The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
President Trump argues with Nancy Pelosi over government funding and potential shutdown.Pelosi: "I think the American people recognize that we must keep government open ... that we should not have a Trump shutdown."Trump: "A what? Did you say Trump?" (_link) pic.twitter.com/v8FbbPEyKR— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) December 11, 2018
President Trump argues with Nancy Pelosi over government funding and potential shutdown.Pelosi: "I think the American people recognize that we must keep government open ... that we should not have a Trump shutdown."Trump: "A what? Did you say Trump?" (_link) pic.twitter.com/v8FbbPEyKR
So it wasn't in chaos before then? Could have fooled me.
Deliberate act! Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
we provide the first comprehensive assessment of the psychological syndrome that elicits motivations to share hostile political rumors among citizens of democratic societies. Against the notion that sharing occurs to help one mainstream political actor in the increasingly polarized electoral competition against other mainstream actors, we demonstrate that sharing motivations are associated with `chaotic' motivations to "burn down" the entire established democratic `cosmos'. We show that this extreme discontent is associated with motivations to share hostile political rumors, not because such rumors are viewed to be true but because they are believed to mobilize the audience against disliked elites. We introduce an individual difference measure, the "Need for Chaos", to measure these motivations and illuminate their social causes, linked to frustrated status-seeking. Finally, we show that chaotic motivations are surprisingly widespread within advanced democracies, having some hold in up to 40 percent of the American national population.
Why do people share conspiracy theories and fake news? Maybe it's the human "need for chaos"
The phrase "need for chaos" especially drew my attention because it resonates with the findings of what is called "structural demographic theory" or SDT, as laid out in Peter Turchin's 2016 book, "Ages of Discord: A Structural-Demographic Analysis of American History" [...] SDT explains how demographic changes periodically overwhelm the capacity of social structures to meet basic needs -- first in the general population, then among existing and aspiring elites -- with the resulting rise in political instability eventually leading to a period of likely state breakdown and possible civil war.
True, tough times with fake news and deliberate floating of conspiracies. Plenty of obstacles. Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
Look it. Whether or not one believes some form of government "ruled by people" was entirely invented in Greece between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE--nowhere else on the planet-- many hundreds of generations have been indoctrinated in this belief, mostly on account of predatory success of successive leadership.
So the fact of the matter is, really, this form had one decent century at it --the rest were kings or demogogue/tyrants, depending on how rich or indigent the court reporter--Which seems to signify there were only two recorded revolts in Athens in the 4th century against and within the oligarchy that controlled civic culture. Political agency was pretty restricted among men by property rights and liturgies paid to acquire appointments and philanthrophic status when the demokratia were starving for "corn" or the Athenian Council needed more ships to raid leaugue scofflaws and "asia", that much survives very well, along with the fear and loathing of debt default, collateral being one's enslavement. How many families of citizens declined in this fashion. NO ONE KNOWS. NO ONE KEPT ACCOUNT. The dramatists chortled or lamented in fragments. One marvels at chipped inscriptions for filthy rich men here and there. The Egypytians kept better records for 2,000 years before the Ptolemies. That should tell you what.
It's one of the oddest features about classical European history: The more one searches the less one finds of records. There are tons of FRAGMENTS. There's loot to dig up, but little of of the meticulous stenography plied by Plato, who evidently toddled around Athens with a nameless, no-account slave perhaps bearing papyrus and ink, taking HOURS of dictation from all the notable sons of his benefactors. Had he no weekly newsletter, a newspaper? Did all 30,000 really wait once a month to attend ekklesia to get news from Sicily? Historians have been guessing and interpolating and extrapolating like nobody's business since, you guessed it, 1700 CE.
So. Persons have been replicating this model for millennia, with particular attention to refinements in hierarchy, top to bottom, added by Macedonians and Romans.
