International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339007)

3point14 2nd October 2019 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 12841325)
In a wrecked economy it doesn't much matter.
Either way we'll all be worse off.

Yes, but that pain would be spread a little more evenly.

I don't believe that you believe that the results of a post brexit tory government will be the same a post brexit labour one. They just won't


Quote:

I don't care if, under Corbyn, I get to eat a whole rat, rather than half of one under Johnson. I'll still be eating rat.

That's madness, Between half a rat and a rat, I'll take whole one. So would you. Either way you're eating rat. With a whole one, you won't be malnourished.

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke2se (Post 12841323)
[Corbyn] should show leadership and allow another person to take the helm of such a government.

The others could also show leadership and tolerate Corbyn. It's as if they (i) don't believe that all he would do is delay brexit and call an election (which is odd since he "doesn't have the numbers" to do anything else), or (ii) they are scared he will be really popular in office (which is odd since polls indicate he is a lot less popular than Johnson)

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841339)
Between half a rat and a rat, I'll take whole one. So would you.

Er, I think I would rather eat half a rat.

In other words I would "like" not eating the other rat half.

Squeegee Beckenheim 2nd October 2019 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 12841284)
I really don't see a GNU hanging round for the length of time needed to put together a referendum.

It would require everybody (other than the Tories) working together. Everybody other than Jeremy Corbyn seems prepared to do so.

So yes, you're right. Without Corbyn, I think it would be possible, because most MPs seem to recognise this as the crisis that it is, and that a second referendum with a deal actually on the table is likely the only way out of it at all.

3point14 2nd October 2019 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841343)
Er, I think I would rather eat half a rat.

In other words I would "like" not eating the other rat half.


The metaphor is becoming unreasonably stretched.


I don't think "It's gong to be bad so it may as well be as bad as it's possible to be" is reasonable. And yet it's what I'm being told.

Dave Rogers 2nd October 2019 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841343)
Er, I think I would rather eat half a rat.

In other words I would "like" not eating the other rat half.

But if you had a whole rat, you'd have the choice of leaving the other half on the side of the plate.

Dave

Squeegee Beckenheim 2nd October 2019 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841294)
No, but it's a lot of reasons he'd be a better PM than the current one.

Since I've already said that he'd be a better PM than Johnson, I don't know why you're directing that at me - especially not while admitting that what you posted in reply to me isn't actually a reply to me.

3point14 2nd October 2019 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12841350)
Since I've already said that he'd be a better PM than Johnson, I don't know why you're directing that at me - especially not while admitting that what you posted in reply to me isn't actually a reply to me.


No, it was mitigation of your point.

i.e. In spite of all you say, even if it's true, he's still not as bad as Boris. So why is he being painted as such?

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841311)
And yet, for reasons I don't understand, apparently [Johnson and Corbyn are] as bad as each other.

In simple terms Johnson is too far right and Corbyn is too far left.

If you are left or right you will see that as meaning one is surely better than the other. Or you'll try to say that one of them is close the the centre than the other. But with respect to the latter relative to the political preferences of UK voters that's probably gonna be Johnson . . . .

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841347)
I don't think "It's gong to be bad so it may as well be as bad as it's possible to be" is reasonable. And yet it's what I'm being told.

OK that's not how I read it (from Tolls) but I dunno.

3point14 2nd October 2019 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841353)
In simple terms Johnson is too far right and Corbyn is too far left.

Which is madness and utterly dependent on the Overton Window.

(I also find that the whole left/right thing a useless and decisive thing. To attempt to define the whole of one's views on absolutely everything as a point in one dimension is madness. I, you, and everyone else are much more complex than that)



Quote:

If you are left or right you will see that as meaning one is surely better than the other. Or you'll try to say that one of them is close the the centre than the other. But with respect to the latter relative to the political preferences of UK voters that's probably gonna be Johnson . . . .

