Jump to content

UK Politics: And Brexit came swirling down


Chaircat Meow

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think there's a disparity because most of Western society is predisposed to ignore the criminal conduct of wealthy white men while women and people of color get shit on for the most trivial missteps. I also think the "royal machinery" -- palace staff and PR people and their friends in the press -- were willing to sell Markle out and shop unflattering stories about her while going to extraordinary lengths to protect a grotesque sexual predator, who is also a stone fucking bigot. So in the end, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Meghan Markle to be surprised she didn't get more support and protection from her husband's family. She may or may not have been naive about how she'd be treated. The PR professionals employed by her in-laws, and her in-laws themselves, should absolutely not have been surprised, and thus they have failed or betrayed her, which may be a pretty good fucking reason for her and her husband to want to separate from the "royal machinery" and not keep in close consultation with them while doing so.

I believe that the Royal Family had an amazing opportunity with her. And I believe that they have seen that, both the members of the family and the establishment of the Palace. Whatever happened, I am not so sure that "she was failed by establishment" or that the royal family didn't want to protect her and Harry. And many people, in the past two days, have been saying exactly that - that royal family did everything to protect them and that the pair blindsided them in the most unforgiving way.

I mean, that is a family business, with Queen being their boss. Harry publicly quit his job, without consulting any of his superior.His grandma had a n awful year, both with Prince Andrew and Brexit, his grandpa is sick, his father wanted to help them, advising them even on what to do and HE (and here, I do blame only Harry) did something like this. And what is worse, he didn't just quit. He told the world what he wanted. without caring or understanding that the choice is not his. That sense of entitlement - keeping the house and the money he receives from his father (which is also a taxpayers' money), while being left free to do whatever they want....  That is where this entire affair stinks. And that is why many people have hard time believing the whole "misunderstood pair failed by the family and the Palace" narrative. 

 

36 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If you were suggesting that Meghan is receiving worse treatment than everyone else due to her race then I'd expect some sort of evidence to back that up? I'd expect that white women who joined the royals would be given a free pass. Sadly looking at the experiences of Diana, Sarah Ferguson and even Camilla Parker Bowles I'd say that wasn't the case. 

Meghan was unjustly criticized, we all agree on that. Except when they started talking about environment while flying the world in private jet. But, as has been said, every woman who married into that family went through that. Camilla was once voted the most hated woman in UK, there was Duchess of Pork articles about Sarah, pictures of Kate all over the internet. What is behind all those attacks, one really has to wonder. But, honestly, while there is undoubted racism in some articles, I think the major issue was something else. Something that Meghan has in common with Diana, Camilla, Sarah and Kate. She is an outsider that is judged by the impossible standards. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm not confused, and my central fucking thesis is not hard to grasp. It's not my fault you're incapable of grasping the nuance you claim to crave.

I'm trying to understand if you think she has been treated worse due to her race. Your posts , including where you said: 

Quote

"with barely a fraction of the media interest or investigation that has been devoted to, say, a half-black American woman who married a second son? "


where you focused on her race as her defining characteristic makes it clear you view it as very important. 

54 minutes ago, Risto said:

Something that Meghan has in common with Diana, Camilla, Sarah and Kate. She is an outsider that is judged by the impossible standards. 

This I think is really what it's about. Meghan is an outsider, she doesn't fit the mould of a royal in the exact same way that Sarah, Diana and Camilla didn't fit the mould. Most of the critisim against her has centred around her not being that outsider, being too Hollywood, too progressive and political. 

Her being an American TV actress means she would always have to work hard to adjust to being part of that family. As I mentioned about Kate, I think essentially it's a matter of keeping your head down, being good, and don't make any splashes. You need to conform to fit into the royal family I'm guessing. 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Risto said:

Harry publicly quit his job, without consulting any of his superior.

 


Are you obliged to consult with your superiors before you quit your job?

