Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[reynard]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

It's journalists' jobs to scrutinise government decisions FFS. What a dangerous woman.

Agree. Someone has to question the government on this as her majesty's opposition isn't going to and neither will many other MPS who just seem to think they can't say anything because we voted to leave.

Free investigative journalism is vital.

[davieG]

Scrutinising is not the same as making unsubstantiated negative predictions.

[Webbo]

It's a journalist's job to scrutinise both sides.

 

It's not like Andrea Leadsom is ordering journalists to cover a story in a certain way, not that they'd take any notice if she did. It's just the usual hyperbole.

[Voll Blau]

She'll telling them to be patriotic. What the fvck does that even mean in relation to how they cover anything? Does she want Huw Edwards to start rocking those horrific Union Jack numbers Farage walks around in or something?

 

It's a scandalous thing to say.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

She'll telling them to be patriotic. What the fvck does that even mean in relation to how they cover anything? Does she want Huw Edwards to start rocking those horrific Union Jack numbers Farage walks around in or something?

 

It's a scandalous thing to say.

Well if she had been allowed to continue, we might have heard exactly what she meant but as usual outrage wins the point.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Scrutinising is not the same as making unsubstantiated negative predictions.

How are they unsubstantiated when those predictions were the government's own line prior to the referendum?

Edited 24 June 2017 by Guest

[davieG]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

How are they unsubstantiated when those predictions were the government's own line prior to the referendum?

Well obviously some are but there's plenty out there where people are just speculating the worst based on some very short term/minimally produced stats and we all know stats can be screwed to tell whatever story you want to tell.

[l444ry]

Must be hard for her to try to scrape up any good news from the Brexit disaster, hence the usual tired old patriotic gibberish.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Well obviously some are but there's plenty out there where people are just speculating the worst based on some very short term/minimally produced stats and we all know stats can be screwed to tell whatever story you want to tell.

There was, and still is, absolutely nothing evidence based to suggest Brexit was/is a good idea. All economic forums etc - ALL - think it's a very bad idea indeed. Until there is something evidence based to change this there is only one side which is basing its arguments in speculation - and that's the leave side. 

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

There was, and still is, absolutely nothing evidence based to suggest Brexit was/is a good idea. All economic forums etc - ALL - think it's a very bad idea indeed. Until there is something evidence based to change this there is only one side which is basing its arguments in speculation - and that's the leave side. 

So what if it's bad for the economy? We have a great economy now and you are always telling us how unequal it is and how we only create low skilled jobs. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, food banks, eating or heating, how many more people are in poverty, The NHS is in danger, The education system is on the brink. Just what does having a good economy matter to us, when we aren't the ones benefitting? Maybe, just like you did in the GE, people voted beyond the economy and from and ideological viewpoint of not continuing to be dictated too by Brussels.

[l444ry]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So what if it's bad for the economy? We have a great economy now and you are always telling us how unequal it is and how we only create low skilled jobs. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, food banks, eating or heating, how many more people are in poverty, The NHS is in danger, The education system is on the brink. Just what does having a good economy matter to us, when we aren't the ones benefitting? Maybe, just like you did in the GE, people voted beyond the economy and from and ideological viewpoint of not continuing to be dictated too by Brussels.

What do you mean by "dictated" Strokes? Which "dictated" law has affected you so much that you want rid of it?

Edited 24 June 2017 by l444ry

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

We're in danger of going over previous arguments that doesn't result in changing anything. 

 

This thing about Leadsom is over the top and is a symptom of how news must be entertainment now and the polarised position of politics. I'm not saying it wasn't a pretty meaningless thing to say, one of those useless soundbites from the referendum campaign, but I'm not sure why Matliss made such a big deal of it.

 

In fact, a much more interesting and controversial set of comments were made by Gisela Stewart... I'll find them in a moment.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/vote-leave-boss-gisela-stuart-criticises-camerons-referendum-10925076

 

Edited 24 June 2017 by DJ Barry Hammond

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Taken from above linked article;

 

The co-chair of Vote Leave, Gisela Stuart, has criticised David Cameron's decision to call a referendum on the EU.

In an interview for my new book How To Lose A Referendum, Ms Stuart argues that Cameron should never have put a Yes/No referendum to the British people, which she describes as a "vacuous question."

 

Despite the fact that she was one of the most significant players in the campaign to leave the EU, she argues that the whole thing was "an abuse of democratic process".

 

Asked "Do you think David Cameron should have called a referendum?", Ms Stuart responded: "No. The way he called that referendum was an abuse of democratic processes. It really was. "I've never gone through a voting process where the losers demand of the winners that they explain themselves. This is what happened with the referendum, because you had a binary question.

 

"You had no bodies accountable for an outcome. This notion that you can create these campaigning groups that aren't established political parties.

 

"Immediately after the referendum with Vote Leave, we resigned as directors and the whole thing was shut down. And that's not good democracy."