The centre moves. To talk of one being too far in one direction or the other is pointless. I would prefer to look at policy proposals and check them against the real world rather than some constantly moving target of 'centrism'

The Don 2nd October 2019 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12841324)
But are saying they are as bad as each other. If we look at it as an equation the two sides are no where near the same. Corbyn is for public spending, Johnson against it, Corbyn is for workers rights, Johnson is against them, Corbyn (in your opinion) will delivery a no deal Brexit, Johnson will deliver (In my opinion) a no deal brexit.

So the no deal Brexit cancels it out and you are left with the rest of the stuff. The rest of the stuff to me on Corbyn's side (especially some of the recent policies enacted at conference) is much better for the country that what Johnson would allow us to have.

After a no-deal Brexit, none of the other stuff really matters.

Tory bribes spending plans go out of the window because we simply can no longer afford them.

Labour promises are equally unaffordable although I suppose there'll be a far greater range of failing industries for a Jeremy Corbyn led government to subsidise - it's a shame that they'll have no money left to do it.

Workers' rights are only a factor when there are people in employment, promises to increse public spending is all well and good but in an economy suffering from stagflation then simply maintaining expenditure in real terms is a challenge. We have the 1970s as an example of how such a situation is likely to play out.

3point14 2nd October 2019 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12841423)
After a no-deal Brexit, none of the other stuff really matters.

I think that's just not accurate.

The two would be very different. Neither would be good but I'm damn sure I know which one I prefer.


That you think they both will be the same is the point of disagreement between us. I think your position regarding that is just not logical. Of course they'll be different.

The Don 2nd October 2019 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841333)
The Economist seems fairly correct that the country has the worst PM and the worst opposition leader at the same time. If Corbyn wanted "national unity" there would not be the insistence that he leads it.

However, much as I would prefer a Swinson led caretaker government (or even a Clarke one), I would rather have the Corbyn version than none.

Unfortunately it seems that Jeremy Corbyn's insistence that he's Prime Minister means that we're not going to get a GNU - which in a nutshell is my main reason why I think he would make a terrible Prime Minister, he finds any kind of compromise, deviation or dissent from his chosen path impossible.

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12841446)
Unfortunately it seems that Jeremy Corbyn's insistence that he's Prime Minister means that we're not going to get a GNU - which in a nutshell is my main reason why I think he would make a terrible Prime Minister, he finds any kind of compromise, deviation or dissent from his chosen path impossible.

Excluding brexit (which makes this rather irrelevant of course) I think I would prefer a Johnson government over a Corbyn one. On balance I suspect Corbyn is actually more opposed to no deal brexit than Johnson is which makes him better if all else was equal. But other Labour policies are IMO worse.

However the latter are not relevant to a Corbyn-led caretaker government that simply delays brexit and calls an election. He should not insist on leading it but by the same token the others should not rule out him leading it.

3point14 2nd October 2019 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841470)
Excluding brexit (which makes this rather irrelevant of course) I think I would prefer a Johnson government over a Corbyn one. On balance I suspect Corbyn is actually more opposed to no deal brexit than Johnson is which makes him better if all else was equal. But other Labour policies are IMO worse.

Which ones?

Quote:

However the latter are not relevant to a Corbyn-led caretaker government that simply delays brexit and calls an election. He should not insist on leading it but by the same token the others should not rule out him leading it.

The Don 2nd October 2019 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841435)
I think that's just not accurate.

The two would be very different. Neither would be good but I'm damn sure I know which one I prefer.


That you think they both will be the same is the point of disagreement between us. I think your position regarding that is just not logical. Of course they'll be different.

Compared to the effects of Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, everything else is a rounding error IMO.

In any case, after Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, all plans goes out of the window because any government will have its hands merely firefighting the economy and attempting to maintain public order.

3point14 2nd October 2019 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12841489)
Compared to the effects of Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, everything else is a rounding error IMO.

I really don't think so. I don't envisage the country being so on it's uppers that policy changes at parliamentary level have zero effect.

What you seem, to me, to be saying is that after a no deal brexit the government will have no significant or noticeable effect on the state of the country. I can't accept that, I think that's just not accurate.


Quote:

In any case, after Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, all plans goes out of the window because any government will have its hands merely firefighting the economy and attempting to maintain public order.
I don't accept that. I don't accept that who s in power will have zero effect on the lives of everyone.

Worm 2nd October 2019 08:22 AM

UK Proposals for a new protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland :

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...rthern-ireland

Tolls 2nd October 2019 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841353)
In simple terms Johnson is too far right and Corbyn is too far left.

Personally I don't think he's too far left (at least on most things). He's a bit unreconstructed 1970s in his views, but a lot of what came out of the Labour conference was fairly reasonable.

I just don't think he's particularly competent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841359)
OK that's not how I read it (from Tolls) but I dunno.

I think you read it the way I intended.

I don't want to be eating rat at all.
So I'm not going to support someone who seems intent on having me eat rat. I don't actually care whether it's a whole one or not.

However...at least Corbyn is on the referendum route now, which is a massive plus point. However, however...I really don't trust him not to change his mind, or to throw his full weight behind Brexit in any campaign.

GlennB 2nd October 2019 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worm (Post 12841500)
UK Proposals for a new protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland :

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...rthern-ireland

As Nicola Sturgeon said a little while ago - 'designed to fail'. And predictably so.

The Don 2nd October 2019 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841495)
I really don't think so. I don't envisage the country being so on it's uppers that policy changes at parliamentary level have zero effect.

That's the way it felt in the 1970's.

If there's inflation and a stagnant or shrinking economy then any changes will be very marginal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841495)
What you seem, to me, to be saying is that after a no deal brexit the government will have no significant or noticeable effect on the state of the country. I can't accept that, I think that's just not accurate.

After a no-deal Brexit any Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn led government would effectively be passengers - but for different reasons. Boris would be a willing passenger, after all it's what he wants. Jeremy may be an unwilling passenger but his inability to change from 1970s thinking and his unwillingness and/or inability to compromise in any meaningful way means that he'll still be a passenger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841495)
I don't accept that. I don't accept that who s in power will have zero effect on the lives of everyone.

I'm not saying that they'll have zero effect, just that the effect will have little or nothing to do with the campaign promises that they've made due to the economic and social turmoil.

As someone who is seemingly impervious to changing circumstances and incapable of compromise then Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem like the kind of leader you'd want.

The Don 2nd October 2019 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12841508)
As Nicola Sturgeon said a little while ago - 'designed to fail'. And predictably so.

Yup :(

Would Nicola Sturgeon allow herself to be ennobled and installed as GNU in chief ?:o

GlennB 2nd October 2019 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12841489)
Compared to the effects of Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, everything else is a rounding error IMO.

I'd say that's a major exaggeration. Things will be bad, but not so bad that the colour of the govt. will make no difference.

A 'rounding error' is where you express pi as 3.141 rather than 3.142 ;)

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 12841506)
Personally I don't think he's too far left (at least on most things). He's a bit unreconstructed 1970s in his views, but a lot of what came out of the Labour conference was fairly reasonable.

I was thinking of writing that Johnson is not too far right, but incompetent, unfit for office, populist, opportunistic, self-serving etc. I don't really know enough of Corbyn to make those same conclusions, it is the far-leftness I disagree with.

Quote:

However...at least Corbyn is on the referendum route now, which is a massive plus point. However, however...I really don't trust him not to change his mind, or to throw his full weight behind Brexit in any campaign.
I think that the markets (which are interested in wealth not social justice or anything like that so it is not a judgment that should be recommended to voters) would prefer a Corbyn led temp government toppling Johnson's than this not happening. Probably they believe he would stop no deal and then get voted out. (I believe that as well--sure "trust" is a risk but on balance worth it)

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12841489)
Compared to the effects of Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, everything else is a rounding error IMO.

Where are your predictions coming from?

