Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

hometruths

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Though you quoted my post, I'm going to assume you're not accusing me of bullying or bile.

I understand fully why many people voted Leave. They were lied to. They believed Farage and Johnson. Fast forward three years. Three years of debate and argument ad nauseam. Three years to inform oneself of the realities via those debates and arguments.

Britain now has a choice. To continue to "believe in Brexit" or to apply logic to fact. Those that continue to believe in Brexit because Johnson is a great orator who will "Get Brexit Done" need to be called out on their belief. Because they weren't challenged in 2016 to support their 'belief' with fact is precisely why Britain, and Ireland, are in this stupid position of Britain leaving the EU.

Anyone can come on this thread and adopt any position they like on Brexit. However, if it is unsupported by fact then it is not "a reasonable position to hold". It becomes repetitive and tedious waffle. If it is simply belief devoid of reality or fact then they should be challenged to prove their claims with fact, truth and reality. Otherwise, I'd be better off reading The Express.

I am not sure as you seem to be that is always black and white what is "simply belief devoid of reality or fact".

There is seemingly no fact or definable reality in my post about the hypothetical voter - is that thus what you mean by tedious waffle?

boggerman1

Headshot wrote: »

He's basically built his career on lying and the Tories much like the Republicans with Trump (for the most part) accept it for what he is and constantly back him.

I can never understand how some Tories like the likes of Amber Rudd even went into cabinet with him. Unfortunately the Tory moderates have all but vanished from the party and what's left is shadow of what the Tories were.

Prime example of that being Nicki Morgan.on that ch4 program Tories @war she hated Johnson or so it seemed but when the offer of a ministerial post was offered she had no issues with him

Professor Moriarty

schmittel wrote: »

I am not sure as you seem to be that is always black and white what is "simply belief devoid of reality or fact".

There is seemingly no fact or definable reality in my post about the hypothetical voter - is that thus what you mean by tedious waffle?

I wasn't referring to you. You need to read my post in the context of your post in its totality.

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

So Amber Rudd is a moderate now?

No memory of her time as Home Secretary - the anti immigrant stuff and the Windrush Scandal which she resigned over. And referred to Diane Abbot as a coloured woman.

But she opposed Brexit so she must be a moderate!

I've no time for Rudd. But Windrush was all on May.

Rudd took the fall.

hometruths

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wasn't referring to you. You need to read my post in the context of your post in its totality.

Will do!

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet again, Brexit viewed through the prism of economics. It's such a narrow-minded, elitist perspective.

This is frankly bizzare, the wealthy are insulated enough to be able to ignore the economic consequences of Brexit. The ordinary bloke on the street is not. They will suffer because of this folly, after suffering under austerity for a decade already.

The likes of Boris Johnson and JRM will not suffer because of their policies, but people reliant on food banks and an overstreached NHS certainly will.

ballsymchugh

The idea that a post brexit UK on the outskirts of Europe could be as successful as one of the best placed autocratic city states in the world is fanciful. Singapore is a port, a trading area, and a very successful one at the heart of the ASEAN area.

can't see the UK outside the EU being that lucky.

Headshot

Oh wow

I didnt see this coming.

Tom Watosn quits as labour deputy leader
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/06/tom-watson-to-quit-as-labour-deputy-leader-and-stand-down-as-mp

Letwin_Larry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You single out the IRA as being particularly callous and as the only child killers then said that if Johnson brought Corbyns association with the IRA up it would have an effect on the election.

Where we meant to think you meant a 'good effect'?


You are dodging here.

well yes any association with that bunch of murdering rabble is hardly going to boost his electoral chances. do you really need me to explain that to you? if you lie down with a pig, there's a good chance you'll stink to high heaven when you get up to leave.

but for the record here is where i actually agreed with Joe_Public that the impact on the election may well be minimal.
the comment by Joe was very prescient as the news of Tom Watson quitting was just breaking. Perhaps there is a stink attaching to corbyn and his comrades, or are we to believe his resignation was purely for "personal reasons"?

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.

