Brexit discussion thread III

Water John

Other countries shouldn't feel too bad at not being liked, by the British. They hate the Welsh and the Scots, as well.

Econ_

Exceptional piece here by Matthew Parris on the underlying forces that drive support for Brexit.

https://twitter.com/PaddyBriggs/status/977465859856879616

Capt'n Midnight

Michelle O'Neill calls for unity referendum within five years


possibly looking to see if anyone bites.

Water John

With Nicola probably on a similar line, they are all beginning to nibble, at the UK bum.

flutered

Strazdas wrote: »

And the EU want Brexit cancelled because 'they need our money'.

The words 'completely paranoid and deluded' spring to mind.

to the brexiteers that is the eu/remainders/remoaners

Capt'n Midnight

Econ_ wrote: »

Exceptional piece here by Matthew Parris on the underlying forces that drive support for Brexit.

https://twitter.com/PaddyBriggs/status/977465859856879616

IF and it's a big if Corbyn was to introduce PR in the UK it might reduce the number of Tory safe seats.

But it would also affect Labour safe seats so I won't be holding my breath. And Labour want of THE common market.

Rain Ascending

Econ_ wrote: »

Exceptional piece here by Matthew Parris on the underlying forces that drive support for Brexit.

https://twitter.com/PaddyBriggs/status/977465859856879616

Hmm, there's not a huge amount of insight here. The interesting question is what happens to the "shadow" he refers to, in the (likely) event that the segment of the population that associates itself with it, is disappointed by Brexit outcomes.

To a first approximation, you could consider this group to be predominantly UKIP voters prior to last year's general election. UKIP's vote declined dramatically in that election. From what I saw of voting patterns, it appears that roughly half went to Labour and half to the Conservatives. That suggests that their underlying nationalism is informed as much by economic and social memes as it is by more ideology/jingoism. In other words, Corbynism proved as attractive as May's "strong and stable leadership".

Even if the Conservative party opts for a Moggs or Johnson leader, say, after a Brexit full of compromises and costs from a "cake-ist" perspective, it's hard to see how they can attract back those UKIP voters whose natural inclination is towards traditional Labour. If Corbyn can avoid making any commitments around Brexit, he holds these voters for at least one election.

Of course, the strategies outlined above for both parties won't work much to hold the centre ground and would open up an opportunity that normally would be filled by a Macron-type figure ... were it not for FPTP.

Hung parliament (again), anybody, after a possible GE in 2019?

CrabRevolution

I don't get the impression there's really much desire for PR in the UK.Even during the AV referendum a few years back they strongly rejected a pretty watered down version of PR.

I remember before that referendum a newspaper I normally regard as being pretty sensible printed a cartoon mocking the fact that a candidate can "win" in a PR election with 20% of the vote. It was disappointing how they could miss the point that in PR it's less about winning individual battles, instead it's about ensuring that if a party gets 20% of votes they get close to 20% of seats.

FPTP is like the Monarchy. If you were starting a political system from scratch today there would be absolutely no chance you'd use FPTP or have an unelected hereditary head of state, but since they've had them so long and are used to it, they are very keen on keeping it.

J Mysterio

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Michelle O'Neill calls for unity referendum within five years


possibly looking to see if anyone bites.

Jesus, that article is so basic and misleading to be actually offensive.

Lemming

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I don't get the impression there's really much desire for PR in the UK.Even during the AV referendum a few years back they strongly rejected a pretty watered down version of PR.

The AV referendum wasn't 'strongly rejected' as so much that there was a p1ss poor effort at informing the masses as to what it was, a p1ss poor voter turn out, and general apathy about the whole matter because everybody had a p1ss poor notion on it so a lot of people just voted "no" to retain the status quo - of which they did know about (or in so much as the general UK voting population pays much attention ... ). Voter turn-out was considered higher-than-expected at a whopping 41% which tells a story.

