Saturday 3rd & Sunday 4th September 2016

[tinyclanger2]

are we there yet?

[tinyclanger2]

The Japanese government letter setting out its Brexit demands is deeply troubling to the UK since it is clear Japanese companies want Theresa May to negotiate a deal that leaves Britain not just in the EU customs union, and single market, but also retains a free flow of workers between the EU and the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -letter-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All that taking our country back and everything.

[tinyclanger2]

Above all, the Japanese memo underlines the UK is not only negotiating bilaterally with the EU commission and council of ministers, but with many other foreign firms that have invested in the UK, each of which is quite capable of upping sticks in the next phase of their investment cycle.

Oh. Did the voice of Britain (the 52%) not think of this?

[citizenJA]

Above all, the Japanese memo underlines the UK is not only negotiating bilaterally with the EU commission and council of ministers, but with many other foreign firms that have invested in the UK, each of which is quite capable of upping sticks in the next phase of their investment cycle.

Oh. Did the voice of Britain (the 52%) not think of this?

What does current government intend to do?

[Willow904]

I think the Green's approach looks a lot cleverer & smoother, it's worded to appeal to those who voted in and out, as it's a continuation of 'people power' having a continual say on the direction of brexit & making a second referendum sound like a natural & logical conclusion.
Owen Smith's approach seems likely to only appeal to disappointed 'remainers' and would only be realised if Labour were elected.

edited to add: having looked at comments on the independent article, I'm probably wrong & (if they're typical examples )it won't appeal to outers.

The proposals to have a further referendum to ask people what kind of Brexit they want has exposed a lack of genuine support for direct democracy among Brexiters. A referendum was appropriate for deciding to leave but not any other kind of decision, apparently. There's a definite lack of consistency in their arguments. The Greens are being most consistent in their approach to this form of democracy (as are the Libdems in their way). Labour has changed position, but only after being outnumbered on having a referendum in the first place and having to accept referenda as part of the political landscape. The Tories, having been huge champions of referendums, holding 3 in the space of a few years, now feel they are inappropriate, not necessary, can't keep asking the people etc etc. They are a bunch of self-serving hypocrites. I think it's important that the opposition parties keep pressing Theresa May on the lack of mandate for any specific form of new relationship with the EU and highlight the democratic deficit, but I don't expect her to concede.

The referendum result is awful and ridiculous - but it's the result and I think it has to go ahead.

Referenda just don't work as tools for complicated questions (and so we should never have had this one in the first place) but they establish principles (Change the electoral system? Move to independence? Leave the EU?) that then follow (or don't).

If we have a referendum on the actual plan, then what happens? Do we vote on 'do you agree with this plan to leave?' as a binary, given that the principle is established? So if we vote 'no' to that question then they have to come up with a new plan to leave for us to vote on?

It feels like the behaviour of governments in prolonged strikes - well, they haven't had a ballot. Well, now they haven't had a ballot on our revised proposals. Well, now ....

We stupidly and ridiculously voted to leave - the only thing that can possibly demonstrate to the lying stupid shits who led that campaign and to those who followed them that this was a stupid and ridiculous decision will be the consequences of leaving - and then someone has to rebuild things again later.

If we give permission for governments to ignore the outcome of popular votes and to try again until they get what they want then we open dangerous and worrying doors that future governments will push through when it suits them.

It's shit, but it's done. A general election can change it - a party coming to power on a manifesto to go back and look again - but not otherwise.

As the Greens seem to support the holding of referendums generally, I don't really know what's wrong with them calling for a further referendum on our future relationship with the EU, which has in no way been answered or settled by the last one. My point is about the democratic deficit and the need to push May on this. Personally I'm not keen on referendums and would prefer (from a democratic point of view) a General Election to establish a democratic mandate for what comes next. What I don't feel is acceptable is the Tories negotiating a new relationship with the EU without its form being put to the nation in any way at all, which is where we are at the moment, because the leading Tory Brexiters refused to map out what they intended the relationship to be like if they won. I'm supportive of anyone who tries to ensure that all citizens have some kind of a say in what happens next. Just because some people voted to remain, I don't see why their views should be ignored when deciding what happens when we leave, we will all have to live with the consequences.

