How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
One of the many surprising aspects of political developments since the referendum is that the electorate do not appear to have become more anti EU as the UK has been forced into making concessions. The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. Therefore it is by no means certain that blaming the EU for a no deal car crash will work. People are just as likely to blame the Tories, and their manifest incompetence in handling the negotiations will make it easier to attach the blame to them.
Has there been polling explicitly on favourability of the EU?
The Yougov "right or wrong to leave" polling shows a small but consistent move to "wrong."
People could have viewed it as being right to leave but still had a positive view of the EU, for example. I was wondering if that had changed.
Bit confused at the idea that Corbyn could fall foul himself. Regardless of the official definition, surely newspapers would be publishing his antisemitic quotes if they exist?
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
But you'll get both.
And somebody from Brussels will come and buy your property with a string of shells....for that is all it will be worth.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
It might even accelerate Corbyn as frustrated working class Leave voters go to him on the basis he offers at least some rebellion against the establishment.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Goddamit Sean, I've relied on you playing sturdy Samwise to my plucky Frodo as we trudge out of Mordor sans eagles, and now you go all flibbertygibbet on me. So out of character.
I know, I know. It must be a bit of a shock. A sturdy yeoman type like me, who'dathunk.
Incidentally, just after the Brexit vote, I jokingly posited on PB that this COULD end up as an apocalypse: if Brexit went horribly wrong, leaving the Tories out of power, and ushering in ten years of a Corbynite Labour government. Then Scotland would leave, Ulster would go up in flames, England would become a European Venezuela, etc.
I was joshing at the time, as it seemed most unlikely Corbyn would survive, and of course the EU-UK would agree a reasonable deal..
The joke is not funny any more.
We've all lived through the worst economic downturn since WW1. How was it for you?
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Yes, I'm certain that was the deciding factor for the votes of everyone. Not stuff like fox hunting, nationalisation, dementia tax, or the like.
Whilst that might be true in what drove a number of votes you can’t selectively ditch fundamental parts of your manifesto once you find them inconvenient.
Labour’s position on Brexit was certainly what reassured some UKIPers to vote for them and the same is true of the Tory manifesto in what was (supposed to be) a Brexit election.
Firstly, if you lose, you're not exactly expected to cling to everything in your manifesto (as it was rejected by the populace); you're supposed to change it to find something the public will vote for.
Secondly, MarqueeMark was citing it as "proof" that the overwhelming majority of the public had a pronounced will to leave the SM and CU, so whether or not it drove their votes is the appropriate issue.
Thirdly, we all already know that the vast majority didn't base their votes in the 2017 GE on the SM and CU; it wasn't exactly the most talked about thing in the manifestos (I believe the three things I mentioned were the most talked about by a long way)
MarqueeMark was pointing out that a very small proportion of the electorate went for the parties that were advocating staying in the CU and the SM. It was an option available if the voters wanted it; they didn't take it.
And that data point - from the entire electorate - post-dates the Referendum result.
Seriously? You know, I've been trying to give both sides the benefit of every doubt, but this sort of stuff makes the Leavers' citing of the democratic will of the people look just like virtuously intoning disingenuous technicalities because they want to get what they want so everyone else please shut up. It's just like when a bunch of Remainers kept insisting that the referendum was only advisory.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
One of the many surprising aspects of political developments since the referendum is that the electorate do not appear to have become more anti EU as the UK has been forced into making concessions. The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. Therefore it is by no means certain that blaming the EU for a no deal car crash will work. People are just as likely to blame the Tories, and their manifest incompetence in handling the negotiations will make it easier to attach the blame to them.
I don’t think most people have been paying too much attention to the detail. To the extent they have they’ve been reserving judgment pending the final deal, to see if it’s worth it.
It could go either way. People could react in the way you describe. Or they could get very angry and defiant and stick a solid two British fingers up at the EU.
I think the people who lean Labour will blame the Tories. The people who lean Tory will blame the EU. This stunning political insight provided gratis courtesy of Mr Smithson's site.
But, you’re referring to the already politically engaged.
It’s the politically uninterested and floaters who’d be decisive.
What if, he turns out to be quite good and not the monster the PB Tories go on about? A relatively modest government with a left-wing angle on the big problems we face. It could prove popular.
The single easiest way to guarantee a Labour victory in 2022 is for the Tories to put forwards any kind of second referendum. Even if leave was to win again, we'd lose the trust of the electorate.
What if, he turns out to be quite good and not the monster the PB Tories go on about? A relatively modest government with a left-wing angle on the big problems we face. It could prove popular.
What then?
Well firstly, you'll have a lot of VERY surprised Labour MPs.....
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Goddamit Sean, I've relied on you playing sturdy Samwise to my plucky Frodo as we trudge out of Mordor sans eagles, and now you go all flibbertygibbet on me. So out of character.
I know, I know. It must be a bit of a shock. A sturdy yeoman type like me, who'dathunk.
