Hacker News Reader

Comment by klelatti | Hacker News Reader

The Brexit referendum was the answer to a long running battle within the Conservative party between Eurosceptics and the rest dating back to the early 1990s. As such Brexit may be seen to be a success. It has united the party behind a common policy (those who objected have been kicked out) and healed the division.

Even better (for the party) they have created a 'foe' which can be blamed for Britain's ills with political impunity. If Scotland leaves the UK - which looks likely - they will be close to guaranteed a majority in parliament. Their recent election majority has given them the opportunity to ignore, weaken or ignore controls on the executive's behaviour.

For all his buffoonish behaviour and administrative incompetence Alex Johnson is a ruthless political operator.

I make no comment on the benefits or otherwise for the UK and its people which should be obvious by now.

View on HN

"We have a European bureaucracy totally unaccountable to anybody, powers have gone from national parliaments - they haven't gone to the European Parliament, they've gone to the Commission and to some extent the Council of Ministers. These are quite serious matters."

— Jeremy Corbyn (who was a Eurosceptic for most of his life)

Please don't politicize too much the modern notion of 'Brexit' as actually being an easy left/right issue, it's much more complicated than that.

This deal will only bring a short term truce in the Conservative party. As the economic reality of Covid starts to bite, certain fractions in the party wil urge for a more generous deal with the EU, especially as a quick trade deal with the USA no longer seems to be on the table. Boris is not likely going to last until the next GE, either by choice or because he will be forced out.

When the Tories will finally be relegated to the opposition benches, it is very likely the party will tear itself apart about this too. There is a pro business section in the Tories that do not like where the party is headed, but are so far powerless to anything about it.

The historian David Edgerton has an interesting take on the last part - he says that there is no longer a British national capitalism - that is that most big business in the UK is internationally owned or has an outlook that doesn't see itself as particularly British. Good examples would be motor manufacturing and chemicals (so no ICI but instead we have Ineos). There are exceptions of course but the trend is clear.

If you look at the backers of the tories now it's not big business any more (in the sense of the CBI say) but often niche financial services firms - who often loathe the EU. If you follow the money then I can't see the Tories worrying too much about traditional business in the UK.

I think events have shown that the debate was not simply within the Conservative party.

I didn't say it was. The referendum was as a result though of Cameron's wish to have his party 'stop banging on about Europe' and his desire to make the party secure against UKIP.

Who's Alex Johnson?

Boris is a stage name. Alex is the name he uses when not in his "persona".

You could have just called him "Johnson". To use his birth forename seems especially inappropriate when you are explicitly commenting on the behaviour of his political persona, not on his personal life.

I was making a point that "Boris" is part of an act to make a deeply cynical and ruthless politician seem fun and approachable. I don't think anyone reasonable would think that using someone's birth forename that he personally uses and prefers when not in his 'act' as inappropriate in any way at all.

Au contraire, I believe it would be inappropriate to refer to Harry Houdini as "Erik Weisz" except when discussing his personal life, for the same reason.

Alex Johnson uses his "Boris" persona as part of an act. It's a calculating and deliberate effort, not to separate his personal life from politics - which would be reasonable - but to create a more attractive persona to present to the electorate. It's one which is quite different from his real persona. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to resist that effort.

No idea what Harry Houdini has to do with this. I don't recall him standing for election as Harry Houdini.

As we both already know, Harry Houdini never stood for election as Prime Minister. He constructed a stage persona in exactly the way you ascribe to Johnson; the only difference is that you personally decline to accept Johnson's. Setting aside the question of whether people should have the right to choose how others refer to them in a professional vs a private context, there's already a very simple, common, and well-known way to refuse to call him "Boris", and it's one which already carries the same connotations.

As a matter of simple courtesy, don't force people to ask you what you mean (which is what you do when you refer to him as "Alex", exactly as you would if you referred to Houdini as "Erik"); presumably you find it as infuriating as everyone else when people deliberately speak in such a way as to force you to ask them to clarify. It's bad manners just as using needlessly pretentious and obscure vocabulary is.

> He constructed a stage persona in exactly the way you ascribe to Johnson; the only difference is that you personally decline to accept Johnson's.

I mean, yes. If you're an entertainment personality you can have a stage persona and I accept that.

If you're a politician, then I reject your desire to have a stage persona. Politicians pretending to be something they aren't is a massive problem, and treating politics exactly like another form of entertainment is a massive problem with our society and our politics.

So I am doing exactly what your criticize, but I do it proudly, and I actually return the opposite criticism to you.

Completely agree. The Harry Houdini example is actually illuminating I think: what if he had stood as Harry Houdini - would it be reasonable to stand on that persona rather than his real one? I think not.

Another point on Johnson is that he deliberately conflates his personal life with politics when it suits him (pictures of his new born son on the front pages of papers) whilst using the courts to obscure others (his possible fatherhood of another child).

On use of his name it's the man himself who makes the ruthless political decisions and not the stage persona which is is much more 'warm and cuddly'.

To me, "calling a trans person consistently by the wrong pronouns" and "referring to someone at work using a name you know is their spouse's pet name for them" would fall into the same category. I find it hard to view any of these as anything other than Dick Moves. I do have an unusually strong loathing of globally-inconsistent rules, though, which probably makes me more prone than most to generalise the rules along this axis (whereas you believe that they should not generalise past a particular point).

