One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
I don't think of leavers as Conservatives.
There's clearly a very different strand of opinion that UKIP was much better at embodying back in the days when it had enough members to run a proper conference and was starting to get an organisation together.
Well, 70-75% of Conservative voters are currently supporters of Leave. Who counts as a Conservative if they don't?
I think the point is that while the risks and disruptions of a second referendum are decreasing, because things are already risky and disrupted, the idea it will settle matters and/or break the deadlock in the country remains problematic.
I want the deadlock in Parliament broken. The country gets its say in the referendum. There are only two outcomes.
a) Leave wins or increases its margin. WTO + A50 extension. b) Remain wins. Withdraw A50 letter and ignore the head-bangers.
It has to be re-run on the same basis: 50% + 1
Even the Brexiteers will come around to the idea of another referendum, once we are well into the autumn and it is clear the only other alternative is a GE.
Mrs C, the SNP likes Brussels more than London. The Scots voted to remain in the UK.
The Scots voted to remain in a UK that was part of Europe. That viewpoint may now be very different...
It might, but it hasn't shown itself is results since then eg 2017 GE.
That's not to say the question is settled, clearly it won't be so long as the SNP is so popular, but it's far from guaranteed that leaving the EU has significantly altered opinion on that subject.
No deal and WTO is the default position under article 50, nothing has to be done for it take place, it just happens unless an alternative is agreed.
I can't see anything meeting the desires of the EU27 ever making it past this parliament, so barring a new parliament which the FTPA makes very hard, we're left with no deal.
The sooner serious preparation for it occurs the better.
The British government has been unable to successfully conclude negotiations with itself let alone the EU. Why is everyone assuming they'll be able to get the WTO deal done?
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told Reuters in Geneva on Monday that the agriculture question was still unresolved.
“There is no progress on agreeing the terms of Brexit (at the WTO),” she said.
That sounds alarmingly similar in tone to Barnier as he has oh so reasonably filleted the government’s efforts to negotiate any concessions for Britain.
So here's the thing,
If they are being deliberately obstructive to punish is, doesn't it make sense they'd do it at the WTO as well?
Yes, that's my point. So given that the EU seem to have at least some ability to bollocks up Britain's WTO transition, the proposed solution of No-Deal+WTO seems problematic.
There are plenty of WTO members not happy over how TRQs are divvied up. Even the WTO is not smooth sailing for HMS Brexit. An inteesting discussion here on the subject:
Indeed. Either they don't care to change the direction May is heading, or think it is irrelevant as we'll get no deal anyway. If someone wants an alternate deal, it makes no sense not to move now. Even then it's a stretch, given May cannot get the deal as presently proposed.
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say I wanted it for Remain to win (although I would prefer that). I want it to break the current deadlock. If Leave wins, then so be it but there can be no further bickering and we need to start working in earnest for WTO with an A50 extension.
Best of three, best of five, etc, does not apply.
For you, perhaps. But while I think a second referendum might be the best option now in an attempt to break the political deadlock, those who would still continue for a best of three/five would still be there, and it is not necessarily even unreasonable given the first one would apparently not have counted.
The last two years have hardly been business as usual so the argument that the first referendum didn't count doesn't stand up for me.
If a second is needed to confirm it, then by itself the first was pointless despite the disruption. I think it would be very very difficult to argue against somebody suggesting best of three if we do have a second one, and I've been swayed to the side of a second referendum.
I voted to LEAVE - I don't care about the future of the Conservative Party - it can split or just wither away, no one will notice or lose any sleep over it.
The question of the Customs Union and Ulster is a conundrum and I suppose always was and had I given it a scintilla of thought in the EU Referendum campaign or been made aware of it as a potential issue it would have given me grounds to think or ask some questions at the very least.
As I'm a very long way from Ulster I don't appreciate the sensitivities and the nuances and at 10am on a Saturday morning I appreciate them even less. I would tell Arlene Foster and the DUP to suck it up or enjoy five years of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn by which time they'll probably all be Irish citizens anyway.
More constructively, is the price of being able to do our own trade deals a hard border (with all that entails) between the UK and the RoI ? Put another way, is a CU with the EU (and all that entails) a price worth paying for a soft border between the UK and the RoI?
I've been to the US-Mexico border at Tijuana which isn't exactly Dundalk but the border is congested and slows everything down but if you suggest to any American it disappears they throw up their hands in horror.
Could I live with the UK outside the political structures of the EU but in a CU or modified arrangement ? Probably. I wanted a Swiss-style series of well-negotiated bespoke bilateral treaties which would be mutually beneficial to both sides and deal with the thorny issue of Freedom of Movement.
I voted to LEAVE - I don't care about the future of the Conservative Party - it can split or just wither away, no one will notice or lose any sleep over it.
The question of the Customs Union and Ulster is a conundrum and I suppose always was and had I given it a scintilla of thought in the EU Referendum campaign or been made aware of it as a potential issue it would have given me grounds to think or ask some questions at the very least.
As I'm a very long way from Ulster I don't appreciate the sensitivities and the nuances and at 10am on a Saturday morning I appreciate them even less. I would tell Arlene Foster and the DUP to suck it up or enjoy five years of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn by which time they'll probably all be Irish citizens anyway.
More constructively, is the price of being able to do our own trade deals a hard border (with all that entails) between the UK and the RoI ? Put another way, is a CU with the EU (and all that entails) a price worth paying for a soft border between the UK and the RoI?
I've been to the US-Mexico border at Tijuana which isn't exactly Dundalk but the border is congested and slows everything down but if you suggest to any American it disappears they throw up their hands in horror.
Could I live with the UK outside the political structures of the EU but in a CU or modified arrangement ? Probably. I wanted a Swiss-style series of well-negotiated bespoke bilateral treaties which would be mutually beneficial to both sides and deal with the thorny issue of Freedom of Movement.
An EU that was half-way sensible would have explored with Cameron the idea of an Associate membership status, restricted to non-Euro countries, where the rigid strictures of the four "freedoms" could have been altered/lifted for such Associates. Such Associates would by their very nature be limited in number to a handful). This would not have threatened their beloved Project, but would have kept the UK within their greater orbit. I would have backed Cameron if he had brought this back from his "renegotiation".
Instead, their combined blinkered thinking has brought us to the current point. Well, at least they now appreciate No Deal is a real outcome, not some airy threat that would never be acted upon.
It took the Conservatives barely a week in 1990 to find a new Prime Minister but that was easier because there was none of that irritating "having to consult the members".
IF May is ousted by a No Confidence vote presumably a new ballot starts into which anyone can be nominated and eventually two MPs emerge for a ballot of members (I'm surprised there's no provision to circumvent the ballot if the leader is the Prime Minister).
If the referendum had resulted in a very narrow Remain win that was accompanied with a promise of reform of our relationship with the EU...and that reform was not to leave voters liking...would Remainers be open to a 2nd referendum?
They would be screaming from the rooftops that the argument had been settled for a generation and no referendum should ever be offered on the subject again.
More constructively, is the price of being able to do our own trade deals a hard border (with all that entails) between the UK and the RoI ? Put another way, is a CU with the EU (and all that entails) a price worth paying for a soft border between the UK and the RoI?
Does the EU have one of these magic invisible land borders with any non-EU countries? There is even controls between France and Andorra. (I don't know about the Spanish side.)
When I was at university in France we used to pile into a recalcitrant Renault 5, drive close to the Andorran border then ride into Andorra on the bikes to have tax free expensive parts installed on them and then ride back into France through the customs post while whistling.
Indeed. Either they don't care to change the direction May is heading, or think it is irrelevant as we'll get no deal anyway. If someone wants an alternate deal, it makes no sense not to move now. Even then it's a stretch, given May cannot get the deal as presently proposed.
Remember that the 1922 leadership election rules are very flexible. If speed was required, it would happen
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
It took the Conservatives barely a week in 1990 to find a new Prime Minister but that was easier because there was none of that irritating "having to consult the members".
IF May is ousted by a No Confidence vote presumably a new ballot starts into which anyone can be nominated and eventually two MPs emerge for a ballot of members (I'm surprised there's no provision to circumvent the ballot if the leader is the Prime Minister).
IIRC a previous David Herdson piece outlined a method by which the period could be truncated, although any method which involves a members' ballot will necessarily take at least some time.
I voted to LEAVE - I don't care about the future of the Conservative Party - it can split or just wither away, no one will notice or lose any sleep over it.
The question of the Customs Union and Ulster is a conundrum and I suppose always was and had I given it a scintilla of thought in the EU Referendum campaign or been made aware of it as a potential issue it would have given me grounds to think or ask some questions at the very least.
As I'm a very long way from Ulster I don't appreciate the sensitivities and the nuances and at 10am on a Saturday morning I appreciate them even less. I would tell Arlene Foster and the DUP to suck it up or enjoy five years of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn by which time they'll probably all be Irish citizens anyway.
More constructively, is the price of being able to do our own trade deals a hard border (with all that entails) between the UK and the RoI ? Put another way, is a CU with the EU (and all that entails) a price worth paying for a soft border between the UK and the RoI?
