Another new Brexit thread

[robbieh]

indeed - informative article - thanks @robbieh for bringing it to the threads attentions

This statement rings true:

"Unlike the marchers of 1819, people today have the right to vote; but like the marchers of 1819, they’re ignored, blanked, disenfranchised. For the right to vote becomes meaningless if our votes are not properly acted on, if they do not result in the political change that the masses – the largest political mass in UK history in the case of Brexit – demanded."

Glad you liked the article although my point was more to do with the fact it was written by a Marxist in the pay of ubercapitalists the Koch brothers. And if they want Brexit then while it's understandable the likes of Farage, Bojo and JRM are unboard, Lexiteers might want to think again.

 

[west didsblue]

Hey - my cock-up was made from the airport lounge and as soon as I realised it I admitted it immediately

So are you now going to admit that you were totally wrong in making this statement? Let's see if you are man enough to

Go on - show that you are not full of - double-standards

I made the statement before you admitted it. At the time I made it there was no evidence it was incorrect. It’s rather pathetic now to try and turn it round.

 

[mcfc1632]

I made the statement before you admitted it. At the time I made it there was no evidence it was incorrect. It’s rather pathetic now to try and turn it round.

You fucking cop out merchant;-)

I made my admission as soon as I got up this morning and saw the wine induced mistake I made last night

But I take from this that you are not man enough to act like I did and just straight-forwardly admit when wrong?

Just an opinion...…….

But - if you were not so rapid to jump in with your snide comments then you would not make such a ***** of yourself

Just give the snide a rest mate - the thread - and I suggest your blood pressure - would be better for it


Personally, as I could not give a single fuck about your views - I am cool either way;-)

 

[west didsblue]

You fucking cop out merchant;-)

I made my admission as soon as I got up this morning and saw the wine induced mistake I made last night

But I take from this that you are not man enough to act like I did and just straight-forwardly admit when wrong?

Just an opinion...…….

But - if you were not so rapid to jump in with your snide comments then you would not make such a ***** of yourself

Just give the snide a rest mate - the thread - and I suggest your blood pressure - would be better for it


Personally, as I could not give a single fuck about your views - I am cool either way;-)

No you fucking didn’t. You admitted it at 3:08pm long after Vic and myself drew attention to it.
And I don’t give a fuck about your ill thought out bollocks and your pompous assessments of other people’s posts.
And it’s not me making a ***** of myself.
The only thing affecting my blood pressure at the moment is fucking VAR, not responding to your stream of random pompous nonsense.

 

[mcfc1632]

No you fucking didn’t. You admitted it at 3:08pm long after Vic and myself drew attention to it.
And I don’t give a fuck about your ill thought out bollocks and your pompous assessments of other people’s posts.
And it’s not me making a ***** of myself.
The only thing affecting my blood pressure at the moment is fucking VAR, not responding to your stream of random pompous nonsense.

You are wrong again - I admitted it the moment that I got to the post that pointed it out - Vic's

We do not all live on here desperately searching for opportunities to make snide remarks

Anyway - if you must - take it to PM

 

[west didsblue]

You are wrong again - I admitted it the moment that I got to the post that pointed it out - Vic's

We do not all live on here desperately searching for opportunities to make snide remarks

Anyway - if you must - take it to PM

Anyone who’s bothered, which they won’t be, only has to read the thread to know who’s right and who’s wrong. So no point taking it to PM.

 

[FlemishDuck]

I think it's the blinkered assumption that a view (leave or remain) is 100% correct that polarises the debate or indeed prevents it.

There is always a set of assertions that will prove correct trough emperical evidence and caution in adding assertions beyond that. The real problem is the constant of "framing and lumping of views" that gathers around such terms as "leavers" or "remainers", just as you would have with "left versus right".

One can be "always correct" if one "limits oneself purely to assertions provable with emperial evidence", notwithstanding even that one could be perceived as positioned to "the right" or "the left" of a debate chiefly becuase of how that person might have limit himself to "specific assertions with emperical evidence" that appear to favour what is perceived the general ideal of that leaning. I mean, one can deffinatly also be "sellective with facts", and it's deffinatly also possible for one to stick to facts that "to 70% would apear to favour one side, and for 30% the other".

