UKH

I don't think we are - yet. But I do agree with the claim in this blog post by Chris Grey: the warning signs are there:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com

Interesting read. I'd suggest we'd do well to keep an eye on these developments. The price of freedom etc.... There's a less measured and more polemical piece by Nick Cohen this week too but he shies away from mentioning fascism:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/nick-cohen-tory-leadership-rac...

(Note: the Labour left doesn't escape scot-free here.)

Perhaps in London and the Home Counties but not elsewhere 

No we’re not.

You perhaps should get out more. Fashion your views from  interaction with ordinary people.

You seem to be confusing me with someone who says we are on the slippery slope to fascism. What I actually said was "I don't think we are - yet." 

  Two members of the chattering elite fear facism because it turns out their views are not the in the majority. Rightyho. Thanks for the insight.

  What do you think would be the UKC reactionif somebody had the temerity to suggest that they might not be looking in the right direction?

Classic messenger-smearing. Worthless. And it sounds like you didn't read the Cohen piece - see what he says about Labour before you talk about not looking in the right place. 

How about looking in a Westerly direction, to the US/Mexico border for example, where there are concentration camps especially for children, would that be right wing enough to qualify as fascism in your non chattering, non elite opinion?

There are so many emerging parallels with early fascist developments that to deny the potential to slide down such a slope would be to have your head firmly in the sand. I don't believe we can yet be said to be sliding but the slope is there, grinning at us with an ever more convincing allure, pretending it's a joyride and hoping we'll fall for it.

  It’s not about Labour or Conservative and Cohen’s views on the left’s support for fascism are well known.

  Talking of abusing the messenger, what gives the right for pissed off remainers trying to impose their view to shout fascist and xenophobe at anybody else? How do you think that would go down in reverse?

   Boris Johnson is a duplicitous arse but he’s not fxcking Mussolini. Get over it.

Having just read your linked articles I’m not convinced about the slide towards fascism but having just watched Andrew Neil interviewing Hunt and Johnson I can definitely say that we’re well down the slippery slopes of ineptitude and buffoonery.

We’ll be well stuffed before the fascists take over.

I’m rarely confused.

Based on your interpretation of the articles that you attach, the lean of your post was suggestive that we were teetering on the edge of fascism, perhaps. 

That’s ok. 

But I don’t think so. 

It's not about Brexit or Remain, it's about shutting down media freedom, dictating political suitability for civil service, applying human rights selectively and a whole lot of other indicators. If leading Remainers were accused of such behaviour, substantiated, then I'm pretty sure that most Remainers would be very quick to disown them.

I have pointed out before that you will get fascism when the capitalists want to use it to defeat countries where you have worker control or moderate socialist policies or in extremis when there is a major emergent socialist power that is perceived as a threat or where there is a strong growth in genuine socialism in any country. 

I won't read Nick Cohen after laughing my way through one of his books on the left many years ago and brexit isn't all together a right wing thing given the way the EU is set up although utter racist wallopers are totally empowered by it enough to treat foreigners like shit throughout Britain. 

To clarify, I don't think we are teetering on the edge of fascism, I think there are warning signs that we should be aware of, that's all at the moment. 

  No, it really isn’t.

How are remainers 'imposing their view'? That's a ridiculous claim - some bloke with a Wordpress blog and some bloke writing in the massively influential New European are imposing their view? Don't make me laugh. And as for it going down in reverse, we've had the dominant media shouting at us for years about how dreadful Europe is. These opinions are a drop in the ocean in comparison. 

I see you lean towards the cock-up theory of history - quite understandable.

"I won't read Nick Cohen" - I do like to see an open mind. You should try alternative views sometime - it will sharpen your arguments up no end. 

That's your argument?

Can I have a list of the warning signs?

I’m not sure what the cock up theory is but I am continually amazed at the lack of obvious ability displayed by people who think that they are suitable to be prime minister.

It's on a par with most of his/her arguments.

There's a few: this is one that seems to be the basis of the NY Holocaust Memorial poster you'll see a lot of if you do a search:

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Umberto Eco's is often cited:

https://medium.com/posteuropean/umberto-eco-on-the-14-signs-of-fascism-3f3d...

Personally I don't think we will see fascism in exactly the same form as it appeared in the inter-war years - the world's changed so much. But many of these characteristics are likely to still be there.

It's not just their ability that bothers me, it's their apparent lack of moral scruples. They don't appear to be able to hold any principle for any length of time. 

The way Trump tries to shut down and subvert the media, fight the justice system, silence his critics, exalt or destroy anyone he works with, use populism and nationalism to get power, suggest he will stay on longer than the standard term, blatantly lie about literally anything to further his cause, has suggested he should be immune from further FBI investigations etc - yes I am worried about fascism in the west.

Especially when our leaders seem to be studying at the Steve Bannon school of divide and conquer, and pandering to Trump which will only get worse as Brexit comes to a head.  

I can't tell you anything about "rights", but I can tell you that it is entirely reasonable for people who think we should not leave the EU to voice that opinion, and to develop political strategies towards that end. I can also explain that the reason leavers are sometimes accused of racism and xenophobia is that a significant number of people voted leave for these reasons. While it's wrong to call all leave voters racists, it's also wrong to ignore the contribution that small minded racist and xenophobic (but not fascist, as far as I can see) views made to the referendum. It's much better to be honest and acknowledge the world as it is.

Having a PM who has literally no interest at all in the wellbeing of the population and acts at all times purely in his own self-interest, regardless of the wider consequences, is extremely dangerous. Don't underestimate how serious that is. Implementing an explicitly evil ideology would indeed be worse - but that doesn't make Boris any less of a threat, so let's not try to minimise how atrocious a mess we're in (just because you voted for it, many times over). Thank god he'll only be in power a few months at most.

Yes. Sorry, but both of those links were a load of shit.

Honestly, in the real world, away from the Uck keyboard, ordinary people like you and I are far more engaging and moderate of other opinions.

Funnily enough, in the real world not everybody just dismisses things as 'a load of shit' without bothering to say why. 

They’re a load of shit because both items were media based interpretations that don’t honestly represent what you truly think.

And I understand that.

Are you saying these articles are rubbish simply because they don't represent my thinking? That's not enough reason to dismiss them. And it would still be interesting to know what exactly you don't like about them. 

Go and spend an evening talking to the locals in The Commercial in Haslingden.

E

Umberto Eco had a list of 14 indicators of fascism, which isn't easily defined.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

I'd say the  UK is hitting a few already, and the likes of Farage, Raab and Banks would go much further and they aren't far from power now  The other day Farage was arguing that only brexiteers should be civil servants or in the armed forces. So I'd say we should be concerned, particularly as they now have Boris. 

What sort of situation would make you concerned, noting the path Hungary, Turkey and increasingly India and the US are following? 

No. 

There is selectetive hatred or dislike. 

Marching season in NI now. Yesterday, today possibly too, folk will be marching singing songs, playing music, chanting etc. Teasing and antagonizing opposing communities. 

If it were any too other religions, cultures etc. The press would be in melt down. 

There are also glaring parallels with the thought processes that lead to totalitarian, self-proclaimed socialist/Marxist/Maoist, "for the people", movements which resulted in suffering on par with, or worse, than any fascists imposed. 

I was thinking the other day that the issue doesn't lie with differing opinions (which the left seems dedicated to stamping out). Racists and non racists, capitalists and socialists, can live easily side by side.

The problem lies with the certainty of belief that one viewpoint is so reprehensible that it must, and may rightly, be eliminated.  Border controls for example are necessary . The claim that those who impose them are an existential threat to humanity, representing the thin end of the wedge to fascism, strikes me as being the bigger issue than the proclaimed fascist act. (https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1149791199982686208?s=09)

There are also glaring parallels with the thought processes that lead to totalitarian, self-proclaimed socialist/Marxist/Maoist, "for the people", movements which resulted in suffering on par with, or worse, than any fascists imposed. 

I was thinking the other day that the issue doesn't lie with differing opinions (which the left seems dedicated to stamping out). Racists and non racists, capitalists and socialists, can live easily side by side.

The problem lies with the certainty of belief that one viewpoint is so reprehensible that it must, and may rightly, be eliminated.  Border controls for example are necessary . The claim that those who impose them are an existential threat to humanity, representing the thin end of the wedge to fascism, strikes me as being the bigger issue than the proclaimed fascist act. (https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1149791199982686208?s=09)

They, we, lost the referendum. But essentially behave as if we won it.  But the Brexiteers are the people we point at and scream "fascists".  You do see that there is a small government, anti-state, localisation argument to Brexit? One that makes the case that there are things more important than "economy first", and that over supply in the labour market may be a problem for wages at the bottom end of the scale?

The complete failure by Remainers to even conceive of a pro-Brexit argument that might have validity is THE problem.

Can you point to the evidence of this. Its as serious question, as the claim sounds like hyperbole, painting the former mayor of London as potentially up there with Mao.

  Yes, and a significant proportion of remainers believe that the message from the referendum is that the franchise should be restricted to  or weighted to a limited proportion of the population and/or that it's abolutely fine that the protections against authoritarianism built into the Constitution over a thousand years of history should be sublimated to undemocratic powers in Brussels. And, of course, that all means, parliamentary or non-parliamentary, should be used to undermine the result of a referendum that they all agreed to abide by. So is it OK to shout "fascism" at remainers in general?

   I actually think that the term "fascist" is so unspecific and so degraded by overuse that its usage is very seldom helpful.

 It may be dangerous, just as having any incompetent PM is dangerous. But that doesn't make it fascism.

  It's true, because the PM has "powers under the Crown" that there is potential for the UK to suffer at the hands of an overmighty PM but I see little likelihood of the necessary  majority of "proto-fascists" being elected to parliament that he or she could exploit the constitution to impose authoritarian rule. (As an aside, I would regard Trump through a combination of narcissism, carelessness and ignorance, as a much more threatening character than any leading UK politician (some of Corbyn's cronies excluded) but the US constitution was specifically designed to constrict overmighty presidents and seems to be largely working so far).

It's hard to see the appointment of our PM by a committee of 120,000 self selected wealthy individuals as a sign that liberal democracy and an Open society are thriving.

And I'm still of the view (and will continue to believe it until tested in a ballot) that Brexit is being forced on the majority by a relatively small but shouty and bullying minority led by a couple of totally unprincipled but highly effective demagogues. That feels wrong and dangerous too.

Brexit is only a symptom. Globally there is a move towards authoritarian, populism with an increasingly fascist flavour. 

And the answer is more anti-fascism? What if there isn't actually a rise in fascism and what you are seeing is simply a reaction to a liberalism which says some people deserve more rights than others? And if the anti-fascism is nothing other than a push towards a despotism of the Left?

I definitely think we are on a slippery slope but I don't know which way we are descending - 1202 ?

I see why you find things confusing  if you think Liberalism is about giving some more rights than  others. That's in fact much closer to fascism. 

Sorry, I'm not letting that go unchallenged. Do you have a shred of evidence that a "significant proportion" of remainers think that? Any placards or chants from the People's March? Any prominent remainers pushing that argument? I put it to you that you're talking out of your arse.

Yeah, remainers don't agree that the EU is undemocratic. That's your argument, not theirs.

Who agreed to abide by it? Who agreed to abide by it regardless of the consequences, which is really what you're saying?

It's OK, but laughable.

I agree with you on that at least.

Again, I mostly agree but the PM-elect hasn't ruled out shutting down parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit, which should concern everyone.

Lock her up, liar press, simple solutions,  ,lies , irrelevance of facts, nationalism, breaking treaties, personality cult, man of the  people blames political elite, cronyism, admiration/jealousy of dictator like Putin.

Certainly some similarities and not just in US.

The original question was whether we were on the slippery slope to fascism. Not whether there is actually a rise in fascism at the moment. So your what-if is a bit of a distraction from the question. The idea of a despotism of the left is at the moment evidence-free in any case (although I wouldn't trust Corbyn's neo-Stalinist coterie not to want to head off in that direction if they ever got the chance). Anyway, if you want to open a thread to discuss whether or not there's a recognisable push towards a despotism of the Left, by all means do. 

