Brexit matters

[nw1]

I don't think antisemitic views are reserved to the right. There's a pretty well worn path of left wing politicians opposing the 'imperialist West' which leads to supporting pretty much any cause which is on the other side to the UK and US. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall that would have been the Soviet Union, the collapse of which George Galloway described as "the biggest catastrophe of my life". The other major cause tends to be Palestine, which means opposing Israel. Although it's possible to oppose Israel without being antisemitic, there does seem to be a worrying tendency for some to drift over the line.

Though to actually express antisemitic views there has to be a bit of hatred in your personality, and I consider hatred towards other races a firmly right-wing trait.

Fair enough if people want to speak up for Palestine, and even criticise specific Israeli politicians on policy, but they can do so without attacking Jews, Israelis, or Israel as a state.

 

[MikeWM]

I see your point, but what really bothered me about Corbyn was his instructions to his fellow MPs to vote for Article 50, thus denying those of us who disagreed with the whole thing a significant voice in parliament at all.

I don't see he had any other choice, given we'd asked the people their opinion and they'd given their answer. It would hardly have been democratic to have done anything else. Politicians are already seen as too out of touch with regular people, that sort of patrician 'we know better' attitude wouldn't have helped!

--

If you consider Galloway left-wing. Personally I'm not at all convinced, I'd personally consider him firmly on the right, perhaps even hard-right or worse on some issues.

He was very wrong on covid! Otherwise I have a lot of time for Galloway. He's as left-wing on economic policies as he's ever been, the problem is that on many of these other issues, such as being for free speech and being against war, the left have left him (and me) behind.

On the final point, I think we'd all be better off if we avoid conflating criticism of the actions of the state of Israel, which is entirely legitimate, with anti-semitism, which is not. I don't see people saying that those who are (rightly) critical of the actions Saudi Arabia are Islamophobic, or indeed those critical of the actions of the UK as anti-Christian, and the argument is the same.

 

[nw1]

I think you have to "blame" the lazy pro-EU politicians who could have spoken about the benefits but instead kept going on with nagativity. The leave side included a lot of positivity in their messages. People tend to like positive messages more.

Positive lies, of course.

"More money for the NHS" - ROFL. The NHS has never been worse than it is now, though admittedly Brexit isn't likely to be the cause.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2023 ==

He was very wrong on covid!

Unsure of his Covid position so can't comment on that!

Otherwise I have a lot of time for Galloway. He's as left-wing on economic policies as he's ever been, the problem is that on many of these other issues, such as being for free speech and being against war, the left have left him (and me) behind.

On the final point, I think we'd all be better off if we avoid conflating criticism of the actions of the state of Israel, which is entirely legitimate, with anti-semitism, which is not.

The article above was not about the actions of specific Israeli politicians though. It was about Galloway saying "no Israeli flags on the cup" or something after Spurs didn't win, apparently because Spurs have a lot of Jewish supporters.

If he had said "I disagree with Netanyahu on X, Y and Z" or "I consider Netanyahu too hard-line" that would be fine, but not the above. The second example is legitimate criticism of a specific Israeli politician, the first appears (to me) to be blatant antisemitism.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2023 ==

I don't see he had any other choice, given we'd asked the people their opinion and they'd given their answer.

Which was, of course, basically "we don't know".

In a "we don't know" situation, the Government should stand up for one side, and the opposition for the other. As there was a marginal lead for leave, it would make sense for the government to stand up for the leavers and the opposition to stand up for the remainers.

It would hardly have been democratic to have done anything else. Politicians are already seen as too out of touch with regular people, that sort of patrician 'we know better' attitude wouldn't have helped!

Arguably it was antidemocratic to tell the 48% to get lost.

Democracy is not just simplistic "winner-takes-all", or rather it shouldn't be.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Though to actually express antisemitic views there has to be a bit of hatred in your personality, and I consider hatred towards other races a firmly right-wing trait.

Are you sure you're not subconsciously making up definitions to suit your political views?

