Brexit and General UK politics thread

[Coop D'etat]

As grand a drama as Brexit appears to be, it is not in fact the level of problem that justifies going outside normal consitutional order. This is a political controversy much like many the UK has had in their history and needs to be resolved politically.

If the PM is doing sleezy things against the wishes of Parliament, Parliament collectively has plenty of means to take the PM to task. The problem is more that the legislature has habitually let their authority atrophy and the political parties have devolved in to personality cults for the leader rather than proper insitutions in their own right. One of the worse things to happen to Westminister governments was giving party members the vote for leadership rather than leaving the selection to the MPs themselves, it inverted the lines of responsiblilty by giving leaders legitimacy beyond the confidence of the elected members of the house.


This isn't a problem for the Monarch to sweep in on high like Superman to fix. Its a problem for Westminister to get off their butts and start doing their jobs again.

[Zaune]

[MEDIA=twitter]1166833685380980738[/MEDIA]

This is also an extraordinary quote today from Lord Kerslake, former head of the civil service: “We are reaching the point where the civil service must consider putting its stewardship of the country ahead of service to the government of the day."

This is how you know the shit is hitting the fan.

[The Romulan Republic]

Dude, both he and several other posters have raised very clear and cogent arguments explaining why they disagree with you. You haven't addressed any of them, all you have done is shriek about how everybody is being mean to you. Hell, nobody is even expecting you to agree with those arguments, just to at least acknowledge them and why people might feel differently than you.

I did, in fact, address them: My counter-argument, raised repeatedly and ignored, is pretty much that neutrality in the face of fascism tends to get one branded a collaborator, that Britain is already in a severe crisis, that fascism does not go away because we adopt "safe", moderate positions to try to appease it, that doing so has not worked so far, and (regarding the legitimacy of the monarchy), that hereditary monarchy is built on the same underlying premise as racism: that some people are innately better than others on account of heredity.

Here, would you like some quotes?

And I do understand that there are all sorts of traditions and expectations and precedents weighing on the Queen's decision. I get that there's no really good option here. But I stand by what I said: you don't get to be neutral about fascism, and if you try, you'll end up being branded one of the collaborators. Doesn't matter if its fair or not, doesn't matter what your reasons were. That's what will happen. Even if the law required her to do this, I am sure that she has ways of making her displeasure known. This is a crisis for her country, and while I don't give a fig for the legitimacy of the monarchy, she owes it to her country as a resident of the UK and (presumably) a patriot to try to do something besides sitting there and rubber-stamping Boris Johnson's requests while the country slides into the abyss.

And me agreeing with Vendetta's argument, but why restate it myself when he summed my view up perfectly well:

Yes, alt-right love to use terms like virtue signalling to discredit the left, but there are times and people who do exactly just that. What benefit does it serve for UK to end up in a constitutional crisis in the midst of Brexit other than you using it as a platform to talk to everyone how monarchy is bad.

Point of order: The UK is already in a constitutional crisis in the middle of Brexit, and by allowing a hostile prorogation when it is known not to be the will of the parliament queenie has allowed it to continue (partly because whatever she actually did would be a constitutional crisis anyway, but this one is still Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson*'s making).




* Who should be referred to by his full name to remind everyone what an unspeakable toff he is.

Exactly.

You don't beat fascism by constantly giving into it because standing up to it might be too controversial.

Yeah, hereditary monarchy essentially operates on the same fundamental idea as racism: the idea that some people are innately better than others based on heredity. Fuck that.

Oh, and here's KA Pital basically agreeing with me reg. the monarchy, while being unable to resist throwing in multiple disclaimers about how stupid I am while he agrees with me.

Monarchy is dumb, tho.

I can understand that people like to punch TRR for saying something stupid, but monarchy is also stupid, just as stupid or even stupider than his comments. It is idiot äic hereditary rule based on blood, basically aristos who are called noble just for being born, simply for existing. The Epstein-friendly prince proves that birth has nothing to do with kindness; people are just people, and elites are often scum. Making elites hereditary is just giving scum birthright.

Its popularity just poorly reflects on the populace of the UK. Just like Brexit, Bojo, etc.

/end of republican screed

Hell, I'll even acknowledge that you can make an argument either way on the Queen intervening. But you CAN make an argument either way, and it is certainly not so clear-cut as to justify ray's personal attacks on me, my motives, and my character for holding a different view than his.

This persecution complex of yours is getting really out of hand. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are intentionally trying to fuck with you to entertain some cabal of rabid anti-TRR board members.

Piss off. If I am quick to assume a personal attack, it is because there are many board members who have persistently subjected me to them over the last few years, and the general attitude of this board is so hostile toward me that even people who agree with me feel compelled to add multiple disclaimers about how stupid they know I am, and how justifiable it is to want to punch me. I will not post further examples here because it would be off-topic, thread-derailment, and vendetta, but I can certainly PM you or anyone else who doubts my sincerity some examples, with quotes and links.

And ray did not simply "disagree with me". He has repeatedly, even in posts to other board members that have nothing to do with me, made assumptions about my motives, accusing me of "virtue signalling" (a common Alt. Reich buzzword used to discredit their opponents, as he is by his own admission aware) to make myself look good. Which, as I noted before, is utterly laughable: If I cared about scoring brownie points, I wouldn't fucking do it by posting my political views somewhere that they and I are clearly so hated.

