Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ArmaniJeanss

Polls getting worse for Labour. I'd been doing some straw-clutching at how things developed in 2017 but we are into the period now where they had started to turn towards Labour.

Kantar give Tories an 18 point lead.

First Up

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

Kantar give Tories an 18 point lead.

Doesn't surprise me. Corbyn is hopeless.

Stop moaning ffs

Dunno. Can see Corbyn taking Johnson apart tonight in the debate.

gooch2k9

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Dunno. Can see Corbyn taking Johnson apart tonight in the debate.

If they're actually pushed on questions this could be the case. more likely Johnson will be allowed skate past questions with no detail and the host will have to move onto the next one.

Stop moaning ffs

gooch2k9 wrote: »

If they're actually pushed on questions this could be the case. more likely Johnson will be allowed skate past questions with no detail and the host will have to move onto the next one.

That’s exactly what he’ll do all night and it’ll go horribly for him. He can’t waffle bluster and non answer and divert all night. He will though and it will backfire

Leonard Hofstadter

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Dunno. Can see Corbyn taking Johnson apart tonight in the debate.

Entirely possible, Boris has been absolutely shocking in anything I've seen so far, simply doesn't answer questions he doesn't like or doesn't know how to answer, and yet he's seen as the UK's great hope:rolleyes:.

Then again, I don't like Corbyn, the Tories have done worse to their own country than FF did to ours in the middle of the recession yet instead of them being mauled it's entirely possible they'll come back with an overall majority.

It's a truly terrible state of affairs. We're so lucky we don't have first past the post in Ireland. We might not all like everyone in our political parties but in fairness the calibre of politician we have is generally far higher than that across the water.

Even within the UK you can see the massive difference in standard and quality of politician between Scotland and England, I don't agree with everything the SNP says or does but Sturgeon in particular is a very impressive operator, articulate, confidence and (this is extremely rare in UK politics) actually knows what is going on and has a strong grasp of detail and facts. I also think she's charismatic and relates to the average voter in a way Corbyn or BoJo simply does not. I also liked Davidson a lot although she was a bit too willing to defend the Tories at any cost towards the end despite clearly not giving a flying flamingo about Scotland or enacting sensible centre right One Nation Conservative policies.

Of course Holyrood has a sort of PR-STV system, and it shows.

gooch2k9

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

That’s exactly what he’ll do all night and it’ll go horribly for him. He can’t waffle bluster and non answer and divert all night. He will though and it will backfire

It hasn't to date though. His debates for the Conservative leadership, his shocking performances in the HoC, his interactions with foreign leaders; all poor yet it has no real bearing on him.

He'd probably come out worse if he did answer a question honestly.

First Up

I doubt the debate will change enough voters minds to make a difference. I'd expect a Tory majority - maybe not an overall majority but I really can't see Corbyn forming a coalition to form a government.

Johnson will probably lose lots of votes though so the chaos will continue.

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

Instead, it's about controlling the numbers of people who want to move to the UK.

Not in the slightest. Have you been following what's actually been taking place, rather than reading and recycling Tory Central press-releases?

Current UKGov policy is to create an obviously bogus threat from outsiders by using racist and anti-European dog-whistling so that UKGov can then pretend to rescue everybody via their expensive, complicated, time-consuming and doubtful "settled status" process, and their openly-stated "hostile environment".

They're not really hiding their open use of identity politics very well, you know.

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

...which is precisely why it makes no sense for the UK to have uncontrolled migration from the EU.

The UK does not have "uncontrolled migration from the EU" - immigration is covered by a series of rules which allow limits to be applied, for immigrants to cover their own expenses, their own health and other costs.

For reasons one could only speculate about, UKGov has chosen not to implement these rules and instead - as above - to pretend that there is "uncontrolled immigration".

ancapailldorcha

robindch wrote: »

Not in the slightest. Have you been following what's actually been taking place, rather than reading and recycling Tory Central press-releases?

Current UKGov policy is to create an obviously bogus threat from outsiders by using racist and anti-European dog-whistling so that UKGov can then pretend to rescue everybody via their expensive, complicated, time-consuming and doubtful "settled status" process, and their openly-stated "hostile environment".

They're not really hiding their open use of identity politics very well, you know.

I'm sure you've noticed that when Farage & Co talk about forging links with the Commonwealth, they always, always, always give the names of mainly white countries like Australia and New Zealand. It's overt dog whistling and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm sure you've noticed that when Farage & Co talk about forging links with the Commonwealth, they always, always, always give the names of mainly white countries like Australia and New Zealand. It's overt dog whistling and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Indeed, what about countries like Pakistan, India and Nigeria? (combined population of 1.7bn people)

robindch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's overt dog whistling and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

It's been noticed by everybody, including the base, for whom white identity politics is not the dangerous, looming threat that, for example, that people who've read an accurate history book would believe it to be.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Dunno. Can see Corbyn taking Johnson apart tonight in the debate.

Am I the only one disappointed by the host choice?

A feeble interviewer at the best of times.

Capt'n Midnight

NZ and OZ are in a WTO dispute with the UK over their share of EU quotas so the Commonwealth is not all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.


Remember the plans for Commonwealth 2.0 ?

Last year UK promised an extra £4Bn in aid to get a trade deal with the Southern African Customs Union

Trade between Britain and the six countries was worth 9.7 billion pounds ($12 billion) last year, with machinery and motor vehicles topping British exports to the region. The UK meanwhile imported some 547 million pounds worth of edible fruit and nuts.

They are paying nearly half the annual nett cost of EU membership to get access to a customs union that is both small and far away.

