British sentences to ponder

But holding the government to account is one thing, setting the agenda another. The Brexit crisis has shown this. In January and February, when MPs tabled amendments that would truly empower backbenchers — by giving them control of what is debated in the Commons, or setting up voting systems for MPs to rank different Brexit options — the majority stepped back. “I think the most remarkable thing is how unsuccessful we’ve been in taking control,” says one shadow minister. Faced with a choice of now or never, MPs generally decided it couldn’t be now. Only this week did they become bolder, rejecting May’s deal for a second time. In response, the government agreed to facilitate a vote on different Brexit options if they rejected it a third time.

“The last two years have thrown into sharp relief the things that parliament is good at and the things it is not good at. It is generally not good at legislating,” says Lisvane. “The things that have gone really well are select committees.”

That is from a long FT piece by Henry Mance, perhaps the best article I have read this week.


'rejecting May’s deal for a second time'

Well, the EU's deal too. People in the UK, and those that tend to receive their information from UK sources often seem to miss what would seem to be a glaringly obvious point.

'In response, the government agreed to facilitate a vote on different Brexit options if they rejected it a third time.'

Well, good luck with that, since with two exceptions (the UK leaving without a deal on the 29th or the UK revoking Article 50 before the 29th), any other Brexit option basically involves the unanimous agreement of the 27 members of the EU.

And the question of who governs Britain is one that a number of Europeans are really wondering about.

Such as Mark Rutte, the prime minister of a country not generally noted for its disdain or disagreement with the UK - “You can see what happens when a country puts everything on the roulette wheel and takes a risk, and the whole thing collapses. That is what is happening. Economic, financial, politically, England is in a very bad position right now.”

“They continue to play games internally,” he said. “That faction within her own party; Labour, everyone is only concerned with party politics and who can win the next election. There is a country currently at stake. A whole country with 75 million people. I can get very angry about it.”

He added: “This is the only deal on the table. And then they say, yes, but we don’t want it because we found hair in the soup. Yes – but what is it you want? They ask for a postponement. Yes – but for how long and what do you want it for?”

It's a rare day when I agree with Prior....

Westminster has been both disgraceful and incompetent over the past 2 years. Theresa May must take a great share of the blame, with her terrible negotiating stance, but the root of the problem is endemic in Parliament; Remainers who easily pledged to honour the referendum at a distance but then cannot bear to do so when up close with the details. In fact, many of them don't know what the heck they want, and seem to have given the matter no serious thought.

Watching the Remainers in Parliament confront their options for honouring Brexit, one is reminded of the prayer of St Augustine: "Dear Lord, make me chaste; but not yet".

England needs a guillotine and some guts to use it. They have terrible people leading their country.

I worry that simply cutting their heads off would not impede their activity.

A lot of small cocks in Parliament

It seems the elites are unqualified to arbitrate anything. Is the electorate equally at fault?

The elites in Parliament certainly haven't covered themselves in glory, have they? One is struck by how weak the standards of debate and analysis have been compared to earlier generations. The mendacity of some Remainers and the Speaker hasn't helped either; clearly wanting to cancel Brexit but lacking the courage to oppose it openly. Real constitutional damage is done in pursuit of tactical objectives.

More evidence for "the British people have had enough of experts!" hypothesis?

Lots of small brains in the current White House.

FYI: article is behind a hard paywall.

You can read a few free articles per month in the FT if you register. Good analysis has a price.

A very hard paywall for a media site - I actually spent a couple of desultory minutes trying to get around it.

Good sign. They figure it's worthwhile enough that you'll fork over...

Or the opposite - I will continue to desultorily ignore it, like I have for years, and without worrying about spending the dedicated five minutes it would likely take to completely circumvent the paywall.

Too late. They might not get you, but via the magic of modern technology we just advertised it to dozens of others on that basis.

On the basis that people not actually interested in reading the FT are also not interested in paying to read it?

Or how about this for advertising - "circumvent FT paywall." Ah, the first hit is reddit, and the second is GitHub - Bypass Paywalls for Chrome. I don't care about reddit nor use Chrome, so neither link interests me.

Maybe worth reading but is it worth paying to read?

Isn't the Brexit in parliament debate just good democracy? I mean a complex issue, where people are trying to decide on the appropriate way forward based on their own judgement (instead of being told how to vote). Democracy always looks more messy than an authoritarian decision making process, but generally speaking leads to better results long term.

