Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

How could they be anything but duplicitous?  A fair percentage of their voter base is Remain and a fair percentage of their voter base is Leave.

Now you tell me, lost, how you might play that juggling act if you were high up in the Labour Party of indeed the Tory Party?  How do you try to cling to both diametrically opposed factions (votes is votes) in the one party?

Or do you just cast aside the allegiance of one faction by going headlong for the solution they don't want?  Do you sacrifice that faction and allow it to go off to another party?  And if that's the conclusion reached...that still takes time to work out which faction is best to drop in a pure and ruthless political numbers game.

SecretFly wrote:How could they be anything but duplicitous?  A fair percentage of their voter base is Remain and a fair percentage of their voter base is Leave.

Now you tell me, lost, how you might play that juggling act if you were high up in the Labour Party of indeed the Tory Party?  How do you try to cling to both diametrically opposed factions (votes is votes) in the one party?

Or do you just cast aside the allegiance of one faction by going headlong for the solution they don't want?  Do you sacrifice that faction and allow it to go off to another party?  And if that's the conclusion reached...that still takes time to work out which faction is best to drop in a pure and ruthless political numbers game.

They sit on the fence so hard that its surgically attached to JC's behind. In trying to please everyone they have pleased no one.

They could try and make a case for this or that, force the process when the Tories mess up, but no. Occasionally make a statement this way or that that promises something and achieves nothing.

On Brexit issues, all parties should give their MPs a free vote. When you have Labour MPs in clear Brexit constituencies, and vice versa, trying to impose party dogma/policy is absurd. Ditto Tories.

Isn't the topic already so loaded with heartfelt emotions that already many politicians have and will give themselves a 'free' vote...as resignations and downright personal conflicting public views prove.  I don't think there is much true party discipline in situ when certain politicians demand that their own leaders change their views and the party's very direction.

But that's back to the same problem.  A party sticks together on a common platform.  If roughly half your party Strongly wants Out and half your party wants to stay In - that's a fundamentally different political philosophy on both sides which effects views on society, law, economy etc.

I don't think a concept of simple free votes would patch up the divisions and allow the Labour Party or the Conservatives to whistle happily back to work after the Brexit issue has been resolved.

SecretFly wrote:Isn't the topic already so loaded with heartfelt emotions that already many politicians have and will give themselves a 'free' vote...as resignations and downright personal conflicting public views prove.  I don't think there is much true party discipline in situ when certain politicians demand that their own leaders change their views and the party's very direction.

But that's back to the same problem.  A party sticks together on a common platform.  If roughly half your party Strongly wants Out and half your party wants to stay In - that's a fundamentally different political philosophy on both sides which effects views on society, law, economy etc.

I don't think a concept of simple free votes would patch up the divisions and allow the Labour Party or the Conservatives to whistle happily back to work after the Brexit issue has been resolved.

Fair points. Still, they need to sort it out. P!ss ups and breweries come to mind.

One take on the particular issue with Labour (ignoring the fact that JC is on record as having pretty Eurosceptic views) is that although the party is actually strongly 'remain', they are more concerned with marginal seats which may be more brexit minded. They are effectively taking the remain votes for granted in chasing the brexit votes - only in so doing those remain voters are going elsewhere.

I guess it is a trade off that when push comes to shove the remaining Labour voters in their heartlands will still be enough to keep electing Labour MP's, but the more time goes on it seems less and less of a good one.

@LostinWales, Yes, I think its good to look at Labour's Brexit issues from a slightly different angle. Typically its looked at through the prism of Corbyn/McDonnell, but its more complex than that. Looking at the MPs who voted against the party on the motion aimed to prevent no-deal earlier this week there are a few (e.g. Caroline Flint, John Mann, Kate Hoey) on right of the party as well as traditional socialists on left of the party (e.g. Dennis Skinner, Ian Lavery). The issue is frequently portrayed as New Labour vs Corbynite Labour in the media but the issue would still have been divisive even with a different type of leader from different wing of the party.

Also worth reiterating that Momentum are overwhelmingly pro-Remain.

lostinwales wrote:One take on the particular issue with Labour (ignoring the fact that JC is on record as having pretty Eurosceptic views) is that although the party is actually strongly 'remain', they are more concerned with marginal seats which may be more brexit minded. They are effectively taking the remain votes for granted in chasing the brexit votes - only in so doing those remain voters are going elsewhere.

I guess it is a trade off that when push comes to shove the remaining Labour voters in their heartlands will still be enough to keep electing Labour MP's, but the more time goes on it seems less and less of a good one.