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you're probably right, but i have no doubt bojo & co will remind him of his past associations with mass murderers during this campaign and especially during the TV debates, if for no other reason "than to hear him deny it"

hometruths

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Though you quoted my post, I'm going to assume you're not accusing me of bullying or bile.

I understand fully why many people voted Leave. They were lied to. They believed Farage and Johnson. Fast forward three years. Three years of debate and argument ad nauseam. Three years to inform oneself of the realities via those debates and arguments.

Britain now has a choice. To continue to "believe in Brexit" or to apply logic to fact. Those that continue to believe in Brexit because Johnson is a great orator who will "Get Brexit Done" need to be called out on their belief. Because they weren't challenged in 2016 to support their 'belief' with fact is precisely why Britain, and Ireland, are in this stupid position of Britain leaving the EU.

Anyone can come on this thread and adopt any position they like on Brexit. However, if it is unsupported by fact then it is not "a reasonable position to hold". It becomes repetitive and tedious waffle. If it is simply belief devoid of reality or fact then they should be challenged to prove their claims with fact, truth and reality. Otherwise, I'd be better off reading The Express.

Out of interest what facts do you have that support your opinion that there are people who "believe in Brexit because Johnson is a great orator."

I haven't seen any evidence of that theory anywhere. Have you?

Without such evidence it is repetitive and tedious waffle, simply a belief devoid of reality or fact.

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

well yes any association with that bunch of murdering rabble is hardly going to boost his electoral chances. do you really need me to explain that to you? if you lie down with a pig, there's a good chance you'll stink to high heaven when you get up to leave.

but for the record here is where i actually agreed with Joe_Public that the impact on the election will be minimal.
the comment by Joe was very prescient as the news of Tom Watson quitting was just breaking. Perhaps there is a stink attaching to corbyn and his comrades, or are we to believe his resignation was purely for "personal reasons"?

You are bluffing, here is what you said:

Letwin_Larry wrote:

corbyn's association with our republican child-killlers could well affect the upcoming Brexmas election.

That's what you were asked about. But you pretended you never said it would have an effect. :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

schmittel wrote: »

Out of interest what facts do you have that support your opinion that there are people who "believe in Brexit because Johnson is a great orator."

I haven't seen any evidence of that theory anywhere. Have you?

Without such evidence it is repetitive and tedious waffle, simply a belief devoid of reality or fact.

Again, I'll ignore your snide comment.

Here is an interesting and in depth academic research and analysis of why people voted to Leave in 2016,

A quote:

Although feelings about the David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn were not influential, feelings about Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage had highly significant effects (p < 0.001). Controlling for the influence of all other predictors, positive images of the leaders of the Leave campaign significantly enhanced the likelihood of voting to exit the EU.

Another quote:

Leader image cues provided by Farage and Johnson were influential too. In Farage’s case, as ‘feeling thermometer’ scores about him moved from the bottom 10 per cent to the top 10 per cent along the 0–10 ‘likeability’ scale, the probability of voting Leave increased by 0.36 points. The comparable probability change as feelings about Johnson became increasingly positive was somewhat larger, 0.42 points.

Letwin_Larry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are bluffing, here is what you said:

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

yes but as a previous poster pointed out corbyn's association with our republican child-killlers could well affect the upcoming Brexmas election.

That's what you were asked about. But you pretended you never said it would have an effect. :rolleyes:

i said "could". i did not say it would affect the results of the election.

please try reading it before you comment on somebody's posting.

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i said "could". i did not say it would affect the results of the election.

please try reading it before you comment on somebody's posting.

And you were asked why you thought that. And claimed you never siad it and omitted that post when presenting your 'evidence'>

I'll leave it there and not drag the thread off topic arguing back and forth with your dodging.

An Claidheamh

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

well yes any association with that bunch of murdering rabble is hardly going to boost his electoral chances. do you really need me to explain that to you? if you lie down with a pig, there's a good chance you'll stink to high heaven when you get up to leave.

To be honest Larry, I'd imagine Jezza would just riposte that Bojo is in bed with those incompetent web-necked redneck murderers, your UDA.


