Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Foxxed]

6 hours ago, Sampson said:

No one has argued that.

I'm arguing against Populism, which by its nature is anti-Establishment - but that doesn't mean I'm arguing against anything which is anti-establishment as a whole. Thatcher did not have the Populist rhetoric of Corbyn at all. I'm arguing against this rise in Populism in the West over the past 5 or 6 years (which Corbyn is a part of) which is not healthy. I'm not saying Corbyn is like Juliius Caesar and the ultimate end point of Populism - I'm saying he (and others throughout Europe, including Nigel Farage etc.) are like Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and the rise of Populism, which is not healthy for any democracy.

This is the point I'm getting at. You are conflating the two.

 

You assume Corbyn is a populist because he holds an anti establishment position.

 

From what I've seen you've shown he attacks the system but have not shown that he attacks a group of people for who they are.

 

The latter is essential to populism, and something you have not shown in your arguments.

[Sampson]

Just now, Foxxed said:

This is the point I'm getting at. You are conflating the two.

 

You assume Corbyn is a populist because he holds an anti establishment position.

 

From what I've seen you've shown he attacks the system but have not shown that he attacks a group of people for who they are.

 

The latter is essential to populism, and something you have not shown in your arguments.

He criticises "the Neoliberal elite and "the wealth hoarders" "private developers" and "bankers" several times in every long speech he ever makes and plays then off as some bogeyman screwing the working classes - when most of them are just people who've worked hard to get where with a lot of the luck it takes to be successful too but they are and are just trying to do their jobs - in a way I really don't ever remember a leader of one of the 2 major parties doing before 

 

I'd recommend starting the below video of his last Labour comference at any moment and seeing if you can go 3 minutes without him attacking some group of wealthy people or people working in the private sector. I do not remember another leader of Labour or the Conservatives who has gone about his speeches in such a way, who so much of their rhetoric is about creating this "us vs them" mentality. I don't think it's healthy in a democracy at all.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

27 minutes ago, Sampson said:

He criticises "the Neoliberal elite and "the wealth hoarders" "private developers" and "bankers" several times in every long speech he ever makes and plays then off as some bogeyman screwing the working classes - when most of them are just people who've worked hard to get where with a lot of the luck it takes to be successful too but they are and are just trying to do their jobs - in a way I really don't ever remember a leader of one of the 2 major parties doing before 

 

I'd recommend starting the below video of his last Labour comference at any moment and seeing if you can go 3 minutes without him attacking some group of wealthy people or people working in the private sector. I do not remember another leader of Labour or the Conservatives who has gone about his speeches in such a way, who so much of their rhetoric is about creating this "us vs them" mentality. I don't think it's healthy in a democracy at all.

 

 

Yeah I'm not watching all of that but I humoured your 3 minute suggestion and spent 3 minutes from 16:00 on listening to him talk about May's hypocrisy over the magic money tree and the DUP deal (a fair cop imo) then attack the Conservatives for their negative record on homelessness, the NHS, emergency services, people living below the poverty line, treatment o the disabled and finally, yes, after highlighting the cuts or negative fluctuations to all those things he moved on to reduced taxes for "the rich and powerful".  So I take your point but based purely on those 3 minutes mentioned (because like I say I'm not watching all of that) you seem to be ignoring most of his content where he rightly or wrongly provides reasons to support his attack on the Tories so that you can attack the one thing you don't like, I'm presuming there's a more pertinent bit of that speech which better proves your point.

 

On another note you seem to be suggesting that wealth hoarding is a noble pursuit, am I understanding that correctly?

Edited 18 March 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Guest Foxin_mad]

21 hours ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

 

There is no Labour press of any consequence.

The Guardian, Mirror and Independent are pretty left leaning generally the later probably more centre ground. The BBC I feel try to give an impartial view and the ITV and CH4 are not exactly Tory.

 

Social Media perhaps the most powerful vote winner of our time is probably more dominated by left wing activists. 

 

Do most people read the Sun and Mail these days?

