Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

Your Pavlovian response to my singling out Remain sources is irritatingly predictable. I thought it was particularly notable that Remain leaning broadsheets went from factual-but-with-an-editorial-perspective to tabloid toilet paper overnight. I never read right wing sources.

I'll ignore your ad hominem remark. Two questions. How can you assess British "tabloid toilet paper" if you don't "read right wing sources"? If you don't trust "Remain leading broadsheets", and you don't "read right wing sources", how do you inform yourself?

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

A perfect description of Brexit. Which is mostly being peddled by the Right and Far Right, isn't it?

Brexit traverses traditional party politics.

Many on the Left, such as Tony Benn, were ardent critics of the European Union on grounds of sovereignty.

Many on the Left are equally appalled how the Euro has impacted southern European countries, as well as how the socialist party of Greece was manhandled.

I'm not supporting all their positions, but that's part of the reason why Brexit is not just a Left or Right issue.

The overuse of "far right" in the context of Brexit is testimony to a lack of perspective and understanding on the matter. 5 million Labour Party voters opted to choose Leave, for example.

listermint wrote: »

Then you must be really pissed off with the Tories and their 'f business' mantra and messing with the market access that they have been doing for two years.

Yes, but I think that was a tongue-in-cheek comment as opposed to a hard-line literalist interpretation.

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i watched the Joe Duffy doc on the Children killled in The Troubles and it really brought it home to me just how evil the IRA was. sickening atrocities.
that and the young girl (now a mature lady) blinded in the Omagh bomb who was on the Gaybo tribute last evening. truly evil baastaards they were in case we ever forget.

A cursory glance at Diane Abbott's comments, John McDonnell's comments, and many of Jeremy Corbyn's comments on the IRA and Islamic jihad, would have you reaching for the nearest bucket.

I sincerely hope that these issues are raised alight in the upcoming election - along with the disgusting, inherent anti-Semitism within the party.

If any Conservative leader had a mirror history, they would be rightly and roundly condemned. But many on the Left seek to whitewash and ignore these comments because their anti-Tory and pro-Socialist agenda matters far, far more than these important moral questions.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What aspect of free-market captialism is so great? Why do you "believe" so hard in it?

What would be your preferred model for the UK? Say America or Denmark?

What aspect of his contact with the IRA in the 70s/80s do you particularly dislike and reckon risks the integrity of the UK now?

Doesn't the GFA guarantee that the North is continues to be part of the UK until the consent of those therein is given to change it?

Does Corbyn as PM threaten the GFA?

The reunification of Ireland can only occur with teh consent of all the peopls iof this island via 2 referenda, north and south. Corbyn as PM can only work within the framework as laid out in the GFA.

As PM he would be guarantor of that framework. Do you think he shoudln't as PM be a guarantor or be pro-GFA?

How did he mislead the country? The referendum has been respected. The nature of the exit has yet to be agreed and that is all on the Tories.

Given how many questions were asked, I must be brief:

• Capitalism has raised the floor of those parts of the world that have endorsed it the most. True, statistically many at the top have obscene levels of wealth, but proportionally, the rest of society picks up and advances far faster than any other economic model in history.
• Regarding the IRA, see above and comments made by the figures I mentioned. The quotes are widely circulated.
• GFA etc. may be guaranteed; but I think it would be shameful if Corbyn became Prime Minister who believed in Irish reunification and Scottish expulsion from the UK.
• The referendum has not been respected. It gets diluted, blocked, delayed and insisted that a second referendum is needed. That's the very opposite of "respecting a result".

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the ira thing was done to death in 2017 tbh. Didnt really change much then and see no reason why it would have much effect now. Bigger problems for corbyn than that old attack line.

Given how disgraceful many of their comments have been, I certainly hope the issue gets re-raised.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

There is very little evidence of this. It is true that the UK lacks a competant trade cadre because of it's membership of the EU, but it does not follow that the UK would be better off having to do trade deals of its own.

Singapore has a population of 5 million and is one of the most successful countries in the world by many indices. It is also an unfortunate case, as it only achieved independence in 1965 after an acrimonious split with Malaysia. The island is not endowed with natural resources. What Singapore did was open its economic gates and welcomed in the flow of capitalism. Switzerland is outside much of the political framework of the EU, but generates its own laws etc. and is also highly successful. If Singapore and Switzerland can do it, without being members of the EU, then I think the UK - which is the 5th largest economy in the world - can manage just fine.

Rjd2

Hope when we get a second referendum the likes of Swinson, Lucas etc show some class and give Nigel Farage some credit for ensuring no brexit. It would look like sour grapes if they didn't.

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1192146480167104513

hotmail.com

Rjd2 wrote: »

Hope when we get a second referendum the likes of Swinson, Lucas etc show some class and give Nigel Farage some credit for ensuring no brexit. It would look like sour grapes if they didn't.

