He's not the OP.

Do you believe a government should discriminate between its citizens on the basis of their race? — NOS4A2

Given the history of slavery, yes.

Re Labour’s planned deal: customs union, probably: single market, definately not (unless you count "close alignment").

We cannot favor races in policy while discriminating against others, especially at the institutional level. It’s institutional racism. — NOS4A2

That sounds remarkably like alt-rightism.

That’s the essential point of colorblindness, to refuse to judge by the color of another’s skin. — NOS4A2

That's true. However, googling produces many articles about conservatives misusing King's "Dream" speech to justify ignoring racism. Eg:

White conservatives use King's words as cover for rebutting affirmative action. When confronted with any program that targets assistance at blacks and other minorities from college admissions to corporate hiring, conservatives say: "But Dr King said to be colorblind". When dismantling voter protections for blacks in the south, the say: "But Dr. King said to be colorblind". When defending racial profiling and stop-and-frisk policies, they say: "Hey, look, we're trying to be colorblind here, but we can't help it if young black men commit all this crime." — Guardian, UK, August 2013

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/martin-luther-king-dream-speech-misunderstand

O... K...

MLK and Nelson Mandela expressed color-blind principles — NOS4A2

King said he didn't want his children judged by the colour of their skin. He never said he wanted the colour of their skin to be ignored.

I am ashamed Chris — Bert1

Are you being ironic or genuine? Presumably one or the other. If genuine, I apologise. I think we humans are all racist. Or rather, we're all instinctively wary of strangers. (The instinct probably evolved as protection against communicable disease.) Racism as such is probably a modern European colonial cultural twist on that instinct. If we're aware of that, it's easy enough to choose to live above it (as with other twisted antisocial monsters from the id).

Don't you think Labour's six-month plan - get a new deal, followed by a second referendum - would take a significant amount of heat out of the dichotomy?

You should be ashamed of yourself. To be racist is to indulge in bullying, based on a redundant anti-stranger instinct. Pseudo-scientific racism is even worse, like a drunk trying to act sober.

Any example of these “(white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism”? — NOS4A2

Oh, yes. How about:

My father... is color-blind — Ivanka Trump"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/the-myth-of-trumps-colorblindness/594124/

Any example of these “(white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism”? — NOS4A2

No.

It's easy for you - you're colour-blind! ;-)

I came to the same conclusion myself - but it's difficult to practise. The scenario is that you're describing a person of colour to a third party, and you don't want to use "race"/skin colour descriptors. You've suggested describing physical characteristics. (Unlike other contributors, I'm happy to imply that you obviously meant characteristics other than skin colour.) The question arises: how important is it that the third party can recognise the described person. The UK police, out of necessity rather than racism, use numbered "race" categories. I'll continue to struggle with this one. I don't like to say, "black", but sometimes I have to. "African" isn't always appropriate. Same with "brown" and "South Asian". "Mixed race" sounds wrong to me. Is "mixed ethnicity" any better? I'm with the OP - lets do it!

I wouldn't say Corbyn is a master strategist or a great leader, but somehow he stays upright, like that toy.

Hey! I'll take that.

A swing to the left is perhaps inevitable in the face of ever-increasing inequity. Corbyn says:

I understand why people voted remain - I live in a constituency which is heavily remain. I understand why people voted leave, out of anger. We have to bring people together, and our party is the only one that will offer people the final choice. — Guardian, 4 Nov

His "anger" explanation for the leave vote is wrong, but I think his hope to bring unity is genuine.

Good question by the OP. My answer is: we're back-pedalling on being "colour-blind" because "colour-blindness" has been co-opted by racists. White anti-racists like me (and, I presume, the OP) are subject to the historical currents of the ongoing civil rights movement. Being "woke" to them isn't a backwards step. The current state of affairs may be flawed, but it's essentially progressive. The criticism of "colour-blindness" isn't a criticism of an individual white anti-racist's way of approaching people of colour - it's a criticism of (white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism - and continuing to deny the pervasive historical structures of racism.

Yes, back to Brexit. (Except there is a connection between Brexit and the climate crisis: the super-rich, who benefit from neo-liberalism and presumably hope to ride out any insurrection or environmental destruction.) Working class Conservatives seeking support for Powelite views on immigration were bound to be disappointed. The Tories have always represented the rich. The current disintegration of the Conservative Party is probably nothing more than a superficial cracking of the surface, with Johnson, Cummings and co. reaching for the super-rich with a hard or no-deal Brexit, whereas "one-nation" Tories rightly see their merely rich constituents better served by Remain.

