Straight Dope Message Board

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

But do you really think that a complete revocation of the article 50, with no intention invoke in the future, would see the E.U. and the UK's position in it carry on exactly as before?

Two relevent points:

1. Legally, yes, the UK carries on exactly as before, a member of the EU on exactly the terms it has now, including the opt-outs, the rebate, the veto rights - everything. The UK will have the same powers of unilateral action, and unilateral blocking of the actions of others, that it has had all along.

2. Over the last three years the UK has squandered an enormous amount of diplomatic capital, political credibility, goodwill and reputation. Regardless of where we go from here, that is not going to be quickly recovered. This impairs its ability to take collective or co-operative action.

So, although the UK's rights and entitlements in the EU will be unchanged, its influence will be greatly diminished. It will have to work hard to rebuild that, and it will take time, but it can be done, and it can certainly be more easily done if the UK remains a member than if it leaves, because remaining a member (a) indicates a deicsion to repudiate the disastrous course of recent years, and (b) gives it a position (votes in the Council) that it can leverage, by working co-operatively with other Member States and so reconstructing a reputation as a country capable of doing so. This will require a new generation of political leaders in the UK but, obviously, they need that anyway.

With everything carry on exactly as before? No, but it was never going to; that's not how history unfolds. Events, actions and decisions have consequences, and thereafter the world will always be different from how it was before those events happened, those actions were taken, those decisions were made. But the UK shouldn't be asking itself "how can we make things as they were before?" (That's what got them into delusional Brexit in the first place.) They should be asking "Given where we are now, where should we go from here?" 251

[Snowboarder Bo]

That is a very good question, UDS and I wish more people (and governments and corporations) asked it more often. 252

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight

Headline: BLOW FOR BOJO AS BRO JO GO GOES

There appears to be a superfluous "go", which risks the whole headline being misinterpreted.

"Is your brother a goer? Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more!" 253

[GreenWyvern]

Oh, no, BoJo bro Jo go - low blow, so woe! 254

[GreenWyvern]

Watching the meltdown of Johnson's government is a schadenfreudefest.

I know the issues are really serious, but it's still highly entertaining to watch.

His speech at the Wakefield police academy was simply cringeworthy, a public speaker's nightmare:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuJHmBW_bgU 255

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by RickJay

It's not just that the UK doesn't have the leverage it thought it did; it's that the EU has every incentive to actually be more intransigent in negotiations than a pure calculus of the EU-UK trading relationship would dictate. Any sense of weakness in this will make the EU look weak and will encourage other member states to threaten to take their toys and go home if they don't get whatever their desired changes are. The EU benefits from the UK getting screwed.

All this was incredibly predictable. This isn't Deep Blue chess, it's tic-tac-toe.

Pretty much. This is the most infuriating thing about this issue - none of this was rocket science. It was obvious from the word go that Brexit would be harmful for the UK's economy. It was obvious from the word go that the UK didn't have the long end of the stick on negotiating a deal with the entire EU. And yet, somehow a large number of people couldn't grasp these obvious facts. In fact, the only surprising part is how incredibly forthcoming the EU has been in the face of what is very obviously bad faith.

Originally Posted by kevlaw

The question I was responding to was "But do you really think that a complete revocation of the article 50 [snip] would see the E.U. and the UK's position in it carry on exactly as before?"

Presumably, if Article 50 is revoked, it means that the people responsible for the bad faith and the ill will are no longer in power and a more Europhillic government is in place.

I think there are folks in some countries in Europe who have some sympathy for British (Europhile) opinions on the future of Europe. We are not talking Farage & Cummings here. We're not even talking conservative-pm-held-hostage-to-euroskeptics. There are Europhiles who fervently believe the the EU is a force for good but recognize that unrestricted migration and immigration and over-regulation and all the rest are damaging to the public's support for the European project.

And not just in Britain.

Other countries like the Netherlands and Denmark have always been more sympathetic to the British point of view and France, Germany and Italy all have movements that are pushing back on Ever Closer Union. They might welcome a little bit of populist reform that they can blame on the British. No marching orders required.

That makes somewhat more sense, and unfortunately the latest EU election kind of bears this out? Which is unfortunate, because one would hope that one of the lessons of Brexit is just how much of this anti-EU sentiment is blatantly bullshit. 256

[Budget Player Cadet]

Also, while we're mocking:

"For a man so opposed to socialism Boris Johnson seems to love getting publicly owned."
https://twitter.com/BeffernieBlack/s...03149906649091 257

[ElvisL1ves]

Labour MEP Theresa Griffin tweeted: "The first example of a politician stepping down to spend less time with their family?" 258

[Treppenwitz]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

Watching the meltdown of Johnson's government is a schadenfreudefest.

I know the issues are really serious, but it's still highly entertaining to watch.

His speech at the Wakefield police academy was simply cringeworthy, a public speaker's nightmare:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuJHmBW_bgU

Thankyou for posting this. For obvious reasons, I tend to avoid TV news of Bojo's latest antics, so this was the first time I had seen it.

Given the forum I had best temper my reaction. Cringeworthy doesn't come close to doing it justice. An entire audience openly sniggering at him, and he carries on digging. From about 15 seconds in I was (literally) watching it through my fingers. Wow.

j 259

[Elendil's Heir]

He's just as skilled a public speaker as he is a legislative strategist. 260

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Pretty much. This is the most infuriating thing about this issue - none of this was rocket science. It was obvious from the word go that Brexit would be harmful for the UK's economy. It was obvious from the word go that the UK didn't have the long end of the stick on negotiating a deal with the entire EU. And yet, somehow a large number of people couldn't grasp these obvious facts. In fact, the only surprising part is how incredibly forthcoming the EU has been in the face of what is very obviously bad faith.
...

Racists and Xenophiles are oblivious to what is obvious.

The EU also has been having issues with Racists and Xenophiles, so perhaps that's why they are so understanding. 261

[PatrickLondon]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

I know the issues are really serious, but it's still highly entertaining to watch.

Watching the Tories imploding in a collective nervous breakdown has always been hilarious in 1963, 1974-5, 1989-90, and the slow puncture of John Major's "back to basics". But this is the Poundland version. If it's soap opera, it's verging on Acorn Antiques. 262

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

Watching the meltdown of Johnson's government is a schadenfreudefest.

I know the issues are really serious, but it's still highly entertaining to watch.

His speech at the Wakefield police academy was simply cringeworthy, a public speaker's nightmare:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuJHmBW_bgU

In Latest Humiliation, Boris Johnson's Dog Resigns As His Pet

“After wrestling with my conscience for some time, I have concluded that any further association with Mr. Johnson would be damaging to my reputation,” the dog said. 263

[Baron Greenback]

Amber Rudd just resigned from the Cabinet and also the Conservative whip. Here's her letter to the Prime Minister

https://twitter.com/AmberRuddHR/stat...29481879842817

which includes the phrases "assault on decency and democracy" and "act of political vandalism". It's fair to say that she's not happy, I think. 264

[leahcim]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

Amber Rudd just resigned from the Cabinet and also the Conservative whip.

I love this note on the bbc article:

Originally Posted by BBC

She was credited as a consultant on the 1994 hit film Four Weddings and a Funeral

265

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by leahcim

I love this note on the bbc article:

Her IMDB listing has her noted as "Aristocracy Coordinator" 266

[Budget Player Cadet]

It's telling that the key mistake here is that Boris Johnson thought that British politics is as fucked as American politics. 267

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Small is good.

Big Is Beautiful. 268

[PatrickLondon]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

Amber Rudd just resigned from the Cabinet and also the Conservative whip. Here's her letter to the Prime Minister

https://twitter.com/AmberRuddHR/stat...29481879842817

which includes the phrases "assault on decency and democracy" and "act of political vandalism". It's fair to say that she's not happy, I think.

She made her attitude to him, and to several specifics of his current stance (no deal, prorogation) clear during the leadership campaign. The mystery is, why on earth she agreed to serve in his cabinet in the first place. 269

[its_the_daddy]

Originally Posted by PatrickLondon

She made her attitude to him, and to several specifics of his current stance (no deal, prorogation) clear during the leadership campaign. The mystery is, why on earth she agreed to serve in his cabinet in the first place.

I think it's called ambition................

How many more rats will leave? 270

[UY Scuti]

Originally Posted by its_the_daddy

How many more rats will leave?

