EU-BREXIT - Page 232 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By snapdragon
#15033284
And the Tories aren't pushing for their agenda, I suppose? Come off it.


Newsflash: Parliament prorogation unlawful!!

Woohoo.
By Rugoz
#15033286
foxdemon wrote:I don’t think that is the best understanding of what is wrong with UK democracy.


A FPTP system is unstable with multiple parties because

a) small changes in voting behavior can lead to massive changes in representation.
b) once far-left/far-right parties get the largest voting shares the "moderating effect" disappears, and only the extremes are represented.
User avatar
By Beren
#15033288
Kirillov wrote:Well, I was wrong there: I didn't realise that the Lords could forbid their own filibustering (or that the Tory lords would so easily allow such a prohibition without, well, filibustering it).

I wonder if they really wanted to prevent the bill from passing or they prorogued parliament only because Cummings wanted a five-week campaign season without it. I don't see how another three-month extension makes such a big fuss that Johnson couldn't explain it to his fans that he simply had to obey the law and then call for a snap general election again.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15033296
This is getting real spicy. I wonder how far on the sin list it is to deceive the Queen.

Image
By Atlantis
#15033298
Rugoz wrote:A FPTP system is unstable with multiple parties because

a) small changes in voting behavior can lead to massive changes in representation.
b) once far-left/far-right parties get the largest voting shares the "moderating effect" disappears, and only the extremes are represented.


The problem is not the presence of 5 parties. The problem is the two-party system that normally results from the FPTP election system because:

1) it polarizes politics and society and makes it impossible to arrive at a cross-party national consensus

2) it suppresses new political movements and generates anti-establishment currents that enter politics via the backdoor (Tory backbenchers in this case) from one day to the other without having had the opportunity to adjust to the practical business of politics (that's why the Brexitters didn't have a plan).

With the FPTP, the presence of more than 2 parties is just an abnormality that will pass as smaller parties are excluded. That's why a possible split of the Tories over the European question was an existential threat to the party and Cameron took the gamble of the referendum.
User avatar
By Beren
#15033299
Atlantis wrote:The problem is not the presence of 5 parties. The problem is the two-party system that normally results from the FPTP election system because:

1) it polarizes politics and society and makes it impossible to arrive at a cross-party national consensus

2) it suppresses new political movements and generates anti-establishment currents that enter politics via the backdoor (Tory backbenchers in this case) from one day to the other without having had the opportunity to adjust to the practical business of politics (that's why the Brexitters didn't have a plan).

With the FPTP, the presence of more than 2 parties is just an abnormality that will pass as smaller parties are excluded. That's why a possible split of the Tories over the European question was an existential threat to the party and Cameron took the gamble of the referendum.

A referendum would have been called anyway because UKIP would have become an existential threat to the Tory party with Farage as a potential PM in a proportional system sooner or later like his Brexit Party is now. This showdown simply had to happen sometime.

A Cameron documentary is on its way, by the way, to explain why calling a referendum was the right thing to do. :excited:
User avatar
By Presvias
#15033312
Well this was a fascinating thing I read the other day..
https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/alexsp ... voter-data

Boris Johnson has secretly ordered the Cabinet Office to turn the government’s public internet service into a platform for “targeted and personalised information” to be gathered in the run-up to Brexit, BuzzFeed News has learned.

In a move that has alarmed Whitehall officials, the prime minister has instructed departments to share data they collect about usage of the GOV.UK portal so that it can feed into preparations for leaving the European Union at the end of next month.

Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s chief adviser, emailed senior officials instructing them to make sure that ministers, department heads, and political aides know that the instruction is “TOP PRIORITY”, according to leaked government documents.

In a personal minute on Aug. 19 to members of the Cabinet’s EU exit operations (“XO”) committee, which is responsible for no-deal preparations, Johnson said centralised data was also necessary to accelerate his ambitions for a digital revolution in public services. The committee includes chancellor Sajid Javid, home secretary Priti Patel, and the minister responsible for no-deal planning, Michael Gove.

“I expect everyone to act immediately to execute the above actions,” Johnson wrote. Any delays were to be reported to his office right away.

Cummings reiterated the urgency of the direction in an email to senior officials on Aug. 28:

To stress: as per the PM note to all Cabinet and ministers yesterday, please ensure that all ministers, Perm Secs, and spads know that this is TOP PRIORITY.

We must get this stuff finalised ASAP and there are many interdependencies resting on this happening.

The PM says a) his office must be informed of anything that will delay the GDS / comms plan by 24 hours and b) CDL will deal with any problems/delays today…


He's probably planning to microtarget folks for the election.

And he wants to microtarget folks now and turn public opinion in favour of suspension of parliament.

There's other disinfo rubbish going on right now too..