How do leavers justify such Brexonomics ?

robindch

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, what about countries like Pakistan, India and Nigeria? (combined population of 1.7bn people)

"[...] we aren't being treated as old friends any longer [...]" said Nirmala Sitharaman, the Indian Minister for Commerce and Industry:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37950198

gooch2k9

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

NZ and OZ are in a WTO dispute with the UK over their share of EU quotas so the Commonwealth is not all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.


Remember the plans for Commonwealth 2.0 ?

Last year UK promised an extra £4Bn in aid to get a trade deal with the Southern African Customs Union


They are paying nearly half the annual nett cost of EU membership to get access to a customs union that is both small and far away.

How do leavers justify such Brexonomics ?

"Details, details old boy!" in a posh accent seems to be an adequate way of justifying it to the voters anyway. The details just don't matter.

robindch

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How do leavers justify such Brexonomics?

They don't.

At this point, Brexit is basically a Tory power grab intended to cut EU protections for workers and the environment and to open the country to predatory US capitalism.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

One poster earlier claimed that UK freedom of movement should be extended - by and large - to the rest of the world. Not one poster (except me) pointed out the flaws in that position.

This point exactly highlights what i have said in relation to your stance for the past few days. You have romanticized your role in this debate, and made it 'all of us' against 'you alone' -

no doubt you shall fight us in the brexit thread, you shall fight us in the General Election Thread.. you shall fight us, with growing confidence in the Scottish Independence thread - you shall never surrender

Eskimohunt there is no sensible argument against legitimate immigration from the EU to the UK. There is also no sensible argument against immigration in general. These individuals are coming to Britain, under their own steam, to make a life for themselves and their families, and to contribute

You have continuously questioned their 'quality' - and referenced 'erosion of culture' - this is the politics of division and it is the oldest trick in the political play book. the fear and blame of the other

A sensible discussion you could have would be around David Cameron's Renegotiation prior to the referendum, and the restrictions he obtained with regard to immigrants not being able to claim benefits immediately. Thats a worthy debate on these issues, and btw, i thought Cameron was 'Way too tough' in his stance on wanting the restrictions to last for over a decade.

Alternatively you could argue against unlimited asylum seekers, but that argument doesnt actually relate to Brexit per say - and i would probably still end up on the opposite side to you.

Instead you continuously argue to

shine the spotlight on the potential negative effects of mass migration.

By all means continue but the reaction, until you start to make sense, and from me at least (probably others if i can say that without speaking out of turn) - is going to remain negative - until you make a logical point this debate is going in circles. And by all means continue to bemoan your churchillian 'struggle alone'

Never in the field of debate, have i seen none, but one, argue with so many, over so little

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm sure you've noticed that when Farage & Co talk about forging links with the Commonwealth, they always, always, always give the names of mainly white countries like Australia and New Zealand. It's overt dog whistling and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, what about countries like Pakistan, India and Nigeria? (combined population of 1.7bn people)

ANOTHER red herring produced on this thread without a scintilla of evidence!

Here is Nigel Farage referencing India

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6nZ37OLV3E&t=88s (1 min 33)

In fact, he repeatedly states India throughout his analysis of the Commonwealth and, given that India is 1.3 billion strong in population, I think the claim it's "dog-whistle racism" is simply ridiculous (Australia population: 25 million).

Please stop making up claims without evidence. It won't go unnoticed by me.

SaintLeibowitz

robindch wrote: »

They don't.

At this point, Brexit is basically a Tory power grab intended to cut EU protections for workers and the environment and to open the country to predatory US capitalism.

Milton Freidmann will be smiling in his grave.

Stop moaning ffs

Pro trolling from Guy. Little sympathy anywhere to be found for Banks

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1196865193336360960?s=21

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Pro trolling from Guy. Little sympathy anywhere to be found for Banks

That just makes Verhofstadt look petty and childish, and tacitly in support of a crime he is supposedly against.

It would have been better for him to rise above this behavior and condemn it, even when it's against his political adversaries.

He's not a very responsible politician.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That just makes Verhofstadt look petty and childish, and tacitly in support of a crime he is supposedly against.

It would have been better for him to rise above this behavior and condemn it, even when it's against his political adversaries.

He's not a very responsible politician.

You’re not defending banks here are you? He deserves exactly what’s happened to him.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

You’re not defending banks here are you? He deserves exactly what’s happened to him.

Let the courts decide on law, and not promote illegality itself - regardless if it's against our political opponents.

Either the law is the law, or it's not. If it's fine for one and not the other, your argument against Banks is not worth the paper it's written on.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That just makes Verhofstadt look petty and childish, and tacitly in support of a crime he is supposedly against.

It would have been better for him to rise above this behavior and condemn it, even when it's against his political adversaries.

He's not a very responsible politician.

Pffft

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I see no tacit support for anything. That exists solely in your head.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let the courts decide on law, and not promote illegality itself - regardless if it's against our political opponents.

Either the law is the law, or it's not. If it's fine for one and not the other, your argument against Banks is not worth the paper it's written on.

Promote illegality? Where did he do that?

Basically stated, if you engage in illegality, don't come crying when you're the focus of that same illegality.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

Pffft

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I see no tacit support for anything. That exists solely in your head.

If you asked Guy Verhofstadt if he was against illegal data sharing, he would presumably say yes.

On principle, he would be right.

Here, it's just a childish reaction and one unbecoming of a politician who is supposed to uphold the law - not welcoming breaches of it, regardless of who is affected by those breaches.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

Deleted post

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if it was a pro-Remain politician, and it was a pro-Brexit politician basking in the fact a crime was committed.

Of that, I am sure.

We can't have blind, double standards when it comes to the application of law.

But, back to Brexit...

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

But, back to Brexit...

Don't backseat mod please.

A post has been deleted.