/ Explain this away

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Pete Pozman - on 22 Nov 2016
Jon Stewart - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I'm afraid that reminds me a bit too much of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U

I recommend

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2016/02/19/yanss-069-the-black-and-white-fallacy/

It's a good listen, I think you'd find it helpful.
cap'nChino - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Why is is time to decide?

Doesn't seem like much of a choice.
damhan-allaidh on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I am not convinced that there's a grey area with Richard Spencer. When I was home last week, swastikas were painted on the homes of Muslim and Jewish families, a first in my lifetime in my town. I think it's justifiable to be black and white about that: painting swastikas on people's homes is wrong and bad full stop.
captain paranoia - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

That's a 'like' for the third sentence. The second sentence would get a big old dislike. Where is 'home' that people are painting swastikas (shudders)?
damhan-allaidh on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

NE USA. Race relations have not been all sunshine and roses, but its long been a very mixed community: Greek, Italian, followed by Lebanese ( my parents live on a road with an Arabic name dating from the 1950s) Vietnamese, Brazilian Central American, Indian, large African American community, Muslims, Hindus, Jewish, Orthodox, Maronite, etc. and by and large it's been a healthy, friendly inclusive town.
captain paranoia - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Sad and worrying.
Pete Pozman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

It's time to describe what we see. Trump is a Nazi or just a normal idiot being used by Nazis. Anybody this side of the Atlantic who thinks Farage is a good bloke needs their noses rubbing in the fact that he is a Nazi or a deluded fantasist being used by Nazis.
All those Trumpists and Brexiteers who have felt "left behind" don't climb aboard their train; it's going to take us all to hell. Wake up.
KevinD - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> It's time to describe what we see. Trump is a Nazi or just a normal idiot being used by Nazis.

Or he is someone using the Nazis. Dunno where he will end up.
His decisions today dont exactly make things clearer.
Pete Pozman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

That simply won't do. Farage keeps telling us the world has changed. He's right. But we have seen this before. Describe what you see. Don't try to explain it away. It won't go away.
Jon Stewart - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> I am not convinced that there's a grey area with Richard Spencer. When I was home last week, swastikas were painted on the homes of Muslim and Jewish families, a first in my lifetime in my town. I think it's justifiable to be black and white about that: painting swastikas on people's homes is wrong and bad full stop.

Sorry if my post was ambiguous. I wasn't implying that there was any grey area with respect to Richard Spencer. I have a problem with the OP:

> Which side are you on?
> It's time to decide.

Which I interpreted to mean, you're either with Trump, Spencer, Le Pen, Brexit for xenophobic reasons, etc or you're against them all. I think there are countless shades of grey, not two sides, one black and one white (whichever way round you want to put them!). While I've set out in great detail on another thread my own position on the relationship between voting Trump and racism, I think it's wrong to paint Trump and Trump supporters as identical to Spencer and white supremacists and Nazis. It's a classic black-and-white fallacy, exactly the tactic Dubya uses in the clip.
Postmanpat on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> It's time to decide.

Well Trump says he's decided, for today at least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38069469

The problem to me seems not that he is some sort of white supremacist neo nazi but that he's all over the place. He contradicts himself daily and seems either not to understand how the constitution and powers of the Presidency (let alone the appointment of UK ambassadors) work, or not to care. He is therefore a very dangerous loose cannon who seems to be employing other loose cannons as advisors.


krikoman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Which side are you on?


> It's time to decide.

And what do you propose to do about it? I imagine I've got very little influence about what happens in the US.
It's bad enough trying to get our government to do anything good, like not selling off NHSP or to stop supporting Israel.

So I'm all ears, suggest a suggestion.

I already decided I'm not a racist and that Nazism was bad, about 38 years ago, so if that's what you after consider it done.
Jon Stewart - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> That simply won't do. Farage keeps telling us the world has changed. He's right. But we have seen this before. Describe what you see. Don't try to explain it away. It won't go away.

Firstly, I'm not sure that I buy the fact that the world has changed. I certainly don't take Nigel Farage's word for it.

Trump won the election (not the popular vote) because Clinton was a dreadful candidate, not because people's politics have gone from sane to Nazi. We're leaving the EU because some pig-f*cking prick called a referendum for completely spurious reasons and people who don't normally vote thought turned up to express their opinions that they've always held - they just don't normally get offered the chance to vote for something that seems superficially like a vote against immigration.

To describe what I see: The Nazis support Trump. This was already obvious. They feel emboldened by his victory, just as racists in the UK felt emboldened by Brexit. This is a bad state of affairs. A Clinton victory would have been better. I don't know what policies or actions are the best way to fight the "alt right" in the states; I don't understand what you want me to say, but I don't think painting whole spread of political opinion with the nazi brush is the way forward, I think it's fallacious and deeply unhelpful.

Will that do?
birdie num num - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I think that you're probably a Nazi. In your own way.
It's time to reflect.
Pete Pozman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

You need to choose. This is not a time for confusion, hand wringing and havering. The alt Right, now to be called the Nazis, have driven Trump's campaign. The KKK are marching and celebrating. What is it, do you suppose, they are celebrating?
This is the time for the Republicans to stand up for their constitution. For the Tories to howl Farage out of town.
Let's join together to damn the buggers.
David Martin - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Choose what? To dump Trump and support Hillary? In case you missed it, the election is over. Besides, supporting Hillary would just as readily have had us some new conflict elsewhere in the world.

Another Iraq War, or the swastika-daubing idiots who already exist feeling the freedom to more openly express their views? I'd prefer the later over the former any day.
Big Ger - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> Choose what?

To live in Pete P's fear filled world of hate and strife.

cb294 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

"Hate and strife" is what minorities in many Western countries, asylum seekers in Saxony, post Brexit Britain, Latinos in the US experience, now that the election/referendum results have emboldened the racist scum to crawl out from under the rocks. You can read some of this bile even on this forum. There is also no point denying it, I can hear of this first hand from my overseas students.

Pete is quite right in that it is the duty of everyone claiming to support basic human rights and democratic principles to stamp this phenomenon out and kick the Nazis back to where they belong. In the context of a UK forum, it is only fair to remind the Tories of their duty to control the forces they unleashed by calling the referendum. The only honest alternative would be to embrace all the xenophobic incidents and societal undercurrents as official Tory policy.

No need to spell out the US and German versions, but you can see the argument.

CB
damhan-allaidh on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Fair point. I thought it seemed an atypical thing for you to say. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

Supporters of these people need to be held accountable for what they voted in. One of liberalism's weaknesses has been ( and with good intentions) moral and cultural relativism. It's created a bit of a value vacuum which neo-nazis, Tea Partiers and other unsavoury types are enthusiastically filling.

Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to cb294:

> In the context of a UK forum, it is only fair to remind the Tories of their duty to control the forces they unleashed by calling the referendum. The only honest alternative would be to embrace all the xenophobic incidents and societal undercurrents as official Tory policy.

>
And there we have it, left wing political tribalism disguised in a cloak of liberal values. I should think that the vast majority of people in the UK and particularly on UK would be very happy to condemn outright the racism and neonaziism characterised by the Richard Spencer's of this world, wherever they are. History tells us what such groups can lead to.

History also tells us, equally clearly, what left wing bigotry can led to. When those attempting, as some appear to be, to score political points by tarring a large proportion of innocent people with the brush of racism simply because they don't share their particular views on politics and economics , are prepared to condemn the equally dangerous bigotry of the far left then I'll take them seriously.

In the meantime, decent people, including the government, should stick to professing and pursuing the values of genuine democratic liberalism not trying to initiate a "for us or against us" witch hunt of the innocent.


Simon4 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to cb294:

> No need to spell out the US and German versions, but you can see the argument.

There is no argument there, only hysterical, hyperbolic jibberish, hysteria, arrogance and intolerance.

Simon4 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to cb294:

> No need to spell out the US and German versions, but you can see the argument.

And of course a complete inability to learn from experience or recognise a failing strategy, discuss with anyone of even the most marginally different opinion without a stream of offensive and immediately counter-productive and offputting abuse. Not to mention the obsessive reinforcement of failure.

jkarran - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:


That video is vile.

It's not at all clear yet where Trump is taking who is using who, to what end and who has just been swept up in this peripherally remains to be seen. That said, things aren't looking great and his campaign alone has done harm that is going to take years to heal and will likely cost lives, however his presidency turns out he should still be judged for that.
jk
KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> There is no argument there, only hysterical, hyperbolic jibberish, hysteria, arrogance and intolerance.

Well you are the expert on that approach.
jkarran - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

That was supposed to read: It's not at all clear yet where Trump is taking America, who is using who...

Edit function isn't working for some reason.
jk
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to cb294:

> ... it is the duty of everyone claiming to support basic human rights and democratic principles to stamp this phenomenon out

> it is only fair to remind the Tories of their duty to control the forces they unleashed by calling the referendum.

Isn't it a bit weird to laud democratic principles at the same time as deploring the calling of a referendum and disliking the fact that people got a chance -- for the first time in a generation -- to actually vote about the EU?
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to the thread:

Maajid Nawaz -- one of our most important commentators today -- on this topic:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/23/trump-and-the-triumphant-trolls-what-s-their-secret...
David Martin - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> his campaign alone has done harm that is going to take years to heal and will likely cost lives, however his presidency turns out he should still be judged for that.

And how exactly would you go about preventing his campaign from doing the things you say? Censorship?

I get the impression those opposing Trump end up championing some downright illiberal policies in order to have things turn out the way they want. Which does somewhat call in to question who really acts in the interests of freedom and democracy.

For all we criticise Trump's end of the political spectrum, the left appears entirely blind to where the equal and opposite end of the political spectrum leads, and just how close they are to that extreme.
ChrisBrooke - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Not weird. A defining characteristic of the modern left. "Everybody has the right to agree with me!!!"
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Worth highlighting his concluding para:

"A solution would be for liberals to reject the diktats of the ctrl-left, and return to universal progressive liberalism: a genuine, skeptical, inclusive, scientific liberalism that views people as people, for the content of their character and not for the color of their skin (yes, remember that?). Only a “ctrl-left, alt-right, delete” can reset and reboot the populist travesty that has beset this very unsettling year of 2016. "
Lord_ash2000 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

When its a vote for 1 of 2 options I'm sure you can find a Neo Nazi / White Supremacist / generally just a bit racist person out there who supports either movement / political figure. It doesn't then follow that that figure is then also a Nazi.



Ramblin dave - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> And how exactly would you go about preventing his campaign from doing the things you say? Censorship?

> I get the impression those opposing Trump end up championing some downright illiberal policies in order to have things turn out the way they want. Which does somewhat call in to question who really acts in the interests of freedom and democracy.

Eh? I'd expect a politician to be very careful about the language that they use and the people whose support they accept. If a mainstream politician is happy to use borderline racist language and slow to disavow the support of outright racists then I'd expect them to take some of the responsibility for pulling racism into the mainstream, and for the consequences of that.

With regards British politics, I don't really have a problem with the mainstream right for calling the referendum, but I do have a problem with them for having spent the decades before it trying to win votes by blaming foreigners for everything that's wrong with the country. If you keep blowing the dog-whistle, you can't feign shock when you look out of the window and see that you're surrounded by a baying pack...
KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> And how exactly would you go about preventing his campaign from doing the things you say? Censorship?

Now where on earth did you get that idea from what they said? They simply said they should be judged on it not that they should be banned.
Although personally I quite like the idea of during debates having a fact checking system which pops up a nice bright message saying "talking out of arse" for any clearly false statements.
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

What do you mean by the "mainstream right"?
GrahamD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Isn't it a bit weird to laud democratic principles at the same time as deploring the calling of a referendum and disliking the fact that people got a chance -- for the first time in a generation -- to actually vote about the EU?

If only that is what they HAD voted for, or motivated them to vote.
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> ... blaming foreigners for everything that's wrong with the country.

One of the problems with this debate is that any attempt at sensible and reasonable criticism of immigration policy gets labelled as: "... blaming foreigners for everything that's wrong with the country".
KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> One of the problems with this debate is that any attempt at sensible and reasonable criticism of immigration policy gets labelled as: "... blaming foreigners for everything that's wrong with the country".

Apart from it isnt.
Some people do label it as such just as some really do blame foreigners for everything.
There seems to be a real effort to stop any debate by claiming there cant be a debate because the other side are nasty special snowflakes.
GrahamD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> One of the problems with this debate is that any attempt at sensible and reasonable criticism of immigration policy gets labelled as: "... blaming foreigners for everything that's wrong with the country".

It also gets conflated with sensible debates on EU membership.
Shani - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
If you watch that video from about 2:45 then you'll see good evidence that the Far Right have managed to develop large orange, autonomous space-hopper technology. That kind of decides it all for me.
Post edited at 13:52
galpinos on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> For all we criticise Trump's end of the political spectrum,

What end of the political spectrum are you putting Trump. He doesn't actually appear to be a Republican. "Mainstream" US politics is all reasonably right wing, regardless of the pin badge anyone wears.

jkarran - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to David Martin:
> And how exactly would you go about preventing his campaign from doing the things you say? Censorship?

Did I suggest I would? Would it be censorious for me to hold a low opinion of the man, to judge him for the divisive things he said and tolerated during his run for the presidency? Unlike Trump and his acolytes I'm not screaming "lock him up, lock him up" or advocating violence against dissenters.

