Brexit and General UK politics thread

[ray245]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -manifesto.

Jeremy Corbyn has cast doubt on a future Labour government’s support for the Trident nuclear deterrent and suggested he would think twice about backing a strike to kill the leader of Islamic State.

The Labour leader, who has been a longstanding anti-nuclear proliferation campaigner, would not commit to keeping the nuclear deterrent in the party’s manifesto and said he did not believe keeping Trident would necessarily mean a safer UK.

“I want us to achieve a nuclear-free world, to adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and take part in negotiations surrounding that,” he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, stressing an immediate need to take part in talks de-escalating nuclear tensions involving North Korea.


Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
“The issue has to be that we want a secure and peaceful world,” he said. “You achieve that by promoting peace and also promoting security. Security comes from that process.”

Corbyn’s views on nuclear weapons have brought him into conflict with others in his party, including his shadow defence secretary, Nia Griffith. The party’s current policy is to support Trident, backed by its party conference.

Corbyn said the policy would be reviewed by any Labour government. “We will have a strategic defence review immediately which would include all aspects of defence but also make sure our armed forces are properly funded and play their part in peacekeeping around the world,” he said.

“We haven’t completed work on the manifesto. We are less than 100 hours into this election campaign. We are having this discussion within the Labour party.”

New prime ministers are asked to write “letters of last resort” on their first day in office, which are sealed and given to captains of the UK’s nuclear submarines in the event that the government is wiped out by a nuclear strike.

Pressed on whether, as prime minister, he would instruct a retaliation in his letter, Corbyn said: “I have made clear there would be no first use of it. I’ve made clear any use of nuclear weapons would be a disaster for the whole world.

“Nuclear weapons are not the solution to the world’s security issues. They are a disaster if ever used.”

Corbyn also made it clear that he did not back continued military intervention in Syria, and suggested he would suspend all UK strikes in Syria and Iraq against Isis and call on the US president, Donald Trump, to end strikes against the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

“I will tell him I want to see a process that brings about an end to the conflict,” he said. “The only solution in Syria is going to be a political one. I would say to President Trump, it’s in no one’s interests for this war to continue.

“Let’s get the Geneva process going quickly, and in the meantime, no more strikes, have the UN investigation into the war crime of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and take it on from there.”

Corbyn also said he would be cautious about acting on military intelligence where he might be asked authorise a drone strike on the Isis leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. “What is the objective? To have more strikes that would kill more possibly innocent people, or to get a political solution in Syria?” he said.

“Does this help to get a political solution? I think the leader of Isis not being around would be helpful, but I would also argue that the bombing campaign has killed a large number of civilians, many of them virtual prisoners of Isis.”

The home secretary Amber Rudd said the comments made it clear Corbyn would “refuse to strike against terrorists, dismantle our nuclear defences and fail to control our borders.”

Corbyn also gave some further hints about a Labour government’s approach to the Brexit negotiations – but skirted a direct question on whether he would be in favour of keeping the EU’s free movement policy.

“I would insist on trade access and see what follows from there,” he said. “Free movement ends when we leave the EU. It’s an intrinsic part of membership. We then work out the system for people who come here for work and study, as well as British people allowed to go to work in Europe.”

Corbyn said a new immigration policy would have to be negotiated by necessity of the UK leaving the EU. “The first point is an economy that works for all. That means tariff-free access to the European market,” he said. “And then you work out an immigration policy that follows on from that. I would start from the point of view that I want to defend and maintain jobs in Britain.”

In the wide-ranging interview, the Labour leader also defended his party’s latest policy of granting four additional bank holidays on the patron saint days of each UK nation. Corbyn said it would be a boost to spending despite the loss of productivity, and pushed the holistic benefit of the policy. “People being more relaxed and spending time with their families is also quite a good thing,” he said.

“The response I’ve had so far has been very positive. People need more time with their families. There’s so much insecurity in work, a public holiday celebrating the diversity of our nation is probably a good thing – don’t you think so?

“I’m out there, leading our party and very proud to do so. I will make that case to British people. We have had a huge increase in party membership in the past few days from people who see an opportunity of doing something different in Britain.”

