Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Joe_ Public

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.

Not enough.

Diane Abbott is the prospective future Home Secretary.

In 1984, Abbott said Ireland “is our struggle – every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.

Marr questioned why, shortly before the 9/11 attacks, Abbott voted against proscribing organisations including al-Qaida and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

Abbott responded that the list involved some organisations that should be seen as dissident groups, not terrorists. “What the legislation brought forward was a whole list of organisations some of which were not terrorist organisations, but dissident organisations,” she said.

Marr read the list to Abbott – which also included Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Armed Islamic Group, Harakat Mujahideen, the Tamil Tigers, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Group, the Islamic Army of Aden, the Abu Nidal Organisation, the Kurdistan Workers Party – and asked which should not be proscribed.

John McDonnell is the prospective future Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Speaking in 2003 he said: "It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.

"The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands, we now have a peace process."

Jeremy Corbyn is the prospective future Prime Minister.

Reports said a dossier from anti-extremism group Mainstream revealed new details of Mr Corbyn’s parliamentary meeting with convicted IRA terrorists just days after the Brighton attack which had aimed to wipe out Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet.

Jeremy Corbyn has said he was present but not involved at a wreath-laying for individuals behind the group that carried out the Munich Olympic massacre, a partial admission that has led to a row with Israel’s prime minister.

Is this the future government we wish to see?

I think not.

Others have argued here that this issue was "done to death" in 2017. What was "done to death" was the victims of terrorist organizations that Corbyn, Abbot, and McDonnell quite openly endorsed or, at minimum, had sympathies with.

We cannot let this issue be swept under the carpet of the forthcoming election. It says an awful lot about the potential future government. I understand that all politicians have personal flaws. The difference here is clear - these politicians are anti-UK in their past actions. That is unprecedented in UK history.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

BBC NI are showing Pop Goes Northern Ireland. Watch any episode and you'll see why a hard border was such an issue.

I decided that as an elected representative it was my duty to do everything in my power to get peace on our streets, as it was one of our major problems. And of course I thought that one definite and direct way of doing so was in direct dialogue with those organisations that were engaged in violence. And when I was very severely criticised for doing that I said very clearly “Look, given that thousands of British soldiers on our streets haven’t stopped the violence. If I could save one human life by talking to somebody, it’s my duty to do so”. That’s what I said at the time.

- John Hume

From a time when a politician didn't put themselves or the party first.
From someone who quite literally could have ended up dead in a ditch.

hotmail.com

gooch2k9 wrote: »

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

Trump didn't invent that.

gooch2k9

hotmail.com wrote: »

Trump didn't invent that.

Who said he did?

Professor Moriarty

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.

Exactly, or Brave New World.

hotmail.com

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Who said he did?

Oh I thought you were comparing Trump and Boris because of the people standing behind them when they speak.

gooch2k9

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh I thought you were comparing Trump and Boris because of the people standing behind them when they speak.

I was. It's clear as day the style of presentation they're going for there. Blatantly transparent everything they are doing is from the Trump playbook. It's a distinctly American approach. Even some UK journalists were commenting on how American the whole thing was.

marsbar1

Rjd2 wrote: »

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.

It's highly debatable if Boris's 'deal' is Brexit at all. A 2nd referendum followed by remaining is seen by many Brexiteers as preferable to that 'deal' going through.

looksee

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh I thought you were comparing Trump and Boris because of the people standing behind them when they speak.

He was, more or less. But that has nothing to do with who invented the arrangement.

hotmail.com

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I was. It's clear as day the style of presentation they're going for there. Blatantly transparent everything they are doing is from the Trump playbook. It's a distinctly American approach. Even some UK journalists were commenting on how American the whole thing was.

Yes campaigning like the Americans is nothing new. Trump's campaigning was nothing out of the ordinary for Americans. This "playbook" thing gives Trump far too much credit.

reslfj

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

theological wrote: »

Although the UK economy is smaller than the entire EU. It is a large market in it's own right as the world's 5th biggest.

The UK is due to slip down to 7th place in 2019.

The rank gives only limited information on the relative sizes. The EU27 economy is almost 6 times larger than the UK's.
California alone has an economy a bit larger than the UK's economy with a much better GDP growth.

The size and growth of an economy depends very much on its partnerships with others - not yesterdays relations but almost exclusively looking forward.

theological wrote: »

I'm not convinced of your assumption that the EU will automatically negotiate better deals for the UK. This is because the EU has to negotiate on the basis of the priorities of 28 disparate countries rather than the needs of the UK alone.

You will have to give some actual data here. Which products - of economical significance - is not treated to the UK's liking by the EU trade negotiators?

Most industries in Europe are fairly similar and the UK industry not least to the Germany/BeNeLux/Scandinavia/Czech/Slovakia/Austria and even France industry. The have very parallel goals for trade deals.
The value of the SM (50% of UK export), the 60+ EU FTAs and maybe most important the all EU 'Region of Origin'.

