"Czechoslovakia doesn’t currently have a government" David Davis on the money as usual.
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Then he says parliament may not get to vote on the exit deal until after we've exited. Nice taking back of control there Dave.
AndyC
Player Valuation: £70m
Really ?? I mean really ??
Dearie me.
If you want to listen in full.
So you wanted the results of the ongoing negotiations to be kept secret from the public? Davis has been the one of the biggest culprits, along with Johnson and Fox of 'playing to the crowd' and has been exposed all along the way with their 'negotiation' stance and what has been proposed. The Tories wanted the negotiations to be kept secret, so the British public would not be allowed to scrutinise what is going on. And would have to rely on a supine media and Tory soundbites. They have run out of bluster - playing to the crowd -and have now resorted to the blame game. Unfortunately, openness gets in the way of the 'blame game'.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
From the ft:
Imagine the scene: a new hard-left government led by Jeremy Corbyn has taken charge in Britain. Among the early actions of its leaders and allies are a virulent denunciation of the independent judiciary; attacks on the media for its lack of civic duty and failure to understand the will of the people; a rooting through school and university syllabuses to ensure that approved views are being taught. Alternative media groups spring up offering unsubstantiated but more convenient facts.
Let us dig deeper. Behind the more polished façade of its leaders, an intimidatory “populist” movement mobilises support, but also denounces and harangues non-believers. Noted journalists hire bodyguards. While enemies are lacerated for the smallest slip, supporters are forgiven almost any crime. Complaints about virulent anti-Semitism are rejected as Zionist smears, while the first instinct of the leadership is to forgive homophobic remarks uttered by a disciple as the jejune errors of a man “on a journey”.
For the opponents of Mr Corbyn’s Labour party this vision is not at all hard to imagine. It is how Britain’s ruling Conservatives imagine things will be if what they see as a neo-Marxist heart ever beats in Downing Street. And it is not hard to believe that some or all of these things might happen, for some already have.
But Mr Corbyn’s is not the only group offering this future. There is another and, unlike Labour, some of its leaders are already in power. These are what we might call the Blue Marxists. For the Conservatives have their own revolutionaries, and while their leader may have a moderate face, behind her the party is being rent by political hardliners defined by that most un-Conservative quality: ideological certainty.
Although their ideology spreads far beyond Brexit, it is the war of the moment. In recent months the Blue Marxists in cabinet have denounced sections of the media for a lack of “patriotism” and stood silent while their cheerleaders vilified judges as “enemies of the people”. On social media, a “patriot” army hears the dog whistle and bombards opponents with threats and misogyny.
This week Tory MPs turned on seditious elements in universities. A party whip — essentially an enforcer of government policy — wrote to colleges asking for lists of every lecturer and each course covering European affairs. The request was officially disavowed, but he remains on the government payroll. A cabinet minister defended his letter as “not at all threatening”. A fellow MP complained that his student daughter had been given an anti-Brexit leaflet by her lecturer. Well, fair point. We wouldn’t want universities exposing people to ideas they don’t share.
The Blue Marxists have their own media cheerleaders, offering a Fox News-ish slant on events. Outlets such as the Daily Mail rubbish and ridicule those with rival views. While vigorously defending the rights of a free press against a statutory regulator, it uses the most violent language to disparage any media outlet that uses the freedom it purportedly defends to offer an alternative point of view. “Unpatriotic” news outlets are named and shamed for suggesting that Brexit is not yet running entirely to plan.
These things have happened before. Judges have been criticised, journalists attacked and direction given to educational establishments. What has changed is the tone and the motive. The aim is no longer to challenge opposition, but to silence it.
How striking that those who paint themselves as the greatest defenders of “British values” are those who seem most lacking in those very traits — tolerance, humour and moderation — we usually ascribe to that phrase.
Democracy is often inconvenient for those in power. But that is because it is meant to be, and it is a good rule of politics that governments should not do things they call undemocratic if practised by the other side.
The Tories may yet find themselves facing a hard-left government as it turns its attention to university syllabuses, restrictions on the press and to reform of the judiciary so that it “more accurately reflects society”.
It will be a lot harder to fight those assaults on freedom if the new government can point out that this is nothing more than the Conservatives did when they were in power.
Imagine the scene: a new hard-left government led by Jeremy Corbyn has taken charge in Britain. Among the early actions of its leaders and allies are a virulent denunciation of the independent judiciary; attacks on the media for its lack of civic duty and failure to understand the will of the people; a rooting through school and university syllabuses to ensure that approved views are being taught. Alternative media groups spring up offering unsubstantiated but more convenient facts.
