Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders. Boris and co learn the basics - and limits - of British sovereignty and democracy.

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 16:42

There is a plan.

It is not a very good one, but May says she has a plan.

As May declared a revolution and set out her vision for a Britain ‘open’ for free trade and hard working people she managed to further drive in the wedge of division into a society which needed measured and sensitive handling.

Her speech was met, with much derision and horror both here and abroad. Even UKIP voices say the Conservatives went too far.

Brexit began to take shape. It appeared hard and fast. Without the consent of parliament. It was to be run by the executive alone. As the ex-Polish Foreign Minister points out, the shape of it decided because it was viewed as the ‘easiest’ option. Not the one in the best interests of the country. Leaving the EU has become indistinguishable to the Single Market. We are told by Mr Davis that there is no down side to this.

Then something else began to happen and the plan is beginning to not look so clever…

The pound plunged.

Mr Hammond, who has seemed to have resisted the urge to take the hallucinatory drugs being handed out in vast quantities around the Cabinet Table, came out saying that we must consider the economic reality of Brexit.

It was followed by a leaked paper that put the cost of Hard Brexit at between £38bn and £66bn a year. Our EU membership cost £8bn last year. Where are those NHS buses now?

The government response? Oh that was George. He just made it up for ‘Project Fear’. Or something to that effect.

The government on the one hand were saying how great Brexit will be, yet were not prepared to make the case in parliament. The Times editorial came out as categorically for the Single Market. Even the Sun on Sunday editorial spoke up for the Single Market (though was still in the land of cake wanting immigration control too).

David Davis took to the Commons to answer questions and was met with a chorus of rising alarm. Whilst he confirmed that the majority of EU citizens here do have their right to remain here as being their legal entitlement, it does not guarantee their rights under this. He echoed the language of the citizen of nowhere in May’s speech and, perhaps can be seen to make, the stark message that you should consider taking on British Citizenship.

Parliament has started to wake up to what is at stake. It is not just whether we stay in the EU or not, but Brexit presents a challenge to democratic processes and threatens to bypass the checks and balances to power that parliament is supposed to provide. It is a threat to our international reputation as a champion of liberal values and democratic stature. It is a threat to our economic security. It is a threat to our diplomatic relations, with the reckless comments and language coming from some. .

The stirrings of rebellion and a credible opposition come from a variety of quarters. From both leavers and remainers alike. From every party including the governments. Initially the government refused to give, so Labour announced an opposition debate on transparency of Brexit and it all started to fall apart. Faced with a vote they could not get enough support to win they made an apparent U-Turn and agreed to parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s position ahead of a50 within certain limits.

Keir Starmer, making the point that Human Rights Lawyers are not to be messed with, has written 170 questions, one for every day before the end of March when a50 is due to be triggered, for Davis to respond to.

However, the agreement to this debate on negotiations is none binding and there is no date for it as yet. The government must not be allowed to pay lip service to rebels. They must be held to this reversal.

Today’s opposition debate seems to suggest that the government definition of scrutiny is wheeling out David Davies and get him to waffle a lot and not say anything. This has gone down like a lead balloon. The government can not maintain this. Something will give. He has still refused to release a green or white paper which many expected.

May’s choice will be blunt. She either keeps pretending Santa is real and can deliver the pony whilst losing the house in the process or she owns up to the looming cold hard truth of reality.

May might be fully committed to taking us off the cliff top no matter what but she’s going to have to fight to get there.

In the best interests of the country the pressure must be kept up. There must be resistance to the ‘Little England’ mentality and orders by the Mail and the Express to silence those unpatriotic ‘agents of Brussels’ who are raising legitimate concerns that need to be considered as part of the process.

Its either this or we will have to rely on the proposed new Royal Yacht to send Kate off round the world begging for trade deals “to once again project the prestige of this nation across the globe” as Mr Gove says. Prestige we still had before the referendum was announced.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Kaija · 14/10/2016 10:07

I heard a theory way back that the reason the East coast of England is so hostile to foreigners is that they have always been on the front line of invasions into the country, from the Vikings onwards...

