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 worries about the land of his birth and simply wonders, what the hell next!?

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 11/11/2016 21:26

Of all the Westministers intro I’ve done to date, I think this has been the hardest to write.

My first thought is where on earth to start, and then where to stop with how Trump’s victory affects us in the UK. It completely changes international relations. The political fall out is going to be considerable and potentially radioactive in its toxicity.

To hardened Brexiteers, America falling to Trump represents the domino effect in progress. It will embolden them. And the fear is that on 4th December both Italy and Austria could fall next as they respectively, face a referendum and a re-run of the presidential election.

And then there’s France…

All of this is a threat to the EU. It just leaves everyone, including the UK asking what next? And what of our relationship with the US? Who knows? It makes it look around and say, can we rely on the US, and without the US surely we have no choice but to grow closer to the EU. Perhaps there is a role for us in-between but there really are no guarantees and do we want to make that choice?

The suggestion is that May has no love for Trump. And whilst the hard right might harbour fantasies about becoming the 51st State, which seem to be led by Farage himself, this exposes the one red line that could bring the fury of the country down on the government to its extinction. The NHS. Its not for sale. Its not to be subject to a trade deal.

In a curious turn of events, rumours grow that the government will contend at the Supreme Court that a50 CAN be reversed afterall. Davis had personally been responsible for the original line that its not reversible. This was a political decision to tie us into leaving, and show intent and seriousness to Leavers. Yet it was always a crazy one that is not in the national interest.

Going back on this totally changes the game.

It would be a move that will go down well with Remainers and Liberal Leavers but will enrage the hardliners especially if the ECJ is part of this new tact.

It off loads a pile of risk and it is the prudent and sensible approach. It is much needed to protect the best interests of the country overall. Its also that magic ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’ for that promised Nissan deal.

The change of tact would also help to appease MPs and much opposition to Brexit. And in doing so, also lessens the chances of a HoC rebellion against May and also reduces the chances of an early election, thus is perhaps a more stabilising way forward. It encourages negotiation of a good deal that other parties and rebels will also find agreeable rather than them feeling like they are being held to ransom on.

It would almost certainly delay things and might interfere with May’s precious timetable.

But there’s France… and the Presidential elections are in April/May

Do we really want to trigger article 50, if post Trump, the domino really is likely to fall there too and Le Pen wins the Presidency? There is suddenly a potential ally for major EU reform. Or even its collapse. Now is not the time to do something rash and drastic but to hold our nerve just a little longer.

It makes sense to everyone to hang fire and delay. If only briefly to see what now happens.

There are dangers in doing this though. The prospect of the ECJ being involved in a case which is in essence about our Constitution, is not only embarrassing but could be explosive. It will raise fears of leavers that Brexit will not happen. It will play to the extremes and the agenda of UKIP. It exposes judges to the press and criticism that they are activists and also trying to stop Brexit. Though Gove seems to have changed his tune and is defending them rather more than he was previously...

With tensions running high will Farage get his 100,000 march? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell on that one. He is trying to win through intimidation though, and that makes people fear him if we don’t do his bidding and what’s happening over in the States only emboldens him and makes others fear him more. He is divisive and never will be able to serve the national interest, because of it no matter how honest his delusions of being an ambassador to Trump are.

It just adds to the growing sense of helplessness and growing question of whether the proud tradition of British liberalism can even survive? It becomes appears to many this is ultimately the goal of Mr Farage – and not the EU. The EU is just a protector of it.

Well I don’t believe that Farage does have it all his way and has the monopoly on people power, nor a connection to the public that no one else has.

One of the themes developing on twitter, is one about passion, hope and a new sense of purpose. One to defend British values and not become like Trumpland. We have a warning and an example of how it really could be worse and it’s not a pretty sight.

I remember during the referendum one poster unsure of how to vote, asking simply:
“I don't want to spoil my vote. I want to vote, and vote with conviction”.

It was a question I found difficult to answer at the time. To me it highlighted how much people did want something to believe in and to not having that. We must start to build on that, and provide that alternative.

But I do believe those things to believe in were there all along. The NHS and our open democracy, whatever the flaws and imperfections of our institutions they have endured and survived for a reason – and not just for the benefit of the ‘elite’.

We just took them for granted, and now we are going to have to stand up and make sure people know that by speaking out, and know that while moderates might have it in their nature to compromise there are also some things we just can not loose in the process. We must not be drawn into a battle along violent lines as it will be used against those who do. We can’t loose our soul in trying to defend what is precious, nor should we try and reassure ourselves by finding justification for things that can not and should not be justified.

