Farage has just said he will not stand candidates in the seats that the Conservatives won in the last election. About 317 seats I think. He says it's because Johnson made a speech yesterday in which he leaned in the direction of a Canada free trade relationship with the EU. Apparently the Mail on Sunday turned the screws on Farage yesterday.

I voted remain, but would have been happy with a sensible deal and respectful alignment with the EU, while maintaining our international reputation and integrity. — Punshhh

I think that is the view of a significant minority of remainers - me included. We are bowing to the need for compromise and a resolution to the problem, hence the remain vote is fraying. (Most leave voters are I think too emotionally involved - having been whipped up into a frenzy by Farage and his like, to consider compromising, as SSU pointed out) As it happens I do know someone who voted remain before but says he'd vote leave in a 2nd ref. Anecdotal of course, but ..

Farage has just said he will not stand candidates in the seats that the Conservatives won in the last election. About 317 seats I think. He says it's because Johnson made a speech yesterday in which he leaned in the direction of a Canada free trade relationship with the EU. Apparently the Mail on Sunday turned the screws on Farage yesterday. — Punshhh

Yes I saw the headline "Stand down Nigel". :lol: Another Farage lie. It's nothing to do with the fact that he risked letting Labour in of course...

We are bowing to the need for compromise and a resolution to the problem, hence the remain vote is fraying

I would have accepted leave the day following the referendum up until Theresa May's first meaningful vote. Although I was critical of her failure to work across the house and was becoming reluctant by that point. From that point on, I have been vehemently remain due to the wrecking of our country by the Tory's. As we have descended into chaos and lashed out at the EU, there is no way I would support it now. You say you know someone who would vote leave know. Are they happy with this mess and to leave in this position of weakness and contempt for the EU?

It has emerged that Farage had been starting to examine what was wrong with Johnson's deal last week. As soon as the tabloids realised what he was up to, they turned on him and pressured him to get into bed with Johnson, at which point he rolled over. Because as they know, as soon as anyone starts to describe Brexit, it falls apart. The government will do anything, pull any stunt, to prevent scrutiny of his deal, because as soon as that happens it falls apart.

But unfortunately now that they are in bed, the Tory party has lost its soul and any moderate Tory's left will be leaving now.

It has been reported that the Labour Party campaign team has suffered a cyber attack. Just as Hillary Clinton has criticised the government for sitting on the Russia report. This story is growing fast.

The cabal at the centre of the hard right faction of the Conservative party during the 1970's and 80's were developing into populists. — Punshhh

Thatcherism still wasn't really populism and surely John Major wasn't a populist just as Tony Blair wasn't either. But of course political discourse has always been quite rude in the UK.

But do note that populism isn't only a right-wing thing. Hugo Chavez was the perfect example of left wing populism that has truly poisoned the political discourse of a country. The populism can be seen in the insistence that everything gone wrong is because of the evil imperialist gringos, that the rich have conspired against the 'common people'. Talking to the opposition would be betraying the cause.

It has been reported that the Labour Party campaign team has suffered a cyber attack. Just as Hillary Clinton has criticised the government for sitting on the Russia report. This story is growing fast. — Punshhh

Well, one really can't tell who it was yet. And if it would be Russia, remember that their goal is just to make Britain more weak, more hateful against each other and more distrustful of your own government, so that they are a bigger player in Europe. :wink:

Thatcherism still wasn't really populism and surely John Major wasn't a populist just as Tony Blair wasn't either. But of course political discourse has always been quite rude in the UK.

The cabal I was referring to was in the shadows, they were always confined to an enclave by the moderate, "one nation" Tory's who ran the governments. In order to win the centre ground the party had to show moderation and a nod to the ordinary folk, hence the slogan "one nation". It was never much more than a nod though. Now the cabal is front and centre for the first time, naked, who knows what will transpire.

Well, one really can't tell who it was yet. And if it would be Russia, remember that their goal is just to make Britain more weak, more hateful against each other and more distrustful of your own government, so that they are a bigger player in Europe. :wink:

Of interest to me is that it will contribute to a political row over the government refusing to publish the select committee report on possible Russian interference. A big headache for Johnson, it has already been leaked that Kremlin sponsored oligarchs had been smoozing with Tory politicians, including Johnson himself and making large contributions to Tory coffers. There are also rumours going round that Dominic Cummings was complicit, as he had spent a year working in Moscow a few years back.

