Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 06:02 PM

I've heard so much bollix-talk about the backstop this week. The bottom line is that we can't decide unilaterally to end it. We can't decide to put a time limit on it. This is not the EU "dictating" to us or cutting up rough. The backstop is a mutual agreement between an EU country and a non-EU country. It can't be one-sided either in its implementation, its duration or its termination. If we don't mutually agree to it, there's no backstop and there's a hard border. We can't put a legal condition on ending it. And it can't be ended until we strike a final trade deal with the EU. Sensible people would sit down to ensure that that happens, negating the need for a backstop, but hands up anyone here who thinks that sensible people are dealing with this. The way some of these Tory brexiteers use the backstop as the big dealbreaker is totally dishonest. They constantly try to blame the EU for our woes. Thing is, chaps, we started it...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:36 PM

Further to my post of 7.19pm yesterday, in which I blustered about how awful Question Time was this week, I note that Momentum (which I've persistently refused to become a member of, by the way) has complained to the BBC about the treatment of Diane Abbott, both before the programme in the warm-up and in the exchanges involving Diane, Isabel Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce concerning opinion polls. Oakeshott and Bruce, wildly incorrectly, asserted that Labour were trailing badly in the polls, which they are not. As Diane said, Labour is, according to most recent polls, level-pegging with the Tories. But she was ridiculed and shouted down after lies were told by Oakeshott and Bruce. Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:53 PM

Further to my post of 7.19pm yesterday, in which I blustered about how awful Question Time was this week, I note that Momentum (which I've persistently refused to become a member of, by the way) has complained to the BBC about the treatment of Diane Abbott, both before the programme in the warm-up and in the exchanges involving Diane, Isabel Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce concerning opinion polls. Oakeshott and Bruce, wildly incorrectly, asserted that Labour were trailing badly in the polls, which they are not. As Diane said, Labour is, according to most recent polls, level-pegging with the Tories. But she was ridiculed and shouted down after lies were told by Oakeshott and Bruce. Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

Can you just confirm what polls you are relying on for this statement?
Also the expression "most recent polls". Is this 'the majority of recent polls' or 'the most-recent' of available polls. The expression the most recent polls has two clear, and different meanings.
A quick google gives the Conservatives a good lead: YouGov
I'm not stating that you are wrong, just asking what is the basis for your claims.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:11 PM

Do not try to twat around with me, Niglet. The information you "require" is available on the Guardian website, the Beeb website and mo'. Go for it, boy. It's all out there. And don't be so bloody lazy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:13 PM

Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

I'd ask the several presenters at Fux "News"[sic], Steve.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:19 PM

Yup.

I gave her a bye on her first week, but, bejaysus, not only was she trying too hard last night and butting ignorantly in as often as possible, she was also showing her right-wing bias big time. Not to speak of her ill-informedness (have I just made up a word?). Read the news nicely and stick to antiques, Fiona.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:28 PM

Do not try to twat around with me, Niglet. The information you "require" is available on the Guardian website, the Beeb website and mo'. Go for it, boy. It's all out there. And don't be so bloody lazy.

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.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
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.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:07 AM

A bit of a pointless spat about polls, given that I think we all know they can be unreliable. But only a day or two ago Iains linked to a recent poll in the Express showing Labour a few points ahead of Conservatives. The link is available to every poster on this thread, and is to a recent poll and that stated lead has been mentioned on at least two subsequent posts.

More serious than a poll is the question of whether Diane Abbott was being treated unfairly. That is important, both individually and politically.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:59 AM

Back to the topic of the thread....

I found this rather amusingly-written piece this morning, can't give attribution as there was none on the original which I copied, but it made me think about the innately invincible humour of the Brit - that at a time of the biggest crisis in our democracy since WW2, we can still 'see the funny side' of the completely unnecessary bollocks-up that BrexShit, in the hands of a bunch of Tory incompetents and crooks, has been since Day One...

Apologies if it's been put on here before, but I'm not going to trawl through >2!000 posts to check...

"BREXIT; THE STORY SO FAR.

David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, didn’t, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen. She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She stayed in power by paying the DUP to agree with her. The DUP wanted to leave the EU but the people of NI wanted to remain. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't.

People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to things she had promised the DUP she wouldn't. Then the Cabinet agreed a deal but they hadn't, and David Davis who was Brexit Secretary but wasn't, said it wasn't what people had voted for and he couldn't support what he had just supported and left. Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary.