[citizenJA]

@Willow904
I agree with you. Brexit and over six years of leadership from the same awful Tory government still in control - I'm horrified.

[Willow904]

To be frank, I'm kind of shocked that parliament could be so remiss as to get us into this mess. David Cameron was easily the most shallow and least able PM we have ever had, but astonishingly parliament supported him.

Now, let us just suppose that a few years ago we had been asked if we wanted to stick with "first past the post" or ditch it. I think the problem with such a question is pretty obvious. So why did no one spot the glaring omission in the EU one? Our country is being run by idiots. So please stop asking me to "accept it" because the EU referendum established a popular mandate to "ditch it" and start telling me how we establish what "ditch it" means, because that's the bit I'm struggling with. We've established a popular mandate to "not do" something and even that is only advisory. So when do we get to say what we want to "do"?

[tinybgoat]

To be frank, I'm kind of shocked that parliament could be so remiss as to get us into this mess. David Cameron was easily the most shallow and least able PM we have ever had, but astonishingly parliament supported him.

Now, let us just suppose that a few years ago we had been asked if we wanted to stick with "first past the post" or ditch it. I think the problem with such a question is pretty obvious. So why did no one spot the glaring omission in the EU one? Our country is being run by idiots. So please stop asking me to "accept it" because the EU referendum established a popular mandate to "ditch it" and start telling me how we establish what "ditch it" means, because that's the bit I'm struggling with. We've established a popular mandate to "not do" something and even that is only advisory. So when do we get to say what we want to "do"?

Agreed, the assumption by some people against having another referendum is that it's only wanted by desperate 'remainers'. I voted stay, partly because there wasn't a clear alternative offered, my dismay with the result isn't purely a refusal to accept a change, it's the resulting granting free rain to the Government to do whatever they can get away with, regardless of whether it's in countries interest.
Another referendum might not be the best idea, but pushing for it in the way the Greens seem to be suggesting, could help maintain pressure for parliament & voters to have more say in the process.

[PorFavor]

Good afternoon,
I see that Corbyn is being pilloried in the Mail by "a leading Labour moderate" for daring to go to out of the way places like Stoke & Walthamstowe & hold rallies (i.e. meet the people). Absolutely shocking!

Edited to add missing link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4JIJzIulS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Former paratrooper? I had no idea. Sigh.

Surprised me, too. I thought to myself, "Why haven't I been told this before?"

[tinybgoat]

Good afternoon,
I see that Corbyn is being pilloried in the Mail by "a leading Labour moderate" for daring to go to out of the way places like Stoke & Walthamstowe & hold rallies (i.e. meet the people). Absolutely shocking!

Edited to add missing link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4JIJzIulS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Huh? First they complain that he's part of the Metropolitan elite & out of touch with anything outside London, now he's not allowed a 35 minute journey to Walthamstow!

[citizenJA]

Good afternoon,
I see that Corbyn is being pilloried in the Mail by "a leading Labour moderate" for daring to go to out of the way places like Stoke & Walthamstowe & hold rallies (i.e. meet the people). Absolutely shocking!

Edited to add missing link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4JIJzIulS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Former paratrooper? I had no idea. Sigh.

Surprised me, too. I thought to myself, "Why haven't I been told this before?"

We've discussed Dan Jarvis' military career here over a years ago.

My five tests for backing military action in Syria
David Cameron wants MPs’ support for military action against Islamic State. With a clear, coherent strategy, he should have it
23 November 2015
Dan Jarvis

"Much has been said in recent days of the importance of learning the lessons of recent conflicts. As someone who served in Iraq,
Afghanistan and other conflict zones, memories weigh heavily on my mind. Of course we must learn from the past, but we must
not become prisoners of it either.

This is a moment when we should put party politics aside in the national interest. We have a duty to stand together and confront
as one this common enemy. If the prime minister can show he has a wider strategy to do that, he will have my support."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... amic-state" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Good afternoon,
I see that Corbyn is being pilloried in the Mail by "a leading Labour moderate" for daring to go to out of the way places like Stoke & Walthamstowe & hold rallies (i.e. meet the people). Absolutely shocking!

