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

[Dr Jekyll]

wc98 said:

i don't think there has been a time since i was born that it has been more important to read all political parties/organisations literature. it can be hard work but as i said at the moment detail is important.
i am now up to page 56 and there are a few things i take issue with (you should have read it, way before the section on islam they take appear to take the jrm view toward abortion, though for different reasons ) but on the section you reference, 7.6 onward, the only problem i have is with their stance on religious clothing worn by women. people should be free to wear what they like when they like in public as long as no dangly or wrinkly bits hang out , imo.

the bit in bold below i have issues with, the subsequent non bolded part i don't. so just like every uk political party they have policy i agree with and disagree with.

Islam does not belong to Germany. Itsexpansionandthe
everincreasingnumberofMuslimsinthecountryare
viewedbytheAfDasadangertoourstate, oursociety, andourvalues An Islam which neither respects nor refrains
from being in conflict with our legal system, or that even
lays claim to power as the only true religion, is incompatible
with our legal system and our culture. Many Muslims live
as law-abiding and well-integrated citizens amongst us, and
are accepted and valued members of our society. However,
the AfD demands that an end is put to the formation and
increased segregation by parallel Islamic societies relying
on courts with shari’a laws. The AfD wishes to curb a trend
towards religious radicalisation amongst Muslims, and these
turning into violent Salafists or terrorists.

Surely the bit you didn't bold clarifies the meaning of the bit you did. Specifically it's segregation and Sharia law they have an issue with, not individual Muslims.

[psi310398]

Garvin said:

AfD are not pushing an anti-Islam message per se but are clearly pushing an anti sharia law agenda as being contrary to the extant laws of Germany. I think most people here would be uncomfortable with sharia law taking hold in their society.

They are also against full face covering dress, as per the French, and it is a moot point, regardless of religion, as to whether society should accept people wandering around with their faces fully/mostly covered. Personally I would not interact with anyone who covers their face whether it be a religious dress or, say, a balaclava. I would be very uncomfortable if this became an accepted norm in our society.

As for the 1920 Nazi manifesto saying the same about Jews this is clearly not the case. Point 4 alone of the Nazi manifesto goes way beyond anything the AfD are proposing.

There is also the not entirely trivial point that Judaism is a more complicated case, as it is, by almost all definitions, a race as well as a religion, while Islam is not. Judaism is not a convert-seeking or proselytising religion while Islam has an open door policy. It is very difficult/impossible for a non-Jew to convert and be recognised as Jewish by most strands of Judaism while I cannot think of a strand of Islam that rejects converts.

Anyhow, it is IMO perfectly acceptable to be anti any belief system but it is not acceptable to be racist.

It would be interesting to see what the AfD’s views on Christian black African immigrants are, however...

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

I agree there will be bits I agree with and bits I don't.

I think the question is how much would you tolerate to get what you want.

For example if a party stood on that manifesto in the UK and they were the only party offering Brexit, would you vote for them knowing that's their policy?

At the risk of sounding repetitive if Labour pulled that stunt with a specific "Ways we'll treat Jews differently" section of their manifesto they'd be utterly lambasted and rightly so.

Again, we don't have the AfD here, we had and have UKIP and we have Farage who seems happy to stand on a platform with these people.

Here's the problem. You started out saying these were alt right extremists, with a fascist agenda having not actually read their manifesto or knowing a single one of their policies. After a whole day of people reading their full manifesto, we have one section that talks about Sharia law. Now, agreed, the language is inflammatory and it's right to be concerned about their intentions, but when you go from being concerned to demanding our politicians never talk to these guys - though you accept even you may agree with parts of their manifesto - I find it hard to trust your judgement.

It's the same with DeepEnd going full tinfoil hat on the discussion and being unable to distinguish between current politics and Nazis under the bed - you've come to the debate so deeply embedded with your expectations that you read everything trying to imagine an ulterior motive. It doesn't make for reasoned argument.

