Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

No, I'm not.

Constructive ambiguity deploys ambiguous language in order to achieve a political goal.

I use the term constructive deception to describe weaponising an untruth for a greater political purpose. In other words, almost no ambiguity.

You have to ask the question - are there circumstances in which it's justified for Government to harness an untruth to further their long-term national goals?

It's an uncomfortable question, but I think the answer is yes.

Mr.Nice Guy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

No surprise. He has form with this kind of thing. Himself and the likes of Kevin Myers and Ruth Dudley Edwards are cut from the same cloth. Only a few months ago he was accusing the Irish government of engaging in Anglophobia and 'Brit-bashing':

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/eoghan-harris-leo-varadkar-has-left-it-too-late-even-to-eat-humble-pie-38372417.html

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

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.

Was that not part of the Tory election manifesto? In that case it would have been part of their programme for government and agreed on before coalition.

quokula

prawnsambo wrote: »

Was that not part of the Tory election manifesto? In that case it would have been part of their programme for government and agreed on before coalition.

No this something she stated before entering the coalition.

https://twitter.com/james7holland/status/1173545015370506246

Shelga

Here's a link to the worst part of the Bridgen interview:

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1191784118633275392?s=20

I'm still cringing! Tories repeatedly seem to place their version of intelligence, which is really just a misplaced and incredibly arrogant sense of entitlement, over traits such as empathy, emotional intelligence and honesty.

I don't know how anyone could listen to that and think "these are the people I want to have the most power and influence in the country, and to represent my values."

I know she gets held up as some kind of saint sometimes, but when you compare this Tory clown to someone like Jacinda Ardern, it's just incredible to think that people will still vote for them.

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have to ask the question - are there circumstances in which it's justified for Government to harness an untruth to further their long-term national goals?

Absolutely not, especially when the public may make decisions based on these untruths.

Openness and honesty are two of the seven principles of public life in the UK, perhaps we should rewrite the ethical standards book to enable Governments achieve long term national goals too.

You should read Johnson's Ministerial Code, in fact Johnson should read it himself.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

No this something she stated before entering the coalition.

https://twitter.com/james7holland/status/1173545015370506246

So, she was in favour of a referendum on European membership, yet now wishes to annul the result. If it were that dangerous to leave, she wouldn't even support holding the referendum in the first place.

I cannot think of anything more deranged than that, and it's a glimpse into how her mind really works.

She has nothing but contempt for the ordinary British voter.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1191687795343052802

Will this help Corbyn at all?

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

So, she was in favour of a referendum on European membership, yet now wishes to annul the result. If it were that dangerous to leave, she wouldn't even support holding the referendum in the first place.

I cannot think of anything more deranged than that, and it's a glimpse into how her mind really works.

She has nothing but contempt for the ordinary British voter.

My mind just boggled there. Uncomfortable feeling.

How many Tories have changed their minds on the subject in the last three years, let alone the last ten? And I mean in either direction. I can actually understand that pretty much none of them even knew how the EU worked and some still don't. Nadine Dorries for example; who still can't understand the customs union and didn't realise the Norway model included freedom of movement.

Gintonious

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1191687795343052802

Will this help Corbyn at all?

The 5 million Labour voters who opted to Brexit won't be satisfied with his referendum on Remain versus Remain-light.

Most people are sick to death of Brexit, so putting more negotiations and referenda on the table - with all the volatility that would bring - is doubtful going to appeal to many people.

Furthermore, their 2017 election manifesto committed to leaving the EU and respecting the referendum result. Corbyn reneged on that, too - alienating yet more Labour voters.

I think he'll get smashed in this election. I certainly hope so. The last thing we need in No. 10 is a Marxist.

ballsymchugh

Deleted User wrote: »

So, she was in favour of a referendum on European membership, yet now wishes to annul the result. If it were that dangerous to leave, she wouldn't even support holding the referendum in the first place.

I cannot think of anything more deranged than that, and it's a glimpse into how her mind really works.

She has nothing but contempt for the ordinary British voter.

given that Theresa May spent long enough banging on that 80% of the voters had voted for pro brexit parties in 2017, the voters will know exactly what they are going to get if they vote for the lib dems. it's not very hard to understand.

ballsymchugh

ballsymchugh wrote: »

given that Theresa May spent long enough banging on that 80% of the voters had voted for pro brexit parties in 2017, the voters will know exactly what they are going to get if they vote for the lib dems. it's not very hard to understand.

In any event, revoke Article 50 is 15-16% in the polls?

This whole "the UK wants to Remain" would hold more water if Swinson was hoovering up 30-40% of the vote.

In almost every new poll, it seems Swinson goes down further and further and further.

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

Was that not part of the Tory election manifesto? In that case it would have been part of their programme for government and agreed on before coalition.

No, it was going back further, herself and others made several references to holding a referendum for reasons i dont quite fully grasp. Just something I'm curious about really.

gooch2k9

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1191687795343052802

Will this help Corbyn at all?

You just have to look at the replies underneath any of the politicians tweets. It's always their opponents tearing strips out of them and spreading mistruths. The edited Starmer video is the Cons being called out and rightly so. Surely that breaches some of theelection rules?

My favourite reply to the Corbyn tweet is this one;
https://twitter.com/GreyEyesUK/status/1191766163317035008

I'm starting to think Twitter is more a force for harm than good.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

My mind just boggled there. Uncomfortable feeling.

How many Tories have changed their minds on the subject in the last three years, let alone the last ten? And I mean in either direction.

We're not talking about changing minds, that's to be expected with such a complicated issue.

What we're talking about is an individual who initially recommends a referendum, to now wishing to annul the referendum result based on a General Election.

By all means change your mind, but don't then seek to eliminate the democratic result because it didn't go your way.

That's the key, fundamental difference with Swinson and her acolytes. It's worth mentioning that many Remainers find her revocation policy appalling.

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By all means change your mind, but don't then seek to eliminate the democratic result because it didn't go your way.

It's not about a case of not going any particular way, probably the single biggest reason for another referendum now is because people are more informed now than they were in 2016, the leave side fed many a pack of lies (and also led a potentially unlawful campaign).

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

It's not about a case of not going any particular way, probably the single biggest reason for another referendum now is because people are more informed now than they were in 2016, the leave side fed many a pack of lies (and also led a potentially unlawful campaign).

If we're going to be objective, we should admit and agree that both sides committed offences against the truth.

In terms of the General Election, things are looking deliciously promising for the Conservative Party:

With Boris Johnson set to launch his party’s campaign on Wednesday, the Tories are up 2pts on 42% compared with a week ago, with Labour, also up 2pts, on 26%.

If the lead endured until polling day, it would be enough to give the Tories a comfortable overall majority and allow the prime minister to push his Brexit deal through parliament and take the UK out of the EU.

The Liberal Democrats are up one point on 16%, while the Brexit party, which said on Friday that it would run candidates in all seats unless Johnson pulled his Brexit deal, is down one on 9%.

Admittedly only one poll, but things are going well.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If we're going to be objective, we should admit and agree that both sides committed offences against the truth.

We're talking about 10 years ago!! Thats an eternity in politics, i was merely curious as to what was the motivation at the time. Other than that theres little relevance in it, kinda sorry i even brought it up!

VinLieger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If we're going to be objective, we should admit and agree that both sides committed offences against the truth.

Only one side has had a major campaign groups actions, which Cummings founded and johnson as well as several current cabinet members were prominent figures in, reffered to the CPS

A Dub in Glasgo

quokula wrote: »

No this something she stated before entering the coalition.

https://twitter.com/james7holland/status/1173545015370506246

Note how her accent has changed a lot since then. Trying very hard to lose the Scottish accent nowadays

Strazdas

quokula wrote: »

No this something she stated before entering the coalition.

https://twitter.com/james7holland/status/1173545015370506246

It shows there was a lot of idiocy surrounding the subject in the UK and not just among the right wingers.

Those with any knowledge of the subject were warning even back then that trying to leave the EU after 40 years would be a gargantuan task and a legal and bureaucratic nightmare.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

Jill Hughes, who was the party's prospective candidate for Batley and Spen, also believes in "elves/fairies/mermaids/unicorns and all things elemental and otherworldly

In fairness, belief in unicorns is practically mandatory in most parties at this stage.

Post Brexit trade deal in a year ?
Renegotiate Brexit in a few months , 6 criteria ?
Getting more seats than the SNP, or Labour or the Tories ?
NI getting the same treatment as the rest of the UK , but only for Brexit ?