The real frustrating thing imho is the tendancy for "those people who make wild assertions withought much emperial evidence" to create labels chiefly as a means to dennounce others for their perceived bias, when in fact they constitute the poppulation creating the bias. To denounce someone for being biased requires labels.

The insidious use for example of the label "remoaner" is a perfect example of such denunciary labelmaking and perfectly underlines "the culture" given that it can theoreticly be applied to those who apear to stick to facts that mainly support the remain argument but don't nessecarily fully conform to it. Suffices to say that anyone that uses that term does it out of a polarised desire to be able to denounce withought having to conform to presenting facts.


disclaimer: I think Brexit will be overal bad for the long term interrests of Britain, but i also want Britain to leave.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Brexit going well latest.

- UK faces food, fuel and drugs shortages in no-deal Brexit - report
Leaked Cabinet Office papers give "the most comprehensive assessment of the UK's readiness for a no-deal", says the Sunday Times.

- The threat of a “disastrous” no-deal Brexit is forcing businesses to stockpile frozen food for the elderly, robot parts and even horsehair in a move that could lead to higher prices and “significant shortages” for consumers, experts have warned.

- Senior Labour and Conservative MPs leading the battle to stop a no-deal Brexit are focusing on passing a “radical” new law to block it, after concluding that there is no imminent prospect of toppling Boris Johnson and installing an emergency government.

 

[Len Rum]

Brexit going well latest.

- UK faces food, fuel and drugs shortages in no-deal Brexit - report
Leaked Cabinet Office papers give "the most comprehensive assessment of the UK's readiness for a no-deal", says the Sunday Times.

- The threat of a “disastrous” no-deal Brexit is forcing businesses to stockpile frozen food for the elderly, robot parts and even horsehair in a move that could lead to higher prices and “significant shortages” for consumers, experts have warned.

- Senior Labour and Conservative MPs leading the battle to stop a no-deal Brexit are focusing on passing a “radical” new law to block it, after concluding that there is no imminent prospect of toppling Boris Johnson and installing an emergency government.

The worrying thing is that the report states that this is not the worse case scenario.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The worrying thing is that the report states that this is not the worse case scenario.

God forbid it's a balanced view.

 

[Len Rum]

God forbid it's a balanced view.

It's a Cabinet office report issued recently, so it's not " old news".
If you can read the small print screenshot it seems an entirely feasible scenario of what's to be expected.
The risk to clean water supplies is a bit scary ( although this is stated as more of a possibility than likely).
The other noticeable issue is the way this report is being underplayed in the rest of the media, particularly the broadcasters.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the government had asked them to back off so as to avoid any panic.

 

[mcfc1632]

That is quite the best post I have seen from you even though the good points made are interspersed with swipes. No matter, logical and well documented. I guess your desire to get a baseline was to cement this argument but its not as easy as that. The latest poll I saw (this week) was 52/48 in favour of 'yes' or leaving the Union. That is before we have left the EU. My view is that a great deal depends on 'no deal'. If Scotland is forced through that and depending on the hits to the Scottish economy of no deal, then that is a material event that will cause those numbers to move. Particularly if the impact is felt for a protracted timescale.

When a Scottish Tory like me can seriously consider leaving the Union because of the actions taken by English politicians, I do believe there has been a shift of mindset from 'why?' to 'why not?' Scots have long memories around political injustice (real or perceived). I dare you to start a pub conversation about Thatcher in Glasgow. So under indyref 2, you will have the die hard nats + a significant group of the population who engage with the question with a far more open mind because of 'no deal brexit'. That is why I have consistently stated that 'no deal' makes it more likely that Scotland will leave the Union, but that it is nowhere near a 'done deal'.

So that covers why it is more likely the Scots will leave, but as you say, there is a strong constraining set of implications that were pretty well exercised in indyref 1 but because of experience with Brexit, will be even more real to the Scottish populace. Our wiring is even more integrated than the UK's is with EU. You should add to your list the not insignificant subjects of currency and the role of a central bank.

The other material aspect you don't mention is the competence of the SNP. I think they have learned their lesson from Indy 1 where massive questions were left unanswered. How well wee Nicky and co shape the proposition and plan and how credible it is is a material aspect which will move numbers one way or another. Having seen the botch made of the Brexit proposition, I think Indy ref2 will be far better thought through. The final material aspect is in the indyref 2 campaign. Who will campaign for 'No'? Boris and co? That would add 10 points to Yes as a starter. If its Jeremy will he have cooked a deal with Nicky? Whatever, I believe that the Yes campaign will be run in an extremely energetic competent manner. The 'No' campaign probably wont be.

