|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 21:55:56 GMT
It will be a big mistake to try and oppose Johnson by doing what is right, proper or, depending on circumstance, even legal. This is quite clearly out of the Bannonite playbook, amplified by Cummings' involvement. Their idea is to go beyond what is seen as acceptable, to create outrage, to attempt to obfuscate and then to do the same again and again leaving their opponents behind at all times.
The big mistake with the US dealing with Trump doing the same was that people didn't want to believe he meant it, to expect him to row back and then, when he went even further, it was already too late.
I hope that our own politicians have learned from this but fear they will try do something through the courts. They will succeed if they take action straight away through parliament not the courts and it must be done quickly and decisively so that it is done before it can be stopped. The only way to counter the Bannonites is to do the same but even more ruthlessly.
|
|
2,762 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Aug 28, 2019 22:21:46 GMT
Then there are the things we haven’t really “signed on the dotted line for” and there’s some disagreement as to whether we’re actually liable for it. Johnson has said it will not be paid in the event of no deal - so we actually, finally have someone who understands how to negotiate effectively instead of caving into all of the EU’s demands and hoping they chuck us some morsels. I think we have to wait and see from the outcome whether Mr Johnson's tactics show how to negotiate effectively. It's only possible to judge the effectiveness of negotiation when one knows where things end up. In my career I had lots of negotiations, some of which had very public outcomes. I don't think I ever thought that a good negotiating tactic was to publicly threaten my counterpart before I'd even sat down with them. But then, we can look at Mr Johnson's record as Mayor of London as negotiator to get some succour The Garden Bridge, the Emirates Cablecar, the new Routemaster, Thames Estuary Airport, the ArcelorMittal Orbit - on all of these things Mr Johnson spent millions of Londoner's taxpayers' money, and, er, even those of them thet came to pass don't benefit Londoners. But I'm sure he'll do better with the EU. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 7:18:03 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 7:18:03 GMT
They're all but useless as has been proven recently with others ignored or brushed away by Parliament eg: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584Also Catch 22, how can Parliament respond to a petition if Parliament itself is prorogued? |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 7:32:07 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 7:32:07 GMT
"While the legal advice we have received differed, the stronger argument suggests that the UK will not be strictly obliged, as a matter of law, to render any payments at all after leaving." In no way to me does that infer that actually we don't have to pay anything. It's about as valid as posting this quote from another BBC news article: It's all manipulation of the people and the BBC News team do a great job of regurgitating it out to people willing to believe anything they read. Good to see there are still people who think the Beeb are biased in favour of Brexit. I know ardent Brexiteers who believe the complete opposite. As someone who used to work for the BBC, I’d say it’s a sign they remain reasonably neutral! And if you’re going to question the validity of a BBC news report as a source (Brexit: Does the UK owe the EU £39bn? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48586677), I give up. There’s no point in people here continually pressing for sources if, when you provide one from a reputable outlet, you’re told it’s not believable enough. I mean, if I’d quoted The Canary, fair enough... Re-read what I wrote please. I don't think I criticised the validity of BBC reporting. In fact, what I said, when responding to your BBC quote (with another BBC quote - for a degree of impartiality) was that the BBC "regurgitate" the "manipulation of the people" e.g. whatever lies or arguments politicians or others have to spread. In the same way that we just reposted a quote from a source, BBC News do just that too. It's the source of the words that provides the augmentation of the masses and the BBC just broadcast it. I don't think it's necessary to try create a power struggle with a 'who works where' brag, but if you want me to PM you my ID so you can find me on PeopleView let me know  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 8:39:07 GMT
To put into context what happened yesterday, a few years ago Cameron (Mackintosh) asked the members of Theatreboard if they wanted to come to the Les Mis All Star Concert.
Half the board said yes, the other half weren't interested and said no, but as Theatreboard members we were all given tickets for it.
Those who wanted to go assumed the tickets would be decent stalls seats, however it turns out they'll be standing at the back.
And there's only enough refreshments for those that paid for front stalls premium seats.
