Labour and antisemitism

[Lat-Literal]

How do Leavers and people who believe that the Frauderendum result must be honoured react to the charge that the official campaign to Leave had nothing to do with Brexit and was ALL about damaging David Cameron and halting the inevitable coronation of George Osborne as his successor?

The beneficiaries were supposed to be Boris Johnson and Michael Gove - neither of whom believed (or wanted?) Leave to win.

Well, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams - but why should the rest of us have to suffer?

I really can't stand George Osborne at any price - or Boris Johnson for that matter - but a lot of the people have been campaigning to leave EU for years. I see no especial fraud in the campaign. All election campaigns are deeply flawed. That is just life and, I'd say, an inevitable part of the democratic process. Sadiq Khan hasn't planted a single tree in London yet.

I imagine quite a lot of German citizens said something like this in 1933: democracy doesn't matter any more. The freedom you say you want was the result.

So be it.

[Bryn]

. . . It is the voice of democracy.

Many have fought and died for it.

I don't see why I or anyone else should not be prepared to do so.

As I say, I really genuinely don't care if the national economy and my own personal finances are slaughtered in this process because I place democracy above the economy and my life.

If you genuinely believed in democracy, you would be in favour of a second referendum, since the 2016 one was so obviously a response to lies and corrupt funding. Furthermore, it should be made crystal clear that a referendum on the results of May's negociations must be treated as purely advisory. If we are to have a representative democracy, the MPs should stick to their representative remit and not behave as a bunch of delegates.

[Lat-Literal]

If you genuinely believed in democracy, you would be in favour of a second referendum, since the 2016 one was so obviously a response to lies and corrupt funding. Furthermore, it should be made crystal clear that a referendum on the results of May's negociations must be treated as purely advisory. If we are to have a representative democracy, the MPs should stick to their representative remit and not behave as a bunch of delegates.

I disagree.

They are just mucking people around in my opinion - and the only response one is left with is to bring the entire thing down, whatever the consequences.

And actually, I don't think Weimar did muck people around in this way. It was simply ineffectual.

One thing that Remainers never address is how our depletion of young workers from countries like Latvia is no different from our depletion of Africa when we were an Empire. "Our" gain leaves those countries in a terrible state. And it is a gain for the few and not the many as Jeremy Corbyn might once have argued. It reduces our black and white youths to slave labour.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/29/latvia-fights-against-the-great-eu-exodus/

[Dave2002]

I disagree.

They are just mucking people around in my opinion - and the only response one is left with is to bring the entire thing down, whatever the consequences.

Am I wrong to suggest that would be utter stupidity?

One thing that Remainers never address is how our depletion of young workers from countries like Latvia is no different from our depletion of Africa when we were an Empire. "Our" gain leaves those countries in a terrible state. And it is a gain for the few and not the many as Jeremy Corbyn might once have argued. It reduces our black and white youths to slave labour.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...eat-eu-exodus/

Freedom of movement has consequences. It is a concern, whether one has previoiusly voted Remain or otherwise. The situation will not change however the UK leaves the EU or otherwise. It seems reasonable that people should be allowed to move in order to have better lives for themselves and their families, but this has knock on effects. Maybe the thinkers in the EU believe that over time this will self stabilise, and arguably it will, though the stable "end states" may be very different from what was anticipated.

[MrGongGong]

I changed my position because 52% voted to leave. What this means, and I do mean this, is that I will vote for absolutely anyone or anything in order to get this thing honoured - even if the outcome is a national economy that goes completely down the drain, there are race wars and class wars, and I personally end up completely penniless and living on the streets.

I couldn't care less about any of those things above the honouring of the result.

I see you are also campainging for the Birmingham 6 to be sent back to prison as well.
They were found guilty by a "democratic" jury.

Fetishining "democracy" is very dangerous indeed.

52% of what ?
Based on what information ?

But I guess I doesn't matter because you think asking lots of people is ALWAYS the way to make decisions.
which it clearly isn't

Freedom of movement has consequences.

