Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Joe_ Public

Interesting to hear Andrea Leadsom talking this morning, saying there was "a fair chance" they'd secure a fta by the end of 2020. Hardly the best fighting talk from such a committed brexiteer, bit of a downgrade from her bosses "bags of time" from the other day. How long they'll be able to maintain this fiction will be interesting.

robinph

lawred2 wrote: »

In essence - stop wasting your time. We all know there's no facts coming in return.

No.

Don't give up, if remainers stop trying to talk sense to the Brexiteers then they have won. You'll lose remainers who are bored and "just want brexit done" and you'll loose brexiteers who are finally starting to see the light. Don't give up the fight.

McGiver

lawred2 wrote:

Waste of time arguing with anyone who believes that their feelings trump reality. And you're not going to change their feelings either with your fact based assessment. I'd give up if I were you. It's clear you're not going to get an answer beyond vague intuitions that some unknown future state might prove better for some reason.

This.

Essentially it goes as follows.

Brexit = Making a socially, economically, politically and legally disrupting change to achieve a hypothetical UK prosperity all due to a speculative prediction of a hypothetical state the EU may find itself in distant future.

Not to be mention that the hypothetical EU state (federal EU) is not feasible if the UK is a still the member as it would have use a veto.

Why make a real change now based on a hypothetical future scenario? It defies logic.

McGiver

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Agreed, once the UK faffs off the EU will resume its move towards "ever closer union".

This is the biggest irony of Brexit.

UK acting in a paranoid fear of a scenario which simply cannot happen whilst the UK is a member exercising its right of veto may actually lead to the scenario becoming realistic and happening speedily. UK outside of the more united and federal EU would be much worse for the UK than stalling federalist efforts from the inside.

liamtech

Listening to Boris Johnson talking about his glorious On Nation Conservative party plan is nauseating - literally i feel ill - Disraeli must be turning in his grave

Its the Equivalent of Leo Varadkar running the next election and claiming Fine Gael Policy is in line with James Connolly's thinking on the Irish Republic

Maybe Brexit has one positive guys - bleak as it is, when the ^%$# truly hits the fan, perhaps people will realize what the Conservative Party has turned into - and crush it next time around

Nauseating - where are the political scientists discussing this? Where is the line of academics ready to discredit this clap trap?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Listening to Boris Johnson talking about his glorious On Nation Conservative party plan is nauseating - literally i feel ill - Disraeli must be turning in his grave

The UK economy is performing very, very well given the lies that Osbourne and his acolytes told during the 2016 referendum; impending doom on the "mere vote to Leave" would trigger Biblical economic catastrophe. Economic locusts would be devouring all four corners of the UK.

But it didn't happen. Same with referenda held in Ireland and elsewhere, the economy is weaponised by the EU and pro-EU politicians to compel the ordinary voter to opt for one direction; it's a form of blackmail.

Ultimately, what we Irish people think does not matter.

It's what the British people want. Poll after poll support Johnson (45%+ in one of the latest YouGov polls) and there's good reason for that when you consider the track record of the Conservative Party over the past decade, when you consider what a potential Marxist-Labour-SNP coalition would do, and how Johnson is standing up for the ordinary British voter who opted to Brexit.

Zubeneschamali

McGiver wrote: »

Brexit = Making a socially, economically, politically and legally disrupting change to achieve a hypothetical UK prosperity

I don't think anyone ever bought the prosperity line. The top reasons given by Leave voters for voting Leave back in 2016 were sovereignty, control of borders and immigration.

If some sort of no-deal/very loose association with Europe comes about, it will be very expensive economically, but it will be exactly what Leave voters voted for - maximum English national sovereignty, and I expect Brexiteers to tell us (endlessly) that everyone knew there would be a price to pay, worth every penny, can't put a dollar value on national sovereignty and so forth.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think anyone ever bought the prosperity line. The top reasons given by Leave voters for voting Leave back in 2016 were sovereignty, control of borders and immigration.

I'm glad someone is paying attention!

