UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[God is Haaland]

On 16.7.2018 at 19:06, SirBalon said:

The campaigning was a shambles too and that’s also the government and all parties fault. The thing is that it’s now totally understandable as to why the remain campaign was so crap and that’s because none of them knew what was going to happen beforehand and why we have this total mess. 

What’s curious is that the constituencies with the highest margin of leave voters are the constituencies with the lowest number of immigrants living in them.   Maybe having straight bananas and as you say, calling Snickers a Marathon bar was a principle on the whole matter. 

Totally untrue. While the remain campaign didn't mention details like the consequences of the good friday agreement, experts and activists of the remain campaign pointed out market size means leverage in trade negotiations, contradictions in the brexit plans, the NHS heavily relies on foreign nurses and how hard brexit would affect export oriented businesses. And that's all you needed to know.

(Wilfully)Ignorant brexiteers shouting "project fear!" over them being taken seriously by the media was the problem. The media follows a false sense of impartiality according to which a lie must be treated as if it was the truth.

Edited July 18, 2018 by BartraPique1932

[SirBalon]

25 minutes ago, BartraPique1932 said:

Totally untrue. While the remain campaign didn't mention details like the consequences of the good friday agreement, experts and activists of the remain campaign pointed out market size means leverage in trade negotiations, contradictions in the brexit plans, the NHS heavily relies on foreign nurses and how hard brexit would affect export oriented businesses. And that's all you needed to know.

(Wilfully)Ignorant brexiteers shouting "project fear!" over them being taken seriously by the media was the problem. The media follows a false sense of impartiality according to which a lie must be treated as if it was the truth.

The remain campaign also told many untruths like for example the imminent catastrophe that would occur the moment article 50 was triggered like hundreds of thousands of unemployed amongst various other nonsense.

When I say the campaigning was a shambles, it is well known to have been. You only know this by living here and not reading news articles. Had they (remipain campaign which was essentially the government) there wouldn't  be this total confusion and hilarious readjusting of negotiations because nobody knows what's going on and how complicated it all is.

The leave campaign were essentially selling a 1950s UK like it was some sort of idyllic place to leave where in truth it was plagued with poverty and misery and people making do with very little.  People cry poverty today but they know very little about real poverty, the poverty that can actually exist in a first world state.

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 hours ago, SirBalon said:

The leave campaign were essentially selling a 1950s UK like it was some sort of idyllic place to leave where in truth it was plagued with poverty and misery and people making do with very little.  People cry poverty today but they know very little about real poverty, the poverty that can actually exist in a first world state.

The country was still reeling from the Blitz and he and other kids would play in bombed out houses. For about half a decade, wartime rationing was still in effect. People worked in coal mines and steel mills for totally shite wages to go home and be hungry. It's shite like that my grandad worked hard to get his family out of when he came back to England after the war. People who want to return to that are delusional, or want a return to a more oppressed and pliable working class populous.

[Inverted]

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

The EU's fined Google €4.3 billion for tying Chrome to Android no reducing competition in the internet browser market. 

I guess this week it's going to be "the EUSSR hates success and leeches off business" as opposed to "the EU is just a tool for international capital and doesn't stick up for the normal person". 

[SirBalon]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The country was still reeling from the Blitz and he and other kids would play in bombed out houses. For about half a decade, wartime rationing was still in effect. People worked in coal mines and steel mills for totally shite wages to go home and be hungry. It's shite like that my grandad worked hard to get his family out of when he came back to England after the war. People who want to return to that are delusional, or want a return to a more oppressed and pliable working class populous.

The 1970s and early 1980s were crap awell with mass unemployment and strikes in almost every sector. I remember the late 70s and obviously those early 80 and it was dark grey in almost every way. I knew of families that had practically nothing and another thing... Due to the fact immigration wasn’t a big favtor then, the services were shit. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

50 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

The 1970s and early 1980s were crap awell with mass unemployment and strikes in almost every sector. I remember the late 70s and obviously those early 80 and it was dark grey in almost every way. I knew of families that had practically nothing and another thing... Due to the fact immigration wasn’t a big favtor then, the services were shit. 