Edited 24 June 2017 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Realist Guy In The Room]

I would love to know that if at the end of the negotiations it was abundantly clear without any doubt at all, that exiting the EU was in fact going to be a complete disaster for the country, would:-

 

a) the government still go ahead with it

b) the government reverse the referendum result and remain a member

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

So what if it's bad for the economy? We have a great economy now and you are always telling us how unequal it is and how we only create low skilled jobs. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, food banks, eating or heating, how many more people are in poverty, The NHS is in danger, The education system is on the brink. Just what does having a good economy matter to us, when we aren't the ones benefitting? Maybe, just like you did in the GE, people voted beyond the economy and from and ideological viewpoint of not continuing to be dictated too by Brussels.

I voted for the economy in the GE and voted Labour.

I voted for the economy in the referendum and vote remain. 

Just because the right wing papers tell you the first of these doesn't make sense doesn't make it true.

That said, I am pretty bored of arguing over Brexit myself now. I just find it galling that Leavers seem to require total acquiescence from Remainers. You won the vote and it's happening but you still aren't going to convince me it's a good idea.

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I voted for the economy in the GE and voted Labour.

I voted for the economy in the referendum and vote remain. 

Just because the right wing papers tell you the first of these doesn't make sense doesn't make it true.

That said, I am pretty bored of arguing over Brexit myself now. I just find it galling that Leavers seem to require total acquiescence from Remainers. You won the vote and it's happening but you still aren't going to convince me it's a good idea.

I don't see anyone trying to convince you, it's the other way round is it not?

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I voted for the economy in the GE and voted Labour.

I voted for the economy in the referendum and vote remain. 

Just because the right wing papers tell you the first of these doesn't make sense doesn't make it true.

That said, I am pretty bored of arguing over Brexit myself now. I just find it galling that Leavers seem to require total acquiescence from Remainers. You won the vote and it's happening but you still aren't going to convince me it's a good idea.

 

So you voted for a programme of nationalisation but to stay in an organisation that already does ,and wishes to further, restrict nationalisations. An organisation that I believe Ann Pettifor, or at least Prime, says is neoliberal and moving further that way.

[Webbo]

36 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

I would love to know that if at the end of the negotiations it was abundantly clear without any doubt at all, that exiting the EU was in fact going to be a complete disaster for the country, would:-

 

a) the government still go ahead with it

b) the government reverse the referendum result and remain a member

 

 

Why would it be a disaster? What's the worst that could happen? We'd go back to trading with the EU under the same terms we trade with the rest of the world only we won't be paying them £10 billion a year.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Why would it be a disaster? What's the worst that could happen? We'd go back to trading with the EU under the same terms we trade with the rest of the world only we won't be paying them £10 billion a year.

It's a hypothetical question.  I'm not saying it would be, but there really isnt anything to say either way at the minute.

 

So what would your opinion be to my original question.

 

You think they'd still go ahead with it?

[Webbo]

Just now, Realist Guy In The Room said:

It's a hypothetical question.  I'm not saying it would be, but there really isnt anything to say either way at the minute.

 

So what would your opinion be to my original question.

 

You think they'd still go ahead with it?

I would.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I would.

Fair enough.

 

If I was in government and faced that decision, I definitely wouldnt.

 

Either decision would screw you one way or the other but if it was quite obvious the nation would suffer, i'd pull the plug on it.

[Webbo]

Just now, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Fair enough.

 

If I was in government and faced that decision, I definitely wouldnt.

 

Either decision would screw you one way or the other but if it was quite obvious the nation would suffer, i'd pull the plug on it.

If we get a bad deal it'll be because the EU have done so deliberately, why would we want to stay under those circumstances?

[Benguin]

Think media should be free to scrutinise and remainers free to sulk but it does seem like they want it to be a disaster so they can say "I told you so."

 

The worst case scenario really isn't that bad. It might be a bit tough for a few years but we're used to that from post labour governments.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

Just now, Webbo said:

If we get a bad deal it'll be because the EU have done so deliberately, why would we want to stay under those circumstances?

Absolutely agree with that and I believe they'll try and not only screw us directly, but also there'll be skullduggery with our potential other trade routes i've no doubt.

 

But in that situation I wouldnt cut off my nose to spite my face.  There are many things in domestic politics that you can roll with even if you know its bullshit but this is different.  If thr consequences of us leaving are the UK being ****ed in the ass for decades on end to maybe, just maybe get back into the position we were once in before the referendum, it just wouldnt be in the greater interest to do so.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Think media should be free to scrutinise and remainers free to sulk but it does seem like they want it to be a disaster so they can say "I told you so."

 

The worst case scenario really isn't that bad. It might be a bit tough for a few years but we're used to that from post labour governments.

Mate, seriously.

If Tory governments were the land of milk and honey they'd never be voted out.

Every Tory government ends up screwing society to deregulate and privatise.

Edited 24 June 2017 by Guest