I've been to the US-Mexico border at Tijuana which isn't exactly Dundalk but the border is congested and slows everything down but if you suggest to any American it disappears they throw up their hands in horror.
Could I live with the UK outside the political structures of the EU but in a CU or modified arrangement ? Probably. I wanted a Swiss-style series of well-negotiated bespoke bilateral treaties which would be mutually beneficial to both sides and deal with the thorny issue of Freedom of Movement.
An EU that was half-way sensible would have explored with Cameron the idea of an Associate membership status, restricted to non-Euro countries, where the rigid strictures of the four "freedoms" could have been altered/lifted for such Associates. Such Associates would by their very nature be limited in number to a handful). This would not have threatened their beloved Project, but would have kept the UK within their greater orbit. I would have backed Cameron if he had brought this back from his "renegotiation".
Instead, their combined blinkered thinking has brought us to the current point. Well, at least they now appreciate No Deal is a real outcome, not some airy threat that would never be acted upon.
More constructively, is the price of being able to do our own trade deals a hard border (with all that entails) between the UK and the RoI ? Put another way, is a CU with the EU (and all that entails) a price worth paying for a soft border between the UK and the RoI?
Does the EU have one of these magic invisible land borders with any non-EU countries? There is even controls between France and Andorra. (I don't know about the Spanish side.)
When I was at university in France we used to pile into a recalcitrant Renault 5, drive close to the Andorran border then ride into Andorra on the bikes to have tax free expensive parts installed on them and then ride back into France through the customs post while whistling.
I voted to LEAVE - I don't care about the future of the Conservative Party - it can split or just wither away, no one will notice or lose any sleep over it.
The question of the Customs Union and Ulster is a conundrum and I suppose always was and had I given it a scintilla of thought in the EU Referendum campaign or been made aware of it as a potential issue it would have given me grounds to think or ask some questions at the very least.
As I'm a very long way from Ulster I don't appreciate the sensitivities and the nuances and at 10am on a Saturday morning I appreciate them even less. I would tell Arlene Foster and the DUP to suck it up or enjoy five years of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn by which time they'll probably all be Irish citizens anyway.
More constructively, is the price of being able to do our own trade deals a hard border (with all that entails) between the UK and the RoI ? Put another way, is a CU with the EU (and all that entails) a price worth paying for a soft border between the UK and the RoI?
I've been to the US-Mexico border at Tijuana which isn't exactly Dundalk but the border is congested and slows everything down but if you suggest to any American it disappears they throw up their hands in horror.
Could I live with the UK outside the political structures of the EU but in a CU or modified arrangement ? Probably. I wanted a Swiss-style series of well-negotiated bespoke bilateral treaties which would be mutually beneficial to both sides and deal with the thorny issue of Freedom of Movement.
This is my position too. I had expected a rational mutually reasonable divorce process. I hadn't expected that the political drive of the EU project would dominate the economic arguments: if anything that makes me more determined that we fully leave as the political end point will not be a happy place. No political union in history has worked unless the rich areas support the poor areas - US/UK internal flows are (I believe) about 8% of GDP. The EU's transfers are less than 1% - the poor countries in the EU are effectively on their own viz Greece. Human history shows that such unions can in the end only be held together by force.
MPs are predominantly Remainers. They voted for a referendum, yet many who voted in favour of it didn't like the result. Why did they vote for it, knowing that they risked this result?
Because they were frit of being revealed as being anti-democratic. If nothing else, it has revealed their duplicity. Yes, you can have a referendum, but only if we can oversee its implementation and revoke it if we wish.
Revoking it directly would be too honest, so we need to delay things and make it as difficult as possible, hoping we can dissemble until we have a breathing space to manufacture another referendum result.
That is what many people will see if a second referendum is called. The voters' trust was always tenuous. This would make it much worse.
If the referendum had resulted in a very narrow Remain win that was accompanied with a promise of reform of our relationship with the EU...and that reform was not to leave voters liking...would Remainers be open to a 2nd referendum?
They would be screaming from the rooftops that the argument had been settled for a generation and no referendum should ever be offered on the subject again.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
I'm sure you're right. One thing about all these procedural arguments is that people feel very genuinely sincerely indignant about them, but their position always exactly coincides with whatever helps give them the outcome they want.
The same is certainly true of the other side, and we have actual empirical proof, because there was a point on the night of the referendum when Farage thought he'd lost, and he obviously wasn't giving up.
That said, back on the merits, if you're in a situation where the majority of the voters see what's on offer and actually want to stay, the idea that it's undemocratic to let them vote and get what they want is obviously bollocks.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
I think that will be the classic fall-back position for the EU. They are still hoping for a return to the fold by the UK after a small punishment beating. Had they offered a form of associate membership when Cameron went cap-in-hand, the referendum would have been won.
I wonder whose hubris prevented that? The EU or Cameron?.
The Withdrawal Agreement is almost agreed. The only substantive issues are the backstop and the words on a future trading agreement.
How about this?
The UK accepts the EU backstop words with the addition of " no hard border between NI and GB" which the EU accepts.
The words on a future trading agreement are "The trading agreement to be negotiated in the transition period will be based on a customs arrangement and a common rules book". Period. No mention of contentious issues such as ECJ or FOM or customs mechanisms. These are still to be negotiated. But it is Norway+ not CETA or WTO. I think this would be acceptable to the EU and to the UK Government as it incorporates Chequers and allows TMay to get over the line and declare Brexit achieved.
Would the UK Parliament pass this? ERG would vote against. 250+ Tories would vote for. LDs and SNP would abstain as they prefer this to no deal but support remain. The question is what would Labour do?
They could also abstain and the deal is agreed. But they might calculate that they can get a GE out of this if they vote against with the ERG and defeat it. But the Government would not resign. It would accept no deal. It would be a game of chicken that Labour would lose as many Labour MPs would not allow a no deal.
So I think the future is clear. The withdrawal agreement will pass and we will formally leave on 29 March next year. There will be another cliff edge at the end of 2021 before we finally concede SM/CU.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
In Gove's case, it seems to amount to a couple of conversations about US politics.
I'll admit I don't know who Steve Bannon is, He may be a raging Nazi, but as the hard left tend to call nearly everyone in the country that, their hyperbole is wasted.
Call me ignorant, but 95% of the voters will be in that position too.
Now those cuddly little tinkers in Hamas we do know of.
I am expecting some sort of deal will be concocted despite David's list of problematic facts simply because the EU member states will not be keen on a free ranging UK on their north western borders.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
I don't think of leavers as Conservatives.
There's clearly a very different strand of opinion that UKIP was much better at embodying back in the days when it had enough members to run a proper conference and was starting to get an organisation together.
Well, 70-75% of Conservative voters are currently supporters of Leave. Who counts as a Conservative if they don't?
I daresay 70-75% of Labour voters would have supported leave in the 1980s. Quite a big chunk of them still do. But that didn't make it a defining feature of the Labour Party. I doubt very much the high levels of support for leave will persist for long on the Conservative side of the debate. But the Conservatives will carry on and will continue to be recognisably Conservative.
I think that will be the classic fall-back position for the EU. They are still hoping for a return to the fold by the UK after a small punishment beating. Had they offered a form of associate membership when Cameron went cap-in-hand, the referendum would have been won.
I wonder whose hubris prevented that? The EU or Cameron?.
What does "associate" membership look like? Everything but FoM?
This is my position too. I had expected a rational mutually reasonable divorce process. I hadn't expected that the political drive of the EU project would dominate the economic arguments: if anything that makes me more determined that we fully leave as the political end point will not be a happy place. No political union in history has worked unless the rich areas support the poor areas - US/UK internal flows are (I believe) about 8% of GDP. The EU's transfers are less than 1% - the poor countries in the EU are effectively on their own viz Greece. Human history shows that such unions can in the end only be held together by force.
I came to vote LEAVE (in direct opposition to the position of the Party I support) because I read up on the Single Market and what it had led to. It is a disgusting pernicious mechanism which sucks all the wealth (including human) from the poorest parts of the EU to the richest and, rather like the equally vile "trickle down", is sold on the notion that if you go to the rich countries and work hard, you can send some money back and help enrich your home town or village.
I don't care how many of the businesspeople on here think the SM is a wonderful thing - really I don't. It has encouraged and exacerbated mass migration with all the social, political, economic and cultural ramifications. Instead of drawing the wealth to places like the Rhineland and SE England, we should have been much more actively investing in the poorer areas of the EU - corporation tax free zones, huge tax relief for new business start-ups and the like whilst at the same time developing the political and economic culture of these areas to weed out corruption, tax dodging, income from criminality etc.
The EU changed with the SM into an organisation for business and the wealthy not for ordinary people. The wealthy and the elite of any and every new country understandably want to stick their snouts into this vast trough of income generation while for most of the poorest any chance of a decent economic future for themselves and their families means uprooting themselves and moving hundreds of miles away.
It was the same when the Industrial Revolution depopulated the countryside - three centuries on and nothing has changed. The fundamental inhumanity of capitalism predicated as it is on individual greed shines through and before anyone asks, socialism or Marxism would be many times worse. At least with capitalism you have a semblance of choice.
