I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
Vote for me, I lied about everything else but this and it hasn't gone all Mad Max yet ... I won't crumble in a crisis. But I will run away from a few protesters because I can't stand loud noises.
I wouldn't vote for that ... that ... If it was the only thing on the ballot paper.
No, but there is a curious resistance on this vessel to the idea that anybody in the UK would, whereas in fact quite a few are apparently willing to do so. My wider in-law family is pretty large, I can't find a Remainer among them, and I don't think I'm an isolated case.
When it comes to Brexit, the Ship is a bit of an echo-chamber. Well done to @TheOrganist for being willing to argue for Leave against the majority.
Our friends are a mixture of rabid leavers and remainers, plus the disinterested.The bulk of the older generation in our families voted Leave. (Although one lied about it afterwards as they didn't want to upset their grand-children). The rest - who are our age or younger - voted Remain. No one's shifted since the Ref. We keep it together by not talking about it much or focusing on Brexit related things we agree about.
I refuse to fall out with people about this which is why I find some of the language used by both sides so difficult. Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
I agree. The biggest problem has been (IMHO) that in the absence of a pre-referendum plan for leaving, the Leave campaigners couldn't agree on a deal to enable Britain to leave the EU. That unseated one Prime Minister and her successor doesn't seem likely to remain in the hot seat for long.
The blame for the conflict can be laid fairly and squarely at the Tories' door.
And the sad truth that you don't seem to have acknowledged is that No Deal does not mean a sudden end to the "war". Since it's in vogue to quote Churchill, it would be no more than the end of the beginning. And what follows is likely to be worse. Whatever else it is, No Deal is a diplomatic disaster. If No Deal happens, the UK can expect absolutely no favours whatsoever from the EU. The fisheries example is just one tiny one.
...
I believe the Churchill you mention was the one who said that “Jaw jaw is better than war war”.
In other news, and I’m sure Boris & co know this, we will have to do business with the members states of the EU, but as we will no longer be members we will have exactly no say in the matter.
Agreed. The Leave campaign was a glorified sales pitch where the new thing would solve all our problems and the installation would be easy. No one really challenged them on details.
And, after the ref, the Remain campaign focused on attempting to undo the result when it might have been better to accept it and put that energy into shaping what form of Brexit we got. Just think, if we'd gone for Norway, we could be heading out the door by now and getting on with our lives ... This silence enabled that fanatics like Baker etc to fill the gap. And we are where we are. About 45 days from it all going a bit Mad Max ...
The Leave campaign was a glorified sales pitch where the new thing would solve all our problems and the installation would be easy. No one really challenged them on details.
I remember lots of discussion as to whether the Leave campaign wanted a Norway-style arrangement or a Turkey-style or a Canada-style, with much criticism of the Leave campaigners contradicting themselves over this.
They just presumably didn't get challenged on it much in the press or BBC.
And, after the ref, the Remain campaign focused on attempting to undo the result when it might have been better to accept it and put that energy into shaping what form of Brexit we got.
The Remain campaign focussed on giving Parliament a voice in the final deal. The Labour leadership's policy was, and I think is still, to try to shape the result. It was May who decided that the only voice she was going to listen to was the right-wing of her party. She could in the early days, when Corbyn looked to Labour MPs like a lame duck, have probably got enough Labour MPs on board to outweigh the right-wing of her party. She decided not to.
Just think, if we'd gone for Norway, we could be heading out the door by now and getting on with our lives ...
Just think, if we'd gone for Norway we could be launching the campaign to rejoin.
No doubt Eton taught him the use of rhetoric, which is why he's so persuasive, even while he's talking utter bollocks.
Pratchett said that humans are pan narrans - the storytelling ape - and so anyone who can tell a good tale is automatically listened to and taken seriously. And that, my friends, is how propaganda works.
Lets face it: no one gave any proper thought to how the UK would leave the EU if the vote went that way, just as no one made any real attempt to give calm answers to some of the legitimate "issues" the Leave campaign raised.
It all comes back to the old, old British problem: we're quite good at inventing things - we're have ideas that could lead to something good. But taking the idea of making it work, and at the same time ensuring there are no hideous side-issues brought about by it, is totally beyond us. Look at many of the worst, most intractable problems besetting UK society and you'll find they came about because the initial good idea wasn't properly thought through.
Remind me, what were the legitimate "issues" raised by the leave campaign?
There must have been a few Lexiteers (Larry Elliot, economics editor of the Guardian, is one). But they were certainly drowned out by the lies on the side of the bus and the lies about Turkey, and the disgraceful immigration queue poster.
Remind me, what were the legitimate "issues" raised by the leave campaign?
