Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

boring accountant

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.

I have many anecdotes from people working in the financial services industry and in the medical system in Singapore. The high GDP figures are not just the result of interconnectivity, it's built off the backs of 60-80 hour work weeks across every industry. People don't live in Singapore, they only work there. And most look to make a bit of cash there for a while then leave to actually enjoy life.


The UK already has a highly demanding work culture. After Brexit it will probably get a lot worse



see here: (sorry if it's behind a paywall)

Workplace exhaustion is a vicious cycle in the UK

Britons work harder and faster than French and Germans yet productivity is lower

https://www.ft.com/content/f959a19c-d095-11e8-a9f2-7574db66bcd5

Enzokk

schmittel wrote: »

I am not too sure of what the root cause of the row is so have no idea if it would disappear the moment Corbyn stood down. I daresay the suspicion of antisemitism would reduce if he someone replaced him and made tackling the accusations a key platform.

As to Austin's comments, yes they're not new, but definitely newsworthy in an election campaign on the same day the Jewish Chronicle publishes a front page editorial pleading to non Jewish people:



https://www.thejc.com/comment/leaders/to-all-our-fellow-british-citizens-1.491812

There is a problem in the UK of Antisemitism. It is not confined to the Labour Party just as Islamophobia isn't confined to the Tories only. I think you would find those that have Antisemitic views probably has Islamophobic views as well. So the choices comes down to voting for the party who's leader is a probable Anti-Semite or a party who's leader is a racist and Islamophobe.

Neither party has dealt with the problems satisfactorily and should claim the moral high ground above the other.

boring accountant

Enzokk wrote: »

There is a problem in the UK of Antisemitism. It is not confined to the Labour Party just as Islamophobia isn't confined to the Tories only. I think you would find those that have Antisemitic views probably has Islamophobic views as well. So the choices comes down to voting for the party who's leader is a probable Anti-Semite or a party who's leader is a racist and Islamophobe.

Neither party has dealt with the problems satisfactorily and should claim the moral high ground above the other.

I think you would find that many of those who have anti-semitic views definitely do not have Islamophobic views.

hometruths

Enzokk wrote: »

There is a problem in the UK of Antisemitism. It is not confined to the Labour Party just as Islamophobia isn't confined to the Tories only. I think you would find those that have Antisemitic views probably has Islamophobic views as well. So the choices comes down to voting for the party who's leader is a probable Anti-Semite or a party who's leader is a racist and Islamophobe.

Neither party has dealt with the problems satisfactorily and should claim the moral high ground above the other.

Or vote Lib Dem.

Danzy

schmittel wrote: »

Or vote Lib Dem.

Let's not get desperate just yet.

SeaBreezes

schmittel wrote: »

that front page in full:

In the article they say he is anti Zionist therefore anti-Jew..
That's just ridiculous many Jewish people are anti Zionist.

It's like saying disagreeing with the Irish gov policies makes you anti catholic.

What has he said/done exactly to be called an anti-Seminte?

Genuinely curious.

votecounts

SeaBreezes wrote: »

In the article they say he is anti Zionist therefore anti-Jew..
That's just ridiculous many Jewish people are anti Zionist.

It's like saying disagreeing with the Irish gov policies makes you anti catholic.

What has he said/done exactly to be called an anti-Seminte?

Genuinely curious.

He probably said he supported the palestinians at some stage, therefore automatic anti jewish. Like the IRA stpry, you'd swear he was throwing petrol bombs or something. He'd be a better PM than BJ and might actually hold Israel to account on wide range of human rights abuses.

A Dub in Glasgo

It appears to be acceptable to accuse anyone who diagrees with the actions of the Israeli state an anti-semite

LuckyLloyd

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It appears to be acceptable to accuse anyone who diagrees with the actions of the Israeli state an anti-semite

Yep, which is why the vast majority of screaming about “anti - semitism” is nonsense.

Rjd2

Their is clearly an anti anti semitism issue with Labour as their is a Islamophobia issue in the tory party. I dunno how much the leaders care really, Jewish members leaving Labour is always the fault of big bad right wing media out to smear the chosen one while Boris and the tories don't seem to care much about the bigots they attract.

Grim state of affairs when the two lead parties in the UK attract those kind of people.

Irish Praetorian

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yep, which is why the vast majority of screaming about “anti - semitism” is nonsense.

Being honest, I think the complaint a lot of mainstream British Jews have when it comes to Israel, is not that people would raise the issue, it's just that their activism seems to begin and end with Israel.

Thargor

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Great watching Andrew Neil take apart Nadeem zahawi on this very topic on bbc this morning. Zahawi kept insisting they could open the spending tap because they had the defecit down to 1.2%. No you haven't, neil stopped him, its 2.3% and rising well beyond your fiscal rules. "You cannot get away with giving falsehoods on television".

So Zahawi changed tack and started waffling on about a four fifth reduction which turned out to be from 2010.When will these guys learn you cant spout garbage in front of Neil and expect to get away with it?

Andrew Neil was very impressive there, he was straight in hammering him with the real numbers whenever Zahawi tried to weasel in the lower figure and pointing out what zahawi was doing, he wasnt reading from notes or the prompter either it was all on the fly, he might be the only one left on British tv that would be able to do that or be brave enough to do it, everyone else just accepts the lies unchallenged or in the case of May and Johnson lets them pretend to answer the question by immediately talking about an unrelated topic.

boring accountant

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Being honest, I think the complaint a lot of mainstream British Jews have when it comes to Israel, is not that people would raise the issue, it's just that their activism seems to begin and end with Israel.

That's nonsense. There are protests whenever a western government attempts to escalate conflict in the Middle East.

Joe_ Public

Thargor wrote: »

Andrew Neil was very impressive there, he was straight in hammering him with the real numbers whenever Zahawi tried to weasel in the lower figure and pointing out what zahawi was doing, he wasnt reading from notes or the prompter either it was all on the fly, he might be the only one left on British tv that would be able to do that or be brave enough to do it, everyone else just accepts the lies unchallenged or in the case of May and Johnson lets them pretend to answer the question by immediately talking about an unrelated topic.

I agree with you. Neil isnt a guy i think I'd have much time for on a personal level, but at his job he's incomparable. His level of detail is amazing which i think is what sets him apart. The likes of kay burley can go on about what great hard questioners they are, but its neil who gets to the heart of it time and time again, on both sides. His dismantling of johnson during the leadership campaign will be one of the moments of the year for me. Managed to do what no other interviewer could do, make johnson look the fool he is.

Enzokk

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I agree with you. Neil isnt a guy i think I'd have much time for on a personal level, but at his job he's incomparable. His level of detail is amazing which i think is what sets him apart. The likes of kay burley can go on about what great hard questioners they are, but its neil who gets to the heart of it time and time again, on both sides. His dismantling of johnson during the leadership campaign will be one of the moments of the year for me. Managed to do what no other interviewer could do, make johnson look the fool he is.

Neil is a very good interviewer as he does very good preparation and he doesn't let people off, but his personal views should really disqualify him from presenting for the BBC, no matter how good he is.

SeaBreezes wrote: »

What has he said/done exactly to be called an anti-Seminte?

Genuinely curious.

Here is some of the reasons

Over the last year the list of revelations of Corbyn’s personal association with antisemitism has only grown. His coded language about “English irony” after being heckled by Jewish people at an event. His attendance at a wreath-laying ceremony for anti-Israel terrorists. His overlooking antisemitism when he penned a foreword for a book. Further examples of controversial figures with whom he shared a platform. All have reinforced the view I expressed last July about Corbyn’s character and beliefs.

Then you have him liking a post on Facebook about a mural that was removed. The problem was it portrayed stereotypes of Jews being selfish greedy bankers. Add to it the constant stories of his office getting involved in cases and affecting the outcomes when members have been accused of antisemitism. Then there is the case of trying to get Chris Williamson back into the party when he has a string of antisemitism offences against him as well.

More than 100 Labour MPs protest at decision to readmit Chris Williamson

So unfortunately there is just such a long list that cannot but make you wonder about Corbyn, too long a list surely for it only to be a coincidence.

Rjd2

A candidate from the 2 main parties stepped down today.

