***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 85 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 4 Sep 19 at 10:29
|
Worth a read over your evening cocoa I feel...
aeon.co/amp/ideas/why-collective-narcissists-are-so-politically-volatile
The following questions will help decide whether or not someone or a group is or are collective narcissists.
Collective Narcissism ScaleAdapted from Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009).
Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1. I wish other groups would more quickly recognize authority of my group.
2. My group deserves special treatment.
3. Not many people seem to fully understand the importance of my group.
4. I insist upon my group getting the respect that is due to it.
5. It really makes me angry when others criticize my group.
6. If my group had a major say in the world, the world would be a much better place.
7. I do not get upset when people do not notice achievements of my group. (reversed)
8. The true worth of my group is often misunderstood.
9. I will never be satisfied until my group gets the recognition it deserves.
|
Missed the edit;
"Collective narcissists are not simply content to be members of a valuable group. They don’t devote their energy to contributing to the group’s betterment and value. Rather, they engage in monitoring whether everybody around, particularly other groups, recognise and acknowledge the great value and special worth of their group."
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 29 Aug 19 at 22:45
|
>Worth a read over your evening cocoa I feel...
I'm not on painkillers. I'm just about to get another glass of Barolo :-)
|
"The following questions will help decide whether or not someone or a group is or are collective narcissists."
Seems to fit perfectly with the religious Bremainiacs currently out on the streets waving their banners and the tweeting luvvies, already big on narcissism.
|
Three years ago it was the declared view of a Conervative Government that we should remain in the EU.
Now you call people who still have that moderate view “religious bremainiacs”. Pause for thought don’t you think?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 30 Aug 19 at 09:41
|
"Now you call people who still have that moderate view “religious bremainiacs”. Pause for thought don’t you think?"
Maybe you should pause for thought now that Momentum has declared its support for Bremainialism. Or, are you still pondering on that little physics poser that I set you a few weeks ago?
|
>> Maybe you should pause for thought now that Momentum has declared its support for Bremainialism.
1) Momentum is about people
2) It's supporters are overwhelmingly ypung
3) Young people are on the whole comfortable in the EU.
However difficult the physics poser was this stuff is not rocket science.
|
That some on the far left seek to attach themselves to the debate does not make those who would prefer to leave,if we must, in an orderly manner fanatics.
Iwould suggest that you examine the motives of some of those extreme right wing fellow travelers who support remain
Labelling people with infantile names hardly helps the debate.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 30 Aug 19 at 11:33
|
>> "The following questions will help decide whether or not someone or a group is or
>> are collective narcissists."
>>
>> Seems to fit perfectly with the religious Bremainiacs currently out on the streets waving their
>> banners and the tweeting luvvies, already big on narcissism.
>>
QED.
|
>>religious Bremainiacs currently out on the streets waving their banners
I believe a more serious tone is needed as the demonstrators aim to shut down bridges in various cities, with attendant disruption, egged on by Momentum. I wonder if it is not all part of a larger movement towards a communist revolution.
I pointed out here much earlier how Britain could already be seen as a communist state, taking Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" blueprint as a checklist. Now for Lenin's pre-conditions for such a revolution:
- The existing ruling class must be unable to govern and must fracture into different factions. (It did that some time ago and is still fracturing.)
- The middle classes can no longer believe that the existing system will give them security and a decent life. (Not sure about this; I think the younger members may feel this about housing but older ones seem to be comfortably well-off.)
-The working class must realise it must turn against the set-up and fight it. (The impending demonstrations are likely to show this although one would need to know how many of the demonstrators are working class.)
-There must be Marxist leadership of the workers’ movement. (Got that too.)
|
>> I believe a more serious tone is needed as the demonstrators aim to shut down
>> bridges in various cities, with attendant disruption, egged on by Momentum. I wonder if it
>> is not all part of a larger movement towards a communist revolution.
Well aware of this sort of action being taken by climate change protestors. Is there really any properly sourced suggestion that pro EU demonstrators contemplate similar action.
|
>>Well aware of this sort of action being taken by climate change protestors. Is there really any properly sourced suggestion that pro EU demonstrators contemplate similar action.
They are supposed to demonstrate today. Climate change was yesterday's demo.
|
>> They are supposed to demonstrate today. Climate change was yesterday's demo.
Certainly stuff planned for today to protest prorogation but that wasn't my question.
