Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 10:00 PM

There's a pretty good National Public Radio Program called On the Media. Saturday I heard their presentation: "Why Brexit Shouldn't Have Been A Surprise" It was good, particularly in explaining UK business to American ears. I especially appreciatged the commentary by Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent and author of National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. He had a strong opinion that another referendum would be a bad idea.

---

This has run its course and Brexit events are changing. Perhaps it is time for a fresh start. --mudelf

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:33 PM

We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper.

Well you can always throw ridiculous speculation about why people voted leave back in the faces of those leavers who claim these things without foundation. How about this, which is no more ridiculous than those claims:

"The majority for leave was 1,269,500. If just half of those had voted the other way, that is 634,750 plus one, remain would have won. 634,750 is less than one percent of the UK population and is just 1.37 percent of the electorate, by the way. The anti-immigrant, xenophobic, some would say racist sentiments expressed in the leave campaign, looking at the recent past history of BNP and UKIP successes, could confidently be said to have have influenced far more people than that 1.37 percent to vote leave, which was the intention of course, and probably swung the vote to the leave side. Therefore leavers should be careful when it comes to crowing about their victory, which was, after all, only made possible by appealing to racist sentiment."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:20 PM

"We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper."

I think there were also quite a few people who voted Leave, not because they were particularly anti-EU, but as a protest against the government, austerity, the widening equality gap, etc, etc., not because they desperately wanted to Brexit, but simply to give the finger to the government. And I'm guessing those voters no more expected to 'win' than to walk on the moon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 05:09 PM

Iains, I have asked on numerous occasions for several posts to be deleted, including at least one of my own.

The moderators have a hard enough job without constantly checking this thread.

Perhaps if you were a little less abusive and actually posted regarding Brexit the situation may improve.

Down to you I think.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:59 PM

Leave it, lads.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:44 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM
PS I will ask the Moderators to delete any post that contains even a slight personal attacks on anybody no matter which side they support.

You can get the same session that you get talking to him by wiping your arse with your finger and smelling it
Jim



Well?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:19 PM

Rupert Murdoch was once asked why he hated the EU so much. ‘That’s easy,’ he replied.’When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.’.
Jim, by using sky box you are financially contributing to rupert murdoch and brexit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:14 PM

i'd agree with that, jim. it's very rare to have a political topic that lasts for more than a few posts without bickering and insults coming into it. it's why i often disappear for a few weeks at a time. it's a shame because i do like a political discussion and am finding the current real-life political scene difficult at the moment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 12:33 PM

We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper.

And of course the number of new voters on the electoral roll is several times the size of the narrow margin of victory.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Nothing positive to say when your motley crew are hellbent on destroying it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 09:03 AM

At one level that is not actually surprising to me, to be honest. In general in life if you don't make a deal you stay as you are. So I can understand people who got fed up of following the whole palaver nearly two years back being confused into thinking 'no-deal' means 'no change.'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:58 AM

Apparently Sky News has just held a twitter poll which asked the question "We want to know, do you really know what does 'No-deal' mean?"

26% of people who responded thought No-deal meant remaining in the EU.


(This was not broken down into Leavers and Remainers, so no one should treat it as a slur on their affiliation.)

So even if a majority of people were to vote for no-deal in a new referendum, it looks like we will STILL not know what they want.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:11 AM

As backswiodsman rughtly pointed out, the referendum just asked one question. "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".

No mention of leaving the single market, no mention of leaving the customs union, no mention of stuff like ending freedom of movement. Everything that get's thrown about making assertions about that stuff and what people wanted is just speculation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:02 AM

You could always post second time with a correct version. Some double post repeatedly, though God knows why!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:01 AM

That business about adopting West Indian accents to fit in wasn't addressed to "immigrants". It was a government recommendation to British people, with British accents, but with West Indian roots, who were exiled from this country to the West Indies illegally under May's "hostile environment". Rather than calling them immigrants it would be fairer to refer to them as transportees.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:59 AM

Another Leaver liar on Politics Live at the moment, just claimed that Leave voters in the referendum "Voted to leave with no deal". A bare-faced lie - the referendum asked one question, Leave or Remain, no mention of anything else.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:55 AM

Before either of our Extreme-Right-Wing nitpickers start up, I intended the quotation to be in italics, but fouled up on the HTML that the archaic system this forum runs under obliges us to mess about with.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:52 AM

"Nigel Farage specifically said while waiting for the referendum result, at a time he was expecting it to be a victory for remain, that the struggle to overturn that would continue. For once he was saying something no fair minded person should disagree with.

After any election it is reasonable to expect the losers to work to overturn the result next time, and to press for it to be next time as soon as they think they have a chance of winning. GThere is nothing sacred about a referendum as opposed to any other election. It's just that rather than having individual constituencies, the whole country is treated as if it were one big constituency. Elections are fundamental to any form of elective democracy.

Seeking to avoid an election is not an expression of democratic principles, as is now being claimed by opponents of a fresh referendum, it is the opposite."

