Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Tell me how wrote: »

Could this be deemed to be slanderous?

I think that is quite unlikely. It's true.

Tell me how wrote: »

Excuse my language, but I think it is fair to say that Peter Oborne has no f*cks left to give.

https://twitter.com/UKDemockery/status/1187167075820802048

Naming names is obviously very pointed. C4 will probably pick up slack for letting it happen even though it has been said in many places for a long time. Not least this thread.
Can't see Peston/Keunnsberg being successful in removing the accusation once it has been said in such a forthright manner.

Could this be deemed to be slanderous?

I think Peston is becoming a bit uneasy in this role. His tweets lately have become almost apologetic. But it's interesting that often he's completely at sea on what the real story is and admits as much. It's quite striking to see him openly floundering with two different and contradictory stories. The upshot of this though, is that he appears to be either a bear of very little brain or he's been so long suckling at the teat of 'number 10 sources' that he's suffering from crippling cognitive dissonance.

Edit: And just after I post this, here is again.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think that is quite unlikely. It's true.

Well, that's the thing, it's a subjective opinion. One which a huge number of people hold but I'm not sure you could say there is evidence that LK is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the government.

For someone to actually name her as such could be deemed to be detrimental to her impartiality as the mud has been thrown. The fact that it was on a C4 show and the two journalists named are ITV and BBC could be a coincidence but could also be seen to be biased and intentional.

sdanseo wrote: »

Corbyn was like a broken record on the election. He will agree after the threat of no deal dissapears. If he refuses one once extension is official, he will have lost any remaining credibility and his position will be untenable.
Unless of course he decides on the line that 3 months is nothing and he could by that time argue that the threat is back.

He may be correct that Tories will only win again but he can't just keep refusing an election when at the same time throwing about the idea that people should be allowed to vote again in another referendum.

It's going to look awful for the opposition.

A Govt that is 49 seats short, can't get legislation passed. Brexit chaos but has a deal that Dublin and Brussels are happy with and it has an opposition that refuses repeated calls to allow an election.

Danzy wrote: »

It's going to look awful for the opposition.

A Govt that is 49 seats short, can't get legislation passed. Brexit chaos but has a deal that Dublin and Brussels are happy with and it has an opposition that refuses repeated calls to allow an election.

Are Dublin and Brussels 'happy' with the prospective deal?

I doubt it.

Any deal Brexit is a pig in a poke for Ireland and the EU.

And it's entirely appropriate for the opposition to not accede to something that they disagree with.

Not sure how this looks 'bad' for the opposition at all. It's not in their interests or desire to facilitate a Brexit that they do not support so why should they?

lawred2 wrote: »

Are Dublin and Brussels 'happy' with the prospective deal?

I doubt it.

Any deal Brexit is a pig in a poke for Ireland and the EU.

And it's entirely appropriate for the opposition to not accede to something that they disagree with.

Not sure how this looks 'bad' for the opposition at all. It's not in their interests or desire to facilitate a Brexit that they do not support so why should they?

Dublin and Brussels will wish Cameron had won the ref but he didn't.

They certainly beamed from side to side after it was signed and have expressed their hopes he'll get it passed.

It is not in their interest to facilitate this Brexit, not in their interest to have an election, not in their ability to agree alternatives.

How long can this stalemate go on?

I wouldn't get too excited about this as an indication of anything much other than there is certainly a drop in support for the Tories and a rise for the BXP. How much is another day's work. But it shows why Johnson fought so hard to get his 31st October deadline. Notwithstanding that he made a complete pig's ear of it with his double prorogation.

Tell me how wrote: »

Key element of the survey.



To be fair, you could nearly argue that asking such pejorative questions was careless by the survey organisers.

The Guardian headline normalises the acceptance of violence at this point.
I've said several times we would already be at civil war stage in the UK if this was any time prior to 1900, this both supports that statement and suggests it is at that point right now in sentiment, if not in action.

I saw Diarmuid Ferriter say the other evening on the Tonight Show that he thinks a second referendum could spark off a civil war in England.

Strazdas wrote: »

Quite shocking poll results from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/24/majority-of-voters-think-violence-against-mps-is-price-worth-paying-for-brexit

It's obvious that their political system has completely broken down

Actually I think it is quite shocking that a newspaper should give such prominence to that nonsense

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see how there could be a "civil war" but I certainly accept that there could be riots and targetted attacks on prominent Brexiteers & Remainers if things don't get sorted out soon.

I suppose he fears that civil unrest could lead to rioting and then God knows what.

A full scale civil war in the way we understand one seems unlikely though, as nobody on either side is armed. Perhaps he simply means rioting in several cities.

The only way out of this is the deal on the table.

Trying to overturn the referendum will lead to serious trouble and probably violence, unfortunately. That's what happens when liberal elites tell the 'great unwashed' their opinion does not count and act on it.

The only sensible way forward is the deal.

The UK voted to leave, they have to leave. After leaving, the vote having been respected, then remainers can put forward a proper debate on rejoining.

The wishes of the electorate have to be carried out before anything else.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The only way out of this is the deal on the table.

Trying to overturn the referendum will lead to serious trouble and probably violence, unfortunately. That's what happens when liberal elites tell the great unwashed their opinion does not count and act on it.

The only sensible way forward is the deal.

The UK voted to leave, they have to leave. After leaving remainers can put forward a debate on rejoining.

The wishes of the electorate have to be carried out before anything else.

It is over 3 years since the electorate voted to leave.
An electorate influenced by proven illegality on the side of the Leave campaign.
3 years where now 2 governments, 2 Prime Ministers have tried to pass 2 Deals.

Why should the Leave side get so many opportunities to deliver what they tried to do while the remain side are told it is one and done when it comes to selecting a path to take.

Your flaming with the use of the term 'liberal elites' is laughable with the Eton and Oxbridge educated ministers and strategists trying to convince everyone now that people voted for a 6% drop in GDP.

I would buy the honouring the result of the referendum if the leave side hadn't tied repeatedly to get deals accepted after they had been rejected the first, or second time. How can you accept that and not countenance a second referendum is baffling.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

May had a majority. The voters rejected it.

Is that the argument you are going to use when England erupts? The remain side need to think long and hard about the consequences of overturning the referendum.

The situation will be very volatile.

Democracy only works if everyone believes their vote is equal and counted.

You are telling half the population - "your vote doesn't count". "Yes you voted leave, you won - but you don't understand the issues like we do so for your own good we are going to turn this around".

This is playing with fire and it will end in tears.

You know full well how people feel on both sides of this issue (not just the leave side). This is dangerous.

LK slagging off Nicola Sturgeon in a tweet the other day should be at the very least grounds for censure in my opinion.

Also what story has she ever actually broken throughout Brexit?

I can't think of one. She's no journalist like Peter Foster or Tony Connelly. She just seems to be all about gossip rather than anything substantive.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Brexit is comedy gold.

Of leave voters 59% in Scotland believed the breakup of the UK would be worth it to take back control through delivering Brexit.

So they plan to take back control by creating the conditions which will drive Scotland to independence followed by rejoining the EU at the first opportunity.

Yip, that's pure Brexit.

Yeah you know that means NI