Mrs C, the SNP likes Brussels more than London. The Scots voted to remain in the UK.
The Scots voted to remain in a UK that was part of Europe. That viewpoint may now be very different...
It might, but it hasn't shown itself is results since then eg 2017 GE.
That's not to say the question is settled, clearly it won't be so long as the SNP is so popular, but it's far from guaranteed that leaving the EU has significantly altered opinion on that subject.
I believe that there's analysis that says there's a fair bit of churn in Scotland over the EU issue, so opinions have altered even if still produces (roughly) the same 45/55 split on Indy. We all have a tendency to avoid difficult decisions, and I think a substantial number of Scots who when asked if they support staying in the UK and EU membership will currently say yes to both. The interesting moment will be if and when they're asked to choose (see also Yessers who voted for Brexit). There's certainly not the slightest sign that Scots have become any more enamoured with Brexit.
Why do we accept Bannon interfering in our politics? This has nothing to do with him. They complain about Obama at one end or the Russians at the other, but somehow they accept Bannon.
Bannon, like the Russians and the rest should keep his nose out.
This is my position too. I had expected a rational mutually reasonable divorce process. I hadn't expected that the political drive of the EU project would dominate the economic arguments: if anything that makes me more determined that we fully leave as the political end point will not be a happy place. No political union in history has worked unless the rich areas support the poor areas - US/UK internal flows are (I believe) about 8% of GDP. The EU's transfers are less than 1% - the poor countries in the EU are effectively on their own viz Greece. Human history shows that such unions can in the end only be held together by force.
I came to vote LEAVE (in direct opposition to the position of the Party I support) because I read up on the Single Market and what it had led to. It is a disgusting pernicious mechanism which sucks all the wealth (including human) from the poorest parts of the EU to the richest and, rather like the equally vile "trickle down", is sold on the notion that if you go to the rich countries and work hard, you can send some money back and help enrich your home town or village.
I don't care how many of the businesspeople on here think the SM is a wonderful thing - really I don't. It has encouraged and exacerbated mass migration with all the social, political, economic and cultural ramifications. Instead of drawing the wealth to places like the Rhineland and SE England, we should have been much more actively investing in the poorer areas of the EU - corporation tax free zones, huge tax relief for new business start-ups and the like whilst at the same time developing the political and economic culture of these areas to weed out corruption, tax dodging, income from criminality etc.
The EU changed with the SM into an organisation for business and the wealthy not for ordinary people. The wealthy and the elite of any and every new country understandably want to stick their snouts into this vast trough of income generation while for most of the poorest any chance of a decent economic future for themselves and their families means uprooting themselves and moving hundreds of miles away.
It was the same when the Industrial Revolution depopulated the countryside - three centuries on and nothing has changed. The fundamental inhumanity of capitalism predicated as it is on individual greed shines through and before anyone asks, socialism or Marxism would be many times worse. At least with capitalism you have a semblance of choice.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
I don't think of leavers as Conservatives.
There's clearly a very different strand of opinion that UKIP was much better at embodying back in the days when it had enough members to run a proper conference and was starting to get an organisation together.
Well, 70-75% of Conservative voters are currently supporters of Leave. Who counts as a Conservative if they don't?
I daresay 70-75% of Labour voters would have supported leave in the 1980s. Quite a big chunk of them still do. But that didn't make it a defining feature of the Labour Party. I doubt very much the high levels of support for leave will persist for long on the Conservative side of the debate. But the Conservatives will carry on and will continue to be recognisably Conservative.
I suppose the question is then, what is a Conservative? Anybody who votes Conservative would be the easy answer, but there may be more to it than that.
I don't agree with the view that's espoused by Conservative philosophers, that Conservatives are basically unideological, and just concerned to keep the show on the road, is accurate. The Conservative Party has been very ideological throughout its history.
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
Bannon is an idiot. Taking Bannon's advice makes you an idiot. We shouldn't vote for idiots. But not all idiots are fascists.
The right goes over the edge to fascism when it says that their group identity is superior to another. That ends in dead bodies.
The left is more amorphous because they offer a social nirvana so they must be the good guys. They go over the edge when they say that another group identity is trying to stop them achieve that goal, and that they should use any means to oppose that group. That also ends in dead bodies.
So where are we in Britain?
I believe that we have an instinctive rejection of fascist positions (e.g. the collapse of the BNP vote) and we should not accept the labelling of the Tories and UKIP as fascist. They may have extremes but their positions are actually largely inclusive of all social groups (e.g. the UKIP rejection of Ann Marie Waters).
I also believe that the more radical left, empowered by their takeover of Labour, are now more open in their use of identity politics to point to those they accuse of stopping their long march to a better society. Their anger if Labour lose the next election will increase this. They use Brexit as a proxy because they identify the Brexiteers as class enemies - which is ironic as true Brexit would give a future hard left government the freedom to make the changes they want to see.. I believe that a future government will have to proscribe various left wing organisations in the same way that National Action was proscribed a few years ago.
Why do we accept Bannon interfering in our politics? This has nothing to do with him. They complain about Obama at one end or the Russians at the other, but somehow they accept Bannon.
Bannon, like the Russians and the rest should keep his nose out.
Why do we all accept Bannon's unsupported word that he has interfered in our politics? He seems to be a self-publicising blowhard, and his claims are limited to "been in touch/in contact with" - not "had a meeting" or anything even vaguely substantial. You should curb your natural faith in the utterances of fascist nutters.
Why do we accept Bannon interfering in our politics? This has nothing to do with him. They complain about Obama at one end or the Russians at the other, but somehow they accept Bannon.
Bannon, like the Russians and the rest should keep his nose out.
Note that Bannon refuses to say the source of his funds for this new pan-european movement.
Why do we accept Bannon interfering in our politics? This has nothing to do with him. They complain about Obama at one end or the Russians at the other, but somehow they accept Bannon.
Bannon, like the Russians and the rest should keep his nose out.
Obama was POTUS. Bannon is, near as I can tell, 'some guy'. That said, US politics both worries and sickens me, and given we're showing all the signs of following them down the road, I'd be very pleased if he would fuck right off back where he came from.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
In Gove's case, it seems to amount to a couple of conversations about US politics.
Yes, it appears that way. I'd be massively surprised if Gove held any fascistic views.
But as I said: it looks bad. Politics is as much about spin and image as it is about truth and reality, and Bannon has the image of being an influential and rather controversial right-winger - in the US, of all places.
What's more, he's a fading star. I don't quite understand what they think they're going to gain from talking to him, and there's much to lose. If anything Bannon gains more, by inflating his sense of self-importance.
It'll have damaged them more than anything they might have gained from it.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
I don't think of leavers as Conservatives.
There's clearly a very different strand of opinion that UKIP was much better at embodying back in the days when it had enough members to run a proper conference and was starting to get an organisation together.
Well, 70-75% of Conservative voters are currently supporters of Leave. Who counts as a Conservative if they don't?
I daresay 70-75% of Labour voters would have supported leave in the 1980s. Quite a big chunk of them still do. But that didn't make it a defining feature of the Labour Party. I doubt very much the high levels of support for leave will persist for long on the Conservative side of the debate. But the Conservatives will carry on and will continue to be recognisably Conservative.
I suppose the question is then, what is a Conservative? Anybody who votes Conservative would be the easy answer, but there may be more to it than that.
I don't agree with the view that's espoused by Conservative philosophers, that Conservatives are basically unideological, and just concerned to keep the show on the road, is accurate. The Conservative Party has been very ideological throughout its history.
Interestingly, in the 70’s (and 60’s come to that) the Conservative Party was FOR close association with Europe. Yes of course it was the Common Market then, but, IIRC, there were few doubts that relationships would get ever closer. The Labour Party had greater doubts, for the reasons that Mr Stodge has so eloquently explained, which is why Wilson, in 1975 took the ambivalent view he did and was, publically anyway, quite happy for hsi ministers to capaign for either side. The vast majority of the Tories that I knew took the view that it was a logical development and would lead to greater commercial opportunies.
It was the same when the Industrial Revolution depopulated the countryside - three centuries on and nothing has changed. The fundamental inhumanity of capitalism predicated as it is on individual greed shines through and before anyone asks, socialism or Marxism would be many times worse. At least with capitalism you have a semblance of choice.
Sorry. I completely disagree with this. People today are healthier, better fed and with better living conditions than in the whole of previous human history. Even the last few decades have shown marked improvement.
And no one has ever accused me of being a capitalist
When the notice of withdrawal from the European Union is revoked next year, I look forward to being part of a large popular demonstration travelling to London for that purpose, followed by the greatest uprising ever
Sorry. Was that a bit over dramatic? I came on a bit Adonis there, didn't I?
It was the same when the Industrial Revolution depopulated the countryside - three centuries on and nothing has changed. The fundamental inhumanity of capitalism predicated as it is on individual greed shines through and before anyone asks, socialism or Marxism would be many times worse. At least with capitalism you have a semblance of choice.
Sorry. I completely disagree with this. People today are healthier, better fed and with better living conditions than in the whole of previous human history. Even the last few decades have shown marked improvement.
