UK Politics: The Beast From The East

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've always wondered why you guys can't just have a do over. Requiring a simple majority vote to leave the EU was idiotic, and it was clear that on top of all the lies the Leave campaign was spreading, UK citizens simply didn't understand the ramifications of their actions. One thing that really stood out to me was the high volume of internet searches within in the UK that were various forms of "what is the EU?" and "what will leaving mean?" in the wake of the election.

 

What is a little scary is that this argument, which is popular, seems less about Brexit and more about representative democracy as a system. If you go back to when we had big debates about whether to give poor people the vote, the basic argument was "they're too uneducated/manipulatable".

The obvious reason we can't "just have a do over" is that the terms were made clear to us. Our electorate aren't suddenly going to get smarter, our politicians aren't suddenly going to decide to be honest, so what's the point?

It's a cliche, but it's so true- democracy is the worst system except all the others.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

What is a little scary is that this argument, which is popular, seems less about Brexit and more about representative democracy as a system. If you go back to when we had big debates about whether to give poor people the vote, the basic argument was "they're too uneducated/manipulatable".

The obvious reason we can't "just have a do over" is that the terms were made clear to us. Our electorate aren't suddenly going to get smarter, our politicians aren't suddenly going to decide to be honest, so what's the point?

It's a cliche, but it's so true- democracy is the worst system except all the others.

It's not about democracy as a system, it's about the power of misinformation and the control of a lot of media in the UK by a specific political interest.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The referendum was legally non-binding: the British Parliament is sovereign, and could reverse Brexit tomorrow if it chose.

Except that to do so would be politically impossible, If we're arguing that one side lying (and frankly, both sides lied) is grounds for a second referendum, where does that leave actual elections, where politicians break promises all the time? Especially as the referendum in 2016 saw higher turnout than any UK election since 1992? While re-holding referendums because certain people don't like the result is one of the nastier traits of the EU, at some point you actually have to respect democracy, however flawed it may be.

On the anti-semitism front, Corbyn has indeed messed this one up. It rather grates, however, to see the media act as though there were some sort of deep historical link between anti-semitism and the political Left, when in reality the reverse is true. Jews were instrumental in the foundation and development of socialist movements, and the Far-Right has always been fond of claiming that the Left in general (and Communism in particular) is some sort of Jewish conspiracy.   

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've always wondered why you guys can't just have a do over. Requiring a simple majority vote to leave the EU was idiotic, and it was clear that on top of all the lies the Leave campaign was spreading, UK citizens simply didn't understand the ramifications of their actions. One thing that really stood out to me was the high volume of internet searches within in the UK that were various forms of "what is the EU?" and "what will leaving mean?" in the wake of the election.

 

In general, simple majorities (especially on high turnouts like this one) are considered sufficient.  Welsh devolution was introduced on the back of a vote of 50.6% in favour to 49.4% against.  Had Scotland voted 52% to 48% for Yes in 2014, it would now be an independent country.

 

9 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah. Fuck this bullshit. This is not democracy.

11 Brexit Promises the Government Quietly Dropped. A pretty good summary of the clusterfuck so far.

In May 2016, six weeks from the vote, Nigel Farage told The Mirror,

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."

Well, Nige, what about a 52-48 referendum where the winner was later found to have campaigned on a pack of lies, whilst committing serious breaches of large swathes of British electoral law?

Along with the all the Cambridge Analytica stuff, how can anyone possibly argue that democracy has been served?

It is democracy.  You simply disagree with the outcome.

The losers in this referendum had most of the advantages.   They had the backing of most big institutions, like the CBI and the TUC, they had more money for their campaign,  they had the backing of the Government, they had the support of most broadcast media, and most opinion formers supported Remain.  

 

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

Because it would look like the establishment elite demanding another vote because they didn’t like the results of the first one. In fact I think Leave would win by a larger amount in a second referendum.

Yeah, except the 'establishment elite' are now wholly in favour of Brexit. 

[mankytoes]

7 hours ago, Shryke said:

It's not about democracy as a system, it's about the power of misinformation and the control of a lot of media in the UK by a specific political interest.

But is that something that's likely to change in the near future? So will you be respecting any popular votes? Surely this is just as troubling for the recent general election? It isn't like we don't have legitimate grievances. I read The Times and the "Corbyn is a dangerous Commie" stuff has been absolutely ridiculous from a broadsheet. 

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The referendum was legally non-binding: the British Parliament is sovereign, and could reverse Brexit tomorrow if it chose.

