Another new Brexit thread

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Did they have a tag or a special walk?

It's not that special.

 

[BobKowalski]

I wouldn't rule out Johnson getting a deal over the line that can get through Parliament. Unlikely, but far from impossible.

The ERG Tories seem sceptical. I think the main stumbling block to getting a WA through Parliament is Johnson himself. None of the factions in the Tory Party trust him, one faction has been expelled, Labour MPs loathe him and none of the other parties will be voting for any deal no matter what it says.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The ERG Tories seem sceptical. I think the main stumbling block to getting a WA through Parliament is Johnson himself. None of the factions in the Tory Party trust him, one faction has been expelled, Labour MPs loathe him and none of the other parties will be voting for any deal no matter what it says.

So many confused messages tbh. Difficult to know which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Vic]

Fuck

You do perform some incredible twists as you attempt to challenge pure facts and logic

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.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The ERG Tories seem sceptical. I think the main stumbling block to getting a WA through Parliament is Johnson himself. None of the factions in the Tory Party trust him, one faction has been expelled, Labour MPs loathe him and none of the other parties will be voting for any deal no matter what it says.

Not gonna happen - have seen Fatty Francois and others saying there is virtually no deal acceptable and far from facing the same numbers in the House that May did Johnson and Cummings have made the maths much much worse. Then there's the Lib Dem decision today - just cannot see it getting through the HoC thanks to the mess he has made of it.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Johnson to tell Juncker if the EU don't bend to our demands ( not that he seems to want to state what they are ) and have them reconsider the 4 Freedoms of the Treaty of Rome as how they effect the remaining 27 EU member states the one state who is leaving will go outside and blow its brains out................Juncker to offer two shot gun cartridges and to hold the door open for Johnson.............

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49709430

 

[cibaman]

Telegraph with much of the same. The next EU 7 year budget cycle is in 2020 so assuming a WA deal can be done (which it can be given we already have one on the table) I can see us ‘staying’ until at least 2027 as there is no way we can sort out an acceptable future relationship framework by 2022. It’s taken us over two years to do the easy bit and it’s still not done.

The tricky bit is getting whatever we agree with the EU through Parliament. Still can’t see where the votes are coming from no matter what Johnson brings back. And it’s going to take a lot more than ‘bouncy confidence’. The EU are unlikely to be swayed by ‘bouncy’.

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.

 

[Vic]

BBC bias? In Today prog what the papers say:

"Deep unease" at LibDem policy to revoke (quoting only Mail, Sun and Times). Cameron trashed - by Mail and Spectator.

And what a good idea it is to have a statue of Prince Philip... (any crawly royalist rag).

No balance....

 

[mcfc1632]

It’s a part of the tactic to reverse reality to fit their argument. Time and time again I’ve heard that the EU’s FoM allows people from third world countries the chance to gain an Eastern European passport and thus travel to the UK to live and work.

It was part of Farage’s message against immigration when he stood in front of that billboard.

The EU’s policy isn’t racist in the slightest, in fact quite the opposite. Had the Single Market not included FoM, European countries still wouldn’t have open boarders to the rest of the world. The EU’s policy is a step in the direction of internationalism, not a bigoted policy.

Sorry - this is just deflection form the inconvenient truth

"Time and time again I’ve heard that the EU’s FoM allows people from third world countries the chance to gain an Eastern European passport and thus travel to the UK to live and work."

"It was part of Farage’s message against immigration when he stood in front of that billboard."

These statements have absolutely nothing to do with the point that was/is being made

"The EU’s policy isn’t racist in the slightest, in fact quite the opposite."

Swapping racist for discriminatory - which was the word used - this is a wholly false statement.

The EU's policies are inherently discriminatory - simple fact.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

BBC bias? In Today prog what the papers say:

"Deep unease" at LibDem policy to revoke (quoting only Mail, Sun and Times). Cameron trashed - by Mail and Spectator.

And what a good idea it is to have a statue of Prince Philip... (any crawly royalist rag).

No balance....