This is evidence-free nonsense. Boris-bluster. There may be a very few that have suggested that but it's not exactly significant.  

Whether or not the Referendum was binding is open to debate. Legally it wasn't. Not a good basis for shouting 'fascist' at people if they simply want the law observed. Anyway, isn't it the Brexiters that want to undermine Parliament at the moment by proroguing it to push through a no-deal Brexit that no-one voted for?

Fascism may be an overused term, but that doesn't necessarily make fascist features disappear. As I think I've mentioned earlier fascism was a particular historical phenomenon, and the world has changed substantially so we do probably need a new term to describe the new manifestations. 'Populism' isn't adequate, nor 'authoritarianism'. 

It's not just about who's PM though.

Who's doing that? Most Brexiters probably aren't fascistic at all. There is a nasty minority who might lean that way - check the Daily Mail Comments pages for evidence of that - but this looks like a red herring. 

Plenty of us do have an ability to conceive of Brexit arguments with validity. I could put together much better arguments for Brexit than most Brexiters seem capable of. THE problem is that rational Brexit arguments have been overwhelmed by a flood of fantasy 'grass is greener' arguments, myths about the faults of the EU (scarcely ever realistic criticisms, of which there are plenty), and dissembling about exactly which kind of Brexit was ever envisaged. It's been impossible to have proper reasoned discussions.

Isn't that a bit of a problem? Fascism can only be discussed in the context of a limited realm of the right, while the left's is relegated to another thread? Trump bad, but let's not look at the other side?

While the hippies and lefties screamed and yelled about the fascism of the US war in Vietnam and Laos, a socialist genocide slaughtered a quarter of it's own population in neighbouring Cambodia (and academics and left-wing social commentators declared Pol Pot to be a good thing).

The lessons of history are there to show what happens when you become so preoccupied with the actions of others and wilfully blind to the sins of your own.  And the more you paint doomsday scenarios about the right, the more you give a tacit nod to the extremes of the left.

Here's a thoughtful review piece from historian Mark Mazower:

https://www.ft.com/content/6d57a338-3be9-11e8-bcc8-cebcb81f1f90

The Riley book looks particularly interesting on the contradictions involved in the emergence of fascism based on its mobilisation of organisations in civil society. And the final conclusion, that we should not be complacent but should look at the current crisis of democracy, seems well advised.

Have they? Or is that simply the perception amongst remainers and the way the largely remain-oriented media tends to portray 52% of voters?

Why should it be relegated? Do you think there's a league table of threads or something? It's just a case of keeping this discussion more or less on-topic. 

That is ridiculous. If you apply that logic, pointing out the faults of Pol Pot as you just did gives a tacit nod to the extremes of the right. 

The 'largely remain-oriented media'? Are you having a laugh?

  Just like they're a very few actual racists and xenophobes then?

  It's a live issue in political/academia circles, highlighted by two books "Against democracy" (Brennan) an "Against elections"  (Van Reybrook) and being actively discussed (usually negatively, but why discuss it if it's not being promoted?) in all sorts of places. Here's Richard Dawkins "Under-age people can’t vote. Whatever our criterion for thinking them unqualified (eg insufficiently developed reasoning powers or knowledge) there must be some adults less qualified than some under-age people. Is age the only practical threshold or could others be devised?"

  Actually it's been a thread topic on UKC and , anecdotally, I've had various people float it to me. It's reflected in the common meme that brexiters are stupid. Il's also an element in the topical promotion of "peoples' assemblies" which basically involve getting a small number of the "stupid" to be educated how to vote by their betters. Even though most remainers would probably accept that even "stupid" people should have a vote, they resent it, and in some cases think that they shouldn't.

  It's kind of ironic that people who regard brexiters as "stupid" are not even aware of a very significant argument coming out of their own camp.

Here are a couple of fairly random links just to give you an idea of what's out there. Runciman has a longer discussion in his book.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/01/why-replacing-politicians-with...

This one demonstrates the long history of such ideas which ironically, in the last century have often been promoted by the left.

https://kenanmalik.com/2016/07/13/democracy-was-never-intended-for-degenera...

  You really don't get it. Absolutely, there is a discussion to be had about weighing a public pronouncement in the H of C against the law that the pronouncements were meant to "supercede".  Shouting "fascist" from either point of view is not helpful but remainers are happy to do so on equally flimsy grounds. It's not about whether one argument is right or wrong, it's about whether it is accurate or constructive to screech "fascist" to support one's point of view.

Talk about kicking up dust clouds.   No one is screaming fascist  (except maybe Pefa) because of views they disagree with, or even just because of brexit. If, looking around the world, you cant see dangerous trends in politics in previously stable Liberal democracies you really are a long way down the rabbit hole. 

Unless I've misunderstood, you seemed to be saying this wasn't the place to discuss the potential despotism of the Left, that that was a different matter for a different thread.  I'm saying they are one and the same and, if anything, I think the direction of the left (its self-belief in its righteousness, its perpetural victimhood narrative, its dominance in the media and academia) is the bigger threat and more likely to lead to a catastrophic turn in society.  You, and those screaming about Trump, seem intentionally oblivious to that.  You can barely acknowledge the sins of the Left and seem intent on soaking up the hyperbole of the left-leaning press or social media.

From where I'm standing, people here are claiming the former mayor of London becoming PM is tantamount to the rise of fascism (someone on another thread said they would consider becoming an anarchist if it happened).  Trump deporting migrants likewise.  I tend to believe the people who say some should have more rights than others, that people should be ejected from their employment for holding "incorrect" viewpoints, or who make the claim that speech can be "dangerous" and proponents of "freedom of speech" are actually a threat...that these types of people, the people on the Left, represent a greater threat of instituting over-reaching state power.

The Pol Pot analogy is two-fold.  One, that the Left sleep walked in to supporting extremism (he corrected the evils of the right), and two, that the ends justified the means - our  enemies were so egregious that they had to be crushed, by any means, because of an (overblown) claim against a certain "other" class.  

No joke.  You may be mistaking the number of media sources with size of the audience.

A larger proportion of the population clearly do follow right-of-centre media.  But the media (TV, press, social-media) is OVERWHELMINGLY Remain, and left-leaning.  

You are of course right.  When a comedian makes an off-colour joke, they get a visit from the police.  When a social-media user says something construed as racist, likewise.  When the majority of the public votes for something to occur, the prevailing view seems to be that it must not happen and that it would not be altogether improper to keep voting until an opposite result was achieved.  An acceptable form of denigration, one sufficient to bring about policy change in an organisation, is to use the term "old", "white" and "man" together.  When you position on a board or your employability isn't judged by the strength of your character but by the colour of your skin (or gender) in order to fulfil quotas.  The list goes on.  These strike me as fundamentally illiberal trends.

Sorry what exactly did they vote for again? And if Brexit-supporting MPs had voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement would we not be out of the EU already? Twaddle.

Where's your evidence that the media are overwhelmingly Remain and/or left-leaning? The dominant print media in this country certainly aren't. The Beeb certainly isn't. ITV seems pretty neutral. Channel 4 is the only TV channel that seems to me to be left/Remain. Social media isn't - if anything social media has undermined any left-liberal tendencies. And much left social media represents Lexit tendencies anyway. 

To be fair though Nick Cohen is a cnut, of the highest order, you pretty much know what you're going to get from word one, on most subjects, if it mentions Labour then I could probably write it for you and it would be roughly the same.

I do read him now and again, if only to confirm my expectations, it's like reading any article about JC in The Times, predictable.

Can someone tell me who has been suggesting that democracy in the UK should be limited in any way? I seem to have missed that.

John Bolton and Steve Bannon could be described as fascists in some respects but I don't see Farage or anyone else in mainstream UK politics as even being in the same league as those Premier League arseholes.

I'm starting to think you are a bot. You post essentially identical responses regardless of what you are replying to. 

If you can't tell the difference there's no point in discussing this with you. The despotism of parts of the far left is a legitimate subject for discussion, but it is not qualitatively the same as that of the extreme right, even if some of the outcomes are similar. So start your own thread.

If we leave out academia this applies very well to the far right and to many leading Brexiters.

How is it the bigger threat? Where are the imminent left-wing coups? Where are the revolutions bubbling under? This is fantasy.

It's all about belief for you isn't it? Faith and ideology. I think that people who over-egg the threat of fascism are a little paranoid. You're exhibiting the same tendency in the other direction in these arguments. Where is the evidence that this is likely to happen in the near future? The clearest threat at the moment is from elements of the right-wing.

I've mentioned before that 'the Left' is too big a generalisation. Try 'parts of the Left'. It makes your case look a little more reasonable.

Are you sure? Farage just called for a Brexit loyalty test in the Civil Service and armed forces. And fascism and its variants isn't simply about limits on democracy. 

Apart from that, the Farage-Johnson-Bannon connection is real and hard to ignore. Maybe Farage isn't in the same league, but he's in league with them!

Worst of all I can't even enjoy the slow motion destruction of the Conservative party, they've ruined even that sweet delight by ensuring the fascist-populist parasite which rotted them from within will emerge stinking and well fed from the ruins, a viable threat to all of us.

(Not pefa)

Have you heard it on the news
About this fascist groove thang
Evil men with racist views
Spreading all across the land
Don't just sit there on your ass
Unlock that funky chaindance
Brothers, sisters shoot your best
We don't need this fascist groove thang
Brothers, sisters, we don't need this fascist groove thang

(not pefa)

He is not the cuddly man with a pint. He has hoodwinked many, possibly including you*, but he is a extreme right wing, white supremacist supporter, I think the shorthand for this is Nazi.

(not pefa)

"Farage’s claims include that Soros wants to fundamentally reshape Europe’s racial makeup and to end the continent’s Christian culture. He also praised Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, for having the “courage to stand up against him”." 

(you know who...)

(written in support for the comment immediately above)

"Farage said Soros sought “to undermine democracy and to fundamentally change the makeup, demographically, of the whole European continent”. The latter claim directly echoes conspiracy theories against Soros made by far-right groups such as Generation Identity.

ditto

Cohen makes a number of cogent and evidence-based criticisms of the Labour left and other elements of the left. Try addressing them not just dismissing him as a 'cnut' - it would sharpen your arguments up, stop you coming over like a latter-day Dave Spart.

( https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2018-11-13/dave-spart-our-times )

You seem to have missed ".. because of. views they disagree with" bit. 

I'm not really bothered about sharpening my arguments up, from what I've read of his work, he's hardly likely to have changes his arguments much, for me Cohen has an agenda, and he doesn't really veer away from it that much.

"simultaneously cursed with an illiberal government and opposition, escapes 
this time."

Illiberal opposition, isn't this the exact opposite of what Labour is being accused of, being too liberal?

Once again, Cohen seem to get in the "far left" when talking about Labour, it's only "far" because it's gone so far right, it's almost indistinguishable from the Tories, for a lot of people. Labour policies are no more extreme than they were 30 years ago, when they were simply "the left".

There's no substitute for reasoned argument and evidence. Just holding an entrenched position without reason doesn't win arguments. 

That is pure shite. 

True, I overlooked  it . But actually when you call Farage a nazi  or make up pathetic rhymes about fascism about "thes brexit thingy" you are really just screeching fascist at somebody who's views you disagree with (more than a bit, but let's not quibble).

Sorry, can't work out if you're still arguing that withdrawal of the vote or weighting those of certain people is as commonly held a belief amongst remain supporters as xenophobia is amongst leave supporters. Are you?

Are you suggesting Cohen's view of current Labour being "far left" isn't entrenched?

It's also full of stuff we already know, and which has been true for years if not for ever, "Party democracy has now become the enemy of representative democracy. The views of the privileged members stand above the views of the electorate."

FFS!

Perpetual victimhood -  a state you ascribe to the Right in every post.

