Excellent article and very good comments as well from intelligent people , if only we had media like that in this country instead of the dross and the comments by cretinous morons.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
Brexit doesn't even have 17.4 million supporters any more, let alone 17.4 million angry ones.
There is a definite shift away from the hard brexiteers towards a softer brexit and the continual use of the 17.4 million as a battering ram is not cutting through anymore. Last night the HOC took control as the ERG suffered a night of defeats. They need to back TM deal on monday otherwise it is all over for them
May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.
Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.
Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.
Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.
That's a great summary. So isn't the likely upshot just that parliament fails to pass anything and TMay goes off to Brussels to ask for an extension armed with a blank piece of paper and a weak smile?
Then the 27 have to decide whether to let the irritation drag on inconclusively or to set Ireland on fire. I think they'll say, "OK, do what you like but don't bother us again for at least 18 months."
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.
Why shouldn’t he win?
The election is still 18 months away, so lots can happen. The US economy is improving, but isnt that mostly on the coasts rather than Trumpland? As incumbent he has the advantage, but not nailed on.
The Dems need a good candidate, but surely not Sanders or Biden? both should be pensioned off.
I’m not sure saying that they need a good candidate necessarily reinvents the wheel. The question really is how that good candidate navigates her/his way through the voting blocs in primaries while not simultaneously turning off the undecided. The impression one has is that this may be a challenge.
May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.
Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.
Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.
Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.
That's a great summary. So isn't the likely upshot just that parliament fails to pass anything and TMay goes off to Brussels to ask for an extension armed with a blank piece of paper and a weak smile?
Then the 27 have to decide whether to let the irritation drag on inconclusively or to set Ireland on fire. I think they'll say, "OK, do what you like but don't bother us again for at least 18 months."
Bit too optimistic there I think
Optimistic that the 27 will decide not to set Ireland on fire or optimistic that TMay can manage a weak smile?
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
I think it’s simpler than that: people hear what they want to hear and in the age of social media they now do not need to hear anything else. Trump and Corbyn (and many others now) understand that instinctively because it’s how they’ve lived their entire lives.
I’d suggest that it’s easier avoid views which challenge your own. Even nominally left or right newspapers have writers who do not fit in the stereotypes.
Corbyn is not the British Trump, Farage of Boris are.
Trump is not the American Corbyn either, Bernie Sanders is.
As I have been saying for some time I think the next US Presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn in the ultimate 'Alien v Predator' clash of right-wing and left-wing populism
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
I think it’s simpler than that: people hear what they want to hear and in the age of social media they now do not need to hear anything else. Trump and Corbyn (and many others now) understand that instinctively because it’s how they’ve lived their entire lives.
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.
Why shouldn’t he win?
The election is still 18 months away, so lots can happen. The US economy is improving, but isnt that mostly on the coasts rather than Trumpland? As incumbent he has the advantage, but not nailed on.
The Dems need a good candidate, but surely not Sanders or Biden? both should be pensioned off.
I had no idea prior to Brexit that my party contained so many unpleasant mps
I daresay many are pleasant enough on most issues: it is just hat they become unpleasant whenever the Eu is mentioned. It triggers them. (And the same can be said for MPs of other parties as well, with other issues).
TBF, I have such triggers as well, and most of us probably do: things that are said to us that cause us to snap back. Its just that for them it's the EU, and their triggering is very visible. And at the moment, destructive.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.
Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.
Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.
Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.
That's a great summary. So isn't the likely upshot just that parliament fails to pass anything and TMay goes off to Brussels to ask for an extension armed with a blank piece of paper and a weak smile?
Then the 27 have to decide whether to let the irritation drag on inconclusively or to set Ireland on fire. I think they'll say, "OK, do what you like but don't bother us again for at least 18 months."
Bit too optimistic there I think
Optimistic that the 27 will decide not to set Ireland on fire or optimistic that TMay can manage a weak smile?
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:
You’re mainly noticing it because you’re now outside the in group. Its seeds were in the casual use of the language of treachery, betrayal and quislings. It was already being acted on by many and indulged by many more.
A blueprint for stirring up trouble would be to impose upon the country a policy that makes the rich richer and poor poorer, call the poor names when they complain about it, offer them a referendum that promises to change the system, then, when they win, call them stupid while ignoring the result.
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
It's always possible to draw parallels between any two people, but apart from the "change for the mainstream" theme, I think the differences are more obvious. Trump's modus operandi is to attack opponents personally with smeary nicknames. Corbyn's modus operandi is to drone on about his policy agenda and ignore even valid opportunities to attack opponents personally. Faced with something uncomfortable, Trump's instinct is to lie about it. Corbyn's is to try to justify it. (Most politicians opt for a third option - to evade it.)
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Of course both Sanders and Corbyn if they got to power would see a dramatic weakening of Western power projection abroad, both opposed the Iraq War and both are more interested in a more left-wing approach at home than overseas adventures. Though Corbyn would be more interested in linking up with left-wing governments abroad from Mexico to Venezuala
Why the heated discussion about 2017 manifestos? Both went in the bin as soon as the election was over.
Or is this just the kind of Brexit cascade reaction that we can look forward to as hackles rise and tempers fray? I refer you all back to my public safety as a candidate post of earlier.
I know we are not on the same page politically but I really do share your concern for all party helpers in the coming locals facing unacceptable threats to their right to campaign
Brexit has made so many so intolerant to others views and it will go down in the nations history as a deeply destablising period that brought condemnation of the whole political and media class
I think in your approach to politics, you and Rochdale are very much on the same page.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
More harm is done by people who feel they have right on their side.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
The basic problem remains that May's deal fulfils what they were asked on the ballot paper yet millions of them seem incandescent with rage at the notion of the deal passing. If leaving the European Union is betrayal of a vote to leave the European Union, then how are politicians supposed to know what people actually want?
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
The basic problem remains that May's deal fulfils what they were asked on the ballot paper yet millions of them seem incandescent with rage at the notion of the deal passing. If leaving the European Union is betrayal of a vote to leave the European Union, then how are politicians supposed to know what people actually want?
Millions aren’t incandescent with rage about the deal passing, I’d say the huge majority of people would accept it. It’s the sight of MPs who promised to respect the decision filibustering the public until they can declare the result out of date and hold another one that is inflaming tensions, hence Soubry gets abuse rather than May.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
One thing Boris and Corbyn now both share is no interest in staying part of the EU or even the single market really which have underpinned free trade across Europe for decades. Boris also shares much of Corbyn's contempt for large corporations if his comment 'Fuck business' is correct.
Sanders, like Trump, is suspicious of free trade and far more willing to regulate large corporations and even back tariffs if needed.
All of them also share a marmite quality of fanatical supporters and charisma while others cannot stand them.
So in that the article is correct, there is more that unites the populists on both sides of the Atlantic than first appears
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
I have been supporting May's Shit Deal ever since it was clear there was no appetite in the HoC to try for any meaningful renegotation of it. The hard-line Brexiteers might well have been idiots. As I have said from time to time. Bank what you have, take more later. But the 17.4m have not been systematically frustrated at every turn by them. They have at least been trying to find a way to implement the will of the 17.4m, in their own misguided ways. Not so the majority of MPs.
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
It's always possible to draw parallels between any two people, but apart from the "change for the mainstream" theme, I think the differences are more obvious. Trump's modus operandi is to attack opponents personally with smeary nicknames. Corbyn's modus operandi is to drone on about his policy agenda and ignore even valid opportunities to attack opponents personally. Faced with something uncomfortable, Trump's instinct is to lie about it. Corbyn's is to try to justify it. (Most politicians opt for a third option - to evade it.)
"Corbyn's modus operandi is to drone on about his policy agenda and ignore even valid opportunities to attack opponents personally."
Well, you would say that. It's easy to put it differently: Corbyn sits back as those around him, and whom he could reign in, attack opponents *very* personally. He's not stupid, and he knows what happens.
An example is the anti-Semitism your party has descended into. It would have been easy for him to staunch this two years ago and to stop his underlings and followers. But he chose not to.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
More harm is done by people who feel they have right on their side.
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.
Why shouldn’t he win?
The election is still 18 months away, so lots can happen. The US economy is improving, but isnt that mostly on the coasts rather than Trumpland? As incumbent he has the advantage, but not nailed on.
The Dems need a good candidate, but surely not Sanders or Biden? both should be pensioned off.
At the moment the only candidate who consistently beats Trump in the polls is Biden with Sanders also competitive against him
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
It's always possible to draw parallels between any two people, but apart from the "change for the mainstream" theme, I think the differences are more obvious. Trump's modus operandi is to attack opponents personally with smeary nicknames. Corbyn's modus operandi is to drone on about his policy agenda and ignore even valid opportunities to attack opponents personally. Faced with something uncomfortable, Trump's instinct is to lie about it. Corbyn's is to try to justify it. (Most politicians opt for a third option - to evade it.)
"Corbyn's modus operandi is to drone on about his policy agenda and ignore even valid opportunities to attack opponents personally."
Well, you would say that. It's easy to put it differently: Corbyn sits back as those around him, and whom he could reign in, attack opponents *very* personally. He's not stupid, and he knows what happens.
An example is the anti-Semitism your party has descended into. It would have been easy for him to staunch this two years ago and to stop his underlings and followers. But he chose not to.
One thing Boris and Corbyn now both share is no interest in staying part of the EU or even the single market really which have underpinned free trade across Europe for decades. Boris also shares much of Corbyn's contempt for large corporations if his comment 'Fuck business' is correct.
Sanders, like Trump, is suspicious of free trade and far more willing to regulate large corporations and even back tariffs if needed.
All of them also share a marmite quality of fanatical supporters and charisma while others cannot stand them.
So in that the article is correct, there is more that unites the populists on both sides of the Atlantic than first appears
If Boris wins the leadership the party he leads will not be the conservative party pre brexit as many of us will have left. How can anyone expect to lead our great pro business party with his obnoxious views of British business
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
The basic problem remains that May's deal fulfils what they were asked on the ballot paper yet millions of them seem incandescent with rage at the notion of the deal passing. If leaving the European Union is betrayal of a vote to leave the European Union, then how are politicians supposed to know what people actually want?
There's something about the hard-core Brexiteers that reminds me of the extreme Corbynistas' hatred of Blairites. The ERG extremists have more hatred for those whom they deem insufficiently zealous than they do for out and out Remainers.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
Arguing that you speak for 17.4m people, or that they constitute a mob, or that half the population is feeling 'righteous' anger is the rhetoric that needs dialling down.
Are MPs really telling the electorate to STFU ? One could argue that's the case for the No Dealers every bit as much, if not more so, than the PV enthusiasts.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
The basic problem remains that May's deal fulfils what they were asked on the ballot paper yet millions of them seem incandescent with rage at the notion of the deal passing. If leaving the European Union is betrayal of a vote to leave the European Union, then how are politicians supposed to know what people actually want?
More than that, May's deal actually sought to get to the nub of the reasons for the Leave vote, at least those that could be addressed by the process of leaving. The no SM, no CU, but we wont wreck the trading relationship line pushed by Vote Leave was a difficult and highly customised path to take, but she made a good fist of it and it is only back in the UK it has fallen apart.
And, lest we forget, it was OUR desire, present and fully correct at Mansion House, to have a seamless Irish border, which we must have known would have to be negotiated entirely within the bounds of the International Rules Based System.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
I have been supporting May's Shit Deal ever since it was clear there was no appetite in the HoC to try for any meaningful renegotation of it. The hard-line Brexiteers might well have been idiots. As I have said from time to time. Bank what you have, take more later. But the 17.4m have not been systematically frustrated at every turn by them. They have at least been trying to find a way to implement the will of the 17.4m, in their own misguided ways. Not so the majority of MPs.
The ERG are wholly responsible for todays mess. TM bought back a good deal and had they endorsed it we would be out of the EU now. They are the fundamental cause of the brexit failure
In a way, a referendum is a safety valve. If it's reserved for issues that are important but not usually discussed, it serves its purpose, and I think Brexit fitted that bill.
To see it grabbed back by the politicians and used for grandstanding and party politics, is bound to cause a reaction. The lies about respecting the result, and then continuing to block any progress is a direct challenge to the electorate. "We're the ones who make the decisions, so suck it up."
That's why a revoke would inflame the situation and a re-run of the referendum would be seen as an instruction to follow orders. Mrs May's deal depends on the 'kindness of strangers' before we can leave. To those who don't trust the EU, it's a red flag. To those who do, Remain is the only sensible option.
I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois furious response to the ERG defeat quoting Jesus saying
'Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do'
I had no idea that my party contained so many unpleasant mps
I made the same point downthread Big_G. A Labour party led by Cooper would probably be in power by now, let alone out of sight in the polling.
I am not so sure, she is capable but in the electorate's current mood for populism Cooper might get squeezed
On Topic: Not really seeing the Trump/Corbyn comparison.
Corbyn is more like Sanders. Boris and especially Farage are more like Trump.
Remainers had better get on their hands and knees and thank god for the Monarchy as the way MPs are behaving if we had a Presidential system President Farage would be pretty much unstoppable at this point....
One thing Boris and Corbyn now both share is no interest in staying part of the EU or even the single market really which have underpinned free trade across Europe for decades. Boris also shares much of Corbyn's contempt for large corporations if his comment 'Fuck business' is correct.
Sanders, like Trump, is suspicious of free trade and far more willing to regulate large corporations and even back tariffs if needed.
All of them also share a marmite quality of fanatical supporters and charisma while others cannot stand them.
So in that the article is correct, there is more that unites the populists on both sides of the Atlantic than first appears
Labour did want to "retain the benefits of" the single market. At least that is what it said in the manifesto and generally Corbyn swallows party policy. What is true is that many politicians, especially on the Leave side, perhaps including Corbyn and for that matter the Prime Minister, though as a geography graduate she can at least read a map and see where France is in relation to Dover, seem to have no idea how international trade actually works, or what FTAs are or why they are good or when they are bad.
