UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?

He almost verbatim said what I said he did, the only difference is that he broke one of the statements into two and put the other statement in the middle inside brackets. I just moved them apart for clarity, but used the same words. So I politely disagree there.
You can disagree all you want, just please do remember that I replied to the post at the top of the page first, and not to the posts before that. And even then, like I said, they're ambiguous.
Well it wasn't clear to you (although apparently it was because you've also said you entirely understood what he was saying...).
No, I said I understood the points he was getting at the way you explained them. This was separate to Edward claiming "Leave" (as a word by itself) was subverted into "Brexit" (also a word by itself).

To say nothing of the propaganda claim.

Now, I could of course jumped to conclusions, but I don't think that's a reasonable thing to do, because regardless of whether or not the logical leap is correct, the logical leap is all that would be focused on. Just as it is with this huge semantic tangent, here, which I could sum up as "it's clear to you but not immediately so to me".

For some reason, the idea that such sentences aren't immediately clear is objectionable, or rather, correctable (at length). I don’t really get why.
I don't know what to tell you here. If you can honestly claim that you've never said that any statement is "clear" unless you've checked that absolutely everybody ever has understood it, then I'll accept this criticism.
This is a rather interesting misinterpretation of my words. A statement can be found to be unclear by anyone.

There are other such things to focus on, if clarity is your reasoning here. Which is why I asked some other things, that you opted not to quote nor respond to. Not that I'm in any way forcing you, I was just trying to get past whatever this is, onto something a bit more substantial.
 
We won't. Not where it matters.
There was! Lots of it in fact, funded by a mixture of taxation and borrowing.

A bigger, bolder budget than I expected. A lot to like from my perspective. My only major quibble would be with healthcare spending, it’s needed given the current state of affairs but we have to find a different solution to throwing ever more money at it.

Regarding Brexit, I won’t weigh into the specifics of leave vs Brexit :D However, regarding Britains relationship with the EU, i do think many things can be laid at the door of the EU as much as Britain.

Take the free market for example. I think many people in Britain would like to be in the free market, but not have freedom of movement. It’s the EU’s choice to make those a package deal. It’s the UK’s choice not to take that package. But I would say each are (equally?) at fault for the status quo.

Another example that’s often trotted out is manual passport checks . Here I would argue that it is the EU who are choosing to impose these, and these are entirely the EU’s fault. (If anyone can provide me a good reason why these checks were suddenly needed post Brexit, I’m all ears)
 
Take the free market for example. I think many people in Britain would like to be in the free market, but not have freedom of movement.
The free market of labour is a core component of the free market.
If anyone can provide me a good reason why these checks were suddenly needed post Brexit, I’m all ears
The hardening of EU borders is about migration, not brexit. I am not going to call it a good reason, and it is certainly the EU's choice to do it.
 
Here I would argue that it is the EU who are choosing to impose these, and these are entirely the EU’s fault. (If anyone can provide me a good reason why these checks were suddenly needed post Brexit, I’m all ears)
When it comes to "suddenly" needed, I doubt they were. Legislation takes time to draft, vote on, and then implement. Unless you have evidence that it was rushed? In the absence of any other evidence, schadenfreude seems the most likely reaction.

Regardless, as it is it's kind of just throwing questions into the void.

Do you disagree that the EU can't control its own borders however it wants, just as the UK wants to with its own (seeing as that's what both our major parties are pursuing these days).
 
The free market of labour is a core component of the free market.

The hardening of EU borders is about migration, not brexit. I am not going to call it a good reason, and it is certainly the EU's choice to do it.
To your first point, it is because the EU says it is. There is no fundamental reason why tariff free goods must be combined with freedom to work, as many other trade deals show. The point I am making is that the EU is making a choice as much as Britain is.


When it comes to "suddenly" needed, I doubt they were. Legislation takes time to draft, vote on, and then implement. Unless you have evidence that it was rushed? In the absence of any other evidence, schadenfreude seems the most likely reaction.

Regardless, as it is it's kind of just throwing questions into the void.

