Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
DJ Barry Hammond

Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

Recommended Posts

Guest MattP

ERG Tories now drawing up their own Brexit blueprint for a Canada style deal that can also fall back onto WTO terms.

 

I think this is the clearest sign of a possible leadership challenge if she goes with the chequers agreement without the amendments they already sought.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rees-mogg-tories-draw-up-their-own-blueprint-for-a-hard-brexit-r7b53s355

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Foxin_mad
19 hours ago, MattP said:

Where are they actually getting this from?

 

 

They are actually insane. I didn't realise Corbyn was in Stoke the other day could have help a protest against him if I had known. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Corby is a bigger liar than Tony Blair, and that's saying something.

Come back when Jezza has invaded a country thus creating conditions for the savagest terrorist group ever to exist to thrive. 

 

I'm not fan of 2018 Corbyn but some of you lot are petrified of a Corbyn government aren't you haha! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's bad enough that numpties still believe no deal WTO is actually a valid option, but it's particularly bad that the Transport Secretary (yep Grayling is a waste of space anyway) reaction to salient points is "everything will be fine".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Come back when Jezza has invaded a country thus creating conditions for the savagest terrorist group ever to exist to thrive. 

 

I'm not fan of 2018 Corbyn but some of you lot are petrified of a Corbyn government aren't you haha! 

JC regularly invades Dianne Abbott, the man has no shame 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

Equally, non-intervention in Syria led to the massive expansion of said terrorist group.  Passivity and doing nothing are just as deadly as invasion and action*

 

*This is not me producing an answer but it is trying to get away from the false notion that staying away and not getting involved produce better outcomes.

I'd have more general respect for this idea if the same folks who practised this kind of proactive thinking wrt foreign interventions "to save lives and for better outcomes in the future" also applied the same thinking for the same reasons to what humans are doing to the Earth, rather than considering it to not be their problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'd have more general respect for this idea if the same folks who practised this kind of proactive thinking wrt foreign interventions "to save lives and for better outcomes in the future" also applied the same thinking for the same reasons to what humans are doing to the Earth, rather than considering it to not be their problem.

I'm surprised you're judging an idea by some people's take on a different subject. That's not like you when you're usually quite considerate of different ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

I'm surprised you're judging an idea by some people's take on a different subject. That's not like you when you're usually quite considerate of different ideas.

Then allow me to clarify, because i believe the subjects to be not all that different.

 

I can understand proactive military intervention with the argument that you're going to save lives and make lives better - so long as you are reasonably certain you have a plan that will make that happen.

 

IMO, using resources to mitigate the effects of the various changes humans are doing to the Earth right now is exactly the same thing - looking to save more lives in the long term.

 

However (unless I'm missing some green hawks here) the same people who posit the former tend to dismiss the latter out of hand as an issue they don't have to deal with (or even deny exists), even though the general proactive principle is the same.

 

That makes me question their motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A prominent pro-Leave Conservative MP and former Brexit minister has promoted and invested £70,000 in a financial services company that encourages the public to buy gold in order to avoid the negative impact of a no deal Brexit.

Steve Baker, who belongs to the Jacob Rees Mogg-led European Research Group of pro-Brexit Conservatives, is reportedly working on an "alternative" to Theresa May's Chequers plan, which will outline the "advantages" of leaving the European Union without a deal.

However, Baker, who resigned as a minister in the Brexit department earlier this year, is also a shareholder in the company Glint Pay Ltd, which has encouraged people to "buy, save & spend physical gold," as"financial insurance" against the potential economic impact of a hard Brexit.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/steve-baker-glint-pay-buy-gold-to-avoid-impact-of-brexit-no-deal-sterling-2018-8

 

It's so comforting to know he'll be sound either way. I suppose it's just carelessness from most of us not to have a spare £70k lying around that we can use to hedge our bets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/steve-baker-glint-pay-buy-gold-to-avoid-impact-of-brexit-no-deal-sterling-2018-8

 

It's so comforting to know he'll be sound either way. I suppose it's just carelessness from most of us not to have a spare £70k lying around that we can use to hedge our bets.

It’s a strange prerequisite that only people who are financially insecure can advise or direct us tbh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Then allow me to clarify, because i believe the subjects to be not all that different.

 

I can understand proactive military intervention with the argument that you're going to save lives and make lives better - so long as you are reasonably certain you have a plan that will make that happen.

 

IMO, using resources to mitigate the effects of the various changes humans are doing to the Earth right now is exactly the same thing - looking to save more lives in the long term.

 

However (unless I'm missing some green hawks here) the same people who posit the former tend to dismiss the latter out of hand as an issue they don't have to deal with (or even deny exists), even though the general proactive principle is the same.

 

That makes me question their motives.

But that's my point. Questioning the motives of those individuals is fine. But to dismiss the concept of intervention because of individuals is crazy.

 

I don't see it as one way is right when it comes to intervention vs stepping away, as both cause no end of problems.

 

What I do challenge is the somehow absolutism and moral superiority that has seem to have taken hold post Iraq that we should step away from the world and engage in passivism. Since then this passivism has led to chemical weapons use and the world leaving the yazidis to it on Mount Sinjar.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

It’s a strange prerequisite that only people who are financially insecure can advise or direct us tbh.

Ha. I'm not averse to the financially secure directing or advising us by any means.

 

What I do have a massive problem with is people in that position trying to lead millions of people down a certain path, making said people's financial futures uncertain as a result, then making personal financial decisions which absolutely go against everything they claim to believe will be good for the millions of people they've managed to convince. It's hypocrisy of the highest order.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, breadandcheese said:

But that's my point. Questioning the motives of those individuals is fine. But to dismiss the concept of intervention because of individuals is crazy.

 

I don't see it as one way is right when it comes to intervention vs stepping away, as both cause no end of problems.

 

What I do challenge is the somehow absolutism and moral superiority that has seem to have taken hold post Iraq that we should step away from the world and engage in passivism. Since then this passivism has led to chemical weapons use and the world leaving the yazidis to it on Mount Sinjar.  

No disagreement from me there - on some issues, pacifism is either not really sound or flat-out suicidal.

 

Iraq certainly taught us a lot about the danger of interventionism essentially on a whim without much of a plan for afterwards (or at least one that didn't work all that well), but yeah - it shouldn't be a blueprint for all future issues of its type.

 

I just wish that those who advocate for intervention in this area would take the idea of intervention in other areas equally if not much more important more seriously. Doing nothing in that area has the potential to be more devastating than any chemical weapons use anywhere, ever, could ever be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Ha. I'm not averse to the financially secure directing or advising us by any means.

 

What I do have a massive problem with is people in that position trying to lead millions of people down a certain path, making said people's financial futures uncertain as a result, then making personal financial decisions which absolutely go against everything they claim to believe will be good for the millions of people they've managed to convince. It's hypocrisy of the highest order.

Sorry I missed the hypocrisy, can you highlight it please? 

(Not being sarcastic btw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

But that's my point. Questioning the motives of those individuals is fine. But to dismiss the concept of intervention because of individuals is crazy.

 

I don't see it as one way is right when it comes to intervention vs stepping away, as both cause no end of problems.

 

What I do challenge is the somehow absolutism and moral superiority that has seem to have taken hold post Iraq that we should step away from the world and engage in passivism. Since then this passivism has led to chemical weapons use and the world leaving the yazidis to it on Mount Sinjar.  

4

 

Had the West not 'intervened' in Iraq in the first place, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Sorry I missed the hypocrisy, can you highlight it please? 

(Not being sarcastic btw)

A politician who prominently and firmly claims to believe leaving the EU is a good thing makes an investment in something to offset the potential impact of leaving the EU turning out not to be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...