For many Brexiteers, FTAs are both demonic when negotiated by or with the EU but are also a magic talisman for trade outside. They are not, as seem to be imagined, intergovernment agreements that we will buy a million tons of chlorine-washed chicken in exchange for America spending the same on English Sparkling Wine in pint bottles.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
The basic problem remains that May's deal fulfils what they were asked on the ballot paper yet millions of them seem incandescent with rage at the notion of the deal passing. If leaving the European Union is betrayal of a vote to leave the European Union, then how are politicians supposed to know what people actually want?
Millions aren’t incandescent with rage about the deal passing, I’d say the huge majority of people would accept it. It’s the sight of MPs who promised to respect the decision filibustering the public until they can declare the result out of date and hold another one that is inflaming tensions, hence Soubry gets abuse rather than May.
I think the main problem with May's deal is the political statement, not the deal itself. As I understand it, the political statement effectively cedes sovereign UK territory to the EU and that is why the ERG and DUP don't support it.
One thing Boris and Corbyn now both share is no interest in staying part of the EU or even the single market really which have underpinned free trade across Europe for decades. Boris also shares much of Corbyn's contempt for large corporations if his comment 'Fuck business' is correct.
Sanders, like Trump, is suspicious of free trade and far more willing to regulate large corporations and even back tariffs if needed.
All of them also share a marmite quality of fanatical supporters and charisma while others cannot stand them.
So in that the article is correct, there is more that unites the populists on both sides of the Atlantic than first appears
If Boris wins the leadership the party he leads will not be the conservative party pre brexit as many of us will have left. How can anyone expect to lead our great pro business party with his obnoxious views of British business
After the Corn Laws were repeaped the Tories went full on protectionist and anti free trade, the Tories have not always been the party of business, certainly not large business, the Liberal Party actually has a greater commitment to open markets and free trade than the Tories do, Churchill at one point defected to the Liberals because he wanted more free trade, Joseph Chamberlain defected the other way as he was more protectionist
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
I have been supporting May's Shit Deal ever since it was clear there was no appetite in the HoC to try for any meaningful renegotation of it. The hard-line Brexiteers might well have been idiots. As I have said from time to time. Bank what you have, take more later. But the 17.4m have not been systematically frustrated at every turn by them. They have at least been trying to find a way to implement the will of the 17.4m, in their own misguided ways. Not so the majority of MPs.
The ERG are wholly responsible for todays mess. TM bought back a good deal and had they endorsed it we would be out of the EU now. They are the fundamental cause of the brexit failure
All the ERG could have fallen in with May's Deal. It still would have failed to pass when the DUP voted against. The ERG are a useful distraction. In that, they have proved useful idiots, as history will recall.
The real reason it has not passed is Labour MPs in Leave seats, sticking two fingers up to their electorates.
Excellent article and very good comments as well from intelligent people , if only we had media like that in this country instead of the dross and the comments by cretinous morons.
Very entertaining and spot on. As he says 'you can't fix stupid'.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:
You’re mainly noticing it because you’re now outside the in group. Its seeds were in the casual use of the language of treachery, betrayal and quislings. It was already being acted on by many and indulged by many more.
A blueprint for stirring up trouble would be to impose upon the country a policy that makes the rich richer and poor poorer, call the poor names when they complain about it, offer them a referendum that promises to change the system, then, when they win, call them stupid while ignoring the result.
Excellent post. Except, it wasn't the EU that was making the "rich richer and poor poorer". That was all down to us. What did the EU have to do with Barry?
I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois
That's because you're a Remainer who wants to Remain and you like those who you agree with.
We're ALL biased here. You as much as anyone!
I am not a remainer. I am 100% for TM deal, always have been and always will be but if the ERG want to sabotage it I have no choice but support a softer brexit or if that fails no brexit
One thing Boris and Corbyn now both share is no interest in staying part of the EU or even the single market really which have underpinned free trade across Europe for decades. Boris also shares much of Corbyn's contempt for large corporations if his comment 'Fuck business' is correct.
Sanders, like Trump, is suspicious of free trade and far more willing to regulate large corporations and even back tariffs if needed.
All of them also share a marmite quality of fanatical supporters and charisma while others cannot stand them.
So in that the article is correct, there is more that unites the populists on both sides of the Atlantic than first appears
Labour did want to "retain the benefits of" the single market. At least that is what it said in the manifesto and generally Corbyn swallows party policy. What is true is that many politicians, especially on the Leave side, perhaps including Corbyn and for that matter the Prime Minister, though as a geography graduate she can at least read a map and see where France is in relation to Dover, seem to have no idea how international trade actually works, or what FTAs are or why they are good or when they are bad.
Yet not be in the full Single Party with full membership, as it would hinder Corbyn's desire to regulate and nationalise, instead Labour have a unicorn policy to retain the benefits of the single market without all the obligations like unhindered competition and free movement
One thing Boris and Corbyn now both share is no interest in staying part of the EU or even the single market really which have underpinned free trade across Europe for decades. Boris also shares much of Corbyn's contempt for large corporations if his comment 'Fuck business' is correct.
Sanders, like Trump, is suspicious of free trade and far more willing to regulate large corporations and even back tariffs if needed.
All of them also share a marmite quality of fanatical supporters and charisma while others cannot stand them.
So in that the article is correct, there is more that unites the populists on both sides of the Atlantic than first appears
If Boris wins the leadership the party he leads will not be the conservative party pre brexit as many of us will have left. How can anyone expect to lead our great pro business party with his obnoxious views of British business
After the Corn Laws were repeaped the Tories went full on protectionist and anti free trade, the Tories have not always been the party of business, certainly not large business, the Liberal Party actually has a greater commitment to open markets and free trade than the Tories do, Churchill at one point defected to the Liberals because he wanted more free trade, Joseph Chamberlain defected the other way as he was more protectionist
Utter irrelevance to todays idiotic attitude by Johnson to business
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
I have been supporting May's Shit Deal ever since it was clear there was no appetite in the HoC to try for any meaningful renegotation of it. The hard-line Brexiteers might well have been idiots. As I have said from time to time. Bank what you have, take more later. But the 17.4m have not been systematically frustrated at every turn by them. They have at least been trying to find a way to implement the will of the 17.4m, in their own misguided ways. Not so the majority of MPs.
The ERG are wholly responsible for todays mess. TM bought back a good deal and had they endorsed it we would be out of the EU now. They are the fundamental cause of the brexit failure
All the ERG could have fallen in with May's Deal. It still would have failed to pass when the DUP voted against. The ERG are a useful distraction. In that, they have proved useful idiots, as history will recall.
The real reason it has not passed is Labour MPs in Leave seats, sticking two fingers up to their electorates.