You seemed to suggest that Remain demonstrators were blocking bridges or similar and that strong counter action by police was called for.
My request was that you evidence the assertion that Remainers block highways etc in same way as climate crisis folks have done.
|
'Jeremy Corbyn has endorsed a plot by his hard-left supporters to "shut down the streets"...in protests at Boris Johnson's Brexit plans.
'(He) urged his MPs to join protesters planning to "occupy bridges and blockade roads in 10 major cities tomorrow...'
Daily Telegraph August 30th.
|
There are protests today and tomorrow under the banner of 'Stop the Coup' organised by a group called 'Another Europe is Possible' at about 30 sites. Ordinary peaceful demonstrations; smaller scale versions of the People's Vote march that saw well over half a million on the streets of London last year.
The Leader of the Opposition has urged his MPs to join in and I expect he'll address one or more of the events.
There may of course be some hotheads who want to go further. Inevitably some are predicting Civil Disobedience but there's no evidence of that being official aim of Another Europe or of Momentum. The idea that Corbyn endorses that sort of activity exists only in the heads of the Telegraph, Sun and Express etc.
Obviously there is disruption implicit in the concept of a demonstration; the minor inconvenience of streets being closed, noise etc.
If barricades go up, hotheads start smashing windows or molotov cocktails are thrown then Police action is needed. But at the moment law enforcement needs do no more than have a plan.
The history of 'giong in hard' on peaceful demos suggests it's an excellent tool for upping the ante - see history from Peterloo onwards.....
|
|
From some of the stills online the turnout looked very low, a couple of thousand.
|
>> From some of the stills online the turnout looked very low, a couple of thousand.
>>
Where?
|
|
These demonstrations make not a jot of difference to whatever the outcome will be.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sat 31 Aug 19 at 18:30
|
|
No they won’t but people have the right to protest. Three arrests it says. A wet night midweek in the night club area of Norwich will yield more.
|
Maybe not in this case.
They are impacting because they draw attention to issues though, even though the attention may not necessarily be supporting the cause, r the methods used.
I also like that we CAN demonstrate publicly, even against our incumbent Government and its policies, without getting water cannoned www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-49536000/hong-kong-blue-dyed-water-fired-at-protesters-defying-ban
Though wasn't there a previous Mayor of London who bought some water cannon, presumably for use against protesters? Hmmm...
|
>>Though wasn't there a previous Mayor of London who bought some water cannon paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for water cannon that were and still are illegal to use on mainland UK...
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 31 Aug 19 at 19:42
|
|
On another forum I'm on put some screen shots from the guardian live site. I think the starting point was main building, numbers looked a few hundred with lots of left over protester signs.
|
The protest is called 'stop the coup'. It's start point is BoJo's announcement just 72 hours previously that Parliament is to be prorogued for an unprecedentedly long time ahead of a Queen's Speech announced out of the blue.
A few thousand people outside MoD in Whitehall, as part of a set of thirty or so regional protests, is a decent turn out given notice and timing/juxtaposition with Bank Holiday and return to school. There will be many, many more at the long planned 'People's Vote 2' due in a few week's time.
Your reference to 'main building' without expansion/explanation is an interesting clue about you and your antecedents.......
|
>> Your reference to 'main building' without expansion/explanation is an interesting clue about you and your
>> antecedents.......
Re reading that it looks like a 'dig'. It wasn't meant to be.
I could look at a similar picture of Strand/Fleet Street and use abbreviation "RCJ" or reference to the buildings within the Law Courts complex without a second thought.
|
>..Parliament is to be prorogued for an unprecedentedly long time..
Wasn't John Major's prorogation longer?
It's amusing that he used the same tactic to try and avoid the cash for questions report but is now backing legal action to stop BoJo.
Rats in a sack.
|
>> >..Parliament is to be prorogued for an unprecedentedly long time..
>>
>> Wasn't John Major's prorogation longer?
>>
>> It's amusing that he used the same tactic to try and avoid the cash for
>> questions report but is now backing legal action to stop BoJo.
Apples and pears.
Major had no option but to prorogue as his mandate expired five years after 1992 GE. He'd pretty much gone to the wire but ordered a dissolution 19 days earlier than he had to. One consequence of doing so was that the Cash for Questions report was not published as there was no Parliament before which it could be laid. Given he was crushed in the electoral landslide i don't think it helped much!!
