Politikk, religion og samfunn Mens vi venter på Brexit

Forlater de EU


  • Totalt antall stemmer
    23
  • Avstemningen er stengt .

Diskusjonstråd Se tråd i gallerivisning

  • Hardingfele

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    25.10.2014
    Innlegg
    24.279
    Antall liker
    18.657
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    ^ Frp burde jo, på et eller annet tidspunkt, bli konfrontert med sine mange "løfter" til velgerne ...

    Men dessverre er nok det som foregår en bombe rett i demokratiet. Velgerne mister enhver tillit når de innser at løfter og virkelighet er umulige å forene.
     

    Dr Dong

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    23.01.2011
    Innlegg
    14.505
    Antall liker
    14.006
    Sted
    landskapet uten motstand
    Torget vurderinger
    1
    Kanskje, men løfter eller ikke fra Frp gjør liksom ikke den store susen i den norske virkeligheten. Det er liksom knapt en flau bris, meninger vi smilende sender til speilet ved tannpussen. Brexit blir - for å låne et begrep fra AKP - krisemaksimering live rett i kroppen. Poenget er ikke de brutt løfter slik umiddelbart, men smerten. Det er ingen smerte i Frp-land.
     
    G

    Gjestemedlem

    Gjest
    Kanskje kan Brexit - the hard way - bli en at de kraftigste svekkelser av den retningsløse populisme - den som bare livnærer seg på en misnøye uten annet enn dette NEI. Da vil det som så ofte ellers avhenge av hvem som greier å skrive historien. Labour er sentral der.
    Ja det er mye viktig i det.

    Den ene er at man må ta ansvar for de valgene man gjør på godt og vondt, og det nytter ikke å løpe gråtende til mor i ettertid å skylde på at noen lurte deg, det var løgner, reklamen på busen sa jo at.., russerne manipulerte valget eller dette var jo egentlig ikke det man hadde sett for seg.

    Det andre er at denne nei-til-EU-fadesen forhåpentligvis vil virke som en kalddusj for det norske anti EU/Nei til EØS-påvirkede publikum. Hva er vel bedre enn en historie fra virkeligheten utspilt i realtime. På sikt må jo dette føre til en lavere oppslutning omkring både høyreekstreme og venstrepopulister som SV, SP og Rødt her hjemme som faktisk agiterer for en norsk omgang med Brexit.

    Det er aspekter ved EØS-avtalen, med EU .. ja selv med FN som kan være uheldige eller man kan være uenige i, men felles for dem alle er at de skyldes dårlige politikere som tenker ideologi fremfor pragmatisme, og ikke systemet og rammeverket i seg selv. "Kan selv" og "vil ikke" er en treårings krigsrop, men noen saker er for store og viktige til å overlates til enkeltstater og hvor det heller bør søkes et videre samarbeid og en mye større og tyngre gruppering. Man kan jo se på EU som en fagforening for europeiske stater, i motsetning til Trump, Putin, Vedum og Farrage som ser at splitt og hersk er en lettere vei til makt på få hender.

    I UK burde Labour være en motvekt mot det kaoset Cameron og Toryene har forårsaket. Men de var det ikke og er det ikke. I stedet for å være et fornuftig parti har de også valgt klassekamp, isolasjonisme og konfrontasjon som sin lysende sti og har lagt sine egg i en kurv som er voktet av en gammelkommunist med en neomarxistisk og godt fanatisk tilhengerskare som ser frem til dommens dag og Karl den rødes andre komme. . eller var det Messias? Same shit.. Mellom 35 og 40% av Labours tilhengere stemte ja til Brexit. I UK er Liberaldemokratene de eneste som hele tiden og helhjertet har advart mot Brexit, folkeavstemninger og valget mellom pest og kolera ... eller Tory og Labour for å bruke synonymer.

    I Norge er heldigvis begge våre statsbærende partier Høyre og Arbeiderpartiet enige om de store rettningslinjene, og ikke minst vårt forhold til våre europeiske naboland, handelspartnere og venner. Det er et økende press fra ytterkantene på venstre- og høyrefløyen. De aller mest mørkeblå agiterte isolasjonistene som funkler mot Putin eller Grønne Statsmenn og de på venstresiden som åpenbart tror de/vi lever i en disneyfilm eller et søtt dataspill.
     

    Voff

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    03.11.2006
    Innlegg
    11.326
    Antall liker
    8.777
    Torget vurderinger
    1
    Det andre er at denne nei-til-EU-fadesen forhåpentligvis vil virke som en kalddusj for det norske anti EU/Nei til EØS-påvirkede publikum. Hva er vel bedre enn en historie fra virkeligheten utspilt i realtime. På sikt må jo dette føre til en lavere oppslutning omkring både høyreekstreme og venstrepopulister som SV, SP og Rødt her hjemme som faktisk agiterer for en norsk omgang med Brexit.

    Kanskje vi skal vente å se hvordan det går først?
     

    Hardingfele

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    25.10.2014
    Innlegg
    24.279
    Antall liker
    18.657
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    Faktiske plakater dette eller bare photoshop?
    Som Dr. Dong viser står toryene avkledde ...

    Ganske utrolig dysfunksjonelt, hva som foregår i britisk politikk. Og opposisjonen er selv-paralysert, pga ledelsens EU-motstand.

    Hvordan man skal klare å grave seg ut av dette er noe uklart.
     