Re Harry Houdini specifically: I think it would have been reasonable, yes. Lord Buckethead does it. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to stand as Borat, and people voting for Borat would be voting specifically for Borat, not for Sacha Baron Cohen. If elected, I would expect Sacha Baron Cohen to rule to the best of his ability as if he were Borat.

Tbh if Johnson ran the UK as "Boris" I'd probably give him a pass and call him Boris, but he doesn't.

In any event Happy Xmas!

> calling a trans person consistently by the wrong pronouns

That's not a stage persona, though. I don't reject that someone can transition genders, and hold political office as their preferred gender.

In the same way, I absolutely don't begrudge a politician using a preferred name if it is their actual preferred name. What I personally won't tolerate is a stage persona. They don't get to "play a character" when they run for office.

> Lord Buckethead does it.

I think this is the best example of a blurred line. I don't mind Lord Buckethead's persona, because I view his activities as political satire despite the fact that he's using the actual election mechanisms. If, however, he stood a 1% chance of winning and actually wanted to govern I would absolutely not accept "Lord Buckethead" as a reasonable candidate. So, as political satire, Lord Buckethead is fine as a stage persona. As a bona fide political candidate, I think it's absolutely wrong.

Are entertainers and actors using screen names and politicians working for the country equivalent?

In both the subtlety of meaning and in totality of context, reference to ones birth name in this case, helps illuminate the original point of his ruthlessness as a political operator who constructed a persona grata. Highly appropriate I say.

What's cynical about it? People got to vote on him and enough approved.

If you hold something against people named 'alex' then let's hear it.

Prime ministers are a part of a larger story. The practice of aligning with the larger story won't change, people will just work harder to make it happen. I don't want to play the game of guessing who legally changed their birth name to match what the people wanted instead of just running on a pen name and accepting the world as it is.

Re Scotland, I suspect that the EU made some concessions to make them leaving less likely. On the whole the EU doesn't like countries becoming independent (Catalonia, for example) of their parent country. Coherence is key for the EU

Really relevant point. EU wants deeper integration, the last thing it needs is a second independent nation with a land border to the UK.

That doesn't make any sense. An independent Scotland would likely join the EU and thus become more integrated with it.

Yeah but it would be really disruptive to the EU. I imagine they just want to get on with usual business now brexit is 'done with'.

Why would it be more disruptive that any other country that have integrated the union before ?

Because the new country joining has a land border with the UK which wont be legislated for whatsoever in the brexit trade deal.

So? The EU had other land borders with non EU countries. There are 25 road crossings between England and Scotland compared to 300 between NI and ROI and no GFA to sustain.

So it creates a lot of admin work for the EU and disruption to their business as usual.

No need to be so hostile, just making the point.

It doesn't create any new admin work, unless Scotland tries to get some special deal. In which case they might well reuse the Irish framework.

It would be a walk in the park and a total propaganda victory for the EU. The only real obstacle was the "meddling in internal state affairs" argument, but that's just gone out of the window now that the UK is a third country. Now Scotland is more like Kosovo or Boznia was - a territory that would be a useful addition to the EU market once it's dislodged from the controlling entity.

Scotland would need a special deal though, at least for a reasonable transition period.

I actually think Scotland should have its own independence, so I'd be happy to see it. Would be a massive arse ache for everyone involved, though - probably worse than brexit based on how deeply integrated the England and Scotland are.

> worse than brexit based on how deeply integrated the England and Scotland are

I think you are underestimating how much the UK and the EU were effectively integrated.

It would create no work for the EU whatsoever. Like every sovereign country in the union Scotland would be in charge of policing its own border with the UK and ensuring that regulations are properly applied as it would be if Scotland left the UK without being a member of the EU.

The EU continues to have a "Common Travel Area" agreement and land border between Ireland (in the EU) and the UK (now not).

It would not be disruptive to extend the existing rules to an independent Scotland.

I completely disagree. The EU remained silent during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 because they didn't want to be seen to be publicly undermining the UK government, but since relations have soured they've been pretty open to say that Scotland would be welcomed back into the EU and that it already meets the requirements.

Not to say that Scotland rejoining the EU would be a massive moral victory for the EU over England.

Disagree with your final point.

The last thing the EU wants is disruption - ever. They want clear, stable operations backed by huge bureaucracy.

They'll be glad Brexit is over so they can just get on with BAU. The ordeal of an independent Scotland forming and applying to join would be a huge disruption.

The EU may be a bureaucracy, but it isn’t a huge one. Its budget is too small for that.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/transparency/fa...:

“At some €148 billion (2019 figure), the EU budget is in fact smaller than the budgets of Austria or Belgium.

This was a tiny fraction (2%) of the combined national budgets of all EU countries (€7,524 billion) in 2019.”

The EU bureaucracy is at a higher level, like the Euro Working Group made up of financial ministers from EU countries.

There is a LOT of red tape involved in getting stuff done.

> it already meets the requirement

I wonder whether that is actually true, isn't the state budget coming in significant part from the UK? I wonder how would that be stacked against Maastricht treaty parameters

There's also the pound which Scotland uses.

So you disagree that the EU doesn't want Catalonia to be independent. Just like with Scotland they are not encouraging it.

Or they are just biding their time?

Your comment is the exact definition of a false premise: the use of an incorrect proposition (Catalonia is or was a country) that forms the basis of an argument (the EU doesn't like countries becoming independent).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com