How do you debate when voters voted for brexit on the lie is was aa free lunch?

Now, the EU says "no free lunch".

But voters say "lunch must be free, paid for by the EU" or, "keep the status quo, kill brexit".

The leaders say no to all three.

But we saw the GOP spent almost two years doing this on health care. Trump promised free lunch health care. Then the debate was over how much free health care would cost and who gets screwed more.

At least Trump said "who knew health care was so complicated".

No free lunch Brexiter has said "who knew Brexit could be so hard" to my knowledge, and just seem to keep blaming May for failing to make Brexit completely free lunch.

Trump is a pretty direct example of how Americans ignore their problems. We end up with George Conway as bizarre truth teller, while most people let their eyes slide away.

"Agree with this, but would add that *all* Americans should be thinking seriously *now* about Trump’s mental condition and psychological state, including and especially the media, Congress—and the Vice President and Cabinet."

Oh man, if only Prior would comment on this thread with a long, irrelevant tirade we could have the trifecta of MR shitposts!

Sadly, they have all been on point.

Sorry to disappoint you - better luck next time, hey?

That is actually deeply sad.

It's Trump's shitposts that are the problem, that show the low point of our democracy.

The people who notice them are not the problem.

"Oh man, if only Prior would comment..."


'but generally speaking leads to better results long term'

The problem here is the lack of a long term - the UK is out of the EU on March 29th. Democracies are also famous for dithering, as the UK has demonstrated. Along with the weakness of factionalism, as pointed out by Dutch PM Rutte above - where the interests of individual factions outweigh any larger interest.

The debates on this complex issue should have started a couple of years ago - instead, the PM who created the circumstances leading to Brexit resigned, followed by the new PM calling a general election that she lost. It has been an amazing display of democracy's weaknesses, almost worth shedding a tear for as your plane lands (or perhaps doesn't, depending on where it started from) at Heathrow on March 30th.

As you note, the biggest impact of Brexit is that serious people don't look up to Westminster as a chamber of Athenian gentlemanly debate any more.

That is nothing but upside

Downsides of democracy - frustrated Dutch PM. I don't need to tell you, a German, the downsides of authoritarianism.

I'm American, and the Dutch have traditionally been considered among the closest allies of the UK in the EU. At this point, it is the person essentially responsible for providing one of the 27 votes that have to be unanimous saying essentially that the Dutch government sees no particular reason to prevent a no-deal Brexit on March 29. Which means he is actually in a position to ensure that there is no extension, regardless of what the UK wants (of course, he will still consider what the other members of the EU want).

Of course, considering just how close the Dutch have been to the UK, the fact that the Dutch PM has been warning everyone for months to prepare for a no-deal exit looks almost prophetic.

We are usually very good friends with the Dutch, 'tis true.

But Rutte is well out of the normal range for Dutch opinion. Quoting him as such is misleading.

That would be like saying Trump is well out of the normal range for American opinion. Quoting him as such is misleading.

However, it does not change the fact that Rutte has been the Dutch Prime Minister since 2010, and that his opinion regarding how the Dutch government will decide at an EU level on Brexit questions is more important than the normal range of Dutch policy makers.

Though if you wish to say that his warnings, over an extended period of time, about no-deal Brexit were not typical of general Dutch opinion, that would be quite true. Meaning that his ability to predict what is actually likely to happen is better than that of the typical Dutch citizen.

But maybe this was too clever in describing reality on the part of Rutte, at least as quoted by Weyland - 'Brussels has said a vote by UK MPs to block a no-deal Brexit in any circumstances is a meaningless move, with one senior EU negotiator describing it as “the Titanic voting for the iceberg to get out of the way”.

There remains this charming apparent belief on the part of many Brexiters that the EU is desperate to keep the UK part of the EU, regardless of the number of ways that various people in the EU scoff at that belief.

We will see what happens in 11 days, of course. I remain confident in predicting that as of March 30, the UK will enjoy all the benefits and privileges of being a non-member of the UK.

I think we agree that Trump would not be a good indicator on US opinion, by and of himself? Though set alongside other opinions, he would represent an important strand? The same for Rutte, perhaps?

We have some agreement here. I think Rutte has been generally accurate in prediction, but is slightly hyperbolic in his assessment of consequences.

I would add Rutte is also less well-disposed to the UK than typical Dutch....