Does Jeremy Corbyn really believe ISIS is a party willing to negotiate?

[madd0ct0r]

That is not what i got from:

Corbyn also said he would be cautious about acting on military intelligence where he might be asked authorise a drone strike on the Isis leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. “What is the objective? To have more strikes that would kill more possibly innocent people, or to get a political solution in Syria?” he said.

“Does this help to get a political solution? I think the leader of Isis not being around would be helpful, but I would also argue that the bombing campaign has killed a large number of civilians, many of them virtual prisoners of Isis.”

Ray - How fucking stupid do people have to be to imagine bombing someone from the air in their country will work? This was basic shit known at the time in Vietnam, hell it was known after WW2 with the Blitz response. It IS good for crippling their economies, killing lots of people and possibly for keeping them weak enough to not be a threat outside their area while you keep up the supressent attacks, but you will create 3 volunteers for every one you kill.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The UK will probably cease to exist within a few years, meaning that Nigel Farage will have literally destroyed his country to win a referendum.

Fixed it for you!

[The Romulan Republic]

The UK will probably cease to exist within a few years, meaning that Nigel Farage will have literally destroyed his country to win a referendum.

Fixed it for you!

Eh, their both guilty in my mind.

Farrage for being evil, and Cameron for being stupid and cowardly.

[His Divine Shadow]

Labour is going after the youth vote with a daring new commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s67JD3bKW0U

[Thanas]

Quit giving them ideas, they are just dumb enough to do something like this.

[Crazedwraith]

Labour is going after the youth vote with a daring new commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s67JD3bKW0U

Oh ho ho. Jeremy Corbyn is a communist. It's almost Swiftian in it's rapier like subtlety.

Complete rubbish but you can't have everything of course.

[His Divine Shadow]

I guess you could interpret it as an attack on Jeremy Corbyn or labour, personally I didn't. Frankly we could use some red power ranger corbyn in a giant robot stomping capitalists to paste.

[Zaune]

A bit of good solid militant socialism would make a nice change, actually. Why should the right have a monopoly on street politics?

[Esquire]

Historically? Policy trap. We (the Western democracies generally) have been basically sane and forward-moving (if too slowly) for a few decades; nobody on the Left was mad enough about the status quo to really want to change it dramatically and risk breaking everything. The other side, however, had and has 'break everything' as their main policy objective.

That's all out the window now, of course.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

So far the only party that's actually campaigning against Brexit is the Lib Dems. Can't say I blame them, with only 9 MPs they have almost nothing to lose.

[jwl]

Quit giving them ideas, they are just dumb enough to do something like this.

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be a parody of this real party political broadcast from several years ago:

The thing is, I think that one is quite effective. Lots of people roundly mocked it at the time, but it was highly entertaining compared to the rest of the PPBs, and there's some excellent satire going on there too. 0:44-1:00 for example is particularly ruthless.

[The Romulan Republic]

A bit of good solid militant socialism would make a nice change, actually. Why should the right have a monopoly on street politics?

Knowing your views, and your use of the word "militant", I'm guessing "street politics" is a nice pretty euphemism for "rioting/domestic terrorism"?

[Zaune]

Look, I'm currently wondering whether I'll live long enough to see this country start building actual concentration camps or if I'll starve to death first because Brexit drops our economy into a hole so deep we end up as a failed state; either way, under the current government I expect to be dead by the 2022 General Election. Forgive me if I don't feel like peaceful protest alone is going to cut it anymore.

[Crazedwraith]

I don't know you situation but I think that might be a little extreme?

I don't expect we're going to be doing well, but we're not going to start building concentration camps or starving.

[Zaune]

Suffice it to say that my situation has taught me that optimism is not a good habit to get into.

[jwl]

Look, I'm currently wondering whether I'll live long enough to see this country start building actual concentration camps or if I'll starve to death first because Brexit drops our economy into a hole so deep we end up as a failed state; either way, under the current government I expect to be dead by the 2022 General Election. Forgive me if I don't feel like peaceful protest alone is going to cut it anymore.