Do you disagree that the EU can't control its own borders however it wants, just as the UK wants to with its own (seeing as that's what both our major parties are pursuing these days).

The EU can of course choose to control borders how it likes. But when encountering longer queues at passport control, the common theme to Brits is ‘you voted for this’. (Maybe you haven’t appreciated this sentiment - in which case imagine you have). My point is that no, Britains didn’t vote for it. They voted to leave the EU, but everyone likes a speedy route through passport control. There is no reason why leaving the EU requires enhanced border checks on British citizens, other than the EU has decided to impose them. Therefore the enhanced border checks are actually entirely the EU’s fault, rather than Britain’s.

This is one small example, but it shows how transactional and one sided the EU is as a negotiator. It should be an ally, but in many ways it doesn’t act like that. As @EnglishEdward said, Barnier massively overreached, thinking that by turning the screw he was doing his citizens a favour, when in fact it was quite the opposite.
 
The EU can of course choose to control borders how it likes. But when encountering longer queues at passport control, the common theme to Brits is ‘you voted for this’. (Maybe you haven’t appreciated this sentiment - in which case imagine you have). My point is that no, Britains didn’t vote for it.
But we did vote for it. Or rather, as mentioned, we were hoodwinked into believing the EU does nothing for us. Turns out, they did a few things!

We voted to leave the EU (as Edward and Manfred insist on the phrasing of). Anything else is a downstream consequence of that. And that is on us. Or the people who pushed it. Your choice!
There is no reason why leaving the EU requires enhanced border checks on British citizens, other than the EU has decided to impose them.
There isn't?

Morally, I agree. But morally I disagree with this country's approach to immigration.

Both ruling parties have put forward many reasons why we need stricter immigration. I'm sure the EU can provide a reason why they needed stricter checks. Feels very one-sided, suggesting they have no reason to.
As @EnglishEdward said, Barnier massively overreached, thinking that by turning the screw he was doing his citizens a favour, when in fact it was quite the opposite.
Alternatively, we were just terrible at negotiating and / or estimated our leverage we were hoping to rely on.

I think I said this a page or so back, but it's never our fault eh? ;)
 
We voted to leave the EU (as Edward and Manfred insist on the phrasing of). Anything else is a downstream consequence of that. And that is on us. Or the people who pushed it. Your choice!
This is where we disagree. There are always two sides. Rather than act as an ally, respecting a democratic decision of a member, the EU went into punishment mode. Not only did they hurt Britain, they hurt themselves in doing so.

I don’t think Britain was right to vote for Brexit, but the consequences are equally at fault to both parties.
 
This is where we disagree. There are always two sides. Rather than act as an ally, respecting a democratic decision of a member, the EU went into punishment mode. Not only did they hurt Britain, they hurt themselves in doing so.

I don’t think Britain was right to vote for Brexit, but the consequences are equally at fault to both parties.
I think any blaming of the EU for something we leapt into, kept pushing for every chance we got, and all the while campaigned on effectively slander of the EU to keep public momentum going is . . . well, it's good to keep an open mind. But I don't think the EU owed us anything, and that we were the party in that relationship to burn all the bridges.

I think if the EU wanted to punish us, they absolutely could have. However, having actually used my passport in the last few months, I don't think a slightly longer queue (given how they always used to take ages anyway) is really the proverbial kick in the privates the Barnier was sitting in a room cackling about, Mr. Burns-style.
 
I understand that there is a distinction between paying off the slave owners (long ago) and paying off the
last part of the rolled over national debt that was notionally partitioned as incurred in paying off the slave owners.

IIRC my history lessons the slave owners were only paid off about a quarter of the then market rate for slaves,
so they took a 3/4 capital hit on those assets. The thing is most freed slaves had limited opportunities
and so they kept working at the plantation, but were paid for that with lodging, food and petty cash.
The slave owners gained a capital sum, but had higher ongoing payments for labour.

Now the extent to which the capital sum was re-invested over in government stock that required
repayment is not known to me.