Not quite true, 10 to 15 Labour MPs were reportedly ready to vote for May's Deal last Friday but chickened out when they saw it would lose anyway thanks to the ERG, you can rebel if you win not if you lose
The ERG amongst many are whipping up a betrayal narrative , using dangerous rhetoric . They have decided to view Mays deal as not proper Brexit . They have spent 4 months trashing it and now only a complete rupture with the EU will satisfy them.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
The ERG amongst many are whipping up a betrayal narrative , using dangerous rhetoric . They have decided to view Mays deal as not proper Brexit . They have spent 4 months trashing it and now only a complete rupture with the EU will satisfy them.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois
That's because you're a Remainer who wants to Remain and you like those who you agree with.
We're ALL biased here. You as much as anyone!
I am not a remainer. I am 100% for TM deal, always have been and always will be but if the ERG want to sabotage it I have no choice but support a softer brexit or if that fails no brexit
What I don't understand is the "we joined a common market not a political union, leave means leave" argument. If people want the Common Market back then lets do that - leave the EU, rejoin EFTA. Yet the same people banging on about the Common Market want to leave the EEA and thus lose the same trading benefits they eulogise about.
"Leave the European Union" was the question. The European Economic Area is not the European Union. The European Customs Union is not the European Union. Remember the poster about the evils of Turkey joining the EU and we need to leave before they do? Well Turkey are the Customs Union. And not the EU. So according to the mouth foaming wing of the leave camp, the Customs Union is not the EU. So why does a vote to leave the EU translate as a vote to leave something that is not the EU?
This is why a new vote is needed. The referendum did not produce a clear outcome. And with respect to the angry people, they will be angry regardless as some of them haven't a fucking clue why they are angry never mind what they actually want. "I VOTED TO LEAVE THE CUSTOMS UNION" screams one locally to me whilst posting an image of the ballot paper which explicitly DOESN'T offer them a vote on the Customs Union.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
And colostomy bags on the other side.
What an unpleasant comment. I don't ever want mob rule but idiots like you would try the patience of a saint. Maybe when you experience the need for such treatment you'll grow up but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois
That's because you're a Remainer who wants to Remain and you like those who you agree with.
We're ALL biased here. You as much as anyone!
I am not a remainer. I am 100% for TM deal, always have been and always will be but if the ERG want to sabotage it I have no choice but support a softer brexit or if that fails no brexit
What did you vote for in 2016 ?
I have always said I voted remain but accepted the vote and we must leave. I have endorsed TM deal all along so no need to try and make out I am a remainer. I am not but if brexiteers threaten economic armageddon I will support anything and everything to stop it
A feature of Trump is that his form of defence is attack. While making out that he is the sole purveyor of truth and those attacking him are guilty of any number of sins in a textbook exercise in diversion. In addition it is only a tight cabal that is "on our side" while the rest are enemies. Or in Corbyn's case, class enemies.
And so we have a discussion on manifesto costings leading to the observation that if not actively an anti-semitic areshole, Corbyn has transparently evidently engendered a culture in the Labour Party whereby it is ok to be an anti-semitic arsehole, which I think legitimately allows it to be said that Jeremy Corbyn is indeed thereby an anti-semitic arsehole.
@TheJezziah then launched a full scale but what about the Tories, what about you, diversion and dissembling ad hominem exercise. Which was positively Trumpian in its form and content. And this to a former Labour voter, not an avowed dyed-in-the-wool right winger, illustrating the you're either one of us or one of them Trump cult MO.
Mr. Pioneers, who, on either side, was saying that leaving the EU meant the public supported the EU setting our trade policy? After a desire to curb migration, making our own trade deals was probably the largest single clear policy outcome of leaving the EU.
It's disingenuous to claim otherwise because it wasn't specifically mentioned on the ballot paper. That sort of legalese chicanery is not going to endear the political establishment to the electorate, or do anything to help dilute the toxic nature of modern politics.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
I have been supporting May's Shit Deal ever since it was clear there was no appetite in the HoC to try for any meaningful renegotation of it. The hard-line Brexiteers might well have been idiots. As I have said from time to time. Bank what you have, take more later. But the 17.4m have not been systematically frustrated at every turn by them. They have at least been trying to find a way to implement the will of the 17.4m, in their own misguided ways. Not so the majority of MPs.
The ERG are wholly responsible for todays mess. TM bought back a good deal and had they endorsed it we would be out of the EU now. They are the fundamental cause of the brexit failure
All the ERG could have fallen in with May's Deal. It still would have failed to pass when the DUP voted against. The ERG are a useful distraction. In that, they have proved useful idiots, as history will recall.
The real reason it has not passed is Labour MPs in Leave seats, sticking two fingers up to their electorates.
Not quite true, 10 to 15 Labour MPs were reportedly ready to vote for May's Deal last Friday but chickened out when they saw it would lose anyway thanks to the ERG, you can rebel if you win not if you lose
Ther ehas been lots of talk of Labour MPs "reportedly" ready to support May's Deal. Until they actually vote though, their Leave electorates can look at their voting record and decide how real their support was.....
Mrs May's deal is a Brexit of sorts if you trust the EU. I neither trust them or distrust them because that's not really the issue. They are a bureaucracy set up to look after themselves and with their own red lines which are sacrosanct.
Mrs May has Remainer sympathies and sees no reason to distrust them, but as a Leaver (who thinks she's incompetent), I can see her point of view. I was surprised that Remainers don't see she's on their side but is determined to follow the pledge to honour the result.
The ERG are a noisy but minority group. If Labour wanted the EU/May deal as a sort of soft Brexit, they could vote for it or even sit on their hands. But they were determined to frustrate it for differing reasons. Many Labour MPs because Remain is their only goal, Jezza because he wants to be PM.
It was always going to be a blame game, and never a meeting of minds. And the MPs arrogance has ensured that happens.
Excellent article and very good comments as well from intelligent people , if only we had media like that in this country instead of the dross and the comments by cretinous morons.
Very entertaining and spot on. As he says 'you can't fix stupid'.
Well, the American punditocracy must hope that they fix their own bout of "stupid" in 2020....because since 2016 they have had a pretty totemic figurehead of stupid, sat in the White House.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
I have been supporting May's Shit Deal ever since it was clear there was no appetite in the HoC to try for any meaningful renegotation of it. The hard-line Brexiteers might well have been idiots. As I have said from time to time. Bank what you have, take more later. But the 17.4m have not been systematically frustrated at every turn by them. They have at least been trying to find a way to implement the will of the 17.4m, in their own misguided ways. Not so the majority of MPs.
The ERG are wholly responsible for todays mess. TM bought back a good deal and had they endorsed it we would be out of the EU now. They are the fundamental cause of the brexit failure
All the ERG could have fallen in with May's Deal. It still would have failed to pass when the DUP voted against. The ERG are a useful distraction. In that, they have proved useful idiots, as history will recall.
The real reason it has not passed is Labour MPs in Leave seats, sticking two fingers up to their electorates.
But what gave those Labour MPs cover to hide behind when they voted against the WDA ?