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in notes to himself;

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

I think that message rings true now both for Leave and Remain supporters alike. You might have made a decision on 23rd June but you still have other choices to make now.

Choose to stay sane.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
morningrunner · 20/11/2016 07:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

howabout · 20/11/2016 08:52

Concur no-one in Scotland cares about the Brexit debate as framed in the terms of the South East versus the North of England.

However worth bearing in mind that 38% of Scots voted pro Brexit and a sizeable proportion of the rest only voted Remain because they thought it would avoid IndyRef2.

NS is playing both sides against the middle at the moment but I am clear that there is no majority to be out the UK and in the EU as she claims.

jaws5 · 20/11/2016 08:52

Mathsanxiety very interesting, thanks. The non-platforming and abuse of "traditional" feminist academics, or TERFS now, is an example of the tyranny we have been seeing recently, all in the name of identity. Once again the narrative is imposed by misogyny, while in the political arena traditional mysogynists dominate politics.

twofingerstoGideon · 20/11/2016 08:55

I fail to see why the country has to be dictated to by the UKIP agenda.
...particularly when the UKIP agenda is so extreme.

howabout · 20/11/2016 08:55

That said, as an anti-independence Scot, even I would be inclined to leave rUK to it if the rhetoric about our supposed leach status increases. I have no desire to adopt leach status, a la Greece and Ireland, within the EU.

NotDavidTennant · 20/11/2016 09:41

RE identity politics - it does seem to increasingly be a navel-gazing exercise devoid from any political purpose beyond signalling the virtue of the individual for supporting the oppressed group du jour.

Peregrina · 20/11/2016 09:42

I have just read in today's Sunday Times that plans are going ahead to invite Trump to Windsor, asap. Poor Queen, she has had to meet a number of unsavoury characters in the course of her reign, all in the line of duty, so I am sure she will rise to the challenge.

I believe that if Sturgeon used the 'stop button' there are Brexiters who would actually show Scotland the door and express the hope that it wouldn't hit her too hard on the way out of the Union. Ditto Northern Ireland.

I am sure the Brexiters wouldn't care, as long as they could still go grouse shooting. NI - where's that? Oh, somewhere with a Giant's Causeway, is probably the sum total of their knowledge. You only have to look at May's pronouncements so far, to see that neither Country is getting much of a look in. As for Cameron promising Gibraltar the Referendum and the huge vote for staying in the EU, an overwhelming mandate by anyone's terms, not a mention.

Mistigri · 20/11/2016 09:49

The SNP's prime objective, indeed the very reason for its existence, is to form an independent Scotland. They also wish to stay within the EU but their core aim is independence from the rest of the UK.

Disclaimer: I'm not scottish and I don't profess to speak for the Scottish people. But doesn't this wilfully misinterpret the SNP phenomenon? I have seen stats that suggest that many SNP voters did not vote for independence (I can't remember the percentage but it's surprisingly large). I think SNP voters are a fairly politically diverse group, not surprisingly since they were historically competing with the Tory party for voters but more recently have stolen voters mainly from Labour. Their common ideology is wanting Scottish people to have more influence over their destiny, but that does not necessarily mean immediate independence. NS is a pragmatic politician and I think throwing a spanner in the May government's works will play well to her voters even if it does not advance Scottish independence in the short term.

Peregrina · 20/11/2016 10:04

So a Federal solution would work for Scotland? It wouldn't keep them in the EU. I can't see why some dismiss the mandate Scotland gave to her people for staying in, but a smaller majority overall for the whole UK, is regarded as 'overwhelming'.

As for England and the Tory party, when are they going to wake up and say that they are NOT going to be dictated to by a fascist? Without Farage and the promise of more money for the NHS a good number of people would have stayed at home - the EU didn't concern them all that much.

merrymouse · 20/11/2016 10:10

I completely take the point about non-platforming and virtue signalling.

However, reversing legislation on gay marriage would have real implications for families with children.

Police treatment of young black men matters.

Trump is so generally offensive that each individual issue can get lost in the general chorus of offended people. However, practically he can only be challenged on individual issues.

I'm not particularly worried about Trump and trans activists. I am worried about his attitude towards muslims. Culture matters.

Trump hasn't swept all before him. He may talk about 'choosing' to focus on the electoral colleges rather than the popular vote, but it's clear that he didn't, and that he will now have to govern as one of the few presidents who lost the popular vote. His tactic of being outrageous might have won him votes, but it is likely to make it very difficult to manage day to day life.

Similarly, if UKIP 'won' Brexit, it hasn't won them respect. It's just caused the Tories to annex some of their ideas.

merrymouse · 20/11/2016 10:18

I do think that if you want to brand all feminists as a bunch of wingeing outliers in dungarees, you couldn't ask for a better president.

whatwouldrondo · 20/11/2016 10:24

This I shall not the place to argue the rights of any particular minority but in labelling it identity politics and thus neatly putting it into a box that is ripe for criticism or even being discarded are we not in danger of missing the point.

As far as I am concerned this is as morally simple as making the playground a fair place where others are not singled out for derogatory rhetoric, or bullying for being different, whether that is because they have ginger hair, or are women, or are transgender.

We live in times when somebody is about to become President of the United States who is a deranged bully who thinks that derogatory rhetoric about women, race and disability is OK and that is just plain wrong. Putting calling that out in a box and introducing rhetoric like "identity politics" and "virtue signalling" is in danger of giving his behaviour legitimacy at a time when an increasing number of people seem to be prepared to tolerate his bad behaviour or even think it is a license to express their own prejudices be it misogyny or racism or being disablist. It's a slippery slope I am not going down.

mathsanxiety this thread is not the place but briefly since you mention it. I too would like to be able to strip off in a women's changing room, there is no dissonance between my sexual organs and my gender identity, but I can't because a mastectomy has rendered my body different in a way that other women seem to find particularly distressing (no matter the trauma it represents in my life) . However it isn't exactly traumatic or an infringement of my liberties worth getting excited over to get changed under a towel to spare them or me the bother of their distress. I felt the same forty years ago when playing in a sports team with somebody who had had a sex change. I do know a very conservative religious family who have been dragged through hell by social services because they took their daughter to Brazil to get her sexual organs aligned with the gender that had been blatantly apparent to our whole community from when she was tiny. Maybe this is "virtue signalling" but if my daughter was facing any sort of conflicted emotions about getting changed in the same room as somebody who had experienced similar trauma then I would just advise her to use a towel.

whatwouldrondo · 20/11/2016 10:26

Merrymouse You put it better than me!

morningrunner · 20/11/2016 10:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

whatwouldrondo · 20/11/2016 11:12

morning My point is that nobody is forcing someone to strip off in front of anyone. I know of no changing room where women are forced to wonder about naked, and most women don't. I played a woman's sport in a team with someone who was transgender. I have no idea, nor did any of us care, if she still had a penis. It was simply never an issue for any of us. Why are you putting this into such an emotive extreme language? If someone has gone through all the trauma of being transgender, it is a considerable source of mental health issues and even higher suicide rates, I think tolerating their presence in a women's changing room is actually a fairly minor issue. They clearly are not to all outward appearances male, since they have chosen to appear as far as possible to all outward appearances and at considerable cost to themselves, as female? As I say it isn't the end of the world to have to get changed under a towel if it is an issue for you personally.

NotDavidTennant · 20/11/2016 11:14

How does spending time deciding who does or doesn't deserve to be "no platformed" today materially help gay people? How does debating whether a white person with dreadlocks is guilty of cultural appropriation materially help black people?

Sections of the left seem more interested in striking a virtuous pose than bringing about material political change.

whatwouldrondo · 20/11/2016 11:16

And from what I have heard of men's locker rooms, it certainly does not justify someone who presents a a woman having to go and get changed there Shock

merrymouse · 20/11/2016 12:01

Sections of the left seem more interested in striking a virtuous pose than bringing about material political change.

Absolutely. However, as far as I can see there isn't much support for non platforming outside a minority of student unions and I can't remember Rachel Dolezal getting much support from the main stream media.

Its easy to hang an opinion piece on a story like that of Rachel Dolezal, but I don't think she represents many people.

I understand what morning was saying about changing rooms - if gender is about self identification you don't have to even present as female - but I think the reality is that many people who are left wing aren't aware of debates about self identification and transactivism. I don't think it is dominating political discourse. It doesn't signify that either the remain or Clinton campaign were run by out of touch elites.

On the other hand there are plenty of people on the right wing who think that far from being disadvantaged, women and some minority groups are too privileged. I'm far more concerned about them.

medium.com/@rob_francis/international-mens-day-and-populism-e3d698e873e8#.h4c89q7cv

RedToothBrush · 20/11/2016 12:03

I don't want to get into trans politics on this thread. It ALWAYS goes south.

I have a trans sibling. I do not agree with how the issue has been handled in the US. That's as far as I'm going to go here.

