brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

I am not going to waste keystrokes explaining what you already know.

There's no need for you to do that, so I'm unsure why you even "waste keystrokes" in mentioning it!

General Election

Held: every 5 years or more frequently
Issues to be voted on: all with which Parliament would be expected to deal
Result: legally binding.

Referendum

Held: once only
Issues to be voted on: one only - UK's continued EU membership
Result: advisory only, therefore non-legally binding.

Simples.

If you can find fault with any of the above, please feel free to do so and explain clearly and unequivocally what it is that you believe to be incorrect.

If not, pour yourself a rusty nail (assuming you to have the requisite ingredients to hand) and enjoy it!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It's not non legally binding now and it was never going to be treated as such.

[ahinton]

It's not non legally binding now and it was never going to be treated as such.

I think that you are mistaking the principles under which the referendum was held and what has happened since (insofar as anything material has happened in the 4 years since it was held); in any case, it remains clear that a General Election cannot be compared to a referendum for the reasons shown previously, the two instruments being fundamentally different in design, practice and purpose.

As to how it was ever going to be treated, neither you nor I can possibly know that.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Corbyn and Brexit were the 2 main issues that came up on the doorstep. That much we know for certain.
When people were voting in the GE, Brexit was a huge influence.
It was clearly therefore the 2nd referendum that so many wanted, but the result was the same as the 1st.

[ahinton]

Corbyn and Brexit were the 2 main issues that came up on the doorstep. That much we know for certain.

Corbyn and other major Labour issues were certainly significant. Brexit was another. But, as usual in a GE, people voted on all maner of other things too. The implication that a majority momentarily abandoned concerns about healthcare, education, policing and so very many other things in favour of Brexit fails to stand up to serious scrutiny.

Why didn't electors vote in their droves for the Brexit party? Had they done so, your hypothesis would have been correct - but they didn't.

When people were voting in the GE, Brexit was a huge influence.

Not at all. As I mentioned previously, there's no shortage either of Tory Remain supporters or Labour Leave ones, so it would have been well nigh impossible to pledge one's party loyalty in accordance with stances on Brexit (other than for the Brexit party).

Indeed, the largest single influential factor was the widespread desire, especially among traditional Labour voters, to switch allegiance from a party in which faith had been lost; one has only to consider those constituencies whose representatives have been Labour for almost a century but which fell to the Tories to appreciate this - hence my raising the question as to whether the Labour party actually has a credible future at all.

It was clearly therefore the 2nd referendum that so many wanted, but the result was the same as the 1st.

It was neither. Had the public wanted a second referendum, they could have lobbied their MPs for one; they didn't. The result was nothing like the first in any case; the Tory GE majority was vastly greater than the Leave one in the referendum.

Again, there were almost no conceivable parallels between the two; attempts nevertheless to contrive any would be a "waste of keystrokes".

The situation now is in any case quite different to that which pertained at the time of the GE. A whole new level of uncertainty throughout EU, including in UK, has visited itself upon us all independently of politics. The state of the 28 EU economies will for some time be unrecognisable from what they were when the GE was held. This will inevitably be a crucial influential factor over any future negotiations and will be one reason why they'll require far more time than previously predicted.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Corbyn and Brexit were the 2 main issues that came up on the doorstep. That much we know for certain.
When people were voting in the GE, Brexit was a huge influence.
It was clearly therefore the 2nd referendum that so many wanted, but the result was the same as the 1st.

I completely agree. If I lived in England, I would have voted unhesitatingly for Corbyn, because within the last 15 years he is the senior politician who most closely represents my political views. Things aren't that simple though. Corbyn was continually being undermined by those supposedly on his side (I include the Guardian amongst that group), on the basis that he was too far left and his "side" (sic) wanted a more Blairite direction. Whatever my opinion, and whatever the opinion of his genuine supporters, by the time his image and views had been percolated through the media, the general public opinion wasn't positive. (I feel that Boris was the worst possible opponent Corbyn could have faced, because he's able to project a jovial bonhomie that people find easy to accept.)

Corbyn mishandled Brexit badly in a political sense. He was unable to square the circle between his personal support for it and the party's disapproval; oddly he didn't do so badly when squaring the same circle over Trident. Traditionally, Europe has been a difficult issue for the Tory party and a good one for Labour, but it didn't pan out that way. Tory voters appeared to pretty much retain loyalty irrespective of their position on Brexit, though to be fair they were by far the most strongly pro-Brexit.

The initial referendum showed Labour split approximately 65-35 against Brexit, and this was always going to be a serious problem, especially with the split outwith London being broadly on class lines. The stereotypical Blairite Labour politician handles working class anxiety regarding immigration in an appallingly patronising manner. It might be a manifestation of racism for a manual worker to say "I'm going to lose my job to an Eastern European", but more likely it might be an expression of legitimate concern by someone who's actually dealing with reality and on the employment front line. For the likes of metropolitan 'liberal' (I use the term loosely) MPs to blithely dismiss this as "racism" is unacceptable, particularly when their political grouping made sure there was an influx of such foreigners into the labour market in the first place! There isn't an easy answer for the left to this, but a lot of their rhetoric has been actively counterproductive. I'm totally unsurprised that so many working class voters defected.

[ahinton]

Good points here, ronde_des_sylphes although a few with which I might take some issue.

Corbyn was indeed miligned but has was also his own worst enemy, principally in failing properly to address the anti-Semitism issue (which was not, I believe, as widespread as some Labour detractors, including a few from within Labour itself, were determinde to make out) and, perhaps worse still, to sit on the fence over Brexit so that people didn't feel that they had any idea where Labour stood on this.

