Brexit Penny Dropping?

[manxman1980]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

So you have no real evidence to back up your assertion that Brexiteers want to deny Scotland independence?

Just your own interactions .

As a Brexit supporter I’ve interacted with you online and told you that I wouldn’t have a problem with Scottish independence if that was the will of the people. 

Your claim is a bit flimsy don’t you think?

You say that but then hide behind the "once in a generation" vote line.  Much like how Farage stated that had the results of the EU referendum been reversed he would have continued to campaign for further referendums based on how close the results were.  

Drop that condition and I might start to change my mind and believe that you would genuinely support a further Scottish Independence referendum.

[woolley]

16 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Interesting that you flit between the Island of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.  Don't forget that Eire left the United Kingdom and is doing pretty well for itself (albeit that they have had many difficult years as well).

Sure, but the pro-Union campaign used EU membership as a way to persuade voters not to vote in favour of Scottish Independence.

A few years later many of those on the pro-Union side campaigned successfully for the UK as a whole to leave the EU.

Therefore there has been a significant change since the Independence Referendum that fundamentally alters the equation for voters in the independence referendum.  

If you are pro-Union then now is probably the best time to allow a second independence referendum and clearly define due to the turmoil that the SNP now finds itself in and the opinion polls showing a decline in support for independence.  It would also be an ideal time to establish further rules about the timings between such referendums giving the late of definition currently in place. 

I didn't really flit between the UK and GB. I was focusing more on the UK within GB because of the specific, in many ways tragic, factors relating to Ireland.

But I can't really argue with much you have said there. I'm actually surprised that the Nats haven't made more of accusing the British state of politically motivated harassment in view of the close attention paid by law enforcement to those at the top of the SNP in recent years from Salmond onwards. Unless of course they are in such disarray that they're all too busy fighting each other.

[The Voice of Reason]

14 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

You say that but then hide behind the "once in a generation" vote line.  Much like how Farage stated that had the results of the EU referendum been reversed he would have continued to campaign for further referendums based on how close the results were.  

Drop that condition and I might start to change my mind and believe that you would genuinely support a further Scottish Independence referendum.

Again whatever Farage said is a moot point. Because we all know ( or should know) that however close a Remain win may have been he would not ,quite rightly , have got his second ( or third etc ) referendum. 
 

To be honest what you believe about me supporting a further Scottish Independence referendum is not really a concern to me.

But for the record I would say perhaps a further such referendum in no less than 20 years would be appropriate and just about fit in with the “ once in a generation “ understanding. 

That’s not hiding behind anything. It’s being entirely open. That’s the timescale that was deemed appropriate, not every couple of years.

[Ringy Rose]

23 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Why blame Brexit?

Blame the Spanish authorities

Because I didn’t have the delay when we were in the EU?

But it’s always someone else’s fault with Brexitists, isn’t it. The EU, Remainers, the wokerati, immigrants. It’s never Brexitists’ fault that the shit sandwich they demanded did, indeed, turn out to be full of shit.

20 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You said it was “just like Nazi genocide” which most people would associate with gas chambers, Auschwitz, Belsen etc

The gas chambers were, of course, at the end of the road, not the start of the road. The Germans didn’t just wake up one day and decide to start shovelling people into ovens, their leaders had spent 10-15 years building them up to it.

Braverman and Miriam Cates’ witterings this week- it’s all the fault of foreigners, judges, “the elite”, experts, immigrants, and they’re all enemies of The People, and if we don’t make more white babies then it’ll be an “existential crisis”- is remarkably similar to the discourse in Germany in the early 1930s.

If you think @John Wright is “fucking disgusting” but don’t extend the description to Braverman then, well, it says more about you than him.

[woolley]

It is unhealthy though, isn't it? This constitutional navel gazing where the major issue of our time is about whether to break up the country that our forebears have built together over the last 300 years. A great shame that everything has become so cynical and polarised that there is no appreciation of the collective advantages of the UK, with apparently no effort to build a more equitable and equable society that everyone would feel proud to belong to. Utopian sentiments, maybe, and an indictment of governments for many years that things have reached such a pass that would have been thinkable in my childhood. I guess everything has its time.

[manxman1980]

57 minutes ago, woolley said:

It is unhealthy though, isn't it? This constitutional navel gazing where the major issue of our time is about whether to break up the country that our forebears have built together over the last 300 years. A great shame that everything has become so cynical and polarised that there is no appreciation of the collective advantages of the UK, with apparently no effort to build a more equitable and equable society that everyone would feel proud to belong to. Utopian sentiments, maybe, and an indictment of governments for many years that things have reached such a pass that would have been thinkable in my childhood. I guess everything has its time.

