The Politics Thread 2019

[Van der MoodHoover]

22 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I don't know much about what is going on in the Labour Party with regards to antisemitism. It's a topic I feel like I'm probably on a line, maybe over a line, on. I don't know. 

I don't agree with the state of Israel existing, but it does and to argue for its destruction seems unreasonable and divisive. However it also seems there are some who see any criticism of the state of Israel as an antisemitic act. 

Does my position of not agreeing with the state of Israel mean I am antisemitic? I believe some would see it that way. I can see why some people want to see the end of the Israeli state. Are they all antisemitic? I'd like to think it is possible to say that without being accused of a hate crime. 

I know it seems hypocritical when compared to my views on Islam, but is it? I support the rights of people to follow the religion of their choice, as long as it doesn't affect the rights of everyone else. A religion which takes ownership of a stretch of land based on an alleged holy book saying it was promised to them, or a historic claim so old it loses all relevance, isn't managing to not affect others' rights, which is my main claim. 

The persecution of the Jews was very real and the antisemitism of history is so far removed from the arguments around the Labour Party, it feels like an engineered outrage rather than a legitimate concern. 

I listened to a lady Jewish member of the labour party and I thought she was quite clear.

Perfectly ok to criticise the government of the state of Israel and its policies. 

But you shouldn't criticize the right of the state of Israel to exist.

And also, there is some conflation of old money such as the rothschilds and the suggestion that their position is somehow caused or linked by their religion. 

[GboroRam]

28 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

But you shouldn't criticize the right of the state of Israel to exist.

And also, there is some conflation of old money such as the rothschilds and the suggestion that their position is somehow caused or linked by their religion. 

No issues with rothschilds, soros etc. But you aren't allowed to criticise the way Israel was created? 

I think this is the fundamental schism within Labour. Many people don't feel right accepting it, but any discussion will automatically label you an antisemite. I sympathise with people who feel Israel should not exist - I think it's a simplistic view and unrealistic, but I sympathise. I certainly don't equate the antisemitism of the 30s with people holding that view. And I don't agree that the flak Corbyn gets is wholly in defence of Israel; instead its politically calculated for personal gain by the likes of Tom Watson. 

[dcfcfan1]

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

No issues with rothschilds, soros etc. But you aren't allowed to criticise the way Israel was created? 

I think this is the fundamental schism within Labour. Many people don't feel right accepting it, but any discussion will automatically label you an antisemite. I sympathise with people who feel Israel should not exist - I think it's a simplistic view and unrealistic, but I sympathise. I certainly don't equate the antisemitism of the 30s with people holding that view. And I don't agree that the flak Corbyn gets is wholly in defence of Israel; instead its politically calculated for personal gain by the likes of Tom Watson. 

As a conservative myself, and not a corbyn fan, I agree with every word of this post. "Antisemetic" is just an cop out option used to shut down corbyn

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

I don't know much about what is going on in the Labour Party with regards to antisemitism. It's a topic I feel like I'm probably on a line, maybe over a line, on. I don't know. 

I don't agree with the state of Israel existing, but it does and to argue for its destruction seems unreasonable and divisive. However it also seems there are some who see any criticism of the state of Israel as an antisemitic act.

You don't think it should exist at all in any form?  Or it should just not exist in the way that it exists now ie...discriminatory against it's Palestinian citizens and also illegally occupying territories?

Obviously the way in which it was created was simply a audacious crime against the local Muslim population.  But isn't there a case to be made that Jewish people should have a country in that region in which they feel safe in and can have a large active part in running?  What would that look like in an ideal world? I realize I'm basically asking you to sort out the Middle East in a sentence or two.

Incidentally, calling someone antisemitic for criticizing Israel actions of the nature of the creation in the first place is just inexcusable in my view.  There is no reasoning with that sort of mentality.

[1of4]

Why once again have we allowed a multinational company to pay only £22.5M in taxes on nearly £400M profit. While technically Starbucks may have done nothing illegal, morally they are so wrong. Until we all stop frequenting Starbucks and using other multinational like them. Then these companies will never change their attitude to paying their taxes.  