By the way, the oft-repeated line that I "accuse anyone who disagrees with me of (X)" is yet another example of the routine misrepresentation I describe. I make accusations where I feel they are warranted, and will continue to do so.

[ray245]

Dude, both he and several other posters have raised very clear and cogent arguments explaining why they disagree with you. You haven't addressed any of them, all you have done is shriek about how everybody is being mean to you. Hell, nobody is even expecting you to agree with those arguments, just to at least acknowledge them and why people might feel differently than you.

I did, in fact, address them: My counter-argument, raised repeatedly and ignored, is pretty much that neutrality in the face of fascism tends to get one branded a collaborator, that Britain is already in a severe crisis, that fascism does not go away because we adopt "safe", moderate positions to try to appease it, that doing so has not worked so far, and (regarding the legitimacy of the monarchy), that hereditary monarchy is built on the same underlying premise as racism: that some people are innately better than others on account of heredity.

Here, would you like some quotes?

And I do understand that there are all sorts of traditions and expectations and precedents weighing on the Queen's decision. I get that there's no really good option here. But I stand by what I said: you don't get to be neutral about fascism, and if you try, you'll end up being branded one of the collaborators. Doesn't matter if its fair or not, doesn't matter what your reasons were. That's what will happen. Even if the law required her to do this, I am sure that she has ways of making her displeasure known. This is a crisis for her country, and while I don't give a fig for the legitimacy of the monarchy, she owes it to her country as a resident of the UK and (presumably) a patriot to try to do something besides sitting there and rubber-stamping Boris Johnson's requests while the country slides into the abyss.

And me agreeing with Vendetta's argument, but why restate it myself when he summed my view up perfectly well:

Point of order: The UK is already in a constitutional crisis in the middle of Brexit, and by allowing a hostile prorogation when it is known not to be the will of the parliament queenie has allowed it to continue (partly because whatever she actually did would be a constitutional crisis anyway, but this one is still Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson*'s making).




* Who should be referred to by his full name to remind everyone what an unspeakable toff he is.

Exactly.

You don't beat fascism by constantly giving into it because standing up to it might be too controversial.

Yeah, hereditary monarchy essentially operates on the same fundamental idea as racism: the idea that some people are innately better than others based on heredity. Fuck that.

Oh, and here's KA Pital basically agreeing with me reg. the monarchy, while being unable to resist throwing in multiple disclaimers about how stupid I am while he agrees with me.

Monarchy is dumb, tho.

I can understand that people like to punch TRR for saying something stupid, but monarchy is also stupid, just as stupid or even stupider than his comments. It is idiot äic hereditary rule based on blood, basically aristos who are called noble just for being born, simply for existing. The Epstein-friendly prince proves that birth has nothing to do with kindness; people are just people, and elites are often scum. Making elites hereditary is just giving scum birthright.

Its popularity just poorly reflects on the populace of the UK. Just like Brexit, Bojo, etc.

/end of republican screed

Hell, I'll even acknowledge that you can make an argument either way on the Queen intervening. But you CAN make an argument either way, and it is certainly not so clear-cut as to justify ray's personal attacks on me, my motives, and my character for holding a different view than his.

This persecution complex of yours is getting really out of hand. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are intentionally trying to fuck with you to entertain some cabal of rabid anti-TRR board members.

Piss off. If I am quick to assume a personal attack, it is because there are many board members who have persistently subjected me to them over the last few years, and the general attitude of this board is so hostile toward me that even people who agree with me feel compelled to add multiple disclaimers about how stupid they know I am, and how justifiable it is to want to punch me. I will not post further examples here because it would be off-topic, thread-derailment, and vendetta, but I can certainly PM you or anyone else who doubts my sincerity some examples, with quotes and links.

By the way, the oft-repeated line that I "accuse anyone who disagrees with me of (X)" is yet another example of the routine misrepresentation I describe. I make accusations where I feel they are warranted, and will continue to do so.

FUCK YOU TRR.

I think you are a virtue signalling asshole because you either can't comprehend the consequences of what you are advocating for, or you don't give a shit about it.

"neutrality in the face of fascism tends to get one branded a collaborator" doesn't work when it comes to the monarchy in the UK. We don't live in an idealistic world where majority of the British want to abolish the monarchy or wants the monarch to be non-neutral. People trying to create a constitutional crisis 1 month before the Brexit deadline, especially if they are neither British nor someone living here, are selfish assholes that cares more about being "morally right" to themselves and don't give a shit if what they want can create an even worse situation.

You have to be an complete idiot to advocate for such a position 1 month before Brexit, or you can actively an asshole that will make people lives here worse off just because you can feel good about yourself for "standing up in face of evil!".

Any position that anyone advocate MUST take into account of the political reality of the local picture, and how certain actions, even if it is on paper standing up against fascism, can end up empowering them even more. This is the real world.

My argument has never been about whether the monarchy itself is a good or bad institution. My argument has always been creating a constitutional crisis one month before Brexit will severely handicap any legislative effort to put a stop to Brexit, especially no-deal Brexit. This is an argument you've repeatedly ignore and failed to address, which makes you look like an even bigger selfish asshole to me.

