SNP as HY suggested) is locally despairing of the endless whining about independence distracting from real issues, and nationally Alex Cole-Hamilton is stridently against to try and raise his profile (which it doesn't). Put on the spot I can see that resistance weakening.
So a boycott that was party political led only by the Tories would be dismissed at irrelevant. If all the anti-independence parties (not pro-union, remember that the SLDs are NOT pro-union, we're pro-federalism) all boycott then its a real mess. The problem is that Yes would then win big and the "English plot to enslave us" whine would be endless.
I don't think Truss is going anywhere because MPs could never agree on a successor and any such successor would simply be faced with internecine strife from another wing of the party, most likely the ERG ultras which is simply another way of wiping out the majority.
The only way it ends (with any hope of a rebuild) is electoral destruction, and probably many years of blaming each other for it after, so that's what I expect to happen.
It could end in financial meltdown long before the election
For the first time I'm now wondering if I've made a serious mistake with my (near) lifelong alliance to the Conservative Party.
No, I'm not a leftie or anything like that but I wonder if the institution is fundamentally corrupted and we need a new centre-right party to supersede it.
You won't like me saying this, but the party's problem is Brexit. At least, the way the party spent decades seeing Europhobia as being the only 'true' Conservatism.
Anyone who was Eurosceptic got called Europhile because only Europhobes were truly anti-Europe. Vast amounts of talent were chucked out of the party, or discouraged from joining, because they were not seen as being strongly enough anti-Europe. This left a very weak talent pool, and we are reaping the consequences.
Europhobia is a madness that has destroyed the Conservative Party. For many, such as Bone or JRM, it is all that matters.
There's some truth in that and it works both ways. There was an institutional europhilia that for years defied what the median British person wanted on the EU, and they were roundly ignored. And for every Nigel Farage there was a Guy Verhofstadht. For every Bill Cash a Jean-Claude Junker.
Now, you certainly argue that "Brexit" as delivered is a problem and has corrupted the Conservative Party. But you also have to acknowledge that EU fealty and fatalism about Ever Closer Union also corrupted the other parties before, and arguably since.
What most people mean when they say the party's problem is Brexit is that they want it revoked and to go to the status quo antebellum, whereupon all our problems will be magically solved. That fuels some of the extreme dogma and paranoia on the other side. Both really hate each other and are deeply suspicious of one another.
What we desperately need is a new moderate consensus on our post-EU future, or the war will never end.
There’s a fair bit of truth in that OP. But it needn’t have been like that.
Brexit was allowed to become, by and within the conservatives, a test of purity, where any attempt at reconciliation with the real, pragmatic, world is denounced as heresy, and so politics detaches from reality in a way often seen in revolutions. What we have missed is a Cromwell or Napoleon figure who would turn on and marginalise the extremists and bring (or try, at least, in Cromwell’s case) the ‘project’ back toward the centre. I had hoped Mrs May would do the necessary, but she proved too weak, too stubborn, and too desperate to prove her credentials to the leavers.
“Norway for now” (which might have led either to “Norway forever” or moves toward further detachment, when we were ready and had thought things through) was always the most sensible position - but the last time leavers were willing to accept and talk about this was when they still needed our votes in the referendum.
One of the problems with the Norway for Now option was that it had been unnecessarily trashed well before the referendum. Whilst some elements of Leave were very keen on it, others were only pushing it as it seemed a less violent jump into the dark and more easily sold to the public so they used it without ever actually believing in it. At the same time Remain hated it because they thought it was an effective argument in favour of Brexit and so went after it hammer and tongs for fear it made Leave more likely to win.
So by the time Leave did actually win, both sides had thoroughly undermined the most reasonable and obvious post-Brexit destination. Brexit wasn't an act of self-harm any more than leaving a sinking ship would be. Choosing to abandon the lifeboats because they still had the name of the ship on the side of them was.
We didn't leave the ship because it was sinking, we left because some of us thought it was heading to the wrong port, and they decided it would be preferable to swim.
Nope, for many of us it was definitely sinking. You might not see it that way but there were plenty who did and still do.
So it was sinking six years ago and it's still sinking? It's hardly going down like the Titanic.
