Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

I would say her seat is safe enough. Voted strongly to remain in UK in IndyRef.

It is Corbyn's humour and wit that I'm impressed with today, I haven't really seen it before.

Yeah, interesting, he's not naturally gregarious but this could well be image thing to lighten up a bit. Not sure I'd want him to try trading bon mots in a debate with the clown though, that would be fighting it on johnsons home patch!

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

I see another problem for the Tories, when you have Rees-Mogg in cabinet,

Jacob Rees-Mogg says Grenfell victims lacked ‘common sense’ for staying put

Mr Rees-Mogg has since clarified his comments and offered an apology for any misunderstanding.

Furthermore you've misrepresented his comments. He said, ordinarily the "common sense" thing to do when exposed to a fire is to leave the building. That's certainly true. Who wouldn't?

But that headline gives the impression he directly claimed that Grenfell victims did not have common sense, which he didn't.

His claim was correct, his clarification welcomed.

trellheim

Gove and No.10 spokesman saying no vote for MPs on extension of transition.

Looks like this is what the ERG's price for shutting up is , out of transition by end of 2020 . Guaranteed this is the next war if the tories get back in

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Im as suspicious of the polls as anybody, but dismissing them out of hand would seem like extreme folly to me. Swing to ld isnt simply a figment of somebody's imagination after all.

I'm not dismissing them out of hand - just taking them with a gigantic pinch of salt given that the party is only chasing one specific type of voter at the expense of all others, and it would be illogical and self defeating for that type of voter to vote for them (but somewhat lethargic and understandable for them to tell pollsters that they would) - and we've seen the exact same pattern last time round.

Joe_ Public

Fair enough he clarified it. Thats all good. However i still think his comments were unwarranted. Unless you are in that situation whats the point of talking about common sense? How do you know what you would actually do if your life is on the line? Just seems a rather speculative and unhelpful thing to say. Not malicious in any way but definitely misguided.

L1011

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is her seat in trouble? Think it might be, just a small bit.

Somewhere between "a lot" and "utterly doomed"

She's fighting against a likely SNP landslide.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

Mr Rees-Mogg has since clarified his comments and offered an apology for any misunderstanding.

Furthermore you've misrepresented his comments. He said, ordinarily the "common sense" thing to do when exposed to a fire is to leave the building. That's certainly true. Who wouldn't?

But that headline gives the impression he directly claimed that Grenfell victims did not have common sense, which he didn't.

His claim was correct, his clarification welcomed.

The advice from the experts were to stay in their houses. If they all ran out and caused a block for the fire brigade to get to the fire which caused deaths he would be saying it is common sense to listen to what the experts tell you. He should have kept his wisdom in this matter to himself and the fact he has had to apologize for his remarks, and so quickly, shows they know he is wrong in what he said.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

In other news apparently there is a EU law that says government has to accept the lowest bid for a contract.

twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1191668845523673088?s=20[/url]

Johnson wants to scrap that rule that doesn't exist. He will truly be the saviour of the UK, scrapping non-existing rules and stopping tragedies like Grenfell by cutting firefighters but stopping fires from happening.

Did you know ...

The Blue passports are being made abroad because the UK company cost more than the French one.

The French government had the opposite problem. So they just cited "national security" to allow the local company to make passports.

You don't need to nationalise industries to give them subsidies.
You can work with and around EU rules.

Both Boris and Jeremy need to stop scaremongering the EU.

Tea Shock

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is her seat in trouble? Think it might be, just a small bit.

Corbyn is always very good on this stuff, comes across strong and sincere. Some people seem to be surprised by him at these things, i never sure why. He's not great in commons admittedly so likely gets judged on that.

One of my mates is a Lib Dem local councilor since last May’s elections. He’s become totally disillusioned with the party since Swinson became leader. Hates her, says she’s every bit as dishonest as Johnson, perhaps even moreso since at least Johnson is a conservative in the Conservative party whereas Swinson is a conservative pretending to be a Liberal. He’s talking about quitting the party after the election

It’ll be interesting to see if more and more become wary of her by December 12. In a normal election I think they would. But in this one, people will be voting on Brexit policy regardless of label’s

Tea Shock

Tea Shock wrote: »

One of my mates is a Lib Dem local councilor since last May’s elections. He’s become totally disillusioned with the party since Swinson became leader. Hates her, says she’s every bit as dishonest as Johnson, perhaps even moreso since at least Johnson is a conservative in the Conservative party whereas Swinson is a conservative pretending to be a Liberal. He’s talking about quitting the party after the election

It’ll be interesting to see if more and more become wary of her by December 12. In a normal election I think they would. But in this one, people will be voting on Brexit policy regardless of label’s

This election will hopefully become Swinson's swansong; a slippery eel if ever there was one.