Boris's transparently false bonhomie, along with his at times compromised articulacy, fools few people and it's largely a thing of the past in any case now that he's had and largely recovered from COVID-19 (not that I would have wished it on him).

Had a majority of the electorate perceived the last GE to be mainly about Brexit (though why that GE and not the 2017 one, one might ask), it could have voted with its feet for the Brexit party and, had it done this, Brexit would have been as clearly revealed as the predominant electoral issue of the say as Thal claims it to be despite that party having performed dismally; clearly, no single issue preoccupied voters any more than at any previous GE.

The notion that those who complained that Eastern Europeans from EU were coming to take the jobs that, for the most part, they didn't want to do anyway is not even geographically accurate; there are no Eastern European countries in EU, for Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are central European ones and the five "stans" Eastern European and none of them is an EU member state. We still have a problem now that foreign labour can't get to UK to do fruit and veg picking.

Yes, there have indeed been some unsavoury racist expression in certain quarters but even these have been largely inconsistent in their application. How often, for example, have most people in UK heard racist abuse of Portuguese, Danish, Swiss, Norwegian, Finnish, French people? - it's usually mostly people from what some think of as "Eastern Europe", the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.

Anyway, COVID-19 seems now largely to have overtaken much Brexit negotiation and the prospect that the UK government will adopt a default no-deal stance if it can't be completed by the end of this year (which seems almost certain) will by no means endear it to the electorate; plenty of Brexit supporters do NOT want a no-deal Brexit. One such said to me that, whilst the government has made Brexit possible, it can no longer be trusted to negotiate one with proper deals in all areas; she made it quite clear that she does not want a no-deal Brexit and would never again trust, let alone vote for, a party capable of nothing better than achieving or endorsing one.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I have friends in Darlington that were almost physically sick when voting Tory and actually thought they were disrespecting their ancestors, but they did because they voted leave in the referendum and Corbyn was fence sitting. Anyone that thinks Brexit was not the main issue in the likes of Bolsover are living in an alternate Universe to me.
Yes, Corbyn was an unelectable terrorist supporting twat and McDonnel and Abbot were unimaginable in power, but Brexit was a huge issue.
We have had the 2nd referendum and the result was the same as the 1st.

[ahinton]

I have friends in Darlington that were almost physically sick when voting Tory and actually thought they were disrespecting their ancestors, but they did because they voted leave in the referendum and Corbyn was fence sitting. Anyone that thinks Brexit was not the main issue in the likes of Bolsover are living in an alternate Universe to me.
Yes, Corbyn was an unelectable terrorist supporting twat and McDonnel and Abbot were unimaginable in power, but Brexit was a huge issue.
We have had the 2nd referendum and the result was the same as the 1st.

As I wrote, Brexit was one of the issues, certainly, but only the referendum was a single issue poll. As a matter of interest, on what grounds do you regard the December 2019 GE as "the 2nd referendum" as distinct from the 2017 one?

If Labour finally descends into administration (which of course is merely a possibility), it will be clear that the largest issue in the 2019 GE was people's loss of faith in it even as a party of opposition, let alone as a possible party of government.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/21/labour-leftwing-brexit-policies-election
This shitrag that you often post links on explains it for me.
It was a Brexit Election.
Case closed.

[ahinton]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/21/labour-leftwing-brexit-policies-election
This shitrag that you often post links on explains it for me.
It was a Brexit Election.
Case closed.

Thal citing The Guardian! Now there's a turn up (or down) for the books!

I don't quote from it often and do quote from many other news sources but, given your view of it, I'd have thought that your quoting from it represents a classic own goal!

If you think that last December's GE was a "Brexit election",
a) why was the 2017 one not such? and
b) if the majority of the electorate wanted Brexit in some form or another, why did they  vote Tory rather than for the Brexit Party, the only one guaranteed to harbour no dissenters from the Leave agenda?

If events prove anything in the history of this omnishambles, it is that so important a legislative issue can't be left for the electorate to decide and advise government accordingly; those whom we elect and pay to conduct legislative issues in Parliament should have done so on this occasion just as on all others.

Re b) above, the party that conducted this crazily unnecessary referendum (and the only one that promised it in its GE manifesto) was convinced that it would end any dissent on UK's EU membership, with its result a clear mandate (or rather clear non-legally-binding advice!) to Remain.

That wen't well, didn't it?!

In the 3½ years from that poll to the 2019 GE, scant success in bringing about any form of Brexit can be credited to the government that secured majorities in the 2015 and 2017 GEs.

The idea that swathes of traditional Labour supporters would trust that government to honour Brexit and therefore vote for it in 2019 is thus demonstrably untenable, especially when devout Brexiteers had first UKIP and then the Brexit Party for which to vote instead.

I've yet to read the Guardian piece to which you posted the link above and will do so shortly - thanks for doing this - but, if it claims the 2019 GE to have been fought mainly on Brexit, its author is woefully out of step with reality which I imagine, on your usual form, is precisely what you'd expect from that newspaper!

Anyway, with COVID-19 still with us for the foreseeable, none of this really matters much anyway.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I've read it now. It's mainly about Labour Party failures and inconsistencies, in which it's broadly correct. The rest, whilst containing a little truth, is poorly researched and evidenced and says nothing of why these people voted Tory and not the Brexit Party.

That said, however, its final paragraph reads

"Finally, Labour should look to the future; it should not become obsessed with Brexit. The next election will take place four years after Brexit, and the question of whether we will leave or remain will have been definitively settled. Labour will not win in 2024 by quixotically re-running the 2016 referendum over and over again; it will only win if it looks forward to the future, and champions a leftwing vision for Britain’s future outside the EU."