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1167 ... 21926.html

(ok this is old but still - ) https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... is-johnson
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033324
Kirillov wrote:Well, I was wrong there: I didn't realise that the Lords could forbid their own filibustering (or that the Tory lords would so easily allow such a prohibition without, well, filibustering it).



But let's celebrate some small mercies. The Tories just amputated a good chunk of their own party. They now have one foot in the grave.


I wouldn't raise your hopes, Labour have long lost their heads in parliament over the referendum result,consequently, they have both feet in their political grave.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033326
Presvias wrote:No one actually knows what's going to happen in a GE. Everything is very volatile right now and according to bloomberg, several large banks like societe general, state street and others are actually backing Corbyn..

In fact, a GE could be brilliant so as you say.. let's hope it happens soon.


:lol: :lol: :lol: That's a laugh if ever there was one, banks backing CORBYN. :hmm: :p

Yes, a GE would be brilliant alright,the Labour fellow travellers burning brightly on their political funeral pyre...bring it on.
User avatar
By Presvias
#15033328
Nonsense wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: That's a laugh if ever there was one, banks backing CORBYN. :hmm: :p

Yes, a GE would be brilliant alright,the Labour fellow travellers burning brightly on their political funeral pyre...bring it on.


I have to admit, I did a double take myself, but apparently this used to happen in the past too.

(Just in case you doubt the authenticity of my claim:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... fer-corbyn
)

As for Labour fellow travellers, not decided on Corbyn or Labour themselves. The last time Labour had a genuinely brilliant leader was prob Clement Attlee, ditto for the Tories with Churchill. Neither party is fit for purpose.

Even with Brexit, a Norway+ option seems ok enough. Equally, revoking art 50 or holding a second ref could be okay.

..... It's just no deal and suspension of parliament that seems wrong.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033329
snapdragon wrote:And the Tories aren't pushing for their agenda, I suppose? Come off it.


Newsflash: Parliament prorogation unlawful!!

Woohoo.


I wouldn't want to burst your bubble SD, but the appeal can be ignored for what it is, a desperate appeal for a lifeline in which to inject life into a dead corpse called 'Remain', the 'remains' of which, will be apparent at the next election.
Scottish law is inferior to U.K Supreme Court judgements, that's where the MILLER-MAJOR appeal is taking place & that's the one that matters.
User avatar
By Beren
#15033335
Some City traders may consider Corbyn a means to get a soft or orderly Brexit or a second referendum and no Brexit, but that's it.

After the Scottish appeal court ruling the Conservative party will be finished in Scotland in the next general election (it was expected to be finished anyway, hence Ruth Davidson's resignation), especially if it will be overruled.
By Rugoz
#15033341
Atlantis wrote:The problem is not the presence of 5 parties. The problem is the two-party system that normally results from the FPTP election system because:

1) it polarizes politics and society and makes it impossible to arrive at a cross-party national consensus

2) it suppresses new political movements and generates anti-establishment currents that enter politics via the backdoor (Tory backbenchers in this case) from one day to the other without having had the opportunity to adjust to the practical business of politics (that's why the Brexitters didn't have a plan).

With the FPTP, the presence of more than 2 parties is just an abnormality that will pass as smaller parties are excluded. That's why a possible split of the Tories over the European question was an existential threat to the party and Cameron took the gamble of the referendum.


1) A two-party system doesn't polarize politics, to the contrary. Representatives are more moderate because they must appeal to the median voter. The Tories cannot do that because of the emergence of a third party, i.e. the Brexit party.
User avatar
By Kirillov
#15033343
Beren wrote:I wonder if they really wanted to prevent the bill from passing or they prorogued parliament only because Cummings wanted a five-week campaign season without it. I don't see how another three-month extension makes such a big fuss that Johnson couldn't explain it to his fans that he simply had to obey the law and then call for a snap general election again.


Well, that's the big question. What was the intent behind last week's fandango? I see two scenarios.

1) A big, bold, and brash decision to prorogue Parliament was made in order to scatter the opposition in confusion, reveal their internal divisions and produce an election before the October deadline. If this was the plan, then it was a complete and utter car crash: the opposition united to legally forbid no deal, the Tory lords failed to stop them, the moderate Tories chose rebellion and exile rather than voting with the government, and no election was produced, leaving Boris in a limbo state between an election he can't call and a law he doesn't want to obey. This does seem like typical Johnson: a massive full-frontal assault with no real plan involved beyond triumphing through sheer bloodymindedness. That's why the Tories elected him, after all: he's supposedly a fizzing mess of untamed energy. It also seems to suit Cummings, not the subtlest of political operators by any stretch of the imagination (I heard he harangued Jeremy Corbyn in the HoC lobby while drunk). And there was the timing: prorogation was announced a day after the opposition had basically decided to put aside their differences to stop no deal. Seems quite spur of the moment.