Disproportionately, the conversation here focusses on the economy (as always), overlooking questions of democracy, sovereignty, border controls, and identity (in fact, outright dismissing them).

You can't put a price on any of those. You either believe in the concept, or you believe in a centralised European Union without borders. The choice is that simple.

Economics is a mere secondary factor, though not insignificant.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK economy is performing very, very well given the lies that Osbourne and his acolytes told during the 2016 referendum; impending doom on the "mere vote to Leave" would trigger Biblical economic catastrophe. Economic locusts would be devouring all four corners of the UK.

But it didn't happen. Same with referenda held in Ireland and elsewhere, the economy is weaponised by the EU and pro-EU politicians to compel the ordinary voter to opt for one direction; it's a form of blackmail.

Ultimately, what we Irish people think does not matter.

It's what the British people want. Poll after poll support Johnson (45%+ in one of the latest YouGov polls) and there's good reason for that when you consider the track record of the Conservative Party over the past decade, when you consider what a potential Marxist-Labour-SNP coalition would do, and how Johnson is standing up for the ordinary British voter who opted to Brexit.

So your argument is that because the UK economy is doing better than predicted during the Referendum - despite the fact that it is worse than before said referendum - that means Brexit is good, and Boris is right?

Here's a thought - revolutionary as it is, have you thought of backing up your claims with facts - i know its difficult to grasp but your opinions would carry SO much more weight if they were backed up with ACTUAL FACTS -

That way instead of saying 'here is my opinion' - you could say 'Here is what i would argue, and here is it backed up by facts and figures'!

EXAMPLE!

I think people would vote differently in a second referendum, because the electorate are beginning to realize Brexit was a mistake - My opinion

i could leave it there you see, but then what i do is add this link;

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-eu-how-would-you-vote-2/

-which demonstrates that polls suggest i am correct - thats called 'Supporting evidence' -

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm glad someone is paying attention!

Disproportionately, the conversation here focusses on the economy (as always), overlooking questions of democracy, sovereignty, border controls, and identity (in fact, outright dismissing them).

You can't put a price on any of those. You either believe in the concept, or you believe in a centralised European Union without borders. The choice is that simple.

Economics is a mere secondary factor, though not insignificant.

And yet the Tories have run nearly every recent campaign on the basis that they are good for the economy and Labour are bad. Even now, you hear many Tories come out to say the Corbyn would destroy the economy.

But you seem to think economy doesn't matter. So again, who is going to pay for all this?

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm glad someone is paying attention!

Disproportionately, the conversation here focusses on the economy (as always), overlooking questions of democracy, sovereignty, border controls, and identity (in fact, outright dismissing them).

You can't put a price on any of those. You either believe in the concept, or you believe in a centralised European Union without borders. The choice is that simple.

Economics is a mere secondary factor, though not insignificant.

So Brexit is a "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" kinda thing??

Except, you were never on your knees and you have all the control you have ever wanted or needed , it's just that your politicians chose to never use them and to blame the EU for everything they themselves ever did wrong for the last 40+ years.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Here's a thought - revolutionary as it is, have you thought of backing up your claims with facts - i know its difficult to grasp but your opinions would carry SO much more weight if they were backed up with ACTUAL FACTS -

That way instead of saying 'here is my opinion' - you could say 'Here is what i would argue, and here is it backed up by facts and figures'!

EXAMPLE!

I think people would vote differently in a second referendum, because the electorate are beginning to realize Brexit was a mistake - My opinion

i could leave it there you see, but then what i do is add this link;

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-eu-how-would-you-vote-2/

-which demonstrates that polls suggest i am correct - thats called 'Supporting evidence' -

Quite bizarre how you now quote polls. When I quoted a poll yesterday, you had this to say:

liamtech wrote: »

I think a sprinkle of cold water in the face of those who have become triumphant before the game has even reached half time, is not a bad thing. and might i remind you sir, that the polls leading up to, and on the very night of the referendum, proved to be incorrect.

This game is only just beginning, and your boy has a tendency to score own goals in previous matches -

4 Weeks to go

But when you find a poll that agrees with your politics, that's it - we must accept it as "evidence" for your position. No further discussion required.

In terms of requesting evidence, I've already outlined evidence that supports the view of my previous post.

Perhaps you missed it, but here it is again:

Deleted User wrote: »

Really!?

Compare the below with what was claimed would happen if a mere vote to Leave were made:

With the 0.3pc expansion reported on Monday, Britain has now had 13 quarters of economic growth since the Brexit referendum. The evidence is irrefutable: the UK economy has grown faster than Germany, France and the eurozone as a whole for most of the last two years. It is has outgrown several west European states even since the vote.

Totting up the exact numbers, it is no longer excusable for the Remainer establishment, the Liberal Democrats, and allied think tanks, to keep claiming that the UK economy is 3pc smaller than it would have been without Brexit, or that we are “3pc poorer” in Westminster parlance.

The total accumulated growth for the UK is 4.9pc. This compares with Belgium (4.7pc), or Germany (4.7pc) if we generously assume that there is no German contraction in the third quarter when the final result comes out later this week, not to mention Italy (3.2pc).

George Osbourne before the EU referendum:

Publishing Treasury analysis, he said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.

David Cameron said it was the "self-destruct option" for the country.

But Boris Johnson dismissed the study as "more propaganda" from the Remain side which he claimed was "rattled".
And it's always the Leave side accused of "lies" during the referendum.

Boris Johnson turned out to be right, much to the chagrin of Remainers.

And this:

George Osborne will warn that he would have to fill the £30bn black hole in public finances triggered by a vote to leave the European Union by hiking income tax, alcohol and petrol duties and making massive cuts to the NHS, schools and defence.

Brexit Conservatives have been shown, consistently, to be on the right side of the economic argument - and are likely, with this track record, to continue to do so.

liamtech

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So Brexit is a "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" kinda thing??

Except, you were never on your knees and you have all the control you have ever wanted or needed , it's just that your politicians chose to never use them and to blame the EU for everything they themselves ever did wrong for the last 40+ years.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think anyone ever bought the prosperity line. The top reasons given by Leave voters for voting Leave back in 2016 were sovereignty, control of borders and immigration.

If some sort of no-deal/very loose association with Europe comes about, it will be very expensive economically, but it will be exactly what Leave voters voted for - maximum English national sovereignty, and I expect Brexiteers to tell us (endlessly) that everyone knew there would be a price to pay, worth every penny, can't put a dollar value on national sovereignty and so forth.

That is basically it - this is about 'Pride now. Pragmatism later if ever' - its about voting to set your house on fire, in the belief that the new house, if and when built, will be SO MUCH better - and when it is pointed out that this is foolish, the cry is Traitor! Sell Out!

Its also about England taking on a non-existent suffering that it 'claims to have endured' - which it is now 'shedding to become a free and independent nation'! - it is an idea that soaked into Britain, via the extreme ERG Tory's and the right wing media, to suggest that Britain (an Imperial Power in its Time), has been colonized and oppressed - by Germany The European Union

Fintan O Toole put it best

Britain Invented ways in which it was oppressed, in order to justify this act of economic self harm in the name of liberty and Freedom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOSj6WYCiEU

Britain Invented ways in which it was oppressed, in order to justify this act of economic self harm in the name of liberty and Freedom

I can only speak for myself, but arguing in favour of enhanced sovereignty, border controls and democracy does not mean we believe that the EU is a "colonizer" and "oppressor".

The EU is pooled sovereignty in favour of a centralized political framework. That's fine. Nobody is being colonized or oppressed.

But that's not the only game in town.

So whilst I do not believe that the EU is a colonizer or oppressor, it doesn't mean that the UK cannot leave to pursue a different form of politics.

It's just sleazy, lazy journalism from Fintan O'Toole; demonizing ordinary people in a slobby, snobby, elitist, and patronizing manner

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite bizarre how you now quote polls. When I quoted a poll yesterday, you had this to say:

But when you find a poll that agrees with your politics, that's it - we must accept it as "evidence" for your position. No further discussion required.

In terms of requesting evidence, I've already outlined evidence that supports the view of my previous post.

Perhaps you missed it, but here it is again:

We both know that a Poll Demonstrating that in a straight choice on LEAVE REMAIN - is something COMPLETELY different to a Poll Based on a FPTP Election

and i must highlight that i pointed to this clearly yesterday

liamtech wrote: »

We really wont know for sure until 2-3 weeks for now. We haven't seen any proper head to head debates, nor have we seen proper scrutinization of the various political positions..

However even on these figures it is damning for the remain side, given Britain's antiquated FPTP system . Im not going to argue this with you, you are in favor of Brexit, fair enough. You are also in favor of several elements of what Brexit means, which i disagree with - lets agree to disagree shall we?

But to your argument that 45% now favor the conservatives, i would simply reply that by said logic, 55% do NOT favor said party. Even if you add the Brexit Party to the mix you arrive at a 50/50ish position. So its not over yet, perhaps keep the champagne on ice for now, my friend

You see the highlighted part? Toward the bottom? That highlights IN BOLD, the Figures? dont you think its odd that those figures are some what in line with the LEAVE REMAIN polls which you dismiss?

As to your quoting of economic figures - the government spent months, arguably years, since the 2016 referendum attempting to prop up the economy - so yes the disaster has not happened yet - but then neither has Brexit has it?

Deleted User wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but arguing in favour of enhanced sovereignty, border controls and democracy does mean we believe that the EU is a "colonizer" and "oppressor".

The EU is pooled sovereignty in favour of a centralized political framework. That's fine. Nobody is being colonized or oppressed.

But that's not the only game in town.

So whilst I do not believe that the EU is a colonizer or oppressor, it doesn't mean that the UK cannot leave to pursue a different form of politics.

It's just sleazy, lazy journalism from Fintan O'Toole; demonizing ordinary people in a slobby, snobby, elitist, and patronizing manner.

Who is 'We' in this argument? WE do not view the EU as an oppressor of our rights my friend - you do - and if by WE you are referring to the Uk electorate, then the previous Poll on Leave/Remain demonstrates that 'WE' do not believe that

And in your assault on Fintan O'Toole, an articulate intelligent pragmatic Journalist, who i sometimes disagree with, but would always respect, let me Edit your quote to make it more genuine

'It's just sleazy, lazy journalism from Fintan O'Toole ANYONE IN THE MEDIA WHO DISAGREES WITH ME AND MY FELLOW HARD RIGHT BREXITEERS; demonizing ordinary people in a slobby, snobby, elitist, and patronizing manner.'

much better

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

I can only speak for myself, but arguing in favour of enhanced sovereignty, border controls and democracy does mean we believe that the EU is a "colonizer" and "oppressor".

Do you think the Germans, French, Italians - or Irish for that matter - feel any less German, French, Italian or Irish because they are part of the EU? Any less soveteign because they have agreed to share some rules with others? Any less as nations because their borders are unmarked? Do they feel their cultures are threatened by allowing Spaniards or Czechs live among them?

Of course they don't, because they are secure and confident enough in their own identities.

If you feel oppressed by being part if the most successful political and economic project in human history, you have much bigger problems to worry about.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

We both know that a Poll Demonstrating that in a straight choice on LEAVE REMAIN - is something COMPLETELY different to a Poll Based on a FPTP Election

Who is 'We' in this argument? WE do not view the EU as an oppressor of our rights my friend - you do - and if by WE you are referring to the Uk electorate, then the previous Poll on Leave/Remain demonstrates that 'WE' do not believe that

And in your assault on Fintan O'Toole, an articulate intelligent pragmatic Journalist, who i sometimes disagree with, but would always respect, let me Edit your quote to make it more genuine

'It's just sleazy, lazy journalism from Fintan O'Toole ANYONE IN THE MEDIA WHO DISAGREES WITH ME AND MY FELLOW HARD RIGHT BREXITEERS; demonizing ordinary people in a slobby, snobby, elitist, and patronizing manner.'

much better

Four points in response:

• It doesn't matter; a poll is a poll. Both are subject to intense pressures during a referendum or general election campaign. Furthermore, we're obliged to implement the first, and if a second is demanded a reasonable time later, that can also be held.
• Second, I made an error in my previous post. I said "we believe the EU is an oppressor and colonizer", it should have said "we do not believe...". I've since corrected my earlier post. Perhaps you can reply to that view instead.
• Very convenient of you to casually dismiss Osbourne's overt lies during the campaign. He didn't say "in the distant future when Brexit is implemented", he said a "mere vote to Leave".
• Finally, I stand by my view of O'Toole. He invents - without a shred of evidence - a vision of Brexiteers that I have never held, never heard from other Brexiteers I know, and I know that the vast majority of Brexiteers do not hold that extreme view. This is merely opinion and waffle on behalf of O'Toole.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

Four points in response:

• It doesn't matter; a poll is a poll. Both are subject to intense pressures during a referendum or general election campaign. Furthermore, we're obliged to implement the first, and if a second is demanded a reasonable time later, that can also be held.
• Second, I made an error in my previous post. I said "we believe the EU is an oppressor and colonizer", it should have said "we do not believe...". I've since corrected my earlier post. Perhaps you can reply to that view instead.
• Very convenient of you to casually dismiss Osbourne's overt lies during the campaign. He didn't say "in the distant future when Brexit is implemented", he said a "mere vote to Leave".
• Finally, I stand by my view of O'Toole. He invents - without a shred of evidence - a vision of Brexiteers that I have never held, never heard from other Brexiteers I know, and I know that the vast majority of Brexiteers do not hold that extreme view. This is merely opinion and waffle on behalf of O'Toole.

You are joking right?

That would require self awareness. This is quite clearly a ridiculous expectation.

So because someone who possessed delusions of oppression didn't detail to you the levels of their delusions - you conclude that those delusions don't exist!?

You do know what a delusion is? And you know how delusions work right!?

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Four points in response:

• It doesn't matter; a poll is a poll. Both are subject to intense pressures during a referendum or general election campaign. Furthermore, we're obliged to implement the first, and if a second is demanded a reasonable time later, that can also be held.
• Second, I made an error in my previous post. I said "we believe the EU is an oppressor and colonizer", it should have said "we do not believe...". I've since corrected my earlier post. Perhaps you can reply to that view instead.
• Very convenient of you to casually dismiss Osbourne's overt lies during the campaign. He didn't say "in the distant future when Brexit is implemented", he said a "mere vote to Leave".
• Finally, I stand by my view of O'Toole. He invents - without a shred of evidence - a vision of Brexiteers that I have never held, never heard from other Brexiteers I know, and I know that the vast majority of Brexiteers do not hold that extreme view. This is merely opinion and waffle on behalf of O'Toole.

O'Toole expressed an opinion. Dismissing it while being something you are perfectly entitled to do as being lazy or somehow sleazy for some reason, it just shows that you can't actually engage meaningfully. We had all sorts of victimhood narratives trotted out during the referendum campaign based on lies and nonsense. The idea of buccaneering global Britain is borderline perverse, especially considering that they can't handle an Irishman of partially Indian descent without caving. Hardly bodes well for the meetings with Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi.

I don't know why you're trotting out George Osborne either. He's not the patron saint of remain voters. He's a Conservative who imposed austerity measures that have been linked to 120,000 deaths because of his ideology.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm glad someone is paying attention!

Disproportionately, the conversation here focusses on the economy (as always), overlooking questions of democracy, sovereignty, border controls, and identity (in fact, outright dismissing them).