I don't remember that.  I do remember the Thatcher government supported the Khmer Rouge against the communist Vietnamese invasion that terminated the Pol Pot led Khmer Rouge genocide. Personally I thought even communist invasion is better than genocide that kills a quarter of the population in 3 years. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2014/04/how-thatcher-gave-po...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jan/09/cambodia

It's a small minority position in both (with others who kind of feel an affinity with the view but would not actively support it) so to tar the rest with the same brush is wrong.

I'm not suggesting his position isn't entrenched. But it does have a basis in argument and evidence, even if you don't agree with him. So take on his arguments, don't just dismiss him. 

So that's a yes?

As a remainer, I would not be bothered at all if a brexiteer called me communist and pro-immigrant!

It's interesting how you and Pan Ron say so often that people you disagree with are always 'screeching' or 'screaming'.

  Are you asking me if you think the proportions are the same? I've not done a survey, have you?

How about "fascist" or even "xenophobe"?

Your not really reading history very well, left wing dictatorships have tended to emerge in  poor agrarian based countries with no democratic structures after an extended period of war, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia 

fascist dictatorships tend to emerge in more established industrial/developed countries with democratic structures usually at a period of downturn/recession  and is a usually a subversion of the established democratic process by populist parties or politicians see  Italy, Germany, Chilli 

Your false left right equivalencies are rubbish, we are in no danger of a cultural revolution in Europe or USA however we should be keeping an eye out for populism leading to fascism though.

The trouble is, why? It pretty obvious to most readers who have read more than one article by him, and they've been argued to death, any number of times. Just because he writes it more than once doesn't mean it's true.

"the views of it's privileged members", how are Labour's members privileged? Some of them might be, but there are many, many grass-root members, who joined to support Corbyn, because he was seen as someone who, might put them first, and who might listen, and who have sweet FA. It's cheap and pithy "journalism" and it shouldn't need me to point out the holes in it, it's not that hard.

I'd assume he meant privileged in the sense of able to dictate policy regardless of the interests of those who vote (or voted) Labour 

If you want to dismiss people as 'cnuts' you do need to back that up in some way. As it is, I can only assume that your problem with him is that he doesn't like the people you like, and that's all. 

How do you know the quantity that voted leave because of xenophobia? Would any admit it?

Pan Ron this left that could lead to a communist dictatorship of the proletariat in Western counties where is it and who is it? I've asked you before but you didn't reply, maybe you could because until you do to me you are fighting windmills. 

What is all that please?

I might have called Farage a fascist 4 years ago but I haven't since then and certainly don't think he is one although he is poisonous and the far right love him. 

Sorry, I just think this is a load of garbage. I don't believe that "a significant proportion of remainers believe that...that the franchise should be restricted", since the comments I've heard amount to  tongue-in-cheek stuff about old people f*cking up the world for the people who actually have to live in it. Which has more than a grain of truth to it, but I haven't witnessed any sincerely fought threat to the usual rules of democracy (note, please, that the usual rules of democracy aren't holding referendums to decide policy, that's extraordinary, and as we've seen, impractical, because it can conflict with the usual representative system and result in a massive pig's breakfast...those who think that the one-off direct democracy somehow overrides the representative are talking out of their arses, unless you'd like to try to justify this?).

And as I've said, I think it's daft to shout "fascist" at anyone (well, except fascists), so you're talking to yourself here. It would be more constructive if you could respond to my comments, rather than ones you've made up.

Err, no it doesn't. I thought I was clear about there being no accusation of fascism from me.

My objection to Boris is more practical. I don't want to live in shithole, under bad policies, run by a self-serving moron. That would be shit. And it's what I'm going to get, thanks to the conservative party. So I'm not grateful for your contribution of voting for the tories and brexit - you've f*cked up. (And "what about Jeremy Corbyn" is not a counter-argument. You were not offered a binary choice of this disaster, or a Corbyn disaster. We could be going for reverse Brexit and a Rory Stewart PM, for one example of many.)

What do you make of this? Fantasy?

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1150132173166534656?s=19

Haha, yes of course I can. Have you heard of Brexit?

This, which I've posted before at least once, explains his role:

youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ&

This isn't something you can gloss over. He's f*cked up the UK in an entirely cynical  manoeuvre for power. Acknowledge the world as it - what's the point of lying or pretending it's not happening? Or are you so gullible you actually believe that Boris thought, and still thinks, that Brexit would benefit the people of the UK? I find that a ridiculous position and that you might believe it leaves me wondering whether to laugh or cry.

   Are you of the opinion that the comments you've heard about it are the sole judge of whether it is significant? See my reply above. People like Dawkins et al promoting the idea and plenty of people agreeing that the uneducated are "too stupid to vote". The latter may, of course, just be frustrated rhetoric but then again so is most so called "xenophobia".

In a sense it's not germane to the point  whether people who object to such rhetoric, or for that matter the pretty incontrovertible argument that if you create a centralised federal Europe (the current way of choosing a PM may be bloody stupid but it looks pretty damn good compared to how they choose Junker's replacement) you undermine the UK protections against authoritarianism, are actually right. They tend not to crap on about "fascism". Funnily enough  one who does use the term to describe the EU is our old friend Varoufakis. Funny old world.

  Talking about "responding to comments". In a thread arguing that brexit is part of a trend towards fascism and on a website (UKC) on which it is a run of the mill cliche that brexit and brexiteers are fascist and xenophobic I'm not quite sure why you think a response to that isn't relevant.

I'm talking about the facts of the world:

1. Some remainers make remarks about people being "too stupid to vote" or votes being weighted according to what you actually have to live with, i.e. by age. These comments do not represent a genuine threat to the democratic system. There is no mechanism by which they can be implemented and the people making them know this - as such they are tongue-in-cheek.

2. Some proportion, most likely more than the 2% needed to swing the result, of the leave vote was motivated by small-minded racism and xenophobia coupled with a lack of understanding of what the impact of the vote would be, e.g. people thinking that voting to leave would reduce Muslim immigration. This doesn't mirror the "too stupid to vote" view on the remain side, because the people who were too stupid to vote had a deciding influence on the result.

I'm only asking you to accept the reality. The equivalence you draw is false.

Because I made clear I don't think leavers (except some far-right racists) show any fascistic tendencies, and you ignored that.

Wow, Nick, I'm glad you're having a good evening and drinking something rather special. Because that is one of the most grammatically convoluted sentences (66 words) that I've seen for quite a while. It just about defies grammatical analysis. I tried for quite a while and eventually decided the subject of the sentence must be 'it' in 'it's not germane' etc, but even that didn't work, so I gave up. Net result: your message, whatever it is, doesn't come across.

I mean, once you get your head round the incredible subordinate clause constructed round 'whether ... or' and battle your way past the even more fantastic 25-word parenthesis, you then crash with 'are actually right'. It's a bit like taking a rather nasty ground fall.

I read something the disabled often being the first to suffer when fascism begins to appear, which has me looking afresh at austerity.

It could be down to a lack of representation in government of disabled people, which means they've born the brunt of austerity, in there being not enough informed life experience among the decision makers to make the right kind of decisions so that they don't, but either way, we need to protect all the parts which make up a democracy, and it can't continue - disability could happen to us all in some form.

When you post away from your comedy persona.... Honestly, don't bother, you sound like a dick.... 

Interesting.
You criticise Stroppygob for being a nasty piece of work on another thread, but seem quite happy to resort to petty insults against someone who has different opinions to yourself.
Pot kettle black?

Why would a brexiteer use such terms to describe a remainer?

If we define xenophobia as dislike of foreigners, then I don’t see how on earth it is possible for anybody with half a brain to vote for Brexit without disliking foreigners, or at the very least, considering then less worthy of consideration than natives.

Westerly ? I’d say look over here, this is a country where we throw people in jail without trial for made up reasons, and nobody is punished for it, in fact barely anybody blinks an eye.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/09/mps-to-question-home-office...

He just kind of illustrates the point really.

He rather comes across as a keyboard pipsqueak.

In the real world, that aggressive posturing would run away and hide.

Your linked article doesn’t support your statement that people are being sent to jail without trial.

It does. Just read it. That’s not new either and well known. That’s the point of « administrative detention », you don’t get a trial. In many cases you don’t get a right of appeal either, as is the case in most of the examples provided.

Migrants can be held without trial indefinitely in the UK. That’s the legal reality. I think that “fascist” is a pretty good description of this attitude.

You are confusing detention with jail or prison as it’s usually called in the UK.

We can debate the unfairness of detention and deportation without appeal but it isn’t the same as being imprisoned without trial.

I am not confusing anything, if you lock people up then they are being imprisoned. You can call it a different word if you like, but it is exactly the same thing, you are depriving someone of their freedom.

The fact that you think that locking up a migrant without trial is somehow not the same as locking up a citizen without trial shows exactly the kind of attitude some would describe as “fascist”

Where did I say that it’s OK to lock up migrants without a trial but not UK citizens?

You do understand that migrants are detained to stop them absconding in the same way that people are remanded without bail for the same reason.

As I’ve already stated, we can discuss whether or not these processes are fair or not.

However, nobody is being sent to jail without a trial which was your original assertion.

Tens of thousands of UK citizens are currently locked up without trial. It's called being on remand and it's a normal part of the judicial process.

Yes, this is part of the judicial process, and there is a time limit, lots of restrictions, right of appeal etc etc. In the UK even a terror suspect can not be detained for more than 14 days without charge.

Administrative detention is indefinite. It’s not part of a judicial process, it’s an administrative process. That’s why you end up with people being detained for 11 month without trial after absurd accusation of cheating at some English test.  In many cases people have been locked up for several years, purely for administrative mistakes.

There are a lot of restriction to remand without bail. Not the least time limits, and judicial safeguard and appeals.

in the case of admistrative dentention, you may well have no time limit, not right of judicial appeal, and in fact, this is completely outside of the justice system.

Yes, they are. Plenty of example in the article in posted.

You didn't say without charge, you said without trial and that limit is 182 days which can be extended on application.

Fine. That’s still a limit, but more importantly, it can’t be done without going through the justice system.

however, in the case of immigration detention there is no time limit, no judicial oversight.

this is what the house of lord review said :

“Our inquiry identified a weak administrative process and a serious lack of judicial oversight of the decision to detain. Decisions to hold an individual in immigration detention are taken by Home Office officials and not by a Judge or court, and immigration detention is overseen by the Immigration Enforcement directorate in the Home Office. In this process, there is no thorough pre-detention screening of individuals and other than in asylum interviews there is no face to face contact between immigration decision-makers and the detainee. As a result, in the immigration system, people can be deprived of their liberty through an entirely paper-based exercise by officials where no one involved in the decision ever interviews the potential detainee. Moreover, there is no requirement in UK law for those decisions to be subject to judicial oversight within a certain period after a detention order is made. This has to change. In the UK, there is no limit on the length of time for which someone can be held in immigration detention.”

I read your article.

Several of the migrants were still living, undetained, in the UK years after being initially detained.

Hardly the mark of a fascist  state.

People are kept in detention for long periods because they are fighting against deportation.

MPs have suggested not detaining migrants for longer than 28 days and this would certainly speed up the process and seems reasonable. Can a person assemble a case against deportation and have said case heard by a court within 28 days? Or will migrants who would previously have been able to remain, albeit in detention, while fighting lengthy legal cases, simply be deported after the 28 days expires?

We could, of course, not detain any migrants who are suspected of being in the UK illegally and just trust them to attend future immigration hearings.

I’m sure that would work.

  Bloody impressive after a bottle of wine I thought. And,of course, you bounce better after a few drinks😀

I see, a few of them were not being detained so that makes it ok that others were.

Are you for real ?

Have you ever heard of presumption of innocence ? You think that somehow it shouldn’t apply to foreigners

You originally stated that people were being sent to jail without trial.

It now seems that you actually meant being detained while awaiting deportation.

People are kept detained for often lengthy periods of time because they do not want to be deported and the legal process that they become involved in can be a drawn out one. The detention can end at any time if the person accepts  their deportation.

As I said previously we can argue whe this is a fair process but it definitely isn’t being locked  up indefinitely. Unless I’ve missed a case and some poor, unfortunate soul is still in detention many years after having been detained.

