UK Politics : Groundhog May

[mormont]

First, there's absolutely no contradiction between discussing the role of the myth of Empire in creating the British (but let's be honest: largely, English) sense of exceptionalism on the one hand: and noting also that people have forgotten the realities of the Empire. It's also hard to imagine that sense of exceptionalism originating unaided from WWII alone. That WWII attitude is an outgrowth of the ongoing sense of British/English exceptonalism. (There are whole theses to be written about the conflation of 'British' and 'English' in that discussion, but we don't have the time or expertise.)

Second, the 'British sense of democracy' includes an unelected and unaccountable second chamber, an unelected and unaccountable head of state, and a Prime Minister and government who wield enormous executive power in the name of that head of state. On top of which, the people who complain about the 'unaccountable' EU institutions (they are no such thing, of course) are the very people currently insisting that Parliament should not be able to hold the government to account over Brexit.

[Mosi Mynn]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, and apologies if this is not the right place for this, but did anyone see this amazing series Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil ?  It's still available on iPlayer.

It's just three episodes: one covering the lead-up to Brexit, one the Euro crisis that started with Greece, and one on the refugee crisis.  

It's a brilliant and insightful watch, and I wish it had been shown before the referendum!  It shows the "Eurocrats" as amazing people who genuinely believe in the good will and diplomacy of the EU - which is something we a) don't get much media coverage of in the UK, and b) are not really aware of.  It also shows that France and Germany do have a lot of disproportionate power over the other member states - but everyone is determined to make it work.

I'm not sure it would have changed the outcome of the referendum, but at least both sides would have been a bit more informed!

[mormont]

The real jaw-dropping moment of this video is not Rees-Mogg confidently explaining why concentration camps are OK. No, it's the audience members applauding his disgusting bilge. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47247835/jacob-rees-mogg-comments-on-concentration-camps

[Mosi Mynn]

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

The real jaw-dropping moment of this video is not Rees-Mogg confidently explaining why concentration camps are OK. No, it's the audience members applauding his disgusting bilge. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47247835/jacob-rees-mogg-comments-on-concentration-camps

An odd comparison to make - Glasgow v Boer War concentration camps!  Very badly worded on his part, but I guess he's trying to distinguish the Boer War camps from the Nazi extermination camps, and by extension Churchill from Hitler.

[john]

I mean, if he’s saying that dysentery is worse than Churchill, then yeah, I probably agree.  Otherwise, pretty muddled thought process even if you put aside the repugnance of the words.

Why even bring up the Boer camps? Churchill had perfectly good Kenyan camps where his government arranged the imprisonment and potential torture of thousands of natives including Barack Obama’s grandad, remember that? Of course, in post war Glasgow people were tortured every day by um poverty or something.

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said:

An odd comparison to make - Glasgow v Boer War concentration camps!  Very badly worded on his part, but I guess he's trying to distinguish the Boer War camps from the Nazi extermination camps, and by extension Churchill from Hitler.

It's not just odd. It's repugnant and insulting to both Boers and Glaswegians. He's trying to minimise the deliberate starvation of prisoners by referring to the unaddressed extreme poverty of a neglected city: claiming that an atrocity is justified by a disgrace, and in so doing giving a deliberate impression that neither was actually all that bad, because the times were different. And when challenged he responds with utter arrogance and contemptuous dismissal - not coincidentally, because the person challenging him, though every bit as well educated and intelligent as he is, happens to be a woman and so clearly doesn't 'understand the history'. 

The weird thing is, I find myself agreeing with him about Shamima Begum. As repulsive as Rees-Mogg's apologia for concentration camps is, the tough-guy posturing from Sajid Javid and others keen to demonstrate how tough they can be on a teenage girl is nauseating too. 

[Which Tyler]

Just an aside - Rees Mogg is a good reason for people to equate Leave with Empire Nostalgia

[Mosi Mynn]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

It's not just odd. It's repugnant and insulting to both Boers and Glaswegians. He's trying to minimise the deliberate starvation of prisoners by referring to the unaddressed extreme poverty of a neglected city: claiming that an atrocity is justified by a disgrace, and in so doing giving a deliberate impression that neither was actually all that bad, because the times were different. And when challenged he responds with utter arrogance and contemptuous dismissal - not coincidentally, because the person challenging him, though every bit as well educated and intelligent as he is, happens to be a woman and so clearly doesn't 'understand the history'. 

