Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

It was a slip up and he apologised.

.

Seems quite calculated to me. The problem for him is that he lives in the Tory bubble where he thinks everyone thinks the way he said it. A bit like those idiots who thought it would be a good idea to have a Grenfell bonfire themed night

https://twitter.com/shahmiruk/status/1191673933520678912

murphaph

Mogg essentially said those poor (financially) people were too stupid to save themselves. What an odious a man.

prawnsambo

Philip Hammond is standing down.

quokula

With so many moderate Tories stepping down, what kind of candidates are being selected to stand in their place? Will the new parliamentary party be full on UKIP?

L1011

quokula wrote: »

With so many moderate Tories stepping down, what kind of candidates are being selected to stand in their place? Will the new parliamentary party be full on UKIP?

The overly glib term I've seen for the candidate lineup is "NuKIP". They are mostly hard Leavers of varying shades of Right.

Tell me how

quokula wrote: »

With so many moderate Tories stepping down, what kind of candidates are being selected to stand in their place? Will the new parliamentary party be full on UKIP?

It will take time to see what exactly emerges.

Major party investigators should have been trying to research the backgrounds of Brexit Party Candidates over the last several weeks. I have no doubt but that some dubious skeletons are in the closets of candidates who have been hastily selected. Might be less dramatic with new Tories as they will probably have been prominent in the party to some degree but even so, a much brighter light is now going to be shone on them.

Expect they will be Brexit-lite but will try to use the angle of 'breaking the empasse' and 'just bloody getting on with it' as 'Jo Cox apparently would have wanted'.

murphaph

Are the Lib Dems now the UK's main centre right party?

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And if they win a majority, will you accept the result and the political implications of said result?

Does it bother you as a Conservative supporter to see senior Conservative politicians lying to the public about a ~1 year period as sufficient to negotiate a trade deal?

ArmaniJeanss

Tell me how wrote: »

It will take time to see what exactly emerges.

Major party investigators should have been trying to research the backgrounds of Brexit Party Candidates over the last several weeks. I have no doubt but that some dubious skeletons are in the closets of candidates who have been hastily selected.

One (now ex-candidate) thinks she is from the star Sirius.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-party-candidate-who-believes-20811588

Tip of the iceberg I'd say, doubt there's been much vetting.

Tell me how

murphaph wrote: »

Are the Lib Dems now the UK's main centre right party?

Be jumping the gun to call them as such just yet.
Wouldn't be the first time that polling was not reflected in the actual vote.

They have that capacity to be, if the Tories continue to do such a bad job of campaigning (being coerced in to alignment with Farage by Trump, issuing false statements on fracking, talking about bring back policemen which everyone knows they cut police numbers, talking about investing in NHS when the money is that which they previously instructed NHS funds to not spend and suggesting Grenfell residents lacked common sense).

Brexit Party performance could influence Tory success rates which will influence how Lib Dems are seen after the election.

hotmail.com

murphaph wrote: »

Are the Lib Dems now the UK's main centre right party?

Wasn't it ever thus?

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Does it bother you as a Conservative supporter to see senior Conservative politicians lying to the public about a ~1 year period as sufficient to negotiate a trade deal?

I'm a believer that sometimes constructive deception is justified and, if it's used in the national interest and to deliver on the 2016 referendum result, then I'm all for it.

It's not ideal, but every government acts in this capacity in some way. It's not limited to the Torys.

Tell me how

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

One (now ex-candidate) thinks she is from the star Sirius.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-party-candidate-who-believes-20811588

Tip of the iceberg I'd say, doubt there's been much vetting.

Yeah, I think that that is why Farage was so hesitant to release names of all candidates, the least amount of time for their backgrounds to be investigated, the better.

I think they are susceptible to some key revelations derailing their plans nationwide if they are significant enough and given the party and the pool from which they and their supporters largely occupy, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more than one that has contributed to EDL type publications or maybe more.

prawnsambo

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

One (now ex-candidate) thinks she is from the star Sirius.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-party-candidate-who-believes-20811588

Tip of the iceberg I'd say, doubt there's been much vetting.

Well she sounds like a good fit tbh. Believes in unicorns according to that article.

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm a believer that sometimes constructive deception is justified and, if it's used in the national interest and to deliver on the 2016 referendum result, then I'm all for it.

It's not ideal, but every government acts in this capacity in some way. It's not limited to the Torys.

How does “constructive deception” (i.e. bare faced lying) aid the national interest in this case? You simply can not negotiate a trade deal in such a time period, so why lie about it?

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a believer that sometimes constructive deception is justified and, if it's used in the national interest and to deliver on the 2016 referendum result, then I'm all for it.

It's not ideal, but every government acts in this capacity in some way. It's not limited to the Torys.

What you are referring to I think is constructive ambiguity, the use of ambiguous language to advance a political position. A current example would be the 20 000 new police officers that will be hired.

I agree that almost all politicians will use this tactic, but what we see with Johnson is not even this, its just lies. Like the lie that he will cut the red tape from the EU that you have to sign the cheapest tender, there is no such law or anything from the EU but that is what he is saying. That is not constructive ambiguity, that is lying.

Capt'n Midnight

Joe_ Public wrote: »

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

Northern rail could be nationalised this is addition to railways the British state still owns like NI and London Underground.

Through National rail the UK state controls 75% of the infrastructure.


Trains on UK railways now almost entirely state-owned.
Mostly by the Dutch, French, Italian and German national railways.

Shelga

What happens if Swinson loses her seat?

I wish they had elected Layla Moran as leader instead. I know she’s only been an MP since 2017 but at least that means she’d be free of the terrible Tory coalition reputation to a much greater degree than Swinson. I see some of the things Jo Swinson voted for along with the Tories, between 2010-2015, and I don’t know how she can call herself a Liberal.

I think Moran comes across as much more warm and open to opinions of others than Jo Swinson does. I don’t think she even contested the leadership in the end though, despite there being rumours she would.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a believer that sometimes constructive deception is justified and, if it's used in the national interest and to deliver on the 2016 referendum result, then I'm all for it.

It's not ideal, but every government acts in this capacity in some way. It's not limited to the Torys.

Who gets to decide whats in the national interest? Surely that should be up to the people and to do so would require all the facts be available.


What you propose where a government would deceive its people so as to achieve a goal is wholely undemocratic and incredibly hypocritical considering your previous criticisms of the EU.

Podge_irl

Using voting records of backbenchers, particularly in coalition governments, is a pretty awful way of judging someone's politics.

Joe_ Public

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Northern rail could be nationalised this is addition to railways the British state still owns like NI and London Underground.

Through National rail the UK state controls 75% of the infrastructure.


Trains on UK railways now almost entirely state-owned.
Mostly by the Dutch, French, Italian and German national railways.

Thats true. The government could buy the whole railway network right away if it was of a mind to. But the argument from some on the labour side is that the new EU rules, coming into force in 2023 i think, will put a brake on those plans. The Fourth Railway Package has been a bit controversial in lots of countries because it basically means that private firms will have to be allowed to bid on all contracts:

"This includes the opening up of domestic passenger services to on-rail competition in all member states, and the tendering of services provided under passenger service obligation contracts."

I'm uncertain about the full implications of this new legislation, but i can understand why labour politicians advocating nationalisation might have issues with it.

Strazdas

Podge_irl wrote: »

Using voting records of backbenchers, particularly in coalition governments, is a pretty awful way of judging someone's politics.

Absolutely....it gets plastered all over UK forums and social media as proof Swinson is the devil incarnate and yet she was a completely unknown young backbencher in the minority party at the time.

quokula

hotmail.com wrote: »

Wasn't it ever thus?

I considered the Lib Dems to be centre left when I was a member. I'd say it was certainly the case under Charlie Keneddy and Paddy Ashdown. Not so much anymore.

With Norman Lamb stepping down at the next election after being sidelined these past couple of years, I think that's one of the last truly liberal voices to depart the party as they complete their transformation into the centre right destination for moderate, pro-EU conservatives.

quokula

Strazdas wrote: »

Absolutely....it gets plastered all over UK forums and social media as proof Swinson is the devil incarnate and yet she was a completely unknown young backbencher in the minority party at the time.

While there is some truth that voting record will be tainted by serving in that government, it is not true that she was an unknown backbencher. She was an experienced MP since 2005 and became a government minister under the coalition.

And it's been often publicised that she voted with the Tory whip more often than some Tories. Many other Lib Dems voted against the Tories on many occasions, but she chose not to.

She was specifically identified, along with a few others, by a major Lib Dem donor as being too right-leaning for the party, and who pulled his funding for her campaign in 2015 which was likely a factor in her losing their seat that year.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13198158.libdem-donor-snubs-danny-alexander-jo-swinson-to-back-labour-candidates-with-300k/

Shelga

Andrew Bridgen making everything so much worse for Jacob Rees-Mogg just now on PM on Radio 4. I laughed out loud at how much of a hole he was digging, in his hamfisted attempts to make JRM sound great :pac:

Can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like:

Presenter Evan Davis: "But isn't that what gets people's backs up, that Jacob is implying that he is smarter than them and wouldn't have made the choice that they did?"

Andrew Bridgen: (very long pause) "But don't we want those smartest people to be the ones representing us in government?"

Why he didn't just say "that's not what he meant" I do not know...

A Dub in Glasgo

Another example of the lying Tories

https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1191732381306277890

Joe_ Public

While not questioning Jo Swinsons remainer credentials, i still find it curious why she - along with her other lib dem colleagues - seemed so insistent on having a EU referendum all those years ago. Not suggesting it's a stick to beat them with or anything, just not sure i understand their reasoning for it at the time.

hotmail.com

Shelga wrote: »

Andrew Bridgen making everything so much worse for Jacob Rees-Mogg just now on PM on Radio 4. I laughed out loud at how much of a hole he was digging, in his hamfisted attempts to make JRM sound great :pac:

Can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like:

Presenter Evan Davis: "But isn't that what gets people's backs up, that Jacob is implying that he is smarter than them and wouldn't have made the choice that they did?"

Andrew Bridgen: (very long pause) "But don't we want those smartest people to be the ones representing us in government?"

Why he didn't just say "that's not what he meant" I do not know...

How do the Tories allow this moron to represent them.

Mogg's comment are indefensible and confirms what everyone in Grenfell knew already. The Tories don't give a toss about them.

jimmycrackcorm

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/eoghan-harris-unionism-must-now-break-its-dependence-on-the-tories-look-less-to-london-and-more-to-lisburn-and-warm-up-the-house-for-moderate-nationalists-38661120.html

Eoghan Harris trying to argue that unionists should merge in the north. Equally that spanned and SF should sort of do the same. But he makes some ridiculous arguments about Northern protestants diminishing in a UI like they did in the South in the 20's. For someone living in Dublin, it's astonishing he didn't recognise the country he lives in.

What I cannot fathom is how he can't see that it was the DUPs support for Brexit instead of a remain position that has led them into the position they are in..

The DUP took a gamble. But the odds were stacked against them and in their bitterness they were blind to that.

Robert McGrath

[Deleted User] wrote: »

used in the national interest and to deliver on the 2016 referendum result

Some might say that those things are mutually exclusive ...