RedToothBrush · 14/10/2016 10:44

Swanley (Kent) result:
CON: 32.4% (-8.6)
UKIP: 27.8% (+7.9)
LAB: 23.4% (-8.9)
LDEM: 16.4% (+16.4)

Broadstone (Poole) result:
LDEM: 69.3% (+24.0)
CON: 23.3% (-13.2)
UKIP: 4.2% (-7.5)
GRN: 1.8% (-4.8)
LAB: 1.4% (+1.4)

OP posts:
CeciledeVolanges · 14/10/2016 10:48

Kaija have we had any invasions since 1066?!

RedToothBrush · 14/10/2016 12:03

Mark Carney
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37652467
Mark Carney has been speaking at a public event with charities and other third sector organisations in Nottingham.

"We are willing to tolerate a bit of an overshoot [on inflation] to avoid unnecessary unemployment,"
With the fall in the value of sterling, some economists now predict that inflation will hit 3% by the end of next year as imports of things like food and fuel become more expensive.
On the issue of inequality, Mr Carney said: "We care a lot about distribution. But we are not a political entity."
He said a lot of people were still "scarred" by the financial crisis.

Another comment about the government needing to do more and it not just being down to the BoE.

US Banks
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-michel-sapin-france-us-banks-move-london-exodus-a7360681.html
French Minister of Finance say US Banks are moving out of London

Sapin revealed that the executives of major US banks have told him they were working on contingency plans, after their meeting last week in Washington.

“While in Washington I spoke to large American businesses and banks,” Sapin said at press conference in Paris.^

“Until now their question was whether Brexit will happen or might it take longer than expected. That’s over. They are telling us clearly that there will be a transfer of activity. It’s no longer a question of if but when. I don’t know to what extent or which ones.”

"That's the inevitable consequence whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations," he added.

Airport expansion
This might sound completely unBrexit related but the issue of Heathrow expansion is one that May is facing a possible rebellion on. Earlier this week it was suggested that next week the government were going to give the green light on Heathrow, Gatwick AND Birmingham airports. So when you see:

George Osborne ‏@George_Osborne
We can consider Gatwick expansion. But not at the expense of Heathrow - and not in parallel or else, in practice, nothing will get built.

You can reasonably start to assume that someone is smelling blood and that the changes of that rebellion are definitely there.

Scotland
First of all two articles which say Sturgeon’s chances of success are slim.
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/nicola-sturgeon-caught-independence-referendum-fix/
Nicola Sturgeon is caught in an independence referendum fix

This one makes the observation:
As ever with the SNP, the game is to set a test that the UK Government will fail. In her case, it’s the fantasy that Brexit will mean that Britain stays within the EU customs block.

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/10/14/nicola-sturgeon-is-starting-a-fight-she-will-struggle-to-win
Nicola Sturgeon is starting a fight she will struggle to win

Today it seemed to have made a lot plainer that the move is not about Independence but about the Single Market.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nicola-sturgeon-wants-creative-solutions-9043616
Nicola Sturgeon wants 'creative solutions' to allow Scotland to stay in single market if UK leaves

So these creative solutions? How practical is it for Scotland to stay in the Single Market when it comes to Brexit?
eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/scotland-and-brexit-brave-heart-or.html
Scotland and Brexit: Brave Heart or Timorous Beastie?

Steve Peers, an EU Lawyer, blogs about the practicalities.

Article 50
Case not being heard in court today but challenge supporting lawyer Jo Maugham has written this for the FT
www.ft.com/content/82631c70-9164-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78
The Article 50 challenge shows parliament should have its say
The legal arguments are finely balanced but favour the claimants, writes Jolyon Maugham

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 14/10/2016 12:05

The Tusk Speech

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
This speech should be read carefully by everyone (on any "side") interested in Brexit.
Having had pleasure of reading every speech on Brexit since June, IMO this by @eucopresident the most important

www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/10/13-tusk-speech-epc/
Tusk’s speech in full

I can help but agree. The media focus has been on the cake comments and the ‘hard Brexit or no Brexit’ aspect of it but that’s not the only interesting bit in my opinion. Ian Dunt pointed out that Tusk is regarded as one the EU’s pragmatists though Steve Peers also points out that though the speech is interesting we perhaps shouldn’t put as much stock in it as other suggest as Tusk isn’t an EU negotiator and might be out of his job early next year as the Polish don’t like him.