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1192146480167104513

Constituency polls in the UK are almost pointless.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'll ignore your ad hominem remark. Two questions. How can you assess British "tabloid toilet paper" if you don't "read right wing sources"? If you don't trust "Remain leading broadsheets", and you don't "read right wing sources", how do you inform yourself?

1. Not even an ad hom. My remark was based on your response, not you.



2. You don't have to trust a paper to read it occasionally. I can use my own judgement and don't have to take things at face value.


3. The vast majority of my news comes from papers with a paid subscription. I highly recommend trying it if you haven't. Clickbait news is bad for one's health.

4. I can assess tabloid toilet paper because I know what a tabloid toilet paper looks and sounds like. It's not a like a tabloid is some alien concept to me simply because I don't choose to read them.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

1. Not even an ad hom. My remark was based on your response, not you.



2. You don't have to trust a paper to read it occassionally. I can use my own judgement and don't have to take things at face value.


3. The vast majority of my news comes from papers with a paid subscription. I highly recommend trying it if you haven't. Clickbait news is bad for one's health.

So you don't read Remain papers and you don't read right wing papers. But the papers you do read are secret. Grand.

prawnsambo

The US China trade war has badly hit Singapore with growth forecasts set for anything from 0 to 1%. They depend heavily on China for their growth and China is suffering a slowdown. The model is great when things are going well, but they are heavily exposed to much larger economies. As you are when you go it alone.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So you don't read Remain papers and you don't read right wing papers. But the papers you do read are secret. Grand.

You know there's a such things as the centre.


I also never said I don't read remain leaning papers.

I'm also not going to bother telling you what paper I do read, mostly one. If you're in any way sophisticated you'll figure out which one it is based on my username and the paid subscription.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

The US China trade war has badly hit Singapore with growth forecasts set for anything from 0 to 1%. They depend heavily on China for their growth and China is suffering a slowdown. The model is great when things are going well, but they are heavily exposed to much larger economies. As you do when you go it alone.

Does anyone have any credible economic argument for Brexit? Lots of people just drop cliched slogans about FTAs or point at Singapore, but nobody can offer any substantive pro-Brexit economic analysis that says the average British person will be better off after Brexit.

Danzy

quokula wrote: »

With the Brexit votes so important to Ireland and on such a knife edge, and the possibility of another hung parliament looming large, I assume there's still no talk from Sinn Fein on the possibility of turning up and voting?

I know they were pushed on it for some of the key votes last year, and the response was that voters elected them on a promise of abstentionism, but a new election is a new opportunity to revisit that surely?

If they turned up, Johnson would lose.

If they threatened to turn up Varadkar, Brussels and Johnson would beg them not to go.

The British are fairly sore at the DUP Mps, the Tories would not vote wirh SF even if they liked it.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

You know there's a such things as the centre.


I also never said I don't read remain leaning papers.

I'm also not going to bother telling you what paper I do read, mostly one. If you're in any way sophisticated you'll figure out which one it is based on my username and the paid subscription.

Okay. Mystery it is.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Does anyone have any credible economic argument for Brexit? Lots of people just drop cliched slogans about FTAs or point at Singapore, but nobody can offer any substantive pro-Brexit economic analysis that says the average British person will be better off after Brexit.

The most credible Brexiter argument is that it allows for greater deregulation along the same lines as the United States. It has worked for the US, but whether that will work for the UK, a much smaller economy, smaller military and with fewer resources is highly doubtful, but it is an argument.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

The most credible Brexiter argument is that it allows for greater deregulation along the same lines as the United States. It has worked for the US, but whether that will work for the UK, a much smaller economy, smaller military and with fewer resources is highly doubtful, but it is an argument.

Would you have a link to any analysis of that point?

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Would you have a link to any analysis of that point?

No, I'm afraid.


I'd be interested to see some proper analysis myself because it does seem to be the way the UK is intent on heading, but there aren't any reliable organisations performing research like that that I'm aware of.

Rjd2

hotmail.com wrote: »

Constituency polls in the UK are almost pointless.

Oh yes and plenty of tme left, but the biggest obstacle to Brexit happening right now is Nigel Farage. He will have to live wit that if we get a second referendum next year.

jm08

boring accountant wrote: »

Tragically, this is not the case. Europe, by that I mean European companies, are very far behind the curve. Completely missed the boat on Internet 2.0. Missing out on 5G. Likely to be 3rd best or maybe a distant second in electric vehicles.

Seems the EU are investing heavily in the development of hydrogen power.

https://irishtechnews.ie/hydrogen-vehicles-to-travel-nearly-6000km/

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

No, I'm afraid.


I'd be interested to see some proper analysis myself because it does seem to be the way the UK is intent on heading, but there aren't any reliable organisations performing research like that that I'm aware of.

