UK Brexit team will not include people from Scotland, Ireland or Wales

[Thanas]

http://www.politico.eu/article/theresa- ... ign=buffer

LONDON — Half the positions on Theresa May’s all-powerful Brexit cabinet committee have been given to hard-line Euroskeptics, a leaked government list obtained by POLITICO reveals in further evidence that the U.K. is heading toward a hard exit from the European Union.

Every senior cabinet minister who campaigned for a vote to leave the EU has been given a place on the committee, which acts as the government’s ultimate decision-making body on Brexit.

[....]In a controversial move, the secretaries of state for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not given permanent positions around the decision-making table. Instead they attend “as required” by the prime minister.

The makeup of the committee has, until now, been kept secret, with Downing Street refusing to name the ministers chosen by the prime minister.

The cabinet committee has met at least three times already, a senior government aide said, but the details of its discussions and membership have been kept closely under wraps. The first meeting was on July 26.

Cabinet committees are smaller “sub committees” of the full cabinet, usually designed to streamline policy areas which cut across a number of government departments, such as tackling extremism.

According to the Cabinet Office manual, which sets out the rules of government, “cabinet committee decisions have the same authority as [full] cabinet decisions.”

May’s decision to use a cabinet committee — which is at least half the size of a full cabinet — to run Brexit suggests she intends to control the process tightly. The committee’s remit includes overseeing Britain’s negotiations with the EU and formulating wider trade policy.

Well if she wants to stop the scots from going independent this is surely going to help. /s

[The Romulan Republic]

So not only "fuck Europe" and "fuck foreigners" but "fuck everyone who isn't English"?

Yep, it looks like the UK's on its way out, and the Conservative Party will be remembered as the ones who killed it.

[Flagg]

Good. Let England be Europes pariah while Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales jump ship and remain in the EU.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another point to consider- If the UK does break apart, as appears increasingly likely, then it should serve as a warning to voters in other western countries, including Canada and the US.

The United Kingdom has existed as a united country for longer than we have, and until fairly recently was one of the premier democracies and one of the premier powers in the world. The circumstances in every country are different, certainly, but if their union can fail, then so can ours'. This should be a wake-up call to everyone who ever says "it can never happen here", and a warning that we cannot afford to give one inch, ever, to the authoritarian, xenophobic Right.

[Tribble]

Good. Let England be Europes pariah while Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales jump ship and remain in the EU.

It's unlikely that Wales would leave the UK given that they also voted to leave the EU, and are far more dependant on England for support than Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although the Conservatives should have included Wales on the Brexit team to show that it wasn't only the English who voted to leave I'm not surprised - everyone ignores the Welsh unless they happen to have a good sports team during the year.

Another point to consider- If the UK does break apart, as appears increasingly likely, then it should serve as a warning to voters in other western countries, including Canada and the US.

The United Kingdom has existed as a united country for longer than we have, and until fairly recently was one of the premier democracies and one of the premier powers in the world. The circumstances in every country are different, certainly, but if their union can fail, then so can ours'. This should be a wake-up call to everyone who ever says "it can never happen here", and a warning that we cannot afford to give one inch, ever, to the authoritarian, xenophobic Right.

So you mean don't give an inch to organizations like the EU then

Dehumanizing people because they have a different view than yours is not the best way to go if your goal is to keep a country together. If after the 1995 Quebec Referendum the rest of Canada said "the 49.5% of people who voted to leave are nothing but a bunch of stupid, uneducated, authoritarian, xenophobic right wingers and we should never give an inch to them ever!" do you really think that would have worked out well in the long run? IMO that kind of attitude would have backfired spectacularly in the long run. That's not to say that there aren't authoritarian xenophobic right wingers out there, but simply lumping everyone who disagrees with you into the same boat to dismiss them to dismiss them is not a good idea IMO. "You're either with us or against us" is a rather authoritarian point of view, is it not?

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't call it dehumanization. Though to clarify, I wouldn't say all conservatives are xenophobes or authoritarians (they sure do seem to dominate these days though). I am referring to a particular type of conservative.

But I don't believe in compromising with the far Right politically if we can possibly avoid it.

[Tribble]

I wouldn't call it dehumanization. Though to clarify, I wouldn't say all conservatives are xenophobes or authoritarians (they sure do seem to dominate these days though). I am referring to a particular type of conservative.

But I don't believe in compromising with the far Right politically if we can possibly avoid it.

