The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Woodsey]

You should have mentioned you were in London, we might have had a civilised discussion over a pint rather than a sad war of words on the internet.

Didint know where you live to be honest mate, will happily share a beer anytime, I don't take this stuff on here too personally and don't bear grudges. There isnt a single person on here I wouldn't have a beer with despite exchanges over the years.. I'm around tomorrow also but we are with customers for the evening unfortunately....

[Woodsey]

Interesting hearing thr police walky talkies going off, they are identifying known trouble makers and whilst standing back being ready to dive in if necessaey....

[MintTrav]

Cynical people often run down politicians, sometimes with justification, but the House of Commons did itself proud today as it grappled with this issue. It has been a brilliant debate. Literally dozens of excellent speeches from all sides.

[Woodsey]

Getting a bit tense here, might back off a bit, announcement 10.30 right? That would explain it...

[titaniumbean]

Here is why LibDems say their 5 tests on supporting Syria action have been met http://www.libdems.org.uk/five_tests

this just seems as said, like they are fitting their points to a pre made decision.


at what point is legal even a thing. we have a home office that 'know drugs are dangerous BECAUSE they are illegal', sick logic brah.

we have allies who refuse to conform to international law because they love to torture and oppress other people and take no responsibility for it whilst constantly furthering self serving aims all across the world in the names of 'democracy and defending the nation'.


Whilst Corbyn has managed to often come off a bit idiotic, the media attention he has garnered, and the approach/attitude methods of Cameron only lead me to support JC more and truly hope DC dies in a big grease fire. I am a terrorist sympathiser and I clearly hate the UK right? because I don't want to kill foreign civilians or go to war on the basis of the other big kids said we should and they like totally wanna bomb some stuff, come join us it's fun.

Stating that we are going to bomb them to WIN and then use absolutely zero forethought to have it all fall into place as a lovely peaceful democratic country is just utterly mind numbing. Not learning from our past mistakes of bombing to win and then enabling the region to be even more unstable, whilst selling arms to appalling regimes we back and calling our own countries opposition the 'terrorist sympathisers' is absolutely disgusting.


look at this *****
https://twitter.com/jamesedmunds228/status/671794496997339136

two faced, lying, warmongering ***.

Blair must be loving being made to look good!

More moderate language would be welcome please

we really dont want anyone from whatever political viewpoint to "die in a big greasefire" do we?

nor do we need to call anyone a warmongering ***, however spelt

much like Woodsey trolling, which is unwelcome for someone who is a professional and softly spoken sensible man (when you meet him), it spoils what is an informative thread


this thread has over a thousand replies and 20,000 views and i dont think a post has ever been deleted off it. its an oasis of manners and civility that we can cultivate further, hopefully

lets keep it that way.

I would rather see swear words than more dead 'insert any countries children'. Yet the PM wanting to bomb families and leave them in a pile of rubble is totally respectable, whilst voicing an opinion both angrily and with some classically poker related phrases on a poker forum is OOL ? (diagf is super old, I chose this over what I actually thought). But point taken, I will star it out as I enjoy being informed on things that I know very little about and reading articles that I may not otherwise have seen.

The problem is of course that any PM has to pragmatic. No PM can realistically turn round and say for example "I have principles and therefore I wont have any dealings with China because of their human rights record".

The real world doesn't work like that.

You have to deal with and trade with regimes that you don't like.

It's easy to take cheap shots on twitter.

Cameron has become the king of the cheap shots. And usually knowingly cynical ones at that. Remember the letter to the Treasury during the election? Saying that Corbyn called Bin Laden's death a tragedy? This latest terrorist sympathisers nonsense? Today he went for some odd "women raping, muslim murdering, medieval death cult" type soundbite in the commons debate. Sakes.

He increasingly talks like a Sun editorial. It's bizarre. I used to think he was a man of some honesty and integrity. I honestly don't know what to think any more. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely I guess.

Shame.

i thought his "terrorist sympathiser" comments were a mistake, as of course you cant apply that to the vast majority of MPs planning to vote against strikes today

it was a party political point pretty bluntly expressed (probably related to the by election tomorrow)

its not strictly wrong to call Crbyn and McDonnell "terrorist sympathisers" when you look at the history and pronouncements of the pair over hamas, hezbollah and the IRA though is it?

all polling says that this is a huge negative for corbyn with working class voters, and a day ahead of oldham that's what the comment is aimed at

politics is so infuriating, Oldham and point scoring matter more than the lives of those in the middle east or the lives of those who will be lost to the retaliations for years to come?

The problem is of course that any PM has to pragmatic. No PM can realistically turn round and say for example "I have principles and therefore I wont have any dealings with China because of their human rights record".

The real world doesn't work like that.

You have to deal with and trade with regimes that you don't like.

It's easy to take cheap shots on twitter.

Cameron has become the king of the cheap shots. And usually knowingly cynical ones at that. Remember the letter to the Treasury during the election? Saying that Corbyn called Bin Laden's death a tragedy? This latest terrorist sympathisers nonsense? Today he went for some odd "women raping, muslim murdering, medieval death cult" type soundbite in the commons debate. Sakes.

He increasingly talks like a Sun editorial. It's bizarre. I used to think he was a man of some honesty and integrity. I honestly don't know what to think any more. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely I guess.

Shame.

To be fair, Corbyn did in fact call Bin Laden's death a tragedy.  Even with the whole quote in context, he comes across terribly.  Iraq War was a tragedy, tick; attack on Afganistan, not convinced, but can see where he is coming from; 9/11 was a tragedy, tick; death of Bin Laden in disputed circumstances is not a tragedy.  It may be unfortunate or a bit meh.  But it absolutely isn't yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.  And it absolutely isn't something that is anyway comparable to the other three, let alone the one he seems to have put on the top with his turn of phrase. 

Was his comment not that killing him rather than putting him on trial was a tragedy? shame a better word?  i'm absolutely not informed much about Corbyn pre his coming on the scene for recent leadership, and as I have said he comes across pretty poorly but he has made many valid points that DCam cant answer so ignores. That's infuriating and shouldn't be allowed yet we have no mainstream media that oppose him. Marv.

Anyone just see Hilary Benn? Brilliant speech, get Corbyn out and get that fella in charge.

Have not been able to follow hardly any of it today, does anyone have any good links to youtube or transcripts of what was said that I can use to catch up on it please. Ty from a lazy man 


Woodsey trolling the protestors in person is such a funny mental image 

[Woodsey]

FAF, I darent mate, here is a hot spot for getting my face piled in lol. Anyway I'm on the fence about it all....

[Woodsey]

Well at least they have a new song now 'shame on you', they need a bit of help with the trollng songs tbh lol

[titaniumbean]

Well at least they have a new song now 'shame on you', they need a bit of help with the trollng songs tbh lol

just go round and call out people for spelling mistakes on their signs   

[nirvana]

Titters, go to iplayer and the parliament channel, you can scroll back and see as much as you want.

Just watched Benn's speech and he sets out the case for airstrikes in a very cool, clear and appropriately non jingoistic manner, considering the seriousness of the decision. Case made far better than Cameron could ever make it.

Also watched some of Cameron and found his, mass murdering etc soundbite to be incredibly callow and insulting to our intelligence

Fwiw, Benn starts at 21:30

[Woodsey]

Well at least they have a new song now 'shame on you', they need a bit of help with the trollng songs tbh lol

just go round and call out people for spelling mistakes on their signs   

No spelling mistakes yet, this is the first one I found that might amuse you lol

Click to see full-size image.

[horseplayer]

[MintTrav]

Ed Miliband voted against bombing. I wonder what would have happened if he had still been leading Labour.

[MintTrav]

Miliband issued a statement on his reasons:

Having listened to today’s debate and the many arguments that have been made, I will be voting against the government’s motion tonight.

I will do so because I do not think the case has been adequately made that extending British air strikes will either defeat ISIL or make us safer here at home.

A strategy for the defeat of ISIL depends crucially on ground troops and a political settlement, or the path towards a political settlement. That is because ISIL cannot be defeated from the air alone, as even supporters of air strikes acknowledge, and because ISIL’s success depends on the vacuum created from a multi-sided civil war.

Neither an explanation of who the ground troops will be, nor the political settlement we are seeking in Syria, or how we get there, has been provided by the government. We would be going ahead without an adequate road-map or a clear strategy.

The other case made for extending air strikes is that it will make us safer here at home. But I do not believe this case has been adequately made either.

ISIL is a network, not simply an organisation with a headquarters. What is more, nearly 3000 coalition air strikes have already been aimed at Syria and the case for what British air strikes will add is weak.

ISIL can only be defeated in Syria with an effective and comprehensive plan. That is what is required and the proposition fails to meet that test. That is why I will be voting against the motion.

[david3103]

Miliband issued a statement on his reasons:

Having listened to today’s debate and the many arguments that have been made, I will be voting against the government’s motion tonight.

I will do so because I do not think the case has been adequately made that extending British air strikes will either defeat ISIL or make us safer here at home.

A strategy for the defeat of ISIL depends crucially on ground troops and a political settlement, or the path towards a political settlement. That is because ISIL cannot be defeated from the air alone, as even supporters of air strikes acknowledge, and because ISIL’s success depends on the vacuum created from a multi-sided civil war.

Neither an explanation of who the ground troops will be, nor the political settlement we are seeking in Syria, or how we get there, has been provided by the government. We would be going ahead without an adequate road-map or a clear strategy.

The other case made for extending air strikes is that it will make us safer here at home. But I do not believe this case has been adequately made either.

ISIL is a network, not simply an organisation with a headquarters. What is more, nearly 3000 coalition air strikes have already been aimed at Syria and the case for what British air strikes will add is weak.

ISIL can only be defeated in Syria with an effective and comprehensive plan. That is what is required and the proposition fails to meet that test. That is why I will be voting against the motion.

Good solid reasoning.

The Evening Harold's view of it all

http://eveningharold.com/2015/12/01/anti-terror-police-raid-westminster-address-after-tip-off-500-planning-bombing-campaign/

[The Camel]

I honestly don't think ISIS can be beaten.

At least in any way we recognise victory at the moment.