
Britain’s Reichstag Fire Moment - mpweiher
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/britain-prorouging-boris-johnson-parliament-suspension-richard-evans-weimar
======
vaskebjorn
It's not that difficult of an intellectual exercise to find parallels between
one time and place and Weimar Germany.

Honestly this article is a bit intellectually dishonest by saying things like
"It seemed as though nothing could go wrong" in Weimar Germany in 1920. There
were outright revolutions going on at that time. Like large groups of
revolutionaries and freikorps machine gunning each other in the streets of
Berlin within 12 months of that election. Did people back then really feel
like "nothing could go wrong?"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssYACBz8gzs&t=17s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssYACBz8gzs&t=17s)

~~~
arethuza
Paramilitaries and UK armed forces were fighting in parts of the UK relatively
recently and that peace is under threat by a no-deal Brexit so I'm not sure
that is the best analogy.

~~~
namdnay
20 years ago... that’s as long as the gap between ww2 and the summer of love

~~~
arethuza
Well, the chief of the police of Northern Ireland seems to think there is an
increased risk of paramilitary activity of there is a hard-Brexit causing a
breakdown of the GFA:

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/22/northern-
ire...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/22/northern-ireland-
police-chief-simon-byrne-warns-brexit-hard-border-could-revive-paramilitary-
groups)

------
smackay
A well researched but ultimately rather lazy article there the author posits
"Is Trump really a Nazi?" with the answer "No, not really". There are a few
items thrown in about the UK just to keep it looking up to date.

In general it is an good article on the political changes in the Weimar
Republic but the interesting part is only in he last section where the author
discusses the failing in democratic process which lead to the rise of Trump
and Farage (Johnson is an opportunist and ultimately irrelevant). Farage
should be give much more attention as he is the central character (at least in
the press) that dragged British politics further to the right and capitalized
on the prejudices of older people who are more motivated to vote that their
younger, more liberal or left leaning counterparts.

Farage is deeply inspired by what is happening in the US. The changes in UK
politics as it moves to a more presidential style still have a long way to
play out. UKIP and the Brexit Party probably have a parallel with the Tea
Party. In a sense the UK is about 10-15 years behind what is happening in the
US. If there is any comparison to be made in what is happening in the UK with
history then it should be made with the US. That would provide an interesting
guide to how the whole Brexit mess is going to play out.

------
nailer
Parliament is dismissed regularly. The current dismissal is 4 days longer than
normal ([https://order-order.com/2019/08/28/boriss-prorogation-
will-s...](https://order-order.com/2019/08/28/boriss-prorogation-will-shorter-
majors/)). The current length of sitting is the longest in a very long time
(it's currently two years, it's normally one).

It's not clear what people who want to overturn the referendum would do in
those four days that they couldn't do in the previous three years.

I supported Remain (here's me on HN trying to get support for Stronger In back
in 2016)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11952724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11952724)),
but something like a million more people voted leave.

Comparing attempts to implement the referendum outcome to Hitler or Erdogan is
bizarre and clickbaity. Flagged.

~~~
bayesian_horse
Of course a dismissal of parliament is nothing out of the ordinary, but you
are ignoring the context.

The government is dismissing the parliament not because they want to solicit
the voters' input in the form of new elections, but rather because they want
to shut down the voters' objections against the no-deal Brexit (which arguably
wasn't even on the ballot in the first place!) and paralyze the parliament
until they can't prevent it anymore.

And expecting journalists or historians not to draw comparisons across
successful or attempted end runs around a relatively democratic system is a
little strange.

~~~
nailer
> against the no-deal Brexit (which arguably wasn't even on the ballot in the
> first place!)

The ballot: "Leave" or "remain". "The government will implement what you
decide"

The government must be able to keep all options on the table, including no-
deal, to get a good deal.

If you have to take a job, and don't have the option of walking away, your
employer will give you the worst deal possible.

~~~
bayesian_horse
In practice, though, I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a
no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin.

And then the leave voters believed the BS about the NHS too. The Referendum
was ill posed and the voters were ill-informed, mostly through the fault of
the government, the Leave Campaign, Billionaire donors and even Putin's
involvement.

~~~
nailer
> I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would
> be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin.

A no deal must be possible to get a deal. Likewise the EU wants to sell its
dairy, prosecco, and cars to the UK but wouldn't dream of accepting a terrible
deal for the EU. It's possible the a punitive EU might sacrifice the EU and UK
economy by refusing to provide a deal for a few months until the pain becomes
too much. UK needs to plan for that.

> the BS about the NHS too.

The UK does send 300M to the EU. We get 150M back to spend as the EU desires,
the rest is used by the EU outside the UK. Nobody disputes that, it depends
whether you think it's OK that we get half it back, or that it's not OK the EU
determines how we spend our money.

\---

Edit: rate limited, but to reply to the person below:

> Apparently some people flag/down-vote me because they don't like the facts.

Complaining about moderation should be done via email to thee admins and not
comments per the HN guidelines. But OK, let's go through your facts.

> It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any
> circumstances.

Yep agreed. It still needs to be on the table, as it does from the EU side.

> Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal presupposes that
> they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen.

Yep agreed. Long term I don't think the EU or the UK wants mutually assured
destruction.

> The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-
> country status is even more absurd

It's consistent with some of the angrier statements from Jean Claude Juncker
and other EU leaders.

> because that presupposes that the EU has no significant disadvantages from
> withholding a deal

Agreed, the EU has significant disadvantages from withholding a deal. That
does not mean the EU will behave rationally or put the EUs (the organisation)
self interest ahead of EU member states who wish to keep selling their product
in one of the world's largest markets.

> rendering the "leverage" of the no-deal option void.

That doesn't follow. The EU wouldn't agree to a deal that harmed the EU, so
they'd also prefer WTO if that was all Britain offered. Likewise the opposite.

> And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a
> no-deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation

Why? How can you negotiate a desirable outcome if you cannot walk away and
must agree to any deal offered?

> and even with the no-deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the
> deal they wanted, proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or
> outright liers.

Is that determined yet? Negotiation is still ongoing.

> And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the
> referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back.

Yep agreed.

> They explicitly stated, time and time again "let's put that money into the
> NHS". Which was impossible back then and oh, look! it's still not possible
> today.

It would be possible to put the entire 300M into to the NHS, as the UK would
control how the money is spent. But it would not be desirable to.

> But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all
> those options.

Is this is a fact?