Its been sinking for decades.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
EU population: 450 million USA population: 325 million
EU GDP: $17.9 trillion USA GDP: $20.9 trillion
EU GDP per capita: $39.8k USA GDP per capita: $63.5k
The EU Single Market, as used by the EU, is a failure. Its taken a Europe that was economically bigger than America, and made it one much smaller than America.
Well, it's a good thing she didn't mention nominal GDP then.
She did. "A single market ... bigger than the United States", markets tend to be measured in nominal GDP and in 1988 it was true. Measuring in GDP in 1988 the 12 nations of the EEC was considerably wealthier than the USA.
By 2016 the 28 nations the EU were not. America has grown in leaps and bounds, while the "Single Market" has ossified and failed to do so.
America has its problems, largely race based, but when it comes to the economy Europe absolutely has been sinking.
Not true. The EU27 economy in 2021 was 87% of the size of the US economy ($20.3trn vs $23.3trn). Twenty years previously in 2001 it was 85% of the size ($9.0trn vs $10.6trn).
How many new states has the US added in those twenty years?
Comments
Similarly if the EU had been willing to compromise on immigration (which would have effectively meant a two speed Europe) either before or after the vote then, again, we would have ended up in a better place.
Fundamentally, I think the UK voters would want an economic arrangement without the political stuff. That’s not on offer. But can someone tell me why not? The only logical reason I can see is that the EU centralisers believe it would be too attractive and would undermine their plans to move to a single EU state? Is there another reason why it isn’t possible?
The Brexit referendum was not "irrelevant for three years". It dominated and shaped our politics. Despite being legally advisory and not binding it was *politically* immovable.
An advisory referenda blessed by the UK Supreme Court would be held under Brexit rules. Except I can see many Tory unionists boycotting, thus guaranteeing that Yes wins.
The same people who said "The Brexit referendum was the binding will of the people" cannot with any credibility say "the Sindy2 referendum was advisory and can be ignored".
Once we get a Yes vote in a legal referendum - advisory or not - that is the genie out of the bottle. So we had better hope that the SC say no. Or the United Kingdom will end. What you think or the line that your former wing of your party thinks will not matter as you are getting flung out. Starmer will say "no deal" with the SNP, but the irresistible political grip of this will bind him and the 2024 parliament just as the previous one politically bound the 2017 parliament.
That is the true Brexit legacy. The only way to win is not to allow any referenda on any subject.
Moreover, Ukraine seems to be winning anyway - why escalate?
Not the £2bn of bonds the Treasury wanted to sell to pay for the 45p tax, though that was politically clueless.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with the EU.
The same would be true with a 2023 independence vote. Yes will win due to the unionist boycott. And once the will of the people has been clearly expressed its a brave politician to tell them no, regardless of the law or political and constitutional precedents. As May and scores of Labour MPs found out.
Scotland would become independent
. .
The will of the people, democratically expressed, should be respected.
But politicians should have the option to be brave and go against that, if they think it is necessary (eg due to changing circumstances) but then they may need to face the wrath of the voters if they do.
That is the system working as intended.
So independence winning the ref (If granted by the SC) doesn't mean Scotland would become independent.
What seems to be forgotten from the FBPE side "an economic arrangement without the political stuff" is what we had (or people thought we had) right up until Maastricht, and people were very happy with it - Euroscepticism barely existed at all until Maastricht showed that either "Europe" was changing into something different, or that it never actaully was what most people thought it was.
I am not optimistic if the SC approves the referenda. Which I agree with you it should do.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK that will be global news leading news bulletins around the globe. Americans, Europeans, even Russians and Chinese etc will all instantly get that news. Britain is still, despite what some think, a major power that people are interested in around the planet, especially when it comes to stuff like that.
The agenda will become "how" and "when", not "if", which is precisely what it should be if that's the democratic will of the Scottish public.
Simply ignoring that would turn the UK into pariahs, like China over Hong Kong, or Russia.
For clarification I do not support independence but recognise reality when it comes to this matter
But, we're not going to go from a conventional war of conquest / defence to mutually assured destruction in one bound. So, though we shouldn't escalate beyond supporting the defence of Ukraine at this stage - it is working, the time to de-escalate beyond that is not yet.
