I really don't understand what you are all talking about!

[Corcory]

I keep reading how upset people are with the speeches at the conservative party conference and what TM has said and what she intends to do. I keep hearing about all the xenophobia and racism in the conservative party.
Someone on another thread talked about TM's ' citizen of the world' speech and how aghast they were. What exactly are you talking about?
I really feel too many people are reading headlines or taking parts of speeches out of context and spinning them way beyond the truth.
So many of the posters on here are EU citizens and are becoming ever more frightened by the rhetoric . I really don't think it is at all fair to hype this all up and frighten people. I absolutely abhor any racist taunts or comments that too many people have had thrown at them. That sort of attitude must be called out and stamped on straight away.
But winding things up with untruths isn't helping.
The last time I brought up the fact that 'quotes' from the party speeches were inaccurate I was told in no uncertain terms I was being patronizing!

Yes. Really.

Cocory - apologies if you have been asked this before, but what do you think of Trump and the anti-immigrant movement in the US? Do you see it as equivalent to some of the anti-immigrant statements made recently in this country? Would you justify it on similar grounds?

And if you dislike Trump, what about his policies do you think is wrong?

Firstly Red. May I say that I really don't think you get the point of my thread at all. I am certainly not suggesting that posters who are EU nationals shouldn't be concerned. I would also say that I absolutely abhor the racist and xenophobic actions of a minority of the population. What I have been trying to express is that I feel there is far too much jumping onto a band waggon and making out that the government said things they didn't or that they are all fascists or Nazis. I abhor the brown shirted TM on Facebook etc. This should not be tolerated and should be called out as it is making people much more fearful than need be and is feeding into that fear.
As for Trump. I absolutely hate Trump. I always have, he is a vile misogynistic bully of a man. He is also stupid as he says completely unrealistic things like getting the Mexicans to build a wall or how he has no idea how the internet works or the effects of a nuclear bomb!! You get the picture stripeymonkey?

But you see no similarity between the use of the term foreign in the US context and use of the term foreign in the UK context?

How do you personally know that people are more fearful than they need to be when the racist and xenophobic minority includes most of the cabinet and at least one leader (or former leader) of a political party?

Twofingers - I was well aware of the implications of limiting immigration. However the leave campaign were quite specific in stating that they didn't want any EU nationals currently living here have to leave. As far as I'm concerned that will be the case. Oh of course the EU will have to agree to keeping our nationals too.

Is that the same leave campaign that had the infamous bus slogan which we're now told was 'an aspiration' and which we're also told 'nobody believed'? Do you understand, given that they were a campaign group and had no authority to make promises, how weak that makes their promise about EU nationals look? Do you understand that the campaign of lies means that no-one can feel reassured by anything that was said? You're saying 'as far as I'm concerned that will be the case'. What confidence, given the multitudinous other lies. Do you see why others may not share your confidence?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

Twofingers - the government has also said that they would want all EU nationals currently here to stay.

Corcory I have read and reread Theresa May's actual words and they are designed to enlist the popular vote and in doing so they discount the identities and values of a large proportion of the vote, some of the 48%, and some of the 51% too. She claims a mandate from a "revolution" on the back of defining a them and us.

The us

^"But change has got to come too because of the quiet revolution that took place in our country just three months ago – a revolution in which millions of our fellow citizens stood up and said they were not prepared to be ignored anymore.

It was about a sense – deep, profound and let’s face it often justified – that many people have today that the world works well for a privileged few, but not for them

Knock on almost any door in almost any part of the country, and you will find the roots of the revolution laid bare."^

Almost any door really when 48%did not vote for this (though for a myriad of different reasons)?

^"And the roots of the revolution run deep. Because it wasn’t the wealthy who made the biggest sacrifices after the financial crash, but ordinary, working class families.

And if you’re one of those people who lost their job, who stayed in work but on reduced hours, took a pay cut as household bills rocketed, or - and I know a lot of people don’t like to admit this - someone who finds themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration, life simply doesn’t seem fair."^

Now of course a significant proportion of the population, including some of the wealthy, have been trying to hold the government to account for making life more unfair, and imposing the burden of the austerity on the poor and disadvantaged, rather than low paid immigrants. They have done so with considerable validity, you can not deny the cuts to welfare that have made the lives of many disadvantaged people more difficult and stressful, but no matter if you have questioned the lurch right you are defined as the them

^"Just listen to the way a lot of politicians and commentators talk about the public.

