Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Corbyn is now in Brussels to tell everyone no deal isn't an option.

 

It's hard to describe how ridiculous this is, we'll take absolutely anything you offer and we want you to know that, 50 billion, 100 billion, any trade offer, any border - you name it we'll agree to it. 

 

Thank God they aren't anywhere near these negotiations. 

 

They must love him. The man has always wanted to sabotage Britain and now he can be their puppet of divide and rule. 

Edited 19 October 2017 by KingGTF

[Guest]

UK retail sales slump in September as inflation and wage woes bite

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/19/uk-retail-sales-slump-september-inflation-wages?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

Corbyn is now in Brussels to tell everyone no deal isn't an option.

 

It's hard to describe how ridiculous this is, we'll take absolutely anything you offer and we want you to know that, 50 billion, 100 billion, any trade offer, any border - you name it we'll agree to it. 

 

Thank God they aren't anywhere near these negotiations. 

 

4 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

They must love him. The man has always wanted to sabotage Britain and now he can be their puppet of divide and rule. 

That isn't actually what's happening though is it? Kier Starmer is there with him and talks more sense on this than anybody. Labour just aren't afraid to actually try to reach an agreement rather than messing about leaving everybody in limbo whilst they play hardball against the EU who, quite patently, hold all the aces. We're going to end up paying over £50billion whoever is in power. At least give people and business a bit of certainty sooner rather than later.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Just now, toddybad said:

 

That isn't actually what's happening though is it? Kier Starmer is there with him and talks more sense on this than anybody. Labour just aren't afraid to actually try to reach an agreement rather than messing about leaving everybody in limbo whilst they play hardball against the EU who, quite patently, hold all the aces. We're going to end up paying over £50billion whoever is in power. At least give people and business a bit of certainty sooner rather than later.

 

Starmer's sole intention is to ensure the UK remains as in the EU as possible. He'd be satisfied by a name change and then try to profess we have left the EU because it's not the EU anymore. Meanwhile Corbyn is there to tell the EU they can have whatever they want to get a 'deal' and claim this as a victory. Meanwhile his own MEPs vote against progressing talks. Bollocks is he a new style of honest politics, the lot of them are cretins playing the game of politics more than anybody ever has. 

 

I didn't even vote in the referendum, would have voted Leave but I've changed my mind.

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

They must love him. The man has always wanted to sabotage Britain and now he can be their puppet of divide and rule. 

It says everything about them that they are prepared to do this at such a crucial stage, it's hard enough fighting the EU negotiators without the opposition of HMG also siding with them.

 

The only good thing about it is that it's a concession that aren't ever going to be involved in the negotiations, they surely wouldn't do this if there was even a 1% chance they could be.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That isn't actually what's happening though is it? Kier Starmer is there with him and talks more sense on this than anybody. Labour just aren't afraid to actually try to reach an agreement rather than messing about leaving everybody in limbo whilst they play hardball against the EU who, quite patently, hold all the aces. We're going to end up paying over £50billion whoever is in power. At least give people and business a bit of certainty sooner rather than later.

Reach an agreement? 

 

You'll take anything, the EU could say it's 250billion and you've now committed to signing up for it.

 

You can tell there isn't a single person on this whole opposition front bench that has ever ran a business or been in a serious negotiation. 

Edited 19 October 2017 by MattP

[Guest Kopfkino]

Vince Cable can do one as well. 'People's lives aren't bargaining chips' completely forgetting all that the Lib Dems bargained away to get a referendum on a new voting system to benefit themselves.

[katieakita]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Reach an agreement? 

 

You'll take anything, the EU could say it's 250billion and you've now committed to signing up for it.

 

You can tell there isn't a single person on this whole opposition front bench that has ever ran a business or been in a serious negotiation. 

Looks like the government run Post Office is facing bankruptcy without yet another  tax payer funded bail out thanks to HMG not having a plan or the balls to hold them to account, of course you can always point to the last £2.3 billion gifted to these clowns but not bother to look how it was being spent or even better ask them to tell you how things are going and take their word for it, is that how you run a business?

