Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

Just now, MattP said:

Not like it was student debt and we said "I'll deal with it" 

 

[Carl the Llama]

55 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

It does feel like I’m discussing it with myself now yes.   There is a strong tendancy for pro-Brexit posters to just disappear as soon as their justifications have been answered and countered. They then pop up a couple of days later, arguing exactly the same things again.

 

To summarise:

 

You: We always knew the financial deal would favour the EU.

Me: No we didn’t. We were told we were going to save money. £350m per week?

You: Ahhh no. You see, that’s different money.

Me: Different money? Eh?

You: Well you’ve clearly already convinced yourself Brexit is a bad idea!!

 

No sir. I haven’t convinced myself of anything. Others on this thread have convinced me that Brexit isn’t going to be a complete disaster, and have expanded my knowledge on the subject, yourself included. However, no-one has yet put forward anything close to a valid argument as to why it’s a good idea.

 

Like you, everybody is just talking about damage limitation in the short-term, and wild speculation in the long-term. The only logical conclusion to draw in those circumstances is that it is most probably a bad idea. So there’s been no need for me to actively convince myself of anything. If its brown and stinks of poo, it’s most probably poo.

 

Believe it or not my interest in Brexit itself is fairly minor. What interests me is the way that people can continually perceive any new, unforeseen, downturn in events as of no consequence in the journey towards  the ‘roaring success’ that Brexit will inevitably become.

 

So. My question is really around how you can move from “£350m per week for the NHS”, to “We always knew that the financial deal will favour the EU”, to “Brexit will be a roaring success” without an eye blink?

 

Calling it brainwashing is probably too strong a word, but I do want to know why intelligent people like yourself can convince yourself of something without any evidence to back it up.

 

Unfortunately this is pretty spot on, it seems conversations in here end the second you back your argument up (it happened to me just yesterday regarding the Brexit bill).  In every other thread I'd assume it's a positive thing and take it to mean that the other parties in the conversation concede your point and see no need in furthering the debate but like you say it seems to happen quite often in here that the same people then go on to regurgitate those views at a later date as though the previous conversation never happened.  Tbf I don't think that's a party political thing, we've probably all done it.

 

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Ive embarrassed myself

You are the one that thinks a campaign group on a single point referendum would ever be in a position to enact 'pledges' over 2 years after the result. The result wasnt even binding, let alone suggestions on buses you wally.

Tbf I've been trying to figure out if you were being serious or not but if you've got to the point where you're genuinely arguing the semantics of the word "let's" then perhaps you need to step back a bit.  I think most people acknowledge that the NHS bus was a scam at the end of the day, but it's still a fact that it clearly tried to argue that we'd be able to have a better NHS if it weren't for Brussels.  You've definitely had a bit of a mare from your "no part of the slogan" comment onward on the previous page if that was all genuine debate and not bait tactics.

Edited 2 November 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Unfortunately this is pretty spot on, it seems conversations in here end the second you back your argument up (it happened to me just yesterday regarding the Brexit bill).  In every other thread I'd assume it's a positive thing and take it to mean that the other parties in the conversation concede your point and see no need in furthering the debate but like you say it seems to happen quite often in here that the same people then go on to regurgitate those views at a later date as though the previous conversation never happened.  Tbf I don't think that's a party political thing, we've probably all done it.

 

Tbf I've been trying to figure out if you were being serious or not but if you've got to the point where you're genuinely arguing the semantics of the word "let's" then perhaps you need to step back a bit.  I think most people acknowledge that the NHS bus was a scam at the end of the day, but it's still a fact that it clearly tried to argue that we'd be able to have a better NHS if it weren't for Brussels.  You've definitely had a bit of a mare from your "no part of the slogan" comment onward on the previous page if that was all genuine debate and not bait tactics.

No part of that slogan is a pledge.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

No part of that slogan is a pledge.

Fine but now you're changing your argument.  What you said was

53 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No part of the bus slogan said it would go to the NHS.

and while that's semantically accurate it's intellectually dishonest to make out like they had no intention of saying we could fund the NHS better if we weren't in the EU.

