Brexit Mega Thread 16 – Who's Next?

[LouiseCollins28]

We are approaching the 6th anniversary of Brexit, or I suppose the 5th, if you count the period of transition as "in."

Since then, the world has endured Covid-19, seen war in Ukraine and many other things. Brexit has had reduced salience in the minds of many people recently.

When digesting the latest setbacks to befall the elite who govern our islands, a phrase I keep returning to, is “OK, so now do you get it?”

Brexit is undoubtedly the biggest “OK, so now do you get it?” moment directed at our leaders in my life. It’s surely the largest since 1979, since the Labour victory of 1945? or even since the advent of universal suffrage?

The U.K. local elections in 2026, and subsequent national ones, could see a big increase in support for the Green Party and Reform U.K. Two parties with more different attitudes to European integration could scarcely be found, so Brexit’s salience in the U.K. may rise again soon
.
There are many electoral contests in progress or coming across Europe too (the Netherlands and France, for example) which will be worth paying attention to. Maybe the next questions we will face are less about "what next?" and more about "who's next?"

Relations between mainland Europe and the UK remain a worthy topic for discussion, whoever leads the nations of Europe, or leads the E.U. itself.

Conveniently enough, @LouiseCollins28 completely failed to address Alex Pretti.

Believe whatever you want. I'm right, the video evidence is right. Video does not lie, but apparently you do.

I forget there are people who either don't understand, or don't want to understand, what the claim of the monopoly of legitimate use of violence means for people.

Anyway, having won that argument. I'll move on. What looks to be unashamedly good news hear for young people seeking work...

British firms to get £3,000 for every long-term jobless youngster they hire | Youth unemployment | The Guardian

It it interesting that it does not appear to say how long the new employee is exepcted to stay in their job for. I suspect some unscrupulous employers could hire young people, bank the £3000 and then quickly dimiss them before they've cost the firm £3000 but lets give the government praise for something positive.

You can keep repeating the lie, but we've all seen the video footage. Renee Goodman would at most have ran over his foot. He easily got out of the way and then shot her twice in the head.

But we know repeating lies is the right-wing way of trying to change the narrative...

I notice you determinedly not mentioning Alex Pretti. I wonder why that is.

Having won that argument, if by that you mean justifying murder, you have.

I notice you very determinedly repeatedly mentioning Alex Pretti and I wonder why that is?

ICE Agent Ross is reportedly back working after a short period of administrative leave.. So, he's a very, very long way from being charged never mind convicted of murder or any other offence.

Anyhow. Burnham is speaking now so lets see how that goes.

So you think the way ICE murdered Alex Pretti was absolutely fine. Got it.

The fact that the Trump regime isn't interested in upholding the law is a given.

There again, you say "murdered" there, yet nobody has even been charged!

Ah, so because nobody in Israel has been charged there have been no murders in Gaza.

Oooooh Kaaaay...

Where on earth did that idea spring from? The Israeli military are killing Palestinians left, right and centre. Whether they are murdering them is a slightly different question.

Thinking, as I do, that a) it's reasonable to judge the actions of a military force partly on the basis of the legitimacy of the government that orders them to act as well as the laws of law and b) The Israeli government doesn't legitimately govern the terriitory where those killings were carried out I'd readily conclude that they were murdered.

Comparing the above to the ICE situation in the USA. Agents of ICE acting wholly within the powers afforded them by a democratically elected governent which absolutely does have the legitimacy to govern the United States until the electorate their choses differently. The comparison is absurd, the second is legitimate and the first isn't.

There was no immigrant bashing in Burnham's speech

Did you expect that there would be?

I didn't want you to get your hopes up.

He rightly highlighted 10 years of political turbulence since Brexit.

So by your logic, the police in the UK can legitimately shoot someone whose face they don't like if they're policing a demonstration or other event, because that's within the powers afforded them by a democratically elected government. I could help up someone who had fallen over and the police would be allowed to shoot me. Well.