And ray did not simply "disagree with me". He has repeatedly, even in posts to other board members that have nothing to do with me, made assumptions about my motives, accusing me of "virtue signalling" (a common Alt. Reich buzzword used to discredit their opponents, as he is by his own admission aware) to make myself look good. Which, as I noted before, is utterly laughable: If I cared about scoring brownie points, I wouldn't fucking do it by posting my political views somewhere that they and I are clearly so hated.

I said you are virtue signalling because what you've done so far is making yourself feel like a hero to yourself in reflection, because even if certain position you advocate can have unintended consequences, you've not shown any capacity to care about them. You're not trying to make yourself look like a hero to anyone here in this forum. You care about looking like a hero to your own personal self. That's being selfish of the highest degree. You're not stopping fascism. You're trying to make yourself feel like a hero for stopping fascism, even if it doesn't actually work.

I fucking live here as an immigrant. You are NOT. I am the target of far-right hatred here just by my very presence. I have every right to be pissed off with you on a personal level.



I will continue to think you are a selfish asshole until you can comprehend or acknowledge how what you are advocating can make things worse in the UK.

Saying things are already bad is not a good counter-argument.

[The Romulan Republic]

Contrary to your trolling, I pretty much don't give a shit any more whether people on this board like me or think well of me, and I sure as hell don't think I'm a hero. But that's neither here nor fucking there, except that you find strawmanning my character an easy way to smear me.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with what's going on in Britain. I truly am, even if you don't believe it. But guess what? I have to deal with the same shit over here. There are plenty of Trumpers who would literally think I should die for the political views I have advocated. Over in Germany they busted a bunch of Neo-Nazis who had apparently drawn up a kill list of tens of thousands of Left-wing and pro-refugee politicians. Given that I ran for local office last year, and have publicly expressed pro-refugee views, it is entirely possible that there is a group like that over here, as yet undetected, that has my name on their kill list. That's not me bragging or trying to make myself feel important, its a fucking fact of the world we live in, and it fucking scares me.

Do you really think I look at racist sociopaths taking over in nation after nation, and the possibility of global economic ruin and civil war, and that all I think is "How can I make myself look/feel like a big shot"? Because if that's what you think, then you're calling me a God damn sociopath. Sure, I'm melodramatic and theatrical and an asshole with a short fuse, but if nothing else, at least credit me with being sincere in my opposition to fascism. At least credit me with having a fucking soul.

This is a global fucking war, and it transcends borders. We should be on the same side, because we are both on the list of people the Fascists want rotting six feet down for the crime of living while not Fascist.

Anyway, sorry about all that. This thread isn't about me, and since it seems impossible for people not to make it about me as long as I'm posting here, I'll bow out now.

[ray245]

Contrary to your trolling, I pretty much don't give a shit any more whether people on this board like me or think well of me, and I sure as hell don't think I'm a hero. But that's neither here nor fucking there, except that you find strawmanning my character an easy way to smear me.

I'm not strawmanning you. I am accusing you of acting like an asshole because that's what your content of your post implies. If you don't want people to have negative opinions of you, think about what you are saying and advocating for might make people think about you and your words.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with what's going on in Britain. I truly am, even if you don't believe it. But guess what? I have to deal with the same shit over here. There are plenty of Trumpers who would literally think I should die for the political views I have advocated. Over in Germany they busted a bunch of Neo-Nazis who had apparently drawn up a kill list of tens of thousands of Left-wing and pro-refugee politicians. Given that I ran for local office last year, and have publicly expressed pro-refugee views, it is entirely possible that there is a group like that over here, as yet undetected, that has my name on their kill list. That's not me bragging or trying to make myself feel important, its a fucking fact of the world we live in, and it fucking scares me.

And you being scared has utterly handicap your ability to think in a rational manner about stopping fascism and rise of far-right. Being scared about Trump and Brexit, warning people about how bad those things are didn't stop those things from happening. It's a fucking fact of the world that overreacting to things without thinking of good solutions as to how to stop them doesn't stop fascism.

Do you really think I look at racist sociopaths taking over in nation after nation, and the possibility of global economic ruin and civil war, and that all I think is "How can I make myself look/feel like a big shot"? Because if that's what you think, then you're calling me a God damn sociopath. Sure, I'm melodramatic and theatrical and an asshole with a short fuse, but if nothing else, at least credit me with being sincere in my opposition to fascism. At least credit me with having a fucking soul.

If you truly have a soul, stop sabotaging attempts to stop things like no-deal Brexit by carefully considering the impliciation of what you advocate for. Being sincere means using your brain and intellect to carefully consider how best to address those political issues in a way that is feasible. Being smart stops far-right movements. Simply being angry does not.

This is a global fucking war, and it transcends borders. We should be on the same side, because we are both on the list of people the Fascists want rotting six feet down for the crime of living while not Fascist.