Channel 4’s Ciaran Jenkins (amongst several others) makes the observation:
Ciaran Jenkins ‏@C4Ciaran
Tusk speech in full is brutal: "anti-liberal virus," "national egoism," Nazi Germany parallels.

Here’s the relevant section:
You will have noticed that the anti-liberal virus produces similar symptoms: both in Europe and beyond. Its carriers dislike the Union, so they are happy about Brexit. They don't want trans-Atlantic solidarity, so they promote isolationism. They look up to Putin and support Trump.
They are becoming louder and louder in increasing numbers. In Europe, we see them moving from the political periphery onto the main stage, often relying on support from political allies outside Europe who are already in power. One of their defining features is that they do not offer anything positive, instead feeding only on our weaknesses, conflicts, and the mood of uncertainty.

They proclaim a need for total change, they want to subvert the political order we call liberal democracy. Change for the sake of change has become their fetish. As the leader of Alternative für Deutschland said, commenting on the presidential campaign in the US, and I quote: "it might not be better under Trump, but at least with him there is the chance to change."

What they lack is positive ideas and designs of concrete solutions. But what they do not lack is the energy and determination in their march for influence and power. It is remarkable how all too often politicians of the moderate centre in comparison to them come across as listless, unwilling to fight, with no faith in their own convictions. As if they've fallen into a trap of fatalism, which they have no strength or desire to free themselves from. And we remember from the past that in the most dramatic moment of our history, in the 1930s, the advocates of a liberal order gave up virtually without a fight, even though they had all the cards in their hands. Ordinary people turned their backs on them, seeing how weak and hesitant they were. People didn't turn away from freedom because they were fed up with it. No, they simply lost faith that the freedom camp was able to put a stop to evil, however they understood it. They no longer believed that the moderate centre was a guarantee of security. And I am sure you remember who took their place.

I categorically reject this fatalistic approach. I categorically reject this temptation to give in to these trends. I do not accept arguments about the decadence of Europe and the West, because I deeply believe that we have built together a world which, despite its imperfections, is still the best of worlds. We must prove, however, every single day, that liberal democracy doesn't have to be a synonym of weakness. It is worth keeping in mind the words of Blaise Pascal, "Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical." To paraphrase him: liberal democracy without force is powerless, even pathetic

He is making it not just about Brexit, but about a wider threat and how it must be fought or we are doomed to history. The tone of May’s approach really has worried the EU.

David Allen Green notes that in Tusk’s speech, despite the suggestion in the High Court yesterday by the judge that we must assume that a50 is not reversible, he suggests it can. Green regards this as significant (hope if a50 is invoked)

Note the implicit suggestion by @eucopresident that the Article 50 process can be revoked. That could be highly significant.

Green also says “The last paragraph is fascinating”. This has in part been talked about in the press, but the full thing has a slightly different tone to the one I assumed from the news reports. I find the last sentence the most interesting:

The brutal truth is that Brexit will be a loss for all of us. There will be no cakes on the table. For anyone. There will be only salt and vinegar. If you ask me if there is any alternative to this bad scenario, I would like to tell you that yes, there is. And I think it is useless to speculate about "soft Brexit" because of all the reasons I've mentioned. These would be purely theoretical speculations. In my opinion, the only real alternative to a "hard Brexit" is "no Brexit". Even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility. We will conduct the negotiations in good faith, defend the interests of the EU 27, minimise the costs and seek the best possible deal for all. But as I have said before, I am afraid that no such outcome exists that will benefit either side. Of course it is and can only be for the UK to assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest. Paraphrasing Hannah Arendt's words: "a full understanding of all the consequences of the political process is the only way to reverse the irreversible flow of history". Thank you.