The ERG with their "its a shit deal and we'd be better off staying in the EU".
And why do you think its a 'shit deal' in any case ?
One thing Boris and Corbyn now both share is no interest in staying part of the EU or even the single market really which have underpinned free trade across Europe for decades. Boris also shares much of Corbyn's contempt for large corporations if his comment 'Fuck business' is correct.
Sanders, like Trump, is suspicious of free trade and far more willing to regulate large corporations and even back tariffs if needed.
All of them also share a marmite quality of fanatical supporters and charisma while others cannot stand them.
So in that the article is correct, there is more that unites the populists on both sides of the Atlantic than first appears
Labour did want to "retain the benefits of" the single market. At least that is what it said in the manifesto and generally Corbyn swallows party policy. What is true is that many politicians, especially on the Leave side, perhaps including Corbyn and for that matter the Prime Minister, though as a geography graduate she can at least read a map and see where France is in relation to Dover, seem to have no idea how international trade actually works, or what FTAs are or why they are good or when they are bad.
Yet not be in the full Single Party with full membership, as it would hinder Corbyn's desire to regulate and nationalise, instead Labour have a unicorn policy to retain the benefits of the single market without all the obligations like unhindered competition and free movement
That is projection. Other Conservatives have projected the opposite: that Labour does want to retain FoM (which is why the EU might agree to renegotiate the "closed" WA). The criticism of Labour's policy was that it was BINO -- leave the EU but (effectively) stay in the single market and customs union.
Anyway. we shall see if anything emerges from the PM/LotO talks. I expect cleverer minds than mine will have been poring over all Labour's policy statements to see what Theresa May can offer.
What I don't understand is the "we joined a common market not a political union, leave means leave" argument. If people want the Common Market back then lets do that - leave the EU, rejoin EFTA. Yet the same people banging on about the Common Market want to leave the EEA and thus lose the same trading benefits they eulogise about.
"Leave the European Union" was the question. The European Economic Area is not the European Union. The European Customs Union is not the European Union. Remember the poster about the evils of Turkey joining the EU and we need to leave before they do? Well Turkey are the Customs Union. And not the EU. So according to the mouth foaming wing of the leave camp, the Customs Union is not the EU. So why does a vote to leave the EU translate as a vote to leave something that is not the EU?
This is why a new vote is needed. The referendum did not produce a clear outcome. And with respect to the angry people, they will be angry regardless as some of them haven't a fucking clue why they are angry never mind what they actually want. "I VOTED TO LEAVE THE CUSTOMS UNION" screams one locally to me whilst posting an image of the ballot paper which explicitly DOESN'T offer them a vote on the Customs Union.
I have friends and Tory activists who have utterly convinced themselves they voted for No Deal, anything else is a traitorous betrayal.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market without FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market and FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
Labour will not support any agreement that doesn’t involve a second referendum. The government will not allow a second referendum.
The ERG amongst many are whipping up a betrayal narrative , using dangerous rhetoric . They have decided to view Mays deal as not proper Brexit . They have spent 4 months trashing it and now only a complete rupture with the EU will satisfy them.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
The ERG amongst many are whipping up a betrayal narrative , using dangerous rhetoric . They have decided to view Mays deal as not proper Brexit . They have spent 4 months trashing it and now only a complete rupture with the EU will satisfy them.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
I think the ERG have jumped into every trap laid for them by their opponents. They are fanatical and many of them would rather have no Brexit than their ideal Brexit.
On the other side are those MP's (Yvette Cooper, Dominic Grieve, etc.) who promised to honour the result of the referendum, but with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
Actually he is.
May's Deal is pretty hard Brexit - I'd say about 80% on the Hard-Soft axis and MM would prefer something Harder.
What you're referring to as Hard Brexit I assume is No Deal Brexit.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market and FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
Labour will not support any agreement that doesn’t involve a second referendum. The government will not allow a second referendum.
Yes, the talks are all about allocating blame. There is no common ground.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market without FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
Labour probably does not care about ending FoM and would be happy to concede it to the EU. As with environment and worker protection, the EU may see these as part and parcel of the single market. A lot of Theresa May's problems come from her red line over FoM even though no-one in the Establishment wants actually to curb immigration (and indeed non-EU immigration which has nothing to do with FoM rose under Theresa May's hegemony).
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
It's always possible to draw parallels between any two people, but apart from the "change for the mainstream" theme, I think the differences are more obvious. Trump's modus operandi is to attack opponents personally with smeary nicknames. Corbyn's modus operandi is to drone on about his policy agenda and ignore even valid opportunities to attack opponents personally. Faced with something uncomfortable, Trump's instinct is to lie about it. Corbyn's is to try to justify it. (Most politicians opt for a third option - to evade it.)
"Corbyn's modus operandi is to drone on about his policy agenda and ignore even valid opportunities to attack opponents personally."
Well, you would say that. It's easy to put it differently: Corbyn sits back as those around him, and whom he could reign in, attack opponents *very* personally. He's not stupid, and he knows what happens.
An example is the anti-Semitism your party has descended into. It would have been easy for him to staunch this two years ago and to stop his underlings and followers. But he chose not to.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market and FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
Labour will not support any agreement that doesn’t involve a second referendum. The government will not allow a second referendum.
I have been assuming here (rashly) that the meetings aren't pointless (I know!). So just for a laugh assume May (after all she has said) says go on then lets go for another vote - What about my last paragraph.
And were all my statements prior to that correct do you think?
What I don't understand is the "we joined a common market not a political union, leave means leave" argument. If people want the Common Market back then lets do that - leave the EU, rejoin EFTA. Yet the same people banging on about the Common Market want to leave the EEA and thus lose the same trading benefits they eulogise about.
"Leave the European Union" was the question. The European Economic Area is not the European Union. The European Customs Union is not the European Union. Remember the poster about the evils of Turkey joining the EU and we need to leave before they do? Well Turkey are the Customs Union. And not the EU. So according to the mouth foaming wing of the leave camp, the Customs Union is not the EU. So why does a vote to leave the EU translate as a vote to leave something that is not the EU?
This is why a new vote is needed. The referendum did not produce a clear outcome. And with respect to the angry people, they will be angry regardless as some of them haven't a fucking clue why they are angry never mind what they actually want. "I VOTED TO LEAVE THE CUSTOMS UNION" screams one locally to me whilst posting an image of the ballot paper which explicitly DOESN'T offer them a vote on the Customs Union.
I have friends and Tory activists who have utterly convinced themselves they voted for No Deal, anything else is a traitorous betrayal.
No Deal itself will turn out to be a traitorous betrayal soon enough. If we left with no deal next Friday you can bet all those so called supporters of it will soon be saying that it wasn't the right type of no deal, it wasn't managed enough, we needed a Churchillian Boris to lead us through etc.
