UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/europe/queen-elizabeth-mask-intl-scli-gbr/index.html

Queen Elizabeth II carried out her first public engagement since Britain's coronavirus lockdown in March, stepping out on Thursday without a mask despite a resurgence of the virus.

The 94-year-old monarch was joined by her grandson Prince William on a visit to the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, southwest England. Neither were wearing face coverings, though they were adhering to social distancing guidelines.

The UK government recommends wearing a face covering in indoor places where "social distancing may be difficult and where you will come into contact with people you do not normally meet."

Buckingham Palace said that the Queen decided not to wear a mask after consulting her own medics and scientists at the Porton Down military research facility, which is providing vital support to the United Kingdom's Covid-19 pandemic response.

"Specific advice on this visit has been sought from the medical household and relevant parties," a royal source added.

[afleitch]

In a comedy forum I follow there's a good phrase: 'terfing your legacy into a bin'.

Such is the tale of MP Rosie Duffield after two staffers resigned over her transphobia and then she attacked Labour's LGBT group. This came days after the Sunday Times, the terf house paper of note, gave her a lovely magazine spread.

[CumbrianLefty]

In a comedy forum I follow there's a good phrase: 'terfing your legacy into a bin'.

Such is the tale of MP Rosie Duffield after two staffers resigned over her transphobia and then she attacked Labour's LGBT group. This came days after the Sunday Times, the terf house paper of note, gave her a lovely magazine spread.

She can be another media TERF if she wants, she just can't be a Labour MP at the same time.

[Blair]

A fascinating example how the issue really does melt MPs minds. Roger Godstiff was roundly mocked & got rightly deselected when he had a similar meltdown over LGBT inclusive education.

[CumbrianLefty]

Anyway, the Spaffer has wibbled on today on how we should look forward to a "no deal" final Brexit with "high hearts" - whatever that actually means.

[brucejoel99]

In other news, support for Scottish independence has hit 58% in a poll by Ipsos/MORI.

Brexiteers killed the UK. I don't blame Scotland (or Northern Ireland, either) for wanting to choose a brighter future.

[Illiniwek]

In other news, support for Scottish independence has hit 58% in a poll by Ipsos/MORI.

Brexiteers killed the UK. I don't blame Scotland (or Northern Ireland, either) for wanting to choose a brighter future.

Was very much on the side of Better Together / No Thanks. But Brexit has been such a slap in the face to Scotland, that I would fully support independence if it was put to a vote again.

[Silent Hunter]

To be quite honest, I'd be fine if the UK broke up.

[John Dule]

In other news, support for Scottish independence has hit 58% in a poll by Ipsos/MORI.

Brexiteers killed the UK. I don't blame Scotland (or Northern Ireland, either) for wanting to choose a brighter future.

If the Scottish think they can just leave the UK and join the EU, they're much dumber than the Brexiteers. Spain will never allow them in; they'll veto anything that lends credence to European independence movements. That said, the EU is very much to blame for this, due to their idiotic "Leave a light on" stance on Scotland. I guess other Eurozone nations now know that the penalty for voluntarily choosing to leave this """trade bloc""" is that the remaining nations will systemically undermine their integrity as sovereign nations. Funny-- you'd think that if leaving the EU were so disastrous, such high penalties wouldn't be necessary as a deterrent!

[brucejoel99]

In other news, support for Scottish independence has hit 58% in a poll by Ipsos/MORI.

Brexiteers killed the UK. I don't blame Scotland (or Northern Ireland, either) for wanting to choose a brighter future.

If the Scottish think they can just leave the UK and join the EU, they're much dumber than the Brexiteers. Spain will never allow them in; they'll veto anything that lends credence to European independence movements. That said, the EU is very much to blame for this, due to their idiotic "Leave a light on" stance on Scotland. I guess other Eurozone nations now know that the penalty for voluntarily choosing to leave this """trade bloc""" is that the remaining nations will systemically undermine their integrity as sovereign nations. Funny-- you'd think that if leaving the EU were so disastrous, such high penalties wouldn't be necessary as a deterrent!

