The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[ripple11]

A basic Remainer position at present is that they have a moral obligation to stop Brexit because nobody voted for a WTO-only or a so-called “No Deal” Brexit.

The democratic ideal, they say, is therefore on their side now.

I give this pretty short shrift.

We weren't asked to vote for any specifics on any type of deal - that doesn't give any group a democratic pedestal to stand on when the deal is one they don't like.

It's one of the reasons I have never been able to understand the calls for a second referendum. I haven't heard an impartial genuine argument for a second referendum that is not overshadowed by simply wanting to change the result rather than a referendum being actually required.

Agree with this. Also, the remainer position or view is entirely academic outside parliament. In Parliament, the remainer can only claim this notional ideal by first acting completely anti-democratically.

A construct along the lines of ignore the vote, work against any kind of deal,  ensure that no-deal becomes a possibility and then claim some moral high ground for being anti-no deal seems contemptible to me - embodied by the likes of Starmer, Benn, Cooper et al.

These 2 sides of the argument were quite well expressed in a discussion between Parris and Murray on Newsnight last night. Murray was the only one who made sense by any impartial measure because in the end it is really very simple. The only possible reason Parliament can have, to have made it so complicated, is to try to stop it happening.

I think you are right that they want to stop it but only because they absolutely believe they’re preventing the country inflicting great harm on itself. It seems like an OK way for a representative Parliament to work in this situation.

One other thing to consider about these people who believe we're inflicting great harm on ourselves - 40 or so Labour MPs voted against A50 being invoked but just about all of them voted against the WAB - this is opportunism not integrity.

Agreed..apart from Caroline Flint and a couple of others.

[BigAdz]

Why do we keep hearing warnings from Macron? Always seems to be France dishing out the threats. Is he official EU badass spokesman?

Why not let Finland or Bulgaria offer opinion in the fair equal union?

Sounds like Trump will sort out his trapping off, about time France’s overpriced wine took a bigger hit when compared to the quality elsewhere around the world.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49131301

More gold from Trump, no wonder he’s such a champion of the simpletons. “I’ve always said American wine is better than French wine”. Someone reminds him he’s never drunk wine.....😂. No doubt he feels well placed to speak about wine with authority.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201808/the-dunning-kruger-effect-may-help-explain-trumps-support%3famp

Funny how people who cite the Dunning-Kruger effect always seem to use it to belittle people without ever considering the fact that they too may be impacted by it.

Good morning.

So, on one level of course I agree you are right. I feel like I’m on safe ground on a few things though:

• People who don’t drink wine aren’t well placed to comment on the quality of wine. The Trump statement is ridiculous.
• Mantis and Aaron both write nonsense in this thread and don’t understand much.
• The way Woodsey behaves, especially towards Tighty and Keith, mean he is a terrible contributor to this forum and everyone with an interest in the forum would be better off if we didn’t have to put up with his bullshit.

In life in general, I tend to audit myself regularly against Dunning/Kruger. I’m cool that I’m more aware than most of the holes in my knowledge. If you love learning, what could be better than an awareness of just how much you don’t know. The unread books in Umberto Eco’s library etc

Just served a short ban for calling Aaron a name.

This in itself is amazingly rich when I get called a racist amongst other things on so many occasions without others being banned.

The ban itself was clearly someone very keen to get one over on me, as you can see from the language used in this entry not long after my ban. Plenty of fruity language and some pretty disrespectful remarks. And I was asked to show some respect. Not much of it in here I would say boys, but whato, let's just ban Ads, and let certain others show as much disrespect as they like and carry on.

Pretty shitty treatment for the dumb Brexiteer.

Should be ashamed.

[Woodsey]

Why do we keep hearing warnings from Macron? Always seems to be France dishing out the threats. Is he official EU badass spokesman?

Why not let Finland or Bulgaria offer opinion in the fair equal union?

Sounds like Trump will sort out his trapping off, about time France’s overpriced wine took a bigger hit when compared to the quality elsewhere around the world.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49131301

More gold from Trump, no wonder he’s such a champion of the simpletons. “I’ve always said American wine is better than French wine”. Someone reminds him he’s never drunk wine.....😂. No doubt he feels well placed to speak about wine with authority.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201808/the-dunning-kruger-effect-may-help-explain-trumps-support%3famp

Funny how people who cite the Dunning-Kruger effect always seem to use it to belittle people without ever considering the fact that they too may be impacted by it.

Good morning.

So, on one level of course I agree you are right. I feel like I’m on safe ground on a few things though:

• People who don’t drink wine aren’t well placed to comment on the quality of wine. The Trump statement is ridiculous.
• Mantis and Aaron both write nonsense in this thread and don’t understand much.
• The way Woodsey behaves, especially towards Tighty and Keith, mean he is a terrible contributor to this forum and everyone with an interest in the forum would be better off if we didn’t have to put up with his bullshit.

In life in general, I tend to audit myself regularly against Dunning/Kruger. I’m cool that I’m more aware than most of the holes in my knowledge. If you love learning, what could be better than an awareness of just how much you don’t know. The unread books in Umberto Eco’s library etc

Just served a short ban for calling Aaron a name.

This in itself is amazingly rich when I get called a racist amongst other things on so many occasions without others being banned.

The ban itself was clearly someone very keen to get one over on me, as you can see from the language used in this entry not long after my ban. Plenty of fruity language and some pretty disrespectful remarks. And I was asked to show some respect. Not much of it in here I would say boys, but whato, let's just ban Ads, and let certain others show as much disrespect as they like and carry on.

Pretty shitty treatment for the dumb Brexiteer.

Should be ashamed.

Wrongly calling someone a racist is a worse offence than calling someone a dickhead imo, should be a stronger penalty!

In fact if calling someone a dickhead (rightly or wrongly) is a banning offence so should calling someone a racist, they are both insults.

[kukushkin88]

A basic Remainer position at present is that they have a moral obligation to stop Brexit because nobody voted for a WTO-only or a so-called “No Deal” Brexit.

The democratic ideal, they say, is therefore on their side now.

I give this pretty short shrift.

We weren't asked to vote for any specifics on any type of deal - that doesn't give any group a democratic pedestal to stand on when the deal is one they don't like.

It's one of the reasons I have never been able to understand the calls for a second referendum. I haven't heard an impartial genuine argument for a second referendum that is not overshadowed by simply wanting to change the result rather than a referendum being actually required.

Agree with this. Also, the remainer position or view is entirely academic outside parliament. In Parliament, the remainer can only claim this notional ideal by first acting completely anti-democratically.

A construct along the lines of ignore the vote, work against any kind of deal,  ensure that no-deal becomes a possibility and then claim some moral high ground for being anti-no deal seems contemptible to me - embodied by the likes of Starmer, Benn, Cooper et al.

These 2 sides of the argument were quite well expressed in a discussion between Parris and Murray on Newsnight last night. Murray was the only one who made sense by any impartial measure because in the end it is really very simple. The only possible reason Parliament can have, to have made it so complicated, is to try to stop it happening.

I think you are right that they want to stop it but only because they absolutely believe they’re preventing the country inflicting great harm on itself. It seems like an OK way for a representative Parliament to work in this situation.

One other thing to consider about these people who believe we're inflicting great harm on ourselves - 40 or so Labour MPs voted against A50 being invoked but just about all of them voted against the WAB - this is opportunism not integrity.

It’s a fair point, there was definitely some ‘playing politics’ going on within the confines of the deal that was agreed. I think all bar one of them would be firmly and consistently opposed to ‘no deal’.

[kukushkin88]

A basic Remainer position at present is that they have a moral obligation to stop Brexit because nobody voted for a WTO-only or a so-called “No Deal” Brexit.

The democratic ideal, they say, is therefore on their side now.

I give this pretty short shrift.

We weren't asked to vote for any specifics on any type of deal - that doesn't give any group a democratic pedestal to stand on when the deal is one they don't like.

It's one of the reasons I have never been able to understand the calls for a second referendum. I haven't heard an impartial genuine argument for a second referendum that is not overshadowed by simply wanting to change the result rather than a referendum being actually required.

Agree with this. Also, the remainer position or view is entirely academic outside parliament. In Parliament, the remainer can only claim this notional ideal by first acting completely anti-democratically.

A construct along the lines of ignore the vote, work against any kind of deal,  ensure that no-deal becomes a possibility and then claim some moral high ground for being anti-no deal seems contemptible to me - embodied by the likes of Starmer, Benn, Cooper et al.

These 2 sides of the argument were quite well expressed in a discussion between Parris and Murray on Newsnight last night. Murray was the only one who made sense by any impartial measure because in the end it is really very simple. The only possible reason Parliament can have, to have made it so complicated, is to try to stop it happening.

I think you are right that they want to stop it but only because they absolutely believe they’re preventing the country inflicting great harm on itself. It seems like an OK way for a representative Parliament to work in this situation.

So it’s ok to want to stop it if you believe you are doing the right thing. But not ok to want to go ahead and leave if you think that is best for the country?

Please don’t answer by saying that one group is right and the other wrong.

All MP’s should vote for what they believe is in the best interests of the country. Certainly not for me to judge right and wrong.

[kukushkin88]

Well the term “great harm” is open to interpretation and if we say it’s fine for a government to insist upon their version being applied over that of the people we no longer have democracy. Isn’t that instigating “great harm” on a society?

In fact aside from economics what is the “great harm” here?

If there is nothing else convincing then we’re saying to society that money means everything. In life you should cast aside anything in the pursuit of money. Isn’t that doing “great harm” to society?

All the service personnel who ever fought for democracy risked “great harm”

Does staying firmly entrenched in EU guarantee no “great harm” in the future?

Just more rhubarb bollox from wizardy types

I guess it’s important to an extent that it’s Parliament rather than the government that rejects Brexit (so far).

If we live in a capitalist society, money has to be front and centre, not my choice but a fact of the society that we live in. The non financial things will be different for different people, I’m a huge fan of freedom of movement and look forward to a future where it’s rolled out worldwide, I love a cosmopolitan and multi-cultural society, I can’t stand nationalism in any form. Other people will feel very differently and are entitled to do so.

[Woodsey]

A basic Remainer position at present is that they have a moral obligation to stop Brexit because nobody voted for a WTO-only or a so-called “No Deal” Brexit.

The democratic ideal, they say, is therefore on their side now.

I give this pretty short shrift.

We weren't asked to vote for any specifics on any type of deal - that doesn't give any group a democratic pedestal to stand on when the deal is one they don't like.

It's one of the reasons I have never been able to understand the calls for a second referendum. I haven't heard an impartial genuine argument for a second referendum that is not overshadowed by simply wanting to change the result rather than a referendum being actually required.

Agree with this. Also, the remainer position or view is entirely academic outside parliament. In Parliament, the remainer can only claim this notional ideal by first acting completely anti-democratically.

A construct along the lines of ignore the vote, work against any kind of deal,  ensure that no-deal becomes a possibility and then claim some moral high ground for being anti-no deal seems contemptible to me - embodied by the likes of Starmer, Benn, Cooper et al.

These 2 sides of the argument were quite well expressed in a discussion between Parris and Murray on Newsnight last night. Murray was the only one who made sense by any impartial measure because in the end it is really very simple. The only possible reason Parliament can have, to have made it so complicated, is to try to stop it happening.

I think you are right that they want to stop it but only because they absolutely believe they’re preventing the country inflicting great harm on itself. It seems like an OK way for a representative Parliament to work in this situation.

So it’s ok to want to stop it if you believe you are doing the right thing. But not ok to want to go ahead and leave if you think that is best for the country?

Please don’t answer by saying that one group is right and the other wrong.

All MP’s should vote for what they believe is in the best interests of the country. Certainly not for me to judge right and wrong.

Hilarious, you often judge MP’s as many of your comments on BJ show recently   . Most here do it, or we wouldn’t be here......

[kukushkin88]

A basic Remainer position at present is that they have a moral obligation to stop Brexit because nobody voted for a WTO-only or a so-called “No Deal” Brexit.

The democratic ideal, they say, is therefore on their side now.

I give this pretty short shrift.

We weren't asked to vote for any specifics on any type of deal - that doesn't give any group a democratic pedestal to stand on when the deal is one they don't like.

It's one of the reasons I have never been able to understand the calls for a second referendum. I haven't heard an impartial genuine argument for a second referendum that is not overshadowed by simply wanting to change the result rather than a referendum being actually required.

Agree with this. Also, the remainer position or view is entirely academic outside parliament. In Parliament, the remainer can only claim this notional ideal by first acting completely anti-democratically.

A construct along the lines of ignore the vote, work against any kind of deal,  ensure that no-deal becomes a possibility and then claim some moral high ground for being anti-no deal seems contemptible to me - embodied by the likes of Starmer, Benn, Cooper et al.

These 2 sides of the argument were quite well expressed in a discussion between Parris and Murray on Newsnight last night. Murray was the only one who made sense by any impartial measure because in the end it is really very simple. The only possible reason Parliament can have, to have made it so complicated, is to try to stop it happening.

I think you are right that they want to stop it but only because they absolutely believe they’re preventing the country inflicting great harm on itself. It seems like an OK way for a representative Parliament to work in this situation.

So it’s ok to want to stop it if you believe you are doing the right thing. But not ok to want to go ahead and leave if you think that is best for the country?

Please don’t answer by saying that one group is right and the other wrong.

All MP’s should vote for what they believe is in the best interests of the country. Certainly not for me to judge right and wrong.

Hilarious, you often judge MP’s as many of your comments on BJ show recently   . Most here do it, or we wouldn’t be here......

I think Boris is an abysmal human being and I don’t believe he thinks Brexit is good for Britain. I think there are loads of MP’s who genuinely believe leaving the EU is what’s best for Britain and I respect their opinion.

[Woodsey]

A basic Remainer position at present is that they have a moral obligation to stop Brexit because nobody voted for a WTO-only or a so-called “No Deal” Brexit.

The democratic ideal, they say, is therefore on their side now.

I give this pretty short shrift.

We weren't asked to vote for any specifics on any type of deal - that doesn't give any group a democratic pedestal to stand on when the deal is one they don't like.

It's one of the reasons I have never been able to understand the calls for a second referendum. I haven't heard an impartial genuine argument for a second referendum that is not overshadowed by simply wanting to change the result rather than a referendum being actually required.

Agree with this. Also, the remainer position or view is entirely academic outside parliament. In Parliament, the remainer can only claim this notional ideal by first acting completely anti-democratically.

A construct along the lines of ignore the vote, work against any kind of deal,  ensure that no-deal becomes a possibility and then claim some moral high ground for being anti-no deal seems contemptible to me - embodied by the likes of Starmer, Benn, Cooper et al.

These 2 sides of the argument were quite well expressed in a discussion between Parris and Murray on Newsnight last night. Murray was the only one who made sense by any impartial measure because in the end it is really very simple. The only possible reason Parliament can have, to have made it so complicated, is to try to stop it happening.

I think you are right that they want to stop it but only because they absolutely believe they’re preventing the country inflicting great harm on itself. It seems like an OK way for a representative Parliament to work in this situation.

So it’s ok to want to stop it if you believe you are doing the right thing. But not ok to want to go ahead and leave if you think that is best for the country?

Please don’t answer by saying that one group is right and the other wrong.

All MP’s should vote for what they believe is in the best interests of the country. Certainly not for me to judge right and wrong.

Hilarious, you often judge MP’s as many of your comments on BJ show recently   . Most here do it, or we wouldn’t be here......

I think Boris is an abysmal human being and I don’t believe he thinks Brexit is good for Britain. I think there are loads of MP’s who genuinely believe leaving the EU is what’s best for Britain and I respect their opinion.

You’re judging again, make your mind up FFS    This is part of the reason why you have little or no credibility on these issues  

[kukushkin88]

It’s better to just ask if you don’t understand. I said it is not for me to judge whether MP’s are right or wrong in how they vote on Brexit (Brexit is bad imo but democracy is sacrosanct). I’m happy that I’m well placed to judge that Boris is an abysmal human (in the traits that you’d want in a politician or PM) and that his position on Brexit is dishonest. You are not well placed to judge anyone’s credibility, there has never been anyone whose opinion I rate lower than yours.

[kukushkin88]

As a person Boris does seem to have fun, that’s as important as anything imo, so that’s a redeeming feature I guess.

[Woodsey]

It’s better to just ask if you don’t understand. I said it is not for me to judge whether MP’s are right or wrong in how they vote on Brexit (Brexit is bad imo but democracy is sacrosanct). I’m happy that I’m well placed to judge that Boris is an abysmal human (in the traits that you’d want in a politician or PM) and that his position on Brexit is dishonest. You are not well placed to judge anyone’s credibility, there has never been anyone whose opinion I rate lower than yours.

You’re assuming that your opinion matters, you are seriously overating yourself as usual 

[BigAdz]

It’s better to just ask if you don’t understand. I said it is not for me to judge whether MP’s are right or wrong in how they vote on Brexit (Brexit is bad imo but democracy is sacrosanct). I’m happy that I’m well placed to judge that Boris is an abysmal human (in the traits that you’d want in a politician or PM) and that his position on Brexit is dishonest. You are not well placed to judge anyone’s credibility, there has never been anyone whose opinion I rate lower than yours.

You’re assuming that your opinion matters, you are seriously overating yourself as usual 

Seconded.

[MANTIS01]

It’s not for me to judge if MPs are right or wrong in how they vote on Brexit

But is for me to judge their performance as an overall human being

[aaron1867]

Why do we keep hearing warnings from Macron? Always seems to be France dishing out the threats. Is he official EU badass spokesman?

Why not let Finland or Bulgaria offer opinion in the fair equal union?

Sounds like Trump will sort out his trapping off, about time France’s overpriced wine took a bigger hit when compared to the quality elsewhere around the world.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49131301

More gold from Trump, no wonder he’s such a champion of the simpletons. “I’ve always said American wine is better than French wine”. Someone reminds him he’s never drunk wine.....😂. No doubt he feels well placed to speak about wine with authority.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201808/the-dunning-kruger-effect-may-help-explain-trumps-support%3famp

Funny how people who cite the Dunning-Kruger effect always seem to use it to belittle people without ever considering the fact that they too may be impacted by it.

Good morning.

So, on one level of course I agree you are right. I feel like I’m on safe ground on a few things though:

• People who don’t drink wine aren’t well placed to comment on the quality of wine. The Trump statement is ridiculous.
• Mantis and Aaron both write nonsense in this thread and don’t understand much.
• The way Woodsey behaves, especially towards Tighty and Keith, mean he is a terrible contributor to this forum and everyone with an interest in the forum would be better off if we didn’t have to put up with his bullshit.

In life in general, I tend to audit myself regularly against Dunning/Kruger. I’m cool that I’m more aware than most of the holes in my knowledge. If you love learning, what could be better than an awareness of just how much you don’t know. The unread books in Umberto Eco’s library etc

Just served a short ban for calling Aaron a name.

This in itself is amazingly rich when I get called a racist amongst other things on so many occasions without others being banned.

The ban itself was clearly someone very keen to get one over on me, as you can see from the language used in this entry not long after my ban. Plenty of fruity language and some pretty disrespectful remarks. And I was asked to show some respect. Not much of it in here I would say boys, but whato, let's just ban Ads, and let certain others show as much disrespect as they like and carry on.

Pretty shitty treatment for the dumb Brexiteer.

Should be ashamed.

Hi Adz.

If you don’t agree with someone’s viewpoint you don’t need to throw insults and the language you’ve used to respond. It’s a pretty poor way of trying to debate and says more about you than it does me.

Also, I’ve never called you a racist or anyone else in this thread a racist, I think you’re trying to make out I have by me linking racism and Brexit.

PS - I haven’t asked for you to be banned.

PPS - Don’t resort to petty insults 😝