The influence of the EU on Britain.

Henry Irving said:

micks1950 said:

Henry Irving said:

micks1950 said:

I’d like to leave it here as I don’t think it appropriate to this thread.

But I’ll just point out that, in response to a regular theme of Henry’s posts on this thread, I post a link to a 5000 word article, detailing the origin and current questionable use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s ‘working definition’ of antisemitism in relation to the Labour Party, written by a Jewish academic who has spent almost 40 years studying contemporary antisemitism, and Henry dismisses it with a ‘LOL’ (?) - despite only shortly before having accused someone else of dismissing the content of a link he had posted “without addressing the underlying issue”?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/antony-lerman/labour-should-ditch-ihra-working-definition-of-antisemitism-altogether

Oh dear, the cult don't like it when their dear leader gets shown up as the useless, weak, fraud he is.

Dear me - is that your level of debate.....?

Well, I tried to have a debate about Corbyn and the labour parties rampant anti-Semitism and the response from you and the rest of the cult were to deny it existed and was all a smear.

Then it was justified by some whataboutery about Israel and demanding I said Israel was a racist state or I had to "shut up".

Then when I gave evidence that was dismissed as bots and smears again.

Then when labour ( IE Corbyn) wouldn't accept the IHRA definition in full because it "stopped criticism of Israel" (it didn't) the cult members all agreed how terrible it was but haven't mentioned it since it was finally adopted despite Corbyn trying to re-write it.

Then a lot of the cult stopped debating as the evidence was overwhelming and they resorted to flags.

When the labour conference sang a song about wiping out Isreal that was ignored too. Too uncomfortable to admit anti-Semitism was at the heart of the party.

When the labour party hid a dossier of threats made against Jewish labour MPs that was ignored on here too.

So don't make me laugh about level of debate and your pathetic attempts to intelluctualise justifications for anti-Semitism

Fact remains anti-Semitism is rampant and unchecked in the labour party and you and the other cult members don't want to accept that.

A last word.

I suppose that in your world Antony Lerman the Jewish academic who wrote the article I posted plus the other Jewish academics he cites and the eminent UK Jewish lawyers he quotes are also part of your imagined ‘cult’ are they?

kentaddick said:

Chizz said:

Henry Irving said:

micks1950 said:

Henry Irving said:

micks1950 said:

I’d like to leave it here as I don’t think it appropriate to this thread.

But I’ll just point out that, in response to a regular theme of Henry’s posts on this thread, I post a link to a 5000 word article, detailing the origin and current questionable use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s ‘working definition’ of antisemitism in relation to the Labour Party, written by a Jewish academic who has spent almost 40 years studying contemporary antisemitism, and Henry dismisses it with a ‘LOL’ (?) - despite only shortly before having accused someone else of dismissing the content of a link he had posted “without addressing the underlying issue”?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/antony-lerman/labour-should-ditch-ihra-working-definition-of-antisemitism-altogether

Oh dear, the cult don't like it when their dear leader gets shown up as the useless, weak, fraud he is.

Dear me - is that your level of debate.....?

Well, I tried to have a debate about Corbyn and the labour parties rampant anti-Semitism and the response from you and the rest of the cult were to deny it existed and was all a smear.

Then it was justified by some whataboutery about Israel and demanding I said Israel was a racist state or I had to "shut up".

Then when I gave evidence that was dismissed as bots and smears again.

Then when labour ( IE Corbyn) wouldn't accept the IHRA definition in full because it "stopped criticism of Israel" (it didn't) the cult members all agreed how terrible it was but haven't mentioned it since it was finally adopted despite Corbyn trying to re-write it.

Then a lot of the cult stopped debating as the evidence was overwhelming and they resorted to flags.

When the labour conference sang a song about wiping out Isreal that was ignored too. Too uncomfortable to admit anti-Semitism was at the heart of the party.

When the labour party hid a dossier of threats made against Jewish labour MPs that was ignored on here too.

So don't make me laugh about level of debate and your pathetic attempts to intelluctualise justifications for anti-Semitism

Fact remains anti-Semitism is rampant and unchecked in the labour party and you and the other cult members don't want to accept that.

This has nothing to do with Brexit. Can we please use this thread to debate, understand and learn about the threats and opportunities offered by Brexit? And keep petty squabbling about individuals' obsession with the current Labour leader to some other thread. Where it can be ignored by people who.find the topic tiresome and petty?

We've tried, they simply get locked.

It would be great if people who have *tried* not posting about the Labour leader on this thread could try a bit harder. Because this thread has suffered at least one person desperate to deflect the flow of the conversation; and some people seem to want take over that poster's trolling.

Labour have certainly been useless on Brexit and must face a share of the blame (though not as much as the Tories obviously) for the ridiculous situation the UK finds itself in but the constant going on about anti-Semitism seems like a really unnecessary diversion from this thread, which is otherwise very interesting and relevant now the incoherent, desperate for attention postings of old have stopped.

Isn't there a thread just to discuss Corbyn? Would be better on there than just going round in circles about him on here, unless it specifically refers to Brexit and his position on it.

Latest poll from the Evening Standard here. There's more detail here supplied by Ipsos Mori with the headline that the WA still only has 25% support with the electorate.

Of interest is that there's absolutely no consensus about what should happen after the WA is defeated. 20% are in favour of a "No-deal" Brexit whilst there's an agregated 50% in favour of a referendum, an election or simply call off Brexit. Some 20% want May to return to the EU but many of us believe that won't deliver anything.

One interpretation of these numbers and what's happening in Parliament plus the Art.50 opinion (which will become a ruling before Christmas) is that the dreaded "No deal" is not happening. The Norway / BINO option favoured by many on here is not mentioned in the poll but we now know that it's flawed since it doesn't include the CU so doesn't work for Kent or Irish borders... and the Norwegians have stated a view.

Norway/BINO was always a proxy for Remain but a candidate solution which accomodated the 2016 result. As that does not now appear available, the only rational move is a second referendum based around tangible outcomes (no unicorns allowed). Perhaps May sees this which is why her people are already touring the country? One step ahead or undermining the sovereignty of Parliament?!

bobmunro said:

Leuth said:

The main political issue of our lifetime is a close call between environment preservation and the end of extreme wealth inequality tbf

Both fundamentally important (as is the broken education system) but none can be solved before 29 March 2019.

The real question is where are we going to be in 2025? We've had eight years of austerity and people have voted for that three times now (2010, 2015 and 2017) but with a smaller mandate last time.

We have a demographic time bomb about to hit the NHS, social care and pension bills. And the country is split down the middle on immigration and a range of other issues which broadly equate to a local/nationalist perspective vs internationalist.

We have a tiny % unemployed and yet a record number on minimum wage, zero hours and dead end jobs. And record levels of poverty including children growing up in poverty. Think about that as we head into 2019! All services have had their budgets savagely cut and yet corporation tax is at a record low and tax base erosion by multinationals is simply massive.

For me the question is can Brexit be stopped and then how. Or are we on a different trajectory where it has to happen, not least because May slowed down the process in her determination to "get the job done".

Overall the question is what direction does the UK wish to take. Leaving aside the personalities, the Labour manifesto looks more attractive. Having said that I still don't understand how QE for a people's bank might work and how Labour might avoid market confidence issues. For those not familiar, there's a theory that if the UK can use QE to bail out the banks then why not apply that to PFI? No more stupid interest rates and go fund desperately needed infrastructure and housing.

All of these points are addressed in the last Labour manifesto and if the campaign had run a bit longer May would not be PM. Add to this that the Express is reporting a majority in N.Ireland want reunification after Brexit and we live in interesting times! NB the pollsters for the Express have been criticised for sample bias.

In short, English nationalism has asserted itself but the consequences look a tad unintended.

Fiiish said:

golfaddick said:

Fiiish said:

golfaddick said:

Chaz Hill said:

Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!

Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.

Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.

And there are also the small matters of:

1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result
2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum
3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal

As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.

To answer your points;

1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue

2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the t&pc's by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how it when.

You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.

1) Apart from those people already convicted e.g Darren Grimes, there is a mounting wealth of evidence and unaccounted for spending e.g. the illegal adverts online, the Cambridge Analytica illegal data-mining, the evidence now emerging that the shell company Banks used to bankroll the Leave campaigning was not properly registered, and the still unexplained injection of Russian millions into the Leave funding.

2) This is just plain false. Look at the legislation. There is no provision for a Leave result to bind Parliament. The High Court confirmed on 03/11/16 that the legislation meant the vote was only advisory and non-binding.

3) The Leave campaign campaigned on getting a better deal than we have now, they constantly talked about getting a Switzerland or Norway deal, and that a deal would be easy to strike and would be negotiated before we left the EU. Some Leave campaigners even stated they would be in favour of a second referendum to confirm the deal or if we would rather stay. No campaigners were talking of crashing out without a deal. So no, it is not "crap", these are the facts.

Furthermore, the electorate didn't vote to Leave. One third of the electorate voted to Leave.

You can't complain if you didn't vote. If you had the chance to vote & didn't then you have no right AT ALL to moan or have a say in how it's going.