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
Mark

The Politics Thread 2019

Recommended Posts

Just now, Buce said:

 

The referendum was a huge mistake, with hindsight. The EU is far from perfect but Brexit amputating a leg to cure a bunion. 

How the referendum took place was a huge mistake. The path/consequences we took after should have been clear and not left ambiguous for fairytales or imaginative mischief.

It was set up by an arrogant PM who thought he could win and not bother to prepare for the alternative.

21 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Further evidence that the propagandists Cambridge Analytica were closely tied to the leave campaign.

 

But the same people who got so angry over the manipulative practices of project fear will continue to shrug their shoulders and pretend everything's fine.  If nothing else, the folk at CA were remarkably efficient.

I don’t think it’s fair to lump all of us in the same category, I’ve said time and time again data harvesting and targeting advertising is scary and needs to be controlled. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

That's is quite funny.

 

But in all seriousness, most normal humans would have gone back and checked the fella was O.K. rather than just keep walking :rolleyes:

 

Don't be silly Muzzett ...   BoJo the Jedi had made sure there were some big soft comfy bags for him to fall onto ...    :thumbup:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Johnson called an election now the Tories would win a majority imo. In fact I'd say now is his best chance as there hasn't been time for his bullshit to be found out and he still satisfies the motivations of a large section of right-wing voters.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

How the referendum took place was a huge mistake. The path/consequences we took after should have been clear and not left ambiguous for fairytales or imaginative mischief.

It was set up by an arrogant PM who thought he could win and not bother to prepare for the alternative.

I don’t think it’s fair to lump all of us in the same category, I’ve said time and time again data harvesting and targeting advertising is scary and needs to be controlled. 

Agree with all of that.  Edited for you.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

If Johnson called an election now the Tories would win a majority imo. In fact I'd say now is his best chance as there hasn't been time for his bullshit to be found out and he still satisfies the motivations of a large section of right-wing voters.

 

What are the 'motivations' of the right wing voters? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RumbleFox said:

Does anyone else just find it harder and harder to care these days?  I am fully enganed in being "a decent person" and try to help out with direct action where I can (volunterring, etc) but when it comes to big picture politcs I just find myself being annoyed by everyone to the point of apathy.  I consider myself a leftie but both sides just annoy me so much.  I wonder if it is social media but I feel gaslighted by all sides constantly.  I think there has been a massive rise in being SEEN to be politically active without actually being active at all.  The amount of drivel filled posts from both sides on social media has just had the effect of making them less and less impactful.  Maybe I am just being lazy but all I see is loud mouth people on both sides arguing but never listening whilst most "normal" people seem to have switched off?

That sums things up pretty well.

Shouting on all sides but nobody listening and respecting views of others.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

If Johnson called an election now the Tories would win a majority imo. In fact I'd say now is his best chance as there hasn't been time for his bullshit to be found out and he still satisfies the motivations of a large section of right-wing voters.

 

 

I disagree, assuming he campaigns on a ‘No Deal’ ticket. 

 

There isn’t even a majority of Leave voters that support a ‘No Deal’ departure. 

 

If Labour was to campaign unequivocally on a Remain/ second referendum manifesto, I’d wager on a hung parliament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

wrong

side

of 

history

Here's the rather disturbing take, however: Bannon and those who think as he does are only on the wrong side of history if they don't win.

 

If they do...then history can be whatever they want.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I disagree, assuming he campaigns on a ‘No Deal’ ticket. 

 

There isn’t even a majority of Leave voters that support a ‘No Deal’ departure. 

 

If Labour was to campaign unequivocally on a Remain/ second referendum manifesto, I’d wager on a hung parliament. 

 

If the last part were true I'd say the Lib Dems should have matched or at least been close to the Brexit Party in the Euros.

 

The Brexit Party would also be campaigning on a No Deal ticket, and Johnson makes the same noises about owning the Libs and sticking it to Johnny Foreigner as Farage or anyone else UKIP/BP, whether he means it or not. So whilst Johnson is still under the cover of his bluster, why do any of those voters need the Brexit Party?

 

Edit - This is before we even factor in the Tories and BP co-operating in fielding candidates and the fact that people are still, weirdly, drawn to Johnson despite him being a demonstrably bad person.