Was it because she's a woman?  I've only seen that clip.

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

I think that's a good point. There does seem to be a belief in British exceptionalism, that we are special because reasons. Sentiment doesn't fly much on the international stage, especially not with countries like the USA and China. If Britain is to make its way in the world as a strong country outside a larger trading bloc, then it needs to do so on merit, which means that it needs to be building something other countries want, or providing services other countries need. The former kind of went out the window a few generations back (what we are left building is fairly minimal, although not negligible) and the latter is very much rooted in access to the European single market, especially for banking, finance and services. These may continue in a post-deal Brexit scenario in a limited fashion, but in the case of a no-deal Brexit they will disappear faster than David Cameron when presented with the word "responsibility."

I blame some of this on the fact that History is not a mandatory subject in British schools, hence the total lack of understanding of the Irish issues by many and a very confused understanding of WWII, especially the "plucky little island standing on its own", which is more romantic but somewhat less accurate than "colossal mega-empire incorporating a quarter of the world's population and a fifth of its economy standing kind of its own if you don't count half of Africa and all of India and Pakistan and Canada and Australia and New Zealand, with the combined economic might thereof, oh and also a lot of Spitfires were flown by French people and Poles and Czechs btw."

That kind of brings back to one of the original points that Brexiters have constantly refused to address: a no-deal Brexit will require a substantial re-ordering of the British paradigm of life, since financial services will move to the continent en masse and we're left making jack shit to sell to people (well, apart from Airbus wings...no, they're gone as well). What is Britain going to be offering to the world that the world can't get cheaper elsewhere?

Financial services are very unlikely to migrate en masse to the Continent.  A very large majority of the City's overseas revenues are earned outside the EU.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Financial services are very unlikely to migrate en masse to the Continent.  A very large majority of the City's overseas revenues are earned outside the EU.

This statement is a bit misleading. Foreign investors use London as gateway to the European market. So it is kinda trueish, when you say a big chunk of London's oversea revenues are earned (from) outside the EU, but that is not the same as being independent from the EU (market access). That's the whole point regarding (the loss of) passporting rights, which has been made for over two years now.

[felice]

 

[Chaircat Meow]

The concentration camps in the Boer War were there so people could be fed because the farmers had gone + Glasgow thing was a truly spectacular face plant by the English Robespierre.  

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

The concentration camps in the Boer War were there so people could be fed because the farmers had gone + Glasgow thing was a truly spectacular face plant by the English Robespierre.  

No. They were a military tactic, designed to demoralise the colonials.

[polishgenius]

9 hours ago, Spockydog said:

No. They were a military tactic, designed to demoralise the colonials.

 

 

I don't think NHC was agreeing with Reese-Mogg to be fair.

[Toth]

On 2/15/2019 at 10:45 AM, Mosi Mynn said:

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, and apologies if this is not the right place for this, but did anyone see this amazing series Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil ?  It's still available on iPlayer.

It's just three episodes: one covering the lead-up to Brexit, one the Euro crisis that started with Greece, and one on the refugee crisis.  

It's a brilliant and insightful watch, and I wish it had been shown before the referendum!  It shows the "Eurocrats" as amazing people who genuinely believe in the good will and diplomacy of the EU - which is something we a) don't get much media coverage of in the UK, and b) are not really aware of.  It also shows that France and Germany do have a lot of disproportionate power over the other member states - but everyone is determined to make it work.

I'm not sure it would have changed the outcome of the referendum, but at least both sides would have been a bit more informed!

Thanks a lot. Despite my absurd lack of time, I have started to watch the first episode now (*cough* better don't ask how *cough*) and it is really well done. Great insight into the entire build-up within Cameron's party that I must admit wasn't really on at least my screen at the time.

[Mosi Mynn]

1 hour ago, Toth said:

Thanks a lot. Despite my absurd lack of time, I have started to watch the first episode now (*cough* better don't ask how *cough*) and it is really well done. Great insight into the entire build-up within Cameron's party that I must admit wasn't really on at least my screen at the time.

