We are in the period of “Middle Brexit”, a sort of national purgatory. How do we escape it? “The French 90-day visa should never have existed,” moaned the Daily Telegraph this week. And they dare to call Remainers “Remoaners”. Like most of the right of centre press that backed Brexit (and back it still, surely against common sense), they moan about the effects of the Brexit they wanted, like it was something imposed upon Britain instead of something we foolish chose to do of our own volition.
Who led Brexit?: Lying incompetent populists, xenophobes and vulture capitalists and De Peffel Johnson was at the heart of it. He penned hundreds of lies and distortions about the mad and anti British EEC while Telegraph correspondent in Brussels, which were re-published down the food chain through Mail, Express, Star, NOTW and Sun. In total 6000 lies on the EEC/EU have been collected and debunked. Without those and with an informed public, there would have been no clambering to leave the EU, not a chance.
It is just not good enough that the catastrophic De Peffel is found out and objectively ruined after he's done the wrecking in the Leave campaign and in Number 10. We need checks, balances and preventative measures in place to stop such incompetence which he mixed with an easy trashing of the country with the EU Trade agreement, while displaying the power grabbing abilities of a developing dictator. We need a codified written constitution to stand in the way of the next populist tin pot world king.
Parliament needs to stand on it's own feet to run more of the show, instead of being used as rubber stamp for our incompetent executive, who under Johnson just wished to self aggrandise and to surround himself with chancer supporters who couldn't run a Christmas club, let a lone a country. The Trade Agreements that have become the meat and drink of brexit have been taken away from debate in Parliament, because that would have shown them up as the hollow products of charlatans that they were. So much for Taking Back Control.
Also we need PR voting, which in it's more proportional versions would never have allowed De Peffel his overall majority based on 43% of the vote. Brexit would never have happened and possibly not the Iraq War.
Nick, you frame the whole thing so well. Politicians refuse to talk about Brexit because that means talking about a catastrophic mistake they are responsible for. It means admitting they didn’t know anything about the country, the EU, how to organise a responsible vote, safeguard the nation, and look after our rights, our economy, and massively delicate agreements like the GFA. It means admitting they have absolutely no business being a politician and need to eff off and get another job.
I've said it here before, but I reckon that, assuming that Labour win the election (not as done a deal in my view as folk would like to think), the day after Pickfords have ensconced Keir Starmer in No 10 a tidal wave of anger and passion will erupt both within and outwith the Labour Party, demanding a return to the SM pdq, as well as going back into the CU and an enquiry into the whole sorry Brexit ref saga. It's hard to see how Starmer will fend this off whilst at the same time keeping the Lexit dinosaurs in the trades unions and Red Wall constituencies on side. But he will have to deal with it, and face down the Rightwing media and the Lexies to stand a chance of running an effective government, and of winning a second term.
The right wing press are angry about Brexit because it never has delivered anything other than restrictions in rights and freedoms, costs, delays and numerous burdens on business. They largely believed their own propaganda and are finding out how the real world works. On trade and travel, this is more like a highway code for each country than fantasies about free market bucaneers, wheeling and dealing freely around the world. Once the EU was a single entity for the UK to conveniently deal with. Now outside we find 27 countries all able to set different laws and regulations affecting us.
Demographics are the thief that come in the night for Brexit, progressively shaving off it's support with every year passing. Add to that the mind changers and sceptics, as well as a predicted increased turn out by the young should the Referendum happen again and you can be sure that the whole silly business would fall into the dustbin of history. But for opposition parties, there are still large banks of support for Brexit in some seats and regions, sufficient to upset an election campaign with an unpredictable element. Much as it pains me, they need to keep their powder dry until the time is right. Whether this grumbling and partial silence on the issue will carry on for years or that it will become impossible to maintain any longer, is anyone's guess. But at some point the herd will turn and gallop the other way.
As a USian, I've been following Brexit because of the obvious parallels with the US desire to return to a Glorious Past where the Real [Ameicans|British] did things their way with no apologies or excuses, with an eye on where those ideas can take a country. The "failure" of Brexit that I see from the outside is removing EU membership and replacing it with, well, nothing, when it seems to me obvious it would be a massive undertaking to establish new financial and political relationships with the EU, let alone bypassing it for individual national agreements, if that is even possible. Late Brexit will begin when Brexiters start being called out for their failure to take Brexit seriously on their own terms instead of the discussion being ratholed with whether it was a "good" idea or it can be reversed.
But what would be the incentive for Tories or political press to dare go against the right-wing consensus of "lets not talk about it because it's unpopular with the voters to talk about it, and we certainly will never admit responsiblity for anything"?