The columnist argues the HoC is an "odd assortment of people" which only analyzes and accepts or rejects plans from the PM and nothing more should be expected from them. They are a just a buffer or a filter for the government plans, leadership cannot be expected from them.

Ms. May's leadership died on the last Jan 15th. Due to 2011's Fixed-term Parliaments Ac, she cannot be fired that easily from the job. But that doesn't solve the problem of lack of leadership during this crucial moment. I think they tried in the UK to avoid the issues you see in Belgium or Spain where they have short-lived governments or can't form a government for a long time. The UK may look "stable" because PMs don't change that often, but they don't have the leadership anymore.

The UK already has a decorative figure that personifies stability: the Queen. In the present situation the PM looks like a second Queen, still hanging there but unable to do anything.

Almost 3 years after the vote, the net migration from the EU27 has halved. In some metrics Brexit is a total success, figure 2 in the link below

The EU has worked hard to punish the UK people for daring to want to escape, and has been aided by remainers and downright traitors like Tony Blair (who's reportedly been advising foreign countries on how to beat the UK at negotiations).

Among the remainers is May, who has either done a great job of sabotaging brexit or a horrible job of getting brexit done (e.g., taking a no-deal brexit off the table from the get-go). Either way, Parliament is left in a no-win situation: vote for a fake brexit and get stuck in the EU as a non-voting member forever or vote against it and risk catastrophe (a no-deal brexit for the remainers or no brexit for the leavers). In other words, no one likes the streaming pile of turd May has handed them and they don't want to deal with it at the 11th hour only to be held accountable for the impending disaster they had no part in for the past 2 years.

Add to that the prospect of Torries and Labour imploding due to poor leadership (the insane Corbyn on the left and the impotent May on the right), and you get the current state of chaos.

"The EU has worked hard to punish the UK people for daring to want to escape, and has been aided by remainers and downright traitors like Tony Blair (who's reportedly been advising foreign countries on how to beat the UK at negotiations)."

Apparently policies have consequences after all.

'The EU has worked hard to punish the UK people for daring to want to escape'

This remains one of the most absurd possible interpretations. The EU can do nothing to stop the UK leaving the EU on March 29, and it looks quite likely that will happen. Leaving aside a possible short extension to allow the British to put their own house in order (that's right, the nation that decided to leave is not ready to leave). Admittedly, if you wish to consider the EU refusing that extension request as 'punishment,' well, be my guest. The German government (for its own variety of reasons) would agree with that perspective to a large extent-

'taking a no-deal brexit off the table from the get-go'

She was never in a position to do that - March 29 is the date, regardless of what she wants.

'and risk catastrophe'

Since when has the democratic will of a nation to enjoy all the benefits and privileges of non-membership in the EU become a catastrophe?

'the insane Corbyn on the left'

That is a fairly accurate statement, admittedly.

To be fair, I don't think Corbyn is insane in any pathological sense. He's plodding, unimaginative, dogmatic, slight vicious and anti-Semitic, but not in any way delusional, schizoid, or psychologically mal-adjusted.

What I worry about is McDonnell, and some of the characters in the Momentum penumbra. Much harder and potentially dangerous men.

Well, a bit of poetic license was involved in using 'accurate.'

How about delusionally power mad?

He's certainly power-hungry and seems to prioritise power itself over specific ends. I have to give you that.

The punishment isn't about the extension. It's the way negotiations have been handled from the start. The UK will need to be made an example of to prevent others from leaving the EU.

I agree that there is no catastrophe in a no-deal brexit. It's a catastrophe from the viewpoint of the remainers. And staying in the EU without voting rights (May's deal) is a catastrophe from the perspective of the leavers.

So why is the British regime wasting everyone's rime with that soap opera?

'It's the way negotiations have been handled from the start.'

Wait, the EU representing its own interests was a problem from the start? Who could have possibly believed that would happen?

And as noted previously when dealing with this subject, maybe some Brexiters should have asked American trade negotiators about how the EU acts in its own interests - those Americans haven't been shy about this subject for decades.

Of course, the take back control crowd will now get to enjoy how those American trade negotiators represent their own interests too. Might even make some people nostalgic for how the EU handled itself. Who am I kidding? The Brexiters will go to their graves blaming everyone but themselves for whatever happens. You can almost hear them blaming the EU for how nakedly self-interested American trade arrangements are. This would sound ludicrous, unless one keeps in mind that Brexiters such as former Brexit secretaries Davis and Rudd - neither of them Remainers - voted against the deal they were responsible for negotiating.