    Sist redigert:

    Asbjørn

    Rubinmedlem
    Ble medlem
    26.03.2006
    Innlegg
    39.002
    Antall liker
    40.260
    Sted
    Vingulmǫrk
    Torget vurderinger
    2

    Asbjørn

    Rubinmedlem
    Ble medlem
    26.03.2006
    Innlegg
    39.002
    Antall liker
    40.260
    Sted
    Vingulmǫrk
    Torget vurderinger
    2

    Asbjørn

    Rubinmedlem
    Ble medlem
    26.03.2006
    Innlegg
    39.002
    Antall liker
    40.260
    Sted
    Vingulmǫrk
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    Det er interessant, men aldeles ikke uventet, at "noen" fyrer opp under begge ytterfløyer i UK nå. Mystiske pengestrømmer via stråmenn som finansierer en flom av Facebook-annonser som argumenterer for at "no deal" er det eneste rette for UK's nasjonalistiske fremtid. Og andre annonser som argumenterer for at politikerne har sviktet totalt og at en ny folkeavstemning er eneste vei ut av uføret. Denne "noen" har det riktig morsomt. Revestrekene fra 2016 fungerer fortsatt.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/13/dark-money-hard-brexit-targeted-ads-facebook
    In Britain, for example, we now know that the EU referendum was won with the help of widespread cheating. We still don’t know the origins of much of the money spent by the leave campaigns. For example, we have no idea who provided the £435,000 channelled through Scotland, into Northern Ireland, through the coffers of the Democratic Unionist party and back into Scotland and England, to pay for pro-Brexit ads. Nor do we know the original source of the £8m that Arron Banks delivered to the Leave.EU campaign. We do know that both of the main leave campaigns have been fined for illegal activities, and that the conduct of the referendum has damaged many people’s faith in the political system. But, astonishingly, the government has so far failed to introduce a single new law in response to these events. And now it’s happening again.

    Since mid-January an organisation called Britain’s Future has spent £125,000 on Facebook ads demanding a hard or no-deal Brexit. Most of them target particular constituencies. Where an MP is deemed sympathetic to the organisation’s aims, the voters who receive these ads are urged to tell him or her to “remove the backstop, rule out a customs union, deliver Brexit without delay”. Where the MP is deemed unsympathetic, the message is: “Don’t let them steal Brexit; Don’t let them ignore your vote.”

    So who or what is Britain’s Future? Sorry, I have no idea. As openDemocracy points out, it has no published address and releases no information about who founded it, who controls it and who has been paying for these advertisements. The only person publicly associated with it is a journalist called Tim Dawson, who edits its website. Dawson has not yet replied to the questions I have sent him. It is, in other words, highly opaque. The anti-Brexit campaigns are not much better. People’s Vote and Best for Britain have also been spending heavily on Facebook ads, though not as much in recent weeks as Britain’s Future.
    Vi har vel sett noe lignende før.
    0c0a6e79368fe4e782d9ac0a15b638c15cb9f3dd4f9b2374ac7cbd74.jpeg
     

    Hardingfele

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    25.10.2014
    Innlegg
    24.279
    Antall liker
    18.657
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    6.850 lastebiler kjører fra Calais og inn i UK, hver dag.

    Skjermbilde 2019-02-15 kl. 19.05.56.jpg

    Skjermbilde 2019-02-15 kl. 19.05.43.jpg
     
    G

    Gjestemedlem

    Gjest
    The Corbyn crack-up
    Why the Labour leader’s personality cult is starting to crumble
    Nick Cohen

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/the-corbyn-crack-up/

    To say that the May administration is ‘the worst government anyone can remember’ is to abuse the English language. It isn’t a government but a collection of factions so far apart I am surprised they can stay in the same cabinet.

    On the backbenches the European Research Group operates as a separate English nationalist party. Everywhere Tory politicians are scrambling to position themselves to succeed Theresa May, rather than holding on to any notion as quaint as putting their country before their careers.

    Yet faced with this ungoverning government, a maladministration that is so exhausted it is running out of Conservative MPs who can serve as ministers, the opposition is behind in the polls and Jeremy Corbyn is the most unpopular Labour leader ever.

    The disintegration of the Conservative party is matched by the visible decay of Labour. Yet the standard argument of British political commentary is that nothing will change. The old parties will hold together. The electoral system guarantees their survival. Read up on the fate of the SDP, old chap — that will soon put you right.

    Conventional wisdom is not always wrong. Eight or so Labour MPs will resign soon — maybe this week. That’s it. Just eight. How pathetic and inadequate. They leave behind about 130 MPs, who know that the old Labour party has been taken over by men and women from the communist tradition, who wish to destroy them, but cannot bring themselves to leave. ‘We must wait until there are enough MPs to form a party with a clear purpose that can offer itself as an alternative government,’ one told me.

    The temptation is to dismiss them as cowards who are clinging on to their seats and hoping that somehow, some day, the far-left grip on the party will loosen without them needing to take a stand. Some are. Others no longer have the stomach for a fight. The gleeful abuse — the revelling in the power to humiliate — inflicted on them by Labour members they regard as sociopaths is too much. The far left is doing what it has done throughout its history: making life so unbearable for those who disagree with it that they give up and walk away.

    ‘An MP next to me just burst into tears in the voting lobby,’ said one Labour politician. ‘All the hypocrite union leaders support Corbyn, or pretend to,’ said another. ‘But if a boss treated his employees the way Labour treats its MPs, they would be shouting from the rooftops.’ A third, one of the party’s greatest assets, told me: ‘I may not stand again. Momentum wants to put me up for reselection. I’d probably win. But who wants to waste their life fighting them? And for what?’

