General British politics discussion thread

quokula

For reference:

The article Long Bailey shared is this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/maxine-peake-interview-labour-corbyn-keir-starmer-black-lives-matter-a9583206.html

The amnesty report originally referenced here:
https://www.amnestyusa.org/with-whom-are-many-u-s-police-departments-training-with-a-chronic-human-rights-violator-israel/

The amnesty thing was just a tiny aside halfway through the article, with nothing to do with the thrust of the article or why Long Bailey shared it. For something so small to be picked up on so quickly, it seems pretty obvious that the right wing of the Labour party have been trawling through every single piece of content she and other progressives have shared with a fine toothed comb looking for some dirt they can make stick. Much like they did for the duration of Corbyn's tenure.

I thought Starmer was looking to bring the two wings of the party together but that doesn't seem to be happening sadly. And with FPTP the country is screwed as long as Labour is focussed on in fighting.

mick087

quokula wrote: »

Looks like the purge of democratic socialists from the Labour party is beginning. Rebecca Long Bailey sacked for antisemitism after sharing an article that had nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish people but happened to quote an Amnesty International report that was critical of Israeli police.

Corbyn should of delt with the antisemitism problem it seems to have, but he didn't.

You now have a Sir as leader of the labour party. The corbynites will slowly be got rid of, Rebecca is the first. Im afraid to say the UK Labour party is instote for another Blairite era.

Corbyn has only himself to blame, he has left the Brits in the hands of the Tories. I dont think this man could ever look at a working class person straight in the face ever again.

Sam Russell

mick087 wrote: »

Corbyn should of delt with the antisemitism problem it seems to have, but he didn't.

You now have a Sir as leader of the labour party. The corbynites will slowly be got rid of, Rebecca is the first. Im afraid to say the UK Labour party is instote for another Blairite era.

Corbyn has only himself to blame, he has left the Brits in the hands of the Tories. I dont think this man could ever look at a working class person straight in the face ever again.

He got that for his work in the CPS and as DPP.

The Labour Party have had various ultra lefties as leader such as Michael Foot. It has never worked for them. The labour party are a coalition of Left Wing activists and the Unions, who are generally not left wing. Sometimes one gains sway and other times it is the other.

Podge_irl

quokula wrote: »

For reference:

The article Long Bailey shared is this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/maxine-peake-interview-labour-corbyn-keir-starmer-black-lives-matter-a9583206.html

The amnesty report originally referenced here:
https://www.amnestyusa.org/with-whom-are-many-u-s-police-departments-training-with-a-chronic-human-rights-violator-israel/

Amnesty link wrote:

Baltimore law enforcement officials, along with hundreds of others from Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington state as well as the DC Capitol police have all traveled to Israel for training. Thousands of others have received training from Israeli officials here in the U.S.

This would be the report you reference that literally doesn't mention Minnesota? The quote in the article is not new, it was there when she shared it. It attempted to directly link the Floyd killing with Israel for no reason whatsoever. RLB should have read the article before sharing it and should have enough cop on to realise that was an inflammatory quote and something that shouldn't be shared by a shadow cabinet member given Labour's recent history.

mick087

Sam Russell wrote: »

He got that for his work in the CPS and as DPP.

The Labour Party have had various ultra lefties as leader such as Michael Foot. It has never worked for them. The labour party are a coalition of Left Wing activists and the Unions, who are generally not left wing. Sometimes one gains sway and other times it is the other.

I think it was working out ok for Corbyn, antisemitism was an issue and should of been sorted but that was not his downfall. Between 2017 and the election he was listening to a very privileged middle class elite. If he had stuck to who he was and his beliefs i believe he would now be Prime Minister of the UK.

Lemming

Long-Bailey either showed some "true colours" or showed shockingly poor judgement and self-awareness in re-tweeting the article. Either way, the optics presented were incredibly bad, leaving Starmer with little choice but to act hard and act fast unless he wanted to see Labour re-living Corbyns failures over again. Regardless of whether Long-Bailey deserved to be sacked or not is an academic foot-note at this point, and she was the architect of her own downfall.

paddythere

I don't understand how the comment in the article is even anti semitic in the first place. If it had claimed that they learned the moves from the United Arab Emirates police would that automatically make it islamophobic?

paddythere

mick087 wrote: »

Corbyn should of delt with the antisemitism problem it seems to have, but he didn't.

You now have a Sir as leader of the labour party. The corbynites will slowly be got rid of, Rebecca is the first. Im afraid to say the UK Labour party is instote for another Blairite era.

Corbyn has only himself to blame, he has left the Brits in the hands of the Tories. I dont think this man could ever look at a working class person straight in the face ever again.

There's more evidence of anti semitism in the tory party yet the media constantly pushed the idea of a problem within the labour party. Ask yourself why they done this?