Edited to add missing link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4JIJzIulS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Huh? First they complain that he's part of the Metropolitan elite & out of touch with anything outside London, now he's not allowed a 35 minute journey to Walthamstow!

I respectfully point out the content of the article linked above is mostly accusations and counters on different topics entirely. At the
end of the piece, an unnamed 'leading Labour moderate' is quoted questioning the value of rallies in response to Labour party conflicts.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I suspect they wouldn't be "questioning the value of rallies" if Smith's were as big as Corbyn's (oo-er)

[danesclose]

Good afternoon,
I see that Corbyn is being pilloried in the Mail by "a leading Labour moderate" for daring to go to out of the way places like Stoke & Walthamstowe & hold rallies (i.e. meet the people). Absolutely shocking!

Edited to add missing link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4JIJzIulS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Huh? First they complain that he's part of the Metropolitan elite & out of touch with anything outside London, now he's not allowed a 35 minute journey to Walthamstow!

I respectfully point out the content of the article linked above is mostly accusations and counters on different topics entirely. At the
end of the piece, an unnamed 'leading Labour moderate' is quoted questioning the value of rallies in response to Labour party conflicts.

TBH that was why I referred to the leading Labour moderate in inverted commas.
After all, it's not like the Daily Heil to make up stories about Labour, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Huh? First they complain that he's part of the Metropolitan elite & out of touch with anything outside London, now he's not allowed a 35 minute journey to Walthamstow!

I respectfully point out the content of the article linked above is mostly accusations and counters on different topics entirely. At the
end of the piece, an unnamed 'leading Labour moderate' is quoted questioning the value of rallies in response to Labour party conflicts.

TBH that was why I referred to the leading Labour moderate in inverted commas.
After all, it's not like the Daily Heil to make up stories about Labour, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe you, I understood your post and hope I've not caused offence.

A world worth living in requires dedicated cooperation among us all. Negotiations with Tories or UKIP are limited. Their political party
manifestos, actions and words are insupportable. I support Labour, one Labour party. Progressive political party coalitions are good.
Or can be good, rather. Other political parties share many of the same goals as the Labour party. Apologies for my vagueness here -
it's getting late.

[Willow904]

GeorgeMonbiot
‏@GeorgeMonbiot

Nick Clegg: I was shocked to discover that the Conservatives are Conservatives, rather than the social justice campaign I had taken them for

[tinyclanger2]

To be frank, I'm kind of shocked that parliament could be so remiss as to get us into this mess. David Cameron was easily the most shallow and least able PM we have ever had, but astonishingly parliament supported him.

Now, let us just suppose that a few years ago we had been asked if we wanted to stick with "first past the post" or ditch it. I think the problem with such a question is pretty obvious. So why did no one spot the glaring omission in the EU one? Our country is being run by idiots. So please stop asking me to "accept it" because the EU referendum established a popular mandate to "ditch it" and start telling me how we establish what "ditch it" means, because that's the bit I'm struggling with. We've established a popular mandate to "not do" something and even that is only advisory. So when do we get to say what we want to "do"?

At the end of the day no-one intervened.
Collective lack of responsibility/hubris.

[citizenJA]

I suspect they wouldn't be "questioning the value of rallies" if Smith's were as big as Corbyn's (oo-er)

jesus, I wish we could have greater flexibility in political party structures, organising in ways bringing out the best each are good at,
giving support here where another isn't strong there. That's socialism. I mean no harm, I intend no insult, I'm trying to find room for
anyone wanting some of the best for everyone. Corbyn is a wonderful Minister of Rallies.

[PorFavor]

V&A director reportedly set to resign over Brexit vote disillusionment

Martin Roth, who has overseen period of great success at the museum, says UK vote to leave Europe felt like a personal defeat

For Roth, born in Stuttgart in 1955, the issues were personal. “For me, Europe is simply synonymous with peace,” he said. “I didn’t want to be a German. I did not want to grow up in a country that had killed a huge part of its population. So for me, Europe always gave hope for a peaceful future, based on sharing, solidarity and tolerance. Dropping out always means creating cultural barriers and that worries me.” (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... xit-europe

[AnatolyKasparov]

A little Labour-related titbit to end the weekend.......

