Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

We should put a stop to that behaviour 100%, but you can't rewrite the dictionary over it, you can't have the intellectual debate in the first place if you're censoring specific words that you don't like. Puts you dangerously close to being in their company imo.

I'm not censoring the word in any way at all, I'm saying it's stupid and shouldn't be used as it's definition is deleterious to the overall debate.

 

If people want to use it I won't stop them though.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I could easily imagine that tbh, but I see where the issue lies now: you've been taking the snowflake sjw crowd seriously instead of laughing at them and moving on like the rest of us. I'm not denying they're a problem, they obviously have a tangible effect on people - just the other day I nearly got into a heated debate with my own mother because the guardian had told her that criticising Serena Williams' US open antics is sexist and she believed it - but let's not pretend the thought police weirdos are an excuse to bin a perfectly valid term (I don't buy the mental illness argument, that's not what the word really means so I think you're mistaken to claim such), doing so is just Orwellian newspeak implementation.

 

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

When the word can be used to justify closing down debates in universities, the supposed bastion of intellectual debate for the young - we shouldn't be laughing, we should be taking it seriously and putting a stop to it.

As much as I see what you mean Carl I think if you're going to take the Pepe incel crowd and their words seriously rather than laughing and moving on - and they absolutely should be taken seriously for many reasons - then you should be taking the ones at the other end of the spectrum seriously too. They may not have the broad power the "alt-right" have with their man in the White House and encroachment in Europe, but as you say words are important and do have a tangible effect and the "snowflake SJW" crowd do have power of their own in a few areas and unopposed power always corrupts.

 

NB. As has been said before though, those like Melanie Phillips simply want their religion in charge rather than that other one (Intelligent Design? Piss off) and I'm not sure those on the right or the left can really bring up anti-Semitism given history of authoritarian regimes on both wings using it.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, The Guvnor said:

Maybe that's what the country need with Jez and his sidekick in control for a few years just to show the country how good Capitalism really is.

Unfortunately that may be the case.

 

We now have people voting who will barely remember the last Labour government, let alone the disastrous left wing one we had a few decades ago. 

[Carl the Llama]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

As much as I see what you mean Carl I think if you're going to take the Pepe incel crowd and their words seriously rather than laughing and moving on - and they absolutely should be taken seriously for many reasons - then you should be taking the ones at the other end of the spectrum seriously too. They may not have the broad power the "alt-right" have with their man in the White House and encroachment in Europe, but as you say words are important and do have a tangible effect and the "snowflake SJW" crowd do have power of their own in a few areas and unopposed power always corrupts.

 

NB. As has been said before though, those like Melanie Phillips simply want their religion in charge rather than that other one (Intelligent Design? Piss off) and I'm not sure those on the right or the left can really bring up anti-Semitism given history of authoritarian regimes on both wings using it.

That's a big if because they rank pretty much the same as the SJW lot in my eyes.  If you take those guys seriously though then yes, you should also be taking their left-wing equivalent seriously.

 

 

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm not censoring the word in any way at all, I'm saying it's stupid and shouldn't be used as it's definition is deleterious to the overall debate.

 

If people want to use it I won't stop them though.

You won't stop them or censor them, you'll just tell them they shouldn't use it and you'll back up your argument by wrongly defining the term.  

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

That's a big if because they rank pretty much the same as the SJW lot in my eyes.  If you take those guys seriously though then yes, you should also be taking their left-wing equivalent seriously.

 

 

 

I started taking them seriously the moment they began to go tooled up into schools and opened fire tbh.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I started taking them seriously the moment they began to go tooled up into schools and opened fire tbh.

For me the cases where they're so deranged that they'll do a thing like that then it becomes more of a gun control debate than anything else:  There have only been a handful of cases, all in North America where shootings happen daily so focusing on incel cases is focusing on a very small percentage and giving the incel 'movement' greater credit than it merits.  For the most part though they're just a bunch of angsty dudes venting their impotent rage at an unfair world which owes them something, textbook SJW behaviour imo.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

For me the cases where they're so deranged that they'll do a thing like that then it becomes more of a gun control debate than anything else:  There have only been a handful of cases, all in North America where shootings happen daily so focusing on incel cases is focusing on a very small percentage and giving the incel 'movement' greater credit than it merits.  For the most part though they're just a bunch of angsty dudes venting their impotent rage at an unfair world which owes them something, textbook SJW behaviour imo.

Yeah, there's something in that.

 

I wouldn't overlook the entitlement issues they have being reflected a little wider in society and so that being a problem. Perhaps I overestimate the link between words in extremis and deeds in extremis, though.

[Alf Bentley]

17 hours ago, MattP said:

Dishonest? Here's the video of them all saying it - quite some time after your video of Boris Johnson as well.

 

It's quite clear at the start of the campaign the subject was up in the air and by the end both campaigns had agreed on the position.

 

 

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

Matt getting hate for linking articles non stop that criticise Labour, by the same people who constantly repped Toddy’s Daily guardian Tory bashing. 

Its nice of you all to acknowledge that labour do have a very small issue with antisemetism but you rarely even reply when the articles are posted, yet when a Tory similar article comes out it’s like flies around shit. 

But yeah matts the only biased poster

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: everyone has their biases, me included. I wasn't giving Matt "hate" either, just criticising him - as he sometimes criticises me. Even when we disagree (most, but not all of the time), I think he often makes intelligent, thought-provoking posts - and when we met a couple of times a few years back, I found him excellent company. I never constantly repped Toddy's posts either. He did/does some very good posts, which I've repped, but is/was OTT in posting too many Tory-bashing Guardian articles. If I didn't pull him up on that (and I've an idea that I did once - though it may have been Rincewind), it didn't equate to universal approval of everything he posted.

 

Maybe it is a bias on my part, that I'll challenge someone going OTT with right-wing posts, but not someone going OTT with left-wing posts? If so, I think the same applies to you, Strokes....I don't recall you often challenging Matt or Webbo (what's happened to Webbo, btw? Has he joined a Trappist Order as far as the Politics thread is concerned, only appearing in Music and Quizzes? I'd gain a lot of time by doing the same.....soon be time for another self-ban ).

 

Anyway, my point against Matt wasn't really about the volume of anti-Labour posts. It was about dishonest propaganda drowning out other stuff. Labour and anti-semitism was a valid issue to raise, particularly when Corbyn handled the problem very badly. But raising the issue time and time again, even when next to nothing new had happened, was OTT. He was taking a valid issue and using it to discredit the party he opposed, while also drowning out other stuff (including vital issues like Brexit or Labour economic policy, fair grounds for critical debate of Labour policy).

 

I took particular exception to the dishonest argument that the Leave campaign made it clear that we'd be leaving the Single Market and Customs Union (and it's downright bizarre to justifiably depict leading Remain campaigners as a bunch of liars - and then to partly base your case on their statements. ). Using the word "dishonest" might seem harsh, but in a way it's a veiled compliment. I know that Matt is intelligent and well-informed enough to know that his claim is false propaganda. It also equates to an anti-democratic attempt to steamroller opinion into the false belief that there's already a mandate for us to leave the SU & CU. There isn't a mandate for that - or for us to stay in the SU & CM or for any other sort of Brexit. There's a mandate for Brexit and that's it. It's then down to our democratically-elected representatives to sort it out - unless they hand it back to the electorate.

 

For about the fifth time, here's the Vote Leave web site: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/

I've had another look and cannot see any reference to us leaving the SM or CU....can anyone else? If the Leave position was clear, surely it would be on their official web site?

They're clear about plenty else: £350m per week extra for NHS/national priorities; cut in VAT on energy bills; "Turkey is joining the EU"; "the EU has failed to do a trade deal with Japan"; border control; points-based immigration system etc.

I found one section in which they criticise how the SM operates....but then say nothing about leaving it. The Leave position was unclear - and In/Out of EU was the only thing on the ballot paper. The rest is for our reps to sort out.