BBC Breakfast makes me laugh? Every day they go to a factory somewhere in the country (today, Soreen in Manchester) to report on the issues faced by businesses in the event of Brexit, and every time the MD of that factory will say something like "Well, we're finding the economy healthy and expect x% growth ...". Can't tell if they're deliberately finding Brexiter businesses or not, though.

 

[Ban-jani]

Sorry - this is just deflection form the inconvenient truth

"Time and time again I’ve heard that the EU’s FoM allows people from third world countries the chance to gain an Eastern European passport and thus travel to the UK to live and work."

"It was part of Farage’s message against immigration when he stood in front of that billboard."

These statements have absolutely nothing to do with the point that was/is being made

"The EU’s policy isn’t racist in the slightest, in fact quite the opposite."

Swapping racist for discriminatory - which was the word used - this is a wholly false statement.

The EU's policies are inherently discriminatory - simple fact.

If you’re discriminating on race or nationality then that is racism or xenophobia.

You obviously haven’t read the post I was discussing anyway. He specifically said it was racist and down to skin colour.

The EU’s policy is neither discriminatory or racist. If you’re a member of a union and they allow movement between member states but have controlled immigration coming in, that’s an entirely reasonable position to take.

If you believe the EU is discriminatory then you must believe the UK is, to allow Scots more access to England than Bangladeshi citizens.

As I said, without the EU, European states would still control immigration coming into them from outside Europe. The EU’s policy is progressive and not regressive and I find it funny that the leave argument, who had immigration front and centre of their reasoning for leaving, now wish to argue the EU isn’t allowing more immigration.

 

[mcfc1632]

That will be the same BBC that constantly gives air-time to Farage?

And Gina Miller...………..

 

[Rascal]

BBC Breakfast makes me laugh? Every day they go to a factory somewhere in the country (today, Soreen in Manchester) to report on the issues faced by businesses in the event of Brexit, and every time the MD of that factory will say something like "Well, we're finding the economy healthy and expect x% growth ...". Can't tell if they're deliberately finding Brexiter businesses or not, though.

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.

 

[mcfc1632]

No one was concerned about the EU until the propagandists got to work. The Referendum was a strategy by Cameron to control the Tory extremists. It was not a justifiable response to a groundswell of public concern, as there was none.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12...t-the-uk-public-cares-about-the-most/10615054

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.

 

[Mon Autre]

And Gina Miller...………..

If we could cut Farage's screentime down to a the levels enjoyed by Gina Miller then I'd be more than happy.

 

[mcfc1632]

He meant no-one who wasn't thick or racist.

Calling @mcfc1632 to the thread! :-)

I have already replied to expose the falsehood of that assertion;-)

 

[mcfc1632]

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.

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 voted Remain - so it is a clear fact that a racist voted for Remain. So unless you are claiming that not a single racist voted for Leave - are you claiming that? - then what I said was undeniably true

 

[mcfc1632]

Not gonna happen - have seen Fatty Francois and others saying there is virtually no deal acceptable and far from facing the same numbers in the House that May did Johnson and Cummings have made the maths much much worse. Then there's the Lib Dem decision today - just cannot see it getting through the HoC thanks to the mess he has made of it.

Then he can go to into the GE with a clear position that it is parliament against the people - and it would be a major contributing factor should he win a majority

Seems an obvious strategy to me

 

[mcfc1632]

If you’re discriminating on race or nationality then that is racism or xenophobia.

You obviously haven’t read the post I was discussing anyway. He specifically said it was racist and down to skin colour.

The EU’s policy is neither discriminatory or racist. If you’re a member of a union and they allow movement between member states but have controlled immigration coming in, that’s an entirely reasonable position to take.

If you believe the EU is discriminatory then you must believe the UK is, to allow Scots more access to England than Bangladeshi citizens.

As I said, without the EU, European states would still control immigration coming into them from outside Europe. The EU’s policy is progressive and not regressive and I find it funny that the leave argument, who had immigration front and centre of their reasoning for leaving, now wish to argue the EU isn’t allowing more immigration.

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

 

[journolud]

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.

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?

Or maybe even just voted for the parties they always voted for without giving it much thought.