Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Isn't that what Theresa May wants?

 

No. For a start she doesn't want to keep existing common rights because she wants to end freedom of movement

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No. For a start she doesn't want to keep existing common rights because she wants to end freedom of movement

Good job Labour aren't in then.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm guessing that Ireland would have been a more wealthy country in the 20/30s if it had stuck in the UK but they wanted to run their own country. I doubt many people in the Republic or Ireland regret their independence from us.

 

You may be right about Ireland in the 20s/30s. I don't know enough about that era to say, though I know they had some pretty backward governments early on (I'm not a fan of De Valera, from what I've read).

Ironically, Ireland has mainly prospered as an independent country since it joined the EU (though I'm not giving the EU all the credit for that). Ireland was one of the poorest countries in W. Europe in 1973, but has now prospered to the extent that it is set to be a net contributor to the EU budget.

 

Any response to my hypothetical question? I'm genuinely interested.

[Guest Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Good job Labour aren't in then.

 

Squeaky bum time for you though Webbo. Government lose this they have to seek to stay in the single market

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You may be right about Ireland in the 20s/30s. I don't know enough about that era to say, though I know they had some pretty backward governments early on (I'm not a fan of De Valera, from what I've read).

Ironically, Ireland has mainly prospered as an independent country since it joined the EU (though I'm not giving the EU all the credit for that). Ireland was one of the poorest countries in W. Europe in 1973, but has now prospered to the extent that it is set to be a net contributor to the EU budget.

 

Any response to my hypothetical question? I'm genuinely interested.

If we were poorer would I regret Brexit? No.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Squeaky bum time for you though Webbo. Government lose this they have to seek to stay in the single market

There'd be an election before that happens.

[Strokes]

34 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Squeaky bum time for you though Webbo. Government lose this they have to seek to stay in the single market

If they lose it will trigger a GE, no doubt about it.

[Strokes]

6 hours ago, Donut said:

Brexit voter 1 wanted 350 million for the NHS.

 

Brexit voter 2 wanted to leave the EU because he hates Polish people and is a racist

 

Brexit voter 3 wanted to leave the EU because he wants parliament to be sovereign

 

Brexit voter 4 wanted a Norway type arrangement that Boris and Farrage had talked about in the lead up to the referendum

 

Brexit voter 5 wanted to leave the EU, but retain some of the benefits of single market and customs union

 

Brexit voter 6 thought it was absolutely essential that we leave single market and customs union

 

 

So you don't know why they voted the way they did, and they all voted for different things.

 

In your head, you think everyone agrees with YOUR vision of brexit. Or the little echo chamber you live in of a few people agreeing with you.

 

If the actual brexit is nothing like the one you imagined, youll be stuffed.

 

Do you think, or would you like the EU to reform at all? What do you think it could do better and do you think all remainers share exactly the same vision for remaining in the EU?

[Strokes]

On 04/06/2018 at 15:49, toddybad said:

Remain was what we already had. What extra info did we need?

You need the information of both sides to make an informed vote, if the leave vote was uninformed, then so was the remain by default.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

You were saying @MattP

 

 

Effectively is staying in that

 

 

Very sinister and very smart.

 

This vote can't win as no Tory will vote for a frontbench Labour amendment, he proposes this, says no to the (very winnable) Lords EEA amendment and the government bill passes through with his reputation among his pro-EU still in tact.

[Guest MattP]

Can't even give them away.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

If we were poorer would I regret Brexit? No.

 

No, that wasn't the hypothetical question that I asked, as you're well aware. 

 

I won't bore others by quoting it in full, but I asked whether you'd regret it if Brexit proved to be ruinous to you, your family and your country for decades to come - or on what grounds it would still be worth it.

Trying to be fair, I asked the mirror-image question to myself (what would my attitude be if Brexit were a great success and the EU fell apart) and answered it: that I'd regret my Remain vote and express relief that you'd been proven right.

 

If you're looking for the post, it's my one before last. The one to which you responded with some whataboutery concerning Ireland in the 20s/30s, not the last one in which you misrepresented my question. 

 

I don't want to annoy others, so will give up if you don't reply properly this time. I'll just assume that you're unwilling or unable to consider the hypothetical possibility of your judgment ever proving to be incorrect. 

[Webbo]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

No, that wasn't the hypothetical question that I asked, as you're well aware. 

 

I won't bore others by quoting it in full, but I asked whether you'd regret it if Brexit proved to be ruinous to you, your family and your country for decades to come - or on what grounds it would still be worth it.

Trying to be fair, I asked the mirror-image question to myself (what would my attitude be if Brexit were a great success and the EU fell apart) and answered it: that I'd regret my Remain vote and express relief that you'd been proven right.

 

If you're looking for the post, it's my one before last. The one to which you responded with some whataboutery concerning Ireland in the 20s/30s, not the last one in which you misrepresented my question. 