 

I suspect more people are swayed by the tripe they see on Facebook and Twitter now. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yeah I'm not watching all of that but I humoured your 3 minute suggestion and spent 3 minutes from 16:00 on listening to him talk about May's hypocrisy over the magic money tree and the DUP deal (a fair cop imo) then attack the Conservatives for their negative record on homelessness, the NHS, emergency services, people living below the poverty line, treatment o the disabled and finally, yes, after highlighting the cuts or negative fluctuations to all those things he moved on to reduced taxes for "the rich and powerful".  So I take your point but based purely on those 3 minutes mentioned (because like I say I'm not watching all of that) you seem to be ignoring most of his content where he rightly or wrongly provides reasons to support his attack on the Tories so that you can attack the one thing you don't like, I'm presuming there's a more pertinent bit of that speech which better proves your point.

 

On another note you seem to be suggesting that wealth hoarding is a noble pursuit, am I understanding that correctly?

The DUP deal was how much £1 Billion? (Not that I agree with it for one moment) and Labour are suggesting additional spending of 'at least' £250 billion of the course of parliament, most of this is completely back of fag packet maths and most of them even admit they have absolutely no idea how much most of their plans will cost. McDonnell doesn't even know the deficit figures or how much debt interest we are paying. Its a slightly different ball park in terms of Magic Money Tree I would say. 

 

The bigger problem is that Labours plans will not fix anything, balance of probability is they will make things worse because we will have less money to spend on the public services we love so much. 

 

I haven't seen anything to suggest we would achieve the 5-7% growth per year we would need to become even close to paying down the debt that Labour are advocating on top of what we already have. Its all very well saying spend money to boost growth but the growth you achieve has to be enough to sustain the money you are spending and you tax policies have to be at a level that will not drive away business and jobs. 

[Buce]

23 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

The Guardian, Mirror and Independent are pretty left leaning generally the later probably more centre ground. The BBC I feel try to give an impartial view and the ITV and CH4 are not exactly Tory.

 

Social Media perhaps the most powerful vote winner of our time is probably more dominated by left wing activists. 

 

Do most people read the Sun and Mail these days?

 

I suspect more people are swayed by the tripe they see on Facebook and Twitter now. 

 

Left-leaning is not the same as Labour supporting, though.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Left-leaning is not the same as Labour supporting, though.

Perhaps not, although I am not sure that papers like the Mail are exactly Tory supporting either, some of them are probably more far right. I think the Mail and Sun was probably more aligned to UKIP at certain points it is of course somewhat harder for them to find a relevant party now that UKIP are irrelevant. 

[Rogstanley]

11 hours ago, Sampson said:

He criticises "the Neoliberal elite and "the wealth hoarders" "private developers" and "bankers" several times in every long speech he ever makes and plays then off as some bogeyman screwing the working classes - when most of them are just people who've worked hard to get where with a lot of the luck it takes to be successful too but they are and are just trying to do their jobs - in a way I really don't ever remember a leader of one of the 2 major parties doing before 

 

I'd recommend starting the below video of his last Labour comference at any moment and seeing if you can go 3 minutes without him attacking some group of wealthy people or people working in the private sector. I do not remember another leader of Labour or the Conservatives who has gone about his speeches in such a way, who so much of their rhetoric is about creating this "us vs them" mentality. I don't think it's healthy in a democracy at all.

 

 

Started at 29:30 and listened for about six minutes. He didn't criticise any of the groups you mentioned. 

 

Maybe I got lucky because I started on a part where they were singing happy birthday to Dianne Abbot but I've not got time to go through the whole thing.

 

From what I've heard of Corbyn he usually criticises when it's fair to do so such as criticising 'bankers' for when they wrecked the economy. If what you're saying is that the rich should be immune to criticism then that's very troubling.

 

Corbyn does often talk about the wealthy in the context of increasing the tax they pay but that's not a criticism of them but rather a discussion about tax policy, the Tories do the same thing all the time.

Edited 19 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest MattP]

To be fair to the left wing press they were in a bit of a sticky position regarding support, the Mirror had already had a front page calling for Corbyn to go and the Guardian had numerous articles saying the shadow cabinet now couldn't be taken seriously, they've also been pretty heavy at times on the Eurosceptism of Corbyn and his team being the most pro-EU newspaper (FT aside) going.

