Another new Brexit thread

[BobKowalski]

It would have to rely on rebel Labour votes. Not sure how many Labour MPs there are who would be prepared to go out on a limb to that extent.

Agreed. It is instructive on what this latest gambit tells us though. Namely that for all those who insist the NI border issue is a made up problem and could be easily solved with tech etc the Govt is admitting it is a problem because its much vaunted Alternative Arrangements are not ready to do the job now hence the talk of pushing transition to 2022.

And if they are not ready now then a no deal exit means a customs border and if it’s on land then it will be a target for nationalist violence and if it’s in the sea a target for Unionist violence so add that into the mix of abruptly severing most of our Treaty links that govern our interaction with Europe and with a Govt that cannot actually govern domestically - well I don’t fancy our chances to be honest.

So that brings us full circle back to a deal as the only real path out of this mess but any deal is just going to be a reheated version of May’s deal which is why Raab was blathering about not revealing our hand in negotiations (it’s almost like May never left) because if we did reveal ‘our hand’ everyone, Brexiteers and ERG Tories especially, would go nuts and also because we don’t really have a hand other than trying to buy an exit with lots of transition time in the hope that something turns up by 2022. But to get an exit with lots of transition time we really, really need to pass the WA but this will contain a guarantee that there will be no hard border in Ireland, otherwise known as ‘the backstop’, and that we can’t get through Parliament.

We are trapped in a self replicating doom loop and it’s slowly killing us.

 

[dave_blue12]

Not only is this oft-repeated fabrication untrue - it is easily proven to be untrue

Two PMs when campaigning to win a GE included the commitment to a referendum on the EU in their manifestos and duly won majorities for that reason.

So how does that simple fact fit with the assertion that nobody was bothered about the EU before 2016?

Answer: It proves that assertion is nonsense.

When facts don't fit your narrative you just form an alternative reality.

Majorities were won because they included a commitment to hold a referendum in their manifestos. Yeah right ! The commitment was there to satisfy the loons.

All polling numbers that I have seen show that the EU or a referendum on membership were not a significant factor.

But you keep spouting your bullshit, you always do. Or maybe you can actually come up with some evidence ?

 

[George Hannah]

Few of your facts are any sort of fact. Either something is a fact, or it isn't - "pure" is a redundant word.
Let's try logic. You said "It is just a simple truth that there will some racists that will have voted for Remain and some for Leave". It's not a truth. It's a supposition. It's possible that all racists did not vote. It's a reasonable supposition that of all the racists who did vote, some will have voted Remain and some Leave. But are you seriously suggesting that a racist is equally likely to vote Remain or Leave? If you do believe that, it's not a fact, it's a theory with little to justify it. So by saying, "It is just a simple truth that there will some racists that will have voted for Remain and some for Leave", you are implying some equivalence that can not be maintained. Now that's twisting.

back to the sophistication of the 'hate won' approach I see - 17.4 million haters

 

[mcfc1632]

They were elected for that reason and that reason alone do you think or might the voters of the day taken a wider view on all the issues presented in the winning manifestos?

But it is undeniable that they chose to make that commitment as it was seen as to have the potential to swing a significant percentage of votes to voting for them

Therefore it is undeniable that both PMs recognised that the issue of the EU was a significant matter to a great number of people - which simply proves the assertion that nobody cared about the EU before 2016 to be wrong

That they then duly won unexpected, particularly in 2015, majorities absolutely proves the assertion to be wrong

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Agreed. It is instructive on what this latest gambit tells us though. Namely that for all those who insist the NI border issue is a made up problem and could be easily solved with tech etc the Govt is admitting it is a problem because its much vaunted Alternative Arrangements are not ready to do the job now hence the talk of pushing transition to 2022.

And if they are not ready now then a no deal exit means a customs border and if it’s on land then it will be a target for nationalist violence and if it’s in the sea a target for Unionist violence so add that into the mix of abruptly severing most of our Treaty links that govern our interaction with Europe and with a Govt that cannot actually govern domestically - well I don’t fancy our chances to be honest.

So that brings us full circle back to a deal as the only real path out of this mess but any deal is just going to be a reheated version of May’s deal which is why Raab was blathering about not revealing our hand in negotiations (it’s almost like May never left) because if we did reveal ‘our hand’ everyone, Brexiteers and ERG Tories especially, would go nuts and also because we don’t really have a hand other than trying to buy an exit with lots of transition time in the hope that something turns up by 2022. But to get an exit with lots of transition time we really, really need to pass the WA but this will contain a guarantee that there will be no hard border in Ireland, otherwise known as ‘the backstop’, and that we can’t get through Parliament.