Lemming

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:

Shelga wrote: »

Here's a link to the worst part of the Bridgen interview:

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1191784118633275392?s=20

I heard more of that interview on the drive home from work today. I was parts impressed and stunned that the interviewer started to take Bridgen to task a bit, in amongst the sheer tone-deaf defence by Bridgen. It's a pity that the above twitter audio clip cuts off so soon because the interviewer starts asking some golden questions that are just jaw-dropping listening given the sycophantic sh1te we've had from the media-at-large over the last three years here in the UK.

"Jacob" comes out of it looking very bad indeed, and given some of the interviewers later questions, it's left to the listener to reflect upon the calibre of not only the haunted Victorian pencil himself, but Bridgen for his defence unintended-hatchet-job which is also an unflattering view into his own mindset, and the Tory party too.

Dyr

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

Roger Waters had a lyric "Every man has a price bob, and yours was pretty cheap"

Describes Harris to a tee.

theological

VinLieger wrote: »

Oooh look someone who doesn't understand how international trade deals work, i get to post my favorite youtube vid again

The UK isn't going to get preferential trade deals with anyone. China, America, India, Mercosur et al are going to tear them apart. To tide them over at the beginning the UK will need to beg "lesser nations" for deals that are far more weighted in favour of the smaller country they are negotiating with simply so the UK can begin getting some deals done.

This post is bemusing for two reasons.

You tell me that I misunderstand the nature of free trade agreements without telling me how.

You have the strange belief that somehow the UK won't be able to negotiate free trade agreements even when much smaller countries have managed to. The idea that countries wouldn't want enhanced access to the UK market (the world's 5th largest) post-Brexit is bizarre.

I fully respect your right to disagree with me, and I welcome the opportunity to be challenged but please provide something to back up your arguments.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So far, the UK has signed 18 "continuity" deals covering 48 countries or territories. All together, these deals represent about 8% of total UK trade.
AFAIK none are better than what the UK gets by being in the EU.
Several will be worse because the EU is negotiating better deals with the likes of Switzerland. Others like Canada have got most of what they wanted handed on a plate by the UK announcing they will abolish so may tariffs.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the UK is not legally entitled to sign any free trade agreement until it has left the EU. At present it can only negotiate with countries that already have a free trade agreement with the EU to ensure that arrangements carry over.

I'm fully aware that a lot of the conversations about immigration and future free trade agreements will be matters for the next parliament and for subsequent governments.

The withdrawal bill simply allows the UK to pursue new policies in these areas.

prawnsambo

theological wrote: »

This post is bemusing for two reasons.

You tell me that I misunderstand the nature of free trade agreements without telling me how.

You have the strange belief that somehow the UK won't be able to negotiate free trade agreements even when much smaller countries have managed to. The idea that countries wouldn't want enhanced access to the UK market (the world's 5th largest) post-Brexit is bizarre.

Doesn't seem like you watched the video. The UK will be able to negotiate FTAs, but they will not be on their own terms when you're talking about the USA, India, China etc. And others will hang back and wait to see what access the UK will have with the EU or the USA and what standards they'll apply before getting involved. And those other smaller countries you talk of, have taken years to get their trade deals. And they get to take rules from the big boys and are told what they'll get. Like Switzerland being told by China to open their market now and they'll get access to China in 15 years. That's the reality.

lawred2

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Another example of the lying Tories

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

Is there no election standards office in the UK?

A Dub in Glasgo

theological wrote: »

This post is bemusing for two reasons.

You tell me that I misunderstand the nature of free trade agreements without telling me how.

You have the strange belief that somehow the UK won't be able to negotiate free trade agreements even when much smaller countries have managed to. The idea that countries wouldn't want enhanced access to the UK market (the world's 5th largest) post-Brexit is bizarre.

I fully respect your right to disagree with me, and I welcome the opportunity to be challenged but please provide something to back up your arguments.



You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the UK is not legally entitled to sign any free trade agreement until it has left the EU. At present it can only negotiate with countries that already have a free trade agreement with the EU to ensure that arrangements carry over.

I'm fully aware that a lot of the conversations about immigration and future free trade agreements will be matters for the next parliament and for subsequent governments.

The withdrawal bill simply allows the UK to pursue new policies in these areas.

I think the point is that any trade agreement the UK makes post Brexit is very unlikely to match the one they currently enjoy today

An Ciarraioch

Tories get significant donations from Russian oligarchs:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-russian-donors-have-stepped-tory-funding/

A Dub in Glasgo

lawred2 wrote: »

Is there no election standards office in the UK?

I thought it would be the Electoral Commission but looks like they just look after the logisitics of the election as well as the money spent

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/what-we-do-elections