Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

A Labour frontbencher has denounced one of the party's key Brexit policies in a recording of a questions session at a think-tank, obtained by the BBC.

Barry Gardiner used colourful language to rubbish the party's pledge to secure the exact same benefits as the single market after Brexit.

Mr Gardiner has already apologised for describing the Good Friday Agreement as a "shibboleth" at the same event.

He said he had not meant the agreement was "outdated or unimportant".

Speaking about the "six tests" Labour set the government to decide whether to support the final Brexit deal in a Commons vote, he said: "Well let's just take one test - the exact same benefits. Bollocks.

"Always has been bollocks and it remains it.

"We know very well that we cannot have the exact same benefits and actually it would have made sense - because it was the Tories that said they were going to secure the exact same benefits - and our position should have been to say they have said they are going to secure the exact same benefits and we are going to hold them to that standard."

He said that should have been the Labour policy rather than saying "we think we can secure the exact same benefits as well".

The shadow international trade secretary made the comments after a speech at a think-tank in Brussels last month. The six tests were set out by shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer in March last year.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43710728

Well at least he was honest. It's not like we didn't know it.

 

I'm sure even Labour supporters knew it was bollocks deep down, they just couldn't say anything. 

 

They've got to continue to pretend they are pro-EU to Remain voting Londoners and pro-Brexit to Leave voting Midlanders and Northerners.

Edited 10 April 2018 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

Israeli Labour party suspends links with British Labour party.

 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

Big Gaz fighting the good fight. Gerremin. 

 

Yeah, but it's a bit patronising to suggest that all drug users have problems.

 

I bet he likes a drink - does he do so because he 'has problems'?

Edited 10 April 2018 by Buce

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, but it's a bit patronising to suggest that all drug users have problems.

 

I bet he likes a drink - does he do so because he 'has problems'?

Also a bit rich of him suggesting where tax revenue should go, when he spends most of his time ensuring his goes back to him.

[Guest]

Costly medicines and pus in milk: a Brexit trade deal that’ll make you sick

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/10/medicine-pus-milk-brexit-trade-chlorinated-chicken?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Whatever Lineker supports politically seems to go totally tits up anyway.

 

Bet he hasn't tweeted the news about the "child refugees" he pontificated over being in the main proven to be adults this week.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

41 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Costly medicines and pus in milk: a Brexit trade deal that’ll make you sick

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/10/medicine-pus-milk-brexit-trade-chlorinated-chicken?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

8% of the public would accept a trade deal with the US and bring in their food products. Interesting as in a way just over half have voted for something which entails it

The cart is before the horse here. We should have had a Brexit discussion before the referendun

Edited 10 April 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

8% of the public would accept a trade deal with the US and bring in their food products. Interesting as in a way just over half have voted for something which entails it

The cart is before the horse here. We should have had a Brexit discussion before the referendun

Yep, unfortunately they voted for the thing which enables a group of tory imbeciles like JRM and the hideous Liam Fox to try to push terrible trade deals.

[foxinexile]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yep, unfortunately they voted for the thing which enables a group of tory imbeciles like JRM and the hideous Liam Fox to try to push terrible trade deals.

As of October last year (I don't know if he's changed his mind now?) Dr. Fox was still standing by his belief that a trade deal with the EU27 would be "the easiest in human history" and that the only thing that would complicate it was if the EU27 chose to "punish" the UK. This man is a walking talking disaster: Allowing his friend and best man, Adam Werrity, to take up an unofficial and undeclared role in which he attended meetings at the MOD without obtaining security clearance; claiming 3p for a car journey of less than 100 metres etc.

 

How he is still an MP, let alone in his post, is incredible. Forget BoJo, Diane Abbott ... this is the one to give you nightmares.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Deny my place in time, you squander wealth that's mine
My light will shine so brightly it will blind you

[bovril]

1 hour ago, foxinexile said:

As of October last year (I don't know if he's changed his mind now?) Dr. Fox was still standing by his belief that a trade deal with the EU27 would be "the easiest in human history" and that the only thing that would complicate it was if the EU27 chose to "punish" the UK. This man is a walking talking disaster: Allowing his friend and best man, Adam Werrity, to take up an unofficial and undeclared role in which he attended meetings at the MOD without obtaining security clearance; claiming 3p for a car journey of less than 100 metres etc.

 

How he is still an MP, let alone in his post, is incredible. Forget BoJo, Diane Abbott ... this is the one to give you nightmares.

And he thinks paedophiles have genetically more in common with crabs. 

[Guest MattP]

Our ambassador to the UN just said Karl Marx was Russian....how have we got so many thickos in powerful positions?

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

8% of the public would accept a trade deal with the US and bring in their food products. Interesting as in a way just over half have voted for something which entails it

The cart is before the horse here. We should have had a Brexit discussion before the referendun

Any actual evidence of this or do we take the opinion of pro-Remain Guardian columnists as fact now? 

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Any actual evidence of this or do we take the opinion of pro-Remain Guardian columnists as fact now? 

What do you mean "now"? Hasn't that been the position since the referendum?

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

What do you mean "now"? Hasn't that been the position since the referendum?

The guardian can’t be trusted not to push its agenda regarding brexit, it couldn’t help jumping the gun over Cambridge Analytica and proved it would be prepared to make up facts to help whip up anti brexit hysteria. A poor mans independent these days.

[Buce]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

Any actual evidence of this or do we take the opinion of pro-Remain Guardian columnists as fact now? 