Capt'n Midnight

Lemming wrote: »

The AV referendum wasn't 'strongly rejected' as so much that there was a p1ss poor effort at informing the masses as to what it was, a p1ss poor voter turn out, and general apathy about the whole matter because everybody had a p1ss poor notion on it so a lot of people just voted "no" to retain the status quo - of which they did know about (or in so much as the general UK voting population pays much attention ... ). Voter turn-out was considered higher-than-expected at a whopping 41% which tells a story.

The information being presented was was all about how the result would change. EVERY time.

It should have been about "safe seats will still be safe", however a protest vote for a third party won't be wasted in marginals.

Regardless PR won't be happening before Brexit

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.ft.com/content/ed11507c-334e-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22f03

Swiss bankers’ hopes of securing improved access to EU markets have been dashed by Britain’s plans to quit the bloc, the head of Switzerland’s banking association has said.
...
Brussels fears any concessions given now to Switzerland could set a precedent for the Brexit talks, bankers in Zurich believe. “The EU cannot grant Switzerland something while still negotiating with the UK,” said one.

It's not like the UK was going to get as good a deal as the Swiss anyway.

And this scuppers good relations between the UK and EFTA. While I doubt the UK was ever going to be let join, good relations would have helped.

VonZan

Swiss bankers shouldn't be allowed any additional access to the EU market. On one hand the EU is talking about tax harmonisation and stopping the laundering of money through the current EU banking set up and tax avoidance regime then they give access to one of the most private and poorly regulated banking systems in the world lined with dirty money.

Water John

If TM is going with this 'customs partnership', there will be no big move away from the EU, for the next 10 years.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/may-plans-customs-partnership-to-unlock-northern-ireland-dilemma-1.3448056

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

If TM is going with this 'customs partnership', there will be no big move away from the EU, for the next 10 years.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/may-plans-customs-partnership-to-unlock-northern-ireland-dilemma-1.3448056

My understanding of that, is that the UK would maintain the current and future EU standards (whilst leaving the table and thus any input into their decisions) and would then become the tax collector for EU in terms of tariffs on goods destined for the EU.

So container arrives from China with toys. 10% tariff into EU (for example) with 0% for the UK. 30% of the container is destined for the UK market, the rest will go onto Dublin.

All this is going to be done by a country which is currently being charged with allowing Chinese products to enter the UK market in the level of billions!

So what have the UK got out of it. They cannot change the regulations, they now take on board the administration, they lose the power to take part in the discussions.

I can't see how any that is better than the position that they currently are in

Water John

Well its their proposal. I doubt a container of goods could be subdivided in this way. Each sealed consignment would have its own RIFID.

Charles Babbage

Lemming wrote: »

The AV referendum wasn't 'strongly rejected' as so much that there was a p1ss poor effort at informing the masses as to what it was, a p1ss poor voter turn out, and general apathy about the whole matter because everybody had a p1ss poor notion on it so a lot of people just voted "no" to retain the status quo - of which they did know about (or in so much as the general UK voting population pays much attention ... ). Voter turn-out was considered higher-than-expected at a whopping 41% which tells a story.

People had a piss poor notion about the EU, but still voted to change things, when the proper response is "if you don't know, vote no".
You basically have an irresponsible electorate.

Capt'n Midnight

Not only is the ambassadorial crisis affecting Ferrero Rocher sales, but Brexit tariffs on raw materials would add 10% to the cost of chocolate and a further 10% due to differing standards and other non-tariff barriers. And they may have to reduce the product range.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/30/brexit-means-eggs-sit-ferrero-warns-of-stale-easter-chocolate

Strazdas

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People had a piss poor notion about the EU, but still voted to change things, when the proper response is "if you don't know, vote no".
You basically have an irresponsible electorate.

The very solution they were looking for was a very simplistic one. Demanding an in / out EU referendum for years, as if a glorified opinion poll somehow could magically solve all of their problems and transform British society. It looks like an unsophisticated electorate : the difficulties that have emerged post-2016 could have been predicted by anyone.