Leroy42

mick087 wrote: »

I think it was working out ok for Corbyn, antisemitism was an issue and should of been sorted but that was not his downfall. Between 2017 and the election he was listening to a very privileged middle class elite. If he had stuck to who he was and his beliefs i believe he would now be Prime Minister of the UK.

Things were working out ok? HE did better than expected, but still lost, in 2017 after an election campaign by the Tories that lurched from one disaster to the next headed by a PM that had zero charisma and many in her own party didn't like. This was in the midst of austerity.

What elite are you talking about and how did they influence Corbyn? What specific parts of the Labour manifesto do you think were designed by this Elite? And since RLB was his 'right hand man' and clearly was the Corbyn candidate for the leadership, doesn't this mean that she was involved in it all?

It was because he stuck to his beliefs that he lost. He was unwilling to consider any compromise. He was right, people that couldn't see that were simply wrong.

He had some ideas that people liked, but he was a terrible leader. He completely failed to hold the Tory party to account. He couldn't decide which side of the Brexit debate he wanted to be on. He failed to deal with the antisemitism and simply tried to brush it aside. He opted for a GE when he could have had a national government but he refused to accept that he shouldn't be the PM. He put his own ego ahead of the needs of the country.

I see sheep

Lemming wrote: »

Long-Bailey either showed some "true colours"

What do you mean?

mick087

Leroy42 wrote: »

Things were working out ok? HE did better than expected, but still lost, in 2017 after an election campaign by the Tories that lurched from one disaster to the next headed by a PM that had zero charisma and many in her own party didn't like. This was in the midst of austerity.

What elite are you talking about and how did they influence Corbyn? What specific parts of the Labour manifesto do you think were designed by this Elite? And since RLB was his 'right hand man' and clearly was the Corbyn candidate for the leadership, doesn't this mean that she was involved in it all?

It was because he stuck to his beliefs that he lost. He was unwilling to consider any compromise. He was right, people that couldn't see that were simply wrong.

He had some ideas that people liked, but he was a terrible leader. He completely failed to hold the Tory party to account. He couldn't decide which side of the Brexit debate he wanted to be on. He failed to deal with the antisemitism and simply tried to brush it aside. He opted for a GE when he could have had a national government but he refused to accept that he shouldn't be the PM. He put his own ego ahead of the needs of the country.

Yes he did much better than most people thought he would do.

The elite i talk of are the middle class university educated metropolitan liberal elite which the labour party had come to represent.

Ive no real issue with with the manifesto or majority of what corbyn wanted. I say his manifesto would of been accepted by the UK.

Antisemitism issues manifesto differences was not his down fall.

This man scared very powerful people this man could of changed things this man gave many including myself hope.

His down fall was not sticking to what he knew was right not doing what he knew in his heart was right, not listening to what the working class told him to do. Not doing what the majority of people told him to do. This was his downfall.

mick087

paddythere wrote: »

There's more evidence of anti semitism in the tory party yet the media constantly pushed the idea of a problem within the labour party. Ask yourself why they done this?

Yes i say your right i would not disagree about the anti semitism in the tories.
But there does seem to be an issue in the Labour party which he did not sort out and should of.

I dont belive Corbyn belives antisemitism i say he is totally againt it. His issue would be with the country Isreal not jewish people.
But it does seem that there was an issue that he did not deal with.

Leroy42

mick087 wrote: »

Yes he did much better than most people thought he would do.

The elite i talk of are the middle class university educated metropolitan liberal elite which the labour party had come to represent.

Ive no real issue with with the manifesto or majority of what corbyn wanted. I say his manifesto would of been accepted by the UK.

Antisemitism issues manifesto differences was not his down fall.

This man scared very powerful people this man could of changed things this man gave many including myself hope.

His down fall was not sticking to what he knew was right not doing what he knew in his heart was right, not listening to what the working class told him to do. Not doing what the majority of people told him to do. This was his downfall.

So your definition of the middle class elite is the "middle class university educated metropolitan liberal elite "?

Wouldn't they be more inclined to vote Tory? And what did he change his position on due to this interference? You say you largely agreed with the manifesto but it can't be the policies.

Maybe it was he refusal to stand up for working people when the government was gutting services. Or not holding then to account for the shambles of Brexit?

A leader that, according to you, changed everything he believed in is not much of a leader.

He forgot that in politics it is power that matters. Being Right is great, but what is he doing now with all Right? Nothing, allowed the Tories a iron grip on the country.

You may like the man, you may even like his ideas but he will be remembered as one of the worst political leaders of modern times.

Aman so focused on his ideology that he forgot about the very country, and people, his ideology was meant to serve.

mick087

Leroy42 wrote: »

So your definition of the middle class elite is the "middle class university educated metropolitan liberal elite "?