SNP equalities officer threatened to 'beat the f*** out of terfs and transphobes' in abusive tweets
In now deleted tweets, Cameron Downing, 23, said he wanted to “beat the f*** out of some terfs and transphobes”.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-equalities-officer-threatened-beat-28189613
1 - The chap is still in his job.
2 - He has apologised to the 'LGBTQ+ community', and not to the people he was expressing a desire to "beat the f*ck out of".
“I apologise for these tweets and for any offence caused to the LGBTQ+ community and have long since deleted them.” Tweets are from late 2020.
2 is perhaps more concerning for anyone wanting to take this debate forward.
Same as the Conservative Party, really. The country sadly misses the old Conservative Party - which was often mistaken, of course, but at heart, decent and well-meaning.
You went to pieces so fast people were getting hit by the shrapnel.
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-ambassadors-annual-conference-2022-opening-speech-high-representative-josep-borrell_en
I have to recognise that here, in Brussels, the Americans were telling us “They will attack, they will attack”, and we were quite reluctant to believe it. And I remember very well when [US Secretary of State] Tony Blinken phoned me and told me “well, it is going to happen this weekend”. And certainly, two days later, at five o’clock in the morning, they started bombing Kyiv. We did not believe that this was going to happen, and we did not foresee that Ukraine was ready to resist as fiercely and as successfully as they are doing.
They have freedom/authority to do what they want. If they mess it up at some point the Board (the voters) will notice and will kick them out at an election.
But if the management team goes to the Board and says “what should I do about X?” then they need to follow those instructions.
And if they show signs of not doing so then the Board will sack them
https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1579757661528412162
Did she really say that? In normal times it would seem utterly incredible...
Starmer might acquiesce to a Westminster granted referendum if he needs the numbers. But if he has a majority then that's out too.
Anyway this is academic since I think the SC will not grant such a referendum. But if they do it will clearly be stated that - though they can not stop Sturgeon it is no more than a large scale opinion polling exercise.
Legally yes. And nobody claimed it was legally binding. Because it wasn't.
Politically no. And the same would be true of a Scexit vote. And politicians claiming it can be ignored will mostly be the ones who said the legally identical Brexit vote couldn't be ignored.
Its a mess. If the SC allow it. Which legally they should do as its does not legally bind the Westminster government who reserve those powers...
EDIT because I have seen your other similar post: "Sturgeon is asking for a referendum without legal force." As David Cameron did. In 2014 his government made the Sindy referendum legally binding. In 2016 he made the Brexit referendum advisory. He knew the difference.
I could, visitor numbers is a red herring, money to the arts is important for healthy society - we can’t scrap all money for the arts by saying MRI machines and Trident and food banks is far more important.
There's more than one way of going down.
I repeat the point I've oft-made before, in the 80s Thatcher proudly boasted that the Single Market would be bigger than America.
Its now vastly smaller than America, and was pre-Brexit.
What is that, if not sinking?
Just wonderful nostalgia
Which leads me to the conclusion the license fee should probably be binned.
USA population: 325 million
Would we have an issue with someone saying "I wanna beat up homophobes" especially if it was known that person was queer and had experienced abuse from homophobes? Would we have an issue with "I wanna beat up racists" if they had friends or knew a community who had just been attacked by racists? Imagine Tommy Robinson crying about people online saying "they're thugs for saying that sort of stuff about racists" and the Sun printing it.
Hate crimes against LGBT+, but especially trans people, are going through the roof. As a queer person, that makes me both scared and furious, for myself and my friends. So yeah, going on social media and being a bit mouthy is not a big deal to me.
https://news.sky.com/story/hate-crimes-recorded-in-england-and-wales-reach-record-high-12713558
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-office-hate-crime-hate-crimes-lgbt-suella-braverman-b2197101.html
Also, think about what such a boycott would be. I'm sure DRoss will lead the ScotCons to say "don't vote". I think Alex Cole-Hamilton may try and get ScotLDs to do the same. Labour? Dunno. But that is party politics which is what a referendum is there to bypass.
As far as I can see, the only reason we've held back on this is an unwillingness of western militaries to part with any of their existing stock. Which is to some extent understandable, as they are rapidly used up in conflicts like Ukraine, and at current rates of production take some time to replace.
