Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[thehowler]

2 minutes ago, rollover said:

But now it's not enough, they have to deliver what they promised "Brexit". Can they? I still think no!

Understood - so what do they do about the vote?

[thehowler]

11 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You wouldn't be too impressed with a builder who turned around and said "Well, could you do a better job?"

Fair, yet builders get a few years training - you'd hope - whereas nobody in politics was prepared/briefed/experienced in anything like the momentousness of Brexit.

[Pitchfork]

8 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Yes, as they're the same race.

 

So you are saying that Aunt Jemima is not a racist slur then?

"Aunt Jemima and Uncle Tom were two very offensive and divisive terms used by black slaves to describe other blacks"

 

[GrizzlyDave]

White on white racism is surely demonstrated by events such as the holocaust?

As for calling British Asians Gammon - please don’t; many Muslims would take great offence.

[jonb2]

5 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Are British Asians who voted brexit Gammon?

https://www.politico.eu/article/immigrants-who-voted-for-brexit-luton-migration/

No, they are not. It made me laugh the first time I heard it and still does. It's a reference to a certain type of person and their self-inflicted appearance.

You obviously see it in pure Brexit terms. I see it as a type of white person. I immediately thought of Hogarth when I heard it.

I think it obviously hits home for leavers. This is after 2 years of putting up with remoaner b*llocks. It just equals the scales.

It's an insult which works apparently. Conflating it with racism is a bad defence.

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Sorry, but it's you who keeps twisting it inside and out RQ, as it's demonstrable it's at least as democratic as the UK.  You're the one stretching it beyond reason.

In the UK we elect the people who decide what the policy and the laws will be, although there's a democratic deficit in that those decisions have to get through an unelected chamber, although some of the members of that chamber have been appointed by the elected one.

In the EU the source of policy is a small group appointed by the member governments, who then swear to serve the EU, not their country of origin, and who can originate policy that those governments have to comply with, although that policy has to get through an elected body which can also in theory take down the Commission with a vote of no confidence. The Commissioners do not represent the states they come from. This is explicit. I don't know if a government can recall a Commissioner they've appointed.

Are those demonstrably as democratic as each other?

[rollover]

17 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I'd avoid that one. There are all sorts of things that I couldn't do a better job with, which is why I expect the people who take those jobs on to be better at them than me. You wouldn't be too impressed with a builder who turned around and said "Well, could you do a better job?" as you stand surrounded by the rubble of your collapsed house. People get paid to do better jobs than the people who aren't doing those jobs.

Yes, I can agree with you on this one.

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Fair, yet builders get a few years training - you'd hope - whereas nobody in politics was prepared/briefed/experienced in anything like the momentousness of Brexit.

That's why you need very capable people in the top jobs (dream on ever getting them...)

[thehowler]

42 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

54 minutes ago, thehowler said:

appears to many to be without democratic accountability. I guess the Commission is the necessary burden/cost of the EU's ambition.

Stop with this, it's been disproven so many times.

I thought I was being fairly light in this, "appears to many to be" is too extreme for you? You don't think many people think this?

43 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

There has never been real tension twixt France and Germany,

Just don't know what to say to this. Aside from Franco-German regional hostility being recorded since Caesar's campaign diaries, I find it hard to equate the Fall of France with your "never been real tension". I'd call panzers on the lawn real tension. I'd call Paris occupied real tension. But then I'd also call the Franco-Prussian war real tension.

[Pitchfork]

1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

No, they are not. It made me laugh the first time I heard it and still does. It's a reference to a certain type of person and their self-inflicted appearance.

 

Being white is not self inflicted.

The term has a criteria of being white. I notice that as you have lost that arguement you are trying to argue its about a type of person and their appearance.

If anyone is getting upset it appears to be those who are desperately trying to jusify something which is unjustifiable.

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

Being white is not self inflicted.

The term has a criteria of being white. I notice that as you have lost that arguement you are trying to argue its about a type of person and their appearance.

If anyone is getting upset it appears to be those who are desperately trying to jusify something which is unjustifiable.

Self-inflicted parts to it or not it's ultimately based on someone's appearance, whereas "remoaner" is based on their views. IMO that makes the former shallower. Both are rather lazy namecalling though.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Riedquat

[rollover]

23 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Understood - so what do they do about the vote?

A bit too late to ask this question now.