And no one has ever accused me of being a capitalist
You are right of course. It doesn't address the fact that Greece has been criucified on the altar of a political project. Ask Greek OAPs who cannot afford their prescription medication or the mass young unemployed about how the EU is working for them.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
I don't think of leavers as Conservatives.
There's clearly a very different strand of opinion that UKIP was much better at embodying back in the days when it had enough members to run a proper conference and was starting to get an organisation together.
Well, 70-75% of Conservative voters are currently supporters of Leave. Who counts as a Conservative if they don't?
I daresay 70-75% of Labour voters would have supported leave in the 1980s. Quite a big chunk of them still do. But that didn't make it a defining feature of the Labour Party. I doubt very much the high levels of support for leave will persist for long on the Conservative side of the debate. But the Conservatives will carry on and will continue to be recognisably Conservative.
I suppose the question is then, what is a Conservative? Anybody who votes Conservative would be the easy answer, but there may be more to it than that.
I don't agree with the view that's espoused by Conservative philosophers, that Conservatives are basically unideological, and just concerned to keep the show on the road, is accurate. The Conservative Party has been very ideological throughout its history.
Interestingly, in the 70’s (and 60’s come to that) the Conservative Party was FOR close association with Europe. Yes of course it was the Common Market then, but, IIRC, there were few doubts that relationships would get ever closer. The Labour Party had greater doubts, for the reasons that Mr Stodge has so eloquently explained, which is why Wilson, in 1975 took the ambivalent view he did and was, publically anyway, quite happy for hsi ministers to capaign for either side. The vast majority of the Tories that I knew took the view that it was a logical development and would lead to greater commercial opportunies.
But, I wonder if Conservative *voters* were a lot more ambivalent. Or at any rate, thought that integration was fine, up to a point, but that point was passed some time in the early nineties.
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
Bannon is an idiot. Taking Bannon's advice makes you an idiot. We shouldn't vote for idiots. But not all idiots are fascists.
The right goes over the edge to fascism when it says that their group identity is superior to another....
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
In Gove's case, it seems to amount to a couple of conversations about US politics.
Yes, it appears that way. I'd be massively surprised if Gove held any fascistic views.
But as I said: it looks bad. Politics is as much about spin and image as it is about truth and reality, and Bannon has the image of being an influential and rather controversial right-winger - in the US, of all places.
What's more, he's a fading star. I don't quite understand what they think they're going to gain from talking to him, and there's much to lose. If anything Bannon gains more, by inflating his sense of self-importance.
It'll have damaged them more than anything they might have gained from it.
He got Trump elected, is wealthy and connected and knows the inside workings of the White House. Whilst he is currently between projects and diminished relative to 2016, that doesn't mean he's not still dangerous and potentially useful to an aspiring right winger.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - unless challenged what begins with talking ends with something far more ingrained. That is exactly what happened to Labour with anti-Semitism. Do you think white supremacists and ethno-nationalists are going to look at Johnson and Rees Mogg (both of who have previous, of course) hanging out with Bannon and not feel empowered? Will they not start to see the Conservative party as a natural home, just as anti-Semites on the left now feel safe inside Labour and the Republicans are now the natural home for the far right in the US? Assuming everything will be OK and that good sense will prevail doesn't work. Johnson and Rees Mogg have started something - unless it is directly repudiated by Conservatives, this is only going to go one way.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
In Gove's case, it seems to amount to a couple of conversations about US politics.
Yes, it appears that way. I'd be massively surprised if Gove held any fascistic views.
But as I said: it looks bad. Politics is as much about spin and image as it is about truth and reality, and Bannon has the image of being an influential and rather controversial right-winger - in the US, of all places.
What's more, he's a fading star. I don't quite understand what they think they're going to gain from talking to him, and there's much to lose. If anything Bannon gains more, by inflating his sense of self-importance.
It'll have damaged them more than anything they might have gained from it.
He got Trump elected, is wealthy and connected and knows the inside workings of the White House. Whilst he is currently between projects and diminished relative to 2016, that doesn't mean he's not still dangerous and potentially useful to an aspiring right winger.
I still don't think Bannon's brand of half-mystic ethno-nationalistic claptrap will find much traction in the UK. We've had our far right* fringe since I was a kid, and if anything, it's weaker than its ever been.
* I'm using the man on the Clapham Omnibus definition of 'far right', rather than Twitter's.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - unless challenged what begins with talking ends with something far more ingrained. That is exactly what happened to Labour with anti-Semitism. Do you think white supremacists and ethno-nationalists are going to look at Johnson and Rees Mogg (both of who have previous, of course) hanging out with Bannon and not feel empowered? Will they not start to see the Conservative party as a natural home, just as anti-Semites on the left now feel safe inside Labour and the Republicans are now the natural home for the far right in the US? Assuming everything will be OK and that good sense will prevail doesn't work. Johnson and Rees Mogg have started something - unless it is directly repudiated by Conservatives, this is only going to go one way.
I did write something similar to that, but deleted it: JRM and Boris may have done it to appeal to the more (ahem) nutty wing of the party. "Look, we're associating with one of your heroes!"
But I thought it was too ridiculous. Perhaps I'm wrong ...
I fail to see what they'll gain from this, and there's a heck of a lot to loose. Any time they announce something remotely right-wing, the spectre of Bannon will be raised. Taht might be untrue and unfair, but that's politics ...
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
In Gove's case, it seems to amount to a couple of conversations about US politics.
Yes, it appears that way. I'd be massively surprised if Gove held any fascistic views.
But as I said: it looks bad. Politics is as much about spin and image as it is about truth and reality, and Bannon has the image of being an influential and rather controversial right-winger - in the US, of all places.
What's more, he's a fading star. I don't quite understand what they think they're going to gain from talking to him, and there's much to lose. If anything Bannon gains more, by inflating his sense of self-importance.
It'll have damaged them more than anything they might have gained from it.
He got Trump elected, is wealthy and connected and knows the inside workings of the White House. Whilst he is currently between projects and diminished relative to 2016, that doesn't mean he's not still dangerous and potentially useful to an aspiring right winger.
He has embraced the far right in Europe, white supremacists and ethno-nationalists in the US, and now he is hanging out with Rees Mogg, Johnson and Gove. I genuinely struggle to see how the latter three spending time with him is any different to Corbyn sharing platforms with anti-Semites.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
In Gove's case, it seems to amount to a couple of conversations about US politics.
Yes, it appears that way. I'd be massively surprised if Gove held any fascistic views.
But as I said: it looks bad. Politics is as much about spin and image as it is about truth and reality, and Bannon has the image of being an influential and rather controversial right-winger - in the US, of all places.
What's more, he's a fading star. I don't quite understand what they think they're going to gain from talking to him, and there's much to lose. If anything Bannon gains more, by inflating his sense of self-importance.
It'll have damaged them more than anything they might have gained from it.
He got Trump elected, is wealthy and connected and knows the inside workings of the White House. Whilst he is currently between projects and diminished relative to 2016, that doesn't mean he's not still dangerous and potentially useful to an aspiring right winger.
He's also poison this side of the Atlantic for many people. And rightly so. I still can't see what they'd gain.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
.
Well, 70-75% of Conservative voters are currently supporters of Leave. Who counts as a Conservative if they don't?
I daresay 70-75% of Labour voters would have supported leave in the 1980s. Quite a big chunk of them still do. But that didn't make it a defining feature of the Labour Party. I doubt very much the high levels of support for leave will persist for long on the Conservative side of the debate. But the Conservatives will carry on and will continue to be recognisably Conservative.
I suppose the question is then, what is a Conservative? Anybody who votes Conservative would be the easy answer, but there may be more to it than that.
I don't agree with the view that's espoused by Conservative philosophers, that Conservatives are basically unideological, and just concerned to keep the show on the road, is accurate. The Conservative Party has been very ideological throughout its history.
Interestingly, in the 70’s (and 60’s come to that) the Conservative Party was FOR close association with Europe. Yes of course it was the Common Market then, but, IIRC, there were few doubts that relationships would get ever closer. The Labour Party had greater doubts, for the reasons that Mr Stodge has so eloquently explained, which is why Wilson, in 1975 took the ambivalent view he did and was, publically anyway, quite happy for hsi ministers to capaign for either side. The vast majority of the Tories that I knew took the view that it was a logical development and would lead to greater commercial opportunies.
But, I wonder if Conservative *voters* were a lot more ambivalent. Or at any rate, thought that integration was fine, up to a point, but that point was passed some time in the early nineties.
Fair point. It did seem to start going pear-shaped when the Mail in particular started running anti-EU stories, which IRC was sometime in the 90’s. It was also noticeable that about ‘straight banana’ time comedians started making anti Brussels jokes and getting laughs.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm history.
4) If the it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - unless challenged what begins with talking ends with something far more ingrained. That is exactly what happened to Labour with anti-Semitism. Do you think white supremacists and ethno-nationalists are going to look at Johnson and Rees Mogg (both of who have previous, of course) hanging out with Bannon and not feel empowered? Will they not start to see the Conservative party as a natural home, just as anti-Semites on the left now feel safe inside Labour and the Republicans are now the natural home for the far right in the US? Assuming everything will be OK and that good sense will prevail doesn't work. Johnson and Rees Mogg have started something - unless it is directly repudiated by Conservatives, this is only going to go one way.
