Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

So...Go Suella go? Tear that party apart? We're not so far gone into depravity that the Tories going full scum mode would get anywhere.... Right?

I'nm not sure if you are just incapable of ever admitting you are worng or are just thick. Here - again - is the direct quote from the poll.

"A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."

What am I miscomprehending/misrepresenting? 93% of Palestinians seem themselves as rightful owners of all of the land beween the River and the Sea. 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept the Jews are entitled to some ownership.

The figures for Israeli Jews are 93% and 33% respectively.

Again irony. I'd say these things to you. If I felt like being a dick anyway.

What you're missing is the significantly higher than 7% who don't call for the removal of all Israelis.  How does this square?
Palestinians ARE the 'rightful' owners of much of Israel. Their land was taken from them illegally. This doesn't necessarily mean they would only accept chucking the people currently there into the sea. However something should be done to make up for this historic crime.

They are saying it about themselves. The West Bank is literally defined in its name as being the river, and Gaza is as strip along the sea. This is key to how the phrase caught on.
Also worth remembering even if you don't take this slant there's 2 million Arab citizens of Israel, and that its a perfectly legitimate thing for Palestinians to want rights in Israel, compensation for past crimes, and so on.

If you don't want me to think your right wing nationalistic slogan isn't right wing and nationalist than make one that doesn't refer to THE NATION in the singular and doesn't define clear nationalistic "natural borders". Make a slogan that doesn't say that and I will believe you. It shouldn't be hard to make a slogan that doesn't do that.

Palestine is a region that contains both the nation of Israel and the 'nation' of Palestine. Its pretty common for Arabs with Israeli citizenship to still identify as Palestinians.
I really don't see where you're drawing nationalism from in this.

Not believing there's a good chance that something will ever happen !=  not wanting that thing to happen.

This is true.  But if you believe peace will never come, then working towards the kumbaya state is removed from your decision tree.  You can fight or surrender.

I think you overstate how much this is a factor in human behaviour.
Plenty of people think we're fucked on climate change... but they continue to push for action anyway. They don't give up and (most) don't turn to terrorism.
Though on your reasoning... wouldn't this suggest not backing the Palestinians into a corner where they come to feel violence is the only option is the sensible move?

Also we seem to have missed here that it was 81% thinking there was very little hope of peace. Not specifically that a peaceful solution wouldn't work. A prevailing peace could well come out of a brutal war of annihilation too.
The question is not do they think the chances of a peaceful solution are high, but (putting all morals aside for a minute) do they think this is more likely than the chance of a violent solution working out for them?- Hamas certainly taps into young, stupid guys by promising this is possible, but I don't believe any halfway informed Palestinian would think its possible.

Another tell is body language.  If I wished for a kumbaya state, I would not scowl and pump my fist in the air.  I distrust the sincerity of people who claim to be doing that.  That's the body language I would adopt if I wanted to show the world I am committed to the fight.

That's not what I'm seeing from the Palestinians. They look pretty bloody scared and tired. They'd love a bit of peace.

[Sheilbh]

Oof, definitely screeching her tires as she leaves - usually not the best way to go.

Perhaps relatedly, last week her "allies" were briefing that if she was fired it would prompt other ministerial resignations. It didn't, so I suspect she had to make some noise on her own.

So...Go Suella go? Tear that party apart? We're not so far gone into depravity that the Tories going full scum mode would get anywhere.... Right?

No

This is like a Tory wanting Corbyn to win the Labour leadership. It is likely in 99% of cases that it dooms the Labour party for a few years. But there is always a risk that they end up as PM and they shouldn't be anywhere near that role. Having them in the leadership is dangerous in itself. But also I think it would probably cause internal damage to the party and the political parties are a really important part of the system. We're all better if they're both healthy.