So to add to your post:

1. The impact of no deal brexit will determine how far the numbers in favour of 'Yes' move to the positive - my contention is they will move further than the current 52%
2. The complexity and difficulty of the independence proposition will have a negative impact pulling the numbers back
3. That could be mitigated by how competent a job the SNP put to shaping the proposition and implementation plan
4. The campaign will be crucial and material to the outcome.

If we could only keep our discussions on Brexit at this level it would be so much more satisfying :-)

Sorry for the delay in replying - too busy enjoying the last few days of holiday before heading back for yesterday's game. As an aside - thought we were brilliant and it spoke volumes that even when Spurs could get hold of the ball our players were swarming them and they could not keep it. I am not disappointed by the VAR decision - if these are the new rules then fair enough - so long as they are consistently applied (Llorente?) - anyway wrong forum, let alone wrong thread.

Re this post and your later post:

1. Disappointed in - what I see as - your prevarication re being balanced in your comments. You lose credibility in my eyes if you - in your ambition to see better quality of debate on the thread - pick up people from one side for what you describe as swipes, but then suggest that it is best left to others to pick up people from the Remain side for the countless snide comments they make that seek to provoke reactions and prevent quality debate. Frankly, hypocrisy, IMO, either don't pull anyone up or show balance. Anyway, enough of that.

2. You say: "I guess your desire to get a baseline was to cement this argument...." (that at best there is 55% in favour of leaving the EU in the here and now - and that is generous) That is correct - experience - including recent examples - demonstrates, IMO, the level to which some Remainers make bold statements and then backslide (not aimed at you) and run for cover rather than 'man-up'. Therefore it is important I think to establish a baseline from which you can go back to and show that people are backsliding.

3. You say: "...but its not as easy as that. The latest poll I saw (this week) was 52/48 in favour of 'yes' or leaving the Union. That is before we have left the EU. My view is that a great deal depends on 'no deal'......" Oh - I do indeed think that it is as easy as that. That is one poll - and anyway I gave you a Brucie bonus by saying: "...that means that there is (as a minimum) 45% of the population of Scotland that would vote to Remain in the UK - even at this point where leaving would secure Remaining in the EU." Therefore my statement / baseline is indeed established in the here and now of August 2019 - and even your comment above re the poll supports/proves my view to be correct.

4. It follows therefore that your comment: "That is before we have left the EU. My view is that a great deal depends on 'no deal'. If Scotland is forced through that and depending on the hits to the Scottish economy of no deal, then that is a material event that will cause those numbers to move. Particularly if the impact is felt for a protracted timescale...." further cements that baseline.

All these points relate to the future - beyond the here and now of August 2019 - and especially if we should leave with No-Deal and how the impact of that outcome would affect the voting intentions etc.

So my baseline is established - do you not agree? - I seriously don't think that you cannot.

But I also agree with the other comments that you make, it will be events - including those that you mention - that will determine the future trajectory beyond the here and now. This is what we should discuss and post to exchange our views on how the trajectory will go - do you agree?

I will answer your 4 specific points made in this post in a separate reply

 

[mcfc1632]

There is always a set of assertions that will prove correct trough emperical evidence and caution in adding assertions beyond that. The real problem is the constant of "framing and lumping of views" that gathers around such terms as "leavers" or "remainers", just as you would have with "left versus right".

One can be "always correct" if one "limits oneself purely to assertions provable with emperial evidence", notwithstanding even that one could be perceived as positioned to "the right" or "the left" of a debate chiefly becuase of how that person might have limit himself to "specific assertions with emperical evidence" that appear to favour what is perceived the general ideal of that leaning. I mean, one can deffinatly also be "sellective with facts", and it's deffinatly also possible for one to stick to facts that "to 70% would apear to favour one side, and for 30% the other".

The real frustrating thing imho is the tendancy for "those people who make wild assertions withought much emperial evidence" to create labels chiefly as a means to dennounce others for their perceived bias, when in fact they constitute the poppulation creating the bias. To denounce someone for being biased requires labels.

