Brexit IV; do or die in a ditch?

Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2 in Purgatory
Seems a good idea to mark the latest post 31 October phase of the long running Brexit saga by creating this fourth phase thread. There are no guarantees that it will be the last! Anyway, we'll see if you still want to discuss the topic.
«1

Comments

  • TBH, not really!

    But, of course, we know that this is indeed an ongoing trainwrecksaga, and doubtless much will be said pro and con during the election campaign.

    Deep Joy...

    At least there seems to be something of a lull, whilst the parties try to get their acts together.

    No reports yet, though, of any Prime Monsters being found deceased n a drainage channel, or anywhere else.
  • The question surely is which ditch to choose?!
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Private Eye's cover has a ditch complaining that it thought it had a relationship.
  • Did Johnson specify which year he was leaving in? There's another October 31st in 2020.
  • Even if he did specify a year, it would be a Hideous Fib.
    :unamused:
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Indeed, his failure to self-inter is yet another broken promise. Suicide is a sin, but if he was a man whose word meant anything, he would have resigned office on Friday. Yet more evidence that he is a person who exhibits no visible evidence of integrity.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Periodically, I check in to these Brexit threads, UK Election threads, Prime Monster rant threads, etc. in an effort to commiserate / rejoice (as appropriate) with my fellow tea-drinkers cross-pond.

    All such efforts have met with utter, total failure. The pro-Brexit stance seems, to this bewildered American, to consist pretty much of standing atop the Cliffs of Dover yelling "We're Us, not Them, Winners of the Last World War and Preemptive Victors in All Future Wars and If That Foreign Lot Don't Kowtow at Once to Our Obvious Superiority, We're Breaking Off the Engagement."

    Remainers seem to be standing marooned somewhere out in the Channel on the Island of But It Ain't Broke, So Why Fix It?

    Then there are all these little artisanal hand-built craft and vessels and rafts darting about between Island and Cliffs cobbling up assorted objections, suggestions, and speculations, lies, fantasies, myths, and assorted skullduggery, yelling through bullhorns about fogs, high seas, hidden shoals, and pirates, but to absolutely no effect because both Cliffers and Islanders are certain that, what- and who-ever the Drifters claim, they're working for The Enemy.

    And now there's going to be an election. To what purpose? My head hurts.
  • My head also hurts when it comes to the purpose of the election. I think it's a matter of the political system doing things it's familiar with - a sort of collective comfort blanket almost. Also an attempt on the part of both sides to clear the other out of the way - though that is doomed and we will almost certainly have a parliament afterwards that is in every bit as much of a mess as the current one, and most of the time given by the extension will be completely wasted.
  • The problem is that the government don't want a referendum for fear that the country will have changed its mind. The opposition would like one, but there's some disagreement what the options would be, and it would take far longer for the question to be agreed and approved by the electoral commission than it would for us to hold an election. I think the Tories are taking a calculated gamble that FTP will work better for them than an election would.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    What's the feeling in the UK about Corbyn's little list - 5 men he's going to get? I suspect it will cost him votes.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Periodically, I check in to these Brexit threads, UK Election threads, Prime Monster rant threads, etc. in an effort to commiserate / rejoice (as appropriate) with my fellow tea-drinkers cross-pond.

    All such efforts have met with utter, total failure. The pro-Brexit stance seems, to this bewildered American, to consist pretty much of standing atop the Cliffs of Dover yelling "We're Us, not Them, Winners of the Last World War and Preemptive Victors in All Future Wars and If That Foreign Lot Don't Kowtow at Once to Our Obvious Superiority, We're Breaking Off the Engagement."

    Remainers seem to be standing marooned somewhere out in the Channel on the Island of But It Ain't Broke, So Why Fix It?

    Then there are all these little artisanal hand-built craft and vessels and rafts darting about between Island and Cliffs cobbling up assorted objections, suggestions, and speculations, lies, fantasies, myths, and assorted skullduggery, yelling through bullhorns about fogs, high seas, hidden shoals, and pirates, but to absolutely no effect because both Cliffers and Islanders are certain that, what- and who-ever the Drifters claim, they're working for The Enemy.

    And now there's going to be an election. To what purpose? My head hurts.

    From the midst of it all, my head hurts too. The caricature you see of the Brexiteers is not the one I see, rather one of a mixture of individuals some of whom have been directly affected by culture changes they don't like and blame Europe for, some of whom are afraid of a federal Europe and loss of a sovereignty which was sold to them but which perhaps never existed.

    The referendum was always nonsense. It was unthinkable that the majority would vote to leave, in the minds of those in power who were out of touch as usual.

