Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

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

And hardly being held back by trade with friction barriers either.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, breadandcheese said:

 

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.

I think the intelligence services do a fine job but if they work in the dark they need a thicker skin to take the criticism because some people aren't going to trust power that isn't easily accountable. Nature of the job, I guess - they're defending peoples right to be ungrateful and suspicious, and they've got to accept that.

 

WRT capital punishment, there's an argument there but at the same time putting them in for war crimes tend to often be a simple example of victors justice. I mean, the Nazis rightly stood trial for what they did but - because they were on the winning side - I didn't see LeMay answer for the firebombing of Tokyo nor Harris for Dresden - two instances where a city was razed to the ground with immense civilian casualties (practically the definition of a war crime). You could argue that the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese started the whole thing off (and they did) so all that was was responding, but then those civilian centres didn't have to be attacked either, even in reprisal. Even LeMay himself said that if the US had lost the war he would have fully expected to be executed for war crimes.

 

There's definitely an argument for capital punishment for the most serious of crimes IMO, but I think throwing it in for crimes in warfare makes things a bit fuzzy.

 

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

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

Being a hypocrite, for the reasons VB says. How well that hypocrisy sits with people is up to them, I guess, but it pretty obviously is.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

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.

3

Is there a question of abuse of executive power to be answered here, then?

[Strokes]

Just now, leicsmac said:

 

Being a hypocrite, for the reasons VB says. How well that hypocrisy sits with people is up to them, I guess, but it pretty obviously is.

I still don’t see a hypocrisy, he is only putting insurances in place (that’s even if it’s a true representation) from something he can control, about an eventuality he cannot.

He supports leave but he doesn’t know the outcome, the deal or what might follow nor he is any part of it, as he isn’t in the cabinet. 

At absolute worst it’s a show of no confidence in what the government are doing.

[Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Is there a question of abuse of executive power to be answered here, then?

 

No I don't think so because it's more a matter of protocol. If they were in British custody and being extradited then it's be a different matter

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I still don’t see a hypocrisy, he is only putting insurances in place (that’s even if it’s a true representation) from something he can control, about an eventuality he cannot.

He supports leave but he doesn’t know the outcome, the deal or what might follow nor he is any part of it, as he isn’t in the cabinet. 

At absolute worst it’s a show of no confidence in what the government are doing.

It shows that he isn't confident in the outcome of Brexit IMO, and after standing up and telling the public (most of which cannot cover their arses in the same way) that he is confident about it, that's hypocritical. Do as I say, not as I do.

 

10 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No I don't think so because it's more a matter of protocol. If they were in British custody and being extradited then it's be a different matter

Fair enough.

 

That does have to be guarded against IMO - can't have a HS that essentially hands down a death sentence for someone in British custody by sending them somewhere else where they will end up dead.

Edited 23 July 2018 by leicsmac

[Webbo]

Don't these funds normally invest in different places around the world?

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Don't these funds normally invest in different places around the world?

That is generally the idea of international investment companies I think.

[Guest MattP]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Being a hypocrite, for the reasons VB says. How well that hypocrisy sits with people is up to them, I guess, but it pretty obviously is.

Out of interest, do pro-Remain business investment people have to put their money into European markets rather than American or Chinese ones to avoid being branded a hypocrite? 

[leicsmac]

Just now, MattP said:

Out of interest, do pro-Remain business investment people have to put their money into European markets rather than American or Chinese ones to avoid being branded a hypocrite? 

I'd hope that pro-Remain business investors would indeed show their faith in the EU by having some money there, yes. That being said, they also tend to be the ones mostly in favour of globalised investment anyway so I'd hope that they'd back that by having their money in enterprises everywhere, tbh.

 

FWIW I think the economic outcomes of Brexit are pretty much entirely up in the air - we've had reams of pages on this topic in this thread alone and everyone can find an expert to back up their opinion. Speaking personally, the social consequences are more important to me, and there was a chat about that wrt increased nationalism yesterday.

[Strokes]

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It shows that he isn't confident in the outcome of Brexit IMO, and after standing up and telling the public (most of which cannot cover their arses in the same way) that he is confident about it, that's hypocritical. Do as I say, not as I do.

 

 

Nobody is able to demonstrate how it shows that though....

An international investment company invests internationally, he doesn’t have a controlling say, even if the above wasn’t true he doesn’t have control over the outcome of brexit as he is nothing more than a backbencher. It’s faux outrage in its purest form.

[Alf Bentley]

As I understand it, it's not a case of the fund investing in Irish markets. The fund itself is being domiciled in Dublin. It may invest in UK, Irish, European, US or global markets on their merits, who knows?

Does that mean it'll be in Euros or Dollars, not sterling? Any financial experts out there? Presumably it will be subject to Irish taxes, not UK taxes....

 

I presume the fund managers and/or the investors believe that their income prospects look better if the fund is based in Ireland, not the UK.

 

JRM has a 15% stake in the fund and a decision has been taken that he and all others with a stake have better money-making prospects if their money is based in Ireland, not the UK.

 

Thankfully, any temporary post-Brexit blip will only be short-term. As JRM has advised us, everything will be great in 50 years. Excellent news as I'll still only be 105 and my teenage daughter will still only be 64. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Nobody is able to demonstrate how it shows that though....

An international investment company invests internationally, he doesn’t have a controlling say, even if the above wasn’t true he doesn’t have control over the outcome of brexit as he is nothing more than a backbencher. It’s faux outrage in its purest form.

Think I covered this earlier - of course, he can't overrule the over company members, but he can be shown to be backing British investment with his own money or suchlike if he is really confident about it.

 

Additionally, if he doesn't have control over the outcome of Brexit, then why is he consistently telling the public with near-total confidence that his own view of Brexit will be totally fine and good and that Brexit was a good idea in the first place (though not in so many words)? At least he's now qualifying his remarks by saying that it might take time for it to be good, but perhaps that could have been said earlier?

 

Edit: Again though, the economics of Brexit are interesting to talk about but I think that the social consequences - such as the resurgence of the far right in various corners of Europe - are of more long-term consequence. 

Edited 23 July 2018 by leicsmac

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Think I covered this earlier - of course, he can't overrule the over company members, but he can be shown to be backing British investment with his own money or suchlike if he is really confident about it.

 

Additionally, if he doesn't have control over the outcome of Brexit, then why is he consistently telling the public with near-total confidence that his own view of Brexit will be totally fine and good and that Brexit was a good idea in the first place

Because he is an MP and that is what he believes to be true?

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

(though not in so many words)? At least he's now qualifying his remarks by saying that it might take time for it to be good, but perhaps that could have been said earlier?

Has he ever said any different? No.

 

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Edit: Again though, the economics of Brexit are interesting to talk about but I think that the social consequences - such as the resurgence of the far right in various corners of Europe - are of more long-term consequence. 

 

I don’t think the resurgence of the far right in Europe is a consequence of brexit, i think it’s a consequence of the EU.

[Guest MattP]

Worth taking the time just to revisit what Jacob Rees-Mogg actually said.

 

The exact quote.

 

“The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years,” 

 

The amount of fake news being generated trying to claim he's saying it will "take 50 years for it to be OK/good" or "won't see the benefits for 50 years" is quite clearly not what he implies at all.

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Worth taking the time just to revisit what Jacob Rees-Mogg actually said.

 

The exact quote.

 

“The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years,” 

 

The amount of fake news being generated trying to claim he's saying it will "take 50 years for it to be OK/good" or "won't see the benefits for 50 years" is quite clearly not what he implies at all.

 

I don't think it's misleading to infer from that comment what many have inferred. It's still trying to give him, and other prominent Leavers, a get-out clause until the year 2068 if things aren't going brilliantly at any point up until that date.

Edited 23 July 2018 by Voll Blau

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Because he is an MP and that is what he believes to be true?

 

 

Perhaps we're going circular, but if he believes that then he should demonstrate it more publicly by showing he backs British businesses or encourages other investors to do so IMO, but your mileage may vary.

 

18 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

Has he ever said any different? No.

 

 

I honestly think there was a lack of clarity on what Brexit really entailed both socially and economically before and after the vote that a lot of people JRM among them, are responsible for. Perhaps that's because it's still pretty unclear even to experts, though.

 

18 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t think the resurgence of the far right in Europe is a consequence of brexit, i think it’s a consequence of the EU.

2

Talked about this yesterday but I think that if and when the neofascists do gain control and the hammer really comes down it's going to be mostly them that are responsible (and those being deported, killed or otherwise oppressed likely won't care).

 

That being said, if you want to look at things through that lens, the whole thing is a litany of actions and consequences right from the end of World War II. The EU has grown beyond the trading bloc it once was and some folks don't like that and in response choose nationalism, but Brexit has played its own small part by being the Ur-Example of emboldenment; showing the hardcore nationalists across Europe that breaking away can be done.

 

Edit: Again, as said yesterday too, know what you're voting for and know the consequences thereof, and own them. All of them.

Edited 23 July 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I don't think it's misleading to infer from that comment what many have inferred. It's still trying to give him, and other prominent Leavers, a get-out clause at any point up until the year 2068 if things aren't going brilliantly at any point up until that date.

Pretty sure his get-out clause is already the shambolic negotiation of the May government. 