People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not. Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote. Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either as Olly Robbins is.

Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been.
At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no confidence vote which won by more. The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass, while pretending that no deal which nobody wants is still possible (even though we know we can just say we are not leaving), and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic. And of course as expected she lost.

Some people are talking about a managed no-deal which is not a deal but is not managed either. When asked, our MP’s voted that they had confidence in her when they haven’t and said that we can’t have a Corbyn government because it would be chaotic and be bad for the country. Corbyn complained that May hadn’t asked for his views but when she did he said he wouldn’t talk because she is intransigent. There are 10 weeks left before it will all be sorted at the last minute. Or not......"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:11 AM

When various polls show both parties running neck and neck, then to make any meaningful interpretation merely displays a woeful lack of knowledge as to the accuracy of polling.

More serious a question is: why was the Abbacus riding first class to question time?
Is the champagne socialist afraid to associate with the proles?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:39 AM

Ignore, chaps. That's a troll post.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:41 AM

It sounds like you agree QT should not have claimed Dianne Abbott was inaccurate when she saiad the polls showed the parties as more or less level.

I suspect the train tickets are arranged and paid for by the BBC for all panellists, but I don't know for certain.

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

But my post is on topic. Yours most definitely is not!

troll: a person who sows discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, off-topic messages

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:07 AM

From today's Guardian:
I once read an account of the late Eric Heffer MP having a row in a meeting held in an oak-panelled room. Eric decided to storm out. He got up, walked round the room, pushing hard on a succession of identical oak panels, none of which proved to be the exit. His indignation abating as his frustration mounted, Eric turned round, walked back to his chair, and rejoined the meeting with the immortal words: “Bugger it, I might as well stay.” We now look to parliament to emulate Eric’s good sense.
Emeritus Professor Glyn Turton
Baildon, West Yorkshire

I think that about nails where we've got to...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:15 AM

Can anyone explain what Diane Abbott sitting in a First Class railway carriage has to do with the topic of this thread - the BrexShit process?

If not, the post that introduced that issue is, by the definition in a later post made by the very same person who introduced it, a trolling post.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:17 AM

When I attended a Question Time at the Eden Project, the panellists appeared to arrive in a fleet of Beeb cars. Mind you, it's tough getting there by public transport, and it was many moons ago. The point about Diane Abbott is that she spoke accurately on the point of recent polls but was shouted down/ridiculed for doing so, aided and abetted by Fiona Bruce and the obnoxious Ms Oakeshott, who were both clearly uninformed, or, worse, telling lies. Whether polls can be relied on or not is utterly beside the point.

What was it that the great John Seymour once said, Nigel? It's useless having knowledge poured over you. You have to go and grab it for yourself. In your case, that means checking facts that you doubt before spouting off about how other people are trying to mislead poor old you. It's becoming quite a habit with you, and the danger is always that you'll end up with egg on your face. As here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:23 AM

I find the idea that socialist politicians should travel second class while Tories lord it over us hilarious. Just shows how some Tory supporters are based firmly in a non existent rose coloured past. To attempt to discuss anything important with such people is impossible so don't even try!

Now, back to the show. Has anyone else spotted that while May is trying to divert attention from her disastrous plans by blaming Corbyn for scuppering talks, her own chancellor is telling businesses leaders that a no-deal brexit could be taken off the table?

Guardian article

He also goes on to say that article 50 could be rescinded. I suppose it it is, it will be down to Corbyn being the mastermind behind ISIS :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:33 AM

It's a bit like all those wealthy Tories who loved to excoriate the unemployed by accusing them of living the benefits lifestyle, what with their flat-screen tellies and their smartphones, etc., while their landlord mates were creaming off all of the housing benefit money plus some and their lackeys at the job centre were "sanctioning" people because the bus they came on was a few minutes late...

Yup, the true colours don't take much to show through...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:44 AM

Diane Abbott has long been the target of misogynist right wingers with a race problem - (the language used to vilify here often betrays these prejudices) especially when she forgets her place and claims rights reserved for the Tory elite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:54 AM

Diane Abbott has a very unfortunate problem - two, actually.

The first is that she sometimes has difficulty processing information 'on the fly'. I suspect that this is a by-product of her diabetes, a result of blood-glucose deficit and, as a fellow-diabetic who suffers similarly from time to time, she has my sympathy. Her intelligence, as evidenced by her Masters from Newnham College, Cambridge, is undeniable. Rather than abusing and lampooning her for her occasional, almost certainly diabetes-induced, brain-farts she should be congratulated for sustaining a high-level career despite her condition.

The second and, for me, more serious problem is, in fact, the one that should be comparatively easy to correct - her manner. DA has a very unfortunate way of speaking - she sounds patronising, as though she considers everyone else an imbecile. I'm astonished that she doesn't seem to have had training to improve her verbal delivery, and I'm sure she would benefit enormously from voice- and presentational coaching.

Otherwise, she is a good example of a fair-minded, socially-aware politician, undeserving of the abuse heaped upon her by her intellectual inferiors.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 06:36 AM

Can't disagree with that Baccie, but tht's what she should be judged on
If all MPs were judged on their abilities and dedication, I very much doubt if all but a few of them would merit more than a d-minus "must try harder" - go look at the empty seats in filmed Parliamentary sessions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:11 AM

Given the racist sh*t that Abbott has experienced through her career the fact she is still going shows sterling qualities. Great role model. More power to her elbow. One man's 'difficulties processing information on the fly' is another man's 'showing the ability to provide a considered response'. Some men just cannot cope with intelligent women.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:16 AM

Car insurance to get dearer due to Brexit uncertainty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46922989

Such fun!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:25 AM

"Given the racist sh*t that Abbott has experienced through her career the fact she is still going shows sterling qualities. Great role model. More power to her elbow. One man's 'difficulties processing information on the fly' is another man's 'showing the ability to provide a considered response'. Some men just cannot cope with intelligent women."

Spot on Karen. Some men will also be incapable of comprehending what you wrote, or understanding its truth.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:13 AM

I find it ironic that some of those who are quick to censure others who, like me, drop the occasional expletive into a post, and to claim that to use that language displays a lack of breeding, intelligence, or education, are perfectly happy themselves to post in appallingly offensive, racist terms about black politicians, Travellers, Irish citizens etc., yet seem not to consider what message that gives out about themselves.

And I was very surprised, and not a little saddened, to discover recently that those who are prepared to challenge others who post in racist terms here are regarded by at least some of the moderators as 'bastards'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:25 AM

" Some men just cannot cope with intelligent women.."
Yes dear -I'm sure you're right :-)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 09:09 AM

Difficulty in processing information on the fly as an effect of diabetics? I hadn't heard of that - but it occurs to me it could be in a factor of how the Maybot operates, especially when faced with questions in public, since she also has diabetes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 10:17 AM

Tell you what - I'd ten times sooner listen to Diane's delivery than I would to Gove's. And who could forget Thatcher's ghastly tones?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 10:20 AM

McG, it's a very well-known and well-documented effect of low blood-glucose - a.k.a. 'going Hypo'. If I start to go slightly Hypo, I feel clammy, my hands shake, and I feel unable to think straight or perform even simple mental tasks. Google it.

Diane Abbott is a diabetic.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 11:30 AM

Nigel, I have a favour to ask. I think it was you who suggested that Policitians should be treated with respect. If that is the case could you have a word with your friend Iains and ask him to refrain from calling Diane Abbott "abbacus" which I have to admit is a slight improvement on his previous term for her.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 11:54 AM

Better stop your compatriots talking about the PM as Maybot and other such insults. A Little more respect for the President of the US from the shouty lefties here would not go amiss either.

Are nicknames for politicians and erroneous labeling everyone with a counter view purely a prerogative of the leftards?

...... are perfectly happy themselves to post in appallingly offensive, racist terms about black politicians, Travellers, Irish citizens etc.

I think one of those labels has been proven wrong quite conclusively. Perhaps the backward man would care to put his money where his mouth is and substantiate his other allegations!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 11:55 AM

Surely any request to treat politicians with respect has to be weighed up next to the fact that respect doesn't come as a privilege to anybody but needs to be earned
Few politicians can claim that, which is why they are treated at best, with mistrust, but more likely with contempt
THIS SEEMS TO SUM IT UP

Iains' misogynistic and occasionally racist language aimed at a black woman politician is a different matter altogether and fully earns the contempt it is due
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 12:12 PM

Ignore the goose-stepping lads
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 12:52 PM

"Iains' misogynistic and occasionally racist language aimed at a black woman politician is a different matter"

I see little jimmie is still mad as a hatter. Waste of time asking him to substantiate his allegations. One thing you can be sure of with jimmie. Ask for proof and watch him run!

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Mar 18 - 02:23 PM :..... Mayfly,
                            .......Ellie May

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:07 PM

While not wishing to prolong this I do recall a reference to Abbottpotamus or simliar coming from Iains.

Perhaps Iains you should temper your name calling and stick to the discussion. I am sure the Moderators have far better things to do with their time than delete obnoxious posts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:23 PM

Why can't we just cut him dead completely? If we do that he'll either stop or it'll be much easier for the mods to deal with him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:32 PM

Amen to that Steve
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:37 PM

Incidentally, parodying and ridiculing politicos is a time-honoured thing. I recall John Major depicted with underpants outside his top pants and John Gummer as a carbuncle on Maggie Thatcher's nose. Steve Bell exaggerated George Osborne's nose-cleft out of all proportion and Tony Blair was a stary-eyed maniac, but only via one eye. John Redwood was the alien with no nipples and Gordon Brown became a gross caricature of himself with all his grumpy features exaggerated. Dubya had a mouth like a trumpet mouthpiece and Trump is bright orange, etc etc. All that is part of the game. But guess what. Sexism and racism absolutely aren't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:49 PM

A time honoured thing ....

Not to mention James Gillray (1756/7–1815), Thomas Rowlandson (1756–1827), and George Cruikshank (1792–1878)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 02:09 PM

I imagine Rees-Mogg is regretting launching his bid to have May dumped by the Tory Party prematurely.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:23 PM

Guys, guys, guys! The Mods - at least some of them - regard those who challenge the misogyny, racism, insults, and sundry, random verbal abuse put about here by Iains as 'a bunch of bastards'. I know this to be fact.

The only way to show who the true bastards are is by not responding, either directly or indirectly, to anything he posts.

Ignore him! For fuck's sake, IGNORE HIM!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:39 PM

I also know it, John. Tant pis.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:43 PM

By the way, I had to ask Mrs Steve what that meant. I was quite good at French at school but I couldn't get my head round things like tant pis, eh bien and alors. I'm ok with tant pis now. I could become obsessed with using it. If you don't like it, tant pis.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:12 PM

I had to look 'tant pis' up too! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:39 PM

Hopefully the final word, from John McDonnell, on the disgraceful racist, sexist campaign of attacks on Diane Abbott...

https://www.facebook.com/1011891022185237/posts/2669447033096286/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:56 PM

The BBC have been pushing a story about a “surge in shortage of common medicines”, reporting that 80 medicines were on the “shortage of supply” list in December which the NHS can pay a premium for, “up from 45 in October”. Naturally they are trying to link it to Brexit with the entirely nebulous line that “there are now concerns that uncertainty over Brexit will only make the situation worse”. What the BBC fail to mention until much further down the article is that this number is actually down on the figure for November 2017. They even have a graph showing it…

Scroll down yet further and the article explicitly states: “Generic shortages started peaking in 2017, so it is not possible to say that this issue has arisen because we are so close to Brexit” before quoting Sandra Gidley, chairwoman of the English Pharmacy Board who was also a Liberal Democrat MP from 2000 to 2010. Her words: “Brexit is not a factor… Shortages have been a problem for some years. It’s a fluctuating problem.”

A furious Whitehall source said: “This sort of scaremongering is completely outrageous – and to have it coming from a broadcaster that is meant to act in the public interest is unacceptable.” When even a Lib Dem is saying Brexit is not to blame you know you’re on shaky ground…

https://order-order.com/2019/01/18/bbc-disproves-brexit-medicine-scare-story/

You can always rely on Guido's accurate reporting to highlight the duplicity of the BBC. No doubt some would blame the weather on Brexit as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:00 PM

John McDonnell could have mentioned the Tory "promise" in 2010 that net immigration would be reduced "to the tens of thousands." May was the home secretary who lied to us, saying, after the promise had been comprehensively broken, that the promise had, after all, not been a promise but a mere "aspiration."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:16 PM

And I never thought I'd agree with John Major. But I agree with John Major.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:57 PM

Thinking about medicines and Brexit, the BBC has a good article on the topic here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46843631