Just as I wouldn't want to compromise with the far left- extremes are rarely a good thing.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that leaving the EU must be an extreme far right- far left position to take. The EU as a whole is controversial enough that I don't believe its fair or accurate to say that everyone who disagrees with being a part of it must be an extremist, therefore they must be opposed at all costs. IMO that kind of thinking is exactly why the EU is not doing a good job, because instead of taking a serious hard look at what's working and what's not and proposing serious reforms they are merely deflecting any and all criticism as coming from those dirty stinking uneducated peasants who don't know any better and should respect their betters. Rather than do anything any and all EU problems will likely be blamed on those little Englanders for the foreseeable future.

[Tribble]

And now that I think of it, no matter what happens the UK is going to be punished by the EU as severely as possible. Everyone talks about the UK leaving, but what if they end up staying? IMO the EU will still punish them as much as possible in order to use them as an example- perhaps even moreso than if they leave, since the EU would be able to make anti-UK regulations that the UK would have to legally follow. Plus the UK would almost certainly be out voted on any issues that don't toe the party line for the foreseeable future. It''s damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If you told your partner that you're divorcing and your partner told you that they were going to make your life a living hell if you do, is it necessarily a a good idea to give up on the divorce and try to win back their favour? Or are you setting yourself up for even more problems down the road than if you just left now?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the point is that the divorce was not a great idea in the first place. To extend the metaphor, it is a bad idea to divorce your spouse because you have paranoid delusions and don't like how they're open to funny food and strange hobbies.

The argument here is that Britain giving in to xenophobia is bad for Britain, and may indeed result in Britain breaking down to leave the British Isles as politically fragmented as they've been at any time since the 1600s. Once the xenophobic "Leave" voters won a referendum, forcing Britain to publicly adopt a xenophobic and isolationist stance, and to renege on various international treaties binding it into the EU...

Once that happened, there was no possible good outcome.

That's the entire point. Don't listen to these guys; no good can come of listening to them.

[Tribble]

Well, the point is that the divorce was not a great idea in the first place. To extend the metaphor, it is a bad idea to divorce your spouse because you have paranoid delusions and don't like how they're open to funny food and strange hobbies.

The argument here is that Britain giving in to xenophobia is bad for Britain, and may indeed result in Britain breaking down to leave the British Isles as politically fragmented as they've been at any time since the 1600s. Once the xenophobic "Leave" voters won a referendum, forcing Britain to publicly adopt a xenophobic and isolationist stance, and to renege on various international treaties binding it into the EU...

Once that happened, there was no possible good outcome.

That's the entire point. Don't listen to these guys; no good can come of listening to them.

You are of course operating under the assumption that the EU is a good thing. Perhaps you are right that the EU is a good thing... I don't claim to have the knowledge or foresight to state that my opinions are irrefutable. The difference being though that I don't assume that everyone who disagrees with me must be some kind of left-leaning commie extremist with paranoid delusions and who must be ignored at all costs. The benefits and drawbacks of the EU has been under debate since its very inception, and I fail to see why you seem to think that everyone who disagrees with the EU must be an extremist.

To be fair, my Canadian bias may paly a role here - my country was founded because it did not want to belong in a single North American Union While we don't mind trading with other nations you'd be pretty hard-pressed to convince us why joining in a political union with another country would be a good idea. We did repatriate our constitution rather than remain a British colony after all.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would certainly not say that the EU is without problems, or areas where reform is needed.

However, on the whole, I consider it infinitely preferable to the divided Europe that preceded it, and which gave us two global bloodbaths and a Cold War that nearly destroyed human civilization in the span of less than 50 years.

And in general, because of the risk of international conflict and because their are certain problems, such as climate change, pollution, refugees, and international terrorism, which require global responses, I would like to see greater, not lesser, global unity.

A strong, united Europe could also act as an alternative check to the United States (though European nations have often allied with the US, they are not in any sense synonymous, politically or culturally), as an alternative to the despotic opposition of Russia and China.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the point is that the divorce was not a great idea in the first place. To extend the metaphor, it is a bad idea to divorce your spouse because you have paranoid delusions and don't like how they're open to funny food and strange hobbies.

The argument here is that Britain giving in to xenophobia is bad for Britain, and may indeed result in Britain breaking down to leave the British Isles as politically fragmented as they've been at any time since the 1600s. Once the xenophobic "Leave" voters won a referendum, forcing Britain to publicly adopt a xenophobic and isolationist stance, and to renege on various international treaties binding it into the EU...

Once that happened, there was no possible good outcome.

That's the entire point. Don't listen to these guys; no good can come of listening to them.

You are of course operating under the assumption that the EU is a good thing. Perhaps you are right that the EU is a good thing... I don't claim to have the knowledge or foresight to state that my opinions are irrefutable. The difference being though that I don't assume that everyone who disagrees with me must be some kind of left-leaning commie extremist with paranoid delusions and who must be ignored at all costs. The benefits and drawbacks of the EU has been under debate since its very inception, and I fail to see why you seem to think that everyone who disagrees with the EU must be an extremist.

To be fair, my Canadian bias may paly a role here - my country was founded because it did not want to belong in a single North American Union While we don't mind trading with other nations you'd be pretty hard-pressed to convince us why joining in a political union with another country would be a good idea. We did repatriate our constitution rather than remain a British colony after all.

No, I am operating under the assumption that SOMEBODY ELSE thinks the EU is a good thing. And more to the point, that leaving the EU in the manner the British are doing it is likely to be bad for Britain. And that SOMEBODY ELSE thinks that many British beliefs that foreign immigrants IN THE UK are a problem is false, which can be supported by considerable evidence. And that a significant fraction of Leave support is motivated by anti-immigrant xenophobia, which is a well-substantiated fact.

Tribble, you've been strawmanning this issue in two threads this evening. Please take a moment to make sure you understand what others who are actually in the thread are saying. Stop falsely attributing opinions to people.

Because (and this is my real point), you are entirely missing the points of the people you're actually talking to, because you're busy arguing with a generic mannequin who isn't participating in the thread.

...

Bluntly, the people who want to keep Poles (and, no doubt, 'Pakis') out of England, and the people who want to build a big wall to keep Mexicans out of the US, are not proposing plans in the interest of their countries. Whatever may or may not be said for the EU, or for this or that thing, xenophobic sentiment is a political reality. The more power you give it, the more of a threat it becomes to the well-being of your country.

I don't have a problem with an intellectually honest discussion of the EU on its own merits. But that is exactly the kind of conversation many British citizens didn't have, and their nation is likely to pay the price for voting on Leave/Remain without having such a conversation. Even if they'd come to the same conclusion (Leave) after an honest conversation, they'd be much better positioned to do something about it than they are now.

[Tribble]

No, I am operating under the assumption that SOMEBODY ELSE thinks the EU is a good thing. And that SOMEBODY ELSE thinks that many British beliefs that foreign immigrants IN THE UK are a problem is false, which can be supported by considerable evidence. And that a significant fraction of Leave support is motivated by anti-immigrant xenophobia, which is a well-substantiated fact.

Do they have any figures available as to how many people voted leave specifically because they are xenophobic and anti-immigrant? I think there needs to be the distinction made between people who voted to leave because they believe that the UK government should be the final decision makers on who enters and leaves the UK, and those who vote to leave the EU specifically because they are xenophobic and anti-immigrant.

Not a critique, just a question.

Tribble, you've been strawmanning this issue in two threads this evening. Please take a moment to make sure you understand what others who are actually in the thread are saying. Stop falsely attributing opinions to people.

Because (and this is my real point), you are entirely missing the points of the people you're actually talking to, because you're busy arguing with a generic mannequin who isn't participating in the thread.

Perhaps I have been misreading, but I feel the need to point out that there should be a clear distinction made between those who voted to leave the EU because they are xenophobic, and those who voted to leave because of other reasons.

Bluntly, the people who want to keep Poles (and, no doubt, 'Pakis') out of England, and the people who want to build a big wall to keep Mexicans out of the US, are not proposing plans in the interest of their countries. Whatever may or may not be said for the EU, or for this or that thing, xenophobic sentiment is a political reality. The more power you give it, the more of a threat it becomes to the well-being of your country.

I don't have a problem with an intellectually honest discussion of the EU on its own merits. But that is exactly the kind of conversation many British citizens didn't have, and their nation is likely to pay the price for voting on Leave/Remain without having such a conversation. Even if they'd come to the same conclusion (Leave) after an honest conversation, they'd be much better positioned to do something about it than they are now.

I'm glad you are now making a clear distinction between "those who want to leave the EU" and "those who want to leave the EU specifically because they are xenophobic." Up until this point it hasn't been clear to me if you and other people were talking about that group specifically or if you were labelling all people who voted to Leave as being part of that group. Thank you for clearing that up.

That doesn't change my opinion that the xenophobic elements of the Lave Group should have their right to vote revoked or ignored, though I agree that people should be refuting their opinion at every turn.