There was some blowback to abolition. When the Boers in South Africa heard that slavery was going
to be abolished throughout the empire, they decided to re-categorise all their black slaves as indentured servants.
This backfired because it meant they got no payments from the UK government for them and
was one of the reasons they went off on their vertrek huff to the Transvaal outside the British Empire..

But tracking the money is quite complicated, and the newspapers prefer a simpler attention grasping headline.
Oh no, as i already linked to, it was British sovereign debt until 2015, so that has to have been well documented.
Cameron refused to set any safeguards on the referendum, allowed his own cabinet to dilute the Govt's desired message and then abruptly resigned rather than face up to the mess he made, but no, I don't think he deliberately acted to produce a bad Brexit.
He had been cowardly, mendacious and incompetent all along (see Benghazi), so why should we be surprised that he acted the same way regarding Brexit?
 
This is where we disagree. There are always two sides. Rather than act as an ally, respecting a democratic decision of a member, the EU went into punishment mode.
The EU actually respected the democratic decision. There was no denial of the vote, the result was accepted and it's the UK who acted like a dunce during the discussions (I clearly remember how the diplomat either didn't come or came completely unpreprared during each step of negotiations, kinda expecting they simply had to say "we want this" and it would be accepted, as if the EU didn't had its own agency and set of laws and procedures to respect).
What you call "punishment" is simply the loss of previous privileges from being in the EU. That's not "punishment", that's simply a change of status.
You were amply warned about it. You just chose to interpret "if you leave the club, you'll lose the advantages of being in the club" as threats and punishment rather than it being simply the normal and logical consequences.
 
. As @EnglishEdward said, Barnier massively overreached, thinking that by turning the screw he was doing his citizens a favour, when in fact it was quite the opposite.

I rather think that was @ Innonimatu's point not mine.


I do not pretend to be able to look into his head and guess Barnier's motivation.

But I understood that Theresa May wanted to quickly do deal to safeguard EU
citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, separately and prior to other matters.

That would have quickly relieved them of much uncertainty.

Such uncertainty was confounded by some Remainers falsely claiming the Leave voters wanted to deport them all.

But Barnier's policy was to maximise negotiating advantage rather than reassure EU citizens.


As to Boris Johnson's motivations for discouraging Zelensky to enter peace talks, I rather think that was more
due to Boris's desire for grandstanding by switching into Churchillian mode, than any plan for revenge.
 
May wanted to do lots of things, but every time her back benchers squeaked, she rolled over for them, again and again and again. She then even called that snap election which forced her into "supply and confidence" for the DUP. It sure was lucky that the billion-pound magic money tree was blooming that year!
 
Such uncertainty was confounded by some Remainers falsely claiming the Leave voters wanted to deport them all.
This is in the news today coincidentaly:

EU citizen who applied for pre-settled status is to be deported from Scotland

Costa Koushiappis, 39, who is Greek Cypriot, has been told to show up at Edinburgh airport at 7am on Friday to be forcibly put on a flight to Amsterdam just weeks after he received an email from the Home Office to say it could take a further 24 months to process his application for status.

Koushiappis’s original application for pre-settled status given to those in the country for less than five years before Brexit was rejected but he immediately requested an administrative review.

He was given an official certificate of application by the Home Office, a document that is designed to prove to employers, landlords and the NHS that the applicant has the right to work, reside and live in the country while a decision is pending.

He was detained for six hours in Edinburgh on Monday night after flying in from Amsterdam after a short trip, his fingerprints were taken and he said he was told by border officials there were not sufficient grounds to be in the country.

He had shown them the certificate of application and explained that he was working and living in the country for three years and was also living in the country before the Covid pandemic in 2020.

“They said I didn’t have enough or convincing information about my situation. They gave me three days to sort everything out. I said: ‘That is not possible. I have been here for three years living and working here. I have a flat, I have furniture, a vehicle – I can’t just leave things.’ They told me if they wanted to they could put me on a plane that night and they were giving me three days.”
 
Last edited:
I get that you're just explaining here, but does this distinction not set off some alarm bells in your head of the "no true Scotsman" variety? Like, we can fail Brexit but Brexit can never fail?
I get what you're saying, but that's a conversation to have with Edward really.
 
