Loading Notifications...

WIFM - Brexit - Whats in it for me?

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

I did't agree with Brexit but having lost that argument I did think that a positive new relationship with the EU might be possible. I never thought that the 'Easiest deal ever' was on the cards but I thought there might be a mutually beneficial result.

What I cannot understand is 'What is in it for the Tory supporters of this current strategy to exit without a deal' - how will they profit from a 'No deal' because profit is their goal.

Can anyone tell me 'What is in it for them'?

Report
 mattmurphy 16 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I know what’s in it for me - I enjoy sea fishing.

Catches might be better without Spanish pair-trawlers pillaging the seas.

Thats probably it - everything else I’d probably going to be awful.

Report
 john arran 16 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

What's in it for cabinet members? Probably oligarch-level spoils as public funds are syphoned off.

What's in it for Tory MPs? Probably job security.

What's in it for Tory supporters? Nothing more than to see their 'team' win. Personal and national losses are inconvenient and probably embarrassing so are quietly ignored.

Report
 toad 16 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Disaster capitalists. Remember when we crashed out of the arm? A few people made a great deal of money . Same deal.

Report
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

What most of the hard Brexiters want is tax-avoidance, particularly in offshore tax havens that are coming under increasing scrutiny from both the EU and the IRS.

Report
 AdrianC 16 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

The low taxes that'll be needed to attract investment.  

Report
 mattmurphy 16 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Judging by my down-votes I assume people approve of the current EU fisheries policies.

I.e. the scientists proposes a catch of x tons and the EU quadruples it to placate France and Spain.

Expelling those parasites will be the one benefit of a no deal.

Post edited at 20:14
Report
 jethro kiernan 16 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

sorry but no red tape bonanza is not going to give you what you want.

"Attempts to enshrine in law a commitment to keep fishing quotas within the sustainable limits advised by scientists failed, and an amendment aimed at banning supertrawlers from marine protected areas was also defeated by 331 votes to 197"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/13/brexit-mps-reject-adopting-sustainable-quotas-in-fisheries-bill

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/

Like so much about brexit, 5 minutes research and several braincells is all that's required to work out its all bullshit.

Report
 mattmurphy 16 Oct 2020
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Yes I know that parliament has taken some disgraceful decisions about the protection of the seas recently, but at least we have the power to change things now (hopefully with a new government).
 

I’ve already written to my Brexit supporting MP to ask him to explain to me why he voted for the bill.

Report
 EddInaBox 16 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

I don't understand the down votes either, after all the fisheries bill went before Parliament on Tuesday with many helpful amendments to allow the Government to commit itself to increasing environmental protections beyond the current E.U. standards, and to keep to the sustainability levels that scientists advised.  It's almost like people think the Tories voted down all the amendments to the bill by 331 votes to 197, and reneged on their earlier promises to make sustainability a legal requirement.

Report
 jethro kiernan 16 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

“I’ve already written to my Brexit supporting MP to ask him to explain to me why he voted for the bill.“

I doubt he’ll inform you brexit was undeliverable bUllsh&t.

Post edited at 20:44
Report
 jkarran 16 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Cheaper access to power. Freedom to buy real deregulation. Tax cuts and a post-soviet style firesale of state assets. Instability they believe they manage and can profit in. 

Never underestimate though the value of the old empire bullshit, making Britain great again to borrow Trump's potent idea.

Jk

Post edited at 20:52
Report
 tom r 16 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Well for a large proportion of brexit voters it was all about sovereignty/democracy, the whole taking back control thing. No deal they think guarantees this. 

Now I'm sure there are brexiteers who have money riding on the economy tanking and other nefarious motives but for the general Brexiter that's the benefit.

 It's something remainers just dont get. The remain campaign should have led on explaining the concept of shared sovereignty.

Report
In reply to tom r:

There has just been so much crap talked about 'sovereignty' that I won't even begin. We had a huge amount of sovereignty before, now it'll be minute. Yes, we'll have our own 'sovereignty' as a little third world island, but it won't add up to a hill of beans. Meanwhile, our government is doing all it can to undermine our own parliamentary sovereignty. It's not just that we'll be a little third world island with virtually no power or influence left, we'll soon be a third-world tin-pot dictatorship. Saying goodnight now in sorrow and disgust.

Report
 jkarran 16 Oct 2020
In reply to tom r:

> Now I'm sure there are brexiteers who have money riding on the economy tanking and other nefarious motives but for the general Brexiter that's the benefit.

>  It's something remainers just dont get. The remain campaign should have led on explaining the concept of shared sovereignty.

What would have been the point, if it had lost the audience another brand of snake oil would have filled the void left by 'sovereignty'. It's easy to lie when the acid test of your lie is 5-10 years in the future and the lie can be redefined a hundred times in those years anyway.

jk

Post edited at 22:48
Report
 tom r 16 Oct 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

These are all points I largely agree with but it doesn't alter the fact that it was a big motivation for people voting Brexit. Remain basically didn't offer any argument against a very powerful emotional argument. Made more powerful due to a Britain rebounding from the loss of empire and still hung up on the second world war.

Remain should have argued Britain still had as much sovereignty as we ever did but it was voluntarily pooled with other nations for mutual benefit. That we owed it to the world war dead to support the EU who has helped to keep peace in Europe and other emotional arguments. Not just it's going to screw the economy ones.

Post edited at 23:33
Report
In reply to tom r:

> Well for a large proportion of brexit voters it was all about sovereignty/democracy, the whole taking back control thing. No deal they think guarantees this. 

> Now I'm sure there are brexiteers who have money riding on the economy tanking and other nefarious motives but for the general Brexiter that's the benefit.

>  It's something remainers just dont get. The remain campaign should have led on explaining the concept of shared sovereignty.

We do get it. It's completely mental, but we get it. 

Report
In reply to toad:

> Disaster capitalists. Remember when we crashed out of the arm? A few people made a great deal of money . Same deal.

The irony of course is that one of the people made plenty of cash when we crashed out of the ERM was George Soros. Basically the devil for Brexiteers, but of course in that case he was just observant rather than complicit.

Report
 tom r 16 Oct 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

Unfortunately not enough to counter the sovereignty argument in the referendum though. There have been 100s of 'what are the benefits of Brexit posts' on ukc. So a lot of remainers don't get it. In the referendum there was just experts saying it will be a disaster. Which polling indicated just pushed more people to vote leave.