Anti-EU lies by the populist press has been going on for decades, building on the general British/ English hate and derision of anything foreign.
Hating Experts and facts, which both stops them from doing rational policies, is entrenched in the Tory party after Johnson's purge.
At some point in the future the Tories will have to address the problem of what happened in the years of 2010-2024, which will widely be regarded as a disaster. In that time, the Tories tried, and failed, with policies from pretty much every wing of their party. If they want to regain power, they need to explain why their policies are right despite being proven wrong, and the easiest way to do that is to blame an external factor, like Brexit. It will be far easier to claim that the party was taken over by UKIP entreeism, that it was them to blame, and that the sensible party is back; than it will be to try to defend Brexit against the tide of public opinion. And that can happen quite quickly - see how fast Starmer has distanced the party from the Corbyn years (passing no judgement on whether that is right or wrong!). Best outcome for rejoiners, as far as I'm concerned, is to see the Tories decimated in order to start this process faster (though they may take that route via an unhinged Braver an leadership first...)
I see your argument, but I'm afraid you're expecting too much rational thinking from Tory leadership, after a purge for blind loyalty to Johnson and after scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I don't doubt the willingness of Tories to be a windsock - follow whichever direction the current political wind is blowing - because leading Tories have demonstrated the flip-flop between pro-Brexit and pro-Remain in 2016 and since.
I do doubt the ability to recognize that their hardcore ideology plus populism plus anti-fact (we don't need experts!) is the root problem, and that blame needs to be shifted to Brexit for that.
Yes, Starmer distanced Labour from Corbyn, but Labour isn't in power. It will try anything to get power. The Tories want to keep power, and they only need to bend the law a bit more - they already lied to the Queen and shut down Parliament (prorogued), and have a right-wing press ready to hate on judges, journalists and everybody else.
The Problem didn't start with Johnson: it was when Cameron the coward was allowed to skip off because he didn't want the blame, and nobody else felt competent enough to deal with the Referendum result, except for May, who was greedy for power and had delusions of competence.
At first, when the Referendum result was in, I expected experienced politicans to pull a Vetinari: appoint a commitee to figure out two or three Brexit variants, calculate everything to the finest detail, which would take several years, then come back and present everything to the public, which by then would either be fed up, or splinter the vote with no majority, and then call the whole thing off.
Instead, the decades of no opposition, of being 1% without being actually intellectually challenged, never required to be actually competent, never experiencing consequences for their actions (Because of the friendly right-wing press, partly), had turned the Tories into Upper Class Twits with delusions of competence.
And only then came Boris with naked greed for power and delusions of supremacy, plus Cummings, who liked to smash things like a 5-year old. (From a pop psychological standpoint, it's easy to speculate that boys like Cummings, while loudly claiming they're the smartest guy in the room, feel underneath the uncomfortable truth dawning that they actually are not capable enough to create something good and lasting through long patient hard work, and thus smash everything out of frustration, like a toddler whose block towers crash).
And on top both experience with other groups in the past, and scientific studies show that people who may start out as conmen telling lies to gullible public because populism is an easy tool to keep power, end up believing their own lies - like Truss the lettuce - and since critics can be either dismissed (as remoaners etc.) or silenced, they stop thinking about counter-arguments, they expect blind obedience, because it works in their circle (bubble) but not with the voters.
And even if Tories, or some conservative remnant, managed enough competency to re-brand themselves - it would not be good for the country.
What Labour - if they manage to get into power by winning the next election - needs is an intelligent, fact-based opposition that checks them so they don't slide into full Left socialism - as Corbyn actually espoused - because anti-fact ideology from the Left, or populist lies in red, are just as harmful and bad as rightwing ones.
I expect that more from the Greens, maybe the Scottish (but don't know enough about how rational they are as "Nationalists"), maybe the LibDems, who tried to fight Brexit last time.
But not from the current conservatives. If they managed to get votes to be a strong opposition, I fear they would continue like the US republicans, blocking everything out of spite. Which has, after all, a tradition in British politics, of not doing fact-based debates and compromises in parliament, but "winner takes all" meaning "we don't listen to the loosers" and "we think we are smart by doing word games and insulting each other".
That's not what the country needs, but it's familiar tradition, sadly.
Is it possible that the EU will be issue that splits the Tories after years of civil war? And that the rejoin voices on the right will be increasingly coming from outside the party? How ironic would that be?
Two decades! More like 5. Even then it is doubtful that the EU members will want Britain/UK (or what remains of it) back. What will the EU be like in 2070? What will England/Britain be in 2070?