 

The Mirror still ended up backing Labour but the reason the Guardian supported "anti Tory" voting rather than pro-Labour at the last election was because they knew they couldn't be taken seriously if they backed a party led by this current bunch of nutters. People do remember which papers backed governments.

[leicsmac]

15 hours ago, Sampson said:

I'm not sure on what you're agreeing to disagree on here? I was referring to the Populares (which is where the term "Populism" comes from) who were a political faction who played the Plebians against the noble elite - they literally had nothing to do with playing them against other nations or tribes and were actually in support of Italians who faught for Rome getting Roman citizenship. That isn't opinion I can see disagreement on without creating a completely new reading of history which doesn't make any sense, that's just historic circumstance.

 

I'm not doubting that playing people against other tribes/nations is common, but it's absolutly false to say populism largely comes down to that - probably the most common form of Populism throughout history has been class populism and whipping up the "common man" against the "wealthy establishment" as an "us vs them" rhetoric (and is literally the type which the term comes from regarding the Populares in the Roman Repbulic).

If that's what the word originally means, then fair play. Perhaps another term should be conceived for the type I had in mind?

 

Playing people against other tribes/nations is far more common and far more destructive than any class populism could ever be, unless that class populism causes a tribe or nation to collapse upon itself and then be invaded because it's seen to be weak (and even then part of the culpability still comes down to the invaders). Even the worst excesses of Mao and Stalin within their own nations in the name of class struggle come nowhere close to the death and destruction caused by almost every single war, every single instance of a slave trade, every single tribal conflict since time immemorial - all, practically every single one, caused by a group of people thinking they were better than another because of who they are. When you strip away all the other religious, political or whatever other considerations, at a fundamental level that is what it has come down to practically every single time. "I am better than you and your group by right of birth, and I'm going to subjugate you, and make you suffer and die because of it." 

 

That kind of populism (use a different term if you wish), is far more common in the past and far more dangerous to the future than class populism.

Edited 19 March 2018 by leicsmac

[Fox Ulike]

14 hours ago, Sampson said:

He criticises "the Neoliberal elite and "the wealth hoarders" "private developers" and "bankers" several times in every long speech he ever makes and plays then off as some bogeyman screwing the working classes - when most of them are just people who've worked hard to get where with a lot of the luck it takes to be successful too but they are and are just trying to do their jobs - in a way I really don't ever remember a leader of one of the 2 major parties doing before 

 

I'd recommend starting the below video of his last Labour comference at any moment and seeing if you can go 3 minutes without him attacking some group of wealthy people or people working in the private sector. I do not remember another leader of Labour or the Conservatives who has gone about his speeches in such a way, who so much of their rhetoric is about creating this "us vs them" mentality. I don't think it's healthy in a democracy at all.

 

 

 

Can't you just quote something from Corbyn's speech that supports your assertion, rather than asking everybody who disagrees with you to find your supporting evidence for you?!

[Buce]

Tories cave-in over Brexit demands:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/19/uk-and-eu-agree-terms-for-brexit-transition-deal

 

The UK has struck a deal on the terms of the Brexit transition period after making a series of concessions to Brussels and accepting a “back stop” plan of keeping Northern Ireland under EU law to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.

 

After an intense few days and nights of talks, Brexit secretary David Davis said agreement on the terms of the 21-month period, ending on 31 December 2020, was a “significant” moment, which would give businesses and citizens the reassurance they needed.

The UK will retain the benefits of the single market and customs union for “near enough to the two years we asked for”, Davis said, albeit while losing its role in any decision-making institutions.

Liam Fox, the secretary for international trade, will also be allowed to sign new trade deals to come into force in 2021.

However, the British government has had to accept defeat on a series of demands, including on the prime minister’s very public insistence that citizens arriving during the transition period would be treated differently to those already in the UK.

“British citizens and European citizens of the 27 who arrive during the transition period will receive the same rights and guarantees as those who arrived before the day of Brexit,” said the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, during a joint press conference on the latest draft of the withdrawal agreement.

May has repeatedly insisted that the rights offered had to be “different” for those “coming to a UK they know will be outside the EU”.