For a lot of us, we think that the "EU's interests" being prioritised are those of the EU institutions, not the collective good of the 500 million people and 30 odd member states.

It's in the EU's interests to have a productive working relationship with the UK. So on that basis they could have negotiated reasonably, not insisted on a withdrawl agreement before even talking about the future. That's not playing nice.
But it's also in the EU's interests not to fall apart. That's the EU as in the boring Brussels institutions, not the collective interests of the EU nations.

'It's in the EU's interests to have a productive working relationship with the UK.'

Of course. But it is even more in the EU's interest to let the EU determine what is in its interests, and not anyone outside of the EU. I'm sure the Brexiters would understand that point perfectly - if it wasn't for the fact that they expected the EU to give the Brexiters what they wanted, just for asking.

'not insisted on a withdrawl agreement before even talking about the future'

And yet, the EU decides how to negotiate its interests. As noted, Brexiters should be the group most sympathetic to the idea of putting one's interests first.

'That's not playing nice.'

Who cares? Well, except for the Brexiters, who expected to get what they wanted - and then were shocked that this is not how things work.

'In some metrics Brexit is a total success'

The latest link seems to be

And in it, the immigration that the UK was always able to control, without any regard for EU rules (admittedly, Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland may not count as 'EU') can be summed up this way in the report - 'Figure 3: Non-EU net migration was at its highest level since 2004'

Last week, I was talking to two British colleagues, both of whom have lived for less than a year in Germany, about their UK driving license apparently becoming invalid in Germany on March 30, after a no-deal Brexit. They started talking about EU rules, and I pointed out to them that the EU has nothing to do with the rules, these are German rules - the same that have always applied to me, a non-EU citizen. Adding that to get a German license, they would need to take a first aid course, sign up with a driving school (the only way to take the government driving test), and that the process would likely end up costing somewhere around 500 euros (an estimate closer to a guess, but still based on the costs of 18 yr olds getting their licenses a couple of years ago), and it would take a couple of months.

They really did not seem to grasp the basic concept at all, which was eye opening, such as wondering if they could keep their UK licenses (of course) without seeming to realize that nobody in Germany cares about the licenses of non-EU citizens in the least. Germans who live in the Alsace do not talk about 'EU rules' regarding the fact that as French residents with German citizenship, they are subject to French rules (car inspections and taxes, for example). The EU provides a framework of how EU citizens are to be treated equally throughout the EU, but it is each country that is responsible for implementing those rules (yes, there is a supranational aspect, of course - in significant part to prevent distortions in the common market).

The British have been remarkably poorly served by their media and politicians, and still seem to be essentially clueless when it comes to the EU. Or what it means to enjoy all the privileges and benefits of being non-EU citizens living and working in an EU country.

That Americans are not really aware of how the EU works is not really surprising. But there is a certain appeal on the part of the EU for a no-deal (with or without a short extension) Brexit, because there is an incredible amount of uncertainty right now. Here is an example - a third colleague is British (who has applied for Spanish citizenship) and has a Spanish license - what will happen legally if she is involved in an accident on March 30 after a no-deal Brexit is simply not really possible to predict. This includes both legal issues and insurance issues - and since she would be likely driving a company car, these issues would also involve her employer (who has a responsibility to ensure that employees have a valid driving license).

Thanks p_a, I could not find the latest figures at the first attempt.

In any case, the net migration from EU might be approaching to zero by the end of 2019, early 2020. I think the Non-EU migration should not be problem because Brexit meant "opening to the world", "special relationships ", "the Commonwealth". Thus, figure 3 means also success =)

I live in Switzerland and the Brits also seem to be unable of the existence of rules that apply to 3rd country nationals. Which are defined as "Countries that are not members of the European Union and/or the Schengen Area". That includes such fine nations as Japan, the USA or Australia. Somehow, the Brits think being treated like citizens from those nations is a punishment.

Some bilateral agreements were accorded between the UK and Switzerland 2-3 weeks ago. I think they're focused at the rich Brits keeping their servants (temporal workers) legally in Switzerland.

'Thus, figure 3 means also success'

Undoubtedly. One can be sure the Daily Mail will be trumpeting those figures as a sign of how the UK is regaining its global status after being hobbled by the EU and its non-rules concerning non-EU immigrants.

