94

Last Night in the House…

Philip Roddis

I enjoy schadenfreude as much as the next guy and for the millions of us who detest Boris, last night brought the stuff in spades. I was quite taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s comment. Too much the gentleman to refer to BoJo in person, Jezza’s was as neat a slice of alliteration as you’re likely to come across in a parliamentary put-down.

This government has no mandate, no morals and as of today no majority.

That last being an allusion to Tory member Phillip Lee, who dramatically crossed the floor to sit with the Lib Dems even as Boris was speaking. In those few seconds of theatre a Tory majority of one – and that reliant on May’s squalid deal with the creationist and reactionary DUP – went up in a puff of the proverbial.

But Lee’s perambulation – one small step for man, one fat smack in the chops for Boris – was but the first strike in a night of triple whammy. Within hours the government – a day of threats, bribes and all-round arm-twisting notwithstanding – lost its bid to block a no-deal Brexit vote.

Worse yet, his Plan B – or Plan A? – hit the skids immediately after that defeat, wittily referred to by Scottish Nationalist Ian Blackford as the “shortest honeymoon in parliamentary history” – while a Right Honourable Member off-camera calls out, the very second Speaker John Bercow announces the result, that this is:

Not a good start, Boris.

All good stuff. As Noel Coward would say, I couldn’t have liked it more.

For the third hammer blow BoJo can thank a fellow Etonian. T’was David Cameron, whose own reckless complacency got us into this mess,1 who also saw to it that a prime minister may no longer call a snap election as and when s/he sees fit.

The Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2015 has put paid to that. Now the Commons will decide whether – and more crucially, when – BoJo gets to grandstand as saviour of the People’s Will in the face of a parliament bent on thwarting it.

In plain terms, Johnson can’t follow his failure to push through a no-deal option by “going to the country” on a Parliament Versus Democracy ticket at a time of his choosing. Not without two thirds of the House of Commons assenting to it. Which as of this morning looks about as likely as Yemen winning the next world cup.

[As this was being published, it was confirmed that Parliament had voted down the proposed General Election – Ed.]

This post continues at Steel City Scribblings.

[1] By “this mess” I refer not to Brexit but to the simplistic terms, and lies on both sides, in which the Referendum question was framed. And to the failure to demand more than a simple majority – two thirds is traditional – for so far reaching and long lasting a change to the status quo. And above all to the deep and deeply frightening divisions of a not so United Kingdom; divisions both reflected and exacerbated by the 2016 outcome.

Scribbler for some sixty years, and for fifteen a photographer too, Philip Roddis began blogging in the early noughties by inflicting film reviews on an unsuspecting public. Soon he was doing the same with illustrated writings on wanderings in Asia and Africa. He writes “to help me think, and because I like to be read”, and finds photography's problem solving aspects "a break from those of writing, as well as an aid to writing and to reflective travel”.

His blog is Steel City Scribblings

Filed under: Brexit, latest, UK, UK domestic politics

by

Scribbler for some sixty years, and for fifteen a photographer too, Philip Roddis began blogging in the early noughties by inflicting film reviews on an unsuspecting public. Soon he was doing the same with illustrated writings on wanderings in Asia and Africa. He writes “to help me think, and because I like to be read”, and finds photography's problem solving aspects "a break from those of writing, as well as an aid to writing and to reflective travel”. His blog is Steel City Scribblings

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
BigB
BigB

Phillip:

Last time I stated that the current political model is irreparably broken. Both major parties propose putative solutions to the environmental and economic unsustainablity problems that are in themselves unsustainable (the GND and natural capital BAU versions of the CCC (Committee for Climate Change) report). Which makes sustainability the neglected orphan of politics – predicated, as it is, on perpetual economic growth. There is no sustainable solution to the growth problem: except to abandon the destructive vectors of inexorable and ineluctable growth. Which entails deep social unsustainability and potential unrest under the current econometrics of the extant political system. Politics, in its current form, is a major driver of unsustainability and all that entails globally. Which does not bear thinking about: but we must think about it. What – other than potential collapse, chaos, and tyranny – will succeed where politics (‘high politics’ as I defined it) has failed?

I got the distinct feeling that you and Bevin disagree with my suggestion that the successor state – if there is to be one – must emerge from a realm beyond politics. That realm I referred to as ‘spiritual’. Or the current 21st century ‘scientific spiritual’ (ie very definitely not New Age ‘woo woo’: but secular spirtuality shorn of all false metaphysical truth claims …the sort the likes of Sam Harris have demonstrated the need for (and that is not an endorsement of Harris either)).

Previously, we agreed that Cartesian duality had taken us as far as it could, and was now evolutionarily redundant. And ‘politics’ is Cartesian duality writ in sacred tablets of stone: like the Commandments of the autocracy of perpetual growthism. But nondual ‘scientific spiritual’ politics is a an immaterial political theory, for now.

Which leaves the aporia, as I see it, that high politics – based on the autocratic false-econometrics of perpetual exponential growth – is driving extinction …which is the ultimate failure of sustainabilty. If politics is the problem – which it is, as I see it – how can more politics be the solution? If political inputs result in economically, environmentally, and socially unsustainable outcomes – which they quite clearly do – how can more high political inputs succeed in producing sustainable outcomes …like economic and environmental survivability?

Applied to the current social situation: neither Leave or Remain – deal, no-deal, or Green New Deal – entails anything but further impoverishment, alienation, misery, and austerity of spirit for humanity (the ‘workers’). Broken Britain – the ‘Disunited Kingdom’ – can only become more broken and disunited under the current political system …devolved and descended beneath farce, as it is. For this, there seems to be an emerging consensus – but no political solution.

Politics has yet to emerge from the shadow of the two arch-dualists: Plato and his pupil, Aristotle. Republican v Democrat; conservative v progressive is the transgressive model we are watching devolve in time from aristocracy to tyrrany …under the autocracy of exponential growth of the value of property, wealth, and status. We need a new political theory (definitely NOT Dugin’s) based on sustainable econometrics (an economy of bio-physical flows) and the open autonomous holarchy of natural, systemic and sustainable bio-communities (open, informed, direct and participatory democracy – where the part is the whole and the bottom as equally informed, interactive and participatory as the top (unlike Platonic Duginist Eurasianism!)).

The political classes (modernities Guardians) are not going to educate us. We have to educate ourselves (Pedagogy of the Oppressed). More and more we can witness that Britain is broken: but we do not know why Britain is broken. The dualist unsustainable political economy is broken and in ‘model crisis’. The solution is the bottom becoming the top and the top becoming the bottom: in a connectionist matrix of holarchic autonomy. Which is how natural systems evolve – by inter-connectionism, lack of privileged status, cooperation, co-evolution and co-adaptation at a systemic level. The part is the whole (holonic). Boundaries are illusions. Strict rigid and coercive hierarchies are unnatural authoritarian impositions. Taxonomies of class, hierarchical social order, political family (tribe), gender, race, ethnicity; religion are unnaturally imposed ranking divisions. Competition is cooperation and balance: not an autocratic primary growth principle. Living systems maintain an entropic gradient from high to low – operating far from equilibrium. Our unnaturally imposed political economy operates from low to high with an inexorable appetite for growth through destruction: and expects to survive the ensuing chaos.