Absolutely bang-on the button, Kevin, and that's precisely what I was driving at.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:51 AM

I'm trying to guess what he means by "no more Mr Nice Guy". I agree he should have been prosecuted over his publicity stunts and his radio interviews - remember his 'living next door to Romanians'? He uses innuendo to stir racism and prejudice.
The biggest problem is that the media gives him a platform to do it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:39 AM

Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?

If he was openly racist he would lose support and be liable to prosecution.(and rightly so)

Why the weasel word "openly"? Racism is racism! However as it is a term loosely slung around on this forum by leftards, one is forced to assume they have no understanding of the meaning of the word. Otherwise they would be more circumspect in it's application and usage.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:35 AM

"Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?"
I take it that was an ironic comment ?
I watched an old 'Have I Got News For you' last night, where, at the time of the Wind-rush racist cock-up, Home Secretary, Theresa May was claiming there was racism towards Immigrants who spoke perfect English and that they should "Adopt West Indian accents" - that was the published Government advice at the time
You really couldn't make this ***** nonsense up
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:34 AM

Nigel Farage specifically said while waiting for the referendum result, at a time he was expecting it to be a victory for remain, that the struggle to overturn that would continue. For once he was saying something no fair minded person should disagree with.

After any election it is reasonable to expect the losers to work to overturn the result next time, and to press for it to be next time as soon as they think they have a chance of winning. GThere is nothing sacred about a referendum as opposed to any other election. It's just that rather than having individual constituencies, the whole country is treated as if it were one big constituency. Elections are fundamental to any form of elective democracy.

Seeking to avoid an election is not an expression of democratic principles, as is now being claimed by opponents of a fresh referendum, it is the opposite.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:09 AM

Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:08 AM

The question I keep asking myself, Dave is, "If the referendum result had been the exact reverse - a tiny majority voting in favour of Remain - how would the Leavers be behaving now? Would they have graciously accepted the result, and all be going around patting Remain voters warmly on the back and cheerfully remarking, "Well done chaps, the people have spoken, you won, and we're happy to accept that we're going to remain with our good chums in the EU", or would they be kicking and screaming under the continued leadership of Farridge, Bozo, and The Slithy Gove, demanding a re-run of the Referendum 'because people could have changed their minds'?"

I think we know the answer, don't we?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:53 AM

Be afraid. He very afraid.

Nigel Farage makes comeback

Hopefully most will see him for the charlatan he is but given some of the postings on here, some people can be fooled all of the time :-(

One thing made me laugh though.

And he warned: “This time there will be no more Mr Nice Guy. "

WTF?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:52 AM

Devastating argument from Policy Exchange this morning. Sir Stephen Laws QC – who was until 2012 the Government’s most senior lawyer on legislative and constitutional matters – says don’t assume that MPs could engineer a change to the law to postpone or cancel Brexit without persuading Government to acquiesce and participate in securing the change.





https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/government-entitled-ask-queen-not-give-assent-brexit-wreckers-bills/

up to the minute news from trusty guido!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:47 AM

"There is a huge difference between talking about and talking to. "
I thought so too until I was reprimanded a few postings ago for taking the piss out of our resident troll - which I was enjoying immensely, as I always do
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:41 AM

Good to see the usual gang totally off topic. You should pay heed to your little mate Raggy's opening post!
I have just been reading through the "For fucks sake thread". I am surprised the mods let it run as long as it did. It rather shows the pack for what they are, especially the pinched goblin.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:08 AM

No one is, Jim. There is a huge difference between talking about and talking to. As you have just demonstrated :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:02 AM

Stop feeding the troll
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 05:24 AM

Heheh!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:10 AM

If the laddie cannot construct quote fields or italics one must assume he is making his own statement. If this is not the case, then it merely highlights that his shortcomings extend beyond an inability to construct links.

Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

Funny how wrong people can get it if they have not bothered to follow the argument init, Steve. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:37 AM

Do as I say,not as I do! A normal shouty lefty ruse!

I'm not going to do an internet search to try to identify what it is that you are basing your arguments on.

Why not? You expect everyone else to with your postings!
(Never having provided a link in your entire mudcat career and expecting the rest of us to separate your facts from fiction, or even whimsy)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 09:24 PM

"From: Nigel Parsons - PM
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:36 PM

Perhaps it's not just Steve being a twat (although that is possible).
In The Guardian report on abuse of Diane Abbott on Question Time Here The Guardian states: Question Time and other BBC current affairs programmes have become a lightning rod for claims of media bias against Labour, with the corporation repeatedly forced to defend aspects of its presentation of political topics.
The Momentum campaign group launched a petition demanding the BBC apologise after Bruce backed claims that Labour was behind in the opinion polls.
The Momentum petition referred to an exchange where panellist Isabel Oakeshott said that Labour were "way behind in the polls" and Abbott replied that "we are kind of level-pegging" before Bruce said that Labour were "definitely" behind. But recent polling has found the two parties roughly neck and neck.
But the included link is to poll results in November 2018 Here

It seems that The Guardian can make statements about the current situation, but is unable to link to suitably supporting data. Just like Steve Shaw.....