Yeah ironically the call for a return to the 1950s doesn't account for the fact that immigration laws in the UK were less strict in the 50s than they were in the 70s and 80s . The 80s were devastating for Merseyside though, lots of jobs lost forever and people packed up and moved where there was work. This in turn, had a negative impact on the businesses that served the community. There's a good reason why Thatcher remains reviled.

[Kowabunga]

10 hours ago, SirBalon said:

The remain campaign also told many untruths like for example the imminent catastrophe that would occur the moment article 50 was triggered like hundreds of thousands of unemployed amongst various other nonsense.

When I say the campaigning was a shambles, it is well known to have been. You only know this by living here and not reading news articles. Had they (remipain campaign which was essentially the government) there wouldn't  be this total confusion and hilarious readjusting of negotiations because nobody knows what's going on and how complicated it all is.

The leave campaign were essentially selling a 1950s UK like it was some sort of idyllic place to leave where in truth it was plagued with poverty and misery and people making do with very little.  People cry poverty today but they know very little about real poverty, the poverty that can actually exist in a first world state.

I see you now as a keen follower of John Major.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the soulless twat, has just come out saying he won’t resign if Brexit ends up going poorly. Then goes on to say that Brexit is an investment over 50 years in the making. So essentially telling British teenagers they might have to live their lives with a totally bleak economic situation until there’s a retirement age for them to see any benefit. The joke will truly be on them though because there probably won’t be a retirement age at that point.

[Inverted]

Just the right-wing being the usual paragons of free speech. 

[Danny]

50 years, hope we've stock piled enough 😂

[The Artful Dodger]

We won't be brexiting in March 2019, no chance.

[God is Haaland]

1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

We won't be brexiting in March 2019, no chance.

B-bu-but the people voted for it!

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 hours ago, BartraPique1932 said:

B-bu-but the people voted for it!

I think they're going to kick the can down the road because they've spent the last 2 odd years where they were supposed to be negotiating our exit with the EU not actually resolving any of the major issues that Brexit posed.

[Inverted]

When people ask what's wrong with having so few working class people in politics, this is exactly why it's wrong.

The Brexit catastrophe has at every step been pushed along by a sector of the political class that has never known material insecurity.

Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Farage et al have never spent a night lying awake, listening to their parents argue over how the bills are going to be paid next month. They don't know what it really means for one twelfth of the GDP to evaporate at once. They might have assets invested, and even make a fortune out of reacting to economic change, or make a bit of a loss, but they don't understand what inflation, for example, feels like to someone trying to do the weekly shop, or handle their gas and electricity bills. 

This makes it easy for this kind of people to fight a stupid ideological political battle over "sovereignty" and their hatred for foreigners, without any regard for the practicalities - particularly the human cost of their project. When Rees-Mogg said we have to be prepared to suffer for the next 50 years, all he was doing was coming dangerously close to honestly formulating the Brexiteer attitude: that it's purely about theoretical gratification, and that working or vulnerable peoples' livelihoods are wholly expendable. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Inverted

[Honey Honey]

Jacob Rees-Mogg said we might not see the economic benefits for 50 years. He never said anything about having to suffer for 50 years. 

How can we pull people back from Jacob Rees Mogg when you are not even listening properly to what your opponent is saying. 

The quality of public argument isn't good enough. 

 

[God is Haaland]

As of July 24, the UK is trying to replicate its current WTO trade commitments with minor modifications. In other words it thinks it can enjoy the privileges of a 500.000.000 single market as a 60.000.000 single market. Unfortunately though - unlike some deluded Brexiteers - not all WTO members think the UK can strike much better trade deals as a single country under WTO rule. Infact most think its status should be much worse. The US, Brazil and NZ already objected. Not only do all EU member states still have massive control over the UK("Take back control!") even after the hardest of Brexits, but also do all other WTO members. Oh the irony!

I went back to the first couple of pages in this thread and to the original brexit thread on tff in order to read all the deluded an arrogant comments about the German car industry not allowing any trade barriers, "economical fearmongering" and how the UK doesn't need the EU. Furthermore I learned that the EU is to be blamed for youth unemployment in the UK, because of the €, even though the UK is a non-€ country, very interesting. If i had not already been an economically illiterate moron, I'd probably be one now.