Nobody is being arrested and locked up indefinitely without trial and for no reason as you initially stated.

Innocent  until proven guilty doesn’t me you can’t be detained.

You keep stating that I think the law should only apply to foreigners.

Given that we are discussing immigration law then, in this particular case, that’s probably true.

Latest figures show 1784 people held in detention, 30% down on a year ago, lowest level since records began. These figures hardly support your contention that the UK is an increasingly fascistic state.

70% of detainees were held for less than 29 days. 4% were held for longer than 6 months; usually because they were foreign national offenders or had subsequently claimed asylum, ie. that 4% were fighting tooth and claw to stay in the country. People normally seek to flee fascist states that are oppressing them.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-endi...

  Rereading Cohen's article it's really very lightweight. Most of it is just a load of rhetoric about the brexit leadership being lying bastards etc. The meat of his point is probably "Yet instead of being reshaped by reality, the right is reshaping the realities of British life. It has taken the Brexit vote of 2016 as licence to attack parliamentary sovereignty, and the independence of the judiciary, civil service and diplomatic corps." but he makes no attempt to flesh this out.

The obvious rejoinder is that those institutions have been a  closed echo chamber of groupthink for too long and that criticising that groupthink and is absolutely legitimate very healthy for democracy. Paul Tucker, the former deputy governor of the BOE, has written what sounds like a very interesting book (I listened to his podcast) called "Unelected Power". He argues (from a position of knowledge) that the growth in power of central banks, regulators, the judiciary, and quangoes is a threat to democracy. He lays out the principles needed to ensure that central bankers, technocrats, regulators, and other agents of the administrative state remain stewards of the common good and do not become overmighty citizens. 

  Cohen's  only factual argument is that the electoral systems of the two parties leave the country at the mercy of a few hundred thousand activists. This is a fair criticism but he fails to note that until quite recently the choice of party leaders (and thus in some cases PM) was made either by "men in suits in smoke filled rooms" or by an unholy group of party members and left wing power blocks. I don't see that the current system is any worse than that.

It means you shouldn't be detained without time limit, without being charged,.

No, I keep stating that you think it's ok for people to be put and kept in jail for long periods of time on the whim of a bureaucrat.

That’s not what I said said nor what you said.

That does not make it OK, or even remotely acceptable, to put law abiding people in detention for long period of time under a false accusation, at the whim of a bureaucrat.

The simple fact that many people, including yourself,  find this remotely acceptable, is one of the reason , among others, why I think the country is increasingly fascist. If I look at the way many people of the Windrush generation, for example, have been treated, this can be only be described as systematic persecution.

I'd agree.

I don't find it acceptable, never said I did. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a fascist or even a fascist apologist.

Whatever, my point simply is, depriving people of their freedom, for indefinite periods of time, without a right to a fair trial or judicial review, is an example of behaviour one could reasonable call fascist, in my opinion.

What worries me is not simply the fact that this happen, but the fact that many people find it justifiable, or excusable, or are just happy to ignore it.

If you don't find it acceptable, then you agree with me.

I don't find it acceptable but I don't see it as evidence of a slide into fascism either. It's evidence of inept bureaucracy, inane immigration policy and a historic inability to enforce immigration laws. If we'd enforced the freedom of movement laws to the same degree as most other EU countries, I doubt very much that we'd be having this conversation or that the UK would have voted for Brexit.

The problem is not "inept bureaucracy", it is the fact that we gave this inept bureaucracy the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. That did not happen by chance, it was a choice, and the simple fact is, despite the Windrush scandal, there has been absolutely no real change in policy. In many ways it has gotten worse . That, also, is a deliberate choice by politicians of this country.

And my opinion is that the kind of persecutions foreigners - and sometimes of British citizens who happen to look a bit too foreign - have been subject to are indeed quite reminiscent of what fascist regimes have done. 

In what ways has it got worse then? Or is this just more hyperbole?

I am worried by the direction policy is taking, which seems to be clearly to break the link between residence and settlement - making essentially foreigners in the UK a subclass, with less and less right, purely an economic ressource we can throw away when we don't need it. We are going towards some sort of state of apartheid without realising.

We see the same forces at play in the United States, for example, but they have more robust constitutional and judicial protections, although they clearly are under pressure.

I note that you provide no actual examples of harsher policies. Looking at recent changes show some significant easing of strictures place on potential immigrants seeking to settle in the UK:

It will be possible to apply under the scheme from outside the UK.

Non-EEA citizens will be able to apply for an “EU Settlement Scheme Family Permit” to join or accompany an EEA citizen who was been granted leave under the settlement scheme.

Applications made under Appendix EU will be free of charge from 30 March 2019.

Citizens of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, and their family members, will be able to apply under the Settlement Scheme.

It will be possible to submit national ID cards as identity documents for EEA nationals, and biometric residence cards for non-EEA family members

Administrative reviews can now be made from outside the UK.

these are all changes made in March of this year. What changes do you evidence as...making essentially foreigners in the UK a subclass, with less and less right, purely an economic ressource we can throw away when we don't need it. We are going towards some sort of state of apartheid without realising. ?

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=43742232-05b5-4311-af0d-042c...

" Siezed" 

" Spied on" 

" Disappeared"  

Lol this is the level the anti-Corbyn media have now stooped to, using terms associated with fascism. 

And you believe all that nonsense with specifically chosen words to create that impression? This is for people who know nothing of politics, politically infantile people not bright people. Where is this Dexter proof of any of the ridiculous comments he makes? A real whistle-blower shows proof. 

We would see stuff they said only got lenient punishment but when the media reported it then it was treated differently. (I'm paraphrasing this Dexter character) 

So what? The media are calling people in the Labour Party anti-semitic for nothing other than criticising Israel crimes or stating the truth. It is an obvious conspiracy. 

Cohen's piece would certainly be stronger for more factual evidence. As I said when I posted it, it's a polemic, and quite an angry one. I used it because it looked like a useful starting point for debate. 

And the bit after is a reference to fact, but he leaves it for the reader to do the fleshing out. I suppose that's because he thinks he's already preaching to the converted but it could have been useful to add some factual detail at that point. Maybe he was working to a word limit?

I don't think your rather sweeping statement about 'closed echo chambers' is particularly useful. (Oh, and you're following Cohen in using rhetoric without factual evidence here too! )The Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service are professional bodies whose practice requires that some of their work is closed to the wider population. And conflating them with the bodies referred to by Tucker doesn't hold up either. 

The previous systems worked on the basis that MPs chose their leaders. If you support representative democracy that makes sense, although I know there has been much jiggery-pokery involved in these processes. Are you saying you're against the principle of representative democracy? 

As to the wider argument in this thread, I don't think the new systems of leader choice in Labour and Conservative parties are evidence of a slide to fascism but they do present problems. 

What leader choice do you mean? 

It doesn't add anything to the quality of an online debate, though, for people to have personal digs at other posters. Unless somebody is being particularly unpleasant and it being called out stops it continuing, it's generally just something which detracts, and takes up space before the thread is automatically shut after it reaching a certain size.

Although some posters understandably won't like to admit it, asking whether we're heading towards fascism is a question that needs to be asked. The comparisons with Weimar Germany are not precise nor so extreme, but they are certainly there.

It is beyond doubt that Brexit is eroding democratic principles at an alarming rate. A democratic society would by now have either rejected the referendum entirely, or at least rerun it in accordance with democratic principles. The fact that the idea of proroguing Parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit has become mainstream shows just how corrupted our democracy has become.

As to how much further we go, that depends largely on the courage of our MPs and the resilience of those of us in society who are prepared to resist. I think Brexiters were not expecting such an organised and passionate movement to grow, but it is passionate and growing every day. Fortunately, we are still able to peacefully protest without fear of persecution, long may that continue.

The actions and language of many Brexiters are fascist. The rhetoric of the Brexit "Party" is truly alarming. Woe betide us if they ever gain a significant presence in Parliament. The goal of the Tory Brexiters appears to be to the Trumpification the UK against a backdrop of nationalistic and jingoistic rhetoric, which is already turning EU citizens living here into second class citizens without democratic rights and with the fear of deportation hanging over their heads. Meanwhile, in the guise of Robinson and his followers, we have actual fascist thugs on our streets, the modern equivalent of the blackshirts, but thankfully at present very limited in number.

The good news is that - for now - society at large seems to have been remarkably resilient to the madness that has engulfed our political class. The lynch mobs are confined to twitter. And from talking to leave voters when I've been out and about campaigning, they are perfectly normal decent people.

So I don't think that we're at imminent risk of a Kristallnacht, or of goose-stepping Nazis and final solutions. But we would be foolish to assume it can't happen here. Those of us who are aware of what's going on should continue to expose the hypocrisy and nastiness of Brexiters, should keep a careful watch on events, and should organise and resist. Most importantly, we shouldn't be ashamed of being angry. Our anger is righteous and justified, and the alternative is normalisation of what's going on, which is what will allow the situation to continue to deteriorate.

(Just for clarification, I use the term "Brexiter" to refer to those pursuing it within our political class or from an elevated position in public life, not the average leave voter or Brexit supporter.)

  Regarding the groupthink description . It's probably an exaggeration. But civil servants tend to work within an overton window (which largely excludes both brexit and corbynism), partly of their own creation because they tend to come from similar educational backgrounds. This becomes apparent when people like Gus O'Donnell retire and tell us what they really think which tends to be what we always assumed they thought! Does anyone seriously doubt that the Treasury and the FO are institionally in favour of the EU?

  Yes, they are professional bureacrats expected  to be objective but successive governments from Thatcher onwards (Blair massively expanded them) have felt the necessity to employ a parallel group of SPADs to drive their projects forward, often on the grounds that the professional  civil service is institutionally resistant to change. The brexit group is effectively just repeating this charge.

  Regarding picking party leaders, actually until a few decades ago Tory MPs were barely part of the process and Labout MPs only a minor part. It's actually difficult. It (I think) it seems to me that parties should choose their leaders however they see fit but they shouldn't automatically become PM without a either an election or at the very least  a vote amongst their respective party MPs to agree the choice.

  My point is just that to regard that current system, which is better than those employed for most of the past century, as part of a drift towards fascism (as opposed to bloody silly) is misleading.

'Raises hand' - David Cameron secured agreement on no further integration of the UK into the EU in the time preceding the referendum, which means it wouldn't affect the UK in any case, so long as trading relations continue* as they have been in the past.

*Or continued, in a post Brexit era. 

Civil servants are expected to carry out the policies of the government of the day. It's a bit of a myth that SPADs were  introduced as a counter-weight to the Civil Service's resistance to change. 'Yes Minister' has a lot of responsibility here. Personally I don't think that the Civil Service is the most significant problem with our current creaky political system. 

I do agree that the leadership issue is not really a sign of a drift towards fascism - provided as you say there is some kind of electoral or parliamentary process involved.

There's an interesting Telegraph article on the Civil Service and Brexit here - 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/09/blame-britains-political-cl...

Of course, it being the Telegraph it has a call for smaller government tacked onto the end of the piece that's not really justified by any evidence in the article...

Yes. I really can’t see how anyone can think otherwise, it’s so obvious. 

I remember when Obama got in and started pushing for socialised health care some of the less measured on the American right started making noises about a lurch towards communism.  Lot’s of people out in the heartlands nodded their heads cos “it’s so obvious”. 

Of course, it was actually just bollocks.

Hardly the same is it?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2019/2/14/182...

   I suspect that you genuinely have no idea how much more that comment says about you than it does about the subject under discussion.....

I take it that you're holding up Albright as someone of unimpeachable wisdom and political savvy? Same Albright that blocked military intervention in Rwanda? Who declared that 500,000 dead Iraqi children was a price worth paying for the imposition of sanctions? Who attempted to block US recognition of the Armenian genocide?

Here's Albright in full flow...

“If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.” 

...and you want us to take her warnings on fascism seriously? Excuse me while I laugh up my sleeve.

Open your eyes ffs. 

Sheesh, the irony😀😀

”I really can’t see....”

