UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

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.

How is his statement of refusing to resign if Brexit goes poorly with his statement that "well we might see no benefits for 50 years" adding an interpretation that he didn't want to be made. Why won't he resign if it doesn't go well? His response states why.

In any case, here's something to refute the "THE EUSSR WILL NOT LET US WITHDRAW ARTICLE 50 EVEN IF WE WANT TO" crowd: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jul/26/brexit-not-too-late-for-uk-to-change-its-mind-and-stay-in-eu-on-same-terms-says-french-minister-politics-live

also, and probably more importantly, Barnier has rejected the UK's customs plan.

Honestly, if Brexit has to happen without a second referendum where people will either vote on remaining or the actual plan we will be leaving with... the UK leadership should be pushing toward the EEA solution. It's not ideal for either leave or remain, but it's the least damaging way of leaving the EU & restores some sovereignty. Compromise is probably the only way to return some political unity on the issue, seeing as how there's a huge wide array of what people think the right thing to do in regards to Brexit.

[Kowabunga]

People voted brexit for perceived benefits they won't see in their lifetimes but (in the best case) people who did not want Brexit to begin with.

That it is an easy narrative. Is it forming out there in the UK or people are just thinking short-term about piling canned sardines and ibuprofens?

Edited July 26, 2018 by Kowabunga

[Inverted]

10 hours 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. 

 

Yes, we should all get bogged down in semantics and apologism for outright incompetents rather than tackle clearly abhorrent statements.

There’s nothing more vapid than petty point-scoring, like this “but both-sides”, nit-picking, whataboutism. Brexit was won by lies, or at least - to be polite - arguments based on broad conceptual standpoints that placed material predictions firmly at the rear. Remain attempted to make economic predictions to illustrate Brexit’s dangers - and at best this kind of factual approach makes no impact, and at worst opens them to scrutiny if they aren’t accurate.

British liberalism’s great weakness is its obsession with formal precision, and thus its inability to state its case in a way meaningful to the average person. 

Rees-Mogg intends to paint himself as a patriot, as a man of principle, and as inculpable for any failure of Brexit.

Do we refute those positions to the average voter by trying to divine some objective interpretation of his meaningless weaselling attempts, whilst he’s likely moved onto the next lie/obfuscation, or do we refute this charade he puts on by cutting through his smokescreen and asserting the core truth that he’s a morally bankrupt profiteer with no concern for the average person? 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Inverted

[Honey Honey]

 

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

Yes, we should all get bogged down in semantics and apologism for outright incompetents rather than tackle clearly abhorrent statements.

There is such a thing as a badly executed argument. The whole purpose is to change someone's mind. Case and point how my argument here was so brash as to render you sarcy and defensive. Perhaps if I was more tactful I could enter a proper discussion with you to try and change your mind instead. This sort of stuff is precisely the cause of post Brexit hardening of leave factions. The more certain people were told they were uneducated racist duped morons the further they got from the centre.

[Dr. Gonzo]

12 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

 

There is such a thing as a badly executed argument. The whole purpose is to change someone's mind. Case and point how my argument here was so brash as to render you sarcy and defensive. Perhaps if I was more tactful I could enter a proper discussion with you to try and change your mind instead. This sort of stuff is precisely the cause of post Brexit hardening of leave factions. The more certain people were told they were uneducated racist duped morons the further they got from the centre.

So the reaction is to double down? Is that going to prove any one of their detractors wrong? I don't see the shame in people who were duped by fucking liars to come out and say "I was duped by fucking liars." The only thing these people have to be ashamed of is being a bit naïve, but they were told big lies. That's a learning experience for them.

There's no saving the UKIP/BNP/Britain First types. And quite frankly, any reaction from these types other than doubling down on their stupid shite would be a huge surprise. But I'm not going to ever be able to change their minds, it's not worth doing. These people are irredeemable scum imo - I'll leave the people trying to win them over to the more patient and kinder souls of the world.

I don't really know how I feel about the people who nodded their heads along with Gove's "people are sick of listening to experts" shite. Apply that kind of mentality to almost anything in life that's got a degree of seriousness to it, and it's a ridiculous statement. Need surgery? Well best not get a surgeon to do it, because we're sick of the experts. Your car engines totally fucked? Well fuck have anyone that knows a fucking thing about cars looking at it, I'll have my gran do it. She's def not an expert, but we're sick of them. I legitimately cannot understand how anyone can have this sort of mentality and expect to be taken seriously. So if they're going to double down on being stupid after being told they are stupid... they probably are stupid, I don't know what to do about that.