> I get the impression those opposing Trump end up championing some downright illiberal policies in order to have things turn out the way they want. Which does somewhat call in to question who really acts in the interests of freedom and democracy.

That's quite some leap from what I wrote but if that's what you see, perhaps you see further or clearer than others... Or perhaps you're just flinging shit figuring it'll go unchallenged and stick.

> For all we criticise Trump's end of the political spectrum, the left appears entirely blind to where the equal and opposite end of the political spectrum leads, and just how close they are to that extreme.

Aimed at me? Where do you think I am politically, what oppressive ideas do you think I advocate, what is it this danger I pose that I'm blind to?
jk
Post edited at 14:44
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

It doesn't seem to me that Mr Pozman is advocating a witch hunt. My interpretation of the OP is that attention is being called to the way in which Mr Trump's campaign benefited from the support of the so-called alt-right (I lament the decline of plain speech: these people used to be called fascists.)

As such, to support Mr Trump is to give quiet consent to the ascendancy of fascist ideals and their advocates to the most powerful office in the world.

This doesn't mean Mr Trump is a fascist, but it is clear he has used the groundswell of anger within America to his advantage, and has been remarkably careless of the frightening ramifications of such.

- his more extreme policies clearly did not impede his campaign despite our collective shock, and are broadly supported by those with fascist tendencies.

- He spoke of registers to identify people’s religion, bans on certain groups and other horrific and blatantly extreme-right views.

- Despite this morning’s disavowal of the extreme right, since becoming President-elect he has consistently chosen candidates with far-right and anti-immigrant tendencies to lead his team.

The majority of people who supported him are a long way from fascist. They’d be rightly abhorred at the thought. But when an influential leader of the far right is celebrating Mr Trump in such visceral and joyful terms it points clearly to the sympathies he has stirred and leveraged on his way to office.

We long for certainties. I think that Mr Trump offered certainties in such impassioned yet vague terms, that the man became a template on which many people imposed their own world view. I’m not an expert, but I feel that what happened with Mr Trump’s campaign is remarkably similar in some ways to the process of ‘cold reading’: one selects and carefully researches a sympathetic audience, then produces wish-fulfilling sound bites and sweeping statements to convince. I’d be interested to hear more on this specific point: certainly Mr Trump’s ability to energise and inspire people while never spelling out the ramifications of his statements, or admitting he was wrong, is a subject worthy of close academic study.

A little Googling reveals some parallels, steps 3-7 are certainly apt:

http://www.mentalismcentral.com/cold-reading-techniques/

Mr Trump's audience largely consisted of alienated and disgruntled voters who (again rightly) feel they have been left behind by a political elite. His statements were carefully chosen to appeal to a natural human instinct for entitlement, and focused blame for America’s troubles variously on ‘the Establishment’ and immigrants, as opposed to specific mechanisms which have produced a shift in the global and American economy. His simplistic explanations, despite their objective tenuousness, hold fundamental appeal for many. But to consciously align with them, is to also quietly endorse the most extreme of Mr Trump’s statements: he may be rowing back on some of his inflammatory words (this is inevitable) however he will never admit how he was wrong to use such terms to produce the emotional appeal that gave him victory. Because of this inability to repudiate his own rhetoric, to support *him* is to support his *ideas*. one cannot have one without the other, as Mr Pozman seems to be saying.

I feel that one can condemn an idea, without condemning the person. One can recognise that certain ideas are pernicious, and are being actively used in the pursuit of power to the detriment of everyone. The ideas Mr Trump has given voice to, are inextricably linked to his success.
ChrisBrooke - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

Thoughtful and measured.
Ramblin dave - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> One of the problems with this debate is that any attempt at sensible and reasonable criticism of immigration policy gets labelled as: "... blaming foreigners for everything that's wrong with the country".

Another problem is that people can blame anything they like on foreigners, and if they get called out on it complain about people trying to shut down "sensible and reasonable criticism of immigration policy".
ChrisBrooke - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Sure, but then the interest lies in the actual exchange of ideas, not in the post hoc mud-slinging, in either direction. Bad ideas defended in that way will still evidently be bad ideas. Good ideas being defended in that way should be seen as good ideas, AND the accusation of being shut down etc, would be true and relevant. It's not that difficult.
Pete Pozman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

> Sure, but then the interest lies in the actual exchange of ideas, not in the post hoc mud-slinging, in either direction. Bad ideas defended in that way will still evidently be bad ideas. Good ideas being defended in that way should be seen as good ideas, AND the accusation of being shut down etc, would be true and relevant. It's not that difficult.

My main attack is to stop the "normalisation" of the Trump/Farage phenomenon. The Nazis (formerly known as the alt Right) have blown their cover. They have been steering the train. I say if you're on that train get off now as it slows down. For surely another strategy is even now being worked out for them to regain momentum.
Trump/Farage do not exchange ideas. They rabble rouse.
Think of a continuum from Thomas Mair to Jo Cox. Where are Trump/Farage on that line? I would suggest that if you feel inclined to shout "Britain First" or "Make America Great Again" you are on the slippery slope.
I say get off the train now.
Many of my dearest friends voted "Leave". I say leave by all means, but not in such company.
ChrisBrooke - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Many of my dearest friends voted "Leave". I say leave by all means, but not in such company.

Pragmatically and practically what other option did they have? This was the one occasion where they were being presented with the choice. They were persuaded by one, some, or all of the arguments for 'leave', and on balance weren't in agreement with sufficient arguments for 'remain' to vote that way. The fact that the leave campaign had some people promoting it in bad faith, or who were 'looney right wingers' doesn't obviate their agreement with the principal of 'leave'. If you decided to vote leave, you do it in whatever company also voted leave. You have no other choice. Unless you're suggesting they should have gone against their principals and voted remain, as leavers weren't all squeeky clean. Which does seem to be what you're suggesting.
Pete Pozman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
People of goodwill need to stand up now. The Nazis (formerly known as alt Right) have stepped out of the shadows too soon. It is not mudslinging to name what you see in plain terms.
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisElection/videos/1344722848892535/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> Many of my dearest friends voted "Leave". I say leave by all means, but not in such company.

Pete, this is finally a fully considered argument and I'd give you a like if it wasn't for some of your previous vitriol.

I'm starting to wonder if there's some kind of divide and rule conspiracy being enacted at present. Debate seems to have metamophosized into the kind of mud-slinging and sound-bites that Murderous Crow has intimated. And this is coming from both sides. Lost amongst this is any reasoned arguments, from the likes of yourself, jkarran, Jon Stewart and on the other side from Postman Pat, Big Ger and Bootrock (amongst numerous others). One side screams fascist / racist, the other libtard / snowflake, whilst neither does much listening to reasoned debate. In essence, both sides are being fascistic. In an atmosphere like this, is it any wonder that the best at doing the mud-slinging win elections or referendums?

Listening to, along with the appreciation of others views, is as vital to debate as communicating your own views. Debating thoughtfully and reaching a workable compromise is the cornerstone of that much referenced, but much abused / forgotten, philosophic principle of governance called democracy.
Post edited at 16:48
ads.ukclimbing.com
Pete Pozman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

Principles? Read Murderous Crow's post above. The people have been told a dreadful lie by men with no principles. I accept there are respectable grounds for wanting to change the country's alliances and trade agreements, but these were not the grounds cited by Farage/Johnson/Gove et al.
The people have been played and the respectable centre has been hobbled by its own respectability. I say no more. All sides, Leave and Remain; Tory/ Labour (where the hell are they?) need to speak up now. Especially on this day...
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

And therein lies the problem with the electorate being presented with a binary choice. The Euro referendum idea was flawed in concept right from the start, and ripe for exploitation by the far right. The parallels with the US election are clear: the arguments in each case share common ground and started from false premises. Europe, Islam, immigration were each touted as fundamentally incompatible with British / American ideals. This fed into a sense of entitlement and helplessness. Thanks to the efforts of lobby groups and parts of the media in amplifying the negative stories around the topics at hand, the conversation has been entirely misdirected. It’s manipulation on a grand scale. The entire issue of Brexit was thoroughly and cynically mis-sold to the electorate by its proponents, as is the victory of Mr Trump: unfortunately each country as a whole will be left with a bitter taste as the scale of the betrayal becomes clearer.
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> The people have been told a dreadful lie by men with no principles.

As opposed to the lies told by the other side - Clinton / Cameron?

> The people have been played and the respectable centre has been hobbled by its own respectability. I say no more. All sides, Leave and Remain; Tory/ Labour (where the hell are they?) need to speak up now. Especially on this day...

I really don't think you'll find many on here supporting Trump, let alone Spencer.
ChrisBrooke - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Principles? Read Murderous Crow's post above.

I did, and was first to commend its thoughtful balanced approach.

> The people have been told a dreadful lie by men with no principles. I accept there are respectable grounds for wanting to change the country's alliances and trade agreements, but these were not the grounds cited by Farage/Johnson/Gove et al.

And every person who voted to leave wasn't necessarily being led by the nose by Farage/Johnson/Gove et al. They may have done their own research and come to their own conclusions based on their own principals and 'respectable grounds.' I'm glad you concede that it's possible. There are lots of different people in the world, lots of different levels of intelligence, lots of different levels of political interest/engagement etc. I try to bare that in mind when thinking about groups of individuals.

ChrisBrooke - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

Agreed again. It was flawed from the start.

The trouble is, so is pretty much everything in a democracy. I may agree with the conservatives on some matters, liberals on others, labour on others, greens on others. I, like every other person, am a complex individual who can't be summed up by one tick in one box. You have to pick what most broadly aligns with your views, and hold your nose if necessary. It doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for, but such is the reality of the system we have.
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> It's time to describe what we see. Trump is a Nazi or just a normal idiot being used by Nazis. Anybody this side of the Atlantic who thinks Farage is a good bloke needs their noses rubbing in the fact that he is a Nazi or a deluded fantasist being used by Nazis.

> All those Trumpists and Brexiteers who have felt "left behind" don't climb aboard their train; it's going to take us all to hell. Wake up.

It's a dichotomy from another one of your posts from another thread:

> Love first... and at the last.
Post edited at 17:18
jondo - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> And what do you propose to do about it? I imagine I've got very little influence about what happens in the US.

> It's bad enough trying to get our government to do anything good, like not selling off NHSP or to stop supporting Israel.


seriously ? is it within your capacity not to go on about israel, especially on a post which is about alarming displays of nazism in the us ?
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> And therein lies the problem with the electorate being presented with a binary choice. The Euro referendum idea was flawed in concept right from the start, ...

Yet it's the EU that insists on everything being a binary choice, totally in or totally out.
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

I like this reply. I disagree though. I feel that it's very important to state clearly where one stands when innocent people are being scapegoated: the leverage of immigrants as such meant that - for me - I would be a Remainer by default.

I'm positive toward Europe (and free movement within it too) but am somewhat more ambivalent about its politics. I broadly admire its worker protections, for example, but am unnerved by its relentless bureaucracy.

However conversing with many people I know on the Brexit side, very few had any idea who their MEP was: none had made contact with them and as such their voices went unheard in Strasbourg. As a nation we have been apathetic architects of our European destiny for many years.

Anyway, my point in reply to you was to say that I refuse to voice the same argument in the same debate as a known bigot. I thought carefully on the idea 'who benefits' from Brexit, and came to the conclusion that overwhelmingly the entities that benefited most, were those that are hostile to my ideals. Even though I could see some potential benefits of Brexit (if it were done well) I absolutely refuse to endorse the divisive, disgusting rhetoric employed by the likes of Farage and Gove.
Pete Pozman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
All right I hate Nazism. Don't you?
"Vitriol" ? I call it anger. If you don't like the company, walk away.
He shouted "Britain First!" . As she was dying she told her friends to let her take the blows.
Post edited at 17:07
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> The people have been told a dreadful lie by men with no principles. [. . .] but these were not the grounds cited by Farage/Johnson/Gove et al.

Ah, the conceit that all "leavers" were dupes, suckered in by the lies, whereas all "remainers" voted sensibly on the issues.

The fact is that there were oodles of lies and exaggerations and myths and ludicrous stuff from both sides in the referendum. Whether anyone believed them or not is another issue.
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> All right I hate Nazism. Don't you?
> "Vitriol" ? I call it anger. If you don't like the company, walk away.

I don't think it's fair to tar 17 million leave voters just because of one fringe Nazi.
Pete Pozman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Farage is a friend of Nazis (formerly known as alt Right). If you line up with him, you line up with them.
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
>
> I feel that one can condemn an idea, without condemning the person. One can recognise that certain ideas are pernicious, and are being actively used in the pursuit of power to the detriment of everyone. The ideas Mr Trump has given voice to, are inextricably linked to his success.
>
Well I could agree with most of that, although as I've suggested elsewhere, I regard it as symptomatic of deeper problem. He is an ignorant narcissist which means he either doesn't understand or doesn't consider important the norms of the US political system, foreign affairs or trade agreements or much else, and will say pretty much anything and associate with pretty much anyone to pursue his end: which was simply to be elected.

What he will do in practice we have yet to find out but the indications are not good.

I'm simply not clear what the OP thinks "deciding" which side one is on means. Most sensible people decided long ago that they were on the side of liberal democracy and tolerance and against racism and xenophobia. And.....?
Post edited at 17:11
ChrisBrooke - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

That's fair enough, and it reflects the 'real world', pragmatic thought processes behind casting a vote (for anything). It's more complex than is being suggested up-thread.
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Farage is a friend of Nazis (formerly known as alt Right). If you line up with him, you line up with them.

If you can supply some evidence of that I'll agree with you.
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Farage is a friend of Nazis (formerly known as alt Right).

And I don't think it's fair to suggest that all who are "alt right" are Nazis (though who is or is not alt-right is a bit undefined).

And I don't think it's fair to say that any and all Leave voters agree with or support Farage (on anything other than both voting leave).

By the way, which friends of Farage are Nazis?
Pete Pozman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I don't think it's fair to tar 17 million leave voters just because of one fringe Nazi.

That's an alt Right (sic) style rebuttal. No I am not calling ordinary decent people Nazis. But ordinary decent people have found themselves being used by Nazis and Fascists in the past and it's happening again. This "one fringe Nazi" is the jolly, friendly face of a profound evil and the people and their representatives need to recognise it now before it's too late.
We've tried laughing evil out of town. It didn't work. Don't defend them. Attack them.
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Farage is a friend of Nazis (formerly known as alt Right). If you line up with him, you line up with them.

So what should one do?
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> But ordinary decent people have found themselves being used by Nazis and Fascists in the past and it's happening again.

The "all leavers are dupes" argument again.

Really, the number of Nazi sympathisers, either in the UK or the US, is rather small, and there is no evidence that it has increased over the last decade.
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Again, can you provide any evidence of Farage's connection to fascist group (or Nazis as you call them)?
Post edited at 17:38
wbo - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel
> Yet it's the EU that insists on everything being a binary choice, totally in or totally out.

A poor argument Coel. 27 countries can't cherry pick all to their favour

Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to wbo:

> A poor argument Coel. 27 countries can't cherry pick all to their favour

Why not? Why couldn't one have an a-la-carte Europe, with nations opting in to those policies they liked and staying out of policies they disliked?

That way the EU might be forced to come up with policies that are *popular*! (You know, democratic approval?)

This would be better for everyone, including the "ever closer union" core who could proceed with closer integration at a much faster pace, if they wished, since they wouldn't have to keep getting everyone to agree.
wbo - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier: so 26 countries vote that the Uk can join if it agrees to freedom of movement, but to keep it out of a few advantageous schemes. How is what you suggest possibly meant to work?

captain paranoia - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> I lament the decline of plain speech: these people used to be called fascists.

The Today programme this morning suggested they were essentially the KKK, having realised they were never going to get anywhere, so rebranded themselves; KKK, but with a new hat...

> His simplistic explanations, despite their objective tenuousness, hold fundamental appeal for many.

Indeed. The empty rhetoric of 'making America great again' and 'taking our country back' etc.
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to wbo:

> How is what you suggest possibly meant to work?

Those who want to opt into free movement can do so (forming a free movement zone), and those who don't want to opt into free movement don't (not joining the free movement zone).

Just as with Schengen, for example.

Ditto for any other policy.
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Not a personal attack, but I don't understand how you aren't drawing a link between your last two paragraphs. It seems clear to me that a wide variety of people have been manipulated into voting for this obscene man, and the unintended consequences will potentially have massive ramifications. It was always clear that Mr Trump was willing to say the most outrageous things, and he may privately admit that he intended very little. But he's given oxygen to a loud and exceptionally unpleasant group. Through his choice of advisors (and quite likely lobbyists / friends) he has allowed fascist ideas and proponents access to the ear of the world's most powerful individual. A vote for Mr Trump was a vote endorsing his hateful rhetoric and his venomous allies; regardless of what he actually does in office.
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> It is not mudslinging to name what you see in plain terms.

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisElection/videos/1344722848892535/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

Powerful and eloquently put. Gives me hope that some politicians are able to see the wood from the trees.
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
> Not a personal attack, but I don't understand how you aren't drawing a link between your last two paragraphs.
>
People had to make a judgment between the risks of the Trump actually being as bad as some of his supporters, and the risks of the continuation of a status quo which both has its own very unattractive aspects and fails to meet their needs. They might not beleive that the alt right represents a serious threat. Not a risk I'd have taken.

But I am still unclear what the OP thinks we are supposed to do about it.
Post edited at 18:01
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> Don't defend them. Attack them.
>
Would you agree that their are elements on the far left that are intolerant, authoritarian and a potential threat to liberal democratic values?
Post edited at 18:14
KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Would you agree that their are elements on the far left that are intolerant, authoritarian and a potential threat the liberal democratic values?

Normally a good rule of thumb for any "far" political group. Obviously are exceptions although even some of those exceptions will miss that they will end up in the above state.
I suspect though what falls under "far left" will vary.
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Not a risk I'd have taken.

Fair enough. I conspicuously chose not to vote in 2015, as I saw very little choice in what was on offer, and felt that no-one was representing me and meaningfully addressing concerns shared by my friends and loved ones. I consider myself very much engaged, and to a degree I still hold misgivings over whether it was correct to do so. But the sense of betrayal I felt over the flip flopping policy positions adopted by the main parties was one thing: the stakes in the US election (and in the European Referendum) were arguably much higher. Once in a lifetime events.
Jim C - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

What are your views on compulsory voting by law, but everyone being given a NOTA vote option?
Pete Pozman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Would you agree that their are elements on the far left that are intolerant, authoritarian and a potential threat to liberal democratic values?

That is a given. There aren't that many in the centre. Come into the middle.
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But I am still unclear what the OP thinks we are supposed to do about it.

I was a Remainer for the reasons I outlined above. If I were an American citizen I'd have been for Hillary, much as that would unsettle me: I feel she would *probably* have been a safer choice (although not definitely), and at least not aligned with malignant hate groups. It was an appalling choice: Hillary's hawkish foreign policy record and alignment with banks and big business was itself deeply troubling.

As to what to do now, it's surely just a case of speaking clearly about what we are dealing with. I'm pledging to defend fair treatment of people wherever I can: this starts with identifying and naming hatred.
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim C:

I don't have one as I've not given it much thought. It seems to me that unless a legal mechanism were in place to redress the balance of mandate for the winning party in policy decisions, it would only be symbolic.
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> That is a given. There aren't that many in the centre. Come into the middle.

I'm in the middle. I'll condemn both extremes. That's my point. But that doesn't mean I think that nobody should vote for Ed Miliband. It's you I'm worried about.

If you believe that by voting for brexit was aligning oneself with neo nazis then why are you not condemning supporters of Corbyn who is clearly friendly with the SWP and others of the far left. Indeed, given that the far left has always preferred Labour over other parliamentary parties, why did you not condemn those who aligned themselves with Miliband or for that matter early Blair?
Post edited at 18:45
KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> What are your views on compulsory voting by law, but everyone being given a NOTA vote option?

What would that mean?
If most vote NOTA would the previous MP remain in place?
TobyA on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Everyone should read the transcript of the full interview/meeting between Trump and the NYT from the publisher down to beat reporters. It's bizarre, Trump 1) is rambling and not really coherent at points, although you sort of know what he means. 2) He really seems to need to be liked by everyone but seems to expect them to forget everything else he has said. He throws the alt-right of the Spencer variety under the bus, but you get the impression if he had been at their conference he would have seig heiling along with them.

I'm not sure what is worse, Trump believing what he says or not having any ideology but rather just a need to impress whoever is in front of him at that moment.
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

Do you have a link?
TobyA on 23 Nov 2016
Murderous_Crow - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

Thank you.
KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:
> I'm not sure what is worse, Trump believing what he says or not having any ideology but rather just a need to impress whoever is in front of him at that moment.

Yup. The Postie had it almost right earlier when they said
Well Trump says he's decided, for today at least.

I think "today" was pushing it as opposed to "for that five second span at least"

My understanding is the "i believed it so it was right at the time I said it" is something many good salespeople can do. Not sure it is ideal for a president though.
Post edited at 19:25
Jim C - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> What would that mean?
If most vote NOTA would the previous MP remain in place?

That would be most satisfactory if they were deselected, but I suspect that, that would be a step too far right away at least , as politicians would probably struggle to even accept giving us any oppertunity to vote negatively against their breed.

It would be a good first step to move to compulsory voting, then perhaps try and introduce a NOTA option, and then over time we could look at then not automatically electing an MP if they could not beat the NOTA vote.
At the moment it is skewed too much in favour of MPs who can get voted in on a very low turnout, just by getting one more vote than another poor candidate that the voters overall judge to be as unelectable and so don't bother to vote ( but the MPs get elected just the same)

I would like to see pressure being put on the parties to select only candidates that they believe can attract more positive votes than negative NOTA votes.
I can only dream....
Post edited at 19:44
Jim C - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> I don't have one as I've not given it much thought. It seems to me that unless a legal mechanism were in place to redress the balance of mandate for the winning party in policy decisions, it would only be symbolic.

I would initially settle for a symbolic kick in the teeth, but of course I would then push for a legal mechanism as you say.
This current voting system is not working to the benefit of the electorate.
wbo - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA: Following the Donald and his statements , changes in policy really is fantastic. I think theres a growing concern that his unwillingness to clarify what hes going to do with his business interests is going to land him in hot water down the road. On policy I think a lot of republicans will end up unhappy.

As an aside I'd be curious to see your current affairs 'reading list'.

To Coel - are you aware that to get a bit you're going to have to take a bit? How would you reconcile the different countries? I guess you're in favour of the U.K. Being in the single market, but how does that benefit other countries? Why should they allow it?

KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> That would be most satisfactory if they were deselected

I was thinking more if it was a normal election. Say if I was elected as part of the "We will fix everything. honest guv. Just cos I alter what i say depending on the audience doesnt mean you cant trust me when I promise you x. Look I am drinking a pint and smoking a fag how cant you trust me" party.
If everyone voted for me hoping for change and then after I just sell my vote to the highest bidder everyone gets disillusioned and cant be arsed voting it would be a bit dubious if I stay in position despite being the reason for the NOTA winning.
Jim C - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:


. everyone gets disillusioned and cant be arsed voting it would be a bit dubious if I stay in position despite being the reason for the NOTA winning.

But remember, before NOTA is introduced , compulsory voting would be in force;)

I appreciate, that all this is wishful thinking, and not thought through, but I dare to dream .
Big Ger - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> People of goodwill need to stand up now.

Do you not think that they are not already doing that? My facebook feed is full of posts from good American people organising and opposing Trump and his presidency.

This from an activist lawyer friend in Cali;

I'm still in a lot of pain over the election results, tired, confused, frightened (more for others than myself), and damn angry. We have not yet begun to fight, and I'm thankful to all of you for your support, your calls, your empathy, and your wonderful caring hearts and minds. #riseup

Apart from posting on here, what are you actually doing yourself?
Coel Hellier - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to wbo:

> I guess you're in favour of the U.K. Being in the single market, but how does that benefit other countries? Why should they allow it?

They benefit from being able to sell to us; we benefit from being able to sell to them. Sounds pretty equitable and mutually beneficial, no?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Big Ger - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Another, just recieved;

Activist alert of the day - Audit the election. The results from FL, WI, PA, and NC are inconsistent with the exit polling. Did something else happen to flip those states to Trump? We can't know, unless DOJ conducts an audit of the vote. The last day to audit the vote is Dec. 23. The DOJ is currently tallying requests for this. If you haven't yet, please call the Dept. of Justice Public Comment Line (202-353-1555) and leave them message urging them to "audit the vote."
cb294 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Simon4:

F*ck off.

CB
krikoman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> seriously ? is it within your capacity not to go on about israel, especially on a post which is about alarming displays of nazism in the us ?

And your contribution to this threads topic is what exactly, except to whinge at me again!!

I was trying to make the point that there's very little we can do to change our governments direction, so what chance have of steering Mr. Trump somewhere we'd like him to go.

Some might see your issues with me as a form of stalking, I do hope not.

MG - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Que?? Sounds like the po-mo generator with a bug!
cb294 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

As I said, I am not against referenda per se, but the leavers' rabble rousing clearly made expressing xenophobic views that were likely held before much more acceptable. The leave campaign/tories better plausibly clarify that stoking xenophobic resentiments was not their intent, otherwise it is more parsimonious to assume so.

Again, this is not a UK phenomenon, but goes from Jobbik to the Trumpists.

CB

cb294 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

by your acts should you be judged.

Please see my reply to CH

CB

Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> Que?? Sounds like the po-mo generator with a bug!

You have to read the article Coel linked. As I said, it's the last para of that.
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to cb294:

> As I said, I am not against referenda per se, but the leavers' rabble rousing clearly made expressing xenophobic views that were likely held before much more acceptable. The leave campaign/tories better plausibly clarify that stoking xenophobic resentiments was not their intent, otherwise it is more parsimonious to assume so.
>
Parsimonious? why parsimonious?

What do you mean by Tories/leave campaign? All Tories-why? All leavers-why not?

If you can find examples of rabble rousing on immigration then yes, they should clarify their intent, but define rabble rousing. Arguing that the UK should have controls on immigration like every other country in the world and the EU itself does is not, incidentally, rabble rousing.

You haven't addressed my basic question about why your condemnation is apparently limited to threats or prerceived threats to liberal democracy and tolerance from the right, but not those from the left.
MG - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Have the left had Nazi era inspired posters dehumanising refugees recently like the leave campaign? I don't think their intent needs clarification.
Post edited at 21:56
Postmanpat on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:
> Have the left had Nazi era inspired posters dehumanising refugees recently like the leave campaign? I don't think their intent needs clarification.