I came across this. It's fairly thorough but blatantly anti-deregulation. Has lots of internal links to various relevant and excellent articles though some are paywalled.

Itssoeasy

I know I’m late to this story but it seems there was a report done about possible Russian involvement in the brexit vote in 2016 and Boris Johnson has blocked its release(there is a ten day period where it can be reviewed which has past) until after the election. That says to me that Boris has seen something in the report that is less than helpful in relation to brexit.

prawnsambo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Does anyone have any credible economic argument for Brexit? Lots of people just drop cliched slogans about FTAs or point at Singapore, but nobody can offer any substantive pro-Brexit economic analysis that says the average British person will be better off after Brexit.

The Singapore model is the one most widely used by people who would benefit most from it. Singapore benefits from its proximity to China and the money flowing into their banking system from there. I wouldn't say 'dodgy' money, but those accusations have been levelled. From a UK point of view, the only large economy nearby that would want to avail of such 'services' would be Russia. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Russia is suspected of having a hand in brexit.

humberklog

Surprisingly rocky start to the Tory's campaign. Even now Zahawi is simply embarrassing himself on with Andrew Neil.
In contrast to Labour's get go smooth(ish), sharp(ish) and even on message clearly explaining Labour's Brexit(ish) mission statement.


Some difference.... and surprising.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

The Singapore model is the one most widely used by people who would benefit most from it. Singapore benefits from its proximity to China and the money flowing into their banking system from there. I wouldn't say 'dodgy' money, but those accusations have been levelled. From a UK point of view, the only large economy nearby that would want to avail of such 'services' would be Russia. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Russia is suspected of having a hand in brexit.

Equally coincidental is the number of wealthy Russians donating large sums of money to the Tory party. It's all just a misunderstanding.

Letwin_Larry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you think no politician should have tried to have a dialogue with them?
Where do you think that would have led?
I think refusing to speak to the IRA - or the equally vile and murderous Loyalist paramilitaries who seem to rarely be mentioned - would have led exactly nowhere and the atrocities from all sides would have continued unabated.

Thankfully, sense prevailed, dialogue happened, an agreement was reached, and peace has (for the most part) occurred.

where did i suggest politicians should or should not have engaged in talks with them? i didn't.

for the record it was the actions of the SAS eg Loughgall, the RUC shoot to kill policy (especially effective in Cos Armagh & Tyrone) and the fact the provos had been totally compromised by British intelligence (eg Stakeknife) that got them talking. they were defeated and they knew it. the game was up.

but tbh i think we are straying off topic.
i merely mentioned the pira as i expect corbyn will get his association with them thrown in his face, during the Brexit election campaign.

gooch2k9

Pictures from Conservative launch strangely reminiscent of Trump rallies. Podium set up with big crowd behind them.

boggerman1

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Pictures from Conservative launch strangely reminiscent of Trump rallies. Podium set up with big crowd behind them.

It goes to show that this so called genius Cummings is nothing only a copycat of antics.

Mr.Nice Guy

Tom Watson stepping down too:

https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1192169894479122433

quokula

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Equally coincidental is the number of wealthy Russians donating large sums of money to the Tory party. It's all just a misunderstanding.

It’s amazing how stuff like this gets minimal coverage while they go on calling Corbyn a Russian stooge. It’s like seeing 1984 play out before our eyes.

Capt'n Midnight

Another causality casualty.

Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson stands down

He says he will continue to campaign for the party, and that the decision was "personal, not political".

I keep being reminded that Tony Blair MP is an anagram of I'm Tory Plan B.

gooch2k9

quokula wrote: »

It’s amazing how stuff like this gets minimal coverage while they go on calling Corbyn a Russian stooge. It’s like seeing 1984 play out before our eyes.

They've survived that much scandal at this point that even if it were given proper coverage it wouldn't have any affect. Folk over there seem to be so entrenched in their views that any reports of wrongdoing on their 'side' are treated as slurs from the other.

quokula

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another causality casualty.

Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson stands down

I keep being reminded that Tony Blair MP is an anagram of I'm Tory Plan B.

This is probably a good thing for Labour given how consistently he briefed against party policy the last couple of years.

Feels like Labour have been much more united in general lately, the threat of a Boris Johnson majority has perhaps focussed the minds of more centrist Labour MPs in the same way it alienated more centrist Tories.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

This is probably a good thing for Labour given how consistently he briefed against party policy the last couple of years.

Feels like Labour have been much more united in general lately, the threat of a Boris Johnson majority has perhaps focussed the minds of more centrist Labour MPs in the same way it alienated more centrist Tories.

Eh? Tom Watson is a centrist Labour MP?

His stepping down now certainly does not seem like Labour becoming more united to me.

I'd interpret it as very bad news for centrist voters and centrist Labour MPs.