Jo Maugham QC puts this in some context when saying:
Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
"Of course it is and can only be for the UK to assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest"
That is very bad news for those who hoped Brexit could be done and dusted before the electorate got to see the impact on the economy.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 14/10/2016 12:07

On May’s ability to deliver on her vision and more generally about Brexit

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/10/14/these-cuts-reveal-a-snobbery-towards-young-apprentices
This piece by the shadow education secretary, is an interesting piece about how government policy on apprenticeships is hardly in keeping with May’s talk and of course it’s what ‘normal people’ will actually be seeing.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexiteers-dont-want-a-brick-wall-at-our-border-gpnpq87jq
Brexiteers don’t want a brick wall at our border
Gove. The Times. If you feel up to reading it. He accuses the Remain campaign of ‘slut-shaming’ (?!)

During the referendum, those thinking of voting Leave were told they didn’t understand what was in their own financial interests, that they should listen to the people who brought you the crash of 2008 because they were clearly experts when it came to avoiding economic instability, that they were associating with and/or legitimising racism and the sky would fall in if they didn’t do as they were told by the leaders of assorted organisations with the acronyms for titles who’d said the same thing about staying outside the euro.

The British people, understandably, didn’t like being patronised or slut-shamed so they looked closely and with increasing attention to the arguments. They saw that the “reformed” EU we were being invited to stay in was fundamentally unchanged

I’m paywalled so can’t read the whole thing but that looks remarkably like a rebuff to Tusk’s speech.

Just keep thinking about what Maugham said about people wanting a quick Brexit to avoid the economic reality hitting home….

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt
Trap May is in is one of her own making. She could have announced interim EEA deal, or controlled expectations on FoM & EU budget. There were - and are - countless opportunities available to her to fulfil the mandate and not sabotage the economy Instead she took fright at a coalition of right-wing tabloids and Tory MPs. This has happened because she had a chance to be statesmanlike and blew it.

Rumour has it May is meeting the Nissan boss today, but her spokesman refuses to comment on her diary.

www.politico.eu/pro/theresa-mays-brexit-war-cabinet/
Theresa May’s Brexit war cabinet
Half the positions on Theresa May’s all-powerful Brexit cabinet committee have been given to hard-line Eurosekptics, a leaked government list obtained by POLITICO reveals in further evidence that the U.K. is heading toward a hard exit from the European Union.

Boris Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox, Priti Patel, Chris Grayling and Andrea Leadsom for Leave as well as Philip Hammond, Amber Rudd, Greg Clark, Damian Green, Patrick McLoughlin who were all Remainers.

In a controversial move, the secretaries of state for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not given permanent positions around the decision-making table. Instead they attend “as required” by the prime minister.

That’s going to go down well. Once again the other parts of the Union are not central to the debate when they should be.

What the article fails to point out though is:

Ciaran Jenkins ‏@C4Ciaran

No seat on Brexit war cabinet for Attorney General - Government's top legal mind

Ian Bond ‏@CER_IanBond

That is a surprising oversight, given how much legal complexity surrounds #Brexit.

And that’s just bloody criminal.

The whole spectacle of Brexit is just a total farce isn't it?

OP posts:
lalalonglegs · 14/10/2016 12:19

Wow - lots of reading to be getting on with it. Thanks as ever, Red. Meanwhile, I have been sent this (quite lengthy) summary by the organisers of the Art 50 challenge about the first day's hearing:

Update on People's Challenge to the Government on Art. 50: A Parliamentary Prerogative