[Simon_Jester]

No, I am operating under the assumption that SOMEBODY ELSE thinks the EU is a good thing. And that SOMEBODY ELSE thinks that many British beliefs that foreign immigrants IN THE UK are a problem is false, which can be supported by considerable evidence. And that a significant fraction of Leave support is motivated by anti-immigrant xenophobia, which is a well-substantiated fact.

Do they have any figures available as to how many people voted leave specifically because they are xenophobic and anti-immigrant? I think there needs to be the distinction made between people who voted to leave because they believe that the UK government should be the final decision makers on who enters and leaves the UK, and those who vote to leave the EU specifically because they are xenophobic and anti-immigrant.

Not a critique, just a question.

Given the narrowness of the vote, the answer to any such question "how many" is going to be "more than enough.

Tribble, you've been strawmanning this issue in two threads this evening. Please take a moment to make sure you understand what others who are actually in the thread are saying. Stop falsely attributing opinions to people.

Because (and this is my real point), you are entirely missing the points of the people you're actually talking to, because you're busy arguing with a generic mannequin who isn't participating in the thread.

Perhaps I have been misreading, but I feel the need to point out that there should be a clear distinction made between those who voted to leave the EU because they are xenophobic, and those who voted to leave because of other reasons.

Fine, but your need to point this out should not be so great that it causes willful blindness to the actual point being made by TRR, which I agree with:

Nativist, nationalist, far-right politics is dangerous.

It is deeply, profoundly toxic to the health of democratic governments. This is not a new observation; it dates back at least to the late nineteenth century if not earlier.

All that's happened is that the nativists gained disproportionate influence over British politics and (as usual) were able to start a bandwagon rolling. Just enough other Britons got on the bandwagon that it was able to actually accomplish something significant. And now, that results in Britain ending up sorry and sore.

It is extremely dangerous to make common cause with nativist, nationalist, far-right political figures. Even if you think you agree with them, they are very likely to go too far, to start abusing people's rights, to cut your nation off from its natural allies, or even to threaten democracy itself when democracy doesn't prove willing to back them 100% of the way.

There were a lot of prudent, sensible German conservatives who thought they could control Hitler and that his rabble-rousing was a useful way to thicken the ranks of their own political movement. They wound up having ample cause to regret helping him into power.

And yes that is an extreme example, because I am illustrating a point with one of the worst possible examples. Helping Hitler results in World War II. Helping some lesser breed of nationalist nativist thug like Mussolini causes less damage. Helping a still lesser sort causes still less harm, and so on down the chain. But hitching your wagon to a bozo like Boris Johnson is STILL enough to result in Britain 'accidentally' leaving the EU, against the wishes of the Conservative government that originally staged the referendum.

Even dipping a toe in nativism can be a dangerous game, because nativists are often far too busy distrusting foreigners to accurately calculate the benefits and costs of dealing with them fairly.

I'm glad you are now making a clear distinction between "those who want to leave the EU" and "those who want to leave the EU specifically because they are xenophobic." Up until this point it hasn't been clear to me if you and other people were talking about that group specifically or if you were labelling all people who voted to Leave as being part of that group. Thank you for clearing that up.

This shouldn't even be an opinion you assume other people hold unless they explicitly come out and say so, because it is so ridiculous.

The reason strawmanning is a problem is that if you start out assuming people believe ridiculous things, you will misunderstand what they say, not get their real arguments, and construct elaborate structures of unnecessary or false verbiage. All aimed at a position that doesn't exist, or at least doesn't exist in the brain of anyone present.

And this is what you were doing all evening. You talked right past us, in an attempt to refute a position that existed only in your own mind's simulation of your debating opponent.

[K. A. Pital]

Nationalism, as usual, is a two-faced coin.

Nationalism of the oppressed, of the colonized, is a progressive force as it helps them to throw off the yoke of their masters.

Nationalism of the masters, of the imperialists, is a reactionary, regressive force.

Are Scots feeling oppressed? That question is only for them to answer. But the masters get no say.

[Starglider]

Standard-issue outrageous Thanas lies, naturally going unquestioned by the SDN far-left consensus. Obviously there is no policy of exclusion by nationality; Damian Green is Welsh and Liam Fox is scottish. Secretaries of state not attending every meeting is just an organisational decision to keep the size manageable.

[Flagg]

Standard-issue outrageous Thanas lies, naturally going unquestioned by the SDN far-left consensus. Obviously there is no policy of exclusion by nationality; Damian Green is Welsh and Liam Fox is scottish. Secretaries of state not attending every meeting is just an organisational decision to keep the size manageable.