And yet you continuously sabotage people actually trying to stop fascism by acting in a way that allows far-right to caricaturise progressive movements as a bunch of idiots. A failure to be smart and win the battle over the perception of movements is going to embody far-right movement. Far-right movement grow not because they are better at talking about facts and etc. They grow because they are very, very good at creating misleading impression and twisting facts to their own needs. Progressives acting like idiots when it comes to political issues is what fuel their growth. Progressives inability to relate to key swing voters in a manner that they understand the world enables far-right movement.

I am deeply pissed off with your actions because I think the failure to understand how key swing voters relates to political issues in an entirely different perspective from progressives is why it is extremely difficult to stop far-right from rising. Many right-wing parties are very very good at convincing people to vote against their own personal interest.

Just because issues transcend borders does NOT mean everything is the same everywhere you go. Far-right movement grows because they adapt to the local or regional context. They adapt their messages to make their ideology seem less scary and more attractive to voters. What works from stopping far-right in the US might not work in the UK, in Germany and etc. Different countries, different solutions.

Anyway, sorry about all that. This thread isn't about me, and since it seems impossible for people not to make it about me as long as I'm posting here, I'll bow out now.

Next time, please fucking THINK about what you say before saying it. Despite all your rambling, you've somehow still manage to address the argument I've made.

[K. A. Pital]

Saying Britain should become a republic is a matter of expressing free opinion, though.

You are right to note that this opinion is unpopular, ray, and should thus not become a rallying cry for political forces that wish to have the masses follow them.

But expressing this opinion from TRR’s side does not actually make life worse for you. It is the private opinion of an outsider, which has little impact on your domestic politics. Also, one should be wary of saying politicians are not allowed to express unpopular opinions. There should be venues for discussion both inside and outside the government, even for unpopular opinions.

[Ziggy Stardust]

By the way, the oft-repeated line that I "accuse anyone who disagrees with me of (X)" is yet another example of the routine misrepresentation I describe. I make accusations where I feel they are warranted, and will continue to do so.

The problem is that your bar for whether they are warranted is absurdly low, you're like god-damned Don Quixote chasing orange-haired fascist windmills. I'm not denying that there have been some members of this board that go out of their way to troll or target you, but you seem to have taken those incidences so personally that you routinely do this song and dance you are doing right now, screeching about how you are being treated so unfairly and how honorable you are in the face of such persecution. There's a reason this line is oft-repeated, because you fucking do this all the god-damned time, and when it is brought up you just screech that it's about you being treated unfairly instead of ever stopping to wonder if maybe something about the way you are communicating is problematic. Basically, it's possible for you BOTH to be wrong; yes some people are being less charitable towards you as they should and enjoy goading you, but you feed into that behavior more than anybody else I've ever seen, and seem to take pride in escalating every flame into a referendum on the entire board.

I mean, you once accused me of spreading Trumpist propaganda when I expressed my worry about the DNC pushing Biden as a candidate ahead of more progressive options, which is a blatantly absurd stance to take (and one you didn't try to justify because, just as you have in this thread, you actually think just screaming "FASCISM" counts as a rebuttal). But since it wasn't your pet stance of the moment, and you are always against fascism, something you disagree with has to be for fascism. And just by even mentioning something that happened in another thread, you're probably going to report me for a "possible vendetta violation" and point to this as another example of this board treating you unfairly.

I don't even dislike you. I actually like your presence on this board, and broadly agree with you on most political issues. I'm not even really trying to attack you with all of this. You're a smart enough guy to have reasoned arguments with people (I've seen you do it on the forums before). It just feels like something about the board culture combined with the toxic political climate has really gone to your head, and you seem to take every single little insult or disagreement incredibly personally, and are constantly battling as if you have to defend your honor. Like, I just want you to maybe take a deep breath and step away from your computer before you respond sometimes.

[ray245]

Saying Britain should become a republic is a matter of expressing free opinion, though.

You are right to note that this opinion is unpopular, ray, and should thus not become a rallying cry for political forces that wish to have the masses follow them.

But expressing this opinion from TRR’s side does not actually make life worse for you. It is the private opinion of an outsider, which has little impact on your domestic politics. Also, one should be wary of saying politicians are not allowed to express unpopular opinions. There should be venues for discussion both inside and outside the government, even for unpopular opinions.

We sadly do not live in a ideal world that operates solely on principles alone. Discourse are entirely political and can be used tactically by every side of the political spectrum. The Internet has fundamentally reshaped political discourse, because whatever people said is easily captured and memorialised in words, or twitter.

The alt-right has become very, very good at exploiting this because of the early days of the Internet communal culture were relatively right-leaning, and many of those members understood how to exploit the fundamental weakness of online discourse and popularise those views with modern social-media sites. Political expression even as an private individual can be used to shape people's attitudes and perception of progressives and etc. The brexiters for example WILL use comments like TRR against those who oppose Brexit, because they can mischaracterise all anti-Brexiters as being anti-monarchists. They will evoke a visceral emotional response from many, many people in the UK who voted for Brexit because they truly feel like their sense of being British is under threat.

They might not cite TRR's comments specifically, but they can use a large number of internet comments to shape a convincing narrative that that's what those who voice support for remaining in the UK are really like and paint them as being anti-British.

Every political statement we made online needs to be extremely nuanced and done so on a basis of careful thought to what sort of reaction it might evoke from others reading it. Political discourse made as a private individual is no longer possible in the current era of social media. Anything we say needs to be considered in a careful tactical or strategic level to understand whether it actually enables the achievement of certain aims.