And after seeing how nearly 2 years after the referendum, we still have no idea what Brexit will look like other than it's looking more likely than not that there is no deal reached with the EU... and our politicians are still twiddling their thumbs maintaining hardline positions. Did most Brexit voters envision a no deal Brexit? I seem to remember the Leave Campaign stating that the EU would want to rapidly make a deal that suits all parties. I'd venture to guess that many Brexit voters that Brexit would not entail leaving with no deal and wouldn't be for that plan if that what was posed in the referendum. But that might not be the case, but that's what I would have expected from those who voted leave.

I imagine no deal would be unpalatable to the 49% who voted remain & for a large chunk of those who voted to leave. If Brexit must happen with no second referendum where those who are voting leave at least have a better idea of what the fuck they're voting for, then I think we should look to Norway & the EEA. That way there is a Brexit, but it's one that will be more palatable to that 49% who voted remain (even though it's still us out of the EU) - thus more of the voting public will be satisfied than the fringe group of Brexiteers who are erect at the thought of cashing in on some disaster capitalism.

[Inverted]

49 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

 

There is such a thing as a badly executed argument. The whole purpose is to change someone's mind. Case and point how my argument here was so brash as to render you sarcy and defensive. Perhaps if I was more tactful I could enter a proper discussion with you to try and change your mind instead. This sort of stuff is precisely the cause of post Brexit hardening of leave factions. The more certain people were told they were uneducated racist duped morons the further they got from the centre.

Change my mind on what? That a politician advancing a thus-far disastrous policy which he can offer no real argument in favour of, besides a vague promise of results in a timescale exceeding any adult's working lives, is wrong?

Yes, of course my dislike for Jacob Rees-Mogg comes from me simply not being exposed to a high enough level of discourse yet. 

 

[Danny]

10 hours ago, Danny said:

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. 

This wasn't the worst thing I've written on here after being ten pints in.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So the reaction is to double down? Is that going to prove any one of their detractors wrong? 

I'm not sure I'd call anything proving people wrong. They have to win detractors over and no they won't do it moving further away. As I've said before there is no parliamentary or electoral consensus for that type of leave. Jacob Rees Mogg has no power. Boris Johnson has no power. If those supporters were here I'd be telling them of that flaw in their argument, but they're not, I can only talk here to what we have here.

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

There's no saving the UKIP/BNP/Britain First types. And quite frankly, any reaction from these types other than doubling down on their stupid shite would be a huge surprise. But I'm not going to ever be able to change their minds, it's not worth doing. These people are irredeemable scum imo - I'll leave the people trying to win them over to the more patient and kinder souls of the world.

Historically only 2-7% of the active electorate are those irredeemable types based on party support. 52% voted to leave.

I don't know how many Brexiteers and what variety you know if you even know any at all but the bogeyman view of many is problematic. I have witnessed (and it is confirmed to exist widely by other research) that post referendum swing voters started moving toward harder Brexit concepts. It looks as if this is the result of threat and stigma. 

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't really know how I feel about the people who nodded their heads along with Gove's "people are sick of listening to experts" shite. Apply that kind of mentality to almost anything in life that's got a degree of seriousness to it, and it's a ridiculous statement. Need surgery? Well best not get a surgeon to do it, because we're sick of the experts. Your car engines totally fucked? Well fuck have anyone that knows a fucking thing about cars looking at it, I'll have my gran do it. She's def not an expert, but we're sick of them. I legitimately cannot understand how anyone can have this sort of mentality and expect to be taken seriously. So if they're going to double down on being stupid after being told they are stupid... they probably are stupid, I don't know what to do about that.

Those are completely false analogies though. You can't compare surgery and mechanics to economics and political philosophy.

That only one of all the economic models was able to correctly forecast what would happen after the vote so far reiterates where the sentiment comes from. 

Economics is known as the humpty dumpty of the sciences for a good reason. 

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

And after seeing how nearly 2 years after the referendum, we still have no idea what Brexit will look like other than it's looking more likely than not that there is no deal reached with the EU... and our politicians are still twiddling their thumbs maintaining hardline positions. Did most Brexit voters envision a no deal Brexit? I seem to remember the Leave Campaign stating that the EU would want to rapidly make a deal that suits all parties. I'd venture to guess that many Brexit voters that Brexit would not entail leaving with no deal and wouldn't be for that plan if that what was posed in the referendum. But that might not be the case, but that's what I would have expected from those who voted leave.