You poor guy. I can't imagine just how much your butt hurts.

[Thanas]

Standard-issue outrageous Thanas lies, naturally going unquestioned by the SDN far-left consensus. Obviously there is no policy of exclusion by nationality; Damian Green is Welsh and Liam Fox is scottish. Secretaries of state not attending every meeting is just an organisational decision to keep the size manageable.

We have always been at war with oceania.

Or maybe when May says she is going to make sure scotland has a voice in the negotiation progress and then excludes the secretary of scotland it is not a smart move politically? But I guess nobody ever accused you of being smart.....

[Ziggy Stardust]

Fine, but your need to point this out should not be so great that it causes willful blindness to the actual point being made by TRR, which I agree with:

Nativist, nationalist, far-right politics is dangerous.

It is deeply, profoundly toxic to the health of democratic governments. This is not a new observation; it dates back at least to the late nineteenth century if not earlier.

All that's happened is that the nativists gained disproportionate influence over British politics and (as usual) were able to start a bandwagon rolling. Just enough other Britons got on the bandwagon that it was able to actually accomplish something significant. And now, that results in Britain ending up sorry and sore.

Not to put words in Tribble's mouth (and he is free to correct me if I'm wrong), but I think the two of you are talking past each other just a little bit. Tribble isn't saying that there is nothing wrong with far-right politics, I think he is disputing its causal connection with the Brexit vote specifically.

You seem to be taking it for granted that the causal chain was roughly along the lines of:

Far-right politics --> Started Brexit bandwagon --> Other people jump on bandwagon for other reasons --> BREXIT!

What I think Tribble is trying to ask for is evidence that the Brexit bandwagon was specifically STARTED by far-right/nativist politics, as opposed to simply being associated with it due to far-right people jumping on the Brexit bandwagon after the fact. For example, I can easily imagine a couple of different versions of the causal chain that equally fit my admittedly naive understanding of the British politics leading up to Brexit:

Reasonable people don't like EU --> Started Brexit bandwagon --> Hijacked by far-right politics --> BREXIT!

I can even imagine a situation where the movement wasn't even primarily far-right in nature, but we just associate it with a couple of the loudest most obnoxious far-right people who happened to support it. I guess Tribble's logic is similar to saying, "Just because Nazis also had no smoking laws, does not make no smoking laws in and of themselves a Nazi ideal". Just because far-right nativists supported Brexit, does not necessarily imply that Brexit in and of itself is a natural evolution of far-right politics.

That said, I am simply trying to clarify what I believe to be the thrust of Tribble's argument. I admit that I don't know enough about the politics of the situation to know which way the evidence points. It just seems to me that repeating the fact that "far-right politics is bad" doesn't actually answer the point Tribble was trying to raise, which is whether or not Brexit can fairly be classified a far-right politic.

[Simon_Jester]

Not to put words in Tribble's mouth (and he is free to correct me if I'm wrong), but I think the two of you are talking past each other just a little bit. Tribble isn't saying that there is nothing wrong with far-right politics, I think he is disputing its causal connection with the Brexit vote specifically.

You seem to be taking it for granted that the causal chain was roughly along the lines of:

Far-right politics --> Started Brexit bandwagon --> Other people jump on bandwagon for other reasons --> BREXIT!

Okay, let me back up a bit and amend; I may well have said something poorly and not thought it through at 1:15 in the morning.

What I think Tribble is trying to ask for is evidence that the Brexit bandwagon was specifically STARTED by far-right/nativist politics, as opposed to simply being associated with it due to far-right people jumping on the Brexit bandwagon after the fact. For example, I can easily imagine a couple of different versions of the causal chain that equally fit my admittedly naive understanding of the British politics leading up to Brexit:

Reasonable people don't like EU --> Started Brexit bandwagon --> Hijacked by far-right politics --> BREXIT!

The idea that has been in my mind through this time is, simply, that when you take far-right politics and inject it into normal political discourse, things start becoming toxic very rapidly. Even if you agree with them on a policy, there is a profound risk of things getting out of control in the heat of the moment. Or of the far-right appealing to voters who are constitutionally unable to do a real cost-benefit analysis. So that the end result comes out to the nation's disadvantage, in a way the far-right desired but didn't count the costs of.

I can even imagine a situation where the movement wasn't even primarily far-right in nature, but we just associate it with a couple of the loudest most obnoxious far-right people who happened to support it. I guess Tribble's logic is similar to saying, "Just because Nazis also had no smoking laws, does not make no smoking laws in and of themselves a Nazi ideal". Just because far-right nativists supported Brexit, does not necessarily imply that Brexit in and of itself is a natural evolution of far-right politics.