Perhaps some tangible benefits of Brexit would be beneficial and reduce the desire to break up the UK.  I genuinely mean tangible benefits not some vague notion of sovereignty.

Since the UK has left the EU what has actually been done to build a more equitable and equal society?  Well, not much, because the successive Tory Governments have been full of self-serving cretins egged on by a bunch of wannabe's also keen to line their pockets (Farage).  They have no real interest in making Brexit a success for anyone but themselves and even then they know if it does not work out they can fall back on other jobs such as writing articles for the Daily Mail (Nadine Dorries), having their own TV show (Nigel Farage), emigrating to Italy (Rocco Forte) or various other sidelines that the average person cannot access. 

[woolley]

2 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Perhaps some tangible benefits of Brexit would be beneficial and reduce the desire to break up the UK.  I genuinely mean tangible benefits not some vague notion of sovereignty.

Since the UK has left the EU what has actually been done to build a more equitable and equal society?  Well, not much, because the successive Tory Governments have been full of self-serving cretins egged on by a bunch of wannabe's also keen to line their pockets (Farage).  They have no real interest in making Brexit a success for anyone but themselves and even then they know if it does not work out they can fall back on other jobs such as writing articles for the Daily Mail (Nadine Dorries), having their own TV show (Nigel Farage), emigrating to Italy (Rocco Forte) or various other sidelines that the average person cannot access. 

I don't think sovereignty is in any way a vague notion, but that's been done to death here, so let's put it aside. I agree that the quality of governance has been abysmal, and I wouldn't restrict that to the Tories. Blair's governments were full of self-serving, attention seeking no-marks too. The ruling class eh?

We need a different approach because leaving it totally to the market is an old idea by a privileged elite that hasn't worked for society. The trouble is that globalisation is based on it. I had hopes for the current government (under Boris) when it first came to power. It had a broad mandate in England and Wales at least, and seemed serious in its "levelling up" agenda. It knew that it was in its own interests to deliver for the whole country because its future electoral life depended on it. It's a pity that the Covid catastrophe derailed it within 3 months of coming into office and then all bets were off. Would it have come to pass? Would things have been different? The cynical will say of course not, but we'll never know.

[manxman1980]

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

I don't think sovereignty is in any way a vague notion, but that's been done to death here, so let's put it aside. I agree that the quality of governance has been abysmal, and I wouldn't restrict that to the Tories. Blair's governments were full of self-serving, attention seeking no-marks too. The ruling class eh?

I disagree on the sovereignty point because I can see the fact that we still have to comply with the rules set out in any trade agreements and that will impact on the decision making abilities with Parliament.  I would also point to the fact that "illegal" immigration is getting worse and not better as evidence for us not having any greater control over our borders than we did before (whilst also paying the French even more than before to try and stop the small boats).   I agree though that it has been done to death and we are not going to agree.

On the political class I think we do agree although I would put the early years of the Blair Government as being less self-serving but power corrupts and the longer they remained in Government the worse it got. 

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

We need a different approach because leaving it totally to the market is an old idea by a privileged elite that hasn't worked for society. The trouble is that globalisation is based on it. I had hopes for the current government (under Boris) when it first came to power. It had a broad mandate in England and Wales at least, and seemed serious in its "levelling up" agenda. It knew that it was in its own interests to deliver for the whole country because its future electoral life depended on it. It's a pity that the Covid catastrophe derailed it within 3 months of coming into office and then all bets were off. Would it have come to pass? Would things have been different? The cynical will say of course not, but we'll never know.

The Tory party have been great at pithy slogans, "Get Brexit Done", "Hands, Face, Space", "Levelling up" and "Stop the Boats" but they are all pretty meaningless with many having no real substance behind them.  

The Government under Boris was always going to be a disaster.  This is the man who hedged his bets over Brexit before deciding which side stood the most chance of getting him to be Prime Minister.  As Foreign Secretary he provided to be inept and was nothing but a thorn in May's side.

When he became Prime Minister he got rid of most of the semi-competent ministers to replace them with loyalists and hardline Brexiteers.

The resounding election victory only happened as he replayed messages around Project Fear (that the left would take the country back into the EU supported by how difficult May had proven it was to get anything agreed) and was up against someone who the right wing press played up as being a communist who would take everything you own away. 

May's time as PM will probably be looked upon favourably by Historians given the balancing act she had to play and the difficult circumstances in which she found herself.