The insidious use for example of the label "remoaner" is a perfect example of such denunciary labelmaking and perfectly underlines "the culture" given that it can theoreticly be applied to those who apear to stick to facts that mainly support the remain argument but don't nessecarily fully conform to it. Suffices to say that anyone that uses that term does it out of a polarised desire to be able to denounce withought having to conform to presenting facts.


disclaimer: I think Brexit will be overal bad for the long term interrests of Britain, but i also want Britain to leave.

I think that you make a very good post.

I would suggest though that it would have been even better if you had shown some balance in the line:

"The insidious use for example of the label "remoaner" is a perfect example of such denunciary labelmaking…." by making it "..Remoaner and "Brexshiteer.."

Do you not agree?

 

[mcfc1632]

Glad you liked the article although my point was more to do with the fact it was written by a Marxist in the pay of ubercapitalists the Koch brothers. And if they want Brexit then while it's understandable the likes of Farage, Bojo and JRM are unboard, Lexiteers might want to think again.

Oh - I understood the purpose and I think that you make a good observation

I still liked the article and thought it - notwithstanding any shady authorship - made some good points

 

[mcfc1632]

Anyone who’s bothered, which they won’t be, only has to read the thread to know who’s right and who’s wrong. So no point taking it to PM.

Luckily for you - you are probably correct that nobody will be bothered to check - why the fuck should they?

That will save you being utterly wrong - 3 times now - being exposed. You have already shown your character does not, unlike me, allow you to admit to be wrong - so all is cool for me.

To be clear - I am only making this reply because you have gone against the CoC by refusing to take this exchange to PM. I will leave you to have another last word / dig a deeper hole (delete as appropriate).

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

It's a Cabinet office report issued recently, so it's not " old news".
If you can read the small print screenshot it seems an entirely feasible scenario of what's to be expected.
The risk to clean water supplies is a bit scary ( although this is stated as more of a possibility than likely).
The other noticeable issue is the way this report is being underplayed in the rest of the media, particularly the broadcasters.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the government had asked them to back off so as to avoid any panic.

I wonder why the civil service decided to leak elements of op yellowhammer (breach of oda btw) now rather than when it was put together prior to March? - It's almost as if they thought May had no intention of leaving back then:-)
I personally am more worried by the equally realistic scenario of crazed Remainers rioting and looting which is also a thing apparently.

 

[BobKowalski]

It's a Cabinet office report issued recently, so it's not " old news".
If you can read the small print screenshot it seems an entirely feasible scenario of what's to be expected.
The risk to clean water supplies is a bit scary ( although this is stated as more of a possibility than likely).
The other noticeable issue is the way this report is being underplayed in the rest of the media, particularly the broadcasters.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the government had asked them to back off so as to avoid any panic.

You know it’s bad when the Govt doesn’t actually deny the contents of the report but also has a Cabinet minister resorting to Twitter in order to reassure us that (unspecified) ‘significant steps have been taken...’

‘We don’t normally comment on leaks - but a few facts - Yellowhammer is a worst case scenario - v significant steps have been taken in the last 3 weeks to accelerate Brexit planning - and Black Swan is not an HMG doc but a film about a ballet dancer’ @michaelgove

 

[BobKowalski]

I wonder why the civil service decided to leak elements of op yellowhammer (breach of oda btw) now rather than when it was put together prior to March? - It's almost as if they thought May had no intention of leaving back then:-)
I personally am more worried by the equally realistic scenario of crazed Remainers rioting and looting which is also a thing apparently.

Because the State is at war with itself as is indeed the country as a whole. The process of delivering a fantasy Brexit via a set of incompatible red lines, an impossible timetable and a total lack of comprehension of what the reality of Brexit involved has broken the British State.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Because the State is at war with itself as is indeed the country as a whole. The process of delivering a fantasy Brexit via a set of incompatible red lines, an impossible timetable and a total lack of comprehension of what the reality of Brexit involved has broken the British State.

I understand your fear, but that's a little over dramatic imho - there are plenty of examples of failing states / civil wars etc from around the world, and I don't think the current or even possible post-brexit state of the UK bears any comparison. Some equally vivid imaginations on the remain side feel with equal conviction that remaining in the EU is just as problematic in but different ways.

 

[smudgedj]