Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Jon the Hat]

On 21/07/2018 at 20:40, lifted*fox said:

 

They make more cars than we do.

[ealingfox]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

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.

 

 eh?

 

He's a founding partner and currently in their employ - what do you think he does in the 30 hours a month he says he works there? Makes the teas and coffees?

 

He owns 15% or more in its shareholdings. It's all in his register of interests. Of course he has input into the business decisions.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Milo said:

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. 

 

Pal I'm speechless if you think you can throw out terms like "United States of Europe" and then get the hump when the analogy's broken down.  I thought you were up for a good bit of chat.

 

Tbf I can only blame myself here: I should have known better than to engage with somebody who relies on arguments about what they "feel" rather than what can be shown to be accurate.  I won't bother you again pal, keep on believing.

[Buce]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

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.

 

 +1 for teaching me a new word. 

[Alf Bentley]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

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.

 

+1 for legerdemain 

 

Would have been even more impressed if you'd used léger de main....though I appreciate that would have laid you open to accusation of being a pretentious Europhile member of the liberal elite. 

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 eh?

 

He's a founding partner and currently in their employ - what do you think he does in the 30 hours a month he says he works there? Makes the teas and coffees?

 

He owns 15% or more in its shareholdings. It's all in his register of interests. Of course he has input into the business decisions.

He's a non-executive director, you don't really think he turns up to do his 30 hours a month do you? The whole investment team is down here ( http://somersetcm.com/team/ ), he's a member of parliament and writes more articles than most whilst also making speeches and talking or hosting on the radio every day - I find it extremely hard to believe he's sitting there making the investment decisions for his firm at this point in time.
 

Although even if he is I couldn't really care less, it's an international investment fund, the idea he should put all his customers money into Britain because he believes in Brexit doesn't make any sense at all anyway.

Edited 23 July 2018 by MattP

[Milo]

38 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Pal I'm speechless if you think you can throw out terms like "United States of Europe" and then get the hump when the analogy's broken down.  I thought you were up for a good bit of chat.

 

Tbf I can only blame myself here: I should have known better than to engage with somebody who relies on arguments about what they "feel" rather than what can be shown to be accurate.  I won't bother you again pal, keep on believing.

Ffs, and I offered to buy you a beer and everything

[ealingfox]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

He's a non-executive director, you don't really think he turns up to do his 30 hours a month do you? The whole investment team is down here ( http://somersetcm.com/team/ ), he's a member of parliament and writes more articles than most whilst also making speeches and talking or hosting on the radio every day - I find it extremely hard to believe he's sitting there making the investment decisions for his firm at this point in time.
 

Although even if he is I couldn't really care less, it's an international investment fund, the idea he should put all his customers money into Britain because he believes in Brexit doesn't make any sense at all anyway.

 

 

Good grief. Do you know what a non-executive director is? Opening up a new fund in another country isn't a day-to-day management decision, obviously there'd have been policy and strategy considerations.

 

He might not clock in for the entire 30 hours but it's hardly a stretch to suggest he goes to board meetings given their offices are only a couple of miles from the Palace of Westminster. 

 

I work in the City myself - if you came down here and told my office that non-executive directors have 'no input whatsoever' into the business decisions of a firm you'd be laughed out of the room.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

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.  

 

 

If they have had their citizenship revoked (wasn't even aware there was a procedure for that in situations like this) then that does change the game somewhat.

 

You do wonder if there is some kind of fault when it comes to situations like this within the British legal system...perhaps it can't be gotten round without violating the idea that someone has to be innocent until proven guilty, no matter the evidence? I don't know.

 

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

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. 

 

2

See above for the citizenship response so this might be redundant, but IMO as long as they are British nationals then they are the problem of the UK and handing them over to the US just reeks of those extradition flights to various torture palaces the CIA had all over the world that the UK enabled.

 

I'd certainly lose no sleep over them getting the DP over here if they were found guilty either, but I find it hypocritical that often the same people who talk about the overreach of European courts in the UK then are fine with US courts having the final say on these two (if they indeed still are British).

 

 

54 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

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

Possibly - also perhaps he feels that he needs to take a harder line on this himself in order to not appear like "just another Muslim" to some of those who he might depend on for votes?

 

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

He's a non-executive director, you don't really think he turns up to do his 30 hours a month do you? The whole investment team is down here ( http://somersetcm.com/team/ ), he's a member of parliament and writes more articles than most whilst also making speeches and talking or hosting on the radio every day - I find it extremely hard to believe he's sitting there making the investment decisions for his firm at this point in time.
 

Although even if he is I couldn't really care less, it's an international investment fund, the idea he should put all his customers money into Britain because he believes in Brexit doesn't make any sense at all anyway.

 

If he believes in Brexit, he should put his money where his mouth is and encourage others to do the same. Otherwise is yet another example of hypocrisy.

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If they have had their citizenship revoked (wasn't even aware there was a procedure for that in situations like this) then that does change the game somewhat.

 

You do wonder if there is some kind of fault when it comes to situations like this within the British legal system...perhaps it can't be gotten round without violating the idea that someone has to be innocent until proven guilty, no matter the evidence? I don't know.

 

See above for the citizenship response so this might be redundant, but IMO as long as they are British nationals then they are the problem of the UK and handing them over to the US just reeks of those extradition flights to various torture palaces the CIA had all over the world that the UK enabled.

 

I'd certainly lose no sleep over them getting the DP over here if they were found guilty either, but I find it hypocritical that often the same people who talk about the overreach of European courts in the UK then are fine with US courts having the final say on these two (if they indeed still are British).

 

 

Possibly - also perhaps he feels that he needs to take a harder line on this himself in order to not appear like "just another Muslim" to some of those who he might depend on for votes?

 

If he believes in Brexit, he should put his money where his mouth is and encourage others to do the same. Otherwise is yet another example of hypocrisy.

Well, they are not British citizens anymore. So yeah it's pretty redundant. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Well, they are not British citizens anymore. So yeah it's pretty redundant. 

 

 

Purely out of interest, what is the mechanic and legal protocol used to strip them of their citizenship in this case? I've not heard of it and I'm curious. 

 

Being able to do that is a pretty serious power.

Edited 23 July 2018 by leicsmac

[ealingfox]

For what it's worth, I don't agree that the firm should be limited to UK investments or change their style. If they were shrinking UK investments at the same time though it would be a lot more telling.

[breadandcheese]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Purely out of interest, what is the mechanic and legal protocol used to strip them of their citizenship in this case? I've not heard of it and I'm curious. 

 

Being able to do that is a pretty serious power.

 

I think it's only limited to those with dual nationality.

 

So if a terrorist is home grown, with only British nationality, and travels abroad to join IS, then it can't be done as it would illegally render them stateless.

[leicsmac]

Just now, breadandcheese said:

I think it's only limited to those with dual nationality.

 

So if a terrorist is home grown, with only British nationality, and travels abroad to join IS, then it can't be done as it would illegally render them stateless.

Yeah, that makes sense and thanks for the answer - figured it would be something like that, because I know rendering someone stateless was against the rules somehow.

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

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

I wondered that too, but I think that genuinely, he probably feels, like the majority of the country, that this is the best chance of seeing a conviction for these terrorists.  So I think you've got to give him the benefit doubt rather than questioning the motivation of his actions.

Edited 23 July 2018 by breadandcheese

[Guest MattP]

28 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Good grief. Do you know what a non-executive director is? Opening up a new fund in another country isn't a day-to-day management decision, obviously there'd have been policy and strategy considerations.

 

He might not clock in for the entire 30 hours but it's hardly a stretch to suggest he goes to board meetings given their offices are only a couple of miles from the Palace of Westminster. 

 

I work in the City myself - if you came down here and told my office that non-executive directors have 'no input whatsoever' into the business decisions of a firm you'd be laughed out of the room.

Maybe "no input" was a silly thing to say, but given the amount of people working in the form and his other commitments I still very much doubt he has too much to do with this.

 

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If he believes in Brexit, he should put his money where his mouth is and encourage others to do the same. Otherwise is yet another example of hypocrisy.

Sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It isn't his own business, he is a partner, the company has about 30-40 people working on it's investment and you think one man should overrule them all because of his opinion on Brexit? Mad.

[breadandcheese]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You do wonder if there is some kind of fault when it comes to situations like this within the British legal system...perhaps it can't be gotten round without violating the idea that someone has to be innocent until proven guilty, no matter the evidence? I don't know.

 

From what I've read, it would be unlikely to secure a conviction for the terrorists in the UK because the bulk of the evidence is intelligence based.  So it can't be fully used in court, either because it would reveal the methods and agents of the security services or because some of the intelligence may have been gained by partners on the ground using less than savoury approaches.

 

I don't know what the answer is and it's something that probably needs lawyers and barristers to debate, but standard evidence gathering procedures of witnesses is pretty much impossible in an ongoing war zone.  So there probably does need to be a change in legislation to allow us to try criminals coming back from Syria.  Or maybe it's probably easier to leave the can of worms alone and farm as much of the sentencing out as possible.

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I wondered that too, but I think that genuinely, he probably feels, like the majority of the country, that this is the best chance of seeing a conviction for these terrorists.  So I think you've got to give him the benefit doubt rather than questioning the motivation of his actions.

 

 

Seeking assurances on the death penalty not being used doesn't seem likely to make a conviction less likely imo. I'm surprised he's not legally obliged anyway?

 

How much of it was his motivation idk but it can't have escaped his notice that the members will absolutely lap this up even if parliament doesn't.

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

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.

 

Well, he's said 50 years now. Would you say that's fair? Because to me it seems a ridiculously long time to wait, and a figure which conveniently has only just been mentioned now.

 

You seem to be somewhat stuck on this idea that just because him, Farage, Boris etc aren't members of the government they shouldn't bear some sort of responsibility for how the project's success is judged in future. The fact is that during the campaign, and currently, these people were/are the public face of Leave - roles they volunteered for themselves and have happily remained in. They were willing to put their heads above the parapet at the time and publicly go all out to convince 17 million people to vote for this. For their roles in encouraging people to make a decision of such national importance based on a single binary referendum, which has so many potential consequences for so many lives, they are accountable to all of us.

 

2 hours 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.

I agree. But it's really fvcking poor form to do such things when you've specifically campaigned for something you believe will make the country better, knowing millions of those who helped you over the line (not to mention millions who didn't) won't be able to do the same if it does all go Pete Tong.

[breadandcheese]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Seeking assurances on the death penalty not being used doesn't seem likely to make a conviction less likely imo. I'm surprised he's not legally obliged anyway?

 

How much of it was his motivation idk but it can't have escaped his notice that the members will absolutely lap this up even if parliament doesn't.

Not just the members, but also the overwhelming majority of the country.  And I think that's my point.  Why would he be any different in his views and beliefs to the majority of the country?  If I was home secretary, I'd take the same action as him, and it wouldn't be me doing it because of some political manoeuvring or based on any think tank polls.

Edited 23 July 2018 by breadandcheese

[lifted*fox]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

They make more cars than we do.

 

And they manage to ship all of them to China whilst being in the EU - hardly being held back by the EU, are they?

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Maybe "no input" was a silly thing to say, but given the amount of people working in the form and his other commitments I still very much doubt he has too much to do with this.

 

Sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It isn't his own business, he is a partner, the company has about 30-40 people working on it's investment and you think one man should overrule them all because of his opinion on Brexit? Mad.

Sorry if I wasn't clear there, I was saying that he should be putting his own money where his mouth is and encouraging others to do the same, not wholesale overruling the company to do something it doesn't want to do. 

 

Maybe he is doing both of those things, but it would be nice to hear if he is if only again to stop the legitimate accusations of hypocrisy.

 

5 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

From what I've read, it would be unlikely to secure a conviction for the terrorists in the UK because the bulk of the evidence is intelligence based.  So it can't be fully used in court, either because it would reveal the methods and agents of the security services or because some of the intelligence may have been gained by partners on the ground using less than savoury approaches.

 

I don't know what the answer is and it's something that probably needs lawyers and barristers to debate, but standard evidence gathering procedures of witnesses is pretty much impossible in an ongoing war zone.  So there probably does need to be a change in legislation to allow us to try criminals coming back from Syria.  Or maybe it's probably easier to leave the can of worms alone and farm as much of the sentencing out as possible.

1

If we're signing off on torture to gain intel to get a conviction in these cases - and if the US is and are more happy to use that evidence and dare the world to say something about it - then the moral high ground over there becomes just a little slippery IMO. Simplistically, bad guys torture or allow it to happen on their watch - the UK and the West aren't bad guys...are they?

 

On a less provocative note (and I think this has been mentioned before), I understand the need for some methods of gaining intel to be kept secret and unaccountable to the general public but then these same entities can't then squeal when some folks react badly to being asked to trust them purely on blind faith when that kind of power has been known to corrupt so often in the past.

 

7 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Not just the members, but also the overwhelming majority of the country.  And I think that's my point.  Why would he be any different in his views and beliefs to the majority of the country?  If I was home secretary, I'd take the same action as him, and it wouldn't be me doing it because of some political manoeuvring or based on any think tank polls.

 

I wonder if the majority of the country would agree with capital punishment for convicted Daesh fighters in this case, let alone an overwhelming majority? Has there been a poll done? I'd expect it to be the case but it would be nice to have some numbers to back it.

[breadandcheese]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

If we're signing off on torture to gain intel to get a conviction in these cases - and if the US is and are more happy to use that evidence and dare the world to say something about it - then the moral high ground over there becomes just a little slippery IMO. Simplistically, bad guys torture or allow it to happen on their watch - the UK and the West aren't bad guys...are they?

 

On a less provocative note (and I think this has been mentioned before), I understand the need for some methods of gaining intel to be kept secret and unaccountable to the general public but then these same entities can't then squeal when some folks react badly to being asked to trust them purely on blind faith when that kind of power has been known to corrupt so often in the past.

 

I wonder if the majority of the country would agree with capital punishment for convicted Daesh fighters in this case, let alone an overwhelming majority? Has there been a poll done? I'd expect it to be the case but it would be nice to have some numbers to back it.

 

I agree it's very difficult regarding intelligence services and what can be in the public domain.

 

With regards capital punishment, I suspect the majority of the country would agree with capital punishment depending on the nature of the crime by IS terrorists.  Let's be honest, the overwhelming majority back targeted airstrikes against these terrorists and that's death without a trial.  

 

There's a question to be raised surrounding capital punishment around the most heinous of crimes, especially in warfare.  No-one sits there arguing the capital punishment judgements handed down at the Nuremburg trials were wrong or inhumane.

[Strokes]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

 

I agree. But it's really fvcking poor form to do such things when you've specifically campaigned for something you believe will make the country better, knowing millions of those who helped you over the line (not to mention millions who didn't) won't be able to do the same if it does all go Pete Tong.

I’m afraid I just can’t see it through your perspective, I really can’t understand what he is doing wrong here.

[Kopfkino]

24 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Not just the members, but also the overwhelming majority of the country.  And I think that's my point.  Why would he be any different in his views and beliefs to the majority of the country?  If I was home secretary, I'd take the same action as him, and it wouldn't be me doing it because of some political manoeuvring or based on any think tank polls.

 

 

Well I'd hope, as a senior member of government, that he might factor in thinking about the important of conventions and norms in policy approach over just doing what he fancies. It's official policy for a reason.

 

What he has done is put it out there that the UK opposes the death penalty apart from when the home secretary decides it doesn't. That is not how it works here.