Brexit Discussion Thread.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Which facts? Statistics can prove anything we know that.  I read that thread and I honestly don't know what Alf was upset about. IIrc somebody said that the Canadian shooter was a terrorist and not a lone nutter,a matter of opinion rather than fact surely, there was a bit of discussion and Alf flew off the handle. I can only assume he was in a bad mood.

Au contraire...numbers never lie - Only humans do. One of the reasons I much prefer talking about physics (but most people think that's boring because you can't really get into an argument about it. )

 

The facts I was referring to in my post was when Alf came up with posting history to prove that the poster he was engaging was engaging in a reasonable amount of hypocrisy regarding his stance on Muslims etc and despite this was met with flat denials and bad faith arguments. He has also gone to great lengths in the past to research and post on matters with sources and numbers backing him up and has been met with similar denials and arguments. Personally I don't know why he put up with the Sealioning and other various methods to avoid dealing with cognitive dissonance for so long.

 

 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Au contraire...numbers never lie - Only humans do. One of the reasons I much prefer talking about physics (but most people think that's boring because you can't really get into an argument about it. )

 

The facts I was referring to in my post was when Alf came up with posting history to prove that the poster he was engaging was engaging in a reasonable amount of hypocrisy regarding his stance on Muslims etc and despite this was met with flat denials and bad faith arguments. He has also gone to great lengths in the past to research and post on matters with sources and numbers backing him up and has been met with similar denials and arguments. Personally I don't know why he put up with the Sealioning and other various methods to avoid dealing with cognitive dissonance for so long.

 

 

Even if all what you've said is true, is it worth getting upset about?

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Even if all what you've said is true, is it worth getting upset about?

Probably not, but unless you have the patience of several saints feeling hard work is being rewarded with only bad faith in a consistent basis will likely get to you. So I guess he figured removing himself before he really said something that would be regretted later on was prudent.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Probably not, but unless you have the patience of several saints feeling hard work is being rewarded with only bad faith in a consistent basis will likely get to you. So I guess he figured removing himself before he really said something that would be regretted later on was prudent.

Hard work? It's arguing on an internet forum it's not the UN.

[The Guvnor]

After Brexit : the battle for Europe with Katya Adler was a good watch last night, with the rise of the Five star movement in Italy, and  the Front National in France incidentally I didn't realise just how deep in the doo doo Italy are, can the EU survive much longer anyway. The whole debate about  Brexit could well be irrelevant in a couple of years time all the Bremoaners will have to whinge about something else.

[Carl the Llama]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Which facts? Statistics can prove anything we know that.  I read that thread and I honestly don't know what Alf was upset about. IIrc somebody said that the Canadian shooter was a terrorist and not a lone nutter,a matter of opinion rather than fact surely, there was a bit of discussion and Alf flew off the handle. I can only assume he was in a bad mood.

He was in a bad mood but apparently it's going to be another agree to disagree situation because from what I can recall Alf had the poster who shall not be named bang to rights for their unreasonable comments.  Alas in making his point he strayed into the realm of hyperbole for possibly the first time since he's been posting on here (I guess that was the personal stress showing) and, in a classic example of the sort of debate-stalling flawed logic Mac and I are on about, this was taken by some as proof that everything he was saying in that thread was therefore wrong and unreasonable.

 

The irony of it all is we constantly read on here that 'lefties' are a blanket-definable arrogant people who belittle those who view the world differently to them thus making it impossible for the poor, downtrodden, conservative-minded person to feel comfortable expressing their views yet here we have a left-wing thinker who's been put off the forum by a continued campaign of petty arrogance from certain right-wing posters who he persistently tried to be fair with.

 

I just hope he comes back sooner rather than later because whatever you think of his politics, only a mouth-breathing fascist would deny that he's far and away one of the best regular contributors we have in this community.

[Webbo]

14 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

 

The irony of it all is we constantly read on here that 'lefties' are a blanket-definable arrogant people who belittle those who view the world differently to them thus making it impossible for the poor, downtrodden, conservative-minded person to feel comfortable expressing their views yet here we have a left-wing thinker who's been put off the forum by a continued campaign of petty arrogance from certain right-wing posters who he persistently tried to be fair with.

