Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

You certainly implied it, but ok I guess you didn't intend to.

 

Kinda self explanatory in the context that you appear to be dismissing his opinion as ingested Guardian babble.

 

He really didn't. First of all he was talking in the past tense about the immediate aftermath, not predicting the future.  Second of all he said nothing about "if it 'inevitably' all does go pear shaped". 

No I didn't imply it, I answered the question to the original post. That was not directed at Alf.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

 

He really didn't. First of all he was talking in the past tense about the immediate aftermath, not predicting the future.  Second of all he said nothing about "if it 'inevitably' all does go pear shaped". 

I was talking about the immediate aftermath and not predicting the future too. Glad we cleared that up.

So I added the word inevitably, I must do better. Are we done now teacher? Can I go out and play now?

[Carl the Llama]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No I didn't imply it, I answered the question to the original post. That was not directed at Alf.

This is off-topic semantics now but your choice of words in the context they were given did imply it unless we've changed the definition of the word.  Implication doesn't have to be deliberate.   I can and have accepted that it wasn't your intended meaning but it's a bit silly saying "no I didn't imply it".

 

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I was talking about the immediate aftermath and not predicting the future too. Glad we cleared that up.

So I added the word inevitably, I must do better. Are we done now teacher? Can I go out and play now?

You say that but...

37 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You point to us blaming the EU for not giving us what we want, and predict attacks on foreigners if it 'inevitably' all does go pear shaped.

So you erroneously misinterpreted him to be talking in absolutes when he says "if no deal is done or the economy tanks".  Again it leads back to the whole question of a dramatic over-reaction that you chide your 'opponents' for:  You've read his words through your own bias and it's led you make interpretations that aren't there to be made if you take the words at their meaning.

Edited 3 September 2017 by Carl the Llama
Clarification.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

This is off-topic semantics now but your choice of words in the context they were given did imply it unless we've changed the definition of the word.  Implication doesn't have to be deliberate.   I can and have accepted that it wasn't your intended meaning but it's a bit silly saying "no I didn't imply it".

 

You say that but...

So either you erroneously understood him to be making a prediction or you don't have a firm grasp of the difference between the past and present tense.  I think we both know you're too smart for it to be the latter so why can't you just admit you misinterpreted Alf's comment and move on?

If I misinterpreted him, I still am. I don't see what I got wrong at all and stand by what I said. Maybe you should wait for Alf before jumping to his rescue, I'm quite sure he is capable of correcting me and probably in a lot more style.

 

You haven't read the train of comments to believe I'm implying anything at Alf or if you have you have misunderstood my comments, why you can't admit this?

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If I misinterpreted him, I still am. I don't see what I got wrong at all and stand by what I said. Maybe you should wait for Alf before jumping to his rescue, I'm quite sure he is capable of correcting me and probably in a lot more style.

 

You haven't read the train of comments to believe I'm implying anything at Alf or if you have you have misunderstood my comments, why you can't admit this?

I realised my own words were poorly chosen and began editing that comment before you responded, see above.

 

And I've accepted you didn't intend that meaning so I'm not sure why you're still bothered about it.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

If I misinterpreted him, I still am. I don't see what I got wrong at all and stand by what I said. Maybe you should wait for Alf before jumping to his rescue?

 

I'm not going to get into an argument about who said or meant what.

We can all speculate about what the EU or UK will or should do, and whether Brexit will/would be a good policy. But none of us know. It's all opinion and speculation.

 

What I did think was dodgy was your comment: "Time to back the country". We are ALL "the country", not just people who voted for Brexit - and freedom of expression doesn't cease because of one referendum.

As @foxinexile asked, would you have called for people to "back the EU" (or to "back the country") if the referendum had gone the other way? If a Corbyn government is elected and starts implementing policies that you think are disastrous, will you still feel that people should not express their opposition but should "back the country"?

 

I backed the country by voting Remain as, on balance, I thought it was the better of 2 imperfect options. I back the country by accepting that a democratic vote went the other way and that Brexit will happen, unless there's a dramatic change in public opinion and this is expressed by another democratic vote. It's still as clear as mud what Brexit will mean, but I back the country by supporting Soft Brexit over Hard Brexit or Cliff-Edge Brexit - or Remain, if the public mood shifts massively and there's another vote. If your side wins a referendum or election, they get to implement their policies. They don't get to silence the opposition, however annoying it might be....people have different ideas about how best to "back the country" and they get to express them.