If you look at the 1917 Russian Revolution and the subsequent events, you'll find that time is full of groups of people acting based on hatred towards other groups or other ethnicities in the name of Communism (treatment of Cossacks, the Ukrainian holodomor, etc.). It would seem strange to describe those Communists as 'right wing' just because they were acting in a racist manner.

It's true that recently (perhaps a legacy of Nazism?) we tend to associate outright racism with the far right, but historically that's not always been the case. Another appalling example would be the forced deportation of Chinese people from Liverpool in the late 1940s that was instigated largely by the trade unions and by Labour. Or look at the USA where it's the Democrats that had their roots as the pro-slavery party.

(EDIT: Fixed the Russian Revolution date - thanks @ainsworth74)

 

[ainsworth74]

If you look at the 2017 Russian Revolution

Did I miss something?

 

[nw1]

Are you sure you're not subconsciously making up definitions to suit your political views?

If you look at the 1917 Russian Revolution and the subsequent events, you'll find that time is full of groups of people acting based on hatred towards other groups or other ethnicities in the name of Communism (treatment of Cossacks, the Ukrainian holodomor, etc.). It would seem strange to describe those Communists as 'right wing' just because they were acting in a racist manner.

Communism's a strange one, I will admit - though I wonder whether communism was just an excuse for power-hungry dictators and demagogues to exercise control over their population. Many of the leaders of "Communist" countries scarcely stuck to left-wing principles, that's for sure - instead living a life of luxury while their population suffered.

It's true that recently (perhaps a legacy of Nazism?) we tend to associate outright racism with the far right, but historically that's not always been the case. Another appalling example would be the forced deportation of Chinese people from Liverpool in the late 1940s that was instigated largely by the trade unions and by Labour. Or look at the USA where it's the Democrats that had their roots as the pro-slavery party.

I have heard about some disgraceful actions by some on the so-called left, but in those cases - are they really left wing? They might be union members, and they might even be members of the Labour party - but are they actually left-wing?

To me, to be left-wing means to not be prejudiced towards minorities and other races/nationalities. And if you have significant prejudice of this kind, you're not really left-wing.

A similar example was the disgraceful treatment of black bus drivers in Bristol in the late 1960s by so called trades union people. Again, they may have been union members but I would consider these people extremist members of the far-right.

Likewise, in the USA, it's apparent that in the 19th century the GOP were the more left-wing (well, centrist) party and the Democrats the rabid right-wingers.

I will, however, clarify that, by contrast, only a very small minority of right-wingers are racists and xenophobes! There are various variants of right-wing belief, and most revolve around such things as economic matters or law and order, and (while I might disagree profoundly with them) are a good deal more agreeable than that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Did I miss something?

Oooops! Fixed!

Congratulations - you spotted my deliberate mistake mutter mutter

 

[nw1]

Did I miss something?

If only there had been a 2017 Russian revolution....

 

[MikeWM]

Unsure of his Covid position so can't comment on that!

Very pro-hysteria for a while, to the degree he ridiculed and/or blocked those who had previously agreed with him on most things. Rather disappointing, but he seems to have at least partly reversed his opinions recently. (He lost a lot of political allies over it though, possibly permanently).

The article above was not about the actions of specific Israeli politicians though. It was about Galloway saying "no Israeli flags on the cup" or something after Spurs didn't win, apparently because Spurs have a lot of Jewish supporters.

But you're mixing up 'Jewish' and 'Israeli' in that very sentence! It is very convenient for Israel to continually claim anti-semitism in at attempt to crush legitimate criticism of their policies, but the simple fact is that the number of people who think Israel behaves truly appallingly on occasion, and support the Palestinians in their desires for a proper state, well outnumbers the number of actually anti-semitic people, and I don't believe Israel should be allowed to shut down debate in this way.

I dimly remember this specific Galloway thing and if I recall correctly it was in response to a number of Spurs fans waving the flag of Israel in the crowd for some reason. It probably wasn't the most sensible thing to say, but it wasn't out of nowhere either.

