Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Mate, the War in Afghanistan was against a government of the Taliban. You really think people of Afghanistan today miss the era where girls couldn't go to school, music was outlawed, and people were routinely executed and massacred? That's maximum delusion.

 

Yeah, we should have left them to allow Al-Qaeda to plot and execute terror attacks from within their borders in case we hurt your feelings, despite every single UN Security Council member backing a resolution to intervene.

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear - I'm not saying that the action wasn't legally and/or morally justified in my own view, I'm saying that there were others in that country who definitely think that it wasn't, and their views have consequences so should at least be considered. When people hate you, it's best to try and understand why rather than just steaming in with the heavy mob, after all - most often that just leads to more people hating you. And, quite frankly, if NATO are into installing democracy all around the world rather than in the few places that happen to be flavour of the month at the time they're going to be awful busy.

 

There's far too many folks who see war as a spectator sport with flags and sides and fancy fireworks rather than the horrific clusterfvck it practically always is.

[RoboFox]

Ah, the old IRA chestnut from a leading political commentator in Britain's favourite right-wing, bollocks-peddling rag.

 

The timing is curious, though. It's almost as if they revert to this same old rhetoric when they're looking to deflect attention away from another hollow speech from a PM absolutely in over her head leading a government paralysed by it's own divisions, into a Brexit that she doesn't even believe in.

 

Edited 2 March 2018 by RoboFox

[Rogstanley]

4 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its all bullying from the left anyway.

 

Just because she is a slightly unfortunate, uncomfortable looking, white posh Christian doesn't mean she should be bullied by the left.

 

Diane Abbott claims racism all the time of course it is nothing to do with the fact she is a ****ing useless politician.

May is the Prime Minister not your grandmother. Someone in her position shouldn't even be able to be bullied. If she was a bloke would you give her so much leeway? 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

May is the Prime Minister not your grandmother. Someone in her position shouldn't even be able to be bullied. If she was a bloke would you give her so much leeway? 

I agree its a joke. People in public eye positions should be able to cope with a bit of stick, it come with the territory.

 

The same goes for Abbott, she shouldn't talk complete arse on television and radio and not be expected to be pulled apart for it. The same for Corbyn, if you dress like a 1950s Geography teacher then expect to be ridiculed for it. Although since that horrible little man Seamus Milne came on the scene he has somewhat tided up his image.

[Beechey]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear - I'm not saying that the action wasn't legally and/or morally justified in my own view, I'm saying that there were others in that country who definitely think that it wasn't, and their views have consequences so should at least be considered. When people hate you, it's best to try and understand why rather than just steaming in with the heavy mob, after all - most often that just leads to more people hating you. And, quite frankly, if NATO are into installing democracy all around the world rather than in the few places that happen to be flavour of the month at the time they're going to be awful busy.

 

There's far too many folks who see war as a spectator sport with flags and sides and fancy fireworks rather than the horrific clusterfvck it practically always is.

Am I misunderstanding you, are you saying we should have opened a dialogue with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11? Because they tried to negotiate with the Taliban for the Al-Qaeda leadership to face justice, and leaving them there was simply not an option, so I'm unsure what your idea solution would be. Originally the war started as just 3,000 or so US troops backing the Northern Alliance (Taliban's Western and Russian backed opponents) to overthrow the Taliban, but Pakistan allowed the Taliban to regroup and mount an assault on the now democratic country, so NATO (under multiple UN resolutions) established ISAF to help secure the country from the Taliban and train the new Afghan army to protect itself. Under the protection of ISAF, Afghanistan held their first full and democratic elections in 2004, for the first time in 22 years. The work ISAF did has now enabled Afghanistan to fight both the Taliban and other forces with minimal (18,000 currently, down from over around 150,000 at the peak) foreign soldiers, their army is now over 350,000 men strong.

 

The conflict was bloody and I'm sure everyone regrets that, but the situation is so much better now than it was, it is simply undeniable. The independent and democratic Afghan government is now working towards peace with the forces that oppose it.

 

It wasn't just "a mob", and definitely can't be considered an occupation, since it was aligned with the Afghan government.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Beechey

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

Am I misunderstanding you, are you saying we should have opened a dialogue with Al-Qaeda after 9/11?

I'm saying we should bring in the heavy mob first, if necessary, and be prepared to open a dialogue afterwards.

 

Neither beating an enemy to a bloody pulp without listening in the manner of "do as we say, we know best" or trying to talk to someone who cannot be negotiated with for the time being work as long-term solutions - in any situation like that, you have to combine the two.

 

NB. I oppose the first of those not only morally but practically too - you can wage war as much as you'd like but killing an ideology can't be done simply and only with bullets and bombs.

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I'm saying we should bring in the heavy mob first, if necessary, and be prepared to open a dialogue afterwards.

 

Neither beating an enemy to a bloody pulp without listening in the manner of "do as we say, we know best" or trying to talk to someone who cannot be negotiated with for the time being work as long-term solutions - in any situation like that, you have to combine the two.

 

NB. I oppose the first of those not only morally but practically too - you can wage war as much as you'd like but killing an ideology can't be done simply and only with bullets and bombs.

Sorry, I updated my post to give some background of the conflict, it might be worth giving it a read, it answers some of your questions in this post.

[leicsmac]

35 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Sorry, I updated my post to give some background of the conflict, it might be worth giving it a read, it answers some of your questions in this post.

Thanks for the information and clarification.

 

I do hope that the juice is worth the squeeze in this situation, but being the softy pacifist that I am war is still used for base purposes far much more than making things "better" IMO.

[Vardinio'sCat]

11 hours ago, Beechey said:

Mate, Labour kept their pre-2008 deficit at around 3-4% of GDP, which is a reasonable level. I never once claimed spending was out of control before 2008, so I'm really unsure where you're getting that from. I'm talking about spending after the crash, not before it. That's pretty clear in my post isn't it? I keep specifying "2008/09", which is the year after the crash, which occurred in 2007/08.

 

I'll criticise the Conservative/Lib Dem government all day long for cutting capital spending, but departmental spending was simply too high to allow for an injection of more capital spending at the time (see page 12). If we'd done a massive infrastructure investment (say £100bn, which is quite mild) to spur the economy, even if that was just a single year investment, it would have doubled our deficit in a single year. No government could ever accept that, it's political suicide. We would have had a public budget deficit of nearing 20% of GDP, 7x the size the EU allows in its rules.

 

We could have kept spending as it was, but nobody thought that was a good idea. Even Labour proposed £80bn worth of cuts and tax rises within a four year period. 

 

 

That's without saying the government now spends almost £120bn per more now than it did when the Conservatives first came to power. Mostly because the economy is around 15% larger than it was in that period, and despite there being cuts to corporation tax, we now collect 40% more than we did before the crash, so clearly higher taxes are not always the solution. So much for stunted growth.

 

Oops, I see you were not saying what I thought you meant, I should have gone to bed when I said. 

 

I outlined my view of the slowest post-recession recovery since the horse and cart in my previous reply to you (in short, the US did it better). It was fairly extensive, so I'll refer you to that, to avoid repeating myself.

[Salisbury Fox]

6 hours ago, toddybad said:

On the McDonnell thing it is almost comedic the way people go on about these things. In order to reach the good Friday agreement Thatcher held back door tells with the ira and the likes of Adams and mcguiness were brought in from the cold to power share. You can't have a political process without talking to the opposition/enemy.

 

On May's speech, I read a minute by minute log and it read relatively well. If she got ALL of that it would be, as you say, a middle ground option. If we got ALL of that she might just see it through to the next election.

 

It will be interesting to see the EU's formal response. There are some bits I'm not sure they'll go for but let's see.

I don't recall Corbyn or McDonnell speaking to any of the Unionist organisations during their 'peace talks' and so to suggest that it is comparable to Thacher holding back door talks is laughable

[Salisbury Fox]

6 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I was answering a very specific tweet that described them as 'cold-blooded murderers of British soldiers'.

 

And to answer your second point, the soldier who executed the Taliban soldier in cold blood was described precisely as that by his supporters and the right wing media, before he was released. British soldiers are not heroes.

As a serving soldier I agree that the Marine that summarily executed the Taliban soldier was wrong and should not have been released early. He put the security of service personnel at risk for his actions and went against everything that we stand for and are taught.  To bring this up in defence of an association with the IRA is stretching it though, the IRA indiscriminately targeted innocent lives, which went against everything that I was trained in when I was deployed in the province to do.  

 

I understand the desire to score cheap political points but to suggest the IRA and the British Army are comparable is beyond contempt in my opinion.  I don't care whether you think soldiers are not heroes, the armed forces are only deployed at the whim of politicians and receive a significantly high amount of training in their rules of engagement.

[breadandcheese]

I really don't understand the casual dismissal of Corbyn and McDonnell's relationships and meetings with the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas. It's always explained away as talking to nasty groups in order to advance peace. 

 

Can anyone demonstrate any evidence or show any references where Corbyn and McDonnell did/have done anything to advance any peace processes?

 

They had nothing to do with the Good Friday Agreement.

[lifted*fox]

WHAT'S GOING ON IN HERE THEN EHHHH, EH.

[lifted*fox]

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I really don't understand the casual dismissal of Corbyn and McDonnell's relationships and meetings with the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas. It's always explained away as talking to nasty groups in order to advance peace. 

 

Can anyone demonstrate any evidence or show any references where Corbyn and McDonnell did/have done anything to advance any peace processes?

 

They had nothing to do with the Good Friday Agreement.

 

The British government was also holding secret talks with the IRA.

[Vardinio'sCat]

9 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its all bullying from the left anyway.

 

Just because she is a slightly unfortunate, uncomfortable looking, white posh Christian doesn't mean she should be bullied by the left.

 

Diane Abbott claims racism all the time of course it is nothing to do with the fact she is a ****ing useless politician.

 

The funny thing is that both are diabetic. I wondered if, during the election, which everyone acknowledges is a real trial of stamina, the tories tried not to push TM too hard, because of the danger of a public diabetic meltdown/crash.

 

Which is precisely what Diane Abbot had... Personally, I don't really warm to DA, but the relentless kicking she got made me a touch uncomfortable, and I think both sides will bully people for political advantage, if that is what it takes to win. If that had happened to TM we might well have had a different situation now.

[Wymsey]

6 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Is that the Brexit plan outcome forecast?

Edited 2 March 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[Buce]

15 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

As a serving soldier I agree that the Marine that summarily executed the Taliban soldier was wrong and should not have been released early. He put the security of service personnel at risk for his actions and went against everything that we stand for and are taught.  To bring this up in defence of an association with the IRA is stretching it though, the IRA indiscriminately targeted innocent lives, which went against everything that I was trained in when I was deployed in the province to do.  

 

I understand the desire to score cheap political points but to suggest the IRA and the British Army are comparable is beyond contempt in my opinion.  I don't care whether you think soldiers are not heroes, the armed forces are only deployed at the whim of politicians and receive a significantly high amount of training in their rules of engagement.

 

Nothing personal, mate, but there was nothing heroic about Bloody Sunday.

 

It was - as you put it - indiscriminately targeting innocent lives.

[breadandcheese]

Just now, Buce said:

 

The British government was also holding secret talks with the IRA.

But there's a stark difference. One is to advance the cause of peace and see if they can negotiate a settlement (the British government). 

 

The other (Corbyn) is having no impact at all, has no influence on the IRA's actions, does nothing to prevent terrorism, is just supporting an enemy who is killing innocent people. 

 

If Corbyn had had any impact on the actions of the terrorist organisation, or that his links helped to cultivate a movement towards peace with the IRA, I would look at this differently. Instead, he cavorted with a terrorist organisation who was putting bombs on the streets of our country.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, breadandcheese said:

But there's a stark difference. One is to advance the cause of peace and see if they can negotiate a settlement (the British government). 

 

The other (Corbyn) is having no impact at all, has no influence on the IRA's actions, does nothing to prevent terrorism, is just supporting an enemy who is killing innocent people. 

 

If Corbyn had had any impact on the actions of the terrorist organisation, or that his links helped to cultivate a movement towards peace with the IRA, I would look at this differently. Instead, he cavorted with a terrorist organisation who was putting bombs on the streets of our country.

 

How do know he had no impact on their actions?

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

The funny thing is that both are diabetic. I wondered if, during the election, which everyone acknowledges is a real trial of stamina, the tories tried not to push TM too hard, because of the danger of a public diabetic meltdown/crash.

 

Which is precisely what Diane Abbot had... Personally, I don't really warm to DA, but the relentless kicking she got made me a touch uncomfortable, and I think both sides will bully people for political advantage, if that is what it takes to win. If that had happened to TM we might well have had a different situation now.

I think people sometimes forget that TM is a diabetic and has to inject herself with insulin five times a day.

 

I've stuck up for her in the past and got the standard "you're only protecting her because she's a woman" remarks but I'd have respect for anyone in that position living with type 1 diabetes.

 

It's one of the most demanding jobs in the world and she's no spring chicken, so I think she does pretty well in the circumstances.

[Buce]

Theresa May's Brexit vision dismissed as unrealistic in Brussels

EU diplomats describe May’s proposals on customs checks and the Irish border as ‘fantasy’

 

Theresa May’s Mansion House speech on Britain’s future relationship with EU was dismissed as vague and unworkable in Brussels, although the bloc’s chief negotiator welcomed the prime minister’s belated acceptance of new trade barriers for UK exporters to Europe after Brexit.

Michel Barnier said the UK’s clear confirmation that it will leave the single market and the customs union along with the prime minister’s “recognition of trade-offs” was at least a basis on which the EU could form its own position on the free trade deal to come.

May conceded in her speech that access to markets would be “less than it is now”.

On the substance of the prime minister’s proposals to reduce some barriers of trade and avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, there was, however, deep scepticism among EU officials and diplomats who pointed to a speech by Barnier on Thursday in which he had already ruled out many of the prime minister’s suggestions.

 

Those proposals from May included a “comprehensive system of mutual recognition” under which goods need only be tested in the UK or the EU rather than in both territories to reduce costs and paperwork.

One senior diplomat echoed Barnier’s insistence that without EU law that can override national law, a common supervisory body and a common court, the suggestion “won’t work for us – or for that matter lead to frictionless trade”.

Aleš Chmelař, the Czech Republic’s state secretary for European affairs, said the UK’s demands remained unrealistic. “The UK says it does not want the obligations of Norway [to accept EU laws] and the [limited] rights of Canada. The impression in some member states currently is that the UK wants the rights of Norway and the obligations of Canada.”

EU diplomats involved in the shaping of the EU positions on Brexit were pleased by May’s suggestion that the UK would emulate Brussels laws in the future to maintain regulatory standards but queried whether the government could really commit to being a “rule taker”.

 

However, it was the failure of the UK prime minister to offer any fresh thinking on avoiding a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic that received the harshest response.

May repeated a suggestion made last year that the government would mirror EU requirements on non-EU imports arriving in Britain and Northern Ireland that were destined for the rest of Europe, so there would be no need for a customs border between the UK and the union.

Alternatively, the prime minister said, there could be a technological solution that could make customs checks unnecessary on the island of Ireland and elsewhere.

One diplomat said the UK was simply not trusted enough for such arrangements to work. “The prime minister’s proposals are non starters,” he said. “Her customs idea is fantasy – we’d never do that. Mad cow disease originated on UK isles and [the country] is the biggest entry port for counterfeited goods.

“The hi-tech arrangement is sci-fi. No-one has seen it yet on Planet Earth. So back to square one on Ireland.”

May’s request for the UK to become “associate members” of EU agencies, such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, was additionally dismissed with the now familiar accusation that the UK was “cherry-picking” aspects of membership.

Guy Verhofstadt, the former prime minister of Belgium who is the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, said: “Theresa May needed to move beyond vague aspirations, we can only hope that serious proposals have been put in the post.

“While I welcome the call for a deep and special partnership, this cannot be achieved by putting a few extra cherries on the Brexit cake.

 

“Our relationship must be close and comprehensive, but this is only possible if the UK government understands that the EU is a rules-based organisation, as there is little appetite to renegotiate the rules of the single market to satisfy a compromise crafted to placate a divided Conservative party.”

Manfred Weber, leader of the largest party in the parliament, and a key ally of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said: “After what I have heard today I am even more concerned. I don’t see how we could reach an agreement on Brexit if the UK government continues to bury its head in the sand like this.”

EU officials did, however, welcome the warmer tone from the prime minister. “She played a straight bat and that doesn’t go down too badly on this side,” said one EU official.

The EU is due to publish guidelines on Tuesday on how it sees the future relationship with the UK, although they are expected to be short and uncompromising, repeating the red-lines that the prime minister is attempting to rub out.

A source said: “Whether the guidelines say it explicitly or implicitly, it will be like this in case the UK develops its position. We can then develop our thinking of what is possible.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/02/theresa-mays-brexit-vision-dismissed-as-unrealistic-in-brussels

[breadandcheese]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

How do know he had no impact on their actions?

I'm happy to learn if he did anything. 

 

Please point to anyone involved on either side of the Northern Irish peace process who gives any sort of credit to Corbyn.

[Buce]

Just now, breadandcheese said:

I'm happy to learn if he did anything. 

 

Please point to anyone involved on either side of the Northern Irish peace process who gives any sort of credit to Corbyn.

 

I don't have that kind of interest or knowledge.

 

Maybe you could Google it if you're sufficiently interested.

[lifted*fox]

It's so funny watching May trying the same thing over and over and getting the same response from Brussels.

 

'Fantasy' sums it up nicely.

 

She needs to wake the **** up and realise we're not getting EU benefits without the EU. 

 

Making herself looks naive, stubborn and absolutely clueless.