Jump to content

The Politics Thread 2019


David

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Igorlegend11 said:

It was always known the deal need to be approved by Parliament. Even the EU knew the deal needed parliamentary approval.   As requested by remainers through the courts.  

For nasty Europeans, I suggest you read Highgates honest defence of the EU position ?

Sooo?

Your posts bang on about various aspects of the deal. £39bn seemingly being front and centre. 

So why was the deal voted down?

Mainly around the insurance policy of the backstop. Nothing spouted by the ERG and others about £39bn . Nor indeed about the guarantees of citizens rights or other aspects.

Nobody has yet offered any solutions to the aspects of the agreement signed by the democratically elected government of the UK that were opposed by parliament. 

Seems that your suggestion- like that fornicating numpty Johnson - is to assume that if you ask Johnny foreigner in a louder voice, then he'll write something different down....

Or to talk about hypothetical solutions that don't exist anywhere else on the globe.

So no deal it is then. But don't be so naive as to think that scena6can be positioned as anything other than a UK failure on many levels. 

Meanwhile as we take back control - or rather its passed to 150,000 Tory members (never was there a more apt name) - we can bask in our glow of full representative democracy no?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, McRainy said:

But I thought there was no plan: you can't have it both ways, surely?

I voted to leave the EU, plain and simple, because I don't like what the EU is, and I don't like the direction it's going in.

That was the question, do you want to stay or leave, and I was promised that the result would be carried out. 

Everything else is a fudge. 

I'm not with you.

How many people would have completely disregarded the pitch made by the Leave.EU folk because they were only going to read the question when they got into the voting booth and looked at the ballot paper? 

There was a vision painted. There were a series of - shall we be charitable and call them assumptions  - that meant that the UK could get from here to there with minimal disruption. 

The fact that you didn't listen to any of that and voted on another basis is only of relevance to you and anybody just like you. And we don't know how many that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Sooo?

Your posts bang on about various aspects of the deal. £39bn seemingly being front and centre. 

So why was the deal voted down?

Mainly around the insurance policy of the backstop. Nothing spouted by the ERG and others about £39bn . Nor indeed about the guarantees of citizens rights or other aspects.

Nobody has yet offered any solutions to the aspects of the agreement signed by the democratically elected government of the UK that were opposed by parliament. 

Seems that your suggestion- like that fornicating numpty Johnson - is to assume that if you ask Johnny foreigner in a louder voice, then he'll write something different down....

Or to talk about hypothetical solutions that don't exist anywhere else on the globe.

So no deal it is then. But don't be so naive as to think that scena6can be positioned as anything other than a UK failure on many levels. 

Meanwhile as we take back control - or rather its passed to 150,000 Tory members (never was there a more apt name) - we can bask in our glow of full representative democracy no?

 

A negotiation is to reach a satisfactory agreement. If not reached either try again, or accept no deal.  That's the crux.  EU don't have to amend the withdrawal agreement. It would have been in their interests to do so, as a hard brexit will be far worse.   As the WA locked usbin to a customs union and never allowed us to strike FREE trade deals around the world I am glad it was rejected by many MP's for many reasons.

I totally realise the £39bn wasn't an issue.  It was agreed and debated about for a year.  And it then relied upon a deal being struck.  No deal means no money. ( Or vastly reduced. We are in EU so the tine drift does mean current membership is likely payable. ). BUT we agreed a high figure on basis of 

Quite how remainers can want to pay £39bn we could have for the UK instead, shows the levels remainers are lowered to.

 

Elected government of the day merely needs a PM.  When a PM resigns it is not time to have another election, but for that party to elect a new leader. That is a dam site more democratic than being governed by civil servants line the EU commissionaires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

we can bask in our glow of full representative democracy no?

As I've pointed out, representative democracy is failing, for a number of reasons.

It's bad here, and it's worse in the EU.

Pointing to the failings of our own system is not an argument for remaining tied to something even less democratic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Igorlegend11 said:

Very good honest points you make.   I am well aware of them.    None of those are reasons to remain and be held back.

It's pretty obvious without the UK contributions and trade that the EU will struggle.  And that's their choice 

To have let the EU dictate the order of negotiations was crazy. It was wasted time agreeing a settlement.  It will take them years in courts to get anywhere near 39bn from the UK.  Even then.....they are likely to be net with a response of  "and......".   A ramshackle EU army will struggle to get out of base never mind do anything.

Meanwhile, our Navy will police our seas IF the EU decide it must be a hard brexit.