The UK needs real electoral reform urgently.  It needs to get rid of the silly two party system where it is all about us v them and no-one wants to work together to build a better country for the people.   

[woolley]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

I disagree on the sovereignty point because I can see the fact that we still have to comply with the rules set out in any trade agreements and that will impact on the decision making abilities with Parliament.  I would also point to the fact that "illegal" immigration is getting worse and not better as evidence for us not having any greater control over our borders than we did before (whilst also paying the French even more than before to try and stop the small boats).   I agree though that it has been done to death and we are not going to agree.

On the political class I think we do agree although I would put the early years of the Blair Government as being less self-serving but power corrupts and the longer they remained in Government the worse it got. 

The Tory party have been great at pithy slogans, "Get Brexit Done", "Hands, Face, Space", "Levelling up" and "Stop the Boats" but they are all pretty meaningless with many having no real substance behind them.  

The Government under Boris was always going to be a disaster.  This is the man who hedged his bets over Brexit before deciding which side stood the most chance of getting him to be Prime Minister.  As Foreign Secretary he provided to be inept and was nothing but a thorn in May's side.

When he became Prime Minister he got rid of most of the semi-competent ministers to replace them with loyalists and hardline Brexiteers.

The resounding election victory only happened as he replayed messages around Project Fear (that the left would take the country back into the EU supported by how difficult May had proven it was to get anything agreed) and was up against someone who the right wing press played up as being a communist who would take everything you own away. 

May's time as PM will probably be looked upon favourably by Historians given the balancing act she had to play and the difficult circumstances in which she found herself.

The UK needs real electoral reform urgently.  It needs to get rid of the silly two party system where it is all about us v them and no-one wants to work together to build a better country for the people.   

Considering we've laid the sovereignty issue aside, it still won't lie down, will it? That's the divisive nature of this debate. I don't hysterically condemn everyone who sees things differently to me as stupid, although I do think many of the arguments are misguided. There is a difference between entering into international agreements as a nation state with sole democratic scrutiny and self-determination as to what we sign up to in every instance (weighing the pros and cons of course, and compromising where necessary), and entering into something frequently not in our interests, negotiated by a collective of 28 as only one voice at the table, and qualified majority voting as the standard method of adoption. We are better than that, or at least we ought to be. Examples are legion, but I cite the Common Agricultural Policy as one glaring example. I am convinced that history will show this to be the correct decision, but as with everything, we shall see. Nobody has the wisdom of the future at their behest. The UK can control its borders now. Whether it does so is another matter entirely. Many of the howls of horror and indignation from some quarters internationally around Brexit are disingenuous. We are told that the Biden administration strongly disapproves, as did Obama. Would they sign up to a similar EU style diminution of US sovereignty? Would they hell. They might think it good enough for the Brits, but the US recognises no authority, law or court as superior to its own. Hypocrites.

Running through your points quickly:

Blair was the epitome of being in power without standing for anything. Despite having little empathy with them, I can understand why the left despised him.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that it was altruistic in nature, but I think levelling up did have substance if only because it was electorally self-interested. You have laid out the cynical view I mentioned, but there were some good plans to spread the joy around the UK before Covid descended and wrecked the finances of pretty much the whole developed world. As I said, we shall never know. At the very least, you cannot dispute that like or loathe Johnson, his Dec 2019 government was dealt the shittiest of hands virtually from the off with the pandemic, then the supplies shortages to follow, and the war in Europe bringing high inflation, hard on their heels. Any government would have struggled. Of course the antis blame all of these ills on Brexit. Compare to the benign run with the economy that Blair inherited from 1997 on until he marched gung-ho into Iraq with Dubya six years later.

I'm not a fan of Boris myself, incidentally. He was not a committed Brexiteer, or a committed anything to be frank. You don't become a genuine believer in such a momentous proposition by going home on Friday undecided and emerging on Monday having had divine inspiration, but that's typical Johnson. He was more of a muddler through; an opportunist, but he did seem to be the only player on the stage who could deliver Brexit out of a seething, rogue Parliament, and for that, history will eventually probably judge him kindly despite his ducking and diving along the way.

I agree that surrounding yourself with yes men isn't a good way to run anything. You need dissenting voices around to ground you. I don't think the "right wing press" or media in general is as powerful nowadays as has been supposed. Corbyn was simply never electable because his politics were too much for the country to stomach. You never win Britain from the hard left. Most of the country simply isn't of that persuasion. The company he kept was none too tasty either. No wonder Starmer wants to banish him and his henchmen. May was simply out of her depth, and was probably glad to be out of the cauldron in the end.