Having said all that I think she's vastly overstating her "pivotal" role. It's just increased my view that it's likely to be Badenoch v Cleverly with Patel as the possible candidate from the right. In part because I think there's a point when you are seen as so disloyal and ambitious that it undermines you (both with the party and public) - I think she's there. But also, she's exceptionally confident for someone whose support among MPs peaked at about 30.

Why is Kemi planning to increase trade with...Florida?

Well mainly PR - but also, apparently this is following the advice from the administration. I think she's in California forr a CPTPP meeting now and I've no doubt she'll be trying to get one with them too. I think this is maybe the sixth or seventh state the UK has got some form of MoU on and it's largely, I think, meaningless legally - but possibly helpful in opening communications between relevant regulators, setting up formal regular meetings, working groups etc.

Obviously there is zero chance of any trade deal with the US because the US is in a very protectionist moment (for a pretty protectionist country) and I think there's no appetite on trade (I think the US is a little incoherent here). Also I've always thought that there is no chance politically for a US-UK trade deal to get passed in the UK either. I'd be surprised if there's ever a trade deal with the US. So, according to British trade wonks, the administration has basically advised the UK government to work at the state level because there's nothing available federally.

I think there's nothing in the Florida MoU and certainly nothing of substance but there are ways it makes sense (particularly for the UK). For example, licensing laws and data protection laws in the US are all at the state level - so there may be scope there, especially for an economy like the UK which is very services focused. I don't think they went ahead with it (in part because the big issue in the EU is the NSA/intelligence agencies), but the European Commission has in the past looked at specific recognition equivalence between the EU and California on things like data.

[Admiral Yi]

Though on your reasoning... wouldn't this suggest not backing the Palestinians into a corner where they come to feel violence is the only option is the sensible move?

It would suggest that. 

The same logic would suggest not backing Israel into a corner where they feel continued occupation is the only sensible move.

The PA, for all its flaws, made the right move.  We renounce violence, now please give us a state.  Israel then made the wrong move by stealing Palestinian land.

Hamas then made its own wrong move by ratcheting the barbarity up to 11.

That's where we are.

[garbon]

Why is Labour infighting over a meaningless (and in my opinion reprehensible) UK call for a ceasefire vote?

[Sheilbh]

Not sure I agree with Starmer's line on this, but I don't think he supports the SNP ceasefire motion (and the SNP are pushing it precisely to force difficulties for Labour).

His line is for humanitarian pauses. Fundamentally I think part of that is that he is expecting to be PM in the next year. On the other hand I think there are genuine disagreements among Labour MPs and Labour supporters which push MPs to consider it an important issue for them.

I think Starmer as leader has set a policy which is not to call for a ceasefire so the party should abstain. And he is saying that if you want to serve on the frontbench you need to follow the party whip, I think perhaps especially because it's a King's Speech - if you're voting with against the whip and with another opposition party on amending the agenda for the legislative agenda for the next year it's a bit of a statement.

Politically I think he's doing two things - one is continuing to signal a break with Corbyn on the substance. But, I think more importantly, is to signal a break in being a party of government - enforcing collective responsibility for the frontbench with consequences if you vote against. He's trying to position Labour as moving beyond just being a party of opposition (especially under Corbyn who was a serial rebel) where everyone can kind of vote how they want, to a party of government. They will be trying to pass its agenda which individual MPs may dislike bits of and opposition parties will try to opportunistically cause difficulties with.

Is it the right policy? I'm not sure. On the other hand, I think collective discipline in the Tories and Labour have both broken down in recent years and it is necessary in our system. I think Starmer wants to move Labour out of their comfort zone a little - which is everyone votes how they want and it doesn't matter if you vote against the leadership because it's a meaningless vote etc. I think it's a sign of his ambition and that he will be trying to force things through/spend political capital to do things which Labour MPs might not like.

It is also, I suspect, why in the selection of new candidates across all parties there are record high numbers of former councillors - because I think all parties are swinging away from tolerating more independent minded MPs from a non-political or less political background (like Sunak and Starmer, for example), to councillors who have a voting record and are used to party discipline (so you can check how much they follow the party whip, whether they're "team players" etc).