Wouldn't they be more inclined to vote Tory? And what did he change his position on due to this interference? You say you largely agreed with the manifesto but it can't be the policies.

Maybe it was he refusal to stand up for working people when the government was gutting services. Or not holding then to account for the shambles of Brexit?

A leader that, according to you, changed everything he believed in is not much of a leader.

He forgot that in politics it is power that matters. Being Right is great, but what is he doing now with all Right? Nothing, allowed the Tories a iron grip on the country.

You may like the man, you may even like his ideas but he will be remembered as one of the worst political leaders of modern times.

Aman so focused on his ideology that he forgot about the very country, and people, his ideology was meant to serve.

No that would not be my definition of the middle class as i think you well know.
I said a middle class elite, as in the middle class university educated metropolitan liberal elite he surrounded himself with.

IMO he was not a good leader
I never said he changed everything he believed in.
I think you know well what he changed his position on.

I agree that he forgot what power means or didnt realize.
I never said i liked him, I didnt know him so i dont know if i would of liked him. But i did like some most of his views, polices, ideas.

I agree that his ideology about his own country and its people fell short.

PeadarCo

mick087 wrote: »

I agree that his ideology about his own country and its people fell short.

I this particular quote sums up Corbyn and his problem, blame the voters. This is incredibly condescending insulting and undemocratic to boot. In any fair democracy the politicians have to do what voters want not the other way around as this quote implies. The voters can never fall short it's the job of politicians to listen to people and persuade them they are the right people to lead. If Corbyn wanted to be PM he had to listen to the public or at least the voters in the marginal constituencies that decide UK elections. His ideology might suit people in safe seats or his supporters but won't persuade the middle ground.


The UK for all its faults with its first past the post voting system and politicised media is still a strong democracy. If voters don't like your ideology you either change or admit defeat. The only other option is dictatorship.

ZeroThreat

mick087 wrote: »

No that would not be my definition of the middle class as i think you well know.
I said a middle class elite, as in the middle class university educated metropolitan liberal elite he surrounded himself with.

IMO he was not a good leader
I never said he changed everything he believed in.
I think you know well what he changed his position on.

I agree that he forgot what power means or didnt realize.
I never said i liked him, I didnt know him so i dont know if i would of liked him. But i did like some most of his views, polices, ideas.

I agree that his ideology about his own country and its people fell short.

Most middle class people do tend to have a 3rd lvl education.

mick087

PeadarCo wrote: »

I this particular quote sums up Corbyn and his problem, blame the voters. This is incredibly condescending insulting and undemocratic to boot. In any fair democracy the politicians have to do what voters want not the other way around as this quote implies. The voters can never fall short it's the job of politicians to listen to people and persuade them they are the right people to lead. If Corbyn wanted to be PM he had to listen to the public or at least the voters in the marginal constituencies that decide UK elections. His ideology might suit people in safe seats or his supporters but won't persuade the middle ground.


The UK for all its faults with its first past the post voting system and politicised media is still a strong democracy. If voters don't like your ideology you either change or admit defeat. The only other option is dictatorship.

I think i would agree with most if not all of that, except for one thing.
I lived in the UK in the 90s and 2000s and have to say i prefer the first past the post system.

mick087

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Most middle class people do tend to have a 3rd lvl education.

I couldn't argue or disagree with that.

quokula

PeadarCo wrote: »

I this particular quote sums up Corbyn and his problem, blame the voters. This is incredibly condescending insulting and undemocratic to boot. In any fair democracy the politicians have to do what voters want not the other way around as this quote implies. The voters can never fall short it's the job of politicians to listen to people and persuade them they are the right people to lead. If Corbyn wanted to be PM he had to listen to the public or at least the voters in the marginal constituencies that decide UK elections. His ideology might suit people in safe seats or his supporters but won't persuade the middle ground.


The UK for all its faults with its first past the post voting system and politicised media is still a strong democracy. If voters don't like your ideology you either change or admit defeat. The only other option is dictatorship.

By that logic I assume you hold the EU entirely responsible for the referendum result in the same way then.

fash

paddythere wrote: »

I don't understand how the comment in the article is even anti semitic in the first place. If it had claimed that they learned the moves from the United Arab Emirates police would that automatically make it islamophobic?

Apparently there is a long standing anti semitic trope that Jews have been fomenting race wars through history. So if there was a false story that UAE police had taught the technique and also a long history of anti UAE propaganda that they were fomenting race wars, then arguably. (Then only arguably because you would still be conflating Islam with the UAE - when in fact there are multiple forms of Islam and multiple countries which are Islamic - there is only 1 Judaism related State).
The analogy holds a little better if you use Iran - as it is the primary Shia state.