Not sure that HM Treasury is institutionally pro-EU.  I think it's institutionally pro- HM Treasury being in charge of everything, which isn't compatible with a federalising project.  Hence them effectively squashing Tony Blair's ambition to join the Euro.

They are, though, institutionally in favour of "sound money and free trade", which makes them keen on the Single Market, not least because it was designed by a Conservative Treasury Minister, Lord Cockfield.  So it's fairly natural that they're going to veer towards models of Brexit that keep as close as possible to the Single Market.  They're obviously fairly orthodox in their economics, and given the absence of any serious economics argument in favour of trade barriers with the rest of Europe, they're going to take a dim view of erecting them. 

I’m far too tired to argue. Time will tell. 

I can see why credibility matters, but with everybody having the capacity to be wrong - or accidentally right, it could seem to be making an assessment of the argument being presented, is of more value than thinking about who presents it. 

I think that's something from a philosophy discussion that I absorbed by osmosis now I think of it, but it's logical enough.

Of course everyone has the capacity to be wrong and arguments should be assessed on their own merits, but the source of the argument is intrinsically linked to the weight you should assign it. My youngest went through a phase of insisting that unicorns were real. Now I love my daughter dearly and I had no means of disproving her proposition but I think you can guess how much veracity I leant her assertion.

Put it another way; The BMJ and Homeopathy Today may have opposing views on the efficacy of mass vaccination. One publication I'd take very seriously the other I'd read purely for entertainment value.

Edit: I just made up Homeopathy Today...but then I googled it and it's a real thing.

The temptation to contact them and ask if their information is more effective if it's diluted is quite strong.

I stand by it being more logical to consider what Madeline Albright is saying while trying to not be swayed by it being her who has said it re fascism, btw, even the daft can be right occasionally. 

Nice English and a nice answer. 😀😀

Albright has lived through 2 totalitarian regimes and has held been the equivalent of Foreign Secretary for the US government. I’d weight her opinion on such matters a little higher than yours. 

oof...I'm hurt (really? It took you two and a half hours to come up with that?).

Don’t flatter yourself. 

Could you please elaborate on that comment? Because I'm of a mind with Yanis and Bob, that even if we're not imminently going be be overrun by Nazis, there's good reason to be extremely anxious and vigilant. To dismiss the question entirely suggests that what we're seeing in the UK is the normal, healthy functioning of democracy.

The EU settlement scheme is an abomination. We are asking people who have perfectly the right to stay in the UK to “apply” to get this settled status not worth the paper it us written on. In fact it isn’t even written on any paper, it is purely electronic, and can be removed at any time, with a simple keystroke. It’s a purely administrative status. The home office can instantly erase anybody they want from the system, in total impunity. No safeguard, no right of judicial appeal, the status itself doesn’t exist in primary law, and can be amended by ministers at will.

A typical example of what I’m describing. Anybody with this status will be at the total mercy of brainless bureaucrats themselves at the total mercy of cynical ministers.

As far harsher policies, I suggest you read the immigration white paper.

I’m sort of hoping that Johnson will be more liberal on immigration than May, who just genuinely hates “foreigners”, but given that the guy doesn’t care about anything hit himself, I have no doubt he’ll happily put foreigners in concentration camps without a blink if that gained him half a percent of popularity point.

How shocking. People have to apply to stay in the UK? In every other EU country, apart from France, you have to apply for residency after just 3 months, so it appears that the UK has been considerably more liberal regarding residency than 26 other EU countries. France is a special case having had no legal requirements to obtain a carte de sejour. This leaves tens of thousands of Brits that have been living in France for years, perfectly legally, at risk of being booted out if they don't get a shift on and start applying for residence. 

So if every other EU nation expects foreign nationals to apply for residency why shouldn't the UK?

In a sense the world “fascism” is too vague, and too easily twisted, it refers to a period of the past which was vastly different.

But you’d have to be a totally blind to not recognise that we are entering a period of increased nationalism, a hardening of exclusive identities, increased willingness to accept authoritarian governments and to compromise on human rights, coupled with a process of deglobalisation.

Immigrants are just the first victims of this process but not the last.

Most educated commentator have noticed this. This isn’t new or controversial.

More liberal, only on the face of it. They simply made it easier to obtain a status, but the problem is that unlike in other countries, this new status is very weak. It’s in fact no more than a promise which can be taken away at any time. In fact, when you obtain the badly called « settled » status, they don’t even give you a document to allow you to prove your status. All it is on a government database, under  no system of independent control, exempted from GDPR.

And looking at the record of the government has for finding all sorts of made up reason to kick people out, and to remove people right to remain, this doesn’t look particularly good.

Not that vague:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Yep, there's been a shift to the right across much of the Globe, but please, a little perspective. Before Adolf managed to seize dictatorial powers Germany had 15 years of mayhem starting with losing WW1,  being forced into a humiliating peace treaty, having the value of their currency wiped out almost overnight, 100's killed in political violence, an attempted coup, massed opposing paramilitary forces (the brownshirts alone numbered 2000,000), and finally had their Houses of Parliament burnt down.

Nigel and his little march is hardly a preamble to a night of the long knives.

British immigration authorities are a disgrace, but victims of oppressive regimes are normally to be found fighting to leave, not fighting to get in.

Yeah, as I said, we're seeing a drift to the right but to state as one poster up thread has...even if we're not imminently going be be overrun by Nazis, there's good reason to be extremely anxious.. is a little premature to say the least. I'm sure everyone has stuff in their lives to worry about, I certainly do, but I'm not currently 'extremely anxious' about little Nigel donning jackboots.

Since the 2016 referendum we have seen the warning signs of most of those characteristics that define fascism.

We're on the verge of a complete breakdown of democracy in the UK. My comment was serious and measured.

It’s not Nigel I’m most worried about. As usual you oversimplify everything, It’s the global change in attitude. The way you present with such cartoonish views of the worlds is in fact part of the problem.

Windrush were not fighting to get in, they were fighting to stay in their own home they have lived in all their lives, the only one they know.

It’s not premature. It’s late, to say the least.

It’s easy to not worry when you are not impacted. However if you were on of those people who were woken up one morning by Serco officers, handcuffed, thrown in jail, with no trial, no judicial recourse, under a false accusation, then again you’d probably have a different opinion.

If you look hard enough you'll find those same warning signs in every country, not just the UK. It's a bit like looking up symptoms on the internet, you start off with the vague suspicion that you might have piles, half an hour later and you've convinced yourself you've got stage 3 rectal cancer.

I'm sure you could make a case for that, anybody can. To take the UK and Brexit; remainers will tell you the sweeping reforms being put through to deal with the unholy f*ck up entailed in converting EU law to UK law means "complete breakdown of democracy in the UK". Meanwhile brexiteers will tell you that the referendum has been subverted and that means "complete breakdown of democracy in the UK". See, it's a game for all the family.

Still peddling the lies, Rom?

It’s no wonder that people aren’t convinced by your arguments.

Still living in an alert native reality  ? There is nothing in what I’ve said that isn’t happening regularly. This is well documented, human rights organisation and other charities have denounced it, MPs denounced it, it’s been reported in the press, etc etc. In fact the article I posted above documented exactly a similar situation.

I understand that it may be easier to ignore reality, problem is, is doesnt go away.

  Of course: firstly I'm not dismissing the question (so no, I don't think we have a healthy democracy). That is what he is doing and that is what is extraordinary: that he actually "can't think" how anyone could hold a different view.

  (I  disagree with the point posed in the question on the back of spending quite a lot of time reading about it  and trying to understand both sides, but that was not the point of the specific post.)

  My point was: As a rule of thumb I don't  think that a view is valid unless one has taken the time to understand the opposing view because, if you haven't , then you haven't thought through the issues. So what Yanis is effectively saying, proudly it seems, is that he is utterly incurious about why people would disagree with him and as a result doesn't understand why their disagreement is possible. That doesn't tell me that his view (or mine) is right, simply that his view is based on a self professed lack of understanding of the issues or even any attempt to understand the issues.

  Hence it tells me nothing about the issues, but quite a lot about him.

What's wrong with cartoons?

Oh Windrush again. That the same Windrush that was universally hailed as a scandal? Same Windrush that saw a government minister forced to resign? Same Windrush that resulted in abject governmental apologies issued to it victims. Same Windrush that saw the victims deservedly paid thousands in compensation?

Pardon me, but such a (admittedly belated) response hardly puts the UK government in the same category as the Nazis persecuting the Jews.

The major difference is that when real fascist governments gain power (eg. Germany, Italy, Spain, Chile etc, etc) the dawn arrest is often a precursor to a spot in a mass grave, not a seat on a Ryan air flight.

I gave up listening to him years ago.

His overwhelming UK negativity has warped his mind.

In this particular example, the remainers would have a decent rationale for their assessment, whilst the brexiteer would be simply, 100% factually, wrong. It’s a terrible example. Indeed giving the power to ministers to make sweeping changes to UK law with little to no scrutiny in practice is a yuuuuge democratic problem.

Ok, but up until 2014/5 you could quite uncontraversially say that those symptoms were safely contained within a shouty but small section of the political class. Whereas now, it's engulfed the ruling party and is getting worse with each passing day. Applying that to your analogy, you'd be foolish to not go for a screening.

We're seriously considering suspending Parliamentary democracy in order to force through the most extreme version of a vaguely defined policy which was voted for narrowly a referendum which, it is now known, was conducted with little regard for our democratic principles. That was what I meant by a "complete breakdown of democracy".

I follow, thanks for explaining.

ho dear, a government minister had to resign, (btw, not for what happened, but for having misled parliament). Apologies ? Have you seen one sincere apology from those who built this architecture of oppression ?

I’m sorry, but thousands of people have had their entire life ruined, many have died, many have spent years in detention without trials.

Those responsible should be tried and put behind bars. But no, they still have their jobs, and pretty much nothing had changed, they continue to apply exactly the same policies, the same way, under the same laws that give them total impunity.

I never said they are in the same category. At least the nazis were honest and pretty clear about their intention. The politics of today, however, are mired in contradictions. 

If it’s a flight to a country where you’ll indeed end up in a grave then that’s hardly better.

Besides, I don’t think we should wait to have people put in mass graves before we should start to worry. Everyday persecutions such as those experienced by victims of the hostile environment, or indefinite detention without trial, are grave enough as far as I am concerned. 

What is indeed concerning is the fact that people accept it, happily ignore it, and still vote in large numbers for the parties that have engineered those crimes. 

Firstly, the Nazis weren’t honest about what they were doing, they tried to cover it up.

Secondly, I know it’s your favourite, most best and special hobby horse, but as I pointed out up thread, the Uk’s latest figures show that the government is holding 30% less immigrants than 12 months ago, and the lowest numbers since records began 10 years ago. So it’s hard to see how this shows the UK is becoming increasingly fascistic no matter how much you keep banging on about it.

You’ve seriously narrowed your historical viewpoint if you think evidence of fascism in the Uk only became apparent post 2015. I don’t know how old you are but I can vividly remember the 80’s when the NF was an actual real thing, actual skinheads roamed the streets and racist graffiti was commonplace. As to that other fascist indicator, a highly regimented society; punks were considered shocking, gay people could be detained under the mental health act and any sort of alternative lifestyle choices could see you at risk of a shoeing from the local plod. 

It’s par for the course that countries ebb and flow between progressive and regressive but the Uk would have to regress a long way to the right to reach 1980’s societal attitudes, let alone the 1930’s when fascists had a real power base in Britain.

It was a freely held national referendum. You may say “it is now known” that it disregarded democratic principles but 52% voted for it and as far as I can tell the vast majority of those leave voters only see that disregard of democratic principles evidenced by us still being in the EU 3 years down the road.

They are confusing democracy with tyranny of the majority. Democracy in the UK is achieved through parliamentary representation, parliament made the decision to not leave the EU just yet. This is therefore perfectly democratic. What would be completely undemocratic would be to bypass parliament.

This is an interesting contribution to the debate from Fintan O'Toole last year - how our tolerance for fascistic measures is being tested:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-ar...

If parliament fails to represent the people then maybe it is time to change the parliament or the system. 

There are many things that can impact the numbers, but certainly, it isn’t a change in policy, as far as I can tell despite Windrush there has been no change to the hostile environment policy. 

And if I look at the immigration white paper, it’s also pretty clear that things are not going in the right direction, although I still hope this could change with a new government.

Btw I don’t claim that the UK is becoming increasingly fascistic, I regard the term as vague and too much dependent on a time and place. It’s not a meaningful comparison. However there is no doubt that the UK has become over the past ten years or so increasingly hostile to foreigners, as evidenced by the hostile environment policies.

That’s exactly why some are worried that democracy is being endangered, as more and more people are willing to accept authoritarian leaders and policies, as they have been disappointed and let down by the traditional democratic systems.

Hence the rise of “strong men” who peddle simplistic, top down solutions to complex problems.

If our politicians don’t realise that their constant failures to address the needs of the people are the problem then they need to go.

Is it better to have a dictator who gets things done or a democratic system that consistently fails to deliver?

The thread title is 'Are we on the slippery slope to fascism'. I thought that was the debate? Or do you see the thread as simply yet another opportunity to shoehorn in immigration policy?

The hostile environment policy was aimed solely at illegal immigrants as a way of sidestepping the cost of policing immigration by way of ID cards and right to residency applications, as occurs in most every other Western country. It's not, and never has been, a policy aimed at all foreigners.

This isn't in any way a defence of the policy. It's a bad policy, badly thought out, badly implemented, wholly ridiculous and a disgrace to the UK. It isn't, as you keep intimating, evidence of blanket societal and institutional xenophobia. 

What makes you think that Parliament is not representing the people? You seem to be implying that it's an MP's job to take instructions from their constituents rather than to act in accordance with their constituents' - and the country's - best interests.

As in ‘ we (MPs) know what you (the voters) want but we know better so you can have that instead ‘.

It’s that seemingly elitist nonsense combined with the two party system that has partly led to the present day chaos.

Many people, myself included, thought, mistakenly, that MPs were elected to do what their voters wanted but of course they’re actually there to do whatever they want. as they know best.

Until election time when they’ll pretend to be interested in the needs and wants of the voters.

Strange times when Liam Fox is righteously fact checking Boris Johnson, our PM in waiting.

No. Fortunately dictators who get things done aren't the only option. A failing democracy can be fixed - British democracy shows a history of how this can be done.

I’m not sure that the Brexit debacle is going to allow politics to go back to the way it was.

Which might be a good thing given the failure of successive governments to address the nation’s needs.

Of course the referendum (were it to have been conducted fairly) was an expression of the wishes of the people. It's then the MP's job to find a way to implement those wishes. As far as I can tell the closest they've so far got to doing so was May's Withdrawal Agreement, which required only the assent of Parliament and which you'll notice was voted down by many of the MPs who are actively pushing for (a disastrous form of) Brexit. Were they to have voted in line with 'the wishes of the people' we would have left by now - or at least we would by now be an a transition period. So remind me again which MPs you think should be replaced for not implementing the will of the people?

Yes, you were mistaken. We live in a representative democracy. MPs aren't delegates. 

I do agree that our democracy needs reform, and for me the only useful thing about Brexit is that it's highlighted that there is a problem. But wishful thinking about dictators isn't helpful.

That is now your Football Lads Alliance EDL, Britain First, Alt-right though they are no where near as overtly active as the skinheads but then there is National Action who are worse and the murder of Jo Cox and all the death threats on social media. The fascists in Ukraine have been handed control of the forces by the USA and EU happy for them to make Russian speaking Ukrainians and socialists disappear or just be murdered and nothing is done. So that is real fascism in action in Europe used officially and given great powers. There is also a move in Tallinn to get an Estonian Nazis statue put up just like all the fascist statues that have gone up in Ukraine. Fascists from old SS units and neo-nazis hold parades in the Baltic countries every year and they as well as now Poland have been destroying all the Soviet WW2 statues. There was a refusal at the UN by the USA, Canada and Ukraine to ban fascist propaganda in 2015, practically all of Europe abstained from the vote that was proposed by the Russian Federation. But practically the entire rest of the world voted for the ban. As usual the USA and EU pushed by the banks, capitalist oligarchs and transnationals are using fascism against countries they want to strangle. And they have done this using Islamo-fascists in Libya and Syria to as well as death squads in Columbia right now but that has been long running. 

Obviously these two separate strains of fascism (European and Islamic) have come into conflict and Predictably that is also used by their bosses to fuel more division. An example of this would be the BNP and other far right in Europe exposing our jihadis over in Syria because they don't like to see villages and towns of Syrian Christians getting their heads slowly cut off or islamist terrorists taking over a secular Muslim country and creating an absolutely massive refugee crisis. (Which is also used by the bosses to sow even more division) 

Win win for the USA and EU ruling classes. Always. 

This foments further fascism in the EU as we see a barbaric form of Islam taking over in these countries and it scares the hell out of everyone who would not want their head slowly cut off and it creates nearly 10 million Muslims running away from our proxy army. Many of these refugees are young men, a few will be criminals, traumatised or have nothing so commit crimes in Europe which pushes people in the EU further right as they see some of the prophecies of the fascists come true and they offer protection ie. The only way to protect women and ourselves is to organise in groups, kick out the MPs who encourage this etc. So some of the representatives of the ruling class get kicked out and we see anti-immigration parties springing up in Europe but they will still represent the ruling class who have all the power although we will be that bit further to the right and we are. 

Racist and xenophobic a-holes and there are a huge amount in the UK especially in the tribal football spectator communities are now treating foreigners like shit and with total contempt and many people who were not like that are also now like that due to the daily feed from the ruling class gutter press over the years and brexit has given these a-holes total empowerment by making it look as if the majority of British people are like them and hate everyone who is not British and white. 

It is par for the course in capitalism yes but that isn't natural. I'd say it is back to 1950s attitudes and Enoch Powell for a great deal of brexit voters with respect to immigration but its under the surface. 

Apart from the hardcore rabid racists I don't think many leave voters expected to be out the EU in a few years as it is a massive undertaking. Although a great deal are alarmed at talk of a second referendum. 

I wasn’t actually thinking about Brexit but the general idea of MP’s choosing what’s best for the people.

Most people in the UK want the same basic things.

As in somewhere affordable to live.

Easy answer - build more houses. Governments response = fail to build more houses.

As in social services that deliver a workable service.

Easy answer - combined NHS/social services properly funded. Governments response = needless reform, wasted money, no joined up services, not enough  funding.

As in sorting out the homeless issue.

Easy answer - improved mental health, alcohol and drug dependency  services, more social housing.

Governments response = ?

The list goes on.

And I know that things aren’t as simple as I’ve made out.  

But if an MP’s job isn’t to take instructions from their constituents but to do what’s best for the country then I would suggest that they’re failing.

Time for a change.

Then go into politics and get done what our elected representatives are failing to do. Or elect someone better than those we have right now. That's the way democratic representation works.

Which doesn’t mean that MP’s shouldn’t listen to or act upon the wishes of the constituents.

I regard the thread title as vague and simplistic. What we have is not fascism, it’s something else, but nevertheless worrying - and shares some similarities.

Immigration policy is central to the argument in my view, as it is where the societal shifts towards tolerating authoritarian illiberal policies that breach long established human rights have had drastic consequences. It’s a symptomatic issue.

I disagree, it is aimed at everybody they could find an excuse to throw out. There was huge pressure to reduce net migration, and there isn’t nearly enough illegal immigrants you can deport to make an inch of a difference, so they targeted wide and large, finding every little excuse possible to put people in detention and in a plane.

We routinely have people being detained and deported after being falsely accused to cheat at English test, or because they made perfectly legal amendment to their tax records.

I disagree, the hostile environment policies were the result of huge political pressure to reduce immigration - at all costs. And that pressure came from increasing hostility to immigrants in society. It’s ill effects and blatant breach of human rights they are creating were well known by the government and officials, and they knowingly carried on with it. Moreover, despite everything, they still have made no changes to it, and those who have implemented and enacted these policies are still in their jobs.

But these failings go back decades.

Our politicians consistently fail and as a result many people’s lives are seriously affected.

While all isn’t doom and gloom how hard can it be to address the basic needs of a wealthy nation?

The thread is about fascism in the UK.

Which at the moment isn’t a big issue but people become more extreme if they think they’re being  ignored.

Who knows where that might lead?

Perhaps Brexit is the new fascism?

The problem with democracy is that in order fir it to serve the wishes if the electorate properly, the electorate have to be well informed and act rationally.

That's not the case.

You suggest our system should be changed. What should it be changed to?

Lets just stick to fascism in Britain.

Football lads alliance: market themselves as apolitical, anti-extremists. In reality their ranks are undoubtedly stacked with racists but they're not fascists and they're certainly not a threat to democracy.

EDL: are they even a thing anymore? According to wiki they've been in decline since 2011. A quick google shows their last march in Manchester attracted a couple of dozen lonely muppets surrounded by 50 coppers, mainly there to protect them from 300 anti-fascist protesters that showed up (check out the picture...hilarious!).

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/20/tiny-edl-protest-is-swamped-by-police-during...

Britain first: at its height they had 800 members.

Alt right: increasingly meaningless catch all term for anyone on the right that doesn't vote Tory.

So no, absolutely no evidence there that fascism is in the ascendancy in the UK. Note that EDL demo, they were outnumbered by anti-fascists 12 to 1.

I just don't recognise this characterisation. I don't live in a bubble and socially and through work I come into contact with a wide variety of people. Hardcore racists are a very rare breed in the UK these days. Fairly recently someone painted 'No Blacks' on a family's door in Salford. You probably saw the story, it was all over the national news largely because such events are now vanishingly rare. In the 80's it wouldn't have made the local rag, it would hardly have been big news on the estate where it happened. The police arrested the prat responsible and he was sentenced to 12 months. I don't imagine the police would have put much effort into investigating 30 years ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48292967

I don't know what you base that on. We had months of being told that March was a firm deadline, then it was April, next it's October but I'll be entirely unsurprised when that deadline passes too.

You don’t need to be well informed to know that you want a home, education, health care, security,etc.

The need to act rationally is always going to be a problem for democracy.

Change the system to something that works.

proportional representation?

Communism?

Fascism?

Who knows?

All have their pros and cons.

Put the Queen back in charge if that’s what it takes.

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you say, but the problem lies entirely with ideology. For example, you want more houses - very sensible. However, there are different ways of going about this, and we currently have a government which wants the private sector to do as much of the work as possible, and does not see it as the role of government to provide houses and homes for those who need it - they see the role of government as creating the environment in which the private sector can do that, and they would argue that it is the best interests of the country to have a strong private sector. 

The fact that the private sector has different ambitions - to make as much money as possible - which may be in conflict with the need for more houses is a considerable impediment to meaningful progress in this regard. 

And of course ideology also play a part when it come to levels of taxation and public spending. We have had successive governments which have seen tax reductions and reduced public spending as a meaningful policy in its own right, regardless of the consequences. Sadly, the public has been successfully sold the idea that public spending is a bad thing. 

Sorry, you misunderstood my point which was a comparison of skinheads and NF which you mentioned to the assorted fascists and racists we currently have. I don't see much difference apart from as I stated it is now less overt .You still get plenty of racist/xenophobic attacks these days be they verbal abuse on the street or assault as well as discrimination at work against foreigners. 

The figures don't even vaguely back this contention. In the last 10 years the UK has deported 4000 to 6000 annually. Net migration peaked at 336,000 in 2016 and stood at 282,000 in 2017, a full year after the Brexit vote. If the policy is a huge ploy to bring down net immigration, it's spectacularly unsuccessful.

Evidence of ineptitude not that Britain is intrinsically racist and xenophobic.

You're like a stuck record. So, how does Cyprus measure up in its treatment of migrants?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48110874

When hanging was stopped in the UK it was a HofC decision and MP's decided it was time for it to be stopped.

Most voters wanted hanging as a captial puinishment to be continued.So who was right?

