Brexit

[King Pitcos]

6 hours ago, Carbomb said:

Very good. Except attempting to equate Muslims with Brexiters is fallacious because they're nowhere near the same things, in numerous ways. 

I'm not really equating Muslims with Brexiters, though, just pointing out that the way you talked about Brexiters there was very reminiscent of the way that some people talk about Muslims. That whole "the good ones should prove they're good by loudly condemning the bad ones" shit probably sounded abhorrent to you when it was about a group you were in support of, yet it seems like perfectly valid logic to you when it's about a group you don't like. Its sole use is to bully, demonise and undermine a segment of society, which is more than a little problematic.

[Guest]

One difference that comes to mind right away is that we actually do see Muslim groups and leaders speak out and condemn the horrid actions being done in their name. When do we ever see Johnson, Farage, and co telling their supporters to stop being racist cunts?

The reason apparent to me is that Brexit figureheads know that much of their support is built on the sentiments that fuel these actions, whereas Muslim leaders know the opposite.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Uncle Zeb

[Carbomb]

43 minutes ago, King Pitcos said:

I'm not really equating Muslims with Brexiters, though, just pointing out that the way you talked about Brexiters there was very reminiscent of the way that some people talk about Muslims. That whole "the good ones should prove they're good by loudly condemning the bad ones" shit probably sounded abhorrent to you when it was about a group you were in support of, yet it seems like perfectly valid logic to you when it's about a group you don't like. Its sole use is to bully, demonise and undermine a segment of society, which is more than a little problematic.

I know you weren't, I understand you were ironising for the purpose of making that point about me. I dispute your premise, though; it's reductive without taking into account certain things. Brexit is by-and-large an anti-immigration movement. Historically, pretty much every anti-immigration movement has been racist in both its verbal and physical expressions towards immigrants and ethnic minorities, with almost no exception. If someone is a Brexiter on an anti-immigration basis, then they do need to condemn the bad ones, because they are part of that section that is currently on record as using language and imagery designed to fuel racist behaviour. If they were, say, a soft Brexiter who just doesn't like the EU constitution but doesn't have a problem with immigration, or a Lexiter who has a problem with the EU as an institution, then their motivations are clear and that's all they need to say.

The vast majority of Muslims, as we both agree, are not terrorists, nor is being Muslim a clear position on anything - there are right-wing Muslims, left-wingers, strict ones, liberal ones, theocratic ones, fundamentalist ones, reformative ones, Sufis, Sunni, Shi'a, Ahmadi, etc. Not to mention that, for most people who can read between the lines, we're fairly sure that the constant requirement that Muslims denounce Muslim terrorists is rooted in racism.

And as for the specific right-wing Brexit movement, the one that's been driving this entire thing, Uncle Zeb nailed it above: people like Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, UKIP et al have not only failed to distance themselves and consequently their supporters from racist movements like the EDL and Britain First, they've actually flirted with them. Farage is on video giving talks at white supremacist meetings in the US. Rees-Mogg associates with known racist organisations. Johnson has developed a relationship with known white supremacist Steve Bannon. None of them have denounced or apologised for these links. Therefore anyone supporting these people, as far as I'm concerned, does need to distance themselves from racist violence and abuse.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Carbomb

[WyattSheepMask]

Night 1, and a senior advisor to the Prime Minister practically threatens to fight a journalist in the street. Happy Brexit everyone

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by WyattSheepMask

[David]

People threaten annoying, intrusive journos all the time, it has nothing to do with Brexit. The media lad there was obviously looking for a soundbite that he could use against Cummings, so you can hardly blame him for not inviting the guy in for a cuppa and an exclusive interview.

[stumobir]

Agreed. This pestering people in the street nonsense should be ended, I don’t care who it is, it’s borderline harassment. Especially sickening when you see a squad of journalists and photographers standing at someone’s private home, seemed to be everyday there would be footage of Jeremy Corbyn leaving his house to get straight in to a people carrier. What were they ever hoping to achieve, he’d walk out draped in the Irish tricolour holding a copy of Mein Kampf?

 

Edit: VoxPops on the other hand, while providing zero political insight, make for great viewing.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mrsmigginshere/status/1223366315383164928
 

Never know how to bloody embed on my phone.

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by stumobir

[Keith Houchen]

Yeah, fuck doorstepping. I’m no fan of Cummings but just because the guy “Wanted a conversation” doesn’t mean he is entitled to get one. 
 

Not a fan of parading the working class as thicko bells in the hope of getting a gotcha to go viral. If these journalists were any good, they’d have been asking those questions constantly for the last four years. 

[SuperBacon]

3 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Yeah, fuck doorstepping. I’m no fan of Cummings but just because the guy “Wanted a conversation” doesn’t mean he is entitled to get one. 
 

Not a fan of parading the working class as thicko bells in the hope of getting a gotcha to go viral. If these journalists were any good, they’d have been asking those questions constantly for the last four years. 

Only Roger Cook should be allowed to do this 

[stumobir]

14 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Not a fan of parading the working class as thicko bells in the hope of getting a gotcha to go viral. If these journalists were any good, they’d have been asking those questions constantly for the last four years. 