Anyone who has any faith whatsoever in Keir Starmer and the Labour party needs their head examined.
Who led Brexit?: Lying incompetent populists, xenophobes and vulture capitalists and De Peffel Johnson was at the heart of it. He penned hundreds of lies and distortions about the mad and anti British EEC while Telegraph correspondent in Brussels, which were re-published down the food chain through Mail, Express, Star, NOTW and Sun. In total 6000 lies on the EEC/EU have been collected and debunked. Without those and with an informed public, there would have been no clambering to leave the EU, not a chance.
It is just not good enough that the catastrophic De Peffel is found out and objectively ruined after he's done the wrecking in the Leave campaign and in Number 10. We need checks, balances and preventative measures in place to stop such incompetence which he mixed with an easy trashing of the country with the EU Trade agreement, while displaying the power grabbing abilities of a developing dictator. We need a codified written constitution to stand in the way of the next populist tin pot world king.
Parliament needs to stand on it's own feet to run more of the show, instead of being used as rubber stamp for our incompetent executive, who under Johnson just wished to self aggrandise and to surround himself with chancer supporters who couldn't run a Christmas club, let a lone a country. The Trade Agreements that have become the meat and drink of brexit have been taken away from debate in Parliament, because that would have shown them up as the hollow products of charlatans that they were. So much for Taking Back Control.
Also we need PR voting, which in it's more proportional versions would never have allowed De Peffel his overall majority based on 43% of the vote. Brexit would never have happened and possibly not the Iraq War.
Nick, you frame the whole thing so well. Politicians refuse to talk about Brexit because that means talking about a catastrophic mistake they are responsible for. It means admitting they didn’t know anything about the country, the EU, how to organise a responsible vote, safeguard the nation, and look after our rights, our economy, and massively delicate agreements like the GFA. It means admitting they have absolutely no business being a politician and need to eff off and get another job.
I've said it here before, but I reckon that, assuming that Labour win the election (not as done a deal in my view as folk would like to think), the day after Pickfords have ensconced Keir Starmer in No 10 a tidal wave of anger and passion will erupt both within and outwith the Labour Party, demanding a return to the SM pdq, as well as going back into the CU and an enquiry into the whole sorry Brexit ref saga. It's hard to see how Starmer will fend this off whilst at the same time keeping the Lexit dinosaurs in the trades unions and Red Wall constituencies on side. But he will have to deal with it, and face down the Rightwing media and the Lexies to stand a chance of running an effective government, and of winning a second term.
The right wing press are angry about Brexit because it never has delivered anything other than restrictions in rights and freedoms, costs, delays and numerous burdens on business. They largely believed their own propaganda and are finding out how the real world works. On trade and travel, this is more like a highway code for each country than fantasies about free market bucaneers, wheeling and dealing freely around the world. Once the EU was a single entity for the UK to conveniently deal with. Now outside we find 27 countries all able to set different laws and regulations affecting us.
Demographics are the thief that come in the night for Brexit, progressively shaving off it's support with every year passing. Add to that the mind changers and sceptics, as well as a predicted increased turn out by the young should the Referendum happen again and you can be sure that the whole silly business would fall into the dustbin of history. But for opposition parties, there are still large banks of support for Brexit in some seats and regions, sufficient to upset an election campaign with an unpredictable element. Much as it pains me, they need to keep their powder dry until the time is right. Whether this grumbling and partial silence on the issue will carry on for years or that it will become impossible to maintain any longer, is anyone's guess. But at some point the herd will turn and gallop the other way.
As a USian, I've been following Brexit because of the obvious parallels with the US desire to return to a Glorious Past where the Real [Ameicans|British] did things their way with no apologies or excuses, with an eye on where those ideas can take a country. The "failure" of Brexit that I see from the outside is removing EU membership and replacing it with, well, nothing, when it seems to me obvious it would be a massive undertaking to establish new financial and political relationships with the EU, let alone bypassing it for individual national agreements, if that is even possible. Late Brexit will begin when Brexiters start being called out for their failure to take Brexit seriously on their own terms instead of the discussion being ratholed with whether it was a "good" idea or it can be reversed.
But what would be the incentive for Tories or political press to dare go against the right-wing consensus of "lets not talk about it because it's unpopular with the voters to talk about it, and we certainly will never admit responsiblity for anything"?
Anti-EU lies by the populist press has been going on for decades, building on the general British/ English hate and derision of anything foreign.
Hating Experts and facts, which both stops them from doing rational policies, is entrenched in the Tory party after Johnson's purge.