Most voters have not really got a clue what they want, for example they want better services but are not prepared to pay the tax and expect somebody else to pay it for them.

Therein lies the contradictions of a modern democracy.Individualism but no real core values.

But its alot better than the other systems.It has its faults. You could have the China model,but do you really want that? The Russian model- no thanks.And so on.

You cannot have every decision pushed back to the voters...its ridiculous.

The big issue in UK politics is no formal constitution, it is just hundreds of years of development.

I’m a believer in small government but when the private sector fails to address a fundamental and urgent need such as housing then the government needs to forget its ideology and do something that works.

On the issue of hanging the people were right, IMHO.

And that’s the problem when politicians keep telling the people what they can have instead of what they want.

And while money is always an issue it’s beyond annoying when politicians always find the funds for what they think is important while proclaiming that the country can’t afford it.

Despite all the evidence that hanging does not work and people were hanged who should not have been ( one of the fundamental isses with hanging)

Can you give us specific concrete examples instead of coming out with platitudes.

Agree. I’ll add further to your analysis by adding that the old national democracies, such as the UK’s, are completely powerless in the face of global issues, whether it’s migration flow, or the economy, for example.

It’s no surprise then that disappointed voters turn to more radical, authoritarian solutions.

What we are witnessing, in my view, is the last spasm of the western model of large, centralised nation states. It is the wrong level to address global issues over which they have no control, and the wrong level to address local issues because they can’t please everyone.

The non-authoritarian solution lies in localism coupled with international cooperation. Switzerland may be one of the best example.

You were the one who brought up hanging and I responded.

What would you like specific, concrete examples of?

I used hanging as an example of where ignoring voters is a good thing.

You said politicians always find money when proclaiming the country cannot afford it. I was after an example along those lines.

I disagree, too easy to put this on ineptitude. The hostile environment is a deliberate policy. 

As I’ve said before, people have been wanting to reduce immigration. But the government could not find any single group they could realistically target, so they targeted everybody they could, Obviously it ended up harming the weakest.

Much better than the UK. Nobody makes you feel like a foreigner here, but that’s probably anchored in cultural attitudes, Cyprus has been colonised by so many different people, having a melting pot isn’t really something particularly new, people are pretty relaxed about it in general. With the Turkish occupation, they also have real problems to think about, instead of inventing fake ones.

The case you are referring to indeed shook the country and spurred a sort of national introspection. Cypriots have been blaming themselves and their own government for letting something like this happen, which is a rather extraordinary reaction, given that after all, these are the actions of a mad serial killer. The issue hasn’t been brushed under the carpet and simply dismissed.

Given the repeated failure of the home office to protect vulnerable women from abuse, you’d hope people in the UK would be all up in harm about it, but instead, the news story come in again and again in some sub column of the guardian, and people barely shrug their shoulders. Worse, the government removed the right of judicial appeal for immigration decision for women facing domestic abuse. That is not « incompetence », it deliberate policy.

HS2

Crossrail

NHS reform

Hinckley Point

Brexit preparation 

How many examples would you like?

You could run through every one of those and put an equally good strategic UK case for them.

The issue is more your politics.

You have forgotten house planning, gay rights, civil partnerships, Scottish and Welsh devolution and so on.

I think you want nothing to change and for the UK to stay wrapped in cotton wool.

Sorry, you’ve completely lost me.

I was arguing that politicians had consistently failed the electorate and something should change although I’m not sure exactly how.

And you take that as me wanting nothing to change?

I think, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, you're looking for some way to re-assess priorities for government actions in ways that deliver a 'better' outcome for the country. The challenge then becomes identifying what constitutes 'better'. 

It just seems that for decades the UK has failed to address the problems that people face on a daily basis while politicians of all parties have plenty of ideas but seem unable to turn these into workable solutions.

So for gosh knows how long there’s been a shortage of affordable housing.

Thousands of words have been written and spoken by politicians about the need to sort this problem out but little is actually d about it.

Yet this is an issue (one of many) which has a real affect on people’s lives.

We'll have to disagree on that. You obviously have far more direct experience than me, but I do have several foreign born friends and work colleagues whose experiences don't match up with your descriptions. Despite us frequently butting heads on here, I've said before that it sounds like you and your wife have been treated abominably by the UK systems.

Pardon me again if I can't agree with your characterisation of Cyprus as a cultural melting pot. While it's a long time since I was over there, I've got friends that served on the Green line relatively recently and they report back more barbed wire and machine guns than fraternal singalongs and mutual handholding.

Again, you'll have far more knowledge of how things are done in Cyprus, but I've had direct experience of the measures taken to safeguard vulnerable women in the UK and I can assure you nothing is swept under the carpet and it's taken very seriously indeed. Further, I've not come across similar issues to those described in the article and certainly nothing of the scale described in Cyprus (relative to respective populations).

What you do not like is in your opinion politicans who disagree with your view, you brand it as undemocratic.I would suggest that in all those things there has been arguments until the cows come home and a decison has been made.

There is really nothing undemocratic or a waste of money about Hinkley Point ,Crossrail etc.More you just do not like them.

Housing --well tricky. Round where I live people are opposed to any more building ( more fields gobbled up as people want to live in " nice areas", yet at the same time people want houses to live in in those nice areas.Its a bit more complicated than you portray.So who is right?

Politicians have consistently failed some parts of the electorate in the interests of trying to please other parts. The housing market is a very good example of this. That's the problem with your idea of politicians doing what the voters want. Which voters? And at the expense of which other voters? 

House prices are high therefore this should trigger a supply response in construction, the main reason it isn't happening is because of planning restrictions.

But every time politicians suggest loosening planning restriction, it’s met with fierce public opposition. 

That's exactly what a vast swathe of intelligent, knowledgeable people have been saying for three years!

That's exactly what some experts are saying could happen on October 31, if the new PM tries to bypass/prorogue Parliament. She being, in our constitution, effectively the figurehead of our Parliamentary democracy.

Well yes, you don't need to be well informed to know what you want but you won't necessarily make good decisions if you're not. Are you aware for example that various studies have asked voters what they wanted and then compared those with who they voted for and found that a significant percentage, 10 or 15% IIRC voted for the wrong party and that's even before examining the reasons for their political choices.

That combined with irrational decision making makes people susceptible to lies and half truths told by cynical politicians and ruthless owners of the media.

At present at least we have well informed representatives in Parliament to act in their best interests. Most of us consider it prudent to use experts to execute our broad wishes in other parts of our lives such as investing our pension savings. Why should the infinitely more complex business of running a country be left to amateurs with little knowledge of many of the issues that must be dealt with? Again there are plenty of examples of disastrous decisions being made by ordinary voters when things like allocation of funding in council budgets are devolved to them.

The key of course is making sure our politicians and media are honest with us. Unfortunately this is only partly the case.

How about the widespread disenfranchisement of EU citizens at the EU elections in May? It was known about in advance, was raised by MPs and there was a very straightforward solution. As it turned out, hundreds of thousands of EU citizens lost their vote, entirely as predicted.

I dunno. What’s the question?

I've been thinking lately about parallels.  Given that Brexit is pretty much a religious belief is there a more British parallel with the takeover of seventeenth century England by the Puritans who also ruled that everything should be made to fit their aspirations for the future?

The phrasing of my question doesn't follow on from the conversation, but I was intending that as an example of a systematic bias against foreigners, specifically EU citizens in this instance.

Why not, makes as much sense as brexit=fascism. 

Personally, I’m going for the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867, or perhaps a better comparison would be when Joey got his own spin off from Friends.

Edit: typo

Fair enough. You can have French residency and 10 years living in the country and still no right to vote. That’s how their system is designed, not disenfranchisement through incompetence as was the UKs excuse.

Does that mean the French are even bigger fascists than we are?

Abonimably indeed, after applying for permanent residence after 10 years of working in the UK, she was falsely accused of submitting false information to the home office and sent a letter telling her to leave the UK within 14 days or face detention and deportation. As it turned out it was a complete mistake due to HMRC holding corrupt records, but the damage was done. 

The problem is, this isn’t isolated. This is how the home office works. They look for any little pretext to reject people, and if it’s unlawful, or if they are wrong, they don’t really care, because the applicants have limited or simply no judicial recourse. When it comes to non-EU citizens this is a lot worse, as they are not protected by EU law. 

There was an interesting testimony from someone in a similar situation on BBC world news (at 7:30) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy73

As for your foreign born friends, did you consider that they might simply be afraid to even touch the subject with British people ?

More than 20% of the population is foreign born. Indeed Turkish occupation is a real problem, maybe that contributes to putting things in perspective.

Absolutely true, it’s taken very seriously indeed, if you are British, if you are not and are facing the hostile environment, that’s a different story,  if your residency depends on your spouse and you partner is abusing you, you face the choice between deportation, detention, or just shut up about it. There used to be a route of  judicial appeal for victim of domestic abuse threatened by deportation,  and the home office lost 50% of the cases,what was their solution ? They just removed the right of appeal....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/16/abuse-victims-increasingly-...

That is the main issue, really, as long as you have a proper justice system people can access, it’s ok to have tough immigration policies if that’s what people want, what is not ok is to give extensive powers to the home office to detain and deport unlawfully in total impunity.

We never had serial killers in the UK ? Are you joking ?

That is wrong. Any UK citizens in France is allowed to vote in EU election. As are EU citizens in the UK, the problem is that they were prevented to do so. This is currently under investigation and money is being raised to sue the government. 

I’d invite anybody with a spare tenner to give it to these guys so that they can hopefully nail these bastards in court.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/denied/?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_cam...

And BTW, you can live and work in the UK for 20, 30 years, you still don’t get the right to vote in national election or national referendums.

I wouldn’t have a problem with it if the rules were not discriminatory, someone from Pakistan, living in the UK for three month, can vote in national elections, but someone from say, Germany, in the UK for 20 years can’t.  That doesn’t make any sense to me, and there is ground to say that it can significant distort results, especially in tight referendums....

No, it just mean you haven’t understood the issue.

I agree with the general thrust of your argument about expertise, but "At present at least we have well informed representatives in Parliament to act in their best interests." In a Parliament with Grayling, Andrew Bridgen et. al.? Are you sure?

Any EU citizen can vote in EU Parliamentary elections in their country of residence. I hadn't heard that the French had excluded other EU citizens from voting in May, is that the case? If they only allow French citizens to vote in their internal elections, that's their prerogative.

I'd argue that the disenfranchisement in the UK was deliberate, given the ample warning and easy solution to the problem which the government effectively ignored.

Afraid to touch the subject with me? No that's not a possibility. Believe it or not I enjoy 'robust' conversation, and one of these friends I've known for over 25 years, our families have often holiday'd together and I couldn't count how many New Year's we've spent together, 2 others are regular drinking companions of over 10 years standing.

Absolutely not true. I'm not going into it but I have direct experience of this and your comments are incredibly insulting to people that work in the field. When it comes to victims of abuse I've never come across anything but care and compassion from UK frontline agencies, regardless of the nationality of the victim. 

Don't be dense Rom. I was referring to the main thrust of the article..

The case has exposed an exploitative system that allows tens of thousands of migrant women to work as housemaids in conditions that critics have described as akin to modern slavery

Horrendous numbers when you consider that the Republic of Cyprus only has a population of 850,000.

Edit: typo

My point, which was badly put across, was that the disenfranchisement of EU voters in the UK was mirrored by the disenfranchisement of UK voters in France. There is a broad streak running through UKC that almost everything to do with British foreign and domestic policy, past/future/present, is uniquely corrupt and evil. This simply isn't the case.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20190522/british-in-france-fear-they-will-not-be-ab...

I know, I know.

Even so, I'd still rather have Grayling sitting in a big office in Whitehall than any London taxi driver I've talked to.

People should vote for people and not parties but I doubt that that will ever change. Perhaps mandatory reselection of MPs should be written into law but sadly constituency parties are likely to make choices based on electability and along factional lines rather than competence.

The problem is, the frontline agencies can be fantastic and caring all you want, in the hostile environment, the victims won’t come forward if they risk being deported. That’s the whole issue. Have you read the article ?

