Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/22/jacob-rees-mogg-second-irish-fund-scm

 

Arf.

I don’t see what’s wrong with what he is saying in that?

[Voll Blau]

Just now, Strokes said:

I don’t see what’s wrong with what he is saying in that?

I don't recall anyone saying during the campaign that half a century would be the marker by which we should judge whether this has been a success. He clearly doesn't believe in the cause if he'd rather set up funds in Ireland than the UK?

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I don't recall anyone saying during the campaign that half a century would be the marker by which we should judge whether this has been a success. He clearly doesn't believe in the cause if he'd rather set up funds in Ireland than the UK?

What was the timescale they did say it could be judged then? Have you got evidence of him saying anything to the contrary and it’s up to his constituency to judge when they deem fit.

Nothing wrong with that.

No idea what you are on about with Ireland, I didn’t hear it mentioned.

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/22/uk-drops-death-penalty-guantanamo-opposition-opens-door-execution/

 

Apparently the UK is now ok with the extradition of UK nationals to (probable) death in very certain circumstances, then.

And I'm ok with it. Terrorists captured on foreign soil. Why should our government try to save them. 

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Innovindil said:

And I'm ok with it. Terrorists captured on foreign soil. Why should our government try to save them. 

 

...because if the UK government really is ok with capital punishment, it should have the stones to execute its own subjects rather than passing the (soon to be) corpses onto someone else to do it instead?

[Kopfkino]

9 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Referring to the EU as a United States of Europe in defence of your claim about eroding national identity wasn't meant to be using the USA as an example of federal governments eroding national identity?    Give it up you're just arguing on instinct now. 

 

He's saying the EU is like having a US of E and therefore it's eroding national identity.  I'm pointing out that those fears don't appear to have been realised in the place he's using as an example.  Not a big leap at all there, just applying his analogy to the real world.  If monetary union is the only example he can come up with concerning this then he has a very weak argument.   As a further counterargument, being someone who lived for a long time in the heart of the EU, it always felt the opposite to what he seems afeared of: Sure there's always the push for collective standards and legal practices but when it comes to culture and identity the EU's always been big on celebrating individual nations, be it regional protections for product names, yearly festivals showcasing each member state, the European city of culture initiative, the rotation of Parliamentary presidency which the presiding state always uses to showcase unique aspects of their nation.  In short I find it hard to take this identity erosion argument seriously as someone who's lived at the centre of it all and witnessed the celebration of identities.  There's a reason this argument isn't being made by people who actually have a clue about how the EU actually works.

 

 

Maybe it's a logical jump to compare a USE to the USA in aspects but it's not much of a logical jump to compare the two in terms of currency and identity as you have. The USD was brought in at a time when currency was much less of a thing. At the time, barter was still common as coins were scarce as all there really was was whatever the colonialists brought over. Then along came the Continental but it failed, so then came the dollar. The Confederacy tried their own currency for identity reasons which some unionists refused to accept, but in any case it quickly failed. Idk if there was resistance to the dollar later down the line. But it's mainly quite different to replacing the currency of countries with an established currency with history behind it. 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you as whole and I'm sure governments can use 'national identity' as a defence at the ECJ, but none of that means that it can't erode national identity in other ways. Two things to say which you'd likely agree with. I'm not personally sure it can 'erode' national identity because identities are always changing anyway which we get used to anyway. And also in reality, as Alf pointed out with Americanisation, it's just a consequence of globalisation.

 

But identity is something that is personal to everyone so telling someone identity erosion isn't happening because you've lived 'at the heart of the EU' is neither useful nor imo correct. I don't think it's invalid to say that monetary union might feel like it has an impact on national identity (weak on its own), nor would it be wholly invalid to say immigration, ECJ supremacy, or the creation of a European identity are infringing on people's feeling of national identity. They're not necessarily my opinions but I can see why people might think it given they're likely to have a very different experience of the EU to you, and at the end of the day it's a personal thing. 

Edited 23 July 2018 by Kopfkino

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...because if the UK government really is ok with capital punishment, it should have the stones to execute its own subjects rather than passing the (soon to be) corpses onto someone else to do it instead?

The punishment falls to the people that captured them. As it should be. They knew the risks when they went over there and joined a group like isil. The fact they are "British citizens" is irrelevant, they are terrorists, and should be treated as such. 

[Voll Blau]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What was the timescale they did say it could be judged then? Have you got evidence of him saying anything to the contrary and it’s up to his constituency to judge when they deem fit.

Nothing wrong with that.

No idea what you are on about with Ireland, I didn’t hear it mentioned.

Sorry if the linked article below the video wasn't clear, that's what I'm on about with Ireland.

 

In terms of timescale, you'd think if they had a rough idea of half a century being a timescale by which this should be judged, that'd be a fairly important thing to make clear to those potentially voting for it, no? A 49-year-old who prominently campaigned for this basically covering his own arse by saying he'll never have to be held responsible for this if it does go tits up, because he'll most likely be six feet under by the time we know. It's laughable.

 

For similar examples, see also...

 

The hypocrisy is staggering. Plus Big Nige has been quoted as saying that he'd quit the country if it goes badly, and that two of his kids have German passports. If you're rich enough or have the right links you'll be able to get out of it, but those of us who are English of English of English and don't really have the necessary skills or links abroad to quit the country if it does go tits up (like me) are going to be stuck on this ship whatever happens. If they actually had faith in this then prominent leavers like those three wouldn't be taking the measures that they are.

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

The punishment falls to the people that captured them. As it should be. They knew the risks when they went over there and joined a group like isil. The fact they are "British citizens" is irrelevant, they are terrorists, and should be treated as such. 

So, by that logic, our government should do nothing to protect a homosexual British citizen sentenced to death in Iran?

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Maybe it's a logical jump to compare a USE to the USA in aspects but it's not much of a logical jump to compare the two in terms of currency and identity as you have. The USD was brought in at a time when currency was much less of a thing. At the time, barter was still common as coins were scarce as all there really was was whatever the colonialists brought over. Then along came the Continental but it failed, so then came the dollar. The Confederacy tried their own currency for identity reasons which some unionists refused to accept, but in any case it quickly failed. Idk if there was resistance to the dollar later down the line. But it's mainly quite different to replacing the currency of countries with an established currency with history behind it. 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you as whole and I'm sure governments can use 'national identity' as a defence at the ECJ, but none of that means that it can't erode national identity in other ways. Two things to say which you'd likely agree with. I'm not personally sure it can 'erode' national identity because identities are always changing anyway. And also in reality, as Alf pointed out with Americanisation, it's just a consequence of globalisation.

 

But identity is something that is personal to everyone so telling someone identity erosion isn't happening because you've lived 'at the heart of the EU' is neither useful nor imo correct. I don't think it's invalid to say that monetary union might feel like it has an impact on national identity (weak on its own), nor would it be wholly invalid to say immigration, ECJ supremacy, or the creation of a European identity are infringing on people's feeling of national identity. They're not necessarily my opinions but I can see why people might think it given they're likely to have a very different experience of the EU to you and at the end of the day it's a personal thing. 

Mate I'm only comparing the two in the same way he appears to have done (but refuses to admit to) and taking it to its logical conclusion.  If it's all subjective and there's no point arguing against it because everybody's truth is different then it's pretty bad faith to use it as an argument against the EU in the first place.  I'm not fond of this modern prevalence of feels over reals.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Innovindil said:

The punishment falls to the people that captured them. As it should be. They knew the risks when they went over there and joined a group like isil. The fact they are "British citizens" is irrelevant, they are terrorists, and should be treated as such. 

1

I couldn't disagree more on the bolded part.

 

They are terrorists, and also British citizens, and therefore should answer to the British justice system all the way. Unless the idea of sovereignty and sovereign citizens doesn't mean much now (didn't we have a vote that played a large part in a couple of years back? You know, British justice and British laws in British courts only )? I find it so difficult to keep up.