Most contentiously, Barnier said that the UK had agreed that in relation to Northern Ireland the withdrawal agreement will retain a default solution to avoid a hard border under which the north and south of the island of Ireland would remain in regulatory alignment.

 

After the publication of the last draft of the 53,000 word agreement, including that back stop, May had insisted that no British prime minister could sign up to a text including a proposition that could “threaten the constitutional integrity of the UK by creating a customs and regulatory border down the Irish Sea”.

The EU and Ireland had insisted, in turn, that the “back stop” option was simply the translation of an agreement struck in a joint report between the UK and the European commission in December.

That report suggested that regulatory alignment would be necessary if either a future trade deal or a bespoke technological solution failed to offer the same advantage of avoiding a hard border.

 

With the issue threatening to stall agreement on the transition period, a deal, however had been struck, Barnier told reporters.

He said: “We agree today that the back stop solution must form part of the legal text of the withdrawal agreement.”

Davis said: “Make no mistake, both the United Kingdom and the European Union are committed to the joint report in its entirety and in keeping with that commitment we agree on the need to include legal text detailing the back stop solution for the border of Northern Ireland and Ireland in the withdrawal agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

“But it remains our intention to achieve a partnership that is so close as to not require specific measures in relation to Northern Ireland and therefore we will engage in detail on all the scenarios set out in the joint report.”

The UK insists that despite accepting that a back stop will be included in the final withdrawal agreement, it has not accepted the current wording proposed by the EU.

Downing Street wants inclusion in the text of its promise to avoid the need for border checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, something Brussels says is a strictly domestic issue.

In a sign of the UK’s need to placate the EU over the issue, the prime minister is nevertheless expected to write a letter to the European council president, Donald Tusk, on the issue.

The UK has also rolled over on the demand of Michael Gove, the environment secretary, for a renegotiation of the fishing quotas for the last year of the transition period. Brussels has only given an assurance that the UK will be consulted on the total size of catches.

Downing Street’s hope for a veto on new EU legislation that could be damaging to the British economy has also been quashed. A joint committee will be established to “resolve concerns” and there is a clause requiring both sides to act in “good faith”.

The UK has attained the right to opt in to justice and home affairs legislation and to opt out of foreign policy decisions. Barnier confirmed that Gibraltar would not be covered by the transition deal unless Spain came to an agreement with the UK on the rock’s future.

Campaigners for Britons in Europe expressed concern about the draft withdrawal deal.

“Barnier and Davis may be saying they are close to an agreement, but that agreement does not include EU citizens in the UK or Britons in Europe,” said Jane Golding, chair of British in Europe.

She pointed out the draft excludes any reference to their continued right to freedom of movement to enable cross-border commuting or provision of services in another country or to people in another country.

“As things stand, after Brexit English cheddar will have more free movement rights than we will,” said Golding. EU citizens in the UK are also in the dark on family reunification rights allowing future spouses or children to live lawfully in the UK.

[Guest]

Well on our way to being a vassall state then. Good use of your vote Brexiteers.

[Milo]

25 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Well on our way to being a vassall state then. Good use of your vote Brexiteers.

Ain't democracy a bitch

[Guest MattP]

 

"The Tories need to do a deal that gives some confidence and assurance for business during transition!!"

 

Above happens....

 

"The Tories have caved in, vassal state!!"

[Donut]

The UK will retain the benefits of the single market and customs union for “near enough to the two years we asked for”, Davis said, albeit while losing its role in any decision-making institutions.

 

British government has had to accept defeat on a series of demands, including on the prime minister’s very public insistence that citizens arriving during the transition period would be treated differently to those already in the UK....May has repeatedly insisted that the rights offered had to be “different” for those “coming to a UK they know will be outside the EU”.

 

The UK has also rolled over on the demand of Michael Gove, the environment secretary, for a renegotiation of the fishing quotas for the last year of the transition period. Brussels has only given an assurance that the UK will be consulted on the total size of catches.

 

Downing Street’s hope for a veto on new EU legislation that could be damaging to the British economy has also been quashed. A joint committee will be established to “resolve concerns” and there is a clause requiring both sides to act in “good faith”.