EU not suffering is not true.

You are right the EU may think they have to suffer to keep the other members in check.  Hardly a basis for a trusting future relationship. But thats their concern not the UK's 

The points I was making weren't intended as an argument in favour of the UK staying in the EU, rather reasons why the EU will be unwilling to negotiate the WA, which I'd be very surprised if they end up doing.  But then, who knows!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

I'm not with you.

How many people would have completely disregarded the pitch made by the Leave.EU folk because they were only going to read the question when they got into the voting booth and looked at the ballot paper? 

There was a vision painted. There were a series of - shall we be charitable and call them assumptions  - that meant that the UK could get from here to there with minimal disruption. 

The fact that you didn't listen to any of that and voted on another basis is only of relevance to you and anybody just like you. And we don't know how many that is.

Then similarly, the fact you listened to all the guff is only of relevance to you. 

All you're trying to do is fudge the result because you don't happen to like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

I'm not with you.

How many people would have completely disregarded the pitch made by the Leave.EU folk because they were only going to read the question when they got into the voting booth and looked at the ballot paper? 

There was a vision painted. There were a series of - shall we be charitable and call them assumptions  - that meant that the UK could get from here to there with minimal disruption. 

The fact that you didn't listen to any of that and voted on another basis is only of relevance to you and anybody just like you. And we don't know how many that is.

Why do people have to dissect a vote to leave.  It was a democratic vote.   The whole state apparatus was telling us to remain.   All political parties said remain.    So it's amazing that the people voted out.    But out they voted.   And out we will leave 

I abstained, as I was scared by the economic doomsday scaremongering of the government apparatus.   It is a proveabke lie that the economy would suffer in the first year after an out vote.  That blatantly was incorrect. Indisputable.     It stopped me from voting Leave.   

So don't be under any illusion a second referendum would lead to a remain vote.  I also know many remainers who would vote now to leave, merely to uphold the democratic vote we had three years ago.

How anyone can respect Liberal party who campaigns for a referendum, then have a referendum, then spend years arguing for another vote !  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, McRainy said:

I'm not saying they will, but the fight isn't just against the Tories, or even against the EU, it's against a system of capitalism which is increasingly overriding democracy, and bringing us to the brink of climate disaster.

In that context, the question of whether you or I will be a bit better or worse off in November is painfully short sighted. Our future well being does not, and cannot, depend upon the profitability of big business and indefinite economic growth. 

We need radical change, and none of our political systems are set up to facilitate it. All forms of government inherently preserve the power of capital, but some are more entrenched than others. The EU is entrenched by constitution, and so is resistant to radical reform by design. It is not possible to redress the balance of power under its control. 

If you see it differently, then please spell out your vision for where you think the EU will be in 5, 10, or 20 years time. How do you see Europe moving beyond neoliberalism and austerity under a centralised, federal system? That is something that no remainer I've spoken to has been able to do. 

It would appear that you have dismissed my question of how will this benefit working class people. I am sure all the people being made redundant from well paid manufacturing jobs and having to find solace in a job at Sports Direct or Starbucks will be delighted that the country now has a chance to smash the capitalist system. I would also imagine that those young people growing up in a low wage economy will be heartened by the fact that they are no longer part of a federal, centralised system.

This is the same,  narrow ideological bent which leaves us with our glorious Socialist prophet JC taking us (Labour) to 4th position in the polls, when any decent centre-left Labour Leader would be 20 points ahead. Obviously that person who simply wants to a fairer tax system to provide better public services and housing isn't pure enough as he didn't fully support a homemade jam for Palestine stall at the last conference. the thing is most  working class people can't afford these ideological dreams, as they bills to pay every month. The fact that the JC personality cult and the takeover of the Labour by the 'pure socialists' is a bigger tragedy than Brexit for working class people and middle class socialists who are isolated from austerity should feel shame that they are letting the Tories in whilst cracking one off at our right on we are.

No doubt I am a 'Blariite' or 'not a real socialist' for being pragmatic enough to compromise to effect change.

In the long run, population growth, economic growth and declining resources have to be tackled but letting Bojo fook over the working class in the meantime isn't going to help that cause.

  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Highgate said:

The points I was making weren't intended as an argument in favour of the UK staying in the EU, rather reasons why the EU will be unwilling to negotiate the WA, which I'd be very surprised if they end up doing.  But then, who knows!