Edited 3 September 2017 by Alf Bentley

[Strokes]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not going to get into an argument about who said or meant what.

We can all speculate about what the EU or UK will or should do, and whether Brexit will/would be a good policy. But none of us know. It's all opinion and speculation.

 

What I did think was dodgy was your comment: "Time to back the country". We are ALL "the country", not just people who voted for Brexit - and freedom of expression doesn't cease because of one referendum.

As @foxinexile asked, would you have called for people to "back the EU" (or to "back the country") if the referendum had gone the other way? If a Corbyn government is elected and starts implementing policies that you think are disastrous, will you still feel that people should not express their opposition but should "back the country"?

 

I backed the country by voting Remain as, on balance, I thought it was the better of 2 imperfect options. I back the country by accepting that a democratic vote went the other way and that Brexit will happen, unless there's a dramatic change in public opinion and this is expressed by another democratic vote. It's still as clear as mud what Brexit will mean, but I back the country by supporting Soft Brexit over Hard Brexit or Cliff-Edge Brexit - or Remain, if the public mood shifts massively and there's another vote. If your side wins a referendum or election, they get to implement their policies. They don't get to silence the opposition, however annoying it might be....people have different ideas about how best to "back the country" and they get to express them.

My comment about back the country was on the negotiations, with the EU. We all want a good deal and this not to fail or so you tell us. So I said we should back the country instead of the opposition (the EU). You and others have told us we have a weak negotiating position and the EU will laugh us off we will get nothing, So a back the country comment was targeting that, I didn't expect you all to get your knickers in a twist over it. Geez.

[Buce]

British aerospace sector could be priced out after Brexit:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/03/britain-aerospace-sector-could-be-priced-out-after-brexit

Edited 3 September 2017 by Buce

[Alf Bentley]

50 minutes ago, Strokes said:

My comment about back the country was on the negotiations, with the EU. We all want a good deal and this not to fail or so you tell us. So I said we should back the country instead of the opposition (the EU). You and others have told us we have a weak negotiating position and the EU will laugh us off we will get nothing, So a back the country comment was targeting that, I didn't expect you all to get your knickers in a twist over it. Geez.

 

No knickers twisted here, just giving an opinion.

 

While I do think we have a (comparatively) weak negotiating position, I've never said that the EU will laugh us off or that we'll get nothing. But, given our comparatively weak negotiating position, I think our national interest is better served by being prepared to compromise more on the initial 3 issues (divorce bill, Irish border & EU citizens in UK) and not viewing our neighbours, allies and valued trading partners as "the opposition". That way, we're more likely to get a decent deal on future trade and a transitional period, which we desperately need - and which would benefit the EU, too.

 

There are many ways to "back the country", including wanting it to pursue policies that I think will be more beneficial to the country and to the whole continent. Taking an uncompromising, confrontational attitude to "the opposition" when the opposition is in a stronger negotiating position is the single most likely way that we will needlessly "get nothing". That will damage "the opposition" but it will damage us much more. And the longer an uncompromising stalemate continues, the more damage will be happening in the real world as businesses and institutions in the UK, EU and worldwide take decisions detrimental to our national interest.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

No knickers twisted here, just giving an opinion.

 

While I do think we have a (comparatively) weak negotiating position, I've never said that the EU will laugh us off or that we'll get nothing. But, given our comparatively weak negotiating position, I think our national interest is better served by being prepared to compromise more on the initial 3 issues (divorce bill, Irish border & EU citizens in UK) and not viewing our neighbours, allies and valued trading partners as "the opposition". That way, we're more likely to get a decent deal on future trade and a transitional period, which we desperately need - and which would benefit the EU, too.

 

There are many ways to "back the country", including wanting it to pursue policies that I think will be more beneficial to the country and to the whole continent. Taking an uncompromising, confrontational attitude to "the opposition" when the opposition is in a stronger negotiating position is the single most likely way that we will needlessly "get nothing". That will damage "the opposition" but it will damage us much more. And the longer an uncompromising stalemate continues, the more damage will be happening in the real world as businesses and institutions in the UK, EU and worldwide take decisions detrimental to our national interest.