Edit: And on the he expects to be PM point - I think there's a realism there. Britain doesn't matter. What we say will not have an impact on Israel or Hamas. The extent of our influence, especially in this conflict, is the degree to which we are able to influence the US (and David Lammy is very close to the Democrats and has been given the job of getting Starmer a meeting with Biden). Labout positioning itself too far from the US line, especially when the left in the US are also up in arms and causing Biden domestic difficulties, won't help with that and will reflect a slightly outsize view of Britain's role in the world for minimal benefit.

But Israel causes strong feelings in Labour. Blair's position on Israel's war in Lebanon is what caused Brown and his team to move against him and ultimately led to his resignation. Going back even further there's history of passionate pro-Israeli backbenchers in the 40s and 50s caused problems for the more establishment/Arabist leadership.

[Barrister]

Palestinians ARE the 'rightful' owners of much of Israel. Their land was taken from them illegally. This doesn't necessarily mean they would only accept chucking the people currently there into the sea. However something should be done to make up for this historic crime.

Dude - there's never been an independent Palestinian state.  I don't see how you can talk about anyone being the "rightful owners" of the area.

Prior to 1967 the West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Before 1948 the entire area was a League of Nations Mandate given to Britain.  The Mandate was to cover both the Arab and Jewish citizens of the area.

Before 1919 it belonged to the Ottomans, who ruled for a very long time.

[Josquius]

Palestinians ARE the 'rightful' owners of much of Israel. Their land was taken from them illegally. This doesn't necessarily mean they would only accept chucking the people currently there into the sea. However something should be done to make up for this historic crime.

Dude - there's never been an independent Palestinian state.  I don't see how you can talk about anyone being the "rightful owners" of the area.

Prior to 1967 the West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Before 1948 the entire area was a League of Nations Mandate given to Britain.  The Mandate was to cover both the Arab and Jewish citizens of the area.

Before 1919 it belonged to the Ottomans, who ruled for a very long time.

The Ottomans and British didnt oversee an empty land of lawless anarchy. The Palestinians have always been there, there were laws and property ownership in the area before the events around Israels foundation and expansion.

When the US became independent everyone didn't automatically lose their property because there'd never been an independent US before.

[Barrister]

Palestinians ARE the 'rightful' owners of much of Israel. Their land was taken from them illegally. This doesn't necessarily mean they would only accept chucking the people currently there into the sea. However something should be done to make up for this historic crime.

Dude - there's never been an independent Palestinian state.  I don't see how you can talk about anyone being the "rightful owners" of the area.

Prior to 1967 the West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Before 1948 the entire area was a League of Nations Mandate given to Britain.  The Mandate was to cover both the Arab and Jewish citizens of the area.

Before 1919 it belonged to the Ottomans, who ruled for a very long time.

The Ottomans and British didnt oversee an empty land of lawless anarchy. The Palestinians have always been there, there were laws and property ownership in the area before the events around Israels foundation and expansion.

When the US became independent everyone didn't automatically lose their property because there'd never been an independent US before.

Jews lived there too.  And more Jews migrated there legally under both Ottoman and British rule.

Jews have in fact always lived there also, for thousands of years.  Zionists didn't pick the land of Palestine as the home for the Jewish people on a whim you know.

[Admiral Yi]

The Ottomans and British didnt oversee an empty land of lawless anarchy. The Palestinians have always been there, there were laws and property ownership in the area before the events around Israels foundation and expansion.

When the US became independent everyone didn't automatically lose their property because there'd never been an independent US before.

Actually there was a considerable amount of property confiscated from Loyalists after US independence.  It took unpopular legal action by people like Alexander Hamilton to have it restored.

During the early days of Zionism, under the Ottomans, I have only read about land purchases, not theft.  Up to the 48 war I have not read about theft.

Either show me my facts are wrong, or limit your discussion to the post 48 period.