    Every MP I spoke to talked of the stress of dealing with a party dominated by tiny-minded people in the grip of paranoid fantasies. The stupidity of Corbyn and his supporters is their least-discussed feature, but it is the one that hurts the politicians who must live with it the most.

    Corbyn’s first wife, Jane Chapman, told his biographer Tom Bower that she never knew him read a book in four years of marriage. Corbyn grew up in a family from the intellectual left, which sounds rather like mine. It is a milieu that places a huge premium on learning. Yet despite having all the advantages of educated parents, and private and grammar schools, he managed just two E’s at A-level and dropped out of the old North London Polytechnic, which was not an institution famed for its intellectual rigour, to put it mildly.

    His academic failure was the midwife to his political failure. ‘Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools,’ said the 19th-century German social democrat August Bebel. Instead of seeing the power structure as it is and trying to change it, the anti-Semite fantasises about a cabal of Jews controlling every-thing. In far-left as in far-right politics, no one is just a little bit foolish: you buy folly as a job lot or not at all. It is no surprise to find Corbyn babbling like Jacob Rees-Mogg about the EU being a ‘military Frankenstein’ or demanding Putin’s agents to be given a sample of a chemical weapon so those reliable Russians could say whether they were or were not behind the Salisbury attack.

    The socialism of fools has made the Labour party a ship of fools. Who can blame MPs, members and voters if they slip away in whatever lifeboats they can find to a quiet life? For all that, the notion that as everything else crumbles the old parties will retain their hold feels wrong. Conventional wisdom has been a poor guide to the world since 2008, and there are reasons for believing it may flop again.

    The first is the double bind the far left finds itself in. If it were a serious political movement, it would be looking at the polls and seeking to renew itself. It would thank ‘Jeremy’, as his chummy supporters insist on calling him, for doing more for the far left than it ever dreamed possible, and then replace him with a leader who could take power from the Conservatives’ lifeless hands. Yet nowhere in parliament, Momentum or in the left-wing media do you hear public discussion of what comes next.

    Generals fight the last war and politicians fight the last election. The official line is that the polls underestimated Labour in 2017 and are underestimating ‘Jeremy’ again. The truth, as always, is more interesting than the authorised version. Corbyn is 69. John McDonnell is 67. Although they are pushing forward Rebecca Long-Bailey as the heir apparent, the two politicians touring the constituencies and building support are Emily Thornberry, whose loyalty to the far left is widely seen as insincere, and Angela Rayner, who is showing faint signs of developing a mind of her own.

    In other words, the far left has a succession problem; a problem that flowed from its decision to imitate the communist dictatorships and build a personality cult around its leader. Corbyn’s supporters pretended that he led the anti-apartheid movement, when in truth he was but a bit player. They said he fought for peace in Ireland, when in truth he supported Sinn Fein. They claimed that he talked to all sides in the Middle East, when in truth he talked to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the propaganda organs of the Iranian state.

    Most foolishly of all, they pretended that he supported Britain staying in the European Union and would campaign for a People’s Vote, when in truth he is a lifelong anti-European who will do everything he can to frustrate a second referendum.

    ‘Even if he notionally backs a vote, he will wait until it is too late or give enough Labour MPs the nod to vote it down,’ one of the leaders of the breakaway said to me on condition of anonymity.

    Personality cults take time to crack. The sunk costs and the emotional investment is so great that believers do not want to admit they have made fools of themselves and every-one who listened to them. Corbyn’s will fail only when he becomes too old to lead the faithful in prayer. What then? Unspoken questions nag away at his supporters. Is it possible to have Corbynism without Corbyn? Can anyone else replicate that strange mixture of moral certainty, passive aggression and victimhood?

    In the personality cults of the communist world, Khrushchev succeeded Stalin, Kim Jong-un succeeded Kim Jong-il, and there was nothing Russians or Koreans could do about it. But Britain is a democracy and even the Labour party would not tolerate a rigged election with a shortlist of one.

    Because their dominance may be temporary, Unite and Momentum have to purge as many sitting MPs and councillors as they can. But deselection brings costs. Voters who supported Labour despite rather than because of its leaders are driven away. Sitting MPs and councillors are given greater incentives to join a new party or stand as independents and split the Labour vote. The old division between the social democratic and the communist lefts has returned in 21st-century clothes, and neither side feels an ounce of loyalty to the other.

    And what of that new party? Let us return to that apparently pathetic total of eight or so MPs who are screwing their courage to the sticking place. They say they are not going to be Labour Mark II. ‘The public is sick of the old politics and the old established order — we will be something different,’ said one of its backers, before going on to point out that traditional Labour voters don’t trust Corbyn and his followers on defence, crime, terrorism and immigration. I am still trying to get my head around how a new party will apparently be modern and traditional at the same time. It sounded a little vacuous. So did the MPs who assured me there had to be a change, but not yet.

    Maybe talk of a new politics is all vacuous. But I would not count on it. The media and, more seriously for its supporters, the Corbyn Labour party do not understand the fury at Brexit that is raging through liberal Britain. It is white-hot and capable of immense destruction. A member of the shadow cabinet told me that Labour had large majorities in Remain seats and small majorities in Leave seats and could therefore ignore the concerns of its pro-EU voters without suffering too much electoral damage. Likewise, Corbyn believes he can renege on his referendum promise without Remain voters making him pay. For all the world they sound like Scottish Labour politicians circa 2005, taking their voters for granted and guffawing at the notion that the SNP could ever sweep through the Labour heartlands.