Futhermore, yesterday we were told by Delfont-Mackintosh we'd all be standing at the back of the Gallery and that those of us who didn't want to attend had no choice in the matter because we are all currently locked in the foyer.
|
|
514 posts
|
Post by Deal J on Aug 29, 2019 9:43:06 GMT
To put into context what happened yesterday, a few years ago Cameron (Mackintosh) asked the members of Theatreboard if they wanted to come to the Les Mis All Star Concert. Half the board said yes, the other half weren't interested and said no, but as Theatreboard members we were all given tickets for it. Those who wanted to go assumed the tickets would be decent stalls seats, however it turns out they'll be standing at the back. And there's only enough refreshments for those that paid for front stalls premium seats. Futhermore, yesterday we were told by Delfont-Mackintosh we'd all be standing at the back of the Gallery and that those of us who didn't want to attend had no choice in the matter because we are all currently locked in the foyer. ...and although we were expecting an all-star cast, the show will actually be performed by members of Boris Johnson's What-a-State Circus. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 12:12:56 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 12:12:56 GMT
Then there are the things we haven’t really “signed on the dotted line for” and there’s some disagreement as to whether we’re actually liable for it. Johnson has said it will not be paid in the event of no deal - so we actually, finally have someone who understands how to negotiate effectively instead of caving into all of the EU’s demands and hoping they chuck us some morsels. I think we have to wait and see from the outcome whether Mr Johnson's tactics show how to negotiate effectively. It's only possible to judge the effectiveness of negotiation when one knows where things end up. In my career I had lots of negotiations, some of which had very public outcomes. I don't think I ever thought that a good negotiating tactic was to publicly threaten my counterpart before I'd even sat down with them. But then, we can look at Mr Johnson's record as Mayor of London as negotiator to get some succour The Garden Bridge, the Emirates Cablecar, the new Routemaster, Thames Estuary Airport, the ArcelorMittal Orbit - on all of these things Mr Johnson spent millions of Londoner's taxpayers' money, and, er, even those of them thet came to pass don't benefit Londoners. But I'm sure he'll do better with the EU. It’s just my opinion that it’s more effective to play hardball in a negotiation than it is to roll over on your back with your paws in the air. Worth also bearing in mind Johnson isn’t operating in a vacuum, so you can’t necessarily judge the success or failure of the tactic by him alone. The tactics/possible success of the fifth column trying to derail/completely stop Brexit will definitely be having an effect on the EU’s approach. And I’m wholly sympathetic to the EU on that! You can’t effectively negotiate if you don’t know what/who you’re negotiating with. Which - to go wider - brings me back to a point I’ve made repeatedly here: clarity. I believe Johnson is trying to provide that. For us and the EU. I think, after the delay to Brexit, it’s time we do the proverbial or ‘get off the pot’. Macron clearly also thinks this and I imagine he’s not alone! Even if the No Deal lot request an extension, the EU are not obliged to provide it. We may still crash out with No Deal on that basis. The derail/stop Brexit brigade had numerous opportunities to act in the last few years. They failed to do so. This, at least, may focus their minds on pulling together and figuring out what they CAN agree on! You never know, they may yet pull it off. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 12:18:32 GMT
Post by sf on Aug 29, 2019 12:18:32 GMT
The derail/stop Brexit brigade had numerous opportunities to act in the last few years. They failed to do so. We were originally supposed to leave the EU on March 29th this year. Did we? |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 12:24:36 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 12:24:36 GMT
Good to see there are still people who think the Beeb are biased in favour of Brexit. I know ardent Brexiteers who believe the complete opposite. As someone who used to work for the BBC, I’d say it’s a sign they remain reasonably neutral! And if you’re going to question the validity of a BBC news report as a source (Brexit: Does the UK owe the EU £39bn? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48586677), I give up. There’s no point in people here continually pressing for sources if, when you provide one from a reputable outlet, you’re told it’s not believable enough. I mean, if I’d quoted The Canary, fair enough... Re-read what I wrote please. I don't think I criticised the validity of BBC reporting. In fact, what I said, when responding to your BBC quote (with another BBC quote - for a degree of impartiality) was that the BBC "regurgitate" the "manipulation of the people" e.g. whatever lies or arguments politicians or others have to spread. In the same way that we just reposted a quote from a source, BBC News do just that too. It's the source of the words that provides the augmentation of the masses and the BBC just broadcast it. I don't think it's necessary to try create a power struggle with a 'who works where' brag, but if you want me to PM you my ID so you can find me on PeopleView let me know Well if you think saying that the BBC ‘regurgitates the manipulation of the people’ isn’t an attack on the validity of BBC reporting, we’ll have to agree to differ! But thanks for trying to mansplain to an ex-journalist how news works. Not sure about the value of your PeopleView comment? Plenty of people on here have previously mentioned where they work(ed) and not been attacked for it. Why now with someone who disagrees with you? I mentioned I worked at the Beeb to show I was familiar with their stance on neutrality and equally familiar with people across the political spectrum (and more widely) attacking the validity of their reporting. Which I feel shows they’re pretty neutral most of the time. I should have thought it was quite clear it wasn’t a boast! |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 12:29:26 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 12:29:26 GMT
One interesting point a fair number of people who are saying that closing Parliament is undemocratic are those who were elected for one party at the last election but then have since moved parties. I have always felt that if an MP switches allegiance then there should be a by-election as people vote as much for parties as for the person.