It's why polling showing support for no deal now is completely useless. Doesn't matter what people think beforehand, if it goes badly they will turn on those who allowed it to happen and they won't blame themselves.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market without FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
I'm not convinced he wants a confirmation vote, and I think he wants the benefits of the single market without full membership. That's either a unicorn, or something similar to Chequers i.e. we have the freedom to diverge from standards, but we won't use it, so that we can have near frictionless trade.
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
I was thinking about this yesterday and if it was put in a codicil to the WA that we would commit to replicating EU law in these areas, that would be legally binding and would need a renegotiation to unpick. I think.
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
I think a lot of people would be able to live with it because it would deliver a much more tangible benefit ('look at our new immigration policy') whereas the downsides of a Customs Union would accumulate over time in terms of the EU negotiating trade deals that aren't as good for us as they could have been - but they are a lot less tangible for the man in the street.
It's nobody's first choice except Lexiters, BUT unless either the ERG wing are willing to vote it down in favour of Remain, or Remainers are going to vote it down in favour of Hard Brexit, I don't see how those two groups can stop it happening if May and Corbyn want it to. What compromise would it be replaced with? Parliament is in a stalemate.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
It all depends on what the confirmatory vote is between. If it's Deal or Remain, Remain would win. If it's Deal or Think Again, then it'd probably be Think Again.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
Actually he is.
May's Deal is pretty hard Brexit - I'd say about 80% on the Hard-Soft axis and MM would prefer something Harder.
What you're referring to as Hard Brexit I assume is No Deal Brexit.
The terminology has shifted since 2016.
Fair point. I do find the terminology quite amusing because it's those who are concerned about immigration who are the ones portrayed as the more extreme brexiteers. Actually, I think it's those want to go off around the world signing trade deals that are more extreme.
The ERG amongst many are whipping up a betrayal narrative , using dangerous rhetoric . They have decided to view Mays deal as not proper Brexit . They have spent 4 months trashing it and now only a complete rupture with the EU will satisfy them.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
The ERG amongst many are whipping up a betrayal narrative , using dangerous rhetoric . They have decided to view Mays deal as not proper Brexit . They have spent 4 months trashing it and now only a complete rupture with the EU will satisfy them.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
I think the ERG have jumped into every trap laid for them by their opponents. They are fanatical and many of them would rather have no Brexit than their ideal Brexit.
On the other side are those MP's (Yvette Cooper, Dominic Grieve, etc.) who promised to honour the result of the referendum, but with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
Honouring the referendum is a very broad church, and is open to interpretation due to its simplistic nature. however, I would have preferred those who shared my view would have said "I accept we lost the vote by a small margin. I continue to think that leaving the EU is a moral judgement as well as a political one, and I continue to think it is wrong. I will do all I can to shift public opinion in that direction"
After all, if there were 52% of people in favour of say, capital punishment, or slavery would we say "Oh well, we have to accept the will-o-the-people, I will go away and shut up"?
What I don't understand is the "we joined a common market not a political union, leave means leave" argument. If people want the Common Market back then lets do that - leave the EU, rejoin EFTA. Yet the same people banging on about the Common Market want to leave the EEA and thus lose the same trading benefits they eulogise about.
"Leave the European Union" was the question. The European Economic Area is not the European Union. The European Customs Union is not the European Union. Remember the poster about the evils of Turkey joining the EU and we need to leave before they do? Well Turkey are the Customs Union. And not the EU. So according to the mouth foaming wing of the leave camp, the Customs Union is not the EU. So why does a vote to leave the EU translate as a vote to leave something that is not the EU?
This is why a new vote is needed. The referendum did not produce a clear outcome. And with respect to the angry people, they will be angry regardless as some of them haven't a fucking clue why they are angry never mind what they actually want. "I VOTED TO LEAVE THE CUSTOMS UNION" screams one locally to me whilst posting an image of the ballot paper which explicitly DOESN'T offer them a vote on the Customs Union.
I have friends and Tory activists who have utterly convinced themselves they voted for No Deal, anything else is a traitorous betrayal.
No Deal itself will turn out to be a traitorous betrayal soon enough. If we left with no deal next Friday you can bet all those so called supporters of it will soon be saying that it wasn't the right type of no deal, it wasn't managed enough, we needed a Churchillian Boris to lead us through etc.
It's why polling showing support for no deal now is completely useless. Doesn't matter what people think beforehand, if it goes badly they will turn on those who allowed it to happen and they won't blame themselves.
As No Deal supporters seem to have no problem with Fox and Grayling being in charge of trade and transport I don't imagine that any of them have paid any attention to the details as to what No Deal actually entails.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market without FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
A CU with no FOM is better than what we have now.
Why? Doesn't this only hold true if your issue is FOM and you believe it outweighs what you lose from the Single Market. What else have you gained?
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
Of course, there are huge differences and I do not think they are alike in their world view. But that is to say the obvious.
It has struck me for a while that there are some troubling similarities in the way they do politics, particularly in their attitude to a free press and to being held up to scrutiny. That bodes very ill in my view.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market and FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
Labour will not support any agreement that doesn’t involve a second referendum. The government will not allow a second referendum.
I have been assuming here (rashly) that the meetings aren't pointless (I know!). So just for a laugh assume May (after all she has said) says go on then lets go for another vote - What about my last paragraph.
And were all my statements prior to that correct do you think?
It’s like trying to read tea, it’s impossible to see a way forward. The Brexit extremists have convinced themselves that Brexit is now about purity. Anything not pure is tainted and not supportable. The WA is the logical choice but logic has long gone.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:
Pretty sure most Leavers will still be saying its nothing to do with them.
'It's those nasty, bad Leavers who are completely unconnected to our pure and idealistic project. Let's just concentrate on cutting immigration, ending FOM and ensuring a Marxist antisemite doesn't become PM.'
That the referendum was NOT about immigration? It is a shame some can't read very well. If they want one on that subject they should lobby for it, and this would be a little more honest.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
Actually he is.
May's Deal is pretty hard Brexit - I'd say about 80% on the Hard-Soft axis and MM would prefer something Harder.
What you're referring to as Hard Brexit I assume is No Deal Brexit.
The terminology has shifted since 2016.
Fair point. I do find the terminology quite amusing because it's those who are concerned about immigration who are the ones portrayed as the more extreme brexiteers. Actually, I think it's those want to go off around the world signing trade deals that are more extreme.
My classification of the ERG gang:
1) Those who want Libertarian Pirate Island 2) Those who refuse to sign any agreement with the EU 3) Those who don't want to change decades old scripts blaming the EU 4) Those who are using opposition to boost their leadership hopes 5) Those who are useful idiots of one or more of the above
The ERG amongst many are whipping up a betrayal narrative , using dangerous rhetoric . They have decided to view Mays deal as not proper Brexit . They have spent 4 months trashing it and now only a complete rupture with the EU will satisfy them.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
The ERG amongst many are whipping up a betrayal narrative , using dangerous rhetoric . They have decided to view Mays deal as not proper Brexit . They have spent 4 months trashing it and now only a complete rupture with the EU will satisfy them.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
I think the ERG have jumped into every trap laid for them by their opponents. They are fanatical and many of them would rather have no Brexit than their ideal Brexit.
