Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

You seem to be taking this very personally even though I wasn't replying to you. I'll try to reply to every point, I know people are very precious about that, but if I miss something you can highlight it and I'll have another go.

 

If it's a qualified majority and we vote against it, is it imposed on us anyway? A few years ago the EU imposed a £2million maximum bonus for banker on us against our wishes. Irrelevant of whether you think it was justified or not, we didn't want it and seeing as we're the major financial services provider it disproportionately affected us.If the other countries of Europe wish to impose that on their businesses that's up to them, why did they have to interfere in our business?I notice that now France is trying to take some of our banking industry they want to get rid of this rule.

 

Did I refer to you when I said that? You might not say that, there are plenty on here and elsewhere, that do. As for the Melanie Phillips Article, I posted it because Mac asked if someone would, I hadn't read it until then. I signed up to view 2 free articles from The Times a week which I don't use very often. The article itself rang true to me.

 

Yes, because any govt that took away holidays, holiday pay and maternity leave would never win another election. 

The EU are forever insinuating terrible things that'll happen to us (which nobody on the remain side ever finds offensive) It's all part of the negotiations. 

The public services are not being destroyed.

The rest is just refighting the referendum campaign and I can't bothered with that, there are hundreds of posts on here that explain my views.

Fox ulike has invented opinions for me in the past that he's gone on the ridicule, he denied that the treasury issued the project fear assessment before the referendum, and he denied that anyone had ever called Brexiteers Nazis before calling Melanie Phillips a Nazi. If the cap fits  As for Donut, he replied to my polite post with this

So he call me a liar and a fool(another word for thick) and yet I don't see you taking offence at that.

Stop shouting at me!

 

Thanks for your measured response. I'm not taking anything personally, just expressing my views in a public forum. I was only "shouting" (a) to give you a taste of your own medicine; (b) because I know you're big enough and ugly enough to take it (saw your photo in the "What does everybody look like" thread ).

 

Donut's comment is hyperbolic and hypothetical (I assume you DIDN'T actually vote Brexit to lose employment rights?). He did not specifically call you a liar or a fool - and he did not claim to be polite. You approvingly posted an article blatantly misrepresenting Remainers, gratuitously asked Fox ulike if he was thick when it was you that was misunderstanding (so you were the one being "thick", if anyone), said "we all know what a bunch of liars [...] the Remainers are", then proceeded to claim that you were being polite.  

 

Fox ulike explained his point to you (though I found it perfectly clear from the outset), yet you are still misrepresenting him. He was not describing Phillips as a Nazi or denying that anyone had ever called Brexiteers Nazis, he was saying that Phillips' article was reminiscent of Nazi propaganda. I completely agree with his opinion.

 

As I've said, you seem to be a man with a closed mind and blinkers. Why not prove me wrong? Go back to that Phillips article and try this:

- Replace "Brexiters" with "Remainers" and vice-versa throughout and see whether you still consider it a fair assessment

- Just count the number of times she uses the passive. This is a clear and blatant sign of Nazi-style propaganda - making outrageous accusations but putting them in the passive as she cannot attribute them to anyone specific:

e.g. "[Brexit supporters] are deemed to be racists, xenophobes, nativists, jingoists, Nazis and, of course, stunted imbeciles"; "the western nation itself is deemed innately bad"; "upholding British or western identity leads to nationalism, fascism and war"; "Opponents must be demonised and silenced for the good of humanity"; "there are many issues ....where dissent is simply not tolerated"; "Trevor Phillips was denounced as a racist" etc. Who is doing all this "deeming", "demonising", "silencing" and "not tolerating"? The article implies that such views are widespread, whereas in truth very few people view Brexiteers as Nazis and imbeciles, Trevor Phillips as a racist, fascism and war as inevitable or believe that opponents must be silenced!

 

On the few occasions that Melanie Phillips specifies who is committing these terrible acts, they are attributed quite widely:

- "Among many Remainers, there's a deep belief [that Brexit supporters are Nazis, stunted imbeciles etc.]";

- "Claims by Brexit supporters that their deepest concern is to restore democratic control over British laws and policies are dismissed as absurd by Remainers because they don't value democratic sovereignty. Many despise it". 

- "For many scientists that is a forbidden idea. So instead of disputing the theory with evidence, they smear and intimidate proponents"

Some of these claims may be true of a few Remainers or a few scientists, but only a few - just as it would be wrong of me to claim that "Brexiteers or many Brexiteers are Nazis and stunted imbeciles who despise democracy and seek to smear and intimidate". That article is a disgracefully dishonest bit of misrepresentation and propaganda - that's down to Phillips, but you viewed it as "a fair assessment".

 

Re. "qualified majority" decisions being "imposed on us": Yes, if we fail to win support for our position at EU level (at the Council or Parliament, where we are represented) and lose a vote, the majority get their way. That's democracy. The same applies within the UK. If Labour MPs for Leicester want a different policy from those "imposed" by the majority Tory govt, then tough - unless they can win support for it. In essence, all you are saying is that you don't like the idea of powers being pooled internationally. You see the national (and maybe local) level as the only one at which joint decisions should be taken and democracy exercised. You are a nationalist, I get that. It's a valid argument to say that all democracy should stop at the national level - or to say that some of it should be pooled internationally. It's certainly not valid to pool democracy internationally and then not expect to be bound by majority decisions - and to view them as being "imposed" on you!

 

Enough already! I've got a parents' evening to go to, so am out of here for several hours.

Edited 22 February 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Carl the Llama]

Obviously it's only democracy when you win, Alf. 

[leicsmac]

And I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but the whole idea of "So instead of disputing the theory with evidence, they smear and intimidate proponents" is flawed in the view of the scientific method anyway.

 

The burden of proof by supplying evidence doesn't lie on those wanting to prove ID isn't true - it lies on those who do.

[Webbo]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but the whole idea of "So instead of disputing the theory with evidence, they smear and intimidate proponents" is flawed in the view of the scientific method anyway.

 

The burden of proof by supplying evidence doesn't lie on those wanting to prove ID isn't true - it lies on those who do.

Surely scientific theories don't have to be proven, that's why they're only theories?  Wasn't the Higgs Bosun particle an unproven theory until a couple of years ago?

[leicsmac]

Just now, Webbo said:

Surely scientific theories don't have to be proven, that's why they're only theories?  Wasn't the Higgs Bosun particle an unproven theory until a couple of years ago?

Sadly, the word theory as it's used in the scientific field has been confused with that of general philosophy in a lot of circumstances.

 

A philosophical theory is an idea on the workings of the world that is had by someone that may or may not be empirically true, whereas a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

 

For instance, intelligent design is a philosophical theory, and gravity or natural selection is a scientific one.

 

To make a scientific theory accepted, the burden of proof is on the postulator to provide evidence.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Sadly, the word theory as it's used in the scientific field has been confused with that of general philosophy in a lot of circumstances.

 

A philosophical theory is an idea on the workings of the world that is had by someone that may or may not be empirically true, whereas a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

 

For instance, intelligent design is a philosophical theory, and gravity or natural selection is a scientific one.

 

To make a scientific theory accepted, the burden of proof is on the postulator to provide evidence.

Surely it's only philosophical if you believe it's based on religious belief? They might for instance be claiming that aliens landed on earth a billion years ago ., I neither know nor care. I don't see why there has to be such an aggressive backlash against alternative theories.Whether we evolved from apes or designed by little green men it makes no difference, we're here now, its of no importance if some people believe something else.

 

Btw I'm not suggesting that we're descended from little green men or that evolution is wrong.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Surely it's only philosophical if you believe it's based on religious belief? They might for instance be claiming that aliens landed on earth a billion years ago ., I neither know nor care. I don't see why there has to be such an aggressive backlash against alternative theories.Whether we evolved from apes or designed by little green men it makes no difference, we're here now, its of no importance if some people believe something else.

 

Btw I'm not suggesting that we're descended from little green men or that evolution is wrong.

It's philosophical so long as empirical evidence isn't presented for it, that's the way the scientific method works.

 

Of course, you could make the argument that the method itself is subjective and flawed because it was conceived and applied by humans, but then you could extend that to all areas of human activity and that's a pretty deep rabbit hole to be going down.

 

I honestly think the idea of "backlash" against such ideas within the scientific community is wildly overstated (the backlash from various corners of the Internet and other media not involved in the community is another matter entirely and most certainly does exist), which is the argument I've been making all along. Ideas are entertained, and accepted with evidence, and dismissed without. It's not a totally pure methodology, but things that have evidence do tend to win through in the end. I would agree that what people believe about the topic doesn't necessarily matter, apart from the issue that such knowledge has been the basis for a very great deal of conflict and suffering in the past and may well continue to be so in the future.

 

All of this just smacks of various corners of organised religion trying to paint the scientific community as godless atheistic oppressors for their own purposes, to be honest.

[Buce]

McDonnell says Labour's Brexit policy has been 'evolving'

 

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said this morning that Labour’s Brexit policy has been “evolving” in recent weeks. Speaking at the Resolution Foundation, he also said that the Conservatives would need to rethink their opposition to staying in a customs union with the EU - a clear hint that Labour will back an amendment tabled by rebel Tories to the taxation (cross-border trade) bill proposing this when it gets put to a vote in the coming weeks. McDonnell said: "Our position is yes we want to see on the table ‘a’ customs union negotiation, not ‘the’ customs union. We think there could be a reform. ‘A’ customs union is a way forward, particularly in solving some of the issues around Northern Ireland. What we’re concerned about is that the government have ruled even that option off the table, I think they’re going to have to come back and readdress it".