 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Looks like the government run Post Office is facing bankruptcy without yet another  tax payer funded bail out thanks to HMG not having a plan or the balls to hold them to account, of course you can always point to the last £2.3 billion gifted to these clowns but not bother to look how it was being spent or even better ask them to tell you how things are going and take their word for it, is that how you run a business?

 

I do apologise but I've read nothing about this, can you provide a link for it?

[Sharpe's Fox]

The EU know we have a lame duck government and are talking with the PM in waiting. Its called betting on the winning horse lads get real

[ajthefox]

59 minutes ago, MattP said:

Corbyn is now in Brussels to tell everyone no deal isn't an option.

 

It's hard to describe how ridiculous this is, we'll take absolutely anything you offer and we want you to know that, 50 billion, 100 billion, any trade offer, any border - you name it we'll agree to it. 

 

Thank God they aren't anywhere near these negotiations. 

No worse than Amber Rudd saying the same thing.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, ajthefox said:

No worse than Amber Rudd saying the same thing.

Well that makes it OK then.

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Corbyn is now in Brussels to tell everyone no deal isn't an option.

 

It's hard to describe how ridiculous this is, we'll take absolutely anything you offer and we want you to know that, 50 billion, 100 billion, any trade offer, any border - you name it we'll agree to it. 

 

Thank God they aren't anywhere near these negotiations. 

 

6 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

They must love him. The man has always wanted to sabotage Britain and now he can be their puppet of divide and rule. 

 

Rarely have two such massive steaming turds been deposited in this forum in such quick succession - and by two posters capable of so much better.

 

So Corbyn is saying that he'll pay 100 billion, take any trade offer, any border, is he? What is the source for your information, @MattP, apart from the deep recesses of your rectum?!

That's certainly not what he or Starmer have been saying in public. Indeed, many - including you - have previously expressed the (justified) view that Corbyn is quite Eurosceptic.

Labour has certainly been expressing the view that no deal is a very bad outcome. As a middle-sized nation, choosing to isolate yourself in the world, at the mercy of Trump, Putin & the Chinese Communist Party seems a pretty bad outcome to me.

Likewise, opting to make your nation's businesses markedly less competitive in almost 50% of their trading markets - all in the hope of great but as yet non-existent trade deals with nations on the other side of the globe that are licking their lips at the prospects of forcing their terms on us. Throw in the risk of restarting violent conflict over N. Ireland, and that seems a pretty bad deal to me. Doubtless a worse deal is possible, but it would be hard to imagine one.

 

As for @KingGTF, I previously had you down as an intelligent poster with well-informed opinions, even if I disagreed with some of them. Yet here you are resorting to the patriotic scoundrel routine.

Accusing someone you disagree with of seeking to "sabotage Britain" and being ready to be the "puppet" of foreign powers seeking to divide and rule is the sort of insane rhetoric you normally hear only from bonehead fascists or opponents of democracy.

 

Referring to "divide and rule" is massively ironic as we currently have a government (not an opposition, an actual government, responsible for running the country) that seems incapable of ruling precisely because it is massively divided.

Does anyone seriously know what the Tory strategy is on Brexit? As far as I can tell, May's strategy is to straddle the fence in a futile attempt to hold her divided party together....while the clock ticks down on Brexit. She is risking this nation's future safety and prosperity by dithering to try to keep both wings of her party happy so that she can remain in government - yet she'll have to jump off the fence at some point. She'll have to either side with the Brexit headbangers who think they can call the EU's bluff, withdraw and either the EU will come begging with its tail between its legs or people like Trump, Putin and Xi will be offering Brit-friendly future deals - or she'll have to engage properly in the negotiations and make provisional compromises on the initial issues so that we can move on to consider future arrangements beneficial to both sides.

 

Despite our disagreements, you two are capable of arguments so much better than these. Next time you produce a big steaming shit, please flush it down the bog rather than stinking out the forum.

No offence intended, lads. Some people talk shite all the time and are rightly ignored. That doesn't apply to you, so it's frustrating when you spout such groundless garbage.

