The Politics Thread 2019

[Highgate]

Just now, Uptherams said:

I'd argue long term, it's not. Once a referendum was decided and it was going to happen eventually, there was no longer going to be a status quo. So many questions could have been asked, getting into far more detail and that would have lead to a long term crisis. 

Referendums should be precise not vague.  'Leave' was vague, therein lay the problem. It begged the question , Leave how?

[Uptherams]

1 minute ago, Highgate said:

Referendums should be precise not vague.  'Leave' was vague, therein lay the problem. It begged the question , Leave how?

Remain how? 

[1of4]

1 hour ago, Uptherams said:

I agree. What's the point if elections never lead to any real change. The biggest cause of populism in the West in recent years is down to the lack of differences between political parties and governments. The last 20 years have been pretty pointless, politically in the UK. 

Like them or loathe them, Trump and Boris are going to be talked about in 100 years time and not because of superficial matters. They will form a good partnership too. 

So the partnership of Trump and Johnson will be talked about in a hundred years time. Will it be be in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini were talked about or will it be more like Laurel and Hardy.

Probably the first. An unequal partnership were one is more powerful than the other, is a narcissistic and the commander in chief of a power militarized nation. While the other is a posturing buffoon.

[Spanish]

10 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Remain how? 

Simple it was stay as it is, what else could it mean?

[AndyinLiverpool]

5 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Varadkar weaponized the Irish border for internal political reasons. Currently within the EU we have a border because there are different currencies and VAT regimes either side of it. So there is plenty of infrastructure with number plate recognition cameras at crossing points, and VAT checks performed away from the border. In 1923 we created the common travel area between Ireland and the UK allowing free unencumbered movement between the two.

I've heard dozens of the world's top customs experts say there's no issue. If it proves that there is, I'd put it to tender with the UK's top IT companies and insist on a healthy royalty (20%?) from all future sales of the resulting technology around the world.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be an independent self-governing country. I could be wrong but it sounds as though you've bought into the media narrative that Boris is some sort of evil figure rather than the most socially liberal Tory leader in living memory. I judge people by what they do and since he took over he hasn't put a foot wrong. Really impressive administration after the vacuum of leadership under Theresa May.

The referendum was badly organized by Cameron and by Parliament. That's Parliament's fault. But it was a very detailed campaign with all sides under scrutiny. The people decided to leave. Theresa May tried to find middle ground, but you can't half leave. And you can't pick and choose which democratic votes you choose to accept. 

The border exists between (eg) Britain and France not because of VAT. It exists because the UK insisted on keeping control of its borders. The reason is political, not economic. The common travel area between the UK and Ireland has existed always when the two countries were aligned. They even managed to join the EEC at the same time. After Oct 31 that won't necessarily be the case - it's not difficult to see a divergence between the two, with the UK led by a PM who has, for example, consistently voted against human rights legislation, the smoking ban and climate change measures.  The border wasn't politicised by Varadkar. It was always a political issue. How could it be otherwise? It's just that people in the referendum didn't care enough about it.

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

 

Probably the first. An unequal partnership were one is more powerful than the other, is a narcissistic and the commander in chief of a power militarized nation. While the other is a posturing buffoon.

Well I got who the first one is but the second could be either

[Highgate]

Just now, Carl Sagan said:

Varadkar weaponized the Irish border for internal political reasons. Currently within the EU we have a border because there are different currencies and VAT regimes either side of it. So there is plenty of infrastructure with number plate recognition cameras at crossing points, and VAT checks performed away from the border. In 1923 we created the common travel area between Ireland and the UK allowing free unencumbered movement between the two.

I've heard dozens of the world's top customs experts say there's no issue. If it proves that there is, I'd put it to tender with the UK's top IT companies and insist on a healthy royalty (20%?) from all future sales of the resulting technology around the world.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be an independent self-governing country. I could be wrong but it sounds as though you've bought into the media narrative that Boris is some sort of evil figure rather than the most socially liberal Tory leader in living memory. I judge people by what they do and since he took over he hasn't put a foot wrong. Really impressive administration after the vacuum of leadership under Theresa May.

The referendum was badly organized by Cameron and by Parliament. That's Parliament's fault. But it was a very detailed campaign with all sides under scrutiny. The people decided to leave. Theresa May tried to find middle ground, but you can't half leave. And you can't pick and choose which democratic votes you choose to accept. 

That's just way off the mark. 

There are no 'internal political reasons, everyone reading from the same page here. I'm not a fan of Varadkar or his party but that's just an unfair and inaccurate criticism.  There is simply no desire from any political party or anyone in the Republic to play politics with this issue.  Everyone is fully behind avoiding a hard border.