Interesting intervention from David Gauke this morning a well respected Tory moderate. Saying that a Johnson majority would be bad for the country. It would likely drive the country of a cliff at the end of 2020, and the uncertainty wouldn't stop in the meantime, but intensify.

The cabal I was referring to was in the shadows, they were always confined to an enclave by the moderate, "one nation" Tory's who ran the governments. — Punshhh

Yes, I've always thought that there has had to be behind this all a power play in the conservative party. Once the fateful error of a vote on the EU was made by the leadership of the conservative party, then this cabal went public. Or so I assume.

Of interest to me is that it will contribute to a political row over the government refusing to publish the select committee report on possible Russian interference. A big headache for Johnson, it has already been leaked that Kremlin sponsored oligarchs had been smoozing with Tory politicians, including Johnson himself and making large contributions to Tory coffers. There are also rumours going round that Dominic Cummings was complicit, as he had spent a year working in Moscow a few years back. — Punshhh

Now here's what I find absolutely fascinating.

You would think that such active measures intent on sowing discord in the West would be seen through, understood and make the West to get angry as possible and make it retaliate. Conventional wisdom would say that so bold moves wouldn't be a smart thing to do especially with the US and UK that have together various ways of retaliating. But here we come to the genius of Vladimir Putin.

The secret is that spreading discord simply works, as there was (and is) genuine discord even without Russian involvement. It's just pouring gasoline into an already burning fire. Russia didn't make people in the UK being unhappy about the EU. Russia didn't make Scotland to vote for independence. Russia didn't make Republicans hate Hillary. But all these things Russia supported by active measures. If you think that the SNP and Scottish Independence is totally out of whack in the category, it is so! But for Russia it's the same thing: there isn't any genuine ideology behind Russia's actions. Hence the accusation "Russia has meddled in our politics" becomes in the ears of those angry about the issues as a condemnation "you are Russian trolls!".

In the US any talk of the actual Russian involvement has become just a ploy of the Democrats! Partisanship rules and destros any kind of true response to the isssue. We can see the absolutely crazy way how the FBI has been accused first of being Pro-Trump Anti-Clinton and the out of nowhere being Anti-Trump Pro-Clinton. And Putin is happy.

Interesting intervention from David Gauke this morning a well respected Tory moderate. Saying that a Johnson majority would be bad for the country. It would likely drive the country of a cliff at the end of 2020, and the uncertainty wouldn't stop in the meantime, but intensify. — Punshhh

Given the withdrawal deal will be signed, sealed and delivered by then, what exactly is the cliff edge at the end of 2020? Is it just no trade deal - so a fallback to WTO terms? If so, wouldn't this self-evidently be an own goal ? Ok we'd stop paying the EU members fees and taking EU laws too, but would exporters settle for that ? I'm not sure where the balance of pros and cons is at that stage..

Given the withdrawal deal will be signed, sealed and delivered by then, what exactly is the cliff edge at the end of 2020? Is it just no trade deal - so a fallback to WTO terms? If so, wouldn't this self-evidently be an own goal ? Ok we'd stop paying the EU members fees and taking EU laws too, but would exporters settle for that ? I'm not sure where the balance of pros and cons is at that stage..

Yes, I'm not sure what would happen at that point, David Gauke described it as moving to world trade rules, but many commentators, including well informed ones describe it as a cliff edge.
Regardless of just what would be involved, it would be just as febrile as the March 31st, or October 31st, with just as much uncertainty as we have now, so businesses will still suffer, public services will still be in crisis, important legislation would be kicked into the long grass, or not brought forward, just as over the last two years.

Everyone who knows what is involved in the next stage of negotiations says it will be at the very least 3 years to thrash out something that can be agreed on for going forward. But this cliff edge is in one year. Johnson's shambles of a government doesn't inspire me with confidence about this. Also we shouldn't be under any illusions about the fact that Johnson has secured the support of the ERG and a number of Brexit party supporters on the promise that he will drag his feet during the negotiations so that the cliff edge happens at the end of that period.