Incidentally, just after the Brexit vote, I jokingly posited on PB that this COULD end up as an apocalypse: if Brexit went horribly wrong, leaving the Tories out of power, and ushering in ten years of a Corbynite Labour government. Then Scotland would leave, Ulster would go up in flames, England would become a European Venezuela, etc.
I was joshing at the time, as it seemed most unlikely Corbyn would survive, and of course the EU-UK would agree a reasonable deal..
The joke is not funny any more.
We've all lived through the worst economic downturn since WW1. How was it for you?
The exceptionally low short term and long term interest rates since 2008 have meant very low mortgage payments. Of course those who have bought houses since 2008 will also have to have paid a higher price for a house (due to the low interest rates). But in general most people with mortgages have benefitted massively.
What if, he turns out to be quite good and not the monster the PB Tories go on about? A relatively modest government with a left-wing angle on the big problems we face. It could prove popular.
What then?
Well, that'd be good wouldn't it?
Now I'm in my fifties I'm looking at previous administrations (of all stripes) much more benignly. Every post war government has enacted a mixture of good and bad measures (some good measures have had deleterious effects later). There's something to like even in (say) Heath's term.
I've had people telling me the sky is falling since I was a child. The nature of the threat has changed - it used to be nuclear armageddon, and I guess it's hard to top that. Corbyn is not in the same league.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
Trump has not been a disaster (unless you care about America's *image* in the world, but it was never that great anyway). Economically he has done better than Obama, so far
The economy Trump is benefiting from is Obama's legacy. In 2-3 years we'll begin to see what Trumps' impact is.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
(Snipped as irrelevant)
I disagree fundamentally on this. It is possible to criticise Israel within those limits, and do it well and forcibly. These changes may allow critics of Israel protection ((though they shouldn't need it): it gives anti-Semites massive breathing room.
The Conservatives have some issues with Islamophobia; IMO they're more minor atm than Labour's problems, and the infection hasn't quite reached as high up the organisational tree. But any attack on the Conservatives, warranted or otherwise, has been blunted by this stupidity.
Barnesian is wrong in saying that these examples are only about protecting Israel from criticism. The first explicitly allows attacks on Jews outside Israel on the basis that they are somehow disloyal to their home country. It is a long-standing anti-semitic trope. There is no justification whatsoever for permitting it. The second explicitly denies Jews the right to self-determination. If it is OK to say that the existence of Israel is ipso facto racist (because it is a homeland for Jews) then it would be equally OK to say that a proposed Palestinian state (and the desire for it) is racist (and with rather more justification because all the pro-Palestinian groups have made it clear that no Jew would be allowed to be a citizen whereas 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews). Is this really what Labour intend? The other two are often used to conflate Jews and Israel - as you can see from some of the offensive examples that have been aired in the press.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Interesting. How many Leavers would go for 3, 1 on the basis that 2 is a sellout on immigration and we might as well remain and have a say in running things in that case (and sod Liam's trade deals)? If that chunk is sizeable it could tip it to Remain.
What if, he turns out to be quite good and not the monster the PB Tories go on about? A relatively modest government with a left-wing angle on the big problems we face. It could prove popular.
What then?
I'd be very relieved. But that wold only happen if he has people to rein him in; in fact, all leaders need someone to do that: someone to say: "That'd be a very brave decision."
I'm unsure Corbyn is surrounded by such people. In fact, a Corbyn government with a small majority might find it very hard to do anything too extreme, and might end up with some good compromises. But I'm unsure such compromises would sit well with his supporters.
The fact is I find much of Corbyn's world view inconsistent and dangerous. He says he likes to talk to all sides, and only talks to one. He claims to be anti-racist, yet seems incapable of understanding anti-Semitism (and as I've said before, I think it goes deeper than that). He has supported leaders who have taken their countries down disastrous paths, e.g. Chavez.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Remain on the basis of Dave's Deal was rejected, but full EU membership was not. How about:
1. Remain and join the Euro 2. EEA+CU 3. No Deal Hard Brexit
Bit confused at the idea that Corbyn could fall foul himself. Regardless of the official definition, surely newspapers would be publishing his antisemitic quotes if they exist?
See this - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/24/the-reason-labour-cant-pass-ihra-in-full/- (I posted it the other day). The film shows Corbyn comparing Gaza to the seige of Leningrad or Stalingrad. Apart from the gross historical illiteracy this would fall foul of one of the examples in the IHRA definition which Labour want to remove.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
Trump has not been a disaster (unless you care about America's *image* in the world, but it was never that great anyway). Economically he has done better than Obama, so far
The economy Trump is benefiting from is Obama's legacy. In 2-3 years we'll begin to see what Trumps' impact is.
Bollocks. He's lowered corporation tax and is forcing US companies to reshore. America is, very modestly, booming as a result. Trump is good for big biz. Bad for Mexican immigrants and angsty liberals. That's why his ratings have recovered.