 

https://issuu.com/ippr/docs/leaving_the_eu_briefing_part2/1?ff=true&e=31236854/59193533

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

https://issuu.com/ippr/docs/leaving_the_eu_briefing_part2/1?ff=true&e=31236854/59193533

Is a study of 2000 people really representative on such a broad and divisive issue?

The question is also tipped in favour of the EU, should they have phrased it. Should the EUs protectionist regulations be de-regulated o allow competitively priced international meat? I don’t think you would have got the same result.

 

[Buce]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Is a study of 2000 people really representative on such a broad and divisive issue?

The question is also tipped in favour of the EU, should they have phrased it. Should the EUs protectionist regulations be de-regulated o allow competitively priced international meat? I don’t think you would have got the same result.

 

 

No idea, mate - Matt asked if there was any evidence, so I provided it. It’s no skin off my nose if you or he choose not to believe it. 

 

One thing I will comment on though is the sample size. As far as I’m aware, polls are routinely made from a sample size of 1,000 - half that of this one - yet you and others frequently cite them as relevent. 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

https://issuu.com/ippr/docs/leaving_the_eu_briefing_part2/1?ff=true&e=31236854/59193533

That isn't evidence anyone has voted to lower food standards, my vote to leave the EU was based on the jurisdiction of the ECJ and to take control of independent trade.

 

Food imports are the responsibility of the government after Brexit, it's nothing to do with the referendum. If we are forced into taking substandard products we say no.

 

The idea anyone who backed leave voted for something that "entails this" is pure pro-remain/London/Guardian group think which has no basis in reality.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

That isn't evidence anyone has voted to lower food standards, my vote to leave the EU was based on the jurisdiction of the ECJ and to take control of independent trade.

 

Food imports are the responsibility of the government after Brexit, it's nothing to do with the referendum. If we are forced into taking substandard products we say no.

 

The idea anyone who backed leave voted for something that "entails this" is pure pro-remain/London/Guardian group think which has no basis in reality.

 

I think that was exactly the point being made - those who voted for Brexit were not voting for a lowering of food standards, yet that may be the indirect consequence of their vote.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

To be honest if it brings in a cheaper food that lowers prices, people can chose whether to eat it or not.

 

I am quite sure that if we have pus milk or chlorinated chicken it will be considerably cheaper and labelled as such.

 

Whether or not people chose to buy it is up to them. If say a family can get a chlorinated roast chicken for half the price of a standard chicken is that a bad thing if they want to eat it? I don't know if there is really evidence to suggest that these things are bad for us? Whilst I agree it sounds disgusting and it possibly hides some questionable farming techniques.

 

I would not eat it but I think limiting the choice for others who may not be able to afford alternatives is wrong. 

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

To be honest if it brings in a cheaper food that lowers prices, people can chose whether to eat it or not.

 

I am quite sure that if we have pus milk or chlorinated chicken it will be considerably cheaper and labelled as such.

 

Whether or not people chose to buy it is up to them. If say a family can get a chlorinated roast chicken for half the price of a standard chicken is that a bad thing if they want to eat it? I don't know if there is really evidence to suggest that these things are bad for us? Whilst I agree it sounds disgusting and it possibly hides some questionable farming techniques.

 

I would not eat it but I think limiting the choice for others who may not be able to afford alternatives is wrong. 

 

" The US argues that this is a matter of customer choice. But that’s disingenuous, both because importing this food will inevitably drive down standards here, and because, as we discover in the document, the US dislikes the sort of food labelling that allows the consumer to make an informed choice."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/10/medicine-pus-milk-brexit-trade-chlorinated-chicken?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Guest MattP]

51 minutes ago, Buce said:

I think that was exactly the point being made - those who voted for Brexit were not voting for a lowering of food standards, yet that may be the indirect consequence of their vote.

But it's only an indirect consequence if our house implements and votes for it, if we vote to bomb Syria tomorrow it isn't a consequence of Brexit, if we decide to have mass immigration from Pakistan it isn't a consequence of Brexit, it's a consequence of government, this is why people voted for Brexit, they want to elect their own government that makes these decisions.

 

I just can't wait for this to finish to be honest, now the economic predictions are falling by the wayside it seems the Remain commentariat have moved onto predicting what trade deals we have, I've got no doubt they'll be wrong about this as well.I know the Guardian has to appeal to it's readers but it's getting a little bit pathetic.

 

Roll on next April.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

But it's only an indirect consequence if our house implements and votes for it, if we vote to bomb Syria tomorrow it isn't a consequence of Brexit, if we decide to have mass immigration from Pakistan it isn't a consequence of Brexit, it's a consequence of government, this is why people voted for Brexit, they want to elect their own government that makes these decisions.

 

I just can't wait for this to finish to be honest, now the economic predictions are falling by the wayside it seems the Remain commentariat have moved onto predicting what trade deals we have, I've got no doubt they'll be wrong about this as well.I know the Guardian has to appeal to it's readers but it's getting a little bit pathetic.

 

Roll on next April.

So is the leavers insistence that any negative effects are fine so long as they can say our government has a say. Our MEPs have a say in an European legislation currently. Reducing standards to save a few quid is one of the greatest harms tory governments have landed to our country in normal times, let alone purposely doing it to entice foreign countries to strike trade deals with us. You lot will back anything.

[Milo]

Remoaners are getting a bit desperate, no?

 

The economy will collapse

then

We will have no trade deals

now

We will have lower food standards 

 

I’m happy to provide a barrel of anyone needs to scrape it. 

 

 

I have said before that I don’t feel particularly strongly either way. I’m sure there will be some positive and some negatives, but the constant whining...jeez...