But Labour might have no future and thus no longer be there to run in the next GE which could in any case be held between later this year and December 2024.

The assertion that Brexit will long since have been settled by the time of the next GE remains open to question, a fact seemingly unrecognised by the author despite the fact that it hasn't been settled in almost 4 years and isn't about to be so!

Finally, the author is credited as "the founder of Stats for Lefties, a blog and podcast that examines polls and elections"! Just right up your street, obviously! (as long as one ignores all the "leftie" barbs that you frequently fling about with gay abandon, that is)...

Today is Victory in Europe Day - or that's what it's called in UK; the rest of EU simply calls it "Europe Day", which is far more apposite, since "victory" implies winning whereas no one "won" WWII and it wasn't brought to an end only by UK in any case.

The general feeling in WWII's immediate aftermath was one of "never again" and the forerunner of EU accordingly rose from the ashes of that 6-year conflict.

The original idea of what's now EU was the fostering of co-operation between member states rather than ultimate federalism; I agree that EU and its predecessors have not always done all that they could and should towards that end, tardy involvement in COVID-19 aid being a recent case in point.

However, whilst WWI followed WWI by a mere two decades, there have been no wars within what's now EU in almost three quarters of a century, the only major war in Europe as a whole during that time having been fought in certain areas of what was once Yugoslavia that are not EU member states.

That surely has to count for something.

EU would be an inferior institution without UK as a member; that would impact upon UK just as it would on the remainder of EU.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

A distinguished Luxembourg-born French politician, who was twice French Prime Minister and once each French Finance Minister and Foreign Minister, was instrumental in building post-war European and transatlantic institutions and was a founder of the EU, Council of Europe and NATO (the 1964–1965 academic year at the College of Europe was named in his honour).

Thal in particular would, I am certain, be especially appreciative of his work towards European unity and peaceful co-operation since his name was - wait for it -

Robert Schuman (1886-1963) - who was not A minor figure!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The 2017 election was not a Brexit election as at that time we did not have 3 1/2 years of paralysis and the public had not yet tired of it.
UKIP had agreed not to compete in marginal seats so as to not split the Leave vote. Worked rather well and we must thank Nigel Farage (again) for putting us in a position where Brexit can be achieved and Democracy satisfied.
It was a Brexit Election.
CASE CLOSED.

[ahinton]

The 2017 election was not a Brexit election as at that time we did not have 3 1/2 years of paralysis and the public had not yet tired of it.

We hadn't indeed, but we'd had a year of it, which is more than some Brexiteers expected of their government.

More importantly, however, we've now had a further 5 months on top of that 3½ years with still no material progress on negotiations and we now have another factor to contend with that's far more important to everyone in EU, especially UK with its highest death toll.

UKIP had agreed not to compete in marginal seats so as to not split the Leave vote. Worked rather well and we must thank Nigel Farage (again) for putting us in a position where Brexit can be achieved and Democracy satisfied.

So why in 2019 did the Brexit Party not do the same?

It was a Brexit Election.

CASE CLOSED.

I don't agree and there's no evidence in support of that but, even if it were, it's still not worked! Four years down the line and all that we have to show for it is a mere statement that UK has left EU - nothing more - which is therefore meaningless in terms of impact on UK citizens as almost nothing has changed for any of them.

The "case" (one of those "silly legal cases" of which you are wont to write?) would seem not even to have been opened properly yet...

Do bear in mind that, whatever the intent or the progress or lack thereof, no European country will look anything like the same as it did at the time of the last GE; that will inevitably make a vast difference to whatever happens or doesn't happen in the future.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Even Blair agrees with me. It was a Brexit Election.
Everyone seems to know it, apart from you.
It doesn't matter where we are in the negotiations as we are leaving deal or no deal. I expect Italy and Holland to follow.

[ahinton]

Even Blair agrees with me. It was a Brexit Election.
Everyone seems to know it, apart from you.
It doesn't matter where we are in the negotiations as we are leaving deal or no deal. I expect Italy and Holland to follow.

Plenty of people disagree with that.

Brexit was undoubtedly an important factor, but it would have been disastrous had it (or indeed any single other topic) been the only issue on which the electorate focused and voted in the GE; that would have represented the height (or rather depths) of electoral irresponsibility, as though UK's membership or otherwise of EU was deemed to be of greater importance than any other UK-specific topic on the electoral agenda.

It didn't influence my voting decision, for a start.

If it doesn't matter where we are in the negotiations, what on earth was the point of starting and continuing with them at such vast expense to the UK taxpayer?

Holland couldn't leave on its own without seceding from The Netherlands first.

If EU does eventually collapse (unlikely thought not impossible), Western Europe will find itself back to where it was almost 80 years ago; heaven help us all should that happen! Churchill would turn in his grave rapidly enough to generate sustainable electricity!

Moreover, just think of all the money that UK would have spent in trying to leave something that no longer exists by the time that it might otherwise do so! I'm sure that "the people" who "have spoken" would have plenty to say about that!

In the meantime, COVID-19 is not only a spanner in the UK/EU negotiations but also a topic that's generating grave misgivings about UK's handling of it compared to that of a number of other nations; increasing recognition of this will do the current (mal)administration no favours whatsoever and the series of platitudes / statements of the obvious / clichés / soundbites and general vagueness foisted upon us by the PM do nothing to detract therefrom...

Another factor undermining the importance of Brexit is that none of the 28 countries can have a clue as to the shape in which their respective economies will find themselves by the time of the current (though doubtless to be extended) deadline for UK/EU negotiations; since so much depends upon all of those economies, it will remain impossible to determine how anything even could, let alone would, be played out at this point.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I see the pathetic remoaners want a 2 year extension.
No, no and a thousand times no.