I did write something similar to that, but deleted it: JRM and Boris may have done it to appeal to the more (ahem) nutty wing of the party. "Look, we're associating with one of your heroes!"
But I thought it was too ridiculous. Perhaps I'm wrong ...
I fail to see what they'll gain from this, and there's a heck of a lot to loose. Any time they announce something remotely right-wing, the spectre of Bannon will be raised. Taht might be untrue and unfair, but that's politics ...
They are doing exactly what the far left did - they have identified what they see as a great evil (for western imperialism read the EU) and are happy to make friends with anyone who they believe opposes it. As I say, this only goes one way unless it is directly challenged and repudiated without qualification.
“I did once solve the cube. I peeled off the stickers and put them back so as to form the completed design.”
We all did that.
Superb article. I agree entirely, and I posted as such on twitter yesterday: a mitigated no deal outcome is now the most likely outcome.
I don’t see any alternative being any more than 15% likely now.
So you see at least 7 alternatives?
I’d say, roughly, and with no money in the game:
Arranged/mitigated no deal: 50% CETA+: 15% EEA/EFTA: 10% Crash out no deal: 10% Extension of Article 50 for more negotiations: 9% General election: 5% 2nd referendum: 1%
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
Bannon is an idiot. Taking Bannon's advice makes you an idiot. We shouldn't vote for idiots. But not all idiots are fascists.
The right goes over the edge to fascism when it says that their group identity is superior to another....
Which is something that Bannon does claim.
I'm no apologist for Steve Bannon - I actually hadn't looked into him until I saw your post - but I've spent the last 10 minutes on google and cannot find anything where he says (and not by heresay) that one group is superior to another. If anything the only specific example seems to be from 2017 where he says that white supremacists are idiots. I see lots of quotes where he talks about asian CEOs, black lives matter, the neo-fascists and the alt-right where the thread is that he sees what he wants to see. As does everyone I guess.
“I did once solve the cube. I peeled off the stickers and put them back so as to form the completed design.”
We all did that.
(Snip)
You could do something much worse than that. Get two Rubiks Cubes, and swap one of the stickers over - say a blue on one for a red on the other. That way, they have one cube with ten blues and eight reds, and the other vice versa. It was surprising how long it was before anyone would notice as they tried to solve the puzzle. They then had to go around the common room trying to find the other cube that was wrong.
We also had someone who coloured in the squares with felt-tip to 'complete' it. Thick as pig-sh*t, that one ...
Why do we accept Bannon interfering in our politics? This has nothing to do with him. They complain about Obama at one end or the Russians at the other, but somehow they accept Bannon.
Bannon, like the Russians and the rest should keep his nose out.
Why do we all accept Bannon's unsupported word that he has interfered in our politics? He seems to be a self-publicising blowhard, and his claims are limited to "been in touch/in contact with" - not "had a meeting" or anything even vaguely substantial. You should curb your natural faith in the utterances of fascist nutters.
Are you sure? The Sage of Primrose Hill-Camden borders has suggested that Bannon is the very embodiment of Machiavelli, Alcibiades and D'Annunzio.
“I did once solve the cube. I peeled off the stickers and put them back so as to form the completed design.”
We all did that.
Superb article. I agree entirely, and I posted as such on twitter yesterday: a mitigated no deal outcome is now the most likely outcome.
I don’t see any alternative being any more than 15% likely now.
So you see at least 7 alternatives?
Nope.
I’d say, roughly, and with no money in the game:
Arranged/mitigated no deal: 50% Association agreement: 15% EEA/EFTA: 10% Crash out no deal: 10% Extension of Article 50 for more negotiations: 9% General election: 5% 2nd referendum: 1%
Ah I see. I read it as you thinking all the options had a probability below 15%.
I think your list confuses process and end state. It might be more helpful to have two separate lists:
Process:
- General Election - 2nd referendum - Article 50 extension - WA ratification + transition - Crash out (note this is not an end state)
Any of which could lead to one of these end states:
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
.
Well, 70-75% of Conservative voters are currently supporters of Leave. Who counts as a Conservative if they don't?
I daresay 70-75% of Labour voters would have supported leave in the 1980s. Quite a big chunk of them still do. But that didn't make it a defining feature of the Labour Party. I doubt very much the high levels of support for leave will persist for long on the Conservative side of the debate. But the Conservatives will carry on and will continue to be recognisably Conservative.
I suppose the question is then, what is a Conservative? Anybody who votes Conservative would be the easy answer, but there may be more to it than that.
I don't agree with the view that's espoused by Conservative philosophers, that Conservatives are basically unideological, and just concerned to keep the show on the road, is accurate. The Conservative Party has been very ideological throughout its history.
Interestingly, in the 70’s (and 60’s come to that) the Conservative Party was FOR close asso
But, I wonder if Conservative *voters* were a lot more ambivalent. Or at any rate, thought that integration was fine, up to a point, but that point was passed some time in the early nineties.
Fair point. It did seem to start going pear-shaped when the Mail in particular started running anti-EU stories, which IRC was sometime in the 90’s. It was also noticeable that about ‘straight banana’ time comedians started making anti Brussels jokes and getting laughs.
I was far too busy making a living to care much about the EEC (bar a vague sense of 'well done' when the SM act was passed in 1987). My insouciance ended with Maastricht when the EU was formed, complete with flag and anthem. Successive treaties did nothing to change my view that we were in the process of selling our souls for a mess of pottage.
Why do we accept Bannon interfering in our politics? This has nothing to do with him. They complain about Obama at one end or the Russians at the other, but somehow they accept Bannon.
Bannon, like the Russians and the rest should keep his nose out.
Why do we all accept Bannon's unsupported word that he has interfered in our politics? He seems to be a self-publicising blowhard, and his claims are limited to "been in touch/in contact with" - not "had a meeting" or anything even vaguely substantial. You should curb your natural faith in the utterances of fascist nutters.
Are you sure? The Sage of Primrose Hill-Camden borders has suggested that Bannon is the very embodiment of Machiavelli, Alcibiades and D'Annunzio.
It's the perception that matters rather than the reality. Bannon can be painted that way, and therefore political enemies will use that if it benefits them.
One thing is for sure: Bannon will have gained more from this than those Conservative idiots.
“I did once solve the cube. I peeled off the stickers and put them back so as to form the completed design.”
We all did that.
Superb article. I agree entirely, and I posted as such on twitter yesterday: a mitigated no deal outcome is now the most likely outcome.
Not quite, I managed to find several A4 sheets of photocopied instructions on how to solve the wretched thing. It was akin to reading computer code line by line, and just as exciting.
It is all very well for Caroline Lucas to bang on about reform of the EU, but if we are to remain, what shape or form would be acceptable to a majority of voters? I was happy to vote for Leave, in part as a shot across the bows re fiscal integration, political union, but was rather surprised by the narrow margin not to remain.
Given the narrow margin of the vote, there remains some ambiguity re outcome which the GE last year hasn't resolved.
I looked back to the 2008 vote on the Lisbon Treaty and found that May, Hoey, Corbyn, Skinner and McDonnell all trooped in together to vote against it.
... I had expected a rational mutually reasonable divorce process...
If you'll forgive me, that was a very silly thing to believe. People don't act like that.
One of my consistent complaints against Leavers (list available upon request) is their naivete: the belief that just because an outcome is possible and desirable, it will happen. That's a stupid view to hold and the reason why I characterise Leavers such as Hannan, , BoJo, Cummings, etc as manchildren is their frequent espousal of this.
Too many people in government and Parliament have had prosperous lives and do not know how to handle things when things go wrong. Mike Tyson once said "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face". Too many people in Parliament have not been punched enough in the face.
“I did once solve the cube. I peeled off the stickers and put them back so as to form the completed design.”
We all did that.
(Snip)
You could do something much worse than that. Get two Rubiks Cubes, and swap one of the stickers over - say a blue on one for a red on the other. That way, they have one cube with ten blues and eight reds, and the other vice versa. It was surprising how long it was before anyone would notice as they tried to solve the puzzle. They then had to go around the common room trying to find the other cube that was wrong.
We also had someone who coloured in the squares with felt-tip to 'complete' it. Thick as pig-sh*t, that one ...
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm history.
4) If the it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - unless challenged what begins with talking ends with something far more ingrained. That is exactly what happened to Labour with anti-Semitism. Do you think white supremacists and ethno-nationalists are going to look at Johnson and Rees Mogg (both of who have previous, of course) hanging out with Bannon and not feel empowered? Will they not start to see the Conservative party as a natural home, just as anti-Semites on the left now feel safe inside Labour and the Republicans are now the natural home for the far right in the US? Assuming everything will be OK and that good sense will prevail doesn't work. Johnson and Rees Mogg have started something - unless it is directly repudiated by Conservatives, this is only going to go one way.
I did write something similar to that, but deleted it: JRM and Boris may have done it to appeal to the more (ahem) nutty wing of the party. "Look, we're associating with one of your heroes!"