But related to brexit: you said socialist. Aren't the most enthusiastic anti-brexit people right now the centrist? The main people in that group right now are the lib dems (openly centrist) and people on the right of the labour party like blair (centrist, but within a left-wing framework). Shouldn't you be talking about "militant centrists" or "centrist street politics"?

[Zaune]

Possibly, but that would sound utterly ridiculous.

[His Divine Shadow]

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status ... 5063617536

[The Romulan Republic]

Look, I'm currently wondering whether I'll live long enough to see this country start building actual concentration camps or if I'll starve to death first because Brexit drops our economy into a hole so deep we end up as a failed state; either way, under the current government I expect to be dead by the 2022 General Election. Forgive me if I don't feel like peaceful protest alone is going to cut it anymore.

I just can't see any likely scenario where violence makes either of those outcomes (or a lot of other horrible outcomes) less likely in the near future.

I don't oppose political violence (in most cases) for no reason. I do it because history (including very recent history) provides numerous examples of it inflicting catastrophic damage on a country, rather than being a solution.

[jwl]

Look, I'm currently wondering whether I'll live long enough to see this country start building actual concentration camps or if I'll starve to death first because Brexit drops our economy into a hole so deep we end up as a failed state; either way, under the current government I expect to be dead by the 2022 General Election. Forgive me if I don't feel like peaceful protest alone is going to cut it anymore.

I just can't see any likely scenario where violence makes either of those outcomes (or a lot of other horrible outcomes) less likely in the near future.

I don't oppose political violence (in most cases) for no reason. I do it because history (including very recent history) provides numerous examples of it inflicting catastrophic damage on a country, rather than being a solution.

It's a good point. If brexit is going to do damage to the countries' economy, how much more damage is some crazy revolution going to do?

[Zaune]

I just can't see any likely scenario where violence makes either of those outcomes (or a lot of other horrible outcomes) less likely in the near future.

I don't oppose political violence (in most cases) for no reason. I do it because history (including very recent history) provides numerous examples of it inflicting catastrophic damage on a country, rather than being a solution.

Sometimes catastrophic damage is a solution. Sometimes all you can do is burn the entire political and/or economic system to the ground and start over from scratch, because ultimately that will cause less needless human suffering in the long run.

And in any case, we're a pretty close second to Trump in the game of "Umberto Eco's 14 signs of fascism" bingo, and with fewer set-in-stone safeguards against this sort of thing. I don't expect the upcoming election to be even a minor speed-bump in this process.

[The Romulan Republic]

I just can't see any likely scenario where violence makes either of those outcomes (or a lot of other horrible outcomes) less likely in the near future.

I don't oppose political violence (in most cases) for no reason. I do it because history (including very recent history) provides numerous examples of it inflicting catastrophic damage on a country, rather than being a solution.

Sometimes catastrophic damage is a solution. Sometimes all you can do is burn the entire political and/or economic system to the ground and start over from scratch, because ultimately that will cause less needless human suffering in the long run.

The modern UK is still a long way from the point where the wholesale destruction of society would be preferable to the status quo. But if you disagree, then why don't you pay a visit to Syria or Afghanistan, and ask the people there if revolution made their countries better? Or just ask some of the refugees trying to flee those places for the UK.

And no, just destroying the status quo, with no thought for the consequences and no plan for what comes after, is not a solution. It is the random flailing of a tantrum. It is the kind of thinking that caused people to vote for Trump because they didn't care who won as long as it broke the "establishment" (however one defines such a nebulous term, especially when their definition excludes a hereditarily wealthy white man like Trump). Its the kind of thinking that caused Bush Jr. to go charging into Iraq without a proper plan for how to rebuild the country once the mission had been accomplished.

But I get it. Its the classic apocalyptic mindset. "Burn it all and start over" is a human delusion that has existed since the first apocalyptic mythologies, and probably since the first cave man figured out how to light fire. Much like rallying around a Strong Man, it is a tempting answer to those who crave a quick, "simple" solution, and fail to realize (or do not care) that no such thing exists. Who delude themselves into thinking that burning everything will lead to a clean start rather than years or decades of misery, and the very high likelihood that the new regime will be no better than the old.

