Brexit

[oldbluefox]

There was an excellent interview with Jo Cox's sister today. What a level-headed lady she is. It would pay our politicians in Westminster to listen to it.

https://youtu.be/HxE5Fh3Lg9g

[Gill W]

I am still trying to get my head around the link between the term 'Surrender Act' and the murder of Jo Cox. I have heard much worse from all corners of the House of Commons.

The point was that Johnson insisted on using inflammatory language like Surrender Act, which implies we are at war with the EU and perpetuates the ‘betrayal’ and ‘traitor’ narrative, which some Brexiters appear to be keen to buy into.

The nutters also pick up on the language that Johnson uses, and MPs have had death threats using this narrative and even quote actual things that Johnson has said. For example, a few weeks ago he said the he’d rather be dead in a ditch than not leave on 31st October. Jess Phillips has had a letter saying that it should be her dead in a ditch.

Johnson was asked not to use such inflammatory language in Parliament, but instead of dialling it down he continued to use it. This obviously riled people up.

Paula Sherrif refered to the murder of Jo Cox, perpetrated by a far right terrorist, who targeted her as he saw her as (quote) one of the collaborators and a traitor to white people.

Sherrif thought Johnson’s words were dangerous, as
they will be picked up by the lunatics who feed on this sort of thing and will use it in more threats and she feared that it would go further than threats.

Johnson referred to Sherrifs words about her murdered friend as ‘humbug’ I can’t tell you how sick that made me feel.

Then he said the best way to remember Jo Cox was to deliver Brexit - the thing she was campaigning against!

He crossed a line last night.

As I’ve been saying for years on this thread, words matter.

We’re now straying into dangerous territory, and I really hope nobody is going to brush aside what Johnson did last night.

[towny44]

Gill, there is now a divide in this country far wider than the Grand Canyon and I see no way of filling that great chasm for many years and, although I know you will disagree with me, you are not helping to mend any fences either on here or in the wider world by demanding that you are right and Boris Johnson and the Brexiteer cabinet are the only ones that are failing to heal this divide.

[oldbluefox]

I tend to think the word 'surrender' is being deliberately overplayed. I see this law as being intended to delay/obstruct Brexit and inhibits Johnson in trying to strike a deal with the EU. Little wonder he is annoyed and frustrated by a parliament consisting largely of remainers. From the dictionary meaning of the word I fail to see use of the term 'surrender' as inflammatory

surrender
/səˈrɛndə/
verb
1.
stop resisting to an opponent and submit to their authority.
accept defeat
concede defeat
2.
give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demand.
"in 1815 Denmark surrendered Norway to Sweden"

[Gill W]

I tend to think the word 'surrender' is being deliberately overplayed. I see this law as being intended to delay/obstruct Brexit and inhibits Johnson in trying to strike a deal with the EU. Little wonder he is annoyed and frustrated by a parliament consisting largely of remainers. From the dictionary meaning of the word I fail to see use of the term 'surrender' as inflammatory

surrender
/səˈrɛndə/
verb
1.
stop resisting to an opponent and submit to their authority.
accept defeat
concede defeat
2.
give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demand.
"in 1815 Denmark surrendered Norway to Sweden"

Your definition illustrates the point I was making. We are not at war with the EU. They are not our opponents. We are the ones that have decided to leave the EU - we are not being forced to give anything up.

The law is designed to stop a no deal Brexit, which, I think most people agree, would not be a good thing.

I know there are supposed to be low level technical talks going on, but a new deal still appears to be a long way away. It’s in the best interests of us all to avoid a no deal Brexit. I know the continuing uncertainty of extensions is bad, but perhaps less painful than coping with everything a no deal Brexit could throw at us.

[Gill W]

Gill, there is now a divide in this country far wider than the Grand Canyon and I see no way of filling that great chasm for many years and, although I know you will disagree with me, you are not helping to mend any fences either on here or in the wider world by demanding that you are right and Boris Johnson and the Brexiteer cabinet are the only ones that are failing to heal this divide.

OBF said he couldn’t get his head round the link between ‘Surrender Act’ and the murder of Jo Cox, so I was attempting to explain how people feel the two things are linked.

