Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Hermy

Hermy wrote: »

Why would you choose one liar over the other?

So you think Corbyn is a liar?

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, if you're a prospective PM, it's acceptable to lie / dodge questions whilst proclaiming to be the United Kingdom's answer to the Socialist Messiah?

Again, replace Corbyn with Johnson and you can see the double standard on display.

Corbyn was asked at least 8 times about how he would campaign in a second referendum. He dodged it like the most slippery Tory politician would.

Did I say it was acceptable to lie/dodge questions? No I didn't, but it could be inferred Corbyn is stating it will be put to the hands of the people without political campaigning (yes unlikely), in any case how often does a party indicate their campaign strategy months in advance?

My query of dodging questions and your point in relation to Johnson being killed was a general one, in any case on that topic of dodging questions......

GM228 wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's the classic double standard.

Corbyn avoids answering the question - gets praised.

Johnson avoids answering a question - gets killed.

It's quite an astonishing thing...

Which question?

There's a difference when you avoid answering questions when your the PM though surely.

You dodged my question:)

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Did I say it was acceptable to lie/dodge questions? No I didn't, but it could be inferred Corbyn is stating it will be put to the hands of the people without political campaigning (yes unlikely), in any case how often does a party indicate their campaign strategy months in advance?

The electorate must know in advance what Corbyn's "renegotiation" strategy is, and what he expects.

Otherwise, the public are voting on precisely nothing - just some abstract hope.

Furthemore, if Corbyn can't tell us now - that he would favour the Brexit deal - then presumably that deal is expected to be worse than Remain.

Again, these details matter - especially pre- a general election.

He's being evasive, hoping the electorate will fall for it. Clearly, some of the electorate are.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the classic double standard.

Corbyn avoids answering the question - gets praised.

Johnson avoids answering a question - gets killed.

It's quite an astonishing thing...

Eskimohunt avoids answering lots of questions - gets agitated by others interpreting the motivation of two personalities on the telly.

Quite astonishing.

Any chance you could get around to answering the "Brexit-related emigration from the UK is bad for Britain" challenge posed earlier? If not, can you pleeeease take your discussion of tonight's non-Brexit TV debate over to the TV debate thread.

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Latest statistical votes released by Sky News saying Boris Johnson is "most Prime Ministerial" and "most likeable".

But what was actually being said - "Johnson seen as more Prime Ministerial and likeable, Corbyn as more in touch and trustworthy".

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

But what was actually being said - "Johnson seen as more Prime Ministerial and likeable, Corbyn as more in touch and trustworthy".

An election to be Prime Minister, right?

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

An election to be Prime Minister, right?

Yes and being more in touch and trustworthy is better than simply being more "prime ministerial", what does that even mean?

The question was "who do you think came across as more prime ministerial", bit of an odd question which really does not compare with specifics like actually being in touch with people and being trustworthy, those qualities far outweigh any prime ministerial quality question.

Id'd rather have a PM who was in touch with realities and trustworthy, but one who I don't really like and isn't really prime ministerial than one who is more prime ministerial and likeable, but who'm is less trustworthy or in touch with realities.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the classic double standard.
...
It's quite an astonishing thing...

Boris lied about the number of Hospitals being build (hint : the answer is ZERO)

And about corporation tax because Ireland's is way lower than the UK.


How long ago is it since it was announced that the 2% reduction in corp tax wasn't happening next year as a way to give £6Bn to the NHS ?

Oh yeah it was yesterday.

So the host should have called him on it instead of giving him a free ride.



The economy isn't doing well when you have to roll back promised tax cuts to provide ZERO additional funding for the NHS.

And it's not new money, it was already promised.


Boris & Co have little faith in the economy improving if they have to defer tax cuts to big business.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a TV debate.

For example, I admitted May lost the debates in 2017, but would still have voted for her.

Surely it would be hard for May to win or lose a debate when she didn't do one in 2017 and sent Rudd in her place. Taking questions from an audience and interviewer on your own isn't a debate.

Deleted User wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn did not have the backbone to announce whether he would support the New Deal or Remain.

Despite his claims, Corbyn is no better than the duplicitous politicians he complains of.

Why does it matter what he votes for, surely the important point is what he will do if he is PM?

GM228

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Boris lied about the number of Hospitals being build (hint : the answer is ZERO)

And about corporation tax because Ireland's is way lower than the UK.

And...

Prorogation

20,000 more police

Jeremy Corbyn “plans to wreck the economy with a £1.2 trillion spending plan"

Jennifer Arcuri (OK we will give him this one for now - innocent until... and all that)

I'm sure there's a few more.

Capt'n Midnight

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Somehow I think Corbyn would negotiate a deal just fine. He isn't a remainer, he just doesn't want to leave at any cost.

Getting a deal is easy. Just pick one.




Getting a good deal , not so easy.

I've described the Tories as wanting Norway+++++++
But thanks to the Irish Sea border it's only six pluses.


Corbyn only wants Noway+++/+ or thereabouts.
It depends on how many EU rules they are willing to take. Health and workers rights should be easy enough.

But as always the devil is in the detail, and I can't see how the UK is a better or more prosperous place outside the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

GM228 wrote: »

And..
...

20,000 more police

I'm only referring to lies to the British public during the debate which happened during an election campaign where there are rules about such stuff.

"More" police ? The host should have pointed out who CUT the numbers of police.



20,000 would only restore numbers of police to near previous levels. Taking into account population growth it's even worse , it's still 5% less than there used to be.
That drop of 20,600 represents a 14% fall since 2010. After accounting for the growth in population, the number of police officers per person has fallen by 19%.
CCTV cameras don't replace police officers. Any criminal with half a brain will just go around the corner.


And that 20,000 is only a target. From the same people that consider six to be nearly forty.

Also the 100,000 immigration target was missed how many years in a row ?
Estimated non-EU net migration averaged around 196,000 from 2009 to 2018 The point is that this is a target the UK govt had complete control over as all they had to was stop handing out visas.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

The electorate must know in advance what Corbyn's "renegotiation" strategy is, and what he expects

CBA looking all the comparisons between the EU's open position with the Tory negotiators hiding their cards.

No one knew about May's red lines in advance.

Joe_ Public

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm only referring to lies to the British public during the debate which happened during an election campaign where there are rules about such stuff.

"More" police ? The host should have pointed out who CUT the numbers of police.



20,000 would only restore numbers of police to near previous levels. Taking into account population growth it's even worse , it's still 5% less than there used to be.
That drop of 20,600 represents a 14% fall since 2010. After accounting for the growth in population, the number of police officers per person has fallen by 19%.
CCTV cameras don't replace police officers. Any criminal with half a brain will just go around the corner.


And that 20,000 is only a target. From the same people that consider six to be nearly forty.

Also the 100,000 immigration target was missed how many years in a row ?
Estimated non-EU net migration averaged around 196,000 from 2009 to 2018 The point is that this is a target the UK govt had complete control over as all they had to was stop handing out visas.

Its not even just the 20,000 extra officers. Its the instructors needed to train them. Its the lack of available facilities in which to do that training. They didnt just decimate the numbers, they also shredded a lot of the infrastructure around them. Even a seemingly simple thing like locker space is recognised as a major issue for such a rapid recruitment drive. The fact that officers now need degrees is another hurdle. Simply just restoring the force to pre austerity numbers will take much longer than johnson is letting on.

J Mysterio

So, not sure if people are aware of this but the Tory press office on Twitter rebranded themselves as 'FactCheckUK' during and a bit after the debate, and then declared Boris the winner.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1196906463781904390

Unbelievable really. Probable electoral fraud and clear attempt to mislead.

Laura Kuenssberg thinks people getting upset about this are 'daft'. She needs to be fired. Her bias, favouritism and shoddy one sided 'journalism' is beyond a joke at this stage.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1196903373238341634

https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/1196932286937260032

fash

Dytalus wrote: »

Also important to note that EU migration isn't uncontrolled. EU citizens living in Member States that are not their own can be returned home if they are not self-sufficient after 3 months.


URL="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers"]Source[/URL

As regards EU FOM, and "uncontrolled" migration, except for one window where the UK, Ireland and Sweden specifically opened the doors early to the accession states- specifically in order to steal as many educated young workers as possible, FOM is and will be controlled not only by EU rules on "if unemployed for 3 months, leave" rules but also simple economics. I'll bet even brexiters do not object to FOM to the UK of Irish (even let's say members of Irish subcultures suffering from higher levels is criminality)- nor to FOM of French, Spanish or Germans. In reality it is the "hordes" of Eastern Europeans that they have othered.
However, given that in the 15 years since the accession is the 10 Eastern states, their economies have boomed and local salaries increased and that they now have access to (e.g.) the German and all other EU Labour market which has low unemployment, there will never again be that once off effect. There are simply no more potential accession states to tap labour resources from - as any builder looking for extra construction labour will know.

So even if there were no restrictions whatsoever on Polish people coming to the UK- why the hell would they come? Why does that data show that they are not coming?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The electorate must know in advance what Corbyn's "renegotiation" strategy is, and what he expects.

Otherwise, the public are voting on precisely nothing - just some abstract hope.

The electorate must know in advance what the UK's "negotiation" strategy is, and what the UK expects from Brexit.

Otherwise, the public are voting on precisely nothing - just some abstract hope.

IAmTheReign

Deleted User wrote: »

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).

That's rich coming from the same person who said this only a few hours earlier;

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I do.

The Trans-Tasman travel arrangement is between two countries of roughly similar history, peoples, background, economies and so forth; it's the equivalent of the common travel area between the UK and Ireland.

I think those types of agreement are sensible given the close historic ties between these peoples.

That's very different to throwing open the door to half a billion people and, if Diane Abbott has her way, extending free movement to much of the rest of the world.

eskimohunt wrote:

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

You mean like your claim that EU migration is damaging to the UK? That hasn't gone unnoticed. When are you going to provide evidence for that?

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The electorate must know in advance what Corbyn's "renegotiation" strategy is, and what he expects.

Otherwise, the public are voting on precisely nothing - just some abstract hope.

Are you on about the 2019 general election or the 2016 referendum?

robindch

J Mysterio wrote: »

So, not sure if people are aware of this but the Tory press office on Twitter rebranded themselves as 'FactCheckUK' during and a bit after the debate, and then declared Boris the winner.

No doubt a coincidence that FactCheckUK abbreviates as "FCUK".

robindch

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Boris lied about the number of Hospitals being build (hint : the answer is ZERO)

A group of twitterati are maintaining a list of the lies put out by Johns (not "Boris", please):

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Let's not rehash the 2016 debate please. Posts deleted.

newport2

robindch wrote: »

No doubt a coincidence that FactCheckUK abbreviates as "FCUK".

"Get Brexit Done" is an anagram of "Being Extorted"

"Yellowhammer" an anagram of "Orwell Mayhem"

Someone in Downing Street is having a laugh.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Let's not rehash the 2016 debate please. Posts deleted.

Furthermore, there is a thread for it here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058026597

liamtech

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Furthermore, there is a thread for it here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058026597

I just like to say that i have posted my response in this thread- I will be offline for a few hours but will respond when i can

I also understand the mods instructions and i of course agree to not re-hash the ref in this thread

respectfully

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

Why does it matter what he votes for, surely the important point is what he will do if he is PM?

It matters what Labour stand for, and by extension it matters what their leader does. It's not so much what way he would vote, so much as what way he would campaign.

If I were in the U.K. and wanted to remain, I'd struggle to vote for a Labour MP. Even if they were an individual pro remain MP, one has to have an eye to what the Leader of that party and, by extension, a minority but significant part of that party, wants to do.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Getting a good deal , not so easy.

I've described the Tories as wanting Norway+++++++
But thanks to the Irish Sea border it's only six pluses.


Corbyn only wants Noway+++/+ or thereabouts.

Indeed, but are Labour still sticking to their "six tests"? If so, the second of those tests is to:

deliver the exact same benefits as we currently have as members of the single market and customs union

I think if the last few years have thought us anything, it's that it is not possible to replicate the benefits of E.U. Membership outside of E.U. Membership. They can, at best, have similar SM and CU arrangements, but they will pay more for these and won't have any role in the setting of these rules etc.

In a sense, the Tories plans are more realistic. Their outcomes are not realistic, as they promise a glorious new era which isn't really supported by reality, but what they propose to do is concrete and achievable. In fact, it's already agreed with the E.U.

I don't think anyone really has a clue what Labour are proposing beyond the purely vague "better deal" or face saving second referendum. People want leadership and they aren't getting that from Labour.

It's also, and I hate to harp on about this, worse for Ireland, because IMO the current Tory deal is as good a deal as Ireland will get, short of the U.K. remaining.

Enzokk

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It matters what Labour stand for, and by extension it matters what their leader does. It's not so much what way he would vote, so much as what way he would campaign.

If I were in the U.K. and wanted to remain, I'd struggle to vote for a Labour MP. Even if they were an individual pro remain MP, one has to have an eye to what the Leader of that party and, by extension, a minority but significant part of that party, wants to do.

At the moment there is no path to remain in the UK with the Tories in charge. There is no chance to revoke as the Lib Dems will not win a majority. Whatever Corbyn may believe about the EU, he is offering a second referendum with a choice to remain. If you are a remainer in the UK and your constituency isn't a current Lib Dem seat or close marginal with the Lib Dems then the choice is surely Labour.