    Many of the politicians of all stripes who gave lip service to Brexit never wanted it to happen, and so they blocked it at every opportunity, leading to the present impasse, and an election which is supposed to provide a government with enough of a majority to act. But God only knows whether this will happen. There are so many people saying either that they won't vote at all as they can't trust anyone, or that they will vote for someone they don't want to represent them to keep out someone they have even more objection to, that the government we end up with is likely to be even less competent and more of a dog's dinner than the last one.

    We're all marooned somewhere in the middle of all this, shaking our aching heads and wishing it was all a bad dream we might wake up from.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Ohher's explanation of Pro-Brexit is presently in the Quotes File.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    ThunderBunk: My head also hurts when it comes to the purpose of the election.

    The PM wants it because he thinks he'll get a Conservative majority.
    The SNP want it because they expect to increase their representation, mostly at the expense of the Conservatives.
    The LibDems want it because they expect a bounce from the Euro-Elections.

    Labour probably don't want it, but because they are powerless to stop it they have acquiesced to avoid the accusation of being feart to no profitable end.

    However, as Burns and yourself suggest: "“The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, / Gang aft agley."

    Or, after Gilbert: "Death is the only true unraveller."
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    “The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, / Gang aft agley."

    Best laid? What did I miss? Every scheme starting with the Referendum has been daft. But then I'm throwing stones in a glass house run by the Donald.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    What's the feeling in the UK about Corbyn's little list - 5 men he's going to get? I suspect it will cost him votes.

    What's this?
  • Guardian, as a tactic I don’t like the naming of individuals - but I can see why they want to give concrete examples.
  • Thanks, Doublethink. My first impression from the Guardian article is that Mr Corbyn has picked five examples of people with practices he disapproves of and campaigns against and it is not news to me that he thinks that way.

    I don't avidly read everything the politicians do and say but I am reasonably aware of what is going on and I hadn't heard of this list. Extrapolating from me to the general electorate (very dubious!) I don't suppose this list is featuring very heavily in the campaigns at the moment - someone could pick up on it later, I suppose.

    But if it does come up I don't see how it would cost votes. He is speaking against some of the worst things that capitalists could do which must mean he is somewhere left of centre and I think that most voters realise that already.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited November 3
    The Rogue wrote: »
    Thanks, Doublethink. My first impression from the Guardian article is that Mr Corbyn has picked five examples of people with practices he disapproves of and campaigns against and it is not news to me that he thinks that way.

    I don't avidly read everything the politicians do and say but I am reasonably aware of what is going on and I hadn't heard of this list. Extrapolating from me to the general electorate (very dubious!) I don't suppose this list is featuring very heavily in the campaigns at the moment - someone could pick up on it later, I suppose.

    But if it does come up I don't see how it would cost votes. He is speaking against some of the worst things that capitalists could do which must mean he is somewhere left of centre and I think that most voters realise that already.

    As I read it, he goes much more personally than that. He's saying "My Labour government is going to get the 5 of you" rather than "We're going to get people like you with these policies". That would not go down well here.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    The Rogue wrote: »
    Thanks, Doublethink. My first impression from the Guardian article is that Mr Corbyn has picked five examples of people with practices he disapproves of and campaigns against and it is not news to me that he thinks that way.

    I don't avidly read everything the politicians do and say but I am reasonably aware of what is going on and I hadn't heard of this list. Extrapolating from me to the general electorate (very dubious!) I don't suppose this list is featuring very heavily in the campaigns at the moment - someone could pick up on it later, I suppose.

    But if it does come up I don't see how it would cost votes. He is speaking against some of the worst things that capitalists could do which must mean he is somewhere left of centre and I think that most voters realise that already.

    As I read it, he goes much more personally than that. He's saying "My Labour government is going to get the 5 of you" rather than "We're going to get people like you with these policies". That would not go down well here.

    When it's Murdoch it's justified. For the damage done by that man a one-time revival of the Bill of Attainder is awfully tempting. Ashley just a greedy, venal tosser in the vein of so many other wealthy men who think they've earned it. Murdoch is actively malign.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    It's wrong, very wrong, for any government or political party to use power to pursue political vendettas or to suggest that such a thing is legitimate.

    However four of those would already have been targeted by reputable financial investigators/enforcers if they weren't chums of the present government, and in one case should have been targeted many times by the Press Council if it weren't for the same reason. It strikes me, though, that the Duke of Westminster has just been added in as a makeweight bogeyman because he's got a title and makes a good symbolic villain to appeal to those whose politics is founded largely in envy. There are plenty of people more deserving of investigation.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    The Press Council hasn't existed for a long time. Even when it did, it could not "target" newspaper owners.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    The text is here. labour website

    Note that you do get the 5 names together (I did wonder if the article had essayed the theme),

    However the 'targeting' has them going after the 4 categories (not the press), then it switch to "who's side are you on" calling out Tax-dodgers, Tory's and LibDems* before going into case studies.
    NB the Express equiv article calls it a royal rant, and the whole of the article is that he isn't actually royal.

    *For me I wish they'd put the lib-dems in a different category and vice-versa, but that won't happen.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    As I read it, he goes much more personally than that. He's saying "My Labour government is going to get the 5 of you" rather than "We're going to get people like you with these policies". That would not go down well here.
    To me it read more like some examples of "the few" (as in the slogan "for the many not the few" that Labour have used for a few years), though it may be too personal in naming names. On the other hand, if Corbyn said "we'll pass laws that crack down on the ability of super-rich individuals to control the output of major news sources", "we'll pass legislation to empower employees so that they're not screwed by profiteering billionaires", or "we'll crack down on large landlords who charge high rents without properly maintaining their properties or respecting their tenants" people would come up with their own lists of names (and with the possible exception of the Duke of Westminster come up with most of those names at some point - though it may be in the form of "that git that owns SportsDirect").

    Obviously those in the position of having the power to screw their employees, or a realistic chance of attaining such a position, these will be very unpopular - and you can be sure that the Murdoch media will go on about how awful it is. But, for the majority of the population, especially the less well off, a message of we'll protect your rights as tenants and stop landlords profiting so much from your hardship will go down well. As will regulation of zero-hour contracts and increases to minimum wages, etc. Sometimes putting a face to those practices makes things clearer.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Had he said any of the statements you suggest, that would have been acceptable and proper. But he didn't and that's the problem. To pick up what Arethosemyfeet says, he's proposing bills of attainder against the 5.
  • Westminster is an old bogeyman, as he's supposed to own half the West End.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Had he said any of the statements you suggest, that would have been acceptable and proper. But he didn't and that's the problem. To pick up what Arethosemyfeet says, he's proposing bills of attainder against the 5.

    I think he's using them as examples, thus, "dodgy landlords like the Duke of Westminster". Bills of attainder is melodramatic, where is it in Corbyn's speech?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    As far as I can see Corbyn’s not proposing bills of attainder. He says
    So we’re going after the tax dodgers. We’re going after the dodgy landlords. We’re going after the bad bosses. We’re going after the big polluters. Because we know whose side we’re on.
    Then he poses the ‘Whose side are you on?’ question and then amplifies his initial statement, including naming specific examples of the kind of people who he says have the Conservatives on their side.
    Whose side are you on? The dodgy landlords like the Duke of Westminster…

    Whose side are you on? The bad bosses like Mike Ashley…

    Whose side are you on? The big polluters like Jim Ratcliffe…

    Whose side are you on? The greedy bankers like Crispin Odey…

    And whose side are you on? The billionaire media barons like Rupert Murdoch…
    He then goes on to make the point that Labour will be on the side of ‘you’, the ‘you’ by implication being those who have been oppressed and that Labour will be be ‘going after’ those who have exploited them, the “tax dodgers, dodgy landlords, bad bosses, big polluters and billionaire media barons who support a corrupt system”.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    edited November 3
    With regard to why the DoW,
    I think part of it is that while there are more gangstery landlords. They have also pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. They aren't in that sense the 'elite'* (and would be a digression**).
    Remember the Tory's (and/via the Brexit party) want the votes of "the people" against the (phantom)
    "Remoaner Elite".

    (of course this is supposition, just like the Guardian version is a second hand version of what Corbyn meant)

    *Also he's in London, Corbyn probably heard from the MP of the evicted tenants.
    **Also their actions would are a lot more criminal and pseudo denied, with the DoW there's no question he inherited his wealth and (I assume) evicted people for building projects, what's in question is whether that is the actions of a dodgy or efficient Landlord.
  • Surely, suggesting a bill of attainder against a named individual would land you in hot water both politically and legally? In fact, imputing this to Corbyn is heavy duty stuff, isn't it? Of course, he didn't.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Yep he has only used those name as an example. This has as usual been blown out of proportion
  • BroJames wrote: »
    As far as I can see Corbyn’s not proposing bills of attainder. He says
    So we’re going after the tax dodgers. We’re going after the dodgy landlords. We’re going after the bad bosses. We’re going after the big polluters. Because we know whose side we’re on.
    Then he poses the ‘Whose side are you on?’ question and then amplifies his initial statement, including naming specific examples of the kind of people who he says have the Conservatives on their side.
    Whose side are you on? The dodgy landlords like the Duke of Westminster…

    Whose side are you on? The bad bosses like Mike Ashley…

    Whose side are you on? The big polluters like Jim Ratcliffe…

    Whose side are you on? The greedy bankers like Crispin Odey…

    And whose side are you on? The billionaire media barons like Rupert Murdoch…
    He then goes on to make the point that Labour will be on the side of ‘you’, the ‘you’ by implication being those who have been oppressed and that Labour will be be ‘going after’ those who have exploited them, the “tax dodgers, dodgy landlords, bad bosses, big polluters and billionaire media barons who support a corrupt system”.

    He starts slowly and quietly, and pumps up the volume every time, so it seems. We all want the bad boys to get their comeuppance, so it tickles ears right, left and centre.

    Then keep mentioning schools and hospitals, it works every time.
  • That's why he's behind in the polls.
  • That's why he's behind in the polls.

    I think that's more to do with the perceived obstruction of progress. He might think that the purpose of the opposition is always to oppose, but I don't think the electorate see it that way. We want the MP's to co-operate, for the government to govern.
  • They offered to work with the government on a timetable for the Brexit bill, but the government pulled it.
  • DoW?
  • The Duke of Westminster
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    DoW?

    Duke of Westminster. A rich bloke who owns much of London.

    In other news, Faragè has said he is not going to be standing for a parliamentary seat.

    Which is a little odd. It makes me think that he has no idea which constituency his Brexit party might do well in and wants to avoid losing again.

    But his message seems quite garbled. There seems quite a distance between the Brexit he was talking about in 2016 and the one he is now saying is the only Real and Authentic Brexit.
  • That's the great thing about Brexit, super malleable, protean, invisible, catch it if you can!
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Which is a little odd. It makes me think that he has no idea which constituency his Brexit party might do well in and wants to avoid losing again.

    Not so odd. As an MP he would have a diminished (and less well numerated) figure from the one he can command from outside Parliament.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    He owns the company/party. How is that going to work if Brexit Party MPs are elected but he isn't?
  • Besides, he's got a cushy job with a large salary and expense package as an MEP ... if he was actually elected as an MP he might actually need to do some work.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    He owns the company/party. How is that going to work if Brexit Party MPs are elected but he isn't?

    He'll be leader without portfolio and continue to fill the screens and the airwaves. There's no law that says the leader of the party has to be an MP, and in some ways a populist party would be better off with a charismatic leader represented by a bunch of drones in Parliament.
  • edited November 3
    There's no law that says the leader of the party has to be an MP
    Indeed, and he wouldn't be the only party leader who isn't an MP (which is what he is at the moment anyway). The leaders of the SNP and PC are not MPs, and neither of the leaders of the Green Party are (though both will probably be standing for election somewhere).
  • SNP and PC are slightly different to the Greens in that their leaders are members of the respective national legislative assembly. Caroline Lucas was the Green (co)leader at one point, but that has since changed.

    Apparently Farage thinks that he'll be more useful inflicting himself on people up and down the country rather than having to campaign in one place, although it does leave him more open to attack than usual.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Had he said any of the statements you suggest, that would have been acceptable and proper. But he didn't and that's the problem. To pick up what Arethosemyfeet says, he's proposing bills of attainder against the 5.

    I think he's using them as examples, thus, "dodgy landlords like the Duke of Westminster". Bills of attainder is melodramatic, where is it in Corbyn's speech?

    Of course the phrase itself isn't, but that's much the effect of his statement.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    Apparently Farage thinks that he'll be more useful inflicting himself on people up and down the country rather than having to campaign in one place, although it does leave him more open to attack than usual.
    There'll be a run on milkshakes.

  • Pendragon wrote: »
    Apparently Farage thinks that he'll be more useful inflicting himself on people up and down the country rather than having to campaign in one place, although it does leave him more open to attack than usual.
    There'll be a run on milkshakes.

    I bet that announcement filled the parts of police forces responsible for public order planning with deep and unbounded joy!!
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    Pendragon wrote: »
    Apparently Farage thinks that he'll be more useful inflicting himself on people up and down the country rather than having to campaign in one place, although it does leave him more open to attack than usual.
    There'll be a run on milkshakes.

    I bet that announcement filled the parts of police forces responsible for public order planning with deep and unbounded joy!!
    I'd say that the announcement that there'll be a general election got planners as full of joy as they'll get. A few extra appearances by Farage isn't going to add much work on top of policing what will be a heated campaign everywhere.
  • Candidates may deserve police protection at certain times but in what capacity does he?
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    That's a good point, FG - if he's not even a candidate, why should police time and resources be wasted on him?
    ... There'll be a run on milkshakes.
    You got there before me! :mrgreen:
Sign In or Register to comment.