If you listen to the various factions within leave you will find virtually unanimous opposition to the way the government has handled it. Some of them will say because of the remain establishment just like you say it's all because of leave. Tedious new tribes.

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I imagine no deal would be unpalatable to the 49% who voted remain & for a large chunk of those who voted to leave. If Brexit must happen with no second referendum where those who are voting leave at least have a better idea of what the fuck they're voting for, then I think we should look to Norway & the EEA. That way there is a Brexit, but it's one that will be more palatable to that 49% who voted remain (even though it's still us out of the EU) - thus more of the voting public will be satisfied than the fringe group of Brexiteers who are erect at the thought of cashing in on some disaster capitalism.

There is no consensus in parliament for no deal. It's not even the position of the remain heavy cabinet.

If there's no deal based on this current point in time then it's not because of what the government want. Unless they change their tune (highly unlikely) it will simply be because the government couldn't come to an agreement with the EU. Blame whoever you want for that, deluded demands, Blair backed EU attempts to topple May, whatever your tribe tells you to blame go with that.

[Fairy In Boots]

14 hours ago, Harvsky said:

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.

Harv it’s not worth your energy mate, you’ve got an Iranian/Brit in America, a German & a young Brit who spends most of his time backpacking around Australia & they know more about Brexit & the general mood of the country because the publications they gravitate to which reaffirm what they want to hear tell them so. 

Me & you who reside here 24/7 and looked at the Brexit as more than many of the headlines don’t know diddly squat, better just shut up. You’re going to start getting called “alt right” soon on this forum if you carry on. 

[Inverted]

23 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Harv it’s not worth your energy mate, you’ve got an Iranian/Brit in America, a German & a young Brit who spends most of his time backpacking around Australia & they know more about Brexit & the general mood of the country because the publications they gravitate to which reaffirm what they want to hear tell them so. 

Me & you who reside here 24/7 and looked at the Brexit as more than many of the headlines don’t know diddly squat, better just shut up. You’re going to start getting called “alt right” soon on this forum if you carry on. 

I live in Britain and don't have any foreign family connections, so I guess that makes all my points valid by default.

Or does just having any kind of social connection to any other country, or speaking any other language, devalue your opinion on British issues?

[Fairy In Boots]

21 minutes ago, Inverted said:

I live in Britain and don't have any foreign family connections, so I guess that makes all my points valid by default.

Or does just having any kind of social connection to any other country, or speaking any other language, devalue your opinion on British issues?

No but not being in that country means you don’t get a feel for the mood effectively. You’re in a country that voted remain as well you’re at odds with the majority of the rest of the isles. And as I’m sure you well know Scotland has a bit of a different culture than England or Wales. 

[RandoEFC+]

Everyone that posts in this thread regularly is more than capable of backing up their political views with sound argument whether they are 29th generation "propa Bri'ish" or they happen to have an Asian grandparent or two.

Whether you support Remain or Leave I think you can look at the fact that it's been over two years since the referendum, and there has been very little progress towards a deal that needs to be struck in about 9 months' time. Recently two of the three main figures who have been working towards, well, something presumably, have resigned.

The EU had all the leverage at the start, now how are they supposed to take this woman seriously that wasn't even originally pro-Brexit (but fair enough people change their mind and she might even have done that for reasons other than personal gain and the chance to become prime minister, who knows), then proceeded to call a snap election thinking that she would win by a landslide but instead was forced to make concessions to a Northern Irish party that nobody in Brussels has ever heard of in order to form a government, and now in two years has failed to agree on a strategy for Brexit with her foreign secretary and Brexit minister or whatever David Davis was called.

If you actually look beyond "what's going on in the country" (which is what by the way? Eugh I really didn't want to get into another debate on this but here we are) and think about what Brussels and the other major players in Europe think of us right now, to them Theresa May is surely a laughing stock with us as a country not far behind her in those stakes for ending up with her running the show.

I admit that Brexit might have some benefits. It will also have some drawbacks. However, nobody really knows whether we will end up better or worse because it's unknown territory in the modern day for us. What is clear though, is that we've already paid two years of political instability, arguably some international credibility, certainly some of our positive relations with other major countries, and look set to pay, according to Rees-Mogg, up to another 50 years of uncertainty, pain, or at least a lack of benefit, depending on how you interpret his words, all for something that might be better than what we already had.