    We are meant to accept that while every-thing changes, the two-party system will stay the same. I find that hard to believe. In the small groups breaking away, in larger number of humiliated and abused MPs waiting for their moment, in the new alignments around values, and in the volcanic pro-European fury, you can see if not the certainty then at least the possibility of a new politics arising.
     

    Hardingfele

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    25.10.2014
    Innlegg
    24.279
    Antall liker
    18.657
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    Det britiske parlamentets rapport etter høringer og etterforskning av facebook er nå publisert. Selskapet er "a digital gangster" og landets valglover må skrives om, fra bunnen, da de ikke er "fit for purpose" til å takle utfordringen facebook representerer for et demokrati.

    Facebook is an out-of-control train wreck that is destroying democracy and must be brought under control. The final report of parliament’s inquiry into fake news and disinformation does not use this language, precisely, but it is, nonetheless, the report’s central message. And the language it does use is no less damning.

    Facebook behaves like a “digital gangster”. It considers itself to be “ahead of and beyond the law”. It “misled” parliament. It gave statements that were “not true”. Its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has treated British lawmakers with “contempt”. It has pursued a “deliberate” strategy to deceive parliament.

    In terms of how lawmakers across the globe need to think about Silicon Valley, the report is a landmark. The first really comprehensive attempt of a major legislative body to peer into the dark heart of a dark economy of data manipulation and voter influence. And to come up with a set of recommendations that its chair, the Conservative MP for Bournemouth, Damian Collins, says must involve “a radical shift in the balance of power between the platforms and the people”.
    A withering verdict: MPs report on Zuckerberg, Russia and Cambridge Analytica
    Read more

    The scale of the report – it drew from 170 written submissions and evidence from 73 witnesses who were asked more than 4,350 questions – is without precedent. And it’s what contributes to making its conclusions so damning: that the government must now act. That Facebook must be regulated. That Britain’s electoral laws must be re-written from the bottom up; the report is unequivocal, they are not “fit for purpose”. And that the government must now open an independent investigation into foreign interference in all British elections since 2014.

    Cambridge Analytica was already on the committee’s radar when the scandal broke in March last year. But, over the ensuing weeks and months, it interviewed an extraordinary cast of characters to drill down into the underlying machinery of the new political power structures. And the result – a doorstopper of a report covering multiple interconnected issues – damns Facebook not just once or twice but time and time again.
    https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ing-democracy-the-damning-verdict-on-facebook
     

    Dr Dong

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    23.01.2011
    Innlegg
    14.505
    Antall liker
    14.006
    Sted
    landskapet uten motstand
    Torget vurderinger
    1
    Brexit som katarsis

    There is something surreal about these last days before Brexit – just 39 now. There is still no visibility on a deal, and no clarity on a no deal. There is no parliament that seems to have a grasp on managing the slide into the unknown, other than humiliating the prime minister in vote after vote and then proposing little as an alternative. The scene outside parliament is a collection of Brexit doomsday soothsayers and naysayers, each with chants and flags and signs and regalia. Elsewhere, stranger things are happening: pro-remain campaigners have started stripping off, we are arguing about Winston Churchill and Boer War concentration camps, and children are marching in the streets chanting: “Fuck Theresa May.” It feels like the last days in the compound of a cult that once flourished but is now finally and fatally besieged.

    The end of such a cult, that operates outside the bounds of common sense, is inevitable. Not only that, it should be welcomed. It is time. It is time for the country to come to terms with the fact that it has for too long been in denial about some of its fundamental flaws – and if a messy unplanned Brexit is the way to do that, then so be it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/18/britain-brexit
     
    G

    Gjestemedlem

    Gjest
    Misnøyen med Corbyn og den radikale fløyen fører til splittelse av partiet. 7 av Labours medlemmer av parlamentet har nå meld seg ut i protest mot Corbyn, mot systematisk anti-semittisme i partiet og mot håndteringen av Brexit, samt den hetsen som moderate og sentrumsorienterte blir utsatt for av de Progressive.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47278902

    De syv danner en uavhengig gruppe i parlamentet, og det blir interessant å se om flere følger dem etterhvert.
     
    G

    Gjestemedlem

    Gjest
    In praise of the Labour splitters
    Alex Massie

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/in-praise-of-the-labour-splitters/

    The first thing to note is that it’s not about policy. The not-so secret seven MPs who left the Labour party this morning have not changed their policy preferences. They have not become Tories. Nor have they even become liberals. They could, with little difficulty, endorse much of the Labour party’s 2017 manifesto without compromising themselves in the slightest.

    Because this break, this rebellion, this journey into exile, is not about policy. It is about character and values and so many of the other things the Labour party believes it holds dear to the extent it often behaves as though it thinks it owns a monopoly on these things. And the chief message from this more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger departure is that these seven – who are really eight, if the Barrow MP John Woodcock is included – do not believe Jeremy Corbyn is a fit and proper person to be prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    They may not be alone in that. The most recent YouGov poll on this question reported that just one in five voters thinks Corbyn would make a better prime minister than Theresa May. Let that sink in. At a time of political crisis and faced with the weakest, most divided, government many of us can remember, the leader of the opposition is weighed against a ruinously unpopular Prime Minister and still found grievously wanting. The public have seen enough; they know he’s not up to it. And not even happy-clappy promises to nationalise the trains can change that.

    188881809_gang_seven-xlarge.jpg
     
    Sist redigert av en moderator:
    G

    Gjestemedlem

    Gjest
    Jeremy Corbyn has been warned he now faces a fresh wave of resignations after seven MPs quit over his handling of Brexit and anti-Semitism.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...d-of-fresh-wave-of-resignations-a4070081.html

    The Labour party’s deputy leader Tom Watson raised the alarm, saying more members are considering leaving over Mr Corbyn’s leadership.

    Speaking after the first wave of resignations on Monday, Mr Watson called for drastic changes to the party’s frontbench to reflect a “balance of opinion”.

    He lashed out at the handling of anti-Semitism allegations and said Luciana Berger - one of the MPs who resigned - was a casualty of "a virulent form of identity politics that has seized the Labour Party".
     

    erato

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    15.03.2003
    Innlegg
    20.168
    Antall liker
    10.888
    Sted
    Bergen
    Torget vurderinger
    1
    En liten analyse fra en bekjent (av meg) brite som pleier å vite hva han snakker om og har god innsikt i britisk politikk:


    On the whole, not a very impressive bunch as far as I'm concerned. Joan Ryan and Mike Gapes are rather fond of condemning the entire Labour Party as "a racist party" because of the actions of a tiny minority of idiots, thus tarring hundreds of thousands of people with that brush. Chris Leslie brushed off questions about Angela Smith's rather unfortunate comments with the response that such questions are being asked because there are powerful vested interests out to squash the Independent Group. I wonder if he would have been so understanding if that comment had come from a Corbyn-supporting MP; I'll stick my neck out and hazard a guess that he wouldn't.

    But the real problems with this lot relate to policy. Anna Soubry said in the press conference that she fully supported the coalition's austerity policies. That's the vicious shit meted out to the poorest people by that sociopathic tosser Osborne that she's talking about. She has no problem with that, but I wonder what any other Labour MPs thinking of jumping ship think about it. The Labour right objects to being called Red Tories, but if they leave Labour to join MPs who voted for austerity, and in Soubry's case voice strong support for it, then they can't really complain.

    But then maybe they won't mind Soubry's comments so much: it's the right of the party which was so utterly spineless in its capitulation to the Tories' austerity agenda before Corbyn won the leadership. That resulted in the Tories having more or less carte blanche to do what they wanted, safe in the knowledge that Labour's response would be "me too, but even more!", so perhaps these are their more natural political allies. Some from the New Labour era, including John Rentoul, Philip Collins and Blair himself, have made it quite clear that they don't object to Corbyn because they think he can't win: they still wouldn't support any government with his policies even if they thought it would win, because they don't want a left wing government. They'd rather have a Tory government led by the likes of Cameron or May, and if that means the Tories staying in power to shaft the very people the Labour right claims to care about, well, so be it. It would seem that that attitude is quite prevalent among Labour MPs too.

    It's worth noting that while the right of the party has been engaged in a near continuous fit of the vapours ever since Corbyn won the leadership, there is no indication that they've learned anything from it or paused to reflect on why it happened. Their only "explanation" appears to be that a hitherto undetected army of hundreds of thousands of Trots and Stalinists was lying in wait for the day that someone from the left of the party won the leadership, at which point they all joined en masse. At no point does it appear to have occurred to them that maybe an awful lot of people were pissed off with the "choice" between a very right wing party and an ever so slightly less right wing party and wanted a genuine alternative. For similar reasons they couldn't believe the result of the 2017 election, when Corbyn's policies actually turned out to be rather popular. For all their hatred of Corbyn, the right hasn't even come close to coming up with an alternative set of policies which could fire the enthusiasm of Labour voters and provide a basis for winning power.

    At present it seems the only thing that really binds the IG together is opposition to Brexit and supporting a referendum, but that's nowhere near enough. If they want to be a party with a coherent set of policies they've got an awful lot of work to do. Maybe they'll manage it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Just calling themselves "moderates" isn't going to be enough either. Yvette Cooper is often hailed as a "Labour moderate", yet she had a key role in screwing over chronically ill and disabled people with the now notorious Work Capability Assessment, one of the biggest social policy disasters of recent years, which is still ongoing and has driven thousands upon thousands of vulnerable people into destitution and in some cases early graves. If that's an example of moderation then the word is drained of all meaning.

    I suspect there will be a lot more Labour than Tory MPs who join the IG. Since the Attlee government, there have only been two occasions when the left has been in control of the Labour party: in the early 1980s, and now. For the rest of the time it's been the right in control, never more so than during the New Labour era. When the right has been in control and it's been the left on the margins, the left were expected to suck it up for the good of the party. Yet when the boot has been on the other foot, a section of the right has flounced out in a huff. It's happening now, and it happened in the early 80s with the formation of the SDP. That resulted in the anti-Tory vote splitting, and 18 years of Tory rule. Early polling suggests that the IG would hurt Labour a lot more than the Tories in an election, so history may be about to repeat itself. Isn't that a cheery thought?

    So, we'll have to wait and see how things develop, but I can't see me getting on board with the Funny Tingers as things stand.
     

    Hardingfele

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    25.10.2014
    Innlegg
    24.279
    Antall liker
    18.657
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    Vart lurt no.