(Interestingly, your only other thread post is about the Joe Duffy's Children of the Troubles - where you forget that the Brit army murdered the majority of innocent children during that conflict, cowardly scum, but these are only facts)


At the end of the day, British people don't care about Corbyn's support of the our PIRA, and why would they? Understandable.
That episode did not cost him a single voter.
Get over it.

They even care less about silly orange homophobic hillbillies in trailers in Belfast who need to move on.
Why would Bojo invite accusations of links with loyalist scum onto himself.
Only people who don't understand these facts are the unionists.
Hard Luck mo chara.


On another note, it's funny how new accounts of alleged "Irish" boardsies, like Eskimo and Larry, seem to keep popping up for this thread only after the same gammon headed beliefs were laughed off before.*


*that was before the first failed British attempt to leave the European Union, back in March remember

hometruths

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Again, I'll ignore your snide comment.

Here is an interesting and in depth academic research and analysis of why people voted to Leave in 2016,

A quote:

Although feelings about the David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn were not influential, feelings about Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage had highly significant effects (p < 0.001). Controlling for the influence of all other predictors, positive images of the leaders of the Leave campaign significantly enhanced the likelihood of voting to exit the EU.

Another quote:

Leader image cues provided by Farage and Johnson were influential too. In Farage’s case, as ‘feeling thermometer’ scores about him moved from the bottom 10 per cent to the top 10 per cent along the 0–10 ‘likeability’ scale, the probability of voting Leave increased by 0.36 points. The comparable probability change as feelings about Johnson became increasingly positive was somewhat larger, 0.42 points.

It wasn't a snide comment. It was a rhetorical question, and perfectly reasonable in the context of your previous post.

But I thank you for answering it all the same, and providing the link to the study of why people voted leave. I have just spent an informative half hour learning that the probability of bears sh*tting in the woods increases after meal times.

Rjd2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I've no time for Rudd. But Windrush was all on May.

Rudd took the fall.

I dislike Rudd also but yeah she took the fall for sure and when you look at her options outside politics she probably did not need to.

Don't forget Rudd also stood in for May in a debate because the PM knew she was toxic with the public. Rudd had only buried her father a few days previously.

Boris with the "moderates " resigning is also losing a lot of competent media performers. Ed Vaizey, Rudd, Rory Stewart to name a few would have been very useful over the next few weeks.

Boris doesn't want to have to trust the ERG members to do the donkey work over next few weeks especially after JRM'S fine efforts Tuesday.:rolleyes:

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is literally the worst economic argument I've ever, ever, EVER come across.

You are somehow assuming that population size can be equated with economic success?

You dare compare the UK (fifth largest economy in the world) with Congo, Tanzania, and Myanmar, and expect to take you seriously? I have clearly compared Singapore and Switzerland etc. with economic independence and success, and that the UK - should it decide to - can reorient in a similar direction.

This is beyond the pale of expectation.

To offer a quote, this argument "really holds no water".

Given Singapore as an example, does that mean that post brexit with Nissan departing Sunderland as one possible outcome that the Sunderland will in time resemble Singapore with its shiny buildings?

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

a) Wars were caused via a lack of democracy (see Germany, twice). The idea that, without the EU we'd be back in the trenches, is absolutely absurd.

How democratic do you think Singapore is to be so successful? If the UK wants to emulate it then they're going to have to ditch non Tory parties and become a single party state.

Am interesting contrast is that Singapore has had only had three Prime ministers since independence, whereas the UK has had three since the referendum.

pauldla

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How democratic do you think Singapore is to be so successful? If the UK wants to emulate it then they're going to have to ditch non Tory parties and become a single party state.

Am interesting contrast is that Singapore has had only had three Prime ministers since independence, whereas the UK has had three since the referendum.

The UK is ranked at 14 on the Economist Intelligence Units Democracy Index. Singapore comes in at 66, along with Romania.

Ireland is listed at 6th place, along with Canada. Just sayin'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The UK democratic system is far from perfect.

I've never stated otherwise.

Personally, I believe there should be proportional representation; a dissolution of the House of Lords and its replacement with a democratically-elected senate; and clarity over postal voting.