....No, you didn't mention The Guardian, just "most recent polls".
I'm not going to do an internet search to try to identify what it is that you are basing your arguments on. If you can't provide the details then I'll guess that you are plucking figures out of thin air. "

Some Nigellisms from last week there. Perhaps, Nigel, after slurring me over those recent polls, you would like to take note that the BBC has now acknowledged that they got it wrong on Question Time and that Diane was correct. Don't bother apologising, Nigel. Just try to not do it again, old chap. Nothing like taking the trouble to check your facts, is there?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 04:49 PM

The stuff about "respecting the people's will", while resisting any attempt to ascertain what that actually is at this time, is of course a smokescreen. The reality is that what actually drives Brexiters who talk in those terms is that they see any fresh vote as threatening to indicate that there is no longer support for leaving the EU.

That's a very reasonable basis for opposing a fresh vote. It's got nothing to do with "democracy", but it a fair enough expression of realpolitik. Holding on to your winnings rather than risk them is not a completely dishonourable thing, even if it is shaky morality. But pretending to be acting out of principle when doing that is pretty shabby.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 03:07 PM

i resigned myself from this debate 2/3 months ago but i have been following it on here. i have had to come off facebook (etc) because it's so depressing. i'm failing to do my duty as a union rep in standing up to racism and bullying as i am intimidated by the every day aggressive nonsense of the UKIP, 'sovereignty!' types at work. my boss posts 'albion action' and 'british patriot' type shit. whistleblowers are , of course, heroic, but don't tend to stay in their job very long.

ironically the last senior politician to try to stand up to this racist, tory extremist, sub-fascist, daily mail fear and hatred of foreigners stuff was john major. they have been tolerated, indulged and encouraged by the media to bring us to the current state our country is in. i feel the difference every day, it's horrible to witness the decline of manners and common decency - people seem proud of their bullish, racist, ignorance. 'f..k off with your elitist facts!')

i had hoped that mudcat could have moved on from tolerating this kind of attitude but no, and of course i am not allowed to get so angry with people. i need to make it clear that i do not so much blame the thugs on our streets here - who i see as victims of the vicious and greedy tories (liam fox ffs! JRM!) and the 30 years of anti-eu drivel from the media.

rant over, back to my jigsaw

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 01:47 PM

Liam Fox lying bare-faced again on Marr this morning - claimed that "The British public want Brexit to happen" which, of course is untrue.

What is true is that a very small majority of those that voted in 2016 - which, at 17 million is a small minority of 'the British public', who number 65 million - expressed a wish to leave at that time. What is also true is that nobody knows what 'the British public', or even the small majority of voters who voted Leave back then, want now, because they haven't been asked.

It's not accidental that Fox and his ilk use expressions like "The British public want...", even though they know that it's untrue - they use deliberate exaggerations of that kind in an attempt to lend legitimacy and weight to the Leave At All Costs argument they put forward. More of the dishonesty and deceit they employed during the Referendum campaign of course.

So far during the appalling donkey's breakfast that May and her bunch of incompetents have made of the BrexShit process, I've been very much against delaying A50 and having a 'People's Vote' but, with Parliament deadlocked, and May paralysed and in meltdown, I'm beginning to think it's the only way forward.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 11:00 AM

TuQuoque: A type of ad hominem argument in which a person turns a charge back on his or her accuser: a logical fallacy. Also called the "you too," the "two wrongs," or the "look who's talking" fallacy.

A type of argument that we should all be ashamed of when we deploy it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 09:32 AM

"Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!"
Did you call ?
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:48 AM

From our blogger somewhere in France:


https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/01/20/the-sunday-essay-how-uk-media-censorship-is-dictating-the-second-referendums-outcome/

Seems Macron the banker is a bit of a failure and the indefatigable Mr Farage has been proved to be right all along.

I do enjoy being able to post without the gang's usual asinine comments. It is a breath of fresh air!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:36 AM

Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!
Why not just pm one another?
The rest of us are not interested in the puerile games of the usual gang.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:27 AM

Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:26 AM

Oh Dear! Labour supporters are flocking away from clot corbyn in order to to seek pastures anew.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6611965/Labour-membership-plunges-150-000-amid-backlash-Corbyns-handling-Brexit.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:55 AM

"Schtumm! ;-)"
Sorry Baccie - no point in going to the circus if you can't laugh at the clowns
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:52 AM

bi of a long shot to somebody incapable of putting up links that don't open.

A double negative there. Is that what you meant?

A step ahead of shaw though. He boasts he cannot construct links-yet also claims to be a well educated scientist!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:18 AM

Schtumm! ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:13 AM

Think we get the message Steve - best ignore im completely
Hes's getting somewhat desperate - he's quite likely to be claiming that the Salisbury poisoning was all an MI5 plot next - Putin must be just about ready to demand he earn his crust and come up with the goods - bi of a long shot to somebody incapable of putting up links that don't open
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:44 AM

It's schoolyard stuff Steve. I left school fifty-five years ago.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:39 AM

Let him fester, lads. No more responding.