Nature is a systemic pattern and process language we ignore and read our own self-referential political economic text instead of. Plato and Aristotle were both long dead philosophers. Why do we so long to join them by following their life-blind political system?

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

BB it seems you have to repeat daily almost the same underlying message regardless of the article subject.

We will of course dally again on some thread but here is a heads up on what I have just put my finger on, that I believe, is another weakness in your screed.

Your last sentence invites the answer – because you insist on seeing the world largely through the eurocentric philosophical history and supremacy.

So get your ducks in a row! 🤔

BigB
BigB

Touche: but that is quite amusing coming from your repeat Remain comments schedule. Our systems are breaking down into chaos and tyranny whether we stay or go. Obsessing (not my accusation) over which is best and repeated posting of the exact same comment seems as wide of the mark to me as I do to you.

At least I vary my angle from psychology to economy to environment to political theory. We can all see politics is broken: fixing it with constitutional neoliberalism, fascising EU military unification, military expansionism, and EU/NATO suzerainty seems the least positive outcome we could choose. Let’s skip economic, environmental, and democratic system failure and proceed straight to de-democratised and de-sovereigntised tyranny, shall we?

I prefer freedom, even if that is limited to freedom of thought in this rapidly destabilising world. As to your penultimate sentence: pot, kettle, black projectionism. I tried to warn about the crypto-fascist philosophy underlying Eurasianism the other. That is what Traditional means when VVP speaks. And when he said liberalism is dead: he meant Classic Liberalism. We need a new political theory: only not Eurasianism and Platonic Traditionalism. The political theories we have all entail tyranny: is it not worth addressing why?

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

When you say ‘we’ need a new political theory – can you explain who you mean by ‘we’?

I mean there are many billions on the planet.

I write about brexit on brexity articles. And about other stuff on other stuff articles.

BigB
BigB

The ‘Illiberal West’ as it is perceived: that is any country that purports to have a democracy. Of which very few, if any, can be said to be ‘functioning’. Why do they not function? There are many reasons for this, that lie in the history of philosophy. Yes, philosophy determines politics and political outcomes. Which is why a 2,500 year old Judeo-Graeco-Roman political theory needs a serious overhaul: if not replacing.

You should research Dugin: not least so that you can understand what VVP means by ‘liberalism’ and ‘traditionalism’. He is correct, at least, in his criticism of Western Democracy. He is bonkers crazy in his solution. His Fourth Political theory is a fascist dogsbody of incoherent idealisms and occult mysticism …of a neo-Nazi variety. You know all that criticism of him: most of it is true. (PS: I did not read the criticism: I read and studied Dugin to make up my own mind).

Humanity is being developmentally retarded by its political and economic theory. We are at an evolutionary impasse where ‘business-as-usual’ along the same politico-economic vectors of growth will severely curtail our long term survival options. Dare I mention entropy? Political econometric negentropic growthism is a collapse model. Where is the Plan B?

In the UK: nowhere. There is either deep voter apathy or reinvestment in Plan A: the collapse model. We are way beyond this politician or that politician: or this policy or that policy …they all entail collapse. Our systems are autonomous. Growthism has become a sentient entity: a bit like ‘Skynet’ in the Terminator movies. With much the same results: without Arnie to save us.

If the successor state to Terminator capitalism is more Terminator capitalism: we will be proving that we are not a viable species …and unworthy of the self-awarded title ‘sapiens’. Forgive my monomania: but I would quite like to survive. Of my brothers and sisters: I’m never quite so sure. A universal humanist ‘fourth political theory’ inclusive of all humanity and our co-evolutionary extended biotic communities is a pet theory of mine. One I will probably die with. Humanity will limp on regardless: in severely restricted post-capitalist collapse. We could have had it so good. If only we backed ourselves: not long dead Greek philosophers and their impoverished vision of who we really are.

BTW: have you missed all my posts railing against the Western ‘ontotheological’ Tradition? Western philosophy was falsified from its very dualist Foundation and Essentialism. You must have missed all that. It is precisely because of what you call “eurocentric philosophical history” that things have ended being so fucked up. I argue that is entailed in the very dualistic roots of Westernism that algorithmically programmed separationism, dominion, and instrumental overpower. My Tradition is Eastern. I rejected the Western approach in 1982 after a years foundation course reading the very rubbish we all believe: because it is unconsciously programmed into the language, culture, and political-economic institutionalism of modernity. Not my lens, bros. Not my lens at all.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

I have missed your railing, I must have been blinded. So apologies. I’ll have to try hardet to pick it up amongs the plethora.

But and it is a big but, is there much point in addressing a small proportion of the worlds populations shortcomings and diregarding the rest who don’t have the western ‘traditions’?

After all they are the many and we are the few – and we all live on the same little blue dot in the vastness of the solar system.

BigB
BigB

Come to that, is there any point addressing any of it at all? It may be in vain; but yes …we do all the consuming: as the likes of Professor Kevin Anderson is wont to point out. Which makes us the 12-15% that all planetary production is skewed toward catering for. Around 85% of humanity is excluded: in comparable terms, their consumption is trivial.

So, even if the planet was more materially acommodating: our lifestyles are a global class issue. Heightened by competition for resources in a scarce – ie no longer artificially scarce – and depleting planet. Access to energy and resources are a zero-sum game. To have is a function of the rest having not.

Immanuel Wallerstein died last week. He theorised World Systems theory. Global debt, poverty, racism and ethnocentrism (eurocentrism) are structurally and coercively imposed. First by actual violence, administrative occupation, and Colonialism. Then by hidden violence – distantly administered Neocolonialism …or financial imperialism. The world has been structurally ordered by elite administration solely for the purposes for capital accumulation …humanity be damned.

Humanity be damned – whether there is an economic or environmental crisis or not. In other words, the environmental crisis has brought to a head the underlying historical iniquity of a corrupt, inhumane, and dehumanising system. One that needs resisting anyway: but doubly so now it has reached global crisis levels and is threatening the functional integrity and resilience of the Earth System.

Put most colloquially: it is a shit system anyway. One that has only ever suited the Platonic elite. At this late, late, way past eleventh hour: where our systematic waves of mutilation are reaping their reward of potential systemic collapse: the system is a death drive insanity, morally bankrupt and beyond any form of reform or redemption.

Do we need a new system? Yes we do. When do we need it? As yesterday is impossible: now will have to do. The fact that our own systems are threatening us can be likened to an auto-immune pathology. The current political economy is the expression of that underlying psychology of detachment, dominion, and instrumental overpower …authoritarian administered by a cognitive elite (have you not seen Corbyn vilified as ‘uneducated’? That’s Platonic cognitive elitism identifying the undereducated as a threat).

I’m sorry if I bore you: but very few seem aware of the long-term stability of the UK. Brexit matters: but not as much as entropy, resource depletion, and slow-burn systems collapse. For which there is zero preparedness. Because, by and large, we still believe the old lies. Things can only get better: said New Labour. Did they. Things got decidedly worse – no matter what party is in power. Because the national level EROI (exergy = the amount of energy available for work, pleasure, welfare, and above all economic productivty) took a nosedive from 1997. Will we return to full productivity with renewable energy? Only a techno-dreamer would think so. Are we preparing to restructure our society to accommodate diminishing exergy and resource throughput? Or are we pretending we can extend our current lifestyles indefinitely by making minimal changes to our current collapse model systems? Is this a problem? Yes, but not nearly as much of a problem as it will be the longer we play extend and pretend. Do we need a new system? Does cancer often cure itself?