At some point in the future the Tories will have to address the problem of what happened in the years of 2010-2024, which will widely be regarded as a disaster. In that time, the Tories tried, and failed, with policies from pretty much every wing of their party. If they want to regain power, they need to explain why their policies are right despite being proven wrong, and the easiest way to do that is to blame an external factor, like Brexit. It will be far easier to claim that the party was taken over by UKIP entreeism, that it was them to blame, and that the sensible party is back; than it will be to try to defend Brexit against the tide of public opinion. And that can happen quite quickly - see how fast Starmer has distanced the party from the Corbyn years (passing no judgement on whether that is right or wrong!). Best outcome for rejoiners, as far as I'm concerned, is to see the Tories decimated in order to start this process faster (though they may take that route via an unhinged Braver an leadership first...)
I see your argument, but I'm afraid you're expecting too much rational thinking from Tory leadership, after a purge for blind loyalty to Johnson and after scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I don't doubt the willingness of Tories to be a windsock - follow whichever direction the current political wind is blowing - because leading Tories have demonstrated the flip-flop between pro-Brexit and pro-Remain in 2016 and since.
I do doubt the ability to recognize that their hardcore ideology plus populism plus anti-fact (we don't need experts!) is the root problem, and that blame needs to be shifted to Brexit for that.
Yes, Starmer distanced Labour from Corbyn, but Labour isn't in power. It will try anything to get power. The Tories want to keep power, and they only need to bend the law a bit more - they already lied to the Queen and shut down Parliament (prorogued), and have a right-wing press ready to hate on judges, journalists and everybody else.
The Problem didn't start with Johnson: it was when Cameron the coward was allowed to skip off because he didn't want the blame, and nobody else felt competent enough to deal with the Referendum result, except for May, who was greedy for power and had delusions of competence.
At first, when the Referendum result was in, I expected experienced politicans to pull a Vetinari: appoint a commitee to figure out two or three Brexit variants, calculate everything to the finest detail, which would take several years, then come back and present everything to the public, which by then would either be fed up, or splinter the vote with no majority, and then call the whole thing off.
Instead, the decades of no opposition, of being 1% without being actually intellectually challenged, never required to be actually competent, never experiencing consequences for their actions (Because of the friendly right-wing press, partly), had turned the Tories into Upper Class Twits with delusions of competence.
And only then came Boris with naked greed for power and delusions of supremacy, plus Cummings, who liked to smash things like a 5-year old. (From a pop psychological standpoint, it's easy to speculate that boys like Cummings, while loudly claiming they're the smartest guy in the room, feel underneath the uncomfortable truth dawning that they actually are not capable enough to create something good and lasting through long patient hard work, and thus smash everything out of frustration, like a toddler whose block towers crash).
And on top both experience with other groups in the past, and scientific studies show that people who may start out as conmen telling lies to gullible public because populism is an easy tool to keep power, end up believing their own lies - like Truss the lettuce - and since critics can be either dismissed (as remoaners etc.) or silenced, they stop thinking about counter-arguments, they expect blind obedience, because it works in their circle (bubble) but not with the voters.
And even if Tories, or some conservative remnant, managed enough competency to re-brand themselves - it would not be good for the country.
What Labour - if they manage to get into power by winning the next election - needs is an intelligent, fact-based opposition that checks them so they don't slide into full Left socialism - as Corbyn actually espoused - because anti-fact ideology from the Left, or populist lies in red, are just as harmful and bad as rightwing ones.
I expect that more from the Greens, maybe the Scottish (but don't know enough about how rational they are as "Nationalists"), maybe the LibDems, who tried to fight Brexit last time.
But not from the current conservatives. If they managed to get votes to be a strong opposition, I fear they would continue like the US republicans, blocking everything out of spite. Which has, after all, a tradition in British politics, of not doing fact-based debates and compromises in parliament, but "winner takes all" meaning "we don't listen to the loosers" and "we think we are smart by doing word games and insulting each other".
That's not what the country needs, but it's familiar tradition, sadly.
Spot on
Is it possible that the EU will be issue that splits the Tories after years of civil war? And that the rejoin voices on the right will be increasingly coming from outside the party? How ironic would that be?
Could the advance of the far right hinder the impetus to rejoining? Arguing to rejoin with President le Pen in power would be difficult.
Two decades! More like 5. Even then it is doubtful that the EU members will want Britain/UK (or what remains of it) back. What will the EU be like in 2070? What will England/Britain be in 2070?
Anyone who has any faith whatsoever in Keir Starmer and the Labour party needs their head examined.