Brexit Day

[IdleRich]

Eh?

 

[IdleRich]

I mean the fact that they claim that concept kinda denigrates other people's sophisticated analysis... or arguably a proper analysis gives convenient cover to those who have not thought about it, or even understood it at all.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Efforts need to be made to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected.
.

Fully agreed, of course, but I'm a bit stumped by hearing this from someone who is, if not exactly still pro-Brexit, then at least pretty blasé about it. Step 1 in protecting the most vulnerable, in fact step 0, should be avoiding doing something that's going to fuck the economy and - as these things invariably do - hurt those who are already struggling the most. Shouldn't it? There have already been factory closures as a direct result of Brexit and it hasn't even really happened yet. How is that meant to help working class people?

Or have I got this all wrong and it's really some sort of accelerationist programme, "thing have got to get worse before they can get better" type deal? Like it goes Step 1: Brexit, Step 2:????, Step 3: anarcho-socialist utopia? (OK so that sounds snider than I meant it, but I understand some people genuinely think it's going to provide the shock that finally ends capitalism here - but then we heard that about the 2008 crash and here we are, in 2020, with a Tory government.)

 

[IdleRich]

Just to play Devi's Advocate to myself... did you see there are some reports today that if there IS a hard Brexit then Nissan plan to CLOSE their EU factories and concentrate on the EU one? Admittedly Nissan are denying this...
Edit: I wrote this badly wrong and made it meaningless. Thgey will concentrate on UK it should have said

 

[john eden]

Well I'm not going to do my Dad the disservice of summarising his arguments here.

I try not to caricature people's reasons for wanting remain.

This is partly because this reduces the issue to one of individual moral failings or stupidity.

 

[Mr. Tea]

And I can't shake the impression that at least one person in this thread is itching to call me "patronising" or something similar. But when someone says we need to leave the EU because the NHS can't cope with all the Muslims, or whatever the case may be, it seems to me to be far less patronising to treat them like a rational adult and say "Why do you think that? What's the evidence for it?" than to just put on a concerned, sympathetic face and go "Hmm, yes, I see what you mean, how awful" even though you know that what they've just said is utter bollocks.

 

[john eden]

Fully agreed, of course, but I'm a bit stumped by hearing this from someone who is, if not exactly still pro-Brexit, then at least pretty blasé about it. Step 1 in protecting the most vulnerable, in fact step 0, should be avoiding doing something that's going to fuck the economy and - as these things invariably do - hurt those who are already struggling the most. Shouldn't it? There have already been factory closures as a direct result of Brexit and it hasn't even really happened yet. How is that meant to help working class people?

Or have I got this all wrong and it's really some sort of accelerationist programme, "thing have got to get worse before they can get better" type deal? Like it goes Step 1: Brexit, Step 2:????, Step 3: anarcho-socialist utopia? (OK so that sounds snider than I meant it, but I understand some people genuinely think it's going to provide the shock that finally ends capitalism here - but then we heard that about the 2008 crash and here we are, in 2020, with a Tory government.)

Just to play Devi's Advocate to myself... did you see there are some reports today that if there IS a hard Brexit then Nissan plan to CLOSE their EU factories and concentrate on the EU one? Admittedly Nissan are denying this...

We could have had a soft Brexit if the forces of #FBPE had engaged with the democratic process at the back end of last year.

But they didn't.

I think as usual, you liberals are greatly overestimating my leverage here.

 

[john eden]

And I can't shake the impression that at least one person in this thread is itching to call me "patronising" or something similar. But when someone says we need to leave the EU because the NHS can't cope with all the Muslims, or whatever the case may be, it seems to me to be far less patronising to treat them like a rational adult and say "Why do you think that? What's the evidence for it?" than to just put on a concerned, sympathetic face and go "Hmm, yes, I see what you mean, how awful" even though you know that what they've just said is utter bollocks.

As usual you are making things up in your own head because it is easier than engaging with what people are actually saying here - which is inconveniently what they actually believe.

 

[luka]

Love how tea has totally ignored the patient explanations Eden and Craner gave him, just refused to read that boring shit at all! What a lad!

 

[IdleRich]

Well I'm not going to do my Dad the disservice of summarising his arguments here.
I try not to caricature people's reasons for wanting remain.
This is partly because this reduces the issue to one of individual moral failings or stupidity.

Yeah I don't want to get into going through the arguments again... I'm sure there are (or at least seemed to be at the time) some half-decent arguments for voting Leave. The point we're discussing here though (I thought) was whether or not most Leavers were voting for well thought researched and thought through reasons. The statistical evidence and the anecdotal evidence (eg videos of morons saying that Germans make our laws etc) both seem to suggest to me that they weren't. And if Dr Eden (sounds like a super hero) did, then that makes him in a minority, in which he's not joined by some fool who heard the words he uses on the news and repeats them ad nauseum in the pub on the weekend.

 

[luka]

Oh Eden has said the same thing.

 

[droid]

When are you people going to learn? You cant beat Eden in a written debate, you either have to challenge him on the swing ball court and take advantage of the weird intensity he shows whilst playing, or else use his freakish height against him by exploiting his weakened skeletal structure in an arm wrestle.

 

[luka]

You can't beat Eden when he is right. And he's right fairly often. His instincts are good.

 

[Mr. Tea]

We could have had a soft Brexit if the forces of #FBPE had engaged with the democratic process at the back end of last year.

But they didn't.

I think as usual, you liberals are greatly overestimating my leverage here.

A Brexit absolutely nobody wanted, because it's unequivocally a worse deal than we have now (so rejected by Remainers) and leaves us with less sovereignty, not more (so rejected - actually quite reasonably, according to their own logic - by Leavers).

Sorry but 'soft Brexit' really was an absolute turd of an idea even by today's dismal standards.

 

[IdleRich]

We could have had a soft Brexit if the forces of #FBPE had engaged with the democratic process at the back end of last year.
But they didn't.
I think as usual, you liberals are greatly overestimating my leverage here.

I keep seeing this FBPE thing, what is it?
I dunno about that... the main soft Brexit was stymied by the Conservative party voting down May's deal. Since then Boris kinda resurrected it and somehow the ERG supported it. I don't know what was possible when cos (even as shown by the above sentence) the Tory party has been completely dishonest with everyone and itself throughout the whole process. I mean, see how he instantly broken promise to not put a barrier in the sea? I keep seeing this argument put across by Brexiters who conveniently forgot about the ERG - surprised to see it (and the Hitler one) here really. Nest when things go wrong with Brexit you'll be saying "That's down to Remoaners delaying it".

My two issues with the above claim
1. There is no reason to believe that if anti-Brexiters had been more flexible or conciliatory then BJ would have somehow become more honest or straight dealing. In fact on the basis of all his actions so far he'd probably have just grabbed even more.
2. For me (I've said this before) if you had a situation where trying for No-Brexit increased the risk of Brexit (if we did get one) being hard, it was still worthwhile to take that gamble cos the difference between No-Brexit and Brexit is so huge.

 

[IdleRich]

Or yeah... you can't say that Remainers should have supported Soft Brexit - why should they? They're Remainers.

 

[IdleRich]

We could have had a soft Brexit if the forces of #FBPE had engaged with the democratic process at the back end of last year.

Oh sorry I wrote that down wrong anyway, the point is that Nissan will close EU factories and concentrate on UK ones in the event of a hard brexit (I wrote EU both times for some reason) - that's why I said it was a devlis advocate argument, it was FOR a hard brexit.
Though your statement is such obvious bollocks I can't believe you really think it.

 

[version]

Political journalists boycott No 10 briefing after reporter ban

Political journalists have boycotted a briefing at No 10 Downing Street after one of Boris Johnson’s aides banned selected reporters from attending.

The walkout took place after a confrontation inside No 10 in which Lee Cain, Johnson’s most senior communications adviser, tried to exclude reporters from the Mirror, i, HuffPost, PoliticsHome, Independent and others.

Reporters on the invited list were asked to stand on one side of a rug in the foyer of No 10, while those not allowed in were asked by security to stand on the other side.

After Cain told the banned journalists to leave, the rest of the journalists decided to walk out collectively rather than allow Downing Street to choose who scrutinises and reports on the government.

Among those who refused the briefing and walked out were the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, ITV’s Robert Peston and political journalists from Sky News, the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Financial Times and Guardian.

The briefing was due to be given by government officials, who are meant to be neutral rather than political, but it did not happen because of the walkout.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...sts-boycott-no-10-briefing-after-reporter-ban

 

[IdleRich]

Thank God we voted for democracy!

 

[john eden]

Or yeah... you can't say that Remainers should have supported Soft Brexit - why should they? They're Remainers.

If we go back to the vote on the customs union, there was an opportunity to change things. It was defeated by 3 votes in the House of Commons and a bunch of remainers abstained.

Now that might have backfired spectacularly if it had been spun as “false Brexit” or “remain by another name” by ultra-brexiteers. We won’t ever know.

But if I (a weird anarchocommunist who did not vote for Brexit) am going to be criticised for wanting to protect vulnerable people in the event of a hard Brexit, the people who actually had an opportunity to change the course of history but did not do so for purely ideological reasons should be criticised more.