There must have been a few Lexiteers (Larry Elliot, economics editor of the Guardian, is one). But they were certainly drowned out by the lies on the side of the bus and the lies about Turkey, and the disgraceful immigration queue poster.
My response to the Lexiteers has always been: "sure, yes, I agree. At some point in the future a perfectly spherical socialist government might be restrained by EU state aid rules. Right here, right now, EU rules are the last line of defence against the tories. You were saying?"
What I can see staring at the UK, and its legal systems, is a total collapse in belief in its electoral processes, and the possibility that each and every election will be followed by endless litigation on the part of those who feel
I think this will happen, though not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. I think the UK is still working through the consequences of both the FTPA and the creation of the Supreme Court. Added to which is a generation of lawyers who have become used to judging government policy by external standards - some would point to the various EU Treaties as the culprit here, but I suspect it was likely to happen anyway given both devolution and the kinds of conditions that apply to trade arrangements these days.
What I can see staring at the UK, and its legal systems, is a total collapse in belief in its electoral processes, and the possibility that each and every election will be followed by endless litigation on the part of those who feel
I think this will happen, though not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. I think the UK is still working through the consequences of both the FTPA and the creation of the Supreme Court. Added to which is a generation of lawyers who have become used to judging government policy by external standards - some would point to the various EU Treaties as the culprit here, but I suspect it was likely to happen anyway given both devolution and the kinds of conditions that apply to trade arrangements these days.
@TheOrganist, my belief in the UK electoral process experienced total collapse in 1983. It has never revived since. As far as I'm concerned, the current electoral process deserves nothing but unmitigated contempt. The governments derived from it lack any legitimacy.
For shipmates whose memory doesn't go back that far, the Conservatives won. increasing their take of seats by 58 to 359 seats on a 1½% fall in their share of the vote, 42.4%. Labour dropped only 60 seats to a total of 209 seats on a share of only 27½% of the vote, and the then ancestors of the Lib Dems only got 23 seats on 25½% of the vote.
I'm less persuaded that the shift from the highest court of appeal being a sort of adjunct of the House of Lords to calling it the Supreme Court is that significant. The term did exist before but meant the whole court system. There is a loss, which is that under the previous system, judges could be directly involved in evaluating legislation.
What I think is a serious problem is that none of the people involved in the higher levels of UK politics seem to have any education in, understanding of or even interest in, how constitutions work, either in general or specifically the UK one. So they make piecemeal changes or ignore the mechanics, without understanding the why and the wherefore of what they are doing. I don't think many of them even understand that constitutions in different countries function and are supposed to function in different ways.
Although his degree was supposed to be a PPE, I see no evidence that that was anything other than certainly true of Cameron. There's no evidence that de Piffle cares or that Corbyn is bright enough even to have read about such things.
Remind me, what were the legitimate "issues" raised by the leave campaign?
I think one was to reform fisheries policy, particularly the wasteful practice of throwing back dead non-quota fish that would be fine for consumption, plus beefing up fishery protection.
Remind me, what were the legitimate "issues" raised by the leave campaign?
I think one was to reform fisheries policy, particularly the wasteful practice of throwing back dead non-quota fish that would be fine for consumption, plus beefing up fishery protection.
Ahh yes, the wasteful practice of discarding that was banned in 2013...*
Given the lies, misrepresentation and just plain made up stories *cough*Boris*cough* about the EU, one might take the view that making a decision based on the "information" provided was a bit like writing a biology and earth sciences curriculum based on the writings of Creationists.
Remind me, what were the legitimate "issues" raised by the leave campaign?
I think one was to reform fisheries policy, particularly the wasteful practice of throwing back dead non-quota fish that would be fine for consumption, plus beefing up fishery protection.
alienfromzog already addressed discards. Surely the biggest fisheries policy issue was that most of the UK quota was flogged to foreign ships years ago, a result of choices made not by the EU but by British governments. And this is true of a lot of "issues" - they are either a result of British implementation of the rules or are based on a misunderstanding or one of ABdPJ's early '90s lies.
Remind me, what were the legitimate "issues" raised by the leave campaign?
I think one was to reform fisheries policy, particularly the wasteful practice of throwing back dead non-quota fish that would be fine for consumption, plus beefing up fishery protection.
alienfromzog already addressed discards. Surely the biggest fisheries policy issue was that most of the UK quota was flogged to foreign ships years ago, a result of choices made not by the EU but by British governments. And this is true of a lot of "issues" - they are either a result of British implementation of the rules or are based on a misunderstanding or one of ABdPJ's early '90s lies.
This is a vital point. If Brexit is the answer then there's a serious problem with the question.