We are trapped in a self replicating doom loop and it’s slowly killing us.

Of course we are we have a House of Commons who love to say what they don’t like , who love to pass resolutions saying what we cannot do but nobody has any way of trying to say what we are actually going to do to move forward. It’s easy to just keep blocking and moaning but it also leads to more uncertainty and inevitable extensions (probably another one coming up)

Party politics has been blurred and the new politics is remainer or leaver . Unfortunately the debate is being led by hard extremes of that who are just ideologists not pragmatists. The debate is being dominated by people who ideologically do not believe in the eu and those who ideologically do.

There are those in the house and in society whose voice isn’t heard because actually they just look at the situation and are not so ideologically minded about a political institution and want a way through this mess. Ken Clarke made the point in his speech about he debate being dominated by extremes and people need to move to the middle ground to find a way through it. I hope he had not read bluemoon !!!!

 

[mcfc1632]

When facts don't fit your narrative you just form an alternative reality.

Majorities were won because they included a commitment to hold a referendum in their manifestos. Yeah right ! The commitment was there to satisfy the loons.

All polling numbers that I have seen show that the EU or a referendum on membership were not a significant factor.

But you keep spouting your bullshit, you always do. Or maybe you can actually come up with some evidence ?

You are plainly wrong - it is undeniable

The PMs made the decision to make the referendum commitment to try and swing a significant percentage of the majority to supporting them - not to satisfy a few loons. That is a particularly childish description - and just makes your point even more invalid IMO.

 

[Rascal]

You are just twisting again and actually doing it quite badly.....

The poster that I was replying to mentioned the racist that he knows that voter Remain - so it is a clear fact that a racist voted for Remain. So unless you are claiming that not a single racists voted for Leave - are you claiming that? - then what I said was undeniably true

I happen to think in relation to the EU referendum we use the word racist too often and we need to make a distinction between those who are actually racist and those who are concerned about the effects another race can have on society. They are two different things. A racist will always ideologically be a racist and will hate anyone from another race that is distinct to how they categorise themselves. A person who is concerned about the effects that another race may have on the indigenous population may not necessarily be a racist and just be concerned about the effects immigration has on the country.

I am pretty sure that ideologically based racists all voted leave as that is the common sense position for them to hold, where as those who are concerned about immigration and are not necessarily racist can quite easily belong to both remain and leave camps.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

I don't know if this is linked or not but the NS accuses that nutjob Andrea Leadsom of intimidating firms into silence by hinting that public sector contracts will be withheld from companies who say that Brexit is an act of national self harm. Firms are being encouraged to be positive In the hope of securing these contracts.

That is surely collusion at best or corruption at worst.

I'd say not linked, at least not at company level. To be fair the BBC (or Breakfast at least) have been making this error since the recession. They WANT a negative story but rarely find one on their travels.

 

[BobKowalski]

Cutting through the deflection

Simple question:

With regard to the opportunity to move to the UK - does a member of the EU27 have an advantage over a non-member?

If your answer is yes then the rules are inherently discriminatory - simple fact

Of course EU citizens have an advantage. That’s kind of the point. The original argument was that the policy was racist based on skin colour which it isn’t.

A Scot has an advantage over a German who currently has an advantage over an Australian when it comes to opportunities to moving to England. It’s a matter of legal rights based on citizenship of two different Unions compared to the legal rights of non-Union citizens.

If you wish to advocate for FoM for all the citizens of the world within the U.K. then I will happily support it.

 

[mcfc1632]

I happen to think in relation to the EU referendum we use the word racist too often and we need to make a distinction between those who are actually racist and those who are concerned about the effects another race can have on society. They are two different things. A racist will always ideologically be a racist and will hate anyone from another race that is distinct to how they categorise themselves. A person who is concerned about the effects that another race may have on the indigenous population may not necessarily be a racist and just be concerned about the effects immigration has on the country.

I am pretty sure that ideologically based racists all voted leave as that is the common sense position for them to hold, where as those who are concerned about immigration and are not necessarily racist can quite easily belong to both remain and leave camps.

I really hope all the Remainers that post on here will read your excellent differentiation.

I just wish you had been posting during July-2016 - December 2017 - this explanation would have been a real help to those Remainers that were so casually throwing the word racist around to collectively label Leavers.