 

Don't get me wrong, they're death-worshipping fascists and should be treated as such. However, this seems an awful lot like hypocritical (and dare I say it, cowardly) passing of the buck by simply turning them over to the Americans.

[breadandcheese]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I couldn't disagree more on the bolded part.

 

They are terrorists, and also British citizens, and therefore should answer to the British justice system all the way. Unless the idea of sovereignty and sovereign citizens doesn't mean much now (didn't we have a vote that played a large part in a couple of years back? You know, British justice and British laws in British courts only )? I find it so difficult to keep up.

 

Don't get me wrong, they're death-worshipping fascists and should be treated as such. However, this seems an awful lot like hypocritical (and dare I say it, cowardly) passing of the buck by simply turning them over to the Americans.

I thought they'd had their British citizenship revoked as they had dual nationality.   Even so, I think it is unlikely they will get the death penalty and probably more likely see out their life behind bars with a ridiculously long sentence.

 

It's clearly passing of the buck as it's an admission that it would be impossible to convict them here in the UK.  Which begs the question, is there a fault in our legal system?  I hope there's one or two lawyers or barristers on here who can debate that, as I look at it from the point of view of a UK citizen who has to put faith in our legal system and yet can see that these two individuals would in all likelihood walk out as free men from our courts.  Let's be honest, these terrorists haven't once denied that they were part of the ISIS Beatles, haven't shown any remorse and yet the fact they would most likely walk free from our courts as the evidence is mainly intelligence led, is pretty disheartening.  

 

Edited 23 July 2018 by breadandcheese

[Innovindil]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I couldn't disagree more on the bolded part.

 

They are terrorists, and also British citizens, and therefore should answer to the British justice system all the way. Unless the idea of sovereignty and sovereign citizens doesn't mean much now (didn't we have a vote that played a large part in a couple of years back? You know, British justice and British laws in British courts only )? I find it so difficult to keep up.

 

Don't get me wrong, they're death-worshipping fascists and should be treated as such. However, this seems an awful lot like hypocritical (and dare I say it, cowardly) passing of the buck by simply turning them over to the Americans.

We kill terrorists all the time. These 2 are nothing special. The only difference is they were captured and not killed on sight.

 

As for the whole British citizen debate, they were stripped of it if I recall, as anybody going to Syria to fight for these bastards should be. 

 

On the hypocritical front, to the best of my knowledge, we didn't turn them over to the us, us-backed rebels did. They were never in our custody. We've offered to hand over evidence to help convict 2 terrorists, as is our duty to an ally. 

 

On a side note, I would just as happily have us bring them back home to be killed, with all the rest of the scum we have in our prisons, but since that's not currently an option, if the US want to do it, I have no problems with it. 

 

6 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

So, by that logic, our government should do nothing to protect a homosexual British citizen sentenced to death in Iran?

Comparing homosexuals to terrorists 

 

We're specifically talking about the treatment of terrorists abroad. "that logic" applies in the context of that. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Comparing homosexuals to terrorists 

 

We're specifically talking about the treatment of terrorists abroad. "that logic" applies in the context of that. 

Well I'm clearly not. 

 

I was taking issue with the "they know the risks" line in your post. If I've misjudged what you meant by that then then I apologise.

[Buce]

No-deal Brexit risks 'civil unrest', warns Amazon's UK boss

Doug Gurr reportedly made comment in meeting with the Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab

 

Amazon’s UK boss has warned the Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab, that Britain would face “civil unrest” within weeks of a no-deal Brexit, adding the online retailer’s voice to a growing list of businesses voicing concerns.

Doug Gurr, the retail giant’s UK manager, reportedly made the comment during a meeting between Raab and a group of senior business executives on Friday.

Amazon declined to confirm whether Gurr had made the remarks, reported in the Times, but admitted it was planning for a wide range of outcomes.

 

“Like any business, we consider a wide range of scenarios in planning discussions so that we’re prepared to continue serving customers and small businesses who count on Amazon, even if those scenarios are very unlikely,” a spokesperson said.