    Ratcliffe, rikeste mann i UK, stikker nå til Monaco samtidig som han får midler fra EU. Han var største Brexit-tilhenger og finansierte en del av kampanjen.

    The company controlled by the prominent Brexit backer Jim Ratcliffe, Britain’s richest man, has received pledges of tax breaks from EU governments potentially worth hundreds of millions of euros since the UK voted to leave the union.

    The chemicals and plastics company Ineos’s subsidiaries and joint ventures have been granted support from Germany, the UK, Belgium and France of at least €178m (£155m), according to a Guardian analysis of the European commission’s state aid data since July 2016.

    The commission only provides ranges for the amount of aid given, meaning the true total may be well over €300m.

    Ratcliffe, the owner of 60% of Ineos, has been highly critical of the EU’s tax policy. He is also reportedly planning to move to Monaco for tax reasons.
    https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ve-tax-breaks-to-firm-of-billionaire-brexiter

    Samme mann har kjempet i årevis for å få bygge i strandsonen, med flere søknadsrunder. I sjette runde fikk han innvilget søknaden sin: "He must really want to live here."
    Straks etter meldte han flytting til Monaco:
    https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-selfish-jim-ratcliffe-leaves-new-forest-home

    Det blir interessant å følge reaksjonene fra "vanlige briter" når de innser hvordan de er blitt lurt.
     
    G

    Gjestemedlem

    Gjest
    The myth of the ‘millennial’ Corbyn project
    Tom Harwood

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-myth-of-the-millennial-corbyn-project/


    The myth at the heart of the ‘Corbyn project’ is that it is a grassroots movement of enthusiastic young people. This group, so the theory goes, is disgusted by free markets and longs for industries to be nationalised and collectives of workers to seize control of the means of production. Books have even been written about how the ‘young’ have ‘created a new socialism.’ But if this is true, why does a poll today reveal that support for the newly-formed centrist Independent Group predominantly come from young people? Forty-seven per cent of 18-24 year olds approve of the creation of TIG, with just 14 per cent disapproving of it. This is strange behaviour from an age group we’re constantly told are supposed to be most rabidly in favour of Jeremy Corbyn. Listening to high-profile Corbynistas in their plentiful media appearances you would assume that the people most likely to back TIG are ageing Blairites and ‘centrists dads’. Far from it.

    In fact, less than a third of older voters approve of the new group. This comes as little surprise when compared to other polling, which reveals that young people are among the most likely of any age group to say that “government taxes too much and spends too much on services” with the over 65s being the least likely to support that same statement. 18-24s are also the least likely to support the view that “government taxes too little and spends too little on services”, with just 22 per cent agreeing, ten points behind the over 65s. It is clear that there is more to young people’s dissatisfaction with Labour than Brexit equivocation.

    ..
     

    Asbjørn

    Rubinmedlem
    Ble medlem
    26.03.2006
    Innlegg
    39.002
    Antall liker
    40.260
    Sted
    Vingulmǫrk
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    Det var vel omtrent dette disse Brexit-fantastene lovet folket før avstemningen, var det ikke?
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/01/business/us-uk-trade-deal-brexit/index.html
    The US administration wants to secure "comprehensive access" for agricultural goods in Britain by reducing or eliminating tariffs. It also wants other barriers to US exports removed.

    Scrapping those barriers could open Britain's door to genetically modified crops, animal feed with antibiotics and chlorine-washed chicken products that are banned in the European Union but common in the United States.

    Henig said that the United States sees Brexit as an "opportunity to ensure the United Kingdom follows the US approach in areas such as food standards."
    The US document also warns Britain that it will take "appropriate action" if the country negotiates a trade deal with a "non-market country" — which experts said is a reference to China.

    "It's attempting to allow the United States to withdraw the deal if it doesn't like any agreement the United Kingdom makes with China," said Peter Holmes, a trade expert who teaches economics at the University of Sussex.
    Experts say the tough line taken by the United States reflects the reduced bargaining power the United Kingdom will have once it leaves the European Union.

    It will negotiate as a country of 66 million, while the European Union represents a bloc with 500 million citizens. Other countries also know that the United Kingdom will be highly motivated to replace free trade deals it lost because of Brexit.

    South Korea and Japan have already indicated they will demand concessions on trade in return for new deals with the United Kingdom to replace those it has as an EU member state.
     

    Trane

    Hi-Fi freak
    Ble medlem
    22.09.2003
    Innlegg
    8.311
    Antall liker
    7.418
    Torget vurderinger
    4
    Og selvfølgelig begynner brexit bli en reell trussel mot UK.

    Et mulig nytt skotsk valg om uavhengighet kommer til å bli påtrengende aktuelt.

    Nicola Sturgeon on brexit.JPG
     

    Dr Dong

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    23.01.2011
    Innlegg
    14.505
    Antall liker
    14.006
    Sted
    landskapet uten motstand
    Torget vurderinger
    1
    Det var vel omtrent dette disse Brexit-fantastene lovet folket før avstemningen, var det ikke?
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/01/business/us-uk-trade-deal-brexit/index.html
    The US administration wants to secure "comprehensive access" for agricultural goods in Britain by reducing or eliminating tariffs. It also wants other barriers to US exports removed.

    Scrapping those barriers could open Britain's door to genetically modified crops, animal feed with antibiotics and chlorine-washed chicken products that are banned in the European Union but common in the United States.