Sooner than having a mature debate on all the issues surrounding Britain's relationship with Europe, they went with the 'magic wand' solution of thinking a silly referendum could put everything right.

Inquitus

Strazdas wrote: »

The very solution they were looking for was a very simplistic one. Demanding an in / out EU referendum for years, as if a glorified opinion poll somehow could magically solve all of their problems and transform British society. It looks like an unsophisticated electorate : the difficulties that have emerged post-2016 could have been predicted by anyone.

Sooner than having a mature debate on all the issues surrounding Britain's relationship with Europe, they went with the 'magic wand' solution of thinking a silly referendum could put everything right.

Having a referendum on such a complex issue is an obfuscation of the duty of a representative government, especially where they are not enshrined in the constitution like in Ireland.

Leroy42

is it not simply democracy?

The question was poor and the campaign was badly handled, but surely no one is advocating that people should have less of a say?

Capt'n Midnight

And on and on it goes...

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/notice-stakeholders-withdrawal-united-kingdom-and-eu-rules-eu-domain-names_en

As of the withdrawal date, undertakings and organisations that are established in the United Kingdom but not in the EU, and natural persons who reside in the United Kingdom will no longer be eligible to register .eu domain names or, if they are .eu registrants, to renew .eu domain names registered before the withdrawal date.

there are just over 317,000 .eu domains registered in the UK

Inquitus

Leroy42 wrote: »

is it not simply democracy?

The question was poor and the campaign was badly handled, but surely no one is advocating that people should have less of a say?

My view is the concept of representative democracy is to elect a government to run the country, and make complex decisions on your behalf, using expert advice, putting highly complex issues like Brexit to a public vote is dereliction of a Governments duty.

There's a big difference between voting on abortion for instance and voting on something as massively complex as Brexit which is incomprehensible to the average voter.

Capt'n Midnight

UK IT systems are just not ready for Brexit.
Details of 600,000 foreign visitors to UK go up in smoke thanks to shonky border database

It found that as of 31 March 2017, there were no departure records of 88,134 non-EU visa nationals with ISA "identities" – whose visas typically last six months – nor for 513,088 identified non-visa nationals.

...
Since 2004, as part of the troubled "e-Borders Programme" (currently running eight years late at a cost of £1bn) 16 airlines have been required to share advanced passenger information with the Home Office.

Inquitus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK IT systems are just not ready for Brexit.
Details of 600,000 foreign visitors to UK go up in smoke thanks to shonky border database

Aye the UK Border force is a joke, just travelled back from a holiday via Stansted and it took an hour to clear immigration, far worse than any other country and I travel a fair bit with work.

Capt'n Midnight

VonZan wrote: »

Swiss bankers shouldn't be allowed any additional access to the EU market. On one hand the EU is talking about tax harmonisation and stopping the laundering of money through the current EU banking set up and tax avoidance regime then they give access to one of the most private and poorly regulated banking systems in the world lined with dirty money.

Do you know who else also has lots of tax-havens ?

Together the UK Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies would be far worse offenders than the Swiss.

Possibly something the EU could look into with the UK veto removed. Though Luxembourg might derail that one.

Spanish Eyes

BINO is on the cards. Brexit in name only, but I'm sure you have all figured that one out!

Cannot see an alternative but a crash out.

Inquitus

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

BINO is on the cards. Brexit in name only, but I'm sure you have all figured that one out!

Cannot see an alternative but a crash out.

Hope you are right!

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And on and on it goes...

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/notice-stakeholders-withdrawal-united-kingdom-and-eu-rules-eu-domain-names_en

there are just over 317,000 .eu domains registered in the UK

Just when you think you've heard all the possible impacts of brexit an other one turns up and you realise once again it's only the tip of the iceberg.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

is it not simply democracy?

The question was poor and the campaign was badly handled, but surely no one is advocating that people should have less of a say?

In theory, there's no problem at all with referendums but holding one on something as vast and complex as EU membership was crazy stuff. I have my suspicions that 90% of people who voted didn't even know what the Single Market and Customs Union were or were only vaguely aware of the terms.