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

It is a useful metaphor – cancer. Unregulated metastasis, against the rest of the body by a small group of cells.

Dealt with by the modern day ‘sawbones’ blunt surgical chopping out the offending tumour and poison and radiological to follow, to try and slow it, is the only current recourse for cancer.

How can your 85% be advised to deal with the 15%?

I am suggesting that leaving the 15% at the behest of the 0.0001% to formulate and restrict the 85% own holistic growth and demand for the planetary resource is not the way to get to any ‘cure’.

Like the old joke goes, when a lost traveller asks a local how to get somewhere, the answer is ‘you shouldn’t start from here’.

Being a sunday i’ll keep the sermon short.

Now back to inglorious surrender of the ‘Ashes’ or another unlikely miracle, warm end of summer sun, the last fruits of the garden and the falling of the ‘House of Cards’ – which is the hard brexit and the neolib con game at the centre of the cancerous empire, as they try to stop the grassroots body politic from applying a curative antidote by playing musical chairs.
(To finish by keeping the comment relevant to the article subject;-)

Steve Hayes

“The Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2015…” There is no such law. I suspect the law you are referring to is the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011.

mark
mark

Jezza is looking like an increasingly pathetic and forlorn figure. Arguably even more so than Bojo, if that is possible.
He has been backed into a corner. He no longer has any agency.
It is Watson, Thornberry, Benn, Starmer, Phillips and the rest of their revolting ilk who are now calling the shots.
Jezza is just being dragged along on their coat tails. He has been sidelined.
He has been forced to adopt a hard line Remain-At-All-Costs policy, ignoring the referendum result which was to be respected in the Manifesto.
Previously, he tried to avoid a blatant Remain policy.
If only to avoid alienating millions of Labour Leave voters outside the Metropolitan area.
In the unlikely event that Labour won the imminent election, Jezza would be no more than a cipher. He would soon be unceremoniously ditched and replaced by somebody like Benn or another cardboard cut out pro austerity neoliberal warmonger nonentity. God knows there are enough of them to choose from.
This would take a rule change, with Labour leaders being elected by the PLP instead of the membership, but so what?
Or they might just keep him in place for a while as a powerless figurehead.

This could even lead to a straight fight between Farage and the Liberals, with both main parties disintegrating. Events more or less degenerating into broad farce. A banana republic without the bananas.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

Corbyn is weak. He was cowed into submission by the bogus ‘anti-semitism’ row.

Mucho
Mucho

The austerity holocaust. 130,000 dead and counting

michael55
michael55

Well, I can’t recall Corbyn or Labour saying they will scrap the ATOS/Maximus medical exams which are an utter disgrace and not fit for purpose.

As an example… A friend of mine with severe learning disabilities and poor health recently had to transfer over from ESA to Universal Credit because of moving to a new location. This triggered a new medical and he went from the ‘Support Group’ on ESA to no points and a fail on Universal Credit. He had no money for 3 months. His appeal is coming up soon and has taken a year to be heard. In that time, he has deteriorated because of the stress of going into debt and struggling with bills/food etc..

130,000 dead and god knows how many others feeling suicidal/helpless and yet all we hear about is Brexit. The state sponsored murder of these people should not have been almost forgotten by the majority of MP’s.

Some on here don’t seem particularly fond of Jess Phillips but I will take my hat off to her for her rebuke of the ‘mute’ MP’s who couldn’t even raise a whimper for the cull of the 21 ‘rebel’ MP’s. If these cowards can’t even speak up for their own, then what hope do the rest of us have including the poor and disabled. May a lot of these cowards rot in hell!

peugeott
peugeott

When are you rabid leave morons going to get it into your thick heads, that no deal was NEVER an option during the referendum, bu t we won’t bother too much about that eh , just keep repeating the same drivel , the will of the people etc, I seem to remember being to we’ll have all the benefits of the EU without the responsibilities, but who an I , I guess I must have been dreaming, like the easiest trade deal in the history of mankind, we can have a custard slice whilst devouring it at the same time, we hold all the cards, they need us more than we need them, the German car industry will be banging on the doors, and the ridiculous £35,000,000 for the NHS, and the best you can come up with is blaming the Labour party, in particular after yesterday when the Oaf who occupies the PM office made a complete and utter fool of himself, but lets blame Corbyn.

Ross Hendry
Ross Hendry

A disingenuous post with a foul-mouthed and intemperate opening sentence (not a good look).

Since “No Deal” is cunning newspeak for “failure to reach a withdrawal agreement” you can hardly expect that to have been an option in the referendum. Voters were simply asked if
they wished to Leave or Remain, it was never considered or made clear to the electorate that departure might somehow be dependent on achieving a satisfactory departure agreement, as you well know. Only now, 3+ years later, have EU supporters pounced on this as a flimsy ruse in their anti-Brexit campaign

The lengths to which Remainers will go to cast doubt on the referendum is incredible, and pathetic. As Richard Tice says “democracy only works if it has losers consent”. Thus Remainers have shown themselves to be very poor losers with little interest in democracy.

peugeott
peugeott

It was made clear as I posted above, are you seriously suggesting that people voted to leave in the knowledge that they were going to be worse of, the governments own assessment . of course they didn’t, because nobody understood what the outcome would be , apart from you.

Ross Hendry
Ross Hendry

The electorate voted to Leave because they thought the U.K. would be better off in every way, not just economically.

They were not and are not impressed by the Project Fear emanating from bitter Remainers who neurotically fear change.

peugeott
peugeott

Well that’s beginning to look true isn’t it, apart from depriving our younger generation of the rights to live, work, or study in Europe, no doubt you will be pleased when they get rid of that terrible working time directive, you know, the one that gives everyone covered by it 28 days a year holidays

mark
mark

Yes, you’re quite right, there was no social welfare legislation or provision in this country at all until joining the EU in 1973.

Until 1973, small children had to climb up chimneys and women were chained to coal carts down the mines.

peugeott
peugeott

No . it was earlier than that surely, I was thinking 1968/9?

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Quite right too. However, here in 2019, the EU is going to start sending them back up the chimneys in order to stick all that soot back on the insides. In this era of Climate Alarm, sorry, Emergency, it turns out it’s the perfect was of sequestering carbon. First up will be Greta, just as soon as she flies back sails backswims back from her expensive publicity stunt noble and self-sacrificing carbon-neutral transatlantic journey.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/the-problem-with-greta-thunbergs-sea-crossings/

(No Criticism of Greta herself intended. She is but a kid. Severe criticism however of the creeps who exploit her naivety).

mark
mark

In “the government’s own assessment” a Leave vote would mean the immediate end of civilisation. There would be no food, drinking water, medicine, the sky would fall in, and we would all have to retreat to live in caves and fight off plagues of locusts, packs of marauding wolves, and invading Nazis. The only things standing between us and this gruesome fate were the Brussels bureaucracy and the bendy banana regulations.