In terms of "austerity", that's a political term at the best of times. I personally believe that austerity is a necessary evil and that spending your way out of economic difficulty is not a good thing; I believe that irrespective of whether it's a Labour or Tory government in power.

Interesting take on austerity.


So with more than ten years of Tory power and with it more than ten years of aggressive Tory austerity policies on all sectors. Their deficit had grown over the same period.

Please tell me more about these Tory austerity policies. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Also have you ever been to Singapore in your life. Just wondering

murphaph

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How democratic do you think Singapore is to be so successful? If the UK wants to emulate it then they're going to have to ditch non Tory parties and become a single party state.

Am interesting contrast is that Singapore has had only had three Prime ministers since independence, whereas the UK has had three since the referendum.

Yeah it's laughable the comparison with Singapore. The irony of moaning about the supposed undemocratic EU and simultaneous praise of one party Singapore is lost on them.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

So you've moved away from my economic points toward now the democratic argument?

Nope - just given up hope that you'll justify your economic points with fact-based argument. Seeing as you brought up the old "democratic control" chestnut, that seemed like a good direction to take.

Deleted User wrote: »

A "few democratic controls"?

I can go one better.

How about no controls whatsoever, by leaving the European Union and restoring all controls to the parliament in London.

Oh dear. So you can't think of even one "democratic control" that would revert to the UK post Brexit? Once again, you're following the well-worn path of every other ardent Brexit-supporter on this thread: regurgitating the UKIP-BrexitParty talking points without even trying to back them up with rational argument.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've made abundantly clear that I'm referring to the abstract principle of "independence". If by that term, some describe it as "generating your own legislation through the means by directly elected MPs", then the European Union is well outside that scope.

I vote for an MEP in direct elections who "generates" legislation that governs my life. I have more control over that than I do over Irish legislation (because I no longer have a vote in Ireland). Similarly, 60% of the electorate in the UK has no control over their "own" leglislation thanks to FPTP disenfranchising the majority.

But yep, you've made it very clear that all of your arguments are based on abstract principles, so maybe you'd be better off discussing things in the Religion and Spirituality forum? Or After Hours. :P

If you are hanging around, though, how about giving us an example of two or three specific "democratic controls" (your term) that the UK gave up upon joining the EEC and would recover post-Brexit. You offered this, unprovoked, as a good reason for tolerating May's contempt of Parliament, Johnson's lies and Cummings' unlawful acts, so you must have a few such controls that you want to see regained.

Leroy42

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah it's laughable the comparison with Singapore. The irony of moaning about the supposed undemocratic EU and simultaneous praise of one party Singapore is lost on them.

Isn't Singapore basically a centralised state? So big government?

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't Singapore basically a centralised state? So big government?

Yup.

Also you're screwed if you're unemployed or sick. Zero social safety net.

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't Singapore basically a centralised state? So big government?

Is it even remotely possible to run a country as diverse as the UK is on the Singaporean model?

Christy42

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it even remotely possible to run a country as diverse as the UK is on the Singaporean model?

If you do it the same way with a complete iron fist then yes.

Though I think the user also said Switzerland so maybe they are more interested in freedom of movement?

BonnieSituation

Christy42 wrote: »

If you do it the same way with a complete iron fist then yes.

Though I think the user also said Switzerland so maybe they are more interested in freedom of movement?

I would wager the poster in question likely hasn't thought this all through that fully.

hometruths

Johnson will be thanking his lucky stars today for the likes of Tom Watson and Ian Austin.

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1192344910378209280

Letwin_Larry

schmittel wrote: »

Johnson will be thanking his lucky stars today for the likes of Tom Watson and Ian Austin.

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1192344910378209280

incredible stuff.
i was expecting corbyn to receive some flack about his past 'er "associations", but even the corbynistas must have been blind-sided by this.

to paraphrase Wilde "to lose one leading party member is unfortunate, but to lose 2 is carelessness"

if others are to follow (and i suspect there are others), bojo will be doing a jig all the way to No. 10.