To be precise; I dare you to prove me wrong on the following:
There are no issues raised by the Leave campaign that Brexit will make better. None.
Fishing is such a great example; the CFP is the source of all ills...
- Except since 2012 it's been significantly reformed.
- Except that the real problem for UK fishermen is that the UK government sold off UK quotas to foreign vessels.
- Except that 80% of fish landed in the UK is exported to the EU such that any gains by theoretically (see previous point) catching more will be wiped out by the much bigger drop in demand.
- Except that outside of the CFP, the UK will presumably have to follow our obligations under international law for sustainable fishing. (There's a whole UN agreement on this; the UK's responsibility it currently subsumed into the CFP).
- Except, I suppose the UK could ignore all of that and destroy fishing stocks in a decade or two...
Now fishing is not something I really knew about; but I went and did some reading and hence know the above. On every Brexit-related issue I have looked at - which is not all of them, but is a few - the pattern is clear; Brexit will make the issue raised worse, not better.
Prove me wrong: go on, I dare you!
Two hints:
1) Avoid healthcare as that's the area, I really do know about
2) If you want a head start, try the Common Agricultural Policy; that's an area of EU policy and expenditure that's ripe for criticism.
This is the point; emotionally I am British, I am not European and the condescending scoffing at the EU's latest stupid policy is very appealing. Once I realised how this was all based on a series of lies - many of them created by Mr Johnson himself - I began to take a different view. I am not smarter than everyone else but I am a little* more geeky than most, hence I am interested in detail and have enjoyed unpacking lots of this. Most of the electorate doesn't do this. Why should they? They've got more important things to do; lives to lead. But this is the point: propaganda works.
Anyway, care to take the challenge? anyone?**
AFZ
*ok, so a lot geeky...
**Genuinely I love being proved wrong on this kind of thing: it's all learning.
James O'Brien made that challenge on his radio show, to a Brexiter, tell me an EU law that has affected you negatively, and there was silence. I heard locally, that in Wisbech, wages went down after many E. Europeans arrived, don't know if it's true. Of course, unemployment is very low.
James O'Brien made that challenge on his radio show, to a Brexiter, tell me an EU law that has affected you negatively, and there was silence. I heard locally, that in Wisbech, wages went down after many E. Europeans arrived, don't know if it's true. Of course, unemployment is very low.
Yes, I enjoy it when he does that. My challenge is a little deeper coz I can name an EU law that I don't like but a) it can be changed and thus leaving the EU not necessary and b) There is no evidence that this would change post Brexit.
and c) even if a) and b) weren't true, it is tiny compared to the avalanche of reasons to remain.
James O'Brien made that challenge on his radio show, to a Brexiter, tell me an EU law that has affected you negatively, and there was silence. I heard locally, that in Wisbech, wages went down after many E. Europeans arrived, don't know if it's true. Of course, unemployment is very low.
It might or might not be true in a small area, but again the large influx of folk from the East in the early '00s was down to UK government decisions, as was the failure to shore up local infrastructure in the places most affected.
I remember looking closely at stats about Oldham, where I used to live, and so many 000 immigrants came in over a certain period, and unemployment fell to record levels. So the idea that migrants take jobs seems disproved, but then Brexitomania isn't based on reason.
The practice of chucking back non-quote fish has not been implemented. If you want proof look no further than the UK Celebrity/Reality TV show Trawlermen which was filmed in the early part of 2019.
And the Fearnely-Whittingstall campaign to stop discards was later than your dates, AFZ, and has proved to be pretty much unenforceable.
The practice of chucking back non-quote fish has not been implemented. If you want proof look no further than the UK Celebrity/Reality TV show Trawlermen which was filmed in the early part of 2019.
And the Fearnely-Whittingstall campaign to stop discards was later than your dates, AFZ, and has proved to be pretty much unenforceable.
Fine. So if I take what you say at face value and the ban is unenforceable - how will leaving the EU make things better?
Yes, but they're our jobs. The fact that we (the natives) don't want to do them is immaterial.
I think it was (comedian) Andy Parsons who pointed out years ago that "They aren't taking our jobs, they're doing our jobs". The problem we have with Leave supporters is not that they can't understand that level of subtlety, but that to do so would destroy their own argument.
Yes, but they're our jobs. The fact that we (the natives) don't want to do them is immaterial.
I think it was (comedian) Andy Parsons who pointed out years ago that "They aren't taking our jobs, they're doing our jobs". The problem we have with Leave supporters is not that they can't understand that level of subtlety, but that to do so would destroy their own argument.
I'm glad it wasn't just me who spotted this point, but it's a shame that the Polly Titians didn't.