Nor does it actually address the issues we face. If you accuse the Brexit Party of being like UKIP, they will dismiss you as a Remaniac who doesn't understand their policies (with some justification). You could talk about the immaturity of the party, their inexperienced MEPs and candidates, the questionable selection process and the teething problems they're going through - all fair game. So talking about something that isn't true just writes you out of the debate.

You asked how much 'we' would tolerate - well it turns out, not UKIP, not even slightly in its current form. So trying to link The Brexit Party to imagined policies of another country's party makes very little sense.

Edited by Tuna on Monday 22 July 08:46

[bitchstewie]

Tuna said:

Here's the problem. You started out saying these were alt right extremists, with a fascist agenda having not actually read their manifesto or knowing a single one of their policies. After a whole day of people reading their full manifesto, we have one section that talks about Sharia law. Now, agreed, the language is inflammatory and it's right to be concerned about their intentions, but when you go from being concerned to demanding our politicians never talk to these guys - though you accept even you may agree with parts of their manifesto - I find it hard to trust your judgement.

It's the same with DeepEnd going full tinfoil hat on the discussion and being unable to distinguish between current politics and Nazis under the bed - you've come to the debate so deeply embedded with your expectations that you read everything trying to imagine an ulterior motive. It doesn't make for reasoned argument.

Nor does it actually address the issues we face. If you accuse the Brexit Party of being like UKIP, they will dismiss you as a Remaniac who doesn't understand their policies (with some justification). You could talk about the immaturity of the party, their inexperienced MEPs and candidates, the questionable selection process and the teething problems they're going through - all fair game. So talking about something that isn't true just writes you out of the debate.

What I've done is to highlight their own written manifesto and suggest it may not be a good idea for Farage to share a platform with them if he's trying to show he doesn't have some slightly grubby views.

I'm sure you'll point me to where I was "demanding our politicians never talk to these guys" rather than suggesting that being a guest speaker at one of their rallies isn't the best look.

I've have asked if people would be comfortable if a mainstream UK party had a manifesto that singled out another religious group for special treatment i.e. Jews?

I've have asked if people think it's sound judgement for Farage to share a platform with the AfD?

Both are pretty simple questions and shouldn't demand too much thought.

I wouldn't and I wouldn't vote for them.

I don't believe it is.

If people think both are OK or want to try and pretend there's some subtle nuance I'm missing then I'd question their judgement.

One day it may be them on the receiving end of such a manifesto.

[gooner1]

bhstewie said:

What I've done is to highlight their own written manifesto and suggest it may not be a good idea for Farage to share a platform with them if he's trying to show he doesn't have some slightly grubby views.

I'm sure you'll point me to where I was "demanding our politicians never talk to these guys" rather than suggesting that being a guest speaker at one of their rallies isn't the best look.

I've have asked if people would be comfortable if a mainstream UK party had a manifesto that singled out another religious group for special treatment i.e. Jews?

I've have asked if people think it's sound judgement for Farage to share a platform with the AfD?

Both are pretty simple questions and shouldn't demand too much thought.

I wouldn't and I wouldn't vote for them.

I don't believe it is.

If people think both are OK or want to try and pretend there's some subtle nuance I'm missing then I'd question their judgement.

One day it may be them on the receiving end of such a manifesto.

That could also apply to the current bunch trying to thwart a democratically reached decision.

[bitchstewie]

gooner1 said:

That could also apply to the current bunch trying to thwart a democratically reached decision.

Yes I'm sure there's an equivalence between leaving the EU and having special laws applied to you because of your religion.

[gooner1]

bhstewie said:

gooner1 said:

That could also apply to the current bunch trying to thwart a democratically reached decision.

Yes I'm sure there's an equivalence between leaving the EU and having special laws applied to you because of your religion.

Is that what I said? .

You seem to be making a habit of misrepresenting members posts, and making
stupidly wild assumptions. Why is that?