Despite being the biggest courtroom in the Royal Courts of Justice, Court 4 was packed to capacity and beyond yesterday. Impressively, following a suggestion from our legal team,the court staff had arranged for live video links to screens elsewhere in the building. There was also live tweeting from Jolyon Maugham QC and Independent journalist, Siobhan Fenton and there has been some incisive discussion of the parties' arguments in the NewLaw Journal and FinancialTimes. At the end of the day, a full transcript was published. Besides the many barristers instructed by those already involved in the case, there were QCs with ‘watching briefs' present for the Scottish and Welsh Governments, suggesting they may want to step in on devolution issues when the case reaches the Supreme Court. So far, only the People's Challenge has raised these issues in Court.
What follows are some highlights of the first court day and a taster of what's to come.
Lord Pannick QC opened for the lead claimant, Gina Miller, telling the court that the litigation:
“raises an issue of fundamental constitutional importance concerning the limits of the power of the executive. Can the defendant, on behalf of the government, lawfully use prerogative powers to give a notification under Article 50 of the treaty on European Union of this country's intention to withdraw from the EU?”
He added that he was going to adopt many “valuable points” made in the skeleton arguments from other parties supporting this side of the argument.
Lord Pannick then discussed the nature of Article 50, describing it as a “bullet” that, once fired, would reach its target sooner or later.
Next he covered the Referendum Act 2015 and the fact that the outcome does not bind Parliament:
“What is absent from the 2015 Act is any provision specifying what consequences, if any, should follow from the referendum result. The Act says nothing on that subject. And it is of interest that the Act says nothing on that subject, because when Parliament does wish to specify the consequences that should follow from a referendum, it says so.”
He then discussed he special nature of European law and the citizenship right created, drawing on a number of points made by the detailed written submissions from the People's Challenge legal team. He explained why many EU rights would be gone forever, once Article 50 is invoked, regardless of the content of the Great Repeal Bill:
“It's not possible for Parliament to re-enact a right to vote in the European Parliament. It is simply inconceivable. There is a statute which confers that right and Parliament simply cannot confer a right to vote for a member of the European Parliament. Inconceivable. That is one example. A second example is once we leave, assume, this is your Lordship's question tome, assume that Working Time Directive, or other provisions are re-enacted, its quite impossible for Parliament to re -enact that my client or anybody else should have a process right, an absolutely crucial process right, to obtain a determination of the Court of Justice, in Luxembourg, as to the meaning, the scope and the meaning of that right. That will go forever. That is not possible. And it is also quite impossible for Parliament, of its own volition, to confer on my client, or anybody else, a right to free movement and all of the other fundamental rights throughout the community, free movement of services, goods, a person's right of establishment. Parliament cannot do that of itself.”
These rights, we went on to explain, were made part of domestic law, by Parliament, under the European Communities Act 1972 and later legislation.
Lord Pannick then identified the long-established legal limits to prerogative powers, most importantly that:
“the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in the sense we are considering, is absolute. The executive cannot,without the consent of Parliament, override or take away domestic law rights which have been granted by Parliament. And the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is a legal doctrine. And it was described by Lord Bingham in R (Jackson) v The Attorney General, one of the foxhunting cases, as the bedrock of the constitution.”
This meant:
“…under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament is the only body which, under the UK's constitutional requirements, can take or authorise the decision to withdraw and notify under Article 50.”
He then addressed the remaining points put against his own team's written submissions in the Government's skeleton argument .
Lord Pannick was followed by Dominic Chambers, Mr Dos Santos' QC who took the Court on a legal history tour of the Royal Prerogative, Parliamentary Sovereignty and Referendums, taking in landmarks such as Dicey's 1915 Introduction to the study of the law of the Constitution which emphasises that:
“Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”
That ‘setting aside', Mr Chambers argued,would unlawfully happen by executive action, were Article 50 triggered by Ministers.
He brought the Court right up to date, though,showing them the House of Lords Constitution Committee Report on Referendums, the Government's acceptance of their non-binding nature at page 12 of its response and the briefing to Parliament on the EU Referendum Bill 2016 which was highlighted in the People's Challenge clarification note.

The day ended with the People's Challenge lead barrister, Helen Mountfield QC opening her case. She told the Court she was instructed by:
“…an Englishman of Bangladeshi origin, an Irishman, two Scotsmen resident in France, a Welshman and a Gibraltarian, whose wife is Spanish, with family resident in Spain.And I make that opening observation not as a start to a poor joke,but because that illustrates the nature of the EU citizenship rights which they enjoy and they seek to enjoy, which include, for example,the right, if one resides abroad within the EU, to be accompanied by third country nationals, exercising derived rights out of the citizen's directive. So they are all beneficiaries of the EU citizenship rights. And they are all concerned to ensure that there is proper democratic authority for and scrutiny of, Britain's future relationship with Europe and they have been funded by over 4,400 people, who have supported them through a crowd funding initiative.”
On Monday, Helen will develop the case further on seven key points.
First, notification to the European Council of a binding decision to leave the EU will remove the directly applicable or effective EU citizenship rights of UK citizens after expiry of the notification period.
Secondly, once such a binding decision to leave the EU has been notified, the status of EU citizenship for UK citizens cannot be preserved or retained by Parliament – the Great Repeal Bill, for instance, cannot replace the EU citizenship rights every UK citizen will have lost.