The same fate would befall us if we failed to join the wonderful new euro.

peugeott
peugeott

You are an utter fool, none the less here’s some other headlines of nonsense you appear to swallow , all false of course :EC regulations to ban playgrounds – Daily Express
Rolling acres outlawed by Brussels – The Telegraph
EU to scrap British exams – Sunday Express
Obscure EU law halting the sale of English oak seeds – Mail on Sunday
EU may try to ban sweet and toy ads – The Times
EU to tell British farmers what they can grow – Daily Mail
EU ‘Bans Boozing’ – Daily Star
Light ale to be forced to change its name by Eurocrats – Daily Mail
EU fanatics to be forced to sing dire anthem about EU ‘Motherland’ – The Sun
British apple trees facing chop by EU – The Times
EC plan to ban noisy toys – Sunday People
EU to ban bagpipes and trapeze artists – The Sun
Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules – Daily Telegraph
Straight cucumbers – The Sun
Curved bananas banned by Brussels bureaucrats – The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express
Brussels bans barmaids from showing cleavage – The Sun, Daily Telegraph
Rumpole’s wig to scrapped by EU – Mail on Sunday
Church bells silenced by fear of EU law – Daily Telegraph
Motorists to be charged to drive in city centres under EU plans – Daily Telegraph
EU to stop binge drinking by slapping extra tax on our booze – The Sun
Brandy butter to be renamed ‘brandy spreadable fat’ – The European
British loaf of bread under threat from EU – Daily Mail
Truckers face EU ban on fry-ups – The Sun all made up for the likes of you

mark
mark

What was on the ballot paper was Remain or Leave.
Not Leave provided we can get a deal endorsed by even the most rabid Brussels Groupies.
There was no emotive claptrap about “crashing out” or “falling off a cliff”.
There was no fantasy nonsense about “hard Brexits” or “soft Brexits.”
This is all post referendum invention by Sore Loser Remainers.

Like Clegg said at the time, the result has to be respected. Either you believe in democracy, or you don’t.

peugeott
peugeott

Enough said if you’re setting your standards by what Clegg said. you carry on supporting the millionaires in the belief they will look after the man in the street, try using a bit of grey matter, the will of the people, composed for people like you, what the hell does it mean, whatever the people want the government provides, are you really that stupid to believe that crap , what about the NHS , the cost of Rail fare etc wake up

ANDREW CLEMENTS
ANDREW CLEMENTS

Corbyn has rendered himself and his party
unelectable after reneging on Brexit.It will mean being consigned to a perpetual Tory government
that we have endured since 1979

mark
mark

Yes, but maybe the Tories have as well. They could both disintegrate.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

The tories are dead dead dead.

Labour has over half a million members.

They will ensure the paratrooped NuLabInc neo fifth columnists are ousted.

It is heartening to see such rabid pro hard brexit invective, i can almost see the hyperventilation as they are penned.

mark
mark

The most likely outcome is that Labour and the Tories will both soon be as dead as the dodo.

peugeott
peugeott

The Tories will never die as long as there are people like yourself, who believe these lying, devious, corrupt shower of deceitful bastards

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

They will ensure the paratrooped NuLabInc neo fifth columnists are ousted.

LOL. It’s the Blairites (led by Lord St Tony himself of course) who are the most rabid EU-Cult-ophiles. It is well-known that Corbyn is at heart an EU-sceptic, but he’s been leaned on by the Blairite right to insist on “no no-deal Brexit” (which really means “no Brexit”) as the price for them not mounting another leadership coup just for the moment. He is a rather sorry sight at the moment, since he will be ditched by the Blairites just as soon as he’s no longer useful to them.

The scenario is: Brexit cancelled. Labour loses the next election as Leave voters in its heartland seats take their revenge. Corbyn forced to stand down having lost an election. BlaiRight Winger takes his place. UK safely prisoner of the EU for the foreseeable future. “*sigh* we had to lose an election to get rid of the lefty and get back into permanent unity with our neoliberal European masters friends, but it was all worth it…”

peugeott
peugeott

Do you not understand why he has not agreed to a general election?

ANDREW CLEMENTS
ANDREW CLEMENTS

I understand why he can’t agree to an election
but that won’t change the views of the working class
voters in the North in the next election. The game of divide and
conquer has been played like a dream

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

In your dream? Dom and Dommers (copyright John Crace) dream?
Watch as your dream turns into a nightmare and then you wake up!
And then open the curtains and realise it was real. The dream merchants didn’t win the class war and destroy the EU and Labour have a 100 seat majority and its Xmas!

mark
mark

See what odds the bookies will give you on that.

wardropper
wardropper

Our leaders today are not mature people…

wardropper
wardropper

… and our current Prime Minister is a lout. Who would have thought it possible…?
Eton used to produce public figures with at least a modicum of refinement in their character…
A new, post-modern headmaster, I suppose…

Joe
Joe

If “This government has no mandate” why didn’t Corbyn agree to a general election? How long has he been saying he wants one, and now he refuses the offer.
Democracy?

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Because agreeing would not have ruled out a hard brexit on 31st October.

peugeott
peugeott

Don’t educate he fools

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Now now P, ‘educating’ can be fun, sometimes it results in a bit of sore knuckles.

A screaming snotty toddler on the floor of a shop in front of the sweet counter – also needs educating.

Do it with a smile and in full knowledge that they will grow up one day.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

God you are an arrogant pair of pricks.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Because agreeing would not have ruled out a hard brexit on 31st October.

Had he won that election, then he could have done whatever was necessary to prevent “hard Brexit”. The real point is that he was not confident of winning. In fact he was damn sure he would lose. Which means that during all those times in the past he was asking for a general election, he was just spouting hot air, and praying that no one would take him up on it.

Joe, ignore their insults. You asked a fair question. They are just rude and arrogant. They probably went to private school (obviously a third-rate one) and have mistaken the ability to string half a sentence together for wisdom and intelligence.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Comprehensive actually.

As soon as bobo asks the EU to extend the deadline by a couple of months so that a election can take place – he too will have the majority that you are sure he will, to go back and persue his no deal, won’t he?

What’s the problem ? If you are so fucking certain that Labour will be trounced! Or afraid you’ll end up looking like the ‘prick’?

I didn’t insult Jo btw and he hasn’t replied to counter my answer to him, i assume he is satisfied with the reply.

peugeott
peugeott

Are you too naive to understand why? perhaps you may be better suited to the Beano.

peugeott
peugeott

You really are pathetic, and people like you are allowed to vote, without understanding anything, carry on reading the Sun

wardropper
wardropper

Well, I have been waiting through several reincarnations for this matter to be wrapped up, and now I can finally reap the just reward of my patience:
Eton has had its day.
It is now a museum piece, along with all its exhibits.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

I’ve written many comments and got into scraps here in the last week on the previous pieces on this subject. Many comments have confirmed what the wizards behind the curtain are upto.

What more can be said? Except know your history because otherwise you are starting from the wrong place!