[Helicopter123]

Sir Alan Duncan has quit as a Foreign Office minister in protest against a possible Boris Johnson victory in the Conservative leadership race.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49069880

Hardly a surprise, but it does mean he is no longer obliged to vote with the government and thus free to oppose any attempt at a "no deal" Brexit.

Others may follow.

[bitchstewie]

gooner1 said:

bhstewie said:

gooner1 said:

That could also apply to the current bunch trying to thwart a democratically reached decision.

Yes I'm sure there's an equivalence between leaving the EU and having special laws applied to you because of your religion.

Is that what I said? .

You seem to be making a habit of misrepresenting members posts, and making
stupidly wild assumptions. Why is that?

I took "That could also apply..." to be suggesting some sort of equivalence.

Apologies if you meant something else by it.

[bitchstewie]

Helicopter123 said:

Sir Alan Duncan has quit as a Foreign Office minister in protest against a possible Boris Johnson victory in the Conservative leadership race.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49069880

Hardly a surprise, but it does mean he is no longer obliged to vote with the government and thus free to oppose any attempt at a "no deal" Brexit.

Others may follow.

There's a suggestion that Boris won't have a majority before he's even taken office.

[psi310398]

bhstewie said:

There's a suggestion that Boris won't have a majority before he's even taken office.

But if he commands the largest minority, he’ll still be invited to try to form a minority government. Unless you are really suggesting that Tory MPs will support a Corbyn administration...

Anyhow, an early election beckons.

[bitchstewie]

psi310398 said:

But if he commands the largest minority, he’ll still be invited to try to form a minority government. Unless you are really suggesting that Tory MPs will support a Corbyn administration...

Anyhow, an early election beckons.

I don't even know how it would work in reality.

Interesting times ahead that's for sure

[Tuna]

Helicopter123 said:

Others may follow.

Where's the Eastenders doof-doof sting when you need it?

I'd be quite surprised if others didn't follow. May tolerated some quite challenging views given her job was to actually deliver Brexit.

Johnson has set out his stall, so those hoping it'll all just go away are having to face the music. Frankly, resigning at the prospect of having to do what your manifesto said you'd do pretty much sums up the idiocy of this government.

[Murph7355]

Tuna said:

Helicopter123 said:

Others may follow.

Where's the Eastenders doof-doof sting when you need it?

I'd be quite surprised if others didn't follow. May tolerated some quite challenging views given her job was to actually deliver Brexit.

Johnson has set out his stall, so those hoping it'll all just go away are having to face the music. Frankly, resigning at the prospect of having to do what your manifesto said you'd do pretty much sums up the idiocy of this government.

Nailed on that there'll be others. Plenty of them.

Can't imagine Johnson will be that bothered with people like Hammond, Duncan and presumably faces like Gauke and Stewart going. I would have thought he'd have replaced them anyway if they didn't jump.

It's also inevitable, IMO, that chunks of current Tory MPs are likely to vote against much of what he tries to do. The question will then be how many, and how many Labour MPs will net that off.

Where Brexit is concerned I'm not sure how much that will ultimately matter come 31st October as Parliament already set the default action. Grieve seems to be of the opinion that if a PM is strong willed enough there's not much can be done to stop the government - VoNC is likely to be the only route I suspect. Though I could quite easily see some modest "adjustments" being made to May's WA that would get it through. Ho hum if not.

The real trouble for Johnson will come after 31st October. Once Brexit is done, it will be interesting to see how many Tory MPs are prepared to vote against him.

[wc98]

amusingduck said:

wc98 said:

apologies for the joined up paragraph of letters, if anyone knows who is responsible for the formatting on here could you give me their home address, i will give them a good shoeing then make them come back and reformat it to actually work properly the most basic forums these days have a function where a one click highlight then one click on "bold" actually works. i know it is probably down to the spacing in the copied part of the document,but ffs it really isn't hard to get right.