 

 

Someone on the right disagrees so he goes off in a huff, kinda proves the point? When has anyone on the right kicked up a fuss when somebody hasn't agreed with them?

 

Alf has consistently said nobody in the Leave campaign ever said we'd be leaving the single market even though there has been videos from before the vote of Leave campaigners saying just that. So he's quite capable of ignoring evidence based assertions himself when it suits.

 

Now if we can stop painting Alf as a martyr please because it's not really fair to discuss him while he's not here.

 

Quote

I just hope he comes back sooner rather than later because whatever you think of his politics, only a mouth-breathing fascist would deny that he's far and away one of the best regular contributors we have in this community.

I have no problem with Alf or his politics.

[Charl91]

31 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Someone on the right disagrees so he goes off in a huff, kinda proves the point? When has anyone on the right kicked up a fuss when somebody hasn't agreed with them?

 

 

Stop with these "left/right" bollocks comments. It's inane and immature,

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

Stop with these "left/right" bollocks comments. It's inane and immature,

I agree, and if it wasn't for a certain posters shit stirring, this argument wouldn't be happening.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I agree, and if it wasn't for a certain posters shit stirring, this argument wouldn't be happening.

 Peak Foxestalk

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Someone on the right disagrees so he goes off in a huff, kinda proves the point? When has anyone on the right kicked up a fuss when somebody hasn't agreed with them?

 

Alf has consistently said nobody in the Leave campaign ever said we'd be leaving the single market even though there has been videos from before the vote of Leave campaigners saying just that. So he's quite capable of ignoring evidence based assertions himself when it suits.

 

Now if we can stop painting Alf as a martyr please because it's not really fair to discuss him while he's not here.

Yes let's stop it there because that's exactly the sort of rubbish retort I'm on about.  What a woefully dishonest appraisal of the situation.

 

I'm not even going to get started on that single market point:  He's made enough posts about it for you to be able to know where he's coming from if you were genuinely interested in absorbing his opinion instead of just loyally deflecting it for the party.

 

Your final request is a bit redundant:  He's being 'martyrised' (read: his absence and the cause of it is being lamented) precisely because he's not here.

 

Just now, Webbo said:

I agree, and if it wasn't for a certain posters shit stirring, this argument wouldn't be happening.

Yes.  Shit stirring.  I'm definitely not putting any thought into trying to put a fair point across.  Again this is exactly the sort of dishonest one-liner that's lead to the negative feelings on here.  Apparently you can't agree to disagree like I suggested would be reasonable in my last post, no instead you have to be agreed with, your view has to be seen to be the only truth and anything else is a lie.  Such a shame.

[GazzinderFox]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I agree, and if it wasn't for a certain posters shit stirring, this argument wouldn't be happening.

Fascist.

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yes let's stop it there because that's exactly the sort of rubbish retort I'm on about.  What a woefully dishonest appraisal of the situation.

 

I'm not even going to get started on that single market point:  He's made enough posts about it for you to be able to know where he's coming from if you were genuinely interested in absorbing his opinion instead of just loyally deflecting it for the party.

 

Your final request is a bit redundant:  He's being 'martyrised' (read: his absence and the cause of it is being lamented) precisely because he's not here.

 

Yes.  Shit stirring.  I'm definitely not putting any thought into trying to put a fair point across.  Again this is exactly the sort of dishonest one-liner that's lead to the negative feelings on here.  Apparently you can't agree to disagree like I suggested would be reasonable in my last post, no instead you have to be agreed with, your view has to be seen to be the only truth and anything else is a lie.  Such a shame.

All of your posts recently have been "oh god how awful, these fascists won't admit they're wrong about everything". Quite frankly you're becoming a bit of bore about it. These threads are for debate, if you have nothing to contribute other than sneers maybe you should steer clear of them.

[Carl the Llama]

29 minutes ago, Webbo said:

All of your posts recently have been "oh god how awful, these fascists won't admit they're wrong about everything". Quite frankly you're becoming a bit of bore about it. These threads are for debate, if you have nothing to contribute other than sneers maybe you should steer clear of them.

You really need to stop Webs.  Or get Collins to redefine the terms "all" and "recently" to mean "none" and "ever".  I submit:

 

Asides from 2 posts in that locked thread discussing Alf's and subsequently people in general's use of the term fascist where I described it as "hyperbole" and "overused" respectively, that post earlier was my first use of the term (with my tongue obviously heavily in my cheek referencing the locked discussion) since June 2016 and it was tongue in cheek then too and indeed the first time I'd used that term since October 2015.  As for the general content of my recent posts, well I reckon you should know how unfair that statement is better than anyone because excepting this thread today and the attempts to rationalise Alf's point of view in the locked thread, the only substantive contributions I've made to one of our political threads recently were in direct response to something you'd said, specifically: To answer your (rather patronising, might one even say sneering?) question about how a libertarian can advocate any form of economic control; give you a decent insight into my view on press regulation to counter your straw man argument which made it look like you think anyone with any left-wing views wants to ban them; then again to answer your fairly flippant response to those points and kindly correct your misconception about the political compass graph.

 

So I'm kind of scratching my head that you think I'm up in arms about people not admitting they're wrong, after all you didn't come back to say "oh yeah you're right I did misunderstand the definitions of the graph's axes, particularly in respect to which one measures desire to control the market, thanks for clearing it up for me" and yet here I am still perfectly fine about it.

 

Please let that be the end of this.  Also please come back soon Alf.

[GazzinderFox]

Anyway.

 

Glad to see this disgraceful excersise in the lining of human rights lawyers pockets is coming to an end... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38937053

 

I'd be absolutely livid if I was a member of the armed forces.

[Carl the Llama]

31 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

Anyway.

 

Glad to see this disgraceful excersise in the lining of human rights lawyers pockets is coming to an end... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38937053

 

I'd be absolutely livid if I was a member of the armed forces.

Good news all round, that.  Not sure what it has to do with the EU or the referendum mind you

[GazzinderFox]

15 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Good news all round, that.  Not sure what it has to do with the EU or the referendum mind you

Whoops! That's your fault for making me forget what thread this was! 

[theessexfox]

 

 

Interesting article about sovereignty and the referendum from last month.

 

Since we clearly don’t understand sovereignty, I wish we’d shut up about it

The Peace of Westphalia has a lot to answer for.

By Jonn Elledge, New Statesman, 18 January 2017

You know, I sometimes wish we could ban the word “sovereignty” from the British political lexicon. It’s always felt to me like one of those concepts that must feel a lot more meaningful to large and powerful countries (which are used to getting their way) than it is to smaller ones (which are rather more used to having multinational corporations or passing armies meddling in their affairs). 

I’m clearly not alone in this: begin a Google search with “Does sovereignty...” and every option auto-complete offers is basically a question about whether it’s a real thing at all. Influence is real. Wealth is real. North Korea has precious little of those two things, but almost perfect sovereignty over its own affairs, and with the best will in the world, I’d rather be Luxembourg.

Anyway. Whatever my own thoughts on the matter, a lot of people, of the sort who think that freedom was invented by Magna Carta, disagree; and while this was by no means the only reason people voted for Brexit, it was in the mix. The slogan “Vote leave, take control” may have caused my eyes to roll so hard I could see my brain, but I’m weird, and it clearly resonated.

Well, I wish it hadn’t. Not just because my side lost, but because I think our national obsession with – and misunderstanding of – sovereignty is going to completely stuff us.

The English conception of sovereignty, after all, has at its root the assumption that all legitimate authority derives from the crown-in-parliament. It therefore follows that local councils are there primarily to do what the government tells them, and that lower tiers of government can be reformed or abolished at will. It also implies that any attempt to pool sovereignty with our neighbours in an attempt to get things done must be some kind of shadowy European plot – and not simply a recognition that not all problems have nation state-level solutions.

There are a couple of problems with this attitude. One is that it’s almost designed to create disillusionment with politics, since whoever is in government, most people won’t have voted for them – yet they have no other outlet for expressing their views between here and the next election.

A second, rather more immediate problem is that two of the three Celtic countries might end up drifting out of the UK. The devolved parliaments in both Scotland and Northern Ireland are opposed to a Hard Brexit – and the latter, at least, has very good reasons for being so. Nonetheless, the Westminster government seems totally baffled by the idea that any other institution might get a say on things, an attitude which looks increasingly likely to go horribly, horribly wrong.

The big one, though, the one that’s got us to this point in history, is that we’ve totally misunderstood what the EU is. There was always a political element to it – ever closer union, and so forth – but even if it had been intended purely as a trading group, that would still have meant sharing sovereignty.A common market, after all, requires common rules and standards, so that everyone can be confident the foreign goods flowing all over the place aren’t going to randomly burst into flames or something. Every country in the trading bloc thus has to agree to those rules – which means their governments are giving up a modicum of power in exchange for increased trade. This stuff is too complicated to agree at summits, so you need a permanent staff setting those rules. And it probably makes sense, after a fashion, to have an elected body to keep an eye on that permanent staff (hence a parliament, the Council of Ministers etc.).

All this seems to me to make sense: of course a single market should come with political oversight. Indeed, the democratic element of the EU is far stronger than those of other global trade bodies like the WTO. If Britain is going to keep trading after Brexit, which I assume is the plan, we’re still going to have to follow rules set by people who don’t sit in Westminster – only now we’re going to have a damn sight less influence over how those rule are set.

So why has our relationship to Europe never been discussed in these terms? Probably because it’s boring and wonkish, but also, I suspect, because we have no language for talking about sharing power to make international rules or solve international problems. Our conception of sovereignty is as something monolithic that emanates entirely from one gothic building in London SW1. The EU, with all the deals and compromises it requires, just doesn’t fit our political culture.

There is another conception of sovereignty as something can be divided and pooled. Last April one pro-Remain politician said that the referendum was:

...about how we maximise Britain’s security, prosperity and influence in the world, and how we maximise our sovereignty: that is, the control we have over our own affairs in future. (...)

International, multilateral institutions... invite nation states to make a trade-off: to pool and therefore cede some sovereignty in a controlled way, to prevent a greater loss of sovereignty in an uncontrolled way, through for example military conflict or economic decline.

In other words, sovereignty is not something indivisible. It can be traded and shared to create greater influence and prosperity for all.

Who gave that speech? The then home secretary, one Theresa May. Funny how times change isn’t it?

 

[Webbo]

I really can't be bothered to re argue the referendum again. Can't we just focus on the future now?

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I really can't be bothered to re argue the referendum again. Can't we just focus on the future now?

People on the conservative side of the fence seem intent on arguing about how the Earth is changing and that we should do nothing about it even though we're partly responsible and that debate is as settled as this one...perhaps we should just focus on the future regarding that too?

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

People on the conservative side of the fence seem intent on arguing about how the Earth is changing and that we should do nothing about it even though we're partly responsible and that debate is as settled as this one...perhaps we should just focus on the future regarding that too?

Nope, sorry. Don't know what you mean.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Nope, sorry. Don't know what you mean.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I appreciate the rep point and the   but I actually didn't know what you meant.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I appreciate the rep point and the   but I actually didn't know what you meant.

Ah, sorry.

 

Well, I've heard a lot of people, when talking about issues like climate change and pollution, that seem intent on arguing the minutiae rather than actually moving on and dealing with an issue in which scientific consensus is pretty much established.

 

Perhaps there's a certain parallel between the two debates, and both or neither should be "moved on" from, or hypocrisy is likely.

[Claridge]

S

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, sorry.

 

Well, I've heard a lot of people, when talking about issues like climate change and pollution, that seem intent on arguing the minutiae rather than actually moving on and dealing with an issue in which scientific consensus is pretty much established.

 

Perhaps there's a certain parallel between the two debates, and both or neither should be "moved on" from, or hypocrisy is likely.

Scientific consensus on climate change? You mean it's always happened and always will or the bollocks that people on either side who have vested interests come out with?