Being angry at everything too easily is what the alt-right loves to see. It allows them to paint those opposed to them as being overly emotional and being incapable to careful thinking. Don't give them what they want. If people do not realised how the internet and social media has fundamentally altered the way we approach political discourse even on a more "private" level, then the far-right will win again and again, and enjoy those oppose to them being angry but unable to do much against them.

[Zaune]

As someone else who's liable to suffer rather severe negative consequences from this shitshow, I happen to think TRR is absolutely right. Watering down our ideological positions until they are acceptable to the mainstream is no longer an option; there's no acceptable compromise position when the moderate right-wingers merely want to reduce several million EU nationals to the status of a servant underclass instead of forcibly removing them from the country en masse. To say nothing of the fact that Johnson has proven willing to use every dirty trick short of having opposition MPs arrested on trumped-up charges to get his way, and I reckon he'd have given that the old college try if his party hadn't managed to piss off the Police Federation.

And have I mentioned the part where the outgoing head of the Civil Service, who take their commitment to neutrality in party political matters damn near as seriously as the armed forces, is almost openly inciting mutiny?

I think it's safe to say we're now past the point where we can keep calm and carry on.

[ray245]

As someone else who's liable to suffer rather severe negative consequences from this shitshow, I happen to think TRR is absolutely right. Watering down our ideological positions until they are acceptable to the mainstream is no longer an option; there's no acceptable compromise position when the moderate right-wingers merely want to reduce several million EU nationals to the status of a servant underclass instead of forcibly removing them from the country en masse. To say nothing of the fact that Johnson has proven willing to use every dirty trick short of having opposition MPs arrested on trumped-up charges to get his way, and I reckon he'd have given that the old college try if his party hadn't managed to piss off the Police Federation.

And have I mentioned the part where the outgoing head of the Civil Service, who take their commitment to neutrality in party political matters damn near as seriously as the armed forces, is almost openly inciting mutiny?

I think it's safe to say we're now past the point where we can keep calm and carry on.

So how exactly, will creating another constitution crisis one month before Brexit help to resolve the issue?

We still live in a UK where a number of key labour seats voted heavily in favour of Brexit. We can just pretend that's not a reality. Boris and co knows just how bloody effective it is to use the narrative of evil remainers going against the people to garner sufficient support to do what they wanted.

You can talk all you want about not wanting to water down your ideological position. Except the voters who voted for Brexit don't give a shit about your principled stand. What are you going to do if taking a stand means labour losing a large number of seats up north?

[ray245]

If we break down the Brexit vote by constituencies instead of an outright majority, estimates have shown that 410 constituencies will support Brexit against 242 constituencies that supports for remain.

So Labour has to be walking a tight rope to ensure any hope of defeating Boris Johnson. There are still enough voters that wants a no-deal Brexit to potentially allow the Tories to still retain a sufficient number of seats to stay in power.

The first past the post system benefits the Tories more so than a divided remain coalition of different parties.

[Gandalf]

As someone else who's liable to suffer rather severe negative consequences from this shitshow, I happen to think TRR is absolutely right. Watering down our ideological positions until they are acceptable to the mainstream is no longer an option; there's no acceptable compromise position when the moderate right-wingers merely want to reduce several million EU nationals to the status of a servant underclass instead of forcibly removing them from the country en masse. To say nothing of the fact that Johnson has proven willing to use every dirty trick short of having opposition MPs arrested on trumped-up charges to get his way, and I reckon he'd have given that the old college try if his party hadn't managed to piss off the Police Federation.

And have I mentioned the part where the outgoing head of the Civil Service, who take their commitment to neutrality in party political matters damn near as seriously as the armed forces, is almost openly inciting mutiny?

I think it's safe to say we're now past the point where we can keep calm and carry on.

Interestingly, it reminds me of how minorities were always told to tone down their rhetoric when asking for equal rights, lest they anger too many white people with their absurd requests, like... humane treatment. Periodically one needs to push things as opposed to just taking it.

[ray245]

As someone else who's liable to suffer rather severe negative consequences from this shitshow, I happen to think TRR is absolutely right. Watering down our ideological positions until they are acceptable to the mainstream is no longer an option; there's no acceptable compromise position when the moderate right-wingers merely want to reduce several million EU nationals to the status of a servant underclass instead of forcibly removing them from the country en masse. To say nothing of the fact that Johnson has proven willing to use every dirty trick short of having opposition MPs arrested on trumped-up charges to get his way, and I reckon he'd have given that the old college try if his party hadn't managed to piss off the Police Federation.

And have I mentioned the part where the outgoing head of the Civil Service, who take their commitment to neutrality in party political matters damn near as seriously as the armed forces, is almost openly inciting mutiny?

I think it's safe to say we're now past the point where we can keep calm and carry on.

Interestingly, it reminds me of how minorities were always told to tone down their rhetoric when asking for equal rights, lest they anger too many white people with their absurd requests, like... humane treatment. Periodically one needs to push things as opposed to just taking it.

Good luck getting anything done. Anger is only useful when strategically deployed at the right time.

By all means be angry, but direct the anger at the people most responsible and in a way that will evoke others to understand your anger. If your anger is unable to resonate with people that holds the keys to winning an election, then it's just completely wasted.

[Gandalf]

Interestingly, it reminds me of how minorities were always told to tone down their rhetoric when asking for equal rights, lest they anger too many white people with their absurd requests, like... humane treatment. Periodically one needs to push things as opposed to just taking it.

Good luck getting anything done. Anger is only useful when strategically deployed at the right time.

Sufficient anger makes it the right time.

[ray245]

Sufficient anger makes it the right time.

And what if the anger is insufficient? Anger does not automatically creates sympathy or allow the key stakeholders to see your reason for anger. It's why issues like racism continues to persist. Because even if people are angry about it, those who holds power to change things can simply ignore it.

A minority being angry is useless because they are a minority. You need a majority to be angry for any change to be enacted.

[Tiriol]

Easy enough: all the Parliament has to do is to show that a majority of MPs support Corbyn or other PM hopeful. It would de facto mean that the current Prime Minister no longer enjoys the support of the Parliament (which might actually, at this point, be true).

I don't think that's going to happen, though. The UK is going to crash and burn.

That STILL requires the parliament to show that the majority of MPs support Corbyn or other PM hopeful. The problem is those opposed to no-deal Brexit is still extremely, extremely divided over the prospect of Corbyn as Prime Minister. So even if the Queen really do want to take the Prime Minister position away from Boris Johnson, it still requires the MPs busy fighting with each other to actually come to an agreement.

The queen cannot do anything if those oppose to Brexit cannot come to an agreement with each other. Jo Swinson had been extremely extremely unwilling to throw her support behind Corbyn, and that also applies to a number of Tory party rebels.

The idea that the Queen can do anything to stop no-deal Brexit is idealistic daydreams. The days of monarch with actual powers is over and they are now just a person rubber-stamping everything that comes their way and is not allowed to reject anything that comes their way. The existing monarchy might project an image of having power, but aside from their wealth and doing some hand-waving to the public, they have no actual power to speak of. People outside of the UK really should understand all that power is really just a mere facade.


The monarch is also explicitly prohibited from expressing any view that might deem to be too political.

You did notice me saying that I don’t think it’s going to happen? If yes, why emphasize word ”still” and go on a tirade about the bunch of monkeys currently playing MPs in Parliament? And if not, read again.

[ray245]

Easy enough: all the Parliament has to do is to show that a majority of MPs support Corbyn or other PM hopeful. It would de facto mean that the current Prime Minister no longer enjoys the support of the Parliament (which might actually, at this point, be true).

I don't think that's going to happen, though. The UK is going to crash and burn.

That STILL requires the parliament to show that the majority of MPs support Corbyn or other PM hopeful. The problem is those opposed to no-deal Brexit is still extremely, extremely divided over the prospect of Corbyn as Prime Minister. So even if the Queen really do want to take the Prime Minister position away from Boris Johnson, it still requires the MPs busy fighting with each other to actually come to an agreement.

The queen cannot do anything if those oppose to Brexit cannot come to an agreement with each other. Jo Swinson had been extremely extremely unwilling to throw her support behind Corbyn, and that also applies to a number of Tory party rebels.

The idea that the Queen can do anything to stop no-deal Brexit is idealistic daydreams. The days of monarch with actual powers is over and they are now just a person rubber-stamping everything that comes their way and is not allowed to reject anything that comes their way. The existing monarchy might project an image of having power, but aside from their wealth and doing some hand-waving to the public, they have no actual power to speak of. People outside of the UK really should understand all that power is really just a mere facade.


The monarch is also explicitly prohibited from expressing any view that might deem to be too political.

You did notice me saying that I don’t think it’s going to happen? If yes, why emphasize word ”still” and go on a tirade about the bunch of monkeys currently playing MPs in Parliament? And if not, read again.

I took it as you saying the MPs can just go to the queen without enacting any new legislative actions.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Minor update on that point.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 87261.html

Brexit: Government could ignore law by MPs to block no-deal, Michael Gove admits

Labour accuses Boris Johnson of presiding over an 'elective dictatorship'

Lizzy Buchan

Michael Gove has refused to guarantee the government would obey rebel legislation to block a no-deal Brexit if it passes through parliament in the coming days.

In an astonishing admission, the cabinet minister said "let's see what the legislation says", when asked repeatedly whether the government would abide by a bill preventing them from pursuing a disorderly departure.

Labour's John McDonnell accused Boris Johnson of presiding over an "elective dictatorship", while Sir Keir Starmer demanded immediate clarification from the prime minister.

The row comes ahead of a momentous week in Westminster, as MPs prepare to go to war with the government over the looming prospect of a no-deal Brexit.

A rebel alliance, said to include several ex-Tory cabinet ministers, is expected to try to seize control of the order paper on Tuesday, in order to force through a backbench bill to delay Brexit before parliament is suspended the following week.

Asked repeatedly if the government would abide by legislation preventing a no-deal Brexit, Mr Gove told The Andrew Marr Show: "Let's see what the legislation says.

"You're asking me about a pig in a poke. And I will wait to see what legislation the opposition may try to bring forward."

The chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hit back at pro-EU MPs, who he accused of being in "denial of democracy".

The comments drew a ferocious backlash, with opposition MPs left shaken by the idea the prime minister could simply refuse to obey legislation compelling him to seek an extension to the 31 October Brexit deadline.

Sir Keir, the shadow Brexit secretary, said: "For ministers not to confirm that this government will accept and comply with legislation lawfully passed is breathtaking.

The latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox

Register with your social account or click here to log in
I would like to receive updates on politics every morning by email

"The prime minister must make a statement on this straightaway. No government is above the law."

His shadow cabinet colleague, Mr McDonnell, said it was "a startling move beyond anything we’ve ever seen".

He added: "Johnson government is becoming an elective dictatorship.​"

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said: "We now have a UK government that can’t/won’t say a simple ‘yes’ to the question ‘will you abide by the law?’

"Not so much prorogue as just plain rogue. These are dangerous times for democracy. We mustn’t allow this behaviour to be normalised."

And Tory MP Guto Bebb, a former minister, said Mr Gove's comments were "a disgrace to our democracy".

"Not only are they [the government] suspending parliament to try and force through a disastrous no-deal, but now they are suggesting that, even if parliament passed a law requiring the Government to avoid no-deal, they might simply ignore it.

Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds

"Our very democracy is now under threat from Boris Johnson and his government."

The prime minister has urged Tory MPs to back him or see Jeremy Corbyn "plunge the country into chaos" amid reports No10 is considering sacking any Conservative MP who votes with opposition MPs this week.

Rebellions on Brexit votes were tolerated under Theresa May but Downing Street is be considering whether to treat the rebel legislation as a confidence vote.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Mr Johnson refused to rule out using tough tactics against the rebels, including packing out the Lords with Brexiteer peers and asking the Queen to refuse royal assent.

It comes after tens of thousands of demonstrators turned out across the country to protest against the prime minister's shock decision to suspend parliament for more than a month ahead of the Brexit deadline.

In short, Gove is at least impying that Johnson could simply ignore a vote to stop the prorogation.

From the looks of things, Parliament is going to do the obvious thing. They'll vote to declare the prorogation illegal, or that they do not support it anyway, and dare Johnson to ignore them. This is constitutionally tricky, but if the Queen is of a mind to oppose Johnson, it might make her life a little easier. Parliament is, after all, sovereign. If the courts weigh in on Parliament's side in this, then Johnson surely is without a leg to stand on.

Of course, it is just possible that Johnson will use this to force his general election; assuming he still wants to do that. In theory, he could declare the vote a confidence vote, and when he resoundingly loses (as he almost certainly will), then he'll declare that he can't govern like this, and call a general election. It comes down to whether he can dodge the usual no-confidence rigmarole.

If this is still his plan, then its a huge gamble. Clearly he wants an election now, because a win would lock him safely into power for five years, regardless of how Brexit goes. But it's also putting on the line the main reason why the Tory party put him in charge; because they thought he could win an election for them. If he fails - and he very well might - then the Tories could very well turn on him. If they are determined to be rid of him, then they'll simply change the rules and sling him out ASAP; as they tried to do with May.

As for an election itself, it's down to what the Lib Dems and the Brexit party do. Labour's course of action is fairly clear, and the SNP will probably clean up in Scotland; at the Tories' expense, now that Ruth Davidson has resigned. With the Lib Dems, it comes down whether they can cooperate with Labour; in which case they'll avoid seats where Labour is most likely to win, and focus on winning over moderate, center-right Tories. It won't make them a big player, but it will make them stronger, and with the potential to serve as a kingmaker. If they can't cooperate, and try to compete with Labour, then it could cost them both.

For the Brexit party, it's a question of whether Farage favours Hard Brexit or more immediate ambitions. If he tries to grab seats for himself, it will quite likely come at the Tories' expense; along with maybe some hardcore Labour Leavers. If instead he choses to support Johnson and work to keep him in power, it might help shore up his position with Leavers; then again, this could cost him more moderate support, which the Lib Dems could hoover up.

This...could be interesting.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yeah, especially that bit at the end where it comments on Boris "not ruling out" (which in practical terms means "yup I'm all over this, I just can't say so") advising the Queen not to give Royal Assent to any anti-Brexit bill passed by Parliament.

That will be a big fucking deal. Last time that happened IIRC was the early 1700's under Queen Anne. And it'll drag HM even more into this shitstorm - not least because it'll basically force her, and her alone to decide the outcome: either give Royal Assent tot he law delaying or stopping Brexit or refuse it on Boris's advice.

Looks like those people saying "the Queen should do something" might just get there wish.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

You may be right. It may come down to the wording of whatever is put forward.

And in other news, Johnson is making threats.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 88036.html

Brexit: Boris Johnson threatens to sack Tory MPs who back law to block no deal

Decision comes after crunch talks with whips at Chequers retreat on Sunday, The Independent understands

Lizzy Buchan

Boris Johnson has threatened to sack Tory MPs who fail to support his government in the battle over planned legislation designed to block a no-deal Brexit.

Rebel MPs have been told they could have the whip removed and would be banned from standing as Conservative candidates in the next election if they support a backbench effort to thwart a disorderly withdrawal from the EU.