But I thought it was too ridiculous. Perhaps I'm wrong ...
I fail to see what they'll gain from this, and there's a heck of a lot to loose. Any time they announce something remotely right-wing, the spectre of Bannon will be raised. Taht might be untrue and unfair, but that's politics ...
They are doing exactly what the far left did - they have identified what they see as a great evil (for western imperialism read the EU) and are happy to make friends with anyone who they believe opposes it. As I say, this only goes one way unless it is directly challenged and repudiated without qualification.
To be fair though there are a number of Leavers on here, and in public life, who want to leave the EU but also detest the American far-right and Putin, myself included.
“I did once solve the cube. I peeled off the stickers and put them back so as to form the completed design.”
We all did that.
(Snip)
You could do something much worse than that. Get two Rubiks Cubes, and swap one of the stickers over - say a blue on one for a red on the other. That way, they have one cube with ten blues and eight reds, and the other vice versa. It was surprising how long it was before anyone would notice as they tried to solve the puzzle. They then had to go around the common room trying to find the other cube that was wrong.
We also had someone who coloured in the squares with felt-tip to 'complete' it. Thick as pig-sh*t, that one ...
“I did once solve the cube. I peeled off the stickers and put them back so as to form the completed design.”
We all did that.
(Snip)
You could do something much worse than that. Get two Rubiks Cubes, and swap one of the stickers over - say a blue on one for a red on the other. That way, they have one cube with ten blues and eight reds, and the other vice versa. It was surprising how long it was before anyone would notice as they tried to solve the puzzle. They then had to go around the common room trying to find the other cube that was wrong.
We also had someone who coloured in the squares with felt-tip to 'complete' it. Thick as pig-sh*t, that one ...
Did you ever try the 4x4 version?
I saw one, but never really got my hands on it. Only ever completed the 3x3 version a couple of times. Unlike these wonderful guys:
... I had expected a rational mutually reasonable divorce process...
If you'll forgive me, that was a very silly thing to believe. People don't act like that.
One of my consistent complaints against Leavers (list available upon request) is their naivete: the belief that just because an outcome is possible and desirable, it will happen. That's a stupid view to hold and the reason why I characterise Leavers such as Hannan, , BoJo, Cummings, etc as manchildren is their frequent espousal of this.
Too many people in government and Parliament have had prosperous lives and do not know how to handle things when things go wrong. Mike Tyson once said "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face". Too many people in Parliament have not been punched enough in the face.
Sigh. You may well be right.
I've only ever been punched in the face once. I disturbed burglars breaking into my neighbours house. Two jumped into their getaway car, one came over and battered me. He only stopped when my labrador came out and got interested.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm history.
4) If the it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - , this is only going to go one way.
I did write something similar to that, but deleted it: JRM and Boris may have done it to appeal to the more (ahem) nutty wing of the party. "Look, we're associating with one of your heroes!"
But I thought it was too ridiculous. Perhaps I'm wrong ...
I fail to see what they'll gain from this, and there's a heck of a lot to loose. Any time they announce something remotely right-wing, the spectre of Bannon will be raised. Taht might be untrue and unfair, but that's politics ...
They are doing exactly what the far left did - they have identified what they see as a great evil (for western imperialism read the EU) and are happy to make friends with anyone who they believe opposes it. As I say, this only goes one way unless it is directly challenged and repudiated without qualification.
To be fair though there are a number of Leavers on here, and in public life, who want to leave the EU but also detest the American far-right and Putin, myself included.
Absolutely. My point is aimed at the Conservative party as an institution. Labour did nothing when it should have because it did not see an issue, could not believe that it could ever become one, and now it has a major anti-Semitism problem because anti-Semites have seen a vehicle that will shelter them. Exactly the same thing will happen with the Conservative party and ethno-nationalists if Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove are not loudly and unequivocally challenged about their actions by their colleagues, party members and the party machine.
It was the same when the Industrial Revolution depopulated the countryside - three centuries on and nothing has changed. The fundamental inhumanity of capitalism predicated as it is on individual greed shines through and before anyone asks, socialism or Marxism would be many times worse. At least with capitalism you have a semblance of choice.
Sorry. I completely disagree with this. People today are healthier, better fed and with better living conditions than in the whole of previous human history. Even the last few decades have shown marked improvement.
And no one has ever accused me of being a capitalist
You are right of course. It doesn't address the fact that Greece has been criucified on the altar of a political project. Ask Greek OAPs who cannot afford their prescription medication or the mass young unemployed about how the EU is working for them.
Whilst I feel very sorry for the people affected the problems faced by the Greeks are largely of their own government's making. Blaming the EU for problems that are not of their making is a common pastime for unscrupulous politicians all over Europe, as we are indeed finding out to our cost in the UK.
I'm guilty of trying to argue that there'd always be another chance to disengage. I was clearly wrong.. if it's hard now, it's going to be even worse after another decade or two of "ever closer union".
Actually, failure to disengage now is actually an argument in favour of doing it in the future.
The reason it is failing now is the Unicorns promised by the Brexiteers.
An honest agenda of decades of uncoupling (with the associated economic hits) is entirely technically achievable.
Wow. Did you just post something eurosceptic, Scott?
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm history.
4) If the it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - , this is only going to go one way.
I did
They are doing exactly what the far left did - they have identified what they see as a great evil (for western imperialism read the EU) and are happy to make friends with anyone who they believe opposes it. As I say, this only goes one way unless it is directly challenged and repudiated without qualification.
To be fair though there are a number of Leavers on here, and in public life, who want to leave the EU but also detest the American far-right and Putin, myself included.
Absolutely. My point is aimed at the Conservative party as an institution. Labour did nothing when it should have because it did not see an issue, could not believe that it could ever become one, and now it has a major anti-Semitism problem because anti-Semites have seen a vehicle that will shelter them. Exactly the same thing will happen with the Conservative party and ethno-nationalists if Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove are not loudly and unequivocally challenged about their actions by their colleagues, party members and the party machine.
To be fair, I don't think Gove has any sympathy with Putin, the far-Right or their ilk. Even if he did have a couple of convos on US politics. I doubt Rees-Mogg does either, and Johnson too it's just he often can't be arsed to think through how his actions are perceived.
I don't doubt most of the UKIP'pers love it all, though, including Katie Hopkins and a smattering of ex-UKIP Conservative/UKIP MEPs and some BOO MPs. But most? No.
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm history.
4) If the it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - , this is only going to go one way.
I did
They are doing exactly what the far left did - they have identified what they see as a great evil (for western imperialism read the EU) and are happy to make friends with anyone who they believe opposes it. As I say, this only goes one way unless it is directly challenged and repudiated without qualification.
To be fair though there are a number of Leavers on here, and in public life, who want to leave the EU but also detest the American far-right and Putin, myself included.
Absolutely. My point is aimed at the Conservative party as an institution. Labour did nothing when it should have because it did not see an issue, could not believe that it could ever become one, and now it has a major anti-Semitism problem because anti-Semites have seen a vehicle that will shelter them. Exactly the same thing will happen with the Conservative party and ethno-nationalists if Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove are not loudly and unequivocally challenged about their actions by their colleagues, party members and the party machine.
To be fair, I don't think Gove has any sympathy with Putin, the far-Right or their ilk. Even if he did have a couple of convos on US politics. I doubt Rees-Mogg does either, and Johnson too it's just he often can't be arsed to think through how his actions are perceived.
I don't doubt most of the UKIP'pers love it all, though, including Katie Hopkins and a smattering of ex-UKIP Conservative/UKIP MEPs and some BOO MPs. But most? No.
I don't know about Gove, but Rees Mogg and Johnson both have previous when it comes to pandering to ethno-nationalism and white supremacy.
“I did once solve the cube. I peeled off the stickers and put them back so as to form the completed design.”
We all did that.
(Snip)
You could do something much worse than that. Get two Rubiks Cubes, and swap one of the stickers over - say a blue on one for a red on the other. That way, they have one cube with ten blues and eight reds, and the other vice versa. It was surprising how long it was before anyone would notice as they tried to solve the puzzle. They then had to go around the common room trying to find the other cube that was wrong.
We also had someone who coloured in the squares with felt-tip to 'complete' it. Thick as pig-sh*t, that one ...
Did you ever try the 4x4 version?
I saw one, but never really got my hands on it. Only ever completed the 3x3 version a couple of times. Unlike these wonderful guys:
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm history.
4) If the it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - , this is only going to go one way.
I did
They
To be fair though there are a number of Leavers on here, and in public life, who want to leave the EU but also detest the American far-right and Putin, myself included.
Absolutely. My point is aimed at the Conservative party as an institution. Labour did nothing when it should have because it did not see an issue, could not believe that it could ever become one, and now it has a major anti-Semitism problem because anti-Semites have seen a vehicle that will shelter them. Exactly the same thing will happen with the Conservative party and ethno-nationalists if Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove are not loudly and unequivocally challenged about their actions by their colleagues, party members and the party machine.
To be fair, I don't think Gove has any sympathy with Putin, the far-Right or their ilk. Even if he did have a couple of convos on US politics. I doubt Rees-Mogg does either, and Johnson too it's just he often can't be arsed to think through how his actions are perceived.
