Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Cheesy said:
Especially when it's something that could quite conceivably be achieved inside the EU. There'd be nothing stopping a government from allowing non-EU migrants to enter as easy as EU ones.
Click to expand...

Actually there would, because they would then have access to FoM and could quite easily move outside the UK, effectively using the UK as a means to get to another EU country.

Which is why no EU member does this, because it impacts all EU members.

There has to be some checks and balances in place, but there doesn't need to be a massive cost and an excessive time frame involved.

Consider this. Many people are worried about EU migrants futures in the UK. They can't settle or plan futures because of uncertainty. Well that's what non EU migrants deal with every day.

While more people do come from outside the EU, a majority of them do not remain here, which is due in part to the difficulty in getting citizenship.
 
Voting to leave the EU doesn't automatically mean bitter-rushed No-Deal Hard Brexit. The Rebel Tories understand that.

Everything else is pointless or beating around the bush.
 
WensleyMU said:
Actually there would, because they would then have access to FoM and could quite easily move outside the UK, effectively using the UK as a means to get to another EU country.

Which is why no EU member does this, because it impacts all EU members.

There has to be some checks and balances in place, but there doesn't need to be a massive cost and an excessive time frame involved.

Consider this. Many people are worried about EU migrants futures in the UK. They can't settle or plan futures because of uncertainty. Well that's what non EU migrants deal with every day.

While more people do come from outside the EU, a majority of them do not remain here, which is due in part to the difficulty in getting citizenship.
Click to expand...

Still not getting why non-EU rules are getting you so passionate. Are you married to a non-EU immigrant?
 
Smores said:


Incredible
Click to expand...

07vsopvqpxc11.jpg
 
WensleyMU said:
Fair immigration for all, whether from within the EU, or outside.

It's incredibly difficult for people from outside the EU to get citizenship, very expensive and if they want to travel around the EU, they then have a whole host of hoops to jump through.
Click to expand...

So you voted for the Uk to leave the EU because you want to make it easier for immigrants to the Uk to travel around the EU?

Are you sure you thought this through?
 
WensleyMU said:
Actually there would, because they would then have access to FoM and could quite easily move outside the UK, effectively using the UK as a means to get to another EU country.

Which is why no EU member does this, because it impacts all EU members.

There has to be some checks and balances in place, but there doesn't need to be a massive cost and an excessive time frame involved.

Consider this. Many people are worried about EU migrants futures in the UK. They can't settle or plan futures because of uncertainty. Well that's what non EU migrants deal with every day.

While more people do come from outside the EU, a majority of them do not remain here, which is due in part to the difficulty in getting citizenship.
Click to expand...

You are talking about UK immigration rules not EU immigration rules.
Each EU country has their own different regulations for non-EU immigrants.

The cost of me getting french citizenship was a tiny fraction of what it would have cost me to get British citizenship if I was originally french.
Basically you're objecting to UK immigration rules and voted to leave because of it??
 
balaks said:
It's information creep - Cameron said it could mean leaving the SM not would. Nobody mentioned leaving the CU as you have now acknowledged. Somehow over the last few years things have got twisted and now people seem to believe that a 'no-deal' brexit is the only thing that people really voted for when in reality nobody was advocating for WHO rules, a border in Ireland, no CU or SM. Not only that the general public were ignorant of all this back then - Ireland was barely mentioned.

It was all about getting the foreigners out and keeping them out.
Click to expand...

It was also dismissed as project fear. You can't take the words of your defeated opponent and claim them as support for your own position later on, which is what the leavers have been doing with the no deal thing.

If Brexit was a vote to leave the single market, why didn’t campaigners say so?
 


Read that and tell me she isn't the governments lapdog. She always uses the arguments and language of the government and not in a quotation kind of way. Collaborating, Sabotage...

Obviously when it's aimed at Corbyn loads of you clap like demented seals but she's a disgrace.
 
B20 said:
It was his fault though. He built his political career as a high stakes gambler and figured he might as well do the same with the EU question. The moment he lost a hand, he quit the game and left the party and country in the hands of incompetents and radicals.

He is the direct triggering cause of the madness. With a wiser prime minister none of this would have happened, and even if it did, would have been better mitigated.
Click to expand...

Yes it's his fault in one way and with such a decision there should've been a 60% majority.

Trouble is UKIP at the time was taking a lot of votes from Con/Lab so the issue had to be faced and with a 52% vote in favour of leaving shows the anti EU feeling was very much there otherwise UKIP keeps on going.

People and media just underestimated how close it would be let alone losing. The referendum was coming whether it's Cameron or not due to half the country wanting out. The political process was being undermined by the issue so it's difficult to not face it. Even with a majority of say 55-60%, the problem rumbles on with more leave optimism growing after polls would've shown 52%.

Ultimately it's not a Cameron issue but the people of the UK brought it to be.
 
Smores said:


Read that and tell me she isn't the governments lapdog. She always uses the arguments and language of the government and not in a quotation kind of way. Collaborating, Sabotage...

Obviously when it's aimed at Corbyn loads of you clap like demented seals but she's a disgrace.
Click to expand...


Looks like a fairly reasonable analysis to me. Especially bearing in mind the obligation she has to be impartial.
 
I was applying to jobs in UK and every recruiter told me we must first prove we dont have anyone as skilled in the UK, then from EU and finally everyone else as a third pool.

Brexit aside I think this sounds like a very damaging policy to get skilled labored in your country. America has dominated technology and medicine by letting in high skilled immigrants from anywhere throughout the previous decades.
 
Smores said:


Read that and tell me she isn't the governments lapdog. She always uses the arguments and language of the government and not in a quotation kind of way. Collaborating, Sabotage...

Obviously when it's aimed at Corbyn loads of you clap like demented seals but she's a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Kuenssberg is a BJ FanGirl. Not much anyone can do about it, except ignore.

I watch sky news just to avoid her.
 
Smores said:


Read that and tell me she isn't the governments lapdog. She always uses the arguments and language of the government and not in a quotation kind of way. Collaborating, Sabotage...

Obviously when it's aimed at Corbyn loads of you clap like demented seals but she's a disgrace.
Click to expand...


Really? Political Editor gives a political analysis shocker.

It's not a good or particularly rigorous analysis, that feels like it's been typed up in 30 mins, but it's not a disgrace.
 
Smores said:


Read that and tell me she isn't the governments lapdog. She always uses the arguments and language of the government and not in a quotation kind of way. Collaborating, Sabotage...

Obviously when it's aimed at Corbyn loads of you clap like demented seals but she's a disgrace.
Click to expand...


Yep, I read that when it was a shorter “by the minute update” style piece in between lots of other journalists updates yesterday and I’m not at all surprised to see that she’s had it promoted to a standalone article.

She doesn’t even bother pretending to be objective anymore and why should she when she’s already been found guilty of breaking the impartiality guidelines and faced no consequences despite her critical role as political editor?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Looks like a fairly reasonable analysis to me. Especially bearing in mind the obligation she has to be impartial.
Click to expand...

Using the language and arguments of one side especially when it's been raised as being reprehensible is not impartial.

There's many ways she could phrase her analysis, language matters
 
Smores said:


Read that and tell me she isn't the governments lapdog. She always uses the arguments and language of the government and not in a quotation kind of way. Collaborating, Sabotage...

Obviously when it's aimed at Corbyn loads of you clap like demented seals but she's a disgrace.
Click to expand...


She's a Tory shill and can barely hide her disdain for Corbyn. Can't stand her.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Find it quite funny, myself.
Click to expand...
As well you may.

For me I have always considered him a reasonable guy. He has been around since I became old enough to vote and that is a long time.

I know the form. Someone on here will trawl the internet for mistakes that he made but overall he was a good bloke in my opinion and it is quite sad to see him go like this.

But hey don't all political careers end in failure?
 
Honest John said:
As well you may.

For me I have always considered him a reasonable guy. He has been around since I became old enough to vote and that is a long time.

I know the form. Someone on here will trawl the internet for mistakes that he made but overall he was a good bloke in my opinion and it is quite sad to see him go like this.

But hey don't all political careers end in failure?
Click to expand...
I don't know about his mistakes I just know his life's work is voting to make the lives of poor people worse.
 
Smores said:
Using the language and arguments of one side especially when it's been raised as being reprehensible is not impartial.

There's many ways she could phrase her analysis, language matters
Click to expand...

Is “sabotage” necessarily pejorative though? Hunt saboteurs, for example, don’t seem to mind. That’s the only potentially dodgy turn of phrase she uses. There’s no way you can convince me that accusing someone of collaborating is an insult.
 
MadMike said:
I think his plan all along was to turn this into a No Deal vs Remain election, since Parliament has no majority for anything. A binary choice where only one side respects the referendum result, so he can pitch an election as People vs Parliament where he's with the side of people and democracy.

And obviously to achieve that he would need the Tory party to fully embrace No Deal. The way to do that is to:
a) purge anyone who stands up against No Deal
b) make it so the only possible outcome in an election there the Tories win, is a no deal Brexit.

First he convinced Boris to run for the party leadership on "No more extensions" ticket. Then he organises a proroguation which forces the hand of the Rebels and gives him the excuse to achieve a). Then he plans an election for the 15th of October. In the remaining 2 weeks of October there's neither time to negotiate another deal nor time to pass it through parliament. The State Opening of the Parliament and Queen's Speech is 2 weeks after polling day. So there's no time pass legislation before Brexit happens. Then Tories can no longer claim to be pro deal at all.

I'd say he had a plan and the he's playing through that plan. And yes, his plan has a gamble and uncertainty since it does go to the people. No Deal on Halloween might be scuppered with today's (likely) legislation. But with a 3 month extension only, a PM who won't ask for more extensions, and anti-No Dealers purged... he still has the Tory party where he wants it.

Don't be quick to call him stupid until all this has played out.
Click to expand...

Definitely Cummings strategy going to plan. He was caught goading Corbyn after the vote last night whilst being drunk :lol:


 
Pogue Mahone said:
Is “sabotage” necessarily pejorative though? Hunt saboteurs, for example, don’t seem to mind. That’s the only potentially dodgy turn of phrase she uses. There’s no way you can convince me that accusing someone of collaborating is an insult.
Click to expand...

I forget whether you live in the UK or not, but accusing someone of being a 'collaborator' is an incredibly loaded political term that has recently been discussed widely in the papers here because of its usage by Johnson.

There's absolutely no way someone in Kuenssberg's position would be unaware of that and if she hasn't made the connection of what's being implied by whichever source fed her that line then she's even more unsuitable for her job than her record already suggests she is.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I don't know about his mistakes I just know his life's work is voting to make the lives of poor people worse.
Click to expand...
Well if you subscribe to the opinion that all Tories are heartless cnuts then I can see where you are coming from.

I never agreed with Tony Benn's politics but I admired him as a person of character who never sold out his principles for personal gain and I rank Ken Clarke in that category.
 
Also “historically reshaping” the Conservative party

Eg. Trump is historically reshaping US immigration policy.

Bolsonaro is historically reshaping the Amazon
 
Smores said:
Using the language and arguments of one side especially when it's been raised as being reprehensible is not impartial.

There's many ways she could phrase her analysis, language matters
Click to expand...

There’s a number of examples of that.

MPs from across the spectrum are making their own history, by collaborating to sabotage the central part of Downing Street's strategy and change the law themselves.
Click to expand...

Or:

MPs across the spectrum are collaborating to ensure that an unelected government with no mandate cannot use underhand tactics to force the UK towards a scenario parliament already voted democratically to rule out in March and are now working together to ensure this is transcribed in law.


It’s not parliament that is sabotaging the government’s strategy. It’s the government that is sabotaging parliament.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Is “sabotage” necessarily pejorative though? Hunt saboteurs, for example, don’t seem to mind. That’s the only potentially dodgy turn of phrase she uses. There’s no way you can convince me that accusing someone of collaborating is an insult.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's an insult or offensive. Collaborators obviously has it's connotations though which is why it's unhelpful language.

The general argument that they're sabotaging the prime ministers strategy is a Tory argument. Yes you can say that at a surface level her statement is true because he had a plan and they stopped it but by using that particular wording it calls back to the argument of Johnsons that parliament is ruining his negotiations and any chance of Brexit.

Her language typically aligns with the government this way.
 
Honest John said:
Well if you subscribe to the opinion that all Tories are heartless cnuts then I can see where you are coming from.

I never agreed with Tony Benn's politics but I admired him as a person of character who never sold out his principles for personal gain and I rank Ken Clarke in that category.
Click to expand...
Definitely, yeah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.