Much of what I have seen in this respect is more like Irish farmers complaining over just one hundred thousand tons of Mercosul/Mercosur beef - out of any realistic relation to total EU beef production.

theological wrote: »

Firstly - the value of single market membership is not as big for a large economy like the UK as it is for a small country.

The UK is very, very far from being large enough to produce and supply almost everything itself and are way off from being able to produce many more goods even close to efficiently.

Only the US and China may be large enough to be alone. However the current Trump trade war indicates that not even they can operate alone without much economical hardship.

Lars

jimmycrackcorm

[
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.[/QUOTE]

I personally know of a domestic helper who works in a Singapore home. Their monthly pay is €460. They only get allowed out on a Sunday and only then between 9am and 7pm. They have to be available and working from 7am until 11pm 6 days a week and stay in cramped conditions in the home. There are tens of thousands of domestic helpers in the same situation.

This is the Singapore on the Thames that the Tories want to create by removing EU worker directives.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

[
I personally know of a domestic helper who works in a Singapore home. Their monthly pay is €460. They only get allowed out on a Sunday and only then between 9am and 7pm. They have to be available and working from 7am until 11pm 6 days a week and stay in cramped conditions in the home. There are tens of thousands of domestic helpers in the same situation.

This is the Singapore on the Thames that the Tories want to create by removing EU worker directives.

That anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Anyone who knows anything about Singapore knows how successful that tiny country has been.

What you're doing is just as absurd as me quoting a millionaire from Zimbabwe and then assuming that somehow Zimbabwe is a successful country for all. If I delivered an anecdote like that, you'd be the first down my throat.

gooch2k9

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes campaigning like the Americans is nothing new. Trump's campaigning was nothing out of the ordinary for Americans. This "playbook" thing gives Trump far too much credit.

I don't remember seeing that kind of stuff in 2017. Along with the social media advertising they are doing nowadays. Get the lie out there and then pull back. It would probably be more fair to call it Bannon's playbook, I believe he is involved in the UK too?

Maybe I'm wrong but when I saw the pictures of Johnson et al this evening I immediately thought of Trump rallies.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

That anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Anyone who knows anything about Singapore knows how successful that tiny country has been.

What you're doing is just as absurd as me quoting a millionaire from Zimbabwe and then assuming that somehow Zimbabwe is a successful country for all. If I delivered an anecdote like that, you'd be the first down my throat.

How will Singapore style economics make life better for Joe Bloggs in post-Brexit Britain?

hotmail.com

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I don't remember seeing that kind of stuff in 2017. Along with the social media advertising they are doing nowadays. Get the lie out there and then pull back. It would probably be more fair to call it Bannon's playbook, I believe he is involved in the UK too?

Maybe I'm wrong but when I saw the pictures of Johnson et al this evening I immediately thought of Trump rallies.

The rallies are an American thing going back decades is my point. And targeted social media campaigns now go back about 15 years now.

And yes all parties have adopted the rally style approach for many elections now in the UK.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this the future government we wish to see?

I think not.

If the Queen was prepared to draw a line under the past and invite Martin McGuinness to dinner in her own home, do you not think that it's time for the rest of the UK's politicians to move on too?

You're following the same line of discussion as Johnson in his Telegraph article yesterday - dragging up references from the mid-20th Century in an attempt to discredit one of his opponents.

This is so typically British: always, always, always looking to the past and regretting they can't live in the bits they cherry-pick from it - and Brexit is a product of that.

In the same vein, this is why calling for/having a General Election instead of dealing with the inherent flaws and contradictions of Brexit was such a bad idea and is unlikely to get it "done" without yet more unforeseen consequences - most of them negative.

Twister2

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

he said about the tories "when they go low, we go high" or words to that effect, which struck a cord.
the tories have really exposed themselves in the past few days (well many decades one might argue). JRMs' attitude to the Grenfell disaster was quite shocking, apart from being totally inept. really shows their utter contempt of the less-well off in society.

Corbyn wasn't too bad in response

-Common sense would be to not put flammable cladding outside the building

I'm beginning to think BJ will drop a lot of votes during the campaign, he's so 1 dimensional and robotic

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How will Singapore style economics make life better for Joe Bloggs in post-Brexit Britain?

I didn't suggest that the UK should adopt a Singaporean model; what I am saying is that if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more. This doom and gloom is horrifying.

The idea the UK will sink into the depths of economic oblivion is a symptom of Project Fear Mark II.

Europhiles have, and I suspect always will, harness economic fear to manipulate the "choice" that electorates make. Omnipresent throughout the EU's existence is a return to the ballot box when the electorates "make the wrong choice". Let's hope, with the passage of the Johnson Deal, that trend ends.

Speaking of Johnson, his launch in Birmingham has proven to be electrifyingly enthusiastic, energetic, and infectious. That's what Johnson brings to the table - and long may that continue throughout this election.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't suggest that the UK should adopt a Singorean model; what I am saying is that if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can just as succeed.