Even within those constraints, it ought to be possible to do rather more than we have. And such a move ought not to be escalatory.
USA GDP: $20.9 trillion
EU GDP per capita: $39.8k
USA GDP per capita: $63.5k
The EU Single Market, as used by the EU, is a failure. Its taken a Europe that was economically bigger than America, and made it one much smaller than America.
"As a result of the missile strike, 30% of Lviv is temporarily without electricity. There are also water supply interruptions," he says. He urges residents to stock up on water.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1579774547754389505
Legally there is no argument against them granting a non-binding referendum as it does not take over reserved power. So any ruling against must be considering the political reality. That is the can of worms that 2016 opened.
We would be better not granting any further referenda. We are a representative democracy - our elected representatives are supposed to be sovereign.
If the SC decides the Union, including a referendum on the Union, is a reserved power to Westminster then if Sturgeon tried to hold such a referendum it would be illegal and she could be arrested for contempt of court
Our prosperity has been based on cheap energy coming from Russia. Russian gas – cheap and supposedly affordable, secure, and stable. It has been proved not [to be] the case. And the access to the big China market, for exports and imports, for technological transfers, for investments, for having cheap goods. I think that the Chinese workers with their low salaries have done much better and much more to contain inflation than all the Central Banks together.
So, our prosperity was based on China and Russia – energy and market. Clearly, today, we have to find new ways for energy from inside the European Union, as much as we can, because we should not change one dependency for another. The best energy is the one that you produce at home. That will produce a strong restructuring of our economy – that is for sure. People are not aware of that but the fact that Russia and China are no longer the ones that [they] were for our economic development will require a strong restructuring of our economy.
What scenario is there where moving out of London improves your chances that much?
Isn’t it pretty much either just:
1) Putin doesn’t use nukes
2) Putin uses one in the Black Sea or similar, as ‘the ultimate warning’ to NATO, showing how serious he is
3) WW3 and apocalypse
I don’t see a scenario where, for example, London and Birmingham are nuked but the rest of the UK manages to carry on just fine. Frankly, having seen Threads like a lot of you, if WW3 starts I will be very glad to be in London and hopefully vaporised fairly quickly.
In light of the above: policy makers and the Gov should take this threat very seriously. Should the rest of us let it affect our day-to-day? There’s really not much we can do.
Spain completely ignored the Catalan independence referendum with little international condemnation
Twenty years ago the EU27 was $10trn and the US was $11trn. So the two have grown more or less in line with each other. Hardly suggests sinking. Still, don't let facts stand in your way!
The EU is currently being absolutely stuffed due to energy, specifically gas - which will be sorted in the next few years by the inevitable arbitrage collapse of LNG.
Festival of Britain 1951 was 10m visitors, Empire Exhib 1938 was 12m - so 66m is a massive figure even allowing for improved transport [edit] and population increase, as the two former were extremely high profile and prestigious (mum told me about going to the 1938 one!). And the effective audience pool as you say was halved once Mr R-M did his Ratner thing (as far as the other half were concerned).
It cost them Cameron, certainly.
You could argue TMay was brought down by Brexit - though I would put a lot of her downfall down to her inability to win a majority in 2017. Which you could put down to many things, chief among which I would put Dementia Tax (which I still think sat on the right side of the wrong/right thing to do balance, but was clearly unpopular).
Boris was in no way whatsoever brought down by Brexit.
And Liz won't be brought down by Brexit either; she will be brought down by not having sufficient support for her particular approach to economics - like what politics used to be about.
It's not about Brexit any more.
I'm sorry but if instead of "terfs" it had been "fags" would you be as blasé?
Anyone who threatens to beat up women, or gay people, or anyone else is utterly disgusting and has no place being an "equalities office" two years later, especially when he's not apologised to the community he threatened to beat up.
The idea you think "terfs" are like "racists" shows something rather broken about your mindset. Yes gay people can be victims of crime and need protection. So are women too though, and crimes against women are just as serious a problem, which is what what you dismiss as "terfs" are dealing with.