Tom Harewood calling out the tories would be the equivalent of the Novara Media (Sarkar/Batani etc) calling out Corbyn.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-general-election-latest-kate-ramsden-resign-corbyn-israel-child-abuse-a9193926.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1192562371274969088

jm08

Enzokk wrote: »

Then you have him liking a post on Facebook about a mural that was removed. The problem was it portrayed stereotypes of Jews being selfish greedy bankers. Add to it the constant stories of his office getting involved in cases and affecting the outcomes when members have been accused of antisemitism. Then there is the case of trying to get Chris Williamson back into the party when he has a string of antisemitism offences against him as well.

Williamson's sin seems to be that he supports Corbyn. Many leading jews (like Noah Comsky) have said that what he said wasn't remotely antisemitic. What Williamson is guilty of is saying that the Labour Party reaction to the charge of semitism is that it is way too apologetic. The criticism within the party about semitism seems to be coming from the Blairites and that is what Williamson said - they were using labour party semitism to get at Corbyn and that is why they object to his selection.

If Michael D. Higgins and Mary Robinson were in the British Labour Party, they would probably be doing time for being 'anti-semitic' at this stage.

Irish Praetorian

boring accountant wrote: »

That's nonsense. There are protests whenever a western government attempts to escalate conflict in the Middle East.

Yeah that's sort of the problem, but we're rowing frantically off-topic here so we'll have to continue another time.

Joe_ Public

Enzokk wrote: »

Neil is a very good interviewer as he does very good preparation and he doesn't let people off, but his personal views should really disqualify him from presenting for the BBC, no matter how good he is.





Here is some of the reasons



Then you have him liking a post on Facebook about a mural that was removed. The problem was it portrayed stereotypes of Jews being selfish greedy bankers. Add to it the constant stories of his office getting involved in cases and affecting the outcomes when members have been accused of antisemitism. Then there is the case of trying to get Chris Williamson back into the party when he has a string of antisemitism offences against him as well.

More than 100 Labour MPs protest at decision to readmit Chris Williamson

So unfortunately there is just such a long list that cannot but make you wonder about Corbyn, too long a list surely for it only to be a coincidence.

On Neil, i see where your coming from, there is an expectation on presenters to be neutral and he does fail the test. That said, he comes across as so balanced in his presenting - an equal opportunities savager as it were - that I'm inclined to give him a pass. Its not laura kuenssberg territory anyway, where you simply have mere pretence of balance.

On corbyn, I've read most of the allegations against him and i think he's definitely been guilty of poor judgment at times, nor has he lead sufficiently well on the issue. But as to whether it makes him an anti semite racist himself, i certainly dont believe anything of the sort.

Same with chris Williamson. As post alludes to above, im not entirely sure why he had to be chucked out. What he said was probably misguided and inappropriate but not convinced it merited that sanction. I dont want to make light of the issue, but thats just how it seems to me.

Joe_ Public

Rjd2 wrote: »

A candidate from the 2 main parties stepped down today.

Tom Harewood calling out the tories would be the equivalent of the Novara Media (Sarkar/Batani etc) calling out Corbyn.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-general-election-latest-kate-ramsden-resign-corbyn-israel-child-abuse-a9193926.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1192562371274969088

A bruising day for the labour party, watson yesterday, austin this morning, then 2 candidates stepping down and, not least, that incredible car crash interview with a candidate about the blair death comments. Excruciating to witness.

Maybe not a terrible thing to have this stuff out in the open early on, to be forgotten by next week. Or so they hope anyway i would imagine.

Capt'n Midnight

Another step down

The DUP, a great bunch of lads :rolleyes:

It's the holier than thou attitude that really does it.

The DUP's David Simpson is standing down as MP for Upper Bann after a reported affair with a party colleague.

boring accountant

I'd like to talk about Brexit if anyone is interested.

Enzokk

jm08 wrote: »

Williamson's sin seems to be that he supports Corbyn. Many leading jews (like Noah Comsky) have said that what he said wasn't remotely antisemitic. What Williamson is guilty of is saying that the Labour Party reaction to the charge of semitism is that it is way too apologetic. The criticism within the party about semitism seems to be coming from the Blairites and that is what Williamson said - they were using labour party semitism to get at Corbyn and that is why they object to his selection.