Post edited at 00:03
Report
 Trevers 17 Oct 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> There has just been so much crap talked about 'sovereignty' that I won't even begin. We had a huge amount of sovereignty before, now it'll be minute. Yes, we'll have our own 'sovereignty' as a little third world island, but it won't add up to a hill of beans. Meanwhile, our government is doing all it can to undermine our own parliamentary sovereignty. It's not just that we'll be a little third world island with virtually no power or influence left, we'll soon be a third-world tin-pot dictatorship. Saying goodnight now in sorrow and disgust.

"Sovereignty" has become our version of America's "freedom". It's paraded as a simple utopian ideal but those who've bought into it can't actually define it, don't understand the real-world complexity of the concept and will cheer even as their freedom or sovereignty is actually taken from them.

Report
 tom r 17 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

There was a young American guy on the Grayson Perry big American road trip saying how he associated the word 'freedom' with negative things. The freedom to carry guns, the freedom to expose a racist ideology etc. 

It's sad how polarised the country has come. 

Post edited at 00:54
Report
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Scottish Independence and full membership of the EU.

Tories have totally lost the plot playing hardball with the EU just as the US get ready to kick Trump out and that part of their plan falls apart.

Report
 Jamie Wakeham 17 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

You're absolutely right. I nearly had a stand-up row with my father a few months ago. He readily agreed that Brexit would be an economic disaster, that it would introduce chaos at all the borders, was robbing his grandchildren of opportunities to travel and work in the EU that he and I had enjoyed, would probably not do a thing for the UK fishing industry and might well cause the reopening of hostilities in Northern Ireland.  But he still felt it would be worth it because we could get rid of all the laws that the EU had foisted upon us without our consent.

So I asked him to name the first EU law he would revoke. In fact, to name any legislation imposed by the EU whatsoever. He was unable to come up with a single example.

(he's never voted in an election for his MEP because... he doesn't want to support unelected EU bureaucracy)

That's what we lost to.

Report
 wbo2 17 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> Yes I know that parliament has taken some disgraceful decisions about the protection of the seas recently, but at least we have the power to change things now (hopefully with a new government).

You had the power to change it anyway.  The UK gov. doesn't/didn't have to give it's quota to supertrawlers.  You'll see it's true colours now via the already quoted above re. failed legislation

Report
 deepsoup 17 Oct 2020
In reply to jkarran:

>  making Britain great again to borrow Trump's potent idea.

Breaking Britain up into separate countries again.

Hard to see even Trump trumping that even through a second term of unfettered swivel-eyed lunacy, unless he actually manages to provoke a second civil war somehow.

Post edited at 11:47
Report
In reply to tom r:

> Unfortunately not enough to counter the sovereignty argument in the referendum though. There have been 100s of 'what are the benefits of Brexit posts' on ukc. So a lot of remainers don't get it. In the referendum there was just experts saying it will be a disaster. Which polling indicated just pushed more people to vote leave.

It is very difficult to argue against an irrational argument which people are wedded to because they have been fed a diet of usually misleading and sometimes deliberately untrue information for decades.

Report
 GrahamD 17 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I suspect that most Brexit supporters (many of whom aren't Conservative supporters anyway) didn't support the option of no deal Brexit.

Of the Brexit supporters who want a no deal, I suspect most of them are just succoured by the independent sovereignty notion and nothing to do with how they personally profit.

Report
 climbingpixie 17 Oct 2020
In reply to tom r:

> Remain basically didn't offer any argument against a very powerful emotional argument.

> Remain should have argued Britain still had as much sovereignty as we ever did but it was voluntarily pooled with other nations for mutual benefit. That we owed it to the world war dead to support the EU who has helped to keep peace in Europe and other emotional arguments. Not just it's going to screw the economy ones.

I've seen so many variations of this argument over the last 4 years about what Remain should or shouldn't have argued that would've won it the referendum and I just don't find them particularly convincing. The referendum campaign was fought asymmetrically - one side constrained by reality because its position was the status quo, the other able to promise anything and everything to win votes, regardless of how implausible or contradictory those promises were. Whenever Remain made positive arguments (which they did - contribution to peace, regional development, research funding etc) the Leave side could say, 'well we'll do that anyway, only better'. And any negative argument was met with accusations of Project Fear. How do you campaign against that?

Report
In reply to climbingpixie:

Very well summarised.

Report
 Trevers 17 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

> I've seen so many variations of this argument over the last 4 years about what Remain should or shouldn't have argued that would've won it the referendum and I just don't find them particularly convincing. The referendum campaign was fought asymmetrically - one side constrained by reality because its position was the status quo, the other able to promise anything and everything to win votes, regardless of how implausible or contradictory those promises were. Whenever Remain made positive arguments (which they did - contribution to peace, regional development, research funding etc) the Leave side could say, 'well we'll do that anyway, only better'. And any negative argument was met with accusations of Project Fear. How do you campaign against that?

Parliament dropped the ball big time with the EU Referendum Act in 2015. To allow the referendum to be enacted as it was in an "advisory" capacity, no supermajority threshold and no requirement for a white paper laying out a specific plan was to set up an entirely foreseeable catastrophe. Remain-supporting MPs on all sides have some part in the culpability.

Post edited at 14:30
Report
 MargieB 17 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Beyond the hype, isn'ti itwe'll have our fish in exchange for eating their Camembert?

Otherwise we all chainsaw the house and nobody gets anything much.

Post edited at 14:34
Report
 climbingpixie 17 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> Remain-supporting MPs on all sides have some part in the culpability.

Oh absolutely. Totally agree with all of that. There are any number of constitutional safeguards that could've been put in place that would've prevented the EU referendum from being as damaging and divisive as it's turned out to be. The real failing was the arrogance and complacency of Cameron/Remain in not imposing them.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Oct 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> It is very difficult to argue against an irrational argument which people are wedded to because they have been fed a diet of usually misleading and sometimes deliberately untrue information for decades.

You still don't understand it though, if that's your view.

It has NOTHING to do with being fed information, and EVERYTHING to do with wanting Britain to be independent of the rest of Europe. They believe (an emotive belief, based on no fact) that GB is the best country in the EU and the rest of the EU only drags us down, and not only that but sometimes imposes it's ideas on us.

This isn't based on any diet of information, it's based on boarders on a map, different languages and 'funny foreign people'. It is an emotional view. You CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST IT. (apologies for caps but this is key)

I am a strong remainer. But that is position of a leave voter.

Post edited at 15:32
Report
 Andy Gamisou 17 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

> Can anyone tell me 'What is in it for them'?

Great trade deals.  Except for China (obviously).  Looks like the US might be out too.  Our main trading partner (EU) is obviously problematic. I did hear that Sierra Leone might be interested.

 Apart from that - return of the farthing as principle unit of currency?