I wonder if anybody else noticed Chuka Umunna comparing himself to MLK, Mandela and Keir Hardie the other day??

What I've always admired about him most of all, his overweening modesty

[tinyclanger2]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... lls-merkel
Merkel's party beaten by rightwing populists in state election – exit polls

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ted-voters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lack of working-class Labour MPs has 'alienated voters'
Study finds working class people are more likely to vote Labour when party contains MPs with backgrounds similar to their own

It certainly alienated this voter.

At the risk of sounding like a get, I've been banging on about this (on and off) for a while (my Oxbridge-politicians-can't-represent-a-nation seethe)

[adam]

To be frank, I'm kind of shocked that parliament could be so remiss as to get us into this mess. David Cameron was easily the most shallow and least able PM we have ever had, but astonishingly parliament supported him.

Totally agree - this is the heart of the problem.

We've established a popular mandate to "not do" something and even that is only advisory. So when do we get to say what we want to "do"?

Respectfully disagree. We've established a popular mandate to do something - to leave the EU. In reality, as the Leave campaign stupidly and disgracefully lied and lied about but the remain campaign kept pointing out, we do know what that means - and it means no straightforward access to the single market with it's free movement pillars, for starters.

I think the broad left's best hope is to be there campaigning in 2020 to stop the process of leaving and re-embrace the EU because of the by then unarguably obvious mess that leaving will have become - I think we need a general election victory by a party committed to staying to overturn the referendum result. That won't be the tories, unless they break in two to do it.

I am very troubled by the idea of deciding to ignore a result we don't like. I'm also very concerned that, if we think things are difficult for the left now, they will be far far worse if UKIP get themselves together and spend the next four years campaigning, as they well, as the people's party standing against the establishment who want to ignore the people's will.

[citizenJA]

I think the broad left's best hope is to be there campaigning in 2020 to stop the process of leaving and re-embrace the EU because of the by then unarguably obvious mess that leaving will have become - I think we need a general election victory by a party committed to staying to overturn the referendum result. That won't be the tories, unless they break in two to do it.

I am very troubled by the idea of deciding to ignore a result we don't like. I'm also very concerned that, if we think things are difficult for the left now, they will be far far worse if UKIP get themselves together and spend the next four years campaigning, as they well, as the people's party standing against the establishment who want to ignore the people's will.

(my bold)

I don't understand. You've written you want to stop the process of leaving and re-embrace the EU and then you write you're troubled
by deciding to ignore the result we don't like. Have I not read your post correctly?

[adam]

I think the broad left's best hope is to be there campaigning in 2020 to stop the process of leaving and re-embrace the EU because of the by then unarguably obvious mess that leaving will have become - I think we need a general election victory by a party committed to staying to overturn the referendum result. That won't be the tories, unless they break in two to do it.

I am very troubled by the idea of deciding to ignore a result we don't like. I'm also very concerned that, if we think things are difficult for the left now, they will be far far worse if UKIP get themselves together and spend the next four years campaigning, as they well, as the people's party standing against the establishment who want to ignore the people's will.

(my bold)

I don't understand. You've written you want to stop the process of leaving and re-embrace the EU and then you write you're troubled
by deciding to ignore the result we don't like. Have I not read your post correctly?

I want to stop the process of leaving and re-embrace the EU but we are stuck on the wrong side of a popular vote to leave, and I think we create profound long term risks if we ignore that vote. So the only way out of this mess is through a general election.

I don't like the idea of discounting referenda results, and I don't think a referendum will be the right way to settle the question of what happens next. What will we vote for? Should the government negotiate alternative 'leave' scenarios for us to vote for as an either/or? And how are you enfranchised by that if you don't support either of them? We could go back with a settlement and say 'you either vote to leave on these terms or you vote to remain after all' but that would be much better done by a government mandate by a general election - because there is no problem with a subsequent general election resetting policy.

[citizenJA]

@adam
Thank you, I understand better.

