[Politics] Brexit

[cunning fergus]

Economically speaking, your outlook seems to be that everyone who does not share your own, extreme left-wing view of the world is "hard right", including a significant chunk of the Labour Party, what little remains of an organised centre and the entirety of the Tories, from the moderates to the swivel-eyed fringe.

You're entitled to your us-and-them, class warrior outlook, but all you're really doing is enabling your fellow-travellers on what is the actual extreme right of British politics - the ultra-nationalists, the deregulators and the disaster capitalists who hope and expect to make a killing out of chaos. And who do you think will pay for that? The laughter you can hear is Redwood, JRM and the banker chums, and they're laughing at you for voting for it.

The trouble with your rants is that they are incoherent?

If there are bankers rubbing their hands at Brexit they are in a tiny minority, as confirmed by the BBA.

https://www.bba.org.uk/news/press-r...gative-impact-on-their-business/#.XE3eUSenyhB

I think the problem with you is that you are so used to banging on about the legions of brown shirted facsists ready to take control of the U.K you’ve lost sight of who is right and left wing.

The bankers are in favour of the EU because it delivers exactly what they and their capitalist chums in global business want, de-regulated privatised industry and free market economics. Even “protectionist” arrangements in play with the EU are loaded in favour of the rich and their land owning chums.

You are right about Labour though, they won’t be truly left wing till they change clause 4 back to its original state........bloody capitalist pigs.

 

[cunning fergus]

Accurate summary.

Some left wing NSC posters seized on Macron’s election, as being everything the UK should have in a leader to unify and give “social justice”.

They failed to check his bio.

His electioneering strategy was to lie that he was unifying force in the centre. In reality he’s a lifelong huge capitalist, now trying to dismantle a hundred years worth of very strong employment codes in favour of employees. Hence the riots and deaths.

The biggest irony was that Le Pen was called out as being extreme far right, and that is evidently the case on some of her nationalist minded policies.

Economically though I read her policies included protecting workers rights in law and nationalising some previously state industries which are not right wing, or if they are they are certainly to the left of Macron’s.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I know that as well as being put on someones ignore list, people providing personal anecdotes to you, such as [MENTION=12947]Lincoln Imp[/MENTION] has done here, causes you great distress as you can't provide any of your own as that would potentially compromise your privacy, discretion and anonymity that you value greatly. I understand this entirely. I'm sure if you point that out to him and ask nicely he'll stop doing it to you.

Au contraire, people who can't hold their own in debate are free to retreat to whatever safe space they need ... no skin of my nose. But It's funny how many times people who claim they have (or had) me on ignore still go on and on and on about it. They seem quite obssessed.

I treat all personal anecdotes about friends/ family/ experiences that always conveniently chime with a preconceived partisan pov with a necessary level of scepticism. Much prefer my (any) arguments to rely on better evidence.

 

[pb21]

Sure, you only need to look at France to get that insight. Macron’s Thatcherite attack on the French labour market protections and deregulation of their economic system is not going as well as he hoped.

The gilet jaunes maybe a umbrella for multiple concerns but this is building up to be his miners strike moment.

Economically speaking he is and always was hard right........as you would expect from an ex Banker from Rothschilds, not that anyone in the media would report it that way, he was typically referred to centre left as I recall.

Laughable.

So how do you envisage that the UK will move towards the left, or presumably 'hard left' post Brexit?

It seems to me that the hard right are not only trying to shape Brexit(and to an extent succeeding), but are also well poised to capitalise on and exploit the ensuing uncertainty.

What is the hard left going to do?

 

[ManOfSussex]

Au contraire, people who can't hold their own in debate are free to retreat to whatever safe space they need ... no skin of my nose. But It's funny how many times people who claim they have (or had) me on ignore still go on and on and on about it. They seem quite obssessed.

I treat all personal anecdotes about friends/ family/ experiences that always conveniently chime with a preconceived partisan pov with a necessary level of scepticism. Much prefer my (any) arguments to rely on better evidence.

That's fine. I shan't tell you about my recent constituency surgery appointment with my MP then. Obviously me and my MP value our privacy and discretion as much as you do, so what went on and was said shall remain strictly between the consenting adults present. I'm sure you'll understand.

What I will say though is she didn't appear to remember me after that incident in Sainsbury's some years back. I can understand your necessary level of scepticism at that dynamite revelation, but it's true, she didn't remember me. As a result I had 'It started with a kiss' by Hot Chocolate going through my head the whole meeting:

'You don't remember do you?'
'You don't remember do you?'
'You don't remember do you!?'

 

[Pavilionaire]

What is more simple to understand is that there are deep structural problems that persist with the euro, fiscal integration is required to make it crisis proof. I would agree their are difficulties with that at the moment politically, but that does not mean the objective of the EU is not full fiscal integration.

If it’s not then the EU and the economists/politicians signing up to it are well, profoundly stupid and we must leave the EU at the earliest opportunity.

But they are not stupid, the euro was a mechanism in itself to force full fiscal union, in order to deliver the federal state you say there is no realistic chance of.

So, either the EU is stupid (which we know they are not as referenced above) or those that say a federal EU is not going to happen are?

Simples.

In the mid 70s when we joined the EEC our economy was f*cked and our Empire was gone. Membership of the EU has helped our economy, restore our global influence AND - crucially - the timely arrival of EU labour has plugged a demographic gap in our ageing population. That is labour we didn't pay a penny to train who have delivered when we needed them, and who are now thinking about going home having been kicked in the teeth by our shower of sh*t government.

I'm sick of the EU being run down when it has been of great benefit for this country.

 

[Hastings gull]

That's fine. I shan't tell you about my recent constituency surgery appointment with my MP then. Obviously me and my MP value our privacy and discretion as much as you do, so what went on and was said shall remain strictly between the consenting adults present. I'm sure you'll understand.

What I will say though is she didn't appear to remember me after that incident in Sainsbury's some years back. I can understand your necessary level of scepticism at that dynamite revelation, but it's true, she didn't remember me. As a result I had 'It started with a kiss' by Hot Chocolate going through my head the whole meeting:

'You don't remember do you?'
'You don't remember do you?'
'You don't remember do you!?'

But why should she remember you -she must meet thousands of folk in her job. Is it your ego here or perhaps you are just . .well non-descript.

 

[Hastings gull]

In the mid 70s when we joined the EEC our economy was f*cked and our Empire was gone. Membership of the EU has helped our economy, restore our global influence AND - crucially - the timely arrival of EU labour has plugged a demographic gap in our ageing population. That is labour we didn't pay a penny to train who have delivered when we needed them, and who are now thinking about going home having been kicked in the teeth by our shower of sh*t government.

I'm sick of the EU being run down when it has been of great benefit for this country.

I am sure that you right when you say that the EU has done some good for the country -I suspect that the benefits have been largely unsung and thus unnoticed. But; the many thousands (but not all, of course) of eastern Europeans here working are in relatively unskilled jobs, and so it is hardly as if foreign governments have paid to train them. The government did not vote to leave the EU - the electorate did. And as to your assertion that EU citizens are thinking of going home, rather more evidence than that would be needed to make the case that you are trying to do. All I know is the ones who live near me and I see on a virtual day to day basis, have no intention of going home.

 

[Baldseagull]

Comparitively speaking the federal EU is more likely than a socialist Gov in U.K. I grant you that, but what’s important is we understand the objectives at hand. I am clear that is what I want and can articulate my view on benefits etc.

You advocate a federalist future for the EU and amongst the remain group on here I think you are an outlier, which makes me wonder how committed pro EU people really are to the EU. Whilst I disagree with their views I can see the capitalist, big business arguments, we stay in or lose millions of jobs etc.

This dynamic is strange, it is consistent with how U.K. politicians ignore the changes being made (and planned) in the EU that indirectly or directly will impact on the U.K., whether we are in or out. This is a strategic point of course and some people are not strategic minded.

You seem to possess that insight, so what do you think the benefits of federalism are?

All the benefits of the EU plus. It retains considerable powers at state level, but also prevents any state from being too extreme, corrupt or oppressive, and the State Governments can also be a balance to prevent the Federal Government from becoming any of these. A Federal EU would have a single military, and it makes sense that it would be a more useful and powerful military for less expense than 28 separate ones. A powerful military and a powerful economy gives more influence in the world.
The structure and which powers should be held locally and which centrally is crucial to creating the most benefits and fewest problems.

 

[Mtoto]

The trouble with your rants is that they are incoherent?

If there are bankers rubbing their hands at Brexit they are in a tiny minority, as confirmed by the BBA.

https://www.bba.org.uk/news/press-r...gative-impact-on-their-business/#.XE3eUSenyhB

I think the problem with you is that you are so used to banging on about the legions of brown shirted facsists ready to take control of the U.K you’ve lost sight of who is right and left wing.

The bankers are in favour of the EU because it delivers exactly what they and their capitalist chums in global business want, de-regulated privatised industry and free market economics. Even “protectionist” arrangements in play with the EU are loaded in favour of the rich and their land owning chums.

You are right about Labour though, they won’t be truly left wing till they change clause 4 back to its original state........bloody capitalist pigs.

Don't recall ever mentioning legions of fascists, brown-shirted or otherwise, or claiming that they are about to take over. Ultra-nationalists and knuckle-dragging racists, yes - I've pointed out, more than once, that they are among the most enthusiastic of your fellow-travellers on the Brexit bus, even if you seem oddly reluctant to acknowledge them.

De-regulated is not the opposite of regulated. It's a question of degree. You want a lot more, the right-wing pro-Brexit types want a lot less. The moderate view is somewhere in the middle but it does tend to be a characteristic of extremists that they can deal only with black and white. When it comes to shades of grey, they often mistake it for incoherence and describing Corbyn's Labour Party as capitalist pigs rather proves the point.

 

[Hastings gull]

All the benefits of the EU plus. It retains considerable powers at state level, but also prevents any state from being too extreme, corrupt or oppressive, and the State Governments can also be a balance to prevent the Federal Government from becoming any of these. A Federal EU would have a single military, and it makes sense that it would be a more useful and powerful military for less expense than 28 separate ones. A powerful military and a powerful economy gives more influence in the world.

The structure and which powers should be held locally and which centrally is crucial to creating the most benefits and fewest problems.

whilst you may well be right about the influence that the EU would have, I would be very sceptical that a single EU army would be effective; I am pretty certain that each government would want and indeed use a veto, if they thought that their interests or allies would be harmed in any way. Also, if, for example, the Argentinians invade the Falklands again, and our army was fully integrated into a EU force, would all EU governments be happy to back any attempt to regain the islands. I very much doubt it.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That's fine. I shan't tell you about my recent constituency surgery appointment with my MP then. Obviously me and my MP value our privacy and discretion as much as you do, so what went on and was said shall remain strictly between the consenting adults present. I'm sure you'll understand.

What I will say though is she didn't appear to remember me after that incident in Sainsbury's some years back. I can understand your necessary level of scepticism at that dynamite revelation, but it's true, she didn't remember me. As a result I had 'It started with a kiss' by Hot Chocolate going through my head the whole meeting:

'You don't remember do you?'
'You don't remember do you?'
'You don't remember do you!?'

Hope her security team are aware you may be stalking her ...

Speaking of meeting people we have major political differences with I had the pleasure of seeing Gina Miller last week ...

 

[Baldseagull]

whilst you may well be right about the influence that the EU would have, I would be very sceptical that a single EU army would be effective; I am pretty certain that each government would want and indeed use a veto, if they thought that their interests or allies would be harmed in any way. Also, if, for example, the Argentinians invade the Falklands again, and our army was fully integrated into a EU force, would all EU governments be happy to back any attempt to regain the islands. I very much doubt it.

My post is in the context of a full Federal EU or United States of Europe if you prefer. A fully federal EU would require a single military, an invasion of the Falkland isles by Argentina may well not be as popular to repel in Spain as it would be in Britain, but the Falkland isles would not be a British overseas territory in that case, it would be an EU overseas territory, and it would require action from the EU, armed or economic, as would an invasion of the Canaries or Madeira. I think Spanish support for claims by Argentina to the Falklands isles would diminish if it were able to see those isles as part of the same Federation as Spain.

 

[ManOfSussex]

But why should she remember you -she must meet thousands of folk in her job. Is it your ego here or perhaps you are just . .well non-descript.

Exactly [MENTION=28630]Hastings gull[/MENTION] She knows she has many a constituency member, like you and me, who voted remain and then voted Peter Chowney in 2017 because we want a better Hastings - For the many, not the few.

Even though you and I wont vote for her, I sort of quite like her too as you do.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I had the pleasure of seeing Gina Miller last week ...

You lucky, lucky.........................

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[TWEET]1089296199079944193[/TWEET]

The government insist they are acting on the will of the people, and bringing in martial law to make sure they do!
It's utter madness.