So it's more of the same, more division, more uncertainty, we will probably go into recession and Scotland will be set to leave in short order. There will be major crisis in the NHS and other public services, far worse than the crisis which is emerging right now.

Happy days, still at least we will be respecting democracy, because if we don't democracy is broken. The people voted to leave, so we must leave, why did we vote to leave? Because we wanted to leave, so we must leave, do or die, get over it you remoaners (not).

Yes, very interesting. Putin should take care with Europe because a large revenue stream comes from the gas pipeline to Europe. As far as I know most of the wealth in Russia comes from fossil fuels. If this falls he will be in trouble.

I would have accepted leave the day following the referendum up until Theresa May's first meaningful vote. — Punshhh

Worth pointing out that most remainers-become-leavers are probably of this 'accepting' mindset __ democrats that is. Bad idea but will of the people is perhaps almost all of them. Whereas leavers-become-remainers, fewer though they may be, must have actually changed their minds.

The latest polls show the Tories cracking 40%, Labour cracking 30% and the Brexit Party down at 5%. It looks more like the old 2-horse race now. Farage seems to be losing influence by the day. Is Tory pressure to give them a clear run at Labour marginals by standing down Brexit MPs working? Even if Farage ignores them it looks like voters are getting the message.

I think Labour's socialist style huge spending plans are going to be shot to pieces soon - possibly by a bullet fired by McDonald into his own foot. The one good thing to come out of this election may be the end of Corbyn..

And the Union.( I don't mean it's a good thing. But the best way to prevent Scotland leaving is a Labour coalition)

Yes, very interesting. Putin should take care with Europe because a large revenue stream comes from the gas pipeline to Europe. As far as I know most of the wealth in Russia comes from fossil fuels. If this falls he will be in trouble. — Punshhh

This is the crucial issue. Putin's aggressive stance isn't in the end at all the best way to handle these issues.

You see in Central Asia once after 9/11 happened, the US established bases and started military cooperation with the "Stans". Yet in this case Russia simply waited it out. And what do you know: there are NO active US bases in Central Asia apart from Afghanistan. None. The logistical support for the Afghan was is flown from a NATO country Romania, if I remember correctly. So the neocons came, hassled around... and left. Russia stayed. Simply by waiting passively the Russians held their ground.

This could have been a similar politicy when Ukraine went up in flames. Simply to have the Ukrainians have again a color revolution of some sort and simply keep cool and now that the disaster called Ukraine won't get into NATO. Above all, Ukraine would have a large section of Pro-Russian people voting and the ties to EU would be totally different. NATO wouldn't have waken up from the slumber it was in and would still be looking for a reason to exist.

But no. Putin can go now into the history books with annexing back Crimea, an economic disaster zone with not much to give Russia else than historical prestige. And after annexing parts from two countries now the Europeans won't brush it aside. In the end the outcome could be expected from a former head of the FSB that in order to improve his popularity first started a war by blowing up apartment buildings in a Moscow suburb.

And the Union.( I don't mean it's a good thing. But the best way to prevent Scotland leaving is a Labour coalition) — Punshhh

Do you mean 'the end of the union'? And that that's a good thing?

I think a Tory majority and leaving the EU would certainly add to pressure for a 2nd indie ref, but would the Tories give in to it?

A Labour/SNP coalition might prevent the Scots seeking to leave ASAP if the Labour 2nd EU ref returned a Remain result. But would even that silence Ms Sturgeon?

Do you mean 'the end of the union'? And that that's a good thing?

Yes the end of the union and that it would be a bad thing. Principly for England, it would certainly precipitate unification in Ireland and possibly Wales, but certainly Scotland. Where does that leave England? I suggest in a very vulnerable and exposed position in all regards. And why would we go down that route? Because the Conservative party lost touch with reality, I don't think that is a good enough reason. Better to ditch the Conservatives and preserve the Union and get back to some semblance of normality and statesmanship in our government.

I think a Tory majority and leaving the EU would certainly add to pressure for a 2nd indie ref, but would the Tories give in to it?