I've never thought much of PR, thinking of it as a recipe for paralysis and weak government, but at the same time I very much concur that the main parties are looking spent to almost everybody. I'm not sure what the answer is, but there is little goodwill towards politicians in general. They're seen as part of a remote elite, and the country is feeling disenfranchised and ignored. It's similar in other countries, notably France.

Anyhow, thanks for the thoughtful and sober points you made. Infinitely more edifying than intemperate and moronic fantasising about gas chambers and the like. Interesting times for sure.

[manxman1980]

11 hours ago, woolley said:

Considering we've laid the sovereignty issue aside, it still won't lie down, will it? That's the divisive nature of this debate. 

No, it won't.  The UK is no longer a world superpower and to trade successfully on the global stage we will end up having to compromise on standards etc.  When it comes to the US, China & the EU the UK is not a big enough market for us to have a strong hand.  The US is hardly rushing to get a trade deal in place.

11 hours ago, woolley said:

I'm not for a moment suggesting that it was altruistic in nature, but I think levelling up did have substance if only because it was electorally self-interested. You have laid out the cynical view I mentioned, but there were some good plans to spread the joy around the UK before Covid descended and wrecked the finances of pretty much the whole developed world. As I said, we shall never know. At the very least, you cannot dispute that like or loathe Johnson, his Dec 2019 government was dealt the shittiest of hands virtually from the off with the pandemic, then the supplies shortages to follow, and the war in Europe bringing high inflation, hard on their heels. Any government would have struggled. Of course the antis blame all of these ills on Brexit. Compare to the benign run with the economy that Blair inherited from 1997 on until he marched gung-ho into Iraq with Dubya six years later.

Even the pledges were misleading though.  The new Police Officers were to replace those that had been cut by a previous Tory Government.  Building new hospitals turned out to include refurbishing existing wards and there are still huge question marks over HS2.  Sure Covid had an impact on these plans but it was clear even before then that they were simply soundbites to win an election.

Brexit is not to blame for all the economic ills, however, it has made them all worse.  EU countries have recovered much quicker than the UK has.  The UK faces skills shortages across many sectors as there is no longer freedom of movement and the "bonfire of EU legislation" looks to be getting scrapped because it has become apparent just how much damage that would do.

11 hours ago, woolley said:

I'm not a fan of Boris myself, incidentally. He was not a committed Brexiteer, or a committed anything to be frank. You don't become a genuine believer in such a momentous proposition by going home on Friday undecided and emerging on Monday having had divine inspiration, but that's typical Johnson. He was more of a muddler through; an opportunist, but he did seem to be the only player on the stage who could deliver Brexit out of a seething, rogue Parliament, and for that, history will eventually probably judge him kindly despite his ducking and diving along the way.

I doubt history will judge him kindly. Johnson lied, illegally prorogued Parliament, broke his own rules (and now tries to pretend he didn't understand them) and generally cause chaos.  The fact that Rishi Sunak seems like stability says something about Johnson's time.

11 hours ago, woolley said:

I agree that surrounding yourself with yes men isn't a good way to run anything. You need dissenting voices around to ground you. I don't think the "right wing press" or media in general is as powerful nowadays as has been supposed. Corbyn was simply never electable because his politics were too much for the country to stomach. You never win Britain from the hard left. Most of the country simply isn't of that persuasion. The company he kept was none too tasty either. No wonder Starmer wants to banish him and his henchmen. May was simply out of her depth, and was probably glad to be out of the cauldron in the end.

Starmer seems more of a statesman than most other options but I am wary of the way he has quietly rowed back on promises he made when elected as the Labour Party Leader.   No problem with him becoming PM but would need to be part of a progressive coalition here the Labour Party needs to compromise and work with their partners.

11 hours ago, woolley said:

I've never thought much of PR, thinking of it as a recipe for paralysis and weak government, but at the same time I very much concur that the main parties are looking spent to almost everybody. I'm not sure what the answer is, but there is little goodwill towards politicians in general. They're seen as part of a remote elite, and the country is feeling disenfranchised and ignored. It's similar in other countries, notably France.

PR works well in many countries and we also have examples within the UK (Scottish Parliament & Welsh Assembly) where it works well.  It is just a very different form of Government to what the UK is used to and it would take some getting used too.  It should, however, help re-engage those who have become disenfranchised with the choice between Labour & Tory Parties. 

11 hours ago, woolley said:

Anyhow, thanks for the thoughtful and sober points you made. Infinitely more edifying than intemperate and moronic fantasising about gas chambers and the like. Interesting times for sure.

