Writingforums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Brexit. Discussion Only. (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

escorial

WF Veterans
If you Google Boris about buses you now get his hobby and not the financial fiasco on the buses....this country is on the brink an he might think and you that it's a bit of fun...
 

escorial

WF Veterans
There is two candidates an only one winner but how many losers...it's only natural to want to keep your job or hold onto political values but does what's best for the country mean most...if you can say I'm all 3 then you are a politician....
 

JustRob

FoWF
WF Veterans
On BBC TV this morning they mentioned yet again when the winner of the Tory leadership election would be announced. This made me think about that term "winner". Is the winner the one who gets the task of doing the job or the one who gets the kudos for offering but doesn't have to do it? "And the winner of the poisoned chalice is ..."

I am reminded of Ireland having won the Eurovision song contest so often and the fact that therefore they have also hosted it more than anyone else. There was an episode of the TV comedy series Father Ted in which Ted and Dougal represented Ireland in the contest because Ireland didn't want to win yet again. Come to think of it, my angel and I watched the film The Producers a few days ago, another story about losing to win.
 

escorial

WF Veterans
The more social media grows than the more people are exposed for what they are...Orwell was more wrong than right in 1984...a few people will always dominate over the masses but the bubble of respectability an hypocricy is there for all to seek...why people are shocked by brexit is because they can't hide anymore behind religion or bankbalances to protect themselves..politicians an the proletariat...
 

Olly Buckle

Mentor
Patron
I think there is a deliberate confusion of the Jewish race and the Zionist, nationalist political movement created and fostered by the latter as a cover for its '67 invasion and subsequent colonisation of the Palestinian areas. For me the racist attitudes towards the Palestinian population, fostered by their government, of most Israelis is truly shocking. I fear that a similar fear of foreigners is being used to promote Brexit for similar reasons, the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few.
 

escorial

WF Veterans
Corbin has denied it totally....these days you can't get politicians or anyone to sit down and discuss anything without a slanging match...I say again that social media has shown people for what they are and to me if I say summit one year I might change my mind the next but the UK is the country it's always been just a bit more revealing an so many can't cope......as for me I like to reveal my skeletons and hypocracy and have never liked the fuckarewe tribe in africa
 

escorial

WF Veterans
Some people live charmed life even with their trials and tribulations....the likes of Tony Benn who played at being a socialist an Micheal foot..now being a socialist is not about how much money you end up with but your values...I put corbyn in this category an while his ability to get a grip with this anti semitism has been poor ..I think he does not want to be PM and has found himself in this position because of so much luck and not what he expected...just my opinion but I think he is just like the other two..lived a charmed life an just played at the game of politics....
 

Ralph Rotten

Staff member
Mentor
So I see Boris is taking some heat for not defending the ambassador to the US like the other candidates did.
I suspect he was part of the leak, and did it to ingratiate himself, but it blew up in his face.
He shoulda defended the ambassador. The UK pays a lotta money for a frank assessment from their ambassadors.
It's not Darroch's fault that the Trump administration is utter chaos. That's Trump's fault.

Never trust politicians with bizarre hair or combovers.
 

Olly Buckle

Mentor
Patron
Never trust politicians with bizarre hair or combovers.

It is a good rule that qualifications detract from the strength of a statement. In this case they also detract from the seriousness of the situation, to criticise a liar and adulterer aiming for a top position of a nuclear power because he has bizarre hair is trivialising to say the least. I would stick with 'Never trust politicians.'
 

JustRob

FoWF
WF Veterans
I think there is a deliberate confusion of the Jewish race and the Zionist, nationalist political movement created and fostered by the latter as a cover for its '67 invasion and subsequent colonisation of the Palestinian areas. For me the racist attitudes towards the Palestinian population, fostered by their government, of most Israelis is truly shocking. I fear that a similar fear of foreigners is being used to promote Brexit for similar reasons, the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few.

The concept of anti-Semitism is apparently ill-defined as the IHRA definition accepted by both the UK and Israeli governments contains both a statement of the principle and a number of hypothetical examples of its application provided "as illustrations". For us writers this is clearly a case of telling and then showing as well because there was doubt about whether the telling was written well enough. Real laws are either clearly defined in themselves or else case law makes use of actual precedents that have been tried in a court and open to subsequent appeals. It seems strange that effectively fictional cases should be cited in the IHRA definition. A barrister in a British court would hardly cite something that he'd seen in a fictional TV series as a legal precedent to make his case.

The Green Party apparently haven't accepted the IHRA definition because they feel that it panders to Israel while the Labour Party for a while accepted the principle but adopted a modified set of examples. They then relented and adopted the whole thing in principle, but probably still don't really agree with the examples given "as illustrations" (as the formal definition words it).