    Henig said that the United States sees Brexit as an "opportunity to ensure the United Kingdom follows the US approach in areas such as food standards."
    The US document also warns Britain that it will take "appropriate action" if the country negotiates a trade deal with a "non-market country" — which experts said is a reference to China.

    "It's attempting to allow the United States to withdraw the deal if it doesn't like any agreement the United Kingdom makes with China," said Peter Holmes, a trade expert who teaches economics at the University of Sussex.
    Experts say the tough line taken by the United States reflects the reduced bargaining power the United Kingdom will have once it leaves the European Union.

    It will negotiate as a country of 66 million, while the European Union represents a bloc with 500 million citizens. Other countries also know that the United Kingdom will be highly motivated to replace free trade deals it lost because of Brexit.

    South Korea and Japan have already indicated they will demand concessions on trade in return for new deals with the United Kingdom to replace those it has as an EU member state.
    Langs de samme linjer:

    More striking is the US attempt to restrict Britain’s ability to sign a deal with a non-market economy such as China. So much for taking back control. If the UK were to sign up to these demands, we’d simply be trading one set of restraints on our sovereignty – restraints agreed by us and 27 other nations in Brussels – for another, dictated by Donald Trump in Washington.

    And what would it be for? The government’s own figures estimate that the best we could hope for from a US trade agreement would be a 0.3% boost to GDP – meagre compensation for the hit of between 4% and 8% we’ll take from leaving the EU. Right now, we are part of a bloc big enough to stand up to the demands of an America First Trump administration. After Brexit, we will be a single medium-sized economy standing alone, with much less ability to say no.

    The truth is, the goal of a trade deal with the US never made economic sense. It was all about politics – the quest for a trophy that could be presented as a benefit of Brexit when, in fact, there are next to none. It didn’t stack up in June 2016, but it is even more absurd now – abandoning the largest ever free trade area, right where we live, for a dictator-coddling would-be autocrat thousands of miles away, who sees us not as a trusted ally but as prey.

    One of the strongest arguments for a new referendum is that the circumstances have changed since the last one: few circumstances have changed more than this. The world is less stable and more dangerous than it was three years ago. Leaving Europe would always have been a mistake. Leaving Europe for the tender mercies of Donald Trump is insane.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/brexit-trump-trade-hanoi
     

    Hardingfele

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    25.10.2014
    Innlegg
    24.279
    Antall liker
    18.657
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    ^ Toryene sørger for at Skottland blir uavhengig dersom de presser gjennom Brexit.

    Det kanskje mest underholdende hittil. UK har ikke nok paller av rett type dersom de skal eksportere til EU, etter Brexit. Det gjelder ulike regler for EU-paller og paller som kommer inn utenfra EU, med tanke på hvordan disse rengjøres og desinfiseres og man har ikke nok utstyr til dette i Storbritannia.

    Ett eksempel av tusener av ting som burde vært avklart forlengst og som man knapt er begynt å tenke på, blant Brexiteers.

    LONDON - The UK government is due to hold emergency talks with industry leaders on Tuesday after discovering that the country doesn't have the right pallets to continue exporting goods to the European Union if it leaves without a deal next month.

    Under strict EU rules, pallets - wooden structures that companies use to transport large volumes of goods - arriving from non-member states are required to meet a series of checks and standards.

    Wood pallets must be heat-treated or cleaned to prevent contamination and the spread of pests, and have specific markings to confirm that they are legal in EU markets.

    Most pallets that British exporters are using do not conform to these rules for non-EU countries, or "third countries," as EU member states follow a much more relaxed set of regulations.
    https://nordic.businessinsider.com/...y-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?r=US&IR=T
     

    Asbjørn

    Rubinmedlem
    Ble medlem
    26.03.2006
    Innlegg
    39.002
    Antall liker
    40.260
    Sted
    Vingulmǫrk
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    Et par andre sitater fra samme artikkel:
    All of which brings us to our second glimpse of the kind of deal a post-Brexit UK might expect from the US. On Thursday Lighthizer released Washington’s “negotiating objectives”, starting with “comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK”. Translation: they want the right to fill our supermarkets with their chlorinated chicken.

    There’s language in there that takes aim at the NHS, specifically at the health service’s power as a bulk purchaser to set prices, paying less for drugs than big pharma would like. The US demand for “procedural fairness” may well be an attempt to break that power, forcing the NHS – and everyone else – to pay more for medicine.

    Some of these are demands any US administration would make, but others are Trump innovations. Note the US insistence that, on services, Britain take down all existing barriers to American exporters, while the US be allowed to maintain barriers that keep out British exporters. As Sam Lowe, trade analyst at the Centre for European Reform, puts it: “It’s a laughably one-sided demand.”
    Velbekomme. Når man gjør noe så komplett idiotisk mot seg selv får man ta de opplagte konsekvensene. Eller ombestemme seg, før UK er redusert til en union av England og Wales, som deretter går i oppløsning over et tvilsomt utfall av en rugby-match.
     

    Hardingfele

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    25.10.2014
    Innlegg
    24.279
    Antall liker
    18.657
    Torget vurderinger
    2
    Paul Nurse har lite til overs for Brexit. Han er en av verdens fremste genforskere og leder Crick-laboratoriet. UK får nå fra GBP 500 millioner til 1 milliard mer tilbake fra EU, i forskningsstøtte, enn hva de betaler. Nurse er bekymret for hvordan regjeringen skal erstatte det bortfallet. Han er nådeløs:

    Many people want a second referendum on Brexit. Do you think scientists will push for this in the coming weeks?

    The scientific community, top to bottom, is overwhelmingly against Brexit. We did a survey here a few months ago and around 97% thought that Brexit was a negative outcome. I have this naive faith that normally the British are not this stupid. Gradually, Parliament is waking up to the fact that it is sleepwalking into disaster. I’m hoping over the next 30 days that Parliament will realize the need to call for an extension, so we can have more time to talk about it.

    And in my view, ultimately, we do need a second referendum because the first referendum was so strongly informed by misunderstanding and even mistruths of a gargantuan type. This is a madness that normally the British find a way through, so let’s hope that we do.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00694-w?
     

    erato

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    15.03.2003
    Innlegg
    20.168
    Antall liker
    10.888
    Sted
    Bergen
    Torget vurderinger
    1
    Vil de erstatte det da? Aristokratiet i UK som sørger for at dette er et klassesamfunn, må jo ha perfekte gener, så hva er det å forske på?

    United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts,’ Churchill wrote in his War Memoirs. ‘Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.’

    Unteachable from infancy to tomb — There is the first and main characteristic of mankind.

    Churchill, 21 May 1928 (cited in Langworth, Churchill: In His Own Words)
     

    erato

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    15.03.2003
    Innlegg
    20.168
    Antall liker
    10.888
    Sted
    Bergen
    Torget vurderinger
    1
    Skulle tro det ja. Kanskje de er redd for hva forskningen kan avdekke?
     

    K2

    Hi-Fi freak
    Ble medlem
    16.04.2007
    Innlegg
    1.229
    Antall liker
    1.994
    Sted
    Skedsmokorset
    Torget vurderinger
    10
    Innavl er vel et premiss hvis du vil maksimere makt og rikdom !
     
    G

    Gjestemedlem

    Gjest
    UK har hatt sin avstemning om EU-spørsmålet så den biten er avgjort. Det det handler om er hva de skal få i stedet for og der er det litt uenighet. Når det gjelder nasjonalistene i Skottland så har de også fått sin avstemning, og det spørsmålet er også oppe og avgjort.

    Man kan ikke pisse på demokratiet og forlange nye folkeavstemninger helt til man får det resultatet man ønsker seg.
     

    Northman

    Hi-Fi entusiast
    Ble medlem
    16.05.2017
    Innlegg
    378
    Antall liker
    97
    UK har hatt sin avstemning om EU-spørsmålet så den biten er avgjort. Det det handler om er hva de skal få i stedet for og der er det litt uenighet. Når det gjelder nasjonalistene i Skottland så har de også fått sin avstemning, og det spørsmålet er også oppe og avgjort.

    Man kan ikke pisse på demokratiet og forlange nye folkeavstemninger helt til man får det resultatet man ønsker seg.

    Vel, vist de som var for Leave, med vishet og vilje løy og feilinformerte befolkningen, så burde folk få lovt til å forandre mening...

    Det blir som at jeg har stemt på Høyre.. men så etter valget sier de vil bruke Rødt´s partiprogram.
    Vel.. det var ikke det jeg stemte på og Høyre har tydelig lurt meg.

    Akkurat samme har skjedd i Brexit.
     
    G

    Gjestemedlem

    Gjest
    UK har hatt sin avstemning om EU-spørsmålet så den biten er avgjort. Det det handler om er hva de skal få i stedet for og der er det litt uenighet. Når det gjelder nasjonalistene i Skottland så har de også fått sin avstemning, og det spørsmålet er også oppe og avgjort.

    Man kan ikke pisse på demokratiet og forlange nye folkeavstemninger helt til man får det resultatet man ønsker seg.

    Vel, vist de som var for Leave, med vishet og vilje løy og feilinformerte befolkningen, så burde folk få lovt til å forandre mening...

    Det blir som at jeg har stemt på Høyre.. men så etter valget sier de vil bruke Rødt´s partiprogram.
    Vel.. det var ikke det jeg stemte på og Høyre har tydelig lurt meg.

    Akkurat samme har skjedd i Brexit.
    Man kunne jo brukt de samme argumentene etter vårt EU valg i 94, og den løgn og svertekampanjen som lokale matvareprofittører og nasjonalister kjørte. .. og forlangt ny avstamning året etter, og kanskje enda en 2-3 år senere om det ikke da heller ble ønsket resultat.

    Det eneste britene måtte svare på var om de ville melde seg ut av EU eller ikke. Enkelt ja/nei, og det karte de helt fint. Etter min mening det mest stupide de har funnet på, men har man en demokratisk avstemning så må man respektere resultatet selv om man misliker det aldri så mye.

    Hva som kommer i stedet for er jo det de har forhandlet om et par år nå. Har de litt vett i behold bør de stemme ja til den avtalen som er fremforhandlet, og så gjøre det beste ut i fra den og forhandle videre om de er noe de ikke er enige om.
     

    BT

    Æresmedlem
    Ble medlem
    13.10.2005
    Innlegg
    21.456
    Antall liker
    6.873
    Med våre erfaringer fra unioner med svensker og dansker, som vi kom ganske dårlig ut av, gjør nok at det sitter langt inne å gå inn i en ny, selv om forutsetningene er noe bedre.
     
  • Laster inn…

Diskusjonstråd Se tråd i gallerivisning

  • Laster inn…
Topp Bunn