[Buce]

19 hours ago, toddybad said:

Shame that mattp and webbo aren't here with the Tories having a bad day 

 

I'd love them to explain how the tory actions tonight are actually democracy in action and perfectly reasonable.

 

18 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Well, Webbo replied precisely as expected.

 

MattP will ignore the question, and respond with something critical of Corbyn/McDonald/Abbot.

 

18 hours ago, MattP said:

I'm a busy man at the minute.

 

Some of the stuff that has been posted over the last few days has been quite incredible though, topped off today by someone claiming the Korean War didn't go well.

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Corbyn is now in Brussels to tell everyone no deal isn't an option.

 

It's hard to describe how ridiculous this is, we'll take absolutely anything you offer and we want you to know that, 50 billion, 100 billion, any trade offer, any border - you name it we'll agree to it. 

 

Thank God they aren't anywhere near these negotiations. 

 

Just call me Mystic Buce, @toddybad.

Edited 19 October 2017 by Buce

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Reach an agreement? 

 

You'll take anything, the EU could say it's 250billion and you've now committed to signing up for it.

 

You can tell there isn't a single person on this whole opposition front bench that has ever ran a business or been in a serious negotiation. 

Let's look at the tory strategy and how it's going.

 

At the election:

Says no deal is better than a bad deal. Says doesn't recognise ridiculous sky high figures for Brexit bill. Says it will negotiate trade at the same time as divorce issues and that there will be the battle of the summer over the timetable if negotiations. 

 

First negotiation. Backs down entirely on timetable and agrees to deal with divorce first.

 

Since then:

Despite agreeing to deal with divorce first, has made no effort to actually agree on the divorce and has tried to not progress and instead use speeches to suggest that national leaders change the course of talks to include trade now. Get absolutely nowhere with this. 

 

On Ireland we seem to have progressed nowhere.

 

On the bill we've offered £20b ish. It appears this covers what we'd pay in over the remaining time in the EU but doesn't cover any other liabilities like pensions etc. The EU find this unacceptable. Entirely understandably. Instead of making a sensible offer may is now caught on the fence afraid to make a bigger offer because of the hardcore leave nutcases in her party even though we all know there is a parliamentary majority for a soft Brexit and she's got no choice but to make the bigger offer.

 

On EU residents, even juncker had said he doesn't understand why both sides can't just stick to existing rights for those already present in the UK/EU. This is clearly sensible. But HMG are pissing about looking for another option which is causing worry to real people on both sides.

 

Which bit of this shows a fabulous negotiation?

 

You've lost the plot. We're simply agreeing terms for leaving at this point. This should be the easy bit. Leavers get too caught up in the bill. I didn't even want to leave but even I can accept that if we have liabilities of over £50b we need to pay them. We need to discuss the liabilities rather than refusing to. The current negotiations are a shambles and if anybody negotiated as poorly in business they'd have been sacked long ago. We should be building bridges and trust before the trade negotiations by acting in good faith, not acting like we're enemies.

Edited 19 October 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

(Deleted so Matt deals with the last thing instead of skipping it)

Edited 19 October 2017 by Guest

[Carl the Llama]

7 hours ago, Buce said:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/theresa-may-rules-out-pause-in-introducing-universal-credit

Cheers Buce, the nice bit about the phone lines was what I got from the big headline article on the BBC who apparently deemed it more important to highlight that positive instead of the negative of institutional chaos and infighting on the Conservative benches.  Bloody BBC and its pro-Tory bias.

[katieakita]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I do apologise but I've read nothing about this, can you provide a link for it?

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450428525/Post-Office-computer-system-legal-case-reaches-important-procedural-juncture

 

and judging by the amount the case is underwritten for and the failure of Post Office Ltd to provide interim accounts, HMG will again put its hands in its pockets to cover up their lack of oversight.

[davieG]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Does anyone seriously know what the Tory strategy is on Brexit? As far as I can tell, May's strategy is to straddle the fence in a futile attempt to hold her divided party together....while the clock ticks down on Brexit. She is risking this nation's future safety and prosperity by dithering to try to keep both wings of her party happy so that she can remain in government - yet she'll have to jump off the fence at some point.