Correct me here, lost, as you'll know the feel of this more than I do.

But Labour are traditionally working class... in the sense of perhaps trades people, small businessmen, people who went straight from school to a working life, lesser pay grades, coming from less advantaged areas?

Now I know the Blairite faction came to the fore, and to my mind they came from a more Tory background but wanted to soften the angularity of Tory politics but shift away from their raw working men image.  Am I right?

Is it really true (perhaps it quantifiable is) that the party is 'strongly' Remain, given that the Blairites have been given quite a bloody nose in relatively recent times anytime the more traditional Labour champion was challenged (Corbyn)?  And wasn't it the rustic lower classes that were pretty much blamed for getting the Referendum Leave vote in?  And Corbyn is acknowledged to be cool on Europe?  And European migration would be seen to threaten poor and lowly paid indigenous workers most?  And these people approve more of Corbyn's philosophies than anyone in the Blairite wing?

Really, That Labour Party is 'strongly' remain?

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:One take on the particular issue with Labour (ignoring the fact that JC is on record as having pretty Eurosceptic views) is that although the party is actually strongly 'remain', they are more concerned with marginal seats which may be more brexit minded. They are effectively taking the remain votes for granted in chasing the brexit votes - only in so doing those remain voters are going elsewhere.

I guess it is a trade off that when push comes to shove the remaining Labour voters in their heartlands will still be enough to keep electing Labour MP's, but the more time goes on it seems less and less of a good one.

Correct me here, lost, as you'll know the feel of this more than I do.

But Labour are traditionally working class... in the sense of perhaps trades people, small businessmen, people who went straight from school to a working life, lesser pay grades, coming from less advantaged areas?

Now I know the Blairite faction came to the fore, and to my mind they came from a more Tory background but wanted to soften the angularity of Tory politics but shift away from their raw working men image.  Am I right?

Is it really true (perhaps it quantifiable is) that the party is 'strongly' Remain, given that the Blairites have been given quite a bloody nose in relatively recent times anytime the more traditional Labour champion was challenged (Corbyn)?  And wasn't it the rustic lower classes that were pretty much blamed for getting the Referendum Leave vote in?  And Corbyn is acknowledged to be cool on Europe?  And European migration would be seen to threaten poor and lowly paid indigenous workers most?  And these people approve more of Corbyn's philosophies than anyone in the Blairite wing?

Really, That Labour Party is 'strongly' remain?

All I hear about polling in the party gives something like 80% pro remain. It is also worth pointing out that at the last Labour conference there were endless pro 2nd vote/ remain motions pushed by members of the party, which required some interesting gymnastics on the part of the executive to effectively neuter while paying lip service to these aims.

I won't claim to be an expert on internal Labour dynamics, so am not going to get upset over a different take on this.

I also had the impression that Labour is traditionally an outward looking party. All that 'international socialist movement' stuff.

What is interesting now is that Labour are starting to haemorrhage members. It may be partially an adjustment following the major growth they had a couple of years back, but they are doing their best to hide this. There is a chance that what is left will be more in line with the leadership and less 'remainy'.

It's good to remember sometimes that we're near the beginning of a century. I know that sounds obvious, but things rarely look the same at the end of a century as they did and the beginning. Parties, and movements, come and go. There's nothing inevitable or permanent about the pre-eminence of Labour and the Conservatives. The same applies to the Union.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's good to remember sometimes that we're near the beginning of a century. I know that sounds obvious, but things rarely look the same at the end of a century as they did and the beginning. Parties, and movements, come and go. There's nothing inevitable or permanent about the pre-eminence of Labour and the Conservatives. The same applies to the Union.

These are the first rattles of a revolution - perhaps.  And I don't mean pitchforks and nukes!  Hopefully that can be avoided this century, but ... well, history repeats...always.

But I do mean a revolution in culture and boundaries and spheres of influence.  Yes, time never stands still and even this early into the new century, it's shocking how much the norms of the last one seem to be chasing into the past.  
Fashion, art, literature etc, etc..... who knows where we'll end up at the end of this century.  I only know I won't be there to either enjoy or be terrified by it.  Unless! - they hurry up with that everlasting life gobstopper or that time machine prototype that keeps losing the f**king spring!!!!!

The Brexit “Party” have been ordered to reveal the donors identity of EVERY donation they received in their £2.5m bounty to make sure nothing came from a foreign source, and if they cant they need to pay it back to the treasury.

The whole anonymous Paypal donations biting them in the arse. Shame.

My heart bleeds.

Will that stop the machine?

All voters need is:  Candidate D(insert constituent candidate name) Brexit Party.

Then if the voter is so inclined, and it seems many are, they'll just put their preference in that box.  That won't need much funding, foreign or otherwise, or much extra publicity.  People know what Brexit means at this stage.

Maybe just ban the Brexit Party from using the word Brexit?  Maybe that might stop them, for stopping them seems to be the goal.  Force them in law to change their name to The Lunatic Party.  Be creative.

In terms of fundraising, they'll do well enough from genuine domestic donations in future campaigns, in the short term at least. And if it's revealed that they had donations, even significant donations, from overseas, I doubt it'll matter a damn to anyone who voted for them the other month.

Exactly.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:In terms of fundraising, they'll do well enough from genuine domestic donations in future campaigns, in the short term at least. And if it's revealed that they had donations, even significant donations, from overseas, I doubt it'll matter a damn to anyone who voted for them the other month.

Correct, but it should. Then again, that's the level we're at in this country.

Incidentally, have the other parties been ordered to reveal the donor's identity in EVERY donation they received to make sure nothing came from a foreign source, and to pay it back to the Treasury?

Anyone know?  

Also, I do like the way 'back' gets used there.  Nice little earner for the Treasury to potentially take 'back' donor money they never donated.  Good house cleaning.

SecretFly wrote:Incidentally, have the other parties been ordered to reveal the donor's identity in EVERY donation they received to make sure nothing came from a foreign source, and to pay it back to the Treasury?

Anyone know?  

Also, I do like the way 'back' gets used there.  Nice little earner for the Treasury to potentially take 'back' donor money they never donated.  Good house cleaning.

Do any of the other parties have a shady as Frak donation system? If you’ve got proof of that I’d suggest getting in touch with the electoral commision, see what they say.

SecretFly wrote:Incidentally, have the other parties been ordered to reveal the donor's identity in EVERY donation they received to make sure nothing came from a foreign source, and to pay it back to the Treasury?

Anyone know?  

Also, I do like the way 'back' gets used there.  Nice little earner for the Treasury to potentially take 'back' donor money they never donated.  Good house cleaning.

There is legislation about transparency in the UK (outside of Northern Ireland). Thats why the DUP were funding leave leaflets in London before the referendum:D No one knows where they got that money. Farage should have registered his party in Northern Ireland.

Samo wrote:
Do any of the other parties have a shady as Frak donation system? If you’ve got proof of that I’d suggest getting in touch with the electoral commision, see what they say.

Well, do they?  I'm asking the questions but if you reply with a question of your own, then there's a possibility that it's not known that EVERY single donation to these other parties comes from a non-foreign source. It seems it's not known or the officials would already know the details of Brexit Party donations. If they have to ask them, then that means they're also in the dark concerning all other parties.

Let's have equality and force all parties to declare EVERY donation and origin of.  And by origin I mean first port of departure, not a donation that might be fed through other companies/channels to disguise true origin.

Wouldn't that be good and fair?  Brexit Party own up to external sources.  Other parties do likewise.  Good and fair.  Nobody could resist so impartial a probe.  Fair and proper Democracy at work.

Brown or white paper bag this time, fly? Or Western Union as usual?

You'd make a great Emperor I reckon. Very fair, reasonable.... and somewhat sane.

Pal Joey wrote:Brown or white paper bag this time, fly? Or Western Union as usual?

You'd make a great Emperor I reckon. Very fair, reasonable.... and somewhat sane.

I'd only kill me enemies, Joey. Only me enemies. It's good to be a kindly Emperor.

Sin é wrote: Farage should have registered his party in Northern Ireland.

He should have registered it in the Republic of Ireland. He could have used my address. I like to help out political asylum seekers.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote: Farage should have registered his party in Northern Ireland.

He should have registered it in the Republic of Ireland.  He could have used my address.  I like to help out political asylum seekers.

Me too.

I helped a family* from Singapore get an apartment here in under 2 days. (staying here as guests) I gave the real estate agent a glowing reference report over the phone even though I had just met them. Should see the school the kids are going to... a brand-spanking new state of the art building right 'on' the water. It has it's own little artificial beach as part of a swimming pool. I was (and still am) completely blown away by the concept.

Feels good for everyone helping complete strangers get established in a new country. I highly recommend others to do the same.

* Maybe not your stereotypical "asylum seekers" but the father told me that he felt Singapore was becoming even more oppressive and he didn't want his kids growing up in that sort of 'benevolent' dictatorial atmosphere.

Keep me in mind Joey.  I may need a quick parachute jump myself to escape our own brand of 'benevolent' dictatorships.

And I think some on these boards are willing to pay my fare too.  Ain't that nice of them folks

If not, you surely can swim over here.  

I actually didn't have the heart to mention that the education system here is probably too free in comparison to Singapore.

It will be very interesting to see how those young kids develop their freedom of expression. Reading through the "About Us" page... it could be seen as a place to encourage ideas that are really "out there"... mixed with a healthy dose of sporting activities. Cool.

£6.2bn found for No Deal preparations. Wheres this money come from? Never kind the Magic Money Tree, this is a Frak Magic Money Forest.

£6.2 billion to pay for the government's own damaging policies.

Madness, utter madness.

A responsible government would level with the public and admit that the cake-and-eat-it Brexit that was promised in 2016 is a fantasy, that any Brexit will harm the economy, that a no-deal Brexit will hammer it, and that therefore it can't proceed without asking the people again whether, based on the facts, it's still what they want.

But this isn't a responsible government.

I'm going to run for office in 20 years time and propose a policy that will cost £6.2bn, causes 3 years of arguments, makes the entire country poorer and sinks whatever currency we're using at the time. As a bonus, it'll remove one of the freedoms you've all been enjoying for the past 40 years.

Make sure to vote for me

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49165836

Staggering how they just lie without a trace of shame.

They were happy enough to lie in 2016, and it paid off. Why would they behave any differently now?

This is why reporters need to be armed with stuff like this before the interviews start. An immediate fact-check is far more effective than an article a few days later that most of the people who watched the interview will end up missing. They know they can lie and effectively get away with it. See the 'undemocratic backstop' mantra being inserted unchallenged into every interview now. Never mind the next question you've got written down - react to the answer that was given to your last.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:They were happy enough to lie in 2016, and it paid off. Why would they behave any differently now?

This is why reporters need to be armed with stuff like this before the interviews start. An immediate fact-check is far more effective than an article a few days later that most of the people who watched the interview will end up missing. They know they can lie and effectively get away with it. See the 'undemocratic backstop' mantra being inserted unchallenged into every interview now. Never mind the next question you've got written down - react to the answer that was given to your last.

This is where James O'Brien stands out. He fact checks on the spot and generally doesn't let the interviewee get away with saying something without it being properly challenged. He's wasted talking to idiots who phone into LBC.

There's no excuse for any reporter not to do it. You know what you're going to ask, and if you know your interviewee you'll know their likely answers.

superflyweight wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:They were happy enough to lie in 2016, and it paid off. Why would they behave any differently now?

This is why reporters need to be armed with stuff like this before the interviews start. An immediate fact-check is far more effective than an article a few days later that most of the people who watched the interview will end up missing. They know they can lie and effectively get away with it. See the 'undemocratic backstop' mantra being inserted unchallenged into every interview now. Never mind the next question you've got written down - react to the answer that was given to your last.

This is where James O'Brien stands out.  He fact checks on the spot and generally doesn't let the interviewee get away with saying something without it being properly challenged.  He's wasted talking to idiots who phone into LBC.  

He also famously refuses to do debates unless there is a live fact checker there so it becomes and actual debate and not a platform for nonsense.

Side note: Have you read his book? Well worth a read.

Samo wrote:£6.2bn found for No Deal preparations. Wheres this money come from? Never kind the Magic Money Tree, this is a Frak Magic Money Forest.

Bet the final bill will be over 39billion.

Samo wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:They were happy enough to lie in 2016, and it paid off. Why would they behave any differently now?

This is why reporters need to be armed with stuff like this before the interviews start. An immediate fact-check is far more effective than an article a few days later that most of the people who watched the interview will end up missing. They know they can lie and effectively get away with it. See the 'undemocratic backstop' mantra being inserted unchallenged into every interview now. Never mind the next question you've got written down - react to the answer that was given to your last.

This is where James O'Brien stands out.  He fact checks on the spot and generally doesn't let the interviewee get away with saying something without it being properly challenged.  He's wasted talking to idiots who phone into LBC.  

He also famously refuses to do debates unless there is a live fact checker there so it becomes and actual debate and not a platform for nonsense.

Side note: Have you read his book?  Well worth a read.

Yes, it’s really good. Some of the transcripts from the calls are excruciating.

Have you seen the front page of today's Times?

Johnson lays ground for 'people v politicians' poll

It's going to happen again, isn't it? A no-deal Brexit will be fine, anyone who says otherwise is a closet remainer, detail jettisoned for 'belief'.

People v politicians poll eh?


Hmmmmm.....let me have time to think on that one.

Samo wrote:a live fact checker

Yes, always handy to keep them alive ...at least until their selected facts back you up.

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:a live fact checker

Yes, always handy to keep them alive ...at least until their selected facts back you up.

Thanks for the input Fly, always a pleasure.

Samo wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:a live fact checker

Yes, always handy to keep them alive ...at least until their selected facts back you up.

Thanks for the input Fly, always a pleasure.

Yes but let's discuss the point.  All human beings have an ideology - either instinctive, learned or paid for.  Journalist are no different.  Fact Checkers are no different.  When you are human, the 'facts' that interest you are the ones that back up your ideology and are always miraculously closest to hand.  
There is nothing that is Neutral about any supposedly unbiased journalist or editorialised news network.  All most media critics want now is for all media interest groups and journalists to admit that simple fact.  The days of large media fraternity pretending unbiased news distribution are dead.  Nobody believes that guff anymore.  The world has wised up.
The news organisations and their journalist drones are trying desperately to cling to the last tendrils of the lie that they give equal voice and equal tone to all sides of any argument.  But the game is up.  Everybody knows it's a lie.

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:a live fact checker

Yes, always handy to keep them alive ...at least until their selected facts back you up.

Thanks for the input Fly, always a pleasure.

Yes but let's discuss the point.  All human beings have an ideology - either instinctive, learned or paid for.  Journalist are no different.  Fact Checkers are no different.  When you are human, the 'facts' that interest you are the ones that back up your ideology and are always miraculously closest to hand.  
There is nothing that is Neutral about any supposedly unbiased journalist or editorialised news network.  All most media critics want now is for all media interest groups and journalists to admit that simple fact.  The days of large media fraternity pretending unbiased news distribution are dead.  Nobody believes that guff anymore.  The world has wised up.
The news organisations and their journalist drones are trying desperately to cling to the last tendrils of the lie that they give equal voice and equal tone to all sides of any argument.  But the game is up.  Everybody knows it's a lie.

I'd believe you if it weren't for your biased ideology.

A lie can never be true though, Fly. Nor can the truth be a lie. It's either one or the other.

This is what fact-checking is for: to expose lies. We're not talking about opinion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:a live fact checker

Yes, always handy to keep them alive ...at least until their selected facts back you up.

Thanks for the input Fly, always a pleasure.

Yes but let's discuss the point.  All human beings have an ideology - either instinctive, learned or paid for.  Journalist are no different.  Fact Checkers are no different.  When you are human, the 'facts' that interest you are the ones that back up your ideology and are always miraculously closest to hand.  
There is nothing that is Neutral about any supposedly unbiased journalist or editorialised news network.  All most media critics want now is for all media interest groups and journalists to admit that simple fact.  The days of large media fraternity pretending unbiased news distribution are dead.  Nobody believes that guff anymore.  The world has wised up.
The news organisations and their journalist drones are trying desperately to cling to the last tendrils of the lie that they give equal voice and equal tone to all sides of any argument.  But the game is up.  Everybody knows it's a lie.

I'd believe you if it weren't for your biased ideology.

I'm ultra biased. Thankfully I was born human.
Are you (biased, that is)? Or are you one of these AI unbiased Google Algorithms?

Social scientists say that everyone is biased (including me). But maybe that's just their agenda.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:A lie can never be true though, Fly. Nor can the truth be a lie. It's either one or the other.

This is what fact-checking is for: to expose lies. We're not talking about opinion.

Correct.  A lie can never be true.  Truth is truth.  

Facts however can be manipulated to tell a version of the truth.  Happens all the time in the legal setting of a courtroom.  Sometimes a prosecution sticks to the facts and still ends up losing the case because a defence can show that facts have been placed into a certain context to twist an overall view into an inaccurate picture of an overriding truth.  Facts are dangerous little basterdes in isolation and when used selectively.
Now before the army rushes in.... OF COURSE that means that Brexiteers can be guilty of manipulating facts to mould an untruthful argument.  But the same is true for Remainers.  Facts manipulated for political gain.  Politicians guilty of it, journalists guilty of it, social media tappers (us) guilty of it.

And we're back to my ever repeating point, the inevitability of bias.  We all got it... including fact checker using journalists.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Social scientists say that everyone is biased (including me). But maybe that's just their agenda.

Perfect AI bot answer. Musk has taught you well, young R2-D2.

Needs Musk.