I don't doubt most of the UKIP'pers love it all, though, including Katie Hopkins and a smattering of ex-UKIP Conservative/UKIP MEPs and some BOO MPs. But most? No.
I don't know about Gove, but Rees Mogg and Johnson both have previous when it comes to pandering to ethno-nationalism and white supremacy.
Johnson was very firm on Putin over Salisbury. JRM has disowned Powell and his rivers of blood speech more than once, as did his father.
* March 29 2019 Withdrawal Agreement with NI backstop 45% Withdrawal Agreement without backstop 5% No Deal 20% Reversion 5% Delay 25%
* December 2020 Vassal State/Norway+/SM+CU 50% Fuck Business/Canada 15% Cake/Switzerland/Chequers etc 5% No Deal 5% Reversion 5% Still negotiating 20%
The numbers are somewhat random. Logically there should be a higher probability of reversion by 2020 than in 2019. If we are still aiming for Canada in 2020 we're more likely to be still negotiating than if we accept Norway. All the deals will be bespoke to a degree. By Cake I mean a genuine bilateral agreement.
The main takeaways are that cancelling Brexit, a special deal and long term No Deal are all unlikely; delay is quite likely; vassal state is probable in the medium term.
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
Bannon is an idiot. Taking Bannon's advice makes you an idiot. We shouldn't vote for idiots. But not all idiots are fascists.
The right goes over the edge to fascism when it says that their group identity is superior to another....
Which is something that Bannon does claim.
I'm no apologist for Steve Bannon - I actually hadn't looked into him until I saw your post - but I've spent the last 10 minutes on google and cannot find anything where he says (and not by heresay) that one group is superior to another. If anything the only specific example seems to be from 2017 where he says that white supremacists are idiots. I see lots of quotes where he talks about asian CEOs, black lives matter, the neo-fascists and the alt-right where the thread is that he sees what he wants to see. As does everyone I guess.
I still think he's an idiot.
I think he's been consistently anti-Islamic and the purpose of his attempt to create a pan-European far-right alliance is to oppose the Islamic horde (right word?) that he sees menacing Europe. My objections to him are:
1) The cure would be worse than the disease 2) He should not be interfering in British politics 3) His ability to exploit a weakness in polite British society that welcomes the wealthy and powerful regardless of politics, criminality or immorality. See also Russian oligarchs, African genocidaires, German war criminals,...
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm history.
4) If the it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
On your point (2) - , this is only going to go one way.
I did
They
To be fair though there are a number of Leavers on here, and in public life, who want to leave the EU but also detest the American far-right and Putin, myself included.
Absolutely. My point is aimed at the Conservative party as an institution. Labour did nothing when it should have because it did not see an issue, could not believe that it could ever become one, and now it has a major anti-Semitism problem because anti-Semites have seen a vehicle that will shelter them. Exactly the same thing will happen with the Conservative party and ethno-nationalists if Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove are not loudly and unequivocally challenged about their actions by their colleagues, party members and the party machine.
To be fair, I don't think Gove has any sympathy with Putin, the far-Right or their ilk. Even if he did have a couple of convos on US politics. I doubt Rees-Mogg does either, and Johnson too it's just he often can't be arsed to think through how his actions are perceived.
I don't doubt most of the UKIP'pers love it all, though, including Katie Hopkins and a smattering of ex-UKIP Conservative/UKIP MEPs and some BOO MPs. But most? No.
I don't know about Gove, but Rees Mogg and Johnson both have previous when it comes to pandering to ethno-nationalism and white supremacy.
Johnson was very firm on Putin over Salisbury. JRM has disowned Powell and his rivers of blood speech more than once, as did his father.
To be fair though there are a number of Leavers on here, and in public life, who want to leave the EU but also detest the American far-right and Putin, myself included.
Absolutely. My point is aimed at the Conservative party as an institution. Labour did nothing when it should have because it did not see an issue, could not believe that it could ever become one, and now it has a major anti-Semitism problem because anti-Semites have seen a vehicle that will shelter them. Exactly the same thing will happen with the Conservative party and ethno-nationalists if Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove are not loudly and unequivocally challenged about their actions by their colleagues, party members and the party machine.
Fine. Ethno-nationalism is abhorrent because it can lead to fascism. It must be resisted. But the claims that it could become widespread in the Tories is the classic left wing shout of "Rascist" used to close down argument. The risk of fascism in one party is much less in my opinion than the demonstrated fact that the leader of the Labour Party has proven support for the IRA and Hamas.
To be fair though there are a number of Leavers on here, and in public life, who want to leave the EU but also detest the American far-right and Putin, myself included.
Absolutely. My point is aimed at the Conservative party as an institution. Labour did nothing when it should have because it did not see an issue, could not believe that it could ever become one, and now it has a major anti-Semitism problem because anti-Semites have seen a vehicle that will shelter them. Exactly the same thing will happen with the Conservative party and ethno-nationalists if Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove are not loudly and unequivocally challenged about their actions by their colleagues, party members and the party machine.
Fine. Ethno-nationalism is abhorrent because it can lead to fascism. It must be resisted. But the claims that it could become widespread in the Tories is the classic left wing shout of "Rascist" used to close down argument. The risk of fascism in one party is much less in my opinion than the demonstrated fact that the leader of the Labour Party has proven support for the IRA and Hamas.
I am sorry that you do not understand what I am saying.
Comments
That's not to say the question is settled, clearly it won't be so long as the SNP is so popular, but it's far from guaranteed that leaving the EU has significantly altered opinion on that subject.
In short:
1) 3rd countries may not agree the EU/UK TRQ split
2) Many TRQs are under used, so NZ Lamb comes in tarrif free at present as under quota.
3) WTO terms are substantially worse than existing arrangements between EU and non EU countries, at least in the short term
4) The EU has been far more active in agreeing FTAs than other major economies.
I am not in an import/export business, but I can see why those who are are worried.
I voted to LEAVE - I don't care about the future of the Conservative Party - it can split or just wither away, no one will notice or lose any sleep over it.
The question of the Customs Union and Ulster is a conundrum and I suppose always was and had I given it a scintilla of thought in the EU Referendum campaign or been made aware of it as a potential issue it would have given me grounds to think or ask some questions at the very least.
As I'm a very long way from Ulster I don't appreciate the sensitivities and the nuances and at 10am on a Saturday morning I appreciate them even less. I would tell Arlene Foster and the DUP to suck it up or enjoy five years of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn by which time they'll probably all be Irish citizens anyway.
More constructively, is the price of being able to do our own trade deals a hard border (with all that entails) between the UK and the RoI ? Put another way, is a CU with the EU (and all that entails) a price worth paying for a soft border between the UK and the RoI?
I've been to the US-Mexico border at Tijuana which isn't exactly Dundalk but the border is congested and slows everything down but if you suggest to any American it disappears they throw up their hands in horror.
Could I live with the UK outside the political structures of the EU but in a CU or modified arrangement ? Probably. I wanted a Swiss-style series of well-negotiated bespoke bilateral treaties which would be mutually beneficial to both sides and deal with the thorny issue of Freedom of Movement.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-politics-bannon/ex-trump-strategist-bannon-targets-britain-in-anti-eu-campaign-idUSKBN1KH260
Instead, their combined blinkered thinking has brought us to the current point. Well, at least they now appreciate No Deal is a real outcome, not some airy threat that would never be acted upon.
IF May is ousted by a No Confidence vote presumably a new ballot starts into which anyone can be nominated and eventually two MPs emerge for a ballot of members (I'm surprised there's no provision to circumvent the ballot if the leader is the Prime Minister).
They would be screaming from the rooftops that the argument had been settled for a generation and no referendum should ever be offered on the subject again.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
When I was at university in France we used to pile into a recalcitrant Renault 5, drive close to the Andorran border then ride into Andorra on the bikes to have tax free expensive parts installed on them and then ride back into France through the customs post while whistling.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1023137592341135360?s=20
Because they were frit of being revealed as being anti-democratic. If nothing else, it has revealed their duplicity. Yes, you can have a referendum, but only if we can oversee its implementation and revoke it if we wish.
Revoking it directly would be too honest, so we need to delay things and make it as difficult as possible, hoping we can dissemble until we have a breathing space to manufacture another referendum result.
That is what many people will see if a second referendum is called. The voters' trust was always tenuous. This would make it much worse.
The same is certainly true of the other side, and we have actual empirical proof, because there was a point on the night of the referendum when Farage thought he'd lost, and he obviously wasn't giving up.
That said, back on the merits, if you're in a situation where the majority of the voters see what's on offer and actually want to stay, the idea that it's undemocratic to let them vote and get what they want is obviously bollocks.
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
3) I'm always bemused when links to 'fascists' and fascism are hideous and to be denigrated, yet links to Communists and communism are fine and dandy. IMV they're both hideous ideologies that have led to millions of deaths, and I'd like to see both consigned to the dustbin of history.