They find your patriotism distasteful, your concerns about immigration parochial, your views about crime illiberal, your attachment to your job security inconvenient.

They find the fact that more than seventeen million voters decided to leave the European Union simply bewildering.

Because if you’re well off and comfortable, Britain is a different country and these concerns are not your concerns. It’s easy to dismiss them - easy to say that all you want from government is for it to get out of the way."^

And if you do identify as a citizen of the world and hold with the value of common humanity that has guided the development of our democracy and politics since the enlightenment then you must be identifying with the "elites" a bit of rhetoric borrowed straight out of the UKIP vocabulary. Implicit in May's statement " a citizen of the world is a citizen of nowhere" is that you cannot be a citizen of the world and a responsible citizen of your country of birth, your country of adoption, and your local community.

^"That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.

But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.

But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."^

As red rightly points out this binary definition of a them and us took important parts of the identities and values of many amongst the 48% and implicitly branded them part of an "other" to be held responsible for the frustrations of many of the 51%. Of course the identities and values of the core Conservative vote don't really figure at all but perhaps she can count on them not "to feel left behind". I assume you are one of the latter from what you have said before so like red it makes me sad to think that people are swallowing it all without seeing through what she, or more likely her speech writers, operating straight out of the UKIP manual, was saying both explicitly and implicitly.

As previous posters have said if Theresa May wanted to devalue my identity and alienate me from my country she has succeeded.

And I am sorry but as an historian this technique of enlisting popular support by directing their frustrations on to particular sections of society is nothing new whether it was the Jewish community or capitalist running dogs / the bourgeoisie........

Corcory it was framed slightly differently though, wasn't it? Rather than saying "we welcome EU nationals who have settled here to remain and be treated as equal citizens" they stated that it sadly will not be possible to deport all those EU citizens who are already here. Very, very different tone and approach. Very divisive. I cannot believe that EU citizens have been branded as second class citizens by Brexit politics. It's despicable.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Mrs May's husband extremely wealthy? What are she and her husband if not Metropolitan elite?

And this is how that speech made UK scientists feel, one of the sectors of society she later claims are going to be nurtured (though several of the Nobel prize winners she also mentions have publicly endorsed this view)

"
Scientists for EU
5 October at 16:47 ·
“if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere” That's what Teresa May just said.

And in doing so, she snubs international communities like the UK science community. We are proud citizens of everywhere, gathering in multinational vibrant labs all over the world. Through global teamwork, we deliver better health, energy, technology and environment for all. That was the whole point of the #ScienceIsGlobal hashtag. It's a statement about a focus on shared responsibility and identity. Humanity. We utterly reject her crass notion that being a proud citizen of the world somehow removes your UK citizenship... makes you a reject - to be ostracised from your own country. Just like the false division between being British and European. Being a citizen of the world is a badge of pride and vision to be worn alongside your pride in your town of birth, your country of birth and the country in which you make your living. Please share if you agree. #ProudCitizenOfTheWorld"

Her speech steamed of hypocrisy from beginning to end.

You either join us or you are against us.

As for measured responses, I think it good that some people are 'hysterical'. If they were not, then it would be even easier to dismiss and ignore and say there is no problem here. Measured responses and appeals to makes sure that the views of everyone were considered in a post referendum consultation have been totally ignored and the government has made a unilateral decision about what Brexit means.

This is the most important decision for a generation. It will affect people who didn't vote for it disproportionately. This includes people who do not have the right to vote - EU citizens here who will stay indefinitely due to family and may have to change pay to have the same rights they currently have by becoming British citizens and may discriminated against even then or be forced to leave with their families, British citizens living abroad who still have close links to the UK or may have to rescind their citizenship to retain the same rights or face moving back to the UK and those not old enough to vote. People who have been told that because they can not vote they are not of value to this country and their voice is unimportant.

Its all about how British you are, and 'proving' your loyalty to this country somehow.