If Michael D. Higgins and Mary Robinson were in the British Labour Party, they would probably be doing time for being 'anti-semitic' at this stage.

You could be right that his only crime is that he is a supporter of Corbyn, it could also be the following,

I looked back through each and every example of Williamson’s despicable behaviour: lending his support to a man who defends Holocaust deniers; sharing platforms with the likes of Ken Livingstone when MPs had been specifically asked not to; his support of controversial jazz musician Gilad Atzmon; his frankly disgraceful behaviour in the aftermath of the atrocious Pittsburgh shootings. It was a litany of unacceptable behaviour.

Labour must reverse the disastrous decision to readmit Chris Williamson

So either he is so unlucky that he just happens to support people who just happens to hold antisemitic views, and as evidenced on the day of the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting it just happened by bad luck that he tweeted a link to a story about an allegation against The Board of Deputies of British Jews. Or it seems clear that there is more to his suspension than just the fact that he is a ardent supporter of Corbyn.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

On Neil, i see where your coming from, there is an expectation on presenters to be neutral and he does fail the test. That said, he comes across as so balanced in his presenting - an equal opportunities savager as it were - that I'm inclined to give him a pass. Its not laura kuenssberg territory anyway, where you simply have mere pretence of balance.

On corbyn, I've read most of the allegations against him and i think he's definitely been guilty of poor judgment at times, nor has he lead sufficiently well on the issue. But as to whether it makes him an anti semite racist himself, i certainly dont believe anything of the sort.

Same with chris Williamson. As post alludes to above, im not entirely sure why he had to be chucked out. What he said was probably misguided and inappropriate but not convinced it merited that sanction. I dont want to make light of the issue, but thats just how it seems to me.

See above for the allegations against Williamson, it is not just one thing he said about Labour being too apologetic about antisemitism, it is him saying that and then supporting others that has anti-Semitic views as well.

As for Corbyn, well the problem I see is that while I also don't think he is antisemitic, but the incidences of him supporting or liking posts or people that are antisemitic makes you wonder. Add in the apparent interference from his office when it comes to antisemitism allegations against members, you have to at least consider why this seems to keep happening with Labour and Corbyn.

UK's Labour Party spars with BBC over charges of anti-Semitism

British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn’s office interfered in independent party discipline processes aimed at rooting out anti-Semitism, the BBC said on Wednesday, a claim that the Labour Party sharply rejected.

Enzokk

boring accountant wrote: »

I'd like to talk about Brexit if anyone is interested.

This is the Brexit thread, even if it may not seem like it right now. There isn't much happening with Brexit right now though and the focus is on the election, but if there is something specific you want to talk about please do post about it. I am sure posters will welcome a distraction from the election news that is taking center stage right now.

Joe_ Public

Enzokk wrote: »

You could be right that his only crime is that he is a supporter of Corbyn, it could also be the following,



Labour must reverse the disastrous decision to readmit Chris Williamson

So either he is so unlucky that he just happens to support people who just happens to hold antisemitic views, and as evidenced on the day of the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting it just happened by bad luck that he tweeted a link to a story about an allegation against The Board of Deputies of British Jews. Or it seems clear that there is more to his suspension than just the fact that he is a ardent supporter of Corbyn.





See above for the allegations against Williamson, it is not just one thing he said about Labour being too apologetic about antisemitism, it is him saying that and then supporting others that has anti-Semitic views as well.

As for Corbyn, well the problem I see is that while I also don't think he is antisemitic, but the incidences of him supporting or liking posts or people that are antisemitic makes you wonder. Add in the apparent interference from his office when it comes to antisemitism allegations against members, you have to at least consider why this seems to keep happening with Labour and Corbyn.

UK's Labour Party spars with BBC over charges of anti-Semitism

I'll be honest and say its difficult to defend williamson, there's a lot of stuff there, circumstancial and otherwise and while i dont think what he got sacked for was that bad, he did have previous so its best he was gone.