“This is not specific to any one issue — it’s the way we plan for any number of issues around the world.”

The Guardian has approached Amazon for further clarification.

Gurr reportedly delivered the warning during a summit of business leaders hosted by Raab at Chevening, a Kent country house owned by the government.

Other business leaders attending included the Barclays chairman, Sir Ian Cheshire; the chairman of supermarket chain Morrisons, Andy Higginson; the chief executive of Lloyd’s of London, Dame Inga Beale; and the UK chair of Shell, Sinead Lynch.

Amazon is among a host of businesses to warn about the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, in which the UK leaves the EU without an agreement in place governing matters such as trade tariffs.

Several major employers, including aerospace giant Airbus and the UK’s largest carmaker Jaguar Land Rover, have warned they could be forced to move jobs and investment overseas.

No-frills airline Ryanair said on Monday that it believes there is a significant chance of a no-deal scenario.

“We remain concerned by the danger of a hard (‘no-deal’) Brexit in March 2019,” the Dublin-based carrier said in a statement.

“While there is a view that a 21-month transition agreement from March 2019 to December 2020 will be implemented (and extended), recent events in the UK political sphere have added to this uncertainty, and we believe that the risk of a hard Brexit is being underestimated.”

Fresh anxiety among UK businesses emerged days after Raab accused Brussels of being irresponsible for flagging up the risks to EU nationals living in Britain from a no-deal Brexit.

 

In an interview on BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Raab described a document published by Brussels last week that highlighted the risk of the UK leaving the EU without an agreement as “obviously an attempt to try and ramp up the pressure”.

He also dismissed a Sun story saying the government was planning to stockpile processed food in case of a no-deal Brexit.

He at first denied it, before adding: “That kind of selective snippet that makes it into the media, to the extent that the public pay attention to it, I think is unhelpful.”

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/22/jacob-rees-mogg-second-irish-fund-scm

Arf.

 

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

I don't recall anyone saying during the campaign that half a century would be the marker by which we should judge whether this has been a success. He clearly doesn't believe in the cause if he'd rather set up funds in Ireland than the UK?

I really don't see how anyone could get upset at what he has said here, he is entitled to stand for election and then be judged by the people he is accountable for, many want Keith Vaz to resign but if his electorate keep returing him so they obviously are good with him and we should respect that, the idea Remain supporters are now going around demanding Brexiteers who aren't even in government resign if it hasn't gone well is twelve months is laughable.

No one also said it would be a year either, I don't think there is any specific timetable anyone set on.

 

Although most people seem to agree with JRM, this poll is interesting (at the end of this post) , most think short-term we will take a hit but in the long term Brexit will be a good thing, so at what point do you judge? I don't know the answer to that, but I certainly won't be leaving it upto remain supporting journalists to decide that's for sure.

 

12 hours ago, Buce said:

Absolutely zero chance of that happening at all, never mind them being the next member. 

At the minute zero chance because of Erdogan, but let's not pretend there isn't a desire eventually to get Turkey into the European Union as a stable democracy.

 

Talks were only suspended six months after the European Union referendum here, a key thing as some (not you) now are trying to rewrite to suggest this had happened whilst our debate was ongoing.

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/66408

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/eu-votes-overwhelmingly-favour-scrapping-turkey-accession-talks/

Edited 23 July 2018 by MattP

[Guest]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I couldn't disagree more on the bolded part.

 

They are terrorists, and also British citizens, and therefore should answer to the British justice system all the way. Unless the idea of sovereignty and sovereign citizens doesn't mean much now (didn't we have a vote that played a large part in a couple of years back? You know, British justice and British laws in British courts only )? I find it so difficult to keep up.

 

Don't get me wrong, they're death-worshipping fascists and should be treated as such. However, this seems an awful lot like hypocritical (and dare I say it, cowardly) passing of the buck by simply turning them over to the Americans.