So trying not to repeat myself too much…

The UK gatecrashed into the EU under a new Tory government and with the approval of a new French president at the behest of the USA, because it was known exactly what the proto-EU plans were and they needed the UK to disrupt from inside. Now that the EU has matured and is well on its way to fully implement its plans – the US/UK powers has decided to barge out to escape the commitment to common regulation and Law and cause disruption from outside.
—–

History.

When back in the 50’s of the proto-EU was set up in Western Europe it comprised six nations excluding the UK – it had full support of the US.

In fact the US was unhappy that the UK wasn’t playing along.

Such was the pressure that the UK attempted to join numerous times because it wanted to create a European Free Trade Area with the EEC where tariffs would be eliminated but none of the further encumbrances would be required – only to be vetoed by De Gaulle – as he knew the perfidious English were not to be trusted to disrupt their long term plans.

That did stop the UK barging into their tent until his resignation and the election of Pompidou- who then opened the door for entry just as the proto-EU plans were formulated and agreed.

What were these plans?

Just as we were entering into negotiations on our entry to the EEC, therefore, the Community was beginning to plan, at the highest level, for an economic and monetary union that could involve not only the abolition of national currencies, but the transfer of economic policy-making from the previously independent nation states to the Community.

When the new UK Tory government took office it’s purpose was to join and disrupt the EU achieving these plans on behalf of the US and UK’s deep state for two reasons:

The first concerned a possible diminution of the role of the United States in Europe.

The second concerned a new interest and enthusiasm for European integration.

In his statement to the Council of Ministers at the opening of negotiations, Anthony Barber, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and UK Government spokesman, affirmed that ‘We welcome the moves which you have already made towards closer economic and monetary integration and are ready to play our full part.’

That this had implications for British sovereignty was also of course not lost on the officials. A note to the Prime Minister, classified Secret, and dated 2nd July 1970, two days after the start of negotiations, advised that:

‘We ought at least to give some forethought to, for example, the implications of monetary and economic harmonisation for political institutions and sovereignty in the UK and in Europe…

The Werner Plan implied the renunciation of national sovereignties in the economic field…the UK would be required to agree to participate with the programme before we could enter the Community. Obviously, the Six would want to ensure that we would not wield the veto to prevent their plan proceeding.’

—–
Democratic choice?

The first referendum took place AFTER we had joined under a LABOUR government which didn’t approve of the shenanigans of the US/UK/EU and promised a referendum in its manifesto in the 2nd election in a year!

The ‘question’ asked was:

“Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?”

Yes/No?

This tricky question got most people voting Yes of course by a significant margin
67% / 33%.
(with a 65% turnout)

—–
The second referendum in 2016

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Leave/Remain?

This tricky question got most people voting Leave of course by a narrow margin.

52% / 48%
(With a 72% turnout)

Conclusions
1. Both questions seemed designed to get the ‘right’ answer. ( they should have been exactly the same surely!)
2. The turnout in 2016 seems suspiciously high!
3. The first referendum result was particularly decisive compared to the second.
4. It is clear the UK population has been played since the late 50’s to achieve first the Entry and now the impending Exit by and for special interests.
5. DeGaulle was right about the perfidious motives of the US/UK.
6. Hard Brexit was the only plan.
7. The resurrection of a traditional Labour party and agenda has thrown the Establishment which otherwise would have achieved their goal with full support of the New Labour/LibDem partners by letting Article 50 expire on 29th March.
8. The full spectrum propaganda and alt-right agitation of the Tories & their neolib/con partners in parliament is aimed at destroying the EU and it’s independence from the anglo imperialists AND to stop a Corbynite Labour government undoing their neolib/con gains of the last 50 years.

This is not just a little local difficulty in a corner of Europe – it is a major battle between ancient powers and the majority of the peoples of not only Europe and the Anglo empire (5+1 eyed) but the rest of the world.

A historical revolutionary moment that will determine the course of humanity.

I expect a crisis any attempt at installing an unelected gnu. Calling for an election won’t necessarily make it happen. It is a critical moment.

lundiel
lundiel

I’m very sorry but you are quite mad. How you can attempt to con people like myself, who were there and voted not to enter the EU, that it was a conspiracy between us and America to thwart a beautiful dream from within can only be a mental health abberation on your part. You have become so obsessed with remaining that you’ve completely lost the plot.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Well seeing as you see fit to throw multiple ad hominems, i suggest that if you were there, some senior moments must have set in?

You were already IN when the first referendum happened. Did you actually read that part?

I have only quoted factual dates and data and quoted from declassified government memos – consider what more exists.
My conclusions are my own.

I am not a hard core remainer as I have attested many times. I accepted the result. But no one said it would be a HARD BREXIT ONTO WTO RULES ONLY.

lundiel
lundiel

Get over yourself, I’m 67 and writing on a phone so I keep it short, unlike you. I’ve been reading your nonsense for months and have countered it before, the whole Eastern European expansion wasn’t part of the federalists plan, nor the admittance of Turkey that’s still on the cards as NATO is desperate to stop Russian influence and Turkey’s half in anyway.
No not-done-groaning, federalism was the dream of some, not European policy which was driven by events not planning. And who cares anyway. I see remain extremists as guilty of wrecking the country for the last 3 years and I’m appalled by the flip-flopping of pretend Socialists like you.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Indeed the expansion was not part of the plan. Not while the facts on the ground were of the USSR.
It was the UK that pressed for the full inclusion of the ex-soviets. As part of our plan to cause maximum damage to the planned development of the EU. As others have pointed out on the comments.

I too only use a phone and one thumb to interact here. You are not special just as i am not. But i have used this device to do my own research because i realised that what i knew or was told was maybe not the full story.

I an lucky that i have had enough time daily to dig deep because of the Internet to double check before i believe anything.

That is why what i write is backed up – hopefully by original source and recognised academic research.

I have realised that a emotional argument/reaction is what is presented daily to us as ‘news’ that narratives arr propagandised to get us functioning on that emotional level.

I don’t doubt your honesty and that you truly believe what you do.

I just put the facts with proof. It was painful to realise many things were not quite so.

It is intense and soup like to actually get these facts out here.

If you want to deny my citations then attack them and don’t go off on one, calling me names doesn’t disprove what i have said.

Cheers.

peugeott
peugeott

ha ha ha ha ha ha well said

wardropper
wardropper

There is much here that is accurate, although of course a comment on OffG simply can’t cover the historic ground adequately.
Also this matter goes back further than 1950.
Winston Churchill was dreaming in the 1940s of a “United States of Europe”, with, of course, himself and the UK as its guiding lights, but other nations, notably the French, had other ideas.
One would have to be as much a British exceptionalist as any American equivalent not to see that DeGaulle was indeed right about US/UK motives.