Yes, having that clown (Johnson) in Downing Street would certainly add to the pressure. The government would not be able to prevent it if the demand was clear. I don't think many English people realise the extent of the damage done to relations ( don't mention Johnson's relations) with the Scott's by this farce of a government. Cameron did a good job in shoring up the Union with the Scottish referendum. I think independence had been pushed into the long grass for a generation. But now that has all been kyboshed and the Scott's treated with contempt. Rather like the contempt with with the Irish have been treated. It really is remarkable what damage can be done when a political party goes wrong.

Yes the end of the union and that it would be a bad thing. Principly for England, it would certainly precipitate unification in Ireland and possibly Wales, but certainly Scotland. Where does that leave England? I suggest in a very vulnerable and exposed position in all regards. And why would we go down that route? — Punshhh

Why would the end of the Union be bad for England. Both Scotland and N Ireland (and I'm sure Wales) are subsidised by the English tax payer. By leaving they'd make England better off. England has 55m of the 65m UK population. Not that I'm in favour of the break-up, but I'm beginning to think it's inevitable that Ireland will be reunited and the Scots will vote for independence when (if) we leave the EU.

Perhaps it's another kick-back against globalisation, but there are other examples of small peoples wanting independence and their own state - the Catalans, the Kurds, the Sudan split, the Chechens, even going back to the break-up of Yugoslavia. It's not just a UK issue.

What have the examples you give got in common?

War and/or deep division between groups with all the animosity which is found in human nature.

I'm surprised you are not acknowledging the difficulties that would be faced. I shouldn't need to spell it out( although I find it common place amongst leavers, that they don't think of the consequences).

The kind of future envisioned by the government is to have quite rapid divergence in regulations, standards and tariffs. So it would require hard borders on every border around England. As a consequence of this divergence and the inevitable difficulties in negotiating future arrangements there would be great pressure to a open up new trade routes with other countries who are not in the EU, such as America, China, India. They would by that point be poised like vultures around a carcass.

This is not to mention the animosity between the people of these islands after they have been shafted by the clown in Downing Street.

I have barely started, but don't have much time now. It is an interesting subject though and probably should be considered here.

I'm surprised you are not acknowledging the difficulties that would be faced. I shouldn't need to spell it out( although I find it common place amongst leavers, that they don't think of the consequences). — Punshhh

Actually I was considering the idea of England being separate to the other countries in the UK completely regardless of Brexit. Yes the leaver-envisaged post-Brexit future would be bad news economically, but within that, I don't think England would suffer much additional pain from losing the other UK countries - if of course a good trade deal is negotiated with the EU.. Don't forget Scotland intends to keep the Pound even after leaving the UK, which given that they have no say over monetary policy can only harm them economically relative to England.

I think the idea of a quick divergence of the UK from EU standards and tarifs is self-evidently daft - losses would clearly outweigh gains. There is much simplistic bluster and 'blue-skies-thinking' from the Right, but if there is divergence it will be slow and not easy. As you say the pro-EU voices won't go away even after Brexit, and I doubt Boris will have enough of a majority to ignore them completely.

Rather like I say, in an ideal world, ( or a good deal with the EU) an independent England is an interesting concept. Although I don't see what reason there would be to go in that direction. I quite like the idea of an independent East Anglia, I'm not going to push for it though, why would I.

In the real world though we are in a mess, due to government incompetence and in fighting. Why would we go down a route leading to an independent England*? To save face for the Conservative Party? As I say in my last but one post, if the Conservative party is broke, why fix the country, surely one should fix the Conservative party instead.

If Johnson wins a majority, as David Gauke said the other day, it would be bad for the country. Again I could list the issues, but surely it only takes a little thought.

* not to mention all the other changes envisioned in a Tory Brexit.

Why would we go down a route leading to an independent England? — Punshhh

We wouldn't. It's the Scots and N Irish who may force the situation..

As for an independent East Anglia. That includes me too! but it's one of the most right-wing parts of the country isn't it? - save for Cambridge and Ipswich. So independence would presumably of the hard-Brexit variety if voted for here.