Nah. At this stage Obama was still cleaning up the mess he inherited. Trump is basking is Obama's golden legacy.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
Trump has not been a disaster (unless you care about America's *image* in the world, but it was never that great anyway). Economically he has done better than Obama, so far.
I agree we may get Corbyn anyway, but it's still worth trying to avoid him. Imagine him, McDonnell and Abbot leading the country. I mean, really, IMAGINE.
*shudder*
Agree with your last paragraph, although a Corbyn government with a small minority might be *very* interesting (as in the Chinese curse).
WRT Trump, I said an 'oncoming' disaster, not a current one.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Remain on the basis of Dave's Deal was rejected, but full EU membership was not. How about:
1. Remain and join the Euro 2. EEA+CU 3. No Deal Hard Brexit
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Yeah, what exactly is the argument against a referendum with only options 2 and 3? Seems like pretty much everyone should want that
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Remain on the basis of Dave's Deal was rejected, but full EU membership was not. How about:
1. Remain and join the Euro 2. EEA+CU 3. No Deal Hard Brexit
Option 1 should be the complete deal - Euro, Schengen, no opt out, no rebate. I'd support a second referendum People's Vote on that basis.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Remain on the basis of Dave's Deal was rejected, but full EU membership was not. How about:
1. Remain and join the Euro 2. EEA+CU 3. No Deal Hard Brexit
Do you want to ensure that no deal wins lol.
No Deal just leads to the break up of the UK and then rejoining the EU so the end result would be similar.
Bit confused at the idea that Corbyn could fall foul himself. Regardless of the official definition, surely newspapers would be publishing his antisemitic quotes if they exist?
See this - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/24/the-reason-labour-cant-pass-ihra-in-full/- (I posted it the other day). The film shows Corbyn comparing Gaza to the seige of Leningrad or Stalingrad. Apart from the gross historical illiteracy this would fall foul of one of the examples in the IHRA definition which Labour want to remove.
And then you get to the bottom of what this is all about..... Not making Jeremy look bad.
We need to have a referendum on WHETHER we should have a 2nd referendum.
With AV?
1)Yes 2)No 3)Maybe
4) I don't know 5) Could you repeat the question?
So we need a referendum on whether to hold another referendum and then one to decide on what the options are and then one to decide on what voting system to use - AV (with rankings - must you rank all or some options), STV, supplementary vote (as used for the London Mayor where you vote for s first preference in one column and a second optional preference in a second column) or first past the post,
All these second referendum polls seem to ask different variants. This you gov poll appears to imply Brexit is a fait accompli - leaving is agreed? We cant even agree on the question for the pollsters to ask whether people want a second referendum!
And parlianent then has to agree all this before we vote?
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Yeah, what exactly is the argument against a referendum with only options 2 and 3? Seems like pretty much everyone should want that
The danger is that people will pick no deal because the May's deal isn't very good. If the EU agrees to some variation of the deal which doesn't compromise on free movement (and so far the major whining from the EU has been on customs, not immigration and very little on the common rule book, so there is definitely a chance) the government would definitely not want to put it to a public vote. If a future government wants to amend the deal or renegotiate they will have to do so via a GE mandate.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Remain on the basis of Dave's Deal was rejected, but full EU membership was not. How about:
1. Remain and join the Euro 2. EEA+CU 3. No Deal Hard Brexit
Do you want to ensure that no deal wins lol.
No Deal just leads to the break up of the UK and then rejoining the EU so the end result would be similar.
Unlikely, why do you think all of the die hard remainers are so distraught at the moment. No deal means we will never go back.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Yeah, what exactly is the argument against a referendum with only options 2 and 3? Seems like pretty much everyone should want that
The danger is that people will pick no deal because the May's deal isn't very good. If the EU agrees to some variation of the deal which doesn't compromise on free movement (and so far the major whining from the EU has been on customs, not immigration and very little on the common rule book, so there is definitely a chance) the government would definitely not want to put it to a public vote. If a future government wants to amend the deal or renegotiate they will have to do so via a GE mandate.
Forget May's deal, it's increasingly looking like a nonstarter anyway. I mean true soft brexit (eea, cu, etc.) Vs no deal
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
Trump has not been a disaster (unless you care about America's *image* in the world, but it was never that great anyway). Economically he has done better than Obama, so far
The economy Trump is benefiting from is Obama's legacy. In 2-3 years we'll begin to see what Trumps' impact is.
Bollocks. He's lowered corporation tax and is forcing US companies to reshore. America is, very modestly, booming as a result. Trump is good for big biz. Bad for Mexican immigrants and angsty liberals. That's why his ratings have recovered.