That someone isn't you ... :rolleyes:
Democracy - over numerous iterations of this thread we have discussed this point and concluded (with numerous proofs) that the EU as an institution is arguably more democratic (and accountable) than the UK.
Sovereignty - we're still waiting for you to provide specific examples of reclaimed sovereignty that will make a difference to the lives of ordinary British people post Brexit.
Border Controls - within the last week we have asked you repeatedly to explain why you believe that the government that has chosen not to enforce existing border controls will suddenly decide to enforce them post-Brexit; and to explain how these controls will be enhanced by removing the UK from pan-European security cooperation structures.
Identity - whose identity? The Scots have no trouble being Scots; the Welsh have no trouble being Welsh; half the Northern Irish have no trouble being Irish, and the other half are so sure of their British identity that they have made Westminster dance to their tune for the best part of 100 years. That just leaves the English, who are prepared to give up the protection of their cultural markers on the EU/world stage for the sake of ... umm ... uhhh ... well, blue passports (which they could have had at any time).

Perhaps you should spend this week re-reading the 12 threads that make up this discussion before you come back yet again with the same old slogans and getting yourself all worked up about imaginary threats.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know why you're trotting out George Osborne either. He's not the patron saint of remain voters. He's a Conservative who imposed austerity measures that have been linked to 120,000 deaths because of his ideology.

Precisely because, as Chancellor, he was a leading voice in the Remain campaign and, with that position, comes power and knowledge and influence on how the economy will impact people's lives. It's often trotted out that it was the Leave side rampant with lies, yet the Remain side almost gets a free pass, or some convenient excuses are cooked up to wish the problem away.

In terms of Fintan O'Toole, you have just conceded he manufactured an opinion, no more valuable than the next persons. I'll argue with evidence and fact, not opinion.

Third, the link you provided does not come close to the misleading conclusion you've spelled out. Here is what the link actually says:

A report by academics at University College London published this week found a link between restrictions on health and social care spending and an estimated 45,000 more deaths between 2010 and 2014 than there would have been had previous trends continued.

This is not an estimate of how many could have been avoided, the authors stressed. Nor is it an estimate of the amount of deaths every year.

While lower growth in health and social care spending since 2010 may be behind the increase in deaths, these findings should be treated with caution as the research doesn’t prove this is the case.

Reduced spending is one of a number of possible explanations for the results.

Very different, right?

The 120,000 deaths argument is RT'd around the world, without question, as hard fact. A moment's glance at the report shows something very, very different indeed. It demonstrates that many people are more interested in a misleading headline that aligns with their politics, rather than the internal article facts that spell out something very different indeed.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Precisely because, as Chancellor, he was a leading voice in the Remain campaign and, with that position, comes power and knowledge and influence on how the economy will impact people's lives. It's often trotted out that it was the Leave side rampant with lies, yet the Remain side almost gets a free pass, or some convenient excuses are cooked up to wish the problem away.

In terms of Fintan O'Toole, you have just conceded he manufactured an opinion, no more valuable than the next persons. I'll argue with evidence and fact, not opinion.

All opinions are manufactured. If O'Toole's opinion makes you uncomfortable then dismiss it but it's not a very intellectual or convincing thing to do.

Osborne was summarily dismissed as chancellor whereas Johnson and Gove saw their careers improve to say nothing of the unelected Dominic Cummings. One side's lies cost them, the other was rewarded handsomely.

Deleted User wrote: »

Very different, right?.

I did say "link" not "definite indisputable cause".

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All opinions are manufactured. If O'Toole's opinion makes you uncomfortable then dismiss it but it's not a very intellectual or convincing thing to do.

Osborne was summarily dismissed as chancellor whereas Johnson and Gove saw their careers improve to say nothing of the unelected Dominic Cummings. One side's lies cost them, the other was rewarded handsomely.



I did say "link" not "definite indisputable cause".

What's "not intellectual" is posting an opinion without evidence or facts to back them up. When O'Toole comes back with the evidence, I'll give him the time of day that he may deserve.

In terms of Osbourne, you haven't admitted - again - that he lied to the electorate. Are you willing to admit it, now?

Third, anyone can "link" a study to a conclusion. What matters is that the conclusion stands up on its own merits. That's what academic reports are supposed to provide, not ambiguous and tenuous political conclusions. Now that you've concluded there is no "definite" link, we can leave that report to one side until the "definite" evidence comes to light.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

[*]Finally, I stand by my view of O'Toole. He invents - without a shred of evidence - a vision of Brexiteers that I have never held, never heard from other Brexiteers I know, and I know that the vast majority of Brexiteers do not hold that extreme view. This is merely opinion and waffle on behalf of O'Toole.
[/LIST]

You've just reminded me of FOT's recent takedown of racist Rod Liddles awful brexit book.

“Never,” Rod Liddle writes in his jeremiad on the “betrayal” of Brexit, “have so many blameless people in this country been held in such contempt, or been subject to such vilification by an elite.” Really? Who wrote in 2014 of Britain as “a nation of broken families clamouring about their entitlements siring ill-educated and undisciplined kids unfamiliar with the concept of right and wrong”? Who described with relish “the hulking fat tattooed chavmonkey standing in the queue at Burger King”? Who characterised the British masses as inhabiting “a dumbed-down culture”, being in thrall to “the background fugue of idiocy, the moronic inferno, of celebrity ****stories”, and spending their time “watching TV, masturbating to pornography on the internet, getting drunk”? That would be Liddle in his last book, whose title, Selfish Whining Monkeys, may just possibly have had a slight whiff of contempt and vilification."

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

What's "not intellectual" is posting an opinion without evidence or facts to back them up. When O'Toole comes back with the evidence, I'll give him the time of day that he may deserve.

In terms of Osbourne, you haven't admitted - again - that he lied to the electorate. Are you willing to admit it, now?.

No, I'm not. A statement is only a lie when the party issuing it knows that it is untrue.

O'Toole is not a poster on this thread so refrain from such silly statements please.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

What's "not intellectual" is posting an opinion without evidence or facts to back them up. When O'Toole comes back with the evidence, I'll give him the time of day that he may deserve.

In terms of Osbourne, you haven't admitted - again - that he lied to the electorate. Are you willing to admit it, now?

Third, anyone can "link" a study to a conclusion. What matters is that the conclusion stands up on its own merits. That's what academic reports are supposed to provide, not ambiguous and tenuous political conclusions. Now that you've concluded there is no "definite" link, we can leave that report to one side until the "definite" evidence comes to light.

Did you read his book, from where the option was detailed and examined.

He put together a very comprehensive basis on which his opinion was based. The loss of empire, the need for a "them" to blame, the fact the England had never been under control (well not since the Romans) and as such they have no idea what a loss of sovereignty really means.

These cries of loss of freedom, of loss of decision making, of loss of sovereignty, are highly distasteful coming from a country that not only raided other countries but took away all their rights and tried to take over their culture.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, I'm not. A statement is only a lie when the party issuing it knows that it is untrue.

This is the first time on this forum I've heard a Tory Chancellor defended for being honest.

That's a first.

I'm confident it has nothing to do with the fact he was a Remainer.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the first time on this forum I've heard a Tory Chancellor defended for being honest.

That's a first.

I'm confident it has nothing to do with the fact he was a Remainer.

that's not actually what he said or did really..

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

that's not actually what he said or did really..

He was directed asked whether he would claim that Osbourne lied to the electorate. His response:

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, I'm not. A statement is only a lie when the party issuing it knows that it is untrue.

If he claims that Osbourne is not a liar, by implication it's a conclusion that Osbourne is telling the truth, i.e. being honest.

Regardless, I think it's quite obvious to conclude that Osbourne harvested every trick in the book to terrify the population. He failed - and thank goodness for that.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

He was directed asked whether he would claim that Osbourne lied to the electorate. His response:



If he claims that Osbourne is not a liar, by implication it's a conclusion that Osbourne is telling the truth, i.e. being honest.

Regardless, I think it's quite obvious to conclude that Osbourne harvested every trick in the book to terrify the population. He failed - and thank goodness for that.

eh nope - it's not binary.

He just said he wasn't knowingly dishonest. There's a vast spectrum between that and being a liar.

People are unintentionally wrong and make mistakes all the time... Doesn't make them automatic liars.

I do however think that Osborne was an idealogically obsessed arsehole who measured everything on paper. I'm sure he more than believed his own utterings.