Frito

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

Sam Russell

Frito wrote: »

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

But the arguments against independence for Scotland (Stronger Together) apply identically for remaining within the EU (Stronger Together). Most of the 'Loss of Sovereignty' arguments have failed to be substantiated in any real way, and many of the claims are in fact wrongly placed, and many are based on fiction or misunderstanding. Also much of the rules of the EU complained of were in fact driven by the UK.

TM has seen a substantial level of backing from the EU states for the current spat with Russia - will she get the same level of support from the EU after Brexit?

flatty

Frito wrote: »

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

There is, but many are grim faced pensioners who will be financially insulated from their decision. They will also spin off this mortal coil leaving the young with the tab. The same crowd who are up in arms about possibly needing to sell their 300k house, bought for 20, and insist that the same younger generation who are triple locking their pensions also pay for their care whilst they hold on to the assets that the young can only hope to afford one day.
There is also a sizeable swathe of the population who voted in ignorance, and almost a third didn't bother voting at all. Democracy is spelling out the options, and ramifications clearly and then having a vote, not taking a binary referendum, and ramrodding your own "red lines" into it, likely to the financial advantage of you and your coterie, or worse, in a simple venal attempt to cling onto power.

Frito

I don't disagree with your points, except for the sizeable swathe who voted in ignorance. There will be people who did the same research I did and came to a different conclusion, and there might be people who voted on a whim. We can pat ourselves on the back for the nobility of our informed decisions, but it doesn't matter, both votes are democratic.
Leave voters take every opportunity to say "we knew what we were voting for", and I remind them of it every time they are disappointed with negotiations.
Just under half of young people didn't bother to vote at all (IPSOS MORI) so the issue wasn't important to them. They might regret that, but they had their chance, so tough.

Zubeneschamali

Frito wrote: »

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

Why? Where are the economic projections that say the UK will ever make up the 3, 6, 10% (pick whichever projection you like) they will have lost by 2040?

Frito

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

Why? Where are the economic projections that say the UK will ever make up the 3, 6, 10% (pick whichever projection you like) they will have lost by 2040?

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.
People who voted Leave for sovereignty reasons are prepared to take an economic hit. Some of them who sincerely believe we can recover don't give much credit to economic forecasts...the 'experts' problem. I think they're in cloud cuckoo land, but, economics was the deciding factor for my remain vote.

Leroy42

Frito wrote: »

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

What are you better informed about?

What were the things that led you to vote the way you did and does the new information not have any impact on that?

It is curious that despite nearly everything that the leave said said during the campaign, including but not limited to the £350m per week, the mis-selling of the extent on EU migration and the power that UK still retained in this regard, the power that the UK would have in the split, the ease of international trade etc, despite all this an more being shown to be at best wishful thinking, that based on the polls the vote would remain pretty much the same as before.

Zubeneschamali

Frito wrote: »

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.

But you said:

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

If you mean that they know it will cost them long term and still think it will somehow be worth it for intangible reasons like patriotism and St. George, well fine, but you seem to be saying that these well informed Leavers think that that it will not cost them long term, which is just the same as saying they are still ignorant.

Frito

I am better informed about EEA/EFTA, I understand that the Customs Union is not the same as checks at borders.

I understand better the complaints Leave voters had about the European parliament being antidemocratic. I don't mean the unelected part, because it is indirectly elected, more specifically the idea that voting rituals don't equal democracy. That said, those Leave voters consider the UK govt to be in need of reform, because decision-making is centralised and should be devolved.

I voted to remain for economic reasons. If we had the same binary referendum again, I would still vote to remain.
If we had different options, where there was a realistic possibility of EEA/EFTA membership, then I would vote for that. Not because I particularly want to leave, but because the Eurosceptics are never going to go away, and that seems like a good compromise.

Frito

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.

But you said:

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

If you mean that they know it will cost them long term and still think it will somehow be worth it for intangible reasons like patriotism and St. George, well fine, but you seem to be saying that these well informed Leavers think that that it will not cost them long term, which is just the same as saying they are still ignorant.

