To think there’s little point vilifying Boris when he’s only echoing what millions want to hear?

[dameofdilemma]

Boris (I had to stop myself prefacing that with ‘that twat ‘) seems to have become some sort of pantomime villain but isn’t that a bit pointless?
He (and his cronies) are only voicing the opinions that they think will get them elected, the opinions probably held by millions of voters.

The right wing tabloid press are only printing the (vile) stories that their millions of readers agree with.

Much as Trump isn’t the problem, it’s the millions of voters who support him, who agree with his views, that are the real issue.

We’re entering a new era of fear, violence and division. There will be very few winners. Homelessness, poverty and job insecurity is on the rise. Public services are crippled by underfunding and underresourcing.

Personally we’re getting our ducks in a row to be as financially resilient as possible and to live in the most tolerant part of the country. Good luck everyone!

There is an extreme right wing take over of the UK happening in front of our eyes

No, there is not. Unclench

Oh yes, there is.

I am clenching very hard at the moment, wondering what has happened to so-called democracy in this country.

It is beyond frightening that BJ is in charge at the moment and will probably remain in charge, due to the short-sightedness of the populace who support anyone who will take them out of the EU, without realising what this will cost the country.

Yes it is frightening. They keep interviewing people from towns up north where the majority voted for Brexit and they seem to love BJ. They think he is the man of the people and working class🤷🏻‍♀️

History needs to be better understood.

It didn't start with gas chambers.

Im in a parallel universe where Boris , attempting to remove us from EU, is the baddie and every other screaming dervish MP is doing anything and everything to stop him enacting this democratically voted on decision.

We don’t live in a direct democracy. The referendum was advisory.

It didn't start with gas chambers.

For the love of god.

This isn’t going to end with organized genocide. Stop scaremongering.

Both extremes have become more prominent. This is extreme turbulence, it’s not incipient mass murder.

We should be more concerned with bridging the fundamental divide Brexit has caused so that the hardliners have less panic to feed from.

I'm an atheist.

It could end that way. It probably won't because our system will probably, eventually expel the likes of Boris, Reese-Mog, Farage etc.

The recent court ruling was evidence of this.

However we are arrogant in the extreme to think that we are immune to the horrors of extremism.

I don't want to rely on 'probably'.

The thing that people who support Johnson’s actions and words in the name of “getting brexit done” fail to realise is that if you allow his means, if the country and MPs and legislature permit his way of doing things, it sets a precedent for how prime ministers are allowed to behave for the future, including the ones you disagree with. Do you want a PM to be able to prorogue parliament in bad faith in order to enact something that you see as enormously damaging, or do you want there to be checks and balances that stop them acting unlawfully? Remember that what Johnson is permitted to do now, your personal theoretical bogeyman PM (corbyn, perhaps, or Swindon, whoever you choose as the worst case scenario) would be able to do the same and you wouldn’t be able to complain about it.

Some people are gullible and believe all they're told. I think some people are so personally invested in Brexit having voted for it that they'll never change their minds now despite all the evidence of what might actually happen.

This is my dad, if it's in the torygraph he believes it.

We had a conversation yesterday, he said Corbyn was saying he would 'let anyone in to the country, and let them vote', I was saying that an EU national who has a British souse and British children who has been in the county 20 years is more invested in this country than a commonwealth citizen on a gap year but the latter was allowed to vote in the referendum.

History needs to be better understood.

It didn't start with gas chambers.

It started by demonising and killing disabled people.

*swinson

I'm an atheist.

It’s an expression. In common usage.

It could end that way. It probably won't because our system will probably, eventually expel the likes of Boris, Reese-Mog, Farage etc.

Of course it will.

The recent court ruling was evidence of this.

No it’s not.

However we are arrogant in the extreme to think that we are immune to the horrors of extremism.

Well that’s why we need to start healing the rift. The danger is that the polarization persists and worsens.

I don't want to rely on 'probably'.

Start lobbying for a less divisive approach.

and to live in the most tolerant part of the country.

@dameofdilemma I take it you’re moving to London, then? Welcome.

And millions disagree in case you haven't noticed, which is Brexit in a nutshell. Why should the views of right wing nutters take precedence over ours? I can only come to the conclusion that, on balance, its been decided they are more likely to indulge themselves in civil disturbance, as frequently threatened, so need to be mollified. Just the way to deal with it. Well done fascist imitators.

Agree to an extent but I think you’re letting him, and perhaps the media, off a bit lightly. I think these powerful figures, who know how to use language to manipulate, create their audiences rather than (except perhaps in extreme cases) the audiences existing first and our leaders simply acting as a mouthpiece for their views. Inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. ‘surrender bill’, ‘traitors’) gives people a means to own and articulate views they may not otherwise have held, or certainly not as strongly / emotionally.

The thing that people who support Johnson’s actions and words in the name of “getting brexit done” fail to realise is that if you allow his means, if the country and MPs and legislature permit his way of doing things, it sets a precedent for how prime ministers are allowed to behave for the future, including the ones you disagree with. Do you want a PM to be able to prorogue parliament in bad faith in order to enact something that you see as enormously damaging, or do you want there to be checks and balances that stop them acting unlawfully?

Well of course. But we must stop pretending that Boris has inexplicably turned rogue and is doing all this off the cuff.

The course of action he’s pursuing now is in accord with a national referendum result. I know that’s inconvenient, but you can’t just disregard it.

It’s quite the liberal-remainer fashion to keep parroting “THE REFERENDUM WAS ADVISORY” as if that is a magic spell that will take us back four years and make the whole sorry mess go away. It’s not and it won’t.