There is no getting away from the fact that part (certainly not all) of the Brexit vote was motivated by racist views.  Much of that may not have been done through the official Leave campaign but the arguments about Turkey joining the EU and everyone moving here was certainly based on provoking and engaging racists.

I also agree with John that some of the tactics used during the Leave campaign and subsequently by the Tory party do have similarities with the tactics used by the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1930's.  I don't believe it could ever move asfar as ghetto's, gas chambers and genocide but that was the end game and not the start,

[woolley]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

I also agree with John that some of the tactics used during the Leave campaign and subsequently by the Tory party do have similarities with the tactics used by the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1930's.  I don't believe it could ever move asfar as ghetto's, gas chambers and genocide but that was the end game and not the start,

I take your other comments as the opposing viewpoint, fair enough and time will tell, but I won't let that go. All of the stuff that was spewed out on here the other night is borderline crazy. Whatever you think of UK government policy, it's the most ethnically and sexually diverse cabinet there has ever been, headed by an Asian PM, for goodness sake. I don't think they'd be advocating Nazism in any form, do you?

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

I take your other comments as the opposing viewpoint, fair enough and time will tell, but I won't let that go. All of the stuff that was spewed out on here the other night is borderline crazy. Whatever you think of UK government policy, it's the most ethnically and sexually diverse cabinet there has ever been, headed by an Asian PM, for goodness sake. I don't think they'd be advocating Nazism in any form, do you?

Let me be clear.  I am comparing the tactics and some of the rhetoric used around Brexit but more specifically by people like Suella Bravermann to that used by the National Socialists in Germany during the 1930's. 

As another example look at the focus on the "illegal immigrants" and small boat crossings.  The actual numbers of people entering the UK that way is tiny compared to other forms of migration.  They also are not "illegal" immigrants.  They are in the most part asylum seekers forced to use these boats as the UK has closed all the legitimate means of arriving.  This is something the Government has been challenged on many times and always tries to avoid answering.

In modern terms there is a lot of "othering" going on.  It is all rather ironic considering the make-up of the cabinet these days but the Tory party is leaning further and further to the right.  Lt me reiterate though I do not expect this to end up with gas chambers.

[woolley]

31 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Let me be clear.  I am comparing the tactics and some of the rhetoric used around Brexit but more specifically by people like Suella Bravermann to that used by the National Socialists in Germany during the 1930's. 

As another example look at the focus on the "illegal immigrants" and small boat crossings.  The actual numbers of people entering the UK that way is tiny compared to other forms of migration.  They also are not "illegal" immigrants.  They are in the most part asylum seekers forced to use these boats as the UK has closed all the legitimate means of arriving.  This is something the Government has been challenged on many times and always tries to avoid answering.

In modern terms there is a lot of "othering" going on.  It is all rather ironic considering the make-up of the cabinet these days but the Tory party is leaning further and further to the right.  Lt me reiterate though I do not expect this to end up with gas chambers.

I don't think Suella Braverman would have lasted very long in Hitler's Germany, let alone be in government.

The Albanians who form a considerable percentage of the boat arrivals are not fleeing anything and are not forced to come to the UK at all. They are simply economic migrants ducking the system. Why they are put up in hotels and not flown straight back to Tirana is anyone's guess. I know that the boat people are a small proportion of total arrivals.

Edited May 19, 2023 by woolley

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

As another example look at the focus on the "illegal immigrants" and small boat crossings.  The actual numbers of people entering the UK that way is tiny compared to other forms of migration.  They also are not "illegal" immigrants.  They are in the most part asylum seekers forced to use these boats as the UK has closed all the legitimate means of arriving.  

Most of this focus is on, (what may be considered legitimate concerns), as to what impact the arrival of a relatively large number of people arriving in small communities will have on the local infrastructure. Schools, doctors, hospitals etc

It doesn’t mean that those raising these issues are racist.

 Consider the reaction here to Alfs target of raising the population of the Island to 100,000. Very similar in lots of cases

Edited May 19, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Addition of last sentence

[manxman1980]

50 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Most of this focus is on, (what may be considered legitimate concerns), as to what impact the arrival of a relatively large number of people arriving in small communities will have on the local infrastructure. Schools, doctors, hospitals etc

It doesn’t mean that those raising these issues are racist.

 Consider the reaction here to Alfs target of raising the population of the Island to 100,000. Very similar in lots of cases

They only end up in these small communities because that is where the Government put them.

Normally into an area that doesn't vote for the party in power so as not to upset their core supporters.