4) If the Conservatives were sensible, they'd launch a carefully-constructed (but truthful) inquiry into both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within the party. Firstly, it would staunch what might be a very lucrative attack line by Labour if Labour were't mired in their own problems. Secondly, it would tell people within the party that they're not acceptable. There are potential downsides as well, but it would be hard for them to make as much a mess of it as Labour has.
5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
"I'd have gone for associate membership."
I think that will be the classic fall-back position for the EU. They are still hoping for a return to the fold by the UK after a small punishment beating. Had they offered a form of associate membership when Cameron went cap-in-hand, the referendum would have been won.
I wonder whose hubris prevented that? The EU or Cameron?.
How about this?
The UK accepts the EU backstop words with the addition of " no hard border between NI and GB" which the EU accepts.
The words on a future trading agreement are "The trading agreement to be negotiated in the transition period will be based on a customs arrangement and a common rules book". Period. No mention of contentious issues such as ECJ or FOM or customs mechanisms. These are still to be negotiated. But it is Norway+ not CETA or WTO. I think this would be acceptable to the EU and to the UK Government as it incorporates Chequers and allows TMay to get over the line and declare Brexit achieved.
Would the UK Parliament pass this? ERG would vote against. 250+ Tories would vote for. LDs and SNP would abstain as they prefer this to no deal but support remain. The question is what would Labour do?
They could also abstain and the deal is agreed. But they might calculate that they can get a GE out of this if they vote against with the ERG and defeat it. But the Government would not resign. It would accept no deal. It would be a game of chicken that Labour would lose as many Labour MPs would not allow a no deal.
So I think the future is clear. The withdrawal agreement will pass and we will formally leave on 29 March next year. There will be another cliff edge at the end of 2021 before we finally concede SM/CU.
"This looks bad."
I'll admit I don't know who Steve Bannon is, He may be a raging Nazi, but as the hard left tend to call nearly everyone in the country that, their hyperbole is wasted.
Call me ignorant, but 95% of the voters will be in that position too.
Now those cuddly little tinkers in Hamas we do know of.
I don't care how many of the businesspeople on here think the SM is a wonderful thing - really I don't. It has encouraged and exacerbated mass migration with all the social, political, economic and cultural ramifications. Instead of drawing the wealth to places like the Rhineland and SE England, we should have been much more actively investing in the poorer areas of the EU - corporation tax free zones, huge tax relief for new business start-ups and the like whilst at the same time developing the political and economic culture of these areas to weed out corruption, tax dodging, income from criminality etc.
The EU changed with the SM into an organisation for business and the wealthy not for ordinary people. The wealthy and the elite of any and every new country understandably want to stick their snouts into this vast trough of income generation while for most of the poorest any chance of a decent economic future for themselves and their families means uprooting themselves and moving hundreds of miles away.
It was the same when the Industrial Revolution depopulated the countryside - three centuries on and nothing has changed. The fundamental inhumanity of capitalism predicated as it is on individual greed shines through and before anyone asks, socialism or Marxism would be many times worse. At least with capitalism you have a semblance of choice.
"What does "associate" membership look like? Everything but FoM."
That would have certainly tipped the referendum 60 - 40 to Remain.
Bannon, like the Russians and the rest should keep his nose out.
I don't agree with the view that's espoused by Conservative philosophers, that Conservatives are basically unideological, and just concerned to keep the show on the road, is accurate. The Conservative Party has been very ideological throughout its history.
The right goes over the edge to fascism when it says that their group identity is superior to another. That ends in dead bodies.
The left is more amorphous because they offer a social nirvana so they must be the good guys. They go over the edge when they say that another group identity is trying to stop them achieve that goal, and that they should use any means to oppose that group. That also ends in dead bodies.
So where are we in Britain?
I believe that we have an instinctive rejection of fascist positions (e.g. the collapse of the BNP vote) and we should not accept the labelling of the Tories and UKIP as fascist. They may have extremes but their positions are actually largely inclusive of all social groups (e.g. the UKIP rejection of Ann Marie Waters).
I also believe that the more radical left, empowered by their takeover of Labour, are now more open in their use of identity politics to point to those they accuse of stopping their long march to a better society. Their anger if Labour lose the next election will increase this. They use Brexit as a proxy because they identify the Brexiteers as class enemies - which is ironic as true Brexit would give a future hard left government the freedom to make the changes they want to see.. I believe that a future government will have to proscribe various left wing organisations in the same way that National Action was proscribed a few years ago.
I think we can hazard a guess.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1023153949233299457
But as I said: it looks bad. Politics is as much about spin and image as it is about truth and reality, and Bannon has the image of being an influential and rather controversial right-winger - in the US, of all places.
What's more, he's a fading star. I don't quite understand what they think they're going to gain from talking to him, and there's much to lose. If anything Bannon gains more, by inflating his sense of self-importance.
It'll have damaged them more than anything they might have gained from it.
The vast majority of the Tories that I knew took the view that it was a logical development and would lead to greater commercial opportunies.
And no one has ever accused me of being a capitalist
Sorry. Was that a bit over dramatic? I came on a bit Adonis there, didn't I?
We all did that.
Superb article. I agree entirely, and I posted as such on twitter yesterday: a mitigated no deal outcome is now the most likely outcome.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/07/michel-barnier-rules-out-chequers-deal-what-s-next-theresa-may-s-brexit
* I'm using the man on the Clapham Omnibus definition of 'far right', rather than Twitter's.
Oh, and is Adonis setting himself up as the twitter version of Rogerdamus....?
But I thought it was too ridiculous. Perhaps I'm wrong ...
I fail to see what they'll gain from this, and there's a heck of a lot to loose. Any time they announce something remotely right-wing, the spectre of Bannon will be raised. Taht might be untrue and unfair, but that's politics ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6001241/Joseph-Rowntree-Charity-Trust-investigated-giving-money-Teach-na-Failte-INLA.html
This comes on top of grants of £300,000 to Islamist outfit Cage, and £275,000 to Just Yorkshire, an organisation that brands Sarah Champion a racist.
I’d say, roughly, and with no money in the game:
Arranged/mitigated no deal: 50%
CETA+: 15%
EEA/EFTA: 10%
Crash out no deal: 10%
Extension of Article 50 for more negotiations: 9%
General election: 5%
2nd referendum: 1%
I still think he's an idiot.
We also had someone who coloured in the squares with felt-tip to 'complete' it. Thick as pig-sh*t, that one ...
I think your list confuses process and end state. It might be more helpful to have two separate lists:
Process:
- General Election
- 2nd referendum
- Article 50 extension
- WA ratification + transition
- Crash out (note this is not an end state)
Any of which could lead to one of these end states:
- Remain/Rejoin
- Association Agreement
- EEA/EFTA
- FTA
- WTO
One thing is for sure: Bannon will have gained more from this than those Conservative idiots.
It is all very well for Caroline Lucas to bang on about reform of the EU, but if we are to remain, what shape or form would be acceptable to a majority of voters? I was happy to vote for Leave, in part as a shot across the bows re fiscal integration, political union, but was rather surprised by the narrow margin not to remain.
Given the narrow margin of the vote, there remains some ambiguity re outcome which the GE last year hasn't resolved.
I looked back to the 2008 vote on the Lisbon Treaty and found that May, Hoey, Corbyn, Skinner and McDonnell all trooped in together to vote against it.
One of my consistent complaints against Leavers (list available upon request) is their naivete: the belief that just because an outcome is possible and desirable, it will happen. That's a stupid view to hold and the reason why I characterise Leavers such as Hannan, , BoJo, Cummings, etc as manchildren is their frequent espousal of this.
Too many people in government and Parliament have had prosperous lives and do not know how to handle things when things go wrong. Mike Tyson once said "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face". Too many people in Parliament have not been punched enough in the face.
I’d let him join in with all the fun, and even offer to buy him a drink too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0pFZG7j5cE
I've only ever been punched in the face once. I disturbed burglars breaking into my neighbours house. Two jumped into their getaway car, one came over and battered me. He only stopped when my labrador came out and got interested.
I don't doubt most of the UKIP'pers love it all, though, including Katie Hopkins and a smattering of ex-UKIP Conservative/UKIP MEPs and some BOO MPs. But most? No.
* March 29 2019
Withdrawal Agreement with NI backstop 45%
Withdrawal Agreement without backstop 5%
No Deal 20%
Reversion 5%
Delay 25%
* December 2020
Vassal State/Norway+/SM+CU 50%
Fuck Business/Canada 15%
Cake/Switzerland/Chequers etc 5%
No Deal 5%
Reversion 5%
Still negotiating 20%
The numbers are somewhat random. Logically there should be a higher probability of reversion by 2020 than in 2019. If we are still aiming for Canada in 2020 we're more likely to be still negotiating than if we accept Norway. All the deals will be bespoke to a degree. By Cake I mean a genuine bilateral agreement.
The main takeaways are that cancelling Brexit, a special deal and long term No Deal are all unlikely; delay is quite likely; vassal state is probable in the medium term.
1) The cure would be worse than the disease
2) He should not be interfering in British politics
3) His ability to exploit a weakness in polite British society that welcomes the wealthy and powerful regardless of politics, criminality or immorality. See also Russian oligarchs, African genocidaires, German war criminals,...