My reason for this is because I understand that the economic argument is a remain argument, not a leave one.
Sovereignty is the leave issue.

I'm not going to patronise Leave voters as ignorant or deceived. If those who say they knew what they were voting for, don't trust economic forecasts, but still think we will have as good if not better economic situation than EU membership, then I'll take them at face value and say their expectations are unrealistic.

listermint

Frito wrote: »

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.
People who voted Leave for sovereignty reasons are prepared to take an economic hit. Some of them who sincerely believe we can recover don't give much credit to economic forecasts...the 'experts' problem. I think they're in cloud cuckoo land, but, economics was the deciding factor for my remain vote.

Sovereignty.


Let's stick with.

Discuss with us what particular sovereignty you will get back and how that will impact you or others in Britain. Specifics please . Because you did indicate you were well versed in the subject matter

demfad

Frito wrote: »

I am better informed about EEA/EFTA, I understand that the Customs Union is not the same as checks at borders.

I understand better the complaints Leave voters had about the European parliament being antidemocratic. I don't mean the unelected part, because it is indirectly elected, more specifically the idea that voting rituals don't equal democracy. That said, those Leave voters consider the UK govt to be in need of reform, because decision-making is centralised and should be devolved.

I voted to remain for economic reasons. If we had the same binary referendum again, I would still vote to remain.
If we had different options, where there was a realistic possibility of EEA/EFTA membership, then I would vote for that. Not because I particularly want to leave, but because the Eurosceptics are never going to go away, and that seems like a good compromise.

This is a problem in all EU countries to varying degrees but the issue is with local parties IMO.
They campaign as local parties without addressing European issues at the doorstep. This completely severs the connection between voter and policy and weakens democracy.
This suits local parties as they are less accountable, but this should have only been a transition in the evolution of the parliament.
If the electorate are ill-informed about policy then it allows parties like UKIP to thrive based on this ignorance.
"The EU makes policies for you that you don't know about and can't really influence" is technically true but the reason lies in the dishonesty and lack of integrity of local parties who could sort this easily.

Leroy42

The issue I have with the leave side, and the sovereignty claim, is that no-one seems to be able to articulate what that actually is.

So on one hand we have clear costs to leaving. Even the act of leaving itself is already budgeted to cost £4bn, and that doesn't take into account the ongoing costs of additional administration of customs, extra border checks, the economic cost (in terms of the price of good) of the additional customs queue etc etc.

On the other we have this, at least to me, vague notion of 'taking back control'. "Free to make our own laws" etc. Yet even a cursory look will see that this notion that the UK is somehow controlled by Brussels as wrong. How come the UK are not using the Euro? Why are they not in Schengen? Why do they still use miles and lbs? Why is abortion still illegal in NI? Why are tax rates different in different countries? WHy do the UK still drive on the left?

There are so many examples of UK laws not having to align with the EU that one can only consider that the UK do indeed have the ability to make their own laws.

Even the recent argument over fishing rights. In appears that many of the fishing rights have been sold by the UK companies to EU companies. So the ire really belongs to the companies that sold out the UK, not the EU.

So whilst I can appreciate the argument that economic forecasts are just that, they are not proof of anything (although the absence of any positive reports is a telling sign), even if we take the view that over the long term the economy will be roughly the same, I fail to see, beyond some vague notion, of what the outcome of Brexit is supposed to be.

When taking such a serious decision, I would have thought that most people would have considered what it is they are going to get.

I also find it ironic that in country such as the UK, with an electoral system such as FPTP, which is not giving the representation to the people, and which continues on with an unelected Lords as the final sign-off, that they turned their ire towards the EU rather than looking to fix their own house first.

oscarBravo

Frito wrote: »

...there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state.

Parliament is, and always has been, sovereign. The "loss of sovereignty" mantra is, and always has been, a red herring. I'm not sure what the nation state issue is, apart from a fear of federalism, which was never going to happen anyway as long as the EU has member states that don't want it.