What I witness now is that. The difference, or "advance" if you must, in organization is one of scale, quantity of people caught up in production and value of property these masses of innumerable peasants and slaves beyond the security of the poleis return to oligarch franchise, lately taken to compounding "republic" and "democratic". That's it. No chaos at all. Merely a bad case of accounting which really chaps the asses of empiricists who call themselves big data engineers. They struggle to "wrap their heads" around unknown opportunities to exploit someone's labor.
Phew! I feel rested now. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
This is not to say that autocratic, plutocratic, totalitarian governing is never too much of "leading" for the masses. But the Roman emperors were pretty right with giving bread and circus rather than referendums.
And it is so because most people would rather sit around drinking beer and gossiping about football than thinking about administrative policy or showing up to vote.
It is only when the common people are lined up as cannon fodder that they start to pay attention to who is making the rules, and even then, they are easily distracted.
For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular government, where the person entrusted with the execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direction [...] A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold the impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment of democracy. As they who had a share in the direction of public affairs were void of virtue; as their ambition was inffamed by the success of the most daring of their members; as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the spirit of faction, the government was continually changing: the people, amazed at so many revolutions, in vain attempted to erect a commonwealth [...] As virtue is necessary in a republic, and in a monarchy honour, so fear is necessary in a despotic government
A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold the impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment of democracy. As they who had a share in the direction of public affairs were void of virtue; as their ambition was inffamed by the success of the most daring of their members; as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the spirit of faction, the government was continually changing: the people, amazed at so many revolutions, in vain attempted to erect a commonwealth [...]
As virtue is necessary in a republic, and in a monarchy honour, so fear is necessary in a despotic government
Monarchy could be the most resource-efficient governing, thermodynamically. This waning era of peak oil and progress is a small window for a lasting perturbation.
Real existing education, the effect: So what is the effect of the modern emphasis on long education periods in terms of resource use? I think it is uncontroversial that going for a longer education period comes with a short term hit in material living standards on a personal level. Whatever else happens you get something like four plus people years of reduced consumption of living space and amenties out of it. It also leads to people having kids later in life, which inevitably means less kids overall. What you are spening wastefully are man hours and we are not running out of people at anything like the rate we are running out of everything else, really. Also, I'd add that the resource austerity here comes with the consent of the people bearing the brunt of it.
Real existing education, the purpose: While we can agree that broad civic virtue would be good to have, it is hardly a hard requirement or we wouldn't have any republics at all. And teaching those is certainly not a main reason for universal education though it might be sold that way and even the practicionairs might believe it. Really, I'd argue one of the main features of broader democracies is how mobilized they can be. Look at the Athenians and their Sicillian campaign. Utterly dumb, petty and mean spirited. But they sure got a lot of guys motivated to die on that island.
Those monologues are attributed either to A. Hamilton or J. Madison. The subject of these articles is in the main distribution and self-regulation of powers within a republican government (to replace the Articles of Confederacy) and, parenthetically, some interest in restricting that body's abuse of constituents. Neither were particularly metaphysical, in the manner of French philosophes, but eminently utilitarian. "Virtue" is not in their lexicon.
The former advocated for formal central government. The latter advocated for laissez faire central government, arising form perpetual, factional conflict.
Behold Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Federalist No. 55
as Madison said in the Federalist Paper, "Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another"[4] meaning, the Republican government depends on the virtue/trust of the people. "Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form [of government]."[4]
Though this correspondence was initially published in NY newspapers as was convenient for two of the principal authors --extremely prominent convention delegates-- they were reprinted in every state debating ratification. That is to say, their arguments were not published exclusively for NY's assembly.
Ratification was not a foregone conclusion. Able, articulate men used newspapers, pamphlets, and public meetings to debate ratification of the Constitution. Those known as Antifederalists opposed the Constitution for a variety of reasons. Some continued to argue that the delegates in Philadelphia had exceeded their congressional authority by replacing the Articles of Confederation with an illegal new document. Others complained ...
I believe, I have cautioned readers about Libertarian Speed Reading Methods, but I might not have commented on the tendency likewise to attenuate literal scope of the matter to frequency of a word's occurrence.
Here is No. 55 in its entirety. "Virtue" here merely represents proposed term limits, opposed to abject corruption in the House of Representative, especially.
Is the danger apprehended from the other branches of the federal government? But where are the means to be found by the President, or the Senate, or both? Their emoluments of office, it is to be presumed, will not, and without a previous corruption of the House of Representatives cannot, more than suffice for very different purposes; their private fortunes, as they must all be American citizens, cannot possibly be sources of danger. The only means, then, which they can possess, will be in the dispensation of appointments. Is it here that suspicion rests her charge? Sometimes we are told that this fund of corruption is to be exhausted by the President in subduing the virtue of the Senate. [...] As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.
Democracy in historical context ... interesting! Food for thought.
○ Ancient Political Philosophy | Stanford |
○ The Rise of Authoritarian Capitalism | NY Times - Opinion | ○ Propaganda 2.0 : Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model in the Age of the Internet, Big Data and Social Media Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both the desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States. [The Texas Ordinance of Secession - Feb. 2, 1861] [h/t Is the GOP the Party of White Supremacist? by XicanoPwr in 2006]
[h/t Is the GOP the Party of White Supremacist? by XicanoPwr in 2006]
○ The Gettysburg Address Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
○ EU Withdrawal Bill ○ Re: This is what BREXIT IS BREXIT means Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
a Theresa May win in the confidence vote is at 6 to 1 on I used to be afew. I'm still not many.
As our local hicks like to say, "it jist don't git any better than this." She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
What is less clear is how this changes anything, beyond making the No Deal Brexit a Brexiteer leader might pursue less likely. I doubt it will make May's current deal any more likely to pass the Commons.
Perhaps EU leaders will throw her some bones, if they are now more confident she will still be around for at least a few more months. However they have little incentive to do so, because there is little they can offer that would make Commons acceptance any more likely.
So it is really up to May to come up with her next trick. She may procrastinate until the new year in the hope that sentiment changes, but that seems unlikely too.
So a second referendum may well be her only "get out of jail card", once every other option has been exhausted. AS=s Churchill said "the US always does the right thing - after it has exhausted every other option". Index of Frank's Diaries
As you say, her plan is dead in the water and Parliament have seized control of the brexit process via the Grieve amendment. She is in office but, for brexit, she is no longer in power.
the problem is that there is no time to organise an alternative. So we have 3 choices;- no brexit, May's deal or no deal. Neither of the latter will get through Parliament, so prepare for referendum II.
And god help us if we vote leave again. keep to the Fen Causeway
In fact, isn't this the most direct, polite question to the people.
May the UK government accept the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU? YES or NO (Choose one response) Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
:- the answer to that very question demonstrates the philosophical fault line that runs right down the centre of the Conservative party and down the middle of the entire population. keep to the Fen Causeway
If the UK is in, it's in permanently.
Of course Brexiters don't understand this, but they don't understand anything - including how to stage a successful coup - so there's no point worrying about them now.
You can't withdraw subject to conditions, and you can't weasel the withdrawal of the A50 process and it might be a really bad idea to resubmit an A50 notice a week later, but if you go off and institute internal processes without a predetermined outcome that might result in an A50 notice in five years time or might result in something else they can't do anything about it.
I'm pretty sure Council would go for this too, in the expectation that the whole idea would die in the process.
This will probably also lead to all kinds of other legislative changes. We'll see.
I also expect the EU to realise it needs to do a much better job of promoting itself in countries like the UK where the press has been allowed to create a hostile xenophobic environment.
So whatever happens constitutionally, it's going to become much harder for the UK to decide it wants to try to leave again - both internally and externally.
I still don't understand how A50 is meant to become a negotiating tactic. I don't see how that works. I don't see how the UK example makes it the case. This was always the most likely, most obvious interpretation of whether an A50 notice could be cancelled.
In the unlikely case that a rethink still wanted Brexit in five years time, I think a different sort of A50 process would have to be found, because A50 is a piece of shit.
She doesn't have the support of 1/3 of her party. Her majority relies on a handful of far-right DUP kooks who don't support her backstop plan.
When she loses her vote - which she will - she can either call a General Election, she can push through and lose a vote of No Confidence, or she can put the question back to the voters.
For someone who wants to cling on to power at any price, the last of those is by far the most attractive option.
Her only get-out would be a referendum with no Remain option - but that would probably trigger a No Confidence vote too.
At this point, her choices are very limited.
I think there will be a vote on 21st Jan and then the Grieve amendment will kick in and Parliament will attempt to take charge. At that point I imagine Constitutional experts will begin to earn their pay. keep to the Fen Causeway
Nothing like an foreign policy crisis, an economic crisis, AND a political crisis all at the same time being "handled" by a group one half of which can't find their arse with both hands. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Labour are already talking to the DUP. Of course Labour and the DUP are hardly natural allies, and it's quite likely the talks will go nowhere. But the fact that there are talks at all is mind-bending, and shows how far we are from any kind of business as usual.
Buck Palace is also making concerned noises.
May is on the thinnest ice imaginable, and almost the entire UK Establishment is quietly lining up to oppose her.
At that point the UK is drifting towards no deal unless someone - Grieve, May, Corbyn or May's replacement - takes the lead and proposes legislation for a second referendum. It would be interesting to see, at that point, who votes for and against it.
Even Brexiteers have been saying that "no one voted for a Brexit that would make them poorer", and no one other than a few ultras campaigned for a no deal Brexit. So even May could argue that what is on offer now is no longer the Brexit people originally voted for, so they need to be consulted again to make sure that that is the Brexit they really want.
If Parliament exercises its constitutional prerogative to determine a no deal Brexit is unacceptable then the only choices to be put to the people are May's deal - the only deal the EU will offer - or Remain. recent polling has Remain majority rising to 18%, so a clear and decisive vote for Remain would end the debate for another generation. Index of Frank's Diaries
If the choice is May's deal or Remain, he would be in the awkward position of campaigning for Remain - not for the first time - but at least this time he can say he can always trigger A50 again if the EU doesn't agree to his ideas for reform. But for Corbyn the odds are probably better if a Brexiteer becomes PM, because then he can force through a vote of no confidence with the support of Remainer Tories and win the ensuing general election on an anti-no deal platform. Index of Frank's Diaries
There will not be substantially another agreement with the EU than May's, because the EU (not being the petitioner) is in a situation to lay down its law, and it is not in its interest to give away a great deal more than it has. In the case of a second A50 (after withdrawal of the first), I suggest the EU will be likely to demand more strenuous conditions than in the first instance.
If Corbyn were to believe he could use Brexiteers as a foil to rally Remainer support, leading to a snap general election, and were then to campaign against no-deal but not frankly for Remain, he would end up at least as far up his own fundament as is May currently.
Put simply, if May's "deal" is out (as it probably will be), then an anti-no-deal platform = Remain. Any notion of "negotiating" anything better is illusory.
I used to be afew. I'm still not many.
Excuse me while I'll be excessively swearing in a corner.
On the down side it has distracted from urgent reforms and general business the EU needs to get on with - Climate change, Euro reform, reducing inequality etc. But is there any evidence the EU would have pursued these issues any more urgently in the absence of Brexit? Is it coincidental that there seems to have been a renewed push on signing more trade deals recently? Index of Frank's Diaries
Yes, there will be many sighs of relief, but we will also have to deal with that (possibly ~40%) segment who believe they were cheated of their manifest destiny to make a free (and whiter) britain.
Pandora's box has been torn open. Racism and racist violence is increasing, nazis openly march, a member of Parliament was shot dead on the streets. I honestly thought we'd learned, I honestly thought that unrepentant racists had been reduced to an ineducable rump of malcontents who would die off.
But the rise of ukip, the lionizing of Nigel Farage and his bar stool dog whistling, followed by the media courting of the far more overt Tommy Robinson has shown how complacent I was. Brexit validated these people, people emboldened to wear t-shirts saying "Yes, we won. Now send them home". And the "them" here wasn't about nice white germans or nordic blonds, it was all about coloured people, just like always.
These people feel they are the majority view, released after decades of being held back by an elitist few in the media with their "political correctness". They won't be going back in their box anytime soon and we'll have to live alongside them for many decades to come.
I once said here that the UK had made every mistake it was possible to make about rce relations, but that we had finally learned and come to terms with them. Well, we made a new mistake and now we're gonna have to re-learn every lesson again, from the beginning.
We will not have gotten away with brexit. It has wrecked Britain, economically and socially. keep to the Fen Causeway
They are back-benchers to start with, and their power is channeled through the popular press. If anything, May's win will encourage them to even more energetically ramp up their noise, knowing that the chance of them being put in the position of cleaning up the mess is even further reduced.
○ May signals she will step down before 2022 election
Philip Hammond has just called Brexiteers 'extremists' - says vote tonight will 'flush them out' #peaceandharmony— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) December 12, 2018
Philip Hammond has just called Brexiteers 'extremists' - says vote tonight will 'flush them out' #peaceandharmony
May's announcement won't make her a strong leader! Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
Brexit cliff-edge looms as Tories wage 40-year-old civil war | The Guardian - Analysis | The hard right can argue that if they maintain their nerve, and remain in league with the opposition parties, including the Democratic Unionists, they can still prevent May securing the Commons majority she needs for her deal to be accepted. With the clock ticking, and Labour's position at best ambiguous, the Tory sceptics can take parliament, and the economy moves closer to the cliff-edge of 29 March. The default position if parliament cannot agree a course of action is to leave with no deal. In this scenario, the theory goes, the European commission looks at the imminence of a no-deal exit, and cracks by offering currently unobtainable legal concessions on the Northern Ireland backstop. If the commission remains unmoved, the UK simply leaves the EU on World Trade Organization terms, and takes its chances on the open seas of full-blooded Brexit.
The hard right can argue that if they maintain their nerve, and remain in league with the opposition parties, including the Democratic Unionists, they can still prevent May securing the Commons majority she needs for her deal to be accepted. With the clock ticking, and Labour's position at best ambiguous, the Tory sceptics can take parliament, and the economy moves closer to the cliff-edge of 29 March. The default position if parliament cannot agree a course of action is to leave with no deal.
In this scenario, the theory goes, the European commission looks at the imminence of a no-deal exit, and cracks by offering currently unobtainable legal concessions on the Northern Ireland backstop.
If the commission remains unmoved, the UK simply leaves the EU on World Trade Organization terms, and takes its chances on the open seas of full-blooded Brexit.
○ Juncker on Brexit: 'Withdrawal agreement will not be reopened'
UK Tory ally and friend of Theresa May, Mark Rutte wishes the March 29th departure date to be flexible ...
○ Dutch PM describes breakfast meeting with Theresa May as 'useful' Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
A substantial win, but with 1/3 of the PCP against her, I don't think it's cause for comfort keep to the Fen Causeway
EU leaders reject May's idea to salvage her Brexit deal EU leaders delivered a devastating knock-back to Theresa May after she appealed to them to hold "nothing in reserve" and work with her to salvage her Brexit deal by putting a 12-month limit on the unpopular Irish backstop. The embattled prime minister had pinned her hopes on a last-ditch effort to persuade the European Union to work with her in devising a legal guarantee, known as a "joint interpretative instrument", that she believes could get her Brexit deal through parliament. The idea of the EU having the target of terminating the Northern Ireland backstop no more than a year after it was put in force had been supported by Germany's Angela Merkel and Austria's Sebastian Kurz. But it was opposed by France, Sweden, Spain and Belgium, who voiced doubts that the prime minister would be able to sell the technical concession to hostile MPs in Westminster. Following an address by May before a dinner, and subsequent discussions among the 27 member states, the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said there was no form of deal that could get through parliament, and that it was not up to the EU to satisfy the demands of rebellious MPs.