 

The new PM candidates have accepted the WA is in the bin, or that's my reading of it.  So the EU really don't need to worry about the WA anymore.

The BEST way now, is to just leave.  As in business the best thing then for both parties is to leave things as they are and talk, negotiate and move forwards slowly and reasonably.

That may well not happen. But there are so many stakeholders that the so far clever EU block will start to turn against letting a hard brexit occur.   I fully see why EU drove us into a rubbish WA. But by hook and crook we turned down the chance to be a vassel state of the EU.  The WA will have delivered a half way house and limited our inability to trade around the world.

For those that can be bothered to research, the New Zealand recovery after we ceased trading with them freely is an excellent example of how economies adapt and find new markets for their products and services 

I personally want to see the French go and find a new source of fish.   The EU decimated the UK fishing industry.  Not many will remember farmers being paid to produce surplus food and then destroy it.    Many greens won't even believe that occurred.  Thing is facts are facts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, McRainy said:

Leavers are gullible, xenophobic and irresponsible, whilst remainers are intelligent, progressive and culturally sophisticated; isn't that the general narrative?

The UK seeks national isolation and a return to a mythical past, whilst the EU represents a kind of Star Trek next generation style enlightenment for the future of humankind. 

It would indeed be disheartening if it turned out to be just another corrupt gravy train for a power hungry and self serving elite. 

I think that might the narrative painted by a few of the more condescending remainers. 

The fact is there are perfectly valid reasons for disliking the EU as it stands and for wishing to leave.  And nobody denies the right of the UK to make it's own decision.

The problem for me is, when the UK presented it's population with the referendum, the question was vague, nobody knew what sort of Brexit was being offered (If there is one thing referendums are not meant to be it's vague !). Furthermore at the time of the referendum the full implications of Brexit didn't seem to be understood by either side of the debate (the implications for the Irish border for example and the fact that Brexit could force the UK to break previous commitments made in the GFA).

It's hard to know what to make of the EU.  It's very much still a work in progress.  It's made up of 28 countries, each with their own spectrum of opinions and aspirations so it's no wonder the EU is in a constant state of flux. It's certainly not a homogeneous monolith with a single objective or predetermined destiny. It's future is still to be fought for.  One thing is for sure, the UK won't have any say on how it develops once it leaves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McRainy said:

Leavers are gullible, xenophobic and irresponsible, whilst remainers are intelligent, progressive and culturally sophisticated; isn't that the general narrative?

The UK seeks national isolation and a return to a mythical past, whilst the EU represents a kind of Star Trek next generation style enlightenment for the future of humankind. 

It would indeed be disheartening if it turned out to be just another corrupt gravy train for a power hungry and self serving elite. 

I think you're right there and I've possibly even indicated that myself, albeit trying to dilute the strength of feeling in the message.

I personally think it's annoying that both sides can't see the other sides argument, whether they agree or not they must see there's some substance to some parts of both sets of arguments.

I know there are times where you've got to dig your heels in and mark your line in the sand but I'v got little respect for anyone who isn't capable of listening and considering changing their mind, even slightly.

I can't see how we can repair this divsion we're causing between people who probably wouldn't argue and label people so cheaply and nastily.

The use of phrases like liberal and snowflake, the sheer stupidity of folk saying things like are being said on some of the threads because people can see one point of view and agree with it, they're suddenly put into a pot and dismissed.

Maybe a poor example here 'cos we've recently fell out but my ex best mate and me got on brilliantly, we agreed on 99% of things, we enjoyed the same sports, same activities got on with the same type of people.

His views on women in the workplace made me sick to the bottom of my stomach, especially considering he has a wife and 2 kids.. It was like listening to someone from the dark ages. I have a choice to make, do I drop him as friend because we're likely to argue about this once every 3 months if it's brought up or do I tell him, listen mate, that upsets me but I don't want to fall out with you over it so let's agree to disagree.

Look at this thread and you'll see people throwing other decent people under the bus just because they disagree with their views on whether to let the EU elitists duck us over or whether we're better off leaving it to the UK elitists.

It's mental. I don't agree with igor on everything and we're quite possibly miles away but some of his posts make sense so he gets a like. Same with Eddie, McRainy, G=Star, maxjam, Stive et al.

We're causing such a rift in our nation it's sickening. The paranoid side of me think maybe that's what the poops want. Divide and conquer.

Society needs to come together as a whole and fix itself and if the leaders aren't going to facilitate change there WILL be a civil uprising soon enough. I said a couple of months ago, once it happens in a so called developed or civilised nation the knock on effect will be massive.

ducking Brexit, ducking politicians and ducking greedy elitists. duck them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sage said:

It would appear that you have dismissed my question of how will this benefit working class people. I am sure all the people being made redundant from well paid manufacturing jobs and having to find solace in a job at Sports Direct or Starbucks will be delighted that the country now has a chance to smash the capitalist system. I would also imagine that those young people growing up in a low wage economy will be heartened by the fact that they are no longer part of a federal, centralised system.

This is the same,  narrow ideological bent which leaves us with our glorious Socialist prophet JC taking us (Labour) to 4th position in the polls, when any decent centre-left Labour Leader would be 20 points ahead. Obviously that person who simply wants to a fairer tax system to provide better public services and housing isn't pure enough as he didn't fully support a homemade jam for Palestine stall at the last conference. the thing is most  working class people can't afford these ideological dreams, as they bills to pay every month. The fact that the JC personality cult and the takeover of the Labour by the 'pure socialists' is a bigger tragedy than Brexit for working class people and middle class socialists who are isolated from austerity should feel shame that they are letting the Tories in whilst cracking one off at our right on we are.

No doubt I am a 'Blariite' or 'not a real socialist' for being pragmatic enough to compromise to effect change.

In the long run, population growth, economic growth and declining resources have to be tackled but letting Bojo fook over the working class in the meantime isn't going to help that cause.

I can understand your position, and it made sense, maybe twenty years ago. The only problem is that it has manifestly failed to protect working people from a shift in power that Thatcher could only have dreamed of. Do you really think the kinds of reforms and safeguards you speak of are actually on the table anymore? Any opposition to austerity is ruthlessly crushed, even if those proposing it win elections, as with Syriza in Greece. There is no centre left anymore, it has collapsed across the whole of Europe, and stands no chance of winning power here, or anywhere else.

I don't accept your analysis of the situation with Corbyn either, or the suggestion that economic hardship is caused by the very people who are actually trying to challenge it. What a disingenuous notion. You don't think that a relentless campaign to discredit him has more to do with the present polling than the failure of his policies? And even more so, the sense that Labour has sat on the fence so long as it tries to deal with the, yes, Blairite faction within its own ranks, that it has lost all credibility?

I personally left the Labour Party six months ago, on account of the commitment to a second referendum. That, for me, broke all trust that the commitment to uphold the referendum result would be kept. No doubt thousands of others felt likewise. I am not interested in a party that seeks power for its own sake, without any backbone to uphold its promises. Labour betrayed the working class under Blair, and they are doing it again now. Without democracy, we have nothing, no hope at all. 

Politics is dead, the political system is completely bought and paid for. If working class people are going to win back their rights, then they're going to have to do in the only way which has ever achieved anything, through direct action. 

And yes, I did answer your original question. We benefit from leaving the EU by refusing to give more power to an institution which is completely rigged in favour of the ruling class. We benefit by realising who the real enemy is, and getting organised to do something about it. It has nothing to do with ideological purity, and everything to do with running out of other options and running out of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

The problem for me is, when the UK presented it's population with the referendum, the question was vague, nobody knew what sort of Brexit was being offered (

The question couldn't have been clearer, leave or remain.

We weren't voting on all the what comes after, because... that comes after. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, McRainy said:

The question couldn't have been clearer, leave or remain.

We weren't voting on all the what comes after, because... that comes after. 

Three years and counting, and in that time the PM even changed her position from her clear Lancaster house speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

 

We're causing such a rift in our nation it's sickening. The paranoid side of me think maybe that's what the poops want. Divide and conquer.

Society needs to come together as a whole and fix itself and if the leaders aren't going to facilitate change there WILL be a civil uprising soon enough. I said a couple of months ago, once it happens in a so called developed or civilised nation the knock on effect will be massive.

Rift was always going to exist on a Yes/No vote asked to the whole population.  Best thing is to complete the change. Enact the change.

Humans don't like change. Will gossip and debate change and out their efforts into making the change not work ( this so happens in business )

Yet once change has happened it becomes accepted, may even get tweaked as people come on board.

As for civil uprising, the Leave voters have largely been patient and confident that in a mature democracy that we will leave.   I would never vote in a second referendum. I would never vote again in any election if we were to have a new referendum. Democracy would die.