2) Everything last week went as planned. Prorogation (especially without an election) gets them five weeks of supervision-free campaigning, with Johnson exploiting the benefits of his position to the fullest (speaking in front of a backdrop of police officers, etc.). Johnson and Cummings wanted Parliament to prohibit no-deal so they can run an unrepentantly populist election campaign of People vs. Parliament. They wanted the Tory moderates to break with the party so they can achieve an ideologically pure party fully united behind whatever form of Brexit is ultimately served up. They hoped Corbyn wouldn't back an election so they can paint him as weak. If that was the case, then move over Machiavelli, there are some new kids in town. Again, there are some reasons to think this: Boris has been on the election war path since the Tory leadership campaign. And one of the reasons Cummings is feared by Labour is because he has realised a fundamental fact: the British people will be very, very happy to vote for a candidate who offers hard conservative social values combined with heavy social spending in areas like health, policing, community services, etc. (of course, Johnson will promise that spending to win the election, but given his own Thatcherite views and a cabinet full of neoliberal disaster capitalists, I am sure in practice his new government would continue austerity policies, especially since any kind of Brexit will lead to a contraction in the economy, giving them the perfect excuse for austerity and privatisation). Given this, a populist election campaign would be precisely what the dynamic duo want.

I don't know. Scenario (1) makes you worry because it reveals that Johnson is far more incompetent than I could have believed, by orders of magnitude. Scenario (2) paints Johnson as some kind of pragmatic political genius on the level of Benjamin Disraeli, which nothing in his previous career suggests.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15033346
SolarCross wrote:They purged a bunch of traitors who were a liability. A GE will deliver a fresh injection of new, less tainted, blood. They will be the stronger for cutting out the gangrene.

Image
User avatar
By Beren
#15033348
Kirillov wrote:I don't know. Scenario (1) makes you worry because it reveals that Johnson is far more incompetent than I could have believed, by orders of magnitude. Scenario (2) paints Johnson as some kind of pragmatic political genius on the level of Benjamin Disraeli, which nothing in his previous career suggests.

First I thought it was Scenario (1), but recently I rather tend to believe it's Scenario (2), and Johnson is not in charge of the manoeuvres, Cummings is and No 10 is his headquarters. He's the mastermind all behind it and both Johnson and Rees-Mogg and everybody else act according to his master plan and instructions, or else they're sacked. And all the mess is intentional.

You should post more frequently.
By Atlantis
#15033358
Brexit, the gift that keeps on giving. Following the Brexit referendum, approval ratings of the EU have increased in virtually every member country - in some very dramatically:

Image

Rugoz wrote:1) A two-party system doesn't polarize politics, to the contrary. Representatives are more moderate because they must appeal to the median voter. The Tories cannot do that because of the emergence of a third party, i.e. the Brexit party.


That runs contrary to everything in British politics. The militant far-left unionist policies of the 60s and 70s were followed by far-right Thatcherite politics in the 80s and 90s. The all-open for EU migrants of Tony Blair was followed by the demand to do away with Freedom of Movement altogether of the Cameron/May period. British politics forever keeps on going from one extreme to the other without ever finding the middle ground because the center is split. Today, there is a pro-EU majority in parliament, which cannot act together because bipartisan politics forces politicians to put party interests above national interests.

UK politics has always been polarized and the two-party system is a big part of it. The referendum has further aggravated the polarization.

The two-party system isn't supposed to "moderate". It's to achieve a majority government without the need for coalition-building to facilitate the pursuit of imperialist policies. The old empire and the new empire both suffer from the same disease.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15033367
Atlantis wrote:Brexit, the gift that keeps on giving. Following the Brexit referendum, approval ratings of the EU have increased in virtually every member country - in some very dramatically:

Image



That runs contrary to everything in British politics. The militant far-left unionist policies of the 60s and 70s were followed by far-right Thatcherite politics in the 80s and 90s. The all-open for EU migrants of Tony Blair was followed by the demand to do away with Freedom of Movement altogether of the Cameron/May period. British politics forever keeps on going from one extreme to the other without ever finding the middle ground because the center is split. Today, there is a pro-EU majority in parliament, which cannot act together because bipartisan politics forces politicians to put party interests above national interests.

UK politics has always been polarized and the two-party system is a big part of it. The referendum has further aggravated the polarization.

The two-party system isn't supposed to "moderate". It's to achieve a majority government without the need for coalition-building to facilitate the pursuit of imperialist policies. The old empire and the new empire both suffer from the same disease.


I am pretty wary of this map actually. Correlation is not causation. I do not think only Brexit contributed to this but it certainly played a part. What is more important:
1) Greek crysis is more or less resolved at least for now.
2) Economic conditions improved a bit compared to the recession and greek crysis.
3) Rise of radical left and right parties put a strain on the EU to actually express its point of view instead of being silent all the time. (Remember, EU didn't campaign during the referendum)

How much of an impact did Brexit have compared to everything else? UKs polls suggest that it is far from the most important factors. Although the polls did shift a bit in the UK.
By Atlantis
#15033369
At least some folks will profit when the British people are led to the slaughtering bench.