 

[pastafarian]

You are very good at saying at length what he is saying in regard to what, and what it was not in regard to, I have got that thanks.
What I am asking you for is his working out as to why it might be a good idea in the first instance, you know what I am asking for, and I know why you are not responding to that point.

It will try to rephrase it, just in case you really are misunderstanding me. Why might it make more sense to have a second referendum after a re-negotiation of our membership on the terms agreed?

And you are not very good at saying obviously JRM is not suggesting another referendum after a final deciding binary IN/OUT referendum. The video is therefore misleading.

I didnt bother responding to that because given the circumstances it was blindingly obvious what was meant. In that particular circumstance when Mogg was talking about the sense of the process and a second referendum, or even series of referendums as he was, he was responding about and specifically addressing the points the Foreign Secretary had just made, who had just said a referendum should have a binary answer to a specific proposal, and that it didn’t make sense to be multiple choice and to have an instruction to renegotiate membership of staying IN included in a 3 way referendum choice that already had IN and OUT in it, as the instruction to renegotiate membership of staying IN was not only too vague by its wording but doesn’t fit into an option that already has an IN OUT contained as options, indeed the whole 3 way process according to the Foreign secretary was flawed. Hey presto, up steps Mogg and says yes it might make more sense to get the renegotiated membership instruction completed first and out of the way before going on to a second vote(which would obviously be the final decision vote question)
In theory you can have multiple referendums faffing about, but eventually you arrive at a final referendum where a decision is given. We obviously went for that renegotiation of membership option, but via an election vote instead of a referendum, skipping that 3 way referendum process altogether and simply then having a one off final deciding binary referendum vote to stay IN or get OUT.
Im sure even you are not still going to try and say renegotiating membership terms of staying IN then having a final deciding binary IN/OUT vote is the same as having the final deciding binary IN/OUT vote then entering the negotiations to be OUT that come with that decision…….or maybe you have convinced yourself they are the same thing.

Either way, the video is pants and deliberately misleading when people infer from it that JRM is saying we could have a second referendum after withdrawal negotiations to Leave or having it after an initial IN/OUT referendum, which we had. It has fooled some gullible people though who will no doubt keep posting it.

Did I mention the final deciding binary IN/OUT vote must be FINAL.

 

[pastafarian]

Well I'll give it a go.

I suppose if a 1937 referendum had gone as expected and the 'appeasement means appeasement and everyone else is an undemocratic loon' faction had held sway then world history would have played out differently. Alternatively, if the whining of the headless chickens had led to a second referendum three years later then we might have been able to start placing Spitfire orders in the summer of 1940. That would have been good.

The only other option I suppose is that whiners such as Churchill reacted to the 1937 referendum and said "Bugger that. I'm ignoring it." Obviously the will of the people lot would have been incandescent but they would have be grateful in the long run.

See, there you go. Even in your hypothetical scenario you have the electorate becoming angry at their democratic vote being ignored. And rightly so.
You could apply your hypothetical scenario to any referendum vote on any subject at any time, hindsight or not and you still would arrive every time, at the electorate would be incandescent if their democratic vote was ignored.
The question is what do your do with this knowledge, knowing that people dont like their vote ignored. Do you not even consider ignoring a democratic vote anyway or believe instead it should be respected, knowing full well democracy is the bedrock of society and the public would be furious if it was stolen from them. Or do you act like an undemocratic loon, and as you say, simply say bugger that, lets ignore that vote, they will be grateful in the long run anyway that their democratic vote is ignored

 

[Baldseagull]

And you are not very good at saying obviously JRM is not suggesting another referendum after a final deciding binary IN/OUT referendum. The video is therefore misleading.

I didnt bother responding to that because given the circumstances it was blindingly obvious what was meant. In that particular circumstance when Mogg was talking about the sense of the process and a second referendum, or even series of referendums as he was, he was responding about and specifically addressing the points the Foreign Secretary had just made, who had just said a referendum should have a binary answer to a specific proposal, and that it didn’t make sense to be multiple choice and to have an instruction to renegotiate membership of staying IN included in a 3 way referendum choice that already had IN and OUT in it, as the instruction to renegotiate membership of staying IN was not only too vague by its wording but doesn’t fit into an option that already has an IN OUT contained as options, indeed the whole 3 way process according to the Foreign secretary was flawed. Hey presto, up steps Mogg and says yes it might make more sense to get the renegotiated membership instruction completed first and out of the way before going on to a second vote(which would obviously be the final decision vote question)
In theory you can have multiple referendums faffing about, but eventually you arrive at a final referendum where a decision is given. We obviously went for that renegotiation of membership option, but via an election vote instead of a referendum, skipping that 3 way referendum process altogether and simply then having a one off final deciding binary referendum vote to stay IN or get OUT.
Im sure even you are not still going to try and say renegotiating membership terms of staying IN then having a final deciding binary IN/OUT vote is the same as having the final deciding binary IN/OUT vote then entering the negotiations to be OUT that come with that decision…….or maybe you have convinced yourself they are the same thing.