Modern slavery is a grave problem in the UK and elsewhere too. The phenomenon in Cyprus is very recent, and in fact, a consequence of the rather liberal immigration system. It is very common in Cyprus for elderlies to hire someone to help them. A lot of young girls from Vietnam and the Philippines come to work, and unfortunately, it seems that some are being abused. This is a rather new phenomenon for Cyprus, hence the lack of system to prevent it from happening and the shock and horror when it was discovered. To be honest, hardly surprising given that Cypriot police are lazy fucks of the highest order, they could not find a coconut on coconut island.

I guess the difference is that registering to vote is an administrative f*ck up for everybody in France. The great french administration does not discriminate in how it dispenses a terrible service ! Everybody is treated like shit equally

The situation in the UK is unique because it impacted specifically a very large number of EU citizens, the issue had been identified in 2014, the government was warrned repeatedly, and they deliberately chose to do nothing. That’s why preparations are being made for a judicial review.

I can perfectly understand that making it easy for certain category of people to vote against them is not exactly palatable to the Tories, but that’s not the way a democracy should work.

I’d argue that we are in fact too informed. If you give a doctor 50 pieces of information on a patient, his diagnostic will be worse than if he has only 10. Our brain are shit at processing information.

There is no easy solution to this, but to me is seems that the most effective is simply to do away with the centralised nation state. Voters are always going to make mistakes, so the system needs to be decentralised, thus limiting the impact of bad decisions.

Unfortunately it seems to me that we are going towards more centralisation, more top down. In probabilistic terms, given enough time, this can only end badly.

Its an interesting feature in fact, in a centralised political system, scale brings instability, as bad decisions by voters have a very large impact, however in a decentralised political system, scale bring more stability - as small parts of the system experience failure, from which the whole system learns, without suffering any large impact.

This is probably what made the US such a successful democracy, but now even them are going toward centralisation so here you go, everything is going in the wrong direction.

 It’s truly amazing that you so many of you have to ask  this. It just demonstrates that you aren’t even aware of the arguments. 

  Because the EU is regarded as an undemocratic unrepresentative body that explicitly intends to reduce or remove national sovereignty without the understanding of the people and give control to supranational technocrats . And it establishes protectionist regulations and borders against foreigners.

  To describe this as “fascist” or “xenophobic” is of course a silly exaggeration but no more so than when the terms are used by remainers.

At least some people are doing something about it:

https://local.theonion.com/man-s-existential-terror-about-country-s-slide-t...

Hilarious sophistry - have a gold star.

Sheesh. You really really haven’t a clue. It’s the straightforward answer to the question. Which part do you think is sophistry?

Reply with one fewer "sheesh!" and a little less scorn (or a little more humour) and I might consider that you deserve an answer. Or not - as you please.

 As opposed to your very polite post? Whatever...

Talk to the hand, cos the face ain't listening, girlfriend... Word. 

... I love it when you go street. Tickles my cobbles. 

It's truly amazing that you haven't worked out the rules to this game yet. First you have to pick a side. There are only two sides and you have to be on one of them. The people on the other side are stupid and dangerous and ill informed and don't know what they're doing cos there is only one side. Remember that. One side. Some people will tell you that there isn't just one side but they are wrong. Don't look at things from any side but your own side. There isn't really another side. Stupid people can't have a side. So there is only one side.

This thought process seems to be getting more and more common. I don't know how it happened, maybe it's something to do with decreasing attention spans, anything that isn't binary just takes up too much band width. End result; there just seems to be this ever widening chasm where the centre ground used to be. 

If Western democracy is facing an existential crisis it's not phantom fascists creeping out of the woodwork, it's the death of constructive political dialogue because the two sides have no common ground and the gap between them has grown too wide to shout across.

I am the sort that is slightly concerned about a possible descent into fascism, and I have to say that this phraseology, especially coming from an evidently decent human being such as yourself, does nothing to calm my nerves. What is your answer to the question you pose (noting that I disagree that its premise reflects reality)?

The answer is the democratic system given that I can’t think of any dictators who have been benign.

Although this doesn’t solve the problems of those who feel ignored or left behind by our present system.

I guess they’ll just have to suck it up and get on with things as they’ve always had to do.

I am relieved to hear your answer. Thanks!

What if, just what if, there were indeed two sides, and one of them happened to be not only wrong, but extremely dangerous ? This wouldn’t be the first time in history.

When I hear comments such as those recently made by Trump, I don’t see how it’s possible to find any way to compromise or dialogue, or find any nugget of truth or wisdom in what he says.

I always give the benefit of the doubt and prefer to look at what people do rather than what they say, but in the case of Trump, his awful words are equally matched by awful actions. Does he look like someone who wants to “dialogue” ? Some have tried, they failed, and he’s not interested anyway.

What do you do then ?

We know full well the argument, you’ve been repeating the same tabloid soundbites for a while, the problem is that there doesn’t seem to be much careful analysis of facts behind it.

1) the EU isn’t particularly undemocratic. Arguably, in many ways, it’s more democratic than most western democracies in its functioning. Pretty much nothing happens without overwhelming consensus. It’s in fact overly democratic to the point that it is painfully slow. But slow is sometimes good.

2) it does not remove national sovereignty, this is a voluntary club that every member has joined willingly, our parliament ratified all the treaties every single step of the way, we were on the winning side of the EU council votes 98% of the time, and we were always free to leave the club at any point.

3) EU protectionism is evidently a myth. The EU is probably the most liberal large trade bloc in the world, and the biggest free market in the world. It has pushed liberalisation of trade further than anybody else has ever done. Moreover, it has a very impressive range of large trade deals, and the pace is accelerating, despite increased protectionism elsewhere.

The protectionist are those who want to take us under WTO rules, and don’t understand that in order to get a trade with someone you need to give something in exchange, not quiet Eurocrats in grey suits who have slowly been building one of the largest free market in the world and have concluded wide ranging trade deals.

4) Border against foreigners: That one is just categorically wrong. Immigration policy is a reserved matter for member states. Any member state can have whatever immigration policy they like, the only condition is freedom of movement between Europeans, which is a very good thing and a formidable freedom to enjoy, and certainly not a “border against foreigners”. Also a very hypocritical one given that one of the most politically potent justification for Brexit was that people wanted indeed stronger borders against foreigners !

On one side you argue earlier for a less centralised state or nation in the broadest terms, then you say the EU is OK.

If I am correct there was never an EU system in place for a country to leave ( one of the issues we are faced with).And one of the issues we are faced with is how difficult it is to extract oursleves financially from the system.It is debateable whether you could therefore really say it is  " voluntary".

Alot of countries outside the EU block do consider it a protectionist block.For example The EU policies on agriculture etc are considered by  some to be incredibly protectionist to EU farmers.We dress it up as " standards", but it is still viewed by others as protectionist.Most people on this forum do not trade internationally outside the EU and therefore do not see how others see us as protectionist.

You are aware of a global view that the EU is basically a trading block designed to protect a mature ageing low growth market from the ravages of more dynamic growing markets? Some in Greece would argue that the EU block is stopping the young unemployed ( what is it 30-40% of those under 25 without a job) from getting jobs.

I have no idea, but quoting The Times as some sort of balanced view on Corbyn, or Labour, is a bit of a fantasy.

This is a contradiction.

What do you make of the comments put forward by Tim Dexter?

It’s not a contradiction, it simply is the truth, member states have complete control over their immigration policy. The condition for entry in the EU is that you accept to have freedom of movement. That is a sovereign choice parliament made. If you don’t like it, then you have to negotiate a new agreement or leave, but you are free to do so. That’s control.

Moreover, PP argument was that the EU puts barriers on foreigners, that is untrue, member state can do pretty much whatever they want in regards to non-EU migration, if they want to let everybody in, they can.

Rubbish.

So Croatia could decide to let everybody in (for a sum of money), on condition they all move to the UK.

Because the EU, unlike the UK, is not a centralised system. It simply is a platform for cooperation. It’s not even remotely to the stage of a federal system, which would be very much more decentralised than for example, the UK.

There is a principle of subsidiarity and consensus. And more importantly, you can leave.

There is, it’s called art 50.

Of course it’s voluntary. The fact that it is difficult to leave is simply down to the fact that we drew benefits from membership, therefore it’s difficult to leave in a way that isn’t damaging.

Its rather an absurd argument, it would be like an employee saying he is a prisoner of his employer because they pay him too well !

We are free to leave, it’s just that OUR parliament doesn’t want to. It is OUR government that requested an extension twice.

You are right that there are strong protections for agriculture, but by international standards, they are pretty much in line or more liberal than what you see elsewhere. And with the development of trade agreements they are being reduced. Most other trade block are even more protectionist, starting with the US. We can’t even export haggis to them !

A lot of these protections are perfectly sensible, the EU is clearly for more liberalisation in this area but critically it depends on what other trade block can offer.

BTW it seems quite obvious to me that there is no reason to think the UK would have more free trade than the EU on agricultural products. Other trade blocks are unlikely to offer better market access to the UK than they do for the EU, especially given that there is less we can offer, and visibly no will to lower existing standards.

Except that the EU has been at the centre of trade liberalisation for decades, and is now doing everything it can to restrain protectionist tendencies elsewhere, but never mind the facts...

Some would argue that indeed, some other with a less politically motivated look would simply say that if you base your economy on public spending, and run out of money, then you end up with high unemployment.

It's not actually 'quoting' the Times is it? It's a video of an individual talking about anti-semitism in Labour and stands apart from the medium it's in. The Times may well be delighted to show this because it supports its distaste for Corbyn and Labour but that's a separate issue. What matters is, is he telling the truth?

You can say rubbish all you want, it simply is the truth.

They can, if they want, but of course those people would most likely need to apply for a UK Visa to be able move to the UK (assuming they aren’t British)

I’m frankly failing to see why anyone would pay the Croatian government a sum of money on condition that they move to the UK, and getting nothing in return, when they could instead not pay anything and still move to the UK under exactly the same conditions of entry. Are you sure you’ve thought this through ? This looks quite absurd.

But we have to let them in if they become EU citizens in Croatia.

You are again making the common mistake that I see all the time in looking at it through European eyes.

Alot of business people that I meet who are non European consider the EU just a protectionist block irrespective of Trade Deals.And Trade Deals involve alot of hagglin and compromise.

Sometimes you need to listen see how others percieve the  EU.

Any evidence of what you are suggesting? Or is it just " what if"?

I expect some people Merkel accepted have moved here.

And yet, everybody is doing business with the EU, more than ever before, and it’s easier to do business in the EU than in the vast majority of the rest of the world. 

Indeed ! That’s the whole point ! If you don’t like protectionism then there isn’t much else you can do but negotiate for freer market access, which is what the EU does.

What doesn’t help fight protectionism is to suddenly exit all the market access you have negotiated for decades and start from scratch with vastly less on the table to offer the other markets you want access to.

I do, that’s all I do, hence why I took the time to write a reply to you and PP.

But there is perception, and facts. The simple fact is that the EU has been one of main motor of trade liberalisation. It has in fact gone further than pretty much everybody else.

Try speaking to businesses in the USA who want to export into the EU. 

Just complying with CE marking standards is considered protectionism.

As you know I voted remain. But I do not consider myself blind to how standardsetc are used as a cloak of protectionism  , often dressed up as providing no real additional safety or protection

It might be considered protectionist but that doesn't mean it is!  CE marking serves a valuable purpose.  I am sure US companies might prefer it if their only standards applied, but CE marking doesn't have the intention of preventing imports - it is about safety, environmental, sustainability among other matters.

Don’t have to either. You can leave the EU in which case the free movement arrangement for EU citizens ceases to apply.

Instead of inventing absurd arguments involving the UK being invaded by hordes of evil naturalised Croatian citizens, you can simply recognise the basic fact of the matter: the UK has control over its immigration policy.

That is of course a view. But such standards are used to protect local industries as well. 

Obviously.

The only way member states can have complete control over their immigration is to leave the EU.