In any case even you seem pretty clear (when you say that Charles had wanted to help them so he clearly knew about it) on that they had in fact consulted, they just hadn't got anywhere. It's like you think the blame is all on them for wanting to Get Megxit Done rather than any possibility at all of some of it lying on the family for stalling them out and fobbing them off.

 

1 hour ago, Risto said:

Harry publicly quit his job, without consulting any of his superior.His grandma had a n awful year, both with Prince Andrew and Brexit,


We of course don't know and might never but it's not unreasonable to believe that the Prince Andrew thing and the way the family was only about protecting its image there might have been a contributing factor to the breakdown. That contributing to the Queen's horrible year is in large part the Queen's fault since what has essentially happened is that it's become unavoidably clear to everyone that her and the apparatus has been protecting a child abuser for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I'm trying to understand if you think he has been treated worse due to her race. Your posts , including where you said: 


where you focused on her race as her defining characteristic makes it clear you view it as very important. 

 

Holy crap, if you were any more dense you'd be a gravity well. When I described her as a 1) half-black 2) American 3) woman, and stated that I thought wealthy white men get easier treatment, that is your clue that I consider her ethnicity, her nationality, AND her gender to all be factors in her mistreatment. You do know that in a nuanced world, events can have multiple factors contributing, right?

But it's been obvious since you tried and miserably failed to sell the "Brexit has nothing to do with racism because British culture is so not-racist" that you try to minimize the existence of racism every time it comes up. Nothing in your view has anything to do with racism unless someone says, "I am a big racist" and then lights a cross on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Are you obliged to consult with your superiors before you quit your job?

In any case even you seem pretty clear (when you say that Charles had wanted to help them so he clearly knew about it) on that they had in fact consulted, they just hadn't got anywhere. It's like you think the blame is all on them for wanting to Get Megxit Done rather than any possibility at all of some of it lying on the family for stalling them out and fobbing them off.

Actually, yes. You don't go out and say "I quit". You go to your boss and inform them about you leaving the company.

The way I understand what happened based on several reports is that Charles wanted to trim down the huge expenses Senior Royal Members had. The number of Senior Royal Members is huge due to the fact that Elizabeth has lived to see great-grandchildren. The idea, as some report, was to assign seniority to Elizabeth and her husband, Charles and Camilla and Cambridges. It seems that initially Harry and Meghan were OK with that and that they wanted an out due to everything that has been happening. Some say that Charles went to them and asked them to sort things out - to see what Crown can give them and how logistically they can not be part of the royal family. So, they seem to have an arrangement to discuss these things before going out. And then, the pair went online, basically twisting the arm of the royal family (they basically took a lot for granted, like it is theirs), not consulting anyone. As someone says, if Crown's press release was that the family was "hurt and disappointed", one can actually understand to what extent does it go.

Naturally, these are all supposed facts and the truth may be rather different. But, I think it is very entitled to quit and yet publicly demand certain things that are not yours.

19 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

We of course don't know and might never but it's not unreasonable to believe that the Prince Andrew thing and the way the family was only about protecting its image there might have been a contributing factor to the breakdown. That contributing to the Queen's horrible year is in large part the Queen's fault since what has essentially happened is that it's become unavoidably clear to everyone that her and the apparatus has been protecting a child abuser for decades.

What I meant is that some believe that 2019 was Queen's second Anno Horribili, and that no one expected that, especially as the "ship" was moving towards calmer waters. Is it their fault? Of course. But, if you have an announcement like this, you go and explain yourself to them, and then move on to public. Simply, there are two sides - if Harry did this while actually knowing he would get the support from Queen and his father (something a lot of Crown experts claiming to be true) then he certainly is an ass. If they did this out of necessity, trying the rest of the family to listen to them, then of course, kudos.

Given Diana's history, I think most people believe that the pair was fighting the establishment but that may not be true. I really think that the establishment understood what a great thing they have in that pairing. But, we'll see.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

...which they've done. They haven't just moved to Canada permantently at once.