 

A comment saying the opportunities for Brexit are over the next 50 years is exactly that and I'm sure it refers to the emerging markets in places like India and China over that time rather than some sort of excuse.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Pretty sure his get-out clause is already the shambolic negotiation of the May government. 

 

A comment saying the opportunities for Brexit are over the next 50 years is exactly that and I'm sure it refers to the emerging markets in places like India and China over that time rather than some sort of excuse.

It’s funny, we can’t question air-bus/Jaguars execs, when they make public statements but we have to interpret Somerset investments motivations. Despite their clarification.

 

Our decision to choose Ireland as a domicile had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. We have funds domiciled all over the world including in Europe, the US and Australasia, and we will continue to offer a global service to our client base.”

[bovril]

Reminds me of Communism. Might be a disaster now but just wait for fifty years time. Anybody who says otherwise is a traitor in thrall to global capital. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Pretty sure his get-out clause is already the shambolic negotiation of the May government. 

 

A comment saying the opportunities for Brexit are over the next 50 years is exactly that and I'm sure it refers to the emerging markets in places like India and China over that time rather than some sort of excuse.

No, I'm sorry. They don't get a free pass like that. If you make a mess for someone else to clean up, it's still your mess. Especially when you've convinced 17 million people to help you make that mess - and even more so when you're still a prominent cheerleader for the supposed benefits of making that mess. To just repeatedly say "well, I would've done it better" from the time the decision is made until the time you expire is not just a cop-out when millions of lives could be changed for the worse by this, it's a downright fvcking disgrace.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s funny, we can’t question air-bus/Jaguars execs, when they make public statements but we have to interpret Somerset investments motivations. Despite their clarification.

 

Our decision to choose Ireland as a domicile had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. We have funds domiciled all over the world including in Europe, the US and Australasia, and we will continue to offer a global service to our client base.”

Same with Amazon today. 

 

Public enemy number one for years, ruined the high street, don't pay a living wage, working conditions appalling in warehouses, not to be trusted.

 

Make a statement saying "the end is nigh" if we head to WTO terms and we all have to listen and take it as gospel. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

No, I'm sorry. They don't get a free pass like that. If you make a mess for someone else to clean up, it's still your mess. Especially when you've convinced 17 million people to help you make that mess - and even more so when you're still a prominent cheerleader for the supposed benefits of making that mess. To just repeatedly say "well, I would've done it better" from the time the decision is made until the time you expire is not just a cop-out when millions of lives could be changed for the worse by this, it's a downright fvcking disgrace.

If it's that much of a mess his electorate will remove him, that's democracy for you in action. You don't even know yet if JRM will even vote for the final Brexit deal, if he doesn't how can you hold him responsible for it?

 

Should Corbyn be held responsible for the Iraq war because he campaigned for a Labour government? Should Bernie Sanders be held responsible for Obama's intervention into Libya because he campaigned for a Democrat administration?

 

Of course they shouldn't. JRM clearly believes in an independent Britain outside the EU but if they take a completely different path to what he wants he isn't responsible, if you want to apportion blame go for guys like Gove who campaigned for it and then backed it. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

If it's that much of a mess his electorate will remove him, that's democracy for you in action. You don't even know yet if JRM will even vote for the final Brexit deal, if he doesn't how can you hold him responsible for it?

 

Should Corbyn be held responsible for the Iraq war because he campaigned for a Labour government? Should Bernie Sanders be held responsible for Obama's intervention into Libya because he campaigned for a Democrat administration?

 

Of course they shouldn't. JRM clearly believes in an independent Britain outside the EU but if they take a completely different path to what he wants he isn't responsible, if you want to apportion blame go for guys like Gove who campaigned for it and then backed it. 

This was always going to be the issue of Brexit though. Voting for Brexit meant voting for however the govt. would handle Brexit. We didnt vote for a plan. We voted to cut loose from the EU and come what may. We never knew how they would handle it

If in hindsight the whole thing seems reckless and foolish, thats probably because it is

 

And it is completely cheap of Boris and Cameron to bail on the consequences. Washing their hands of it. Dealing with brexit means dealing with everyone and all their disagreements. They decided it was too hard in reality

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

This was always going to be the issue of Brexit though. Voting for Brexit meant voting for however the govt. would handle Brexit. We didnt vote for a plan. We voted to cut loose from the EU and come what may. We never knew how they would handle it

If in hindsight the whole thing seems reckless and foolish, thats probably because it is

 

And it is completely cheap of Boris and Cameron to bail on the consequences. Washing their hands of it. Dealing with brexit means dealing with everyone and all their disagreements. They decided it was too hard in reality

Quite. And if all those now desperately trying to absolve themselves of any blame if it all goes wrong had a very specific vision in mind of what this all meant, then why on Earth would they campaign in favour of such an open-ended outcome in the first place?