"We’re not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union. The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got. What we would want is to negotiate around our ability to influence the trade negotiations that would take place on behalf of us all - both ourselves and European countries - in terms of trade via a customs union. That would be the discussion we would want to open up."

But he also said Labour was not ready to reopen the debate about staying in the single market. He said: "We respect the referendum result and many people who voted for leave and others may not feel that’s respecting the result itself, because we have to adopt all the four freedoms [if the UK stays in the single market]. We think we can develop a new relationship with Europe that overcomes many of those perceived disbenefits and that’s why we think we can get as close to single market as we can and gain the benefits from it".

Jeremy Corbyn is expected to deliver a major speech on Labour’s Brexit policy early next week.

Edited 22 February 2018 by Buce

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

McDonnell says Labour's Brexit policy has been 'evolving'

 

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said this morning that Labour’s Brexit policy has been “evolving” in recent weeks. Speaking at the Resolution Foundation, he also said that the Conservatives would need to rethink their opposition to staying in a customs union with the EU - a clear hint that Labour will back an amendment tabled by rebel Tories to the taxation (cross-border trade) bill proposing this when it gets put to a vote in the coming weeks. McDonnell said: "Our position is yes we want to see on the table ‘a’ customs union negotiation, not ‘the’ customs union. We think there could be a reform. ‘A’ customs union is a way forward, particularly in solving some of the issues around Northern Ireland. What we’re concerned about is that the government have ruled even that option off the table, I think they’re going to have to come back and readdress it".

"We’re not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union. The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got. What we would want is to negotiate around our ability to influence the trade negotiations that would take place on behalf of us all - both ourselves and European countries - in terms of trade via a customs union. That would be the discussion we would want to open up."

But he also said Labour was not ready to reopen the debate about staying in the single market. He said: "We respect the referendum result and many people who voted for leave and others may not feel that’s respecting the result itself, because we have to adopt all the four freedoms [if the UK stays in the single market]. We think we can develop a new relationship with Europe that overcomes many of those perceived disbenefits and that’s why we think we can get as close to single market as we can and gain the benefits from it".

Jeremy Corbyn is expected to deliver a major speech on Labour’s Brexit policy early next week.

I look forward to it, they need to put pressure on the government and to do so they need a clear position.

[Donut]

Why arent UKIP more popular?

 

If the nation wants brexit,should more people not back the party that has made its whole existence on this issue and presumably must have a brexit strategy?

 

 

[Buce]

‘There will be no customs union’ - Jeremy Hunt. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43167824

[Guest Foxin_mad]

So basically the position of the Labour party is that they want their cake and eat it?!? I thought the EU said that was impossible.

 

To be honest it seems if we are in a customs union there is completely no point in Brexit what so ever. As we still pay, still comply, can not make our own deals, but get no decision making so actually it pretty much concludes to a bad deal! as its worse that we currently have.

 

I am beginning to think a half arsed Brexit is the worst thing we can do no either go full in or full out, no in betweens.

Edited 23 February 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Strokes]

41 minutes ago, Donut said:

Why arent UKIP more popular?

 

If the nation wants brexit,should more people not back the party that has made its whole existence on this issue and presumably must have a brexit strategy?

 

 

Maybe it’s not the only issue people vote on and clearly there are other credible parties willing to fulfill the referendum result.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Maybe it’s not the only issue people vote on and clearly there are other credible parties willing to fulfill the referendum result.

I was going to say that but I didn't want to shout.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

47 minutes ago, Donut said:

Why arent UKIP more popular?

 

If the nation wants brexit,should more people not back the party that has made its whole existence on this issue and presumably must have a brexit strategy?

 

 

Why aren't the Lib Dems more popular as well? They are the ONLY party with a clear position, and a clear position to remain within the EU but no one voted for them. Why don't the young vote for them? Labour have lied and continue to lie yet they get away with it, the Lib Dems took a kicking after the student loans increase fiasco. Lets not forget Labour also made a similar manifesto pledge around 2006 and people conveniently forget that.

 

UKIP will struggle even in Brexit strongholds because their is a stigma attached to them. Even in areas such as Stoke with 70% leave votes, UKIP could take a seat from Labour. Snell who won against UKIP is pro-European.

Edited 23 February 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Webbo]

UKIP are a single issue party and that issue in now sorted. Labour and Conservative have both said they'll carry through brexit so they are not needed anymore. The only way they'll make a comeback is if the establishment stitch us up and and we don't get a proper brexit.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Labour are not going to carry through Brexit really though by the sounds of it and as usual they are lying to appeal to the popular vote.

 

The Tories want to carry out the wishes of the referendum but their own party and external factors are making that very hard work.