Report
 Lord_ash2000 17 Oct 2020
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I'm sure there will and already have been all manner of ways to profit from Brexit but it'll be countless tiny little opportunities for those in certain places to exploit. 

But I think for your average Brexit voters (Tory and Labour supporters both) it's more about a sense of independence, a hope of taking back control over the countries destiny again and getting control over how many people entre the country. For many people that's worth paying a price for profit isn't the sole motivator you think it is. 

Post edited at 15:36
Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

No Ed, it is you that doesn’t understand. You disagree, yet you explain why I am correct.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Oct 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> No Ed, it is you that doesn’t understand. You disagree, yet you explain why I am correct.

OMG.

They don't have that view because they have been 'fed a diet of usually misleading and sometimes deliberately untrue information for decades.' (to quote you).

They haven't been fed anything. They haven't been mislead. They aren't basing their view on information.  They don't want to be wedded to other countries, it is a simple as that. 

Report
 David Riley 17 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

> I've seen so many variations of this argument over the last 4 years about what Remain should or shouldn't have argued that would've won it the referendum and I just don't find them particularly convincing. The referendum campaign was fought asymmetrically - one side constrained by reality because its position was the status quo, the other able to promise anything and everything to win votes, regardless of how implausible or contradictory those promises were. Whenever Remain made positive arguments (which they did - contribution to peace, regional development, research funding etc) the Leave side could say, 'well we'll do that anyway, only better'. And any negative argument was met with accusations of Project Fear. How do you campaign against that?

It would have been better to accept that the UK would be alright outside the EU. Since we were independent before and there are successful independent countries all over the world.  But respect voters wanting to leave and debate the advantages we currently benefitted from that others did not.

Instead the Remain campaign stuck to their claim that anyone thinking we could survive it was stupid.

You are right that the status quo was reality.  But that did not make any opinion of an, as yet unknowable, alternative outside the EU automatically lies, fake news, unicorns, insanity, or brainwashing, to be shouted down.   The opinion, for instance, that contribution to peace, and research, would not actually be diminished.  If that is your opinion. Then how do you campaign against those who say it's obviously rubbish, and merely hurl abuse ?

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

OK, so 17.4 million people formulated the same or similar views with no external influences. Gotcha.

They all just had feelings about sovereignty and British exceptionalism, which whilst inaccurate, where inaccurate in more or less the same way. With no external influences. I’m glad we have cleared that one up.

Report
 AllanMac 17 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

 How do you campaign against that?

It is impossible to campaign against what amounts to a crackpot religious cult. 'Project Fear' was, and is, a substituted term for blasphemy, in which rational arguments and fact get condemned as violating the God of disaster capitalism ingrained within Brexit. So powerful has the religion become, that international laws are now broken with impunity by the elitist high priests, while everyday rules of law are tightened for ordinary people.  

The right wing media have been very calculating and effective in nurturing a devoted following, while at the same time sowing seeds of division, chaos, destabilisation and panic. Thus, the public have become cowed and disorientated. Disorientation leaves people vulnerable and impressionable, so the beliefs surrounding pro-corporate measures can be pushed through without too much resistance.

This is, in my opinion, the crux of what Brexit is all about. Its motives are entirely ulterior, whose beneficiaries are the wealthy elite, aided and abetted by a public hoodwinked and subdued into a narrowed ideological belief by a majority billionaire-owned media. 

Report
 Timmd 17 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I'm sure there will and already have been all manner of ways to profit from Brexit but it'll be countless tiny little opportunities for those in certain places to exploit. 

> But I think for your average Brexit voters (Tory and Labour supporters both) it's more about a sense of independence, a hope of taking back control over the countries destiny again and getting control over how many people entre the country. For many people that's worth paying a price for profit isn't the sole motivator you think it is. 

https://www.channel4.com/press/news/brexiteer-jacob-rees-mogg-estimated-have-earnt-ps7m-investments-referendum-according

Jacob Rees Mogg seems to have profited from the devaluing of the pound post Brexit, to the tune of 7million (estimated).  With him being in favour of Brexit, him talking about the setting up of 2 funds in Dublin rather than London being a decision which was take pre Brexit, could seem to be either straight forward or disingenuous, depending on what his 'grand plan' was and general astuteness. His father writing a book on disaster capitalism, about how to profit from/in in disaster areas or places of upheaval may provide a context which is reasonable to apply (or it may not do).

Post edited at 16:45
Report
In reply to mattmurphy:

>Judging by my down-votes I assume people approve of the current EU fisheries policies.

I'd imagine many people simply think that killing wild animals for pleasure is a pretty sh*t way to carry on.

jcm

Report
 Jamie Wakeham 17 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> Parliament dropped the ball big time with the EU Referendum Act in 2015. To allow the referendum to be enacted as it was in an "advisory" capacity, no supermajority threshold and no requirement for a white paper laying out a specific plan was to set up an entirely foreseeable catastrophe.

I dearly hope that Cameron still wakes up at 3am in a cold sweat, remembering just how badly he f#cked up at the defining moment of his premiership.

Report
 Trevers 17 Oct 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> It would have been better to accept that the UK would be alright outside the EU. Since we were independent before and there are successful independent countries all over the world.  But respect voters wanting to leave and debate the advantages we currently benefitted from that others did not.

We were alright before computers too, so why not just get rid of all of them? This isn't a robust argument in any way.

> But that did not make any opinion of an, as yet unknowable, alternative outside the EU automatically lies, fake news, unicorns, insanity, or brainwashing, to be shouted down.  

You've almost entirely contradicted yourself. The bit I've highlighted renders your argument nonsensical.

Post edited at 17:53
Report
 climbingpixie 17 Oct 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> You are right that the status quo was reality.  But that did not make any opinion of an, as yet unknowable, alternative outside the EU automatically lies, fake news, unicorns, insanity, or brainwashing, to be shouted down.

You're right in that it doesn't necessarily follow that the other side in a referendum has to be based on lies, unicorns or cakeism. They could've been honest with voters about the inevitable trade offs and compromises that would need to be made, particularly in the context of being the smaller party in a negotiation. But that wouldn't have won them the referendum, would it?

Sadly, it seems very few of the promises made by leavers have held up to contact with reality so far. The £350m a week we're 'saving' is dwarfed by the costs of Brexit, the bonfire of red tape has transformed into a great opportunity for the customs sector as businesses prepare for an orgy of form filling, more money for our farmers replaced by a gaping hole after the withdrawal of the CAP and the prospect of competing against cheap imports from countries with lower welfare and environmental standards, regulatory sovereignty turns out to be a red herring because it's actually cheaper and more efficient to produce products to an internationally recognised standard rather than fanny around with a parallel process so we end up sucked into the regulatory ambit of either the US or the EU anyway... so much for all that lovely autonomy! Pretty much the only thing that was promised by the Leave campaign that has come to pass is that we're ending free movement so at least the racist pensioners will be happy.