Husq
Husq

I goes further back than Churchill:

The United States of Europe on the eve of the Parliament of peace
1899 :

https://archive.org/details/unitedstateseur01steagoog/page/n7

He also wrote:

The Americanization of the world: The trend of the 20th Century.
[1902]

https://archive.org/details/americanizationo01stea/page/n6

wardropper
wardropper

Indeed it does.
Anglo-American imperialism is old.
I recently made a note of another of its interesting roots, from a long time ago:

“A single man, George Monck, (1608-1670), first Duke of Albermarle, who was the only general in the country at the head of a strong army, having conducted secret negotiations with the exiled Prince Charles, the son of Charles I, decided to overthrow the Republic.
Monck had marched his army down from Scotland to London, all the time concealing his intentions.
In London he took control, and recalled the pro-monarchist MPs to Parliament, who promptly invited Prince Charles to return, which he gratefully did.
The British people have forgotten the treason of General Monck who re-saddled upon them the entire Establishment of monarchy, lords and the Church of England”

(from “Brexit as a Spiritual Question” by Terry Boardman)

Ucumist
Ucumist

“History.
When back in the 50’s of the proto-EU was set up in Western Europe it comprised six nations excluding the UK – it had full support of the US.
In fact the US was unhappy that the UK wasn’t playing along.
Such was the pressure that the UK attempted to join numerous times because it wanted to create a European Free Trade Area with the EEC where tariffs would be eliminated but none of the further encumbrances would be required – only to be vetoed by De Gaulle – as he knew the perfidious English were not to be trusted to disrupt their long term plans.
That did stop the UK barging into their tent until his resignation and the election of Pompidou- who then opened the door for entry just as the proto-EU plans were formulated and agreed.”

Dungroanin’s simplified version of history in nice easy to digest soundbites to suit the ignorant. You know this is just one interpretation / view of the actual process but if it persuades others to your narrow agenda then you are winning.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Well most of it is direct quotes from government secret memos at the time.

I have mostly added in the ensuing chronology and of course the apocryphal ‘perfidy’ for colour.

It seems no one is interested in the actuality but rather in frothing and losing their gnashers on some grail like vote they can’t find again.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

I’m aware of theories that the EEC (and later, the EU), was an American, probably CIA-backed, plan for nefarious American imperial purposes (well-disguised under economic and peace-loving clothes). And I’m prepared to believe it’s true to some extent. The US wanted the UK in, to be its “man on the spot”. The UK has essentially been the US’s vassal since the end of WW2 (with all those US bases here, we were as much an occupied country as Germany was after the war).

But where Dunremainin’s history seems to break down is in asserting that that plan for Brexit came from the US as well. Shurely shome mishtake? Didn’t Obama himself come over here during the referendum campaign, to assure us that we’d be in the back of the queue in any future trade deals, if we had the effrontery to think for ourselves, and vote Leave?

Of course, things are different now, with Trump as president. But Trump as president was definitely not in the script. That was as much an accident of history as Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour party. It was all simply never meant to happen. Hilary “Wall Street” Clinton was supposed to get the job. Yes, Trump seems to want us out, and is Farage’s best friend (or so Nigel thinks), but Trump is not really of the American establishment (he’s just as rich as Croesus – or at least has conned people into thinking he is. I’m actually counting on him falling of a yacht one day, like Maxwell, and it being discovered that he’s actually deeply in debt).

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Man o man you are spinning so fast it’s amazing you havent hurled your guts out!

Get a sick bag ready,

“Our message is clear the minute the UK is out America is in.”

Mr Pence used the opportunity yo pay tribute to the “very warm and personal relationship” Mr Johnson has struck up with the commander-in-chief since taking office in July.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1174493/brexit-news-trade-deal-boris-johnson-mike-pence-eu-european-union

And no he didn’t say anything about the NHS being off the table ot how long it will take.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Seems like an interesting mix of fact and fiction which is highly contradictory.

bob
bob

Not a lot of insight here.
Nothing said about the abuse of representative democracy – tories become independents and tories become lib dems without any recourse to the electorate
Today Berger once of new labour, then the change party is now a lib dem – without any recourse to the electorate
Nevermind the totally anti-democratic process undertaken by Benn to basically prevent brexit ever happening – remember he and his new labour cohorts are all remainers …
Still, none of this matters as the narrative is secure
The people didn’t know what they were voting for and the elites are still in control so lets just have a laugh at Boris
Simplistic in the extreme

mark
mark

The good folk of Liverpool are probably somewhat bemused to find out they now have a Liberal MP, having previously had an Independent MP, having voted for a Labour MP. Maybe they’ll wake up tomorrow and find they’ve got a Plaid Cymru MP instead.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Ah yes, Ms Berger. From Wikipedia:

Berger’s selection as prospective parliamentary candidate in early 2010 was controversial within the Liverpool Wavertree party. There was criticism of the Labour National Executive Committee’s imposition of an all-women shortlist (AWS) on the local party,[29][30][31] and the Labour leadership was accused of “parachuting” Berger in as a candidate.[29]

During the selection process, Berger lived for a month at the home of Jane Kennedy, then the sitting Labour MP, whose partner was Labour official Peter Dowling, who ran the selection process. The completed ballot papers were returned to Kennedy’s home address.[32] Kennedy said that she and Dowling had acted properly. Berger beat her nearest rival by a ratio of two votes to one.[33]

So, controversial from the beginning. Also controversial at the NUS. According to the Independent, she is unlikely to try standing in Liverpool again. I’m sure Scousers will not want to vote again for a Londoner who was parachuted in, and then ratted on her party. And even ratted on her second party (“Change UK” or whatever) when it was clearly shown to be a home for losers). Good luck to any constituency who has the honour of her candidateship. You will probably need it.

FrankSpeaker
FrankSpeaker

I see that one of Johnson’s two bosses was greeted by him outside number 10. He’ll be busy preparing for another war in the Middle East on his boss’ behalf.
He’ll also be getting assured that his opponent Corbyn will receive another onslaught of false accusations of anti-semitism ahead of the next election.

uncle tungsten
uncle tungsten

My illustrious commentator George Galloway was guaranteeing there would be an early election called by Bojo, “you can bet your house on it”. Well he was right in that Bojo bet the House on it and lost it immediately, the rest of us refrained from dashing in to that casino of commons.

There are many days between now and the fixed election date and I will be enjoying watching the Tories slowly turning on their rope. If only a few Bliarites would endure the same just rewards.

Now I wouldn’t underestimate these Tories so surely there be one or two bliarites who wont be enjoying another term that might cross the floor for a few coins?

Lochearn
Lochearn

Good to have a voice on this forum that questions Brexit as a cause the left should support. When Brits call the EU neoliberal it is the height of hypocrisy. Here’s just a short list of what the Brits have done to maintain the neoliberal status quo in Europe: Britain opposed an EU blacklist on tax havens, called a referendum just after proposed EU legislation to tax financial transactions; it took legal action against the EU Commission when it tried to ban short selling (speculating on the fall of prices in markets). Britain also vehemently opposed proposed legislation to ban food speculation and fought against MEP plans that would cap bankers’ bonuses. So who are the neoliberals here?

Editor
Admin
Editor

The fact the UK political class is largely neoliberal in no way precludes the same being true of the EU. You create a binary where none exists.

Lochearn
Lochearn

Finance is at the heart of neoliberalism – the opening up of markets and countries to financial predators and the fight to block all restrictions to their looting. The City of London is by far the biggest financial operator in Europe therefore it is the most neoliberal. It’s that simple.

William
William

Surely the binary you speak of is in regard to the lesser of two evils?..The EU is certainly no hotbed of socialism, but a uk ruled by the old etonian tory party for eternity is another form of hell.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Yes but the point is, we can, in theory, boot out a UK government that supports neoliberal policies. We can’t boot out the “government” of the EU.