Thirdly, directly applicable or effective EU citizenship rights have a fundamental constitutional character because they confer wide-ranging directly enforceable rights and remedies on EU citizens, as subjects of the EU legal order (and inform the content of the common law and the interpretation of statutes).
Fourthly, the availability of such individual citizens' rights in the law of the UK is recognised by the courts because it has been mandated by legislation.
Fifthly, for a Minster of the Crown to take a step, which will make those rights unavailable without prior Parliamentary authority, dispenses with the law or the execution of the law and is contrary to the Bill of Rights 1688.
Sixthly, that step would be contrary to the Acts of Union with Scotland because it alters the public and private law rights of those subject to Scots law which arise from their EU citizenship, without Parliamentary authority.
Last, she will argue that even if all of this were wring and the prerogative powers of the Crown were to extend to removing such rights in theory, for such powers to be used to remove rights which underpin the devolution statutes would be an unlawful exercise of the prerogative, because it would remove limitations on the powers of the devolved legislatures and assemblies to intrude upon the public and private law rights of EU citizens, which limitations underpin the constitutional settlement between the nations of the UK and the understanding of Parliament in passing the devolution legislation.

RedToothBrush · 14/10/2016 12:57

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/10/arron-banks-man-who-bought-brexit
Uhoh.

This needs to be read though unfortunately.

Banks has just written book with the Mail's Isabel Oakshott and is bored of UKIP. Want to move on to People's Movement which is about 'direct democracy' to force the government to do what the people want.

It sounds... yeah....

Someone else say it.

OP posts:
Mistigri · 14/10/2016 13:32

Many thanks for all the updates. Can I ask if you have a professional interest? You are admirably thorough and it must be time-consuming.

Attorney General - Government's top legal mind

Lol ... fortunately there are other MPs with much better legal minds. Shame they are not in government.

lalalonglegs · 14/10/2016 13:47

Isabel Oakeshott was on QT last night and was foul and much more kneejerk reactionary than I would have guessed beforehand... looks like it's the company she's been keeping.

RebeccaNoodles · 14/10/2016 13:57

Red, I have a Times subscription so I can copy and paste Gove's article if you would like? Reluctant to give him the clicks but happy to if you think it's worth reading (seems unlikely)

TheBathroomSink · 14/10/2016 14:07

Oakeshott's always been foul.

My boss met Banks fairly recently at a charity thing. He said he is very, very personable on the surface, but he also said he thinks he's got the thinnest skin of any man he's met and he really can't take the idea of being ignored, which is pretty much what that NS piece concludes.

Figmentofmyimagination · 14/10/2016 14:09

Fascist

RedToothBrush · 14/10/2016 14:29

I genuinely have NO professional interest! It might seem hard to believe but I am a stay at home mum with a toddler.

Other people have normal hobbies. I have wading through government or medical documents trying to make sense of them for particular issues. Half the time its about knowing the system, and being able to pull them apart and present it back in a way that makes it accessible to others.

I would say there is a lot of professional bullshit out that that never gets any scrutiny and it makes my blood boil. I can well understand the concept of 'I've had enough experts', but come at it from a different angle and don't think its true of all experts. Its often down to poor understanding of issues and not asking the right questions of the evidence you are presented with. The result is poor management of important things.

Post-Fact politics I have no doubt, has some roots within this. Knowledge is power, yet that power can be abused. And regularly is. If you can't challenge that because you haven't had the education to know how to, then I can well see you would turn to conspiracy theories etc because they are framed in a way that is accessible and make sense. Under lying it is an awareness of the fact that there is something not right in what you've been told. Which is why I don't think a lot of Brexiteers are stupid.

