Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

The "Lying" that pissed me off about the brexit campaign wasn't any one big lie but the myriad of little lies in offering every possible vision of brexit under the sun simultaneously.

See I think that's why it's a subject that needs to be settled by a referendum and not just an election. Partly because where you stand on Brexit didn't strictly align with the parties (roughly one third Labour voted Leave, one third Tory voted Remain).

But also I think it's a core constitutional issue - the reasons for changing that will vary wildly and often contradictorily, not unlike any other separatist referendum really. It's a bit like referendums themselves. The two biggest proponents of more direct democracy in the UK were Tony Benn and Enoch Powell - those are two very different visions of Britain that they think will result from direct democracy. I don't think either's true or not, both are possible (and unlikely).

Brexit or not brexit is an absolutely terrible thing to have a vote on. There's bound to have been enough brexit voters who prefer remain to the version of brexit that we did get- those who idealised a Swiss style arrangement for instance.

Yeah - I think from the start (and unlike Scottish independence) there's an argument for a confirmatory referendum.

But I worry if that's slightly misleading and creates the impression of a static relationship with the EU. We're not even at the start of that yet - but I think it'll be dynamic and change over time as different governments come and go, but also as the EU evolves because I do think it's a state in formation. So maybe it is more like independence where you're voting on that full stop - not on what the future relationship with England/rUK looks like which will vary but fundamentally you're not going to be part of the same union?

I might have convinced myself there shouldn't have been a confirmatory referendum

[Josquius]

Oh sure. I'm confident within a decade we will end up in some vague Swiss/EFTA style arrangement with the EU. Obviously not a carbon copy but something like this.
Nonetheless a decade is a hell of a long time and there's going to be a lot of human suffering in the meanwhile. If we had just voted for that from the start in 2016 it would have led to a lot more overall happiness in the land.
Yes the extremists would remain a constant thing, but then they are already, they're just a bit cowed at the moment.

I think you meant Scotland rather than England there?
That's something I can respect the SNP for- they did create a quite detailed paper outlining their planned relationship with the UK. And this I think is something their successors, the brexiters, learned from, in being purposefully vague instead so that nobody could point out the flaws in their sums and it could be left all about thinking with your heart/balls.

[Sheilbh]

Oh sure. I'm confident within a decade we will end up in some vague Swiss/EFTA style arrangement with the EU. Obviously not a carbon copy but something like this.
Nonetheless a decade is a hell of a long time and there's going to be a lot of human suffering in the meanwhile. If we had just voted for that from the start in 2016 it would have led to a lot more overall happiness in the land.
Yes the extremists would remain a constant thing, but then they are already, they're just a bit cowed at the moment.

Maybe - I'm not sure we'll ever end up in a situation with free movement. I think that massively restricts the options available. Though I think we'll be a lot closer than now and there'll be, as I say, a dynamic relationship of some areas being closer than others.

But I think that stuff around shaping how we did Brexit was the politics of the 2017 and 2019 elections and we know what happened.

I think you meant Scotland rather than England there?
That's something I can respect the SNP for- they did create a quite detailed paper outlining their planned relationship with the UK. And this I think is something their successors, the brexiters, learned from, in being purposefully vague instead so that nobody could point out the flaws in their sums and it could be left all about thinking with your heart/balls.

I mean the 2014 one basically said Scotland would discover huge new oil reserves in the North Sea (and there was a conspiracy theory about the British government hiding oil reserves from Scots); the latest one says the UK government would pay Scottish pensions.

Detailed but just as much magical thinking as the worst of the Brexiters and just as resistant to criticism in my experience.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe but as a foreigner it isn't lost on me that the pound has never traded as well versus the dollar since that momental day in 2016.

That's fair - I think it results in a devaluation and lower growth.

Needless to say I don't think any government since 2016 has addressed the issues - often in domestic politics - that constrain growth. If the economy's doing well and likely to continue then the value of the pound will go up.

But basically I think the vast majority of Britain's growth and economy is dependent on decisions made here. I think that was the case when we were in the EU and it's the case out of the EU. Comparing the two Brexit is just a permanent drag.

And on Tamas' stats - worth noting that I'm not sure how helpful it is to look at aggregate inflation in the EU or Eurozone. That's a challenge for the ECB but, for example, German inflation figures out today are worse than the UK. I think the worst are the Baltic states and Poland. This goes to my point that I think there is a bit of inflation within the UK economy where we have full employment that interest rates will affect - but not as much as the US. It's also true for some other European countries but looking at Europe (including the UK), in general inflation at the minute seems to be basically a measure of how much energy you import, particularly gas.

I'm not sure it's as easy to draw conclusions from the UK has higher inflation than the Eurozone, when you've got a range within the Eurozone with France at about 5% through to some of the Baltic states on over 20%. As I say I think that's a challenge for the ECB and ultimately the policy conclusions are probably don't rely too much on global markets (especially tied to Russia) for your essentials, don't shut down your gas storage and go quicker on energy transition and/or nuclear.

One other thing I was thinking about with this was if there's even a way or a theory of dealing with inflation caused by "events". Is it still just collapsing demand? Because I read or heard someone recently pointing out how many big factors in inflation right now - especially from China - have been because of climate: floods having a huge impact on energy consumption and industrial production in China, droughts in the south etc. Given that it seems like we're probably likely to have inflation as an ongoing problem (even as a spike) in the future as the climate becomes more extreme and has bigger consequences - so I just wonder what's the theory on how you deal with that sort of "event" inflation?

[alfred russel]

So if you are Sunak...you are all but certain to make the runoff. Considering the remaining candidates are very close together, why not get your supports to defect to the weaker candidate and then conquer in the runoff?

Probably because its a high risk low reward proposition.

High risk involves having a lot to lose. The favorite to be the next prime minister is Liz Truss. She is however third in the voting by MPs. She could be knocked out tomorrow in the MP vote.

I wonder if Sunak, CC and others are having second thoughts on the voting strategy among MPs to get to the final two candidates.

[Sheilbh]

Again I'm not for privatising Channel 4 (and I'm not sure it's viable economically) - but this morning their press team was briefing this as the sort of broadcasting only they could do. Still not totally sure they're really meeting the radical and innovative new content purpose which is why they were set up and justifies state ownership

Backlash against C4 show that may destroy works by Hitler and Picasso
Jimmy Carr-fronted show accused of seeking attention with something akin to book burning

Jimmy Carr's joking about the Holocaust has made some question his suitability as host of the Channel 4 show. Photograph: Rob Parfitt/Channel 4
Nadia Khomami Arts and culture correspondent
Thu 13 Oct 2022 16.52 BST
Last modified on Thu 13 Oct 2022 17.38 BST

Channel 4 has come under fire over plans for a new show that will allow a studio audience to decide whether Jimmy Carr should destroy a painting by Adolf Hitler.

As part of its latest season of programmes, the TV channel has bought artworks by a range of "problematic" artists including Hitler, Pablo Picasso, the convicted paedophile Rolf Harris and sexual abuser Eric Gill.

A televised debate called Jimmy Carr Destroys Art , which airs later this month, will then question whether one can truly separate a work of art from its creator – before deciding which pieces to destroy with a variety of tools. Channel 4's chief content officer, Ian Katz, has said the show celebrates the channel's long tradition of "iconoclasm and irreverence".

But the idea has sparked criticism online, with some likening the show to Nazi book burnings, while others questioned why a comedian condemned by a litany of anti-hate groups for joking about the Holocaust has been chosen to front it. And some have asked if it is ever right to destroy an historical artefact – no matter how distasteful the creator.

Dr Sam Rose, senior lecturer in art history at St Andrews, said there was no blanket rule for destroying artwork by wrongdoers. "I think it's all on a case by case basis," he told the Guardian. "It's fine to burn some cultural works by wrongdoers – say, DVDs by Jimmy Carr when he avoids tax and jokes about the Holocaust. But this is because those people and works aren't significant – see also Rolf Harris.

"Unfortunate as it may be, works by Hitler and Gill are now part of important histories and may in the future help us understand things about ourselves: they belong in an archive available to be studied, not used in a cheap stunt for ratings figures on a failing TV channel."

Journalist and antisemitism campaigner Jonathan Sacerdoti called it an "utterly sick piece of entertainment television".

"I can't understand how this could get past any stage of development," he told Nick Ferrari on LBC. "I'm not a believer in burning books, I think the Nazis did that ... when we're talking about Jimmy Carr and a piece of art by Adolf Hitler, I think we're in another territory, we're in cloud cuckoo land. This is not a debate about freedom of speech, this is a desperate plea for attention."

Hitler, Sacerdoti added, wasn't renowned across the world for the quality of his art. "The only reason we know about Hitler's artwork is because he perpetuated and carried out the Holocaust, murdering 6 million plus Jews ... and they have got a comedian with a history about making jokes about the Holocaust."

Jake Wallis Simons, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, said popular television was "trolling the Jewish community, all those around the world who suffered under nazism and anybody who remains in possession of a moral compass". The fate of one of the world's most problematic and disturbing artefacts, he added in an article in the Spectator, "will be determined by a studio audience and a comedian".

There were also questions over why Channel 4 decided to spend an undisclosed sum on the expensive works during a time when viewers will be struggling with the cost of living crisis. Hitler's artworks have previously sold for up to $400,000.

Will Black, the author of Veneer of Civilisation, tweeted: "Jimmy Carr, who has lashed out and smeared Gypsy communities a number of times, is set to earn a lot of money in a ridiculous spectacle of Channel 4 spending money on a painting by Hitler (who murdered several hundred thousand Romanies) and Carr smashing it. While families freeze."

Rebecca Rideal, founder of HistFest – London's biggest history festival – added: "Making light entertainment out of deep trauma? C4 should be ashamed. In terms of integrity, that picture of Jimmy Carr says it all."

[garbon]

Yeah all that made me think Channel 4 should be sold.

[The Larch]

Picasso is a problematic artist on par with Hitler and all those others? 

[Valmy]

Yeah I was about to say. One of these things is not like the other one.

That and Picasso's art is actually good. Don't destroy that. Pablo is no longer around to be shamed, it achieves nothing. I mean surely we can all get behind death of the artist when the artist is literally dead.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I was about to say. One of these things is not like the other one.

That and Picasso's art is actually good. Don't destroy that. Pablo is no longer around to be shamed, it achieves nothing. I mean surely we can all get behind death of the artist when the artist is literally dead.

Surely the odd one out is Hitler? He's a world historical figure responsible for the deaths of million.

Of course it would be an uneven show if you didn't have someone who was bad but artistically worthwhile and well-known. It can't all be at the same level or it's not good TV.

[The Brain]

What's the purpose of Channel 4?

[alfred russel]

What's the purpose of Channel 4?

An option for viewers that think Channels 1 through 3 suck?

[Sheilbh]

What's the purpose of Channel 4?

It was set up by the Thatcher goverment.

Before Channel 4 you had two behomths in the BBC and ITV (split into regional studios) who basically made all their own content and owned huge libraries (when they weren't taping it over).

Channel 4 is publicly owned but commercially funded through ads. From what I understand it basically isn't allowed to make its own content, or build up those huge libraries - which is why I don't really understand what they're privatising. From what I understand it doesn't actually own much or have its own content because that's the business model.

The other bit of their charter was to promote underheard voices (particularly young people and minorities), promote diversity and produce radical, innovative new programming. I think they did that for the first 15-20 years or so but I think for the last 15-20, I think they're indistinguishable from any other commercial channel.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNhYjB7n5B4

I looked up Jimmy Carr's Holocaust joke.  In bad taste and not funny.

[mongers]

What an utter shambles, this, this 'government', these people have been inhaling each others BS for so long, I think they've no idea what reality is.