Unfortunately we'd have exactly the same scenario if Labour where the government as they are equally divided.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Unfortunately we'd have exactly the same scenario if Labour where the government as they are equally divided.

 

That's true to a large extent. But Labour aren't in government and the Tories are. The focus would switch to Labour if the Tory Govt collapsed and Corbyn became PM...but that hasn't happened yet and might well never happen.

It's a bit like worrying about LCFC appointing the wrong manager next season and getting relegated from the Championship. It's more important to focus on appointing the right manager now so we don't even end up in the Championship.

 

Also, while Labour are indeed divided, I wonder if they are "equally" divided? Party members and MPs are overwhelmingly pro-Remain or Soft Brexit, depending on what's feasible. Some of the leadership (Corbyn, McDonnell & co, but not Starmer) are more Eurosceptic - but not necessarily pro-Brexit. I suspect that the leadership would compromise, provided any deal protected the economy, jobs, employment/social rights, public ownership and addressed concerns over immigration dragging down pay rates. I might be wrong about that, but I think the divisions in the Tory party are more visceral and ideological. For some senior Tories, Brexit is THE issue that has dominated their whole careers - the Euroscepticism of the Labour Eurosceptics is less visceral, I think. 

 

 

[davieG]

45 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's true to a large extent. But Labour aren't in government and the Tories are. The focus would switch to Labour if the Tory Govt collapsed and Corbyn became PM...but that hasn't happened yet and might well never happen.

It's a bit like worrying about LCFC appointing the wrong manager next season and getting relegated from the Championship. It's more important to focus on appointing the right manager now so we don't even end up in the Championship.

 

Also, while Labour are indeed divided, I wonder if they are "equally" divided? Party members and MPs are overwhelmingly pro-Remain or Soft Brexit, depending on what's feasible. Some of the leadership (Corbyn, McDonnell & co, but not Starmer) are more Eurosceptic - but not necessarily pro-Brexit. I suspect that the leadership would compromise, provided any deal protected the economy, jobs, employment/social rights, public ownership and addressed concerns over immigration dragging down pay rates. I might be wrong about that, but I think the divisions in the Tory party are more visceral and ideological. For some senior Tories, Brexit is THE issue that has dominated their whole careers - the Euroscepticism of the Labour Eurosceptics is less visceral, I think. 

 

 

I wouldn't be that convinced on that I'm sure there's plenty in the Labour ranks who like the Tories keep the extent of their views to themselves who knows what they will do when push comes to shove and to that the usual infighting on the various roles that becomes stronger when in government.

 

But you're correct they aren't in government I just don't feel they are likely to be a better option just more of the same but then that's how it's been for years with just the odd tweak here and there.

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

I wouldn't be that convinced on that I'm sure there's plenty in the Labour ranks who like the Tories keep the extent of their views to themselves who knows what they will do when push comes to shove and to that the usual infighting on the various roles that becomes stronger when in government.

 

But you're correct they aren't in government I just don't feel they are likely to be a better option just more of the same but then that's how it's been for years with just the odd tweak here and there.

 

Maybe there would be a lot of infighting if Labour ended up in Govt - there was certainly plenty 1-2 years ago, though internal relations are much-improved in 2017.

Infighting would probably be more likely if remaining in the EU became an option again, but that's certainly not the case now and might never be.

 

I just reckon that Labour might be able to unite around a Soft Brexit solution: out of the EU but with a close economic/political relationship, good single market access, some control over EU immigration, option for govt to invest in industry or nationalise, protection of employment/social rights etc.

 

I'm not sure there's any equivalent position around which the two wings of the Tory party could unite: some absolutely insist on severing all ties with the single market & customs union, others reluctantly accept Brexit but only if we retain close ties.

Tory unity might be harder to achieve than Labour unity, I reckon.

 

I'm mainly interested in the real-life impact of whatever Brexit we get, though. Labour divisions only become important if they end up in government. Until further notice we have a Tory Govt - and one that seems to be flirting with a "no deal" Brexit.