 

“As things stand, after Brexit English cheddar will have more free movement rights than we will,” said Golding. EU citizens in the UK are also in the dark on family reunification rights allowing future spouses or children to live lawfully in the UK.

 

All hail Brexit.

 

Taking back control by giving all your control up. Like something from David Brent.

 

Edited 19 March 2018 by Donut

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

"The Tories need to do a deal that gives some confidence and assurance for business during transition!!"

 

Above happens....

 

"The Tories have caved in, vassal state!!"

 

Spin it all you like, that’s exactly what they’ve done, even agreeing to the fall back position on Ireland. 

[Webbo]

Some good some bad as you'd expect in a negotiation. It's only the transition period anyway.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

Spin it all you like, that’s exactly what they’ve done, even agreeing to the fall back position on Ireland. 

I think it was obvious to most people the transition/implementation period was going to see us still aligned to far more legislation than most leave voters would like but it's irrelevant to the final point of negotiation.

 

Claiming the Tories are caving in because of that is a bit ludicrous and based on nothing more than obvious biased opinion. Just something for people like Corbyn and Farage to try and make cheap political capital out of.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think it was obvious to most people the transition/implementation period was going to see us still aligned to far more legislation than most leave voters would like but it's irrelevant to the final point of negotiation.

 

Claiming the Tories are caving in because of that is a bit ludicrous and based on nothing more than obvious biased opinion. Just something for people like Corbyn and Farage to try and make cheap political capital out of.

yep it was always obvious Brexiteers would all be happy with this type of period, what with the "no deal is better than a bad deal" and calling MPs traitors and quislings for daring to want some parliamentary scrutiny.

 

I'm sure the final deal will be all brexiteers dreamt it to be also.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Some good some bad as you'd expect in a negotiation. It's only the transition period anyway.

Which were the best bits for you?

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Which were the best bits for you?

Can agree and sign up to our own deals during the transition period. 

 

Honestly didn't expect the eu to agree to that. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Quite funny that we didnt get the fishing quota win as that was one of the big examples in the press

[Donut]

40 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Some good some bad as you'd expect in a negotiation. It's only the transition period anyway.

Its obvious that:

 

1) You put no thought into your vote

2) You were duped and voted on emotion somewhat similar to a radicalisation

3) You thought youd be better off and wont be

4) Now knowing you wont be better off, you try to claim that you knew this all along and it was a price worth paying for "taking back control" whatever that is

5) You wanted control over laws you couldnt name and you hadnt a clue about but were sure they ruined your life.

6) The fishing laws you were so desperate to change for some reason like every brexit voter arent changing.

7) We now have no influence over single market or customs union decisions when we previously did

8) Youve got no idea what we will sell more of and who we will sell it to when we are out of the single market, and cling onto the hope of some brilliant trade deal with who knows who

9) Youre blindly waiting for some sort of miracle to make your life better when youve shot yourself and everyone else in the foot

10) Theres absolutely no point trying to discuss anything with someone who has a head made of granite and is oblivious to just about every experts opinions and reports.

 

Im not replying back to you so quote me or dont quote me im not bothered. Theres nothing to discuss, end of story.

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Donut said:

Its obvious that:

 

1) You put no thought into your vote

2) You were duped and voted on emotion somewhat similar to a radicalisation

3) You thought youd be better off and wont be

4) Now knowing you wont be better off, you try to claim that you knew this all along and it was a price worth paying for "taking back control" whatever that is

5) You wanted control over laws you couldnt name and you hadnt a clue about but were sure they ruined your life.

6) The fishing laws you were so desperate to change for some reason like every brexit voter arent changing.

7) We now have no influence over single market or customs union decisions when we previously did

8) Youve got no idea what we will sell more of and who we will sell it to when we are out of the single market, and cling onto the hope of some brilliant trade deal with who knows who

9) Youre blindly waiting for some sort of miracle to make your life better when youve shot yourself and everyone else in the foot

10) Theres absolutely no point trying to discuss anything with someone who has a head made of granite and is oblivious to just about every experts opinions and reports.

 

Im not replying back to you so quote me or dont quote me im not bothered. Theres nothing to discuss, end of story.

So why bother posting?