PeadarCo

quokula wrote: »

By that logic I assume you hold the EU entirely responsible for the referendum result in the same way then.

If the EU or any organisation cannot convince voters that it is a good thing voters will vote to eliminate it in the long term. The EU though is not answerable to just UK voters but voters of 27 countries. The other thing to remember for all the power the parliament has all the big decisions are still made by the heads government of the member states.The Brexit vote was a UK vote not an EU vote. If UK voters are not happy with how the EU has evolved they are free to leave as has been the case.

As the EU continues to evolve if it doesn't change in a way that satisfies its member states it will cease to exist. To survive it has to change in line with voter requirements. The post I was replying to said the issue was the voters not Corbyn. Saying your boss is stupid and calling them names is never a good idea.

BonnieSituation

A highly extraordinary day in Westminster that seemed to go fly under the radar here, but in only the way Chris Grayling can, Chris Grayling got beaten in a rigged election.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1283437271300046849?s=19

The Twitter thread explains the ins and outs. But Julian Lewis is now chairman of the Intelligence & Security Committee (ISC) and as a result has been kicked out of the Tory PP.

Another juicy tidbit to emerge from this though:

https://twitter.com/joncraig/status/1283467291578032129?s=19

The ISC are now in a position to publish the Russia Brexit collusion report.

Joe_ Public

BonnieSituation wrote: »

A highly extraordinary day in Westminster that seemed to go fly under the radar here, but in only the way Chris Grayling can, Chris Grayling got beaten in a rigged election.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1283437271300046849?s=19

The Twitter thread explains the ins and outs. But Julian Lewis is now chairman of the Intelligence & Security Committee (ISC) and as a result has been kicked out of the Tory PP.

Another juicy tidbit to emerge from this though:

https://twitter.com/joncraig/status/1283467291578032129?s=19

The ISC are now in a position to publish the Russia Brexit collusion report.

Truly extraordinary. What makes it even better is hearing various government sources whingeing about it being convention for them to nominate thr chair. It's also convention for the government not to interfere in the selection of the chair for liaison committee but they didnt care a fig about that when insisting johnson brexiteer pal Bernard Jenkyn got the job, just before pm agrees to appear before it. Rotten to the core.

View

PeadarCo wrote: »

If the EU or any organisation cannot convince voters that it is a good thing voters will vote to eliminate it in the long term. The EU though is not answerable to just UK voters but voters of 27 countries. The other thing to remember for all the power the parliament has all the big decisions are still made by the heads government of the member states.The Brexit vote was a UK vote not an EU vote. If UK voters are not happy with how the EU has evolved they are free to leave as has been the case.

As the EU continues to evolve if it doesn't change in a way that satisfies its member states it will cease to exist. To survive it has to change in line with voter requirements. The post I was replying to said the issue was the voters not Corbyn. Saying your boss is stupid and calling them names is never a good idea.

This is incorrect.

Whether a country joins, remains a member of, or leaves, any international organisation is a matter for the domestic politics of the country concerned.

It was a failure of British domestic politics that resulted in them leaving, since there was always a lack of reality in their “debates” about it with “the EU” being criticised in one breath for failing to act unilaterally (ie override the wishes of member states) and in the next for over-acting (when it was acting with the unanimous support or QMV support of the member states). They had decades to figure this out but chose not to do so.

PeadarCo

View wrote: »

This is incorrect.

Whether a country joins, remains a member of, or leaves, any international organisation is a matter for the domestic politics of the country concerned.

It was a failure of British domestic politics that resulted in them leaving, since there was always a lack of reality in their “debates” about it with “the EU” being criticised in one breath for failing to act unilaterally (ie override the wishes of member states) and in the next for over-acting (when it was acting with the unanimous support or QMV support of the member states). They had decades to figure this out but chose not to do so.

While I agree with your point re British politics and the EU on a more general point every organisation changes country, company charity etc. If the EU wants to survive it has to change in a manner that suits its members. The same for the Irish or any nation state(assuming no wars etc). Will every country like every change the EU makes no it won't. You can see that with some of the diverse membership options it has, Euro, non Euro, Efta etc. Same for a company that sells stuff they will make changes overtime which will keep some customers, hopefully attract new ones but will lose existing ones at the same time.

So you are right whether a country stays as part of an organisation is down to domestic politics the changes or more importantly perceived changes within the organisation have an impact. If Scotland breaks away from the UK, it won't be as simple as Scotlands population making a purely domestic decision. The perceived actions of Westminster will have an impact. As you have pointed out it is the perceived changes in the EU from the UKs perspective that have caused some of the issue. So it's not a purely domestic issue even though I'd agree with you that the actions of the EU have been warped by domestic politicians for a combination of ideological and short term electoral gains.

Hermy

PeadarCo wrote: »

If the EU or any organisation cannot convince voters that it is a good thing voters will vote to eliminate it in the long term.