EU leaders delivered a devastating knock-back to Theresa May after she appealed to them to hold "nothing in reserve" and work with her to salvage her Brexit deal by putting a 12-month limit on the unpopular Irish backstop.
The embattled prime minister had pinned her hopes on a last-ditch effort to persuade the European Union to work with her in devising a legal guarantee, known as a "joint interpretative instrument", that she believes could get her Brexit deal through parliament.
The idea of the EU having the target of terminating the Northern Ireland backstop no more than a year after it was put in force had been supported by Germany's Angela Merkel and Austria's Sebastian Kurz.
But it was opposed by France, Sweden, Spain and Belgium, who voiced doubts that the prime minister would be able to sell the technical concession to hostile MPs in Westminster.
Following an address by May before a dinner, and subsequent discussions among the 27 member states, the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said there was no form of deal that could get through parliament, and that it was not up to the EU to satisfy the demands of rebellious MPs.
Both the UK and the EU will push forward with no-deal contingency preparations. Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, suggested it was difficult to imagine any deal getting through parliament at the moment, and that it was not up to the EU to satisfy the demands of rebellious MPs.
Ain't that the truth. I used to be afew. I'm still not many.
With today's @Europarl_EN strong backing for the EU-Japan 🇪🇺 🇯🇵 Economic Partnership agreement, the biggest trade agreement in the world will enter into force in February 2019. Good for European and Japanese companies and citizens. Good for multilateral rules-based #trade. pic.twitter.com/VvxVCV74b3— Jean-Claude Juncker (@JunckerEU) December 12, 2018
With today's @Europarl_EN strong backing for the EU-Japan 🇪🇺 🇯🇵 Economic Partnership agreement, the biggest trade agreement in the world will enter into force in February 2019. Good for European and Japanese companies and citizens. Good for multilateral rules-based #trade. pic.twitter.com/VvxVCV74b3
○ EU negotiating team - Cecilia Malmström Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
Brexit 'delusions' risk putting UK into crisis, warns Ivan Rogers | The Guardian | In an excoriating denunciation of the British political class that goes to the top of government, Ivan Rogers said the Brexit debate had suffered from "opacity, delusion-mongering and mendacity on all sides" and predicted the public would not forgive politicians. "The whole conduct of the negotiation has further burned through trust in the political class," he said in a speech at the University of Liverpool on Wednesday. "We shall need a radically different method and style if the country is to heal and unify behind some proposed destination." Without naming May, he said the country required "leadership which is far more honest in setting out the fundamental choices still ahead, the difficult trade-offs between sovereignty and national control". [...] Since leaving the civil service, he has maintained a low profile, but has offered occasional scathing reviews of British political debate on Brexit in a series of lectures. In October he took aim at the "pinstriped Robespierres" of the anti-EU European Research Group, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg. He has also argued that British delusions and the EU's technocratic approach mean both sides risk "sleepwalking into a major crisis". His latest lecture offers a stark warning about the democratic crisis that could result from a Brexit debate characterised by "evading and obfuscating choices". Eurosceptics advocating a no-deal Brexit, he said, were "lying openly" about the extent to which World Trade Organisation rules would provide a safety net.
In an excoriating denunciation of the British political class that goes to the top of government, Ivan Rogers said the Brexit debate had suffered from "opacity, delusion-mongering and mendacity on all sides" and predicted the public would not forgive politicians.