That was Farage's poster wasn't it? Gove said it made hime "shudder". Johnson said the psoter was £not our campaign£ and £not my politics£. Drawing a distinction between his own view and those of Farage, he suggested that leaving the EU would be a way of £spiking the guns£ of anti-immigrant feeling. £If you take back control, you do a great deal to neutralise anti-immigrant feeling generally,£ he said, after reporters showed him a picture of the poster. £I am passionately pro-immigration and pro-immigrants.£"

Does that not constitute a "clarification"?
Post edited at 22:06
Pete Pozman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Just got back from running club. Thanks Big, that is cheering me up.
What am I doing?
That's a very good question. This is a forum where I feel I can sound off. Having seen the shocking video footage of Nazis shouting "Hail Trump" I wanted to express my outrage and see if I could get a consensus from some climbers I know.
Over the last while I've joined the LibDems, done some canvassing, joined Hope not Hate, signed a few petitions,.made some financial contributions to campaigns, used social media very inexpertly to make my friends aware of the issues. And driven my wife up the wall.
Oh and I've become politicised...
I ignored the Vietnam war, ban the bomb, the miner's strike etc, but these are the most dangerous times of the last 50 years.
And you?
Big Ger - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Just got back from running club. Thanks Big, that is cheering me up.

> What am I doing?

> That's a very good question. This is a forum where I feel I can sound off. Having seen the shocking video footage of Nazis shouting "Hail Trump" I wanted to express my outrage and see if I could get a consensus from some climbers I know.

> Over the last while I've joined the LibDems, done some canvassing, joined Hope not Hate, signed a few petitions,.made some financial contributions to campaigns, used social media very inexpertly to make my friends aware of the issues. And driven my wife up the wall.

So in terms of ending Trumps reign and opposing the "alt right" what are you doing?



> And you?

Not a lot, I vote when I can, I enjoy debates on here. I oppose racism and hate where I see it, I'm involved in my American chums anti-Trump campaigns and offer what little support I can.

Here I'm actively involved in opposing Pauline Hanson and her ilk, and supporting Aboriginal campaigns, (my wife's late father was inducted as an "elder" in the Nuggunawal tribe.)

damhan-allaidh on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Not really. They were a bit,and continue to be, Janus faced about it, distancing themselves with mealy mouthed words - shudder lacks the rhetorical and moral force of say, this is a despicable piece of mendacious racist propaganda, we will have nothing more to do with Mr Farage and his anti-British views. Saying what one is or believes, as Johnson did, is not the same as holding Farage and his ilk accountable, and in fact allows on to conveniently avoid the issue.

I suspect whatever mild moral qualms they felt were ameliorated by knowing that that despicable piece of mendacious racist propaganda propped up their despicable mendacious immoral campaign.
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Does that not constitute a "clarification"?

No. It says two populist politicians found it expedient to (claim to) not support it. You asked for evidence of rabble-rousing. If you don't see that as such nothing, will convince you.

You asked why the "left", that you seem to equate to leave supporters, aren't crticised for threats to democracy. The answer is they aren't a threat, currently. At some point you are going to have to unhitch yourself from the Brexit-Trump-LePenn-Farage web you've managed to attach yourself to or except that you too no longer support liberal democracy.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> You asked why the "left", that you seem to equate to leave supporters, aren't crticised for threats to democracy. The answer is they aren't a threat, currently.

Well, a lot of people on the left do have a big problem with free speech at the moment.
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

For which they are criticised. However, this is hardly a major threat in most places. Look at, for example, the effect of and completely free expression at Breitbart
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> No. It says two populist politicians found it expedient to (claim to) not support it. You asked for evidence of rabble-rousing. If you don't see that as such nothing, will convince you.
>
Come again. You are arguing that saying "i am pro immigration" is actually anti immigration rabble rousing?
Pr are you just saying that wont believe them whatever they say, in which case why ask for "clarification"?

> You asked why the "left", that you seem to equate to leave supporters, aren't crticised for threats to democracy. The answer is they aren't a threat, currently. At some point you are going to have to unhitch yourself from the Brexit-Trump-LePenn-Farage web you've managed to attach yourself to or except that you too no longer support liberal democracy.
>
Dont be daft. On the contrary, i voted out because i believe in liberal democracy, something many remainers appear not to. The far left is as big a threat but a more insidious one.

Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

So you know what they're really about then. I guess you have found them guilty of a thought crime.
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Well said.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well, a lot of people on the left do have a big problem with free speech at the moment.

What do you mean?
damhan-allaidh on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I judge words and deeds. I'm not a mind-reader.
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Come again. You are arguing that saying "i am pro immigration" is actually anti immigration rabble rousing?

You asked "If you can find examples of rabble rousing on immigration then yes,.." So I pointed out the poster of leave campaign. How was this anything but rabble rousing?

> Pr are you just saying that wont believe them whatever they say, in which case why ask for "clarification"?
You, not me, brought up Gove and Johnson, but no, in those cases I don't believe a word they say. They have repeatedly been shown to be bare-faced liars.

> Dont be daft. On the contrary, i voted out because i believe in liberal democracy,

You may have voted for those reasons but the fact is Brexit is now part of the an increasingly global shift away from liberal democracy. This was clearly going to be the case to many before the vote. At some point you need to acknowledge this, or accept you are part of that shift.



TobyA on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Here I'm actively involved in opposing Pauline Hanson and her ilk, and supporting Aboriginal campaigns, (my wife's late father was inducted as an "elder" in the Nuggunawal tribe.)

You might well enjoy this documentary then http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04gg5gq I thought it was great - some super music with pretty heart-wrenching back stories. Funnily enough it was being a Midnight Oil fan in the late 80s that first taught me about Aborigines' fight for civil rights in Australia.
damhan-allaidh on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Ok, I see your point, poor word choice. I should have used infer or even hypothesised. Some circumstantial evidence is strong, such as when you find a trout in the milk.



Big Ger - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:
> You might well enjoy this documentary then http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04gg5gq I thought it was great - some super music with pretty heart-wrenching back stories. Funnily enough it was being a Midnight Oil fan in the late 80s that first taught me about Aborigines' fight for civil rights in Australia.

Thanks for that. I saw Peter Garrett live the other day, playing with his own band "the alter egos", not really my kind of music, but the missus enjoyed it.

At 63 yrs old he still dances like a mad thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLv5AGeIJeI


We also saw Paul Kelly last year, who did his "from little things"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_ndC07C2qw

Gather round people I£ll tell you a story
An eight year long story of power and pride
£Bout British Lord Vestey and Vincent Lingiarri
They were opposite men on opposite sides

Vestey was fat with money and muscle
Beef was his business, broad was his door
Vincent was lean and spoke very little
He had no bank balance, hard dirt was his floor

From little things big things grow
From little things big things grow

Gurindji were working for nothing but rations
Where once they had gathered the wealth of the land
Daily the oppression got tighter and tighter
Gurindji decided they must make a stand


continues; http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/from_little_things_big_things_grow/song_lyrics
Post edited at 09:02
Big Ger - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> Ok, I see your point, poor word choice. I should have used infer or even hypothesised. Some circumstantial evidence is strong, such as when you find a trout in the milk.

Evidence you've poached trout for supper.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> You asked "If you can find examples of rabble rousing on immigration then yes,.." So I pointed out the poster of leave campaign. How was this anything but rabble rousing?
>
It was rabble rousing: by Farage and his crew, not by the official leave campiagn which disavowed it.

> You, not me, brought up Gove and Johnson, but no, in those cases I don't believe a word they say. They have repeatedly been shown to be bare-faced liars.
>
In which case why ask for clarification?
I think there are representatives of the Labour party who believe bad things snd lie about it. Should i therefore tar every labpur voter with undermining liberal democracy?

> You may have voted for those reasons but the fact is Brexit is now part of the an increasingly global shift away from liberal democracy. >

There is no reason why brexit should undermine liberal democracy. On the contrary, it can enable us to fight for it more effectively.




Rob Exile Ward on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

'There is no reason why brexit should undermine liberal democracy. On the contrary, it can enable us to fight for it more effectively.'

There are *some* reasons why brexit could undermine liberal democracy. E.g. the UK political system is heavily skewed towards the government of the day, which as we all know does not necessarily represent the majority of the population; despite oversight by the House of Lords and theoretical veto by the monarch, successive governments have a habit of pushing their luck , e.g. influencing police policy, extending surveillance etc. The EU court provides a supra national check against national governments exceeding their legitimate powers.

Also, the EU provides a framework where policies that directly influence financial performance can be held in check. Outside the EU framework it will be difficult to prevent a race to the bottom with workers rights, minimum wage, working hours directives, H & S and all the rest, in order to sell cost effectively to the rest of the world once the EU has become more difficult to sell to because of tariff and non-tariff barriers - which will surely happen. (Brexiteers seem to think that negotiation consists of asking nicely for what you want and the other party automatically saying 'fine, no problem.')
GrahamD - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim C:


> This current voting system is not working to the benefit of the electorate.

More significantly, the current electorate are not voting to the benefit of the electorate.
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It was rabble rousing: by Farage and his crew, not by the official leave campiagn which disavowed it.

> In which case why ask for clarification?

I didn't you did !!

"If you can find examples of rabble rousing on immigration then yes, they should clarify their intent, but define rabble rousing."

And you only later narrowed your interest to two people rather than the whole campaign.
Post edited at 09:36
damhan-allaidh on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Which would not be possible if someone had not created the conditions for the trout to be there in the first place.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> I didn't you did !!

> "If you can find examples of rabble rousing on immigration then yes, they should clarify their intent, but define rabble rousing."

> And you only later narrowed your interest to two people rather than the whole campaign.

So I did. I used Johnson and Gove because they were the highest profile non UKIP representatives of the campaign. I could hardly canvas every non UKIP leave supporter for their view, could I?

Is your point now that whatever anybody says, if you don't believe them, the correct default position is to regard them as actively xenophobic?

If, on the grounds that somebody shares a view on something (in this case brexit) is it your view that they are actually passive supporters everything else that other supporters of the view beleive (in this case xenophobia)?

On this basis can we take the same logic to assume that Nick Clegg, as a passionate remain supporter, is also a danger to liberla democracy because he shares this view with the Morning Star and other parts of the hard left?

MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> If, on the grounds that somebody shares a view on something (in this case brexit) is it your view that they are actually passive supporters everything else that other supporters of the view beleive (in this case xenophobia)?

In this case, yes. Xenophobia and other destructive trends are so closely associated with brexit and the wider move to illiberal politics that I don't believe it is possible to claim to support brexit without at least tacitly supporting these trends. I accept there were (zealous, naive) reasons for supporting brexit that weren't xenophobic etc. but the situation now is that those lining up with the brexit are also supporting the wider Trump/Le Pen/Farage movement.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> In this case, yes. Xenophobia and other destructive trends are so closely associated with brexit and the wider move to illiberal politics that I don't believe it is possible to claim to support brexit without at least tacitly supporting these trends. I accept there were (zealous, naive) reasons for supporting brexit that weren't xenophobic etc. but the situation now is that those lining up with the brexit are also supporting the wider Trump/Le Pen/Farage movement.

Well I just think it's a completely illogical and insulting assertion. You have refused to accept that if one makes this connection then logically it must be true that Nick Clegg is tacitly supporting revolutionary communism. You wouldn't expect Nick Clegg to change his view on the EU on that basis so you shouldn't expect others to change their view on the basis of such a specious argument.

Brexit isn't inextricably linked with "illiberal policies" except in the minds of some illiberal brexiters and many who object to brexit. You have fallen for the false propaganda that this is what it is about. Either way, the answer is to ensure that post brexit Britain is not illiberal, not to side with undemocratic alternative.





Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> In this case, yes. Xenophobia and other destructive trends are so closely associated with brexit and the wider move to illiberal politics that I don't believe it is possible to claim to support brexit without at least tacitly supporting these trends.

Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Not being in the EU is an entirely mainstream opinion, and one adopted by entirely sensible countries (Norway, Switzerland, etc).

> I accept there were (zealous, naive) reasons for supporting brexit that weren't xenophobic etc. but the situation now is that those lining up with the brexit are also supporting the wider Trump/Le Pen/Farage movement.

This sort of dismissal and disparagement of anyone who thinks differently is exactly the sort of "move to illiberal politics" that "the left" are as guilty of as anyone.
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Not being in the EU is an entirely mainstream opinion, and one adopted by entirely sensible countries (Norway, Switzerland, etc).

These sensible countries had a chance to vote on their membership, and opted out at the beginning. They didn't leave in a huge political huff thus creating upheaval, uncertainty and yes, fear. Brexit has to be viewed in context and as such I feel MG is absolutely correct.

> This sort of dismissal and disparagement of anyone who thinks differently is exactly the sort of "move to illiberal politics" that "the left" are as guilty of as anyone.

I disagree. Look at who benefits from Brexit, who benefits from Mr Trump's victory. Racists feel enabled by these decisions, and this is reflected by significant increases in the respective countries, of hate crime since each event. Regardless of the fact that racist views may not have been supported by the majority, look at the kinds of activists Mr Farage and Mr Trump have nurtured: the repugnancy of their views means that the quality of their argument must always be held suspect.