[ahinton]

I see the pathetic remoaners want a 2 year extension.
No, no and a thousand times no.

I have no idea who "the pathetic remoaners" are so cannot comment on that; are they perhaps a political party of which for some reason I have yet to hear?

I would not seek an extension limited to any specific timescale as I believe that it would represent an impossibility in practice; it might be long enough or it might be nothing like long enough and much (though of course not all) will inevitably depend upon the extent to which COVID-19 and its impacts various in every EU member state including UK will affect the progress (or regress) of all the necessary negotiations; for example, although some member states including UK are beginning to relax certain restrictions, no one can or will know what the outcome of these might be, especially in terms of whether case and death tolls suddenly begin to rise again sufficiently to encourage any or all member states to reimpose such restrictions.

The transparent ruse on the part of certain UK Eurosceptics to hide that aspect of the forthcoming activity behind the effects of COVID-19 are quite obviously cynical and can be seen for what they are.

As to any consideration of "no deal", anyone who took and continues to take the referendum result seriously (which I don't because I am unable to take the referendum itself seriously) should bear in mind that the electorate was not asked for its views on "deal or no deal" so, as that matter was never discussed or voted on at the time but is nevertheless crucial to what might or might happen, there should be a second referendum, in the absence of a deal being agreed, to enable the electorate to determine whether it deems a "no deal" Brexit to be acceptable.

Why? For a number of reasons, arguably the most important of which is that any "no deal" Brexit would be an unsanctioned recipe for increased animosity between UK and EU which would reflect adversely upon both in its aftermath.

All that said, however, by the time that negotiations come to and end (if ever they do) and whatever their outcomes might be, the economic impact of COVID-19 will alone have created such a different climate throughout EU that the T&Cs being negotiated will be way different to what they were the day after the referendum in ways and to extents that could never have been predicted by anyone at that time.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I can safely say that if a second Brexit referendum was to be held, I wouldn't vote in it.

[ahinton]

I can safely say that if a second Brexit referendum was to be held, I wouldn't vote in it.

No, I well understand that in principle and I would be most reluctant to do so myself given that this entire issue should never have been put to referendum in the first place but, somehow, if we ever got to the point at which the choice was removed and that the only outcome would be a no-deal Brexit, what would you advocate in preference to a second referendum given that no one voted or was given an opportunity to vote for anything like that in the first one?...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

To be honest, I think debating the minutiae of which kind of Brexit we get is almost irrelevant. It's about time it got dealt with and we can adapt to the new challenges it brings. It started as a binary remain yes/no question, not a yes/soft no/hard no, and I don't agree with retrospective cavilling regarding the nature of the referendum or of the result. I fully accept that the covid-19 situation should be a priority and if it causes further delays, that's probably an inevitable consequence of the associated uncertainties, but I don't think it's acceptable to string it out almost indefinitely and then say "whoops, lots of time has passed, we'd better have another referendum". It was always going to be a major undertaking, and one which the EU have absolutely no incentive to cooperate in, but it needs to happen or else democracy looks like a sham. Parties are imo free to campaign for reentry but not for annulment.

[ahinton]

To be honest, I think debating the minutiae of which kind of Brexit we get is almost irrelevant. It's about time it got dealt with and we can adapt to the new challenges it brings. It started as a binary remain yes/no question, not a yes/soft no/hard no, and I don't agree with retrospective cavilling regarding the nature of the referendum or of the result. I fully accept that the covid-19 situation should be a priority and if it causes further delays, that's probably an inevitable consequence of the associated uncertainties, but I don't think it's acceptable to string it out almost indefinitely and then say "whoops, lots of time has passed, we'd better have another referendum". It was always going to be a major undertaking, and one which the EU have absolutely no incentive to cooperate in, but it needs to happen or else democracy looks like a sham. Parties are imo free to campaign for reentry but not for annulment.

If "debating the minutiae of which kind of Brexit we get is almost irrelevant" there would be no point in further negotiations and little purpose in those that have already taken place; every word of such negotiations will inevitably impact upon the kind of Brexit that we get, assuming that we get one at all.

As to "the new challenges it brings", we won't even begin to know about those, let alone how best to address them, until the negotiating is done and dusted - and that seems a very long way off.

You "don't agree with retrospective cavilling regarding the nature of the referendum or of the result"; that there is indeed no point in such cavilling should not blind anyone to the grave shortcomings of what has brought UK to where it is now and how it has done so.

You "don't think it's acceptable to string it out almost indefinitely and then say "whoops, lots of time has passed, we'd better have another referendum"", yet the very facts that stringing it out indefinitely is precisely what has happened since 24 June 2016 and that there remains no end in sight clarify beyond all doubt that UK hasn't a clue what to do since the referendum result tripped up a government that expected a Remain outcome and had made no contingency plans for a Leave one. I do not advocate a second referendum purely because of the amount of time that has elapsed without conclusions; I merely suggested the possible need for one if ultimate breakdown of negotiatons leaves UK facing a "no deal" Brexit for which no one voted and for which no one was asked or able to vote. Leaving EU with a deal on everything that will have been discussed is a very different situation to leaving without any deal whatsoever, especially if it will have taken five or more years to get to the point at which it becomes clear which of the two it shall be. The electorate should not have imposed upon it something for which it did not and was not asked to vote.

You note correctly that "it was always going to be a major undertaking, and one which the EU have absolutely no incentive to cooperate in". The first of these is true only because a tiny majority voted to leave; had the vote gone the other way, the status quo would have been maintained and so no "major undertaking" would have presented itself. The second is true in part because no other EU member state has ever sought UK's departure, so EU is being obliged by UK to spend immense amounts of time and resources, funded by all member states, in dealing with UK and the confusion and uncertainties of its approaches. Frankly, "democracy looks like a sham" already; the referendum itself was an undemocratic process, its result was unexpected by the government that called it and what has happened since has done nothing to persuade anyone of its democratic validity.