I tried to do this in the most measured terms possible, but I couldn’t hide that the way Johnson behaved last night revolted me. I could have said a lot more, but chose not to, as words cause divisions.

Yet you, once again, feel it’s appropriate to criticise me - it’s not exactly mending fences, is it.

I said earlier today that if someone of a Remain persuasion had acted like Johnson did last night, I would be equally critical. Perhaps you missed my post, or have again chosen to believe that I’m an not being genuine. I hope it’s not the later, as to be honest, that’s not very nice.

Since my return from holiday, debate on this thread has been reasonably amicable, so please can we keep it that way?

[Stephen]

From what I've seen I really cannot see what all the fuss is about Boris Johnsons behaviour. Too many snowflakes in this country if you ask me. It seems the slightest thing offends everyone these days. Get a grip people.

I'm for sticking with Boris, as he is the only one with the balls to see this through. If others don't like it, tough.

Johnson 'deplores threats' but doesn't apologise https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49845760

[oldbluefox]

Your definition illustrates the point I was making. We are not at war with the EU. They are not our opponents. We are the ones that have decided to leave the EU - we are not being forced to give anything up.

The law is designed to stop a no deal Brexit, which, I think most people agree, would not be a good thing.

I know there are supposed to be low level technical talks going on, but a new deal still appears to be a long way away. It’s in the best interests of us all to avoid a no deal Brexit. I know the continuing uncertainty of extensions is bad, but perhaps less painful than coping with everything a no deal Brexit could throw at us.

But Gill the definition makes no reference to war. We are not at war with the EU, neither does it mean we will not be dealing with the EU after Brexit so all of this ridiculous talk of 'cutting ourselves off from Europe' is a load of humbug and plays into the Project Fear argument. Of course we will deal with the EU but it is the conditions under which we will trade which will need to be concluded.
The Surrender Bill gives the upper hand in negotiations to the EU because they know that if they block any attempts to negotiate we are locked into the system.
The only way I see out of the problem is a General Election. Give the people the chance to elect MPs who will represent them in Parliament. They tell us they want a People's Vote so let's have it in the form of a GE.

[Manoverboard]

I am also unable to get overly excited about anybody's use of ' language ' given the negative blocking tactics that have been used to prevent us leaving the EU with or without a deal over these past years.

Many people in the House and indeed beyond are very angry inside and will speak out without biting their tongue as they ought … but should we be surprised I ask myself.

[towny44]

Gill, there is now a divide in this country far wider than the Grand Canyon and I see no way of filling that great chasm for many years and, although I know you will disagree with me, you are not helping to mend any fences either on here or in the wider world by demanding that you are right and Boris Johnson and the Brexiteer cabinet are the only ones that are failing to heal this divide.

OBF said he couldn’t get his head round the link between ‘Surrender Act’ and the murder of Jo Cox, so I was attempting to explain how people feel the two things are linked.

I tried to do this in the most measured terms possible, but I couldn’t hide that the way Johnson behaved last night revolted me. I could have said a lot more, but chose not to, as words cause divisions.

Yet you, once again, feel it’s appropriate to criticise me - it’s not exactly mending fences, is it.

I said earlier today that if someone of a Remain persuasion had acted like Johnson did last night, I would be equally critical. Perhaps you missed my post, or have again chosen to believe that I’m an not being genuine. I hope it’s not the later, as to be honest, that’s not very nice.

Since my return from holiday, debate on this thread has been reasonably amicable, so please can we keep it that way?

Gill I am not criticising you, merely the way you express your view. You are entitled to hold your views about brexit, but surely you should extend that same right to others who hold the opposite view, and yet the inference in most of your posts is that you are right and we are wrong. If you are going to post on a contentious thread like this but take offence at every person who opposes your view, then maybe you should reconsider. I think I understand your opposition to brexit and accept your right to hold those views, but you should not take every pro brexit comment we make as a personal slur against you.

[oldbluefox]

"Kill the bitch" (John McDonnell)
"Ginger headed rodent" (Harriett Harman)
"B*****s to Brexit" Lib Dem
And yet we see this (faux) indignation from the opposition benches over the 'abusive' use of the word surrender which illicited such anger? The term pales into insignificance by comparison.
The anger within the country will only get worse the longer Brexit is dragged out by the Remain camp. Their energies would have been better served by ensuring UK got the best deal possible.
The clown outside Parliament with the megaphone only goes to fan the flames and exacerbate the problem and should be removed.

[barney]

I had total sympathy and empathy for Paula Sheriff with her heartfelt rebuke of Johnson until I heard her radio interview on LBC where she claimed it was totally spontaneous.
The TV footage clearly shows her reading from notes, so it was hardly spontaneous and in fact, quite well planned.

Our MPs appear to have no self awareness and seem oblivious to the fact that parliament is televised.

They are quite disgraceful and many need replacing.

[towny44]

I had total sympathy and empathy for Paula Sheriff with her heartfelt rebuke of Johnson until I heard her radio interview on LBC where she claimed it was totally spontaneous.
The TV footage clearly shows her reading from notes, so it was hardly spontaneous and in fact, quite well planned.

Our MPs appear to have no self awareness and seem oblivious to the fact that parliament is televised.

They are quite disgraceful and many need replacing.

This sort of thing is very obvious on PMQs, several labour MPs asking the same sort of question and all reading from a clearly defined script, and all giving Oscar winning performances for their fake outrage. I often wonder if the Labour part run weekend retreats giving potential councillors and MP's method acting lessons.

[Gill W]

From what I've seen I really cannot see what all the fuss is about Boris Johnsons behaviour. Too many snowflakes in this country if you ask me. It seems the slightest thing offends everyone these days. Get a grip people.

I'm for sticking with Boris, as he is the only one with the balls to see this through. If others don't like it, tough.

Johnson 'deplores threats' but doesn't apologise https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49845760

'Building bridges'

What do you say about Stephen's post, eh Towny?

Incidentally Stephen, your post is exactly the reaction I feared from this forum, thanks for proving me right

*shakes head in despair*

[barney]

From what I've seen I really cannot see what all the fuss is about Boris Johnsons behaviour. Too many snowflakes in this country if you ask me. It seems the slightest thing offends everyone these days. Get a grip people.

I'm for sticking with Boris, as he is the only one with the balls to see this through. If others don't like it, tough.

Johnson 'deplores threats' but doesn't apologise https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49845760

'Building bridges'

What do you say about Stephen's post, eh Towny?

Incidentally Stephen, your post is exactly the reaction I feared from this forum, thanks for proving me right

*shakes head in despair*

I think what Steven actually means is that if you don't like it, vote for a different government.

By the way, I personally think that there will be no building of bridges and the divide will just get forever wider.
If the losers don't consent, it's over as we know it.

If you recall, I said immediately after the referendum that politics in this country will never be the same again because of the losing side refusing to acknowledge the result.
It's proven to be correct.

[Gill W]

Your definition illustrates the point I was making. We are not at war with the EU. They are not our opponents. We are the ones that have decided to leave the EU - we are not being forced to give anything up.

The law is designed to stop a no deal Brexit, which, I think most people agree, would not be a good thing.

I know there are supposed to be low level technical talks going on, but a new deal still appears to be a long way away. It’s in the best interests of us all to avoid a no deal Brexit. I know the continuing uncertainty of extensions is bad, but perhaps less painful than coping with everything a no deal Brexit could throw at us.

But Gill the definition makes no reference to war. We are not at war with the EU, neither does it mean we will not be dealing with the EU after Brexit so all of this ridiculous talk of 'cutting ourselves off from Europe' is a load of humbug and plays into the Project Fear argument. Of course we will deal with the EU but it is the conditions under which we will trade which will need to be concluded.
The Surrender Bill gives the upper hand in negotiations to the EU because they know that if they block any attempts to negotiate we are locked into the system.
The only way I see out of the problem is a General Election. Give the people the chance to elect MPs who will represent them in Parliament. They tell us they want a People's Vote so let's have it in the form of a GE.

Once again, you are illustrating what I've been saying, that Johnson's inflammatory language is picked up by his eager audience.

You have used his exact words from Wednesday night - Surrender Act and 'humbug'.

The point some MPs were making is that other, less reasonable people will get fired up by Johnson's words, and are concerned about the consequences.

You are probably right about a GE - but nothing will happen until after 31st Oct

[Gill W]

I am also unable to get overly excited about anybody's use of ' language ' given the negative blocking tactics that have been used to prevent us leaving the EU with or without a deal over these past years.

Many people in the House and indeed beyond are very angry inside and will speak out without biting their tongue as they ought … but should we be surprised I ask myself.

No bridge building here either, eh Towny?

[towny44]

From what I've seen I really cannot see what all the fuss is about Boris Johnsons behaviour. Too many snowflakes in this country if you ask me. It seems the slightest thing offends everyone these days. Get a grip people.

I'm for sticking with Boris, as he is the only one with the balls to see this through. If others don't like it, tough.

Johnson 'deplores threats' but doesn't apologise https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49845760

'Building bridges'

What do you say about Stephen's post, eh Towny?

Incidentally Stephen, your post is exactly the reaction I feared from this forum, thanks for proving me right

*shakes head in despair*

Gill, I say that Stephen is just as entitled to his views as are you.

As regards the so called debate on the supreme court ruling, this seemed to be a well organised attempt by Labour to make the PM as uncomfortable as they could, it failed because Bojo is made of sterner stuff, and this seemed to anger the opposition benches leading to the descent into the chaotic slanging match that ensued. If you have read my earlier posts I sort of predicted this outcome when the supreme court decided, after centuries of the Govt, parliament and the sovereign deciding how our constitution should develop, they should step in and create the precedent that they now hold the controlling decision. I bet they now wish they had supported the high court decision.

[screwy]

Oh dear....round and round we go. I refer back to a previous post....Guy Fawkes had the right idea. No ,I am not condoning mass murder before you start.

[barney]

The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back.

If you remember my many jousts with Jack Staff (where is he by the way, I hope he's OK) I said that politics in the UK would never be the same again should brexit not be seen through.
He disagreed and said that people would get over it.
Over three years on, this debacle is still going on and parliament is in crisis with MPs acting like spoiled children who can't get there way.

[Gill W]

Gill, there is now a divide in this country far wider than the Grand Canyon and I see no way of filling that great chasm for many years and, although I know you will disagree with me, you are not helping to mend any fences either on here or in the wider world by demanding that you are right and Boris Johnson and the Brexiteer cabinet are the only ones that are failing to heal this divide.

OBF said he couldn’t get his head round the link between ‘Surrender Act’ and the murder of Jo Cox, so I was attempting to explain how people feel the two things are linked.

I tried to do this in the most measured terms possible, but I couldn’t hide that the way Johnson behaved last night revolted me. I could have said a lot more, but chose not to, as words cause divisions.

Yet you, once again, feel it’s appropriate to criticise me - it’s not exactly mending fences, is it.

I said earlier today that if someone of a Remain persuasion had acted like Johnson did last night, I would be equally critical. Perhaps you missed my post, or have again chosen to believe that I’m an not being genuine. I hope it’s not the later, as to be honest, that’s not very nice.

Since my return from holiday, debate on this thread has been reasonably amicable, so please can we keep it that way?

Gill I am not criticising you, merely the way you express your view. You are entitled to hold your views about brexit, but surely you should extend that same right to others who hold the opposite view, and yet the inference in most of your posts is that you are right and we are wrong. If you are going to post on a contentious thread like this but take offence at every person who opposes your view, then maybe you should reconsider. I think I understand your opposition to brexit and accept your right to hold those views, but you should not take every pro brexit comment we make as a personal slur against you.

Good, I'm glad you acknowledge that I believe that my views are of equal weight to everybody elses.

I have never stopped anybody from expressing their views and respect their right to hold opinions. I have sometimes expressed concern about the language they use to air their views - which is basically what you are doing here - questioning the way in which I express myself.

I do not 'take offence at every person who opposes my view' - but, as I said, often the way in which the view is expressed grates on me - I fully agree to that. But if you think its ok to criticise the way I express my views, surely it's ok for me to express concern at the way others state their opinions?