Edited by ealingfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

vote leave whistle-blower Shahmir Sanni interviewed by BBC R4 - not aired. today Steve Bannon is given 15 minutes of uninterrupted, unchallenged airtime on the same radio station.

 

how is anyone ok with this? you might not have voted leave for racist reasons but Bannon is a bedfellow of Johnson & Trump and a bedfellow of racism, populism, nationalism and Brexit.

 

this should disgust everybody - no matter how you voted. no matter how you voted - the dots being joined are clear for all to see. 

 

I don't understand how anyone can continue to push a Leave narrative and be ok with being tarred with this brush. the benefits of leaving the EU (can somebody tell me?) surely do not outweigh crushing this disgusting movement. 

For the first bit, who knows why the dudes interview wasn't aired. Impossible to do anything other than speculate over it, could have been cut because it was boring, who the **** knows. 

 

As for the rest of it, my vote goes on what I believe in, I don't particularly give a monkeys if others agree with it that I wouldn't personally associate with, if I did, I doubt I'd ever vote for anything, ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

If the last part were true I'd say the Lib Dems should have matched or at least been close to the Brexit Party in the Euros.

 

The Brexit Party would also be campaigning on a No Deal ticket, and Johnson makes the same noises about owning the Libs and sticking it to Johnny Foreigner as Farage or anyone else UKIP/BP, whether he means it or not. So whilst Johnson is still under the cover of his bluster, why do any of those voters need the Brexit Party?

 

Edit - This is before we even factor in the Tories and BP co-operating in fielding candidates and the fact that people are still, weirdly, drawn to Johnson despite him being a demonstrably bad person.

 

Labour has a far bigger voter base than the Lib Dems. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

I'm going to be permanently baffled if we end up kneecapping ourselves with a no-deal, rather than joining EFTA and staying in the EEA.

I don't understand why we don't do that. If you want an example of pretty much a model free market capitalist wealthy country, look at Switzerland. 

 

Admittedly they have a lower population. But that is where we should aim to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Foxin_Mad said:

I don't understand why we don't do that. If you want an example of pretty much a model free market capitalist wealthy country, look at Switzerland. 

 

Admittedly they have a lower population. But that is where we should aim to be. 

It's May's red lines which now cannot really be removed by any PM without massive political cost.

The ability to 100% control all immigration is really the only reason we can't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beechey said:

It's May's red lines which now cannot really be removed by any PM without massive political cost.

The ability to 100% control all immigration is really the only reason we can't do it.

So we are kneecapping our economy in order to also stop British people from working abroad visa free. 

Edited by bovril
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, bovril said:

So we are kneecapping our economy in order to also stop British people from working abroad visa free. 

Madness, isn't it?

I really don't understand why our starting position wasn't EFTA+EEA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Madness, isn't it?

I really don't understand why our starting position wasn't EFTA+EEA.

 

Because both of those terms include the word ‘Europe’.

 

In hindsight, ‘no-deal’ was always the only game in town as a result of a Leave vote, despite what may have been said at the time.

 

Given the arguments made by the Leave camp, the only method that would satisfy all voting leave would be a ‘no-deal.’

 

But this said, it also means it looks increasingly difficult to agree ANY deal with the EU - be that before 1st Nov or after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Madness, isn't it?

I really don't understand why our starting position wasn't EFTA+EEA.

 

Surely it's quite simple to understand? It might be a preferred solution for you or I but it's not a riddle for why it was quickly ruled out in government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Surely it's quite simple to understand? It might be a preferred solution for you or I but it's not a riddle for why it was quickly ruled out in government. 

Yes, it is difficult.

There was never any chance of Theresa May being able to negotiate what she stated she wanted in her initial Lancaster House speech.

Primarily, her points were:

 

1. No freedom of movement

2. Frictionless access to the Single Market

3. No hard border

4. Independent trade policy

5. Independent regulation

6. No more payments to the EU

7. No membership of a Customs Union

 

I'm not joking when I say these points are entirely contradictory.

 

You cannot have frictionless access to the Single Market without Freedom of Movement

You can't have no hard border with an independent regulation

You can't have an independent trade policy and have no hard border

You can't have frictionless access to European markets without payments to the EU

You can't have frictionless access to the Single Market without a Customs Union

 

If you're telling me that EFTA+EEA was ruled out for good reason, then why was this abomination of a policy put forwards for about two entire years?