Referenda are entirely a domestic issue and it is not for the EU to convince the electorate of a member state which way to vote.

PeadarCo

Hermy wrote: »

Referenda are entirely a domestic issue and it is not for the EU to convince the electorate of a member state which way to vote.

Of course it isn't but are we honestly saying changes and particularly perceived changes in the EU don't impact areferenda on its membership. If the EU wants to continue to exist it has to make sure its citizens understand its value. It's the same for the Irish state it has to convince people it's a good thing. The biggest challenge for the EU is the lense which it's viewed through in the domestic politics of each member state. Look at the various Irish referenda and the various scare stories propagated about the EU and which many people believed. The major parts were addressed by the EU and local politicians before revised referenda.

I'm not blaming the EU for the UK leaving that's down to UK politics. But at the same time the EU does need to get better at communicating with its citizens about the good stuff it does. Even though this is very challenging because a lot of stuff the EU sorts out you only see when it's gone. Hence one of the reasons Brexit had been very good because it shown the complexity of the relatively boring stuff it does and how it impacts people day to day.

Sam Russell

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'm not blaming the EU for the UK leaving that's down to UK politics. But at the same time the EU does need to get better at communicating with its citizens about the good stuff it does. Even though this is very challenging because a lot of stuff the EU sorts out you only see when it's gone. Hence one of the reasons Brexit had been very good because it shown the complexity of the relatively boring stuff it does and how it impacts people day to day.

Well, I for one have learnt a lot from the Brexit business.

I know a lot about the single market and actually understand how it works.

I understand better how the EU works with its competences and shared competences and how they mesh with national politics.

I understand the Mastericht and Lisbon treaties now better than before.

I realise how efficient the EU is with such a small workforce can achieve so much, contrary to the UK propaganda of untold bureaucracy. Now there are nonsenses like the EP sitting Strasbourg and the gravy train, but that aside, they do a lot for not very much cost.

I also realise there are much bigger problems within the EU than Brexit, and anyway Brexit is priced in at this stage. Poland and Hungary are the next problems that need tackling, after Covid.

I hope others have gained as much.

Leroy42

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'm not blaming the EU for the UK leaving that's down to UK politics. But at the same time the EU does need to get better at communicating with its citizens about the good stuff it does. Even though this is very challenging because a lot of stuff the EU sorts out you only see when it's gone. Hence one of the reasons Brexit had been very good because it shown the complexity of the relatively boring stuff it does and how it impacts people day to day.

Therein lies the problem. Apart from the 'Part funded by EU" on signs etc, the decisions on how to communicate with the domestic audience is left down to the individual country. To do otherwise would be seen as more power grab by those that claim that the EU is taking over.

Where, of course, it breaks down is where the national government actually uses the EU as a whipping horse, blaming for anything 'bad' and ignoring it for anything good - the relatively recent mobile phone roaming charges being a perfect example whereby according to the Uk government it was entirely a UK scheme, with hardly any mention of the EU.

Peregrinus

PeadarCo wrote: »

. . . I'm not blaming the EU for the UK leaving that's down to UK politics. But at the same time the EU does need to get better at communicating with its citizens about the good stuff it does. Even though this is very challenging because a lot of stuff the EU sorts out you only see when it's gone. Hence one of the reasons Brexit had been very good because it shown the complexity of the relatively boring stuff it does and how it impacts people day to day.

The problem here is that we risk buying into a basically brexiter trope that sees the EU as something apart from, and even against, its member states. The EU is its member states, acting collectively and collaboratively. So if the EU has a need to communicate with citizens of a particular member state, the most appropriate and most effective way to do that should be through the member state concerned. If the member state will not communicate to its citizens about what it is doing collaboratively with other member states, the other member states are not really well-positioned to fill that gap.

BonnieSituation

Is the Russia report going to be released today (Friday)?

Saw it mentioned elsewhere but I thought it would have been everywhere if that was the case.

Peregrinus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is the Russia report going to be released today (Friday)?

Saw it mentioned elsewhere but I thought it would have been everywhere if that was the case.

I think the Intelligence and Security Committee is expected to take a decision today about whether (and, presumably, when) to release it. Expectation seems to be that they will decide to release it.

PeadarCo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem here is that we risk buying into a basically brexiter trope that sees the EU as something apart from, and even against, its member states. The EU is its member states, acting collectively and collaboratively. So if the EU has a need to communicate with citizens of a particular member state, the most appropriate and most effective way to do that should be through the member state concerned. If the member state will not communicate to its citizens about what it is doing collaboratively with other member states, the other member states are not really well-positioned to fill that gap.