While your thesis is in any case contentious, there's really no evidence for the growth in the US economy over the last couple of years driving support for Trump. If you look at median incomes adjusted for inflation, they have actually flatlined over the last couple of years; https://seekingalpha.com/article/4152222-january-2018-median-household-income
The wealthy have, of course, done exceedingly well. But 'big biz' doesn't have that many votes.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Yeah, what exactly is the argument against a referendum with only options 2 and 3? Seems like pretty much everyone should want that
The danger is that people will pick no deal because the May's deal isn't very good. If the EU agrees to some variation of the deal which doesn't compromise on free movement (and so far the major whining from the EU has been on customs, not immigration and very little on the common rule book, so there is definitely a chance) the government would definitely not want to put it to a public vote. If a future government wants to amend the deal or renegotiate they will have to do so via a GE mandate.
I can see us ending up with a second referendum - but one restricted to 1. May's deal or 2. no deal. That will require those who voted Remain to vote for May's deal to stop us suffering what they believe will be the Biblical horrors of crash-out Brexit....
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Yeah, what exactly is the argument against a referendum with only options 2 and 3? Seems like pretty much everyone should want that
No, that would be unfair. It would disenfranchise Leavers who would have preferred to remain if a deal with the EU didn't materialize.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Yeah, what exactly is the argument against a referendum with only options 2 and 3? Seems like pretty much everyone should want that
The danger is that people will pick no deal because the May's deal isn't very good. If the EU agrees to some variation of the deal which doesn't compromise on free movement (and so far the major whining from the EU has been on customs, not immigration and very little on the common rule book, so there is definitely a chance) the government would definitely not want to put it to a public vote. If a future government wants to amend the deal or renegotiate they will have to do so via a GE mandate.
I can see us ending up with a second referendum - but one restricted to 1. May's deal or 2. no deal. That will require those who voted Remain to vote for May's deal to stop us suffering what they believe will be the Biblical horrors of crash-out Brexit....
Irony-meters set to stun, Spock....
May's deal will not be on the ballot, as the deal has already been rejected by EU.
It's possible there will be May's Deal Mark II, later this autumn after more negotiation. But not sure the Tory party will hold together at that point.
Bit confused at the idea that Corbyn could fall foul himself. Regardless of the official definition, surely newspapers would be publishing his antisemitic quotes if they exist?
See this - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/24/the-reason-labour-cant-pass-ihra-in-full/- (I posted it the other day). The film shows Corbyn comparing Gaza to the seige of Leningrad or Stalingrad. Apart from the gross historical illiteracy this would fall foul of one of the examples in the IHRA definition which Labour want to remove.
And then you get to the bottom of what this is all about..... Not making Jeremy look bad.
Indeed. Not making Jeremy and some of his closest allies - Milne and others - look bad.
Labour want their people to be able to call Jews "Zio-Nazis" and claim that they are not anti-semitic and that this is just about criticising Israel. It is bollocks on stilts. Plenty of people on here and elsewhere have been able to criticise Israel in quite harsh terms without feeling the need to use such language. It is curious why Labour feels the need to give itself permission to do so. Why, there might even be a word to describe such a phenomenon.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Yeah, what exactly is the argument against a referendum with only options 2 and 3? Seems like pretty much everyone should want that
The danger is that people will pick no deal because the May's deal isn't very good. If the EU agrees to some variation of the deal which doesn't compromise on free movement (and so far the major whining from the EU has been on customs, not immigration and very little on the common rule book, so there is definitely a chance) the government would definitely not want to put it to a public vote. If a future government wants to amend the deal or renegotiate they will have to do so via a GE mandate.
I can see us ending up with a second referendum - but one restricted to 1. May's deal or 2. no deal. That will require those who voted Remain to vote for May's deal to stop us suffering what they believe will be the Biblical horrors of crash-out Brexit....
Irony-meters set to stun, Spock....
Isn't that the referendum this poll asks about - Britain's exit is agreed do we leave with this deal or no deal? The poll doesn't ask if we want a referendum on Brexit vs remain?
Which is the problem with these second referendum polls as they can't even agree on the question. A second referendum on what?
As you say the only option May might consider is accept my deal or the chaos of no deal backed by project fear x 10! Back me or sack me!
We won't ever go back to the EU as it is. But the EU is going to have to change, majorly, anyway, to survive. I can see us theoretically rejoining an EU as an associate member, peripheral to the eurozone, but with a say in single market lawmaking.
Think of it as the same way we restored the monarchy after Rexit, but the whole concept of monarchy had by then changed, so it wasn't a return to the status quo ante. No more Divine Right, protestantism cemented in.
Unlike many on here, I don't think the EU has been particularly intransigent in the 'negotiation'; they are hampered as much as we are by the fact *we* can't decide what we want.
However, I do criticise the EU on one thing, and it is something that might be critical to the future of their organisation: they haven't addressed why Leave won.
This involves searching questions about the EU, and the answers may not be to the liking of those who pursue ever-deeper integration. However ignoring the questions may lead other countries to leave and the whole darned thing to fail.