On the other side are those MP's (Yvette Cooper, Dominic Grieve, etc.) who promised to honour the result of the referendum, but with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
Honouring the referendum is a very broad church, and is open to interpretation due to its simplistic nature. however, I would have preferred those who shared my view would have said "I accept we lost the vote by a small margin. I continue to think that leaving the EU is a moral judgement as well as a political one, and I continue to think it is wrong. I will do all I can to shift public opinion in that direction"
After all, if there were 52% of people in favour of say, capital punishment, or slavery would we say "Oh well, we have to accept the will-o-the-people, I will go away and shut up"?
I think that our whole relationship with the EU has been bedevilled for years by politicians saying one thing to a mainly eurosceptic electorate, while doing the opposite in Brussels.
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
This rhetoric needs dialling down
So 17.4m people are being told by 650 "Yeah, we're debasing your democracy. Now STFU about it."
You need to question what needs dialling down.
You are not helping your cause and there are much much less than 17.4 million who are in the hard brexit camp
Last time I looked @MarqueeMark was not in the Hard Brexit camp.
Actually he is.
May's Deal is pretty hard Brexit - I'd say about 80% on the Hard-Soft axis and MM would prefer something Harder.
What you're referring to as Hard Brexit I assume is No Deal Brexit.
The terminology has shifted since 2016.
Fair point. I do find the terminology quite amusing because it's those who are concerned about immigration who are the ones portrayed as the more extreme brexiteers. Actually, I think it's those want to go off around the world signing trade deals that are more extreme.
My classification of the ERG gang:
1) Those who want Libertarian Pirate Island 2) Those who refuse to sign any agreement with the EU 3) Those who don't want to change decades old scripts blaming the EU 4) Those who are using opposition to boost their leadership hopes 5) Those who are useful idiots of one or more of the above
That the referendum was NOT about immigration? It is a shame some can't read very well. If they want one on that subject they should lobby for it, and this would be a little more honest.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
I'm not convinced he wants a confirmation vote, and I think he wants the benefits of the single market without full membership. That's either a unicorn, or something similar to Chequers i.e. we have the freedom to diverge from standards, but we won't use it, so that we can have near frictionless trade.
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
I was thinking about this yesterday and if it was put in a codicil to the WA that we would commit to replicating EU law in these areas, that would be legally binding and would need a renegotiation to unpick. I think.
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
I think a lot of people would be able to live with it because it would deliver a much more tangible benefit ('look at our new immigration policy') whereas the downsides of a Customs Union would accumulate over time in terms of the EU negotiating trade deals that aren't as good for us as they could have been - but they are a lot less tangible for the man in the street.
It's nobody's first choice except Lexiters, BUT unless either the ERG wing are willing to vote it down in favour of Remain, or Remainers are going to vote it down in favour of Hard Brexit, I don't see how those two groups can stop it happening if May and Corbyn want it to. What compromise would it be replaced with? Parliament is in a stalemate.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
It all depends on what the confirmatory vote is between. If it's Deal or Remain, Remain would win. If it's Deal or Think Again, then it'd probably be Think Again.
Boeing are really going to be in the sh*t - and deserve to be.
(For those not following this closely, after the first crash, Boeing released instructions to pilots about how to recover from the situation those first pilots found themselves in. Sadly, it looks as though those instructions were not comprehensive enough to allow the pilots from the second flight to recover. If everything is as suspected ...)
Immigration has always been a key issue, and the problem is it remains the elephant in the room because it produces hysteria on both sides. Yet it's basically simple. In an ideal world, we would sit down and discuss it rationally. Managed immigration - those who are useful to us, those who are asylum-seekers, those who have close family ties are straightforward.
Those who are economic migrants are the difficult issue. In theory, they could be an unlimited number. They watch television world-wide, and see the first world as a land of milk and honey. We are a magnet. But we can only manage so many at a time.
I'm sure it feels nice to open our borders unselectively. Another eight million for London? Why not? Unless you live there, perhaps. Why can't London's population move to Lincolnshire if they want to? It might civilise them.
Comments
Trump is not the American Corbyn either, Bernie Sanders is.
As I have been saying for some time I think the next US Presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn in the ultimate 'Alien v Predator' clash of right-wing and left-wing populism
A recent Buttigieg interview:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/pete-buttigieg-plans-win-democratic-presidential-nomination-defeat-trump
TBF, I have such triggers as well, and most of us probably do: things that are said to us that cause us to snap back. Its just that for them it's the EU, and their triggering is very visible. And at the moment, destructive.
You need to question what needs dialling down.
Sanders, like Trump, is suspicious of free trade and far more willing to regulate large corporations and even back tariffs if needed.
All of them also share a marmite quality of fanatical supporters and charisma while others cannot stand them.
So in that the article is correct, there is more that unites the populists on both sides of the Atlantic than first appears
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/limited-information-barr-has-shared-about-russia-investigation-frustrated-some-on-muellers-team/2019/04/03/c98e8a02-567a-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.3ac72754869b
Well, you would say that. It's easy to put it differently: Corbyn sits back as those around him, and whom he could reign in, attack opponents *very* personally. He's not stupid, and he knows what happens.
An example is the anti-Semitism your party has descended into. It would have been easy for him to staunch this two years ago and to stop his underlings and followers. But he chose not to.
Are MPs really telling the electorate to STFU ?
One could argue that's the case for the No Dealers every bit as much, if not more so, than the PV enthusiasts.
We're ALL biased here. You as much as anyone!
And, lest we forget, it was OUR desire, present and fully correct at Mansion House, to have a seamless Irish border, which we must have known would have to be negotiated entirely within the bounds of the International Rules Based System.
To see it grabbed back by the politicians and used for grandstanding and party politics, is bound to cause a reaction. The lies about respecting the result, and then continuing to block any progress is a direct challenge to the electorate. "We're the ones who make the decisions, so suck it up."
That's why a revoke would inflame the situation and a re-run of the referendum would be seen as an instruction to follow orders. Mrs May's deal depends on the 'kindness of strangers' before we can leave. To those who don't trust the EU, it's a red flag. To those who do, Remain is the only sensible option.
Corbyn is more like Sanders. Boris and especially Farage are more like Trump.
Remainers had better get on their hands and knees and thank god for the Monarchy as the way MPs are behaving if we had a Presidential system President Farage would be pretty much unstoppable at this point....
For many Brexiteers, FTAs are both demonic when negotiated by or with the EU but are also a magic talisman for trade outside. They are not, as seem to be imagined, intergovernment agreements that we will buy a million tons of chlorine-washed chicken in exchange for America spending the same on English Sparkling Wine in pint bottles.
The real reason it has not passed is Labour MPs in Leave seats, sticking two fingers up to their electorates.
This Barry.
With this help.
They frame no deal now as what 17 million people wanted when it’s clear that was not the case in 2016 . The chaos and current impasse is down to them and not Remainers.