As I understand, the past 6 weeks, they have been on holiday. They didn't move at once. They want to keep the British house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that they haven't just said we're cutting all ties and fucking off to do what we want. They announced it suddenly, but nothing about their statement suggests they're just gonna immediately quit any roles they currently had and go do their own thing immediately. All that's happened is that they've told the public about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Does the royal stuff really count as "Politics"? Or should it be in "Celebrity 'News' "? Or is it political in as much as it distracts everyone from the pile of shit were sinking ever deeper into?

 

So at some point this year, Brexit will have cost us more than the entirety of our contributions to the EU since our first involvement.

And yet, there's still £120M to be spent on a party to "celebrate" our attempted suicide.

I see there's a new whistleblower revelation on Cambridge Analytica - but no-one cares because Harry said something.

The report into Russian interference that was going to be released just as soon as we got the election over and done with has... erm... shrunk without a trace, and indeed, without a comment, because Megan said something.

Of course, the whole "Prince Andrew's a rapist of underage girls" thing has been entirely forgotten, because the queen's upset with her grandson...

 

That's interesting. Where can I read that calculation? Hard to imagine that you spend do much on Breit in one year. Otoh, you always got a huge discount on the membership fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back to UK Politics, I'm intrigued as to how Brexit is going to play out this year; the saga still has a significant time to run.

If my understanding is correct, Boris has passed the bill but the transition arrangement only lasts until the end of 2020, i.e. one year to organise a whole trade deal, which is historically an inadequate time to do these things (and if they do conclude a deal, one can only imagine that the UK has gotten fleeced). If they don't get one, a no-deal Brexit could still happen on December 31, 2020, although I understand the UK government can unilaterally extend that period, which Boris will absolutely not want to do. I think I'm going to enjoy watching him squirm this year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kiko said:

That's interesting. Where can I read that calculation? Hard to imagine that you spend do much on Breit in one year. Otoh, you always got a huge discount on the membership fees.

Cost, not spend.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/brexit-cost-reach-billions-highest-boris-johnson-uk-economic-study-2020-1-1028809389

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?srnd=economics-vp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

 You do know that in a nuanced world, events can have multiple factors contributing, right?

Sure.. 'Nuance'. I was trying to understand how important you thought race was in all that nuance. You dodged that question noticeably. 

Quote

But it's been obvious since you tried and miserably failed to sell the "Brexit has nothing to do with racism because British culture is so not-racist" 

I haven't failed at all, because those things are the truth, but it can be quite obvious from people's bubbles that they genuinely believe these things. Anyway that is a tired old discussion that has stopped being relevant any more. 

8 hours ago, Jeor said:

To get back to UK Politics, I'm intrigued as to how Brexit is going to play out this year; the saga still has a significant time to run.

If my understanding is correct, Boris has passed the bill but the transition arrangement only lasts until the end of 2020, i.e. one year to organise a whole trade deal, which is historically an inadequate time to do these things (and if they do conclude a deal, one can only imagine that the UK has gotten fleeced). If they don't get one, a no-deal Brexit could still happen on December 31, 2020, although I understand the UK government can unilaterally extend that period, which Boris will absolutely not want to do. I think I'm going to enjoy watching him squirm this year.

 

I don't think anyone, even Boris, believes it's truly possible to get agreement on everything done in a year. My guess is that there will be agreement on different parts of the economy done by the end of the year and that there will be continuing talks on other aspects after that. That way Boris can say that he's got the important bits done and nobody will really care. 

The interesting part will be whether the EU tries to hold up those talks by sequencing them and then creating bottlenecks. For instance not continuing talks until fisheries are agreed. The UK will want to do a lot better on this than May did when it came to sequencing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Sure.. 'Nuance'. I was trying to understand how important you thought race was in all that nuance. You dodged that question noticeably. 