[Barrister]

The Ottomans and British didnt oversee an empty land of lawless anarchy. The Palestinians have always been there, there were laws and property ownership in the area before the events around Israels foundation and expansion.

When the US became independent everyone didn't automatically lose their property because there'd never been an independent US before.

Actually there was a considerable amount of property confiscated from Loyalists after US independence.  It took unpopular legal action by people like Alexander Hamilton to have it restored.

During the early days of Zionism, under the Ottomans, I have only read about land purchases, not theft.  Up to the 48 war I have not read about theft.

Either show me my facts are wrong, or limit your discussion to the post 48 period.

If I recall correctly local Arabs were quite upset at absentee Ottoman landlords selling property to Jews.

But that does mean they were purchasing, legally - not stealing.

[Josquius]

The Ottomans and British didnt oversee an empty land of lawless anarchy. The Palestinians have always been there, there were laws and property ownership in the area before the events around Israels foundation and expansion.

When the US became independent everyone didn't automatically lose their property because there'd never been an independent US before.

Actually there was a considerable amount of property confiscated from Loyalists after US independence.  It took unpopular legal action by people like Alexander Hamilton to have it restored.

During the early days of Zionism, under the Ottomans, I have only read about land purchases, not theft.  Up to the 48 war I have not read about theft.

Either show me my facts are wrong, or limit your discussion to the post 48 period.

If I recall correctly local Arabs were quite upset at absentee Ottoman landlords selling property to Jews.

But that does mean they were purchasing, legally - not stealing.

Yes. That happened absolutely. I thought of mentioning it in my last post actually but seemed irrelevant (in the context of these laws existing being key to how to the first zionists moved in).
However there's plenty of Palestinian land that absolutely was stolen by Israelis.

[Tamas]

One of the Labour rebels:

At some point there will be a ceasefire. Had we called for a ceasefire yesterday, 144 children might still be alive. A child dies every 10 minutes."

OK then.

[Josquius]

One of the Labour rebels:

At some point there will be a ceasefire. Had we called for a ceasefire yesterday, 144 children might still be alive. A child dies every 10 minutes."

OK then.

I can't remember who it was as I just had it on whilst playing a game, but a Labour guy on Newsnight last night had a good conciliatory point that just because we say to stop fighting doesn't mean the fighting will actually stop.
It is very weird it's becoming such a huge concern for so many MPs.

[Tamas]

One of the Labour rebels:

At some point there will be a ceasefire. Had we called for a ceasefire yesterday, 144 children might still be alive. A child dies every 10 minutes."

OK then.

I can't remember who it was as I just had it on whilst playing a game, but a Labour guy on Newsnight last night had a good conciliatory point that just because we say to stop fighting doesn't mean the fighting will actually stop.
It is very weird it's becoming such a huge concern for so many MPs.

I do wonder sometimes just how much people are actually aware that the Empire and more precisely the late 19th century is gone. It's not like Britain is going to send some gunboats up the Jordan once Parliament demands ceasefire.

More seriously though, I suspect at least some of those rebelling frontbenchers were too worried about their constituents to be seen as considering nuances in this question.

[garbon]

One of the Labour rebels:

At some point there will be a ceasefire. Had we called for a ceasefire yesterday, 144 children might still be alive. A child dies every 10 minutes."

OK then.

I can't remember who it was as I just had it on whilst playing a game, but a Labour guy on Newsnight last night had a good conciliatory point that just because we say to stop fighting doesn't mean the fighting will actually stop.
It is very weird it's becoming such a huge concern for so many MPs.

I do wonder sometimes just how much people are actually aware that the Empire and more precisely the late 19th century is gone. It's not like Britain is going to send some gunboats up the Jordan once Parliament demands ceasefire.

More seriously though, I suspect at least some of those rebelling frontbenchers were too worried about their constituents to be seen as considering nuances in this question.

Maybe but then they could have voted for the meaningless ceasefire resolution without the overwrought statements to the press.