Of course they can, if they percieve that they are a threat to them or to somebody else! Further, what they percieve to be the level of threat in the moment is what matters, not what the proven level of threat might be found to be later. So, they can legitimately shoot someone who is later found to be carrying, say, a phone.

Police officers can't be legitimately ordered to shoot someone by a politician because they're supposed to be "operationally independent". A politican could, however, order the armed forces to shoot people, because they aren't independent of the government in the same way.

So, they can legitimately shoot someone who is later found to be carrying, say, a phone.

In countries where the rule of law is upheld - no, they can't. Not without a major investigation. There hasn't been anything of the kind, just a whitewash. Police officers should be held to a far higher standard of conduct in difficult situations than civilians. They are supposed to be trained.

Of course ICE agents get put through 6 weeks of slipshod training and are recruited on the basis of their political loyalties.

The scenario you are describing would fit nicely into most dictatorships.

Haha 😂😂😂 My God I'm enjoying this back and forth. How can someone be so blind to the realities of what living in a society governed by the rule of law means.

Some group/entity, in any such society, has to be able to claim the monopoly of the legit use of violence. The choices are a) the Police or a similar entity subject to civilian democratic control; b) the Army or another armed military force or c) Groups of private citizens/any random mob that fancies it.

You appear to favour c). If that's really what you want, then that's what the '92 LA riots, or Capitol Hill on January 6th looked like, and those were not pretty.

January 6th rioters got pardoned (and many of them got re-arrested) by the bloke who encourages ICE

Rioters, not protesters.

If you want masked thugs on UK streets, look no further than the anti immigration riots.

I don't find it funny. Frankly I'm flabbergasted that anyone would think it's perfectly fine for the police to be allowed to just shoot anyone they want to. And worse that you'd like that to be the norm over here.

You Brexiteers really are a frightening bunch...

@LouiseCollins28 all I want is for killings by the authorities to be properly investigated. In considerable depth. Because when someone entrusted with authority and given weapons kills someone, that should not be brushed under the carpet and dismissed in the way the ICE killings have been.

If you do not want the law to be subject to basic scrutiny then you would probably be very much at ease in places like North Korea or China.

So are you at heart a fan of authoritarian rule?

First good question I've been asked on here in years.

In some situations, absolutely I want authoritarian action. That's distinct from authoritarian rule. I expect most posters on here would dismiss elements of the type of society I'd want as extremely authoritarian. I think the state is intrinsically linked to using force. The other things "the state" does, like educating children, the NHS, etc. those are really peaceful agencies of the civillian government. The state, IMO, is synonymous with officials with guns, etc.

So long as people obey the law I'm happy for them to have very high levels of personal freedom. The moment they don't obey the law, however...

From my POV, people (obviously including myself) do not have rights. Everyone has obligations to our fellow citizens. Obey the law, pay your taxes, live peacefully, you're all good. Live how you want, love who you want, worship (or don't) however you wish.

If a person choses to do other than those things, they've broken their obligation to their fellow citizens and should expect consequences. If they lie, if they cheat people, if they steal, if they vandalise, etc. Those standards, absolutely apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether I like them/their cause or not. Some examples of how this would play out:

Peaceful protest is a vital part of a free, healthy society. However, the moment any protest turns other than peaceful, IMO the full force of the law can and should be employed against those doing the protesting.

Obstructing an agent of the state during the lawful exercise of their duties cannot be considered a peaceful protest. The state's agents should claim the monopoly of the legit use of force, the citizen does not have it. So protesters human chains can be walked through, people blockading streets can be removed by force, etc. Finally, yes, if people commit violent acts against the agents of the state, or their fellow citizens, those people can be met with violence from those agents.

Cheezus wept. This is what civilization is up against...

I'm expect numpties who support authoritarian governments only do so until said agencies decide to come for them. The plaintive wail of "but it's supposed to apply to other people, not to meeee!" from all those who never read their Kakfa...

So you obviously didn't read what I wrote, or failed to understand it if you did read it. That said, I'll engage with your flawed premise nonetheless. Why would a state agency come for me? I've never broken the law.

'why would they come for me' has been said many times throughout history.