Let us dig deeper. Behind the more polished façade of its leaders, an intimidatory “populist” movement mobilises support, but also denounces and harangues non-believers. Noted journalists hire bodyguards. While enemies are lacerated for the smallest slip, supporters are forgiven almost any crime. Complaints about virulent anti-Semitism are rejected as Zionist smears, while the first instinct of the leadership is to forgive homophobic remarks uttered by a disciple as the jejune errors of a man “on a journey”.
For the opponents of Mr Corbyn’s Labour party this vision is not at all hard to imagine. It is how Britain’s ruling Conservatives imagine things will be if what they see as a neo-Marxist heart ever beats in Downing Street. And it is not hard to believe that some or all of these things might happen, for some already have.
But Mr Corbyn’s is not the only group offering this future. There is another and, unlike Labour, some of its leaders are already in power. These are what we might call the Blue Marxists. For the Conservatives have their own revolutionaries, and while their leader may have a moderate face, behind her the party is being rent by political hardliners defined by that most un-Conservative quality: ideological certainty.
Although their ideology spreads far beyond Brexit, it is the war of the moment. In recent months the Blue Marxists in cabinet have denounced sections of the media for a lack of “patriotism” and stood silent while their cheerleaders vilified judges as “enemies of the people”. On social media, a “patriot” army hears the dog whistle and bombards opponents with threats and misogyny.
This week Tory MPs turned on seditious elements in universities. A party whip — essentially an enforcer of government policy — wrote to colleges asking for lists of every lecturer and each course covering European affairs. The request was officially disavowed, but he remains on the government payroll. A cabinet minister defended his letter as “not at all threatening”. A fellow MP complained that his student daughter had been given an anti-Brexit leaflet by her lecturer. Well, fair point. We wouldn’t want universities exposing people to ideas they don’t share.
The Blue Marxists have their own media cheerleaders, offering a Fox News-ish slant on events. Outlets such as the Daily Mail rubbish and ridicule those with rival views. While vigorously defending the rights of a free press against a statutory regulator, it uses the most violent language to disparage any media outlet that uses the freedom it purportedly defends to offer an alternative point of view. “Unpatriotic” news outlets are named and shamed for suggesting that Brexit is not yet running entirely to plan.
These things have happened before. Judges have been criticised, journalists attacked and direction given to educational establishments. What has changed is the tone and the motive. The aim is no longer to challenge opposition, but to silence it.
How striking that those who paint themselves as the greatest defenders of “British values” are those who seem most lacking in those very traits — tolerance, humour and moderation — we usually ascribe to that phrase.
Democracy is often inconvenient for those in power. But that is because it is meant to be, and it is a good rule of politics that governments should not do things they call undemocratic if practised by the other side.
The Tories may yet find themselves facing a hard-left government as it turns its attention to university syllabuses, restrictions on the press and to reform of the judiciary so that it “more accurately reflects society”.
It will be a lot harder to fight those assaults on freedom if the new government can point out that this is nothing more than the Conservatives did when they were in power.
Hello again. There was a really very modest majority for leaving. I wonder what the vote would be if it ran again today. Why should the 48% who voted to remain have no say when the brexit bus is heading for the edge of the cliff? I for one would welcome a further vote. What would you have to be afraid of, old pal?
No Brexit is better than a bad deal IMHO
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Whilst I agree with the tenor of your point, (another run at it, and I believe the result would be different), I fear that ship has sailed.
If we had another vote, and if I was right, we would be utterly castrated in the EU future treaties and stuff. Best thing is to get the best deal we can, then get Parliament/the public to ratify that. How realistic that actually is open to debate mind.
Still, we can make our own rules and that, so well done Leavers. Feels utterly brilliant.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
Why bother with a democratic vote.
The 48% came second in a two-horse democratic vote, that's why we are leaving the EU.
Do you have a problem with democratic voting? I suspect you do if it doesn't go the way you wanted it to.
Let's keep voting until it goes your way. I would suggest that is selfish and undemocratic.
Is that the way democratic voting works.
Let's keep having General Elections until my chosen party, Labour, gets in...
Oh, the old chestnut 'cliff edge' reads its head again.
Well, the referendum saw the people have their say - why shouldn't there be a fair vote of conscience in the House of Commons on leaving, where the MPs can make the choice based on what they have been elected to do; act in the best interests of their constituents?
It's all about "taking back control" after all, isn't it? So why not have parliament make a sovereign, non-whipped decision on it?
Or is that not allowed because reasons?
erm, you do keep having general elections.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
Tubey, my reply was to the point of having a further referendum, not haveing a vote in Parliament on staying or leaveg...
I have no problem with final negotiations being subject to Parliamentary discussion/decision, since at that point one would hope all politicians would be working to obtain the best for us (but I'm not holding my breath on politicians of all shades working together in Parliament!).
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
Yes, according to laid-down Parliamentary procedures.
So what if parliament decided to vote again?
- Status