 

[Rascal]

back to the sophistication of the 'hate won' approach I see - 17.4 million haters

What an interesting poll. Old aged Poorly educated Tories voted leave, young well educated Labour voted remain. On two out of three markers I should fall into the remain camp but don't, and 5% of UKIP voters are complete morons :))

 

[Ban-jani]

Cutting through the deflection

Simple question:

With regard to the opportunity to move to the UK - does a member of the EU27 have an advantage over a non-member?

If your answer is yes then the rules are inherently discriminatory - simple fact

What deflection? You hadn’t followed the conversation and I pointed it out to you.

Of course but they’re a contributing member to the union and therefore have the right.

Simple question back to you-

If the EU didn’t exist or the UK was outside of the EU, would a citizen from outside of Europe have freedom of movement into the UK?

If no, then your point makes zero difference. As I’ve said, your point only works if having the EU takes rights away from those outside of the union, which it doesn’t, therefore it’s progressive in its FoM policy, not regressive.

 

[cibaman]

What an interesting poll. Old aged Poorly educated Tories voted leave, young well educated Labour voted remain. On two out of three markers I should fall into the remain camp but don't, and 5% of UKIP voters are complete morons :))

It would be interesting to see what the turnout was across those groups

 

[FlemishDuck]

Simple question:

With regard to the opportunity to move to the UK - does a member of the EU27 have an advantage over a non-member?

If your answer is yes then the rules are inherently discriminatory - simple fact

You can either judge it as discrimination or not but it's inconsequential as it's actually normative behaviour in a world where the order of the day is nation states. Basicly within international norms it's considered justified whereas that applies less so for discriminating among youre own nationals. If you don't get that then i think youre throwing pragmatic realism overboard.

I have my own oppinions aswell regarding "nation states" in the 21th century, but then that debate mainly revolves around "internationalism or not". Hence that as a conqesuence of the remarks you make people are wondering if you shouldn't then support internationalism.
It surrises many to see leavers make that argument because the whole point about Brexit is that it's about Brittain moving away from further internationalism into a position where it enjoy's more it's independant powers of a nation state. Also, one of the reasons for that move seems to have been concerns about FoM and resulting immigration.

 

[mcfc1632]

Of course EU citizens have an advantage. That’s kind of the point. The original argument was that the policy was racist based on skin colour which it isn’t.

A Scot has an advantage over a German who currently has an advantage over an Australian when it comes to opportunities to moving to England. It’s a matter of legal rights based on citizenship of two different Unions compared to the legal rights of non-Union citizens.

If you wish to advocate for FoM for all the citizens of the world within the U.K. then I will happily support it.

Another poster may have mentioned skin colour - my point was:

But also, as I have pointed out several times, the EU policies are inherently and intentionally discriminatory.

Shocked that this is not highlighted more often.​

So the point that I was/am making and that you prove/agree with in your post is, well.....:

the EU policies are inherently and intentionally discriminatory.

I support ending inherent and intentional discrimination - simples​

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

What an interesting poll. Old aged Poorly educated Tories voted leave, young well educated Labour voted remain. On two out of three markers I should fall into the remain camp but don't, and 5% of UKIP voters are complete morons :))

Funnily enough I don’t remember filling in a questionnaire when I casted my vote?

Does anyone here ever get asked to take part in these opinion polls. I don’t know anyone who has, ever.

 

[yerwot?]

"We are trapped in a self replicating doom loop and it’s slowly killing us." Awesome......

And that's "a simple fact". And "inconvenient". And "shocking". In fact a shocking and inconvenient simple fact (TM. mc.... #bullshitbafflesbrains.com.)

 

[mcfc1632]

What deflection? You hadn’t followed the conversation and I pointed it out to you.

Of course but they’re a contributing member to the union and therefore have the right.

Therefore you prove my point - that the EU's policies are inherently and intentionally discriminatory - simples - and cannot be deflected from

Simple question back to you-

If the EU didn’t exist or the UK was outside of the EU, would a citizen from outside of Europe have freedom of movement into the UK?

If no, then your point makes zero difference. As I’ve said, your point only works if having the EU takes rights away from those outside of the union, which it doesn’t, therefore it’s progressive in its FoM policy, not regressive.

 

[BobKowalski]

I'd say not linked, at least not at company level. To be fair the BBC (or Breakfast at least) have been making this error since the recession. They WANT a negative story but rarely find one on their travels.

The BBC find the story they want to find.

 

[BobKowalski]

I support ending inherent and intentional discrimination - simples​

So you support FoM for everyone irrespective of nationality.