This whole thing is because of the Tory party.

Even the shenanigans since the referendum are because of Tory red lines and ultimatums.  This should be about more than one party.

From that programme I really like Tusk in particular.  I can see why they didn't do this, but I wish the Europeans had been more of a presence during the referendum - put human faces to the EU.

[Toth]

8 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said:

This whole thing is because of the Tory party.

Even the shenanigans since the referendum are because of Tory red lines and ultimatums.  This should be about more than one party.

From that programme I really like Tusk in particular.  I can see why they didn't do this, but I wish the Europeans had been more of a presence during the referendum - put human faces to the EU.

It certainly was. It is stunning how not a single conservative in this documentary seem to have any kind of principle or informed opinion on the matter whatsoever. At least they don't bring up any other reason for the way they went about things than... party politics. Plunging the whole country into chaos because of internal backstabbings. No wonder the public was so absurdly misinformed at the time of the referendum. But then again, even for me as a generally politically informed German, the referendum came out of nowhere.

I know what you mean in regards to human faces of the EU and generally agree. Though given the usual frothing comments I've been reading, I have a feeling this would have only caused the Brexit campaign to get more people to paint as boogeymen. The willfully misinformed will always close their eyes and ears.

[Mosi Mynn]

43 minutes ago, Toth said:

It certainly was. It is stunning how not a single conservative in this documentary seem to have any kind of principle or informed opinion on the matter whatsoever. At least they don't bring up any other reason for the way they went about things than... party politics. Plunging the whole country into chaos because of internal backstabbings. No wonder the public was so absurdly misinformed at the time of the referendum. But then again, even for me as a generally politically informed German, the referendum came out of nowhere.

As a Brit, I was pretty embarrassed by Cameron's (and, as Home Secretary, May's) comments re Europe.  You may not have got to it yet, but Cameron's comment about what to do about the refugee crisis was pretty appalling, selfish and cringe-worthy.  Conversely, the EU trying to get the UK to help with the Euro bail-out was quite extraordinary - Alastair Darling's comments about that were kind of amusing.

Quote

I know what you mean in regards to human faces of the EU and generally agree. Though given the usual frothing comments I've been reading, I have a feeling this would have only caused the Brexit campaign to get more people to paint as boogeymen. The willfully misinformed will always close their eyes and ears.

It would have been tricky.  I think it shows just how much Cameron disliked, or how little he thought of, the EU when he brought in the US President to try and persuade us to vote remain rather than anyone from Europe.  It also showed how much Cameron misunderstood the British electorate: we, by and large, love Obama, but nobody was going to react well to an American President telling us what to do!

I agree that anyone from the EU Council or Commission would probably have been vilified in the UK press, but at least we would have had some actual real information about the EU to work with, rather than the flagrant lies, hyperbole and grandstanding that made up both sides of the "debate".

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, Mosi Mynn said:

From that programme I really like Tusk in particular.  I can see why they didn't do this, but I wish the Europeans had been more of a presence during the referendum - put human faces to the EU.

That was a no-win situation. This referendum was first and foremost a national issue. Who remember what BoZo said about Obama, after he made his remain recommendation? Yes, it was the one with Obama hating on Britain because his ancestors suffered under British colonial rule.

And let's bare in mind, British politicians pre-Brexit had quite a good reputation as being level headed, so why should Tusk take little Daveyboy by the hand and drag him thru his referendum? There was very probably a consensus that an experienced politican and campaigner like Cameron should be able to win it. So he presumably got some shit when he showed up at the summit after the referendum. And that's not talking about how self-defeating it is, to have Tusk (or Juncker, or whoever) to campaign for the EU, while leavers campaigned on the delusion that the EU overlords are ruling them.

If you wanted to put human faces on it, the milions of NHS nurses would have served that purpose much better in my humble opinion.

[Mosi Mynn]

43 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

If you wanted to put human faces on it, the milions of NHS nurses would have served that purpose much better in my humble opinion.

Yep - good idea.

It seems a long time ago now - but nobody seemed to think Leave had a chance of winning.  Remain did not put up much of a fight/persuasive argument because they did not think they needed to.