Brexit poses as many questions for the future of the EU as it does for the UK, and yet they're ignoring them. This may be unsustainable in the long term.
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
(Snipped as irrelevant)
I disagree fundamentally on this. It is possible to criticise Israel within those limits, and do it well and forcibly. These changes may allow critics of Israel protection ((though they shouldn't need it): it gives anti-Semites massive breathing room.
The Conservatives have some issues with Islamophobia; IMO they're more minor atm than Labour's problems, and the infection hasn't quite reached as high up the organisational tree. But any attack on the Conservatives, warranted or otherwise, has been blunted by this stupidity.
I suspect that there are anti-Semites in both the Labour and Tory parties. In the former case it is generally driven by concern at the plight of the Palestinians. In the latter case, it is just old-fashioned prejudice against "the other" - golf club rules etc.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Yeah, what exactly is the argument against a referendum with only options 2 and 3? Seems like pretty much everyone should want that
No, that would be unfair. It would disenfranchise Leavers who would have preferred to remain if a deal with the EU didn't materialize.
But that's why one of the options is an off-the-shelf arrangement which we have every reason to believe the EU would accept.
Again, I think the remainers are onto a loser here with the hyperbole surrounding rationing or whatever they want to call it. Just like their claims that voting leave would result in a prolonged recession were proven to be complete shit, so will these claims. In the event of a no deal brexit if these food shortages don't materialise then they will have even less credibility to push for a return into the EU. As I said a few days ago, it could end up being a very tough question for the leave side to answer, however, it would take some amount of skill from the remainers to do that. Instead they've gone completely over the top, made it seem ridiculous and no one believes them.
The issues with running a campaign on twatter, I guess.
I rarely click on remainer shit like that, but it's interesting that when it comes to it, the logical problems would be us to them, rather than them to us. Unless we're going to starve ourselves by refusing to buy imported food.
That's not to say the us to them issues aren't serious - they are - I just think it's interesting that remainers have felt the need to play the "food shortage" card. I think they're getting desperate.
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
(Snipped as irrelevant)
I disagree fundamentally on this. It is possible to criticise Israel within those limits, and do it well and forcibly. These changes may allow critics of Israel protection ((though they shouldn't need it): it gives anti-Semites massive breathing room.
The Conservatives have some issues with Islamophobia; IMO they're more minor atm than Labour's problems, and the infection hasn't quite reached as high up the organisational tree. But any attack on the Conservatives, warranted or otherwise, has been blunted by this stupidity.
I suspect that there are anti-Semites in both the Labour and Tory parties. In the former case it is generally driven by concern at the plight of the Palestinians. In the latter case, it is just old-fashioned prejudice against "the other" - golf club rules etc.
There will be such people in all parties - and they're difficult to vet in advance of saying something anti-Semitic. What is important is how you react when they do, and Labour's failure to act in so many cases has allowed the disease to fester.
But your last sentence is just ridiculous: what we are seeing in Labour is one of the oldest old-fashioned prejudices against 'the other'.
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
I disagree fundamentally on this. It is possible to criticise Israel within those limits, and do it well and forcibly. These changes may allow critics of Israel protection ((though they shouldn't need it): it gives anti-Semites massive breathing room. snip
Barnesian is wrong in saying that these examples are only about protecting Israel from criticism. The first explicitly allows attacks on Jews outside Israel on the basis that they are somehow disloyal to their home country. It is a long-standing anti-semitic trope. There is no justification whatsoever for permitting it. The second explicitly denies Jews the right to self-determination. If it is OK to say that the existence of Israel is ipso facto racist (because it is a homeland for Jews) then it would be equally OK to say that a proposed Palestinian state (and the desire for it) is racist (and with rather more justification because all the pro-Palestinian groups have made it clear that no Jew would be allowed to be a citizen whereas 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews). Is this really what Labour intend? The other two are often used to conflate Jews and Israel - as you can see from some of the offensive examples that have been aired in the press.
The first example, as I pointed out, is ambiguous. It would clearly be racist and untrue to claim that ALL Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country. It would not be racist or untrue to claim that a particular Jew was more loyal to Israel that their own country. The problem with the ambiguity of the example is that someone who claims the latter could be labelled anti-Semitic.
You are right that the last two examples are often used to conflate Jews and Israel so that any criticism of Israel is claimed to be anti-Jewish. That's the problem with these two examples.
I rarely click on remainer shit like that, but it's interesting that when it comes to it, the logical problems would be us to them, rather than them to us. Unless we're going to starve ourselves by refusing to buy imported food.
That's not to say the us to them issues aren't serious - they are - I just think it's interesting that remainers have felt the need to play the "food shortage" card. I think they're getting desperate.
Imports and exports use the same ports and roads and gridlock is gridlock.
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
Incidentally I think it is ludicrous to uncritically accept the definition of racism from a particular group. The gammons could claim that any reference to "red-faced" or "bulging eyes" was racist.
