How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)

[bitchstewie]

amusingduck said:

bhstewie said:

I think you're rather missing the point.

It's quite possible to want to leave the EU, to be totally pissed off with the way our politicians have handled it, to want Farage to "save you", and to agree with everything he says about the EU whilst still thinking it's an error of judgement for him to be associated with the likes of the AfD.

Yet apparently that's too much.

All or nothing it seems.

That isn't critical thinking and it has nothing to do with "democracy" it's just ignorance and demagoguery.

I'm sure that Germany, of all countries, would stop fascists from being elected. They haven't, so I'm happy to go with their judgement.

All of the labels applied to AfD have been applied to Leavers repeatedly. Maybe it's no surprise that after years of labelling a group as racists/xenophobes/etc, they're not particularly bothered about another group that's labelled the same way by the same people?

I'd have said the same about the US and fascism until this weeks events.

The AfD have specific anti-Islam policies.

They have been investigated for neo-Nazi links.

One of their senior members called a holocaust memorial a "Monument to shame".

It's serious stuff and shouldn't be dismissed with "meh someone called me nasty names too" and a smiley face on the end.

You should be bothered by it.

[Vanden Saab]

DeepEnd said:

citizensm1th said:

you lot are debating far right politics with the likes of powerstroke wtf did you think the result would be?

It was Tuna who was asking “what’s wrong with AfD”

The oft trotted out excuse is “no one was listening, we had no one else to turn to”, as aduck above.

But it’s not a valid excuse. It does not justify supporting racist and xenophobic policies - deep down surely even the most hardened ultra can see this?

Maybe they can’t. You do wonder how people in 1930s Germany got on trying to challenge support for the NASDP. Presumably shouted down and told no one else was doing anything about the causes of Germany’s problems with foreigners etc.

I am not sure how an almost exclusively white organisation who actively gives precedence to its own citizens over those from countries outside of its borders is any better, may be you could explain. Personally I would prefer a system which treats all people the same, you seem to think it is good to discriminate against those whose only crime is to be born in a different country. Fair play for that.

[powerstroke]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Those would be the same 'democracy subverters' who understand and respect the fundamental constitutional principle of the supremacy of parliament?

One of the dismal realities of this whole situation is that fatuous sound bites like "will of the people" have been latched onto by the stupid and the gullible and are now treated as articles of faith rather than the transient, meaningless slogan that they were and given the same or greater status by the easily influenced as 800 years of established constitutional principle

Neither side is innocent , some of the the behaviour has been disgusting , we have had the worst possible PM in living memory
which has left a vacuum into which faliures and chancers like Hesletine and Major have stepped into for one last death rattle ..
Hopefully the change of leader will get things back towards more fit for purpose , we will see !!!

[Vanden Saab]

ClaphamGT3 said:

amusingduck said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Sickening and profoundly worrying. The end justifying any means outlook of the ultra-Brexiteers is more than the thin end of a wedge

Ultra-Brexiteers wouldn't exist without the democracy subverters

Which, ironically, is the same story here. I don't think you guys' strategy of "ignore the concerns and denounce the consequences" is going to work out particularly well

Those would be the same 'democracy subverters' who understand and respect the fundamental constitutional principle of the supremacy of parliament?

One of the dismal realities of this whole situation is that fatuous sound bites like "will of the people" have been latched onto by the stupid and the gullible and are now treated as articles of faith rather than the transient, meaningless slogan that they were and given the same or greater status by the easily influenced as 800 years of established constitutional principle

You mean the 800 years of constitutional principle that the speaker of the house, who is supposed to be neutral on all matters but is openly and proudly not, has been driving a coach and horses through in his attempts to stop Brexit?

[ClaphamGT3]

powerstroke said:

Neither side is innocent , some of the the behaviour has been disgusting , we have had the worst possible PM in living memory
which has left a vacuum into which faliures and chancers like Hesletine and Major have stepped into for one last death rattle ..
Hopefully the change of leader will get things back towards more fit for purpose , we will see !!!

And here we see a rather ham-fisted attempt at whataboutism - again, a sign of the weakness of the Brexit argument

[Tuna]

DeepEnd said:

Tuna said:

We can all read Wikipedia. So what far-right extremist policies does the AfD actually have?

This article was linked earlier

https://politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/07/19/week-in-re...

The bit that I would hope some posters here would read carefully and reflect upon is here:

“But waiting for fascism is not about sitting at home with a checklist, contenting yourself that everything is fine until someone ticks every single box. It's about being vigilant about the type of political behaviour which leads to fascism.“

There are plenty of warning signs over the kind of messages being pushed out. One member of AfD has said people can be shot at the border.

The links have been posted, you must be aware of this, and yet through your post you are trying to create an impression that AfD is normal - perhaps this is to try and protect TBP and Nigel, but it is not a healthy thing to be doing.

So, that's a long way of saying "I don't know".

It was a genuine question - not an attempt to play word definition poker over what constitutes 'facist'. Nor was it a question about Trump, asking to be lectured on the need to be vigilant. I get that. We have a shadow chancellor that has stated his job is to overthrow capitalism - it turns out loonies come from all sides, and some of them get to positions of seniority.