Which is kind of beside the point. It's not really about whether Brexit is entirely the brainchild of the far right.

The point is that even if you think what you're doing is a good idea, allying with a bunch of nativists and ultra-nationalists to make it happen is an extremely bad idea. The Republican Party is having this problem with Trump (only it appears to be savaging the party specifically, not so much the nation as a whole, fortunately for everyone who isn't a Republican).

That said, I am simply trying to clarify what I believe to be the thrust of Tribble's argument. I admit that I don't know enough about the politics of the situation to know which way the evidence points. It just seems to me that repeating the fact that "far-right politics is bad" doesn't actually answer the point Tribble was trying to raise, which is whether or not Brexit can fairly be classified a far-right politic.

The reason I think something unusual has happened is that Britain is the only country to have ever voted to leave the EU. Moreover, all the other countries that have even considered it (such as Greece) are countries that have suffered massively (in a way Britain has not). Countries whose public have very obvious, understandable reasons to blame other EU member states*.

By contrast, one might reasonably ask the British what all the fuss is about. I get that many Britons think they'd be better off without the EU, but they' weren't exactly doing badly for themselves in the EU. If one knew five years ago that one nation was leaving the EU and had to guess which one, "Britain" would probably not be top choice.

So, again, this suggests that something unusual has happened in British politics, that does not routinely happen just anywhere. If it were a routine part of normal politics, other nations would have done it, since other nations have bigger EU-related problems caused by things like the lack of currency exchange rates.

And one of the very obvious candidates is that in Britain, the far right and the Conservatives who allowed the referendum became linked through a handful of specific political figures (Boris Johnson being one of the more high-profile ones). This resulted in a situation where the people who ran the referendum (expecting it to lose) were blindsided by a vigorous campaign for Leave.

Once the far-right boarded the train, things spiraled out of the control of the people who thought they were running the railroad.

And now, even if you think Brexit is a good idea, there's this awkwardness. Because the only viable choices for who's going to implement it and how it will happen are:
1) Find someone who thought it was a bad idea all along
2) Find someone who thinks it's a good idea because he wants Those Dirty Poles out of the country, let alone Those Unmentionable Pakis.
3) Find someone who's trapped between the two camps, trying to retain their alliances to the mainstream British political establishment while faced with the reality that they are committed to a policy that gets a significant part of its driving energy from the people covered under (2).

This does not lend itself to a good outcome from the point of view of a rational pro-Leave voter. What would have been much better would have been if somehow the process had been more measured and deliberate and controlled, still potentially culminating in Brexit but with a longer, clearer policy debate. By the time the matter came up for a binding referendum, the British government should have known what to do in the event that the vote came up 'Leave,' rather than collapsing the moment Leave won because they had no idea how to proceed.
_______________

*Such as foreign countries collecting Greek debt payments and refusing to take "we're bankrupt, the previous government took on unpayable debt" for an answer. For purposes of this conversation, it's irrelevant whether the Greeks are right or wrong to feel this way, but they DO feel this way, and it's certainly an issue that ties into massive harming their country, worse than Britain has suffered in an extremely long time.

[madd0ct0r]

Standard-issue outrageous Thanas lies, naturally going unquestioned by the SDN far-left consensus. Obviously there is no policy of exclusion by nationality; Damian Green is Welsh and Liam Fox is scottish. Secretaries of state not attending every meeting is just an organisational decision to keep the size manageable.

I'd note that while damien green was born in Barry, Wales, Wikipedia says his family moved to reading, and he seems not to have lived or politically interacted with Wales since. He is an mp in kent.

Liam Fox at least grew up and studied in Glasgow, but he has been been an mp in England for how many decades?

Defining nationality by birthplace is an interesting thing with bearing on this brexit debate. The concept of citizenship and sovereignty was a major factor for some people. I voted remain because I do not see the Eu as being any more distant and disinterested than Whitehall is in Wales. A friend living in England voted to leave because he viewed sovereignity to be a truly fundamental unit of government, worth significant opportunity costs in resources and jobs to keep. The country would not hesitate to sacrifice its soldier-citizen's lives in the case of invasion. Why should we not accept lesser losses if you agree with that principle?
For me, Whitehall politicians are less competent than the EU, and I think soverginity is less important than competence.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The point is that even if you think what you're doing is a good idea, allying with a bunch of nativists and ultra-nationalists to make it happen is an extremely bad idea. The Republican Party is having this problem with Trump (only it appears to be savaging the party specifically, not so much the nation as a whole, fortunately for everyone who isn't a Republican).