Report
 David Riley 17 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

> You're right in that it doesn't necessarily follow that the other side in a referendum has to be based on lies, unicorns or cakeism. They could've been honest with voters about the inevitable trade offs and compromises that would need to be made, particularly in the context of being the smaller party in a negotiation. But that wouldn't have won them the referendum, would it?

You have turned that around, from me saying remain lost support by claiming every leave opinion was lies, unicorns, etc. . To implying that leave supporters were idiots, incapable of having opinions and being fed 'promises' by leaders, Russian bots, or whatever.  Which is exactly the answer I gave you to your question about how else remain could have campaigned.  That is part of the reason leave won.

That there were any promises, is remain mythology.  Most that voted leave were accepting no deal might result.  But hoped the EU would have more sense.  If they didn't there was more reason to leave.

The ending of respect for other opinion was polarizing.

Referring to racist pensioners really does not sound like you.

Report
In reply to David Riley:

Well, that is really reassuring to hear, given that Brexiters are now going to get what they voted for, good and hard.

Report
In reply to David Riley:

This is what always baffles me about you people. Your refusal to understand that a campaign built on racism and lies naturally eliminates all respect for its supporters.

jcm

Report
 climbingpixie 17 Oct 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> You have turned that around, from me saying remain lost support by claiming every leave opinion was lies, unicorns, etc. . To implying that leave supporters were idiots, incapable of having opinions and being fed 'promises' by leaders, Russian bots, or whatever

Because virtually every argument put forward by Leave was a lie. Leave promised that we could have all the good stuff with no negative consequences, it never talked about the difficult, complicated and painful trade-offs that would need to be made to extricate ourselves from a 40 odd year relationship that facilitated frictionless trade across a wealthy trading bloc. And saying that leave supporters were lied to is not the same as saying that they're idiots, though don't let facts get in the way of your Brexiter victim complex.

> That there were any promises, is remain mythology.

Bollocks.

"There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside", "We hold all the cards", "Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy", "The cost of getting out would be virtually nil", “There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it… Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave… The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly.”, “If we vote to leave then I think the union will be stronger", “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market”

> Most that voted leave were accepting no deal might result.

Except that all the consequences of no deal were dismissed as Project Fear, as things that would never happen. To turn around and say that things the leave campaign dismissed as false, as exaggeration, as "a highly flawed assumption", are a suitable indication that leave voters accepted the risk of no deal is nonsense - your campaign was based on saying these things would never happen!

> Referring to racist pensioners really does not sound like you.

I'm not saying that all leave voters were racist pensioners, just that they're the only section of the leave voters who will end up happy because, ultimately, they're the only ones who will get what they want.

Report
 Timmd 17 Oct 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> That there were any promises, is remain mythology.  Most that voted leave were accepting no deal might result.  But hoped the EU would have more sense.  If they didn't there was more reason to leave.

The £350 million a week it was claimed would be saved was what, if it wasn't a lie and a promise?

Report
 Trevers 17 Oct 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> The £350 million a week it was claimed would be saved was what, if it wasn't a lie and a promise?

It was a "suggestion". In other words, it was dressed up as a manifesto promise, but with sufficient wiggle room to deny it.

Report
 David Riley 17 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

> How do you campaign against that?

I answered your question.

Report
 HardenClimber 18 Oct 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> That there were any promises, is remain mythology.  

Leave rewriting History

>Most that voted leave were accepting no deal might result.  But hoped the EU would have more sense.  If they didn't there was more reason to leave.

'Most'? Really? Any evidence to support acceptance of no-deal and its consequences?

Report
 HardenClimber 18 Oct 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> You still don't understand it though, if that's your view.

> It has NOTHING to do with being fed information, and EVERYTHING to do with wanting Britain to be independent of the rest of Europe. They believe (an emotive belief, based on no fact) that GB is the best country in the EU and the rest of the EU only drags us down, and not only that but sometimes imposes it's ideas on us.

> This isn't based on any diet of information, it's based on boarders on a map, different languages and 'funny foreign people'. It is an emotional view. You CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST IT. (apologies for caps but this is key)


The lies and misinformation extended over 40 years. Part of the problem is the 'jokes' which shift the frame of acceptability. The idea about foriegn-ness was certainly promoted in contrast to English speaking countries, yet in many ways we used to be more aligned in societal attitudes to europe than usa.

I think I am becoming increasingly aware of the subtle corrosive effects of low level misinformation, humour with a sharp end, and ridiculous lies / statements.

Report
 HansStuttgart 18 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

>  Pretty much the only thing that was promised by the Leave campaign that has come to pass is that we're ending free movement so at least the racist pensioners will be happy.

It is not just a few racist pensioners that wanted to end free movement.

Ending free movement was a priority for both Labour and Conservatives in the last few elections. The LibDems were in government when the UK tried to get rid of free movement from within the EU (I don't remember protests against this either...). And a good fraction of the Remain campaigns told the people that the UK could stay in the EU and still end free movement (Remain and Reform).

Report
 jethro kiernan 18 Oct 2020
In reply to HardenClimber:

> The lies and misinformation extended over 40 years. Part of the problem is the 'jokes' which shift the frame of acceptability. The idea about foriegn-ness was certainly promoted in contrast to English speaking countries, yet in many ways we used to be more aligned in societal attitudes to europe than usa.

> I think I am becoming increasingly aware of the subtle corrosive effects of low level misinformation, humour with a sharp end, and ridiculous lies / statements.

This is the flip side of a certain type of British humour, sometimes it’s a tool to keep people in “their place” and can be quite corrosive over time. From the getting the apprentice to fetch the tartan paint to more corrosive cultural jokes.

I’m thinking of the Irish jokes so popular in the 70’s

or more recently in the light of the inhuman process of fit for work assessments the little Britain Lou & Andy sketch wouldn’t be so funny when your facing having disabilities benifits removed.

Report
 climbingpixie 18 Oct 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

Oh, opposition to freedom of movement isn't solely the preserve of racist pensioners - I have various family members who voted leave because they wanted to get rid of Bulgarian migrants locally. It's just the ultimately I think all other groups will find leaving the single market wasn't worth the trade offs of higher prices, declining investment, stagnant growth and increased unemployment.

Fair point about political opposition to FOM, though I don't recall it being a major issue for Labour until after the shameful scapegoating of migrants for the results of austerity. I didn't think it was part of Remain and Reform though, I thought that was more about curving the EU's neoliberal tendencies and trying to improve the power structures within it to improve accountability?