Why was our initial starting point not something that we know works? To get a deal, we will have to drop at least one red line anyway, otherwise we'll be stuck in the backstop.

 

Do we prefer to have no deal, really? There was a time when EFTA+EEA would have absolutely passed in the Commons - the government missed that boat and know we're left in this situation.

 

It's been entirely predictable.

Edited by Beechey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Yes, it is difficult.

There was never any chance of Theresa May being able to negotiate what she stated she wanted in her initial Lancaster House speech.

Primarily, her points were:

 

1. No freedom of movement

2. Frictionless access to the Single Market

3. No hard border

4. Independent trade policy

5. Independent regulation

6. No more payments to the EU

7. No membership of a Customs Union

 

I'm not joking when I say these points are entirely contradictory.

 

You cannot have frictionless access to the Single Market without Freedom of Movement

You can't have no hard border with an independent regulation

You can't have an independent trade policy and have no hard border

You can't have frictionless access to European markets without payments to the EU

You can't have frictionless access to the Single Market without a Customs Union

 

If you're telling me that EFTA+EEA was ruled out for good reason, then why was this abomination of a policy put forwards for about two entire years?

Why was our initial starting point not something that we know works? To get a deal, we will have to drop at least one red line anyway, otherwise we'll be stuck in the backstop.

 

Do we prefer to have no deal, really? There was a time when EFTA+EEA would have absolutely passed in the Commons - the government missed that boat and know we're left in this situation.

 

It's been entirely predictable.

 

I didn't say it was for good reason I said it was hardly difficult to understand why it was ruled out. I'm saying nothing of the merits of the policy or the merits of any of the choices made, just that if you step back from analysing something through your own preference lens it's quite simple why the choice was made. You cite the Lancaster House speech, a wholly political speech, yet when it comes to analysing why the EFTA/EEA was not the starting point you completely ignore the fact the biggest bit of politics is playing politics. You can't seriously not see that starting at a solution that involves freedom of movement wouldn't have been politically painful.

 

So as I say, whilst it might be the policy I always preferred, it might be the policy you've decided you prefer, it might have been the policy remainers should have got behind instead of denying the referendum and slandering EFTA/EEA with deliberate lies, it might have solved many of the problems, but given the referendum campaign and given what we know about drivers of the vote it really can't be difficult to understand why starting with a position of accepting freedom of movement was not entertained. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I didn't say it was for good reason I said it was hardly difficult to understand why it was ruled out. I'm saying nothing of the merits of the policy or the merits of any of the choices made, just that if you step back from analysing something through your own preference lens it's quite simple why the choice was made. You cite the Lancaster House speech, a wholly political speech, yet when it comes to analysing why the EFTA/EEA was not the starting point you completely ignore the fact the biggest bit of politics is playing politics. You can't seriously not see that starting at a solution that involves freedom of movement wouldn't have been politically painful.

 

So as I say, whilst it might be the policy I always preferred, it might be the policy you've decided you prefer, it might have been the policy remainers should have got behind instead of denying the referendum and slandering EFTA/EEA with deliberate lies, it might have solved many of the problems, but given the referendum campaign and given what we know about drivers of the vote it really can't be difficult to understand why starting with a position of accepting freedom of movement was not entertained. 

I ignore the playing politics because on an issue like this, frankly it depresses me.

I think it was indeed playing politics which is more the root cause for us now facing no deal. Theresa May's Lancaster House speech in particular set out our red lines. The red lines were entirely political and to pander to her base.

 

Of course I know (and entirely agree) FoM is the killer here, but it's also the one red line I think the UK will have to get rid of unless we want no deal, rather than being stuck in the backstop. However, what frustrates me more is that May set out basically every red line which would possibly stop us getting any kind of achievable deal out of the EU.

 

She took the entire Leave message and stamped it on her policy, despite the fact the referendum was so close. A good leader should have accepted it was close, and explained as soon as the result came through what the situation would be. Unfortunately, we had a black hole of a PM in Cameron, and then got May. This entire situation has been avoidable, and it's so sad.

Edited by Beechey
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...