And, seeing we all appear to have common ground that Meghan has faced a barrage of abuse, I am curious as to why you consider it so important as to decide exactly what proportion of it is racist, to the extent of implying that you have won the argument if this is not decided.

 

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The interesting part will be whether the EU tries to hold up those talks by sequencing them and then creating bottlenecks. For instance not continuing talks until fisheries are agreed. The UK will want to do a lot better on this than May did when it came to sequencing. 

As for this, spoiler alert: negotiators do not sign off their agreement to give the other party what the other party wants and only then start negotiating for what they themselves want.

Also the idea that the EU is likely to try to hold up these talks is somewhat laughable given that so far it has consistently been the UK that has been delaying, moving the goalposts, firing off barrages of insults, etc, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to put a number on it, I would guess that at least half of all anti-immigration sentiment is racist (or more broadly ethnicist, as some anti-immigrant sentiment is towards technically the same race but ethnic sub-types that are seen as inferior versions of the race, not dissimilar to how Latinos in the USA are regarded as a sub-type of white, but are definitely subject to racist type prejudice). 

The rhetoric that is used is commonly coded, but not hard to decipher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way anybody here or most other places can know whether or not, before their announcement, the Duke and Duchess discussed any of this with Prince Charles, William, their grandmother, the firm's staff, etc.

I'll bet they did.  Which is why all these bleatings this weekend throughout the media about Will and Harry having some very unhappy talks before Instagram, and all the rest almost ever since the marriage -- when the blatant racism in so much of the Brit media exploded too.  To say "I didn't see it," well that's nice, but it was made certain that the Duchess saw it and heard it.

Princess Diana, back in the day, discussed her problems with her husband and with the queen and others before that bombshell public interview that revealed a marriage with three people in it was no marriage at all.  The queen didn't give a damn, and evidently neither did anybody else.

Nor was Diana a real outsider, for pete's sake!  She was a Spencer, from a family that has been connected to Brit royals often, for generations.  Kate isn't either, she's gone to all those schools, has all those same friends and is white and a Brit of impeccable family lines.  Camilla was just not quite the class that Diana was -- and she was divorced, so no, the queen didn't allow Charles to marry her.  Instead she forced him to take a girl much younger than himself, who knew nothing about anything -- total innocent, that's what females marrying into royalty are supposed to be, for pete's sake. 

You'd think they'd all remember something about the debacles of various previous royals who did that, you know, like Harry VIII and that girl-baby Katherine Howard, 17 years old, no learning, no training, no nothing.  All this reflecting the attitude of the ruling families that women just don't matter beyond delivering heirs and spares -- unless they are the Great Exceptions, such Elizabeth I, Victoria and Lizzie II. Deliver, put up and shut up.  That doesn't fly with Americans very much.

It particularly doesn't with a Duchess Sussex in her frackin' mid-30's, who made a lot of money by her own efforts, is knowledgeable and worldly, used to working hard, and used to being treated with a certain amount of respect for her work.  And then there is the racial dimension.  The UK is as filled with vile racism and loutism as the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these days we actually see a debate that has a very deep cultural roots. Americans has the view of Royal Family as some sort of celebrities, while Britons are so keen in differentiating the two terms. The cause of this is that Hollywood has its own rules that are so uniquely American. The notion of popular movie stars are not unfamiliar throughout the world, but Americans have elevated that concept. Simply, American movie star and IDK, Spanish movie star don't hold the same amount of power in their respective countries. This has been a huge debate - how different celebrities and royalty are? 

On the other hand, we have been discussing racism to death. This morning, I have watched an interview on ITV, where Camilla Tominney, an award winning journalist and a royal correspondent, spoke that there is a lot of anti-Americanism around Meghan, a lot of misogyny but not so much of racism. Basically, she admits that there are certain articles and press that have been indeed racist, but that we can't speak about general sentiment towards Meghan as being racist as much as misogynist (Harry also has an agenda) and directed towards her American roots. She spoke about multiculturalism and diversity in the Palace's establishment and I think that we can all agree that Palace's establishment in many ways are not just some mindless workers, but actually people of considerate power. 