Were parties "free to campaign for reentry but not for annulment", the humungous omnishambles that has already covered UK in shame and ridicule would only come to be exacerbated by a successful campaign to re-enter EU in the immediate aftermath of more than five years of trying to get out of it! The final shred of UK's international credibility would thereby evaporate.

All that remains now is ongoing confusion and uncertainty, depleting trust in a government that seems unconcernedly to display its burgeoning incompetence in dealing with both COVID-19 and Brexit; a stalemate of that government's own making is now being enhanced by the former issue having to take precedence over the latter both in UK and in the rest of EU, as all countries are gravely affected thereby.

If any of the above constitutes a recipe for confidence, I'm Vladimir Horowitz!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It's about time it got dealt with and we can adapt to the new challenges it brings.

but it needs to happen or else democracy looks like a sham. Parties are imo free to campaign for reentry but not for annulment.

I have pulled out two things from your post which brings joy to my heart.

Unfortunately, His Royal Hintoness, would rather see Democracy fail to satisfy his beliefs.

[thalbergmad]

I have not studied the news extensively this morning, but it would appear there are some positives.

1. An extension would seem to be increasingly unlikely.
2. The Immigration Bill is likely to be passed ending Free Movement and heralding a fairer points based system.
3. The French have effectively been told to get stuffed over fishing rights.
4. Fat Guts Blackford and his pissy little mates will never succeed.

Thal

[ahinton]

Royal Hintoness

Is that an English place name?

would rather see Democracy fail to satisfy his beliefs.

That is the last thing that I would like to see. This is one reason why, when the referendum was proposed, I could already see the beginnings of its failure, at least in that respect, because Parliament, with its duty to uphold democracy and powers and processes with which to exercise it, decided to duck its responsibilities and ask the electorate for advice; what my beliefs might or might not be does not and cannot countermand that fact, because there is no argument that this is exactly what happened (and exceptionally, since Parliament has never ducked its statutory responsibilities in respect of the passage of any other legislation).

So, for the record, I fervently uphold and endorse democracy and do not wish to witness its failure, howsoever and by whomsoever caused.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I have not studied the news extensively this morning, but it would appear there are some positives.

1. An extension would seem to be increasingly unlikely.

You have no more idea about that than I do at this stage, although what would be more concerning is what would happen if such an extension proved necessary but was ruled out.

2. The Immigration Bill is likely to be passed ending Free Movement and heralding a fairer points based system.

Again, you can know no more about that than I can but the unfettered and indiscriminate ending of Free Movement will have dire consequences in many aspects of life in UK; indeed, it is already threatening to do so. Aside from medical staff, I would have thought the concerns aired in https://www.nme.com/news/non-uk-musicians-will-need-visa-to-perform-in-the-country-from-2021-2612337?fbclid=IwAR3OyZEnDLj1jeD8rco-sCmpuJd1Fe79odeAxVQPJVq3d-MugoSrhp9FjQg and elsewhere to be of interest to you, even though NME is hardly a journal that either of us is likely to read...

3. The French have effectively been told to get stuffed over fishing rights.

It matters not a jot what anyone might tell the French, Spanish or anyone else about fishing rights; what does matter is that reasonable ones are negotiated and, should that prove unsuccessful or their outcome unreasonably weighted against UK interests, we can expect fishing wars on a large scale, which will be in no one's interests.

4. Fat Guts Blackford and his pissy little mates will never succeed.

In what?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

OK, it's from The Guardian, I know, but...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/18/britain-trust-coronavirus-government-pandemic-public?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR11BkgGU7MYtqqNSumg3YQF2taWSl1T3sP0P0HFXHV_-Cb7kobWaE_ww54

...what's to argue with here?

This, however, isn't...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-tory-government-christmas-cabinet-brexit-coronavirus-trade-a9520076.html?fbclid=IwAR2nWPHLlwUs_xepTsMf61Daat4grw5fD2OKhvLZKVOumDC25h2wBbuNN4Q

It hardly bears contemplating how all of this will go down with those swathes of traditional Labour supporters who, understandably dismayed at the antics of their own party, voted Conservative in their droves at the most recent GE and gave the current administration the largest majority that they've secured in many years.

OK, no one could have predicted and accordingly been fully prepared for COVID-19 and its impacts, but one has only to consider the raft of restrictions imposed upon NHS since 2010 alongside the contradictions, confusions and terminological inexactitudes that that beleaguer UK's current government antics to appreciate the warnings outlined not only in these two articles but also others in a wider variety of publications.

If there's one quality to praise (and I do say "if"), it's the reliable consistency in that a simlar level of discombobulation characterises the same administration's handling of Brexit.

With COVID-19 still confining movements as it is doing, the next General Election will have to be held quite differently and electors not already registered for voting via mail would be well advised to become so a.s.a.p.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Worthless left wing horse crap.
This is the funniest bit:
"Labour’s frontbench of serious, earnest policy heavyweights"
Just about sums it up.
Boris might well be gone by Christmas.
Christmas 2030.

[ahinton]

Worthless left wing horse crap.

No horses were injured in these articles and none of their excrement used therein.

This is the funniest bit:
"Labour’s frontbench of serious, earnest policy heavyweights"
Just about sums it up.

I do agree with you there, since that description could probably only be applied to the party's current leader who has only been in office for a few weeks.

Boris might well be gone by Christmas.

Christmas 2030.