Regards Brexit in particular, as Mr Pozman points out above, 'leave by all means, but not in such company'. Brexit was badly conceived, and resulted in reasonable people with a reasonable viewpoint voting in the same direction as out and out racists. It must be recognised that the Leave vote enabled such people, and that xenophobia was an intrinsic part of the decision. Especially given that, as eloquently noted above, the mainstream politicians leading the Leave campaign have been so derelict in renouncing the significant element of xenophobic feeling within the campaign.
Post edited at 13:29
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
>

> I disagree. Look at who benefits from Brexit, who benefits from Mr Trump's victory. Racists feel enabled by these decisions, and this is reflected by significant increases in the respective countries, of hate crime since each event.
>
This just makes no sense at all. Most policies on anything will inadvertently benefit groups at which they are not aimed. Putting up taxes or nationalising the railways no doubt energises revolutionary socialists. You can't expect people to reject their own priniciples and support something that they believe is wrong on the basis that a completely separate group of people may "benefit". No policy would ever happen.

As for "by all means leave but not is such company", how do propose that be done?
Post edited at 13:36
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> These sensible countries had a chance to vote on their membership, and opted out at the beginning.

But surely the next generation also has a say in things?

> They didn't leave in a huge political huff thus creating upheaval, uncertainty and yes, fear.

Part of the reason for that is (1) the refusal of the EU and UK government to get proper democratic consent for any of the treaties since the UK's initial membership, and (2) the lack of planning and allowance for any vote to disengage.

> Look at who benefits from Brexit, who benefits from Mr Trump's victory.

Let's remember that those are very different things.

> Racists feel enabled by these decisions, ...

I don't think that one should be expected to vote to stay in the EU just because racists feel enabled by Brexit.

> ... and this is reflected by significant increases in the respective countries, of hate crime since each event.

There are a lot of claims of this sort of thing, and a lot of dubious analyses. What counts as a "hate crime" is rather subjective. It's thus hard to get any proper statistics on the claimed increases.

> Regards Brexit in particular, as Mr Pozman points out above, 'leave by all means, but not in such company'.

OK, so explain to us how to do that?

Are you asking for a referendum in which racists are not allowed to vote? Let me guess, you also object to the "move to illiberal politics"?
jondo - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> And your contribution to this threads topic is what exactly, except to whinge at me again!!

> I was trying to make the point that there's very little we can do to change our governments direction, so what chance have of steering Mr. Trump somewhere we'd like him to go.

> Some might see your issues with me as a form of stalking, I do hope not.

the only one who can see this as stalking is someone paranoid.
it's a public forum , you went completely off thread because your are obsessed with one topic on which you have no problem throwing insults.
i was on this thread because the topic was about something alarming which is taking place right before our eyes.
Post edited at 14:04
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> But surely the next generation also has a say in things?

Interesting point, given the huge generation split between 'Leave' and 'Remain':

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/24/brexit-demographic-divide-eu-referendum-results/

> Part of the reason for that is (1) the refusal of the EU and UK government to get proper democratic consent for any of the treaties since the UK's initial membership, and (2) the lack of planning and allowance for any vote to disengage.

Again, as a nation we have been unforgivably apathetic in engaging with Europe. Very few people know who their MEP is. If there were things we didn't like, we had ample opportunity over many years to get involved via campaigns, surgeries, email and letters.

> Let's remember that those are very different things.

Yes, and let's also remember the filthy views of racists making hay from each event.

> I don't think that one should be expected to vote to stay in the EU just because racists feel enabled by Brexit.

Neither do I. But in the current zeitgeist of rising antipathy toward immigrants, and xenophobia as a whole, it was entirely the wrong question to ask, surely you must agree.

> There are a lot of claims of this sort of thing, and a lot of dubious analyses. What counts as a "hate crime" is rather subjective. It's thus hard to get any proper statistics on the claimed increases.

If you're disinclined to believe the analysis available in reputable mainstream media on this point, there are plenty of personal anecdotal stories floating around. Read up the thread on the swastikas being painted on houses.

> OK, so explain to us how to do that?

Senior politicians and MPs need to recognise the context of their debate within the wider view of inflammatory news and lobbying. In short, the referendum decision should have been shelved until some kind of compassionate consensus on the refugee crisis had been reached. We had a responsibility to lead Europe (particularly in light of the actions of certain Eastern European countries in response to refugees) and demonstrate tolerance, regardless of the shimfing of some within the UK.

> Are you asking for a referendum in which racists are not allowed to vote? Let me guess, you also object to the "move to illiberal politics"?

That's a fairly daft proposition, and subsequent deduction, as I'm sure you're aware. No. I'm pointing out that it was time to calm the rhetoric, and accept that 2016 was not the time to ask the question.
Post edited at 13:58
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well I just think it's a completely illogical and insulting assertion. You have refused to accept that if one makes this connection then logically it must be true that Nick Clegg is tacitly supporting revolutionary communism. You wouldn't expect Nick Clegg to change his view on the EU on that basis so you shouldn't expect others to change their view on the basis of such a specious argument.

If revolutionary communism was taking or close to power in many countries and was closely linked to voting remain, I would think exactly that.
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Not being in the EU is an entirely mainstream opinion, and one adopted by entirely sensible countries (Norway, Switzerland, etc).

I didn't say not being in the EU was the problem It's association with the rhetoric and wider politics surrounding the brexit supporters that is the problem. There is no positive case for brexit (or any at all by the government) being made. It is all Farage and Trump and Le Pen advocating nationalistic, insularity. I am quite happy disparaging this and you should be too.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> If you're disinclined to believe the analysis available in reputable mainstream media on this point, ...

I am, since many of the "hate crimes" amount to someone saying something on twitter, or similar.

> No. I'm pointing out that it was time to calm the rhetoric, and accept that 2016 was not the time to ask the question.

So when is/was the right time? I'm always amazed at the excuses the pro-EU faction have for never seeking democratic consent for the EU policies!

> In short, the referendum decision should have been shelved until some kind of compassionate consensus on the refugee crisis had been reached.

In other words, you want your view of immigration to prevail, and you don't want people to be allowed to vote for anything else.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> There is no positive case for brexit (or any at all by the government) being made.

Nor is there any positive case for being in the EU being made, it consists solely of scare mongering about leaving coupled with denigration of anyone who votes Brexit.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> If revolutionary communism was taking or close to power in many countries and was closely linked to voting remain, I would think exactly that.

So which hard right party is close to power?
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Nor is there any positive case for being in the EU being made,

I'd dispute that but it isn't the point. Remain supporters aren't part of the populist, nativist political wave sweeping across many western countries.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> I didn't say not being in the EU was the problem It's association with the rhetoric and wider politics surrounding the brexit supporters that is the problem. There is no positive case for brexit (or any at all by the government) being made. It is all Farage and Trump and Le Pen advocating nationalistic, insularity. I am quite happy disparaging this and you should be too.

Rubbish the government is making the positive case that brexit was voted for ! Thats democracy for you.
In terms of positive arguments , listen to Daniel Hannan of Ghisella Sturat on the subject. Feel free to disagree with them but they make a perfectly rational and positive case for brexit. You are just obsessing about the negative. Stop it. You're more sensible than that.

MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> So which hard right party is close to power?

In power , close to it or highly influential

Trump's republicans, USA
Freedom Party Austria
Law and Justice Poland
Jobbik's coaltiion Hungary
Front National, France
UKIP, UK
Alternative for Germany, Germany
Swedish Democrats, Swedn


MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Rubbish the government is making the positive case that brexit was voted for !

"Brexit means brexit" is not a case of any sort.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> Remain supporters aren't part of the populist, nativist political wave sweeping across many western countries.

But don't you see that the "populist, nativist political wave" is precisely because of the attitude of "no you can't have a vote on the EU, nor leave it. we'll tell you what's good for you", coupled with: "no you can't have any say on immigration policy, we'll tell you what immigration policy you're getting"?

Don't you see that if you tell people that then you're just inviting an response of "in that case I'll vote for whatever it takes to get things changed around here" coupled with "... and if that means that I vote the same way as racists then I won't like that, but I'll put up with it".
Ramblin dave - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Nor is there any positive case for being in the EU being made, it consists solely of scare mongering about leaving coupled with denigration of anyone who votes Brexit.

Oh FFS, apart from the fact that that's entirely untrue, surely "it would be bad if we leave" is an entirely reasonable case for not leaving. You don't go ahead and stick your hand in a fire because all the arguments you've heard so far have been scaremongering about "third degree burns" and no-one's made a positive case for keeping your hand out of the fire.
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But don't you see that the "populist, nativist political wave" is precisely because of the attitude of "no you can't have a vote on the EU, nor leave it.

Nonsense. Most of the countries listed above are quite happy in the EU but are still voting nativist right. The USA isn't even in the EU.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> "Brexit means brexit" is not a case of any sort.

Er, why would they make a case for something that has already been decided? You don't ask somebody after an election "so, why should we vote for you in the election that is over"?

"Brexit means brexit" in terms of justifying brexit is all that is required.
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> In terms of positive arguments , listen to Daniel Hannan of Ghisella Sturat on the subject.

An acknowledged all round loon, and a "arsonist surprised there's a fire"!!
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> UKIP, UK

>
I'm talking about the UK.

UKIP? with it's one charismatic MP, Douglas bloody Carswell?
Pull the other one.....
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:
> An acknowledged all round loon,

Meaning: doesn't accept the conventional wisdoms

All you're saying is. Well I don't agree with them so their views are either noy positive or they are mad. Doesn't wash.
Post edited at 15:28
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm amazed how complacent you are. Bill Maher described Trump's movement as a "slow moving coup", which I think is accurate - a gradual take over of US institutions and discourse. The movements I mentioned above are no different (add in Turkey btw), and UKIP would love the same in the UK. In the face of this you refuse to look beyond "brexit mean brexit", reduce the leave campaign to two figures you favour, and only want to talk about the UK, as if it exists in isolation from the rest of politics and world.
Ramblin dave - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Er, why would they make a case for something that has already been decided? You don't ask somebody after an election "so, why should we vote for you in the election that is over"?

Maybe because they're excited about how good it's going to be? Maybe because they want to be leading a happy and unified country into their glorious future rather than one that's 48% despondent?

All this "Brexit means Brexit" talk just makes it sound more like they've suckered us into signing up for something awful and are gloating because we can't back out of it.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Oh FFS, apart from the fact that that's entirely untrue, surely "it would be bad if we leave" is an entirely reasonable case for not leaving.

Making a reasonable case for that is very different from the rampant scaremongering that we got during the campaign and since.
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I said:

> In short, the referendum decision should have been shelved until some kind of compassionate consensus on the refugee crisis had been reached.

You replied:

> In other words, you want your view of immigration to prevail, and you don't want people to be allowed to vote for anything else.

What a strange and troubling confabulation. You've drawn an awful lot of conclusions from my statement; you've also shown something of the context behind my argument. I can only conclude from the points you raise that for you, it really was about 'immigration' after all.

- My view of immigration is not necessarily the same as my view of helping refugees. Your choice of words in reply is telling. Is reaching a 'compassionate consensus' inevitably the same as me - somehow - imposing my view of immigration?

- I've no problem with people having a vote on a once-in-a-lifetime issue once the rhetoric is calmed and clear arguments can be made for and against.

- Democratic consent for EU policies has always been available, in a far less binary manner than offering a simplistic in/out decision (and all the inevitable unintended consequences)! It's called having MEPs.






GrahamD - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Its only rampant scaremongering if you want to try to rubbish the predictions from experts with no expert counter argument. Otherwise they are just that: predictions.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> Is reaching a 'compassionate consensus' inevitably the same as me - somehow - imposing my view of immigration?

Yes it is. Since, if it didn't coincide with your view, then you'd declare that it wasn't "compassionate".

> I've no problem with people having a vote on a once-in-a-lifetime issue once the rhetoric is calmed and clear arguments can be made for and against.

And that sort of wording is again saying that you don't want a democratic vote, unless it is on your terms.

> Democratic consent for EU policies has always been available, in a far less binary manner than offering a simplistic in/out decision (and all the inevitable unintended consequences)! It's called having MEPs.

Not really. The real power in the EU is not with the MEPs, it's with the European Commission and the governments. Even if every UK MEP voted against something, that alone could not change anything, which is why having MEPs is not the same thing as the democratic consent of the UK people.
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Oh dear.

I thought I was engaging in some kind of constructive debate; unfortunately you seem to be reverting to shouting about how you're correct.

Reiterating one's position and adding more and more extreme interpretations of your opponent's point of view, does not add legitimacy to one's argument.
damhan-allaidh on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sorry, I have to second MC's inerpretation of confabulation on this one, too.

> I've no problem with people having a vote on a once-in-a-lifetime issue once the rhetoric is calmed and clear arguments can be made for and against.

And that sort of wording is again saying that you don't want a democratic vote, unless it is on your terms.
..

That conclusion is not entailed by MC's statement. Supermajorities, for example, are a completely democratic approach but do make some requirements for setting specific parameters - it's not just an opinion free for all, which is what we have at the moment. A democratic vote on any crucial issue deserves proper, sober debate and consideration. Both the Indy ref and the EU ref were nothing but three ring circuses on speed.

We all deserved better from our elected representatives.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> I thought I was engaging in some kind of constructive debate; unfortunately you seem to be reverting to shouting about how you're correct.

Ah yes, just dismiss anyone arguing for a pro-Brexit position.

"Your refusal to seek democratic consent is leading populaces to be unhappy.".

"We'll allow a vote, but only when rhetoric is calmed and clear arguments are being made".

"But continuing to not have a vote means people are getting increasingly unhappy".