Stopped reading at the bolded section, given that Spain has already made clear time & time again that they'd have no problem allowing Scotland back into the EU so long as Scotland had left the UK in a legitimately legal manner (i.e. with the consent of the UK, which has been & still remains an obvious 'must' for independence).

[skbl17]

In other news, support for Scottish independence has hit 58% in a poll by Ipsos/MORI.

Brexiteers killed the UK. I don't blame Scotland (or Northern Ireland, either) for wanting to choose a brighter future.

If the Scottish think they can just leave the UK and join the EU, they're much dumber than the Brexiteers. Spain will never allow them in; they'll veto anything that lends credence to European independence movements. That said, the EU is very much to blame for this, due to their idiotic "Leave a light on" stance on Scotland. I guess other Eurozone nations now know that the penalty for voluntarily choosing to leave this """trade bloc""" is that the remaining nations will systemically undermine their integrity as sovereign nations. Funny-- you'd think that if leaving the EU were so disastrous, such high penalties wouldn't be necessary as a deterrent!

To be fair, the actual "leave a light on" stunt at the European Parliament building was an act performed by outgoing Scottish MEPs and the Green/EFA group (which the SNP is a part of,) not the European Council, Commission, or officers of Parliament itself.

Plus, Spain won't block Scottish entry if their independence is the result of a lawful independence referendum (i.e. one agreed with Westminster, like the one from 2014). The issue with Catalonia - which is the independence movement you're referring to - is that Spain sees their attempts to gain independence as unlawful under the Spanish Constitution. Basically, so long as Scotland follows the proper legal channels in attaining independence (which they argue Catalonia did not do,) they would not veto an application for membership from an independent Scotland.

If Westminster agrees to hold a referendum, grants a Section 30 order to allow one to be held, and the result is a vote for independence? No problem!

From my perspective (and keeping in mind I'm a dirty, ignorant American,) there are two bigger issues with Scottish independence than a ludicrous Spanish insta-veto of an EU membership application:

1. Westminster has said no, still says no, and will continue to say no. That means the "lawful" method of attaining independence, the one that would be necessary to enable a Scottish application for EU membership without a veto, is blocked so long as Westminster continues to say no. Sure, the SNP could attempt to hold a referendum anyway if they got a strong result in next year's Scottish Parliament elections - polling is pointing to that - but any such attempt would be struck down and, if they hold a Catalan-style referendum and proceed to proclaim a UDI, would result in the EU dismissing any such application. Like with Catalonia, it would be seen by the EU as "an internal matter for the United Kingdom."

2. Independence supporters will point to the fact that in 2014, one of the talking points of the Better Together/No Thanks campaign was that the only way for Scotland to retain EU membership without interruption was by remaining in the UK, so with Brexit that is now off the table. They're right about that, but even if Scotland votes for independence in a mutually-agreed referendum, the accession process would still take years, during which there would need to be mechanisms and agreements in place to ensure the Scottish economy doesn't take a huge hit in the interim.

Just for reference, Estonia's accession process took 8.5 years: they applied in November 1995 and were formally admitted as a member on May 1, 2004. The process could take a shorter or longer period of time, but you're talking about a years-long wait regardless of how smooth the accession process is.

It's not up to me to decide, as I'm not a Scottish voter or resident. Some of the arguments supporting the unionist argument ("No EU membership!" "We'll treat Scotland with respect!") hold far, far, far less salience now, but the others still exist. Spain isn't one of them.

[CumbrianLefty]

In other news, support for Scottish independence has hit 58% in a poll by Ipsos/MORI.

Brexiteers killed the UK. I don't blame Scotland (or Northern Ireland, either) for wanting to choose a brighter future.

Support for independence in Wales has risen markedly too (though still a minority position)

[Former President tack50]

On the topic of Scotland rejoining the EU, more than the admission process taking time (5-8 years seems about right though I imagine Scottish admission would be fast tracked); a bigger issue would be that Scotland would have none of the advantages the UK used to have.