Now admittedly, I'm only in my 20s, I'm a teacher so obviously I won't be capable of commenting on a Conservative government in a fair or balanced manner, and I also left England to move all the way to the Isle of Man this time last year, so it probably doesn't matter that half of my undergraduate degree was in Economics, including specific modules on international trade, customs unions, globalisation in general but I'll share my viewpoint on the general level anyway.

The thing with Economics is that nobody knows. It's unpredictable, and every small change you make as a policy maker could go in several different directions. During the module on trade unions etc, we had a very engaging Italian lecturer, who would often ask us which point of view was better, and his running joke was that the answer is always "It depends". One thing that was clear when we learned about the history of trade unions and how they developed from small agreements between 6 or so countries into major organisations like the EU and WTO, is that creating and joining these organisations resulted in a net welfare boost for member countries. There may have been some where it didn't work out but on average you do well out of it. If there wasn't economic benefits available then trade and globalisation wouldn't be so widespread. Okay it doesn't work every time and there are exceptions but if you look at the history of organisations like the EU, there is a reason that there are so many more instances of countries joining or expanding their existing unions and organisations and very few examples of countries leaving because they think they'll be better off on their own.

I'm pretty sick of this debate to be honest. Both sides have had their say about the pros and cons of Brexit umpteen times and I've just been guilty now of going into it again but bringing us back to a more relevant point, I just don't see how the position we find ourselves at this point in the Referendum to Brexit timeline can be anything other than a cause for concern. Sure, Remainers trying to play the told you so card isn't helpful and there's still a chance everything will turn out to the nation's benefit but that chance is surely less now than it was two years ago.

[Fairy In Boots]

Sounds so familiar and that’s when Labour politicians were principled and not shameless sell outs. 

Also, I think you’re miss understanding my point mentioning Gonzo’s grandparents or whatever, I’m just pointing out that they’re not British and that he’s been away for a decade. If you don’t think this has an effect on what is very much a nationalistic issue then you’re wrong. There’s very much a perception that Brexit voters are white racists because that’s the way remain voters are eager to portray them. It’s identity politics. 

Also cark or whatever his new name is said Brexit caused islamophobia, how ridiculous we had 3 terror attacks last year you clown. How you can blame that on a decision to retake democratic power from a pan European coucil is beyond me. Europe is seeing rises on the far right across the board, was that caused by Brexit? 

Fucking ridiculous some of the shit attributed to it on this forum

Edited July 27, 2018 by Fairy In Boots

[Fairy In Boots]

23 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Everyone that posts in this thread regularly is more than capable of backing up their political views with sound argument whether they are 29th generation "propa Bri'ish" or they happen to have an Asian grandparent or two.

Whether you support Remain or Leave I think you can look at the fact that it's been over two years since the referendum, and there has been very little progress towards a deal that needs to be struck in about 9 months' time. Recently two of the three main figures who have been working towards, well, something presumably, have resigned.

The EU had all the leverage at the start, now how are they supposed to take this woman seriously that wasn't even originally pro-Brexit (but fair enough people change their mind and she might even have done that for reasons other than personal gain and the chance to become prime minister, who knows), then proceeded to call a snap election thinking that she would win by a landslide but instead was forced to make concessions to a Northern Irish party that nobody in Brussels has ever heard of in order to form a government, and now in two years has failed to agree on a strategy for Brexit with her foreign secretary and Brexit minister or whatever David Davis was called.

If you actually look beyond "what's going on in the country" (which is what by the way? Eugh I really didn't want to get into another debate on this but here we are) and think about what Brussels and the other major players in Europe think of us right now, to them Theresa May is surely a laughing stock with us as a country not far behind her in those stakes for ending up with her running the show.

I admit that Brexit might have some benefits. It will also have some drawbacks. However, nobody really knows whether we will end up better or worse because it's unknown territory in the modern day for us. What is clear though, is that we've already paid two years of political instability, arguably some international credibility, certainly some of our positive relations with other major countries, and look set to pay, according to Rees-Mogg, up to another 50 years of uncertainty, pain, or at least a lack of benefit, depending on how you interpret his words, all for something that might be better than what we already had.