The fact that we’ve had neoliberal politicians and policies in the UK for so many years (back to the 1970s and Jim Callaghan, according to Professor Bill Mitchell) causes me great sadness. At least in theory, things could change here. The chances of the EU changing (in the right direction) are remote to the point of impossibility.

https://www.thefullbrexit.com/remain-and-reform

https://www.thefullbrexit.com/nationalisation

https://www.thefullbrexit.com/remain-reform-remain

lundiel
lundiel

The “neoliberals” are here and in Brussels, where the world’s largest gathering of lobbyists reside.
The policy of British governments is just that and can be changed. Neoliberalism is law in Europe and can only be changed with the consent of 27 countries with very different economic outlooks. In other words, it can’t be changed without dumping the Euro and ripping up all treaties since Lisbon.

Wilmers31
Wilmers31

BIG lesson to the world what a mess democracy can bring – big lesson how NOT to do democracy.

Jeremy deserves to win and get to implement half their agenda. I once looked at Jeremy’s agenda – far too large to succeed. I would not wish him a failure so please, halve the agenda. Free up funds for policing by reducing the military.

(Britain is quite a messy country, nobody will want to take you over.)

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Funds are not the issue. Real resources are the issue. A currency-issuing country like the UK can never run out of its own currency, by definition.

What is important to state over and over again is that for a currency-issuing nation such as the US, Australia, the UK, there is never a financial constraint on the national government from providing a first-class level of health care for all.

Subject to real resource availability, the only issue that prevents the provision of first-class, universal public health care is political.

The idea that the public fiscal position has to ‘seek savings’ to make fund future spending (on health care and other programs) is a fundamental misconception that is often rehearsed in the financial and popular media.

This misconception has been driving the so-called intergenerational debate where governments are being pressured to run surpluses to pay for the retirement of baby boomers and the growing healthcare costs for them as they age further.

From: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36477

(See many other articles on the same blog that make the same points)

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

“By “this mess” I refer not to Brexit but to the simplistic terms, and lies on both sides, in which the Referendum question was framed. And to the failure to demand more than a simple majority – two thirds is traditional – for so far reaching and long lasting a change to the status quo. And above all to the deep and deeply frightening divisions of a not so United Kingdom; divisions both reflected and exacerbated by the 2016 outcome.” – who can argue with this excerpt from Phil’s longer post.

Yes, we do not the trust the EU an inch but in its current guise austerity Britain is a place of helpless sheep waiting to be devoured by hungry wolves, not a new golden age with democracy seeping out of the pores of every political institution.

Whenever I think of Brexit I immidiately associate it with its most vociferous supporters: Farage, Rees Mogg or poisonous, right wing Mail and Express ‘journalists’ – begging the question, when have such people ever been right ?

Then there is the blond buffoon himself, again I agree with Mr Roddis who points to Rafael Behr’s blistering take down;
“Brexit is not the first thing Johnson has found difficult, but it might be the first difficult thing he cannot simply abandon. The path by which he arrived in Downing Street is strewn with jettisoned jobs, principles and relationships. He finds other people’s needs burdensome, and is used to shrugging them off. But now he is yoked to an onerous national duty. His discomfort was obvious in parliament today.

Johnson’s traditional repertoire of glibness and bluster served him poorly as his authority and his majority melted away. The first significant test of his command of the Commons resulted in humiliation. He was defeated by a majority of 27, forfeited control of the legislative agenda, desperately threw a general election gauntlet across the chamber and watched helpless as the leader of the opposition dodged it.

… Johnson chose the leave side in the 2016 referendum, thinking it would be beaten. He intended to earn kudos among Eurosceptic Tories while evading responsibility for turning their fantasy into reality. He flaunted his unreadiness to own the result, withdrawing from the subsequent leadership race on the day of his campaign launch. He served in Theresa May’s cabinet only as long as he could be idle in a grand office. When the time came to commit to a workable Brexit model, he resigned.

In part, Johnson is captive to the public school cult of effortless dilettantism that despises diligence as vulgar and swotty. He is also a hostage to his own breezy rhetoric. Even now that the technical complexities and economic hazards of Brexit are indisputable, the prime minister pretends that obstacles are trifling or illusory. He claims that leaving the EU without a deal would not be a calamity, but also that the threat of calamity is necessary to persuade the EU to grant a deal.”

Pretty much hits the nail on the head IMO.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Whenever I think of Brexit I immidiately associate it with its most vociferous supporters: Farage, Rees Mogg or poisonous, right wing Mail and Express ‘journalists’ – begging the question, when have such people ever been right ?

And whenever I think of Remain, I think of Tony Blair, Alistair Cambell, Peter Mandelson, the CBI, Mark Carney (and a host of other bankers), etc, etc.

Perhaps you have not heard the arguments of the Lexiters, e.g.

https://www.thefullbrexit.com

and although it’s not all about Lexit by any means, worth looking at (there is a lot of it):

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/

davemass
davemass

But at least Cameron gave us ‘deplorables’ the chance to kick those complacent, arrogant, over-paid, unnecessary EU bureaucrats in the nether region.
He just thought in his own arrogance that we would continue with this EU farce.
Ironically, his Libya moment helped to stir the rest of Europe into doubting the wisdom of this project!

lundiel
lundiel

Nonsense. Libya was a joint enterprise primarily between us, France and NATO with most European countries having some involvement.

wardropper
wardropper

Almost all European countries answer to Washington, and NATO essentially IS Washington.
Libya, like Iraq, Syria, etc., was exactly the sort of thing Cameron, Blair and any of the other establishment figures you care to name jumped up, salivating, on their hind-legs to support – not because they thought it was good to do so, but because Washington required it.
Currently, and trying to look ahead a little, Washington requires Brexit to be ditched, because it implies that the people in a foreign country like ours actually have a lively voice, so I am looking closely at developments in that direction.
The current chaos, for example, is an excellent breeding ground for politicians to cultivate the idea of arbitrary cancellations of anything that suits them, and it would be typical of them to cite reasons of “national security” or some other such nonsense, in order to forget Brexit entirely.
There is also the possibility that the 2016 referendum will soon be such ancient history that it might conceivably be declared obsolete.
I’m assuming here that people do understand that Brexit is not exclusively what the tories want.

lundiel
lundiel

Don’t say that. According to remain extremists, Europe is the only hope to save us from America.

wardropper
wardropper

I wouldn’t say it, if I really thought that today’s Europe could save us from America.
To my mind, that’s just a convenient illusion, unless one is addicted to the babblings of the mainstream media, which I am not.

FrankSpeaker
FrankSpeaker

Corbyn’s performance yesterday at both PMQs and the evening session were not only the very best I’ve seen from him, they were on a different level. He’s really upped his game.

Ian Blackford was excellent too.

The most destructive though was Ken Clarke, he disassembled Johnson completely, humiliated him. It’s really worth watching those few minutes from yesterday evening.

vexarb
vexarb

Frankly, glad to see the old bruiser still swinging. Ken Clarke, one of the gallant little band of MPs who did not follow Judas-goat TB.Liar like sheeple into the shambles of Iraq.

timfrom
timfrom

Exactly my sentiments, Frank. At last Corbyn’s showing some mettle to the electorate when it matters, the mettle the rest of us know is the reason he’s still standing.