[Strokes]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Fine but now you're changing your argument.  What you said was

and while that's semantically accurate it's intellectually dishonest to make out like they had no intention of saying we could fund the NHS better if we weren't in the EU.

We can, whether we do or not is up to the government of that time.

[Fox Ulike]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not like it was student debt and we said "I'll deal with it" 

I knew it would all be Corbyn's fault in the end.

 

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why do people think the government should be held responsible for the promises of the Vote Leave campaign group anyway?

 

It was a cross party group and the front runners in it i.e Stuart, Boris, Gove etc aren't even involved in the negotiations. 

Great. So I take it that the Government are under no compulsion to end freedom of movement or leave the single market either?

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Strokes said:

We can, whether we do or not is up to the government of that time.

When did you turn into such a sophist?   It was an obvious sham but it was also a key part of pre-ref debate and was backed up by the now foreign secretary.  It wasn't the political irrelevance you're trying to make it out to be.

[EnderbyFox]

 

[Guest MattP]

23 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Great. So I take it that the Government are under no compulsion to end freedom of movement or leave the single market either?

Of course they are, they literally stood on a manifesto to do those things just a few months ago. (Although in hindsight I'm certain she actually wanted the bigger majority to water it down now we know Eurosceptic MP's were being blocked from standing in seats)

 

Same goes for the opposition as well, Labour also committed to ending freedom of movement in their manifesto, even if they didn't tell anyone in the campuses and colleges.

[Fox Ulike]

48 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

It's because you're talking about something different ffs. I responded to an article where David Davis is quoted as saying: "The withdrawal agreement, on balance, will probably favour the [European] Union in terms of things like money" which is the financial deal we always knew would favour the EU. We spent 2 and a half hours challenging the legal basis for any payment so it's obvious it favours them. Find me a leaver that has ever said, the financial agreement contained in withdrawal will be favourable to us. The only way it can be is if it's 0 which won't be achieved by agreement and therefore it is impossible for the withdrawal agreement to favour us. 

 

Yes it never came up in the debate at the time, fair enough. But that aside, if time is infinte, then our saving is technically infinite but the financial package of withdrawal is finite. 19th January in the 4th year of exit. If you don't see the distinct difference like I do then that's your prerogative, but David Davis and I are talking about one thing, you're talking about the other.

 

I've not moved from anything and actually I don't and never really have cared about Brexit. My desire for Brexit was never influenced by the fiscal saving particularly if its wasted by plunging it into the blackhole that is the NHS. Not that that was actually said, unlike the promises of armageddon from Osborne and Carney. I sincerely believe that opening ourselves up to trading with the world as one of its largest economies and most influential countries will produce better results for the people of this country than being part of a shrinking paternalist, protectionist bloc of nations just because they are our nearest neighbours. In fact the glysophate ban is perfect example of why I think we're better off.  Whether you think it's daft or not, I don't really care.

 

As I'd say, I'd rather it never happened. Having to listen to all the moaning myrtles finding anything to complain about is really beginning to grate. 

Our saving won't be infinite because we'll have to find ways of replacing the services that the EU current does for us. This will all cost money. We'll also have to find a way to introduce new services that will become necessary as a non-EU nation: ie Customs controls, border police etc. This will all cost money.

 

David Davis' going over to Belguim costs money. Taxpayers money. The 8,000 new civil servants will need paying. The trade tariffs. The cost of re-negotiating and maintaining trade deals with every other nation on Earth. And, o yes, the Divorce Bill which will favour the EU which we always knew about!!

 

The whole thing may end up costing more than £350m a week infinitely. We just don't know. 

 

You Sir, have no idea how many years it will be before the costs of Brexit are out-weighed by the benefits of non-membership. Indeed, that day may never come.

 

So, again, you think of Brexit as a Roaring success, but you haven't got a clue (neither have I or anyone else) how much it will cost us and for how long!!

 

Maybe brainwashed isn't too strong a term.

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Of course they are, they literally stood on a manifesto to do those things just a few months ago. (Although in hindsight I'm certain she actually wanted the bigger majority to water it down now we know Eurosceptic MP's were being blocked from standing in seats)

 

Same goes for the opposition as well, Labour also committed to ending freedom of movement in their manifesto, even if they didn't tell anyone in the campuses and colleges.

 

I asked if you felt that the Government were under any compulsion to act on the promises of the Leave campaign.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

Our saving won't be infinite because we'll have to find ways of replacing the services that the EU current does for us. This will all cost money. We'll also have to find a way to introduce new services that will become necessary as a non-EU nation: ie Customs controls, border police etc. This will all cost money.

 

David Davis' going over to Belguim costs money. Taxpayers money. The 8,000 new civil servants will need paying. The trade tariffs. The cost of re-negotiating and maintaining trade deals with every other nation on Earth. And, o yes, the Divorce Bill which will favour the EU which we always knew about!!

 

The whole thing may end up costing more than £350m a week infinitely. We just don't know. 

 

You Sir, have no idea how many years it will be before the costs of Brexit are out-weighed by the benefits of non-membership. Indeed, that day may never come.

 

So, again, you think of Brexit as a Roaring success, but you haven't got a clue (neither have I or anyone else) how much it will cost us and for how long!!

 

Maybe brainwashed isn't too strong a term.

Why do you keep throwing these made up things other people have said into your replies?

 

At no point ever has @KingGTF said he thinks of Brexit as a Roaring success. As far as I am aware nobody on here has.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

I asked if you felt that the Government were under any compulsion to act on the promises of the Leave campaign.

Well of course they don't, the leave campaign was a cross party referendum based political group, it never had or never would have had a mandate to govern or influence government.

 

There were a small section of people in BSE that wanted closer integration of Europe, certainly among the Lib Dems and the SNP, should Cameron have been held to them had they won? Of course not.

[Fox Ulike]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why do you keep throwing these made up things other people have said into your replies?

 

At no point ever has @KingGTF said he thinks of Brexit as a Roaring success. As far as I am aware nobody on here has.

KingGTF Yesterday: "I am firmly of the belief that, long-term, there is no reason it can't be a roaring success and we are better off outside of the EU."

 

Mattp today: "At no point ever has KingGTF said he thinks of Brexit as a Roaring success."

 

The Brexit Brainwashing Machine in action ladies and gentlemen.  

[Strokes]

20 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

When did you turn into such a sophist?  

When it suits me, just like most people in here

 

20 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

 

It was an obvious sham but it was also a key part of pre-ref debate and was backed up by the now foreign secretary.  It wasn't the political irrelevance you're trying to make it out to be.

The foreign Secretary doesn't influence the budget or inact policy though and this government may not be in power by the time any of the savings from the EU come to be spent. So its a nonsense argument, as you well know.

 

Just because we voted to leave the EU, does not mean that everything that vote leave or leave.eu said/promised/pledged was in anyway believed or endorsed by the voters. That is clearly a job for a government and we have had a general election since, which it was in no partys manifesto. Anyone who did believe it to be pledge and a possibility (of which i think there are none) should probably look at re-educating themselves because its pretty basic knowledge that a campaign group cannot make pledges, regardless of who may be leading them.

[Fox Ulike]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well of course they don't, the leave campaign was a cross party referendum based political group, it never had or never would have had a mandate to govern or influence government.

 

There were a small section of people in BSE that wanted closer integration of Europe, certainly among the Lib Dems and the SNP, should Cameron have been held to them had they won? Of course not.

Well what that means is that if they're under no compulsion to give the NHS £350m, they're under no compulsion to leave the Single Market either.

 

I was going to frame that as a question, but it's so self-evidently true that there's no need.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

KingGTF Yesterday: "I am firmly of the belief that, long-term, there is no reason it can't be a roaring success and we are better off outside of the EU."

 

Mattp today: "At no point ever has KingGTF said he thinks of Brexit as a Roaring success."

 

The Brexit Brainwashing Machine in action ladies and gentlemen.  

Do you even read what you are writing? I'll say again, at no point has he ever said that he thinks of Brexit as a Roaring success, he says there is no reason it can't be.

 

There is no reason why Claude Puel can't be a roaring success at Leicester, that's doesn't mean I already think he has been.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

Well what that means is that if they're under no compulsion to give the NHS £350m, they're under no compulsion to leave the Single Market either.