The practice of chucking back non-quote fish has not been implemented. If you want proof look no further than the UK Celebrity/Reality TV show Trawlermen which was filmed in the early part of 2019.
And the Fearnely-Whittingstall campaign to stop discards was later than your dates, AFZ, and has proved to be pretty much unenforceable.
I'm sorry to harp* on about this but this is utter bollocks and now I've had time to read your link properly.
Firstly your link confirmed the dates I stated: I.e. the ban was agreed in 2013 and rolled out between 2015-2019. Not especially surprising as the link I gave was from the EU website... the point about enforcement is interesting but not actually relevant to Brexit as leaving the EU doesn't make that problem go away unless you think the UK will have no quotas outside the EU. I'll come back to that one. I haven't checked but I bet that the enforcement is down to the national governments - like quota distribution and that's where the problem lies. Moreover you seem to have a logic problem; if there is an issue with an industrial practice, there are two steps to solving it: regulation and enforcement. You argued (correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you said but) a reason for Leaving is the stupid practice of discarding fish. Something that the EU is acting on: it has been banned. The EU is trying to stop it. Unless you're going for the subtle point that the EU is useless at enforcing regulations but I think the irony of that position would kill me.
Coming back to post Brexit Britain. Let's follow this through; one of two things can happen; either the UK has no quotas and thus is breaking international law and will destroy fishing stocks or there will still be quotas and the enforcement issue will be exactly the same.
My point stands; there is no way in which Brexit is the answer to the problem. The EU has acted to ban the practice you objected to. The enforcement needs work. Brexit is no way changes that fact unless the UK goes down the illegal and ultimately futile no quota route.
Seriously though; one of the reasons why Bor#s's (and others') lies are so effective is how how long does it take to unpack the details? To show the nonsensical nature of the argument? A lot less time than it takes to say £350 million pounds a week.
My challenge remains - find me something that Brexit will actually make better.
The practice of chucking back non-quote fish has not been implemented. If you want proof look no further than the UK Celebrity/Reality TV show Trawlermen which was filmed in the early part of 2019.
And the Fearnely-Whittingstall campaign to stop discards was later than your dates, AFZ, and has proved to be pretty much unenforceable.
I'm sorry to harp* on about this but this is utter bollocks and now I've had time to read your link properly.
Firstly your link confirmed the dates I stated: I.e. the ban was agreed in 2013 and rolled out between 2015-2019. Not especially surprising as the link I gave was from the EU website... the point about enforcement is interesting but not actually relevant to Brexit as leaving the EU doesn't make that problem go away unless you think the UK will have no quotas outside the EU. I'll come back to that one. I haven't checked but I bet that the enforcement is down to the national governments - like quota distribution and that's where the problem lies. Moreover you seem to have a logic problem; if there is an issue with an industrial practice, there are two steps to solving it: regulation and enforcement. You argued (correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you said but) a reason for Leaving is the stupid practice of discarding fish. Something that the EU is acting on: it has been banned. The EU is trying to stop it. Unless you're going for the subtle point that the EU is useless at enforcing regulations but I think the irony of that position would kill me.
Coming back to post Brexit Britain. Let's follow this through; one of two things can happen; either the UK has no quotas and thus is breaking international law and will destroy fishing stocks or there will still be quotas and the enforcement issue will be exactly the same.
My point stands; there is no way in which Brexit is the answer to the problem. The EU has acted to ban the practice you objected to. The enforcement needs work. Brexit is no way changes that fact unless the UK goes down the illegal and ultimately futile no quota route.
Seriously though; one of the reasons why Bor#s's (and others') lies are so effective is how how long does it take to unpack the details? To show the nonsensical nature of the argument? A lot less time than it takes to say £350 million pounds a week.
My challenge remains - find me something that Brexit will actually make better.
AFZ
*carp on? No? Sorry, I'll get my coat.
.
Gosh, if only we’d had a voice at the table when the regulations were being discussed ...
No wait, we did. Farage was on the relevant committee. He demonstrated how much he was concerned about the fishing communities by almost never attending any meetings. Meaning the U.K. didn’t get its say.
If we allow ourselves to be represented by people who don’t see the EU as useful, see any need to do any work in exchange for the massive expenses they claim and are just plain rude when they do turn up then we don’t have much cause for complaint when we don’t get much out of it.
My challenge remains - find me something that Brexit will actually make better.
I think the problem with the Remain campaign is that it largely ignores questions of national identity.
1. The point of the EU is not just to be a massive free trade area. It is to put an end to intra-European conflict by creating a pan-European sense of identity. Hence the flag and anthem and programmes like Erasmus and European Voluntary Service.