Second, in couple of interviews today, people who claimed that British press has been generally racist failed to actually provide any instances. It was an argument that was spinning in circles...

"Where is the racism?"

"How can't you see the racism?"

"Can you please point us to the racist comments?"

"You got to be kidding"

And this has been going on. in infinite circles. People spoke about couple of articles (one being about Archie and the other about bouquet, then that she may or may not be from Compton). So, it seems that we have two views that both stand on its own - overwhelmingly, criticism was rooted in racism. Or the fact that criticism has been rooted in other issues like misogyny or anti-Americanism. And as was said, it seems we have all forgotten quite a lot of positive press that they have used to express themselves on their own terms. 

But, above all, whether they have been ousted, or they wanted a way out, regardless whether it was racism or misogyny, or most likely both, in the heart of the criticism towards them, I believe their entitlement is the biggest issue here. You wanted a house paid by public money and you got it, You now want a way out, but it becomes a logistical nightmare for all sides involved - who will pay their employees, their accommodation in US/Canada, security detail. They renounced 5% of their income, but not the money they get from Prince Charles, which, btw, is also a public money. They speak about financial independence, by using the titles in order to make a very lucrative deals. Now, who can guarantee that the pair will stay "well-behaved" in terms that royalty doesn't meddle in political affairs, which is a free land for Hollywood celebrities. And today, Queen gave blessing and they will spend a lot of time transitioning from public servants to private citizens. 

Simply, here we have a story of two entitled brats who want to have their cake and eat it and actually got it, because they publicized their issues. LUCKY BASTARDS :D

Really, we have to laugh at all of this. Now, everything is nice and dandy, the racism will stop once they move to Hollywood (Jesus, Mary and Joseph :D ) or Canada and Harry will tomorrow recover from losing his mother at 12. 

We have reached new levels of absurdity here. Finally, they can talk about environment from the comfort of private jet. and be safe from the evil journalists Hallelujah! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Risto said:

while Britons are so keen in differentiating the two terms.

Are we?


 

 

12 minutes ago, Risto said:

 

Simply, here we have a story of two entitled brats who want to have their cake and eat it and actually got it, because they publicized their issues. LUCKY BASTARDS

Nah, what we have here is two under-pressure humans trying to break free of the restrictions of their ridiculously outdated social position and poisonously controlling family, and the attendant not-allowed-to-escape-it-coz-that's-not-Royal media along with its coded racist bullshit and the cronies who deny that any serious racism can be involved. GOOD ON THEM. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Risto said:

Simply, here we have a story of two entitled brats who want to have their cake and eat it and actually got it, because they publicized their issues. LUCKY BASTARDS :D

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Are we?

Well, I think that the most discussions about this has been led about Meghan perhaps not understanding how the life of American celebrity is essentially different from the life of the British royal.

47 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Nah, what we have here is two under-pressure humans trying to break free of the restrictions of their ridiculously outdated social position and poisonously controlling family, and the attendant not-allowed-to-escape-it-coz-that's-not-Royal media along with its coded racist bullshit and the cronies who deny that any serious racism can be involved. GOOD ON THEM. 

 

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Yeah, but they are ready to break free from duties, not the money of that ridiculously outdated social position :D

Honestly, I am not sure about the family being so poisonous... the fact remains that whatever these two wanted at any point of their marriage and relationship, they actually got. Not to mention that there were already plans of trimming down the family. 

And lastly, as I said, racism will stop now. Because racism is only hitting the royals :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Risto said:

Yeah, but they are ready to break free from duties, not the money of that ridiculously outdated social position :D

Well yeah, if they're gonna resign from their roles as "senior" royals, then they should also cease being paid from the sovereign grant and daddy's largesse as well.  But if they do?  Then good for them, I don't see why anyone should give a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...