If we try to just shrug off the referendum, this will get very nasty.

I’d we crash out, and Labour make themselves unelectable for the next two terms, this will get very nasty.

We need a solution that doesn’t fob off the 17 million, but on the other hand, that doesn’t destroy the NHS and the welfare state just as the economic hits the icy patch.

Nobody’s doing anything to steer us there.

And millions disagree in case you haven't noticed, which is Brexit in a nutshell. Why should the views of right wing nutters take precedence over ours?

And vice versa.

We’re not going to square the circle by all sitting around indulging our personal distaste for Boris.

I can only come to the conclusion that, on balance, its been decided they are more likely to indulge themselves in civil disturbance, as frequently threatened, so need to be mollified. Just the way to deal with it. Well done fascist imitators.

It’s tempting to frame it that way, isn’t it? “Oh the leave voters are so thick that they voted for something unspeakable and such thugs that they’ll kick up a fuss when their referendum vote is roundly ignored. So now we have to pacify the Neanderthals....”

But it’s worth doing the thought experiment to consider what would be happening now if Remain had won the vote, but most of Parliament and the middle classes thought Leave was the ‘correct’ course so they were pushing for that while a divisive PM tried to push through the referendum result (tying us in somehow)?

Is it so surprising that ignoring a popular vote is considered dangerous?

If we don’t all start employing advanced empathy, this is going to get a lot worse.

“The course of action he’s pursuing now is in accord with a national referendum result. I know that’s inconvenient, but you can’t just disregard it.”

Regardless of how anyone voted, he should not be supported in his “by any means, including unlawfully, including enabling threats of violence” means of enacting the result. There are plenty of leave voters excusing his actions. I said absolutely nothing about “the referendum was advisory” etc - I am talking about people needing to understand that if they support any means of getting what they want, they will not be able to complain about someone using those means to do something they don’t want.

I think part of the reason people keep saying ‘the referendum was advisory’ is because of the language being used about people (‘liberal’ or otherwise - is that now a term of insult btw?) who still don’t support the idea that we should leave. It’s one thing to be encouraged to support something you didn’t originally vote for; another to be called ‘traitor’, ‘unpatriotic’ and accused of ‘betrayal’ of ‘the people’. Not that BJ has the monopoly on this style of language, but, as has been shown this week, his battle rhetoric isn’t exactly helping tempers to cool.

I think it's a bit more complex than that. A few have created a narrative which has been perpetuated through tabloid media and then reinforced and played on by Boris at al. The propaganda machine has played on frustrations created by capitilism but blames migrants and the eu, which serves the few who spout it. Murdoch, Rees-Mog, Farage and Johnson etc... he doesn't echo the ideas that existed, he is reinforcing the ideass that have been planted.

And the referendum result wasn’t ‘ignored’, as some have suggested. An exit deal was negotiated and brought to Parliament three times. Among other things (e.g. people still being entitled to their opinions) turned out that the Ireland problem couldn’t be ignored either.

Regardless of how anyone voted, he should not be supported in his “by any means, including unlawfully, including enabling threats of violence” means of enacting the result. There are plenty of leave voters excusing his actions.

I think it’s a mistake to get endlessly bogged down in this. (And “enabling threats of violence” is hyperbolic. It really is.)

It’s a unique situation, created by a complicated range of factors. If David Cameron hadn’t tinkered with parliamentary terms, for example, we wouldn’t be in this deadlock with nobody able to call a General Election. That would historically be the “correct” next step in this situation.

We have a major issue that Constitution now doesn’t work as it should. But we’ll have to address that later.

This isn’t a simple case of a PM gone beserk with power.

Parliament voted down every permutation of a deal May put in front of them. The blame for this crisis isn’t all on Johnson’s head.

I said absolutely nothing about “the referendum was advisory” etc -

No I know you haven’t, but others doing keep repeating it.

am talking about people needing to understand that if they support any means of getting what they want, they will not be able to complain about someone using those means to do something they don’t want.

As above. That’s really a very one sided analysis.

think part of the reason people keep saying ‘the referendum was advisory’ is because of the language being used about people (‘liberal’ or otherwise - is that now a term of insult btw?) who still don’t support the idea that we should leave.

No, I’d count myself as liberal. I’m not really a remainer any more. I honestly think we have to drop all that while we get through the chicanes.

The implication of “the referendum was advisory” is that we don’t need to abide by the outcome. How can that possibly be something anyone sensible is still suggesting?

It’s too late now for any of that.

It’s one thing to be encouraged to support something you didn’t originally vote for; another to be called ‘traitor’, ‘unpatriotic’ and accused of ‘betrayal’ of ‘the people’. Not that BJ has the monopoly on this style of language, but, as has been shown this week, his battle rhetoric isn’t exactly helping tempers to cool.

You’re right, it’s on all sides, the name calling, but Boris isn’t exactly emollient in his style and it’s seriously unhelpful. But so is standing around arguing about the name calling.

“That’s really a very one sided analysis.”

No it isn’t. It is about how we expect those in power to behave, whether we agree with their politics or not. I’m not focused on remain or leave now, other than avoiding no deal - my concern is a slide into authoritarianism which there is still a chance of halting

I think we have to recognise that something has gone wrong with the mechanism.

noodlenosefraggle
There are a lot of people in this country who don't vote who voted in the referendum and feel disenfranchised

True

(partly because they have disenfranchised themselves by not voting).

This is not even "partly" the case.

People are disenfranchised because the main parties have ignored them for years and under a two party FPTP system there is nothing that they can do to change it.