Back the country wasn't aimed you in particular, I don't know why you seem to think it's personal. It's was a flippant remark to people posting constant guardian links saying negotiations are all going terrible, every time michel barnier tweets. 

 

There are many issues I didn't think would be a big issue with brexit prior to the vote, that are proving much more difficult to solve and are a concern. The Irish border being one of them and hats off to you Alf you did see it and raise before the vote.

They are the opposition in negotiations, they want a deal for themselves and we want one for ourselves. Two opposing positions, I don't think my language or terms on here will reach quite as far as the negotiating table so we don't have to worry about upsetting anyone.

 

I don't think the EU are really in a strong negotiating position, I think there insistence on agreeing this divorce bill first displays this. They don't want to go into future trading talks without securing some of the black hole in the budget first. They need this to strong arm us and we need it for leverage. It's a very crucial point imo.

[Strokes]

For the record to anyone here, if you are posting guardian article can you copy the article in the post or I won't read it. I'm not clicking and funding that rag anymore, thanks.

[Webbo]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

For the record to anyone here, if you are posting guardian article can you copy the article in the post or I won't read it. I'm not clicking and funding that rag anymore, thanks.

I never read them anyway. It's not as if they've ever got anything different to say. "Brexit is terrible, tories are evil, foodbanks, NHS".

[Carl the Llama]

25 minutes ago, Strokes said:

For the record to anyone here, if you are posting guardian article can you copy the article in the post or I won't read it. I'm not clicking and funding that rag anymore, thanks.

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I never read them anyway. It's not as if they've ever got anything different to say. "Brexit is terrible, tories are evil, foodbanks, NHS".

 

[foxinexile]

27 minutes ago, Strokes said:

For the record to anyone here, if you are posting guardian article can you copy the article in the post or I won't read it. I'm not clicking and funding that rag anymore, thanks.

I'm happy to oblige. This is the article from the Guardian link posted yesterday...

 

Cowardice is a progressive disease. Leave it untreated and it can kill. Everyone should know by now that the big lie of Brexit was not that it would deliver £350m a week to the NHS – although that was as brazen a political lie as Suez – but that Brexit would be easy. Everyone should know but not everyone does. Political cowards will not force the public to confront the unpalatable truth.

That the electorate was deceived is certain. “The day after we vote we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want,” declared Michael Gove in April last year . The voters should not worry their silly little heads because “there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market”, Boris Johnson continued. Brexit will free us, added David Davis. “Be under no doubt, we can do deals with our trading partners and we can do them quickly.”

 

Instead of the promised utopia, we are in our weakest negotiating position since Munich. Far from skipping away down whatever path we want, we are doomed to trudge into a mire. Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s spin doctor, said that Brexit represented the defeat of “complex truth in the face of simple lies”. Britain is about to be taught that the trouble with complex truths is that you cannot deny them forever.

But who will do the teaching? Despite its recent shift in policy, Labour has displayed a cowardly unwillingness to hold the Tories to account by throwing the false bill of goods Leave campaigners offered back in their faces. But however deplorable Labour’s timidity has been, the cowardice that matters is Theresa May’s.

She made the horrendous mistake of endorsing every false promise the Leave campaign made when she took power. She might have said she would respect the referendum result but had to warn the public that leaving the EU would be hard and that there would have to be compromises if Britain was to avoid needless suffering. Instead, she made the propaganda of Farage, Johnson and Gove her own. Our hapless diplomats were instructed to work on the assumption that there would be little cost in leaving the EU – no restrictions on access to the single market or customs checks at the border – because it was in the EU’s interests to let us have our cake and eat it.

 

It is easy to see why she had to block out the thought that the EU’s prime interest was, funnily enough, the protection of the EU. The right destroyed the previous two Tory prime ministers. Unless May, a Remain supporter, bent the knee, she would meet their fate. In terms of party management, her servility has been a success. Rightwing MPs and the Mail and the Telegraph still cheer her on, despite her catastrophic election campaign.

