The Politics Thread 2019

[Highgate]

7 hours ago, Norman said:

People on this thread

If people on this thread really are saying that all people who voted to Leave didn't know or understand what they were voting for then I think they are being unfair.  There are plenty of good reasons to be critical of the EU and there is no doubt that good respectable arguments can be made in favour of leaving the EU.

If, on the other hand, people are saying that a proportion of those who voted Leave did so because they were fed half-truths, lies and fantasies by some obviously unscrupulous politicians then they may very well have a point. 

[GboroRam]

18 minutes ago, Highgate said:

If people on this thread really are saying that all people who voted to Leave didn't know or understand what they were voting for then I think they are being unfair.  There are plenty of good reasons to be critical of the EU and there is no doubt that good respectable arguments can be made in favour of leaving the EU.

If, on the other hand, people are saying that a proportion of those who voted Leave did so because they were fed half-truths, lies and fantasies by some obviously unscrupulous politicians then they may very well have a point. 

I think it's fair to say that "leave" as a position was supported by people who didn't have a consensus of what that means. 

[eddie]

Gordon Brown today telling it like it is...

Quote

"Winning this battle will take time and its outcome cannot be predicted with certainty - but I know one thing for sure: we will never reunite as a nation unless we walk away from such intolerant nationalism.

"But it is a battle that is is difficult because it is not just Farage that we have to worry about.

"Britain is now witnessing a Tory leadership contest the outcome of which will decide not just our relations with Europe but the direction of our country - and one in which Nigel Farage is, the back-seat driver steering the Tory leadership race.

"To the next prime minister, and indeed to all candidates for the Tory leadership, I say you have a fundamental choice: to run against him or race to the bottom with him.

"For when it comes to this toxic them-versus-us nationalism, no prime minister, indeed no candidate for such a national office, can be permitted to equivocate on what is unequivocally wrong."

 

[Carl Sagan]

30 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Yes, is absolutely true that polls aren't elections and should be treated with suspicion. But that doesn't alter my point that if you did somehow know that public opinion had changed (or that the design of the referendum itself was flawed) would you then be correct in insisting on implementing the results of the referendum?  Hypothetically speaking.  If public opinion is unaltered then it will be expressed in the second referendum too....and the outcome will be the same. 

But the question has no meaning. We can't ever know this except through voting. First we had the referendum where Brexit won. Then we had the 2017 general election with 84% of votes going to parties who said they were determined to implement Brexit. Now we've had the European parliament elections - a politics professor and head of the politics school at the University of London calculated the vote based on Westminster constituencies and here it is. 414 Brexit Party MPs. Lib Dems the next biggest party on 76. You can't really get more emphatic:

 

[Carl Sagan]

8 minutes ago, eddie said:

Gordon Brown today telling it like it is...

"British jobs for British workers". It's Gordon Brown who's adept at playing the "intolerant nationalism" card.

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Thats an old Guardian article and dammit, I said I was going to leave this conversation but I have to counter with these;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/21/observer-view-child-grooming-gangs-huddersfield

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rotherham-grooming-gang-sexual-abuse-muslim-islamist-racism-white-girls-religious-extremism-a8261831.html

There is a discussion to be had that isn't taking place, as one of the articles states, 'grooming gangs are not like paedophile rings' and shouldn't be treated as such.  Until we start admitting that there is an underlying factor and educating potential perpetrators and victims the likes of Tommy Robinson will never go away.

Why does it matter if it's an old article? He's still right. Follow him on Twitter and he talks a lot more sense than you do on the issue (he actually *is* unbiased). I'd rather listen to a British born muslim who understands both cultures AND was the chief prosecutor in hundreds of cases so understand the law and the case details as well - over some white identarian on a football forum who keeps dropping coded islamaphobic lines like "underlying factors" into his spiel

I'm done - you claim to "do your research" but won't even read the article because it's "old"

We see you mate 

[eddie]

18 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

But the question has no meaning. We can't ever know this except through voting. First we had the referendum where Brexit won. Then we had the 2017 general election with 84% of votes going to parties who said they were determined to implement Brexit. Now we've had the European parliament elections - a politics professor and head of the politics school at the University of London calculated the vote based on Westminster constituencies and here it is. 414 Brexit Party MPs. Lib Dems the next biggest party on 76. You can't really get more emphatic:

 

If that actually looked a likely scenario towards the termination of this parliament, then I'm fainly sure that a bill would very swiftly be passed bringing in PR. Ad not before time either.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Needless said:

It's like talking to a wall. I'm out.

A wall is more likely to pay attention to the point you're making.

Anyway no mention of walls, you'll probably be labelled a Trump lover. 

[G STAR RAM]

Post removed

[eddie]

14 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

"British jobs for British workers". It's Gordon Brown who's adept at playing the "intolerant nationalism" card.

That was, indeed, a stupid thing for him to say. He also said "Bigoted woman" - but in that instance, he was absolutely spot-on. There are far more stupid things that are said in politics in relation to Brexit, such as...