Yes, it enables musicians to play at the Proms. It enables academics to travel and collaborate. It enables small cheese producers from the UK to sell cheese in the rest of the EU.
It facilitates cultural collaboration and exchange. It enables young folks from the UK to travel and work all over Europe.

As the Norwegian PM said on R4 earlier this year, why is it always characterised as something that only has negative effects on low paid jobs in the UK ? (which is debatable anyway) and what is it always seen to only be of benefit to the wealthy ? (which isn't true either)

[Dave2002]

Fetishining "democracy" is very dangerous indeed.

I agree.

52% of what ?
Based on what information ?

The recorded percentages of those who voted in the referendum.

Next points - you have conflated two messages - not both from the same respondent.

But I guess I doesn't matter because you think asking lots of people is ALWAYS the way to make decisions.
which it clearly isn't.

Not me mate! I agree with you here.

Yes, it enables musicians to play at the Proms. It enables academics to travel and collaborate. It enables small cheese producers from the UK to sell cheese in the rest of the EU. It facilitates cultural collaboration and exchange. It enables young folks from the UK to travel and work all over Europe.

Yes - I agree. Not only that but to some extent it also permits people with similar qualifications to be employed in each other's countries. Note, however, that even in the UK that isn't always the case. Qualifications in Scotland are often treated slightly differently from English ones - depending on the specific jobs. Some jobs may be inaccessible even to UK citizens, or they may be required to undertake further training or gain additional qualifications in order to work in other parts of the UK. I don't know if similar constraints also apply to Wales and Northern Ireland.

As the Norwegian PM said on R4 earlier this year, why is it always characterised as something that only has negative effects on low paid jobs in the UK ? (which is debatable anyway) and what is it always seen to only be of benefit to the wealthy ? (which isn't true either)

Despite this, the consequences of migration on a large scale cannot reasonably be ignored. It's not a question of no migration, or any migration, but a matter of degree. The UK could take the whole population of Latvia with relatively little problem, but it could not take a huge influx from other areas, such as Africa, China, India, South America. One might hope that things would "work out naturally", but that isn't always the case, so some rules and restrictions might not be unreasonable.

If the whole population of Venezuela (about 32 million) decided to follow Gustavo Dudamel, and take up musical instruments and formed huge orchestras (highly improbable) and then come to the UK it would surely be reasonable to restrict admission, even despite your enthusiasm for the arts and music!

[Lat-Literal]

I see you are also campainging for the Birmingham 6 to be sent back to prison as well.
They were found guilty by a "democratic" jury.

Fetishining "democracy" is very dangerous indeed.

52% of what ?
Based on what information ?

But I guess I doesn't matter because you think asking lots of people is ALWAYS the way to make decisions.
which it clearly isn't



Yes, it enables musicians to play at the Proms. It enables academics to travel and collaborate. It enables small cheese producers from the UK to sell cheese in the rest of the EU.
It facilitates cultural collaboration and exchange. It enables young folks from the UK to travel and work all over Europe.

As the Norwegian PM said on R4 earlier this year, why is it always characterised as something that only has negative effects on low paid jobs in the UK ? (which is debatable anyway) and what is it always seen to only be of benefit to the wealthy ? (which isn't true either)

I am not campaigning for what you say I am campaigning for and have never considered campaigning for it. I have no idea where you got that sort of notion from. In recent years, I have campaigned for the Green Belt, against fracking, for greater regulation on advertisers, for the maintenance of the licence fee and against the legalisation of cannabis. I can't think of anything else. If you are suggesting that it is the policy of a political party, I am not especially concerned as I don't think it is worthwhile now reading or believing in any manifestos.

[Barbirollians]

I am not campaigning for what you say I am campaigning for and have never considered campaigning for it. I have no idea where you got that sort of notion from. In recent years, I have campaigned for the Green Belt, against fracking, for greater regulation on advertisers, for the maintenance of the licence fee and against the legalisation of cannabis. I can't think of anything else. If you are suggesting that it is the policy of a political party, I am not especially concerned as I don't think it is worthwhile now reading or believing in any manifestos.