The reason that boarding house notices of "No Irish, no blacks" was outlawed was not just because those groups objected but because society as a whole objected and supported legislation to outlaw it. There may come a time when society as a whole objects to any criticism of Israel and supports legislation to outlaw it, but somehow I doubt it. In the meantime, the Labour Party should stick to its guns. I don't think it is even causing it much political damage in spite of the noise.
Israel is a right radical, nationalist state where the "staatsvolk" are treated more favourably than other citizens of the state. This was re-affirmed in a recent Knesset vote. Zionism has a lot in common with the nationalist philosophies of pre-war Eastern European states, particularly Poland, where Zionism has its roots. It should comes as no surprise that Israel is now particularly friendly with countries like Hungary, despite the antisemitic tendencies of right radical movements there dating back up to 100 years. Hungary's current leader, Victor Orban was given a very cordial welcome by Netanyahu when he visited Israel recently.
The ethos of the state of Israel, like that of Hungary and Poland, is an anathema to those on the radical left of politics, hence Labour's views on the IHRA document.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
I can see a Hard Brexiteers' powerful campaign strategy:
1 paying £8-10 billion per year, 2 paying £3-4 billion per year, 3 Not paying the £40 billion bill and paying nothing annually.
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
Incidentally I think it is ludicrous to uncritically accept the definition of racism from a particular group. The gammons could claim that any reference to "red-faced" or "bulging eyes" was racist.
The reason that boarding house notices of "No Irish, no blacks" was outlawed was not just because those groups objected but because society as a whole objected and supported legislation to outlaw it. There may come a time when society as a whole objects to any criticism of Israel and supports legislation to outlaw it, but somehow I doubt it. In the meantime, the Labour Party should stick to its guns. I don't think it is even causing it much political damage in spite of the noise.
Israel is a right radical, nationalist state where the "staatsvolk" are treated more favourably than other citizens of the state. This was re-affirmed in a recent Knesset vote. Zionism has a lot in common with the nationalist philosophies of pre-war Eastern European states, particularly Poland, where Zionism has its roots. It should comes as no surprise that Israel is now particularly friendly with countries like Hungary, despite the antisemitic tendencies of right radical movements there dating back up to 100 years. Hungary's current leader, Victor Orban was given a very cordial welcome by Netanyahu when he visited Israel recently.
The ethos of the state of Israel, like that of Hungary and Poland, is an anathema to those on the radical left of politics, hence Labour's views on the IHRA document.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
I can see a Hard Brexiteers' powerful campaign strategy:
1 paying £8-10 billion per year, 2 paying £3-4 billion per year, 3 Not paying the £40 billion bill and paying nothing annually.
I can see Remainer's version..
What do you want to drink?
1) 1664 and Rioja 2) Carling Black Label 3) Rats piss from a toilet
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
Trump has not been a disaster (unless you care about America's *image* in the world, but it was never that great anyway). Economically he has done better than Obama, so far
The economy Trump is benefiting from is Obama's legacy. In 2-3 years we'll begin to see what Trumps' impact is.
Bollocks. He's lowered corporation tax and is forcing US companies to reshore. America is, very modestly, booming as a result. Trump is good for big biz. Bad for Mexican immigrants and angsty liberals. That's why his ratings have recovered.
Bit confused at the idea that Corbyn could fall foul himself. Regardless of the official definition, surely newspapers would be publishing his antisemitic quotes if they exist?
See this - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/24/the-reason-labour-cant-pass-ihra-in-full/- (I posted it the other day). The film shows Corbyn comparing Gaza to the seige of Leningrad or Stalingrad. Apart from the gross historical illiteracy this would fall foul of one of the examples in the IHRA definition which Labour want to remove.
It isn't anti-Jewish to compare Gaza to the seige of Leningrad or Stalingrad. It is anti-Israeli. That is why the example is a bad one and provides cover for Israel.
I rarely click on remainer shit like that, but it's interesting that when it comes to it, the logical problems would be us to them, rather than them to us. Unless we're going to starve ourselves by refusing to buy imported food.
That's not to say the us to them issues aren't serious - they are - I just think it's interesting that remainers have felt the need to play the "food shortage" card. I think they're getting desperate.
Imports and exports use the same ports and roads and gridlock is gridlock.
But if there are holdups going to France then presumably that business will just dwindle to an equilibrium (not a good thing, of course).
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
(Snipped as irrelevant)
I disagree fundamentally on this. It is possible to criticise Israel within those limits, and do it well and forcibly. These changes may allow critics of Israel protection ((though they shouldn't need it): it gives anti-Semites massive breathing room.
The Conservatives have some issues with Islamophobia; IMO they're more minor atm than Labour's problems, and the infection hasn't quite reached as high up the organisational tree. But any attack on the Conservatives, warranted or otherwise, has been blunted by this stupidity.