I think the subject is for another thread as it never ends well.

OP posts:
morningrunner · 20/11/2016 12:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RedToothBrush · 20/11/2016 12:19

Andrew Lebovich ‏@tweetsintheME
1/? Based on media coverage thus far and Trump's business dealings after election, some thoughts on the future:
2) Despite promising to do things in respect to standard norms (like release taxes) Trump has shown he just doesn't care. Moreover...
3) He paid no apparent cost to the failure to abide by those norms, and media coverage of taxes, other corruption and pay-to-play issues...
4) Was relatively sparse compared to, say, the Clinton emails. The Hamilton "controversy" and fraud settlement is a case in point.
5) There seem to be a few broad options for Trump, none of which make much of a difference when it comes to issues of corruption.
6) Trump can continue operating his businesses, as he seems to have done so far. There's no rule against it, and while in the past...
7) such arrangements have looked bad, we again have seen repeatedly that Trump just doesn't care about appearances of propriety.
8) What I think more likely is what appears to be happening now. With the event for diplomats at Trump Hotel in DC, the meetings w/ partners
9) Trump has already sent the message that his business and presidency are linked. Even if he now passes the businesses to his kids...
10) The message will still be crystal clear, especially given that no one can seriously believe there will be a firewall between...
11) Trump and his kids, even when it comes to business issues. Trump can also read the papers. He knows who's buying what and where.
12) And especially as he's included his kids/relatives (Ivanka and Kushner in particular) in high-level policy meetings and planning...
13) He has again sent the clear message that they are linked to his political decision making. This will not change even if he formally...
14) Removes them from the decision making or advisory process. So he's using this period to establish clear avenues for corruption later.
15) This is absolutely unprecedented in the US, especially given the scale for possible corruption and the value of possible investments.
16) It should be treated as such by media outlets, but so far that doesn't really appear to be the case. That's incredibly scary.
17) And even if clear evidence of corruption arises publicly, it would take something really serious to get a GOP congress to investigate.
18) So Trump has a wide margin to maneuver and make deals, and his kids can continue that later even if Trump ostensibly moves on.
19) None of this bodes well for the regulatory and business environment under Trump. And it can always get worse. End rant.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/20/home-office-holds-30-secret-miners-strike-files?CMP=twt_gu
Home Office admits to secret files on miners’ strike and Orgreave clashes
Existence of documents has come to light after home secretary rejected investigation into events at South Yorkshire coking plant

Don't that just shout 'Cover up to protect the cult of Margaret Thatcher' (The Tory Party).

OP posts:
NotDavidTennant · 20/11/2016 12:32

"On the other hand there are plenty of people on the right wing who think that far from being disadvantaged, women and some minority groups are too privileged. I'm far more concerned about them."

It's not a question of who to be more concerned about. All sensible people are concerned about the rise of the extreme right. But what are the left doing about it? Debating who does and doesn't have a right to access women's changing rooms? That's the definition of fiddling while Rome burns.

whatwouldrondo · 20/11/2016 12:33

Point taken Red and I was indeed ignorant of the politics of self identification, and after a quick Google, I do get the point now. As merrymouse highlights it is not part of the common discourse here yet.

However I would like to comment that I do not regard myself as left wing. I do not think that believing in fairness and equality is in any way a preserve of any one political ideology. I have friends who are Conservative /Republican, and indeed voted for Brexit, who would regard these as simply issues of common /moral decency, and are appalled by Trump as a result.

It does seem as if the political environment is becoming polarised and tribal and if you are not part of one tribe then you have to be labelled and pigeon holed as the other. "left wing" "liberal" or indeed "illiberal liberal" "Identity politics" "elite" are all suddenly labels that will be attached to someone simply because they are standing up for some basic values that used to uncontentious, in order to neutralise them in the debate. It is so much easier to call people names than to actually engage in discussion.

merrymouse · 20/11/2016 12:35

It's difficult to know how much people care about Trump and corruption.

Even before the settlement the Trump university case seemed to obviously highlight the fact that rather than being a successful property developer, he is effectively a con man.

I suspect that is why there has been so little about the settlement in the papers - what more is there to say? People who care know what happened. People who don't care have had the facts available to them for years.

What's not clear is how long the Teflon effect will last in office. Pessimistically 8 years?

RedToothBrush · 20/11/2016 12:37

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marine-le-pen-poll-election-odds-latest-french-presidential-lead-sarkozy-a7428126.html
Marine Le Pen takes huge lead over nearest rival in new French presidential election poll

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread