Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[bovril]

I'm starting to think that Brexit is a win win scenario. Remain and I can still live and work in the EU and the economy might not completely crash.

 

Leave and piss off that smug shit Alistair Campbell.

 

Result!

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, bovril said:

Leave and piss off that smug shit Alistair Campbell.

 

Result!

I was talking about Campbell along with the article written by him, Blair, Mandelson and Clegg to a pro-EU friend yesterday and he said he couldn't believe Remain had managed to put up a just as big group of wankers to fight Brexit than the wankers we put together to achieve it. 

[bovril]

Wankers a go-go!

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Of course we weren't, that would have been madness.  It's like we're trying to bluff our way in a game of poker where the opponent has pocket aces and 2 aces on the flop. 

Whatever hand you have, in any negotiation you have to make the other side be certain you'll walk.

 

We still have strong cards, our money for a start which they need to cover a huge hole in a budget. We never made it believable we would walk away and we'll still be signing up for something that a stronger. Olly Robbins FFS. Olly Robbins. 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Perhaps but whenever she has tried to negotiate hard she's been bombarded by Remainers including many in her own party saying she's stupid or naive or whatever other denigrating words they can use totally undermining any serious attempt at negotiating a good deal. I can't imagine anyone else doing much better under those circumstances.

 

She was hamstrung before she even started.

She has made it worse though, she's said we won't accept ECJ jurisdiction or any customs tie up and then done exactly that.

 

She said since 2016 there would be no special status for Northern Ireland and then just does it.

 

If anything she's helped divide the party, she needed to honest from the start rather than trying to satisfy both sides.

[davieG]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

She has made it worse though, she's said we won't accept ECJ jurisdiction or any customs tie up and then done exactly that.

 

She said since 2016 there would be no special status for Northern Ireland and then just does it.

 

If anything she's helped divide the party, she needed to honest from the start rather than trying to satisfy both sides.

Aren’t they the things the hard brexiters wanted and I would have thought with any negotiating you end up conceding somethings.

 

i have no idea what was or wasn’t possible to achieve but I still believe she could have achieved a whole lot more if there had been a united nation behind her and the negotiators certainly better than we’re likely to achieve and that has benefited no one except the EU.

[Alf Bentley]

46 minutes ago, davieG said:

Perhaps but whenever she has tried to negotiate hard she's been bombarded by Remainers including many in her own party saying she's stupid or naive or whatever other denigrating words they can use totally undermining any serious attempt at negotiating a good deal. I can't imagine anyone else doing much better under those circumstances.

 

She was hamstrung before she even started.

 

Bombarded by Remainers saying she's "stupid" or "naive", eh?

 

Here are the words used last weekend, when she was considering a concession to extend the transition period: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6302565/Have-learned-Jo-Cox-Backlash-violent-claims-PM-killing-zone.html

"killing zone", "assassinated", "bring your own noose", "the moment is coming when the knife gets heated, stuck in her front and twisted. She'll be dead soon".

 

These words were variously attributed to Tory MPs, allies of David Davis - and the last comment to "a former minister". As the comments were in response to a potential concession to the EU, it's probably safe to assume that most, if not all those comments were made by fanatical Leave supporters.

 

I have some sympathy for your last comment. She was indeed handed a poisoned chalice, albeit one she asked for. But what makes you think that, even before she threw away her majority, the EU and Parliament would have allowed her to negotiate a tough deal given that there is NO option to leave the SM/CU, avoid problems over the Irish border AND retain a close trading relationship with the EU? This was what the Hard Brexiteers promised but it was always impossible - and most MPs knew that.There are about 80 fanatical Hard Brexiteer MPs, not the 320+ needed to win in Parliament. May knew she was hamstrung yet set the 2-year clock ticking, then proceeded to spend 19 months (and rising) making unrealistic proposals and/or playing for time (which she no longer had!), putting the unity of her party above the future of the nation. She then cynically called an unnecessary election for party political gain, saw it backfire and left herself dependent on the "No surrender" DUP. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Will Labour Moderates rescue her, allowing a dog's breakfast of a deal to be passed? Who knows - and why should they share the inevitable blame for an unpopular deal? 

 

Also, what makes you think that the EU would have capitulated to "hard negotiations"? They are 27 countries, at least 3 of our size, while we are 1. They have 85% of EU GDP, we have 15%. They have 88% of the EU population, we have 12%. We are leaving the EU club according to EU club rules, not as an equal negotiating partner. Plus, the EU has known vulnerabilities so was always going to defend itself strongly with its back against the wall. May sought to divide and rule but the only major divisions were in her own team. Ironically, there might be a lot more divisions on the EU side when we move on to negotiations over the future relationship. On the divorce settlement, EU/UK citizens and Irish border, the EU27 have common or compatible interests. On future relations/trade, their interests will be much more divergent ....the irony being that, unless the EU breaks up, this will simply make it much harder for the UK to get a deal if the EU27 do squabble among themselves over their divergent interests re. trade, agriculture, immigration etc.

 

The EU cannot do giveaway deals with a departing member or it clearly risks causing major discontent among its continuing members - at a time when it already faces a lot of discontent. They offered different options: a Norway-type deal or a Canada-type deal, provided the Irish border issue was settled. But May continued to pursue the impossible Brexiteer dream of leaving the SM/CU (Canada) yet retaining a SM-type close relationship (Norway)....stubbornly pursuing cakeism to satisfy Leave supporters and issuing clear threats of social deregulation to undermine EU competitiveness. The EU even latterly offered concessions on the Irish border, allowing for a lot of inland checks with just checks on food/livestock crossing from GB to NI....but the DUP "No surrender" crew & ERG headbangers wouldn't contemplate that.

 

If anything, I blame Cameron even more than May for the desperate fiasco this has become. He cynically, arrogantly thought he could flirt with national disaster to maintain control of his party by offering an ill-planned referendum - and then thought he could cynically scare voters into voting Remain although he'd spent years blaming the EU for all and sundry.  

 

Brexit was always a bad idea, a lose-lose for both UK and EU, though a bigger loss for the UK. Worse, despite May's "Brexit means Brexit" drivel, it was never clear what Brexit would mean. Different people had wildly different interpretations - and were entitled to promote them. Likewise, the 48% who had opposed the whole madness were entitled to argue for the softest possible Brexit (as most Remainers did, respecting the Leave vote) or to use democratic means to try to reverse the decision (as a minority did).

 

Instead of seeking to unite the nation or to find the best possible compromise with the EU, May sought only to maintain the unity of her party and to keep her party in power.....while pissing the future of our nation down the drain.

 

I'm sorry, Davie. You come across as a thoroughly nice bloke but it makes me angry to see you try to blame Remainers for this mess (apart from the Remain referendum campaign - Cameron, Osborne, Blair, Corbyn et al - who deserve some blame).

 

We now face a series of options, all of which look utter shite: some dog's-breath deal filched at the last minute that damages the nation and satisfies nobody; a referendum/election that would be bitter and divisive beyond anything we've seen before, probably leading to street violence, maybe even deaths; or a No Deal scenario for which we are clearly massively under-prepared, leading fvck knows where: border chaos? large-scale job losses? deeper austerity? poverty pay & deregulation to attract trade from Trump & co? long-term economic decline? higher crime? the rise of the Far Right? vicious social division? racist violence?

 

I know that some will see these concerns as exaggerated or as Project Fear. Admittedly, I'm describing a worst case scenario - but by no means an unrealistic one. I honestly think that a chaotic No Deal Brexit remains a distinct possibility, by default if not by design. If that happens, it could ruin this country for the rest of my lifetime, could ruin my daughter's life prospects and could force me to leave my country, something I'd never intended. In that context, I'm not going to stand by and watch people try to blame Remainers or any other scapegoats. Any blame will lie firmly with those who voted and continue to argue for this pipe-dream, those who made vague, dishonest and impossible Brexit promises - and those from Cameron to May who put party before country and made such a dog's breakfast of the process.  

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Bombarded by Remainers saying she's "stupid" or "naive", eh?

 

Here are the words used last weekend, when she was considering a concession to extend the transition period: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6302565/Have-learned-Jo-Cox-Backlash-violent-claims-PM-killing-zone.html

"killing zone", "assassinated", "bring your own noose", "the moment is coming when the knife gets heated, stuck in her front and twisted. She'll be dead soon".

 

These words were variously attributed to Tory MPs, allies of David Davis - and the last comment to "a former minister". As the comments were in response to a potential concession to the EU, it's probably safe to assume that most, if not all those comments were made by fanatical Leave supporters.

 

I have some sympathy for your last comment. She was indeed handed a poisoned chalice, albeit one she asked for. But what makes you think that, even before she threw away her majority, the EU and Parliament would have allowed her to negotiate a tough deal given that there is NO option to leave the SM/CU, avoid problems over the Irish border AND retain a close trading relationship with the EU? This was what the Hard Brexiteers promised but it was always impossible - and most MPs knew that.There are about 80 fanatical Hard Brexiteer MPs, not the 320+ needed to win in Parliament. May knew she was hamstrung yet set the 2-year clock ticking, then proceeded to spend 19 months (and rising) making unrealistic proposals and/or playing for time (which she no longer had!), putting the unity of her party above the future of the nation. She then cynically called an unnecessary election for party political gain, saw it backfire and left herself dependent on the "No surrender" DUP. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Will Labour Moderates rescue her, allowing a dog's breakfast of a deal to be passed? Who knows - and why should they share the inevitable blame for an unpopular deal? 

 

Also, what makes you think that the EU would have capitulated to "hard negotiations"? They are 27 countries, at least 3 of our size, while we are 1. They have 85% of EU GDP, we have 15%. They have 88% of the EU population, we have 12%. We are leaving the EU club according to EU club rules, not as an equal negotiating partner. Plus, the EU has known vulnerabilities so was always going to defend itself strongly with its back against the wall. May sought to divide and rule but the only major divisions were in her own team. Ironically, there might be a lot more divisions on the EU side when we move on to negotiations over the future relationship. On the divorce settlement, EU/UK citizens and Irish border, the EU27 have common or compatible interests. On future relations/trade, their interests will be much more divergent ....the irony being that, unless the EU breaks up, this will simply make it much harder for the UK to get a deal if the EU27 do squabble among themselves over their divergent interests re. trade, agriculture, immigration etc.

 

The EU cannot do giveaway deals with a departing member or it clearly risks causing major discontent among its continuing members - at a time when it already faces a lot of discontent. They offered different options: a Norway-type deal or a Canada-type deal, provided the Irish border issue was settled. But May continued to pursue the impossible Brexiteer dream of leaving the SM/CU (Canada) yet retaining a SM-type close relationship (Norway)....stubbornly pursuing cakeism to satisfy Leave supporters and issuing clear threats of social deregulation to undermine EU competitiveness. The EU even latterly offered concessions on the Irish border, allowing for a lot of inland checks with just checks on food/livestock crossing from GB to NI....but the DUP "No surrender" crew & ERG headbangers wouldn't contemplate that.

 

If anything, I blame Cameron even more than May for the desperate fiasco this has become. He cynically, arrogantly thought he could flirt with national disaster to maintain control of his party by offering an ill-planned referendum - and then thought he could cynically scare voters into voting Remain although he'd spent years blaming the EU for all and sundry.  

 

Brexit was always a bad idea, a lose-lose for both UK and EU, though a bigger loss for the UK. Worse, despite May's "Brexit means Brexit" drivel, it was never clear what Brexit would mean. Different people had wildly different interpretations - and were entitled to promote them. Likewise, the 48% who had opposed the whole madness were entitled to argue for the softest possible Brexit (as most Remainers did, respecting the Leave vote) or to use democratic means to try to reverse the decision (as a minority did).

 

Instead of seeking to unite the nation or to find the best possible compromise with the EU, May sought only to maintain the unity of her party and to keep her party in power.....while pissing the future of our nation down the drain.

 

I'm sorry, Davie. You come across as a thoroughly nice bloke but it makes me angry to see you try to blame Remainers for this mess (apart from the Remain referendum campaign - Cameron, Osborne, Blair, Corbyn et al - who deserve some blame).

 

We now face a series of options, all of which look utter shite: some dog's-breath deal filched at the last minute that damages the nation and satisfies nobody; a referendum/election that would be bitter and divisive beyond anything we've seen before, probably leading to street violence, maybe even deaths; or a No Deal scenario for which we are clearly massively under-prepared, leading fvck knows where: border chaos? large-scale job losses? deeper austerity? poverty pay & deregulation to attract trade from Trump & co? long-term economic decline? higher crime? the rise of the Far Right? vicious social division? racist violence?

 

I know that some will see these concerns as exaggerated or as Project Fear. Admittedly, I'm describing a worst case scenario - but by no means an unrealistic one. I honestly think that a chaotic No Deal Brexit remains a distinct possibility, by default if not by design. If that happens, it could ruin this country for the rest of my lifetime, could ruin my daughter's life prospects and could force me to leave my country, something I'd never intended. In that context, I'm not going to stand by and watch people try to blame Remainers or any other scapegoats. Any blame will lie firmly with those who voted and continue to argue for this pipe-dream, those who made vague, dishonest and impossible Brexit promises - and those from Cameron to May who put party before country and made such a dog's breakfast of the process.  

My apologies I wasn't intending to blame just Remainers that's why I said many in her own party  my error was in trying to be brief and my following comment about the whole nation getting behind her was intending to cover everyone on all sides who have been negative.

Sure she's made mistakes but the lack of any real support for getting a decent leave package whatever that is hasn't  helped and that was the only point I was trying to make.

I'm not an expert wordsmith and although I voted leave I'm not fanatical about it. 

[Countryfox]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Bombarded by Remainers saying she's "stupid" or "naive", eh?

 

Here are the words used last weekend, when she was considering a concession to extend the transition period: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6302565/Have-learned-Jo-Cox-Backlash-violent-claims-PM-killing-zone.html

"killing zone", "assassinated", "bring your own noose", "the moment is coming when the knife gets heated, stuck in her front and twisted. She'll be dead soon".

 

These words were variously attributed to Tory MPs, allies of David Davis - and the last comment to "a former minister". As the comments were in response to a potential concession to the EU, it's probably safe to assume that most, if not all those comments were made by fanatical Leave supporters.

 

I have some sympathy for your last comment. She was indeed handed a poisoned chalice, albeit one she asked for. But what makes you think that, even before she threw away her majority, the EU and Parliament would have allowed her to negotiate a tough deal given that there is NO option to leave the SM/CU, avoid problems over the Irish border AND retain a close trading relationship with the EU? This was what the Hard Brexiteers promised but it was always impossible - and most MPs knew that.There are about 80 fanatical Hard Brexiteer MPs, not the 320+ needed to win in Parliament. May knew she was hamstrung yet set the 2-year clock ticking, then proceeded to spend 19 months (and rising) making unrealistic proposals and/or playing for time (which she no longer had!), putting the unity of her party above the future of the nation. She then cynically called an unnecessary election for party political gain, saw it backfire and left herself dependent on the "No surrender" DUP. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Will Labour Moderates rescue her, allowing a dog's breakfast of a deal to be passed? Who knows - and why should they share the inevitable blame for an unpopular deal? 

 

Also, what makes you think that the EU would have capitulated to "hard negotiations"? They are 27 countries, at least 3 of our size, while we are 1. They have 85% of EU GDP, we have 15%. They have 88% of the EU population, we have 12%. We are leaving the EU club according to EU club rules, not as an equal negotiating partner. Plus, the EU has known vulnerabilities so was always going to defend itself strongly with its back against the wall. May sought to divide and rule but the only major divisions were in her own team. Ironically, there might be a lot more divisions on the EU side when we move on to negotiations over the future relationship. On the divorce settlement, EU/UK citizens and Irish border, the EU27 have common or compatible interests. On future relations/trade, their interests will be much more divergent ....the irony being that, unless the EU breaks up, this will simply make it much harder for the UK to get a deal if the EU27 do squabble among themselves over their divergent interests re. trade, agriculture, immigration etc.

 

The EU cannot do giveaway deals with a departing member or it clearly risks causing major discontent among its continuing members - at a time when it already faces a lot of discontent. They offered different options: a Norway-type deal or a Canada-type deal, provided the Irish border issue was settled. But May continued to pursue the impossible Brexiteer dream of leaving the SM/CU (Canada) yet retaining a SM-type close relationship (Norway)....stubbornly pursuing cakeism to satisfy Leave supporters and issuing clear threats of social deregulation to undermine EU competitiveness. The EU even latterly offered concessions on the Irish border, allowing for a lot of inland checks with just checks on food/livestock crossing from GB to NI....but the DUP "No surrender" crew & ERG headbangers wouldn't contemplate that.

 

If anything, I blame Cameron even more than May for the desperate fiasco this has become. He cynically, arrogantly thought he could flirt with national disaster to maintain control of his party by offering an ill-planned referendum - and then thought he could cynically scare voters into voting Remain although he'd spent years blaming the EU for all and sundry.  

 

Brexit was always a bad idea, a lose-lose for both UK and EU, though a bigger loss for the UK. Worse, despite May's "Brexit means Brexit" drivel, it was never clear what Brexit would mean. Different people had wildly different interpretations - and were entitled to promote them. Likewise, the 48% who had opposed the whole madness were entitled to argue for the softest possible Brexit (as most Remainers did, respecting the Leave vote) or to use democratic means to try to reverse the decision (as a minority did).

 

Instead of seeking to unite the nation or to find the best possible compromise with the EU, May sought only to maintain the unity of her party and to keep her party in power.....while pissing the future of our nation down the drain.

 

I'm sorry, Davie. You come across as a thoroughly nice bloke but it makes me angry to see you try to blame Remainers for this mess (apart from the Remain referendum campaign - Cameron, Osborne, Blair, Corbyn et al - who deserve some blame).

 

We now face a series of options, all of which look utter shite: some dog's-breath deal filched at the last minute that damages the nation and satisfies nobody; a referendum/election that would be bitter and divisive beyond anything we've seen before, probably leading to street violence, maybe even deaths; or a No Deal scenario for which we are clearly massively under-prepared, leading fvck knows where: border chaos? large-scale job losses? deeper austerity? poverty pay & deregulation to attract trade from Trump & co? long-term economic decline? higher crime? the rise of the Far Right? vicious social division? racist violence?

 

I know that some will see these concerns as exaggerated or as Project Fear. Admittedly, I'm describing a worst case scenario - but by no means an unrealistic one. I honestly think that a chaotic No Deal Brexit remains a distinct possibility, by default if not by design. If that happens, it could ruin this country for the rest of my lifetime, could ruin my daughter's life prospects and could force me to leave my country, something I'd never intended. In that context, I'm not going to stand by and watch people try to blame Remainers or any other scapegoats. Any blame will lie firmly with those who voted and continue to argue for this pipe-dream, those who made vague, dishonest and impossible Brexit promises - and those from Cameron to May who put party before country and made such a dog's breakfast of the process.  

 

I’ve read half today Alf and will read the second part tomorrow ...      

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Aren’t they the things the hard brexiters wanted and I would have thought with any negotiating you end up conceding somethings.

 

i have no idea what was or wasn’t possible to achieve but I still believe she could have achieved a whole lot more if there had been a united nation behind her and the negotiators certainly better than we’re likely to achieve and that has benefited no one except the EU Trump, Putin, the Chinese Communist Party - and potentially big global corporations, in the long run.

 

Duly amended.... 

 

Why would a nation unite behind something that half of them thought worryingly misguided or disastrous?

Particularly when May focused only on her own party and didn't try to bring anyone outside on board....unless you count the DUP, when she was forced to do so out of party interest.

 

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

My apologies I wasn't intending to blame just Remainers that's why I said many in her own party  my error was in trying to be brief and my following comment about the whole nation getting behind her was intending to cover everyone on all sides who have been negative.

Sure she's made mistakes but the lack of any real support for getting a decent leave package whatever that is hasn't  helped and that was the only point I was trying to make.

I'm not an expert wordsmith and although I voted leave I'm not fanatical about it. 

 

I wish that I had your "error" of brevity! 

I'm not an expert wordsmith either, just a verbose ranter - on this occasion, at least!

 

Sorry to get so irate - particularly at you, as you seem like one of the nicest blokes on here.

I just really do fear that we're now in a very dangerous situation - partly through sheer incompetence and party interest (I blame the politicians more than the voters - and have my criticisms of Labour & others, but this fiasco is mainly down to the Tories, not even UKIP who just argued their case, which I disagree with).

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Why would a nation unite behind something that half of them thought worryingly misguided or disastrous?

Particularly when May focused only on her own party and didn't try to bring anyone outside on board....unless you count the DUP, when she was forced to do so out of party interest.

I don’t see why it’s impossible to be united and at the same time ask for a referendum on whatever is negotiated surely people should want the best deal achievable. This way no one in the UK wins.

i just don’t understand it. Just shooting yourself in-the foot on a point principle.

 

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Yay.

 

For the purposes of comparison, here's what Liam Fox said would happen a year ago....http://uk.businessinsider.com/liam-fox-promises-to-sign-40-free-trade-deals-the-second-after-brexit-2017-10

"The British government will immediately agree 40 free trade deals with other non-EU countries the minute Britain leaves the European Union in 2019, Liam Fox promised last night. The Secretary of State for International Trade insisted the UK would easily be able to copy and paste all 40 of the EU's external trade deals "the second after midnight" on Brexit day in March 2019". 

 

It sounds as if the Russians made a formal complaint to the WTO about UK plans, but that several other nations were/are unhappy about tariff-free quotas for food/farm output - including our "friends" in Australia, NZ, USA and others.

In trade negotiations, every nation pursues its own hard-nosed interests.....as we'll probably find out if/when negotiations over the EU-UK free trade deal start properly, too.....with divisions among the EU27 jeopardising any deal, not just disputes with us.

 

Meanwhile, here's Trump apparently on course to almost destroy the WTO anyway....  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/02/trumps-world-trade-wto-threat-threat-matters-especially-britain

(The author is a Brexit supporter, if the presence of the hated Guardian link puts anyone off)

 

"The root cause of the problem is something arcane – the WTO’s system for settling disputes between member states. ..... Under WTO rules, the appellate body has seven members, each elected for four-year terms, which can be renewed once. When an appeal is lodged, the case must be heard by at least three judges. But as judges have ended their terms, the US has blocked fresh appointments. The list of judges is already down to four and will be down to the minimum of three when the Mauritian member retires at the end of September. Two more members will go by the end of next year, at which point the appeals process will come to a halt..... Failure to resolve this crisis thus runs the risk of returning the world trading system to a power-based free-for-all, allowing big players to act unilaterally and use retaliation to get their way". ("Big players" presumably being USA, China, Japan and, er, the EU.....not a medium-sized player like the UK )

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, davieG said:

I don’t see why it’s impossible to be united and at the same time ask for a referendum on whatever is negotiated surely people should want the best deal achievable. This way no one in the UK wins.

i just don’t understand it. Just shooting yourself in-the foot on a point principle.

 

 

In truth, whether people were united behind May or not, how many had any influence by being united or not? Not the likes of us or Joe Public, for sure.

 

I also think the vast majority of Remain voters (and Leave voters, tbf) behaved commendably, despite many of them viewing the referendum result as an unmitigated disaster. 

Until very recently, only a tiny minority of Remainers were arguing for another referendum. Most accepted they had lost and waited to see what was negotiated - anything half-reasonable would have faced little opposition, I think.

 

Even Labour and other parties have exerted little influence in parliament. Only a handful of Tory Remainers have rebelled - and with very limited success. No doubt they've exerted some influence behind the scenes, but nothing wrong with that.

 

I'm surprised you see "being united" (whatever that means in practice) but asking for a referendum as acceptable. Many Brexiteers - certainly the most vocal of them - accuse anyone calling for a second referendum of being a traitor "betraying the will of the people", and I'm sure there'll be a massive outcry from the Brexiteers if parliament intervenes to ask May to renegotiate or to call a referendum.

 

For what it's worth, although I'd love to see us stay in the EU (and see the EU reform itself), I've always opposed the idea of a second referendum on the terms as too divisive, preferring to see a bit more parliamentary influence.

If there is No Deal, though, or if any deal agreed looks disastrously bad, I'll probably shift to supporting another referendum (as if anyone will care!). If the deal looks that bad or there's no deal, it could be a lot more divisive in the country to proceed without giving people the chance to say: "Shit! Sorry, we admit it, we got it wrong....let's stay in!".