2. I think most British people would see questions of national identity as the moral equivalent of 'not justiciable'. That is, the Scots or the Catalans may be wrong in the way they go about seeking national independence, but there is nothing in itself blameworthy about no longer wishing to participate in the British or Spanish identity. Similarly the Good Friday Agreement works from the principle that there is nothing right or wrong about a Northern Irish citizen wanting to be Irish or British. From which it follows that Brexit solves the problem that Brexiteers don't want to be part of the European identity.
3. I'm personally ambivalent about (2), in that, on the one hand, I think it's a mistake to tie questions of national identity to questions of government, but at the same time, I think democracy doesn't work if one of the groups in a democracy doesn't feel it is a part of the community that the democracy is supposed to govern. (This is one reason why I think revoking A50 without a second vote would be a terrible idea.)
4. I think (2) is a distinctly British POV and that most other countries are rather less sanguine about separatist movements. However, if one accepts that the Brexit vote is just xenophobia, then that doesn't reflect well on the EU either; if the point of the EU is to counteract narrow nationalism, and after 40 years the UK is still a narrowly nationalist country, then the EU has failed in its function. (Not in the sense of being morally responsible for Brexit, but in the way a lock has failed if it doesn't in fact keep out burglars.)
The obvious way to preserve the free-trade benefits of the EU while avoiding the supra-nationalism would be to join Efta, which I think is the natural habitat for the UK, but neither side seems to agree with me on this ...
During a visit to a refurbished runway in Knock, west Ireland, Varadkar was given holy water by a priest to “help” him during his meeting with Johnson in New York. “Do I throw it over him?” Varadkar said.
During a visit to a refurbished runway in Knock, west Ireland, Varadkar was given holy water by a priest to “help” him during his meeting with Johnson in New York. “Do I throw it over him?” Varadkar said.
During a visit to a refurbished runway in Knock, west Ireland, Varadkar was given holy water by a priest to “help” him during his meeting with Johnson in New York. “Do I throw it over him?” Varadkar said.
During a visit to a refurbished runway in Knock, west Ireland, Varadkar was given holy water by a priest to “help” him during his meeting with Johnson in New York. “Do I throw it over him?” Varadkar said.
If that doesn’t work then either stake through the heart or chop the head off ... No wait, that’s vampires not politicians ...
I think a Bard from mediaeval Ireland would be ideal. They could bring about serious consequences via the use of satire for those who wronged them. And Boris is ripe for satire, both by his vanity and by all he says and does.
Would he be satisfied with a knighthood? Not so long ago, and earldom was all but standard for a PM on retirement. Even Douglas-Home accepted a life peerage when he eventually left politics.
Would he be satisfied with a knighthood? Not so long ago, and earldom was all but standard for a PM on retirement. Even Douglas-Home accepted a life peerage when he eventually left politics.
Not so long ago? Wasn't the last PM to be made a peer Thatcher? We've had Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron leave parliament since then and not one has been ennobled.
Would he be satisfied with a knighthood? Not so long ago, and earldom was all but standard for a PM on retirement. Even Douglas-Home accepted a life peerage when he eventually left politics.
Not so long ago? Wasn't the last PM to be made a peer Thatcher? We've had Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron leave parliament since then and not one has been ennobled.
Have they been offered and declined? It's the sort of decent thing I can imagine Major doing.
The practice of chucking back non-quote fish has not been implemented. If you want proof look no further than the UK Celebrity/Reality TV show Trawlermen which was filmed in the early part of 2019.
And the Fearnely-Whittingstall campaign to stop discards was later than your dates, AFZ, and has proved to be pretty much unenforceable.
Fine. So if I take what you say at face value and the ban is unenforceable - how will leaving the EU make things better?
Because if we can get out of the EU's quota system we'd have a better chance of using the few fisheries vessels we have to police the home fleet.
The practice of chucking back non-quote fish has not been implemented. If you want proof look no further than the UK Celebrity/Reality TV show Trawlermen which was filmed in the early part of 2019.
And the Fearnely-Whittingstall campaign to stop discards was later than your dates, AFZ, and has proved to be pretty much unenforceable.
Fine. So if I take what you say at face value and the ban is unenforceable - how will leaving the EU make things better?
Because if we can get out of the EU's quota system we'd have a better chance of using the few fisheries vessels we have to police the home fleet.
You what?
What do think will happen? Do you think there will be no quotas? Or do you think that somehow it will be magically easier to do enforcement?
I don't know what will happen because I imagine any Deal is likely to include the UK continung to operate in the CFP. No, I don't imagine it will be "magically" easier to enforce rules but someone might get the backbone to at least try.