Does this allusion to Plato's Ship of State try to induce the idea that Boris Johnson should be regarded as a leader equivalent to a naval commander? 271

[GreenWyvern]

Originally Posted by UY Scuti

Does this allusion to Plato's Ship of State try to induce the idea that Boris Johnson should be regarded as a leader equivalent to a naval commander?

Boris Johnson couldn't be trusted to command a rowing boat on the Serpentine.

No, the idiom of 'rats abandoning a sinking ship' has a long history in English, and has nothing to do with Plato's metaphor. Rats are supposed to be able to sense when a ship is leaking and unsafe, and will take the first opportunity to leave. It is used to refer to people abandoning any enterprise they think will fail. 272

[GreenWyvern]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

It's telling that the key mistake here is that Boris Johnson thought that British politics is as fucked as American politics.

This whole situation is actually showing the strength and flexibility of the British parliamentary system.

It may look chaotic and ineffectual, but in reality it is (so far) successfully resisting an extremist takeover - and doing that without resorting to the same kind of extremist tactics as its opponents. 273

[PatrickLondon]

Originally Posted by its_the_daddy

I think it's called ambition................

And not much grasp of reality, in that case. 274

[glee]

I feel sorry for Dominic Cummings.

He runs an effective campaign to leave (using 'Trump-like' lies and slogans) , gets his patsy installed as Prime Minister , and then is frustrated by truth and democracy.

Have we really fallen so far? 275

[Elendil's Heir]

I'm afraid we all know the answer to that. 276

[Gyrate]

Farther.

What's interesting about Rudd's departure is her confirmation of what has been strongly suspected: that Boris and his cohort are doing very little work on an actual deal and are instead devoting most of their resources to a no-deal Brexit. Naturally, this is the opposite of what Boris has said and continues to say, but then it's hard to find examples of Boris actually telling the truth about anything.

I have been pondering Boris's motivations in all this. Clearly he thought that he could bluff, bluster, bully and lie his way through his premiership the way he's done for the rest of his career, but it's becoming clear that regardless of the consequences Boris has one goal and one goal only: to push through a no-deal Brexit at any cost. Given that this cost includes his career and political reputation, I'm left to speculate wildly on why he's doing this. Certainly he'll probably make a few millions off Britain leaving the EU but that's not enough of a motivation to do what he's doing. Instead, I note that Boris has a number of extremely rich and powerful pro-Brexit backers, including the Barclays. One wonders whether they have some sort of carrot and/or stick arrangement going on, in that if Boris delivers he gets a significant payoff of some kind and/or if he doesn't they have major blackmail material against him (which, given what we already know, would have to be of the "live boy or dead girl" variety and possibly something overtly jailworthy).

I have no evidence for any of that, but frankly it's the only way I can make any sense out of his current scorched earth approach. 277

[Snowboarder Bo]

Johnson tells Irish leader Brexit deal can be reached:

Speaking alongside Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar in Dublin, Johnson said a deal on the Irish border question can be secured in time to enable a smooth British departure from the EU by the scheduled Brexit date.

He said a no-deal departure from the European Union would represent a “failure of statecraft” and that all sides would bear a responsibility for that.

No, not all sides. That's just a lie.

During his press conference with Varadkar, Johnson did not explain how the longstanding stalemate can be broken in a way that satisfies the other 27 EU leaders and would win backing in Britain’s Parliament, where his party no longer has a working majority.

Johnson has been criticized in Britain for not producing new plans to break the Brexit impasse, and Varadkar also said that Britain has not produced any realistic alternatives to the controversial “backstop” agreement reached by Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May.

Aye, because he's not ever been producing a new plan. There's zero evidence he was ever working on or going to try for a new plan.

Back when the GWB administration was pushing for the war with Iraq, I was befuddled by how my fellow Americans could be so stupid, naive and uninformed to believe what the Bush administration was saying, when all available evidence contradicted them.

Right now, I'm wondering the same thing about the people of the UK. 278

[PatrickLondon]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

frankly it's the only way I can make any sense out of his current scorched earth approach.