 

Though, ironically, I think it quite possible that a second referendum would lead to another defeat for any Remain option, despite a few people having deserted Leave. The Leave campaign could win a lot of votes off would-be Remainers just by calling for the original democratic vote to be respected......that's the sort of lily-livered liberals you're dealing with!  Whether that would lead to approval of a deal or of No Deal, I've not got a clue.

  

[Guest MattP]

https://www.trtworld.com/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammad-not-free-expression-european-court-rules-21125

 

Thoughts on this? Even I never had the EU courts down as ones that would uphold blasphemy laws.

 

Maajid Nawaz is spot on again. 

 

"‪This ruling is anti-Muslim. It reinforces a blasphemy code (only for Islam) in the name of “peace”. This is a disgusting ruling, allowed due to a bigotry of low expectations toward Muslims. The #RegressiveLeft would never protect Christianity like this."

 

Je Suis Charlie? That lasted long.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

https://www.trtworld.com/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammad-not-free-expression-european-court-rules-21125

 

Thoughts on this? Even I never had the EU courts down as ones that would uphold blasphemy laws.

 

Maajid Nawaz is spot on again. 

 

"‪This ruling is anti-Muslim. It reinforces a blasphemy code (only for Islam) in the name of “peace”. This is a disgusting ruling, allowed due to a bigotry of low expectations toward Muslims. The #RegressiveLeft would never protect Christianity like this."

 

Je Suis Charlie? That lasted long.

And we are supposedly losing rights by leaving the union, go figure.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

https://www.trtworld.com/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammad-not-free-expression-european-court-rules-21125

 

Thoughts on this? Even I never had the EU courts down as ones that would uphold blasphemy laws.

 

Maajid Nawaz is spot on again. 

 

"‪This ruling is anti-Muslim. It reinforces a blasphemy code (only for Islam) in the name of “peace”. This is a disgusting ruling, allowed due to a bigotry of low expectations toward Muslims. The #RegressiveLeft would never protect Christianity like this."

 

Je Suis Charlie? That lasted long.

Either you can disparage all organised religion, or none. I do think the EU has dropped a clanger on this one.

 

And yes, the "Regressive Left" would never protect Christianity like this - because, like Islam, its legacy of blood and conquest over the last millennium and a half scarcely needs protecting in such a way.

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Either you can disparage all organised religion, or none. I do think the EU has dropped a clanger on this one.

 

And yes, the "Regressive Left" would never protect Christianity like this - because, like Islam, its legacy of blood and conquest over the last millennium and a half scarcely needs protecting in such a way.

Why do you think they have done it?

 

Do you think it's out of fear? There was a TV director who was quite open that they'll mock other religions because they don't carry the risk of what happened to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, is it a misguided belief that forcing people not to speak about Islam will result in compliance to accepting it? It is being done under some weird guise of tolerance? 

 

I can't work it out. I mean the Hadith teaches that Muhammed married a 6 year old and then consumated the marriage at 9 - when he was 53. The definition in comparison to modern time isn't really up for debate.

 

Do we want to live in a society where people will be locked in a cage for saying things about religion? This doesn't really strike me as progressive, it sounds like going back a few hundred years.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Why do you think they have done it?

 

Do you think it's out of fear? There was a TV director who was quite open that they'll mock other religions because they don't carry the risk of what happened to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, is it a misguided belief that forcing people not to speak about Islam will result in compliance to accepting it? It is being done under some weird guise of tolerance? 

 

I can't work it out. I mean the Hadith teaches that Muhammed married a 6 year old and then consumated the marriage at 9 - when he was 53. The definition in comparison to modern time isn't really up for debate.

 

Do we want to live in a society where people will be locked in a cage for saying things about religion? This doesn't really strike me as progressive, it sounds like going back a few hundred years.

Goodness only knows - maybe fear, maybe some other reason.

 

TBH the sooner all Abrahamic organised religion becomes powerless in all developed and powerful countries around the world, the better.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

https://www.trtworld.com/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammad-not-free-expression-european-court-rules-21125

 

Thoughts on this? Even I never had the EU courts down as ones that would uphold blasphemy laws.

 

Maajid Nawaz is spot on again. 

 

"‪This ruling is anti-Muslim. It reinforces a blasphemy code (only for Islam) in the name of “peace”. This is a disgusting ruling, allowed due to a bigotry of low expectations toward Muslims. The #RegressiveLeft would never protect Christianity like this."

 

Je Suis Charlie? That lasted long.

What's the context here? I agree 100% that no religion should be allowed exemptions from criticism, but I also think teachers shouldn't be framing their opinion on a topic as a fact (which it kinda sounds like what this is about... the article's not too clear).  The right are routinely getting upset at perceived lefty indoctrination in education, isn't this the same thing basically? Or am I missing something?

[fuchsntf]

Hoping a few more years yet...When I come to meet "our" maker....

I' m going to be quite pssed  off,when nobody turns up!!!

Like waiting for your Mrs to get ready to go out!!!

The gravitational pull of Mr Nick might look tempting...fork n all!!

 

Oh wait,if "G".  Aint around the big "S",by default was just a dream from that drifting dimension called life!!

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

Hoping a few more years yet...When I come to meet "our" maker....

I' m going to be quite pssed  off,when nobody turns up!!!

Like waiting for your Mrs to get ready to go out!!!

The gravitational pull of Mr Nick might look tempting...fork n all!!

 

Oh wait,if "G".  Aint around the big "S",by default was just a dream from that drifting dimension called life!!

Make sure you invite me

[urban.spaceman]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

https://www.trtworld.com/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammad-not-free-expression-european-court-rules-21125

 

Thoughts on this? Even I never had the EU courts down as ones that would uphold blasphemy laws.

 

Maajid Nawaz is spot on again. 

 

"‪This ruling is anti-Muslim. It reinforces a blasphemy code (only for Islam) in the name of “peace”. This is a disgusting ruling, allowed due to a bigotry of low expectations toward Muslims. The #RegressiveLeft would never protect Christianity like this."

 

Je Suis Charlie? That lasted long.

It’s quite sickening all round.

 

Criminalising a woman for stating a bloody fact. Infantilising Muslims as if they can’t handle people stating facts about their religion. Caving in to the minority of Islamists who advocate the kind of violence against critics of Islam like was seen in Paris I with Charlie Hebdo.

 

All this coming on the same weekend that IRELAND votes to repeal its blasphemy laws.

 

The irony here is that they’re trying to protect Muslims and make people more respectful of Islam. This will have the exact opposite effect and only create more contempt of the religion and it’s followers. 

 

They never learn.

 

Je Suis Charlie

Edited 27 October 2018 by urban.spaceman

[Buce]

On 27/10/2018 at 08:57, MattP said:

Why do you think they have done it?

 

Do you think it's out of fear? There was a TV director who was quite open that they'll mock other religions because they don't carry the risk of what happened to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, is it a misguided belief that forcing people not to speak about Islam will result in compliance to accepting it? It is being done under some weird guise of tolerance? 

 

I can't work it out. I mean the Hadith teaches that Muhammed married a 6 year old and then repealed the marriage at 9 - when he was 53. The definition in comparison to modern time isn't really up for debate.

 

Do we want to live in a society where people will be locked in a cage for saying things about religion? This doesn't really strike me as progressive, it sounds like going back a few hundred years.

1

 

10 years.

 

The UK only repealed the Blasphemy Act in 2008.

[The Doctor]

24 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

10 years.

 

The UK only repealed the Blasphemy Act in 2008.

When was the last time anyone was charged with blasphemy before repeal though? Given the likes of Dawkins have made several decade long careers out of slagging off religion it seems like one of those quirks that was still on the books rather than an actual, enforced law.

[Buce]

21 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

When was the last time anyone was charged with blasphemy before repeal though? Given the likes of Dawkins have made several decade long careers out of slagging off religion it seems like one of those quirks that was still on the books rather than an actual, enforced law.

 

The editor of Gay News was given a 9 month suspended prison sentence in 1977 for publishing a poem suggesting Christ was gay.

 

The last time anyone was imprisoned was 1921.