An invisible border is one of the keystone agreements in the Good Friday Agreement that brought an end to the Troubles, nobody wants to go back.  Re-impose a hard border and things risk unraveling in the delicate and often precarious peace in the North.  If there is to be a hard border, there will be people who turn to violence to remove it.  The Republic of Ireland agreed to uphold the principle of no hard border and the UK also agreed to uphold it.  Brexiteers talk so much about honouring previous referendums, but they seem to care nothing for honouring previous international agreements.

The backstop is merely the insurance policy.  If, as you say, a technological solution can be found, then it simply won't be necessary, it will be forgotten and the UK will exit the EU as planned.  The backstop is not some machiavellian plot to keep the UK in the EU.  The EU wanted it to apply only to N.Ireland it was the UK that insisted that it applied to the whole of the UK.

The backstop is in fact merely intended as a device to protect the GFA and to prevent the return of a potentially dangerous hard border.

[Highgate]

Just now, Uptherams said:

Remain how? 

False equivalence. 

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, Highgate said:

That's just way off the mark. 

There are no 'internal political reasons, everyone reading from the same page here. I'm not a fan of Varadkar or his party but that's just an unfair and inaccurate criticism.  There is simply no desire from any political party or anyone in the Republic to play politics with this issue.  Everyone is fully behind avoiding a hard border.

An invisible border is one of the keystone agreements in the Good Friday Agreement that brought an end to the Troubles, nobody wants to go back.  Re-impose a hard border and things risk unraveling in the delicate and often precarious peace in the North.  If there is to be a hard border, there will be people who turn to violence to remove it.  The Republic of Ireland agreed to uphold the principle of no hard border and the UK also agreed to uphold it.  Brexiteers talk so much about honouring previous referendums, but they seem to care nothing for honouring previous international agreements.

The backstop is merely the insurance policy.  If, as you say, a technological solution can be found, then it simply won't be necessary, it will be forgotten and the UK will exit the EU as planned.  The backstop is not some machiavellian plot to keep the UK in the EU.  The EU wanted it to apply only to N.Ireland it was the UK that insisted that it applied to the whole of the UK.

The backstop is in fact merely intended as a device to protect the GFA and to prevent the return of a potentially dangerous hard border.

And the loyalists don’t want anything the means NI is a special case as they see it as a thin end of a wedge  that could be used to separate them from the UK.  The borderless border must work for the whole of UK NI

[Highgate]

Just now, Spanish said:

And the loyalists don’t want anything the means NI is a special case as they see it as a thin end of a wedge  that could be used to separate them from the UK.  The borderless border must work for the whole of UK NI

Yeah exactly, that's why the DUP insisted that the backstop be changed from N.Ireland only to all of the UK, they saw a N.Ireland only backstop as potentially threatening to N.Ireland's union with Britain.  And given they were propping up May's government they were in a position to have their voices heard.

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

24 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Simple it was stay as it is, what else could it mean?

And we leave by leaving completely....goes both ways,easy

[Uptherams]

22 minutes ago, Highgate said:

False equivalence. 

Don't be a meme ?

[Uptherams]

34 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Simple it was stay as it is, what else could it mean?

The vote in 1975 was what exactly then? There was no status quo once the inevitable referendum were to take place. A vote to remain would have lead to deeper and deeper integration. 

Are you actually trying to kid other people or just yourself? 

[Uptherams]

45 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

So the partnership of Trump and Johnson will be talked about in a hundred years time. Will it be be in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini were talked about or will it be more like Laurel and Hardy.

Probably the first. An unequal partnership were one is more powerful than the other, is a narcissistic and the commander in chief of a power militarized nation. While the other is a posturing buffoon.

Neither. Get better comparisons. If you said these type of things to people's faces, they'd laugh at your face. 

[1of4]

26 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Neither. Get better comparisons. If you said these type of things to people's faces, they'd laugh at your face. 

Oh to be given the chance to have my face laughed at.

[Rev]

The only borders in the world that are frictionless and non invasive exist within the EU, due to regulatory and customs alignment.

We've voted to leave, therefore they'll have to be a hard border between Ireland and the UK.

We'll probably see the contract for the necessary infrastructure awarded to a German or French company after Brexit, after they come in cheapest in the tender process.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

2 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

The only borders in the world that are frictionless and non invasive exist within the EU, due to regulatory and customs alignment.

We've voted to leave, therefore they'll have to be a hard border between Ireland and the UK.

We'll probably see the contract for the necessary infrastructure awarded to a German or French company after Brexit, after they come in cheapest in the tender process.