Maybe I have more in common with some Brexiteers than I'd like to admit!

Many years ago I did degree was in media with elements of political communication and history. I did it with innocent and rather naïve ideas about wanting to change the world and make a difference. I didn't do as well as I should because I was a fool. And the reality of the industry left me rather disillusioned and I never really had the confidence to even try.

I don't think I can change the world anymore, but I still believe passionately in some of the things that made me do it in the first place - just on a much smaller scale. And there is an element of proving to myself that I was better than my results were and trying to regain a bit of self worth.

Mumsnet is just a good place to do it and I feel like I'm achieving something even if its only small. Brexit isn't the only thing I've ranted at length about on MN by any means.

I find it better than just watching things I don't like happen passively. Especially now I have my son.

A professional interest would be rather nice - I'd get paid then, rather than talking politics with one hand whilst playing with dinosaurs with the other whilst watching Pingu! Yes it is something of an obsession, but then that's just what I'm like.

But I'm not sure I'm terribly suited to doing this in a more formal capacity for a variety of reasons not least the fact that doing it on my own doesn't carry 'pressure of delivering' or fitting in with someone else's agenda. Its simply on my own terms and because I want to do it.

OP posts:
whatwouldrondo · 14/10/2016 14:43

Red Admirable reasons and I am certainly grateful for all that I have learnt here.

It does rather beg the question about how much other talent is languishing at the home computers of this nation which the existing, largely patriarchal, structures of business, political and other organisations are failing to exploit (and the consultancies I have worked in since my children were born have thrived on offering flexible terms that enable you to work round the demands of family ).

CeciledeVolanges · 14/10/2016 15:13

Red you are changing this little corner of the Internet and making it saner and more informed. For which I thank you :)

occrasoup · 14/10/2016 15:18

Red your posts are informative and beautifully written, witty, sharp yet full of warmth, humanity and humour! I'm a frequent name changer and have previously posted on a few ref threads. Just to say these threads are a life line and present more integrity and credibility than any other single source of EU ref information.

Massive Thanks Thanks Thanks.

can't believe you have a toddler, I suffered from chronic baby brain and still do now my dc are older Envy Smile

Kaija · 14/10/2016 15:22

Didn't realise Oakeshott was writing Banks' book. That would explain why she was banging on about the Establishment last night. It reminded me of Claig. It does seem as though the ground is being very carefully prepared for something.

AmberEars · 14/10/2016 16:23

More congrats to Red from me - you're amazing!

DoNotBringLulu · 14/10/2016 16:34

Red I lurk more often than post on this thread; I have to say since the referendum result I have taken an interest in politics, but feel very uninformed and missing background knowledge about many things such as history and economics...your posts and other contributors to this thread help me make sense of what is going on.

I've been able to explain the single market to a couple of leave voting friends who felt some things needed to be changed, but didn't do any research, voted with gut feeling. I don't think they've changed their minds, but at least realise how complicated the issues are. Information and knowledge is the way forward.

Thanks!

CousinCharlotte · 14/10/2016 17:07

Another saying thanks for the thread Red and all your sterling workand informative posting and links.

SummerLightning · 14/10/2016 17:41

Cheers Red and others for your dedication. I lurk on these threads a lot but somehow don't get time to post. I think you would be surprised how many lurkers there are! You may be reaching more people than you think!

FionaJT · 14/10/2016 17:51

Just going to add my thanks here too - I've been lurking since the beginning (posted once or twice) and have hugely appreciated the considered opinions and the wide range of source material that I would not otherwise have seen Flowers

Figmentofmyimagination · 14/10/2016 18:30

Thanks Red your posts are brilliant - I would never have read Tusk's speech without you - frightening stuff.

Can't believe you are at home with a toddler - I had a vision in my head of you in the HC lobby with old fashioned notebook etc!

jaws5 · 14/10/2016 18:43

Amazing work red Flowers

Swipe left for the next trending thread