Except that to do so would be politically impossible, If we're arguing that one side lying (and frankly, both sides lied) is grounds for a second referendum, where does that leave actual elections, where politicians break promises all the time? Especially as the referendum in 2016 saw higher turnout than any UK election since 1992? While re-holding referendums because certain people don't like the result is one of the nastier traits of the EU, at some point you actually have to respect democracy, however flawed it may be.

On the anti-semitism front, Corbyn has indeed messed this one up. It rather grates, however, to see the media act as though there were some sort of deep historical link between anti-semitism and the political Left, when in reality the reverse is true. Jews were instrumental in the foundation and development of socialist movements, and the Far-Right has always been fond of claiming that the Left in general (and Communism in particular) is some sort of Jewish conspiracy.   

Technically. And technically, the Queen could refuse it royal assent. 

Exactly. 

The issue with the anti-semitism thing is that anti Semites use Israel to criticise Jews. But then Zionists confuse the issue, by claiming anti Zionism is anti Semitic, which is especially galling in this country where so many prominent Jews are anti Zionist, or at least critical of Israel. 

28 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yeah, except the 'establishment elite' are now wholly in favour of Brexit. 

Do you think Theresa May is genuinely a covert? I'm pretty confident she isn't. 

[mormont]

23 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Do you think Theresa May is genuinely a covert? I'm pretty confident she isn't. 

What would she 'convert' from? She was supposedly a Remainer but I can't recall her ever making the Remain case in any enthusiastic way. she gave the strong impression that it was a safe position for her career and she didn't really genuinely care very much about the issue beyond that.

I don't believe she's an ideological Brexiteer but since the referendum she has clearly fixed on the idea that she must deliver Brexit at all costs. 

ps I think that honestly, even using the term 'Zionist' at this point is, if not anti-Semitic, certainly unhelpful. It has been effectively co-opted by anti-Semites to the point that it should probably be abandoned. It was never a particularly useful term anyway. 

[DMC]

42 minutes ago, mormont said:

ps I think that honestly, even using the term 'Zionist' at this point is, if not anti-Semitic, certainly unhelpful. It has been effectively co-opted by anti-Semites to the point that it should probably be abandoned. It was never a particularly useful term anyway. 

I get that anti-semites have turned the term into a dog whistle, but this seems way off.  Zionism was certainly useful in establishing Israel in the first place.  Ben-Gurion was, literally, a Zionist.  And the Zionist Congress still exists to this day.  I don't see the point in making certain terms taboo - especially historically important terms - simply because racists misappropriate them.

[mormont]

Just now, dmc515 said:

I get that anti-semites have turned the term into a dog whistle, but this seems way off.  Zionism was certainly useful in establishing Israel in the first place.  Ben-Gurion was, literally, a Zionist.  And the Zionist Congress still exists to this day.  I don't see the point in making certain terms taboo - especially historically important terms - simply because racists misappropriate them.

Language changes. 

I could appreciate this position if the term still conveyed something useful beyond being a dog-whistle. It did eighty years ago. It still did forty years ago, for that matter. It arguably still does in certain specific contexts, though the name of the Zionist Congress is as much of a historic relic as it is proof of continuing relevance. But in the context of a critique of Israeli policies, I don't think it has use or power any more. If you want to criticise Israeli government policies, you can do so quite coherently and cogently without ever feeling the need to utter the word. I can, and do. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

I could appreciate this position if the term still conveyed something useful beyond being a dog-whistle. It did eighty years ago. It still did forty years ago, for that matter. It arguably still does in certain specific contexts, though the name of the Zionist Congress is as much of a historic relic as it is proof of continuing relevance.

I know many people that would find the implication of this - that the Zionist Congress and the WZO are no longer "useful" or "relevant" - offensive in its own right.

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

But in the context of a critique of Israeli policies, I don't think it has use or power any more. If you want to criticise Israeli government policies, you can do so quite coherently and cogently without ever feeling the need to utter the word. I can, and do. 

Agreed here - if you're employing the term in a critique of the Israeli government, it's a very solid indicator your criticism can be dismissed.  Almost like a boomerang dog whistle, which would be quite the chew-toy.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

I know many people that would find the implication of this - that the Zionist Congress and the WZO are no longer "useful" or "relevant" - offensive in its own right.

I think that to read that as an implication of what I said would require a pretty significant misreading of it, but the main point is that it's not a useful term in critiquing Israeli policy, which is undoubtedly the relevant issue in looking at alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour movement. 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Yeah, except the 'establishment elite' are now wholly in favour of Brexit. 