Circumstances now, with massive constitutional implications of Brexit and Johnson/Cummings running roughshod over convention and possibly law, are quite different. The Commons is where they should be held to account. The Speaker would certainly be keen to call Ministers before the House to account for themselves.
Whether a sitting House can organise a drinks party at a beer factory never mind make holding to account meaningful is another question.
|
>Apples and pears.
I don't think so. The tactics are the same.
>He'd pretty much gone to the wire but ordered a dissolution 19 days earlier than he had to.
>One consequence of doing so was that the Cash for Questions report was not published as there
>was no Parliament before which it could be laid.
And they're still rats in a sack.
|
>> >Apples and pears.
>>
>> I don't think so. The tactics are the same.
Not had chance to absorb the detail but there's some analysis on the Constitution Unit Blog:
constitution-unit.com/2019/09/03/this-prorogation-is-improper-the-government-should-reverse-it/
The authors constitute some serious academic firepower......
|
> A few thousand people outside MoD in Whitehall, as part of a set of thirty or so regional protests, is a decent turn out given notice and timing/juxtaposition with Bank
>> Holiday and return to school. There will be many, many more at the long planned
>> 'People's Vote 2' due in a few week's time.
It was just from what I'd seen online I was expecting something a bit more. Larger turnout etc.
>> Your reference to 'main building' without expansion/explanation is an interesting clue about you and your
>> antecedents.......
A clue? I wasn't aware it was a mystery. Although 'antecedents' was to me, I had to look up what it meant.
Yes I forgot to put MoD in there, my fault. I can honestly say I've never set foot in the place and only been past it once.
|
"The working class must realise it must turn against the set-up and fight it. "
The working class ..... is there a 'working class' these days? I am from a dyed-in-the-wool working class, coal-mining background - but I've grown up now. With the decline in manufacturing industries, I don't think that I currently know anyone who is truly 'working class'. I do know quite a few Labour-voting malcontents disgruntled by their failures in life, but that's about it.
Actually, from the posts about holidays new cars etc, I gained the impression that a few folks on here are reasonably well off ....... are you quite sure that you want to see Jeremy and his Momentum friends in charge?
|
The working class? Its misnomer and a fundamental part of why we have two deeply entrenched left / right political wings, and why Brexit is a mess.
There are degrees of wealth, most of them require "working" to achieve.
Essentially we have "contributors", the genuinely disadvantaged, and the leaches.
The leaches can be right at the top of the social strata, but more normally they are bottom feeders.
Boris in his own way, is a leach, the same genus as the leach that beats up old ladies, but with a veneer of respectability
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 30 Aug 19 at 16:49
|
|
Where do the retired fit in your scheme?
|
>> Where do the retired fit in your scheme?
They are not a group, There are only three.
Contributors, The genuinely disadvantaged, or leaches. Age has nothing to do with it, the retired can be any of the aforementioned.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 30 Aug 19 at 17:22
|
I don't think the grouping is sufficient.
A retired person may have significantly contributed before becoming a leach, sufficient to outweigh his current leachiness.
A current leach may in the future become a significant contributor to a degree sufficient to out weight their previous leachiness.
Though it has more merit than "working class". A term I have never understood in the context of the modern world.
|
Ok all we need to add is
"NET" in front of the grouping, the net being "to date"
And don't forget a "contributor" can be someone who is merely economically active, ie buying goods and services, keeping others economically employed and paying various goods and services sales taxes.
And no, keeping your social worker, prison officer or parole officer employed is NOT economically active.
|
|
OK So why is Boris not a contributor? OK he has inherited wealth but he has also worked and paid his taxes and I guess he is currently working longer hours than most.
|
>> OK So why is Boris not a contributor? OK he has inherited wealth but he
>> has also worked and paid his taxes and I guess he is currently working longer
>> hours than most.
Worked? Boris? never, dishonestly handling payments perhaps.
Payed his taxes? I doubt very much of he has paid anything like his share of the tax burden. I refrain from using the term "tax evasion, or did I mean tax avoidance?
Very few MPs fail to climb out of the "leach" pit.
Either way, it does not invalidate the basic groupings, we are merely debating membership.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 30 Aug 19 at 18:08
|
An MP earns £80k.
That is not really very much money given their role and easily exceeded by a driven person in the commercial world.