And true democracy is a secret ballot. Which sadly we don't have as the authorities can see how each and everyone one of us voted. ( Our voting papers are linked to our place on the electoral register )  That data will no doubt be mined and analysed retrospectively one day in the future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, McRainy said:

The question couldn't have been clearer, leave or remain.

We weren't voting on all the what comes after, because... that comes after. 

Leave or Remain, sounds simple, except it's not nearly precise enough.  There were many ways to leave the EU.  Some of which were as unpalatable to Leave voters as Remaining was.

The problems associated with voting Leave, without having specified exactly what that sort of Brexit was on offer have become all too obvious since the referendum was passed.  There was no parliamentary majority for any particular version of Brexit, which probably actually reflects fact that the was no overall majority among the general population for any particular version of Brexit.  There may have been plenty of people who voted for Brexit who had a 'soft Brexit' in mind....who if they were given a stark option between Remain and a No Deal Brexit may well have opted for Remain. Therefore adhering to the referendum's result may end up being more of a distortion of the population's wishes than an enactment of them.

The fact that it's a good idea to know exactly what it is you are getting before you decide on whether you want it or not seems so obvious that it's scarcely needs mentioning.  And yet that was patently not the situation the UK public found itself in during the 2016 referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Igorlegend11 said:

Well that's frankly hilarious and scary viewpoint, as well as ignorant of the wishes of the NI population. Plus it would lead at best to a civil war. 

Liberal views of let's make things fair always ignores a good 50% of affected people and 99% of the time ignores reality as an inconvenience 

A post that clearly demonstrates an utter lack of political knowledge of the area.  Go back to when the English divided it up to 4 lords, then when the locals wanted their land back, some redistribution of population, manly immigrants from England, and boundary changes allowed England to hang on to 25%.  Then after 1921 the Catholics/Nationalists where fair game.

60,000 votes gave the DUP 3 more seats than Sinn Fein, in the last election, and the guess what party fiddles with the voting borders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Highgate said:

There was no parliamentary majority for any particular version of Brexit, which probably actually reflects fact that the was no overall majority among the general population for any particular version of Brexit

I'm sorry, but I think that's hogwash. The job of Parliament following the referendum was to ensure that we leave within the allotted timescale on whatever terms were available.

What we have had instead is a majority of remain MPs doing their damnedest to scupper the process to make sure it doesn't happen. If Parliament couldn't agree on a deal within the terms of Article 50, then we should have left without one. We should also have been preparing for this possibility from day one. 

Parliament has failed in its duty, and is not fit for purpose. Saying we didn't know how hard it was going to be, and continually kicking the can down the road, simply isn't good enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

A post that clearly demonstrates an utter lack of political knowledge of the area.  Go back to when the English divided it up to 4 lords, then when the locals wanted their land back, some redistribution of population, manly immigrants from England, and boundary changes allowed England to hang on to 25%.  Then after 1921 the Catholics/Nationalists where fair game.

60,000 votes gave the DUP 3 more seats than Sinn Fein, in the last election, and the guess what party fiddles with the voting borders?

My post does not mention my political and historical knowledge of the area.

My post said to take NI and give it to Ireland would lead at best to civil war

Do you think it would lead to peace or war in the North? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, McRainy said:

I'm sorry, but I think that's hogwash. The job of Parliament following the referendum was to ensure that we leave within the allotted timescale on whatever terms were available.

What we have had instead is a majority of remain MPs doing their damnedest to scupper the process to make sure it doesn't happen. If Parliament couldn't agree on a deal within the terms of Article 50, then we should have left without one. We should also have been preparing for this possibility from day one. 

Parliament has failed in its duty, and is not fit for purpose. Saying we didn't know how hard it was going to be, and continually kicking the can down the road, simply isn't good enough. 

Who chose that "allotted timescale" 

Was the leaving date on the ballot paper when we voted?

The idiots in Parliament not only failed in their duty, the idiots in Parliament brought it on themselves and us by staring the clock too early without having a plan., Then wasted 2 years trying to come up with a plan no one can agree on.

I dread to think about what political "jobs" haven't been done that should have been done because of all this time spent ducking up something they told us would be simple and straight forward.

I think one thing both sides can agree on and are agreeing on is that our politicians are ducking clowns who can't and shouldn't be trusted yet we're all running around in a tizzy expecting one or two of them to sort out the mess they created.

Here's a serious question and it might be the daftest question I've ever asked. I was out of the country for 13 years. We talk about implementing the democratic will of the people.

Was there ever a vote to ask if we wanted a referendum?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...