Some MPs who sit as an independent lets say Frank Field in Birkenhead who has been their MP for over 40 years may well have a large personal vote but other "career politicians" who like to speak up may not so much.
Also lets get into the fun scenario, Parliament returns on 14th October and Boris immediately calls an election to happen after Brexit date, so Parliament would close up again or he even announces it at his Conference Speech a week earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 12:32:34 GMT
The derail/stop Brexit brigade had numerous opportunities to act in the last few years. They failed to do so. We were originally supposed to leave the EU on March 29th this year. Did we? Did you read the rest of my post? It expresses frustration we haven’t left yet. No dealers had a great option. Voting for May’s deal. They failed to do so, for a variety of reasons, many best expressed as ‘their own/party interests over the country’s’. (I would say the same of the hard Brexiteers, in fairness.) They singularly failed to agree on any alternative, so the EU granted an extension. MPs continued to fail to agree alternatives. Johnson is now taking control. Nobody’s going to change any minds around here by endlessly going round in circles. I just think it’s worth pointing out people may disagree with whatever counts as the ‘prevailing opinion’ here for perfectly valid reasons. Being baited as thickoes or Bad People is very tiring. *shrugs* |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 29, 2019 12:39:38 GMT
We were originally supposed to leave the EU on March 29th this year. Did we? Did you read the rest of my post? It expresses frustration we haven’t left yet. No dealers had a great option. Voting for May’s deal. They failed to do so, for a variety of reasons, many best expressed as ‘their own/party interests over the country’s’. (I would say the same of the hard Brexiteers, in fairness.) They singularly failed to agree on any alternative, so the EU granted an extension. MPs continued to fail to agree alternatives. Johnson is now taking control. Nobody’s going to change any minds around here by endlessly going round in circles. I just think it’s worth pointing out people may disagree with whatever counts as the ‘prevailing opinion’ here for perfectly valid reasons. Being baited as thickoes or Bad People is very tiring. *shrugs* I did read the rest of your post, Jean, and your condescension is neither appropriate nor welcome. I took issue with a specific point - that people campaigning to stop or derail Brexit had been ineffective - and pointed out that that is clearly not the case. |
|
2,762 posts
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 13:36:26 GMT
sf likes this
Post by n1david on Aug 29, 2019 13:36:26 GMT
Which - to go wider - brings me back to a point I’ve made repeatedly here: clarity. I believe Johnson is trying to provide that. What’s his Irish border solution? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 15:06:04 GMT
One interesting point a fair number of people who are saying that closing Parliament is undemocratic are those who were elected for one party at the last election but then have since moved parties. I have always felt that if an MP switches allegiance then there should be a by-election as people vote as much for parties as for the person. Some MPs who sit as an independent lets say Frank Field in Birkenhead who has been their MP for over 40 years may well have a large personal vote but other "career politicians" who like to speak up may not so much. Also lets get into the fun scenario, Parliament returns on 14th October and Boris immediately calls an election to happen after Brexit date, so Parliament would close up again or he even announces it at his Conference Speech a week earlier. This is where people get confused, we elect representatives and it is their decision to do what is in the country's best interests. If that means leaving a party that no longer does that, in their opinion, then that is part and parcel of electing a representative. I sometimes hear people say that MPs are supposed to do what the people who voted for them tell them to - no, they represent all constituents and are not, in the end, in hock to anyone else. Not even the party whose banner they were elected under.
There are other theories but this was best explained by Edmund Burke.
In a way it's one of the only good things about the first past the post system in that MPs are not appointed via party lists.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 15:23:25 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 15:23:25 GMT
A lot of people will mainly vote for their party rather than an individual especially when the individual is a new candidate. Each constituency/area elects a representative who is broadly expected to agree with the majority of their parties views on key issues otherwise they wouldn't be representing that party.
Across both the Tory and Labour parties you will have a wide range of differing views and it is often said that the Labour right and Tory left have more in common than the opposite wings of their respective parties.