Though I guess £130k in expenses helps.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 30 Aug 19 at 18:13
|
Didn't the Telegraph pay him then?
|
>> OK So why is Boris not a contributor? OK he has inherited wealth but he
>> has also worked and paid his taxes and I guess he is currently working longer
>> hours than most.
Does he have inherited wealth?
His father, Stanley Johnson, is still very much alive.
|
>>Does he have inherited wealth?
The very wealthy will often inherit via grandparents as it means inheritance tax every second generation.
I don't know if Stanley's dad did similar.
|
Of course there is a working class - the class of people who live by their labour, and possess little or no capital for investment.
There's capital, labour, and the rest. The surplus accrues to capital. Always. Money trickles down to labour via loans, thereby transferring even more money to capital.
I cannot understand working class people so willingly voting for the party that exists to protect capital, while lapping up those loans to buy their cars. although it has to be said Blair muddied the waters a bit.
An ultra-simplified summary of course, but when people don't even get the basics, what can you do?
|
>>Of course there is a working class - the class of people who live by their labour,
Ah, so I was working class then? And all I had to do to leave working class was save money?
Who knew it was so easy to change class.
|
>> Ah, so I was working class then? And all I had to do to leave
>> working class was save money?
>>
>> Who knew it was so easy to change class.
By George I think he's got it!
Obviously you can be working class and have savings. But when you have enough to live on the income then I think you are probably a capitalist:)
I did say simplified. And I was thinking more in terms of the bourgeoisie vs. proletariat as a model rather than working-middle-upper class etc.
Seriously I do think that many people would do better to at least think about this stuff. I'm genuinely shocked that such a huge proportion of younger, family people so readily borrow simply to consume, thus making themselves poorer. Of course you can't (and shouldn't) legislate that sort of thing but the education system has many shortcomings in the area of just living.
I've always thought I was working class. I admit to being solvent, and I probably could live on my savings (though not just the income) now that my life expectancy is sufficiently short! Am I a capitalist or a failed socialist?
|
I think working class is an awful term. It's certainly a terrible thing to aspire to. Most people work for a living one way or another.
I find that most often the term "working class" is used by inverse snobs to try to make themselves feel better and part of a club..
|
>> I find that most often the term "working class" is used by inverse snobs to
>> try to make themselves feel better and part of a club..
Maybe that would be me although I don't generally feel the need to claim a class publicly. But if I had to fill a form in I'm not sure I'd be comfortable describing myself as middle-class - I'm just not.
I don't like clubs much, I never completely fit in.
|
>> >> I find that most often the term "working class" is used by inverse snobs
>> to
>> >> try to make themselves feel better and part of a club..
>>
>> Maybe that would be me although I don't generally feel the need to claim a
>> class publicly. But if I had to fill a form in I'm not sure I'd
>> be comfortable describing myself as middle-class - I'm just not.
I quite genuinely have no idea what class I fit into. I've never seen a definition which fits my upbringing, working life and retirement.
But I wouldn't class myself as working class, middle or upper class or anything in between.
I don't like classes. Not even a bit.
>> I don't like clubs much, I never completely fit in.
I do. I like them very much. And I can fit in any where I choose to.
|
>> I don't like clubs much, I never completely fit in.
I'm curious.
Is this because "clubs" as a thing or idea don't appeal, or the clubs that you have tried don't appeal?
And what kind of clubs? Golf / Country / City etc. etc.
|
"And what kind of clubs? Golf / Country / City etc. etc."
For me, just two ...... the working class me is a member of our local football club; the middle-class me is a member of West Suffolk Fine Wine Society.
|
and which do you not fit in with? Or both?
I'm not being anything other than curious. I am a member of some clubs and I enjoy them.
|
"and which do you not fit in with? Or both?"
Sorry, I might have misled you - I fit in with both and enjoy both, otherwise I wouldn't be a member. I cannot claim to know much about either subject though.
|
>>Sorry, I might have misled you
Not at all, the error was mine. I failed to notice that I was replying to both you and Manatee rather than simply one person as I thought. Apologies.
I agree with your (Haywain) point though abut only being a member of club one enjoys.
Though I would think that if one joins a club which suits your interests, then it will usually be enjoyable.
As a general rule I regard the clubs of which I am a member as somewhat of an oasis amidst the madness. (Country Club, Golf Club & a members club in the City, should you be curious).