The move could destroy Mr Johnson’s tiny majority because at least a dozen Tory MPs are understood to be considering backing the action, as tensions boil over ahead of a momentous week in Westminster.

The prime minister made the decision after holding crunch talks with Tory whips at his Chequers retreat on Sunday, The Independent understands.

A source from the whips’ office said: “The whips are telling Conservative MPs today a very simple message – if they fail to vote with the government on Tuesday they will be destroying the government’s negotiating position and handing control of parliament to Jeremy Corbyn.

“Any Conservative MP who does this will have the whip withdrawn and will not stand as Conservative candidates in an election.”.

A rebel alliance, including several former Tory cabinet ministers, is expected to try to seize control of the order paper on Tuesday, to force through a backbench bill to delay Brexit before parliament is suspended the following week.

But Tory MPs are being warned to vote with the government or destroy Mr Johnson’s efforts to secure a deal with Brussels.

Ahead of a major Commons showdown, Mr Johnson also abruptly cancelled talks with senior Tories who oppose no deal, including former cabinet ministers Philip Hammond and David Gauke.

A source close to the rebels said: “Aside from being deeply discourteous, today’s behaviour shows this is not a government interested in compromise.

“These MPs want proof that there is a genuine and sincere attempt to get a deal.

“The fact that the PM isn’t even prepared to meet them suggests there isn’t.”

Mr Hammond previously described reports of deselection threats as “sheer hypocrisy” from the prime minister, who rebelled against Theresa May on Brexit earlier this year.

Yes, it's true. Johnson is threatening to kick any Tory MP who votes against him on Tuesday out of the party.

As the Guardian's article pointed out, he is taking serious risks here. His working majority is all of one, so if two or more MPs defy him, for whatever reason, then he loses his majority. Based on news reports, around 20 Tory MPs have expressed a willingness to vote against him' in the national interest'. Whether they'll carry on in the face of this threat is unclear at best.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, especially that bit at the end where it comments on Boris "not ruling out" (which in practical terms means "yup I'm all over this, I just can't say so") advising the Queen not to give Royal Assent to any anti-Brexit bill passed by Parliament.

That will be a big fucking deal. Last time that happened IIRC was the early 1700's under Queen Anne. And it'll drag HM even more into this shitstorm - not least because it'll basically force her, and her alone to decide the outcome: either give Royal Assent tot he law delaying or stopping Brexit or refuse it on Boris's advice.

Looks like those people saying "the Queen should do something" might just get there wish.

Yeah, at that point, any fig leaf of Royal Neutrality is gone- Beth the Second either stands with the fascists in backing an autocrat to deny the will of the elected parliament to push through a racist agenda that will be catastrophic for Britain, or she sides against him.

She'll basically have to choose- to be remembered as the Queen who stopped Brexit, or the Queen who made the Monarchy a rubber stamp for a Boris Johnson dictatorship. And what she chooses in that moment will rightly overshadow all other aspects of her legacy to the point of historical insignificance.

Edit: And if Boris Johnson has the gall to effectively declare himself Dictator of Britain by refusing to abide by a Parliamentary vote, Her Majesty should order the police, and if necessary the armed forces, to remove him from Downing Street in handcuffs.

[Zaune]

Yeah, at that point, any fig leaf of Royal Neutrality is gone- Beth the Second either stands with the fascists in backing an autocrat to deny the will of the elected parliament to push through a racist agenda that will be catastrophic for Britain, or she sides against him.

She'll basically have to choose- to be remembered as the Queen who stopped Brexit, or the Queen who made the Monarchy a rubber stamp for a Boris Johnson dictatorship. And what she chooses in that moment will rightly overshadow all other aspects of her legacy to the point of historical insignificance.

Edit: And if Boris Johnson has the gall to effectively declare himself Dictator of Britain by refusing to abide by a Parliamentary vote, Her Majesty should order the police, and if necessary the armed forces, to remove him from Downing Street in handcuffs.

Anyone else feel like they're living in a really bad thriller written by a neo-monarchist?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, at that point, any fig leaf of Royal Neutrality is gone- Beth the Second either stands with the fascists in backing an autocrat to deny the will of the elected parliament to push through a racist agenda that will be catastrophic for Britain, or she sides against him.

She'll basically have to choose- to be remembered as the Queen who stopped Brexit, or the Queen who made the Monarchy a rubber stamp for a Boris Johnson dictatorship. And what she chooses in that moment will rightly overshadow all other aspects of her legacy to the point of historical insignificance.

Edit: And if Boris Johnson has the gall to effectively declare himself Dictator of Britain by refusing to abide by a Parliamentary vote, Her Majesty should order the police, and if necessary the armed forces, to remove him from Downing Street in handcuffs.

Anyone else feel like they're living in a really bad thriller written by a neo-monarchist?

Or a distopian cautionary tale about the dangers inherent in even Constitutional Monarchy, depending on how you interpret it/how it ends.

[Gandalf]

Anyone else feel like they're living in a really bad thriller written by a neo-monarchist?

Or a story whose moral is "best to write down important laws. You never know when you'll need them. Also, monarchy is silly."