I readily call myself a citizen of the world and it is a direct attack on my identity. This country has strength in its people being ambassadors for it in a variety of ways. But I am also a citizen of here and my local community. The amount myself and husband do for that community has just been rubbished. She draw a line saying the two are incompatible. They aren't they just aren't. Communities are not the same as before they have evolved and changed. Mumsnet is a community, of which we are part and it is a productive one which often allows people that important opportunity to look outside their bubble. By the same token we are citizen of the world when we use the internet to look beyond our British bubble and be part of a worldwide community. She wants to discourage this.

The speech was very much the opposite of JFK's inaugural speech and took themes and ideas from it and reversed them. It was trying to turn us inward not encourage us to see community and identity as having many levels, each important in their own way.

I am white British - that speech will have cut deeper with people who don't fit that model and will be an assault on their identity even more. It does not have to be an either or choice. There are more choices available out there.

Instead it feeds the idea of conformity and a singular identity of Britishness. This has never been the case. The United Kingdom has been a nation of identities - you are no less British because you are Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish. Each of these corners of the UK manage multiple identities without conflict. May is even trying to attack these though, with her attitude the way they voted in the referendum. The power they cherish and fought hard for is likely to be undermined or removed.

And don't even get me started on her derision for human rights and human rights lawyers. I like my civil liberties thanks. They are VERY important to me.

It is 'hysterical' to get angry and annoyed at her vision being one that destroys the very fabric and ideals that many hold very dear to them.

My arse it is. The time for 'measured' replies went with that speech as May demonstrated that they were not working and she was going to ride rough shot over people. People are not going to be steam rollered though. They will fight for what they believe.

In terms of responses not being measured and then therefore being more divisive, I disagree. The tone has already been set by May and there isn't much further we can go down that route by being quiet. There needs to be both an angry and 'hysterical' response for it to be noticed and taken seriously. This does not mean that within that you can not make points and argue the case.

Excellent post Red

Red, I think you are replying to me in your post. You have given a clear and measured response. It is thoughtful and articulate. You didn't post a picture of TM dressed at Hitler Youth. That would have been hysterical.

Yes, we should make ourselves heard, yes be vocal about injustice, yes, urge your MP to stand behind the Human Rights laws when this are being redrafted into British law. I believe that is a good way to be listened to. Talking about Nazi's and extrapolating/generalising about the whole population based on anecdotes about racist shopkeepers is sensationalist and divisive, in my opinion.

"Talking about Nazi's and extrapolating/generalising about the whole population based on anecdotes about racist shopkeepers is sensationalist and divisive, in my opinion." If you have any knowledge of the years leading up to '39 in Germany you can see the parallels of othering, blaming a population group on all the ills of society, taking away gradually rights from one population group and the hostile political rhetoric of May. Portraying her like Hitler is indeed hyperbolic but that's caricature à la Charlie Hebdo for you isn't it. Tasteless, hyperbolic or poignant deepening on where you stand but totally acceptable in a democracy. Drawing parallels between the 1930s and Brexit rhetoric is not hyperbole at all, which you will realise if you read up on this period of time. Nazi Germany did not just happened from one day to another, I doubt posters are saying that EU citizens will end up in gas chambers but that the process of othering endorsed and promoted by government is dangerously nationalistic.

I sometimes fear that people might think that fascism arrives in fancy dress worn by grotesques and monsters as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis. Fascism arrives as your friend. It will restore your honour, make you feel proud, protect your house, give you a job, clean up the neighbourhood, remind you of how great you once were, clear out the venal and the corrupt, remove anything you feel is unlike you...It doesn't walk in saying, "Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."

Poem by Michael Rosen which sums up the idea of 'slow creep' and the slippery slope better than I can.

It is not wrong to be vigilant. Nor is it hysterical.

Brexit is being driven by and large by ideology over and above evidence and respected wisdom. There are dangers in this, and traps that must be avoided.

There is much to suggest that those traps are being stomped all over in disregard.

Vote leave won because a large, disillioned element of the population felt hard done by by lack of job opportunities and the ability of big companies to draft in better skilled workers from Europe easily (added bonus is that a lot of them are prepared to work for lower wages than home grown workers). People are bitter and are willing to listen to racist jingoism from the likes of Farage. Farage might have had an ideology of sorts, but not many of the people who listened to him did. They were just disgruntled and so latched onto an easy argument - blaming 'others'.