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 30 Aug 19 at 21:30
|
As a general rule I regard the clubs of which I am a member as
>> somewhat of an oasis amidst the madness. (Country Club, Golf Club & a members club
>> in the City, should you be curious).
>>
What is it about the clubs that you find calming /an oasis?
|
>> What is it about the clubs that you find calming /an oasis?
It's difficult to put into words.
Typically a calm, clean, safe and enjoyable environment with excellent food, wine, company, service and facilities. No crowds, no rush, no hassle. Courteous and helpful staff always willing to do stuff.
Time and space to have a drink, read a paper, eat, talk, socialise, etc. etc.
All the facilities one would like, depending on the type of club.
A place that you can take someone for a meal or a drink and be sure that the environment will be as always.
All that you'd expect from such a thing, I guess.
And as Gary Portnoy once said, sometimes its good to go where everybody knows your name.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 31 Aug 19 at 00:17
|
|
Don’t think I’ve been a member of a club since I left school. I feel much the same way about being a member of a club as I do about going on a cruise.
|
I was a member of a country club, in the day it was a convenient way to ignore licensing laws with respect to closing times. Been a golf club member, another convenient way to ignore closing times.
Gosh I detect a theme.
|
1. I wish other groups would more quickly recognize authority of my group.
>> 2. My group deserves special treatment.
>> 3. Not many people seem to fully understand the importance of my group.
>> 4. I insist upon my group getting the respect that is due to it.
>> 5. It really makes me angry when others criticize my group.
>> 6. If my group had a major say in the world, the world would be
>> a much better place.
>> 7. I do not get upset when people do not notice achievements of my group.
>> (reversed)
>> 8. The true worth of my group is often misunderstood.
>> 9. I will never be satisfied until my group gets the recognition it deserves.
>>
Sounds like any two groups of people on the internet having an argument.
|
>> Sounds like any two groups of people on the internet having an argument.
Well, that's kind of the point.
|
>>
>> >> Sounds like any two groups of people on the internet having an argument.
>>
>> Well, that's kind of the point.
>>
I know. It's seemed to me that those descriptions go quite wide in terms of groups or people you could apply it to.
|
Very wide.
The various 'green' groups for one set. "Extinction Rebellion" are one who are currently particularly annoying me.
Brexit groups are another (both sides). Various fascist/racist groups also. The list is depressingly long.
|
|
I guess the Civil Rights movement I'm the sixties and the Suffragettes could have answered most of those questions positively. Perhaps narcissism is in the eye of the beholder.
|
No, I don't think so.
The suffragettes were motivated by their cause, not a political soapbox, nor narcissism. Not even personal recognition.
I suspect that there were parts of the Civil Rights movements that were narcissistic, but fundamentally not.
I do not believe that narcissism is in the eyes of the beholder. It's a thing.
|
"Perhaps narcissism is in the eye of the beholder."
Narcissism is without doubt 'a thing'; when it occurs to a high degree, it can become identified as 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder' (look it up), though this is not appropriate for a discussion about Bremainialism ........ which comes under the heading of 'religious obsession'. Er ....... unless you are a luvvie!
|
I know you like to keep returning to the Leave/Remain debate, especially trying to make it a petty, name-calling exercise. So if I may just be clear where I stand so that you can avoid wasting your time on me.
Were there another referendum tomorrow, I would vote leave. Pandora's Box has been opened.
When we leave matters.
How we leave matters.
|
Clearly the media is loving the idea that fighting Boris Johnson is the way to avoid a no-deal leave.
I rather think that fighting Boris Johnson at this point is more likely to assure a no-deal leave.
Also, whether people like it or not, our economy is being weakened at a fundamental level, mostly by decisions which will take 5 - 10 years to show.
That weakening will continue for all the time there is risk that things might be worse tomorrow. If we leave, with no-deal, things will not be worse tomorrow. Only then will decisions be made that will centre on how to make successful business in the real world.
*Only* a General Election could possibly change things, and I don't think that even that would. I am sure Corbyn would like to see all the bad s*** happens *before* he or his party takeover so he is going to play a marginal game. Or if not him, certainly the braincells behind him will.
|
>>I rather think that fighting Boris Johnson at this point is more likely to assure a no-deal leave.
Oh dear, I don't really like the idea of having similar ideas to Boris Johnson.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49524124
|
What *exactly* was Corbyn planning to do with the time where Parliament will not now be sitting.
Was he going to actually *do* something?
What was anybody now whining actually going to *do* and what difference would it have made? What is it that they now cannot do?
I rather suspect "f. all" will be the answer to most of these and similar questions.
|
>> What *exactly* was Corbyn planning to do with the time where Parliament will not now
>> be sitting.
>>
>> Was he going to actually *do* something?
>>
>> What was anybody now whining actually going to *do* and what difference would it have
>> made? What is it that they now cannot do now?
I'd imagine he'd answer 'hold the government to account ' or something as equally as vague.
Parliament has had loads of time where they've not been sitting, if time was so important why not just carry on sitting and not close down?
|
Michel Barnier is quoted as saying
'The EU could not stop the UK from leaving without a deal, he said, but he "would fail to understand the logic of that choice" because "we would still need to solve the same problems after 31 October".'
He has a point doesn't he!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49540681
|
The "working class" as an expression does not simply include all people who work but those who do so in blue-collar jobs i.e. largely manual work. Other workers are engaged in white- collar jobs. Thus it is not exactly a matter of class but of socio-economic grade.
The structure within this division is complex, with higher, medium and lower grades in each case. Incomes do not necessarily match grades. Furthermore, there is mobility between them and I imagine my experience is typical of many, starting out with manual jobs and migrating into managerial work.
This is rough and ready but helps a lot in social planning and in understanding the way we live.
More generally, humans always manage to sort themselves out in some kind of hierarchy.
|
>> More generally, humans always manage to sort themselves out in some kind of hierarchy.
I know my place?
|
"I know my place?"
It happens with most/all (?) species; it's commonly referred to as 'pecking order'. Biology has the answer for most things .......except for how to design the software for the VAG 1.5tsi engine ;-)
Last edited by: Haywain on Sun 1 Sep 19 at 13:23
|
>> Michel Barnier is quoted as saying
>>
>> 'The EU could not stop the UK from leaving without a deal, he said, but
>> he "would fail to understand the logic of that choice" because "we would still need
>> to solve the same problems after 31 October".'
>>
>> He has a point doesn't he!
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49540681
He does indeed. Parliament doesn't want no deal, but there doesn't seem to be a majority for anything else either.
Those of us who want a deal should support Boris. If he doesn't get a deal from the EU, he will shoot the hostages. Oh...er...we are the hostages...
|
Rumours are floating around that there is going to be a general election soon. All tory MPs have been summoned to no 10 at 5pm.
Bookies have shortened the odds from 8/13 to 1/6 in a morning for a general election this year.
|
|
Surely a general election this year is almost a given if Boris survives beyond October 31st, it has to be his only chance of survival if the total chaos which is the UK parliament ever gets its act even close to together
|
|
An Election is a cunning ploy, if its called before the Brexit data, and there is no parliament, with no extension asked for, we leave the EU by default.
|
If he intends to call election so that 31/10 falls during campaign he'll struggle to get two thirds majority as required by fixed term parliament act.
'Briefing' seems to be that polling day will be in mid/late October.
Whichever way he's clearly not showing the slightest regard to Donald Tusk's advice not to waste the A50 extension time......
|
>> If he intends to call election so that 31/10 falls during campaign he'll struggle to
>> get two thirds majority as required by fixed term parliament act.
Exactly. He can't just call an election, he needs a 2/3 majority. Corbyn would be insane to support it because he will lose. Ideally Labour should have sorted themselves out a new leader some time ago because what they have must surely be unsaleable?
If I were Corbyn, I'd argue that by having a GE when Brexit is unresolved Boris is (a) wasting time. and (b) conflating at at least 3 issues - the Government v. parliament, Tory v. Labour, and the vote on what sort of Brexit the public wants. In a sense it would also therefore be, in part, another Brexit referendum.
I heard Blair saying something similar this morning.
Even accepting the referendum result, the government should either go with something on the hard-soft spectrum with a deal (which was implicit in almost everything said by the Leave campaigns - remember "the easiest negotiation ever"?) or, as the public made the decision last time, now ask the electorate which option they want - hard, soft, or no-deal. After that is decided and enacted, have an election.