You are excluding the obvious, namely that he really is naive, superficial and inexperienced enough to believe it would all be plain sailing (because people like him will always float to the top of any situation), and that anyone who says anything to the contrary (even or especially if they are genuine experts on the technicalities, and/or have a longer-term historical understanding) is biased by their own personal interests and blind to what he sees as unbounded merchant venturing opportunities (not that he's ever had much to do with anything so complicated and requiring hard work or hard thought). 279

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

No, not all sides. That's just a lie.

The EU's approach to negotiation has been pretty poor, refusing to negotiate before Article 50 was triggered, and also refusing to renegotiate after May's deal was rejected by Parliament, not to mention the refusal to make the last extension as long as was requested.

It's probably correct to say that the majority of the blame lies on the UK's side, but not all of it. Not only has the EU done nothing proactive (at least publicly) to keep the UK in the EU, it's made the negotiations far harder than necessary.

Just to give a couple of examples, Varadkar has said he wouldn't negotiate Ireland's position with Johnson while he was there, and the EU has said there will be no negotiation at the upcoming summit. This inflexibility and bureaucracy gets to the heart of the UK's problems with the EU, and whilst I don't believe it's worth leaving over - especially with no deal - it is something that really needs to be fixed. 280

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I have no evidence for any of that, but frankly it's the only way I can make any sense out of his current scorched earth approach.

He is attempting to discredit his opponents and get reelected as PM on a platform of fixing the mess that other people forced him to agree to. That's mostly bollocks, of course, but the opposition refusing an election and the EU refusing to negotiate properly are playing into his hands, and with the right spin, we could see the UK out of Europe without a deal and Johnson reelected with a large majority.

Boris is many things, but he is neither stupid, inexperienced nor lazy. If people underestimate him, he may well get his way - which is pretty terrifying.

Look, Donald Trump is stupid, inexperienced and lazy, but still managed to get elected when the opposition was divided and weak. 281

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Steophan

the EU refusing to negotiate properly are playing into his hands,.

The EU have not "refused to negotiate properly". If anything, the EU have bent over backwards to facilitate negotiations with the UK. What the EU has not done - and this has been characterised by the Leave campaign as "bullying" - is catered to every whim of a side that came to the negotiating table without a coherent position or any negotiating leverage, set a timetable it couldn't keep and signed up to a deal that nobody at home wanted. The EU have agreed to extensions, have been transparent about their own position and have overall acted in good faith, but they are not going to give concessions to the UK just because a bunch of overgrown toddlers keep stamping their feet and complaining about how mean the EU are being to them.

This whole Brexit fiasco has been conducted in the worst possible way, and none of that is the EU's fault.

ETA: And Boris' blatant attempt to "divide and conquer" by negotiating directly with Varadkar is not a sign of "inflexibility and bureaucracy"; it's a sign that Boris once again tried to game the system and got smacked down for it. 282

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The EU's approach to negotiation has been pretty poor, refusing to negotiate before Article 50 was triggered,

This is a well-understood principle the EU holds regardless - "no negotiations without notification" is well understood by all parties and not somehow a new thing dreamt up for Brexit. And it makes good sense - negotiating with someone within the EU is very different from negotiating with someone outside of it or someone leaving it, and tipping your hand early on that is disadvantageous for the 27 remaining EU members. Is it unreasonable for the EU to not willingly give up an advantage in negotiations with the UK? No - it'd be irresponsible of it towards its own members to do so.

and also refusing to renegotiate after May's deal was rejected by Parliament

While the previous bit was at least somewhat reasonable, this is a farce. The EU and UK spent two years working out a deal in what was allegedly good faith. Given the incredibly tight time limit and the extenuating circumstances (such as the Good Friday agreement), this was already a very heavy lift. Given that, the expectation was that this was the deal that both countries would accept. Then, with very little time the UK voted it down and expected a new, better deal to spring out of someone's ass. To say that this is a diplomatic faux pas is putting it mildly. If the UK didn't want that deal, what did it want?

(This continues to be a sticking point in negotiations, by the way - the UK doesn't seem to have a damned clue what it wants, and when they mention what they want, what they want is typically less "things they can get" and more "everyone gets their own unicorn" requests like full participation in borderless trade without participation in free movement.)