"Well in that case we *definitely* cannot have a vote, we can only have a vote when they are happy and calm and liable to vote the way we want them to."
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Ah yes, just dismiss anyone arguing for a pro-Brexit position.

I rather feel you are guilty of this, firstly by dismissing some exceptionally solid arguments for why 'Leave' was a bad choice, both in intent and in outcome and secondly by your somewhat fantastical extrapolations from the points raised by people with a differing point of view to your own.

> "Your refusal to seek democratic consent is leading populaces to be unhappy.".

> "We'll allow a vote, but only when rhetoric is calmed and clear arguments are being made".

> "But continuing to not have a vote means people are getting increasingly unhappy".

> "Well in that case we *definitely* cannot have a vote, we can only have a vote when they are happy and calm and liable to vote the way we want them to."

Only if people are willing to accept the false premises offered in the question itself. People are not unhappy because of *Europe*. Most people are not unhappy because of *immigration* (and many more would not be, were it not for the efforts of pernicious hard-right lobby groups, political parties and media outlets).

People are unhappy because they feel powerless in a changing world. Interestingly, the dynamics underlying that change have been vigorously pursued by a succession of economically right-wing UK governments. Europe didn't lead that; we did.
Post edited at 16:54
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> ... firstly by dismissing some exceptionally solid arguments for why 'Leave' was a bad choice, ...

Whether Leave will end up being a bad choice will depend a lot on what sort of deal we end up with, and what our trade relationships are then with the world in general, and the economic consequences of that. All of that is rather hard to predict.

> People are not unhappy because of *Europe*.

It's not so much Europe itself, as the decision-making of EU institutions, and people's feelings that they get no real say in the direction of the EU.

> Most people are not unhappy because of *immigration* ...

Well a lot of people are unhappy about it. Polls show that, and have shown it continually for a decade. Yes, plenty are entirely ok with it, but if they just dismiss the concerns of the many who are not, then they invite things like the Brexit vote.

> People are unhappy because they feel powerless in a changing world.

Agreed. And their feeling of a lack of say over the EU is a large part of that. There is a widespread feeling that what the UK populace might want doesn't count, since EU rules are against it, and the UK populace don't feel they've ever given proper democratic consent to those EU rules.

> Interestingly, the dynamics underlying that change have been vigorously pursued by a succession of economically right-wing UK governments.

Agreed. And the Brexit vote was as much against the Conservative government as against anything. The Conservative government, after all, campaigned for Remain.
MG - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> All you're saying is. Well I don't agree with them so their views are either noy positive or they are mad. Doesn't wash.

No, I am saying they are insignificant way-out opinions that don't refute the fact that the brexit case is dominated by illiberal populists.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> I'm amazed how complacent you are. Bill Maher described Trump's movement as a "slow moving coup", which I think is accurate - a gradual take over of US institutions and discourse. The movements I mentioned above are no different (add in Turkey btw), and UKIP would love the same in the UK. In the face of this you refuse to look beyond "brexit mean brexit", reduce the leave campaign to two figures you favour, and only want to talk about the UK, as if it exists in isolation from the rest of politics and world.
>
If I see an illiberal UKIP getting a sniff of serious power I will be very happy to excoriate it as I do the far left. Were I American I would have held my nose and voted for Hilary.

But it would be quite wrong to undermine the chance for the UK to reestablish and reform its democracy and reap the full benefits of a globalised world for the sake of fear of Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell.

I would suggest that if you believe in liberal democratic values, as I'm sure you do, you devote your efforts to campaigning for the best sort of brexit, and for the reform of the EU before it implodes under the weight of its own arrogance.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> All this "Brexit means Brexit" talk just makes it sound more like they've suckered us into signing up for something awful and are gloating because we can't back out of it.
>
May didn't even want brexit. Why would she gloat about it? This is the other weirdness that has taken root. People in power who never wanted brexit are tarred as if they were rabidly xenophobic fanatical brexiteers. I suspect it is just another stick for the usual Tory bashers.

Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Whether Leave will end up being a bad choice will depend a lot on what sort of deal we end up with, and what our trade relationships are then with the world in general, and the economic consequences of that. All of that is rather hard to predict.

It seems that the other 27 nations are very much in control of the kind of deal we get. it's not hard to see that we have very little to negotiate with.

> It's not so much Europe itself, as the decision-making of EU institutions, and people's feelings that they get no real say in the direction of the EU.

> Agreed. And their feeling of a lack of say over the EU is a large part of that. There is a widespread feeling that what the UK populace might want doesn't count, since EU rules are against it, and the UK populace don't feel they've ever given proper democratic consent to those EU rules.

Can't disagree with that, but I'd refer you to my reply above wherein I point out that the UK voting populace have hardly been proactive in engaging with Strasbourg. You feel that the power doesn't lie at Strasbourg, it lies 'with the European Commission and the governments'. Our Government has held significant power within the EU and the EC; we have now relinquished that power and are leaving our population vulnerable to the whims of the other member states in defining the crucial terms of our deal. Idiocy.

> (immigration) Well a lot of people are unhappy about it. Polls show that, and have shown it continually for a decade. Yes, plenty are entirely ok with it, but if they just dismiss the concerns of the many who are not, then they invite things like the Brexit vote.

Yes - the conversation has been thoroughly misdirected on the issue, and many people have allowed their own private xenophobia to accrue some form of substance over this issue. The benefits of immigration are reasonably evident, but people have a fatal tendency to tribalise, and dismiss positive stories of integration and contribution in favour of negative tropes about terror and crime. Such a tendency is ripe for exploitation by extreme-right elements, especially when successive Governments have been so lazy and ineffectual in driving cohesiveness.

> Agreed. And the Brexit vote was as much against the Conservative government as against anything. The Conservative government, after all, campaigned for Remain.

Very badly chosen point, similar to your 'next generation' point above. The Conservative Government allowed the referendum to take place in the first instance - many senior Tories have openly admitted that no-one really expected Leave to prevail. The referendum was merely an effort to quell internal Conservative Party strife.
Post edited at 18:00
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I would suggest that if you believe in liberal democratic values, as I'm sure you do, you devote your efforts to campaigning for the best sort of brexit,

As above, we really aren't able to dictate the terms of this.

> and for the reform of the EU before it implodes under the weight of its own arrogance.

Wow. And where do you suppose we had more influence? Within the EU, or out of it?
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> It seems that the other 27 nations are very much in control of the kind of deal we get.

Well we'll see. Free trade is to their advantage also. Of course they have to throw their temper tantrum first, and try to give us a very bad deal to punish us. But, for example, why would they want a trade deal with such as Canada but not with us?

> Can't disagree with that, but I'd refer you to my reply above wherein I point out that the UK voting populace have hardly been proactive in engaging with Strasbourg.

True, but populations have little influence over Strasbourg. Governments do.

> Our Government has held significant power within the EU and the EC ...

Agreed. And if they'd consulted (held a referendum on) all the previous treaties, things might now be different.

> The benefits of immigration are reasonably evident, ...

Well, actually, no they are not. What, really, does the average person in the street benefit from immigration? Don't reply "a stronger economy", because while immigration does increase GDP, it does not increase GDP *per* *capita*, which is what matters to the man in the street.

Partly as a result of millions of immigrants (though that's not the only factor) house prices, relative to income, are near all-time highs and are becoming unaffordable for many people, especially in the South East.

So if GDP per capita does not increase, but house prices relative to income do, why does the person in the street benefit?

> The Conservative Government allowed the referendum to take place in the first instance ...

I know that. And, to a large extent, the Brexit vote was a rebellion against governments of both flavours, Tory as much as Labour.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> As above, we really aren't able to dictate the terms of this.
>
No, obviously not, even less than we could dictate the terms membership. That's why it's called "democracy", not "dictatorship"

> Wow. And where do you suppose we had more influence? Within the EU, or out of it?

Possibly outside. They'll be shitting themselves that other will leave so the penny might drop that it requires reform. As Cameron's feeble efforts amply demonstrated, we didn't have much inside. But I'd like them to stick together and reform.
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> the Brexit vote was a rebellion against governments of both flavours, Tory as much as Labour.

Yes. An idiotic 'f*ck you' issued by millions, many of whom now thoroughly regret their choice.

Let's turn this around. Rather than people on the other side of the debate defending their positions, why don't you take the opportunity to tell us what's good about Brexit? You say it's different from Mr Trump's victory, yet your above point could apply just as much to the US election: substitute 'Brexit' for 'Trump' and so on.

So, how is it good? What opportunities are available, what can we accomplish now that the rug has been pulled? Before you answer please consider that NONE of the Leave leaders expected victory; NONE of them had a plan, and NONE have been able to convince a dismayed population that they know what they're doing here - quite the opposite. How is Brexit and *your* position demonstrably different from that of the racists who have taken succour from the prevalence of Leave? How do you think the UK is doing in showing leadership on this vital moral issue?
TobyA on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

>> ...Strasbourg...
> True, but populations have little influence over Strasbourg. Governments do.

Can I point out if you are trying to have influence on "Strasbourg" you are aiming about 400 kms too far south.
GrahamD - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well, actually, no they are not. What, really, does the average person in the street benefit from immigration?

May be flippant, but I have a dentist, a doctor and get treated in A&E.

Plus it accounts for probably 50% of climbing partners right now.
Murderous_Crow - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

Liked your comment. Confession: it was me that started using Strasbourg. It's still the seat of the European Parliament, but you're correct, the influence would be better directed north-west.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> Yes. An idiotic 'f*ck you' issued by millions, many of whom now thoroughly regret their choice.

> Let's turn this around. Rather than people on the other side of the debate defending their positions, why don't you take the opportunity to tell us what's good about Brexit? You say it's different from Mr Trump's victory, yet your above point could apply just as much to the US election: substitute 'Brexit' for 'Trump' and so on.
>
It's obviously different. The US is now led by a possibly psychologically disturbed maverick leader way outside the normal normal spectrum of US leaders. The UK is lead by a swattish Midlands grammar school girl with probably not a maverick thought in her brain.
Despite all the howling, there is no evidence at this stage that UKIP is likely to be any more than a thorn in the side of this or a successor government. Trump is the President.

I really don't see why you demand at this stage that people provide other justifications than xenophobia for brexit. They were made then if you choose to go through old threads, just as good and bad reasons for remaining were made. Any of them may be right or wrong and rehashing the arguments now doesn't prove anything about the motives of either leavers or remainers or the outcome, beyond what was said at the time.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> ... why don't you take the opportunity to tell us what's good about Brexit?

The ability to set our own laws, as set by a Parliament voted for by the British people.
The ability to make trade deals with the rest of the world (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, etc).
The ability to set our own immigration policy, as judged by what is good for the UK.
Vastly more control over the fish in UK waters.
The ability to set our own agricultural policy, and not to have to pay for CAP.
Avoidance of the various disasters that the EU has/will got into, in the same way that staying out of the Euro was a good idea.
TobyA on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

We'll see whether we have the "ability" to do any of those things. Remember, the rest of the world has a say on those trade deals as well as us. We need to hire those 1000s of new civil servants first though don't we? Maybe you should apply as you know how it's all going to work out!
krikoman - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> the only one who can see this as stalking is someone paranoid.

> it's a public forum , you went completely off thread because your are obsessed with one topic on which you have no problem throwing insults.

> i was on this thread because the topic was about something alarming which is taking place right before our eyes.

And still you've contributed nothing to the thread, besides having a go at me.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> Maybe you should apply as you know how it's all going to work out!

Well I don't really claim to know -- "interesting times", as per the Chinese curse. I'm just not impressed by the gloom-and-doom predictions.

But I think about it this way: let's suppose that the rest of the EU really do dislike us so much that they want to give us a really bad deal. In that case I'm happy not being tied into the EU whatever.

Suppose we had voted to Remain and if -- let's say -- Poland or Portugal had voted to exit, then I'd want to give them a good and equitable deal, since I wish them well.
Rob Exile Ward on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That's extraordinarily naive, and I'm surprised at you.

If in some strange twist the UK was seen to be able to benefit from brexit - e.g. by some fantastical deal that allowed us access to EU markets without having to put up with minor inconveniences like, ahem, paying for the administrative costs, or allowing free movement of labour (which, as a separate argument, is an intrinsic part of removing non-tariff barriers to trade, it isn't just a political aspiration) - if that happened, which it won't, the EU would cease to exist. East Europeans would cease to get funding to develop their economies, France and Germany would lose skilled workers and access to markets for their high end goods and products, new bureaucracies would spring up to deal with border controls, tariffs, taxes, new standards agreements and new judicial structures to mediate cross border disputes.

It isn't going to happen. We're going to be hung out to dry, both to set an example and because our wellbeing is not as important as the that of the remaining 27 states. And Theresa can make brave statements about how tough she is going to be, she can go native in India, (where she was largely ignored), cosy up to China, or send Farage to be Trump's bitch, it won't make a blind bit of difference. Welcome to the UK - the Albania of the future. May our children and grandchildren forgive us.
Post edited at 21:59
Coel Hellier - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> If in some strange twist the UK was seen to be able to benefit from brexit - e.g. by some fantastical deal that allowed us access to EU markets without having to put up with minor inconveniences like, ahem, paying for the administrative costs, or allowing free movement of labour (which, as a separate argument, is an intrinsic part of removing non-tariff barriers to trade, it isn't just a political aspiration) - if that happened, which it won't, the EU would cease to exist.

Really? Why is that? There I was thinking that all the EU policies were actually popular, and that the EU countries adopted them because they wanted to! And that it was only us who didn't like them. Silly me!