 

In my eyes the only solution is a general election where parties deliver as part of their manifesto a clear vision of what they intend. Let them stand on that. Whoever wins then has a duty to deliver what they have won on the basis of.

 

Corbyn and his band of merry idiots will change his wind depending on which way the wind blows. I mean the cvnt even congratulated that twat Stormzy the other day on twitter.

[Fox Ulike]

26 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

So basically the position of the Labour party is that they want their cake and eat it?!? I though the EU said that was impossible.

 

To be honest it seems if we are in a customs union there is completely no point in Brexit what so ever. As we still pay, still comply, can make our own deals, but get no decision making so actually it pretty much concludes to a bad deal! as its worse that we currently have.

 

I am beginning to think a half arsed Brexit is the worst thing we can do no either go full in or full out, no in betweens.

 

I think you might have a point.

 

If we had a sensible transition period, whereby we could re-negotiate all the trade deals that we’re abandoning under the Customs Union – and negotiate a trade deal with the EU, then we might emerge from the whole thing relatively unscathed.

 

[Fox Ulike]

1 hour ago, Donut said:

Why arent UKIP more popular?

 

If the nation wants brexit,should more people not back the party that has made its whole existence on this issue and presumably must have a brexit strategy?

 

 

 

They were popular when they had the Daily Mail and Sun supporting their shared cause of Brexit.

 

Once Brexit was won though, UKIP had fulfilled its purpose. Its continued popularity would only  harm the Right by splitting the right-wing vote between UKIP and the Conservatives, which could have led to a Labour-led hung parliament.

[Alf Bentley]

I expected there to be a continuing role for UKIP pressuring the Tories towards a Hard Brexit. But they seem to have imploded for now, while the Hard Brexit pressure is coming from within the Tory party itself.

 

Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, though, we could yet see an upsurge in support for UKIP and/or the Lib Dems.

 

The 2017 election was supposed to be "the Brexit election", but it wasn't for the most part. Maybe the next election will be "the Brexit election" instead?

If the Tories compromise more than the Hard Brexit lot want and UKIP sort their internal chaos out, then they could still get a considerable number of votes.

Likewise, if a Hard Brexit deal is done and/or adverse consequences result, the Lib Dems might do a lot better next time.....though maybe not if Labour are unequivocally the party of Soft Brexit by then.

 

But what happens if the Tory Govt starts losing big votes on Brexit in parliament (a possibility with the upcoming amendment calling for a customs union) or if the public mood shifts strongly against Brexit (possible, but not happened yet)?

It would then be more likely that the Govt might fall and we might end up with an early election within a year - or much sooner. I've no idea how likely that is, because it depends, among other things, on whether the Tory leadership remains united and can cajole or coerce enough backbenchers into staying onside. The likes of Anna Soubry & Chuka Umunna seem confident that they'll win their amendment on a customs union....whether their confidence is justified, I've no idea. The leaks from this Brexit cabinet get-together suggest that the leadership is uniting in ruling out any customs union.....so a big show-down could be just around the corner.

[Alf Bentley]

35 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I was going to say that but I didn't want to shout.

[Webbo]

14 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

They were popular when they had the Daily Mail and Sun supporting their shared cause of Brexit.

 

Once Brexit was won though, UKIP had fulfilled its purpose. Its continued popularity would only  harm the Right by splitting the right-wing vote between UKIP and the Conservatives, which could have led to a Labour-led hung parliament.

The only paper that supported UKIP was the Express. UKIP also took more votes from Labour than the Tories.

[Donut]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I was going to say that but I didn't want to shout.

Youre decent in every thread other than this one where, for some reason, you become a goon.

[Fox Ulike]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The only paper that supported UKIP was the Express. UKIP also took more votes from Labour than the Tories.

 

 I didn't say that. I said the Sun and Daily mail supported [UKIPs] shared cause of Brexit.

 

I'm getting kind of fed up at having to repeat myself to correct your misinterpretations of what I post.

 

It’s the Politics of Disingenuousness. Fake outrage. Alternative facts and post truth. Contrarian politics. Psychological Projection. All that stuff.

 

I guess it’s been mainstream since Trump came to power, but I really can’t see the point of doing it on a football chat-site though.

 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

 I didn't say that. I said the Sun and Daily mail supported [UKIPs] shared cause of Brexit.

 

I'm getting kind of fed up at having to repeat myself to correct your misinterpretations of what I post.

 

It’s the Politics of Disingenuousness. Fake outrage. Alternative facts and post truth. Contrarian politics. Psychological Projection. All that stuff.

 

I guess it’s been mainstream since Trump came to power, but I really can’t see the point of doing it on a football chat-site though.

 

Don't get your knickers in a twist because somebody corrects you. The only paper I buy is the Mail on Sunday and they came out for remain, they still are anti brexit which can be annoying sometimes but it doesn't influence me in the slightest.