That won’t be enough for the terminally toxic, trust-fund Trot trolls, though. 😃

FrankSpeaker
FrankSpeaker

😂 👍

avivartika
avivartika

The embedding of these video clips is extremely powerful – this is cinema verite – we are witnessing the end of the Tory government – their death rattle will not obliterate the voices of those who will not be gagged or silenced any more. I watched all this in real time (at home on TV) and I was surprised that Michael Gove didn’t jump up and do his “antisemite” routine against Jeremy Corbyn – but I was not surprised that Bercow called Gove out on his behaviour in the house. To conclude, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a further defector to walk across the floor to the other side – this being in the person of Ken Clarke who would be welcomed by any party other than this dishevelled rabble who have long since lost any legitimacy in government. Consumed by his conceit, Blair once said “I feel the hand of history on my shoulder” – likewise, Johnson will have his vanity satiated also by carving his name in the annals of history – as being the shortest time-serving Prime Minister. Change is coming – and a hard rain is gonna fall. . . .

FrankSpeaker
FrankSpeaker

I hope you’re right about the destruction of the right wing loons of the Tories, but let’s not forget the very real threats that Pompeo made against Corbyn. The Neocons will not allow their coup against British Parliamentary democracy to fail.
We live in dangerous times.

lundiel
lundiel

Corbyn’s your hero now? You would have gladly chucked him under a bus and handed the party to Starmer. Now you’re pretending you’re a leftie again.

FrankSpeaker
FrankSpeaker

Erm, you’ve either got the wrong person or misconstrued what I’ve been saying. I’m a lifelong traditional Labour supporter, and working class. I would vote for Corbyn at the upcoming election because he’s a European style Social Democrat. Blairites are neoliberal Tories not what I would call the centre ground and Starmer is of similar ilk.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

European Style Social Democrats…..like Helmut Schmidt, who more than tripled the unemployment rates with monetarist policies…

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=41879

…or like Gerhard Schröder and his Hartz Reforms?

When Schröder unveiled his Government’s ‘Agenda 2010’ in 2003, it was clear that they were going to hack into income support systems and ensure that Germany’s export competitiveness endured despite abandoning its exchange rate flexibility.

It was dressed up in the language of flexibility and incentive, but was based on the mainstream view that mass unemployment was the result of a workforce rendered lazy by the welfare system, rather than the more obvious alternative, that it arose due to a shortage of jobs.

The so-called ‘Hartz reforms’ were a major plank of the strategy and resulted from a 2002 commission of enquiry, presided over by and named after Peter Hartz, a key Volkswagen executive.

The aim was clear, unemployment benefits had to be cut and job protections had to go. The recommendations were fully endorsed by the Schröder government and introduced in four tranches: Hartz I to IV, starting in January 2003.
[…]

(from: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=41578 )

To be fair, I don’t think Corbyn is a European Style Social Democrat – just as well as they are discredited and increasingly abandoned by their former electorate. He’s essentially British Old Labour, albeit with a slightly more modern greenish tinge. From what I’ve heard/read, he’s not even all that interested in the EU. He’s instinctively Euro-sceptic, like Old Labour always that, but he doesn’t particularly know or care that much about it. A great pity, because if he did know more, he would know that his extremely modest agenda (nowhere near as radical as that of Clement Attlee’s for example, goodness, or even Harold Wilson’s!) would be severely compromised were we to remain in the EU, or in the Single Market but outside the EU. He just wouldn’t be allowed to do what he wants to do. Of course, the Blairites never wanted to do any of those things anyway, plus, they are neoliberals, so that’s why they are gung-ho for the EU. Similarly the Tory Remainers. The Tory Leavers OTOH, of course do not want to implement anything like Corbyn’s policies (and neither, of course, do the Brexit party). They are also neoliberal, of course, but would find membership of the EU troublesome to implement their particular brand of neoliberalism.

Personally, given that Corbyn has surrendered to his neoliberal Blairite pro-EU-cult right-wing as far as the EU is concerned, I would grit my teeth and do my best to see re-elected a pro-Brexit-dominated Tory party, in coalition if necessary, with the Brexit Party, just to get us through the current little local difficulty.

Ultimately though, I would want to see the election of (a possibly new) left-of-centre party, which would reverse any and all of the neoliberal policies of all previous governments of whatever hue. I visualise this as being at least as radical as that of Clement Attlee. I admit, we’ll be a long time waiting for this, and for politicians of sufficient quality to come along and put it into practice.

To close, Bill Mitchell’s summary of Labour’s ignominious betrayal of its Leave voters:

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=42695

What we have is obvious.

1. June 2016 – Leave wins the vote. Clear cut. A heavy working class Leave vote and a majority of Labour MPs represent Leave electorates.

2. The Remain gang – higher income etc – hated it. Immediately wanted to undermine it. The Leave voters were ignorant, racist, stupid etc.

3. The Remain gang had bombarded the population with spurious modelling about the economic disaster that would immediately follow. The predictions were never realised.

4. Since then – by hook or by crook – they have demanded a new vote – and will keep demanding votes until they get what they want.

5. That is not democracy. That is a bullying cosmopolitan elite thinking they have superior wisdom to the working class in regional areas.

As Peter Ramsay points out:

More than 85 per cent of MPs in this Parliament were elected on manifestos promising to implement the 2016 referendum. This was not some minor policy issue. It was a promise to implement a major constitutional change that the majority of the electorate voted for in a referendum Parliament itself enacted.

So reneging on the 2016 vote means these MPs are no longer representing the people. Democracy has failed and Labour are surrendering within that failure.

His analysis of the likely electoral results of abandoning the 2016 decision are worth considering.

The most sensible analysis of the 2016 result was that the:

… working-class and poorer voters were much more likely than middle-class voters to vote for Brexit, and for good reason. They voted against a political system that had ignored their interests for far too long.

Which means that:

For Labour to go over officially to the side of elite resistance to Brexit will send a clear message that the demands of working-class voters are less important than those of the middle class or of big business.

This is what Syriza did.

But, of course, the so-called progressive Cosmos will be happy.

They prosper whether it is the Tories or Labour that are in national government.

And if Brexit fails, they get to avoid the queue at the airport (non-EU lane) on their next ski holiday to the Alps and they will be able to keep writing their vacuous and arid reform proposals for the EU – and lecturing us on how the EU is the only thing keeping Britain (a currency-sovereign nation) from total collapse.

As before you lot!

It is almost as if one should hope that Boris Johnson gets up and pushes a No-deal through.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

oops…got my blockquote tags slightly wrong there. That last bit is quoting Bill Mitchell.

Jean Miller
Jean Miller

“Consumed by his conceit, Blair once said “I feel the hand of history on my shoulder” ”

But not “the long arm of the law” sadly.

.

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum

BoJo’s now in the no go zone.
Sad, ain’t it?

wardropper
wardropper

Except that I don’t think he’s sad at all.
“Bugger everything up then scarper”, as I read somewhere today, seems to be the Bullingdon motto.
And, oddly enough, I think most of us recognize that type of loutish behaviour from certain experiences of our school days.