Would he be satisfied with a knighthood? Not so long ago, and earldom was all but standard for a PM on retirement. Even Douglas-Home accepted a life peerage when he eventually left politics.
Home accepted a life peerage because he'd been strong-armed into giving up his Earldom to enable Macmillan to pass over Butler - something he bitterly regretted in later life which partly explains him using his time as tory leader to begin reforming the way the leader was chosen.
Oh I know. I tried to point out to a rabid Brexiteer that the "marvellous" service they were getting from their energy supplier was partly courtesy of, err, France but they remained adamant that EDF had nothing to do with our cousins across the Channel
I don't know what will happen because I imagine any Deal is likely to include the UK continung to operate in the CFP. No, I don't imagine it will be "magically" easier to enforce rules but someone might get the backbone to at least try.
So, currently the under-funded British fisheries protection force is currently not enforcing the regulations because they lack backbone. But, leaving the EU will suddenly give these hard working staff the backbone they need, and this will be enough to suddenly stop UK fishing boats from breaking the law by dumping fish. Isn't it possible that what would be far more effective is if the UK government reversed the decision, that was made entirely unilaterally without being told by the EU what to do, to cut funding for these services. More aircraft, boats and crews presumably won't help, because all that's needed is "more backbone".
I don't know what will happen because I imagine any Deal is likely to include the UK continung to operate in the CFP.
And that shows how utterly ignorant you are on this subject.
On 03 July 2017, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deposited an Act of Denunciation with the depositary, dated 03 July 2017, which said "In accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Convention, I hereby give notice of the denunciation of this Convention by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take effect 2 years from the date of this letter or on the date on which the United Kingdom ceases to be a Member State of the European Union, whichever is the later date.”
Of course, with a transition period, there would have been an opportunity for transition to a new arrangement, but no, let's "get it over with", a "clean break".
How many more facts do people need before they realise No Deal, which Is The Default and now imminent, really is a cliff-edge?
Comments
Assumes facts not in evidence...
Agreed. The Leave campaign was a glorified sales pitch where the new thing would solve all our problems and the installation would be easy. No one really challenged them on details.
And, after the ref, the Remain campaign focused on attempting to undo the result when it might have been better to accept it and put that energy into shaping what form of Brexit we got. Just think, if we'd gone for Norway, we could be heading out the door by now and getting on with our lives ... This silence enabled that fanatics like Baker etc to fill the gap. And we are where we are. About 45 days from it all going a bit Mad Max ...
I was going to go with [citation needed].
They just presumably didn't get challenged on it much in the press or BBC.
The Remain campaign focussed on giving Parliament a voice in the final deal. The Labour leadership's policy was, and I think is still, to try to shape the result. It was May who decided that the only voice she was going to listen to was the right-wing of her party. She could in the early days, when Corbyn looked to Labour MPs like a lame duck, have probably got enough Labour MPs on board to outweigh the right-wing of her party. She decided not to.
Just think, if we'd gone for Norway we could be launching the campaign to rejoin.
Pratchett said that humans are pan narrans - the storytelling ape - and so anyone who can tell a good tale is automatically listened to and taken seriously. And that, my friends, is how propaganda works.
It all comes back to the old, old British problem: we're quite good at inventing things - we're have ideas that could lead to something good. But taking the idea of making it work, and at the same time ensuring there are no hideous side-issues brought about by it, is totally beyond us. Look at many of the worst, most intractable problems besetting UK society and you'll find they came about because the initial good idea wasn't properly thought through.
My response to the Lexiteers has always been: "sure, yes, I agree. At some point in the future a perfectly spherical socialist government might be restrained by EU state aid rules. Right here, right now, EU rules are the last line of defence against the tories. You were saying?"
I think this will happen, though not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. I think the UK is still working through the consequences of both the FTPA and the creation of the Supreme Court. Added to which is a generation of lawyers who have become used to judging government policy by external standards - some would point to the various EU Treaties as the culprit here, but I suspect it was likely to happen anyway given both devolution and the kinds of conditions that apply to trade arrangements these days.
For shipmates whose memory doesn't go back that far, the Conservatives won. increasing their take of seats by 58 to 359 seats on a 1½% fall in their share of the vote, 42.4%. Labour dropped only 60 seats to a total of 209 seats on a share of only 27½% of the vote, and the then ancestors of the Lib Dems only got 23 seats on 25½% of the vote.
I'm less persuaded that the shift from the highest court of appeal being a sort of adjunct of the House of Lords to calling it the Supreme Court is that significant. The term did exist before but meant the whole court system. There is a loss, which is that under the previous system, judges could be directly involved in evaluating legislation.