I'd agree with that. The EU does have to communicate with its citizens but what can you do when member state governments use the EU as a scapegoat/punching bag. One of the big issues for UK politics has been that the 2 big parties have been lead by Brexiters over the last few years. Corbyn has historically been anti EU and he didn't exactly show much enthusiasm for the EU during the debate. Cameron was all over the place giving out about the EU before hand and then having to turn around and say how great the EU was something he hadn't any practice at and it showed in how the remainers got stuck with the tag line project fear. The referendum was very close and I would argue with better political leadership the UK would still be in the EU. But then again that requires better leadership going back years and not a sudden conversion on the announcement of a referendum. However you may never even of had the pressure to call a referendum in the first place had politicians not used the EU as a punching bag for domestic issues.

The issue for UK politics is that the measures being taken by the UK government are not in line with the views of the UK population. Even now you have a fairly even split between pros and anti EU. It will interesting to see the impact on UK politics once the costs become clear. The issue with Scotland has been well noted but it'll be interesting to see the impact in England itself once the costs hit home.

Dave0301

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the Intelligence and Security Committee is expected to take a decision today about whether (and, presumably, when) to release it. Expectation seems to be that they will decide to release it.

They already agreed yesterday morning that it will be released before the summer recess.

Now I am not saying that this prompted Raab to make his statement about Russian interference in the 2019 election, but the timing of it is questionable.

Bercow is doing the rounds on UK media this morning sticking the boot into Chris Grayling and how No 10 have handled the appointment of chair of the ISC.

Joe_ Public

Of course Raab knew exactly what he was doing, i think it would be a bit of an insult to the intelligence to assume otherwise. It's just pure trolling, cant think of a single compelling reason why putin would want to upstage johnson and his anti eu disciples, but it serves a purpose. Expect more where that came from in the days ahead.

CrabRevolution

PeadarCo wrote: »

If the EU or any organisation cannot convince voters that it is a good thing voters will vote to eliminate it in the long term. The EU though is not answerable to just UK voters but voters of 27 countries. The other thing to remember for all the power the parliament has all the big decisions are still made by the heads government of the member states.The Brexit vote was a UK vote not an EU vote. If UK voters are not happy with how the EU has evolved they are free to leave as has been the case.

As the EU continues to evolve if it doesn't change in a way that satisfies its member states it will cease to exist. To survive it has to change in line with voter requirements. The post I was replying to said the issue was the voters not Corbyn. Saying your boss is stupid and calling them names is never a good idea.

You claim the EU changed too much and wasn't the same thing the UK joined, but some of the biggest UK "complaints" about the EU (Trade deals, fishing, standards etc.) are things they agreed to on day one in 1973. It's farcical to claim it took them 40 years to realise they couldn't negotiate their own trade deals anymore.

Sam Russell

CrabRevolution wrote: »

You claim the EU changed too much and wasn't the same thing the UK joined, but some of the biggest UK "complaints" about the EU (Trade deals, fishing, standards etc.) are things they agreed to on day one in 1973. It's farcical to claim it took them 40 years to realise they couldn't negotiate their own trade deals anymore.

De Gaul was right all along.

PommieBast

PeadarCo wrote: »

The referendum was very close and I would argue with better political leadership the UK would still be in the EU. But then again that requires better leadership going back years and not a sudden conversion on the announcement of a referendum. However you may never even of had the pressure to call a referendum in the first place had politicians not used the EU as a punching bag for domestic issues.

My lasting memory was that Labour Leave leaflet that had Osbourne/Cameron and the caption "Wipe the smile off their faces". Trying to find a copy of it as it sums up the whole shortsightedness of the whole thing.

PeadarCo

CrabRevolution wrote: »

You claim the EU changed too much and wasn't the same thing the UK joined, but some of the biggest UK "complaints" about the EU (Trade deals, fishing, standards etc.) are things they agreed to on day one in 1973. It's farcical to claim it took them 40 years to realise they couldn't negotiate their own trade deals anymore.

I didn't argue that. It shouldn't be a controversial statement that any organisation that wants to stay in existence needs to advocate for said existence to its members/citizens/customers etc. They need show the relevant people that it benefits them

The EUs situation is complicated because its ultimately still a multi national organisation whose power comes from its members. The perception of the EU in the eyes of many Brexiters and its perception that's important the EU was some sort of evil entity that forced things on the UK. Obviously this is rubbish but that has largely been driven by domestic UK politics over decades which has ignored/not celebrated UK And EU successes and used the EU as a punching bag. Compare that the actions of Irish politicians over the years. Even in more recent years people like Phil Hogan have had their active roles well highlighted in the Irish media. Even Paschal Donohoe recent role. All this shows that Ireland is part of driving the EU. But that's down to local politics and media. Members themselves have to let people know that the EU is the nation states. Brexit ironically has been very good for the EU as a whole because its brought the important but boring stuff you wouldn't normally see into full view.