I don't ' take every pro-Brexit comment as a personal slur against me. However, you as an individual often level comments to me personally, which I would never do to you, as I know you wouldn't like it. And when I've responded you have sometimes inferred that my replies are not genuine, which has made me very cross, as I'm an honest and sincere person.

I reflected on you comments about bridge building last night, and came to the forum this morning in a conciliatory mood. It takes two sides to build bridges, and I was hoping both 'sides' would be able to work together so that we have a better understanding of each other. However, seeing the tone of some comments this morning, I can't help thinking that there would be precious few who would be willing to try and heal divisions. I think I'd have to build the bridge single handed, while you all watch me, until I join you on your side of the river bank, fully agreeing with everything you say!

We can all meet in the middle if everyone makes the effort. Otherwise bridge building won't work

Lastly, I don't want to make this into a man/woman thing, but I think some men (especially older ones, sorry) struggle with women who are prepared to give strong opinions and to defend those opinions. Maybe that's also something to reflect on.

Anyway, if the members of this thread want to follow your bridge building theme and be careful how they express their opinions, I am more than willing to join in, in order to make this a more pleasant environment.

I guess the ball is in your court guys.

What do you all say?

[Gill W]

From what I've seen I really cannot see what all the fuss is about Boris Johnsons behaviour. Too many snowflakes in this country if you ask me. It seems the slightest thing offends everyone these days. Get a grip people.

I'm for sticking with Boris, as he is the only one with the balls to see this through. If others don't like it, tough.

Johnson 'deplores threats' but doesn't apologise https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49845760

'Building bridges'

What do you say about Stephen's post, eh Towny?

Incidentally Stephen, your post is exactly the reaction I feared from this forum, thanks for proving me right

*shakes head in despair*

Gill, I say that Stephen is just as entitled to his views as are you.

As regards the so called debate on the supreme court ruling, this seemed to be a well organised attempt by Labour to make the PM as uncomfortable as they could, it failed because Bojo is made of sterner stuff, and this seemed to anger the opposition benches leading to the descent into the chaotic slanging match that ensued. If you have read my earlier posts I sort of predicted this outcome when the supreme court decided, after centuries of the Govt, parliament and the sovereign deciding how our constitution should develop, they should step in and create the precedent that they now hold the controlling decision. I bet they now wish they had supported the high court decision.

Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, I totally agree.

However, If I expressed my opinions using words like 'snowflakes', 'get a grip', 'balls' and 'if you don't like it, tough', you'd be the first one to criticise me. Yet, he's using inflammatory language with apparent impunity

Is it because he's on your side of the debate, or because he's a man it's ok for him to express strong opinions? Or is it another reason why its ok, in your view, for him to express his opinion in this way?

[Gill W]

Oh dear....round and round we go. I refer back to a previous post....Guy Fawkes had the right idea. No ,I am not condoning mass murder before you start.

I know, it's depressing isn't it?

[Gill W]

The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back.

If you remember my many jousts with Jack Staff (where is he by the way, I hope he's OK) I said that politics in the UK would never be the same again should brexit not be seen through.
He disagreed and said that people would get over it.
Over three years on, this debacle is still going on and parliament is in crisis with MPs acting like spoiled children who can't get there way.

Yep, both on this forum and in the wider world, things will never be the same. It's very sad.

BTW, Jack is fine, as far as I know. I see him on Twitter from time to time.

[Manoverboard]

I am also unable to get overly excited about anybody's use of ' language ' given the negative blocking tactics that have been used to prevent us leaving the EU with or without a deal over these past years.

Many people in the House and indeed beyond are very angry inside and will speak out without biting their tongue as they ought … but should we be surprised I ask myself.

No bridge building here either, eh Towny?

Bridge building for who or should I say whom ?

There should be no need to build bridges between you and I Gill, we have different opinions but so what that is life. In any event this Topic is about ' Brexit ' not ' Gill W '.

Building bridges with the Remainers within Parliament however will, imo, simply not happen. Those who have defied the will of the people throughout this sorry saga in spite of the wishes of their constituencies will pay the price and be resented for many years to come. If we do however leave the EU those Remainers will be forgotten about and good riddance if they are deselected.