Under those circumstances, the refusal to renegotiate again is not unreasonable. In fact, demanding another attempt at negotiation with such a small timespan is unreasonable, bordering on absurd.

not to mention the refusal to make the last extension as long as was requested.

Let's be clear here - yet another extension not being quite as long as the UK wants is not "the EU being unreasonable". It is "the EU bending over backwards but not quite being willing to touch the ground with their nose". By this point in the negotiations the UK had burned through just about all the goodwill they had had with the EU. They had consistently acted in bad faith. The UK requesting another extension to do... something? It's just time-wasting. Shit or get off the pot.

Not only has the EU done nothing proactive (at least publicly) to keep the UK in the EU, it's made the negotiations far harder than necessary.

The EU has bent over backwards to be fair and reasonable to the UK. It has not, in spite of the accusations of certain bad-faith actors within the UK, been "unreasonable". The UK wanted to leave, and Europe, as it is obligated to do so, allowed it to. Care to outline what the EU should have done, proactively, to "keep the UK", that wouldn't have amounted to privileging a leaving member for leaving, thus allowing for some very unreasonable hostage-esque situations?

The examples you offer are extremely small potatoes. The major procedural hurdles involve things like "demanding a new major trade deal within two years" and "not knowing what the hell they want". 283

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

The EU has bent over backwards to be fair and reasonable to the UK. It has not, in spite of the accusations of certain bad-faith actors within the UK, been "unreasonable". The UK wanted to leave, and Europe, as it is obligated to do so, allowed it to. Care to outline what the EU should have done, proactively, to "keep the UK", that wouldn't have amounted to privileging a leaving member for leaving, thus allowing for some very unreasonable hostage-esque situations?

The EU should have campaigned in the referendum for a Remain vote, explained why it was important for both the UK and the EU that we remain together, and explained what, exactly, it is that the EU actually does - as very few people, on either side, seem to know that.

It should also have negotiated properly, specifically before Article 50 was triggered, so each side knew what the actual possibilities for compromise were before the time limit started. Basically, they should act like the most important thing, for both the EU as a whole and for the UK - which, don't forget is still an EU member, and its citizens are EU citizens - is to keep the UK in the EU. Instead, they are willing to cause significant harm to themselves rather than actually do anything to try to stop Brexit.

That the UK is causing more harm to itself than the EU to itself doesn't excuse the EU. Its actions will harm all the member states. That's no more acceptable than the Government of the UK harming the country.

The examples you offer are extremely small potatoes. The major procedural hurdles involve things like "demanding a new major trade deal within two years" and "not knowing what the hell they want".

The UK Parliament, at least, knows what it wants - a deal with the EU that does not disadvantage the UK at all. The EU wants to punish the UK for leaving, so as to dissuade other states from doing the same. The first of those is obviously impossible, but the second is hugely unethical - almost as much as Johnson forcing us to leave without a deal would be.

As for a trade deal, there could have already been 3 years of negotiation for one had the EU allowed it. They didn't, because they refused to change their bureaucratic procedures to do so.

Yes, this whole thing could have been avoided if the UK had been less stupid. But the EU is refusing to try to minimise the harm done to all parties involved. 284

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

The EU have not "refused to negotiate properly". If anything, the EU have bent over backwards to facilitate negotiations with the UK.

Nonsense. They refused to negotiate before Article 50 was triggered, and so are completely to blame for the timing issues. Had they done so, either a workable deal would have been found before it was triggered, leaving 2 years to implement it or - more likely - it would have become clear that there is not workable deal possible, and it would never have been triggered in the first place.

If the rules prevented such negotiation, change the rules.

Ultimately, the EU should be acting to protect itself and its member states - and that includes the UK, a current member state. Instead, it has shown it is willing to harm both sides.

None of this excuses the stupidity and inaction of the UK - but our stupidity and inaction doesn't excuse the EU, either. 285

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The UK Parliament, at least, knows what it wants - a deal with the EU that does not disadvantage the UK at all.

Honestly at this point I'll just consider it a win that you recognize that this is an absurd demand. 286

[Alessan]

Do they also want a pony? 287

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The EU should have campaigned in the referendum for a Remain vote, explained why it was important for both the UK and the EU that we remain together, and explained what, exactly, it is that the EU actually does - as very few people, on either side, seem to know that.

