EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

I have no idea when it could happen, but I seem to remember Cameron and Osborne wanted to do it quite soon. I'm sure it can be rushed if it suits the ruling party.

Of course, this assumes that May and co. are actually competent at something. :)

Does it benefit the DUP?

From the obituary of the fella who died in the plane crash in Australia

Is that in Australian equivalent of the sun?

Well, it's in a Murdoch paper, i.e. The Times (UK)

I'm 100% convinced that the Tories would lose a General Election if Labour throws it's weight behind Brexit in name only - or even actually remaining.

I'm less convinced, this may be true in London but a lot of traditional Labour voters are still pretty pro-Brexit.

The remain stance didn't do much for the Lib Dems in the last election.

The remain stance didn't do much for the Lib Dems in the last election.

I've seen this before as a reason why a remain stance won't work at an election but I find it unconvincing.

The Lib Dems were (and still are probably) such a damaged brand, and such a difficult sell at the last election where stopping the Tories was the most important thing. They could have promised the world on a stick, fully costed and perfectly means tested, but would still have been hammered.

I don't think you should write off any policy because it didn't work for the lib Dems.

Does it benefit the DUP?

I don't even know if it extends to NI. At a guess, no, but I have no idea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-42491577

A short article on views of Protestants (so people with NI ancestry who are descendants of English/Scottish/Welsh) in Republic of Ireland near the border

One thinks you can have more customs check and work and still a relaxed border. Sigh.

Perhaps the DUP will stop full hard brexit madness but the border issue still isn't really solved.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41643467

^^ It seems the DUP opposes the current shape of the Boundary Review.

"To those in favour, the EU is a symbol of continental cooperation, cosmopolitanism, free movement of people (and money, of course), and other such wholesome things. To oppose the EU, by contrast, represents nationalism, racism, small-mindedness and a lack of a university degree: all things against which most self-described “progressives” instinctively react. In other words, this is not a rational debate about the benefits or otherwise of a political union. It is a whose-side-are-you-on? battle: and increasingly, it is split along class lines."

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/21/brexit-reconsidered-a-modern-day-peasants-revolt/

^Very blinkered.
The de-industrialisation of the UK was achieved by successive Westminster governments, principally the 3 Thatcher administrations, with a hatred of Unionised labour, rather than any EU-wide policy. Indeed EU policy often helped to remediate the destruction by offering funds for improved transport (road) links to the now brownfield sites that UK governments had previously chisen not to invest in.

But that's it, it's not about rational and logical and balanced thinking: It's US vs THEM thinking.

People in struggling areas were told the EU is "the elite" and "not like them" and "even with all the money, it's still not great, just leave the EU" and "take back control" forgetting that their Tory voting neighbours may be part of the reason for their problems, and here we are now.

It's not a situation you resolve by reasoning...

"farmers will continue to receive existing levels of cash-per-acre style subsidies right up until 2024, a move expected to cost £10 billion."
Does anyone know if this is in addition to / comparable with / a saving over the contribution we make to EU farming subsidies? Can't tell from the article. Was wondering about our 'divorce' costs and where (if it's additional costs) the money might likely come from.

Farmers will continue to be paid during the transition that the EU is offering, from the point at which we have transitioned then that cash will come directly from the taxpayer without going via the EU. We will likely still be paying both our pre-existing commitments and also something for market access, although that (and indeed any transition) depends on May totally capitulating to the EU, tearing up all her redlines.

Cool, thanks. Have just read Gove's farming conference speech. He's on a bit of a mission there, it's worth a scan imo - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/farming-for-the-next-generation

A thread about Brexit

https://twitter.com/IsolatedBrit/status/948499568932610048

I'm reading a book called 'Mistakes were made (but not by me)' by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, about self-justification and why people find it so hard to admit they were wrong and, to a large degree, why facts don't matter. It makes a good companion piece to both this and the Trump threads.

This is his leadership bid, no? It's fuck all to do with the future of farming in the UK.

It is a measure of Gove's unworldliness that he does not realise that the Tory party is based upon perpetuating the privilege and assets of the land-owning aristocracy. Cameron & Osbourne understood this implicitly; the former married into it, so is an arriviste compared to the latter.
This inner sanctum of the Tory party does slowly replenish itself; Heseltine famously owns many acres of Nothamptonshire.
The EU proposed all this some time ago. The (Cam&Os) UK vehemently opposed the change from an acreage based payment.
One thing is for certain Gove will not be Environment Secretary when this is due to be introduced.

Reads that way, biding time, steering clear of in-fighting, make lots of positive noises about a brighter future. Making a space to become the party's acceptable face for PM, post May I reckon.

A very depressing read :-(

Mistakes were made (but not by me)' by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

Just ordered that for a read.

It's an interesting and easy read. I'd also recommend 'Democracy in chains' by Nancy MacLean for the historical background to the right-wing Republicans like Cruz and the Koch brothers and how that does/doesn't fit in with Trump.

about self-justification and why people find it so hard to admit they were wrong and, to a large degree, why facts don't matter. It makes a good companion piece to both this and the Trump threads.

and possibly an analogy for motorists and cyclists ?