The referendum was profoundly affected by electoral fraud . In refusing permission to appeal against a refusal by the High Court to grant permission for judicial review of May’s decision to invoke A 50 the CA indicated that had the referendum been binding rather than advisory it would have been likely to have been set aside as unlawful .

[Lat-Literal]

The referendum was profoundly affected by electoral fraud . In refusing permission to appeal against a refusal by the High Court to grant permission for judicial review of May’s decision to invoke A 50 the CA indicated that had the referendum been binding rather than advisory it would have been likely to have been set aside as unlawful .

I have been quite close to the Government side of dealing with Judicial Reviews. I have seen meetings with PMs put on delay because a Minister has been told a Mr Moneybags with a Judicial Review is at reception demanding to know why in his view a policy is irrational or unreasonable. An unknown to me, my senior colleagues and the public at large he nevertheless had a certain form of clout so that the world had to stop to revolve around him. Our work was put on hold too. My view is there should be a far greater separation of the law from the executive and the legislature in areas where policy is formulated. That was one reason why I could in the main accept the comments of Ms Lucas vis a vis trade and profits in her article.

There have been elements of electoral fraud in all General Elections. It is a phenomenon which has increased with the postal vote and a population that is more fluid in movement. None of them have been rerun. All referendums are, on paper, advisory including the 1975 one and in each case there was no possibility that the result would not stand. In this case only, a PM - Cameron - advised that the result would be binding. But you know that anyway. In both European referenda, the general public have been used -- I use that word with every possible connotation - to sort out petulance in the major parties. It can't go on. We are also ten years on from the parliamentary affairs scandal and twelve from the economic crisis. There really is no point to them anymore. The system does need to be overthrown. The far right is almost certainly the only group which can do it. Consequently, that has to be the way.

The way I see things now is that its power would not be a permanent state of affairs. It would lead to a European civil war. And only after that would neoliberal dictatorship be crushed which is an absolute prerequisite for any kind of democracy in the future. Britain is far from the first country where that course appears inevitable. Actually, it will be one of the last.

[Flay]

If you genuinely believed in democracy, you would be in favour of a second referendum, since the 2016 one was so obviously a response to lies and corrupt funding. Furthermore, it should be made crystal clear that a referendum on the results of May's negociations must be treated as purely advisory. If we are to have a representative democracy, the MPs should stick to their representative remit and not behave as a bunch of delegates.

Well said Bryn.

The referendum wasn't democratic. The "Leave" campaign was made with prejudice and dishonesty - downright lies in fact!

Of an electorate of 46.5 million only 17.5 million voted to leave. To be democratic voting should be compulsory. Those wishing to abstain should spoil their papers. Not turning up to vote is not good enough.

Over 1½ million voters under 20 have not had a chance to vote about something which will dramatically affect their futures.

Brexit has already cost us billions, affected the Pound, employment, and Britain's standing in the world.

The drawbacks of Brexit are numerous, the perceived benefits few.


Anyway I feel aggrieved that my vote only counted as much as that of a knife-wielding yob, a litter lout or a benefits scrounger. Direct democracy doesn't work.

[french frank]

I see no especial fraud in the campaign.

I see no ships:

[Richard Barrett]

Well, we could argue all day (and frequently have!) as to how valid the referendum result was and about the extent to which it should or shouldn't dictate policy. I am a little alarmed to see that Lat's solution seems to be a rerun of the Second World War, but such flights of fancy can be safely ignored I think. What happened to the topic by the way?

[MrGongGong]

I am not campaigning for what you say I am campaigning for and have never considered campaigning for it. I have no idea where you got that sort of notion from. In recent years, I have campaigned for the Green Belt, against fracking, for greater regulation on advertisers, for the maintenance of the licence fee and against the legalisation of cannabis. I can't think of anything else. If you are suggesting that it is the policy of a political party, I am not especially concerned as I don't think it is worthwhile now reading or believing in any manifestos.