I know some people think that would be just fine (a separate argument) but I assume that "no deal" would be somewhere between very bad and utterly disastrous for the prosperity, safety, harmony and social fabric of our country - and for our real lives: yours, mine, our children's, our parents', whoever. Maybe I'm wrong and it would all be hunky dory bar minor disruption but I fear that it would be a lot worse than that. That's why I'm more interested in what the Tory Govt is doing at this crucial juncture, rather than hypothetical issues about Labour divisions, when Labour may never have any power over Brexit.

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

and one that seems to be flirting with a "no deal" Brexit.

I don't really believe they want that and it's just negotiation talk, both sides are playing hardball hoping the other will concede a little first putting them in the driving seat.

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

I don't really believe they want that and it's just negotiation talk, both sides are playing hardball hoping the other will concede a little first putting them in the driving seat.

 

 

That might well be true of May, even of David Davis & co. But there's definitely a wing of the Tory party that is itching to walk away with no deal.

Maybe May & Davis will resist those siren calls - but will they be able to do so if the EU doesn't back down some time soon?

They've already flirted with walking away rhetorically ("no deal is better than a bad deal" etc.) and could find themselves in a corner and under internal party pressure if they don't wring concessions out of the EU soon....

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Rarely have two such massive steaming turds been deposited in this forum in such quick succession - and by two posters capable of so much better.

 

So Corbyn is saying that he'll pay 100 billion, take any trade offer, any border, is he? What is the source for your information, @MattP, apart from the deep recesses of your rectum?!

That's certainly not what he or Starmer have been saying in public. Indeed, many - including you - have previously expressed the (justified) view that Corbyn is quite Eurosceptic.

Labour has certainly been expressing the view that no deal is a very bad outcome. As a middle-sized nation, choosing to isolate yourself in the world, at the mercy of Trump, Putin & the Chinese Communist Party seems a pretty bad outcome to me.

Likewise, opting to make your nation's businesses markedly less competitive in almost 50% of their trading markets - all in the hope of great but as yet non-existent trade deals with nations on the other side of the globe that are licking their lips at the prospects of forcing their terms on us. Throw in the risk of restarting violent conflict over N. Ireland, and that seems a pretty bad deal to me. Doubtless a worse deal is possible, but it would be hard to imagine one.

 

As for @KingGTF, I previously had you down as an intelligent poster with well-informed opinions, even if I disagreed with some of them. Yet here you are resorting to the patriotic scoundrel routine.

Accusing someone you disagree with of seeking to "sabotage Britain" and being ready to be the "puppet" of foreign powers seeking to divide and rule is the sort of insane rhetoric you normally hear only from bonehead fascists or opponents of democracy.

 

Referring to "divide and rule" is massively ironic as we currently have a government (not an opposition, an actual government, responsible for running the country) that seems incapable of ruling precisely because it is massively divided.

Does anyone seriously know what the Tory strategy is on Brexit? As far as I can tell, May's strategy is to straddle the fence in a futile attempt to hold her divided party together....while the clock ticks down on Brexit. She is risking this nation's future safety and prosperity by dithering to try to keep both wings of her party happy so that she can remain in government - yet she'll have to jump off the fence at some point. She'll have to either side with the Brexit headbangers who think they can call the EU's bluff, withdraw and either the EU will come begging with its tail between its legs or people like Trump, Putin and Xi will be offering Brit-friendly future deals - or she'll have to engage properly in the negotiations and make provisional compromises on the initial issues so that we can move on to consider future arrangements beneficial to both sides.

 

Despite our disagreements, you two are capable of arguments so much better than these. Next time you produce a big steaming shit, please flush it down the bog rather than stinking out the forum.

No offence intended, lads. Some people talk shite all the time and are rightly ignored. That doesn't apply to you, so it's frustrating when you spout such groundless garbage.