"Leave the European Union" was the question. The European Economic Area is not the European Union. The European Customs Union is not the European Union. Remember the poster about the evils of Turkey joining the EU and we need to leave before they do? Well Turkey are the Customs Union. And not the EU. So according to the mouth foaming wing of the leave camp, the Customs Union is not the EU. So why does a vote to leave the EU translate as a vote to leave something that is not the EU?
This is why a new vote is needed. The referendum did not produce a clear outcome. And with respect to the angry people, they will be angry regardless as some of them haven't a fucking clue why they are angry never mind what they actually want. "I VOTED TO LEAVE THE CUSTOMS UNION" screams one locally to me whilst posting an image of the ballot paper which explicitly DOESN'T offer them a vote on the Customs Union.
A feature of Trump is that his form of defence is attack. While making out that he is the sole purveyor of truth and those attacking him are guilty of any number of sins in a textbook exercise in diversion. In addition it is only a tight cabal that is "on our side" while the rest are enemies. Or in Corbyn's case, class enemies.
And so we have a discussion on manifesto costings leading to the observation that if not actively an anti-semitic areshole, Corbyn has transparently evidently engendered a culture in the Labour Party whereby it is ok to be an anti-semitic arsehole, which I think legitimately allows it to be said that Jeremy Corbyn is indeed thereby an anti-semitic arsehole.
@ydoethur pointed this out.
@TheJezziah then launched a full scale but what about the Tories, what about you, diversion and dissembling ad hominem exercise. Which was positively Trumpian in its form and content. And this to a former Labour voter, not an avowed dyed-in-the-wool right winger, illustrating the you're either one of us or one of them Trump cult MO.
It's disingenuous to claim otherwise because it wasn't specifically mentioned on the ballot paper. That sort of legalese chicanery is not going to endear the political establishment to the electorate, or do anything to help dilute the toxic nature of modern politics.
Mrs May has Remainer sympathies and sees no reason to distrust them, but as a Leaver (who thinks she's incompetent), I can see her point of view. I was surprised that Remainers don't see she's on their side but is determined to follow the pledge to honour the result.
The ERG are a noisy but minority group. If Labour wanted the EU/May deal as a sort of soft Brexit, they could vote for it or even sit on their hands. But they were determined to frustrate it for differing reasons. Many Labour MPs because Remain is their only goal, Jezza because he wants to be PM.
It was always going to be a blame game, and never a meeting of minds. And the MPs arrogance has ensured that happens.
The ERG with their "its a shit deal and we'd be better off staying in the EU".
And why do you think its a 'shit deal' in any case ?
Anyway. we shall see if anything emerges from the PM/LotO talks. I expect cleverer minds than mine will have been poring over all Labour's policy statements to see what Theresa May can offer.
JC wants Customs Union, Single Market, No FOM, environmental and workers protection, confirmation vote - Correct?
We can ignore environmental and workers protections as they can be given and then taken away. They have nothing to do with the negotiations really; just a smoke screen - Correct?
We can't have Single market without FOM; EU won't allow it - Correct?
JC seems to get amnesia over the confirmation vote and could say he had to negotiate it away but Tom Watson yesterday said that was a red line for the key players in the shadow cabinet.
A Customs Union and No FOM I think nearly everyone agrees (leavers and remainers) is worse than we have now. It only satisfies those for whom FOM is the key item.
If it goes to a confirmation vote how will things split? Strong leavers against, except possibly those for whom it is all about FOM. But the result for them is either awful or awful so I can't see them motivated! Remainers choice between two similar things one of which is clearly worse than the other, but can they then be motivated for this difference and who will they be campaigning against?
OK I'm sure there is a lot wrong there. What is it?
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/what-mattered-most-to-you-when-deciding-how-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/#.XKW8P6TTWEc
On the other side are those MP's (Yvette Cooper, Dominic Grieve, etc.) who promised to honour the result of the referendum, but with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
May's Deal is pretty hard Brexit - I'd say about 80% on the Hard-Soft axis and MM would prefer something Harder.
What you're referring to as Hard Brexit I assume is No Deal Brexit.
The terminology has shifted since 2016.
And were all my statements prior to that correct do you think?
It's why polling showing support for no deal now is completely useless. Doesn't matter what people think beforehand, if it goes badly they will turn on those who allowed it to happen and they won't blame themselves.
I think a lot of people would be able to live with it because it would deliver a much more tangible benefit ('look at our new immigration policy') whereas the downsides of a Customs Union would accumulate over time in terms of the EU negotiating trade deals that aren't as good for us as they could have been - but they are a lot less tangible for the man in the street.
It's nobody's first choice except Lexiters, BUT unless either the ERG wing are willing to vote it down in favour of Remain, or Remainers are going to vote it down in favour of Hard Brexit, I don't see how those two groups can stop it happening if May and Corbyn want it to. What compromise would it be replaced with? Parliament is in a stalemate. It all depends on what the confirmatory vote is between. If it's Deal or Remain, Remain would win. If it's Deal or Think Again, then it'd probably be Think Again.
After all, if there were 52% of people in favour of say, capital punishment, or slavery would we say "Oh well, we have to accept the will-o-the-people, I will go away and shut up"?
It has struck me for a while that there are some troubling similarities in the way they do politics, particularly in their attitude to a free press and to being held up to scrutiny. That bodes very ill in my view.
'It's those nasty, bad Leavers who are completely unconnected to our pure and idealistic project. Let's just concentrate on cutting immigration, ending FOM and ensuring a Marxist antisemite doesn't become PM.'
1) Those who want Libertarian Pirate Island
2) Those who refuse to sign any agreement with the EU
3) Those who don't want to change decades old scripts blaming the EU
4) Those who are using opposition to boost their leadership hopes
5) Those who are useful idiots of one or more of the above
Its all irrelevant in any case as it will be superseded by whatever results from the next GE.
And this is the fallacy about posturing about the backstop - it will be the next government which deals with it not this one.
"Ethiopian Airlines crew in Boeing 737 crash "could not control" jet despite following procedures, report finds"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47812225
Boeing are really going to be in the sh*t - and deserve to be.
(For those not following this closely, after the first crash, Boeing released instructions to pilots about how to recover from the situation those first pilots found themselves in. Sadly, it looks as though those instructions were not comprehensive enough to allow the pilots from the second flight to recover. If everything is as suspected ...)
Immigration has always been a key issue, and the problem is it remains the elephant in the room because it produces hysteria on both sides. Yet it's basically simple. In an ideal world, we would sit down and discuss it rationally. Managed immigration - those who are useful to us, those who are asylum-seekers, those who have close family ties are straightforward.
Those who are economic migrants are the difficult issue. In theory, they could be an unlimited number. They watch television world-wide, and see the first world as a land of milk and honey. We are a magnet. But we can only manage so many at a time.
I'm sure it feels nice to open our borders unselectively. Another eight million for London? Why not? Unless you live there, perhaps. Why can't London's population move to Lincolnshire if they want to? It might civilise them.