The idea the UK will sink into the depths of economic oblivion is a symptom of Project Fear Mark II.

Europhiles have, and I suspect always will, harness economic fear to manipulate the "choice" that electorates make. Omnipresent throughout the EU's existence is a return to the ballot box when the electorates "make the wrong choice". Let's hope, with the passage of the Johnson Deal, that trend ends.

Speaking of Johnson, his launch in Birmingham has proven to be electrifyingly enthusiastic, energetic, and infectious. That's what Johnson brings to the table - and long may that continue throughout this election.

Okay, so will the UK be better off after Brexit? Will Joe Bloggs? If so, how and why?

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay, so will the UK be better off after Brexit? Will Joe Bloggs? If so, how and why?

If you ask Europhiles, the UK will be worse off.

If you ask staunch Brexiteers, the UK will be better off.

If you ask a moderate, they'll say that nobody knows.

If you ask a realist, they'll say the UK will survive.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

If you ask Europhiles, the UK will be worse off.

If you ask staunch Brexiteers, the UK will be better off.

If you ask a moderate, they'll say that nobody knows.

If you ask a realist, they'll say the UK will survive.

And your opinion? And the facts supporting that opinion?

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And your opinion? And the facts supporting that opinion?

I believe that nobody knows.

It's akin to the question of Does God Exist? Some say yes, some say no - some say the Universe began with a creator, others say the inception of the Universe was uncaused. The real answer is clear - nobody has a clue how it all started, and I say that as an atheist.

The same type of argument is often true of economics and political reality.

I believe in Brexit, but I have no idea what impact it will have economically. There are many metrics to consider, many political decisions to be made, many economic factors outside of the UK that determine how the UK economy will perform; that I simply do not have the arrogance to claim to "know", with any degree of certainty, how the UK will perform over the next decade.

What I can say with some degree of certainty, is that the UK is likely - as the fifth largest economy in the world - to weather any storm that may present itself, and will not deteriorate into some third-world country where doom, gloom, and misery become the currency of the day. Of that, I am convinced. For many, though, the democratic return of powers mitigates against any GDP loss/gain here or there.

hotmail.com

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Speaking of Johnson, his launch in Birmingham has proven to be electrifyingly enthusiastic, energetic, and infectious. That's what Johnson brings to the table - and long may that continue throughout this election.

I've been surprised at how unimpressive Johnson has been in his speeches.

His attacks on Cornyn is the Theresa May strategy of 2017 and look how that went.

gooch2k9

His constant use of rehearsed lines makes him ineffective on me anyway. Dither and delay.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that nobody knows.

It's akin to the question of Does God Exist? Some say yes, some say no - some say the Universe began with a creator, others say the inception of the Universe was uncaused. The real answer is clear - nobody has a clue how it all started, and I say that as an atheist.

The same type of argument is often true of economics and political reality.

I believe in Brexit, but I have no idea what impact it will have economically. There are many metrics to consider, many political decisions to be made, many economic factors outside of the UK that determine how the UK economy will perform; that I simply do not have the arrogance to claim to "know", with any degree of certainty, how the UK will perform over the next decade.

What I can say with some degree of certainty, is that the UK is likely - as the fifth largest economy in the world - to weather any storm that may present itself, and will not deteriorate into some third-world country where doom, gloom, and misery become the currency of the day. Of that, I am convinced. For many, though, the democratic return of powers mitigates against any GDP loss/gain here or there.

You said this:

"what I am saying is that if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more."

Can you explain how, post-Brexit, the UK "can succeed just as much, if not more" than Singapore? Can you explain how this success will impact on Joe Bloggs post-Brexit?

Twister2

They'll be worse off

Loss of Free trade and borders opening up with Scotland and EU

Bullsh1t deals with the Commonwealth lol and US

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

I've been surprised at how unimpressive Johnson has been in his speeches.

His attacks on Cornyn is the Theresa May strategy of 2017 and look how that went.

Personally, I've found him impressive - far more than I expected him to be once he took office.

gooch2k9 wrote: »

His constant use of rehearsed lines makes him ineffective on me anyway. Dither and delay.

So do all politicians.

I personally am tired of hearing Corbyn repeat the line, "For the many, not the few" or, "For the 99%". I've been hearing this stuff for years now, and it doesn't really come across well knowing that Corbyn himself earns far, far more than the ordinary worker but does next to nothing to shift that inequality.

Eric Cartman

gooch2k9 wrote: »

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

as opposed to a labour one with no crowd....


I don't think the british public will be silly enough to put corbyn in no. 10 , silly enough for brexit but not that. They'll end up with some strange coalition, even stranger than the last and brexit will drag on for years.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You said this:

"what I am saying is that if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more."

Can you explain how, post-Brexit, the UK "can succeed just as much, if not more" than Singapore? Can you explain how this success will impact on Joe Bloggs post-Brexit?

Yes, the quote is accurate - that "if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more" in its own way.

Given the economic stature of the UK, I don't believe my belief is unreasonable.