I'm too drugged up with cold medicine to respond to you fully, I'll get around to that tomorrow. Besides, the crusp of my response will come down to a certain interpretation of your argument as I understand it, and I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting before fully responding. In any case, from a quick read it seems to me that these two sentences represent a decent summary of the rest of your arguments.

The problem is I still don't think it is addressing the point. I think you're conflating two different things which, even if they occasionally produce the same results, are different enough mechanisms that approaches to dealing with them will be different.

Trump is the inevitable result of the Republican party allowing itself to be taken over by this far-right, nativist wing. There's a direct causal relationship between the policies of the party, the galvanization of this extreme subset of the voting population, and the rise of the Tea Party and Trump.

On the other extreme end of the spectrum, you have the glib and overused, by apt, example I used earlier. If smoking bans are a policy that is promoted by Nazis, does that mean any party or government that enacts smoking bans is automatically allowing themselves to be hijacked by Nazis ideals and that this will lead down a Trump-like trajectory?

Clearly that case is so extreme it borders on a strawman, and for that I apologize, but I think in this case hyperbole illustrates my point rather well. The question then, where between these two extremes does Brexit lie? Is Brexit a case where there is this direct causal feedback loop a la Trump and the Republicans, or is it a case where the interests of this far-right subset just happen serendipitously (for them) to align with the interests of a larger voting bloc, in a way that is not necessarily causality related? I admit I don't have nearly a detailed enough understanding of British politics to answer this, but it simply seems to me that sufficient proof for Brexit being a case like Trump (and thus a DEFINITIVELY far-right/nativist movement) requires more than simply noting that far-right people happened to support Brexit.

Simply because far-right people happen to support a policy, does not mean that policy is automatically and irredeemably a nativist/extreme one.

[Tribble]

Fine, but your need to point this out should not be so great that it causes willful blindness to the actual point being made by TRR, which I agree with:

Nativist, nationalist, far-right politics is dangerous.

It is deeply, profoundly toxic to the health of democratic governments. This is not a new observation; it dates back at least to the late nineteenth century if not earlier.

All that's happened is that the nativists gained disproportionate influence over British politics and (as usual) were able to start a bandwagon rolling. Just enough other Britons got on the bandwagon that it was able to actually accomplish something significant. And now, that results in Britain ending up sorry and sore.

Not to put words in Tribble's mouth (and he is free to correct me if I'm wrong), but I think the two of you are talking past each other just a little bit. Tribble isn't saying that there is nothing wrong with far-right politics, I think he is disputing its causal connection with the Brexit vote specifically.

You seem to be taking it for granted that the causal chain was roughly along the lines of:

Far-right politics --> Started Brexit bandwagon --> Other people jump on bandwagon for other reasons --> BREXIT!

What I think Tribble is trying to ask for is evidence that the Brexit bandwagon was specifically STARTED by far-right/nativist politics, as opposed to simply being associated with it due to far-right people jumping on the Brexit bandwagon after the fact. For example, I can easily imagine a couple of different versions of the causal chain that equally fit my admittedly naive understanding of the British politics leading up to Brexit:

Reasonable people don't like EU --> Started Brexit bandwagon --> Hijacked by far-right politics --> BREXIT!

I can even imagine a situation where the movement wasn't even primarily far-right in nature, but we just associate it with a couple of the loudest most obnoxious far-right people who happened to support it. I guess Tribble's logic is similar to saying, "Just because Nazis also had no smoking laws, does not make no smoking laws in and of themselves a Nazi ideal". Just because far-right nativists supported Brexit, does not necessarily imply that Brexit in and of itself is a natural evolution of far-right politics.

That said, I am simply trying to clarify what I believe to be the thrust of Tribble's argument. I admit that I don't know enough about the politics of the situation to know which way the evidence points. It just seems to me that repeating the fact that "far-right politics is bad" doesn't actually answer the point Tribble was trying to raise, which is whether or not Brexit can fairly be classified a far-right politic.

Yes that is essentially the point I am trying to make, though you did it far batter than I did. Again I do apologize if there was a lack of clarity on my part.

The idea that has been in my mind through this time is, simply, that when you take far-right politics and inject it into normal political discourse, things start becoming toxic very rapidly. Even if you agree with them on a policy, there is a profound risk of things getting out of control in the heat of the moment. Or of the far-right appealing to voters who are constitutionally unable to do a real cost-benefit analysis. So that the end result comes out to the nation's disadvantage, in a way the far-right desired but didn't count the costs of.

Which is kind of beside the point. It's not really about whether Brexit is entirely the brainchild of the far right.

The point is that even if you think what you're doing is a good idea, allying with a bunch of nativists and ultra-nationalists to make it happen is an extremely bad idea. The Republican Party is having this problem with Trump (only it appears to be savaging the party specifically, not so much the nation as a whole, fortunately for everyone who isn't a Republican).

IMO you can look at it two ways. To use the extreme Nazi example, you could make the argument that supporting Nazis in any way is terrible and must be avoided at all costs, and you might end up having to vote against things that you would normally support. On the other hand, this is a referendum, not an election - you wouldn't be voting for Nazis and electing them into office, so much as voting for a smoking ban they happened to support. Should you vote against the smoking ban solely because Nazis happened to agree with you? And should you be considered to be an extremist if you happened to vote on a smoking ban which the Nazis also happened to support?

[Simon_Jester]

The point is that even if you think what you're doing is a good idea, allying with a bunch of nativists and ultra-nationalists to make it happen is an extremely bad idea. The Republican Party is having this problem with Trump (only it appears to be savaging the party specifically, not so much the nation as a whole, fortunately for everyone who isn't a Republican).

I'm too drugged up with cold medicine to respond to you fully, I'll get around to that tomorrow. Besides, the crusp of my response will come down to a certain interpretation of your argument as I understand it, and I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting before fully responding. In any case, from a quick read it seems to me that these two sentences represent a decent summary of the rest of your arguments.

The problem is I still don't think it is addressing the point. I think you're conflating two different things which, even if they occasionally produce the same results, are different enough mechanisms that approaches to dealing with them will be different.

Trump is the inevitable result of the Republican party allowing itself to be taken over by this far-right, nativist wing. There's a direct causal relationship between the policies of the party, the galvanization of this extreme subset of the voting population, and the rise of the Tea Party and Trump.

On the other extreme end of the spectrum, you have the glib and overused, by apt, example I used earlier. If smoking bans are a policy that is promoted by Nazis, does that mean any party or government that enacts smoking bans is automatically allowing themselves to be hijacked by Nazis ideals and that this will lead down a Trump-like trajectory?

Clearly that case is so extreme it borders on a strawman, and for that I apologize, but I think in this case hyperbole illustrates my point rather well. The question then, where between these two extremes does Brexit lie? Is Brexit a case where there is this direct causal feedback loop a la Trump and the Republicans, or is it a case where the interests of this far-right subset just happen serendipitously (for them) to align with the interests of a larger voting bloc, in a way that is not necessarily causality related? I admit I don't have nearly a detailed enough understanding of British politics to answer this, but it simply seems to me that sufficient proof for Brexit being a case like Trump (and thus a DEFINITIVELY far-right/nativist movement) requires more than simply noting that far-right people happened to support Brexit.

Simply because far-right people happen to support a policy, does not mean that policy is automatically and irredeemably a nativist/extreme one.

I'm going to try to be compact here.

The problem is not agreeing with the far right.

The problem arises when you're giving the far right an opportunity to vigorously pursue their goals by allowing them to (in effect) pool political resources with you. This is what Trump did with (and to) the Republicans.

The issue is not the blameworthiness or praiseworthiness of Brexit as a policy as such. The issue is that a situation has been created by which the xenophobic extreme in British politics gained a sudden, disproportionate power to affect events.

[Tribble]

I'm going to try to be compact here.

The problem is not agreeing with the far right.

The problem arises when you're giving the far right an opportunity to vigorously pursue their goals by allowing them to (in effect) pool political resources with you. This is what Trump did with (and to) the Republicans.

The issue is not the blameworthiness or praiseworthiness of Brexit as a policy as such. The issue is that a situation has been created by which the xenophobic extreme in British politics gained a sudden, disproportionate power to affect events.

If we are to run with the assumption that Brexit is not a politically extreme idea in and of itself, remember this was a referendum, not an election. People weren't voting for extremist parties and getting them into office so much as voting to leave the EU, which is something some extremist groups happened to support. Are you suggesting that even if you personally supported leaving the EU you should have voted to Remain anyways simply because some extremist groups agreed with you? If there was a referendum in the US over greater gun control, and you and Trump supported greater gun control, would you vote against greater gun control solely because Trump supported it?