The Politics Thread 2019

[Stive Pesley]

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Not really that strange. She's a remain supporter so she's going to prefer to remain over any deal.

Conference decided that Labour will not support remain, so official Labour stance is to negotiate a deal and put it to the public. Individual members may have personal views (broad church that Labour is) but the party position is a neutral one.

Which as I said before is a really sensible approach. People are sick of being told what to think on the issue

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'm pretty sure you would not be applying the same principles if it was something that you agreed with as opposed to something that you were vehemently against

Sorry - what am I vehemently against? Brexit? Wouldn't say that. I'm against a no-deal Brexit for sure, and I'm against BJs deal. But then I am also against revoke. I am patiently waiting for a deal that doesn't sell us all down the river and destroy the economy. I'd like to think that's what you want too?

[Norman]

2 minutes ago, Bound 2 tease said:

I'm curious, have you actually ever been to Looe ? Do you know where the doctors surgery is located ?  

Or was your visit and overheard conversation a figment of your imagination.

Btw Where did you stay , and on what date, it would be simple task for me to nip around , knock on the door to confirm your visit.

 

And how would we know you were there. And who you visited. And how loud you knocked on the door? 

Or do you imagine living somewhere you don't?

[GboroRam]

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/9874598/labour-admit-its-brexit-policy-is-to-negotiate-new-deal-then-reject/

Ah, the good old Currant Bun. No anti Labour bias there.

However I do read their quotes and everywhere Thornberry says "I would campaign" but the Sun seems to have heard "Labour policy is to campaign".

Strange that.

[Highgate]

It seems there are some people who voted leave based on their fears of the future shape of the EU rather than what it actually looks like now.  If the EU turns into something you don't like leave then, not now.

The UK had a substantial presence and influence in the EU and it could have helped decide the future direction of the EU in it's own interests and in the interests of the community as a whole.  If, in future, something that was unacceptable to the UK were to be implemented, like a compulsory EU Army (seems highly unlikely), leave then.  Why panic and do it right now?

This claim that Remain delivers just as much uncertainty as Leave is just nonsense.  Disingenuous nonsense.  Obviously the future of the EU is uncertain, as is the future of the UK, the future of every other country and the future of every person in every country. That's the thing with the future, it's always uncertain.  This simple truism does not serve to support the argument that Remain was just as unclear as Leave.  Remain was simply continue in the EU as you have been.  Leave was a panoply of options, an amorphous mass of various different arrangements with the EU and the rest of the World.  Many of those Leave option were completely unacceptable to other Leave voters.  And given the ambiguity of 'Leave' confusion and division in parliament ensued.  To argue that the two options in the referendum offered up similar levels of ambiguity just can't be taken seriously.

That's not to say that Leave may not have arguments in it's favour, but the lack of clarity in the referendum have hamstrung efforts to implement Brexit from the very start. 

 

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Bound 2 tease said:

I'm curious, have you actually ever been to Looe ? Do you know where the doctors surgery is located ?  

Or was your visit and overheard conversation a figment of your imagination.

Btw Where did you stay , and on what date, it would be simple task for me to nip around , knock on the door to confirm your visit.

 

Rivercroft Hotel on 31st October. Can send you the invoice if you want.

Failing that, happy to send you some pics if you like?

It did seem quite a sleepy place full of old people...maybe it's you losing your mind? Hope not.

[Norman]

3 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It seems there are some people who voted leave based on their fears of the future shape of the EU rather than what it actually looks like now.  If the EU turns into something you don't like leave then, not now.

The UK had a substantial presence and influence in the EU and it could have helped decide the future direction of the EU in it's own interests and in the interests of the community as a whole.  If, in future, something that was unacceptable to the UK were to be implemented, like a compulsory EU Army (seems highly unlikely), leave then.  Why panic and do it right now?

 

And when do you think that we would get the chance to do that? 

We couldn't negotiate anything with them. So why do you think that would have changed in the future? 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Sorry - what am I vehemently against? Brexit? Wouldn't say that. I'm against a no-deal Brexit for sure, and I'm against BJs deal. But then I am also against revoke. I am patiently waiting for a deal that doesn't sell us all down the river and destroy the economy. I'd like to think that's what you want too?

Destroyed the economy in one day?

Remember you only voted on what was happening the day after Brexit!

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Ah, the good old Currant Bun. No anti Labour bias there.

However I do read their quotes and everywhere Thornberry says "I would campaign" but the Sun seems to have heard "Labour policy is to campaign".

Strange that.

Okay, I'll try the BBC instead

[GboroRam]

Does anyone else think the most vacuous statement/position since this whole sorry saga started is "get Brexit done", like the content of it doesn't matter?

Lets just get it over and done with. If it means slitting our own throats then lets just do it. I'm sick to death of talking about it and the content and quality no longer matter. 

What a stupid way to approach such an important thing.

[Angry Ram]

4 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It seems there are some people who voted leave based on their fears of the future shape of the EU rather than what it actually looks like now.  If the EU turns into something you don't like leave then, not now. What make you think we will get another chance to have a say? We've waited long enough for this one. How do I just go about leaving later then? 

The UK had a substantial presence and influence in the EU and it could have helped decide the future direction of the EU in it's own interests and in the interests of the community as a whole.  If, in future, something that was unacceptable to the UK were to be implemented, like a compulsory EU Army (seems highly unlikely), leave then.  Why panic and do it right now? As above. 