We wouldn't. It's the Scots and N Irish who may force the situation..

Johnson's deal takes us there, or do you think it doesn't?

As for an independent East Anglia. That includes me too! but it's one of the most right-wing parts of the country isn't it? - save for Cambridge and Ipswich. So independence would presumably of the hard-Brexit variety if voted for here.

In an ideal world, (as you suggested)

My point was what are we doing considering such a thing? Because of infighting in the Tory party caused by the fanaticism of the far right, along with a drip feeding of a similar ideology through the media by wealthy right wing Tory backing media barons.

Take those two small groups of people out of the equation and none of this Brexit psychodrama would have happened and everyone would have carried on as normal living in peace and harmony with our neighbours.

I think blaming everything on Tory party infighting is to miss the point. Yes that fighting has been endemic since Major's time and grown steadily, but in part it reflects a public view on the EU rules. I'm not convinced the whole Brexit issue has been concocted by the far right, who've then persuaded the rest of the leavers to believe it and agitate for the referendum etc. The large-scale immigration of the last decade is surely what raised public ire, as shown by the rise of UKIP and Farage. The anti-EU view is a legitimate one and if it spits the Tory party then Toryism needs to adapt to cope. Political parties have to do that periodically as the world changes. If the Labour Party had not been in such a mess since BIair stood down they could have kept the Tories out of power and the rift might have been healed quicker. Instead they've proved inept too, and left a divided Tory party to soldier on with so little opposition it didn't really need to confront and deal with the split. Sadly, Corbyn is continuing that, seemingly ensuring another five years of opposition for Labour.

I was blaming the idea of leaving the EU on the Tory party. On the assumption that UKIP was a Tory party phenomenon, part of the split in the party.

It is well known that the threat of UKIP once it was established is what pushed the Tory's and New Labour to start talking about the idea of leaving. Blair only talked about it because the conversation had been started by UKIP, which in turn only started talking about it because right wing Tory's had been talking about it for a decade before that.

What added fuel to the fire was Blair's decision to allow unfettered access for east European citizens in 2004. At that point very few people were unhappy with our membership, or were talking about leaving. So the idea of leaving was already in place at this point and was predominantly held by Tory's and disaffected Tory's in UKIP.

These groupings found fertile ground following the large numbers of EU citizens who came in over the next few years. The populist press quickly took up the batton and the anti EU sentiment grew quickly.

As far as I know this development didn't split the Labour Party, but was exerting internal pressures in the Tory party. This resulted in hard right Tory's who had been kept quiet flexing their muscles within the party. Resulting in Cameron concluding that the only way to prevent the party splitting and hemorrhaging significant numbers to UKIP was to call a referendum, therefore shutting them up for a generation.

If Blair talked about a referendum, it was only because the Tory's had been banging on about it and it had become an election issue.

Regarding Corbyn, he has scorn poured on him every day by the tabloids and is subject to an endemic anti socialist rhetoric throughout the whole media establishment. Whoever was the leader of the Labour Party would be subject to this bias. Unless it was still under the control of New Labour, someone like Blair, or David Milliband. But New Labour was Tory Light, it was Tory in all but name and was acceptable to be backed by The Sun newspaper, a right wing rag.

but in part it reflects a public view on the EU rules.

I just wanted to pick up on these two points. The "public view" on EU rules has been primed by the tabloid press and figures like Boris Johnson spreading spurious claims about EU rules. Most if not all of it is wrong, or inaccurate.

The anti-EU view is a legitimate one

Of course there is such a thing as anti-EU sentiment. But the only legitimate one I can identify is the one of political independence and Sovereignty. Although most of the rhetoric I hear on this point is spurious, which is due to a misunderstanding of how the EU works and what we are doing in cooperating in such a Union.
Again this has been primed by the tabloids and anti EU politicians spreading spurious claims.

This is evident in the fact that if one looks at the comment on the EU and our involvement in it in the media, it has for a number of years been entirely negative, i.e. Pointing out things about our membership which are not in our interest, while at no point mentioning what is in our interest.

If this is not a bias in the media, then where is the comment in favour of both our involvement and our future in the EU?