Are you saying that many of the other countries don't like things like free movement also? If what the UK is asking for is what others would like also, then why not give it to anyone who wants it?

> We're going to be hung out to dry, both to set an example and ...

And if that's their attitude then I don't want to be in an EU with "friends" like that.
Rob Exile Ward on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes, I am happy to accept that other countries have *minorities* that don't like [what they understand of] free movement, for a variety of reasons ranging from a misguided and simplistic sense of self interest to out and out racism. And they have politicians who are as happy to exploit those minorities to further their own ambitions. It's improbable that the opposition to such views will however be led by such a rag tag and bobtail bunch of incompetents that we were cursed with, who extraordinarily totally failed to hold Farage, Johnson and Gove accountable for the lies that they peddled every single day of the campaign.

'And if that's their attitude then I don't want to be in an EU with "friends" like that'

Did you flounce as you typed that? You have reflected exactly the sort of playground attitude that Theresa May keeps displaying. This isn't a game. This is about the economic prosperity, political stability and socially just development of 500,000,000 people. If 60 million turkeys just voted for Christmas, then sadly Christmas isn't going to be cancelled to save them from themselves.
Postmanpat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Yes, I am happy to accept that other countries have *minorities* that don't like [what they understand of] free movement, for a variety of reasons ranging from a misguided and simplistic sense of self interest to out and out racism. And they have politicians who are as happy to exploit those minorities to further their own ambitions. >

Well the whole thrust on this thread of the remainers' argument seems to be that that these "minorities" are about to don their jackboots and moustaches and take over the continent. That's why anybody who isn't manning the barricades (or whatever it is we are supposed to do) is apparently morally deficient.

TobyA on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But I think about it this way: let's suppose that the rest of the EU really do dislike us so much that they want to give us a really bad deal.

It's not about a bad deal, it's just not as good one as we have currently. I don't see why anyone in the UK or in the rest of EU would ever think that if we won't accept free movement of workers, then why should we get the other three freedoms? Fair enough, out is what a slim majority went for - leave voters will live with the results just like the remain people.

It does seem that the leave campaign was based on a very optimistic view of what the results would be, not a very realistic one.
Rob Exile Ward on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

That may be the thrust of some; you can't attribute any of those sentiments to me.

My concern is that as a result of Brexit we are in for a steady and inexorable economic decline, that will have increasingly corrosive effects on our treatment of the environment, minorities and the poor. And there will be significantly less ability to promote an agenda for a more sustainable, less growth-driven, more sustainable and socially just future than there was within the EU.

But hey, what do I know, that's just what the EU politicians say; we have the political and economic philosophy of the mighty Nigel Farage, with all his intellect, experience, knowledge and wisdom to guide us into a glorious new future. What can possibly go wrong?

(PS I'm not that fussed by Farage, however it is a bit disconcerting to realise that he is beginning to make our revered PM look a bit of a lightweight.)
krikoman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:


> Avoidance of the various disasters that the EU has/will got into, in the same way that staying out of the Euro was a good idea.

£/$ rates haven't done as well as the Euro(where's that symbol again, maybe that's one disadvantage - it's easier to find the £ on a keyboard) /$ over the last year.
Murderous_Crow - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well the whole thrust on this thread of the remainers' argument seems to be that that these "minorities" are about to don their jackboots and moustaches and take over the continent. That's why anybody who isn't manning the barricades (or whatever it is we are supposed to do) is apparently morally deficient.

Fallacious reasoning. The argument is simple and has been clearly stated above. From my point of view:

- Brexit and Mr Trump’s victory are very much linked. For example Mr Hellier described Brexit in the same terms as many people are describing the US election; Mr Trump enthusiastically welcomed Brexit as you will know. They are absolutely part of the same global phenomenon, as many knowledgeable academics and commentators agree.
- Each event reflects a growing sense of anger toward entrenched interests.
- Each event has been leveraged by divisive forces, seeking to place blame on people who are vulnerable and largely voiceless.
- To support either event for some of its potential benefits, is to ignore the work of these divisive forces in galvanising support, and fails to acknowledge that by supporting one element you are supporting the other.
- In short, as Mr Exile Ward notes above, we are in the process of making our respective societies more insular, more fearful, less welcoming and absolutely less fair.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Yes, I am happy to accept that other countries have *minorities* that don't like ...

If you're now arguing that it is only "minorities" in other countries who would want what were asking for, then giving such a deal to us would not then be the end of the EU, since no other country would want what we had, and would continue as before.

So you're contradicting your own argument.

If we got the deal we want then:

Either other countries would not want the same, in which case there is no need to "make an example of us" or anything, or

Other countries *would* want the same deal, in which case -- and hello, aren't we supposed to be democratic? -- let's grant the deal to all who want.
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> Fallacious reasoning. The argument is simple and has been clearly stated above. From my point of view:
>
It's not an argument. It's a caricature of somebody elses's argument and the assertion that far right parties, including apparently UKIP, are on the cusp of power all over Europe:

"This is not a time for confusion, hand wringing and havering. The alt Right, now to be called the Nazis, have driven Trump's campaign. The KKK are marching and celebrating. What is it, do you suppose, they are celebrating?
This is the time for the Republicans to stand up for their constitution. For the Tories to howl Farage out of town.Let's join together to damn the buggers. "
>
There are some links between brexit and Trump, one of which is that they are both a howl of frustration and anger against distant and corrupt technocratic elites. Those who think that the best response either in practical terms to such frustration is to crush it are actually going to compound the problem and store up real trouble down the road.

Absolutely, condemn the racist, xenophobic and authoritarian elements in these movements, but simply caricaturing them as only that and thus comprehensively evil is both inaccurate and self defeating.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> It's not about a bad deal, it's just not as good one as we have currently.

We're actually asking for a worse deal then we currently have. For example, we're willing to sacrifice all the benefits of free movement, thus getting a worse deal.

Does that sound strange to you? Do you or do you not think that free movement is a good thing? If it is a good thing then us not being part of it is a bad thing for us, and thus gives us a worse deal. Yes?

> if we won't accept free movement of workers, then why should we get the other three freedoms?

You seem to think that free movement is a necessary evil, a penance imposed on countries in order to obtain the other things that they want. Well, if people across Europe really think that then why not simply abolish it!


Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> My concern is that as a result of Brexit we are in for a steady and inexorable economic decline, [...] But hey, what do I know, that's just what the EU politicians say ...

Well of course they'd say that! They have to keep lauding the supposed benefits of the EU enterprise, that's their job!
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> £/$ rates haven't done as well as the Euro ...

Sure, the pound has fallen. That makes our exports more competitive. A lower exchange rate is a good thing overall (excepting people taking holidays abroad).

Greece really, really needs a lower exchange rate against the Euro, its economy is a basket case without that -- and yet, thanks to the economic ineptitude of the Eurocrats it now cannot have one.
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It was only a minority in our own country, it just so happens they were rather better represented than the majority who wanted to stay.

I don't understand why you struggle so much with the idea that a free market is intrinsically linked to free movement of labour. Almost by definition, the free market that the EU has created depends upon free movement - how effective would the US economy be if you needed to show a passport and obtain a work permit to move from state to state?

So we will be excluded, there will be both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, that is not negotiable, it's inevitable. And that will mean the same sort of sort of slow, steady economic decline that the UK suffered from the 1890s pretty much up to the 1980s. (I understand why people are cynical about economists, but it's a shame that more brexiteers weren't more familiar with economic history.)

krikoman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Sure, the pound has fallen. That makes our exports more competitive. A lower exchange rate is a good thing overall (excepting people taking holidays abroad).

But it also makes our imports (raw materials) more expensive, so I don't think that's a very good argument since we're net importers. Food, oil and energy; all imported, so costing us more now.
TobyA on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You seem bored currently Coel as you are playing sophomoric linguistic and debating games (I actually used the word bad not worse), rather than making any real points.

Personally I'm quite in favour of free movement of workers as I took advantage of that right for the majority of my adult life, and now the other 3/4 of my immediate family are also exercising that right. But on a policy level I don't understand why anyone would expect full access to the other 3 of the 4 freedoms (basically the single market) if they don't also share that one.

Clearly different EU member states have very different economic, political and social imperatives driving their positions. For countries receiving more people than they 'export', free movement may well be a 'cost' to be borne in order to access the rest of the single market. For countries reliant on 'exporting' labour to develop their own skills base or just for money coming back, free movement is obviously a significant benefit.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
We're net importers due to past circumstances.
The need to become more self sufficent might be no bad thing especially for the environment.
TobyA on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If you're now arguing that it is only "minorities" in other countries who would want what were asking for, then giving such a deal to us would not then be the end of the EU, since no other country would want what we had, and would continue as before.

Again, silly word games. This isn't static and unchanging. The centrist majorities in France for example don't want Britain to get a great deal for leaving because why then wouldn't lots more people support Le Penn when she says "I'll get the same deal for us"? Just because you gave your opinion to a pollster once, doesn't mean you need to stick with that opinion for ever!

And of course reactionary minorities can still have major effects on a political system as other major groups respond to them.

ads.ukclimbing.com
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:
There was an article in the Times (I think) that explored how migration had affected one of the Baltic states. So many people had migrated that employers were having to employ non EU citizens. Mostly from Africa and most on minimum wage .
Free movement of people hastening the race to the bottom?
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I don't understand why you struggle so much with the idea that a free market is intrinsically linked to free movement of labour.

And I don't understand why you struggle so much with the fact that it's not. There are plenty of free-trade deals around the world that don't involve free movement.

> Almost by definition, the free market that the EU has created depends upon free movement ...

Tosh.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> The centrist majorities in France for example don't want Britain to get a great deal for leaving because why then wouldn't lots more people support Le Penn when she says "I'll get the same deal for us"?

Can you and Rob Exile Ward and others consult and come to an opinion:

Do the people of other EU countries want the deal we're asking for or not?

If they don't want it, then there's no need to "make an example" of us.

If they do want it then -- since we are a democracy (agreed?) -- shouldn't that be what the EU heads towards?
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

No it's not. In your rarified academia there has always been special dispensation - scientists were freely exchanging ideas across Europe even during the Napoleonic wars - but in the commercial world that ain't so.
TobyA on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If they do want it then -- since we are a democracy (agreed?) -- shouldn't that be what the EU heads towards?

Do you mean are there people elsewhere in the EU who want to have their cake and eat it as people like Johnson do? Yes, of course. Do I think that the EU could survive/exist if more countries left but got access to the benefits of membership without contributing to the costs? No, I don't. Do I think that Europe would be a much more messed up continent without the EU? Yes, I do.

Rob will have to explain what he thinks.

Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>

> I don't understand why you struggle so much with the idea that a free market is intrinsically linked to free movement of labour.
>
No it it's not, and given the security outlook it seems unlikely that this situation will continue within the EU anyway.
Why would a hybrid system stop trade?
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:



> And if that's their attitude then I don't want to be in an EU with "friends" like that.

It is we who have "unfriended" them surely.
Our country's behaviour reminds me of a teenager who storms out of the house to sleep in the garden then cries cruelty because the parents don't bring them a cup of cocoa.


MG - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Do I want free beer? Yes. If I got it, would everyone else in the pub want free beer. Of course. Would the pub survive. Obviously not. Solution: don't give me free beer.

Coel's response: Well that just shows you what a dictatorial selfish bastard the landlord is. Who wants a pub that won't give free beer to everyone!
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
'Why would a hybrid system stop trade? '

Why do brexiteers always deal in such absolutes? We've already got a hybrid system - there are plenty of borders you can't cross without a passport. But once you start having to distinguish between, say, a Brit visiting Cologne on a stag weekend, or a rep visiting the same city to resolve a business issue, who therefore needs to apply for, maintain and display a work permit, then that becomes a non-tariff barrier.
Murderous_Crow - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Thanks for the considered response. Reading it one could be forgiven for thinking that our points of view largely coincide

> It's a caricature of somebody elses's argument and the assertion that far right parties, including apparently UKIP, are on the cusp of power all over Europe.

Demonstrably, they are. Across the Western world, far-right parties and interests have not been so close to power for many, many years.

> There are some links between brexit and Trump, one of which is that they are both a howl of frustration and anger against distant and corrupt technocratic elites. Those who think that the best response either in practical terms to such frustration is to crush it are actually going to compound the problem and store up real trouble down the road.

I fully agree. I feel it's time that the entire conversation needs to change: to recognise and debate people's economic concerns in a meaningful and rational way, and to illustrate that many of the failings people are angry about are due to systematic and repeated governmental failures.

> Absolutely, condemn the racist, xenophobic and authoritarian elements in these movements,

Yes, and where do you see these elements being condemned? In the right wing press? Not really. By our Governmental leaders? Again no. Plenty of normal, reasonable people who voted for Brexit (or for Mr Trump for that matter) are being sidelined and misrepresented by the absolute refusal by leaders and media, to acknowledge the presence and contribution of these destructive elements within each campaign.

>but simply caricaturing them as only that and thus comprehensively evil is both inaccurate and self defeating.

I haven't caricatured them as only that. I'm pointing out that such elements have contributed significantly to each campaign; we're seeing similar forces at work in France right now: she may well fall, symbolically if not in reality, to the far right very soon.
Post edited at 10:50
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

http://click.mail.theguardian.com/?qs=6d9feb6ab9c98e08b50215ba825db47d71e05807bf006b1ebbdcb7ba5b0f66...