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

[Willow904]

- and it means no straightforward access to the single market with it's free movement pillars, for starters.

Without asking those who voted leave what kind of Brexit they want, such a statement can only be based on guesswork and inference, but even if you accept that a sizeable majority of leave voters would prefer a WTO to a single market option, that doesn't mean a majority of voters overall would choose a WTO option over a single market if given an option between the two. If you exclude remain voters from the next question, "what kind of Brexit do you want", you could end up pursuing a new relationship with the EU that is against the wishes of a majority of people in this country. With the Tories in charge, that may well happen, but I really don't think there's any reason why opposition parties shouldn't challenge them on this if they wish. With such a big decision, isn't as much consensus as possible desirable?

[RogerOThornhill]

This is going well...

Theresa May refuses to commit to Brexit pledges on immigration and NHS

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... on-and-nhs

Theresa May has cast doubt on whether Brexit will lead either to a points-based immigration system or an extra £100m a week for the NHS – two central promises made by the successful campaign to leave the European Union.

The prime minister declined to endorse pledges made by the official Vote Leave group as she headed to China for the G20 summit, where Japan and the US have issued strong warnings about the consequences of exiting the EU.

In an unprecedented set of demands over the terms of Britain’s exit, Tokyo said Japanese firms could move to other parts of Europe unless many of the current privileges of membership were maintained.

Speaking from her prime ministerial plane, May questioned whether the type of system that admits migrants based on their skills was effective, and did not rule out retaining preferential access arrangements for EU citizens. “One of the issues is whether or not points-based systems do work,” she said, stressing that there was “no single silver bullet” on reducing immigration.

That's funny - you were part of a government that was committed to getting net migration down to the tens of thousand and yet even now you can't actually say how you're going to do it.

How long before the right start to lose patience?

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Housing benefit cap may force 67% of women's refuges to close – report
Women’s Aid says planned government cuts risk destroying finances of refuges for victims of domestic violence in England


. Supported housing providers, which also include organisations providing specialised accommodation for elderly and disabled people, were unable to plan for the future without knowing where their money would come from.



According to the National Housing Federation, which represents social housing providers, building work on an estimated 2,400 new specialist homes has already been cancelled as a result and an additional 9,270 homes would not be able to be built if the housing benefit cap went ahead.



https://www.womensaid.org.uk/fresh-cris ... tatistics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ng-results" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Welsh 'deemed consent' organ donation system shows promising results

[adam]

- and it means no straightforward access to the single market with it's free movement pillars, for starters.

Without asking those who voted leave what kind of Brexit they want, such a statement can only be based on guesswork and inference, but even if you accept that a sizeable majority of leave voters would prefer a WTO to a single market option, that doesn't mean a majority of voters overall would choose a WTO option over a single market if given an option between the two. If you exclude remain voters from the next question, "what kind of Brexit do you want", you could end up pursuing a new relationship with the EU that is against the wishes of a majority of people in this country. With the Tories in charge, that may well happen, but I really don't think there's any reason why opposition parties shouldn't challenge them on this if they wish. With such a big decision, isn't as much consensus as possible desirable?

I'm not disagreeing with you about what would be best, or even better. I certainly think that a binary referendum is a very clumsy tool. But we've had one, and the result is there and we're stuck with it.

Given the state of the debate that happened, I think you are hugely overoptimistic in thinking that the electorate would have followed the kind of detail you suggest, or even what large scale democratic decisions are capable of. Our parliamentary democracy very regularly excludes around 60% of the voters from the question 'what government do you want'. How do you even begin to establish what 'consensus' is over such a wide range of issues that arise in leaving - when challenged with a majority vote to leave as the core context of the discussion? I suspect 'consensus' will be whatever the press decide it is, which will be somewhere between 'no freedom of movement' and 'send them back'.

There is an argument that the government have a clear democratic mandate to get on with things - they won a general election, with a majority in the house of commons, on a manifesto commitment to hold this referendum and to follow through on its outcome. In practical terms - in reality - it just doesn't matter if their plans are 'against the wishes of the majority of the people in the country'. Most government plans are. You need another government to come in on a new manifesto to change things now.