Valid point, and preferably to the people orchestrating the entire thing and not Sheila who does two nights a week in Ladbrokes (not a slight). 
 

Though in my very limited, anecdotal, experience it’s those that know the least who tend to shout the loudest and in that case I have absolutely no issue with them being shown up on national television ie. 90% of people asking questions on Question Time. 

[Keith Houchen]

Oh I do agree. Patron saint of centrist dads James O Brien has been asking these questions constantly since the referendum was announced. The architects of Brexit weren’t grilled as harshly as Sheila is and they should’ve been from day one. 

[JNLister]

Long and painful read on just how fucked we are trying to do some sort of deal before the end of this year.

https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2020/01/23/brexit-2020-everything-you-need-to-know-about-johnson-s-trad

Spoiler for the ending:

Just on the off chance that I fell asleep through any of that, can you give me a quick executive summary.

Sure. Johnson has set himself an arbitrary one-year deadline for a trade talk with the EU. The consequence of this is that the deal is bare bones, excluding services or - probably, if they're not lying - alignment on goods. Unless he changes course, this will be highly damaging to UK industry, especially those parts based in the Midlands and the North. He also wants control of fisheries. The EU want fisheries to stay as they were and a set of level playing field provisions to stop the UK undercutting them in future. They will try to secure these outcomes by keeping all the issues in play at the same time, so they can leverage them against each other. Whatever happens, the UK must deal with rules of origin requirements, which are extremely painful and will have potentially ruinous results between Britain and Northern Ireland.

Can you make it shorter than that?

The government either does not know what it is doing or is not prepared to reveal what it is doing. We are heading towards a truly disastrous set of outcomes unless that changes.

[WyattSheepMask]

The government either does not know what it is doing or is not prepared to reveal what it is doing. We are heading towards a truly disastrous set of outcomes unless that changes.

“Right now we’re on the edge of oblivion, we’re on the brink of disaster. And before we all join hands and jump...I want another chance”

[RedRooster]

On 2/1/2020 at 3:01 PM, Keith Houchen said:

Yeah, fuck doorstepping. I’m no fan of Cummings but just because the guy “Wanted a conversation” doesn’t mean he is entitled to get one. 

When I read your posts in a politics thread I almost always find myself nodding along, but I can’t agree with you here based on how inaccessible Cummings actually is. He’s one of the most powerful people in the country, and yet he’s essentially immune to scrutiny because he’s not ever put in a situation where that can happen. I find that really scary.

You posted this before Number 10 attempted to exclude a number of journalists from a briefing. I’m fairly concerned about what the end game is here. It’s potentially going to be very difficult for any of their decisions to be held to account. We’ve already seen how able they are to weaponise social media to spread their propaganda.

[Guest]

A typical both-sidesing article from the Beeb, but interesting stats for anyone who's had to debate the root motivations for voting Leave:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51281916

The survey, conducted by Ipsos MORI, asked people to say which propositions came closest to their view.

The phrase "influences from other countries and other cultures make Britain a better place to live" was supported by a majority of Remain voters (56%), but just a quarter (23%) of Leave voters.

The alternative proposition - "influences from other countries and cultures threaten the British way of life" - was supported by just 18% of Remain voters but 52% of Leave voters.

A similar result was found with a slightly different proposition. The phrase "Britain will be stronger if it is open to changes and influences from other countries and other cultures" was supported by 58% of Remain voters but just 22% of Leave voters.

The alternative - "Britain will be stronger in the future if it sticks to its traditions and way of life" - was supported by 56% of Leave voters and just 14% of Remain voters.

[BomberPat]

after the referendum, someone did a word cloud on what issues mattered most to Leave voters;

 

It's really hard to argue that immigration isn't the deciding factor of Brexit, and of British politics overall. The broader questions need to be "what do we mean by immigration?", and in reference to that Ipsos MORI study, what do we mean by "British traditions and ways of life", and what do we mean by "influences from other countries and cultures?". When people complain about immigration, do they always mean "immigration", or do they mean people who look "foreign"? To many, a white western European, Australian or American immigrant speaking fluent English may be considered less of an "immigrant" to Britain than a black or Asian kid who's lived here their whole life.
 

It's glib, but when people talk about "influences from other countries" as a negative impact, how many of them are going out for an Indian at the weekend, having a kebab after a night on the European lager, ordering Chinese takeaway, watching American television, and so on? And what are they doing in defence of "British culture and traditions" - are they volunteering for the National Trust, or taking up Morris Dancing? 

So many problems arise because we ask these broad questions, or have these broad debates, when nine times out of ten we're not even having the same conversation, because the language comes so loaded, and loaded differently depending on the speaker. I always cringe at the phrase "British values" - we're a country where the biggest selling newspapers are The Sun and the Daily Mail, but I definitely don't share their values, but are my values somehow less intrinsically British for it? It feels like we all need to take a significant step back and just define our terms, make it clear exactly what we're talking about when we use these woolly terms, so that any disagreements are at least disagreements arrived at honestly. But I don't see how that's possible.