Frito wrote: »

I understand better the complaints Leave voters had about the European parliament being antidemocratic. I don't mean the unelected part, because it is indirectly elected...

It's directly elected.

Are you sure you understand the issues better?

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

What are you better informed about?

What were the things that led you to vote the way you did and does the new information not have any impact on that?

It is curious that despite nearly everything that the leave said said during the campaign, including but not limited to the £350m per week, the mis-selling of the extent on EU migration and the power that UK still retained in this regard, the power that the UK would have in the split, the ease of international trade etc, despite all this an more being shown to be at best wishful thinking, that based on the polls the vote would remain pretty much the same as before.

They do, but this is because the vast swathe of the mainstream media, controlled a small coterie of grey men, are enthusiastically behind brexit. The BBC has abrogated responsibility, and is choosing to ignore the issues.
So, whilst those who have gone looking have managed to uncover more of the truth, the majority of the population remain relatively unaware, trusting, in my opinion foolishly, that teresa may is acting in the best interests of the country.

Memnoch

Peregrinus wrote: »

But this is the problem, really.

The accusation against Corbyn, as far as I can see, is not that he's an antisemite. It's that he's culpably blind to antisemitism, and therefore an enabler of antisemitism.

And that accusation is reinforced, not rebutted, by explaining Corbyn's support for this artist by saying that Corbyn failed to see the (fairly blatant, it has to be said) antisemitic nature of the artwork concerned, a picture of which was included in the tweet to which Corbyn replied. Corbyn's failure to see such things is precisely the problem.

There are a couple of issues that arise for me from consideration of your post.

Firstly, I am forced to ask the question whether a life-long, or decades long opposition to the behaviour of the state of Israel towards the people of Palestine can result in a creeping or normalisation of anti-semetic attitudes. I think the answer to this is yes, and so it is extremely important that we are doubly vigilant. The Israeli state, their military and their politicians must be held to account for their behaviour and their actions should be called out for what they are. But never, ever, should this be allowed to morph into any kind of negative view of Jewish people or lead to any kind of prejudgement. Those of us who are on the left must be especially vigilant with regards to this as this is where the primary opposition to the actions of the government of Israel comes from.

I would say the same also applies to Muslims. We must condemn Saudi Arabia, and other muslim states and their behaviour in equally strenuous terms, but if we start blaming Muslims in general or judging individuals then obviously this is racism.

In terms of the specifics with regards to Corbyn, so far I have seen only ONE instance of where he has actually misstepped with regards to genuine anti-semitism i.e. the graffiti. And it seems he has accepted this error and apologised.

I do not see any evidence of this pattern of behaviour that you seem to be outlining, and to me, that is where there is a clear campaign to smear by innuendo and association. By simply piling on circumstantial items without context in the hope that the sheer burden of numbers will have the desired effect. This is consistent with the pattern of smearing that the political and news establishment have engaged against him since the day he became leader of the labour party.

If you have other clear examples where he has acted as you suggest could you please provide links to the same? Otherwise I would ask you to kindly re-examine your assumptions and conclusions on this issue.

wes

Memnoch wrote: »

There are a couple of issues that arise for me from consideration of your post.

Firstly, I am forced to ask the question whether a life-long, or decades long opposition to the behaviour of the state of Israel towards the people of Palestine can result in a creeping or normalisation of anti-semetic attitudes. I think the answer to this is yes, and so it is extremely important that we are doubly vigilant. The Israeli state, their military and their politicians must be held to account for their behaviour and their actions should be called out for what they are. But never, ever, should this be allowed to morph into any kind of negative view of Jewish people or lead to any kind of prejudgement. Those of us who are on the left must be especially vigilant with regards to this as this is where the primary opposition to the actions of the government of Israel comes from.

I would say the same also applies to Muslims. We must condemn Saudi Arabia, and other muslim states and their behaviour in equally strenuous terms, but if we start blaming Muslims in general or judging individuals then obviously this is racism.