I suspect that there are anti-Semites in both the Labour and Tory parties. In the former case it is generally driven by concern at the plight of the Palestinians. In the latter case, it is just old-fashioned prejudice against "the other" - golf club rules etc.
In the Conservative Party, you will occasionally find drawing room anti-Semites. But, I've never encountered a Conservative who believes in lunatic conspiracy theories or seeks to excuse Hitler. Those beliefs belong to neo-Nazis.
OTOH, quite a high proportion of the far left do believe in nutty conspiracy theories, even if they call the secret conspirators Zios rather than Jews. And quite a lot of these people have joined the Labour Party since 2015. There's also a problem in that Muslims largely vote Labour, and some Muslims are quite bluntly anti-Semitic, and willing to defend Hitler.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
Trump has not been a disaster (unless you care about America's *image* in the world, but it was never that great anyway). Economically he has done better than Obama, so far.
I agree we may get Corbyn anyway, but it's still worth trying to avoid him. Imagine him, McDonnell and Abbot leading the country. I mean, really, IMAGINE.
*shudder*
Are we up to 4 figures for the number of ways PB Righties have of saying 'I don't like Trump but...'?
The trouble with all these doom laden warnings about Corbyn is that the same folk were screeching about the impending horror of Miliband & assorted Balls (looking pretty good now, eh?) in 2015 and were wetting the bed over friend of terrorist Jezza in the 2017 GE when he really gave you something to dampen your sheets about. As 2017 showed the politically unengaged don't give a toss.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Remain on the basis of Dave's Deal was rejected, but full EU membership was not. How about:
1. Remain and join the Euro 2. EEA+CU 3. No Deal Hard Brexit
If you did that you’d get a slug of Tory Remainers moving from (1) to (2).
What if, he turns out to be quite good and not the monster the PB Tories go on about? A relatively modest government with a left-wing angle on the big problems we face. It could prove popular.
What then?
Then Corbyn would win re-election, and British politics would probably move to the Left.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
But nothing compared to ten years of life under Jeremy Corbyn PM, and his even more left wing successor.
A big problem is that we might get Corbyn anyway, regardless of how Brexit goes. In America a sense of disenchantment with the status quo led to Trump and (IMO) an oncoming disaster. It could be that a similar sense of disenchantment leads to a Corbynite government and an oncoming disaster.
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
Trump has not been a disaster (unless you care about America's *image* in the world, but it was never that great anyway). Economically he has done better than Obama, so far
The economy Trump is benefiting from is Obama's legacy. In 2-3 years we'll begin to see what Trumps' impact is.
Bollocks. He's lowered corporation tax and is forcing US companies to reshore. America is, very modestly, booming as a result. Trump is good for big biz. Bad for Mexican immigrants and angsty liberals. That's why his ratings have recovered.
Nah. At this stage Obama was still cleaning up the mess he inherited. Trump is basking is Obama's golden legacy.
Some cracking examples of confirmation bias on here today.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Remain has already been rejected in the previous referendum so should not be on the ballot paper.
Remain on the basis of Dave's Deal was rejected, but full EU membership was not. How about:
1. Remain and join the Euro 2. EEA+CU 3. No Deal Hard Brexit
Do you want to ensure that no deal wins lol.
No Deal just leads to the break up of the UK and then rejoining the EU so the end result would be similar.
Unlikely, why do you think all of the die hard remainers are so distraught at the moment. No deal means we will never go back.
We won't ever go back to the EU as it is. But the EU is going to have to change, majorly, anyway, to survive. I can see us theoretically rejoining an EU as an associate member, peripheral to the eurozone, but with a say in single market lawmaking.
Think of it as the same way we restored the monarchy after Rexit, but the whole concept of monarchy had by then changed, so it wasn't a return to the status quo ante. No more Divine Right, protestantism cemented in.
I rarely click on remainer shit like that, but it's interesting that when it comes to it, the logical problems would be us to them, rather than them to us. Unless we're going to starve ourselves by refusing to buy imported food.
That's not to say the us to them issues aren't serious - they are - I just think it's interesting that remainers have felt the need to play the "food shortage" card. I think they're getting desperate.
It isn’t believed any more than the original project fear stuff, and rightly so.
Comments
In fact, it may have been too late to stop a Corbynite government even before the referendum ...
And somebody from Brussels will come and buy your property with a string of shells....for that is all it will be worth.
You know, I've been trying to give both sides the benefit of every doubt, but this sort of stuff makes the Leavers' citing of the democratic will of the people look just like virtuously intoning disingenuous technicalities because they want to get what they want so everyone else please shut up.
It's just like when a bunch of Remainers kept insisting that the referendum was only advisory.
It’s the politically uninterested and floaters who’d be decisive.
What if, he turns out to be quite good and not the monster the PB Tories go on about? A relatively modest government with a left-wing angle on the big problems we face. It could prove popular.
What then?