I don't know when Boris will die but, as far as party leadership is concerned, just consider how many Tory party leaders there have been since the referendum and how many the paty got through when last it was in opposition. The prospect of BoJo remaining in office as long as this coming Christmas is appalling enough; let's see what happens.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Boris has a well deserved and large majority. Many previous leaders did not. That is why he will last.
He got that majority as he respected a democratic vote. The other leaders did not.
He offered a way to break the stalemate. The other leaders did not.
He will not cave into EU demands. The other leaders would have.
He wanted to end free movement which he is doing. The other leaders would have kept the floodgates open
He is not going anywhere despite the pathetic lefty attacks and the worthless BBC.
When this Covid nonsense is over, it will be noted that the amount of healthy people it has killed is in the hundreds and the amount of diabetics it has killed is in the thousands.
Comparing us with other Countries and trying to score political points is as pathetic as it is worthless.

[ahinton]

He is not going anywhere

Very true - though not in the sense that you intend!

When this Covid nonsense is over

Oh, so you believe it to be "nonsense", then? Interesting! And sad.

Comparing us with other Countries and trying to score political points is as pathetic as it is worthless.

It's not about comparing UK with other countries per se; it's about comparing the ways in which UK has so far handled this crisis compared to those which some others have done so.

It certainly seems to be true that the number of diabetics, both Type II and Type I, that have died from COVID-19 is not insignificant, but as that fact does nothing to undermine the fact of their having died of a virus that you nevertheless cavalierly describe as a "nonsense", it is unclear why you are raising this.

The proportion of people who have died from the virus in care homes is also significant; what might you say about that?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

People who are in care homes are probably already ill dimwit.
The amount of healthy people that have died from it is minute, but it is the healthy that are paying the price by being forced in lockdown.
Anyway, back to Brexit

[ahinton]

People who are in care homes are probably already ill dimwit.

Dimwit is a singular noun; people a plural one.

By no means all care home residents are dimwits and, in any case, I am unaware of evidence that any form of dementia renders sufferers more susceptible to death from COVID-19 than they would otherwise be.

The point here, however, is that many who have died from the virus in care homes would obviously not have done so had they not contracted it, whether or not they had pre-existing conditions and, likewise, some who have died from it outside care homes (i.e. at home or in hospital) also had pre-existing conditions but would still not have done so without first having contracted it.

The amount of healthy people that have died from it is minute, but it is the healthy that are paying the price by being forced in lockdown.

Not as minute as you imply.

I am assuming that you oppose lockdown in principle; maybe you could explain why.

I remain uncertain as to whether it's been the most appropriate way to address the disease so refrain from dogmaticism about it either way, but deaths from it in Germany, though way lower than those in UK (whose population is lower than Germany's) have taken an upward leap since Germany decided to relax certain restrictions. Only time will tell, I guess.

I'd be unsurprised if, in the event of upward spirals in cases and/or deaths, some nations might reimpose lockdowns or introduce even more severe ones and maintain them until an effective vaccine has been developed, tested, approved, manufactured, distributed and administered - and all that won't happen next month!

Anyway, back to Brexit

Indeed. Best way. I've always had my back to Brexit. I'll keep it that way! I'm reminded of Sorabji's barb about Stravinsky's once widely advertised "back to Bach" in the 1920s, namely "there he stands - with his back to Bach!"...

Mention of COVID-19 here is due to its impact upon the economies of all 28 EU member states and the unrecognisably different situation which will accordingly have visited itself on them well before any Brexit deadline. Whilst not a political issue, it is bound to have massive repercussions upon EU, UK and the relationship between the two (whatever that might turn out to be), thereby impacting substantially on any form of Brexit should it come to pass.

In the meantime, are you OK with the requirement for expensive visas for musicians to enter UK after Brexit should it occur? - and the likely concomitant response towards UK musicians visiting EU member states? Just curious....

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

By no means all care home residents are dimwits and, in any case, I am unaware of evidence that any form of dementia renders sufferers more susceptible to death from COVID-19 than they would otherwise be

.

Any endocrinologist will tell you that the driving force behind dementia is obesity and the link between that condition and COVID-19 survival rates is already well established.

The point here, however, is that many who have died from the virus in care homes would obviously not have done so had they not contracted it, whether or not they had pre-existing conditions and, likewise, some who have died from it outside care homes (i.e. at home or in hospital) also had pre-existing conditions but would still not have done so without first having contracted it

It is almost impossible to stop it unless we place people in a bubble. Science has been reasonably useless a stopping infection from normal flu.

I am assuming that you oppose lockdown in principle; maybe you could explain why

When all of this is over and the damage to the economy, our children, the thousands of businesses destroyed and the numerous lives ruined with untold suicides, i wonder if the price of the disease would be found to be equal to the price of the cure

I remain uncertain as to whether it's been the most appropriate way to address the disease so refrain from dogmaticism about it either way, but deaths from it in Germany, though way lower than those in UK (whose population is lower than Germany's) have taken an upward leap since Germany decided to relax certain restrictions. Only time will tell, I guess

Comparisons are useless as we do not know exactly how they are measuring the results.

I'd be unsurprised if, in the event of upward spirals in cases and/or deaths, some nations might reimpose lockdowns or introduce even more severe ones and maintain them until an effective vaccine has been developed, tested, approved, manufactured, distributed and administered - and all that won't happen next month!

After restrictions have been lifted i do not see them coming back. The current restrictions we have are being flouted on an industrial scale and are therefore totally unenforceable.

Indeed. Best way. I've always had my back to Brexit. I'll keep it that way! I'm reminded of Sorabji's barb about Stravinsky's once widely advertised "back to Bach" in the 1920s, namely "there he stands - with his back to Bach!"...

