RIP Nebraska
Nebraska had it coming
They invented frozen TV dinners and cliffsnotes
Dastardly Nebraskans
Not a lot (except for perspective) to argue with your mammoth post, LW.
At the risk of falling into a Godwination trap, I'll address this bit, though...
The problem with that is that Zionism is the 'Jewish people' saying "we will make our home here" (in, as it turns out, what at that time had now become Palestine) whilst old 'one ball and toothbrush moustache' was saying "your home is not here, you should all go elsewhere".. Even if Alois Schicklgruber's son had directed them towards the (re)foundation of Israel (and indisputible evidence for that specific desire, as opposed to "anywhere but here", is scarce) his act was still anti-semitic, however pro-semitic you consider the actually zionist movers and shakers. But, by this assumed metric, the Bohemian Corporal and his regime did support zionism (moreso than the British!), but zionists can't themselves be considered tarred with the same historical brush.
But its a whole lot of trouble to get into, over an ill-judged comment, and people do get upset by certain comparisons before even hearing the context (especially if primed by people who want to stir things up; see also the fuss about Salman Rushdie and John "We're more popular than Jesus" Lennon, for starters). I'm now waiting with trepidation to see whether I've triggered people into thinking I support someone I don't, and never even intended to suggest I did.
Also I forgot to mention this
Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth leaves antisemitism event in tears after being accused of 'colluding' with media
Mr Corbyn said accusing Jewish people of media conspiracies was 'just wrong'
Mr Wadsworth told The Independent he did not know Ms Smeeth was Jewish, adding: "I've never been called antisemitic in my life."
Questions Mr Corbyn's leadership were reportedly banned at Thursday’s event, when Mr Corbyn made no direct mention of the unfolding crisis.
He was heavily criticised for appearing to compare the Israeli state and terrorist groups including Isis in the speech.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-ruth-smeeth-jewish-mp-accused-of-colluding-with-media-a7111061.html
When you play identity politics, you lose
You can't win, you just lose
Feminists don't like May, at all
Feminists don't like anyone (mostly a result of complainers being louder then supporters and other factors). Feminism doesn't lie on party lines so generally speaking feminists will judge candidates along their own personal party lines.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/05/why-millennial-feminists-don-t-like-hillary.html
http://judgybitch.com/2013/12/04/michelle-obama-is-a-feminist-nightmare-youre-goddamn-right-she-is/
http://queernotes.blogspot.ca/2008/03/why-do-some-feminists-hate-barack-obama.html
Oddly enough if they are a woman... then there are a LOT of feminist articles about how terrible they are. (it is odd to me)
Feminists are allowed to consider women terrible people too lol, women does not intrinsically mean good
Hence why the winner is feminism, not feminists (if such a broad term can be generalized for sake of nice looking statements)
Look at it this way, most feminists do not like Thatcher or Queen Victoria for example, but all the same they are an inspiration to all women who want to destroy their enemies everywhere
Regarding Labour: I'm quite amazed at the size of the mess, probably because I had not been paying enough attention to internal Labour politics. I simply don't get what the PLP is hoping to accomplish. Sure Corbyn might cost them the next general election, but this bickering will hardly make things better, and Corbyn did bring a ton of members to the party. With all the prominent Conservative trying very hard not to become Prime Ministers, there was an opportunity for Labour to sounds statesman-like. Instead, we got a bunch of bickering. Is there even someone to take over the party if Corbyn quits?
Angela Eagle perhaps
I find it particularily annoying because whoever is the next Prime Minister will have a huge influence on Britain by renegotating its influence with its entire neighbourhood. You rightly point out that the public won't have the stamina to be still interested in the minutiae of negotiation after a couple years. That's what ane le opposition is important, to keep the government in check. There was a lot of commentary from the left saying in effect "We don't like the EU because it's a neo-liberal nightmare, but exiting now means exiting on the Torie's terms, which is not going to improve". Without Labour to keep the Government in check, the Eurosceptic Left's worst nightmare might come to pass, as they end up in a deal that just keep all the parts of EU membership they don't like.
I always find it hilarious that there's a branch of euroscepticism that wants free movement of people and no free market lol
Otherwise, yeah I agree
Thanks god, no one seems to be in a hurry to do anything about leaving, so Labour should have the time to sort itself out at some point. I wonder if we'll see a General Election before article 50 gets triggered. The campaign would be interesting, the Lib Dems and SNP would campaign on Remaining, but what about Labour and the Tories? What about UKIP? It'd be nice to have a debate and a vote on what kind of Brexit people wants.
Labour would be campaigning for Remain, Conservatives no longer for Remain, UKIP has largely already served its purpose. I think at this point UKIP can only serve three purposes; maintaining pressure within the European Parliament and the British parliament to secure Leave's victory, and after that is done, do some campaigning in Labour and SNP strongholds, and thereafter maybe hound for decreases in migration and some other stuff in regards to economy if they get leadership which manages to enforce a uniform economic philosophy in UKIP. As it is I don't see them having many long term prospects and I think they're better off disbanding pretty much around half a decade after the UK leaves the EU, as there's little point in continuing to fight long after you've won - your party just begins to degenerate in such an aimless, stressful path.
Libdem are still irrelevant, they will be recovering from Nick Clegg for a long long time. Greens are yet to be relevant. SNP are trying to veto Brexit, so one wonders if campaigning will even happen. Other than that, there's not much else to say
Speaking of that, I'm quite surprised to see you're backing May. Again, I might be wrong, but to me, taking a slow and steady approach, with a mostly Remain PM will likely end up in what should be your worst nightmare: the Norwegian model of basically still being subject to EU regulation, but without a voice in the system (Actually, it's probably going to be something even closer than the Norwegian model, since the UK is bound to want stuff like ongoing passporting of its financial institutions in the EU).