I know everyone has "had enough of experts" but the IMF and the OECD think no deal is a -3% or -3.5% shock to economic output, and the Bank of England has moderated its previous -8% forecast to about -5.

(And the consensus among economy watchers / market types was too pessimistic in respect of the impact of a leave vote)

psionl0 2nd October 2019 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12841171)
I'm just talking about the part someone cited.

IOW you don't know which part nor who cited it.

The Don 2nd October 2019 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841531)
Where are your predictions coming from?

My well-upholstered rear :o

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 08:46 AM

Well some folks will clearly feel a much worse impact than that. Some others won't notice at all. A few might be better off.

ponderingturtle 2nd October 2019 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841525)
I was thinking of writing that Johnson is not too far right, but incompetent, unfit for office, populist, opportunistic, self-serving etc.

Can you really make that argument given how divorced from reality Johnson is? I mean all this over Prawn Cocktail crisps? Does he really have policies instead of vague ideas that have no resemblance to reality?

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 09:15 AM

Does that contradict my statement? Seems to be in line with it

ponderingturtle 2nd October 2019 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841593)
Does that contradict my statement? Seems to be in line with it

But how can you say how far right someone is in a situation like that?

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 09:18 AM

You can't which is the point really.

Garrison 2nd October 2019 09:31 AM

Its ridiculous how Johnson is still trying to act like he's holding all the cards in negotiating with the EU even when everyone can see his hand is actually just pages torn from a notebook with the word 'ace' scrawled on them.

Archie Gemmill Goal 2nd October 2019 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12841518)
Yup :(

Would Nicola Sturgeon allow herself to be ennobled and installed as GNU in chief ?:o

Vote to dissolve the Union and then E W and NI can ask to form a new one with Scotland?

Archie Gemmill Goal 2nd October 2019 09:47 AM

Regarding this temporary government nonsense its clear that the priority has to be preventing a no deal Brexit and Johnson cannot be trusted to do that.

Who leads the GNU is irrelevant in my mind. It probably should be Corbyn as thats the convention. And Swinson is an idiot child for insisting she won't back him.

Equally you would hope that if Corbyn couldn't get the numbers but someone else could then he would step aside but he is probably right not to say that at the moment.

None of the UK parties are coming out of this with much glory at the moment.

In the longer term, no matter what happens the problem doesnt go away. BoJo wins an election and forces no deal, Labour win an election and cant agree a deal that works and we end up in this limbo, or there is a hung parliament with the empty crisp packet Swinson blowing around trying to decide if she wants her rat fried or grilled.

Thank God Scotland, NI and Wales have an out if they want it, because this is going to kill England for a degeneration at least one way or another

Archie Gemmill Goal 2nd October 2019 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12840892)
No. I have been consistent throughout.

My question has always been "what existing law or precedent limits the advice the PM can give the Queen?" and the answers have always been of the form "the SC can limit the advice because the SC can" (duh!) and nobody can see that this doesn't answer the question.

Alternatively, what existing law said he could do what he did?

As we have tried to explain to you repeatedly that was the question put to the court. Does the existing law allow him to do this? and the answer came back, no it doesn't.

Thats the job of the SC to interpret and clarify the law.

Archie Gemmill Goal 2nd October 2019 09:59 AM

oh and apparently parliament is going to be prorogued again next week for a Queens speech

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12841628)
Equally you would hope that if Corbyn couldn't get the numbers but someone else could then he would step aside but he is probably right not to say that at the moment.

I haven't seen the calculations about "getting the numbers" specifically any testing of what leader would be most likely to do that.

If it is clear that an individual would not get the numbers and someone else would then that individual is an idiot kid for insisting me me me. Conversely if someone is insisting another won't get the numbers purely because that someone will order their MPs not to vote for them then that individual is an idiot kid too.

It's a failed piss up in a brewery at the moment that makes Johnson actually look good.

lomiller 2nd October 2019 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12841508)
As Nicola Sturgeon said a little while ago - 'designed to fail'. And predictably so.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. "


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.