The leave voters who are opposed to ever increasing expansion of the EU didn't win it for the Leave campaign. The disenfranchised did. The blame for that lies with whomever trashed the economy in the UK and then rubbed people's noses in their misfortune - so Labour then the Tories.

Who knows what TM's ideology is - she certainly isn't a fan of immigration but do we know why? Maye she's a raving xenophobe or maybe she's a pround natonality or mathe she beleven BRita in could or should do better. It's not clear from her muddled mixed message stance.

She is digging in and not allowing Parliament to debate the terms oF Brexit- why? Because she's a Fascist dictator driven by ideology, or because she wants to play the UK's cards close to their chest and keep all her fighting factions under control? My bet is more to the latter. Not saying that's the best way - I have absolutely no idea whats the best way to handle his, having never been a politician or had any dealings with the machinations of Parliament.

Brexit is way too complicated to argue that it's being driven by ideology. But that's how people are now trying to pigeon hole it.

I am not at all happy that we are leaving the EU. I think it's going to cause heartache and fuel racism (already has) but if WW3 is going to happen, it's going to be down to Putin or Trump, and meanwhile we are going around calling TM a dictator or even a psychopath (someone upthread) instead of paying attention to the real nutters.

Been away so playing catch up.

Travelling back on the train, picked up this thread, Corcory and read, 'But winding things up with untruths isn't helping.' Now that put a smile on my face, thinking about what David Davis said about untruths. Not a problem apparently.

Haven't read every post but noticed ones on NHS and Tories – example, ten years ago our County Town's A&E department had four ambulances. Despite thousands of houses being built in its catchment area we still have four. Another example, friend, aged 60 has been diagnosed with hole in heart – GP says he'll make an urgent appointment – that turns out to be 22nd December. I think the Tories are letting the NHS fail to encourage people to go private.

I really don't understand what you are all talking about!

Being away didn't hear any speeches or BBC/channel 4 accounts.

However, weekend Telegraph had a Reader's Letter summing up the speeches, 'North Korea with grammar schools.'

Philip Collins, last Friday's Times, “(PM) has recast June 23 as a mandate for illiberal domestic policy.”

Saturday Telegraph, highlights that the Leave campaign was strong on our democracy, having freedom and now finding that is delusional.

Saturday Guardian, an article headed, "Someone must speak for the 48%.”

Even the Express quotes Hunt as saying, "I think people will ask whether it’s right that, when we’re turning away bright British youngsters from medical school, at the same time we are importing people from all over the world.” Under the heading, "Jeremy Hunt hints Brexit could see foreign doctors face the cut.”

Not difficult for me to see what people are talking about.

The Express is running its front page tomorrow with the headline:
Time to silence EU Exit Whingers: Forget arrogant Remainers... we must slash ties with Brussels NOW.

Nope. No problem at all.

In response, I've just seen this quote:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society... then the tolerance will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant"
Karl R. Popper.

"[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence"

Roger Griffin, in 'The Palingenetic Core of Generic Fascist Ideology' (2003)

Discuss with reference to the following themes enunciated by Theresa May in her speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 2016:
Revolution
State intervention/statism
Backward and forward looking simultaneously
Threat posed by international elite who are 'others'
Radical renewal
The word 'They'

The Daily Mail is at it too: "Damn the unpatriotic Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people".

But we're just silly people winding each other up, right?

The Express headline illustrates the same problem, just from the other side. It's a knee jerk, sound-bite style response, designed to stir people up in the same way the 'satire' of TM as a brown shirt is.

People need to acknowledge the complexities of this situation from a central stance, not a polarised one, and the debate is getting ever more polarised and fueled by fear. The reporting of the value of the pound is another example: the reasons for it dropping are not solely because of Brexit wobbles, but you wouldn't know this if you only read the paper headlines.

No-one is saying we should all sit back and tolerate everything (or be complacent, which is what you seem to be implying Red). But arguing on a forum about how we should all fear TM isn't exactly constructive.

As for debating your seven points, maths, in the context of a dense academic quote about what fascism is from a history professor.... give over. That makes me suspect you just want to prove how clever you are, which isn't the spirit of this thread.