Is the EU allowed to campaign in a British referendum? I wouldn't think so.

Eta: Looking at the electoral commission's guidelines, only UK and Gibraltar based organizations could register as Campaigners. 288

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Nonsense. They refused to negotiate before Article 50 was triggered, and so are completely to blame for the timing issues. Had they done so, either a workable deal would have been found before it was triggered, leaving 2 years to implement it or - more likely - it would have become clear that there is not workable deal possible, and it would never have been triggered in the first place.

No, this is nonsense. Before triggering Article 50, the UK should have had :1) a clear and agreed negotiating position for what it wanted to achieve (an actual negotiating position, not the vague "everyone gets a unicorn" one you mention); 2) an understanding of what was required to go from the status quo to that position; 3) an understanding of the actual timeframe required to achieve it; and 4) an experienced, competent and prepared team to carry out the negotiations on the UK's behalf. Had those things been in place, a reasonable agreement could have been achieved within the Article 50 timeframe.

Instead, the UK had no coherent position, negotiation plan, understanding of the requirements, or team who actually knew what they were doing. Theresa May triggered Article 50 purely for domestic political reasons based on unrealistic expectations of what could be achieved, an overinflated sense of the UK's negotiating position, no real preparation for the talks and an absolute shambles of a negotiation team. None of that is the EU's fault, and your insistence that the EU should save the UK from itself - including the bizarre insistence that they should have actively interfered in a domestic referendum - does not change any of that.

Ultimately, the EU should be acting to protect itself and its member states - and that includes the UK, a current member state. Instead, it has shown it is willing to harm both sides.

Again, it is not the EU's responsibility to save the UK from its own incompetence. While the Leave campaign has insisted that the EU is a tyrannical overlord overriding national sovereignty, this is not actually true and the EU cannot - and should not - be able to prevent a member state from leaving if it so chooses by its legitimate political mechanisms. Without rehashing the whole debate about the referendum itself, the UK has said it wants to go, it has used the appropriate mechanisms to do so, and the EU - while it has made all reasonable efforts to convince the UK not to leave - cannot stop it. And if the UK want to leave in the most half-assed way possible, that's its sovereign [sic] right. 289

[GreenWyvern]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Do they also want a pony?

No, that would be absurd! What the UK has always demanded is a unicorn. 🦄

The EU is being utterly unreasonable by refusing even to negotiate about providing one. 290

[GreenWyvern]

A new twist:

John Bercow to step down as Speaker by 31 October 291

[GreenWyvern]

The real reason why there should be a second referendum is that the first one was won by breaking the law. Illegal funding was used to influence the vote, provided by shady hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, who also funded Donald Trump.

The real reason we should fear the work of Dominic Cummings

[Cummings] is the man who – according to evidence published by the Electoral Commission – played a central role in a scheme that resulted in Vote Leave being judged to have broken the law. A scheme that constitutes the greatest electoral fraud perpetrated in Britain for more than a century – one that Cummings has refused to come before parliament to answer questions about.
...

And then, on 23 March 2018, matters came to a head. Shahmir Sanni had come forward. He alleged Vote Leave had deliberately used [Canadian data firm] AIQ to break electoral spending laws, allegations now proven and admitted by Vote Leave. This money – nearly three-quarters of a million pounds – was spent in the crucial last four days of the campaign. The period which, by Cummings’s own reckoning, tipped the vote in Vote Leave’s favour: when it served 1.5 billion ads to just seven million people it had identified as “persuadable” or “shy” voters.

If you have a chance, watch the Channel 4 docudrama, Brexit - The Uncivil War. It tells the whole story brilliantly, with Benedict Cumberbatch as Dominic Cummings. 292

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

[...

Back when the GWB administration was pushing for the war with Iraq, I was befuddled by how my fellow Americans could be so stupid, naive and uninformed to believe what the Bush administration was saying, when all available evidence contradicted them.

.

All evidence? Note that the UN had announced that after Desert Storm , a lot of WMD were missing*, that Saddam used nerve gas on his own people, and that he announced he was rebuilding him WMD program.

Now, it's true that after the US threatened invasion, so SH let the UN back in and the UN went in and couldnt find anything- then there was grave doubts and no reason to invade, but certainly up until then the smart money would have been that SH had WMD.