 

The price of their support has been to split Britain down the middle. Whatever side you cleave to, can we at least agree that, as the pound sinks towards paritywith the euro and real wages fall, our country is in a perilous position? With effectively a year left to complete the article 50 negotiations there is no progress worth mentioning. If nothing changes, we will either crash out of the EU with no plan for the future or be forced to admit that Brussels can do as it pleases. This isn’t an argument between Remainers and Leavers but between realists and fantasists.

May joined the fantasists the moment she entered Downing Street and I wonder if she can ever break free. By pandering to the right, she has increased the power of the right and made the only story that millions hear the story that the right wants to tell.

 

Step away from the liberal world for a moment and walk in the shoes of Leave supporters. They won a democratic vote and cannot see why we cannot just impose immigration controls and cut all links without paying a penny.

 

No one in the government has hammered home the uncomfortable truth that clearly we will have to pay a divorce bill if we want to extract concessions from the EU on trade and jobs. Clearly, too, the EU will try to push it as high as it can. Instead, May has struck fantastical poses: that the European court of justice can have no say in British life, for instance, even though dozens of legal and trade agreements have it as the court of final appeal.

 

All these evasions fade into the background when the star of the show takes the stage. The government proposes that we leave in 2019 but have a “bespoke transitional arrangement” in place to keep us close to the single market and customs union. You can agonise, as I have, about what on earth this means. Enlightenment comes when you realise that the government does not know what on earth it means. Even if the deadlock could be broken in the remaining year, and bespoke arrangements fitted up overnight like a suit at a cheap tailors, the EU would surely demand money and acceptance of European court verdicts in return. Labour’s position of staying in the single market until all negotiations end has the merit of being practical and David Davis is hinting that in end the Tories may be forced to imitate it. How, then, will this deceitful government explain to all those who have had enough of mass migration that freedom of movement must continue for a while yet?

 

The failure to confront the central Leave lie that “we hold all the cards” is having huge consequences. A government unable to tell the truth about tough choices ahead is in no position to handle the toughest negotiations since 1945. It is also wide open to a rightwing backlash. It has been clear to me since the referendum that a Farage or Johnson could launch a new nationalist movement by telling bemused and angry Leave voters that the ruin Brexit brings is not the fault of rightwing politicians – good heavens, no – but the result of “the elite” betraying 17 million Leave voters and “stabbing Britain in the back”.

But perhaps I do not need to conjure up an imaginary extremist backlash. Perhaps the extremists are already in power and running the country. Theresa May has not learned the lesson all politicians should have learned by 2017, that unless you take on the extremists, the extremists will take you over. And if she wants to know who the extremist she must take on is, she need only look in the mirror.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

Safe space? It's just boring and predictable, why bother?

 

See the article above for example.

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Safe space? It's just boring and predictable, why bother?

 

See the article above for example.

Will the Torygraph do, then?:

Quote

As this week’s round of Brexit talks in Brussels has shown, things are not going well at all. The current stalemate is bad enough. But there will be worse to come if the British public continues to be fed a narrative in which the process boils down to good guys (from London) v bad guys (in Brussels), or in which it only takes Theresa May to soften her approach for all the bad vibes to disappear.

 

Brexit does sell newspapers. It may also boost or bury political careers. But it is not reassuring that both the EU and Britain have allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point that it appears as if two hostile camps are jumping at each other’s throats. Citizens could be forgiven for thinking that a battle is in progress. It isn’t. Britain is still mostly negotiating with itself.

 

Paying closer attention to how the continent perceives Brexit may help dissipate some of the hysteria that’s building up – Liam Fox accusing the EU of “blackmail” is the most recent example. This is not to minimise the importance of what is taking place: the severing of links built over 44 years and the breakup of a union that has existed as 28 since 2013 (Croatia was the latest to join) and is now set to shrink with one of its most important and influential members dropping out. Nor is suggesting that both the EU and Britain share responsibility for the dire state of the talks a vindication of those who propagate the view that the 27 are out to cut Britain’s interests to bits and share the spoils among themselves.

 

The first thing to say about the view from the continent is that it isn’t paying as much attention to Britain as Britain thinks. In France, Emmanuel Macron is fixated on his reform plans. In Germany, an election campaign is under way. In the Netherlands, everyone’s still waiting for a new cabinet to be formed. In Poland, the government is locked into a dispute with the EU over its backsliding on rule of law. The energy spent in Britain on the Brexit debate is far from replicated, or even echoed, elsewhere. That is only natural.