The Norwegian model is not my worst nightmare, and I do not find distaste in Norway because they must conform to EU regulation. If Germany wants to export their cars to the UK, they must for example conform to our regulations, and currently they have a say in how we are regulated where other countries have none, in matters that should be up to us - thus removing such influence is a key goal I would like to see realized, and I am sure most European socialists will be altogether quite happy now that the UK is not deciding how their nations are regulated. France is most happy :
D
In regards to May in particular, I am guessing that she would at the very minimum give guarantees for existing EU migrants in the UK with the inverse also true whilst sticking to her guns on migration, free markets and deportation, but those are smaller details when it comes to the issue of sovereignty. Whatever compromises are made today can be changed as the situation changes as long as we control our own affairs, which is where May is of most importance. The various Remain factions have made it clear they are more willing to destroy the United Kingdom than leave the European Union, and most interestingly I was watching a Lawyer talk about the prospect of MPs voting with their conscience to veto the result or Sturgeon trying to veto the result no doubt incurring the wrath of the rest of the country - the response is "lol don't care." Given that the Leave camp already didn't care about the global economy's stability, it is safe to say they too would rather destroy everything than return to the EU. May would be able to bridge the gap between these two camps and stop them destroying <everything> in order to win god knows what. Quite fitting the analogy now of Gove being the suicide bomber in Johnson's camp, with Johnson out of the running, there are only two options for Leave now. The first is pick May and try to give something everyone can be pleased with, the Schulz EU faction, the Remain factions and the Leave factions - or continue down Remain's path of democracy as destroying your enemies. I prefer the former to the latter, but prefer the latter to being destroyed, so there's that heh
That and the underlying strategy I think is to slow this down as fast as possible. People getting bored and stability being proven helps the British cause, and I would not think it wise to start the Leaving process at a time where the European Union itself is incapable of acting in a coherent manner. Once the European Union has sorted out its leadership and the UK its own, then.
Without the UK in, stuff like the ECB's ongoing effort to have Euro currency swaps move to within the Eurozone rather than the City won't be kept in check. And even Farage is now willing to have the UK contribute to the EU's budget post-Brexit.
I'm not too concerned about money when it comes to sovereignty, if the EU backs down on mass migration I'm cool beans with them taking some quid for tribute or whatever to their Grecian funerals
I'm pro-EU, but as a good Leftist I must say that this scenario, the UK still de facto anchored to the EU while not having a voice as the City's lobbyist greatly pleases me.
The City of London speaks with your leaders' voice, just as readily as it speaks in mine. Money is not stopped by politics, and the EU is notoriously fond of lobbyists with money. If a nuclear war were to go off, London would no doubt still have a voice in your life, for it is a global force just as Hollywood is not based in Hollywood
But what's in it for you eurosceptics? Shouldn't you wish for a general breakdown or relation that would lead to a real Brexit? Or do you merely see it as a stepping stone, a way to keep disruption to a minimum while you can then work on slowly unmooring the UK from the EU, one treaty at a time?
Real Brexit is the objective, but the goal is independent Britain
Britain not surviving is a failure of this, and I think compromise has a higher chance of success than trying to politically destroy 48% of the country, or trying to negotiate with Juncker faction
Edit: I also find it funny that Corbyn is blamed for the Brexit when the proportion of Labour voters that voted Remain (63%) is the same as the proportion of SNP voters that voted Remain (64%). Yet Sturgeon is a genius and Corbyn is bad, for some reasons.
Corbyn only made scarce appearances in public and that they lost Labour strongholds like Birmingham (it is unthinkable that they would vote Leave, and they nonetheless did) is evidence enough for old Labour to conclude Corbyn does not stand a chance in a general election
Sturgeon would for example get lambasted if she lost Aberdeen, but she succeeded very well, getting the majority of all Scottish counties to vote Remain. The big strategy was for Labour to hold their strongholds and for Scotland to swing the vote in favour of Remain, SNP and Scotlab did their part, for whatever reasons, Corbyn is shouldering the blame for the underperformance in the South
DoubleEdit: El Faragio resign as UKIP leader! Is there really no one at all to lead any of the Party? I'm expecting the Green to collapse any second now.
Nigel is done, now he's going to go off to Brussels to eat EU money, and after that, retire for good. Personally my bets are on Steven Woolfe becoming leader of UKIP, cos it's maximum banter when migrant solidarity groups call him a coconut, black on the outside and white on the inside
Racism is ok when you do it for progressive causes lol
The real question is, why did 4% of UKIP voters vote Remain, when the sole purpose of UKIP was to promote leaving the EU
Dunno, various reasons
In all seriousness as well, one of their prospective MPs did actually request permission to found a pro-EU branch of UKIP, I think in addition to the factionalism within UKIP between libertarians vs conservatives, there was also factionalism in regards to whether UKIP should try to become a party of power or just stick to getting the EU referendum
One may argue that MPs have the backing of the people, and they should be given free rein in determining policies to the nation and their own benefit. This is true - but whether they deserve the Labour label, in the same sense, should be a matter determined by Members of Labour Party, not the other way round.
It is true why? Why can Labour MPs vote to remain in the EU if their constituents voted to leave, having free reign to determine policies to the nation and their own benefit (and already major red flags in regards to determining policies which benefit themselves, conflict of interest), yet not decide who should lead the Labour party when indeed, they are the representatives of the Labour party in charge of its welfare?
Also, a new election can provide the mandate to block a Brexit, if who declares so in their manifesto got a majority. Parliament is sovereign.
It would be quite appropriate too, using our sovereignty to give away our sovereignty lol, it should've been done like that from the start
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 191901 times)