Essencially this means no rebate and Scotland pledging to eventually join the eurozone (although they could go the way of Sweden and stall indefinitely)

[Estrella]

Re Westminster's attitudes to Indyref2, there's the possibility that Boris being the, er, pragmatic politician he is, could come to a realization that having 50-odd less non-Conservative seats in the Commons (among other things) might not be a bad thing.

[Zinneke]

Re Westminster's attitudes to Indyref2, there's the possibility that Boris being the, er, pragmatic politician he is, could come to a realization that having 50-odd less non-Conservative seats in the Commons (among other things) might not be a bad thing.

I find one of Johnson's (few) qualities is a sense of history - so the idea that he wants to be remembered as the Tory PM who jettisoned Scotland into the hands of the EU just the Tories could win easy is somewhat pushing it

[DaWN]

There's no chance Johnson wants to be the PM who oversees the breakup of the UK. Even ignoring that it would just grant Labour a stick to beat them with in 2024 ('The Tories broke up the UK! Stability with Keir Starmer instead' that kind of crap), Johnson's ego is far to big to want to have a final, huge black mark like that on his record. I'd be very surprised if he lets the referendum go ahead.

[Former President tack50]

To be honest, I find it much more likely that it is Labour that pushes an IndyRef2 instead of the Tories. The scenario even writes itself, hung parliament in 2024 and Starmer must depend on the SNP. The SNP makes it a "Sine que non" condition for support that Labour supports an IndyRef 2.

If Labour rejects it, the UK has general elections every 6 months until someone can cobble up a majority without the SNP (whether because Scots snap out of it or because Labour/Tories get a majority or a minority where they can get away with only the Lib Dems+DUP/SDLP)

If Labour accepts, indyref 2 happens.

[CumbrianLefty]

There is also the possible attraction to Labour that a second failed independence referendum is one of the most plausible routes to a genuine SLab comeback.

(though of course there is no guarantee they *will* vote no again, even with the Tories out of power)

[Suburbia]

Why are people accusing the Tories of racism?

What did they do wrong?

[Suburbia]

What is the whole purpose of the European Union?

So much chaos, crisis, problem after problem.

The UK prime ministerial job is probably one of the worst political jobs in the world, next to President of the U.S. and Speaker of the U.S. House, Governor of Illinois and New Jersey included

[Cassius]

What is the whole purpose of the European Union?

1. To provide a make-work programme and pension scheme for has-been and never-will-be politicians who failed/never made it at the national political level.
2. To give  an enormous (but largely false) ego-boost to ‘Europeans’ with small-man syndrome who feel threatened by the fact that the United States, China and, to a lesser extent, Russia, rule the roost in geopolitical terms.
3. To shuffle money more easily around the continent from richer to poorer countries, under the auspices of ‘convergence’ (lol).
4. To shuffle people more easily around the continent from poorer to richer countries, because having British (as was), German or Italian citizens pick fruit or clean toilets is morally wrong.
5. To enable the fulfilment of various national interests; countries with large (in the European context), inefficient agricultural sectors getting subsidies; traditionally poor countries laundering their creditworthiness via membership of the Eurozone; a comfort blanket for Germans who believe they’ll instantaneously march into the Sudetenland/Poland without some form of membership in an international body.

All the above reasons are laundered, to a greater or lesser degree, by vacuous appeals to factitious ‘European Values’ and the importance of the EU in maintaining them.

[CumbrianLefty]

Why are people accusing the Tories of racism?

What did they do wrong?

1) How long have you got?

2) Where to even start??

(other more considered answers are available, and others here might provide them)

[Blair]

What is the whole purpose of the European Union?

1. To provide a make-work programme and pension scheme for has-been and never-will-be politicians who failed/never made it at the national political level.
2. To give  an enormous (but largely false) ego-boost to ‘Europeans’ with small-man syndrome who feel threatened by the fact that the United States, China and, to a lesser extent, Russia, rule the roost in geopolitical terms.
3. To shuffle money more easily around the continent from richer to poorer countries, under the auspices of ‘convergence’ (lol).
4. To shuffle people more easily around the continent from poorer to richer countries, because having British (as was), German or Italian citizens pick fruit or clean toilets is morally wrong.
5. To enable the fulfilment of various national interests; countries with large (in the European context), inefficient agricultural sectors getting subsidies; traditionally poor countries laundering their creditworthiness via membership of the Eurozone; a comfort blanket for Germans who believe they’ll instantaneously march into the Sudetenland/Poland without some form of membership in an international body.