Also if Labour wins you don't want your leader to take a stance because if you lose he will resign, see Cameron. How could he implement a policy he doesn't believe in? He will get the best deal from the EU he can get as believing in Brexit doesn't mean a better deal, see May vs Johnson. So for me trying to focus on his personal view when it is the policy he will enact is a red herring.

CelticRambler

Just heard Johnson speaking at a factory in Teeside. He's gone full-on Brexiter ... and sounds just like eskimohunt! A speech full of inaccuracies and unsubstantiated threats and claims that Great Things will be done post Brexit that can't be done at the moment. And, of course, the "oven-ready Brexit" to be cooked at Gas Mark 1 ... or 4 ... or 8 as soon as he gets back to Downing Street.

What struck me most of all, though, was his inference that all of the Great Things are going to be done within minutes of Britain leaving the EU on the 31st January, when in fact GB will simply slide into the transitional phase and these Great Things are either going to be scuppered by the EU's insistence on a level playing field, or will be postponed for years while the rest of the world waits to see how much they can get "for free" while the UK becomes increasingly desperate to recover trade that's been lost.

As far as I can tell, the one and only thing that can change after January 31st is the "tampon tax" which I've heard him refer to a number of times now. I presume this is his token talking point to get the "women's vote" ... but seeing as the EU will almost certainly allow the EU26 to follow Ireland's lead and zero-rate tampons for VAT, it's hardly a significant enough benefit to offset all the disadvantages.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

At the moment there is no path to remain in the UK with the Tories in charge. There is no chance to revoke as the Lib Dems will not win a majority. Whatever Corbyn may believe about the EU, he is offering a second referendum with a choice to remain. If you are a remainer in the UK and your constituency isn't a current Lib Dem seat or close marginal with the Lib Dems then the choice is surely Labour.

Also if Labour wins you don't want your leader to take a stance because if you lose he will resign, see Cameron. How could he implement a policy he doesn't believe in? He will get the best deal from the EU he can get as believing in Brexit doesn't mean a better deal, see May vs Johnson. So for me trying to focus on his personal view when it is the policy he will enact is a red herring.

Ultimately, a lot of people just do not trust Corbyn. He has constantly demurred, prevaricated and obfuscated. Yes, he has now said that he will hold a referendum with remain on the ballot but that distrust is still present. He has associations with known communists who are openly hostile to the EU and who did their bit to frustrate Alan Johnson's Labour Remain campaign in 2016, namely Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray.

What you have said is not illogical. However, a lot of people are still wary of voting Labour when there is a party more committed to the Remain cause on the ballot even if their chances are poor.

Sam Russell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It matters what Labour stand for, and by extension it matters what their leader does. It's not so much what way he would vote, so much as what way he would campaign.

If I were in the U.K. and wanted to remain, I'd struggle to vote for a Labour MP. Even if they were an individual pro remain MP, one has to have an eye to what the Leader of that party and, by extension, a minority but significant part of that party, wants to do.




Indeed, but are Labour still sticking to their "six tests"? If so, the second of those tests is to:

deliver the exact same benefits as we currently have as members of the single market and customs union

I think if the last few years have thought us anything, it's that it is not possible to replicate the benefits of E.U. Membership outside of E.U. Membership. They can, at best, have similar SM and CU arrangements, but they will pay more for these and won't have any role in the setting of these rules etc.

In a sense, the Tories plans are more realistic. Their outcomes are not realistic, as they promise a glorious new era which isn't really supported by reality, but what they propose to do is concrete and achievable. In fact, it's already agreed with the E.U.

I don't think anyone really has a clue what Labour are proposing beyond the purely vague "better deal" or face saving second referendum. People want leadership and they aren't getting that from Labour.

It's also, and I hate to harp on about this, worse for Ireland, because IMO the current Tory deal is as good a deal as Ireland will get, short of the U.K. remaining.

I think Corbyn should have answered the conundrum of how he will vote after he has negotiated his deal is to say: 'It depends on the deal - what I want is a deal that meets the six tests - If it does, then I will campaign for it, If not then remain is the better option'.

He should not get dragged into hypothetical question as there be dragons. It does not help that his own compass tells him that out of the EU is what he has always believed, and still does. And everyone knows that as well.

He should be on total attack of Tory lies, and particularly, Johnson lies. 'He is not dead in a ditch!' 'We are still in the EU, and Oct 31st has passed!' 'The PM pulled the WAB, not the opposition!' 'The 40 hospitals is a myth - there is no funding and no plans!' 'The NHS is under threat from the Tories - they plan to allow the US companies to run it for profit!' etc. etc.

He should not let the liars of Downing St win.