That'd be the user writing the post

wc98 said:

Islam does not belong to Germany. [b]Its[/b]   [b]expansion[/b]   [b]and[/b]   [b]the[/b] 
[b]ever[/b] [b]increasing[/b]  [b]number[/b]  [b]of[/b]  [b]Muslims[/b]  [b]in[/b]  [b]the[/b]  [b]country[/b] [b]are[/b] 
[b]viewed[/b]  [b]by[/b]  [b]the[/b]  [b]AfD[/b]  [b]as[/b]  [b]a[/b]  [b]danger[/b]  [b]to[/b]  [b]our[/b] [b]state[/b],  [b]our[/b]  [b]society[/b],  [b]and[/b]  [b]our[/b]  [b]values[/b] An Islam which neither respects nor refrains

-----------------
Here's where it went wrong. You wrap the bold tags around the section, not the original words. If the section crosses multiple lines, you need to wrap the bold tags around each line. Like this:
-----------------

Islam does not belong to Germany. [b]Its expansion and the[/b] 
[b]ever increasing number of Muslims in the country are[/b] 
[b]viewed by the AfD as a danger to our state,  our society,  and our values[/b] An Islam which neither respects nor refrains

Which gives:

wc98 said:

Islam does not belong to Germany. Its expansion and the
ever increasing number of Muslims in the country are
viewed by the AfD as a danger to our state, our society, and our values An Islam which neither respects nor refrains

just hit myself in the balls with a walking boot

[wc98]

Dr Jekyll said:

Surely the bit you didn't bold clarifies the meaning of the bit you did. Specifically it's segregation and Sharia law they have an issue with, not individual Muslims.

it sort of does, i should probably have just highlighted the "ever increasing numbers of muslims in the country" being dangerous. i don't agree with that. increasing numbers of people hell bent on extremism , fair enough,but they are a tiny proportion of the muslim population in the west.

[Robertj21a]

Helicopter123 said:

Sir Alan Duncan has quit as a Foreign Office minister in protest against a possible Boris Johnson victory in the Conservative leadership race.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49069880

Hardly a surprise, but it does mean he is no longer obliged to vote with the government and thus free to oppose any attempt at a "no deal" Brexit.

Others may follow.

Presumably a true patriot.....

[Helicopter123]

bhstewie said:

psi310398 said:

But if he commands the largest minority, he’ll still be invited to try to form a minority government. Unless you are really suggesting that Tory MPs will support a Corbyn administration...

Anyhow, an early election beckons.

I don't even know how it would work in reality.

Interesting times ahead that's for sure

I would be confident that (as things stand) Boris would command a majority on anything bar Brexit so in theory he should still be able to govern and pass a budget albeit with the help of the DUP (who will presumably require another bung).

If he were to lose the upcoming bi-election however, and then potentially lose MPs to the Lib Dems then we must be in GE territory.

[wc98]

bhstewie said:

I agree there will be bits I agree with and bits I don't.

I think the question is how much would you tolerate to get what you want.

For example if a party stood on that manifesto in the UK and they were the only party offering Brexit, would you vote for them knowing that's their policy?

At the risk of sounding repetitive if Labour pulled that stunt with a specific "Ways we'll treat Jews differently" section of their manifesto they'd be utterly lambasted and rightly so.

Again, we don't have the AfD here, we had and have UKIP and we have Farage who seems happy to stand on a platform with these people.

that is the million dollar question, at the moment no, i wouldn't vote for them. having now read to page 86 and being pleasantly surprised by much of the content i have to say it really only is a couple of points i take issue with. same situation with all uk parties, i have to compromise my view or i wouldn't vote for any of them ever.

i will also risk sounding repetitive but could you be more specific on the exact words you have issues with in the manifesto. i think they are taking issue with certain aspects of islam, not islam or muslims as a whole. in relation to the uk and jews, i can think of one area that would target an aspect of their belief i would be happy to see a law change, that would be circumcision. that wouldn't be targeting because they were jewish ,but making a practice carried out for religious reasons illegal.

[Helicopter123]

Could be another bi-election looming...

Tory MP Elphicke charged with sexual assault.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-4907246...