Quote

 

Hansel and Gretel

The next day, the witch prepares the oven for Hansel, but decides she is hungry enough to eat Gretel too. She coaxes Gretel to the open oven and prods her to lean over in front of it to see if the fire is hot enough. Gretel, sensing the witch's intent, pretends she does not understand what she means. Infuriated, the witch demonstrates and Gretel instantly shoves the hag into the oven, slams and bolts the door shut, leaving "the ungodly creature to be burned to ashes", screaming in pain until she dies.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by rollover

[jonb2]

2 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

Being white is not self inflicted.

The term has a criteria of being white. I notice that as you have lost that arguement you are trying to argue its about a type of person and their appearance.

If anyone is getting upset it appears to be those who are desperately trying to jusify something which is unjustifiable.

I think you have missed the nuance of the word as applied Pitchfork. Nothing others say will change your mind. You are set concrete.

You have your interpretation which is convenient to the argument you want to make. I see it as funny, a sharp witty definition.

Let's just disagree -

Love

Honky Jon

 

[jonb2]

34 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Firstly, no, it has been proven so many times despite your insistence to the contrary that relies on twisting yourself in knots and stretching the definitions to breaking point to claim democratic accountability.

Secondly, what makes you so certain that it's the EU that's kept peace? That another part of the world, even if it happens to be a neighbouring one, hasn't stayed peaceful tells you nothing much one way or the other. The furthest I think you can reliably go there is that the EU at least partially grew out of changing attitudes within Western Europe about the centuries of fighting each other - both the lack of wars there and the EU were consequences, not one the cause of the other.

America, had a nasty vicious war. The USA was conceived to ensure it did not happen again. Europe has had even more vicious wars and has enjoyed its longest period of peace since the second world war.

People working together, with all the problems it brings, is ten times better than shutting yourself away in a cellar (Brexit).

[Pitchfork]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Self-inflicted parts to it or not it's ultimately based on someone's appearance, whereas "remoaner" is based on their views. IMO that makes the former shallower. Both are rather lazy namecalling though.

I agree and yes you are spot on, the big difference is one is based on views and the other on views plus physical appearance and race . Even putting aside the race issue, to call people names based on appearance is rather low.

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

America, had a nasty vicious war. The USA was conceived to ensure it did not happen again. Europe has had even more vicious wars and has enjoyed its longest period of peace since the second world war.

People working together, with all the problems it brings, is ten times better than shutting yourself away in a cellar (Brexit).

The USA had a nasty, vicious war. Europe had had enough of war after the Second World War, that's responsible for the peace.

Brexit isn't about shutting yourself away in a cellar. Forcing people together though, whether they want to or not, certainly causes tension that can erupt into something nasty.

[Pitchfork]

9 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

I think you have missed the nuance of the word as applied Pitchfork. Nothing others say will change your mind. You are set concrete.

You have your interpretation which is convenient to the argument you want to make. I see it as funny, a sharp witty definition.

Let's just disagree -

Love

Honky Jon

 

Happy to disagree and lots of love back at ya.

I'm happy to reconsider my views if anyone can provide a good reasoned arguement. But until then, I'll keep my view that derogatory slurs aimed at people of a defined race are abhorrent.

I also disagree about it being a funny, sharp witty definition. It's about as funny as Rosanne Barrs tweet.

[HairyOb1]

16 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

So you are saying that Aunt Jemima is not a racist slur then?

"Aunt Jemima and Uncle Tom were two very offensive and divisive terms used by black slaves to describe other blacks"

In Uncle Toms Cabin, it was used racially in positive terms, in the reference term of a slave calling another slave an Uncle Tom, no, it was a derogatory term used to degenerate a fellow black person.  You really should know this shit.

16 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

White on white racism is surely demonstrated by events such as the holocaust?

As for calling British Asians Gammon - please don’t; many Muslims would take great offence.

It depends on what you consider race; Jews are commonly understood to share DNA. It was classed as genocide, which derives from the greek Genos (race, people), so yes, it was racist.

I was being facetious, as were you...  Lets not play the raw prawn here...

12 minutes ago, thehowler said:

I thought I was being fairly light in this, "appears to many to be" is too extreme for you? You don't think many people think this?

Just don't know what to say to this. Aside from Franco-German regional hostility being recorded since Caesar's campaign diaries, I find it hard to equate the Fall of France with your "never been real tension". I'd call panzers on the lawn real tension. I'd call Paris occupied real tension. But then I'd also call the Franco-Prussian war real tension.