 

I don't want to annoy others, so will give up if you don't reply properly this time. I'll just assume that you're unwilling or unable to consider the hypothetical possibility of your judgment ever proving to be incorrect. 

Is this the bit you mean?

 

Quote

 

If such a nightmare scenario happened, due essentially to Brexit not incompetent post-Brexit govts, would you turn round and say: "Sorry, we got it wrong. Brexit was a bad idea".

If not, could you complete this tie-breaker: If necessary, it is worth ruining my prosperity, my family's opportunities and my country's harmony for the sake of Brexit because........................................ 

 

The first part; No I won't say sorry I got it wrong.

The second part no matter what happens there will always be opportunities and ignoring the will of the majority will do more to disrupt the harmony of this country than carrying it out. And finally;

for the sake of Brexit because.I believe in democracy.

 

Tbh I believe the answers I'd already given made it obvious what I thought.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Can't even give them away.

Where did you get that from?

Was always a terrible idea. 

[Guest MattP]

25 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Where did you get that from?

Was always a terrible idea. 

Twitter. Some of those who paid £35 quid are now (quite rightly) kicking off.

 

Brilliant, Corbynistas now complaining about paying extra for something that others will get for free...... the Tory bastards.

 

Was a bizarre idea, done after his reception at Glastonbury I presume.

[Guest MattP]

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Twitter. Some of those who paid £35 quid are now (quite rightly) kicking off.

 

Brilliant, Corbynistas now complaining about paying extra for something that others will get for free...... the Tory bastards.

 

Was a bizarre idea, done after his reception at Glastonbury I presume.

Tbf the Tories were rumoured to be doing something similar last year but I don't think it happened. That would have been even worse. Imagine 3000 Tarquins wearing cricket jumpers around their necks 'camping out' in 6 star US style motorhomes.

 

I hate it when political parties think they can jump on this sort of thing. The thing that was special about Corbyn at Glastonbury and other events was the spontaneous nature of young people being invested in politics. Let it be. Spontaneity and organic growth of the way to get the young interested. Labour live was just a hideous idea. Plus, crap acts and loads of speeches.

Edited 5 June 2018 by Guest

[Alf Bentley]

27 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Is this the bit you mean?

 

The first part; No I won't say sorry I got it wrong.

The second part no matter what happens there will always be opportunities and ignoring the will of the majority will do more to disrupt the harmony of this country than carrying it out. And finally;

for the sake of Brexit because.I believe in democracy.

 

Tbh I believe the answers I'd already given made it obvious what I thought.

 

Yes, that was the bit that I meant. Thanks for replying.

 

I had already gathered that you were happy for us to get a bit poorer in exchange for what you perceive as the greater benefits of "taking back democratic control" at the national level. But most Brexiteers tend to say that there's no chance of Brexit making things A LOT worse in the long-term. Whereas, that is a genuine concern for a lot of Remainers, myself included (though I don't think it's inevitable, by any means). So, I was interested to hear what you, Matt or other Brexiteers might say if things DID turn out very badly indeed - knowing that you don't believe they will.

 

I agree that ignoring the will of the majority risks disrupting the harmony of the country - and I think this is under-estimated by people currently calling for another referendum. Aside from being undemocratic, it could easily cause violence in the streets. That's why I oppose the idea of another referendum.....unless May comes back with a deal widely seen as bad, and a large majority then want to reconsider. Unless that happens, the argument is all about the terms of Brexit for me. But if "the will of the majority" clearly changes after the deal - or in 5 years or whenever - then there should be room for Bre-Entry. The prospect of a backlash works both ways, though. Just as an unjustified second referendum would cause disharmony, so would an extreme Brexit imposed on the back of a tiny majority in referendum and parliament, if it then caused major hardship in people's lives.

 

On your final answer..... Wow!  That's informative - and surprising to me. I can understand someone giving up a lot to protect democracy against a dictatorship. But you'd sacrifice your prosperity, your family's opportunities and your country's harmony for the benefit of keeping democracy fully national rather than pooling any sovereignty with the EU?  Thanks for the clear reply.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, that was the bit that I meant. Thanks for replying.

 

I had already gathered that you were happy for us to get a bit poorer in exchange for what you perceive as the greater benefits of "taking back democratic control" at the national level. But most Brexiteers tend to say that there's no chance of Brexit making things A LOT worse in the long-term. Whereas, that is a genuine concern for a lot of Remainers, myself included (though I don't think it's inevitable, by any means). So, I was interested to hear what you, Matt or other Brexiteers might say if things DID turn out very badly indeed - knowing that you don't believe they will.