 

Then there’s a key nuance to consider. The main reason for the current impasse isn’t just that Brexit was always going to be a headache. Nor is it only the British government’s lack of clarity or strategy. It is to do with a complete mismatch of perceptions – one that remains almost unspoken.

 

In Britain, both the government and much of the public have come to believe that, as confrontational as it may be, Brexit is an issue that both sides have an equal interest in sorting out. It’s as if a mountain were to be climbed by two parallel teams. Whoever comes out on top will be the winner, but the mountain must be conquered by both, otherwise there will be a catastrophic cliff fall.

 

On the continent, an altogether different metaphor applies. Picture a ship sailing off from a port where it was well anchored, and the port’s many inhabitants wanting to make sure that ship is neither carrying cannons that it may shoot back at them, nor equipment that would make it impossible for the port to thrive.

Those on land also want to know that the departing ship’s captain won’t seek to return as if nothing had changed, and won’t demand a say in how the place develops without abiding by all of the locally agreed rules.

 

Indeed, the land-people believe, with good reason, that the integrity of those locally agreed rules is what defines their collective identity in the first place. It is what helped them overcome the trauma of self-destruction in a past century, and what allows them to face external and internal challenges today. It is also what their business and trade interests require in an environment of global competition, in which large blocs have a better chance of defending themselves than smaller entities do.

 

The departing ship is watched with both sadness and concern, but there is no rush to take on its navigation problems. That all of the land-people may not always agree on everything changes little. They’re aligned in letting the port authority discuss an orderly way out for the ship, and they’re keen to keep close contact with it in the future – but within conditions they consider non-negotiable. The point of this metaphor is that there is no common effort. Britain and the EU are not struggling with Brexit together: Britain is seeking its own route, and it is essentially alone in that quandary. On the EU side, there is only one imperative: self-preservation.

 

Take a moment to read the 29 April European council guidelines for Brexit negotiations. It’s all there: “no cherry-picking”, “no separate negotiations”. And this: “European integration has brought peace and prosperity to Europe and allowed for an unprecedented level and scope of cooperation in a rapidly changing world. Therefore, the union’s overall objective in these negotiations will be to preserve its interests, those of its citizens, its businesses and its member states.”

 

Simply put, the EU’s interests lie in preventing the UK from harming or threatening its integration. The EU is not in a race with the UK. Nor is it trying to punish anyone – which is not to say that the defence of EU red lines won’t at times be detrimental to the UK. But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this. It believes the onus is on Britain, not on itself, to do what is necessary to avoid a worst-case scenario.

 

It is not that Michel Barnier, or other EU leaders, have not pointed this out already. The trouble is that so little seems to be trickling down into British perceptions. As a consequence, the mood is souring. The EU is an existential, not a transactional project. Finally grasping that could take Britain a long way.

(Article linked here.)

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Will the Torygraph do, then?:

(Article linked here.)

The article is from the Guardian Carl? Are you teasing again?

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

The article is from the Guardian Carl? Are you teasing again?

Gosh you're just too quick for me, Webbo.

 

That's the article Alf suggested regarding the view from without btw, but I guess you know exactly what it says without reading it.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Gosh you're just too quick for me, Webbo.

 

That's the article Alf suggested regarding the view from without btw, but I guess you know exactly what it says without reading it.

Let me guess.Brexit is a disaster, the tories are wrong about everything and the EU are completely correct and blameless in every way? Something like that?

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

Let me guess.Brexit is a disaster, the tories are wrong about everything and the EU are completely correct and blameless in every way? Something like that?

I'm not telling you.  You'll have to read it and find out  

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'm not telling you.  You'll have to read it and find out  

I suspect that's probably because you got bored with it yourself within 3 lines. You lasted longer than I did.

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I suspect that's probably because you got bored with it yourself within 3 lines. You lasted longer than I did.

Yawn.  Why do you even bother posting in this thread if, as you repeatedly show us, you have no interest in reading any alternate opinion?  Most of us stay out of the threads we have no interest in.  

 

Make a right-wing echo-chamber thread if you like, nobody's stopping you.