'Somehow, the Brits think being treated like citizens from those nations is a punishment.'

Yep - and it is bizarre to see it in action. Particularly considering how I enjoy writing 'all the benefits and privileges of non-EU membership,' which is what I, an American citizen, have experienced for the last 25 years living in Germany. It isn't that bad, but it is definitely not the same as being treated as an EU citizen. I have no legal right to work anywhere in the EU (apart from Germany), no right to live anywhere in the EU (apart from Germany), and no particular right to health care anywhere in the EU (apart from Germany). Though health care is a complex subject - admittedly, my health insurance card is apparently valid throughout the EU at least for emergency care, but I still have an Auslandskrankenversicherung policy because I am not an EU citizen - for example, to cover Switzerland.

What does Germany do for short term visitors? Don't they honour US and similar driving licenses for short visits?

Please spam this site needs a better commentating filter...

'What does Germany do for short term visitors?'

Speaking as an American, it is a bit confusing, because there is a distinction between short(er) term visitors and converting your license to a German one. A further confusion involves the fact that a lot of American military personnel used to be stationed here, and the Germans had no interest in making problems for American drivers.

IF you are at all curious, this link goes to an embassy link -

However, that is all based on various treaties (many of them at the individual American state level), and that is the fundamental problem of no-deal Brexit - there are no treaties. The current opinion seems to be that as of March 30, UK citizens travelling to the EU will need a green card for insurance, and an international driver's license. Nobody seems to know what will happen with UK citizens resident in Germany, apart from the fact that their UK license is no longer valid as it was on March 29.

This sounds trivial, of course. Unless you just happen to be a British tour bus or freight truck driver going anywhere in the EU after March 30.

What exactly is the non-existent problem you're trying to highlight? That long term UK residents of Germany might have to get a new licence after a year or so because of Brexit?

Nope - with a no-deal Brexit, they will need a valid international license on March 30, and to get a German license that would be valid as a resident, it will cost somewhere around €500, and likely take a couple of months.

And of course, on March 30, all the British registered commercial vehicles and drivers will no longer be legal to operate in the EU, due to the lack of any current treaty arrangements granting them such rights.

We will see what happens, of course.

The EU is not punishing the UK. They are just (1) protecting the functioning of the single market, and that meant protecting the four freedoms of movement and (2) and peace in one member state (Ireland). They went into the negotiation with competence, diligence, transparency and professionalism. There was nothing in the EU negotiating position that could not be foreseen by someone with knowledge about how the EU works.

The negotiations thus far have been theater. The EU correctly assessed that neither major party in the UK wanted to leave, and correctly surmised that May would work to make leaving appear as disadvantageous to the UK as possible. The EU accordingly played its part, setting up the question for Britons as if the only options are capitulation or trade war (with a resumption if the Troubles thrown in). Ideally, in the EU's view, this bolsters May in setting up a path to remain.

Obviously, the EU believes that it will be harmed by Brexit, or else it wouldn't be working in this way to push the UK to remain. If in fact the UK leaves, the EU presumably doesn't want to harm its own Irish constituents out of spite, and if it's as wise about the value of trade as everyone insists, doesn't want needless conflict with the UK. That's when the real negotiations and waivers will begin to address all of the necessary details.

Except that on March 29, the UK will be out of the EU. That is a hard deadline - and one the EU cannot unilaterally change, regardless of whatever it feels its interests are.

That is reality - 11 days, and all this 'theater' will be over. Who knows how it will turn out, but the 29th is the date of the final curtain, as of right now.

Everything about the way May has conducted the process thus far suggests that she will ask for an extension of some sort, to which the EU would presumably agree (there's no advantage to the EU in being perceived as precipitating a break). The question is simply what sort of extension best constrains the choices available to the British electorate.

'that could not be foreseen by someone with knowledge about how the EU works.'

Well, apart from the Brexiters, who thought that the German car industry would tell Merkel to force the EU to give the Brexiters what they wanted.

Which was always absurd, as can be seen in this 18 month old article - 'When it comes to Brexit, all parties more or less agree: Germany doesn’t want to punish Britain and wants a good relationship in the future, but it won’t stand for “cherry-picking.” In other words, Germans don’t like the idea of selective participation in the single market, and they will try to make sure the EU27 remain united in the talks.