How did i know he would be mentioned?

In the meantime, are you OK with the requirement for expensive visas for musicians to enter UK after Brexit should it occur? - and the likely concomitant response towards UK musicians visiting EU member states? Just curious....

As long as musicians from non EU Countries are treated the same, I have no problem with this, especially if it stops musicians returning to infest the Country with Sorabji.

Thal

[ahinton]

Any endocrinologist will tell you that the driving force behind dementia is obesity and the link between that condition and COVID-19 survival rates is already well established.

Be that as it may, there are many dementia patients outside care homes.

It is almost impossible to stop it unless we place people in a bubble.

So what's your view on lockdown and what influences it?

You appear to have quoted a large proportion of my email but have yet to respond to it.

Best,

Alistair


I am assuming that you oppose lockdown in principle; maybe you could explain why.

I remain uncertain as to whether it's been the most appropriate way to address the disease so refrain from dogmaticism about it either way, but deaths from it in Germany, though way lower than those in UK (whose population is lower than Germany's) have taken an upward leap since Germany decided to relax certain restrictions. Only time will tell, I guess.

I'd be unsurprised if, in the event of upward spirals in cases and/or deaths, some nations might reimpose lockdowns or introduce even more severe ones and maintain them until an effective vaccine has been developed, tested, approved, manufactured, distributed and administered - and all that won't happen next month!
Indeed. Best way. I've always had my back to Brexit. I'll keep it that way! I'm reminded of Sorabji's barb about Stravinsky's once widely advertised "back to Bach" in the 1920s, namely "there he stands - with his back to Bach!"...

Mention of COVID-19 here is due to its impact upon the economies of all 28 EU member states and the unrecognisably different situation which will accordingly have visited itself on them well before any Brexit deadline. Whilst not a political issue, it is bound to have massive repercussions upon EU, UK and the relationship between the two (whatever that might turn out to be), thereby impacting substantially on any form of Brexit should it come to pass.

In the meantime, are you OK with the requirement for expensive visas for musicians to enter UK after Brexit should it occur? - and the likely concomitant response towards UK musicians visiting EU member states? Just curious....

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I ave now responded to everything and I am going for my morning dump.

Doesn't matter where dementia sufferers live. It is driven by obesity and obesity increases fatality from COVID.

That was my point now bog off.

[ahinton]

I ave now responded to everything

You haven't. Your choice, though.

and I am going for my morning dump

Your choice.

Doesn't matter where dementia sufferers live. It is driven by obesity and obesity increases fatality from COVID.

Nonsense. There are several kinds of dementia and there are plenty of dementia sufferers who are not obese. Yes, obesity might well increase the risk of fatality from COVID-19 but the same can be and indeed has been said for quite a number of other different medical conditions; moreover, some people have died from COVID-19 without any pre-existing conditions.

That was my point

You've made hardly any in the first place and what you have begs further questions, hence my posts in respose thereto.

In particular, you have not specified whether or not you oppose any form of lockdown and, if so, on what particular grounds.

But to return once again to the thread topic, whilst the extent to which obesity might raise patients' susceptibility to dementia might remain open to question, it could be argued that dementia renders some people more susceptible to supporting Brexit...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

.


It is almost impossible to stop it unless we place people in a bubble. Science has been reasonably useless a stopping infection from normal flu.

When all of this is over and the damage to the economy, our children, the thousands of businesses destroyed and the numerous lives ruined with untold suicides, i wonder if the price of the disease would be found to be equal to the price of the cure.

Sadly, I have to agree with this. And, tbh, broadly speaking, there appears to be a stronger correlation between death rates and population density than there is between stringency of the lockdown and death rates.

You simply can't continue policies which are going to result in a very significant percentage of the population being made unemployed and expect no collateral damage. Some tough choices are needing to be made in the very near future. Thankfully the infection rate is much reduced.

[thalbergmad]

Nonsense. There are several kinds of dementia and there are plenty of dementia sufferers who are not obese. Yes, obesity might well increase the risk of fatality from COVID-19 but the same can be and indeed has been said for quite a number of other different medical conditions; moreover, some people have died from COVID-19 without any pre-existing conditions.

What i said was not my opinion, but the opinion of Dr Robert Lustig who is probably the leading endocrinologist in the World. Send him your uninformed comments.
Obesity is not always visible to the eye and it is the visceral obesity that is normally the problem.
Dementia is a endocrinology disease and is under the umbrella of metabolic syndrome.
The amount of people who have died from COVID-19 who had no pre existing conditions is incredibly small. It is important to point out that thousands will have had it and not required any medical assistance, so they will not be on the statistics. Thousands more will have had it and though it was the normal flu or just a bad cold. Again, they will not be part of the statistics. COVID-19 is listed on death certificates of patients who were days away from death from cancer and the like. It did not cause the fatality. Normal flu would not have been listed.

[thalbergmad]

Sadly, I have to agree with this. And, tbh, broadly speaking, there appears to be a stronger correlation between death rates and population density than there is between stringency of the lockdown and death rates.

You simply can't continue policies which are going to result in a very significant percentage of the population being made unemployed and expect no collateral damage. Some tough choices are needing to be made in the very near future. Thankfully the infection rate is much reduced.

I cannot work as the gyms are closed and i am not even allowed to take clients to the park to train them. Daft when you think that physical fitness is just about the best medicine to cope with viruses.
Many gyms will go bust, along with cafes, restaurants, barbers, printers and a thousand other small businesses.
Musicians are also crippled and i wonder how many will end up doing other jobs to survive.
From the statistics I have seen, I honestly think the price we are paying is too much.
I will see you in the fields picking strawberries lol

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Yeah, anything which is small business-based is in big trouble of this goes on any longer. The UK economy is very heavily service industry dependent, and many things are likely to become completely unviable if social distancing is a requirement. We're definitely past the peak of the virus, thankfully, but the economic fallout is going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later.