It will be interesting to see the long term impact on the UK when reality sets in. It will be interesting to see how voters punish the Tories.

View

PeadarCo wrote: »

While I agree with your point re British politics and the EU on a more general point every organisation changes country, company charity etc. If the EU wants to survive it has to change in a manner that suits its members.

The EU, unlike virtually every other international organisation, does regularly “change in a manner that suits its members” - those changes are what Treaties such as Lisbon, Nice etc cover.

The problem as we have seen in our referenda is that the negotiations are carried out by our government on our behalf but the average member of the public has little idea of what points the government is negotiating on, much less whether the end result of those negotiations is a good one.

PeadarCo wrote: »

The same for the Irish or any nation state(assuming no wars etc). Will every country like every change the EU makes no it won't. You can see that with some of the diverse membership options it has, Euro, non Euro, Efta etc. Same for a company that sells stuff they will make changes overtime which will keep some customers, hopefully attract new ones but will lose existing ones at the same time.

Regarding the membership options point. EFTA is not a membership option for the EU. It is a separate organisation. Also issues such as the Euro and, yes, Schengen are NOT membership options - they are just as much fundamental aims of the EU as the Customs Union/Single Market is. The only “option” related to them is one of timing - ie when a member state adopts them.

And, yes, Schengen does raise a big question mark over our EU membership since currently our government is more interested in acting as “Stormont South”, rather than as an independent EU member state.

PeadarCo wrote: »

So you are right whether a country stays as part of an organisation is down to domestic politics the changes or more importantly perceived changes within the organisation have an impact. If Scotland breaks away from the UK, it won't be as simple as Scotlands population making a purely domestic decision. The perceived actions of Westminster will have an impact. As you have pointed out it is the perceived changes in the EU from the UKs perspective that have caused some of the issue. So it's not a purely domestic issue even though I'd agree with you that the actions of the EU have been warped by domestic politicians for a combination of ideological and short term electoral gains.

The “perception” point is a good one but again the fault with that lies at member state level. Virtually every one of the changes at EU level that have happened since we joined the ECs/EU were set out - and agreed to by us - in the first “summit” (of Heads of State) that we (and the U.K.) attended in Dec 72 (ie prior to joining). We (and the U.K.) knew the overall plan for what was coming, so arguments about those being a sudden surprise are completely bogus.

In the case of the U.K., the problem has never been about the changes to the ECs/EU per se, but more about an irrational hatred of all things European by a significant chunk of the Brexit supporters. Even an agreement to abolish the EU in its entirety would have left a sizeable chunk of them complaining that it didn’t go far enough.

View

Hermy wrote: »

Referenda are entirely a domestic issue and it is not for the EU to convince the electorate of a member state which way to vote.

This is absolutely correct.

The EU Treaties explicitly state that the EU is founded on the principle of representative democracy (not direct democracy).

Any calling of a referendum is a political decision taken at member state level and is arguably a violation of the representative democracy principle.

PeadarCo

View wrote: »

The EU, unlike virtually every other international organisation, does regularly “change in a manner that suits its members” - those changes are what Treaties such as Lisbon, Nice etc cover.

The problem as we have seen in our referenda is that the negotiations are carried out by our government on our behalf but the average member of the public has little idea of what points the government is negotiating on, much less whether the end result of those negotiations is a good one.



Regarding the membership options point. EFTA is not a membership option for the EU. It is a separate organisation. Also issues such as the Euro and, yes, Schengen are NOT membership options - they are just as much fundamental aims of the EU as the Customs Union/Single Market is. The only “option” related to them is one of timing - ie when a member state adopts them.

And, yes, Schengen does raise a big question mark over our EU membership since currently our government is more interested in acting as “Stormont South”, rather than as an independent EU member state.




The “perception” point is a good one but again the fault with that lies at member state level. Virtually every one of the changes at EU level that have happened since we joined the ECs/EU were set out - and agreed to by us - in the first “summit” (of Heads of State) that we (and the U.K.) attended in Dec 72 (ie prior to joining). We (and the U.K.) knew the overall plan for what was coming, so arguments about those being a sudden surprise are completely bogus.

In the case of the U.K., the problem has never been about the changes to the ECs/EU per se, but more about an irrational hatred of all things European by a significant chunk of the Brexit supporters. Even an agreement to abolish the EU in its entirety would have left a sizeable chunk of them complaining that it didn’t go far enough.

For some bizarre reason you seem to think I am arguing in favour of Brexiters. I'm not however you do have to look at and try and understand why they succeeded. We have many politicians in Ireland to throw out the exact same rubbish. Many of the arguments/tactics used in the Brexit referendum were also used to some sucess in Irish referenda that related to EU treaties.