It's a fundamental principle that I spent many years in my employment bringing to the attention of the staff there, that if people cannot agree about the definition of a word then they should not use it in any agreement or dispute. It's actually a common ploy in diplomacy to devise agreements without agreeing the definitions of the words used. If the word isn't clearly defined then Brexit just means Brexit and anyone can claim to support and achieve it according to their own definition. It is after all just a made up word. All we can do is wait for the new PM, whoever that is, to show rather than tell. The fact that Boris isn't telling us much suggests that he would rather show us. Show, don't tell then. We can hardly fault him on that, can we?
 

epimetheus

Friends of WF
The fact that Boris isn't telling us much suggests that he would rather show us. Show, don't tell then. We can hardly fault him on that, can we?

His track record as Foreign Minister and London Mayor suggest otherwise. Together with a complete misunderstanding of the GATT 24 WTO trading rules it doesn't suggest a coherent plan.

I think Hunt will do a better job uniting the country - if nothing else he is just a less polarising personality. Regardless, whether the UK ultimately leaves or remains in the EU, we will now always be a fractured nation.
 

JustRob

FoWF
WF Veterans
His track record as Foreign Minister and London Mayor suggest otherwise. Together with a complete misunderstanding of the GATT 24 WTO trading rules it doesn't suggest a coherent plan.

I think Hunt will do a better job uniting the country - if nothing else he is just a less polarising personality. Regardless, whether the UK ultimately leaves or remains in the EU, we will now always be a fractured nation.

A united country but a fractured nation? That seems a very fragile concept. Polarisation is the means by which parliament votes on what to do. MPs have to choose which lobby to enter, if either. The country is united in wanting them to settle the matter but at the moment they only vote against doing everything. They even object to prorogation because that would allow something to happen without their being able to stop it. They consider that to be unconstitutional, but so is parliament not doing its job by failing to decide what to do. Theresa May thought that the solution was to maintain balance and hence a semblance of unity but it didn't work. The other option is to create an imbalance by added polarisation in one direction and hence decide to do something positive. Whatever that is we will all deal with it in our own ways but we need that decision right now more than a semblance of unity.
 

epimetheus

Friends of WF
Fractured in that in we remain, many people will be disenfranchised at the political elite for not honouring the vote, bolstering an authoritarian far right. If we leave, Scotland are much more likely to exit the Union (as are Gibraltar, but they're a very different case) and many people who consider themselves European will be disenfranchised - a few will leave the country.

If we vote on Brexit again and we stay (as polls suggest we would), then leavers will forever rail against a perceived rigged system. The least destructive solution seems to be to call another general election and hope a government can muster sufficient support either to leave or remain (the Brexit party anticipate this and are preparing for it). But May tried that and it backfired then. The current deadlock in parliament in an accurate reflection of the ambivalence in UK society.
 

Ralph Rotten

Staff member
Mentor
It is a good rule that qualifications detract from the strength of a statement. In this case they also detract from the seriousness of the situation, to criticise a liar and adulterer aiming for a top position of a nuclear power because he has bizarre hair is trivialising to say the least. I would stick with 'Never trust politicians.'


But it is not trivial; their hair speaks to the very nature of their character.
Think about this: Trump is such a fraud that he thinks no one notices his horrible combover. Even with his hair he is lying to you, he is a poseur pretending to have a full head of hair.

So when I made that comment, I was very much serious. Boris actually thinks he is fooling people with that comb-forward of his. Hence, even his very appearance is a departure from the truth (a fancy legal term for lying.)
At minimum it shows an unhealthy level of hubris.
 

Aquilo

WF Veterans
On BBC TV this morning they mentioned yet again when the winner of the Tory leadership election would be announced. This made me think about that term "winner". Is the winner the one who gets the task of doing the job or the one who gets the kudos for offering but doesn't have to do it? "And the winner of the poisoned chalice is.

Have you listened to Pie? They need this guy on the BBC when it comes to Hunt, Boris, and Brexit...

[video=youtube;R-CIggoU4VM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-CIggoU4VM[/video]
 

Olly Buckle

Mentor
Patron
I think it is you lot the BBC should employ, this is by far the most entertaining discussion of Brexit I have seen.

By the way Rob, 'Just' a made up word? All words are made up, even ones like 'Moo' and 'Boom' (why are they on automatic peas?)
 

Kevin

WF Veterans
So I see Boris is taking some heat for not defending the ambassador to the US like the other candidates did.
I suspect he was part of the leak, and did it to ingratiate himself, but it blew up in his face.
He shoulda defended the ambassador. The UK pays a lotta money for a frank assessment from their ambassadors.
It's not Darroch's fault that the Trump administration is utter chaos. That's Trump's fault.

Never trust politicians with bizarre hair or combovers.
what politicians should we trust? I see glad handing smiley types that tell you how they're looking into this, studying the issue. Obfuscators, glad-handers, slick operators , never commit, re-elect , re-elect, re-elect. I love how trump farts right at the table in front of the cameras. There he is naked, no clothes, but these are the best no clothes, the greatest no clothes you've never seen- brrrrraaappp!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top