~~~
bayesian_horse
It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any
circumstances. Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal
presupposes that they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen.

The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-
country status is even more absurd, because that presupposes that the EU has
no significant disadvantages from withholding a deal, rendering the "leverage"
of the no-deal option void.

And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a no-
deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation, and even with the no-
deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the deal they wanted,
proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or outright liers.

And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the
referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back. They explicitly stated,
time and time again "let's put that money into the NHS". Which was impossible
back then and oh, look! it's still not possible today. By my standards that's
clearly a lie.

But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all those
options. Total Chaos in No-deal Brexit is probably his favorite option,
though.

~~~
thinkingemote
This submission has been flagged killed. I suspect that your multiple replies
to several different comments may have contributed towards this automated or
manual action.

------
s9w
Seeing this article taken seriously and comparisons made in the comments
between Boris and Hitler are revolting. At worst he's using a legal trick to
make sure the peoples will is fulfilled - what a monster.

You want to know about a really undemocratic act in central Europe? The German
parlament passed a law they weren't allowed to (because the necessary number
of people weren't present). The opposition complained, but were shut down.
Yes, that really happened. But it's okay because it was done by the good guys.
No turmoil about that.

~~~
nailer
Got a link re: German law?

~~~
s9w
[https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article198531457/Ham...](https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article198531457/Hammelsprung-
AfD-zieht-vor-Bundesverfassungsgericht.html)

------
bayesian_horse
It's surprising that their constitution allows all of this.

Oh wait, they don't have one!

~~~
tomatocracy
Yes we do. It's uncodified (meaning not all in one document) and in very small
part unwritten but we still have one.

This is politically controversial but not in the grand scheme of things a big
deal in my view. The anti Brexit groups have been playing hardball with legal
and constitutional 'innovations' for some time and now the pro Brexit camp are
responding in kind.

It's also worth noting that John Major used this very device in 1997 to avoid
scrutiny over the Cash for Questions affair and it's also been used for
political purposes recently in Canada.

The rhetoric of the anti Brexit side in the media over this is doing Johnson's
work for him - he wants a 'people vs the establishment' election (and he'd
likely do very well with that) and people who lost the referendum screaming
'coup' plays right into that narrative.

~~~
bayesian_horse
Boris Johnson is the embodiment of establishment and elite himself.

Voters did not have a chance to vote on what he is doing. It's virtually
certain that a majority of voters didn't want this at the time of the
referendum, nor do they want it right now.

Beginning with the multiple lies from Johnson and his ilk, and not ending with
giving false hope on an extremely beneficial and one-sided deal with the EU.

The question of the referendum was ill posed and completely botched, even
without mentioning that Russia also "lend" a hand to the Leave campaign.

------
enriquto
talk about moderate, calm-headed journalism

~~~
bayesian_horse
The leave-campaign wasn't noted for moderate calm-headed journalism, nor were
the boulevard magazines which created the sentiment against immigrants and the
EU in the first place ever calm-headed and moderate.

~~~
enriquto
Seen from the outside, both sides of this political dialogue sound equally
bigoted and ridiculous. This is sad because (as an european who doesn't want
the UK to leave), the "remainer" bigotry is a relatively recent phenomenon
that seems completely unnecessary, and even contrary to the cause it deems to
support.

~~~
bayesian_horse
Can you substantiate "bigotry" or are you satisfied with just dropping the
insult?

There is no refutation that the current Brexit plans will result at best in
temporary Chaos and a recession, at worst a permanent damage to the UK
economy. Banks are already leaving. EU Academics are leaving in droves.
Companies in the UK are holding back investments.

So the small part of the Remainers' predictions which haven't come true
already are quite on track to coming true in the near future.

~~~
enriquto
> Can you substantiate "bigotry" or are you satisfied with just dropping the
> insult?

The title of this article on Prospect Magazine is a crystal clear example of
that. I agree that brexit will probably have bad economic consequences. Yet,
openly calling the brexiters "nazis" is an insult to intelligence and an
example of bigotry, besides being really counter-productive. Imagine that you
are a "moderate" brexiter, not fanatically sure about it. Then you see an army
of journalists that call you a nazi because of that. Will this steer you away
from wanting the brexit?

~~~
bayesian_horse
You may have a read a different article. The one I read does not call the
Brexiteers "Nazis" and does not reveal any political bias. It's just that
stating the facts makes it look like you are against Brexit, because, well, it
is a total mess.