Parliament must IMO regain control of this. There is far too much at stake. Unfortunately a big ship has already sailed - Johnson has a lot of popular support for removing parliament from the decision process. which in my mind conjures up far worse things than Brexit.
|
JC would have (Even more) egg on his face if he opposed an election as he has been constantly calling for one.
I never thought I'd say this, but compared to what we've had since 2010 Tony Blair would come across as the new Messiah (A couple of disasterous wars excepted, but we all make mistakes and the Tories would have done the same).
|
>> JC would have (Even more) egg on his face if he opposed an election as
>> he has been constantly calling for one.
Absolutely he would be eggy, which is why he needs a damn good excuse. But not as eggy as he would giving Johnson a landslide victory, which the polls will tell him is more likely than a Labour win.
Johnson seems to have turned the Conservative party into UKIP with added nastiness, as well as winding up the moron segment into hating parliament - far better that he crashes and burns with a minority government than comes out of an election triumphant with parliament neutered and 5 years tenure.
|
Some more information here, although the personal section appears to be of more use to those visiting the UK or having unusual citizenship status.
www.gov.uk/brexit
|
|
Pretty much odds on for an election now, I would think.
|
I hope then that Labour has the sense to vote against it. I'd far rather have parliament trying to find a way through this than have Johnson mandated as a dictator with a 5 year tenure.
Labour only has to look at the polls to see how bad its position is. The problem of course is that under its current arrangements there is no chance of it choosing an electable leader. I think the Brexit party will fade quickly now that Johnson is eating their lunch and whilst the Lib Dems might do well the chances of them getting 100+ MPs are nil.
He has shamelessly wound up the EU haters, demonised MPs including some of his own, the 'nationalists' are on the march and it's getting scary.
The leave FB groups* are full of posts lauding Johnson and calling for the UK to leave without a deal, despite the fact that it is supposedly Johnson's intention to get one. Dissenters are "scum" and "traitors". It feels as if Kristallnacht is just around the corner.
* I don't think I'm exaggerating this - a neighbour of mine posts stuff like this - there's no argument, anybody who tries to present an alternative view or analyse is told to emigrate if they like the EU so much.
|
And to think I truly thought it could not become more farcical;
Johnson; "EU, give me a better deal or we'll crash out which will hurt you as well. Because we are leaving no matter what"
Idiot Politicians; "EU, no we won't, We're busy trying to remove Johnson's only negotiating leverage. We are doing this to avoid a no-deal Brexit, even though we are actually making it considerably more likely. And we want another extension. Even though we did sod all with the first three years, and then more sod-all with the first extension, another extension will make it all better.
Of course the entire country will be in uproar if we get another delay; some because they're Leavers, some because they're Remainers but pig sick of the entire thing, and some because they can see how much damage this uncertainty is doing to our credibility and our economy.
But hey, you carry on with your stupid little games making yourselves feel important.
t***s.
Boris Johnson appears to have found the one thing that could make him seem competent, sensible and intelligent; Other politicians defying the laws of physics with their stupidity. They've even managed to draw a veil over Johnson's part in getting us into this mess in the first place.
As a firmly non-religious person I am still praying that Karma is not only a thing, but an exceptionally vicious thing for politicians.
It is embarrassing and making us a laughing stock.
.*******
People dealing with international businesses, such as Runfer, have my sympathies. It must be a nightmare.
|
Well, quite. There's sometimes a point in a negotiation where you won't get what you need unless you are prepared to sacrifice an agreement altogether, even when that would leave you with the problem unsolved, or worse.
I'm sure that my MP David Gauke, for example, can understand that. Yet he is expecting to be voting away the possibility of no deal this week.
He was interviewed, with others, on Newsnight last night. I might watch it again - I think Emily Maitlis did put this point to him, although not very directly and forcefully. His response IIRC was along the lines of "if we leave it until October it will then be too late to do anything but leave with no deal and we must avoid that".
Given he can surely understand your own point, my reading of this is that he simply doesn't trust Johnson, and neither do I.
It was easy to see this sharp angle coming, and I think most of us here certainly did. So it should never have been allowed to reach this point - especially when it isn't even a zero sum game - there's too much at stake. It's all very well me walking away from a deal on a car, that's my business, but Johnson might walk away on behalf of an entire country. I neither trust him not to do that for reasons of his own, or to do the right thing afterwards.