Edited July 26, 2018 by BartraPique1932

[RandoEFC+]

32 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg said we might not see the economic benefits for 50 years. He never said anything about having to suffer for 50 years. 

How can we pull people back from Jacob Rees Mogg when you are not even listening properly to what your opponent is saying. 

The quality of public argument isn't good enough. 

 

The public learn from the quality of political debate in the House of Commons where you should see "professionals" at it. Both Labour and Conservative MPs and ministers will look at ten things the other side say, choose the worst sounding one, reword it so that it sounds even worse and then shout that from the hilltops 50 times louder than any of the good things they have to say about what their own party is doing.

If that's how real politicians act that's how a sad majority of the public will act when they want to have their say in a debate about politics and government. Everyone wants to talk about what the other people are doing wrong rather than talking up their alternative in a positive manner though I suppose that's a pretty general British trait in itself.

[God is Haaland]

50 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg said we might not see the economic benefits for 50 years. He never said anything about having to suffer for 50 years. 

How can we pull people back from Jacob Rees Mogg when you are not even listening properly to what your opponent is saying. 

The quality of public argument isn't good enough. 

He implied it.

[Danny]

1 hour ago, Harvsky said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg said we might not see the economic benefits for 50 years. He never said anything about having to suffer for 50 years. 

How can we pull people back from Jacob Rees Mogg when you are not even listening properly to what your opponent is saying. 

The quality of public argument isn't good enough. 

 

Still a pretty poor argument seeing as leaving the EU was based on extreme benefit compared to what was to happen now.

Leaving the EU was said to have lasted a decade atleast, just to create our own lawss not bound by EU law. Brexit is a mess because the people who voted it thought it'd be a quick and easy fix to whatever anti-immigration, anti-Islamic problem that was set ahead of them and it's turned out to be something much more in depth and something that effects the everyday person more that they could have thought. Regardless of your personal opinions on the EU, the sooner the openly racist opinions from the majority of media and everyday person backing it has been questioned and pushed back the better.

Brexit has only created an atmosphere of anti-immigration and anti-islamophobia within the UK, anything to do with actual questioning of EU law has been few and far between which tells you what you need to know about Brexit. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Harvsky said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg said we might not see the economic benefits for 50 years. He never said anything about having to suffer for 50 years. 

How can we pull people back from Jacob Rees Mogg when you are not even listening properly to what your opponent is saying. 

The quality of public argument isn't good enough. 

 

You’re right, forgive me. It will be all fucking rosey those 50 years with us not seeing the economic benefit!

Especially in the fucking north, Thatcher was great for us, yeah?

[SirBalon]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Especially in the fucking north, Thatcher was great for us, yeah?

We never had it better to be honest!

In London

 

In all honesty... There isn’t even a debate to be had on the error we’ve made. Anything regarding talking about this goes nowhere. Anyone that has all its cells in a moderate working order knows we made a massive mistake. The EU ain’t perfect by a long margin but THIS is ridiculous. 

[God is Haaland]

5 hours ago, BartraPique1932 said:

As of July 24, the UK is trying to replicate its current WTO trade commitments with minor modifications. In other words it thinks it can enjoy the privileges of a 500.000.000 single market as a 60.000.000 single market. Unfortunately though - unlike some deluded Brexiteers - not all WTO members think the UK can strike much better trade deals as a single country under WTO rule. Infact most think its status should be much worse. The US, Brazil and NZ already objected. Not only do all EU member states still have massive control over the UK("Take back control!") even after the hardest of Brexits, but also do all other WTO members. Oh the irony!

I went back to the first couple of pages in this thread and to the original brexit thread on tff in order to read all the deluded an arrogant comments about the German car industry not allowing any trade barriers, "economical fearmongering" and how the UK doesn't need the EU. Furthermore I learned that the EU is to be blamed for youth unemployment in the UK, because of the €, even though the UK is a non-€ country, very interesting. If i had not already been an economically illiterate moron, I'd probably be one now.

I forgot to mention there were a few good posts as well.

Quote

I don't even know where to start with this rubbish.

 

The trade deficit argument entirely ignores proportionality. Britain’s exports to the EU represent 13% of its GDP, whereas the rest of the EU’s exports to Britain represent just 3% of its GDP. It's a loss for everyone, but you will be hit much harder.