You can disagree all you want, just please do remember that I replied to the post at the top of the page first, and not to the posts before that. And even then, like I said, they're ambiguous.
Well I wasn't aware of how many of his posts you had read, but the top of that page was the middle of an exchange that only went back as far as the last (or maybe second to last) post on the previous page. But I don't think it's fair to claim that someone's statement is "ambiguous" just because you chose not to go back to their original statement on the previous page.
We voted to leave the EU (as Edward and Manfred insist on the phrasing of).
Can you be slightly less disingenuous please? You know perfectly well that I was attempting to explain my reading of Edward's post (clear though I thought it was), because you gave the impression you didn't understand it. I haven't insisted on any phrasing at all and you know this. I already said that I remembered the terms "Brexit" and "Leave" being used synonymously and even re-quoted myself when you claimed I'd said the exact opposite. Do I have to quote it again? As the forum's resident champion of good faith argumentation, could you maybe try and lead by example perhaps?
 
Last edited:
This is in the news today coincidentaly:

EU citizen who applied for pre-settled status is to be deported from Scotland

Costa Koushiappis, 39, who is Greek Cypriot, has been told to show up at Edinburgh airport at 7am on Friday to be forcibly put on a flight to Amsterdam just weeks after he received an email from the Home Office to say it could take a further 24 months to process his application for status.

Koushiappis’s original application for pre-settled status given to those in the country for less than five years before Brexit was rejected but he immediately requested an administrative review.

He was given an official certificate of application by the Home Office, a document that is designed to prove to employers, landlords and the NHS that the applicant has the right to work, reside and live in the country while a decision is pending.

He was detained for six hours in Edinburgh on Monday night after flying in from Amsterdam after a short trip, his fingerprints were taken and he said he was told by border officials there were not sufficient grounds to be in the country.

He had shown them the certificate of application and explained that he was working and living in the country for three years and was also living in the country before the Covid pandemic in 2020.

“They said I didn’t have enough or convincing information about my situation. They gave me three days to sort everything out. I said: ‘That is not possible. I have been here for three years living and working here. I have a flat, I have furniture, a vehicle – I can’t just leave things.’ They told me if they wanted to they could put me on a plane that night and they were giving me three days.”

So, having an application form is not the same as being granted permission to stay.

This is quite common in immigration situations.

The host authority may grant someone grace to remain while their appeal against a refused application is being
processed, but that does not mean that if that person voluntarily leaves the country; they are entitled to return.
 
But I don't think it's fair to claim that someone's statement is "ambiguous" just because you chose not to go back to their original statement on the previous page.
You can consider it unfair if you want. The original statement was also also ambiguous, just less so. I'd still have to have asked for clarification.
Can you be slightly less disingenuous please?
From the poster that then says this:
As the forum's resident champion of good faith argumentation, could you maybe try and lead by example perhaps?
That's hilarious :)

I'm not being disingenuous, but I will admit this is all very tiring. I'm just being as specific as possible. I didn't tag you, nobody forced you to read my comment.

You are the one still insisting that I didn't understand something when I've said twice I was asking for clarification, so if you don't mind I'll continue to be as specific as I feel I need to be.
 
From the poster that then says this:

That's hilarious :)
Explain the contradiction you're seeing there. Genuine appeal to either do better, or to stop calling other people out on perceived bad faith behaviour if you're not willing to live up to that standard yourself.
I'm not being disingenuous, but I will admit this is all very tiring. I'm just being as specific as possible. I didn't tag you, nobody forced you to read my comment.
What has being forced got to do with anything? You just claimed I've been insisting on terminology that someone else used, simply because I tried to explain what he was saying. I never insisted on the same terminology and even stated that I remember the two terms he was drawing a distinction between being used synonymously. "I didn't tag you, nobody forced you to read my comment" is a bit of a lazy retort to being called out on making a claim that you know is false.
You are the one still insisting that I didn't understand something when I've said twice I was asking for clarification, so if you don't mind I'll continue to be as specific as I feel I need to be.
Please point to where I insisted you didn't understand something. I said "you gave the impression that you didn't understand it". By your own logic, if that's the impression I got then it's fair to say it gave that impression no? It does seem somewhat contradictory that you keep saying you understood exactly what he meant, whilst simultaneously you also keep saying that you didn't read his initial post on the previous page and that what he said was ambiguous, but it's no skin off my nose. If you say you understood it then I accept you understood it. This doesn't alter the fact that I initially thought you didn't understand it and that that was why I explained what he was saying. But at no point have I insisted on you or anyone else adopting Edward's terminology so kindly refrain from stating that I did.
 