Joe_ Public

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Did you know ...

The Blue passports are being made abroad because the UK company cost more than the French one.

The French government had the opposite problem. So they just cited "national security" to allow the local company to make passports.

You don't need to nationalise industries to give them subsidies.
You can work with and around EU rules.

Both Boris and Jeremy need to stop scaremongering the EU.

I agree with you but worth pointing out that a lot of labour concerns are with new eu rules around nationalisation that are coming into play in next year or two around the rail issue, that entail opening rail lines up to more private companies. I'm not sure that gets in the way of labour plans to nationalise but i can at least understand their concerns. Definitely doesnt have to be a deal breaker anyway.

Edit: this is the new law, not sure precisely when it comes into play.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/packages/2013_en

hotmail.com

RickBlaine wrote: »

If neither the Tories or Labour gets a majority and both parties require the support of the LibDems to form a government, what do you think it is the most likely outcome:

- LibDems go with the Tories on the provisio that they agree to a second ref.

- Swinson revokes her promise never to form a government with Corbyn and they go with Labour.

My own feeling is that the Lib Dems will blow out. Swinson would be better off staying away from public tv appearances if she wants them to do well.

The SNP could become the key party when the results come in. They could end up with around 40 seats.

Enzokk

The threat of no-deal is real with the PM spokesperson stating MP's would not have a vote on whether to extend the implementation period, in contrast to 2 weeks ago when the government said they would have a say.

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1191680447765524487?s=20

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

Mr Rees-Mogg has since clarified his comments and offered an apology for any misunderstanding.

Furthermore you've misrepresented his comments. He said, ordinarily the "common sense" thing to do when exposed to a fire is to leave the building. That's certainly true. Who wouldn't?

But that headline gives the impression he directly claimed that Grenfell victims did not have common sense, which he didn't.

His claim was correct, his clarification welcomed.

This is completely incorrect in a modern tower block. Staying put is usually the fire brigade advice as you should be in a safe cocoon surrounded by fire-doors and non-flammable exteriors.

Leroy42

So if he was correct, essentially blaming the victims for their own deaths, why the clarification?

GM228

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Mr Rees-Mogg has since clarified his comments and offered an apology for any misunderstanding.

Furthermore you've misrepresented his comments. He said, ordinarily the "common sense" thing to do when exposed to a fire is to leave the building. That's certainly true. Who wouldn't?

But that headline gives the impression he directly claimed that Grenfell victims did not have common sense, which he didn't.

His claim was correct, his clarification welcomed.

This is completely incorrect in a modern tower block. Staying put is usually the fire brigade advice as you should be in a safe cocoon surrounded by fire-doors and non-flammable exteriors.

Whilst it is the usual advice (in accordance with current policy) it may not be the correct advice, it has been blamed for causing more deaths, Sir Martin Moore-Bick is recommending it be dropped and it is likely it will be as a result.

That said I still think his comments were way out of line, common sense also says follow the advice of the experts and that is the advice that was given.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This is completely incorrect in a modern tower block. Staying put is usually the fire brigade advice as you should be in a safe cocoon surrounded by fire-doors and non-flammable exteriors.

If this was a pro-EU Labour MP, the clarification would have been accepted and a line drawn underneath it.

The fact it's an arch-Brexiteer in Jacob Rees-Mogg is what has caused the kerfuffle and intentional balooning of what is a non-issue.

Imreoir2

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This is completely incorrect in a modern tower block. Staying put is usually the fire brigade advice as you should be in a safe cocoon surrounded by fire-doors and non-flammable exteriors.

What is the rational for staying in a supposidly safe cocoon being better than just not being in a burning building? Why is it better that people stay put rather than leave just in case?

L1011

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What is the rational for staying in a supposidly safe cocoon being better than just not being in a burning building? Why is it better that people stay put rather than leave just in case?

Smoke inhalation and risk that exit routes are blocked meaning you die in them rather than get rescued from your fire-proofed box.

Advice doesn't work when the external walls are made out of solidified petrol, though.

serfboard

Enzokk wrote: »

Johnson wants to scrap [a] rule that doesn't exist.

Johnson has made his career out of this. Prawn-cocktail flavour crisps anyone?

GM228

Enzokk wrote: »

In other news apparently there is a EU law that says government has to accept the lowest bid for a contract.

There is no such requirement, tenders work under the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) system which looks at far more than just the price, awards are based on best value for money, not the cheapest price.