 

Normally I'd ignore this, at the end of the day it's absolutely no skin off my nose if your opinions change or you fundamentally disagree. But, admittedly, on this occasion I could not quite feel the apathy. Maybe you see it as a steaming turd and patriotic scoundrel but it isn't without reason. And anyway you're wrong just given that I have to read absolute shit like

The government can create money at any time of its choosing as we are masters of our own currency. Whilst creating large sums does risk inflation, if it had been done two or three years ago they could have cleared half the nation's debt with the money given to the banks with the same zero impact on inflation. 

 

Or Sharpe's barely comprehensible keyboard murmurings, or repeated calls of the government being scum, or anything Buce says in here (one my favourite posters elsewhere though), or two people posting essentially the same graph to argue with each other. 

 

In the land of Corbyn and his cronies, Britain is almost always wrong. Certainly seems to have sided with every enemy of the British state. 

 

He has been critical of all Britain's actions since WW2, including in the Cold War. He has advocated the abolition of NATO, or at least pulling back from the Baltic border. Let's ask the people of the Baltic nations what they think of that? He has employed a man to be his advisor who thinks it a shame the Berlin Wall fell, has hosted Putin propanda, and blames the West for Ukraine. His shadow chancellor admits to being a Trotskyist... well actually his shadow chancellor's record is a whole other post.

 

We were wrong with the Falklands War and he has advocated joint ownership with Argentina (eventual surrender?) despite pretty much everyone there saying they would like to keep it as it is. He wants to completely ignore the will of the Falklands' people.

 

When asked by Andrew Neil about Seamus Mallon's comments on Corbyn taking the IRA's side, his answer was not to deny it, he simply said Mallon hadn't told him that personally. He voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement and I'm yet to see an actual reason why he decided to align himself with Sinn Fein. In fact all his behaviour was quite questionable. Again his appointed shadow chancellor opposed the peace process until the late 90s. Still, I know you don't like him being linked to the IRA so I'll leave that though one might suggest reading the transript of his interview with Stephen Nolan, 

 

The man called Hezbollah and Hamas friends, campaigning for the latter to be removed as a terrorist group and insisting that it is committed “long term peace and social justice”. We won't talk about the anti-semitism he allows within his party.

 

His appearances on Iranian State TV - banned by the UK - are questionable as well. Corbyn was happy to personally take money off a regime with questionable human rights record whilst also aiding their propaganda campaign. He once praised the Iranian regime for "inclusivity and tolerance". A quote from an Iranian democracy campaigner, "People who present programmes for Press TV and get paid for it should be really ashamed of themselves — especially if they call themselves liberals and people who are interested in human rights." (I expect Saudi Arabia to be mentioned at least 3000 times now)

 

He labels Blair a war criminal but opposed NATO action against Milosevic (an actual fully fledged war criminal), even denying some of his actions against Kosovo.

 

Let us not forget his praise for Chavez in Venuzuela, Castro in Cuba, or his regular appearances on Russian propaganda networks. Or the fact the former leader of MI6 called him unfit to lead the country and he wouldn't clear security vetting. Not too dissimilar to comments from CIA agents about Trump who, judging by your post, you see as a danger. 

 

I mean I can move away from that and think why his interest in the people, rather than country, is also questionable.

 

Look at the fact he is advocating policies that they now freely admit will lead to a run on the pound. How it is deemed acceptable to admit this would be the result of your policies is phenomenal. It's made all the more incredible by Trump-like comments to defend it. Next, he'll have to admit to the scale of capital flight and the crash in any sterling denominated asset. And then admit they can't fund anything without printing money because no sane investor will want to lend to his government. And to think TB thinks real wages are problem now. 

 

Maybe look at his desire to remove people's freedoms. His war on consumers. Maybe I might even point out (to a remainer) his efforts to sabotage the Remain campaign or his Hokey Cokey Brexit policy. 

 

So I am not sorry for my patriotic scoundrel, I just really don't think precedent suggests Corbyn has anything near Britain's best interests at heart. In fact, right now, I suspect he is only interested in the interests of the few in his Marxist coalition. You're right he won't be a puppet of the EU but he will do them more good than he will do us. Finally, suggesting my comment is akin to that of a fascist and opponent of democracy whilst appearing to defend a man with heavy communist links is almost quite amusing.