Last edited:
The host authority may grant someone grace to remain while their appeal against a refused application is being
processed, but that does not mean that if that person voluntarily leaves the country; they are entitled to return.

I hope that no one treats you so shabbily, otherwise you may come to feel what it's like to be on the other end of the empathy in that post.
 
Explain the contradiction you're seeing there.
The title you're assigning to me is not an official title, and if it's something you sincerely believe you shouldn't resort to allegations of disingenuous behaviour. If it isn't something you sincerely believe, it should be obvious what word we would use to describe the giving of said title.
What has being forced got to do with anything? You just claimed I've been insisting on terminology that someone else used, simply because I tried to explain what he was saying. I never insisted on the same terminology and even stated that I remember the two terms he was drawing a distinction between being used synonymously. "I didn't tag you, nobody forced you to read my comment" is a bit of a lazy retort to being called out on making a claim that you know is false.
You are insisting on terminology that somebody else used. If you're not insisting on it, what are you even trying to explain? If I were then to just use "Leave", it would require an implicit understanding of one of the things "Leave" can mean, that you felt you had to explain to me. This would then open it up to anyone to ask me what I meant, and round we'd go again.

And yes, I didn't tag you. You chose to read it and take subsequently, take some kind of personal offense to my being precise. Or maybe it was just the attribution, in which case I'm sorry, but you're explaining Edward's words. You've said how you politely disagree with me, and how you didn't think it was "really too difficult to infer" Edward's point. Ergo, the meaning is clear to the both of you. However, others may disagree. I certainly did. Which means, quite plainly and without a ridiculous amount of effort, the precision in the quote has to be attributed to the both of you. Any deeper meaning you choose to read into it simply isn't there. I can't do anything about that, despite having to use all these words to then explain the lack of a personal slight.
Please point to where I insisted you didn't understand something. I said "you gave the impression that you didn't understand it". By your own logic, if that's the impression I got then it's fair to say it gave that impression no? It does seem somewhat contradictory that you keep saying you understood exactly what he meant, whilst simultaneously you also keep saying that you didn't read his initial post on the previous page and that what he said was ambiguous, but it's no skin off my nose. If you say you understood it then I accept you understood it. This doesn't alter the fact that I initially thought you didn't understand it and that that was why I explained what he was saying. But at no point have I insisted on you or anyone else adopting Edward's terminology so kindly refrain from stating that I did.
Sorry, to be clear, you have repeatedly suggested that I don't understand.

Maybe the problem is in me saying something is ambiguous. Allow me to try and explain: something being ambiguous doesn't mean I don't understand any of the multiple possible meanings behind the ambiguity. The problem is in parsing the ambiguity, and not in any amount of understanding required. I know, at this point I'd say, the totality of Edward's possible range of opinions on both Brexit, Vote Leave, unassociated Leave-related campaigns, and all the politicians and other public figures involved in all three categories, and the shorthand of "Leave" as leaving the EU, which acts as a shorthand for Vote Leave, the unassociated campaigns, and the hypothetical magical act of Leaving the EU that we would've got in the magical timeline that folks like Edward got whatever level of competence they wanted from the UK, and whatever lack of objections they got in this timeline from the EU that folks like Edward feel deserve the blame.

You decided to insert yourself in with an assumption that was clear to you, because you don't have the posting history Edward and I have. This is something you should reflect on, the next time you feel up to two pages of a semantic derail.
 
Back
Top Bottom