How about a detailed breakdown of how the UK will benefit from Brexit? All its advocates, eg the business guy on Question Time last night, talk in general terms of "opportunity" and "independence"or cite instances of small businesses doing well because of the fall in the pound. I heard Gove (the gall of the man!) saying that "experts" would be helping to get the "best deal" the other day.
Let's stop saying Brexit shall we, as in Brexit means Brexit, and starting saying Out.
Out means Out!
Now how is that sounding for yourselves?
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> Do I think that the EU could survive/exist if more countries left but got access to the benefits of membership without contributing to the costs?

I'm sure the UK would willingly contribute to the costs of those things that it would want to be part of, for example the costs of free-trade agreements.
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Why would a hybrid system stop trade? '

> Why do brexiteers always deal in such absolutes? We've already got a hybrid system - there are plenty of borders you can't cross without a passport. But once you start having to distinguish between, say, a Brit visiting Cologne on a stag weekend, or a rep visiting the same city to resolve a business issue, who therefore needs to apply for, maintain and display a work permit, then that becomes a non-tariff barrier.

Why would you have to make that distinction? There is such distinction, for example, when I go to Japan.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> Do I want free beer? Yes. If I got it, would everyone else in the pub want free beer. Of course. Would the pub survive. Obviously not. Solution: don't give me free beer.

The UK is not asking for freebies. The UK would ask for a fair and equitable deal.

Is Canada paying in to EU coffers in order to agree a trade deal?
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

But at the moment the pub is giving free beer to most. Maybe that's one reason the paying customers aren't happy and want to go elsewhere?
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> It is we who have "unfriended" them surely.

Not at all. The UK has always been in favour of amicable cooperation and free trade. We're not "unfriends" with Switzerland and Norway, just because they've chosen not to be in the EU. Nor are we unfriends with Canada and Australia, who are not in the EU.
TobyA on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I'm sure the UK would willingly contribute to the costs of those things that it would want to be part of, for example the costs of free-trade agreements.

I thought the Norway model was ruled out as not being 'free' enough for the Brexiteers?

Not sure what you mean here either, are you saying the UK could be part of the EU's free trade agreements with 3rd countries, or that a free trade agreement between the UK and the EU has some sort of costs beyond set up?
TobyA on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Coel, free trade deals and being in the single market are not the same. I'm sure given time (and after say borrowing the experienced civil servants from Australia - or hiring and training new one here!) we can negotiate a free trade deal with the EU, lots of other countries have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36083664
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8411
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Because if you don't make that distinction - i.e. you don't differentiate between people entering your country to work and people entering to go on holiday, then you have free movement of labour! Yippee, we finally agree!
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> ... or that a free trade agreement between the UK and the EU has some sort of costs beyond set up?

All the UK wants is a trade deal. It is others who are suggesting that the UK is not willing to pay its fair share of any costs.
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Because if you don't make that distinction - i.e. you don't differentiate between people entering your country to work and people entering to go on holiday, then you have free movement of labour! Yippee, we finally agree!

Labour is of course not the same as people. So we have free movement of people with Japan?
Why are you creating strawmen? Just allow 3 month (for example) visa free entry, beyond that the reason for continuing entry has to be specified and there may be some restircitions on it, or not.
Post edited at 11:32
TobyA on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> All the UK wants is a trade deal.

It's great that you are in charge of the Brexit negotiations for HMG then, because you're very clear on this.

I'll stop listening to Davis and May then as you're bring so much more clarity to the situation. https://www.ft.com/content/2e1e9f8c-b0cb-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
I genuinely have no idea what you have in mind. How would such a scheme be administered? You rock up at the border, say 'It's OK gov, I'm only on holiday' then when you get a job you volunteer to apply for a visa? Yes, that will give us back the control over our borders that we apparently voted for, well worth the £100s of billions everyone now accepts that it is going to cost.

Travelling to Japan to work isn't quite the same as moving between European countries, it's a bit further away for a start and not so many Europeans are fluent at Japanese.
Post edited at 12:10
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I genuinely have no idea what you have in mind. How would such a scheme be administered? You rock up at the border, say 'It's OK gov, I'm only on holiday' then when you get a job you volunteer to apply for a visa?
>
The same way as it works in lots of other countries and used to work in Europe?
damhan-allaidh on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Replace 'vote on EU' with capital punishment, gay marriage, legalised homosexuality, abortion rights, the equality act, or any other progressive legislation that makes us a more functional inclusive society. It doesn't work so well (unless one is a homophobic misogynist who doesn't like disabled people and thinks that that capital punishment is morally justifiable/an effective deterrent).

The dialogue needs to go in 2 directions. Successive goverments have been appalling at persuading the electorate why certain things are, indeed, good for them - partly because they are good for society (not just a special interst group with a gripe) as a whole and partly because they lay the groundwork for future developments.

I'm glad my parents made me eat my fruit and veg.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> Replace 'vote on EU' with capital punishment, gay marriage, legalised homosexuality, abortion rights, the equality act, or any other progressive legislation ...

With the possible exception of capital punishment, all of those would be supported in a referendum. What makes you think otherwise?

Let me guess:

Brexit supporters won the referendum.
Brexit supporters are nasty and ignorant
Therefore Brexit supporters would vote against gay marriage, legalised homosexuality, abortion rights etc.
Therefore referenda on such issues would vote them down,
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think Brexit supporters would vote for killing all newborn boys at Christmas if they were led by Farage and Johnson and opposed by Corbyn and May.
FactorXXX - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think Brexit supporters would vote for killing all newborn boys at Christmas if they were led by Farage and Johnson and opposed by Corbyn and May.

When Jeremy Corbyn was asked his opinion on this, he mumbled something about it rating "seven, or seven and a half out of 10".
He then declared excitedly that he was going to spend some time on his allotment before having a jam making session in the evening.
damhan-allaidh on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

No, I wasn't picking on you but nice strawman. The Scarecrow always was my favourite Wizard of Oz character.

It's only recently that support for capital punishment has fallen below 50%. What I was pointing out is that democracy, governments with all of their branches, elected representatives etc., prevent tyranny of the mob on any issue.

By substituting issues, I was demonstrating that the whole point of having a parliamentary democracy is so that our elected representatives can make decisions about what's best for the /whole/ country now, and in the future - based on a lot of profound thinking, listening, discussion with constituents and other stakeholders, research and evidence.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> What I was pointing out is that democracy, governments with all of their branches, elected representatives etc., prevent tyranny of the mob on any issue.

No one is in favour of tyranny of the mob, but it's wrong to say that governments always moderate the baser instincts of the populace. There are liberal issues where the populace is ahead of the government.

One example is assisted dying, where about 8 out of 10 are in favour, but the government stalls.

Another example is that 7 out of 10 are against "faith" schools, which separate pupils by their parents religion, and against schools being exempt from the Equality Act. The government, however, sucks up to the religious lobby.

There are other issues -- such as minimum pricing for alcohol, and too much sugar in children's drinks and cereals -- where the people would support action but the government listens too much to industry lobbying against.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

This is good!

http://quillette.com/2016/11/14/cut-out-the-literally-hitler-hysteria/

"But there’s hope. A small bunch of rebels, armed to the teeth with playdohs, colouring booklets, chocolates and hashtag “#LiterallyHitler” are now determined to take the fight to the Trump camp. The “International Community” is now in talks over whether we should arm the moderate rebels, promote “real liberal democracy” and/or otherwise form a transitional government abroad, possibly headed by Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte. With a cabinet formed of the editorial board of Vox and Guardian."
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
damhan-allaidh on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

There have been doubts raised about the methodology used in the report that indicated 82% of the population supports assisted dying, but notwithstanding that, it has been debated in intense detail. My understanding is that there were serious concerns about the robustness of the legislation proposed last time. The fact that the BMA is against something I am for, gave me pause for thought, and I may have to review the robustness of my own justifications.

Our relationship to the EU should have been explored, debated and discussed in as forensic and honest detail. I hope whatever 'side' anyone is on, that much we can agree on.

And sometimes the government just does fumble it: the Digital Economy bill. The EU referendum. Going to war in Iraq. Sugar tax. And probably the biggest one if all, climate change.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> The fact that the BMA is against something I am for, gave me pause for thought, ...

I think that doctors themselves are pretty split, the representative bodies are against, but that's not a full reflection of doctors themselves.

> Our relationship to the EU should have been explored, debated and discussed in as forensic and honest detail. I hope whatever 'side' anyone is on, that much we can agree on.

Sure, entirely agree. But that applies just as much to the pro-EU side.

> And probably the biggest one if all, climate change.

The problem there is simply that there are no solutions that are remotely palatable to the populace. It's not really the fault of governments, the people would vote them out if they got serious about climate change.
Big Ger - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

So, if (when) the excrement and whirling object collide in Italy, where then for the EU overlords?

> After Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, Italy’s looming referendum on constitutional change has been cast as the next test of populism’s seemingly unstoppable rise across the western world – with some worrying that a defeat for Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, could spell disaster for the eurozone and Europe.
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

EU Overlords? Really?
Big Ger - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Just my fun name for them.

> Eu agriculture minister Mariann Fischer Boel recently responded to outrage over commissioners’ inflated pensions with the boast; “I’m worth the millions.”
Post edited at 22:36
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

For whom? I think we're all going to be getting used to some actual Overlords soon.
Personally I think we've just come to the end of a golden age.
Murderous_Crow - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Yes. The elephant in the room stands to the east.
TobyA on 26 Nov 2016
damhan-allaidh on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

1. The point is: often (usually, even?) there are no binary yes/no , good/bad (see Jon Stewart's Daily Show take on good thing, bad thing) or 'perfect' or 100% efficient solutions to problems. This is why we all require good critical thinking skills, ability to detail with uncertainty and ambiguity and minds open to new data and evidence, willingness to make some compromises. The Argumetative Indian by Amartya Sen demonstrates how a tradition of debate and strong argumentation skills can lead to productive consensus building.

2. I said that.

3. In this case we let govt give a big FU to its citizens and life on Earth? I happen to believe (supported by evidence and reasoning) this is a situation where politicians gave not the required knowledge and understanding to deal effectively with the problem, perhaps even intellectual capacity. We're stuck in big fossil fuel group think. As I have said elsewhere on UKC, dealing effectively with climate change would create jobs, enhance education opportunities, reduce inequality and, uh, save the planet.
jondo - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> And still you've contributed nothing to the thread, besides having a go at me.

Nothing wrong with just reading the thread is there?
Having a go? I didn't call you kkk or other names that were thrown at you. I've kept interaction with you mostly respectable given the level of disagreements.
Post edited at 18:03
krikoman - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> We're net importers due to past circumstances.

> The need to become more self sufficent might be no bad thing especially for the environment.

But how to you turn back the clock, we're buying a power station of the France and the Chinese FFS!

We've got no steel works left, at least one of any great importance. We'd have to import the iron ore anyhow.

We've got no oil left, so we can't suddenly magic that up either.

If we're not importing food what are we going to live on potatoes and cabbages?
baron - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

We are where we are due to history, obviously.
So is that it then?
Do we need to turn back the clock?
Is that allmwe can grow, spuds and cabbages?

krikoman - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> We are where we are due to history, obviously.

> So is that it then?

> Do we need to turn back the clock?

> Is that allmwe can grow, spuds and cabbages?

I'm all ears on how you think we can get by without importing loads of food stuffs. Without massive energy bills.
baron - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

How the heck would I know?
I'm a city boy!
But it might be an idea if those responsible (if such people exist) gave it some thought.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/06/more-than-half-of-uks-food-sourced-from-abroad-s...
krikoman - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> How the heck would I know?

> I'm a city boy!

> But it might be an idea if those responsible (if such people exist) gave it some thought.


But you're responsible stop buying imported food, only buy British grown food and the problem is solved, oh you might need to convince some other people too.
baron - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
Didn't seem to be much of a problem 1940 - 45, and for a good few years after.

Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> Didn't seem to be much of a problem 1940 - 45, and for a good few years after.

Is that your positive vision for brexit? Sounds lovely.
baron - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No, it's my extremely humerous response to Krikoman's negativity!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> No, it's my extremely humerous response to Krikoman's negativity!

Hilarious. And illiterate
baron - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

What do you expect from a teacher!
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> What do you expect from a teacher!

A question mark?
Jim C - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> A question mark?

Even if it was rhetorical ?
Sir Chasm - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Even if it was rhetorical ?

Yes, the clue's in the name. Why the big pause?
Jim C - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

....and, uh, save the planet.

The planet will be just fine , scorching hot, or freezing cold. ( we might not be though)
baron - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

It's OK, I've retired this year.
We get to do that when we reach 55.
Jim C - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:
Does this not infer that the EU are not confident that the UK will be seen as out of step, ( stupid racists) and that they think that other countries might actually agree with our decision, and they need to be scared into line?
Post edited at 00:17
Jim C - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

I'm with you on that, but for me it is looking like I am going to have to do another 3 years or so.
( but I will not like it, and will most likely regret it)
Gordon Stainforth - on 29 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I'm not sure this has been posted yet. If not, I'm a bit surprised. One of the most astonishingly angry broadcasts I've ever seen. WOW!

https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/803444750477049858
Pete Pozman - on 29 Nov 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Just makes me feel more helpless I'm afraid.
TobyA on 29 Nov 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> One of the most astonishingly angry broadcasts I've ever seen. WOW!

It's Keith Olbermann. That's his job.

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.