Where corbyn is concerned it was just one facebook post, wasnt it? Very silly and careless, but i dont believe he was intending to endorse its contents. I just cant imagine he's that utterly stupid. And appearing on Palestinian protest marches and events, he's obviously going to be in the vicinity of more extreme elements with likely AS views. There's a judgment issue there perhaps, critics obviously deem him guilty by association, personally I'm not so sure.

Its a really difficult issue. There is an AS problem in labour but there are also those using it as a weapon to undermine corbyn and try to prevent him ever becoming pm. I do believe both those things are true to a greater or lesser extent.

quokula

A decent summary of the whole anti-semitism saga (as of a few months ago, but the latest "scandal" is just the same people dredging up the same comments again) from Le Monde here: https://mondediplo.com/2019/06/09corbyn

LuckyLloyd

quokula wrote: »

A decent summary of the whole anti-semitism saga (as of a few months ago, but the latest "scandal" is just the same people dredging up the same comments again) from Le Monde here: https://mondediplo.com/2019/06/09corbyn

A good summary, cheers.

Enzokk

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'll be honest and say its difficult to defend williamson, there's a lot of stuff there, circumstancial and otherwise and while i dont think what he got sacked for was that bad, he did have previous so its best he was gone.

Where corbyn is concerned it was just one facebook post, wasnt it? Very silly and careless, but i dont believe he was intending to endorse its contents. I just cant imagine he's that utterly stupid. And appearing on Palestinian protest marches and events, he's obviously going to be in the vicinity of more extreme elements with likely AS views. There's a judgment issue there perhaps, critics obviously deem him guilty by association, personally I'm not so sure.

Its a really difficult issue. There is an AS problem in labour but there are also those using it as a weapon to undermine corbyn and try to prevent him ever becoming pm. I do believe both those things are true to a greater or lesser extent.

This is the problem when discussing AS in Labour, I don't think there is a problem where MPs are sitting around a table making antisemitic statements and disparaging remarks about Jewish people or MPs in the party. What I do think is happening is in their defense of Palestine and its people that MPs do engage in antisemitic tropes, with or without knowledge that it is antisemitic, and that because Corbyn is guilty of this as well it is not taken as seriously as it should be.

Then you have the problem that it happens to Labour members as well, not knowingly posting AS tropes but making assertions that are antisemitic. The problem is that there are members posting on social media that are openly and knowingly antisemitic. Labour seems to have gotten cases wrong and Williamson is one where I think someone who is antisemitic has been almost allowed to get away with it.

So there is a problem, it is not as big as sometimes made out but the response by the Leader's Office has been woefully inadequate and allowed it to become worse due to their lack of action sometimes.

quokula wrote: »

A decent summary of the whole anti-semitism saga (as of a few months ago, but the latest "scandal" is just the same people dredging up the same comments again) from Le Monde here: https://mondediplo.com/2019/06/09corbyn

Not really, just like the pieces he mentions in his own opinion piece, this is only the way he perceives the problem. I find it hard to keep believing it is not as bad as depicted by a small amount of MPs when I am not receiving the abuse they are and the only MP who had to have protection at a Labour conference was a Jewish MP.

Enzokk

Away from Labour, Johnson was at a event last night and predictably he seems to have tried to waffle his way around his deal and misled the audience and gone against the statements by his own Home Office and Brexit Secretary.

https://twitter.com/ManufacturingNI/status/1192564837345353728?s=20

The interesting part, other than Johnson not knowing his own deal (which seems normal for him, he is not a detail person so it makes sense he would not understand the consequences of the deal), is that apparently NI is getting the best deal,

https://twitter.com/jneill/status/1192596576084152320?s=20

We have had Cabinet ministers saying it before and trying to back peddle a little when they realize what they just said, but here is Johnson confirming that being in the single market and having access to the UK is the best deal out there.

This makes me wonder why he is pursuing a hard Brexit at all? If it was all just to get into Downing Street, surely he would soften it by now, but it seems to me he is happy to carry on with a hard Brexit so it is more than just a way to get him to be PM.

Enzokk

This popped up on my twitter thread, this makes it very hard for people to claim the problem isn't big.

https://twitter.com/SiDedman/status/1192708942838878208?s=20

A Labour candidate for the Clacton seat has quit over antisemitism. It just won't go away for Labour.