Now admittedly, I'm only in my 20s, I'm a teacher so obviously I won't be capable of commenting on a Conservative government in a fair or balanced manner, and I also left England to move all the way to the Isle of Man this time last year, so it probably doesn't matter that half of my undergraduate degree was in Economics, including specific modules on international trade, customs unions, globalisation in general but I'll share my viewpoint on the general level anyway.

The thing with Economics is that nobody knows. It's unpredictable, and every small change you make as a policy maker could go in several different directions. During the module on trade unions etc, we had a very engaging Italian lecturer, who would often ask us which point of view was better, and his running joke was that the answer is always "It depends". One thing that was clear when we learned about the history of trade unions and how they developed from small agreements between 6 or so countries into major organisations like the EU and WTO, is that creating and joining these organisations resulted in a net welfare boost for member countries. There may have been some where it didn't work out but on average you do well out of it. If there wasn't economic benefits available then trade and globalisation wouldn't be so widespread. Okay it doesn't work every time and there are exceptions but if you look at the history of organisations like the EU, there is a reason that there are so many more instances of countries joining or expanding their existing unions and organisations and very few examples of countries leaving because they think they'll be better off on their own.

I'm pretty sick of this debate to be honest. Both sides have had their say about the pros and cons of Brexit umpteen times and I've just been guilty now of going into it again but bringing us back to a more relevant point, I just don't see how the position we find ourselves at this point in the Referendum to Brexit timeline can be anything other than a cause for concern. Sure, Remainers trying to play the told you so card isn't helpful and there's still a chance everything will turn out to the nation's benefit but that chance is surely less now than it was two years ago.

It’s fucked because May is a bottler and as a result she will eventually lose her premiership and her political career. Boris will challenge I’m betting he has to otherwise the Tories face annihilation at the next Election and Corbyn will do long term damage to this country if he gets in.

[RandoEFC+]

@Danny did come back and admit he was 10 pints down when he posted that to be fair.

[Fairy In Boots]

6 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

@Danny did come back and admit he was 10 pints down when he posted that to be fair.

Fair enough didn’t see that. 

Shows how it’s a war of perception though and not the actual topic at hand. 

A great example is just yesterday the BBC ran stories about vote leave Facebook ads, then quietly in the small hours this morning issued a very small correction as they had been pushing fake news.

In terms of what’s been done, a lot of legal requirements have gone through Parliament etc the problem now is May’s watered down version hasn’t washed with her party or the public so it’s crisis in the government. 

Politics is a thing that appears to move so slowly and nothing happens then all of a sudden many things happen in a short space of time. 

It will come as no suprise to any that I won’t be voting for a May led Tory government again and i favour no deal rather than a shit deal. I’d have told them to F off word go and really jammed them up, she’s been way to soft. 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Fairy In Boots

[RandoEFC+]

It is definitely a war of perception, has been since the campaigning for the referendum, and there's no doubt that the level of exaggeration and point scoring on both sides has completely diluted the opportunity for the general public to deal in facts and balanced views throughout the process.

[Honey Honey]

37 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

It will come as no suprise to any that I won’t be voting for a May led Tory government again and i favour no deal rather than a shit deal. I’d have told them to F off word go and really jammed them up, she’s been way to soft. 

It wasn't possible for May to do that without facing down the majority of her own MP's and probably losing. There's no consensus for no deal and that is very important. We are not a dictatorship.

It is the nature of the makeup of parliament that is the stalemate and the weakening position. Hitchins was right from the start, Brexit by referendum rather than by general election can't be done well due to our specific parliamentary system.

[Fairy In Boots]

1 hour ago, Harvsky said:

It wasn't possible for May to do that without facing down the majority of her own MP's and probably losing. There's no consensus for no deal and that is very important. We are not a dictatorship.

It is the nature of the makeup of parliament that is the stalemate and the weakening position. Hitchins was right from the start, Brexit by referendum rather than by general election can't be done well due to our specific parliamentary system.

It’s why her election was a farce, it was an opportunistic gamble for more majority that backfired because she’s got no personality and Corbyn bribed a significant portion of the youth among other issue. 

Cameron’s resignation should have triggered a full election based on Brexit because the  Tories needed a full Brexit cabinet, the knifing of Johnson by Gove is probably one of the most selfish acts that has damaged Brexit, he was heir apparent and could have probably rolled through the first 12 months on momentum alone. May lacks that, she’s a dithering old cow trying to please everyone and upsetting all in the process. 