I don't despair about the populist right. It appeals to the neglected precariat. They could be rescued from neglect, and the means is practical rather than ideoligical. If I despair, it's about climate crisis. Corbyn might take on the neo-liberalism driving us over that cliff. I rather like his Brexit ambivalence, and I think voters, tired, like me, not so much of delay but of division, might give him a majority.

Farage has been an elected member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England since 1999. Gut feelings exist on both sides and can't be dismissed as unimportant. The case for Remain (and for future national harmony) isn't helped by binary absolutism, I'd say.

Exaggerated claims and counter-claims have been made by both sides. There's a lot of uncertainty concealed on both sides by unwaranted confidence. The dismal non-science of economic forecasting has been given undeserved importance by both sides. I'd suggest that the best (and least gratuitousy confrontational) argument for Remain is that it's worth surrendering some sovereignty for frictionless trade with our near neighbours.

Unicorn.... Its hard to drop the tropes of oppositional discourse, isnt it?

Perhaps it's possible to argue that leaving is "something worse" without hostility and "othering".

O'Brien seems fair and well informed. However, proving leave arguments "wrong" only increases national disunity. The reason for remaining is that all alternatives are worse. As the father of Jim, who ran away from his nurse and was eaten by a lion in Hillaire Belloc's cautionary tale, advised his surviving children: Always keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse.

In the 2015 general election UK premier David Cameron expected to need another coalition with the Liberal Democrats and he expected them to block his manifesto promise of an EU referendum. Having got an unexpected majority, he had to hold the referendum. Because he then expected Remain to win, his attempt to negotiate a better relationship with the EU was half-hearted and mainly fruitless. The binary choice of the referendum then split the nation. Whether we actually leave or not, it's now essential that the two sides try to meet each others' concerns. Shambolic duo Johnson and Cummings - and their super-rich backers - must be removed if that is to happen.

There's no future in the dichotomy.

My point is that in the interest of national unity, those who, like me, hope to remain must acknowledge the validity of the criticism of the EU made by those who wish to leave.

However, in the interests of harmony, Farage shouldn't be demonised. He should be acknowledged as representing the valid views of Eurosceptics. Some of his views are borderline racist, but he and his UKIP party achieved the referendum, which many people clearly wanted. The views of those who want a "clean-break" separation should be taken seriously by remainers. If remaining is achieved, our relationship with the EU must be re negotiated so as to unite the nation.

The allegorical aligator being US corporations...

However, you're right - let's get back to Brexit...

Meaning is use.

No, it's not. Use a meaningless phrase a million times, it's still meaningless. This isn't pedantry - it's correction.

A misspoken meaningless phrase doesn't acquire meaning due to frequent repetition.

I'm not a nazi of the grammatical or any other variety. I ask you to withdraw that remark.

You have a point about the UK Liberal Democrats. Their coalition government with the Conservatives (2010-15) seriously damaged their liberal credentials.

(However, you're wrong, if I may say so, to say "all talk and no trousers". This a common but meaningless misspeak error, usually misspoken as "all mouth and no trousers". The correct phrase is "all mouth and trousers". This is analogous to "all smoke and mirrors". You wouldn't say, "all smoke and no mirrors". The error is due to people overexcitedly confusing the phrase with its racy sister-phrase, "all fur coat and no knickers".)

The Liberals could demand a second policy: the enactment (with no referendum) of proportional representation. Future UK governments would then be coalitions with little or no ideology. The old divisions would fade away and harmony would reign.

OK, the nation would still be divided. But the decision would be better informed and therefore more acceptable. Maybe.

A lib-lab pact and/or coalition could heal the divided nation. Their joint policy could be just one item: a second referendum repeating the question: should we stay or should we go (on the basis of the deal agreed by parliament)? Ideally, all public campaigning and polling would be banned.

As a UK citizen, I suggest a compromise solution to Brexit: be in AND out. — Chris Hughes

Why? Do you want to prolong the confusion and have everybody continue to be disappointed? — ssu

As I said, I mean: stay in, but be an outsider. Stay in keep the easy trading with our near neighbours (and to avoid the chlorinated chicken, etc) . Be an outsider to reflect the valid views of Eurosceptics.

True.. but polls before the last two general elections and the referendum were wrong.