This claim that Remain delivers just as much uncertainty as Leave is just nonsense.  Disingenuous nonsense.  Obviously the future of the EU is uncertain, as is the future of the UK, the future of every other country and the future of every person in every country. That's the thing with the future, it's always uncertain.  This simple truism does not serve to support the argument that Remain was just as unclear as Leave.  Remain was simply continue in the EU as you have been.  Leave was a panoply of options, an amorphous mass of various different arrangements with the EU and the rest of the World.  Many of those Leave option were completely unacceptable to other Leave voters.  And given the ambiguity of 'Leave' confusion and division in parliament ensued.  To argue that the two options in the referendum offered up similar levels of ambiguity just can't be taken seriously. So you just support the leave position? It's difficult to stay and difficult to leave as we don't know the future. People voted to leave now.

Anyway, anyone who uses the word 'Panoply' in an argument, should not be taken seriously.. WTF

That's not to say that Leave may not have arguments in it's favour, but the lack of clarity in the referendum have hamstrung efforts to implement Brexit from the very start. 

 

 

[GboroRam]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Okay, I'll try the BBC instead

I didn't hear her say she would campaign against their deal.

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

Does anyone else think the most vacuous statement/position since this whole sorry saga started is "get Brexit done", like the content of it doesn't matter?

Lets just get it over and done with. If it means slitting our own throats then lets just do it. I'm sick to death of talking about it and the content and quality no longer matter. 

What a stupid way to approach such an important thing.

Well when the alternative is to carry on delaying, costing us hundreds of millions a week and causing uncertainty leading to companies not wanting to invest over here, maybe it's not as stupid as you think?

[SSD]

23 minutes ago, Bound 2 tease said:

Transparency International, the company that Jo Swinson's husband is employed by was given £3.3 million pound funding by the EU.

 

The Swinson family were not given money by the EU for their own personal use, so there is no conflict of interest.

 

If your employer receive funding from the EU, would that make you a beneficiary ? 

 

 

 

 

He’s the chief executive of the company and she didn’t declare any of this information to parliament. You’re telling me this hasn’t influenced her political motives?

[GboroRam]

7 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Anyway, anyone who uses the word 'Panoply' in an argument, should not be taken seriously.. WTF

Pretty obvious to me. Surely we all know what Monopoly is. Panoply must be the opposite.

Which means it's something like Cluedo.

[GboroRam]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well when the alternative is to carry on delaying, costing us hundreds of millions a week and causing uncertainty leading to companies not wanting to invest over here, maybe it's not as stupid as you think?

No, I think it is as stupid as I think. Doesn't matter how suicidal it is, lets just do it and not care what the effect is. Honestly do you support that way of thinking? It might cost hundreds of millions a week but the cost of getting this wrong is incomparable.

[Highgate]

Just now, Norman said:

And when do you think that we would get the chance to do that? 

We couldn't negotiate anything with them. So why do you think that would have changed in the future? 

You couldn't renegotiate any treaties you'd already signed I presume you are alluding to.

In future you need not agree to anything that you find unpalatable, and you could argue your case for the EU's further integration or lack of it, as you saw fit.  Nobody could force the UK into the Euro, why would the EU be able to force the UK into anything it wouldn't want to do?  But it seems a large section of Brexit voters are utterly terrified of what the EU will insist the UK to do in future.

[Norman]

4 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You couldn't renegotiate any treaties you'd already signed I presume you are alluding to.

In future you need not agree to anything that you find unpalatable, and you could argue your case for the EU's further integration or lack of it, as you saw fit.  Nobody could force the UK into the Euro, why would the EU be able to force the UK into anything it wouldn't want to do?  But it seems a large section of Brexit voters are utterly terrified of what the EU will insist the UK to do in future.

Sorry, I didn't realise I had personally voted on the treaties? 

So when I get a vote to personally change it, I shouldn't use it? 

Highgate, more like Highhorse.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

No, I think it is as stupid as I think. Doesn't matter how suicidal it is, lets just do it and not care what the effect is. Honestly do you support that way of thinking? It might cost hundreds of millions a week but the cost of getting this wrong is incomparable.

Yes I do think it is stupid.

Hence why I think politicians should not have backed Parliament into a situation where 'Get Brexit Done' was even considered as a suitable slogan.

 

[Highgate]

Just now, Angry Ram said:

What make you think we will get another chance to have a say? We've waited long enough for this one. How do I just go about leaving later then? 

The same way you got this one, when a political party thinks there are lot of votes in a referendum, it will offer a referendum.  Even if they are against themselves.  That's democracy for you in every country it seems.  Party comes first !   It's true the UK has been incredibly reticent in offering it's citizens but if there are enough votes there, then the parties will follow. 

Incidentally are you saying that you'd be happy to stay in the EU as it is now, if you were sure it wouldn't change for the worse (as you saw it).  But you voted to leave now because you thought you'd never get another chance and you feared what the EU may become?

Just now, Angry Ram said:

So you just support the leave position? It's difficult to stay and difficult to leave as we don't know the future. People voted to leave now.

It's not difficult to stay at all.  It's remarkably simple.  It would have been business as usual.

Just now, Angry Ram said:

Anyway, anyone who uses the word 'Panoply' in an argument, should not be taken seriously.. WTF

Leave was a gallimaufry of options then!   More to your taste?

[Highgate]

Just now, Norman said:

Sorry, I didn't realise I had personally voted on the treaties? 

So when I get a vote to personally change it, I shouldn't use it? 

Highgate, more like Highhorse.

'You' as in your country,  UK.   Sorry, if that was dreadfully confusing.  ?

Vote whatever way you please, as I'm sure you did.

But you suggested that the UK won't be able to negotiate with the EU in future (if it remained) merely because it wasn't able to alter previous treaties it had agreed to in the past. That's plainly false in my opinion and that's what I pointed out to you, not that you shouldn't use your own vote as you see fit (no clue how you got that idea into your head).