Report
 wercat 18 Oct 2020
In reply to David Riley:

History suggests you are wrong about people not being whipped up and moved by propaganda.

Are you suggesting the British public are uniquely noble and unaffected by propaganda?  Better than the Germans in the 1930s who were not immune, or the patriotic wish to slay the Hun/Boche in England in 1914, or to kill your neighbours in Yugoslavia or Rwanda?

History shows people are readily influenced and that is why so much is spent by "The Hidden Persuaders".

btw was it the MX294? (came up in conversation on Friday)

Post edited at 10:49
Report
 ClimberEd 18 Oct 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> OK, so 17.4 million people formulated the same or similar views with no external influences. Gotcha.

> They all just had feelings about sovereignty and British exceptionalism, which whilst inaccurate, where inaccurate in more or less the same way. With no external influences. I’m glad we have cleared that one up.

No contrived external influences. Pretty much. No need for the sarcasm. It is human nature to be distrustful of the 'other'. The sooner remainers understand this the better. 

Report
 GrahamD 18 Oct 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

>  The sooner remainers understand this the better. 

I think most remainers do understand it but try to move past it because it is ultimately destructive.

Report
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> You're absolutely right. I nearly had a stand-up row with my father a few months ago. He readily agreed that Brexit would be an economic disaster, that it would introduce chaos at all the borders, was robbing his grandchildren of opportunities to travel and work in the EU that he and I had enjoyed, would probably not do a thing for the UK fishing industry and might well cause the reopening of hostilities in Northern Ireland.  But he still felt it would be worth it because we could get rid of all the laws that the EU had foisted upon us without our consent.

> So I asked him to name the first EU law he would revoke. In fact, to name any legislation imposed by the EU whatsoever. He was unable to come up with a single example.

> (he's never voted in an election for his MEP because... he doesn't want to support unelected EU bureaucracy)

> That's what we lost to.

I'll give you a like for saving me the energy of typing all that out in discussions I've had.

Edit: to add to this the rediculous notion spouted by countless dingbats about how great we were doing before we joined the (pre) EU without realising we were skint,on our arse, and begging to be allowed to join.

Post edited at 11:29
Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

It almost as if people use distrust of otherness to manipulate opinion.

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

> No contrived external influences. Pretty much. No need for the sarcasm. It is human nature to be distrustful of the 'other'. The sooner remainers understand this the better. 

The sooner you understand others, the sooner you will realise that they are not 'others'. If you still don't get it then, you'll be the oddball.

Report
 seankenny 18 Oct 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> No contrived external influences. Pretty much. No need for the sarcasm. It is human nature to be distrustful of the 'other'. The sooner remainers understand this the better. 


I note that you leave the "other" helpfully undefined. Just who are they?

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Oct 2020
In reply to John Stainforth:

> The sooner you understand others, the sooner you will realise that they are not 'others'. If you still don't get it then, you'll be the oddball.

Dude, I'm a 'remainer'. 

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Oct 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> I note that you leave the "other" helpfully undefined. Just who are they?

It's undefined because, as per my point, 'other' is anyone outside your perceived group.

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Oct 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> I think most remainers do understand it but try to move past it because it is ultimately destructive.

I'm not sure I agree. I am a firm remainer, and listening to what other remainers have to say  about how to engage and change the minds of people who support Brexit fills me with despair at their lack of understanding. 

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

I really think you have this wrong. All the Remainers I know, understand this well. This distrustfulness of the 'others' is not simply "human nature" - it's primitive human nature, otherwise known in its various guises as tribalism, xenophobia, parochialism, nationalism, and racism. The more ignorant people are, the more xenophobic they tend to be. This distrust of others is not to be encouraged (which all evil leaders do), because it's the number one cause of fighting and wars. 

The problem is not in understanding it, but in somehow attenuating it. The only way I know is education - the converse of propaganda.

Report
 HansStuttgart 18 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

>  I didn't think it was part of Remain and Reform though, I thought that was more about curving the EU's neoliberal tendencies and trying to improve the power structures within it to improve accountability?

Could well be, maybe i messed up the remain campaigns...

I agree that most people won't be happy with the result. But it will take (maybe a lot) time to realize this. I think a lot of the misery will be hidden by a continuously changing pound value. So the link with brexit will look weak. And with the politicians currently unwilling to point these things out... Will Labour start arguing for single market membership in 2021 when some of the effects become clearer?

Report
 climbingpixie 18 Oct 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> Will Labour start arguing for single market membership in 2021 when some of the effects become clearer?

My fear is that the issue will continue to be so toxic and divisive that Labour will shy away from it for at least the next election, though I guess it depends just how bad the effects are and how clearly they can be attributed to a Tory hard Brexit. In some ways, it being a disaster would be worse for the aim to return to a closer relationship in future as I think it will enhance conflict between the Remain and Leave factions, as Leave lashes out and doubles down on the betrayal myth (it would've been great if only Remainers had believed in it more/backed Britain/not forced us to sign the WA etc etc).

ETA: I don't think Labour are doing themselves any favours with their Brexit position at the moment. I understand why they want to shy away from the issue but without highlighting the risks of the current Tory strategy and playing along with the idea that a good deal would be possible if only Johnson's administration was more competent they're undermining their ability to criticise the fallout in the future.

Post edited at 22:43
Report
 ClimberEd 19 Oct 2020
In reply to John Stainforth:

> I really think you have this wrong. All the Remainers I know, understand this well. This distrustfulness of the 'others' is not simply "human nature" - it's primitive human nature, otherwise known in its various guises as tribalism, xenophobia, parochialism, nationalism, and racism. The more ignorant people are, the more xenophobic they tend to be. This distrust of others is not to be encouraged (which all evil leaders do), because it's the number one cause of fighting and wars. 

> The problem is not in understanding it, but in somehow attenuating it. The only way I know is education - the converse of propaganda.

Fair enough. And I definitely agree with your latter point that the distrust of others is not to be encouraged. However, I have a firm belief in evolutionary psychology (broadly because the cognitive processes don't change as quickly as culture does) and think this primitive human nature is much harder to overcome (en masse) than might be expected. 

Report
 Rob Naylor 19 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

> I'm not saying that all leave voters were racist pensioners, just that they're the only section of the leave voters who will end up happy because, ultimately, they're the only ones who will get what they want.

Actually, they won't necessarily. A married couple of Polish pharmacists working in a town near my work office last year upped sticks and went back to Poland as they'd been given  fair bit of stick by some of the more racist Brexiteers. To the frothing rage of said racist Brexiteers, they were replaced by Malays! Now you hear: "at least the Poles were white"!