(Ah, Israel-Palestine and Brexit in the same thread. This'll go well :-/

In a "we don't know" situation, the Government should stand up for one side, and the opposition for the other. As there was a marginal lead for leave, it would make sense for the government to stand up for the leavers and the opposition to stand up for the remainers.

This wasn't a normal situation though - a referendum had been called that was against the official position of *all* the major parties. The people said 'well, we don't agree with you'. I've seen people argue that this is a reason referenda don't work in the UK, because they can end up forcing politicians to do things they don't want to do and/or they don't think are in the interests of the country, and I think there is some logic to that position, but *something* needed to be done with the Europe question.

Arguably it was antidemocratic to tell the 48% to get lost.

The alternative was telling 52% to get lost, I don't see how that would be preferable.

 

[birchesgreen]

Positive lies, of course.

"More money for the NHS" - ROFL. The NHS has never been worse than it is now, though admittedly Brexit isn't likely to be the cause.

Sure didn't say they were truthful or not but at least it was a positive message instead of the sky will fall stuff we got the other side.

Which ironically their failure has helped facilitate.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you consider Galloway left-wing. Personally I'm not at all convinced, I'd personally consider him firmly on the right, perhaps even hard-right or worse on some issues. This, for example:

What makes you think antisemitism is a problem only on the right?

Though to actually express antisemitic views there has to be a bit of hatred in your personality, and I consider hatred towards other races a firmly right-wing trait.

That is mere projection. I regret to tell you there is a hell of a lot of racism and anti-semitism on the left as well.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have heard about some disgraceful actions by some on the so-called left, but in those cases - are they really left wing? They might be union members, and they might even be members of the Labour party - but are they actually left-wing?

To me, to be left-wing means to not be prejudiced towards minorities and other races/nationalities. And if you have significant prejudice of this kind, you're not really left-wing.

Nonsense! Last time I checked, being left wing meant you generally supported Government intervention in the economy, were likely to be favourable to nationalisation or some means of common ownership, hostile to unfettereed capitalism, and generally like the idea of redistributing income to support 'the workers' or more generally, poorer people. That's almost completely unrelated to whether or not you are likely to harbour racist attitudes.

Likewise, in the USA, it's apparent that in the 19th century the GOP were the more left-wing (well, centrist) party and the Democrats the rabid right-wingers.

Were the 19th century GOP more pro-nationalisation and pro-high taxes and redistribution of wealth than the Democrats? If not, then they were probably not more left wing.

 

[nw1]

@AlterEgo @DynamicSpirit

Sorry, I guess my own personal definition of left-wing does not agree with that of others and is likely incorrect. I am in no way saying that people from left-wing parties such as Labour cannot be racist, anti-semitic or otherwise supportive of hate, for point of clarification.

But I don't want to argue this any more, and will accept that I have rather fixed, and likely partially incorrect, views of "left-wing" and "right-wing".


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2023 ==

But you're mixing up 'Jewish' and 'Israeli' in that very sentence!

It was Galloway that was doing that, but even still "no Israeli flags" is IMO blatantly anti-semitic as it's picking on Israel, the country - rather than criticising its politicians over specific policy.

The alternative was telling 52% to get lost, I don't see how that would be preferable.

The real alternative was coming up with a compromise.

 

[MikeWM]

It was Galloway that was doing that, but even still "no Israeli flags" is IMO blatantly anti-semitic as it's picking on Israel, the country - rather than criticising its politicians over specific policy.

It was a bit clumsy, I agree, but as I said I do think there was some context.

People do this all the time though about Russia or the USA or whatever. Yes, it would be better to fully describe what you're saying, but we often use shorthand. I sometimes criticise 'American foreign policy' rather than being specific about the particular foreign policies and administrations, as there have been common threads in US foreign policy for generations.

I've followed Galloway for a while and he's strongly pro-Palestine but I don't think he's remotely anti-semitic. The same for Corbyn.