Bojo the clown said that the border between Camden and Islington is frictionless. I went on a ride on one of his bikes following the Regents cannal and never had to get my passport out once.

 

[Carl Sagan]

2 hours ago, Highgate said:

That's just way off the mark. 

There are no 'internal political reasons, everyone reading from the same page here. I'm not a fan of Varadkar or his party but that's just an unfair and inaccurate criticism.  There is simply no desire from any political party or anyone in the Republic to play politics with this issue.  Everyone is fully behind avoiding a hard border.

An invisible border is one of the keystone agreements in the Good Friday Agreement that brought an end to the Troubles, nobody wants to go back.  Re-impose a hard border and things risk unraveling in the delicate and often precarious peace in the North.  If there is to be a hard border, there will be people who turn to violence to remove it.  The Republic of Ireland agreed to uphold the principle of no hard border and the UK also agreed to uphold it.  Brexiteers talk so much about honouring previous referendums, but they seem to care nothing for honouring previous international agreements.

Why this bizarre talk of a hard border? The UK government sure as hell won't put one up. I'd be amazed if the Irish government decided too. It's total scaremongering. 

That's why I say Varadkar was weaponizing it. Nothing materially will change unless he changes it. But he figured it would play well in Ireland to look to be standing tough against the Brits. 

As has been said many times, no country in the world could ever sign a treaty that included something like the backstop that it's not in their power to withdraw from, unless it was part of a post-war surrender. You're right it was Theresa May's idea. Thank goodness she's no longer in charge. 

[ariotofmyown]

3 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be an independent self-governing country. I could be wrong but it sounds as though you've bought into the media narrative that Boris is some sort of evil figure rather than the most socially liberal Tory leader in living memory. I judge people by what they do and since he took over he hasn't put a foot wrong. Really impressive administration after the vacuum of leadership under Theresa May.

The referendum was badly organized by Cameron and by Parliament. That's Parliament's fault. But it was a very detailed campaign with all sides under scrutiny. The people decided to leave. Theresa May tried to find middle ground, but you can't half leave. And you can't pick and choose which democratic votes you choose to accept. 

The idea we weren't already a self-governing country is laughable. The Tory government were able to impose austerity on the poor due to the bankers been bailed out.  They were able to introduce the bedroom tax forcing people from their homes. They were able to push chonically disabled people into work. They were able to cut youth services in deprived areas, along with police numbers, to increase violent crime so their rich friends could do coke.

Then the socially liberal Johnson and his band of Brexit liars could blame all these woes on the EU, foreigners, invading Muslim immigrants from EU-bound Turkey. If only we get away from the EU, we'd have lots more money to fund our beloved NHS, something they all despise as it not 100% privatised. Yet.

Johnson might be the most socially liberal Tory leader in living memory. Although if you were a "letterbox", a "batty boy" or had a "watermelon smile", you might not be quite so sure. But hey, he did select an Asian women in his cabinet so he must be ok. Her pro-capital punishment views take the shine of his social liberalism somewhat though.

Are you also sure the media narrative is that Johnson is evil? The far right Daily Telegraph paid him a fortune to write for them. He did work hard for his money though...once writing an important column twice, each with massively different points of view. He could then see which way the wind was blowing at the last possible moment.

This became the EU referendum campaign, which you say was very detailed with all sides under scrutiny? Well I think I took a large interest in it, watching the debates and listening to the arguments to leave. I can't remember hearing anything about the Irish border.

Maybe if I was on Facebook, then the Cambridge Analytica algorithms would have informed me fully on this point by serving me unbiased and factual ads paid for by Russian money funnelled through Aaron Banks greasy rear end.

Would these adverts have been as honest as the infamous refugee poster that played on the fear of terrorism? Or would they have been total fabrications like the websites created by Lynton Crosby's sham company, who just happens to be big mates with Mr Socially Liberal himself? Is removing the Sugar Tax socially liberal, or helping out your mate who also works for companies who would benefit from the change?

Maybe we just need to fatten up to poor so there is something to eat after a No Deal Brexit. Turkeys voting for Christmas after been lied to about Turkey by our wonderful leader.

They are calling him "Britain Trump". Seems about right.

 

[WhiteHorseRam]

16 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Way more important than Brexit are questions about climate change and stewarding the planet, about how artificial intelligence is going to transform our lives and the world and producing effective strategies to handle that, and even about establishing our place in space as a species so that humanity survives.

Here's a fascinating profile of Dominic Cummings from CNN that (pleasantly) surprised me by talking about issues such as this: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/21/uk/dominic-cummings-profile-gbr-intl/index.html

 

Commendable objectives ...  I would also like to buy the world a Coke ?