Entirely consistent with your reasoning, Johnson has kept his own counsel about what he will do if the EU holds out until 31 October (other than leaving). I think he could have gone further - e.g. saying more explicitly that we will still seek a deal, but we will do it from outside the EU. I don't think this would have made much difference with Gauke and Co, or me for that matter, but it might have tempered the growth of nasty nationalism which, if he is not careful, Johnson will become hostage to.
It's one of those "what choice do we have" situations. Neither appeals. Perhaps what parliament should be doing instead is working out how to seize control after we have left with no deal, if and when that happens and when, by his own criteria, Johnson will have failed.
|
Surely nobody really believes that staying within the EU is an option? That must be long gone.
The country, it's businesses and economy will not start to build again until we lose the uncertainty. Noone in their right mind would invest without knowing how bad it might get tomorrow. Only when it has got as bad as it's going to get will people/businesses/investors start working out how to deal with it.
So it is all about how & when we leave;
1) Least bad: Leave 31/10 with a deal
2) Quite bad: Leave 31/10 without a deal
3) Total effin disaster: Delay Brexit
Johnson wants 1) but may end up with 2)
The FIdiots want 3) but may cause 2)
However you look at that Johnson is a better deal than the FIdiots.
I quite understand Gauke, and you for that matter, not trusting Johnson. I entirely agree with you. I don't much care for his honesty, integrity or personality; what I really care about is what he is likely to do, not why he does it.
So surely his awfulness means we should get shot of him after Brexit, not before?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 3 Sep 19 at 13:57
|
(1) BoJos ploy, his gamble, his hope is the the EU will cave if the threat of brexit is real
Problem is they wont. They cant, for a number of reasons.
(2) His 2nd fallback option is to get the current deal wearing a different skirt, through parliament
Its possible, and it is actually the best option. For him and the country.
(3) His third option is to crash out, and blame the carnage and pain that follows on the intransigent dictatorial EU bureaucrats. He will look good enough (till the penny drops with his electorate) to get a 5 year term at an election.
Trouble is, parliament are going to screw up (1) because they will make the threat empty
(2) may be possible now, and if Boris has more brains than I think he has, this may have been his plan all along
(3) will be impossible because parliament may legislate against it.
If the toss pots currently inhabiting the palace of westminster have half a brain cell between them they will go with 2, get 5 more years of Boris and Corbyn, (in whatever position) plenty of time to get shot of both by 2024
|
>>(2) His 2nd fallback option is to get the current deal wearing a different skirt, through
>>parliament
>>
>>Its possible, and it is actually the best option. For him and the country.
Agreed. Whilst we're on the subject, what actually *is* the problem with the backstop?
It only comes into force if the UK decides to end the transition agreement *before* there is a solution in place. So if everybody is so confident a deal can be done, then where's the problem? I can only think that there is a fear it would be used as a threat. Kind of ironic that the FIdiots understand the significance of a threat in that direct, but not a no-deal threat in the other.
There are two alternatives to the backstop;
1) No borders between the UK & the EU
2) Hard borders between the UK & the EU
Considering how Farage and the rest of the bottom feeders were grandstanding about the EU's porous border with the rest of the world allowing gazillions of immigrants to flood in, then I am assuming that even they cannot support "no borders".
Everybody, including Johnson and Farage, has said that "hard borders" are not acceptable. So I guess that's not an option.
So then we'll go for.... ummm....
And therein lies the fundamental problem; The Brexit that has been promised, hoped for and perhaps would even be a good thing does not and cannot exist. Not now, not ever.
That is the struggle that Johnson and the FIdiots are dealing with; it simply cannot be done. I don't mean I don't like it. I don't mean I don't support it. I mean that it cannot be done.
We are part of the EU (product & service standards, trading terms and agreements, European Court of Justice, finance laws, freedom of movement etc. etc.) or we are not (Hard borders, standalone trading etc. etc).
There is no third way.
Well, there's BEANO.......................
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 3 Sep 19 at 14:41
|
>> >>(2) His 2nd fallback option is to get the current deal wearing a different skirt,
>> through
>> >>parliament
>> >>
>> >>Its possible, and it is actually the best option. For him and the country.
>>
>> Agreed. Whilst we're on the subject, what actually *is* the problem with the backstop?
And if he were to put as much zeal, pressure, lies, bullcrap, threats & bullying into this, as he is no deal, he would get it over the line.
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 83 - No FM2R