Report
 Ridge 19 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Naylor:

> To the frothing rage of said racist Brexiteers, they were replaced by Malays! Now you hear: "at least the Poles were white"!

I think there is going to be a lot of frothing as a huge swathe of Brexiteers discover India and Pakistan aren't a part of the EU.

Report
 wercat 19 Oct 2020
In reply to Ridge:

and when they buy goods with components "made" by Happy Sunshine Electronics (to look like genuine parts) that catch fire and burn their house down

(carefully stamped with a Chinese Export CE label that will make most people think it meets European standards, and with a mains lead that is also a fire and electrical risk as you can't see how badly made the fake 13 amp plug with its CE mark is inside.)

Which EU countries exported stuff like this to us?

Post edited at 16:36
Report
 deepsoup 19 Oct 2020
In reply to wercat:

> carefully stamped with a Chinese Export CE label

There is no such thing.  Obviously counterfeit goods are a thing, and it's possible for a dodgy manufacturer (Chinese or otherwise) to put a CE label on something that doesn't meet the standards it should, but the "Chinese Export" label is a myth.

> the fake 13 amp plug with its CE mark

It's definitely a fake 13 amp plug if it has a CE mark.  The CE mark doesn't apply to mains plugs/sockets - individual countries within the EU have their own national standards.
In the case of the UK 13A plug it should be marked as compliant with BS1363.

E2A:

> Which EU countries exported stuff like this to us?

Um..  no longer an EU country, and not an export - but Whirlpool at least claim to make their tumble driers in Bristol.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/01/whirlpool-condemned-for-silencing-customers-over-tumble-dryer-fires

Post edited at 17:02
Report
 wercat 19 Oct 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

was that an assembly plant?  Plus there is a difference between design flaws and wilfully faking stuff.

I have fallen foul of fake semiconductors personally.

Don't know about any myths - I just made up the Chinese Export idea.  The point is that these markings are faked in China and these fakes are becoming increasingly common here

Post edited at 17:23
Report
 deepsoup 19 Oct 2020
In reply to wercat:

> Don't know about any myths - I just made up the Chinese Export idea.

Ah, just a coincidence then.  You're not the first to just make up the idea, it's a well established urban myth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking#China_Export

Report
 wercat 20 Oct 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

yes - I see the relevant EU organisations have some information about the idea

Report
 Martin Hore 20 Oct 2020
In reply to tom r:

> Remain should have argued Britain still had as much sovereignty as we ever did but it was voluntarily pooled with other nations for mutual benefit. That we owed it to the world war dead to support the EU who has helped to keep peace in Europe and other emotional arguments. Not just it's going to screw the economy ones.

I was heavily involved locally. I can assure you all these arguments were made, regularly. But all most people wanted to know was "will I be better off". Too many people had seen their living standards fall (or plateau - still not good enough in their estimation) and blamed the status quo: Blair, Cameron, EU. 

Martin

Report
 David Riley 20 Oct 2020
In reply to Martin Hore:

>  all most people wanted to know was "will I be better off"

Certainly on UKC.    WIFM

Report
 tom r 20 Oct 2020
In reply to Martin Hore:

That's interesting. I guess people blamed immigration a lot when a good part of the wage stagnation was repercussions of the 2008 crash. When I was reading some books about the EU before the referendum, this was one of the suprising facts I learnt.

https://theconversation.com/the-huge-political-cost-of-blairs-decision-to-allow-eastern-european-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077

It was a bad decision given that most of Europe didn't open up immediately. I'm in favour of immigration btw, and voted remain...

Post edited at 10:51
Report
 Eric9Points 20 Oct 2020
In reply to tom r:

> Well for a large proportion of brexit voters it was all about sovereignty/democracy, the whole taking back control thing. No deal they think guarantees this. 

> Now I'm sure there are brexiteers who have money riding on the economy tanking and other nefarious motives but for the general Brexiter that's the benefit.

>  It's something remainers just dont get. The remain campaign should have led on explaining the concept of shared sovereignty.

Yep.

It's about FREEDUUUUUM!

They're just nationalist wankers.

Report
In reply to David Riley:

> That there were any promises, is remain mythology.  Most that voted leave were accepting no deal might result.  But hoped the EU would have more sense.  If they didn't there was more reason to leave.

Rubbish.

You might have a point if you made it clear you were talking the true 'Brexiteers'..... roughly 1/3 of the voting electorate. Leave campaign knew if they were going to get over 50% they'd have to win over people who weren't that bothered about the EU, hence the lies about more money for the NHS and immigration ect. I don't know why you bother denying this, it's a matter of public record... or is it yourself you are trying to convince/deceive? I could see why you'd want to.

Report
 Jamie Wakeham 20 Oct 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> Most that voted leave were accepting no deal might result.  

What absolute nonsense.  Most were voting for Liam Fox's "easiest deal in human history".  

Report
 Andy Hardy 20 Oct 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

"In reply to David Riley:

> Most that voted leave were accepting no deal might result.  

What absolute nonsense.  Most were voting for Liam Fox's "easiest deal in human history".  "

Neither of you actually *know*. And it's largely academic now anyway, the remainers were correct to be scared of the leavers chucking us *all* over the cliff, it's come to pass.

Report
 jkarran 20 Oct 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> Certainly on UKC.    WIFM

Oh good lord, for a bright guy you do make quite a habit of misunderstanding when it comes to brexit.

jk

Report
 dovebiker 20 Oct 2020

I can see the near-term political agenda from 2021 very much on trying to keep the UK together and fire-fighting the effects of the Tories disastrous / non-existent preparation. The Scottish parliamentary elections in May are very much an opinion poll on independence and it isn't looking in the unionists favour. Likewise, the impact of Brexit is going to have a major impact on businesses in Northern Ireland and the simple demographics would indicate that a reunification poll will be on the cards. The other reality is that Labour has no chance of winning a GE without being in a coalition and the SNP are probably the only party that can help them achieve it and expect that a devolution referendum will be the "price" of that deal.

If we do crash out, expect that fishing and farming will be some of the first casualties - reduced access to markets and tariffs will simply force many to retire, ironic as many of them voted for it as they were suckered by the promise of the "easiest deal in history".

I have absolutely no confidence in this government coming up with a coherent post-Brexit industrial / investment strategy having worked with the Government department "experts" in the field. I expect it will simply be a case of giving out "free money" willy-nilly to their mates in the hope that some of it will stick. 