BREXIT DISASTER CAPITALISM £8 Billion Bet on No Deal Crash-Out by Boris Johnson's Leave Backers

Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign backers in the City stand to make billions of pounds from his ‘do or die’ pledge to take Britain out the of the EU by the end of October, Byline Times can reveal.

On the day Johnson was announced as Prime Minister by his party on 23 July, it was reported that “more than half of the donations received by Boris Johnson originated from donors with ties to the City”. However, this newspaper has discovered that this figure is actually much higher – and that many of the hedge funds involved are set to make a killing from his hard-line approach to Brexit.

According to the records of both the elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission and the Register of Financial Interests, between 10 May and 23 July, Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of these, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

[...]

Many of these late donations were from hedge funds and people that Johnson worked with on the Vote Leave campaign during the EU Referendum, which was run by his current Chief of Staff in No.10, Dominic Cummings.

Crispin Odey, Paul Marshall, Peter Cruddas, Jon Moynihan, Jon Wood, Robin Birley, David Lilley, Philip Harris, JCB and The Bristol Port Company all donated (directly or indirectly through companies they and their co-directors are involved with) to Johnson’s leadership campaign and also contributed more than £2 million to the Vote Leave campaign.

History Repeats Itself
The current speculation on short positions – in which hedge funds make money on prices going down – is almost identical to the hedging which occurred around Brexit during the EU Referendum. Byline Times has reported previously on the vast windfalls that Vote Leave backers accrued back in 2016.

At the start of this year, a number of hedge funds – including that of Crispin Odey who made £220 million on the night of the referendum result – announced that, in their view, Brexit wasn’t going to happen and that they were going to take bets out on sterling going up.

Between January to May 2019, less than 10 short positions were being taken out by hedge funds per week. However, that all changed dramatically when Boris Johnson announced that he was running for the Conservative Party leadership on May 16. The number of short positions thereafter doubled, tripled and quadrupled and, by the time of his victory was announced, had risen to around 100 per week.

Image

The firms that have taken out short positions over the past six months are almost entirely dominated by those which either directly, or through their directorships of other companies, also donated to the Vote Leave campaign in 2016 and were involved in taking out short positions on the referendum result.

Image

Invested in a No-Deal Brexit
So, how much are these firms set to make from Boris Johnson’s ‘do or die’ approach to Brexit?

From the financial data publicly available, Byline Times can reveal that currently £4,563,350,000 (£4.6 billion) of aggregate short positions on a ‘no deal’ Brexit have been taken out by hedge funds that directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign.

Most of these firms also donated to Vote Leave and took out short positions on the EU Referendum result. The ones which didn’t typically didn’t exist at that time but are invariably connected via directorships to companies that did.

Another £3,711,000,000 (£3.7 billion) of these short positions have been taken out by firms that donated to the Vote Leave campaign, but did not donate directly to the Johnson leadership campaign.

Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been taken out by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

Does this £8 billion bet explain why the Prime Minister has said that he would rather “die in a ditch” before asking the EU for an extension? Is it the reason why Johnson is willing to defy the Benn Act that stops a ‘no deal’ Brexit? Is the £8 billion any kind of motivation to prorogue Parliament?

Under the Ministerial Code, Government ministers must have “no actual or perceived conflicts of interest”. But what could be a bigger conflict of interest than those bankrolling the Prime Minister also having a vast financial interest in a catastrophe for Britain?

By Atlantis
#15033371
JohnRawls wrote:How much of an impact did Brexit have compared to everything else? UKs polls suggest that it is far from the most important factors. Although the polls did shift a bit in the UK.


Let's just take British polls out off the equation. A subject cannot see itself objectively. The point is that Brexit has been seen as a total and complete shitshow by almost the entire world. Remember, I belong to a generation of continentals to whom everything British was good. Remember also the tremendous softpower the UK used to have by virtue of the international Anglophone media (and people like you and me discussing in English). In view of that, the loss of softpower and the negative view of today's UK represents a staggering decline.

Instead of being the first domino for the breakup of the EU, as Farage had intended it to be, Brexit has become the strongest force to weld Europe together. There is nothing like a weak and fumbling antagonist to achieve unity.

Even most of Europe's right-wing populists have abandoned plans to leave the EU or the Euro because Brexit serves as such a strong and irrefutable negative example.
  • 1
  • 230
  • 231
  • 232
  • 233
  • 234
  • 239

Luke 22:36 ... These words of Christ are not[…]

He is a politician who is saying what he thinks t[…]

That's witty. But I would say that until all mi[…]

An August article in the New England Journal of M[…]