UK extends visa rights to 3 million Hong Kongers

[Josquius]

There's not a wild amount of difference between the two. It's also a rare example of Sinn Fein and Brexiter convergence because the Brexit line is exactly what the Irish "no" campaign was saying.

I think there's a huge difference.
One is how negotiations are meant to work- say no to the first offer and get a new offer with compromises to meet your concerns.
The other is the evil undemocratic EU mafia state nonsense.

I
I think you're wrong on that. Yom Kippur, the oil embargo and Bretton Woods were all early 70s, around 1973. The winter of discontent was later and a bespoke British crisis

I would still argue that though there was the stream of ongoing union reforms et al that was British things would not have blown up so much were it not for the economic collapse of the early 70s, the battle against inflation, etc.... just as today we are still feeling 2008's fallout.

Again the Court of Appeal largely overruled a lot of those findings and said the Electoral Commission had got the law wrong.

It has also been stated that it is clear laws were broken.
More not proven than innocent.

I think the unions were a problem. It's why Barbara Castle tried to reform them in the late 60s - unfortunately she was beaten by internal Labour politics and especially Jim Callaghan. I always think that's the Sliding Doors moment of British politics, because industrial relations aren't reformed they keep spinning through the 70s and you end up with Thatcher breaking them utterly.

There were problems with the unions. But they weren't THE problem.
Ultimately it was bad timing with things coming to this critical period of change being needed on union law right as the global financial crisis kicked Britain particularly hard.
Its all interlinked and I really don't think the Yom Kippur/BW aspect gets the attention it deserves as the core of the problem with the simple version just being "It was the unions that ruined Britain".

Yeah I just disagree. I think it was the result of long term trends in our politics, economy and society. I don't think it was inevitable, but it wasn't a fluke and it wasn't down to the evil genius of Dom Cummings or Boris Johnson's shamelessness.

And you think these long term trends were Brexit related?
That the north finally woke up to regional inequality being a massive problem was the fault of the EU?- the organisation that recognises and seeks to fix this as one of its key goals - rather than skillfull campaigning in figuring out what people care about and then attaching arguments about that to an unrelated issue?

I don't remember the AV campaign being that passionate on either side The stuff of it costing too much money is maybe a non-sequitur but not untrue, it would cost more. I think attacking the Lib Dems/Clegg as always in government despite never winning an election is fair game.

Plus, again, the AV campaign just never thought through what their pitch or argument was (and it's difficult because AV doesn't seem intrinsically fairer than FPTP, unlike PR).

The lack of particular pro AV fashion perhaps diluted it but look at the campaigning of the anti side and theres huge parallels with the sort of thing the brexit campaign got up to.

In 2017 Labour said they wanted Brexit with no free movement - that means hard Brexit. I think it's entirely right to say their goal was cakeism (and might still be), but that's not a serious policy. The consequence of their commitment to say no free movement would be hard Brexit, they just wouldn't admit it and still struggle with that reality.

Just checked up.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf
It sounds like a soft brexit to me. Primary goal is retaining the advantages of the single market and customs union. It seemed to me a Swiss sort of setup was where they were going.

It was the number one issue in the 2019 election - 70% of people said it was the most important issue. I agree that reflected a lot of exhaustion and just wanting to move on, but we can't pretend it wasn't the big factor in the election.

Phrased as Britain leaving the EU it was marked as an important issue. Not Leave vs. Remain.

Y#
But I think this requires us to pretend that the 2016 wasn't about immigration, which doesn't work. Maybe in 2040 things will look different because we'll be sufficiently distant but I think when there was a referendum that was primarily about immigration, you can't reinstate free movement (and cede some sovereignty/law-making power) without going back to the people and making that case.

The brexiters themselves are succesfully able to flip the it was/wasn't about immigration switch almost at whim. Doesn't the primary official version remain that it was about sovereignty?

When a referendum was a narrow win for one side which they used as an excuse to absolute savage the country then I really don't think it takes another referendum to set things back to a state that reflects the results of the referendum. 52-48 is clearly a call for soft brexit.

Plus I'd rather just have a democratic UK and then no more referenda ever (well, OK, if somewhere wants independence they can do it). With a democratic country and the fascists taking their seats in parliament then the paint drinkers can't argue they weren't listened to.

[Sheilbh]

I think there's a huge difference.
One is how negotiations are meant to work- say no to the first offer and get a new offer with compromises to meet your concerns.
The other is the evil undemocratic EU mafia state nonsense.

But the practical effect is the same - multiple votes on the same treaty until you agree. The only change to the treaty was the removal of the commitment to shrink the number of Commissioners (which isn't great). Otherwise Ireland got more non-binding assurances on abortion (now irrelevant), taxation (query if that's still in place) and neutrality. They were pretty minimal - and that's understandable I don't think the EU could function if you had 27 renegotiations every time an agreed treaty came into difficult with ratification.

Again the stuff about the EU is not a uniquely British spin - it was common in the discourse in Ireland. I think there was a strong element of not wanting to put Ireland's place in the EU at risk and the context of that is the first referendum was in the summer of 2008 before Lehman, the second was in October 2009 and I think the desire for stability/a status quo vote was a huge part of the shift, understandably.

I would still argue that though there was the stream of ongoing union reforms et al that was British things would not have blown up so much were it not for the economic collapse of the early 70s, the battle against inflation, etc.... just as today we are still feeling 2008's fallout.

I think the early 70s still had an impact for sure. But the issue was that there hadn't been union reform and there was significant and growing union militancy - a lot of the old cold war union bosses were retiring which was part of it. I think we forget that there were also proper Marxists/hard left in left circles in Britain at that time who genuinely thought the seventies was a crisis in capitalism and one more push would help deliver socialism. There were even some who welcomed Thatcher winning because they were thinking a hard-line neo-liberal would accelerate the crisis - needless to say they were wrong.

There were problems with the unions. But they weren't THE problem.
Ultimately it was bad timing with things coming to this critical period of change being needed on union law right as the global financial crisis kicked Britain particularly hard.
Its all interlinked and I really don't think the Yom Kippur/BW aspect gets the attention it deserves as the core of the problem with the simple version just being "It was the unions that ruined Britain".

I don't think they ruined Britain but I think closed shop unions and union militancy was basically extracting a rent on the British economy and blocking change - they were to the 70s what NIMBY landlords and home owners are now (they also need to be smashed if they refuse sensible reforms).

And you think these long term trends were Brexit related?
That the north finally woke up to regional inequality being a massive problem was the fault of the EU?- the organisation that recognises and seeks to fix this as one of its key goals - rather than skillfull campaigning in figuring out what people care about and then attaching arguments about that to an unrelated issue?

No of course not but I don't think that's the way anything works in politics or history. Humans are not logical so it doesn't happen that x issue only causes y solution which is linked to that issue. Long term problems and long term trends very often produce unexpected and unrelated outcomes because they squeeze into the opportunities for change that they have. A lot of politics, in my view, is taking those opportunities for your cause and trying to catch the wave of those, in this case, long term frustrations. I think the Leave campaign were more skilful with that but it's the long-term shifts in attitudes that matter. A campaign doesn't create support, it can only harness it.

Just checked up.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf
It sounds like a soft brexit to me. Primary goal is retaining the advantages of the single market and customs union. It seemed to me a Swiss sort of setup was where they were going.

The section on immigration: "Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union." That means hard Brexit and leaving the single market.

"Retaining the advantages of the single market and customs union" is not the same as staying in them. So they wanted to end free movement but get all the benefits of the single market and customs union without the obligations. As I say Labour's position has always been (in reality) hard Brexit or (in their imagination) cakeism. The only area I've ever seen cakeism has been with Labour - I think the Tories have always acknowledged that they want to end free movement, which means leaving the single market and there are consequences.

The brexiters themselves are succesfully able to flip the it was/wasn't about immigration switch almost at whim. Doesn't the primary official version remain that it was about sovereignty?

Maybe - but objectively we all know it was about immigration. All of the evidence and polling since on why people voted Leave back that up - I think sovereignty was important for why many Leave leaders went that way, but again elite and popular opinion don't always align.

Plus I'd rather just have a democratic UK and then no more referenda ever (well, OK, if somewhere wants independence they can do it). With a democratic country and the fascists taking their seats in parliament then the paint drinkers can't argue they weren't listened to.

Of course I'd say those reforms would probably, in my view, require a referendum