Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
DJ Barry Hammond

Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

By DJ Barry Hammond, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You have a stock 5 phrases you roll out in response to any and all occasions so you're really the wrong person to be preaching. You get given evidence of something and just keep parroting the same rubbish.

lol

We can get your opinion an hour early if we subscribe to the guardian, it might be articulate but its a well written newspaper.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fox Ulike

Fox Ulike

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, KingGTF said:

 

You're discussing it with yourself now. It's not an artificial distinction when David Davis was speaking solely about the withdrawal agreement. I only referenced the financial deal as spoken of by David Davis in that Guardian article which was purely the money paid as part of a withdrawal agreement and so my point stands that nobody said that would be more favourable to us than them. That's why it was a moot point, it wasn't really news. I don't disagree with any of the rest that you've said, I'm all for thinking about it objectively. 

 

None of us actually signed up for anything. 

 

You've clearly convinced yourself Brexit is a bad idea, will not go great, and we'll end up begging to return. 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. However, if I was to vote again (well I didn't actually vote) I'd vote remain to save the monotony of it all, and ensure the Marxists were nowhere near government. 

 

 

Just reading that the EU is now banning glyphosate. Shambles. lol

 

 

It does feel like I’m discussing it with myself now yes. :P  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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

It does feel like I’m discussing it with myself now yes. :P  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.

 

Hang on, the financial settlement is a finite figure, the saving is indefinite. Ok so nobody mentioned a divorce settlement from the leave side but that is because even now its ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It doesnt say it will go their though does it? It suggests they think it should.

You've embarrassed yourself there lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

 

1 minute ago, EnderbyFox said:

jh-696x503.png

 

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It doesnt say it will go their though does it? It suggests they think it should.

 

:dry:;):):Dlol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Just for strokes, a guardian article.

 

Presumably we'll be able to get some additional Peruvian nurses and Nepalese Midwives to make up the numbers. 

 

And nobody better come up with "we can just train more of our own". We can do that now but can't get the numbers.

 

European nurses and midwives leaving UK in droves since Brexit vote

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/02/european-nurses-midwives-leaving-uk-nhs-brexit-vote?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
Just now, toddybad said:

 

 

 

:dry:;):):Dlol

let1
lɛt/
verb
3rd person present: lets
  1. 1.
    not prevent or forbid; allow.
    "my boss let me leave early"
    synonyms: allow, permit, give permission to, give leave to, authorize,sanction, grant, grant the right to, warrant, license,empower, enable, entitle;More
    assent to, consent to, agree to, acquiesce in, accede to,approve of, tolerate,countenance, suffer, brook,admit of, give one's blessing to, give assent to;
    cause, make;
    informalgive the green light to, give the go-ahead to, give the thumbs up to, give someone/something the nod,say the magic word, OK
    "let him sleep for now"
    antonyms: prevent, prohibit
    • allow to pass in a particular direction.
      "could you let the dog out?"
      synonyms: allow to go, permit to pass;
      make way for
      "Wilcox pushed open the door to let her through"
  2. 2.
    used in the imperative to formulate various expressions:
    • used as a polite way of making or responding to a suggestion, giving an instruction, or introducing a remark.
      "let's have a drink"
    • used to make an offer of help.
      "‘Here, let me,’ offered Bruce"
    • used to express one's strong desire for something to happen or be the case.
      "‘Dear God,’ Jessica prayed, ‘let him be all right.’"
    • used as a way of expressing defiance or challenge.
      "if he wants to walk out, well let him!"
    • used to express an assumption upon which a theory or calculation is to be based.
      "let A and B stand for X and Y respectively"
  3. 3.
    BRITISH
    allow someone to have the use of (a room or property) in return for regular payments.
    "she let the flat to a tenant"
    synonyms: rent out, let out, rent, lease,hire, hire out, loan, give on loan, sublet, sublease, farm out, contract, charge for the use of
    "they hired an agent to let their flat"
    • award (a contract for a project) to an applicant.
      "preliminary contracts were let and tunnelling work started"
noun
BRITISH
plural noun: lets
  1. 1.
    a period during which a room or property is rented.
    "I've taken a month's let on the flat"
    • a property available for rent.
      "an unfurnished let"
Origin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Gavin Williamson the new SOSfD.

 

To say that's a shock is an understatement. Wasn't even mentioned in most of the articles I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

It does feel like I’m discussing it with myself now yes. :P  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.

 

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You've embarrassed yourself there lol

Ive embarrassed myself lol

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Gavin Williamson the new SOSfD.

 

To say that's a shock is an understatement. Wasn't even mentioned in most of the articles I read.

 

So the whips could well come under pressure for what they knew about MP misdemeanours so May decides, naturally, her Chief Whip is right to replace Fallon who resigned because of unsatisfactory behaviour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Tax burden on the wealthy has trebled since the 70's. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/tax-burden-wealthy-has-trebled-since-1970s-telegraph-analysis/amp/

Of course it has. The top 1% had about 5% of the nation's wealth in.The 1970s. It had rocketed up since. You'd expect them to be paying more. It's in proportion.

 

 

57919089_share_income464x332.webp

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
Just now, Fox Ulike said:

What it means is : Let's think about giving our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week. But let's not actually do it.

 

Now please stop trying to sabotage Brexit. :P

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Strokes said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...