For me personally, I'm having a house built on a Scottish island and looking forward to a more self-sufficient semi-retired existence. There was no call for my expertise (ironically collaborative industry and government projects) post 2016 as all efforts were focused on Brexit and now Covid

Report
 wercat 20 Oct 2020
In reply to dovebiker:

> I have absolutely no confidence in this government ...... I expect it will simply be a case of giving out "free money" willy-nilly to their mates in the hope that some of it will stick. 

As we head into the chaos of Still-in-Covid disintegrating UK suffering a succession of unexpected setbacks to add to the disaster of No Deal I fully expect that the Brexit gang and their pals will be pushing everyone else out of the way in the dash for the lifeboats.

Report
 jethro kiernan 21 Oct 2020
In reply to dovebiker:

I can see Johnson leaving shortly, this will probably result in his successor throwing what little cash Is left at the red wall constituencies In a desperate scrabble to keep votes (Who voted for Boris and anti Corbin), unfortunately judging by the recent government spending it will get lost in cronyism and pooorly judged ineffective showboating schemes, ultimately feeding further resentment as the effects of brexit kick in.

Post edited at 08:13
Report
 wercat 21 Oct 2020
In reply to jethro kiernan:

I think I'll revive an old expression "The Crazy Gang"

Report
 wercat 21 Oct 2020
In reply to jethro kiernan:

I think this shows the vacuum in government pretty well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54622190

I was thinking about this while picking my jaw off the ground last night.

Once the Brexiteers really in charge of Britain had got idiots into the cockpit chanting "Get Brexit done" it was perfectly fine for them to be nincompoops and dunces as the controls had already been set for the heart of the sun.  All they had to do was to keep on form for the disaster to be carried out. 

Keeping the country together, beating Covid, all the normal stuff of government matters nothing compared to the goal we have set for us.  Good luck everyone, every being for himself now ...

Post edited at 09:30
Report
 Trevers 21 Oct 2020
In reply to wercat:

> I think this shows the vacuum in government pretty well.

> I was thinking about this while picking my jaw off the ground last night.

> Once the Brexiteers really in charge of Britain had got idiots into the cockpit chanting "Get Brexit done" it was perfectly fine for them to be nincompoops and dunces as the controls had already been set for the heart of the sun.  All they had to do was to keep on form for the disaster to be carried out. 

> Keeping the country together, beating Covid, all the normal stuff of government matters nothing compared to the goal we have set for us.  Good luck everyone, every being for himself now ...

Give credit where it's due. For once, Johnson kept a promise. (Although that promise was "f*ck business".)

Report
 Duncan Bourne 21 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

I suppose the question is can we effectively expell these parasites, as you put it. Or will they just carry on and ignore our blustering

Report
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to dovebiker:

Blair produced a majority of seats for Labour in England in 1997 when people claimed prior to that it was an impossible task. The Lib Dems won 23 seats in England and Wales at the time. All Labour need to win again in England is to appeal to a centre ground that Boris has vacated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

Post edited at 11:46
Report
 wercat 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

They will carry on in government till they are removed.  After that they will carry on acting as if they are entitled to take everyone else's cream while peeing on us

While they do that they are helping Putin's project to weaken Europe and increase his relative influence

Post edited at 12:28
Report
 jkarran 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I suppose the question is can we effectively expell these parasites, as you put it.

Democratically, almost zero chance before 2024. Little chance then either.

jk

Report
 jkarran 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> Blair produced a majority of seats for Labour in England in 1997 when people claimed prior to that it was an impossible task. The Lib Dems won 23 seats in England and Wales at the time. All Labour need to win again in England is to appeal to a centre ground that Boris has vacated.

Johnson has proven he can win a big majority with the brexit voter bloc, all he needs to do is keep that together. How? Amping up the remainer treason and EU punishment narrative to gloss over his manifest failure and his cronies' looting would be my bet and I expect it'll work.

Blair did just win a majority from English seats alone (328) but Britain doesn't divide along the same lines anymore, Scotland certainly doesn't. Frankly an English government of either hue is the last thing we need in the long run.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_England

I like your optimism but I do think you might be underestimating how hard it's going to be to dislodge the brexit boys, especially if the looting isn't finished by '24 so they can still access significant financial and press backing.

jk

Report
 Offwidth 22 Oct 2020
In reply to jkarran:

If nothing else the way Boris is performing the torys will remove him in 2021 out of self preservation, with the obvious benefit of meeting ambition: places in the cabinet for way more able tory MPs than most of the current bunch of useless brownnosers.

Report
 deepsoup 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> way more able tory MPs than most of the current bunch of useless brownnosers.

Genuine question: are there very many of those in the current parliamentary party since the so many of the 'sweetcorn' Tories were expelled by Johnson shortly after he moved into number 10.  I haven't been paying close attention, but I've not noticed any back-benchers shining exactly either.

Report
 Offwidth 23 Oct 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

A few pro-european MPs are left that are way more able than the vast majority of the cabinet, often having important roles in select committes. Gauke and Hunt being the best known. Some of the newer MPs seem less ideologically attached to the current popularist blight. They still mostly vote with the whip on some pretty inhumane positions.

Report
 jkarran 23 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> If nothing else the way Boris is performing the torys will remove him in 2021 out of self preservation, with the obvious benefit of meeting ambition: places in the cabinet for way more able tory MPs than most of the current bunch of useless brownnosers.

Johnson's job is to win elections, him ruling is an unfortunate side effect. I'm not sure, no matter how badly he rules, his ability to reach an electorate is much diminished. To you and me he looks obviously awful, to a brexit supporter he's getting the job done and if it all turns out awful nobody is going to say 'maybe this wasn't such a good idea', they'll blame someone else, not Johnson of course, he's like them red white and blue through and through, it'll be the EU, covid or traitors like me and you.

jk

Report
 Eric9Points 23 Oct 2020
In reply to climbingpixie:

> ETA: I don't think Labour are doing themselves any favours with their Brexit position at the moment. I understand why they want to shy away from the issue but without highlighting the risks of the current Tory strategy and playing along with the idea that a good deal would be possible if only Johnson's administration was more competent they're undermining their ability to criticise the fallout in the future.

Labour are ensuring that the Tories and only the Tories will take ownership of whatever deal we come out with. 

My guess is that at the 2024 GE Labour will undertake to renegotiate the parts of the deal that are shit while the Tories will be unable to do so because they'll have spent the previous three years telling us what a great deal they got for us.

I can't see Labour campaigning to rejoin. It would almost certainly lose them the election but they may well be able to advocate changes that move us back towards the EU.