Now I'm in my fifties I'm looking at previous administrations (of all stripes) much more benignly. Every post war government has enacted a mixture of good and bad measures (some good measures have had deleterious effects later). There's something to like even in (say) Heath's term.
I've had people telling me the sky is falling since I was a child. The nature of the threat has changed - it used to be nuclear armageddon, and I guess it's hard to top that. Corbyn is not in the same league.
1)Yes
2)No
3)Maybe
I'm unsure Corbyn is surrounded by such people. In fact, a Corbyn government with a small majority might find it very hard to do anything too extreme, and might end up with some good compromises. But I'm unsure such compromises would sit well with his supporters.
The fact is I find much of Corbyn's world view inconsistent and dangerous. He says he likes to talk to all sides, and only talks to one. He claims to be anti-racist, yet seems incapable of understanding anti-Semitism (and as I've said before, I think it goes deeper than that). He has supported leaders who have taken their countries down disastrous paths, e.g. Chavez.
The signs are not good IMO.
1. Remain and join the Euro
2. EEA+CU
3. No Deal Hard Brexit
WRT Trump, I said an 'oncoming' disaster, not a current one.
5) Could you repeat the question?
All these second referendum polls seem to ask different variants. This you gov poll appears to imply Brexit is a fait accompli - leaving is agreed? We cant even agree on the question for the pollsters to ask whether people want a second referendum!
And parlianent then has to agree all this before we vote?
1. Remain with Dave's deal
2. Full integration
Not being a member was rejected in the 1970s so should not be on the ballot...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4152222-january-2018-median-household-income
The wealthy have, of course, done exceedingly well. But 'big biz' doesn't have that many votes.
Irony-meters set to stun, Spock....
It's possible there will be May's Deal Mark II, later this autumn after more negotiation. But not sure the Tory party will hold together at that point.
Labour want their people to be able to call Jews "Zio-Nazis" and claim that they are not anti-semitic and that this is just about criticising Israel. It is bollocks on stilts. Plenty of people on here and elsewhere have been able to criticise Israel in quite harsh terms without feeling the need to use such language. It is curious why Labour feels the need to give itself permission to do so. Why, there might even be a word to describe such a phenomenon.
Which is the problem with these second referendum polls as they can't even agree on the question. A second referendum on what?
As you say the only option May might consider is accept my deal or the chaos of no deal backed by project fear x 10! Back me or sack me!
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/27/this-is-what-no-deal-brexit-actually-looks-like
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2018/07/26/british-snowboarder-ellie-soutter-dies-18th-birthday/
Yes it won't be easy but some perspective is needed! No one is going to starve.
However, I do criticise the EU on one thing, and it is something that might be critical to the future of their organisation: they haven't addressed why Leave won.
This involves searching questions about the EU, and the answers may not be to the liking of those who pursue ever-deeper integration. However ignoring the questions may lead other countries to leave and the whole darned thing to fail.
Brexit poses as many questions for the future of the EU as it does for the UK, and yet they're ignoring them. This may be unsustainable in the long term.
Not sure if even they can beat both reviving at once though.....
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1022808307181002752
The issues with running a campaign on twatter, I guess.
That's not to say the us to them issues aren't serious - they are - I just think it's interesting that remainers have felt the need to play the "food shortage" card. I think they're getting desperate.
But your last sentence is just ridiculous: what we are seeing in Labour is one of the oldest old-fashioned prejudices against 'the other'.
You are right that the last two examples are often used to conflate Jews and Israel so that any criticism of Israel is claimed to be anti-Jewish. That's the problem with these two examples.
1 paying £8-10 billion per year,
2 paying £3-4 billion per year,
3 Not paying the £40 billion bill and paying nothing annually.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings
What do you want to drink?
1) 1664 and Rioja
2) Carling Black Label
3) Rats piss from a toilet
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1022814746658123776
As a matter of interest, is the following the same gentleman?
https://www.bognor.co.uk/news/chichester-and-worthing-court-results-1-7200813
I simply would not have imagined that you would get councillors in this day an age repeating the blood libel or praising Hitler.
OTOH, quite a high proportion of the far left do believe in nutty conspiracy theories, even if they call the secret conspirators Zios rather than Jews. And quite a lot of these people have joined the Labour Party since 2015. There's also a problem in that Muslims largely vote Labour, and some Muslims are quite bluntly anti-Semitic, and willing to defend Hitler.
NEW THREAD
Then what happened?
The trouble with all these doom laden warnings about Corbyn is that the same folk were screeching about the impending horror of Miliband & assorted Balls (looking pretty good now, eh?) in 2015 and were wetting the bed over friend of terrorist Jezza in the 2017 GE when he really gave you something to dampen your sheets about. As 2017 showed the politically unengaged don't give a toss.
https://www.bognor.co.uk/news/politics/arun-must-start-listening-to-residents-says-double-bognor-by-election-victor-1-8393968
I doubt that will happen.
It’s a hyperbolic rant.