Some in the U.K. have expressed hope that a coalition government of Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) will take a more pragmatic approach and put the country’s economic interests first.

But that theory is the result of another major misunderstanding: The Brits believe the economic case for a softer German stance is strong. The opposite is true.

To be sure, German businesses would like to minimize the economic disruption that comes from a hard Brexit — but not at the cost of setting a dangerous precedent for the EU.

For German businesses, whose complex supply chains criss-cross the entire EU, nothing is more important than the single market, with its common rules and institutions. If forced to choose, business will always choose to protect the single market over tariff-free access to the U.K.'

This part is particularly obvious in light of current circumstances - 'Yes, Germany is the largest and most powerful country in Europe, and yes, perhaps it could push through a softer stance on Brexit if it wanted to. But David Davis was wrong to suggest before the Brexit referendum that if the U.K. voted to leave, it would negotiate a deal with Berlin, not Brussels.

EU policy is not determined by Germany alone, nor could it be. Neutralizing the potential for German dominance by creating common European institutions was one of the EU’s main founding goals.

An EU that follows a solely German agenda would be unappealing to its members and harmful to Germany’s national interest in the long run. Berlin knows that.'

The ending bits there are slightly disingenuous. "An EU that follows a solely German agenda would be unappealing to its members and harmful to Germany’s national interest in the long run. Berlin knows that."

True in the abstract, but the reality is that the way Germany handled the advent of the Euro played very much towards German manufacturing interests. A period of very strong wage restraint to get Germany competitive followed by locking a bunch of "Southern tier" states into a fixed exchange rate, blocking "competitive devaluation" as a tool and tying interest rate policy across the EU (not a Mundell Optimal Currency Area) was bound to cause all of the anger and anguish we've seen in Italy, Greece, Spain, etc, but was very much in Germany's short-to-medium term interests.

As to the long run, well, that's what making sure the Brits dislike the outcome of this farce one way or the other is for! What's the German translation for "pour encourager les autres"? Or substitute "décourager", if we're going to be more precise.

Or, to reverse Paul Kennedy's formulation on the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, post-Unification Germany has given up dreams of a formal empire over half of Europe for an informal empire over most of it. (No skin off my nose, mind you.)

'What's the German translation for "pour encourager les autres"? '

Who cares, as it is the Germans who currently seem the most sympathetic to the idea of giving the UK whatever length extension it requests of the EU. And sure, a cynical person - or a realist - just might point out that the Germans have multiple reasons for this position. However, as Davis discovered, the way to Brexit goes through Brussels, not Berlin.

And let us be honest - this farce has been made purely in Britain, including one of the final acts, which is that the country that decided to leave the EU more than 2 years ago is now apparently needing to ask the EU for more time, because the UK is not prepared. (No, really - 'The British government has said it would ask for a "technical" delay until June 30 to pass necessary legislation if MPs finally approve the deal next week.'

I am surprised that no one on this discussion has mentioned the #PeoplesVote movement. That is the suggestion that there should be a referendum on the basis of either remain or accept Theresa May's deal.

UKIP's Nigel Farage had a march for Brexit movement and less than 100 people turned up.
There is also a Put It to the People march on Westminster on Saturday and a quarter of a million people have booked travel to attend. Given the population of London itself, more than a million will probably attend.
Written petitions have already exceeded a million people.
Now another vote doesn't have a "Remain" result guaranteed.
But given that the first vote was based on an awful lot of lies and false promises, and "Leave" was partly funded by people seeking to make a lot of money via the stock market, it is reasonable to assume that "Remain" is a likely outcome.
A challenge in the courts failed on grounds of a legal technicality (timing). But it won't passed unnoticed by the voting public.

"But given that the first vote was based on an awful lot of lies and false promises..."

Everyone lies but your own side, who tells nothing but the truth, eh, John?

If I knew nothing else about your position, your claim of superior virtue alone would be enough to condemn you.

the "peoples vote" people are people who voted remain and lost the "referendum". Referendum is another name for, people's vote.

If someone buys a house based upon as many lies and false statements, they would have a good case in law to have the deal set aside.
The problem with lies is not virtue or religion, it is that lies make communicating between people less effective.
Everyone voting in a referendum should be giving their opinion as to what is best for their country. The only way to get a good result is to give them as much accurate information as possible.

Oh, yeah, we Leavers won it with Fake News, and Putinbots, didn't we? Pffft.