I think, by now, you know my history.  If you are using those terms to describe tension, then you can apply it historically to any country - Anglo Italian tension, Franco-Anglo tension, Dutch-Anglo tension.  And if you remember your history, Tanks were parked on French lawns after the French joined a war, because they were part of a pact, and that Germany had invaded Poland, part of Prussia.

If you can bring up Ceasar, then I can bring up the Danes who ruled over us afterwards, so maybe there are Anglo-Dane tensions

7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Self-inflicted parts to it or not it's ultimately based on someone's appearance, whereas "remoaner" is based on their views. IMO that makes the former shallower. Both are rather lazy namecalling though.

No, this is where you get it wrong; the term was used to define someone who was a red faced, white angry, older, brexiteer.  It was  wind up that worked.  It was a lazy stereotype.  The last part I agree with; both are lazy name calling.

4 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

I think you have missed the nuance of the word as applied Pitchfork. Nothing others say will change your mind. You are set concrete.

You have your interpretation which is convenient to the argument you want to make. I see it as funny, a sharp witty definition.

Let's just disagree -

Love

Honky Jon

 

My bold, I agree completely.  The chap is turning himself inside out to redefine what he's already defined a few times differently - It's the mark of someone who doesn't want to debate, he just doesn't want to be wrong..

[GrizzlyDave]

15 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

I think you have missed the nuance of the word as applied Pitchfork. Nothing others say will change your mind. You are set concrete.

You have your interpretation which is convenient to the argument you want to make. I see it as funny, a sharp witty definition.

Let's just disagree -

Love

Honky Jon

 

Is this nuanced?

[HairyOb1]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The USA had a nasty, vicious war. Europe had had enough of war after the Second World War, that's responsible for the peace.

Brexit isn't about shutting yourself away in a cellar. Forcing people together though, whether they want to or not, certainly causes tension that can erupt into something nasty.

Ah, ok, so the whoe reason we have peace, is because we were tired of war in Europe.  Except in certain cases, like the Balkans...  No, they weren't tired.

I know, all that tension in the EU, with them all at each other's throats,w e're wise to leave and avoid that forced bonhomie....

2 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

Happy to disagree and lots of love back at ya.

I'm happy to reconsider my views if anyone can provide a good reasoned arguement. But until then, I'll keep my view that derogatory slurs aimed at people of a defined race are abhorrent.

I also disagree about it being a funny, sharp witty definition. It's about as funny as Rosanne Barrs tweet.

Which one, she's been on point a few times, quite witty.

I think it's hilarious on many levels.  The most seeing so many people upset about it all.  Mostly those of a certain, persuasion, lets say.

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Is this nuanced?

It's funny. The wall of gammon.

You know nothing Jon Snow...

[Pitchfork]

4 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

In Uncle Toms Cabin, it was used racially in positive terms, in the reference term of a slave calling another slave an Uncle Tom, no, it was a derogatory term used to degenerate a fellow black person.  You really should know this shit.

 

 

Not sure what you mean, could you clarify that as you didn't answer the question? Are you saying black on back is racist or not? Is white on white racist?

 

[jonb2]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

The USA had a nasty, vicious war. Europe had had enough of war after the Second World War, that's responsible for the peace.

Brexit isn't about shutting yourself away in a cellar. Forcing people together though, whether they want to or not, certainly causes tension that can erupt into something nasty.

I have always said people have a right to be upset about immigration. I have never argued otherwise - it needs recognition.

But.

Blair and subsequent Governments were responsible for Brexit IMO. They had a choice to control immigration. As for the point of politicians not being aware of the complexity of leaving - that's just plain lazy incompetence and there is NO excuse. Our lot have had 40 years of running this place down. They need to go and be replaced by a system fit for purpose. Only then will people be happier.

Brexit solves nothing. We have but a short period of time on earth and can't have this gift fecked over by the collective group of tossers known as the Tories, not that I think Corbyn will be much better.

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

No, this is where you get it wrong; the term was used to define someone who was a red faced, white angry, older, brexiteer.  It was  wind up that worked.  It was a lazy stereotype.  The last part I agree with; both are lazy name calling.

Does it conjour up an image of a type of person? Of course it does, as some of those old cartoons that have been posted show. Yes, it's a lazy stereotype. I'm not 100% against those in all circumstances (plenty of comedy makes use of them), but it unquestionably heavily leans on appearance.

[Pitchfork]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

It's funny.

Mocking people because of their physical appearance is funny? Fair enough, each to their own.