[thalbergmad]

We sing from the same hymnsheet.

Regretfully, HRH (His Royal Hintoness) does not.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Social distancing won't affect attendance at Sorabji recitals.

 

(I know my little joke will be 'addressed' within two hours!)

[ahinton]

broadly speaking, there appears to be a stronger correlation between death rates and population density than there is between stringency of the lockdown and death rates.

Indeed; inevitably, methinks.

You simply can't continue policies which are going to result in a very significant percentage of the population being made unemployed and expect no collateral damage. Some tough choices are needing to be made in the very near future. Thankfully the infection rate is much reduced.

No, that's very true; the problem is that we simply do not know enough to be certain of which risks to take, where and when. If having most people back in their workplaces, their schools, on public transport running once again at full service and the rest does result in a sudden increase in case and death toll statistics, the government will almost certainly find itself forced to reimpose lockdown; I am not suggesting that this would be the outcome of that - I do not pretend to know - but it does seem that even the relatively minor relaxations in Germany have had such an effect to some extent. We'll just have to see.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

What i said was not my opinion, but the opinion of Dr Robert Lustig who is probably the leading endocrinologist in the World. Send him your uninformed comments.
Obesity is not always visible to the eye and it is the visceral obesity that is normally the problem.
Dementia is a endocrinology disease and is under the umbrella of metabolic syndrome.
The amount of people who have died from COVID-19 who had no pre existing conditions is incredibly small. It is important to point out that thousands will have had it and not required any medical assistance, so they will not be on the statistics. Thousands more will have had it and though it was the normal flu or just a bad cold. Again, they will not be part of the statistics. COVID-19 is listed on death certificates of patients who were days away from death from cancer and the like. It did not cause the fatality. Normal flu would not have been listed.

Thank you for all of this which, of course, is fair comment, of course - indeed, your points here are all valid - but do bear in mind that I did not anywhere suggest that obesity and/or dementia played no part in this; as ronde states, population density is another factor, as indeed is age and general health.

There are many definable reasons behind most deaths from COVID-19, including but not limited to those two that you singled out; I write "most" because there are also, as you recognise, a relatively small number of people who have contracted the virus and a smaller number who have died from it who do not fit into the kinds of category concerned - i.e. those who are not old, living in densely populated areas or with pre-existing medical conditions - as well as some more who might have contracted it but been asymptomatic and more again who, whatever they thought it might have been, were not actually diagnosed with it so, as you rightly state, are excluded from statistics.

What, however, would you advocate doing about those patients, whether or not in care homes, who have any form of obesity or dementia when considering how best to addess the problem that they present in respect of COVID-19 vulnerability?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I cannot work as the gyms are closed and i am not even allowed to take clients to the park to train them. Daft when you think that physical fitness is just about the best medicine to cope with viruses.

I take your point although I did not realise that the business that you now run is involved in this kind of work.

Many gyms will go bust, along with cafes, restaurants, barbers, printers and a thousand other small businesses.

Indeed so; in fact, some already have done.

Musicians are also crippled and i wonder how many will end up doing other jobs to survive.

That is indeed the case but there are few other jobs around right now anyway. Some of them are putting out performances onlineand some are teaching via Zoom and the like, though what income any of them might derive from the former I have no idea although I suspect that it will be a fraction of what it was.

To return briefly to the thread topic, though, your concern for musicians, whilst welcome, seems not to extend to expressing disagreement with the visa arrangements proposed for visiting musicians following Brexit should it happen (and which will only serve to compound the problem to which you rightly draw attention) and I'm sure that I'm not alone in being interested in your thoughts on that.

From the statistics I have seen, I honestly think the price we are paying is too much.

From this I assume that you do not favour lockdown. As I was at pains to clarify above, I do not know whether or not this has been the best policy, although I suspect that the outcome of no lockdown might have been equally disavantageous, albeit in different ways.

I will see you in the fields picking strawberries lol

Well, you won't see me doing that; not fit enough!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Yeah, anything which is small business-based is in big trouble of this goes on any longer. The UK economy is very heavily service industry dependent, and many things are likely to become completely unviable if social distancing is a requirement. We're definitely past the peak of the virus, thankfully, but the economic fallout is going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later.

We do not yet know if that peak, even if it has passed, will not recur; we will know more about that from two principal information sources, the first being the impact on the disease's prevalence following relaxation of restrictions and the second whether or not those who test positive for it have thereby gained immunity from it.

The economic fallout will be immense - indeed, it already is - and, whatever actions are taken now and in the immediate future, its repercussions are likely to last for years rather than months; government financing and bailing out of this and that will likely prove ever more problematic because (a) tax revenues will be depleted for the foreseeable future (indeed, they already are) and (b) the ability to borrow squillions from elsewhere will inevitably be compromised by the fact that, even with record low interest rates, most potential lenders will have their own problems to face and might therefore be less willing than they'd otherwise have been to lend the vast sums needed.

I do not wish to sound like a prophet of doom but this is a global pandemic and a global economic disaster is one of its casualties.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

We sing from the same hymnsheet.

Broadly speaking, all three of us do, as the above should clarify.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Social distancing won't affect attendance at Sorabji recitals.

 

(I know my little joke will be 'addressed' within two hours!)

It will be addressed now! Indeed it won't affect it. It won't affect attendance at Beethoven, Chopin or even Thalberg recitals either. Why? Because there aren't any!

Best,

Alistair