[Van der MoodHoover]

31 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

No issues with rothschilds, soros etc. But you aren't allowed to criticise the way Israel was created? 

I think this is the fundamental schism within Labour. Many people don't feel right accepting it, but any discussion will automatically label you an antisemite. I sympathise with people who feel Israel should not exist - I think it's a simplistic view and unrealistic, but I sympathise. I certainly don't equate the antisemitism of the 30s with people holding that view. And I don't agree that the flak Corbyn gets is wholly in defence of Israel; instead its politically calculated for personal gain by the likes of Tom Watson. 

No, I think what was meant was the right of the Jewish people to have a state or a homeland if you will.

How it came about has created huge issues, but the creation process was not owned by the Jewish people. 

[GboroRam]

8 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You don't think it should exist at all in any form?  Or it should just not exist in the way that it exists now ie...discriminatory against it's Palestinian citizens and also illegally occupying territories?

Obviously the way in which it was created was simply a audacious crime against the local Muslim population.  But isn't there a case to be made that Jewish people should have a country in that region in which they feel safe in and can have a large active part in running?  What would that look like in an ideal world? I realize I'm basically asking you to sort out the Middle East in a sentence or two.

Incidentally, calling someone antisemitic for criticizing Israel actions of the nature of the creation in the first place is just inexcusable in my view.  There is no reasoning with that sort of mentality.

You're right - poor language from me. I don't agree that it was created legitimately, and although I understand why it happened, the forcible taking of land is no way to create a state. I think it should never have happened. Now it exists it cannot be undone, so the state will always have an air of illegitimacy. 

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

I don't know much about what is going on in the Labour Party with regards to antisemitism. It's a topic I feel like I'm probably on a line, maybe over a line, on. I don't know. 

I don't agree with the state of Israel existing, but it does and to argue for its destruction seems unreasonable and divisive. However it also seems there are some who see any criticism of the state of Israel as an antisemitic act. 

Does my position of not agreeing with the state of Israel mean I am antisemitic? I believe some would see it that way. I can see why some people want to see the end of the Israeli state. Are they all antisemitic? I'd like to think it is possible to say that without being accused of a hate crime. 

I know it seems hypocritical when compared to my views on Islam, but is it? I support the rights of people to follow the religion of their choice, as long as it doesn't affect the rights of everyone else. A religion which takes ownership of a stretch of land based on an alleged holy book saying it was promised to them, or a historic claim so old it loses all relevance, isn't managing to not affect others' rights, which is my main claim. 

The persecution of the Jews was very real and the antisemitism of history is so far removed from the arguments around the Labour Party, it feels like an engineered outrage rather than a legitimate concern. 

I stayed on a Kibutz in Israel and there was a fancy dress party. A couple of our Israeli (and Jewish) friends dressed up as Settlers in the West Bank, wearing traditional Jewish clothes and carrying pretend machine guns. Everyone was having a good laugh about it. Bloody Jewish Antisemites.

If the traditional Jews who insist on settling in the West Bank were a bit nicer, then things might get better. These are the people who need standing up too, but where accusations of antisemitism are easiest to make.

Read a good article recently how the more secular Israelis are fed up that the religious ones don't have to do national service and get state support to be religious. More antisemitic Israelis no doubt.

The Palestinians are playing the long game anyway. The % of them who live in Israel* is increasing and one day they can vote more reasonable leaders in. 

*until going to Israel, I had no idea that loads of Arabs live there. In relative peace too. It's like if people can live and work and support their family, there are usually no problems.

[ossieram]

On 27/06/2019 at 17:32, jono said:

It’s an interesting point. For example we “make” more cars than we ever used to. We also export more than we ever did but they are vehicles that are assembled.  In the past every bolt, nut, switch light bulb was locally manufactured, either in house or by local subcontractors. The steel that went in to the bolt was also home sourced as was the copper wire that went in to the loom. The steel tubes and pressings that went in to the seats , same story. 

Now a whole front suspension system with its shock absorbers, springs and all is shipped in from say Belgium to be bolted on to a British “made” Jaguar. The glass is French, The Electronic’s - Bosch or Magneti Marelli, The Brakes - Brembo, The bolts and nuts Korean or Chinese. 

Parts that go in to Bombardier trains come from all over the world and are delivered to Bombardier by “distributors that are in effect the industrial version Amazon.

 

And at the same time, I personally load out parts made in the UK to Turkey, South Africa and Japan and others load out parts to France, Poland, Belgium and The Czech Republic.

[Van der MoodHoover]

31 minutes ago, ossieram said:

And at the same time, I personally load out parts made in the UK to Turkey, South Africa and Japan and others load out parts to France, Poland, Belgium and The Czech Republic.

And that's the "just in time" ecosystem that's at risk if there's no continuous Customs arrangement to negate border checks.

Ie a "deal".

To what extent do you think the Tory membership understands that complexity, as they listen to boris waffling on....

[McRamFan]

Hmm a few of you forget that this 'issue' is a 3000 year plus on going matter.

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/history-of-israel

If you really want to go out on a limb, you can blame Israel for everything, being the birth place of Jews, Christians and Islam.  In fact us lot even got stuck in with the crusades. Not content with that we had another go.

Quote

From 1517 to 1917, Israel, along with much of the Middle East, was ruled by the Ottoman Empire.

But World War I dramatically altered the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. In 1917, at the height of the war, British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour submitted a letter of intent supporting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The British government hoped that the formal declaration—known thereafter as the Balfour Declaration—would encourage support for the Allies in World War I.

When World War I ended in 1918 with an Allied victory, the 400-year Ottoman Empire rule ended, and Great Britain took control over what became known as Palestine (modern-day Israel, Palestine and Jordan).

The Balfour Declaration and the British mandate over Palestine were approved by the League of Nations in 1922. Arabs vehemently opposed the Balfour Declaration, concerned that a Jewish homeland would mean the subjugation of Arab Palestinians.

The British controlled Palestine until Israel, in the years following the end of World War II, became an independent state in 1947.

 

[Mafiabob]

41 minutes ago, ossieram said:

And at the same time, I personally load out parts made in the UK to Turkey, South Africa and Japan and others load out parts to France, Poland, Belgium and The Czech Republic.

As long as someone gets all the manifests signed correctly.....

[eddie]

1 hour ago, ossieram said:

And at the same time, I personally load out parts made in the UK to Turkey, South Africa and Japan and others load out parts to France, Poland, Belgium and The Czech Republic.

If those parts destined to France, Poland, Belgium and the Czech Republic are components in a finished product which is destined for a market outside the EU, they will no longer count as 'sourced in the EU' for Preferential Origin purposes, so it's highly likely that those manufacturers you are currently selling to will be looking to source said parts from within other EU countries, even if they cost a little more, if they are close to the PO threshold/cut-off point.

[ossieram]

3 hours ago, Mafiabob said:

As long as someone gets all the manifests signed correctly.....

Not happening anytime soon.

[1of4]

3 hours ago, eddie said:

If those parts destined to France, Poland, Belgium and the Czech Republic are components in a finished product which is destined for a market outside the EU, they will no longer count as 'sourced in the EU' for Preferential Origin purposes, so it's highly likely that those manufacturers you are currently selling to will be looking to source said parts from within other EU countries, even if they cost a little more, if they are close to the PO threshold/cut-off point.

Any company that are makes or supplies component parts for the aviation industry, requires a licence from the European Aviation Authority. Come the end of October will UK companies still come under the edict of the EAA? If not it could be a problem for a number of our local companies.

[eddie]

10 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Any company that are makes or supplies component parts for the aviation industry, requires a licence from the European Aviation Authority. Come the end of October will UK companies still come under the edict of the EAA? If not it could be a problem for a number of our local companies.

The answer to that is 'nobody knows - especially the government'. The bouffant moron (aka the Prime Minister Elect) seems to think that we can 'sort the details out during the transition priod', yet at the same time he embraces 'no deal', seemingly blissfully unaware that if we exit with no deal, THERE IS NO BLOODY TRANSITION PERIOD!!

This is the level of intelligence required to get through to your typical member of the Tory Party - promise them rainbows, unicorns and a tax bribe, and nothing else matters.