But in any case, the established principle worldwide for many decades has been that political secession should be by direct democracy. The problem with Scotland is that there was a decision, and the losers have never accepted it, and wouldn't accept it if they lost for a second time.
If Starmer allowed a legal referendum and lost it that would be his fault and he would have to resign. The Conservatives would instantly switch from a Unionist to an English Nationalist party to take as hard a line as possible with you SNP in any Scexit talks
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2022/03/16/transphobia-and-the-far-right/
https://twitter.com/caseyexplosion/status/1048237057779404800
https://xtramagazine.com/power/far-right-feminist-fascist-220810
By 2016 the 28 nations the EU were not. America has grown in leaps and bounds, while the "Single Market" has ossified and failed to do so.
America has its problems, largely race based, but when it comes to the economy Europe absolutely has been sinking.
"On the other hand, we delegated our security to the United States. Who knows what will happen two years from now, or even in November? What would have happened if, instead of [Joe] Biden, it would have been [Donald] Trump or someone like him in the White House? What would have been the answer of the United States to the war in Ukraine? What would have been our answer in a different situation? "
I’m sure there will be some replies “Union Baron power in Labour? There’s no Union Baron Power in Labour!” 😇
A 60:40 win for Yes, on a reduced turnout of 55%, in the context of a Unionist boycott, so that Yes receives fewer votes than in 2014, is no mandate at all.
I don't personally advocate a boycott. I accept that the result of the last Holyrood election provides a mandate for a second referendum, but if a boycott happens the referendum isn't legitimate.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said new governments “always have issues” and U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss should be “given the benefit of the doubt” following a turbulent first month in office.
“I think every government should be focusing on growth — I would love to hear that out of their mouth every time a president or prime minister speaks,” Dimon said.
“Growth comes from proper tax policies, from proper investment policies, consistency of law ... being attractive to foreign investment, being attractive to companies and having strategy around industries,” he said.
Women are fighting for their own rights, that fascists are jumping on a good cause for women's rights to further their own agenda is neither here nor there. Protect women's rights and you cut away the fascists excuse to use that and they will need to find something else.
LGBT people absolutely should be protected, but so too should women.
Women need and deserve single-sex safe spaces. Women who have been raped or abused by men may need and deserve a safe space where they can seek refuge where no members of the male sex are present.
Trans people who have been abused may need refuge too. In which case they should get the help and support they need, but that help and support should not be in conflict with members of the female sex getting the help and support they need.
Protect LGBT rights and protect women's rights. If your answer is to cut away women's single-sex spaces then you have the wrong answer, there must be other solutions.
Preferable would be to fix the mess that is the UK constitution, devolve the maximum powers to all 4 nations and let independence recede off into background noise.
TERF is an ideology, a belief, a political view, that has evolved over time and has become radicalised. In it's beginnings I would say it was an understandable if ultimately inaccurate position; now it is an active campaign of bigotry and misinformation. The links to the far right and other conspiratorial right wing politics are well mapped. Again, I see no difference between this and "bash the fash".
But neither we, nor the rest of Europe can base our defence policy on the assumption that there will always be a staunch defender of NATO in the White House. The isolationist strain of the Republican party extends well beyond Trump, and one day they might be in office again.
Women seeking to protect their own spaces are not "fash" anymore than gays are "fags".
Your resorting to insults because you can't answer the questions the women are raising about their concerns for their own physical safety and why they need single sex spaces is just depressing. Address legitimate concerns, don't violate the safety of single sex spaces, and move on.
My own party (SLD, not SNP as HY suggested) is locally despairing of the endless whining about independence distracting from real issues, and nationally Alex Cole-Hamilton is stridently against to try and raise his profile (which it doesn't). Put on the spot I can see that resistance weakening.
So a boycott that was party political led only by the Tories would be dismissed at irrelevant. If all the anti-independence parties (not pro-union, remember that the SLDs are NOT pro-union, we're pro-federalism) all boycott then its a real mess. The problem is that Yes would then win big and the "English plot to enslave us" whine would be endless.
I remember we were all allowed to go to the trackside to watch 'Mallard' steam haul the Edinburgh to London pullman
It was a rare glimpse of this world famous locomotive in full steam as that service did not stop at Berwick
Magic memories