What I don't know - and I'm asking you because you've been clear that you know about these things - is what extremist, far right policies the AfD has?

[bitchstewie]

ClaphamGT3 said:

And here we see a rather ham-fisted attempt at whataboutism - again, a sign of the weakness of the Brexit argument

The thing that I truly don't understand is the conflation of issues.

What I think we're seeing on Brexit is some strange thing where a lot of people have turned into people for whom "Because I want to leave the EU I must agree with that person on everything else" is the new normal.

Then you end up with people arguing that calling people letterboxes is OK and speaking at a far right rally is fine because the person that said it wants to leave the EU so I must agree with everything they say and do.

People seem to be genuinely claiming that being ignored by politicians is a good enough excuse for being unwilling to think and judge an issue on its merits and call out the bits you don't agree with.

How the hell did we get to that?

[Tuna]

ClaphamGT3 said:

And here we see a rather ham-fisted attempt at whataboutism - again, a sign of the weakness of the Brexit argument

You say that after two pages of piety over being vigilant against fascism on behalf of another country?

[ClaphamGT3]

bhstewie said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

And here we see a rather ham-fisted attempt at whataboutism - again, a sign of the weakness of the Brexit argument

The thing that I truly don't understand is the conflation of issues.

What I think we're seeing on Brexit is some strange thing where a lot of people have turned into people for whom "Because I want to leave the EU I must agree with that person on everything else" is the new normal.

Then you end up with people arguing that calling people letterboxes is OK and speaking at a far right rally is fine because the person that said it wants to leave the EU so I must agree with everything they say and do.

People seem to be genuinely claiming that being ignored by politicians is a good enough excuse for being unwilling to think and judge an issue on its merits and call out the bits you don't agree with.

How the hell did we get to that?

I tend to agree - it’s the Orwellian four legs good/two legs bad mentality writ large. The worrying thing is that, carrying that analogy through, we are now at the point where the likes of Powerstoke are chanting four legs good/two legs better

[frisbee]

Earthdweller said:

Reports in various press this morning of a number of EU countries reaching out to Boris independently of Brussels to avoid a no deal

Meanwhile Merkel has said that the draft agreement could be rewritten to effectively remove the backstop

The word is compromise apparently and some countries notably Germany Belgium France and Ireland will do what’s necessary to avoid a “no deal” Brexit

Maybe .. having someone who wants to leave is what needed after all

So the side that has been united and completely dominating the negotiations has suddenly folded and started offering concessions to the buffoon who hasn't even been elected yet?

That sounds completely believable.

[anonymous-user]

Lots of triggered happy clappers on this morning.

Most wouldn't know a fascist if they came up and knocked on their window. (If they even exist these day)

I would love to know what the definition of "far right" actually is?

Seems to be anyone that wants a sensible controlled immigration policy and disagree with what the EU has become.

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

The thing that I truly don't understand is the conflation of issues.

What I think we're seeing on Brexit is some strange thing where a lot of people have turned into people for whom "Because I want to leave the EU I must agree with that person on everything else" is the new normal.

Then you end up with people arguing that calling people letterboxes is OK and speaking at a far right rally is fine because the person that said it wants to leave the EU so I must agree with everything they say and do.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the irony here.

You and I have a different view on the use of language. You conflate making a visual comparison with being against or demeaning that person (especially unfounded given the actual purpose of Boris' article). I personally feel that simplifying politics like that turns an important debate into a crude argument. It also disrespects (and misrepresents) what the opposition are saying. It's exactly that behaviour - conflating issues - that encourages people to think "sod this". Boris was defending the right to wear those garments, yet you repeatedly and persistently seek to imply he's a racist. Do you not see the problem with this?

As for the AfD, I'm stll trying to understand this. Looking at the speakers at some of the recent Labour party rallies, and for that matter things like Extinction Rebellion and the Greens, we have people suggesting shocking 'solutions' to the perceived ills of the world. I do not understand the AfD party at all, so I'm nervous of this weird blanket "these guys are far right extremists" conflation of issues - do they have extremist policies? At that rally, were any speakers proposing far right, extremist policies? They're the third largest party in Germany, which is somewhat sensitive about these things, so what is actually being said? So far, all I've read in here is "watch out, Trump" and "some anonymous member said something shocking"... that doesn't help me understand what is going on.

[bitchstewie]

Tuna said:

I'm not sure if you're aware of the irony here.

You and I have a different view on the use of language. You conflate making a visual comparison with being against or demeaning that person (especially unfounded given the actual purpose of Boris' article). I personally feel that simplifying politics like that turns an important debate into a crude argument. It also disrespects (and misrepresents) what the opposition are saying. It's exactly that behaviour - conflating issues - that encourages people to think "sod this". Boris was defending the right to wear those garments, yet you repeatedly and persistently seek to imply he's a racist. Do you not see the problem with this?