*most were found , after SH was taken down, rusting and lost in the desert. 293

[Provincial Hoi Polloi]

I feel that some people could do to read the recent piece in the New Statesman*, "Why liberals now believe in conspiracies: How could the most rational ruling elite in history have fallen for the most dangerous toxin in politics?"

"...Detecting the fingerprints of conspirators in the disarray of their societies, they are possessed by the pathology they rage against. Unwilling to admit why progress has foundered, liberals have embraced the worst kind of magical thinking."


* for those not familiar, a respectable left-leaning British magazine 294

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

...If you have a chance, watch the Channel 4 docudrama, Brexit - The Uncivil War. It tells the whole story brilliantly, with Benedict Cumberbatch as Dominic Cummings.

Yes, it's very good.

Speaking of Cummings: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...mmings-cartoon 295

[Snowboarder Bo]

A couple of pieces of news:

An opposition-backed measure designed to stop Britain from crashing out of the EU on Oct. 31 without a divorce deal became law after receiving the formal assent of Queen Elizabeth II.

So now we get to see if BoJo is a lawful PM, a criminal or dead in a ditch.

Also:

Legislators also demanded the government release, by Wednesday, emails and text messages among aides and officials relating to suspending Parliament and planning for Brexit amid allegations that the suspension is being used to circumvent democracy.

“It is blindingly obvious why we are being shut down — to prevent scrutiny,” Labour Party Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer said.

Under parliamentary rules, the government is obliged to release the documents.

Ah, but see, that's where it get sticky again and makes me think BoJo isn't really on the up-and-up:

In a statement, the government said it would “consider the implications of this vote and respond in due course.”

That doesn't impart a lot of confidence in transparency or truth, IMO. 296

[Aspidistra]

Originally Posted by Provincial Hoi Polloi

I feel that some people could do to read the recent piece in the New Statesman*, "Why liberals now believe in conspiracies: How could the most rational ruling elite in history have fallen for the most dangerous toxin in politics?"

"...Detecting the fingerprints of conspirators in the disarray of their societies, they are possessed by the pathology they rage against. Unwilling to admit why progress has foundered, liberals have embraced the worst kind of magical thinking."


* for those not familiar, a respectable left-leaning British magazine

Cruel but defensible paragraph of that article:

"Back in the day, the USSR under Stalin organised a successful disinformation campaign to persuade people in the West of something that wasn't true. Let me tell you about it in excruciating detail. Right now, people don't seem to trust politicians to act in their interests. These things are connected Because Reasons. Also, I can put a random paragraph in there about how Putin organised a successful disinformation campaign to persuade people in the West of something that isn't true, therefore Liberal Elites Suck"

It may well be true that there is some cohesive group that you can define as a "Liberal Elite" (though nobody who writes newspapers ever seems to actually define it) and that in fact they have some policies that suck, but what is in that article is not actually a coherent argument 297

[GreenWyvern]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Yes, it's very good.

Speaking of Cummings: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...mmings-cartoon

First Dog on the Moon has something to say about Remainaggedon and the UK bravely leaving the EU 298

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

All evidence? Note that the UN had announced that after Desert Storm , a lot of WMD were missing*, that Saddam used nerve gas on his own people, and that he announced he was rebuilding him WMD program.

Now, it's true that after the US threatened invasion, so SH let the UN back in and the UN went in and couldnt find anything- then there was grave doubts and no reason to invade, but certainly up until then the smart money would have been that SH had WMD.

*most were found , after SH was taken down, rusting and lost in the desert.

No, "all evidence" is correct. Prior to the the inspection teams going back into Iraq, (after the removal of the U.S. spies--Hussein never kicked the UN out, the UN withdrew its teams when it was seen that they were compromised), there was a suspicion that Iraq still had WMD, but in the six months prior to the invasion, NO evidence was discovered and a lot of administration lies were outed. Even the rusted, rotting weapons found in the desert had clearly been lost or abandoned long before HWB tried to drum up his war. 299

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

First Dog on the Moon has something to say about Remainaggedon and the UK bravely leaving the EU

That's brilliant!

ETA: Thanks for the backup, tomndebb! 300