What I think is a serious problem is that none of the people involved in the higher levels of UK politics seem to have any education in, understanding of or even interest in, how constitutions work, either in general or specifically the UK one. So they make piecemeal changes or ignore the mechanics, without understanding the why and the wherefore of what they are doing. I don't think many of them even understand that constitutions in different countries function and are supposed to function in different ways.
Although his degree was supposed to be a PPE, I see no evidence that that was anything other than certainly true of Cameron. There's no evidence that de Piffle cares or that Corbyn is bright enough even to have read about such things.
I think one was to reform fisheries policy, particularly the wasteful practice of throwing back dead non-quota fish that would be fine for consumption, plus beefing up fishery protection.
Ahh yes, the wasteful practice of discarding that was banned in 2013...*
Next.
AFZ
*The ban was agreed in 2013 and phased in over 4 years from 2015.
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/discards_en
alienfromzog already addressed discards. Surely the biggest fisheries policy issue was that most of the UK quota was flogged to foreign ships years ago, a result of choices made not by the EU but by British governments. And this is true of a lot of "issues" - they are either a result of British implementation of the rules or are based on a misunderstanding or one of ABdPJ's early '90s lies.
This is a vital point. If Brexit is the answer then there's a serious problem with the question.
To be precise; I dare you to prove me wrong on the following:
There are no issues raised by the Leave campaign that Brexit will make better. None.
Fishing is such a great example; the CFP is the source of all ills...
- Except since 2012 it's been significantly reformed.
- Except that the real problem for UK fishermen is that the UK government sold off UK quotas to foreign vessels.
- Except that 80% of fish landed in the UK is exported to the EU such that any gains by theoretically (see previous point) catching more will be wiped out by the much bigger drop in demand.
- Except that outside of the CFP, the UK will presumably have to follow our obligations under international law for sustainable fishing. (There's a whole UN agreement on this; the UK's responsibility it currently subsumed into the CFP).
- Except, I suppose the UK could ignore all of that and destroy fishing stocks in a decade or two...
Now fishing is not something I really knew about; but I went and did some reading and hence know the above. On every Brexit-related issue I have looked at - which is not all of them, but is a few - the pattern is clear; Brexit will make the issue raised worse, not better.
Prove me wrong: go on, I dare you!
Two hints:
1) Avoid healthcare as that's the area, I really do know about
2) If you want a head start, try the Common Agricultural Policy; that's an area of EU policy and expenditure that's ripe for criticism.
This is the point; emotionally I am British, I am not European and the condescending scoffing at the EU's latest stupid policy is very appealing. Once I realised how this was all based on a series of lies - many of them created by Mr Johnson himself - I began to take a different view. I am not smarter than everyone else but I am a little* more geeky than most, hence I am interested in detail and have enjoyed unpacking lots of this. Most of the electorate doesn't do this. Why should they? They've got more important things to do; lives to lead. But this is the point: propaganda works.
Anyway, care to take the challenge? anyone?**
AFZ
*ok, so a lot geeky...
**Genuinely I love being proved wrong on this kind of thing: it's all learning.
Yes, I enjoy it when he does that. My challenge is a little deeper coz I can name an EU law that I don't like but a) it can be changed and thus leaving the EU not necessary and b) There is no evidence that this would change post Brexit.
and c) even if a) and b) weren't true, it is tiny compared to the avalanche of reasons to remain.
AFZ
It might or might not be true in a small area, but again the large influx of folk from the East in the early '00s was down to UK government decisions, as was the failure to shore up local infrastructure in the places most affected.
And the Fearnely-Whittingstall campaign to stop discards was later than your dates, AFZ, and has proved to be pretty much unenforceable.
Fine. So if I take what you say at face value and the ban is unenforceable - how will leaving the EU make things better?
I think it was (comedian) Andy Parsons who pointed out years ago that "They aren't taking our jobs, they're doing our jobs". The problem we have with Leave supporters is not that they can't understand that level of subtlety, but that to do so would destroy their own argument.
I'm glad it wasn't just me who spotted this point, but it's a shame that the Polly Titians didn't.
I'm sorry to harp* on about this but this is utter bollocks and now I've had time to read your link properly.
Firstly your link confirmed the dates I stated: I.e. the ban was agreed in 2013 and rolled out between 2015-2019. Not especially surprising as the link I gave was from the EU website... the point about enforcement is interesting but not actually relevant to Brexit as leaving the EU doesn't make that problem go away unless you think the UK will have no quotas outside the EU. I'll come back to that one. I haven't checked but I bet that the enforcement is down to the national governments - like quota distribution and that's where the problem lies. Moreover you seem to have a logic problem; if there is an issue with an industrial practice, there are two steps to solving it: regulation and enforcement. You argued (correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you said but) a reason for Leaving is the stupid practice of discarding fish. Something that the EU is acting on: it has been banned. The EU is trying to stop it. Unless you're going for the subtle point that the EU is useless at enforcing regulations but I think the irony of that position would kill me.
Coming back to post Brexit Britain. Let's follow this through; one of two things can happen; either the UK has no quotas and thus is breaking international law and will destroy fishing stocks or there will still be quotas and the enforcement issue will be exactly the same.
My point stands; there is no way in which Brexit is the answer to the problem. The EU has acted to ban the practice you objected to. The enforcement needs work. Brexit is no way changes that fact unless the UK goes down the illegal and ultimately futile no quota route.
Seriously though; one of the reasons why Bor#s's (and others') lies are so effective is how how long does it take to unpack the details? To show the nonsensical nature of the argument? A lot less time than it takes to say £350 million pounds a week.
My challenge remains - find me something that Brexit will actually make better.
AFZ
*carp on? No? Sorry, I'll get my coat.
Gosh, if only we’d had a voice at the table when the regulations were being discussed ...
No wait, we did. Farage was on the relevant committee. He demonstrated how much he was concerned about the fishing communities by almost never attending any meetings. Meaning the U.K. didn’t get its say.
If we allow ourselves to be represented by people who don’t see the EU as useful, see any need to do any work in exchange for the massive expenses they claim and are just plain rude when they do turn up then we don’t have much cause for complaint when we don’t get much out of it.
I think the problem with the Remain campaign is that it largely ignores questions of national identity.
1. The point of the EU is not just to be a massive free trade area. It is to put an end to intra-European conflict by creating a pan-European sense of identity. Hence the flag and anthem and programmes like Erasmus and European Voluntary Service.
2. I think most British people would see questions of national identity as the moral equivalent of 'not justiciable'. That is, the Scots or the Catalans may be wrong in the way they go about seeking national independence, but there is nothing in itself blameworthy about no longer wishing to participate in the British or Spanish identity. Similarly the Good Friday Agreement works from the principle that there is nothing right or wrong about a Northern Irish citizen wanting to be Irish or British. From which it follows that Brexit solves the problem that Brexiteers don't want to be part of the European identity.
3. I'm personally ambivalent about (2), in that, on the one hand, I think it's a mistake to tie questions of national identity to questions of government, but at the same time, I think democracy doesn't work if one of the groups in a democracy doesn't feel it is a part of the community that the democracy is supposed to govern. (This is one reason why I think revoking A50 without a second vote would be a terrible idea.)
4. I think (2) is a distinctly British POV and that most other countries are rather less sanguine about separatist movements. However, if one accepts that the Brexit vote is just xenophobia, then that doesn't reflect well on the EU either; if the point of the EU is to counteract narrow nationalism, and after 40 years the UK is still a narrowly nationalist country, then the EU has failed in its function. (Not in the sense of being morally responsible for Brexit, but in the way a lock has failed if it doesn't in fact keep out burglars.)
The obvious way to preserve the free-trade benefits of the EU while avoiding the supra-nationalism would be to join Efta, which I think is the natural habitat for the UK, but neither side seems to agree with me on this ...
From the Grauniad.
At least it might temporarily tame Piffleglum's hair...
It'll be poteen, and Varadkar is supposed to drink it. Before the meeting, after the meeting, during the meeting, or all three...
If that doesn’t work then either stake through the heart or chop the head off ... No wait, that’s vampires not politicians ...
I think a Bard from mediaeval Ireland would be ideal. They could bring about serious consequences via the use of satire for those who wronged them. And Boris is ripe for satire, both by his vanity and by all he says and does.
Not so long ago? Wasn't the last PM to be made a peer Thatcher? We've had Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron leave parliament since then and not one has been ennobled.
Have they been offered and declined? It's the sort of decent thing I can imagine Major doing.
Because if we can get out of the EU's quota system we'd have a better chance of using the few fisheries vessels we have to police the home fleet.
You what?
What do think will happen? Do you think there will be no quotas? Or do you think that somehow it will be magically easier to do enforcement?
AFZ
Home accepted a life peerage because he'd been strong-armed into giving up his Earldom to enable Macmillan to pass over Butler - something he bitterly regretted in later life which partly explains him using his time as tory leader to begin reforming the way the leader was chosen.
(source).
Of course, with a transition period, there would have been an opportunity for transition to a new arrangement, but no, let's "get it over with", a "clean break".
How many more facts do people need before they realise No Deal, which Is The Default and now imminent, really is a cliff-edge?