 

Here's a complete demolition of the lie that there's any mandate for us to leave the SM/CU (or for any other sort of Brexit). It's long but worth following through from Point 1 to 44 (). It includes polls just before/after the referendum showing that voters, including Leave voters didn't expect to leave the SM (point 38), clips of Leave politicians adopting a range of positions during the campaign and after the vote, legislation describing different post-Brexit options available to politicians, Vote Leave docs making it clear that leaving the EU & maximising turnout was it's sole priority, mainstream media making it clear that the nature of Brexit was down to the democratically-elected politicians and had not been resolved by the referendum campaign etc.

 

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Refreshing...

 

 

The analysis section here is interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45622161

 

Leadership wanted to restrict any referendum to the terms of Brexit, but were effectively over-ruled by the membership.

So, a Remain box in a referendum would still be an option - and the Eurosceptic leadership would come under a lot of pressure to include it, if it ever happens, when a majority of Labour MPs, members and voters all support that.

[Strokes]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: everyone has their biases, me included. I wasn't giving Matt "hate" either, just criticising him - as he sometimes criticises me. Even when we disagree (most, but not all of the time), I think he often makes intelligent, thought-provoking posts - and when we met a couple of times a few years back, I found him excellent company. I never constantly repped Toddy's posts either. He did/does some very good posts, which I've repped, but is/was OTT in posting too many Tory-bashing Guardian articles. If I didn't pull him up on that (and I've an idea that I did once - though it may have been Rincewind), it didn't equate to universal approval of everything he posted.

 

Maybe it is a bias on my part, that I'll challenge someone going OTT with right-wing posts, but not someone going OTT with left-wing posts? If so, I think the same applies to you, Strokes....I don't recall you often challenging Matt or Webbo (what's happened to Webbo, btw? Has he joined a Trappist Order as far as the Politics thread is concerned, only appearing in Music and Quizzes? I'd gain a lot of time by doing the same.....soon be time for another self-ban ).

 

Anyway, my point against Matt wasn't really about the volume of anti-Labour posts. It was about dishonest propaganda drowning out other stuff. Labour and anti-semitism was a valid issue to raise, particularly when Corbyn handled the problem very badly. But raising the issue time and time again, even when next to nothing new had happened, was OTT. He was taking a valid issue and using it to discredit the party he opposed, while also drowning out other stuff (including vital issues like Brexit or Labour economic policy, fair grounds for critical debate of Labour policy).

 

I took particular exception to the dishonest argument that the Leave campaign made it clear that we'd be leaving the Single Market and Customs Union (and it's downright bizarre to justifiably depict leading Remain campaigners as a bunch of liars - and then to partly base your case on their statements. ). Using the word "dishonest" might seem harsh, but in a way it's a veiled compliment. I know that Matt is intelligent and well-informed enough to know that his claim is false propaganda. It also equates to an anti-democratic attempt to steamroller opinion into the false belief that there's already a mandate for us to leave the SU & CU. There isn't a mandate for that - or for us to stay in the SU & CM or for any other sort of Brexit. There's a mandate for Brexit and that's it. It's then down to our democratically-elected representatives to sort it out - unless they hand it back to the electorate.

 

For about the fifth time, here's the Vote Leave web site: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/

I've had another look and cannot see any reference to us leaving the SM or CU....can anyone else? If the Leave position was clear, surely it would be on their official web site?

They're clear about plenty else: £350m per week extra for NHS/national priorities; cut in VAT on energy bills; "Turkey is joining the EU"; "the EU has failed to do a trade deal with Japan"; border control; points-based immigration system etc.

I found one section in which they criticise how the SM operates....but then say nothing about leaving it. The Leave position was unclear - and In/Out of EU was the only thing on the ballot paper. The rest is for our reps to sort out.

 

Here's a complete demolition of the lie that there's any mandate for us to leave the SM/CU (or for any other sort of Brexit). It's long but worth following through from Point 1 to 44 (). It includes polls just before/after the referendum showing that voters, including Leave voters didn't expect to leave the SM (point 38), clips of Leave politicians adopting a range of positions during the campaign and after the vote, legislation describing different post-Brexit options available to politicians, Vote Leave docs making it clear that leaving the EU & maximising turnout was it's sole priority, mainstream media making it clear that the nature of Brexit was down to the democratically-elected politicians and had not been resolved by the referendum campaign etc.

 

It does apply to me too, I quite often disagree with right wing posters but choose to stay tight lipped and only occasionally openly disagree. I don’t deny it.

It just seemed you started a bit of chest beating against Matt for something we all do and a few chimps followed .

 

[Kopfkino]

22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

For about the fifth time, here's the Vote Leave web site: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/

I've had another look and cannot see any reference to us leaving the SM or CU....can anyone else? If the Leave position was clear, surely it would be on their official web site?

They're clear about plenty else: £350m per week extra for NHS/national priorities; cut in VAT on energy bills; "Turkey is joining the EU"; "the EU has failed to do a trade deal with Japan"; border control; points-based immigration system etc.

I found one section in which they criticise how the SM operates....but then say nothing about leaving it. The Leave position was unclear - and In/Out of EU was the only thing on the ballot paper. The rest is for our reps to sort out.

 

 

 

I really think you're being disingenuous in this 'argument' and I'm about to say this fully aware it contradicts my own position on where we should go. They clearly weren't more specific so they could leave the 'cake and eat it' option open but it's quite clear to me that what is said there means leaving the SM and CU. 

- "We'll be in charge of our own borders" and "We can control immigration". That quite clearly means leaving the SM unless the EU gave us the cake option which couldn't happen given they gave Cameron nothing when he asked. Again it seems strange that the classic trope is leavers are racists and it was all about immigration but that it wasn't a vote to leave the SM.

- Less so this time but still quite clear, when referring to remaining "The European Court will still be in charge of our laws" - this will still be the case if we were to ceteris paribus stay in the SM (though less so with the Swiss and Norwegian model).

- "We'll be free to trade with the whole world" and "The EU stops us signing our own trade deals". Again it clearly means leaving the CU unless the EU gave us a cake option. We can't do any of that in the CU so that means leaving the CU. That is pretty clear.

 

Maybe you wanted it more to be more explicit, maybe you think people didn't understand what these things meant, but there are clearly references to leaving both the SM and CU there, it's pretty clear to me that was the intention unless there was a cake option to be had.

 

Finally, I do struggle with this denial that voting to leave the EU doesn't mean leaving the SM and CU. Well more I struggle with the fact people don't seem understand why it means that. It's a valid interpretation to believe that voting to leave the EU was a vote to leave the two vital, key agreements/'institutions' that are essentially the backbone to the functioning of the EU. They are essentially the EU. Again I say this fully in knowledge that is not necessarily favourable to my preferred evolution, but that it's a valid interpretation doesn't mean the government has to act on it. 

[Guest MattP]

55 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I took particular exception to the dishonest argument that the Leave campaign made it clear that we'd be leaving the Single Market and Customs Union (and it's downright bizarre to justifiably depict leading Remain campaigners as a bunch of liars - and then to partly base your case on their statements. ). Using the word "dishonest" might seem harsh, but in a way it's a veiled compliment. I know that Matt is intelligent and well-informed enough to know that his claim is false propaganda. It also equates to an anti-democratic attempt to steamroller opinion into the false belief that there's already a mandate for us to leave the SU & CU. There isn't a mandate for that - or for us to stay in the SU & CM or for any other sort of Brexit. There's a mandate for Brexit and that's it. It's then down to our democratically-elected representatives to sort it out - unless they hand it back to the electorate.

 

For about the fifth time, here's the Vote Leave web site: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/

I've had another look and cannot see any reference to us leaving the SM or CU....can anyone else? If the Leave position was clear, surely it would be on their official web site?

They're clear about plenty else: £350m per week extra for NHS/national priorities; cut in VAT on energy bills; "Turkey is joining the EU"; "the EU has failed to do a trade deal with Japan"; border control; points-based immigration system etc.

I found one section in which they criticise how the SM operates....but then say nothing about leaving it. The Leave position was unclear - and In/Out of EU was the only thing on the ballot paper. The rest is for our reps to sort out.

 

Here's a complete demolition of the lie that there's any mandate for us to leave the SM/CU (or for any other sort of Brexit). It's long but worth following through from Point 1 to 44 (). It includes polls just before/after the referendum showing that voters, including Leave voters didn't expect to leave the SM (point 38), clips of Leave politicians adopting a range of positions during the campaign and after the vote, legislation describing different post-Brexit options available to politicians, Vote Leave docs making it clear that leaving the EU & maximising turnout was it's sole priority, mainstream media making it clear that the nature of Brexit was down to the democratically-elected politicians and had not been resolved by the referendum campaign etc.

For the fifth time in reply, Vote Leave wasn't in any position to promise those things as they weren't the government, that's why it was so important to get it from Cameron and Osbourne, they were running the country so what voting leave meant was up to them to tell us and they both did, they told us voting to leave meant we would be outside the single market. I have no idea how anyone can take the view that's it's a dishonest position to point this out just because you can't get it explictly in the literature of of the Vote Leave website.

What the Vote Leave website did say though was that we should control our borders, seek independent trade and not take the judgement of the ECJ - and none of those can happen without us leaving the single market, as was made quite clear to the electorate before, during and after the referendum and continues to be to this day.

 

Calling something a lie over and over again doesn't make it one. Of course Vote Leave weren't going to make promises, it's exactly why the big red bus said "LETS" rather than "WE WILL" give the NHS 350mill instead.

Edited 24 September 2018 by MattP

[lifted*fox]

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I hope that when we leave the E.U., we dump most of the rubbish that is described as "Political Correctness," as well as the pathetic Bill of Human Rights. Common sense used to prevail, and it is time it prevailed once more, as under E.U./law, we have become a spineless, narrow minded nation.

 

Oh for the great days of British Colonialism, and being an empire.

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I really think you're being disingenuous in this 'argument' and I'm about to say this fully aware it contradicts my own position on where we should go. They clearly weren't more specific so they could leave the 'cake and eat it' option open but it's quite clear to me that what is said there means leaving the SM and CU. 

- "We'll be in charge of our own borders" and "We can control immigration". That quite clearly means leaving the SM unless the EU gave us the cake option which couldn't happen given they gave Cameron nothing when he asked. Again it seems strange that the classic trope is leavers are racists and it was all about immigration but that it wasn't a vote to leave the SM.

- Less so this time but still quite clear, when referring to remaining "The European Court will still be in charge of our laws" - this will still be the case if we were to ceteris paribus stay in the SM (though less so with the Swiss and Norwegian model).

- "We'll be free to trade with the whole world" and "The EU stops us signing our own trade deals". Again it clearly means leaving the CU unless the EU gave us a cake option. We can't do any of that in the CU so that means leaving the CU. That is pretty clear.

 

Maybe you wanted it more to be more explicit, maybe you think people didn't understand what these things meant, but there are clearly references to leaving both the SM and CU there, it's pretty clear to me that was the intention unless there was a cake option to be had.

 

Finally, I do struggle with this denial that voting to leave the EU doesn't mean leaving the SM and CU. Well more I struggle with the fact people don't seem understand why it means that. It's a valid interpretation to believe that voting to leave the EU was a vote to leave the two vital, key agreements/'institutions' that are essentially the backbone to the functioning of the EU. They are essentially the EU. Again I say this fully in knowledge that is not necessarily favourable to my preferred evolution, but that it's a valid interpretation doesn't mean the government has to act on it. 

 

I take your point, Kopf, in that it is now clear that various declared Leave policies would require us to leave the SM/CU.

But you partly make my counter-argument for me:

- The Leave campaign was not explicit as they feared that it might lose them votes. The result might have been different if they had been explicit (see the 2016 poll findings quoted at point 38 of my Twitter link).

- Us lot in this thread might see an implication that we'd have to leave the SM/CU but, put bluntly, we're probably among the 5% who are best informed about Brexit. Most voters (Leave or Remain) wouldn't see the implication.

- Even so, as you say, for a long time after the referendum a lot of cake having-and-eating was being proposed. Indeed, the Chequers cherry-picking on goods comes close to staying in a bit of the SM - and some Leave politicians (e.g. Field) advocated staying in the SM.