Either way, the video is pants and deliberately misleading when people infer from it that JRM is saying we could have a second referendum after withdrawal negotiations to Leave or having it after an initial IN/OUT referendum, which we had. It has fooled some gullible people though who will no doubt keep posting it.

Did I mention the final deciding binary IN/OUT vote must be FINAL.

See the bit in bold in your post, can you explain why it might make more sense? Or will you just post another long winded evasion?

 

[pastafarian]

So many brexiteers stamping their feet saying they’ll never vote again for any party, they are done. That works

Maybe not far from the truth.
I have heard people say they would never vote Labour again if they went down the route of telling people to vote again, likewise in fairness heard some saying they would never vote Tory again if A50 was revoked and brexit cancelled. Cant imagine any of them would ever consider the lib dems, simply too toxic for voters that think democracy should be respected.
Not hard to imagine a leap to not voting again for any party again that currently occupies Westminster when voting turns out to have been a pointless exercise if those scenarios happen.
There are numerous ways to voice your opinion in the voting booth though.

The only people itching for an in/out referendum were the right of the Conservatives. Most of the country couldn’t have given two shits about EU membership before Cameron decided he would be the one to wrest control of the party, then along came the liars like Farage and Sacre and sold a pup on the Sovereignty ticket. The people that need blaming for the state of this country are not in Brussels, they are sitting members of the Houses of Parliament.

What a load of nonsense to suggest most of the country didn’t give a hoot about voting on our EU relationship before Cameron finally decided to try and put the matter to bed, the public were screaming for a vote on the issue that they hadn’t had the opportunity to for decades. You are simply rewriting history to fit your own false narrative that no one wanted the vote anyway……most probably because you ended up on the losing side. You seem blissfully ignorant all of a sudden of all those anti EU voters who were not Tories and also ignorant of the pro-EU voters who thought there was no way they would lose and relished the opportunity to vote and put the matter(and UKIP) to bed for a long time.

Cameron makes the referendum pledge January 2013
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

88% of public wanted a referendum on Lisbon Treaty in 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7273668.stm

70% of voters want a referendum on the EU in 2011
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/24/eu-referendum-poll-uk-withdrawal

82% of voters want a referendum on EU in 2012
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...ers-want-referendum-on-Europe-poll-finds.html

Don't recall ever mentioning legions of fascists, brown-shirted or otherwise, or claiming that they are about to take over. Ultra-nationalists and knuckle-dragging racists, yes - I've pointed out, more than once, that they are among the most enthusiastic of your fellow-travellers on the Brexit bus, even if you seem oddly reluctant to acknowledge them.

Hmmm…Im still waiting for someone to explain how wanting a unified immigration policy is racist and I think its quiet well established now there is a racist problem (anti semitism) amongst the labour voting camp many of who are of the remain variety, and if we are talking ultra nationalists….what are your fellow traveller SNP types? Surely they must be ultra nationalist too. How does their belief in whats best for Scotland outside our Union differ from the belief whats best for the UK outside the European Union.
Are you oddly reluctant to acknowledge your own fellow travellers by your own standards?

The government insist they are acting on the will of the people, and bringing in martial law to make sure they do!
It's utter madness.

I don’t believe there will be a need for martial law after leaving the EU with no deal at all, not even remotely. But I guess someone somewhere in Whitehall has a job description to look at all scenarios and make plans for everything even if they don’t make the light of day. If I was in gov and wanted to nudge people toward accepting a negotiated deal I would simply say as well its responsible for any government to simply investigate all scenarios and make plans accordingly.
You then let the press and the wetters put their own spin on it, and before you know it twitter has erupted and the gov are “ bringing in martial law” if it’s a no deal.
The gov doesn’t need to do project fear, they have people like you to do it for them.
Have you told your MP yet to accept a deal or do you want to gamble no deal v you hope you can stop brexit all together?