In relation to the various treatises they are exactly my point. In terms of UK politicians they did not take responsibility for the UKs acceptance of them similar to Irish politicians for at least FG, FF and Labour? They didn't. This where perception comes in. Successive UK governments not only agreed to the changes but would also have had a big say in how these treaties were formulated. However they were portrayed as EU dictates that were being imposed instead of agreements that UK governments not only supported but were actively involved in the creation of.

Even in current negotiations look at how the EU has been portrayed by UK politicians. My biggest criticism of Corbyn and Labour is that they did dam all to challenge these perceptions. Perceptions are important remember the Backstop was a major EU concession but was portrayed as the EU trying to control the UK.

My point about the EFTA is that there a various classes of EU membership/association. However the bigger the trade deal/big the integration with the EU the more a country has to share power with the other states that make up the EU. If you look at Norway, Turkey, Canada and Ireland for example each country has a different relationship with the EU. Ireland being part of the EU and the other countries having a more limited dealings with the EU to different degrees. All options available to the UK but you can't have your cake and eat it as the Tories have demanded. This perception that the EU has punished the UK for not giving in to this has dominated the UK media or at least from my limited view point.

To bring in back to UK politics. The UK is a very divided country and this will have consequences when the costs hit home. I still don't see Labour the main opposition party calling the Tories out for their clueless and wishful thinking. Corbyn was mute, his policy indistinguishable from Teresa May's. It will be interesting to see how the poorer areas of England react when Brexit hits home. The sooner UK and especially English politicians are honest about the compromises that the UK is faced with the better. Otherwise they are storing up a large amount of disgruntled voters regardless of the outcome of negotiations.

O'Neill

To make a more general point, i've never seen anything like this before. I've always hated the Tories but I can at least admit that they adhere to democracy and rule of law...this lot however. Probably up there with one of the most corrupt Governments in the UK in decades. I don't know what's more amazing, how corrupt they are or how brazen they are because they know they're getting away with it, very sad times.

Sam Russell

The lock down on Leicester was put onto the expensive Leicester area, but they have released a large are of it - the Tory voting areas, but kept it in the Labour and LibDem voting areas. Coincidence?

The majority for the Tories is reduced to 78 following the Grayling failing to get the chair of the security committee. They removed the whip from there own candidate - can you believe that?

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

The majority for the Tories is reduced to 78 following the Grayling failing to get the chair of the security committee. They removed the whip from there own candidate - can you believe that?

Yes.


They could deselect 21 more MP's like they did last September.

And another 21.

And another 21 after that.

And another 21 because SF won't be showing up for the votes.



And they'd still have the option of buying off the DUP with a billion or two.

At which point their majority would only be a little smaller than the Lib Dems, who might be desperate enough to go into coalition with them again.


It's unlikely but not impossible that Boris could lose 100 MP's and still be PM.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes.


They could deselect 21 more MP's like they did last September.

And another 21.

And another 21 after that.

And another 21 because SF won't be showing up for the votes.



And they'd still have the option of buying off the DUP with a billion or two.

At which point their majority would only be a little smaller than the Lib Dems, who might be desperate enough to go into coalition with them again.


It's unlikely but not impossible that Boris could lose 100 MP's and still be PM.

Long before that, the knives would be out. I suspect poor showing in May in Scotland will see the heave* start. He has surrounded him with low flyers and low lifes, so it is only a matter of time before incompetence or infidelity gets him.

*(Of course, they do not do heaves, just knives in the back or just straight to the heart).

Sam Russell

Just to add the old corruption element.

Cummings old mates appear to have their trotters into the golden trough.

£3 million contract awarded without tenders to PR company closely associated to Tory grandees and Cummings.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/03/topham-guerin-pr-firm-covid-19-contract-conservative-party

Joe_ Public

I see where Robert Jenrick - covid rule breaker and planning law breaker - will be introducing new regulations this week that will make it even easier for his tory fat cat developer pals to bypass planning red tape and cream off even bigger profits.

And knighthoods for Russians, hard brexiteers, family relatives and anyone else owed a bung.

They're laughing at the public, outright plain mocking them to their faces.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I see where Robert Jenrick - covid rule breaker and planning law breaker - will be introducing new regulations this week that will make it even easier for his tory fat cat developer pals to bypass planning red tape and cream off even bigger profits.

And knighthoods for Russians, hard brexiteers, family relatives and anyone else owed a bung.

They're laughing at the public, outright plain mocking them to their faces.

Not knighthoods, but peerages - that is a seat in the upper house - the House of Lords, so they can vote on laws of the land.

Corruption that knows no bounds.

Joe_ Public

It's corruption with two fingers raised, no accountability or even anticipation of it. And real scary thing is if this is what they feel so comfortable doing in plain sight, what must they be getting up to in the shadows?