This is why you failed, and continue to fail as your globalist world spins to its unravelling. You can't comprehend that opponents have legitimate differences over generation and interpretation of data or a different selection of relevant "facts" in the first instance. You head would probably explode if you had to consider that some people even have different values and ethics to you.

You're too convinced of your own virtue and cleverness and rationality. It's completely ruined you.

If globalism is "spinning to its unravelling" technological progress will slow into a world of fee seeking bureaucrats.
More importantly, civilisation will end up a smoking ruin as those in charge of opposing factions conscript armies to fight each other.
This planet is a frail, small, blue dot, and values and ethics have to preserve it. Otherwise they will eventually become worthless, as thinking life is very rare and the universe is incomprehensibly big to people who love to fight.

I agree. The global order could do more to help the average person but it has kept relative global peace.

Violation of Law of Parsimony.

Given the post-1945 "growth of democracy" (via the Law of Democratic Peace) entirely explains the "observed peace" post-1945, we shouldn't invoke "global order" as an additional explanatory variable. Occam's Razor.


But "Rent (Fee) seeking bureaucracies" is exactly what large super-national structures like the EU (or UN...) inevitably become. We can see a technocratic, globalist, elite have been just as self-serving in their way as any venal satrap or dictator. They're only human. Who will guard the guards? Not another super-national layer of guards.....

Now, you're searching for safety in a rules-based order of large institutions. That's perfectly understandable in a world with many bad actors. But you're only concentrating risk in another part of the system and reducing its adaptive capacity overall. Nicholas Taleb would have words.

A more pluralistic system of independent, competitive polities with ad hoc alignments is safer for humanity in the long run.

'#PeoplesVote movement'

Who cares? This is basically another internal UK perspective that does not seem to take into account that the EU has its own goals and concerns - such as ensuring the democratic validity of the EP elections.

If the People's Vote had got its act together enough back in December or January, and had been in a position to start the machinery for another referendum going so as to have it complete before the EP election, then it would have been worth commenting about.

As it is, it is just another example of how UK politics seems to have no ability to recognize that the EU makes its own decisions based on its own interests and requirements.

Good luck anyways, of course, and with how things have been going, who knows what the next twist will be. Just don't expect the EU to care all that much - the deadline remains March 29, and the only people that can change that are British. And only with agreement by the EU, where a significant number of people would just prefer the whole thing to be over already. An awful lot of goodwill has been used up over the past two and a half years.

(You are welcome to take into account that I am American, and just making observations from Germany.)

" It is generally not good at legislating,”

Abolish it and let the Queen rule thru ministers responsible only to her then. Statutory laws can remain as they are now.

It can't be worse than now, a feckless idiot as PM and a Jew hater as leader of the opposition.

I don't think it is fair to call a leader of a socialist party a Jew hater. It is socialist policy to penalise people who are productive and careful with money. It just so happens that Jewish people work hard, have a strong sense of family and are productive and are careful with money. So are other groups of people.

"So are other groups of people". Yes, the smart ones...

Corbyn is not a Jew hater because of his party, he's a Jew hater because he hates Jews. Check some quotes out sometime.

Here's a pretty decent summary, from a lefty source so not a Corbyn hit piece on partisan grounds:

> "Corbyn said that he 'sincerely regretted' having not looked at the 'deeply disturbing' image more closely, and condemned anti-Semitism."

Your link clearly states that he condemns anti-semitism. He's pro-Palestinian and therefore not sufficiently pro-Israel is probably a more accurate way to put it.

Agreed Msgkings.

Corbyn is, personally, only a mild anti-Semite. What's more dangerous is that he is totally cool with the raving anti-Semites in the Palestine / Fundamentalist Muslim groupings in his electoral coalition.

Check out
where it classes both Hebrews and Arabs as "semite".
This seems to make the debates about Israel, Palestine and anti-semitism to be confusing to say the least.

Everyone knows the precise ethnography of "Semitic". Everyone knows the common usage = Jewish. Everyone knows we are using the latter here. Everyone has heard the "Palestinians are Semites too! Haha!" line. Usually when we were around 16 years old.

Everyone is not impressed by your addition to the argument.

Clearly Alistair is not impressed, but does he speak for everyone?

This Eurovision entry sums up the Brexiteers:

It's just another example of a Merkeln.

Comments for this post are closed