• Boris Johnson, 02/10/2016: I would vote to stay in the single market. I'm in favour of the single market.
• Michael Gove (02/06/2016): I think the people of this country have had enough of experts.
• David Cameron (21/06/2016): Brits don't quit.
• Nigel Farage (24/06/2016): We won without a single shot being fired (one week after the murder of Jo Cox)
• Theresa May (11/07/2016) Brexit means Brexit

[maxjam]

23 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Why does it matter if it's an old article? He's still right. Follow him on Twitter and he talks a lot more sense than you do on the issue (he actually *is* unbiased). I'd rather listen to a British born muslim who understands both cultures AND was the chief prosecutor in hundreds of cases so understand the law and the case details as well - over some white identarian on a football forum who keeps dropping coded islamaphobic lines like "underlying factors" into his spiel

I'm done - you claim to "do your research" but won't even read the article because it's "old"

We see you mate 

Although I did read the article.

Alternatively maybe you should read the articles I posted, I even took the trouble to post Guardian and Independent ones for you so as not to take you out of your safe space.

One article is from a victim of a grooming gang who I would imagine has just as much insight into the motives of the rapists as Nazir Afzal.

Its very easy to insinuate I'm a racist with 'we see you' but nothing I have written is racist and I'm getting sick of the accusations - prove it or shut up.  If you had bothered to read either article both mention Tommy Robinson in a negative light - hardly a viewpoint I would promote if I was a sympathiser.  You continually mistake my pointing out the reasons that he exists for supporting him.

I'll repeat that there is a debate to be had, but you have to be open minded enough in the first place and not blinded by your ideology to accept that there are problems that you may not like to begin with.

Have the last word, I'm done.

[G STAR RAM]

53 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I think it's fair to say that "leave" as a position was supported by people who didn't have a consensus of what that means. 

That's just a fact, don't think anyone could disagree with that.

However, everyone was clear throughout that Leave could be with a deal or without a deal.

Everyone was clear that Leave meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Assuming your are an advocate for a 'People's Vote' what options would you want available?

[Van der MoodHoover]

22 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Post removed

Dont do that.....the wall might fall down ?

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Dont do that.....the wall might fall down ?

I'll have nobody to hold a conversation with then!

[Van der MoodHoover]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

That's just a fact, don't think anyone could disagree with that.

However, everyone was clear throughout that Leave could be with a deal or without a deal.

Everyone was clear that Leave meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Assuming your are an advocate for a 'People's Vote' what options would you want available?

I dispute these 2 points on the basis that they don't tally with my recollection. 

Happy to be proven incorrect but what I vividly recall from the campaign was...

- a deal would be easy. I don't remember any discussion of a possibility of a no deal. I only remember that starting when Teresa may took office. 

- again, my clear recollection was that the campaign in the referendum was all about leaving the EU and taking back control. There was no analysis or articulation of what "leave" meant until Theresa May took power.

If there is evidence of those things being discussed and defined BEFORE the referendum vote I'll be interested to see it.?

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

I dispute these 2 points on the basis that they don't tally with my recollection. 

Happy to be proven incorrect but what I vividly recall from the campaign was...

- a deal would be easy. I don't remember any discussion of a possibility of a no deal. I only remember that starting when Teresa may took office. 

- again, my clear recollection was that the campaign in the referendum was all about leaving the EU and taking back control. There was no analysis or articulation of what "leave" meant until Theresa May took power.

If there is evidence of those things being discussed and defined BEFORE the referendum vote I'll be interested to see it.?

Maybe you are right and my recollection of the events timeline is incorrect. 

I will do research and revert back.

[eddie]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Maybe you are right and my recollection of the events timeline is incorrect. 

I will do research and revert back.

It's true. See my little quotes above, when Boris (for it is he) said that he was in favour of a 'remaining in the single market' strategy.

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, eddie said:

It's true. See my little quotes above, when Boris (for it is he) said that he was in favour of a 'remaining in the single market' strategy.

But there was also Farage saying even if we left with no deal it would still be better than our current deal (or something along them lines). Although I obviously concede that Farage was not officially part of the Leave campaign. 

[GboroRam]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

But there was also Farage saying even if we left with no deal it would still be better than our current deal (or something along them lines). Although I obviously concede that Farage was not officially part of the Leave campaign. 

Not everyone who voted leave shared Farage's views. You just agreed with that. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Maybe you are right and my recollection of the events timeline is incorrect. 

I will do research and revert back.

I don't know if you've read "Black Swan" by nicholas nassim taleb?

What we might have witnessed with the consequences of the referendum is a black swan event. 

2 characteristics of a black swan event are

1) completely unexpected in advance 

2) can be rationalized in hindsight by making assumptions or recollection which aren't right.

He used the outbreak of civil war in Lebanon as an example. Worth a read as its interesting. 

Anyway, the worry for me is that people like Farage will deliberately reword history so that we do indeed believe that he has been consistent all along and continues to peddle a false narrative. 

Why doesn't he come out and say something like.."ok so we know that a deal is not looking as straightforward as we thought 3 years ago but I believe on balance the decision to leave is still sound for following reasons..."

Instead we have this awful rhetoric of something being "stolen" because we knew all along that leave might have to be with no deal. I think he's lying but if you do come across stuff that proves me wrong then I will hold my hands up.

Have to say I think its unlikely but perhaps that's because I detest the man.