Changes of Leadership do force changes of Policy and if an MP feels they cannot serve under that Leader then they have left their parties. When a couple of guys defected to UKIP from Tories they had the balls to call a by-election. Yet none of the 20 odd who have left their parties in recent months have had the nerve to do so.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 15:40:08 GMT
sf likes this
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 15:40:08 GMT
A lot of people will mainly vote for their party rather than an individual especially when the individual is a new candidate. Each constituency/area elects a representative who is broadly expected to agree with the majority of their parties views on key issues otherwise they wouldn't be representing that party. Across both the Tory and Labour parties you will have a wide range of differing views and it is often said that the Labour right and Tory left have more in common than the opposite wings of their respective parties. Changes of Leadership do force changes of Policy and if an MP feels they cannot serve under that Leader then they have left their parties. When a couple of guys defected to UKIP from Tories they had the balls to call a by-election. Yet none of the 20 odd who have left their parties in recent months have had the nerve to do so. You say it yourself, each party has a vast range of views, if anyone votes purely by looking at the party name then more fool them. Changing party can, in fact, be less of a distance than between, say, Justine Greening and Mark Francois. Conservatives who are further apart than each other is to the Lib Dems or Brexit party respectively. We have a representative democracy, although it appears that some people have mistaken it for direct democracy (as seen via countless TV ‘public’ votes). |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 15:58:19 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 15:58:19 GMT
Did you read the rest of my post? It expresses frustration we haven’t left yet. No dealers had a great option. Voting for May’s deal. They failed to do so, for a variety of reasons, many best expressed as ‘their own/party interests over the country’s’. (I would say the same of the hard Brexiteers, in fairness.) They singularly failed to agree on any alternative, so the EU granted an extension. MPs continued to fail to agree alternatives. Johnson is now taking control. Nobody’s going to change any minds around here by endlessly going round in circles. I just think it’s worth pointing out people may disagree with whatever counts as the ‘prevailing opinion’ here for perfectly valid reasons. Being baited as thickoes or Bad People is very tiring. *shrugs* I did read the rest of your post, Jean, and your condescension is neither appropriate nor welcome. I took issue with a specific point - that people campaigning to stop or derail Brexit had been ineffective - and pointed out that that is clearly not the case. Hmm - odd that you were so blind to the condescension of your ‘Did we?’ |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 16:02:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 16:02:55 GMT
Which - to go wider - brings me back to a point I’ve made repeatedly here: clarity. I believe Johnson is trying to provide that. What’s his Irish border solution? I’m not involved in the discussions, you know. ;-) I read they were looking at technological solutions. I read the EU and Irish Republic were looking at the same. |
|
2,762 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Aug 29, 2019 16:24:57 GMT
What’s his Irish border solution? I’m not involved in the discussions, you know. ;-) I read they were looking at technological solutions. I read the EU and Irish Republic were looking at the same. Well that’s definitely what I call “clarity”. After all, these unspecified “technological solutions” can easily be put in place in the next 8 weeks (once he’s worked out what they are). Given that he’s rejected the backstop (which was the EU’s solution for Oct 31), I rather hoped his solution would be a bit more clear by now. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 17:10:53 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 17:10:53 GMT
A lot of people will mainly vote for their party rather than an individual especially when the individual is a new candidate. Each constituency/area elects a representative who is broadly expected to agree with the majority of their parties views on key issues otherwise they wouldn't be representing that party. Across both the Tory and Labour parties you will have a wide range of differing views and it is often said that the Labour right and Tory left have more in common than the opposite wings of their respective parties. Changes of Leadership do force changes of Policy and if an MP feels they cannot serve under that Leader then they have left their parties. When a couple of guys defected to UKIP from Tories they had the balls to call a by-election. Yet none of the 20 odd who have left their parties in recent months have had the nerve to do so. You say it yourself, each party has a vast range of views, if anyone votes purely by looking at the party name then more fool them. Changing party can, in fact, be less of a distance than between, say, Justine Greening and Mark Francois. Conservatives who are further apart than each other is to the Lib Dems or Brexit party respectively. We have a representative democracy, although it appears that some people have mistaken it for direct democracy (as seen via countless TV ‘public’ votes). Very valid point as always but would a lifelong Labour voter for example change to another party if their sitting MP retired and a newbie was in their place. I could see someone like yourself researching such a thing but would the average Joe Public and if it was a younger candidate with no previous elected experience it would be harder to find out their exact views. A lot of people change party allegiance due to a parties' policies.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 17:50:35 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 17:50:35 GMT
You say it yourself, each party has a vast range of views, if anyone votes purely by looking at the party name then more fool them. Changing party can, in fact, be less of a distance than between, say, Justine Greening and Mark Francois. Conservatives who are further apart than each other is to the Lib Dems or Brexit party respectively. We have a representative democracy, although it appears that some people have mistaken it for direct democracy (as seen via countless TV ‘public’ votes). Very valid point as always but would a lifelong Labour voter for example change to another party if their sitting MP retired and a newbie was in their place. I could see someone like yourself researching such a thing but would the average Joe Public and if it was a younger candidate with no previous elected experience it would be harder to find out their exact views. A lot of people change party allegiance due to a parties' policies.