As for the AfD, I'm stll trying to understand this. Looking at the speakers at some of the recent Labour party rallies, and for that matter things like Extinction Rebellion and the Greens, we have people suggesting shocking 'solutions' to the perceived ills of the world. I do not understand the AfD party at all, so I'm nervous of this weird blanket "these guys are far right extremists" conflation of issues - do they have extremist policies? At that rally, were any speakers proposing far right, extremist policies? They're the third largest party in Germany, which is somewhat sensitive about these things, so what is actually being said? So far, all I've read in here is "watch out, Trump" and "some anonymous member said something shocking"... that doesn't help me understand what is going on.

You and I have a different view on what's right and wrong.

Whatever point Boris was trying to make he used the language he used because he knew it would appeal to a certain base, the one that is about to make him the Prime Minister and the one that if polls are to be believed have a certain set of views on Islam.

That doesn't make him racist, but it does make him guilty of poor judgement.

As for the AfD here's their manifesto in English

https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/111/20...

You'll notice quite a few references to specific anti-Islamic policies.

[alfie2244]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Those would be the same 'democracy subverters' who understand and respect the fundamental constitutional principle of the supremacy of parliament?

One of the dismal realities of this whole situation is that fatuous sound bites like "will of the people" have been latched onto by the stupid and the gullible and are now treated as articles of faith rather than the transient, meaningless slogan that they were and given the same or greater status by the easily influenced as 800 years of established constitutional principle

You just don't get it do you?

[bitchstewie]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I tend to agree - it’s the Orwellian four legs good/two legs bad mentality writ large. The worrying thing is that, carrying that analogy through, we are now at the point where the likes of Powerstoke are chanting four legs good/two legs better

I'm not that well read but when it comes to Brexit I tend to prefer

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears"

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

As for the AfD here's their manifesto in English

https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/111/20...

You'll notice quite a few references to specific anti-Islamic policies.

Looks eminently sensible to me.

Not exactly advocating swinging people from lamp posts is it?

[Gilbertron]

bhstewie said:

As for the AfD here's their manifesto in English

https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/111/20...

You'll notice quite a few references to specific anti-Islamic policies.

6/128... Which one do find particularly egregious?

[ClaphamGT3]

alfie2244 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Those would be the same 'democracy subverters' who understand and respect the fundamental constitutional principle of the supremacy of parliament?

One of the dismal realities of this whole situation is that fatuous sound bites like "will of the people" have been latched onto by the stupid and the gullible and are now treated as articles of faith rather than the transient, meaningless slogan that they were and given the same or greater status by the easily influenced as 800 years of established constitutional principle

You just don't get it do you?

No, I think that it is the likes of you, Powerstoke et al who don’t get it.

The will of the people/we won/people’s vote is bandied as some sort of catch-all justification for whatever individual interpretation of Brexit the user has. More worryingly, this is also used as a justification for ignoring or even actively arguing against parliament, the judiciary and our international treaty obligations. None of those are judged to matter because “the people” have spoken.

Even in this thread today, John Major is vilified for having the temerity to suggestbthat, if necessary he will use judicial process to challenge the legitimacy of any decision to prorogue parliament when, in reality, anyone who in any way cared for our country and it’s ongoing stability would be deeply troubled that he should even have to.

The proroguing issue is, in itself, a good example of the flawed thinking of the Brexiteers who support the idea. If a group of people do not want our MPs to act in a certain way, there is a perfectly well established and constitutional way of democratically resolving the issue - the electorate express their will at the ballot box and vote in a majority of MPs who will support a no-deal Brexit. If they succeed, that is democratic. If they do not, that is also democratic. Proroguing parliament to prevent MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit is deeply undemocratic and will have far-reaching consequences for our global credibility and national stability.

If you cannot get that setting the Government on a collision course with parliament is a bad thing, then this country is in an even more parlous state than I imagined

[DeepEnd]

digimeistter said:

Lots of triggered happy clappers on this morning.

Most wouldn't know a fascist if they came up and knocked on their window. (If they even exist these day)

I would love to know what the definition of "far right" actually is?

Seems to be anyone that wants a sensible controlled immigration policy and disagree with what the EU has become.

The politics.co.uk article is aiming at your argument about not seeing anything worrying in far right messaging.

You seem to expect the manifestos to spell out really bad things - so you can easily think “ah - Baddies”, but surely you can understand it is far more subtle than this.

In considering the linked manifesto for AfD, what about this sentence :

“Non-citizens may live in Germany, but there will be special laws for foreigners living in Germany.”

Is this OK for you?

[Dr Jekyll]

ClaphamGT3 said:

If a group of people do not want our MPs to act in a certain way, there is a perfectly well established and constitutional way of democratically resolving the issue - the electorate express their will at the ballot box and vote in a majority of MPs who will support a no-deal Brexit. If they succeed, that is democratic. If they do not, that is also democratic. Proroguing parliament to prevent MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit is deeply undemocratic and will have far-reaching consequences for our global credibility and national stability.

The electorate has expressed their will and voted in a majority that supported having a referendum and abiding by the result, then voted to Leave, not 'Leave if there's a deal', not 'Leave if the EU let's us', just Leave.
Then the electorate voted in another majority who also supported leaving.

A pattern is starting to emerge......