It takes us full circle, back to the OP's post though, doesn't it? Looking at your list, I'd say that, yes, the speech was muddled and full of mixed messages, and that there was some dodgy and careless language used. And others (not saying you necessarily) would say TM a racist xenophobe who is has sinister ambitions.

These sort of discussion don't tend to change people's minds, do they? Everyone just ends up feeling annoyed that they haven't 'turned' the opposition.

Have your say if it makes you feel better, but I don't think anyone is going to end up feeling smug or vindicated for being 'right'. All sorts of things are going to come out of this and some will be good and some will be bad. That's what change is like.

My faith that we are still fundamentally a decent and tolerant society hasn't been squashed, only dented.

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying Wellthatsit but in summary you seem to be concluding that we ought not discuss this because it won't help, or will wind people up, but instead should accept what changes come with faith it will turn out fine?

The Express has this to say about people exercising their right of free speech, how can this be dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders? This is surely incitement?

You can sum up in one sentence the disgusting opinions of the rabble of MPs who are demanding a Commons vote on Brexit: "The people have spoken, we don't like what they said because they aren't as clever as us so let's ignore them and try to reverse the referendum result" Such snake-like treachery cannot go unpunished.

Here's what I would do with them: clap them in the Tower of London. They want to imprison us against our will in the EU so we should give them 28 days against their will to reflect on the true meaning of democracy. We're in the midst of an exhilarating people's revolution and those who stand in the way of the popular will must take what's coming to them.

Well This is an argument that has arisen on these Brexit threads which I have seen nowhere else on Mumsnet, that evidence based debate of the issues is somehow intimidating, "haranging" is a word that has been used, for other posters and gets nobody anywhere. Therefore posters like Maths should desist. I have had lots of long and tortuous, tiresome even, debates with Maths on other issues on other threads but never before seen anyone suggest that people should not engage in debating each other's points of view because facts /expert opinion is somehow scary?

I first joined the Mumsnet community as a result of a local issue that was being passionately debated in real life, in the press and on the local thread here, this in spite of identifying as a citizen of the world . In real life it ultimately resulted in a strong pressure group being formed in opposition to the local Council which helped give rise to a national pressure group, a judicial review, and though the review did not succeed in stopping the local government initiative it did turn the supertanker of their policy a few degrees and on these pages local people decided to get on themselves with providing what the local Council was failing to.

The debate on the local thread was passionate, even nasty, at times but the norm was always that posters should provide linked evidence for their views in the debate. The outcome was positive in that both sides of the debate achieved a positive outcome for the community as a whole, one that is providing benefits to many now. We know that local politicians and council officials still read the thread because it gives them insight into how local people feel and helps hold them accountable, they cannot get away with policy that favours one part of the community over others in the way they once did. If you come on that thread with an uninformed view it will pretty quickly be taken apart, and that is why many in the local community read it, because it continues to inform, as well as having actually achieved tangible benefits.

In spite of a paucity of evidence based argument on the part of the leavers, really only Topsy is providing that, I have certainly learnt a lot from these threads. If I had evidence that supported my view and I believed in it I would not be put off posting here whatever that view was. In spite of that I have learnt a lot from these threads, this one included, it caused me to go and study TMs actual words.

You maintain Theresa May's speech was muddled but I agree with Red that if you look at the words used there is plenty of evidence that the speech writers were utilising the rhetoric originated by UKIP and perpetuated in the pro Brexit press to mobilise support for May and that they were doing so by creating a false division between a us, the hard done by struggling working classes embarking on a joint "revolution*, and the them of the "elites" be they liberal or global. Thereby claiming a mandate for the policy direction she goes on to outline, nominally centre ground, but in reality interventionist. I am sure it would appear muddling to a traditional Tory voter sat in a comfortable Home Counties armchair but if you actually read it from the perspective of the audience it was aimed at, those voters who turned out to vote leave out of frustration with the impact of austerity, the growing UKIP vote, those mobilised by the anti immigration rhetoric in the press, it was anything but.

Surely it is good that we are all learning whilst engaging in debate, and I know that it is also manifesting itself in actions being taken in real life.