As you say he does indeed want to scrap a non existent rule.

ArmaniJeanss

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What is the rational for staying in a supposidly safe cocoon being better than just not being in a burning building? Why is it better that people stay put rather than leave just in case?

The mere act of opening the fire doors will cause the fire to spread.

People won't know the layout of their building as most will never have walked down the fire-stairs from the 20th floor. Especially in darkness, surrounded by smoke, with dozens of other people around them also panicking. A crush could quite easily develop injuring more people than the fire would have.

These people heading down will completely impede fire-officers heading upwards.

But as GM228 says, its quite possible that the standard advice will change soon.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

If this was a pro-EU Labour MP, the clarification would have been accepted and a line drawn underneath it.

The fact it's an arch-Brexiteer in Jacob Rees-Mogg is what has caused the kerfuffle and intentional balooning of what is a non-issue.

Nonsense. Deal with what the man actually said. He said that the people who died were to blame because they took the advice of the state rather than using their own common sense.

He went on to say that he would have left the building, therefore claiming that he would have survived and again they have only themselves to blame.

Whether the advice was correct or not, it was the advice at the time. As L1011 stated it is good advice, when the building is built to the correct standards. Now who is charge of standards I wonder?

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

If this was a pro-EU Labour MP, the clarification would have been accepted and a line drawn underneath it.

The fact it's an arch-Brexiteer in Jacob Rees-Mogg is what has caused the kerfuffle and intentional balooning of what is a non-issue.

Nice whatabouttery but without a example. Is that a strawman whatabouttery? Ok, find an example of a pro-EU Labour MP making statements like these.

Even Laura Kuennsberg remarked on how quickly he came back with the apology and it has nothing to do with Rees-Mogg and his Brexit stance, it is that his remarks were out of line and out of touch with the real world.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1191672868238745600?s=20

And I think you have been thrown under the bus with Rees-Mogg himself coming out and saying he was wrong and he would have stayed as well as that was the advice people were given,

https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1191669612464738304?s=20

"“I profoundly apologise," he says in a statement.

“What I meant to say is that I would have also listened to the fire brigade’s advice to stay and wait at the time...

Jacob Rees-Mogg continues: "However, with what we know now and with hindsight I wouldn’t and I don’t think anyone else would."

So essentially he is saying that the people that died did the right thing, but in a future fire people that die lack common sense. If you believe anything what he is saying other than he let his mask slip and his contempt for the people that died that night was shown, then I have a bridge I want to sell to you.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nonsense. Deal with what the man actually said. He said that the people who died were to blame because they took the advice of the state rather than using their own common sense.

He went on to say that he would have left the building, therefore claiming that he would have survived and again they have only themselves to blame.

Whether the advice was correct or not, it was the advice at the time. As L1011 stated it is good advice, when the building is built to the correct standards. Now who is charge of standards I wonder?

Now he is saying he would have stayed as well, so who knows what he thinks he was saying at the time. He would have stayed but people that stay lack common sense, so he would have lacked common sense?

Podge_irl

clarification
/ˌklarɪfɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the action of making a statement or situation less confused and more comprehensible.

That was not a clarification, it was a complete about face from what he said to what he supposedly meant to say.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

So essentially he is saying that the people that died did the right thing, but in a future fire people that die lack common sense. If you believe anything what he is saying other than he let his mask slip and his contempt for the people that died that night was shown, then I have a bridge I want to sell to you.

Look, this is one of the problems with politics these days.

This idea that nobody can make a mistake; they must be morally perfect beings who always utter the right words, at the right time etc.

The reality is that anyone exposed to the public will, at some point or other, slip up with a comment here and there.

He didn't ask for the assassination of a political rival, or deny the Holocaust. It was a slip up and he apologised.

This is blowing things out of proportion on a gigantic scale. It's disproportionate and overly dramatic.

robinph

Mogg just apologised for some people being offended by his remarks, he didn't apologising for the remarks.

He just repeated that they should have left the building and ignored the instructions given to them by the call handlers because.. well experts are to be ignored obviously.

quokula

I know it's all an attempt to deflect from the Tory cuts to the fire service and the Tory council's decision to wrap the building in cheap flammable cladding, but you'd think they'd be better off just saying nothing than continually trying to blame the fire fighters and the victims as that only makes them look even worse.

Joe_ Public

In fairness to Mogg, the standard isn't exactly sky high! I imagine this prospective bright spark could well be lined up to be future Home Secretary.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/tories-back-candidate-francesca-o-brien-benefits-street-remarks-gower