 

I was going to frame that as a question, but it's so self-evidently true that there's no need.

The Conservative manifesto that this government was elected on said that Britain will leave the single market. I have no idea how this can be so hard to understand. The manifesto didn't say we'll invest an extra 350 million to the NHS.

 

Parties are elected to government on manifestos, not glorified cross party think tanks.

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Well what that means is that if they're under no compulsion to give the NHS £350m, they're under no compulsion to leave the Single Market either.

 

Well thats pretty obvious, thats why we have been debating soft brexit, hard brexit, trade deals and such since the vote. Do keep up.

[Fox Ulike]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do you even read what you are writing? I'll say again, at no point has he ever said that he thinks of Brexit as a Roaring success, he says there is no reason it can't be.

 

There is no reason why Claude Puel can't be a roaring success at Leicester, that's doesn't mean I already think he has been.

I see. So he doesn't think it is a roaring success. He thinks it could be a roaring success. Thank you.

 

I'm glad you're so precise about making 100% sure that when somebody says something, that there's no chance of even the slightest ambiguity about the nuance of meaning that could lead to even the slightest mis-interpretation. Thank you.

 

So moving on. When Corbyn said "I'll deal with it". You're 100% certain that it was a precise, cast-iron, unambiguous commitment to wiping out £100b of student debt.

 

"Oh The Casual Hypocrisy of the Brexiteer". Sounds like it should be a song.

[Fox Ulike]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Conservative manifesto that this government was elected on said that Britain will leave the single market. I have no idea how this can be so hard to understand. The manifesto didn't say we'll invest an extra 350 million to the NHS.

 

Parties are elected to government on manifestos, not glorified cross party think tanks.

True. But they are slightly different things. Leave campaign promises and Manifesto promises.

 

Sooo, if there's a snap election and a party makes a manifesto pledge to not leave the SIngle Market, and not end free movement of people:  You'd be OK with that?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

How many party pledges from either opposition or government begin with let's?

Tbf Obama's supporters are well known for having seen "yes we can" as "yes, we could, but we probably won't". That's why they got so excited.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Conservative manifesto that this government was elected on said that Britain will leave the single market. I have no idea how this can be so hard to understand. The manifesto didn't say we'll invest an extra 350 million to the NHS.

 

Parties are elected to government on manifestos, not glorified cross party think tanks.

The conservative manifesto also tasked about rolling back fox hunting laws, bringing in changes to social care funding and a raft of other things that won't be happening. Yet this one thing has to happen?

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I see. So he doesn't think it is a roaring success. He thinks it could be a roaring success. Thank you.

 

I'm glad you're so precise about making 100% sure that when somebody says something, that there's no chance of even the slightest ambiguity about the nuance of meaning that could lead to even the slightest mis-interpretation. Thank you.

 

So moving on. When Corbyn said "I'll deal with it". You're 100% certain that it was a precise, cast-iron, unambiguous commitment to wiping out £100b of student debt.

 

"Oh The Casual Hypocrisy of the Brexiteer". Sounds like it should be a song.

No problem, glad to be of service, there is a huge difference between "is" and "could be" - it's not pedantic to point out the difference of that.

 

If someone says to me "I'll deal with it" I assume that they are going to deal with whatever they are talking about, if someone says to me "let's deal with it" I would assume they are going to do their best to deal with something - I don't really see the hypocrisy in pointing this out but I've not really got time for this nonsense today.

 

For the record I wouldn't hold Corbyn to his comments if he was in government either as again, it wasn't a manifesto commitment, I saw it for what it was, a cheap little line to grab a few more votes from the young and naive.

 

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

True. But they are slightly different things. Leave campaign promises and Manifesto promises.

 

Sooo, if there's a snap election and a party makes a manifesto pledge to not leave the SIngle Market, and not end free movement of people:  You'd be OK with that?

Well of course I would, why wouldn't I? That's exactly what the SNP, Greens and the Liberal Democrats did just a few months ago.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Tbf Obama's supporters are well known for having seen "yes we can" as "yes, we could, but we probably won't". That's why they got so excited.

Exactly, that proves my point entirely.