 

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

1 hour ago, eddie said:

The answer to that is 'nobody knows - especially the government'. The bouffant moron (aka the Prime Minister Elect) seems to think that we can 'sort the details out during the transition priod', yet at the same time he embraces 'no deal', seemingly blissfully unaware that if we exit with no deal, THERE IS NO BLOODY TRANSITION PERIOD!!

This is the level of intelligence required to get through to your typical member of the Tory Party - promise them rainbows, unicorns and a tax bribe, and nothing else matters.

 

Whilst I appreciate your new found sense of reason in the other forum where you don't now think it's correct to label 17.4 million brexit voters idiots,you then go on to describe every Tory voter as bring of low intelligence.

It's the sweeping judgements of everyone that seemingly doesn't cling to your point of view that's unfair here eddie and demeans your arguement.

Im not a Tory member and was a long time labour supporter up until Corbyn and momentum became involved but I'm passionate about democracy being followed through in respect of brexit, as to not do so,will undermine everything we have fought for (figuratively and literally) and I would believe in those principles whether I had been a remainer or leaver at the time of the referendum.

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 hour ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Whilst I appreciate your new found sense of reason in the other forum where you don't now think it's correct to label 17.4 million brexit voters idiots,you then go on to describe every Tory voter as bring of low intelligence.

It's the sweeping judgements of everyone that seemingly doesn't cling to your point of view that's unfair here eddie and demeans your arguement.

Im not a Tory member and was a long time labour supporter up until Corbyn and momentum became involved but I'm passionate about democracy being followed through in respect of brexit, as to not do so,will undermine everything we have fought for (figuratively and literally) and I would believe in those principles whether I had been a remainer or leaver at the time of the referendum.

 

I realise @eddie doesn't need defending by the likes of me, but I think he was aiming at the 120,000 odd Tory members not Tory voters in general. 

There are some eminently sensible sounding Tory politicians and I daresay members. 

But the sample who were being interviewed on our local news outside the Bournemouth hustings the other evening certainly did have a majority who appeared to lack any critical judgement. 

[eddie]

1 hour ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Whilst I appreciate your new found sense of reason in the other forum where you don't now think it's correct to label 17.4 million brexit voters idiots,you then go on to describe every Tory voter as bring of low intelligence.

It's the sweeping judgements of everyone that seemingly doesn't cling to your point of view that's unfair here eddie and demeans your arguement.

Im not a Tory member and was a long time labour supporter up until Corbyn and momentum became involved but I'm passionate about democracy being followed through in respect of brexit, as to not do so,will undermine everything we have fought for (figuratively and literally) and I would believe in those principles whether I had been a remainer or leaver at the time of the referendum.

 

I stand by every word.

All the two candidates are doing is pandering to greed, because it's all they have to do. Why do you think that they are promising huge tax cuts to the highest-paid people in the country? Because the votes they need to be temporary king (and in Boris Johnson's case, dictator) are FROM the highest-paid people in the country.

The ones taken in by what amounts to nothing more than bribery are either greedy or stupid.

Regarding your line about your 'passion for democracy', might I remind you of the following statement...

Quote

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.

David Davis, 19 November 2012.

Perhaps what he really meant was: "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy IF MY SIDE LOSES" and the last four words were muttered under his breath.

 

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

4 hours ago, eddie said:

I stand by every word.

All the two candidates are doing is pandering to greed, because it's all they have to do. Why do you think that they are promising huge tax cuts to the highest-paid people in the country? Because the votes they need to be temporary king (and in Boris Johnson's case, dictator) are FROM the highest-paid people in the country.

The ones taken in by what amounts to nothing more than bribery are either greedy or stupid.

Regarding your line about your 'passion for democracy', might I remind you of the following statement...

David Davis, 19 November 2012.

Perhaps what he really meant was: "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy IF MY SIDE LOSES" and the last four words were muttered under his breath.

 

Democracy can and should change its mind but with due processes in place not just because the losing side don't like the result of an election/referendum.

the due process will be for the govt to act on the result of the referendum and then for future voters to decide on the effectiveness of the said decision by voting for future govts and their policies.

if in the future another referendum is decided upon,post brexit,then so be it and all parties will be expected to again abide by any result,whether it is to their taste or not.