All the above reasons are laundered, to a greater or lesser degree, by vacuous appeals to factitious ‘European Values’ and the importance of the EU in maintaining them.

You stole that line from Yes Minister!

[Former President tack50]

What is the whole purpose of the European Union?

So much chaos, crisis, problem after problem.

I mean, I get some of the arguments from Euroskeptics that it is not "worth it" even if I disagree with them; generally they go along the lines of one of sovereignty, not geting enough in return for what they put into it or immigration.

But the objectives of the EU are actually fairly clear. To promote trade among EU nations, which will increase the economy and what not, as well as other similar programs that are to the benefit of all member states. Another important, albeit debatable goal is to promote peace among European nations with the goal of avoiding another war in the continent.

If you are one of the 4 Eurofederalists around, I guess an "EU state" is eventually an objective but I tend to put that "goal" among the things that "can happen, but even if they do will not happen in my lifetime and even my grandchildren may not live to see it"; alongside stuff like Human colonies on Mars or exploring another solar system.

Or alternatively, I guess I could just quote the founding treaty of the EU (Treaty of Rome):

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common
action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the
living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in
order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious
development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the
backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive
abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries
and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and
liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in
their efforts,

HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community

[Former President tack50]

What is the whole purpose of the European Union?

1. To provide a make-work programme and pension scheme for has-been and never-will-be politicians who failed/never made it at the national political level.
2. To give  an enormous (but largely false) ego-boost to ‘Europeans’ with small-man syndrome who feel threatened by the fact that the United States, China and, to a lesser extent, Russia, rule the roost in geopolitical terms.
3. To shuffle money more easily around the continent from richer to poorer countries, under the auspices of ‘convergence’ (lol).
4. To shuffle people more easily around the continent from poorer to richer countries, because having British (as was), German or Italian citizens pick fruit or clean toilets is morally wrong.
5. To enable the fulfilment of various national interests; countries with large (in the European context), inefficient agricultural sectors getting subsidies; traditionally poor countries laundering their creditworthiness via membership of the Eurozone; a comfort blanket for Germans who believe they’ll instantaneously march into the Sudetenland/Poland without some form of membership in an international body.

All the above reasons are laundered, to a greater or lesser degree, by vacuous appeals to factitious ‘European Values’ and the importance of the EU in maintaining them.

I mean, point by point:

1) I will give you this one. It is a shame that EU institutions often end up as a "retirement home" for have-been politicians. I wish things were different though.

2) Do you seriously deny the fact that, for most European countries, being inside the EU is a big positive to their foreign policy, buying them a ton of influence since they get the backing of a much larger bloc? Unless your name is France, Germany or the UK (I guess bias there ); your foreign policy will be a lot more effective as part of the EU than if you are alone.

Do you seriously think say, Latvia or Belgium would have any chance of "making it" in the world stage outside the EU? Most European countries are unable to compete with the power that countries like Russia or China have, if they act by themselves.

3) Convergence has been extremely effective at its goal though? Southern Europe managed to catch up quite a bit to Western Europe between the 80s and the 2000s; and nowadays it is Eastern Europe that has managed to catch up as well; with countries like the Czech Republic or Estonia not being far from the living standards of countries like Spain or Portugal.

4) I might be a bit biased here. I am actually somewhat against non-EU immigration; but EU immigration has been a huge positive for most countries? EU internal immigration provides most in not all of the positives of immigration with little to none of the negatives.

If anything the issue here would be "brain drain" from some of the less developed countries (I think this is a big issue in countries like Romania or Bulgaria?)

5) This is "international negotiations 101"?  Compromises, by their own nature mean some countries give up on some things in exchange for getting others. Overall the EU is undeniable a positive proposition for all members though.