Can a point come where armed resistance is necessary and just? Yes. But it is seldom quick, never clean, and never sure of success. To advocate that as anything but the last resort, or to rush into it without thought for the consequences or what comes after, is irresponsible selfishness in the highest degree.

I am not known for being a particularly level-headed or measured person. And I think you come off sounding like a wing nut.

And in any case, we're a pretty close second to Trump in the game of "Umberto Eco's 14 signs of fascism" bingo, and with fewer set-in-stone safeguards against this sort of thing. I don't expect the upcoming election to be even a minor speed-bump in this process.

And I don't expect that your solution would be. I don't think that, historically, countries generally emerge from a protracted period of civil violence more prosperous, or more free, than when they entered it. And I don't think the support would be there for it to succeed, because for the average person, bodies in the street are not preferable to their current lives.

If I believed that street violence would actually make for a measurably better world, I'd have a hard time arguing against it. But I simply don't see that.

[jwl]

And in any case, we're a pretty close second to Trump in the game of "Umberto Eco's 14 signs of fascism" bingo, and with fewer set-in-stone safeguards against this sort of thing. I don't expect the upcoming election to be even a minor speed-bump in this process.

Despite what the author of this article says, there are very few categorise in this list which the current (previous?) government is close to satisfying. Let's actually go through it:

The cult of tradition

Needs to be more well defined to know is the conservative party fit the criteria.

The rejection of modernism — “The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”

At no point has the conservative government rejected the "spirit of the enlightenment" or really even mentioned it.

The cult of action for action’s sake — “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation… The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.”

While the conservative government has had some harsh words for the "liberal elite", this isn't because they see them as thinking too much.

Rejection of analytical criticism — “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.”

The conservative government has no problem with disagreement. There's a difference between the actual politicians and people on the internet who talk about politics.

Rejection of diversity — “Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”

This may have slight resonances when you are talking about Theresa May the home secretary rather than Theresa May the prime minister (e.g. immigrants go home van), but this doesn't really apply any more, mostly because it was in response to the electoral threat of UKIP that has now collapsed.

Appeal to individual or social frustration— “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old ‘proletarians’ are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.”

Every political party in living memory has appealed to the middle class, so the conservatives doing it now is nothing special.

Obsession with a plot — “To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism… the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies… The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside”

Doesn't really apply.

Self-humiliation — “The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies… However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

This isn't america, British politics in general is not terribly concerned about "enemies"; russia, isis, north korea et. al. are at most a sideshow.

Life is lived for struggle — “pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world.

The tories are after world domination now?

Popular elitism — “Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens… But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader… knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses… every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors.”

Tory party members are in no way portrayed as more important than other people, in fact their very existence is mostly ignored. If anything it is the opposition parties which elevate their party members.

Encouragement of individual action / heroism — “In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm.”

Nope.

Disdain for women and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits

Yeah, Theresa May totally has a disdain for women /sarcasm

Selective populism via the concept of “the People” — “the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction… Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

Okay, with this one: fair point

Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak — “we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take [an] apparently innocent form.”

I don't really see how this is even on the list: in 1984, Newspeak was supposed to be a parody of the "corruption" of the English language as Orwell saw it at the time. It wasn't about German in Nazi Germany or Russian in Soviet Russia. Does that mean Clement Attlee was leaning fascist (as he was the prime minister in Britain at the time)? But regardless, how does the language of the conservative party fit the idea of Newspeak?

[Darth Tanner]

Sometimes catastrophic damage is a solution. Sometimes all you can do is burn the entire political and/or economic system to the ground and start over from scratch, because ultimately that will cause less needless human suffering in the long run.

A perfect example of why people often vote Conservative despite everything.

But related to brexit: you said socialist

Indeed, Corbyn is pretty committed to Brexit, even if chunks of his own party are not. He is pretending to be able to get free trade without free movement at the moment but the EU and even the Tories have admitted that won't happen.