I personally think we should have sent the SAS in to take each and every one of them out before they had the opportunity to come back. 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I personally think we should have sent the SAS in to take each and every one of them out before they had the opportunity to come back. 

 

I think you are overestimating the reach of the SAS, tbh.

 

I'm pretty sure that would have been done if it were feasible.

[Guest]

Just now, Buce said:

 

I think you are overestimating the reach of the SAS, tbh.

 

I'm pretty sure that would have been done if it were feasible.

Possibly, but you get my point.

They walked into a warzone. Give them what they wanted.

[Buce]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Possibly, but you get my point.

They walked into a warzone. Give them what they wanted.

 

Sure, I'm not shedding any tears over them.

 

 

Edited 23 July 2018 by Buce

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

Sorry if the linked article below the video wasn't clear, that's what I'm on about with Ireland.

 

In terms of timescale, you'd think if they had a rough idea of half a century being a timescale by which this should be judged, that'd be a fairly important thing to make clear to those potentially voting for it, no? A 49-year-old who prominently campaigned for this basically covering his own arse by saying he'll never have to be held responsible for this if it does go tits up, because he'll most likely be six feet under by the time we know. It's laughable.

 

For similar examples, see also...

 

The hypocrisy is staggering. Plus Big Nige has been quoted as saying that he'd quit the country if it goes badly, and that two of his kids have German passports. If you're rich enough or have the right links you'll be able to get out of it, but those of us who are English of English of English and don't really have the necessary skills or links abroad to quit the country if it does go tits up (like me) are going to be stuck on this ship whatever happens. If they actually had faith in this then prominent leavers like those three wouldn't be taking the measures that they are.

 

Nobody can predict the future 100% and it’s always sensible to take precautions and have options if you can. Just because you put in safety nets doesn’t mean you have no faith in things, it’s just common sense to protect yourself. I’m still not sure of the detail of this Irish thing, I don’t see any evidence of wrongdoing.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Nobody can predict the future 100% and it’s always sensible to take precautions and have options if you can. Just because you put in safety nets doesn’t mean you have no faith in things, it’s just common sense to protect yourself. I’m still not sure of the detail of this Irish thing, I don’t see any evidence of wrongdoing.

There's no wrongdoing but the fact that a lot of the lead Brexiters - Mogg, Farage, Lawson, redwood - have advised associates to get their investments out of Britain and have instigated plan bs that aren't open to the ordinary man to save themselves. It's deeply disturbing.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Nobody can predict the future 100% and it’s always sensible to take precautions and have options if you can. Just because you put in safety nets doesn’t mean you have no faith in things, it’s just common sense to protect yourself. I’m still not sure of the detail of this Irish thing, I don’t see any evidence of wrongdoing.

Rees-Mogg has no input whatsoever into the business decisions made by them anyway, blaming him for the decisions of the board of a company he "helped found" is pretty low political legerdemain to try and attack someone, exactly what you expect from people like Peter Stefanovic.

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Mate I'm only comparing the two in the same way he appears to have done (but refuses to admit to) and taking it to its logical conclusion.  If it's all subjective and there's no point arguing against it because everybody's truth is different then it's pretty bad faith to use it as an argument against the EU in the first place.  I'm not fond of this modern prevalence of feels over reals.

I’m not sure if you came in half way through the thread of yesterday, or whether you misunderstood or misread the post. 

 

I said EU was a good idealogical principle that has swollen into something different now. I feel that the EU wants to create a United States of Europe and I don’t want to be part of that, as I feel it erodes identity. 

Asked for an example, I said the Euro - replacing a country’s currency with a centralised version, in my opinion, is contributing to eroding that country’s identity. 

 

You then barrelled in saying that I dodge questions, move goal posts and then you start on about America and American fiscal policy. 

 

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/22/uk-drops-death-penalty-guantanamo-opposition-opens-door-execution/

 

Apparently the UK is now ok with the extradition of UK nationals to (probable) death in very certain circumstances, then.

 

I suspect Sajid's leadership ambitions have played a part here