The real alternative was coming up with a compromise.

I think those problems stem from the fact that Cameron didn't expect to lose and so didn't bother to set out what 'Leave' should look like. After that no-one could really agree on anything - recall the two days of 'indicative votes', when there wasn't a majority for anything.

 

[nw1]

I think those problems stem from the fact that Cameron didn't expect to lose and so didn't bother to set out what 'Leave' should look like. After that no-one could really agree on anything - recall the two days of 'indicative votes', when there wasn't a majority for anything.

A shame they couldn't get behind the "single market" option, in retrospect.

I will admit some of the remainers made bad decisions during this period, and failed to support some of the decent compromise solutions.

More generally, I am of little doubt that the country would have been a considerably better place if the May deal had gone through, in retrospect.

In May we had a more pragmatic leader than any of her successors, and a cabinet mostly not intrinsically hostile towards the EU.

We'd have probably got a soft Brexit in fact, as the details of the deal would then have had to have been voted on later and with May's wafer-thin DUP-supported working majority, "softening" amendments may well have passed.

 

[tomuk]

A shame they couldn't get behind the "single market" option, in retrospect.

Which one?

 

[nw1]

Which one?

Wasn't one of the many proposals one on the May deal with retention of the single market?

Apologies if I misremembered, there were certainly many...

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry, I meant cultural affinity of the people.… but our way of thinking, our values, our systems are just sufficiently different

The cultural affinity of Londoners is rather different to those of Teeside. Meanwhile, in my experience, our way of thinking, our values, our systems are much closer to those of France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany than they are of the USA.

But not go back to the situation that made many unhappy with EU membership in the first place.

I have still never heard a good reason why anyone was unhappy with EU membership (sorry mods).

What impact to you think that would have on UK immigration levels if FOM was extended to even more countries?

Depends how many more. But it was never proposed to extend it outside the EU. Anyway IIRC immigration has risen 60% since Brexit. So that worked…

 

[islandmonkey]

Depends how many more. But it was never proposed to extend it outside the EU. Anyway IIRC immigration has risen 60% since Brexit. So that worked…

I would actually like to see a Highly Trusted Countries scheme that would slowly reintroduce freedom of movement to the UK, and hopefully reciprocally. I think we could slowly start this by negotiating with our Western European partners, those of whom share relatively similar take home salaries (or better), as this would be a justifiable first move for the electorate, and it would remove the hark of 'people taking our jobs xyz'. Then we could slowly reintroduce this with all EU countries, and justify this in some manner that I haven't thought about yet, and concurrently consider expansion of the scheme to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, beyond what has already recently been agreed. Naturally, a problem in this would be the EU to get this agreed reciprocally.

 

[Richard Scott]

As for Mick Lynch, well he does a good job standing up for rail workers, however it's a shame he has to go in for something like Brexit.

Whilst feathering his own nest no doubt. Afraid don't trust a lot if the high flying people in Unions, they're not the one losing money every day there's a strike. Some of us are old enough to remember Scargill.

 

[ainsworth74]

The cultural affinity of Londoners is rather different to those of Teeside.

Oi! I resemble that remark!

Afraid don't trust a lot if the high flying people in Unions, they're not the one losing money every day there's a strike.

As far as I'm aware the RMT senior bods donate the days pay to the strike fund.

 

[Richard Scott]

As far as I'm aware the RMT senior bods donate the days pay to the strike fund

That would be a respectable thing to do. Hope it is the case even though those funds usually are only for extreme cases of hardship so members still lose out? Know that's the case with union I'm in.

 

[Bald Rick]

Oi! I resemble that remark!

Thought I’d throw out a line with a big hook and see what I reeled in…

As far as I'm aware the RMT senior bods donate the days pay to the strike fund.

Only for some strikes. If they did it for every strike they would be rather hard up!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Only for some strikes. If they did it for every strike they would be rather hard up!

Are you trying to imply something about how many strikes they organise?

 

[adrock1976]

[SNIP]

You could say we speak a different languages, but then again France and Germany speak different languages to each other. And Ireland is mostly English-speaking, and geographically remote from the mainland (much more so than the UK) but still in the EU.

[SNIP]

Regarding Ireland being mainly English speaking, it is because we invaded, took over, and colonised in the name of imperialism and empire building.

After when Franz Ferdinand got assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914, this was the catalyst for World War 1, of which Ireland did not want to be part of events to maintain the Austro-Hungarian empire (which collapsed in 1918).

Back in 2014, perhaps this is what the then PM Cameron wanted to "celebrate" with various events i.e. the start of the end of imperialism and empire? Or was it to celebrate the biggest lie the UK Government had said back then "The war to end all wars"?

 

[ainsworth74]

Or was it to celebrate the biggest lie the UK Government had said back then "The war to end all wars"?

You mean the phrase coined by author HG Wells that, even during the war itself, was used cynically/ironically? I'm not sure that's the strong argument you think it is...

 

[Enthusiast]

Brexit was not a compromise, and Remainers' views were wholly rejected despite getting almost half the vote. That is one of my absolute key objections.

So how much of a "compromise" do you believe there would have been if the result had been 52:48 to remain? Here's my take: Mr Cameron would have stood on the steps of No 10 the morning after the referendum and declared "Well, that's that. The people have spoken and the government will now implement what you have decided, as we promised. Good Morning." And the UK's membership of the EU would have continued exactly as it had before the referendum.

Let's imagine, for example (looking at some of the Remainers' plans for compromise) that it might be suggested that we remain in the EU but perhaps, so as to appease the disappointed Leavers, leave the Single Market, or Customs Union (or both). Or that we might remain in the EU but discontinue Freedom of Movement. Of course that's ridiculous and in any case the EU would not permit it. But it would have been ludicrous to consider any such compromises and, despite what they say, the victorious Remainers would have been justifiably aggrieved.

So why should such similar (but of course, contrary) compromises have been considered when we left? Yes, there are non-EU nations which are members of the SM or CU or which enjoy FoM with the EU. But the reasons people voted to leave were many and various and for them the EU is the SM, is the CU and does involve FoM. Each of those features contributed to the reasons why people voted the way they did and to "leave" the EU whilst retaining any or all of them would have been an absolute travesty.

At one point, nobody bar a few on the Tory right really cared.

And me. I really cared and had done so since 1992.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regarding Ireland being mainly English speaking, it is because we invaded, took over, and colonised in the name of imperialism and empire building.

Much as I know it's nice to blame the English for everything, it's a bit less clear cut than that. In the 1100's England was still ruled by the Normans, following William the Conqueror's invasion of 1066, and the language spoken by the the rulers of England was therefore French, not English. Very roughly, the Normans who ruled England then decided to add Ireland to their conquests (I believe that was motivated in part by Irish support for the English during and following the Norman invasion), which they did during the late 1100's. Of course, if you're someone living in Ireland at the time, those nuances probably didn't make a lot of difference - it was still basically, 'foreigners' invading your land.

I would guess that, over the following centuries, as the line of English Kings progressed from Norman to Plantagenet to (English) Tudor, and English replaced French as the language of the nobility in England, the same would have happened in Ireland, hence Ireland now being largely English speaking.

As to your reference to empire building: If that's intended as a reference to the British Empire - then, no: The conquest of Ireland happened many centuries before anyone had conceived of the British Empire. (Doesn't of course make the conquest right, although it's probably worth pointing out that at the time, there wasn't really much notion of a nation state, and European politics largely consisted of local Kings invading and conquering neighbouring territories whenever they could - so the conquest of Ireland arguably wasn't that different in principle from what was typical within Ireland and all over Europe at the time)

 

[RT4038]

I have still never heard a good reason why anyone was unhappy with EU membership (sorry mods).

Well your good reason is presumably different to other people's good reason?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have still never heard a good reason why anyone was unhappy with EU membership (sorry mods).

TROLL! TROLL!