- It is a valid interpretation of Brexit to call for us to leave the SM/CU, but it's only one valid interpretation. It's just as valid to call for a Norway-style SM, Turkish CU model or whatever. The only mandate is for Brexit. Our democratically-elected parliament & govt need to determine how Brexit proceeds.

 

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

For the fifth time in reply, Vote Leave wasn't in any position to promise those things as they weren't the government, that's why it was so important to get it from Cameron and Osbourne, they were running the country so what voting leave meant was up to them to tell us and they both did, they told us voting to leave meant we would be outside the single market. I have no idea how anyone can take the view that's it's a dishonest position to point this out just because you can't get it explictly in the literature of of the Vote Leave website.

What the Vote Leave website did say though was that we should control our borders, seek independent trade and not take the judgement of the ECJ - and none of those can happen without us leaving the single market, as was made quite clear to the electorate before, during and after the referendum and continues to be to this day.

 

Calling something a lie over and over again doesn't make it one.

 

Neither the Leave nor the Remain campaigns were in a position to promise anything beyond Leave/Remain. Both were referendum campaigns. Neither were the government. Both campaigns included cabinet ministers.

 

Sorry, but allowing Cameron & Osborne to define the Leave campaign is ridiculous, when they were on the opposite side and were widely recognised to be running a Project Fear campaign to scare people off voting Leave.

The current govt say that Corbyn/McDonnell's economic policies would ruin the economy. If Labour win the next election, does that mean that they're obliged to ruin the economy? 

 

Please see my reply above to Kopf re. your second point.

 

I'll leave it there for a while and return to real life as I've made my points and listened to opposing points. In the interests of challenging your opinions, though, do have a look at that long Twitter link that I posted, which makes my case, with supporting evidence, better than I ever could. Have a good day and a good week, and all that I have to add is...........................

 

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

I hope that when we leave the E.U., we dump most of the rubbish that is described as "Political Correctness," as well as the pathetic Bill of Human Rights. Common sense used to prevail, and it is time it prevailed once more, as under E.U./law, we have become a spineless, narrow minded nation.

 

Oh for the great days of British Colonialism, and being an empire.

Whatever happens from now on, I don't think you're ever going to get what you thought you were voting for...

[Jon the Hat]

Well, we will certainly leave the EU in as much as we won't be full members.  Whether we end up as some kind of hangers on paying too much for too little remains to the be seen.

[Izzy]

Do the EU realise that half the European Ryder Cup golf team are British?

If they keep taking the piss out of us then just watch our lads down tools and leave the team in the shit.

See how they like THAT!!

[lifted*fox]

41 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

I hope that when we leave the E.U., we dump most of the rubbish that is described as "Political Correctness," as well as the pathetic Bill of Human Rights. Common sense used to prevail, and it is time it prevailed once more, as under E.U./law, we have become a spineless, narrow minded nation.

 

Oh for the great days of British Colonialism, and being an empire.

 

says the guy who can't stand the thought of two men bringing up a child together.

 

get real you old fool. 

[bovril]

I'm convinced that Wymeswold and Dangerous Tiger are the same poster. Similar sentence structure, overuse of commas and weird shift from formal to semi-formal in the same sentence.

Who the mastermind is behind those two though remains a mystery... 

[lifted*fox]

nah man, Wymeswold is innocent enough despite the odd questionable opinion here and there.

 

DT is living in the past and unfortunately figured out how to use a computer and now spews his antiquated hate speech on here but seemingly gets a free pass from the mods

 

honestly, I try to keep a lid on it but people like him wind me up so much. it'll be me that ends up getting banned because I 'dare' to say something about it. 

 

smh, honestly. 

[Innovindil]

 

 

[lifted*fox]

pigeons know no prejudice 

[bovril]

[Claridge]

3 hours ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

I hope that when we leave the E.U., we dump most of the rubbish that is described as "Political Correctness," as well as the pathetic Bill of Human Rights. Common sense used to prevail, and it is time it prevailed once more, as under E.U./law, we have become a spineless, narrow minded nation.

 

Oh for the great days of British Colonialism, and being an empire.

and all the multi-cultural rubbish that promotes differences in communities