 

As for negotiations... the EU will obviously gladly trade with the UK, but after what it seems now the inevitable secession of Scotland and maybe NI, England/Wales have no weight to make demands on the EU table. Furthermore, the protagonists of the City will start moving to Frankfurt, Paris, etc. leaving even less weight for the UK. Unlike British voters, big business and big finance won't base their decisions on nationalistic sentiments but on the hard facts.

 

So yes... comply with the EU or have fun with WTO, who don't do much for services, and negotiating with all of its members from scratch.

 

Countries like Japan and the USA made it explicit it would be of massive importance for the UK to remain in the EU. Foreign investment in the UK is massive, and largely because of the EU. Permanence meant access to a much larger economy. You'll lose jobs and investment. Not all of it, but part of.

@Machado, I congratulate you to your excellent post and your prediction.

Edited July 26, 2018 by BartraPique1932

[Honey Honey]

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You’re right, forgive me. It will be all fucking rosey those 50 years with us not seeing the economic benefit!

Especially in the fucking north, Thatcher was great for us, yeah?

Nothing to do with my point at all. Although perhaps indicitive of why my point exists in the first place. You can't hear anyone else for your own screaming.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Harvsky said:

Nothing to do with my point at all. Although perhaps indicitive of why my point exists in the first place. You can't hear anyone else for your own screaming.

How does it have nothing to do with your point? You said he didn't say there would take half a century of suffering for the benefits of Brexit to be felt by the UK, but he did say that it would take 50 years for us to see the benefits of Brexit to be felt. The implication there is he's not going to resign should Brexit go poorly (which is what he was asked before making that statement) and his refusal and this 50 years comment indicate that he expects that Brexit will cause economic hardship for a lot of people in Britain.

Sure that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be 50 years of suffering. But 50 years of a stagnant and bleak economic situation does mean that a lot of people will suffer. And you don't even have to look that far back in history to see how certain areas were effected, hence the Thatcher comment.

If you want to disregard points you don't agree with as just screaming, that's your prerogative. But me disagreeing with Mogg wanting to shirk any sort of accountability, based off the words he said and how bleak economic conditions hurt communities big time in the UK in recent history (not even 50 years ago...) because he thinks that maybe there will be some good that comes from it in half a century isn't screaming. That's a long period of time for a lot of people to have to deal with a struggling economy. But if you think that's screaming, I can't change your mind and you're free to keep believing what you want to believe.

[Honey Honey]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How does it have nothing to do with your point? You said he didn't say there would take half a century of suffering for the benefits of Brexit to be felt by the UK, but he did say that it would take 50 years for us to see the benefits of Brexit to be felt. The implication there is he's not going to resign should Brexit go poorly (which is what he was asked before making that statement) and his refusal and this 50 years comment indicate that he expects that Brexit will cause economic hardship for a lot of people in Britain.

Sure that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be 50 years of suffering. But 50 years of a stagnant and bleak economic situation does mean that a lot of people will suffer. And you don't even have to look that far back in history to see how certain areas were effected, hence the Thatcher comment.

If you want to disregard points you don't agree with as just screaming, that's your prerogative. But me disagreeing with Mogg wanting to shirk any sort of accountability, based off the words he said and how bleak economic conditions hurt communities big time in the UK in recent history (not even 50 years ago...) because he thinks that maybe there will be some good that comes from it in half a century isn't screaming. That's a long period of time for a lot of people to have to deal with a struggling economy. But if you think that's screaming, I can't change your mind and you're free to keep believing what you want to believe.

Because my full point is about pulling people back from his grasp. Even you've now added "stagnant" and "bleak" to a subjective implication. Can't you see what is wrong? That is your language, the interpretation you want to enforce on it all instead of you know, getting a journalist to ask him properly and not a shoddy journalist who thinks getting a powerless backbench MP to resign in 1 year is actually a good use of a question. Adding a subjective implication is not a good move. Especially an ecomomic one like that given the context of economic bollocks from those associated with remain, it strengthens his hand and is tone deaf to those who may be amenable to him. 

Quality political arguments are about winning people over. This thread is more about getting upvotes from inside the bubble.