Post edited at 11:49
Report
 Trevers 23 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> A few pro-european MPs are left that are way more able than the vast majority of the cabinet, often having important roles in select committes. Gauke and Hunt being the best known. Some of the newer MPs seem less ideologically attached to the current popularist blight. They still mostly vote with the whip on some pretty inhumane positions.

David Gauke was kicked out at the last election. South West Herts now have a generic shill who gave me an insultingly dishonest reply when I emailed to express my reservations about the Internal Markets Bill.

Report
 Harry Jarvis 23 Oct 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Genuine question: are there very many of those in the current parliamentary party since the so many of the 'sweetcorn' Tories were expelled by Johnson shortly after he moved into number 10.  I haven't been paying close attention, but I've not noticed any back-benchers shining exactly either.

Just five Tory MPs voted with Labour in the Free School Meals debate. Robert Halfon, chair of the Education Select Committee was one, as was Caroline Ansell, who subsequently resigned her position as a junior minister. A dreadful state of affairs, that so few can be so uncaring about some of our most vulnerable. 

Report
 deepsoup 23 Oct 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

My question to Offwidth was about who was capable though, as opposed to who was decent. 

I hadn't thought of Jeremy Hunt, and I think I'd have to concede that he's very much more able than any of Johnson's current cabinet (including the PM himself).  And perhaps a tiny bit more humane in that, while he's undoubtedly pretty callous, he at least doesn't have the vindictive streak driven by sheer stupidity of Priti Patel for example.

> A dreadful state of affairs, that so few can be so uncaring about some of our most vulnerable. 

But yes, couldn't agree more with that.  It seems there are very few sweetcorn Tories left in the parliamentary party.  (I mean that in the sense of the famous Iain Banks quote.)

Report
 Offwidth 10:33 Sat
In reply to Trevers:

My apologies you are right.

I wouldn't put Halforn in the same category as although he is clearly not as callous as many of his colleagues and has done really good work on apprenticeships he is 'accident prone'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Halfon

Report
In reply to Eric9Points:

> My guess is that at the 2024 GE Labour will undertake to renegotiate the parts of the deal that are shit while the Tories will be unable to do so because they'll have spent the previous three years telling us what a great deal they got for us.

> I can't see Labour campaigning to rejoin. It would almost certainly lose them the election but they may well be able to advocate changes that move us back towards the EU.

I can foresee a scenario in which things go so badly that by 2024 - still a long way away -Labour could easily campaign to rejoin ... and win the GE.

Report
 wercat 11:55 Sat
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

With all the current talk of familes and children in poverty I feel increasingly angry with where we have come from in general since the more egalitarian 1970s and in particular with what Brexit has cost and will cost and how much could have been done with that money and effort that has been utterly wasted on a project for the few.  Never in the field of political conflict has so much been needed by so many that has been thrown away for the benefit of so few.

Report
 Offwidth 12:03 Sat
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I agree. I wonder how many older voters (more likely to vote tory) will be dead, disabled or disillutioned with the torys after covid and brexit fully play out and how many first time young voters are going to be very angry about the coming difficulties they face, enough to be motivated for a much larger proportion to vote. It will help that middle class progressives will be less likely to be shooting themselves in the foot and more will be voting tactically (as Starmer's Labour is way more palatable than Corbyn's).

Post edited at 12:05
Report
In reply to wercat:

Yes, agreed. Well put. Our last high point I think was the opening of the Olympics in 2012. It's hard to believe that that was only 8 years ago, and just how far we've fallen since. I think we've damaged ourselves very badly (and in the eyes of the world) and it's going to take years to repair, if ever.

Report
 Offwidth 12:06 Sat
 Offwidth 12:51 Sat
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Maybe that was partly down to Cameron's believable but false branding of his party's shift to being more caring and the coalition blunting their worst instincts. Even the harshest critics of the tories never foresaw the 'long knives' that preceded the 2019 election and transformation of a historical small c party into into radical popularism with almost no remaining 'wets' as MPs.

I was watching the news at lunchtime and Ben Bradley, MP, the tory face of popularism in Mansfield was arguing that the generous additional funding given to local councils was the party caring about poor kids, whereas the Halfern the rebel tory MP and head of the education select committee said more direct funding of free school meals in the holidays was needed for now as way too many kids were going hungry.

Report
In reply to tom r:

>. Made more powerful due to a Britain rebounding from the loss of empire and still hung up on the second world war.

It's England that has that problem.  Not Britain.

Report
 Eric9Points 12:59 Sat
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I can foresee a scenario in which things go so badly that by 2024 - still a long way away -Labour could easily campaign to rejoin ... and win the GE.

I suspect you underestimate the emotional investment many Brexit voters made.  

...but we'll see.

Report
 Offwidth 14:01 Sat
In reply to Eric9Points:

I should think most brexit voters can be pissed off with MPs like this:

https://westcountrybylines.co.uk/tin-eared-tone-deaf-selaine-saxby-gets-it-very-very-wrong

(from the Scum thread)

Report
 deepsoup 14:31 Sat
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's England that has that problem.  Not Britain.

Even if we accept your frequent ludicrous assertions that Scotland is completely free of certain problems currently plaguing us South of the border (let alone your occasional even more ludicrous assertions that the Scots played no part in building that empire in the first place), beyond mere antipathy to the English it's hard to see your reasons for exempting pro-Brexit Wales from your righteous condemnation.

Report
In reply to deepsoup:

'Pro-Brexit Wales'. Er, by just 2½ %. This is the kind of crazy democracy we're in, when such a major constitutional change can be brought about by just one vote on one day, and by such a wafer-thin majority of the electorate (who bothered to vote.) Reducing it to a childish, 'yah boo sucks!' kind of game.

Post edited at 14:43
Report
 Eric9Points 14:52 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

No doubt but that's not what Brexit's about.

It's about "getting our country back".

Report
In reply to deepsoup:

> Even if we accept your frequent ludicrous assertions that Scotland is completely free of certain problems currently plaguing us South of the border (let alone your occasional even more ludicrous assertions that the Scots played no part in building that empire in the first place), beyond mere antipathy to the English it's hard to see your reasons for exempting pro-Brexit Wales from your righteous condemnation.

I've lived in Scotland for my whole life.  Apart from the crazy fringes of unionism we really do not give much of a sh*t about the royal family, end of empire or battle of britain.  It is an English thing.

Report
In reply to Eric9Points:

> It's about "getting our country back".

That's so much like saying l'm leaving my local golf club to "get my freedom to play croquet on my lawn back". Or, in climbing, trying to get better, pushing one's grade, and failing on a yardstick climb. Then, when you're lowered back to the ground, saying it's about "getting my old standard back."

Report
 Eric9Points 18:48 Sat
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes.

Report

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