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Back the country wasn't aimed you in particular, I don't know why you seem to think it's personal. It's was a flippant remark to people posting constant guardian links saying negotiations are all going terrible, every time michel barnier tweets. 

 

There are many issues I didn't think would be a big issue with brexit prior to the vote, that are proving much more difficult to solve and are a concern. The Irish border being one of them and hats off to you Alf you did see it and raise before the vote.

They are the opposition in negotiations, they want a deal for themselves and we want one for ourselves. Two opposing positions, I don't think my language or terms on here will reach quite as far as the negotiating table so we don't have to worry about upsetting anyone.

 

I don't think the EU are really in a strong negotiating position, I think there insistence on agreeing this divorce bill first displays this. They don't want to go into future trading talks without securing some of the black hole in the budget first. They need this to strong arm us and we need it for leverage. It's a very crucial point imo.

 

I didn't take your "back the country" comment as personal. I took it as a general but serious comment seeking to discourage opponents of Hard Brexit from expressing their opposition and implying they were somehow unpatriotic in opposing the government line. However, I note your comment that you meant it flippantly, which I didn't realise.

 

Maybe I'm unduly paranoid, but I'm concerned that, over the next year or so, this is all going to get increasingly polarised with a significant minority turning hostile to the EU and foreigners in general, blaming the EU for any lack of a deal or economic problems - and with opponents of Brexit depicted as unpatriotic traitors. As I said a year ago, if there's no good deal and economic problems develop, I can see the conditions being ripe for some sort of extreme nationalist upsurge in this country. Hopefully a deal will be done and no such problems will arise - and I'm sure you won't be involved even if there is an extreme nationalist upsurge. But that's why I challenged your comment - though point taken if it was meant flippantly.

 

Agree to disagree over the strength of UK/EU negotiating positions. I think both have strengths and weaknesses, but our position is weaker overall. I agree that each side wants a deal for themselves, but the consequences of no deal are worse for us so the ticking clock matters more to us (though both stand to lose).

 

Getting close to finalising the terms of the divorce before discussing any new relationship seems logical to me. Some overlap is possible, but surely there'd be no point discussing a future relationship while we're still poles apart on the divorce terms for the last one? Until that looks like being sorted out, there's no prospect of a new trade deal, surely, so no point in discussing it? My understanding is that the "divorce bill" is largely a legal dispute, not political: which payments are we legally committed to, and which are we not? There'll be some grey areas, but lawyers' advice should sort most of it out - and the quicker the better, with compromise, so as to get started on the much more complex - and important - issue of future trade (and political) relationships.

 

Anyone know what the legal position would be if no agreement is reached on the divorce bill? As the disputed commitments would be under internal EU agreements, I presume any outstanding divorce disputes would be settled by the ECJ? That would go down well with the Brexiteers! And what if, post-Brexit, we refused to accept ECJ judgments on disputes dating from our time as members? I presume we'd then be looking at a major diplomatic incident as no other body would be able to enforce ECJ rulings, I presume? Not likely to happen, I hope.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yawn.  Why do you even bother posting in this thread if, as you repeatedly show us, you have no interest in reading any alternate opinion?  Most of us stay out of the threads we have no interest in.  

 

Make a right-wing echo-chamber thread if you like, nobody's stopping you.

Do I post articles out of the Mail? If I did would it get a fair hearing or would it be  Daily Fail? We all know what the Guardian thinks and that article is an opinion piece based on nothing but the authors prejudice, telling bitter remainers what they want to hear. 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

Do I post articles out of the Mail? If I did would it get a fair hearing or would it be  Daily Fail? We all know what the Guardian thinks and that article is an opinion piece based on nothing but the authors prejudice, telling bitter remainers what they want to hear. 

I got over that attitude a few years ago because I've seen first hand how arrogant it makes people look - whether they're talking about the Mail or the Guardian - and I don't want people viewing me as that sort of simpleton.

 

Obviously I can't speak for everyone but while I do have a fairly low opinion of the Mail's journalistic standards/ethics (and the less said about their sidebar of shame the better), if you posted an article that you found thought provoking I'd do you the service of reading what it said instead of jumping to conclusions with my eyes firmly closed and making silly flippant remarks apropos of nothing.

 

What didn't you like about that opinion piece?