"The whole conduct of the negotiation has further burned through trust in the political class," he said in a speech at the University of Liverpool on Wednesday. "We shall need a radically different method and style if the country is to heal and unify behind some proposed destination."
Without naming May, he said the country required "leadership which is far more honest in setting out the fundamental choices still ahead, the difficult trade-offs between sovereignty and national control".
[...]
Since leaving the civil service, he has maintained a low profile, but has offered occasional scathing reviews of British political debate on Brexit in a series of lectures. In October he took aim at the "pinstriped Robespierres" of the anti-EU European Research Group, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg. He has also argued that British delusions and the EU's technocratic approach mean both sides risk "sleepwalking into a major crisis".
His latest lecture offers a stark warning about the democratic crisis that could result from a Brexit debate characterised by "evading and obfuscating choices". Eurosceptics advocating a no-deal Brexit, he said, were "lying openly" about the extent to which World Trade Organisation rules would provide a safety net.
○ Brexit: May returns to UK to face MPs after Brussels knockback
A new referendum won't heal the differences in British society, let alone at Westminster. Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
In the future there will be no relation more important for the #uk than the one with the #EU . And for the #eu also there will be no third country more important than the #uk. It's crucial to avoid resentment in the way the withdrawal is made. I hope the #eucouncil understands it— José Manuel Barroso (@JMDBarroso) December 13, 2018
In the future there will be no relation more important for the #uk than the one with the #EU . And for the #eu also there will be no third country more important than the #uk. It's crucial to avoid resentment in the way the withdrawal is made. I hope the #eucouncil understands it
Brexit holds grave risks for Northern Ireland, study warns | Irish Times - Sept. 14, 2018 | Brexit will cause more division in Northern Ireland and hamper relations with the Republic, a new study has warned. The research by Queen's University Belfast, Ulster University and the Committee on the Administration of Justice contends that the UK's departure from the EU will have detrimental consequences for the peace process and also weaken human rights and equality protections. BrexitLawNI is led by Prof Colin Harvey from the school of law at Queen's. He described Brexit as a "profound constitutional moment for Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland". "Brexit will threaten the peace process and weaken protections for human rights and equality," he added. "It risks disrupting North-South co-operation, increasing racist immigration enforcement and dividing British and Irish citizens.
Brexit will cause more division in Northern Ireland and hamper relations with the Republic, a new study has warned.
The research by Queen's University Belfast, Ulster University and the Committee on the Administration of Justice contends that the UK's departure from the EU will have detrimental consequences for the peace process and also weaken human rights and equality protections.
BrexitLawNI is led by Prof Colin Harvey from the school of law at Queen's.
He described Brexit as a "profound constitutional moment for Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland".
"Brexit will threaten the peace process and weaken protections for human rights and equality," he added. "It risks disrupting North-South co-operation, increasing racist immigration enforcement and dividing British and Irish citizens.
○ 24 years on: Revisiting the border line ○ Risk of an Irish poll
Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
Maybe. The current US Administration is obviously pointing in the wrong direction, but at the state level, where things are actually controlled, we are generally headed forward--although with insufficient enthusiasm.
by tyronen - Mar 25 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 22 71 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 20 32 comments
by Oui - Mar 18 21 comments
by gmoke - Mar 19 2 comments
by IdiotSavant - Mar 14 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 15 50 comments
by Oui - Mar 15 25 comments
by tyronen - Mar 2514 comments
by Oui - Mar 248 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2271 comments
by Oui - Mar 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2032 comments
by gmoke - Mar 192 comments
by Oui - Mar 1821 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 1550 comments
by Oui - Mar 1525 comments
by IdiotSavant - Mar 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 138 comments
by IdiotSavant - Mar 1211 comments
by Oui - Mar 1138 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 841 comments
by Oui - Mar 830 comments
by Oui - Mar 312 comments
by Oui - Mar 22 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 27131 comments
by Oui - Feb 242 comments
by Oui - Feb 1121 comments