I thought you believed in "democracy" ?
They were convincted by a democratic process
surely if you think that "democracy" is SO important you would be concerned about this ?

But maybe it's not as simple as you say ?

[Lat-Literal]

I thought you believed in "democracy" ?
They were convincted by a democratic process
surely if you think that "democracy" is SO important you would be concerned about this ?

But maybe it's not as simple as you say ?

To use your phrase - I have no idea what you are talking about. I have absolutely no interest in the Birmingham 6 and I doubt that I have ever written anything about them. At most of the 13 Pogues concerts I attended, there was a song about them. Apart from that, my only connection with the IRA is having fortunately been on holiday as a child when the bomb went off in Caterham because had I not been, there was a very fair chance that I would have been blown to bits. So the bridge building on my part between 1975 and 1987 was considerable. As previously mentioned, I did write 4,000 words on the history of Northern Ireland when at university in 1985 but the Birmingham 6 were not mentioned in it. I have just checked.

Well, we could argue all day (and frequently have!) as to how valid the referendum result was and about the extent to which it should or shouldn't dictate policy. I am a little alarmed to see that Lat's solution seems to be a rerun of the Second World War, but such flights of fancy can be safely ignored I think. What happened to the topic by the way?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/world-war-3-is-coming-a7622296.html

[Barbirollians]

I have been quite close to the Government side of dealing with Judicial Reviews. I have seen meetings with PMs put on delay because a Minister has been told a Mr Moneybags with a Judicial Review is at reception demanding to know why in his view a policy is irrational or unreasonable. An unknown to me, my senior colleagues and the public at large he nevertheless had a certain form of clout so that the world had to stop to revolve around him. Our work was put on hold too. My view is there should be a far greater separation of the law from the executive and the legislature in areas where policy is formulated. That was one reason why I could in the main accept the comments of Ms Lucas vis a vis trade and profits in her article.

There have been elements of electoral fraud in all General Elections. It is a phenomenon which has increased with the postal vote and a population that is more fluid in movement. None of them have been rerun. All referendums are, on paper, advisory including the 1975 one and in each case there was no possibility that the result would not stand. In this case only, a PM - Cameron - advised that the result would be binding. But you know that anyway. In both European referenda, the general public have been used -- I use that word with every possible connotation - to sort out petulance in the major parties. It can't go on. We are also ten years on from the parliamentary affairs scandal and twelve from the economic crisis. There really is no point to them anymore. The system does need to be overthrown. The far right is almost certainly the only group which can do it. Consequently, that has to be the way.

The way I see things now is that its power would not be a permanent state of affairs. It would lead to a European civil war. And only after that would neoliberal dictatorship be crushed which is an absolute prerequisite for any kind of democracy in the future. Britain is far from the first country where that course appears inevitable. Actually, it will be one of the last.

I am sure Lord Sumption and many government ministers would agree with you - on the other hand the development of administrative law in this country has led to vastly improved decision-making by public bodies although it remains all too often unlawful.

That is simply not the point - the Court of Appeal was apparently making the point that it was satisfied that had the referendum been binding ( like the AV referendum was) rather than advisory and would therefore have had the effect that we had to , as a matter of law , leave the EU it would have been quashed for electoral fraud and breaches of electoral law - just as a Parliamentary election is liable to be . What saved the Government was that as the referendum was only advisory it was for the Government to decided how much weight to give to it .

Hence , the point is that it is a denial of democracy to either have a ratification referendum or for an elected government to revoke A50 is absurd . It may be politically wise or unwise but it is perfectly democratic. A country ceases to be a democracy when it loses the right to change its mind on the basis of a corrupted advisory referendum.

It would be quite open for Brexit supporters to seek at the next general election to elect Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party or UKIP and its band of Islamophobic fascists or to be a part of Purple Momentum and seek to take the Conservative party over entirely and for a government to be elected that chooses to leave the EU .