They should always look at the other candidates but clearly many don’t. I doubt it enters most people’s minds that their MP might be a human being, not a party rosette. On new candidates, given people’s online footprint I don’t think any worthwhile candidate would be invisible to research, however young (and, if they were, maybe that’s a warning sign anyway) but, again, that means doing some work beyond putting a cross in a box. Personally i would prefer a system whereby a multitude of parties existed, more clearly aligning with personal preferences; naturally that would require a more proportional system so that a wide variety of views were accurately represented. I would also ban the whipping system, so that MPs were not treated as ‘lobby fodder’ but that seems unlikely to happen. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 18:47:16 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 18:47:16 GMT
I’m not involved in the discussions, you know. ;-) I read they were looking at technological solutions. I read the EU and Irish Republic were looking at the same. Well that’s definitely what I call “clarity”. After all, these unspecified “technological solutions” can easily be put in place in the next 8 weeks (once he’s worked out what they are). Given that he’s rejected the backstop (which was the EU’s solution for Oct 31), I rather hoped his solution would be a bit more clear by now. I’m afraid I’m not in a position to provide you with an answer that’s 100% sure. Very few things in life are 100% sure, sadly! What I do know is, from my point of view, saying “if you don’t renegotiate, we’ll walk away” is a heck of a lot clearer than “we haven’t quite made our minds up yet, could you give us another 6 months to squabble amongst ourselves? And bear in mind we might ask you the same thing again in 6 months’ time.” Plenty of suggestions here for potential border solutions, with varying degrees of ‘workability’: Brexit: What could no deal mean for the Irish border? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47786455 (Sorry it’s another BBC link, what can I say - their SEO strategy must be working!) Both sides seem equally baffled by the problem, to be fair. Not sure why the UK should agree to a solution that protects the EU but endangers our ability to free ourselves from Brussels? On the other hand, why would the EU make things easy for us while making problems for themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 19:19:19 GMT
I read they were looking at technological solutions. They keep on proposing technical solutions, but anyone who's been following various government IT projects over the last decade or two knows that they almost always come in staggeringly over budget and many years late. A recent report revealed that across nine major projects the government wasted £7.5 billion and suffered a total of 34 years of delays. If they wanted a technical solution to the border problem they should have started planning it before the referendum. At this point they might as well hope the problem will be fixed by magic elves. |
|
1,863 posts
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 19:56:28 GMT
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 29, 2019 19:56:28 GMT
Having spent two days around Whitehall the intransigence of both sides is near impossible to bridge and found these days some of the most enlightening I have experienced from a Political perspective.
The way the cards are stacked not leaving the EU is an extremely unlikely scenario, what is up for grabs is whether it is a Hard or Soft Brexit, strangely today I spent some time with the Leavers to understand their stance, one in a Brexit Party T-Shirt was convinced we would leave with a Deal which surprised me.
I now believe the best we can hope is for a Soft Brexit of some nature (no one had a constructive answer to the Irish Border) giving some of the benefits of EU membership free movement with residence controls / tariffs with the understanding we have no ties with the EU legislative process and then try to unify around a solution where both sides can perceive some sort of win-win.
I will continue to resist the shutdown of Parliament which sets a dangerous precedence and will continue to demonstrate and will be back on Saturday and next Tuesday and the following days dependant on how things progress.
Interestingly a Leaver said that the Lib Dem’s and Labour should vote to not close Parliament for the Party Conferences and therefore be able to argue rather than losing only 2 days we are losing 12 days putting the pressure back on Johnson to explain the length of time before Queens Speech.
One thing both sides are in agreement is the quality of Politicians we have and their representative performance and their disappointment that they voted not to cancel the summer recess and are now arguing about the time available.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 29, 2019 20:30:48 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 29, 2019 20:30:48 GMT
Perhaps not only the quality of politicians; mainstream broadcast media - BBC included - has been abject.
BBC presumably hoping to slow the hemorrhaging of licence-fee payers with the return of Andrew Neil at 7pm on BBC 2.
Managers at BBC News must be aware they have been risking the entire funding model over the last 2 years. I'll be hugely surprised if very large chickens don't come home to roost at Portland Place when this is all over.
|
|