In terms of the specifics with regards to Corbyn, so far I have seen only ONE instance of where he has actually misstepped with regards to genuine anti-semitism i.e. the graffiti. And it seems he has accepted this error and apologised.

I do not see any evidence of this pattern of behaviour that you seem to be outlining, and to me, that is where there is a clear campaign to smear by innuendo and association. By simply piling on circumstantial items without context in the hope that the sheer burden of numbers will have the desired effect. This is consistent with the pattern of smearing that the political and news establishment have engaged against him since the day he became leader of the labour party.

If you have other clear examples where he has acted as you suggest could you please provide links to the same? Otherwise I would ask you to kindly re-examine your assumptions and conclusions on this issue.

The attacks on Corbyn are really taking the cake. I am not fan of him, due to his position on Brexit, but the stuff being said is some nonsense. Apparently he is an anti-Semite for attending a Jewish event now, but apparently the people behind the event aren't really Jewish or something (because they criticized Israel apparently, what next people aren't Muslim if they criticize Saudi Arabia for the Yemen slaughter?). The whole thing is a farce, and doubly so when you have far right racist nutters like Guido Fawkes thinking they get to decide who is and isn't Jewish.

Frito

oscarBravo wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

...there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state.

Parliament is, and always has been, sovereign. The "loss of sovereignty" mantra is, and always has been, a red herring. I'm not sure what the nation state issue is, apart from a fear of federalism, which was never going to happen anyway as long as the EU has member states that don't want it.

It's directly elected.

Are you sure you understand the issues better?

You're right, it is. I was thinking of the commissioners.

The sovereignty discussions I've had with leave voters are as follows:-
EUParl does not sufficiently debate all legislation due to legislation volume and speed of vote. They're little more than voting rituals.

They have little/no respect for ECHR, that any rights should be determined by individual nations.

They object to ECJ. I haven't received much of an answer when I've asked when/whom they voted for election to an WTO arbitration panel, except that ECJ is further-reaching than arbitration. They accept some sovereignty will be negotiated away during trade deals, and certainly, regulatory aspects will be lost even if we revert to WTO.

The conversations usually move on to their dissatisfaction with representative democracy (Blairite govt ratifying Lisbon without consulting electorate), and with FPTP system and centralised decision-making.
To clarify for another poster, I voted to remain, and would vote the same way again. But I do understand leave voters better now. Just after the vote, I was shocked and had a touch of sore loser about me, so I thought they were all ignorant. But I was wrong to think that.

Leroy42

Frito wrote: »

To clarify for another poster, I voted to remain, and would vote the same way again. But I do understand leave voters better now. Just after the vote, I was shocked and had a touch of sore loser about me, so I thought they were all ignorant. But I was wrong to think that.

Yet it appears that all the reasons that leavers have given to you are based on ignorance of reality.

I can understand the reasons why people voted to leave, doesn't mean that they were not ignorant, or to put it more politiley, ill-informed,

That doesn't mean, btw, that they were wrong. As I said, based on what they understood they were correct to vote for the UK to leave. Unfortunately, the information that they based their decision on (£350m per week for NHS, EU migrants being a massive drain on resources which only leaving could fix, UK having little to no say in the EU, EU to blame for holding up trade with 3rd Party countries etc) is almost entirely incorrect or only part of the full story.

Sam Russell

Frito wrote: »

You're right, it is. I was thinking of the commissioners.

Although Commissioners are not voted in by direct elections, that is a decision that each member state can make. Not a single state does appoint a Commissioner by either direct popular vote or by a free vote by their parliament. However, each Commissioner takes an oath to act in support of the EU as a whole and not to be partisan towards their own state.

However, it is the Council of Ministers that actually has the power of legislation, ratified by the directly elected European Parliament. Now there is a democratic deficit wrt the Parliament because the groups in the parliament are not diectly related to the national political party.

All in all, I think the EU is in better shape than the UK as regards democracy. FPTP distorts so much of voter intention and representation.