[Inverted]

Rees-Mogg is asking Remainers to wait 50 years for any upside to Brexit, but can't wait a few more months for an agreement.

This is exactly why any notion of dealing with his arguments in good faith is utterly pointless. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Harv it’s not worth your energy mate, you’ve got an Iranian/Brit in America, a German & a young Brit who spends most of his time backpacking around Australia & they know more about Brexit & the general mood of the country because the publications they gravitate to which reaffirm what they want to hear tell them so. 

Me & you who reside here 24/7 and looked at the Brexit as more than many of the headlines don’t know diddly squat, better just shut up. You’re going to start getting called “alt right” soon on this forum if you carry on. 

He won’t get called alt-right as long as he doesn’t act like goosestepping is his favourite way to walk around.

*edit* I don’t really appreciate the insinuation that I’m not English because of grandparents. British is my only nationality. Or that I left to chase money because I wanted to make my life easier when I’m old.

And I want to come back to the UK ASAP. I fucking hate it here now. So please don’t ruin my country.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Dr. Gonzo

[Machado]

3 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

It is definitely a war of perception, has been since the campaigning for the referendum, and there's no doubt that the level of exaggeration and point scoring on both sides has completely diluted the opportunity for the general public to deal in facts and balanced views throughout the process.

The facts have always been there for those who wanted to look them up, and I'm not talking about predictions. The problem is people weren't bothered to do their research, instead learning their "facts" through dubious sensationalist and sound bite infested TV debates.

[Honey Honey]

1 minute ago, Fairy In Boots said:

It’s why her election was a farce, it was an opportunistic gamble for more majority that backfired because she’s got no personality and Corbyn bribed a significant portion of the youth among other issue. 

Cameron’s resignation should have triggered a full election based on Brexit because the  Tories needed a full Brexit cabinet, the knifing of Johnson by Gove is probably one of the most selfish acts that has damaged Brexit, he was heir apparent and could have probably rolled through the first 12 months on momentum alone. May lacks that, she’s a dithering old cow trying to please everyone and upsetting all in the process. 

Boris Johnson would have faced a similar problem though, the majority of the Tory party voted remain, there are various differing remain and leave factions within the party. The outrage towards him from Tory party members/MP's who were remain was and still is palpable. The name Boris Johnson triggers some the way that the word Mozambique triggered Johnny English. How can power be maintained and stabilised in light of that? An election wouldn't rid this problem. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Rees-Mogg is asking Remainers to wait 50 years for any upside to Brexit, but can't wait a few more months for an agreement.

This is exactly why any notion of dealing with his arguments in good faith is utterly pointless. 

It is not utterly pointless to try and pull amenable people back and convince them of something else. You say good faith but it's about good quality. 

Not only is the equivalence you gave a bit weak, but throwing "remainers" in there was utterly pointless and tone deaf. 

You are not arguing to convince those we have to pull away or keep away from Jacob Rees Mogg, you are just trying to go around the choir getting high fives.

 

[Fairy In Boots]

53 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He won’t get called alt-right as long as he doesn’t act like goosestepping is his favourite way to walk around.

*edit* I don’t really appreciate the insinuation that I’m not English because of grandparents. British is my only nationality. Or that I left to chase money because I wanted to make my life easier when I’m old.

And I want to come back to the UK ASAP. I fucking hate it here now. So please don’t ruin my country.

I’m not saying you’re not British, what I’m saying is that given your background you’re going to be predisposed towards a certain viewpoint given that Brexit has been painted in a certain light  particularly xenophobic. 

If I struggled to make that point initial then you have my apologies for any upset caused as wasn’t my intent. 

The only thing I did question was your grasp of how the mood is on the street among the common man being so far removed. 

[Machado]

On 17/07/2018 at 22:51, Fairy In Boots said:

Lol I do think it’s a fundamental difference between continentals and us Islanders just how ready you seem to jettison national sovereignty in place of a pan European solution. 

There is certainly a difference between me and you in what is considered giving up sovereignty.

 

On 17/07/2018 at 22:51, Fairy In Boots said:

It’s also not longing for empire, I accept that’s well gone but I see a potential for the U.K. to thrive on its own. I also believe in order for that to happen we need democratic accountability from our decision makers not unelected Eurocrats in Brussels doing what’s best for the money maker Germany. 

The fallacy here being that you can't hold your decision makers accountable while being an EU member state.

Unelected Eurocrats? I see you persist with that kind of inaccurate shibboleth.