In truth they may be, but the referendum wouldn’t be decided by truth, merely the public perception of the truth.

[mankytoes]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

What would she 'convert' from? She was supposedly a Remainer but I can't recall her ever making the Remain case in any enthusiastic way. she gave the strong impression that it was a safe position for her career and she didn't really genuinely care very much about the issue beyond that.

I don't believe she's an ideological Brexiteer but since the referendum she has clearly fixed on the idea that she must deliver Brexit at all costs. 

ps I think that honestly, even using the term 'Zionist' at this point is, if not anti-Semitic, certainly unhelpful. It has been effectively co-opted by anti-Semites to the point that it should probably be abandoned. It was never a particularly useful term anyway. 

Seeing as when she was asked in an interview if she would have voted for Brexit now she refused to say, I think it's fair to say she isn't "wholly in favour of Brexit". 

There's a difference in supporting something because of democratic legitimacy (yes, I know you don't accept that it has full democratic legitimacy) and actually being in favour of it. I mean if people wanted to take down this government without an election, I'd be deadset against that. I'm not in favour of them at all, but I support their right to govern. 

We probably need a separate thread for that, but there is an important difference between being critical of certain policies of Israel, and actually questioning the whole racial and ideological concept of Zionism. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I think that to read that as an implication of what I said would require a pretty significant misreading of it, but the main point is that it's not a useful term in critiquing Israeli policy, which is undoubtedly the relevant issue in looking at alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour movement. 

Fair enough.  I obviously agree in the Labour case and sorry if I misinterpreted.  My point was that zionism still retains its use as a positive term (and even idea), so don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[SeanF]

27 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Fair enough.  I obviously agree in the Labour case and sorry if I misinterpreted.  My point was that zionism still retains its use as a positive term (and even idea), so don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I agree.  One problem is that the term "Zio" seems now to be used perjoratively to refer to Jews.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, mankytoes said:

What is a little scary is that this argument, which is popular, seems less about Brexit and more about representative democracy as a system. If you go back to when we had big debates about whether to give poor people the vote, the basic argument was "they're too uneducated/manipulatable".

The obvious reason we can't "just have a do over" is that the terms were made clear to us. Our electorate aren't suddenly going to get smarter, our politicians aren't suddenly going to decide to be honest, so what's the point?

It's a cliche, but it's so true- democracy is the worst system except all the others.

Not really. It’s common for a referendum to occur, then after the public realize what a disaster it was, to call for another referendum to undo it. It would appear from the outside that anyone with a lick of sense would want to follow this course of action.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I agree.  One problem is that the term "Zio" seems now to be used perjoratively to refer to Jews.

Correct. I am Jewish and I’ve only heard term Zionist used in a pejorative tense outside of the Jewish community.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

One problem is that the term "Zio" seems now to be used perjoratively to refer to Jews.

Right - and this isn't a new thing.  Zionist and Jewish have been used interchangeably (and pejoratively) in the Arab world for, oh, 70 years now.  

[mankytoes]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really. It’s common for a referendum to occur, then after the public realize what a disaster it was, to call for another referendum to undo it. It would appear from the outside that anyone with a lick of sense would want to follow this course of action.

When has that happened?

But "the public" haven't realised that, the same people who said it would be a disaster are still saying it will be a disaster (you can't really use the past tense, as we still haven't left). One of our major political parties stood on a second referendum platform at the last election, and lost votes. 

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Correct. I am Jewish and I’ve only heard term Zionist used in a pejorative tense outside of the Jewish community.

I think British Jews are significantly less pro-Israel than American ones. For example groups like this- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Justice_for_Palestinians

Have a significant number of prominent British Jews (I'm pretty sure they've a smaller proportion of the population her than in the States). 

There is always a tough balance. I have Jewish ancestry, and my sister was saying she didn't care than Corbyn had said positive things about Hamas. I pointed out these are people who would slit our throats, judging by their own words. 

[mormont]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Seeing as when she was asked in an interview if she would have voted for Brexit now she refused to say, I think it's fair to say she isn't "wholly in favour of Brexit". 

Well, on the one hand there's that interview answer. On the other, there's everything else she's said and done since the referendum. 

Tough to choose.

Except not really, because we do seem to agree that May's current position is not dictated by principle but political pragmatism. In that, she's joined by many others. It's the reason she is PM in the first place.