** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[pwa]

People dont see it happening in their own countries. The press is after all suppressed, the dissidents are described as something else like traitors or trouble making inciters of violence, the lack of democracy is described as legal infractions by the opposition, modernisation or just emergency measures.

But you say those things without worrying that it might result in an unwelcome knock at the door later tonight. Fascism is something so un-British that I cannot imagine it here. I don't even see us as being all that nationalistic. I don't think nationalism was the driving force behind Brexit. I think we should avoid using "Fascism" as a term where it is not appropriate. There is no yearning for a Franco, Mussolini or Hitler here.

[reohn2]

But you say those things without worrying that it might result in an unwelcome knock at the door later tonight. Fascism is something so un-British that I cannot imagine it here. I don't even see us as being all that nationalistic. I don't think nationalism was the driving force behind Brexit. I think we should avoid using "Fascism" as a term where it is not appropriate. There is no yearning for a Franco, Mussolini or Hitler here.

Fascism has many faces,some quite human looking

[meic]

No because they were on the other side. They lost and they always have their bad sides portrayed but not their achievements.
You do hear a lot of calls for the parts of Fascism that were beneficial, while ignoring that it might come with the other parts too.

If I was a Muslim and I had said "other things" then I would be worried about an unwelcome smashing down of the door and being dragged off by armed Police tomorrow morning. That is the thing with Fascism the bad happens to minorities who dont tow the line, not to mainstream folk who are ordinary.

[pwa]

But you say those things without worrying that it might result in an unwelcome knock at the door later tonight. Fascism is something so un-British that I cannot imagine it here. I don't even see us as being all that nationalistic. I don't think nationalism was the driving force behind Brexit. I think we should avoid using "Fascism" as a term where it is not appropriate. There is no yearning for a Franco, Mussolini or Hitler here.

Fascism has many faces,some quite human looking

Do you see it in the UK? I don't. Not in my street. Not among my friends and the people I work with. I don't know anyone who would like to see the suspension of democracy, banning of free speech and the imprisonment of anyone who opposes the government. Fascism is horrific when it happens. I believe we should be careful not to misuse the word, or it will lose its power. A bit like Neil Hamilton who recently misused the word "holocaust" and was criticised for it.

[thirdcrank]

I'm bemused by the idea that Fascism is somehow un-British.

There's a clue in the name of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) which was active in this country during the 1930's and only banned after WWII got going.

Apart from Oswald Mosley, all sorts of people were supporters. Part of the motivation of the upper classes was that they saw it as a defence against Communism. Had Edward VIII not been forced to abdicate over his personal life, we might well have gone into the war with a king who admired Hitler. We might even have formed some sort of alliance and tried to avoid a war. As it was, the Duke of Windsor's antics as an army officer so disturbed Churchill that he ordered him to return to London under the thinly veiled threat of a court martial.

The Public Order Act 1936 was enacted as a direct result of the activities of BUF. 1936 was also the year of the "Battle of Cable Street" when fascists were prevented from marching provocatively through the East End. Unsurprisingly, a lot of those East Enders who had fled from Hitler, didn't want a replay here.

Hitler got Fascism a bad name, but it might easily be re-invented under another.

[reohn2]

Do you see it in the UK? I don't. Not in my street.Not among my friends and the people I work with.

I once watch a program on TV about not seeing what's under ours noses,in it there was an article about the killing of whales in the Faroes by islanders IIRC slaughtered and butchered on the beach though they really didn't need to but it was a long held tradition where all the islanders including the children joined in.
The the islanders were invited to the local community hall an asked them to watch video about the killing of Elephants by poachers in Africa.
They were horrified at the slaughter,the blood the hacking off of the tusks,etc,etc.

They were then showed a video of the Whales they'd slaughtered themselves on there own beaches,they were gleefully recognising themselves,their families,children and neighbours,covered in blood as they hacked away at the dead carcasses without a thought for the Whales they were slaughtering and butchering.

I don't know anyone who would like to see the suspension of democracy,

Have you seen the news tonight about the changes to MP's constituencies?

I believe we should be careful not to misuse the word, or it will lose its power.

I believe it's time we called a spade,a spade,uncomfortable as that might be.

[Tangled Metal]

The definition is okay, if not very precise, but the "authoritarian" bit includes removal of democracy, removal of press freedom, and suppression of any dissent. It's just not something happening in the UK. I don't know about elsewhere.

You're reading what's not there.
And not reading what is.

Oxford English Dictionary definition of authoritarian is.

1Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom:

Seems to me that's removing freedoms like freedom... of speech, press, from oppression, from.detention without trial, etc. I think we've got some elements of that due in part to super injunctions. Also you could argue there's been an element of detention without trial with some of the Islamic extremists for example. However I do agree that it is very.unlikely we'll see a UK based authoritarian regime that is fascistic in nature. Individuals standing for election in.general elections are fringe candidates without a chance of seeing power. Council elections and possibly European parliament elections (if no Brexit) could result in very right wing and nationalistic representatives I reckon at a stretch but they'll not have power nationally or any serious influence.

Nope I don't believe fascism has a chance in.the UK, not least because of our history. The closest was early 30s to moving towards fascism. The black shirts and all that (upper class fascists without mainstream support I believe).

[pwa]

The definition is okay, if not very precise, but the "authoritarian" bit includes removal of democracy, removal of press freedom, and suppression of any dissent. It's just not something happening in the UK. I don't know about elsewhere.

You're reading what's not there.
And not reading what is.

Oxford English Dictionary definition of authoritarian is.

1Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom:

Seems to me that's removing freedoms like freedom... of speech, press, from oppression, from.detention without trial, etc. I think we've got some elements of that due in part to super injunctions. Also you could argue there's been an element of detention without trial with some of the Islamic extremists for example. However I do agree that it is very.unlikely we'll see a UK based authoritarian regime that is fascistic in nature. Individuals standing for election in.general elections are fringe candidates without a chance of seeing power. Council elections and possibly European parliament elections (if no Brexit) could result in very right wing and nationalistic representatives I reckon at a stretch but they'll not have power nationally or any serious influence.

Nope I don't believe fascism has a chance in.the UK, not least because of our history. The closest was early 30s to moving towards fascism. The black shirts and all that (upper class fascists without mainstream support I believe).

That's how I see it. There are the fringe nutters, but no mainstream fascism. In the UK we are very suspicious of the police and other bodies misusing terrorism legislation. During the 1970s we were very uneasy about the use of internment without trial to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. Governments wanting to employ such measures have to constantly explain why, and to deal with criticism.

[meic]

There isnt going to be Fascism again because what happens will not call itself Fascism.
Interestingly Fascism described itself (economically) as the third way between communism and Capitalism. Where have we heard that since?
There isnt actually a definition of fascism that is agreed other than being Italy, Germany or Japan in the mid-twentieth century which could ever pin anybody as fascist except those in Italy, Germany and Japan in the mid-twentieth century.
Yet many of the tenets of Fascism are gaining popularity at the moment. One of the new features of Fascism was the state having an unprecedented increase in control of its populace, that part has remained and strengthened ever since.

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”

[mikeonabike]

Have any of you read the stuff about Orgreave and Hillsborough? But only loony lefties in the 80s thought Maggie's government had a hint of fascism.

[meic]

I was kind of there at the time of the miners' strike, in the area with friends on either side.
I didnt see any Fascism, just pure unrestrained Capitalism hitting some Socialist resistance.

It was more reminiscent of Churchill than Hitler.

[thirdcrank]

I don't think that this is much to do with some sort of national characteristics but rather the coincidence of a set of conditions.

After WWI, Germany was stuck with some pretty onerous conditions for having started it. Those conditions included financial reparations which particularly hurt the country during the long years of depression. The Germans also paid for their war effort by what we now dress up as quantitative easing or printing money in plain English. It all went wrong in spectacular fashion when inflation set in with dramatic effects: bank notes overprinted with millions and people with barrows of money unable to buy even basic items. Up pops a powerful orator with a popular message about making Germany great again, the bandwagon gathers momentum, and the scapegoats take the brunt. For a country with a military tradition, territorial expansion was an easy step.

Probably their worst mistake, at least in terms of winning the war, was in not realising that the powerful orator was off his trolley.

[pwa]

Have any of you read the stuff about Orgreave and Hillsborough? But only loony lefties in the 80s thought Maggie's government had a hint of fascism.

Yet you can turn that around and say that even after all this time there is a refusal to accept what we were told back then, and a desire for truth. That is because there is something healthy in British life. Governments lie to us, the police lie to us, and eventually they are found out. The truth surfaces eventually. It takes far too long, and guilty parties are not always held to account, but we do tend to get the truth emerging at some point. Just look at Bloody Sunday. The official version about what happened kind of worked for a while. But the questions soon started. It took far too long, of course, but we did get to a point where we could accept that the British Army killed people with no justification. A crime. A national shame. It concerns me that no charges have been made against individuals yet, but when Cameron said "sorry" I could have kissed him. While we are able to reflect on our own failings we are not in danger of falling for the "charms" of fascism.

[meic]

While we are able to reflect on our own failings we are not in danger of falling for the "charms" of fascism.

It took us three times as long to realise our own failings there compared to how long it took Germany to sprout, grow and execute its Fascists. So I think that we will find ample time for a pseudo-fascist to charm us before our conscience eventually kicks in and brings us to our senses.

[Tangled Metal]

Boundary changes a suspension of.democracy? Hmmm! That's a stretch too far for many reasons.

First off the electoral commissions, they've got a strong history in their role of determining boundaries based on feedback from anyone giving it. They propose boundaries that always get changed based on.feedback. Very inclusive of constituents and interested parties.

Second their remit with these changes are to create boundaries with equal numbers of registered voters. Unless I'm missing the idea completely the purpose is to give one voter from inner city London equality with one voter from the highlands and islands based on proportion of the voters in the constituency. It's a kind of equality of sorts and addresses the issue that's been.around for some time.

Thirdly there's going to be a vote in parliament on this.

Issue? They're currently using 2015 electoral rolls not figures produced for tree referendum. This is believed to lose 2 million new voters who are likely to be Corbynistas. Possible reasons for that could be due to 2015 electoral rolls were updated for a general election which is what these boundary changes are for. There's always going to be lags in the changes to boundaries and changes in electoral rolls. Basing these changes on GE electoral rolls when people are potential more likely to make the effort to get their entries on the electoral rolls right. Perhaps a stretch there.

Other issues include the fact that existing boundaries have been favouring the Labour party for many decades, at least the 80s I believe. I once remember political scientists saying in interviews that this effect is equivalent to about 11% swing to conservative party just to get parity. Or something like that. Tories got 6.5% extra percentage of the vote than Labour to gain 12 seat majority. Add in the larger number of left leaning parties that would likely vote with Labour party there's a strong reason to change.

Add in the cost savings crib reducing 650 seats to 600 seats I think it's a good change.

However with Corbyn the left has had a bit of a resurgence. Anything to make it harder for Labour, or more accurately less easier for them, will cause lefties to squeal about lack of democracy. So lobby your MP and try to get the vote over the changes, once finalized after a long consultation period, stopped. That's democracy.

BTW have you heard Corbyn complain about it? I've not which I actually think gives him more credibility in my eyes because his silence could be seen as acceptance that current boundaries are giving a skewed level of democracy towards Labour.