 

I agree that ignoring the will of the majority risks disrupting the harmony of the country - and I think this is under-estimated by people currently calling for another referendum. Aside from being undemocratic, it could easily cause violence in the streets. That's why I oppose the idea of another referendum.....unless May comes back with a deal widely seen as bad, and a large majority then want to reconsider. Unless that happens, the argument is all about the terms of Brexit for me. But if "the will of the majority" clearly changes after the deal - or in 5 years or whenever - then there should be room for Bre-Entry. The prospect of a backlash works both ways, though. Just as an unjustified second referendum would cause disharmony, so would an extreme Brexit imposed on the back of a tiny majority in referendum and parliament, if it then caused major hardship in people's lives.

 

On your final answer..... Wow!  That's informative - and surprising to me. I can understand someone giving up a lot to protect democracy against a dictatorship. But you'd sacrifice your prosperity, your family's opportunities and your country's harmony for the benefit of keeping democracy fully national rather than pooling any sovereignty with the EU?  Thanks for the clear reply.

I don’t know why that’s such a surprise Alf, people have laid down their lives for similar.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, that was the bit that I meant. Thanks for replying.

 

I had already gathered that you were happy for us to get a bit poorer in exchange for what you perceive as the greater benefits of "taking back democratic control" at the national level. But most Brexiteers tend to say that there's no chance of Brexit making things A LOT worse in the long-term. Whereas, that is a genuine concern for a lot of Remainers, myself included (though I don't think it's inevitable, by any means). So, I was interested to hear what you, Matt or other Brexiteers might say if things DID turn out very badly indeed - knowing that you don't believe they will.

 

I agree that ignoring the will of the majority risks disrupting the harmony of the country - and I think this is under-estimated by people currently calling for another referendum. Aside from being undemocratic, it could easily cause violence in the streets. That's why I oppose the idea of another referendum.....unless May comes back with a deal widely seen as bad, and a large majority then want to reconsider. Unless that happens, the argument is all about the terms of Brexit for me. But if "the will of the majority" clearly changes after the deal - or in 5 years or whenever - then there should be room for Bre-Entry. The prospect of a backlash works both ways, though. Just as an unjustified second referendum would cause disharmony, so would an extreme Brexit imposed on the back of a tiny majority in referendum and parliament, if it then caused major hardship in people's lives.

 

On your final answer..... Wow!  That's informative - and surprising to me. I can understand someone giving up a lot to protect democracy against a dictatorship. But you'd sacrifice your prosperity, your family's opportunities and your country's harmony for the benefit of keeping democracy fully national rather than pooling any sovereignty with the EU?  Thanks for the clear reply.

what opportunity will we lose? There are around 160 countries in the world that manage well enough without being in the EU. We're not going to turn into some third world basket case despite what it says in the Guardian.

[Guest MattP]

I'll actually reply to your post tomorrow @Alf Bentley - will be too long winded for me to type on a mobile I imagine.

[Alf Bentley]

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t know why that’s such a surprise Alf, people have laid down their lives for similar.

 

People have laid down their lives for freedom/democracy v. totalitarianism or for national freedom against occupying forces etc.

 

The EU hasn't launched a military invasion or arranged for Juncker to move into 10 Downing Street.

 

Different perceptions of the world, I suppose. To me, we live in a globalising world with power in the hands of all sorts of global players (big business, finance etc.).

So, for me, it's just a case of deciding whether or not we want some of our decisions in that globalised world to be taken jointly at a European level....whereas you and Webbo seem to see the EU as almost akin to Hitler or Stalin occupying Britain, and justifying life-changing sacrifices, if necessary....

 

I've said enough for now, anyway. Interesting times ahead, whatever happens.

Edited 5 June 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

what opportunity will we lose? There are around 160 countries in the world that manage well enough without being in the EU. We're not going to turn into some third world basket case despite what it says in the Guardian.

 

The hypothetical lost opportunities for your family were described in my original post: lost income, lost jobs, lost public services, lost businesses, lost social harmony etc.

Though, as I said, I'm sure you don't expect those outcomes - and I'm not sure they'll all happen either (though some or all might).

 

Otherwise, your post is raising much wider questions about the likely outcomes of Brexit, the viability of greatly increased trade with far-flung countries v. the scale of income lost due to EU trade disruption etc.

We've discussed those subjective opinions to death - and will do so again, I'm sure, but not tonight, eh? The Guardian is indeed prone to exaggeration, but I've read nothing about third world basket cases.....though I do think that a No Deal Brexit could leave us in that sort of state temporarily, at least. Hopefully there'll be a deal, and a good one. Night-night! 

[lifted*fox]

Still can't wait to get oranges from Africa. Or carpets, whatever. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-calls-for-second-referendum-as-he-tells-meps-data-scandal-caused-a3855216.html

 

Sorry if this has been posted already.  According to what this guys says another referendum doesnt sound un-reasonable?

 

My only thought is the debate wouldnt improve in quality even if we had another referendum, and could we guarantee prevention of another camridge analytica influencing it in the same way?  I think we couldnt

Edited 6 June 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi