Cont: Brexit: Now What? The Perfect 10.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Oh wow! A really hard-hitting piece in a German newspaper Der Speigel, worth reading because it sums up what has happened quite succinctly and without the faux-hurray and fake triumphancy of the SUN or the DAILY TROLL:

Spiegel [google translate]

This you will not read in the UK press. However, the public knows it was lied to. Trump set a new precedent in that lying, dishonesty and cheating were OK, not so bad <shrug> and like the American public, the UK public just sees it as the new norm, when once such dishonesty would have meant instant resignation or even prosecution. Who remembers the politician who lied about a hotel bill? What a scandal that was! Or the politician who appeared to be associated with a hooker?

The Murdoch and Barclay Brothers papers are in control, that's why. Trump is only meeting his downfall now because Murdoch-owned New York Post is now writing horrible things about him, when it helped put Trump in power in the first place.
Click to expand...

Odd how I have managed to read all of those things and more in the UK-ian press, heard them on the BBC (the lies over Brexit have been a staple of gags from pretty much every comedian on a topical show, even including Geoff Norcott who is in favour of Brexit). It's more relevant that most English (sic) folk just don't care.
 
Vixen said:
Oh wow! A really hard-hitting piece in a German newspaper Der Speigel, worth reading because it sums up what has happened quite succinctly and without the faux-hurray and fake triumphancy of the SUN or the DAILY TROLL:

Spiegel [google translate]

This you will not read in the UK press. However, the public knows it was lied to. Trump set a new precedent in that lying, dishonesty and cheating were OK, not so bad <shrug> and like the American public, the UK public just sees it as the new norm, when once such dishonesty would have meant instant resignation or even prosecution. Who remembers the politician who lied about a hotel bill? What a scandal that was! Or the politician who appeared to be associated with a hooker?

The Murdoch and Barclay Brothers papers are in control, that's why. Trump is only meeting his downfall now because Murdoch-owned New York Post is now writing horrible things about him, when it helped put Trump in power in the first place.
Click to expand...

Johnson was doing it in politics long before Trump even started campaigning.
 
And of course now we are getting complaints because Starmer wants to vote for the deal. Some people really don't seem to understand that its this deal or No Deal and Starmer has no intention of lining up with the die hard Tory Brexiteers and potentially delivering a No Deal Brexit. That would basically be Boris' dream come true, a No Deal Brexit to make his chums happy and Labour as the whipping boy for every negative consequence.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Odd how I have managed to read all of those things and more in the UK-ian press, heard them on the BBC (the lies over Brexit have been a staple of gags from pretty much every comedian on a topical show, even including Geoff Norcott who is in favour of Brexit). It's more relevant that most English (sic) folk just don't care.
Click to expand...

Comedy and satire doesn't count. Anyway I don't watch television.
 
angrysoba said:
Then why did you claim this?
Click to expand...


Come off it. Do you really believe the mass media press would be 'hailing' the deal if it had been brokered by Corbyn? No, of course not. They would be screaming for his blood and demanding he resign.


Imagine a picture of Corbyn or Starmer with his feet up on the desk and constantly going AWOL. Do you really believe the SUN and the MAIL would be headlining 'Jeremy/Keir brings you a Merry Brexmas'?
 
Garrison said:
And of course now we are getting complaints because Starmer wants to vote for the deal. Some people really don't seem to understand that its this deal or No Deal and Starmer has no intention of lining up with the die hard Tory Brexiteers and potentially delivering a No Deal Brexit. That would basically be Boris' dream come true, a No Deal Brexit to make his chums happy and Labour as the whipping boy for every negative consequence.
Click to expand...

'Boris' has his clear 80-majority. The ERG are backing his deal. So it is not a choice of 'deal' or no-deal'.

How can Starmer say he backs the deal without having even read it or debated it?

If the SNP, the Greens, the DUP and the LibDems can abstain/vote against, what is the need for Starmer to apply the whip?

It is a ******* awful deal and doesn't do what the DAILYMAIL/SUN says on the tin.
 
Garrison said:
And of course now we are getting complaints because Starmer wants to vote for the deal. Some people really don't seem to understand that its this deal or No Deal and Starmer has no intention of lining up with the die hard Tory Brexiteers and potentially delivering a No Deal Brexit. That would basically be Boris' dream come true, a No Deal Brexit to make his chums happy and Labour as the whipping boy for every negative consequence.
Click to expand...

I don't get this viewpoint. If Starmer whips labour to vote to accept it then every time he tries to pin Boris down for Brexit failure, Johnson can respond 'You voted for the deal'

Far better to let a government with a landslide majority fail to deliver their flagship policy in order to win the next election.
 
it's a done deal, the vote tomorrow is more about implementation than yes or no.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
I don't get this viewpoint. If Starmer whips labour to vote to accept it then every time he tries to pin Boris down for Brexit failure, Johnson can respond 'You voted for the deal'

Far better to let a government with a landslide majority fail to deliver their flagship policy in order to win the next election.
Click to expand...

'Rock and a hard place'? If Labour votes heavily against and is joined by enough Tory rebels (the latter is a big if, admittedly) then the bill fails and Johnson can point at Starmer and blame the lack of a deal, and the future consequences of that, on Labour.

Voting in favour seems like the least bad option, to me.
 
For AngrySoba who claimed I wasn't aware of the GUARDIAN and patronisingly gave me a list of articles to read:

Since you’re here ...
… joining us from Finland, we have a small favour to ask. You've read 671 articles in the last year. And you’re not alone; millions are flocking to the Guardian for open, independent, quality news every day, and readers in 180 countries around the world now support us financially.


We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity. That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.
Click to expand...

It is from reading lesser read quality papers that one becomes aware of the lack of transparency, honesty, decent investigative journalism in the tabloids, and now extending to the TELEGRAPH recently. If you wish to believe the news you read in the tabloids are authentic and not carefully crafted manipulative propaganda, that is your prerogative. The discerning know better.
 
GlennB said:
'Rock and a hard place'? If Labour votes heavily against and is joined by enough Tory rebels (the latter is a big if, admittedly) then the bill fails and Johnson can point at Starmer and blame the lack of a deal, and the future consequences of that, on Labour.

Voting in favour seems like the least bad option, to me.
Click to expand...

It is tricky because as an MP you have to show loyalty to the party line but on the other hand where the end vote is given then you are free to stand by your principles. For example, say one of your core values is that you are against drug dealing and you discover the Brexit deal - which was left to the eleventh hour and you only have half a day to debate it - contains a cocaine-dealing clause, then you should stick to your principles and vote against it for the person to blame for the crap deal is the person who cunningly and shiftly used sleight of hand to enforce the bummer on you. You wouldn't let your local shopkeeper shortchange you, so why would you vote for something that is against your principles?
 
Garrison said:
And of course now we are getting complaints because Starmer wants to vote for the deal. Some people really don't seem to understand that its this deal or No Deal and Starmer has no intention of lining up with the die hard Tory Brexiteers and potentially delivering a No Deal Brexit. That would basically be Boris' dream come true, a No Deal Brexit to make his chums happy and Labour as the whipping boy for every negative consequence.
Click to expand...

It is this deal or no deal.

The only reason for the no deal position was to strengthen the hand of the government and speed up negotiations.

Good deal or not, depends on your point of view, but the tactic has sped negotiations up, and there is a deal.
 
GlennB said:
'Rock and a hard place'? If Labour votes heavily against and is joined by enough Tory rebels (the latter is a big if, admittedly) then the bill fails and Johnson can point at Starmer and blame the lack of a deal, and the future consequences of that, on Labour.

Voting in favour seems like the least bad option, to me.
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like there will be no rebellion now, so Labour are going to vote on the same side as Rees Mogg and the ERG. I just don't see that making them a credible opposition.

Also if Johnson had failed to get his own party, with the largest majority in Parliament for a generation to pass their biggest policy commitment, he wouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone without them falling over laughing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom