Boris is Boss

[TooNice]

"Hard" Brexiters are no more a valid judge arbiter of whether the term causes offence as whether the Corbyn camp are of whether "Blairite" is meant offensively or not.rubbish

I am happy to concede that I hadn't considered this fair point.

2) Whether offence is given by a given word or phrase, or not, is a complex matter depending, at a minimum, on the intent of the person using it and the intent perceived by the person on the receiving end, and these may not be the same. Offence can be taken when none was intended, or missed when it was intended.

I believe that this is something we can all agree on.

On this basis though, even the most neutral, unloaded term can be used with the intent to offend and / or with negative connotations.

In my opinion, this would render any discussion as to whether a word is offensive pointless (in a way it probably is, but at least it is less heavy than the meat of the brexit debacle at a time when many are probably suffering from discussion fatigue).

Hence I believe that for a word to be *deemed* offensive, it needs to have a fairly wide acceptance of such. And while the word "moaner" in remoaner has an a pretty universally negative connotations, the "brexit" in Brexiter is only negative for *a* part of the population who are anti-brexit.

Those who intend to offend would likely attach something more explicit than assume that "Brexit" is sufficiently offensive that appending a -er would get the point across.

I get the point that "Brexiter" get associated with all sort of things that may be offensive, but so do "Remainers" so I do not think that argument work.

And here is how I see it. In our highly unscientific poll with an equally unscientifically small sample, *one* person out of seven Leaver view the term as offensive. I would wager (if I didn't think that people might purposely vote otherwise just to contradict my statement here) that the term "remoaner" would end up with a significantly result, if only going by the comments of that thread.

I am fine indulging those who prefer the term Leaver. But as I view the two as interchangeable (and neutral) it doesn't really affect the underlying intent of what I am saying in the context that it is being said (I would append something more descriptive and universally negative if the intent to offend). I challenge anyone who use "remoaner" to claim the same.

[TeePee]

[Saracen999]

I've seen that before, and up to a point, I agree.

But bear in mind what started this theme. It wasn't me objecting to being called a Brexit(e)er, it was people quite happy to cdll me that, while objecting to bring called a Remoaner. That led to a debate about whether Brexiteer if offensive to Brexiteers but taking for granted that Remoaner is offensive because they say it is.

If Remainers get to decide that Remoaner is offensive to them, they don't also get to decide that Brexiteer isn't offensive. Hence my comment about double standards.


So, that clip. Yes, it does indeed create a problem aboyt who gets to decide. Thiscis a point U've repeatedly tried to make.

But the free speech argument us more compkex than that one aspect. For instance, when does it reach the point where gratuitous insults are themselves the limitation on free speech, when some members of one political viewpoint continually refer to others in terms as offensive as racist?

Can you actually have a proper debate when it descends to that.

I had this happen many, many years ago when there was a discussion about whether the UK should join the Euro. I'd make an argument about a single currency being a fundamentally political necessity for a single state, and then point out that a single currency implies a singke interest rate set by a single central bank, i.e. a core institution of a singke state. I'd then point out that a single interest rate causes major problems if several conditions aren't met first. Among those are that structural aspects of the economies need to be in sync, and they weren't. Fir instance, base rate rises impact first, and due to debt size, hardest, on those members of the public buying their homes ob mortgage, because mortgages go up almost immediately after a base rate rise, and hit hard in terms of cash impact. I know, having very nearly lost my home when interest rates hit 15% here, and briefly, 17%. And, given that the UK had a much larger home-owning demographic than many other EU countries, and a commensurately smaller rental market, the macro impact on the economy would be significantly larger, taking much more consumer soending power out of the UK economy than it would in, say, Germany. It's a kinda shame Greek politicians didn't do a bit more thinking about that.

Then, there's economic cycles.

For a single currency to work without major problems, states using it need to have their economic cycles pretty much in harmony. Even if, say, Germany, France and the UK were in sync right now (by which I mean going up or down in a cycle at the same time, they won't be doing so unless those cycles are also of the same duration. If they aren't, divergence is inevitable even if not happening right now. This isn't exactky controversial. Even Gordon Brown, not someone I have much in common with, had his 5 tests, one of which reflected this

So, I'd make some arguments like that, an the response? To be called a lityle Englander, told all I cared about was the Queen's head on the currency, and then a xenophobe and racist because I don't agree freedom of movement is wholly a goid thing.

So, regardless of who is judging offensiveness, insults are frequently used to try to shut down debate.

So whiose free speech do we protect - the ability of idiots lime those to belittke and insult, or the ability of someone like me to make such points without getting a torrent of abuse for it?

Because you can't have both.

Personally, I can't get excited about either Remoaner (a term I haven'<t used in quite a while, despite being accused of doing so) or Brexiteer.

I don't care if we allow both, or allow neither.

But for some Remainer enthusiasts to think they can determine that Remoaner is offensive and expect it to not be used, while at the same time they get to determine that Brexiteer isn't, and us fine, is hypocrisy when a Brexiteer is telling them it can andchas been used in a derogatory way.

I didn't start this, TeePee.

But if it's going to be a thing, I do expect it to be even-handed.

I've spent muchvif the last 20 years trying to imbue a sense of discuss and debate on this forum without recourse to insult and innuendo. I even wrote the rules on it. Thankfully, that's no longer my problem, but it does also mean I can express a personal opinion freely, which is that if those people objecting to Remoaner as offensive expect it to be taken seriously, do the other side the common courtesy of doing the same about Brexiteer.

It ain't hard. Remainer and Leaver. That's all we need. But they shouldn't exoect to be taken seriously if they won't do themselves what they expect others to do.

[TeePee]

I am well aware that you didn't start it. The whole 'I'm offended' thing is very much a whine from a particular group, who have delighted in turning a debate about the issues into complaining about the people who disagree with them, and then a discussion about how offended they are, and how they feel like they have a right to be offended. It's not worth engaging them on that.

[Zak33]

Sarecen and Teepee are now walking the same path but at different points on the mountain. But it IS the same path

the message is turning offence into a weapon is a crap idea.

its quite hard to offend me, but when I am offended, even then, I have to decide if it's a real offence or just my own mindset on the day.

but make no mistake, genuine offence won't be tolerated at all.

I dare not be offended about Brexit because I was a staunch remainer and now I'm a leave it it's the only way, lets get the amputation done and get the bandages out.

[ik9000]

the answer when facing serious bodily harm is not to say "oh go on then". it's to say "hang on a minute this isn't what people voted for" and apply some common sense. 2nd ref is the only way to be certain. either cancelling Brexit or going no-deal is wrong without confirming with the people they claim to be acting for.

[SeriousSam]

the answer when facing serious bodily harm is not to say "oh go on then". it's to say "hang on a minute this isn't what people voted for" and apply some common sense. 2nd ref is the only way to be certain. either cancelling Brexit or going no-deal is wrong without confirming with the people they claim to be acting for.

"Serious bodily harm" is your perception not a fact...

[ik9000]

"Serious bodily harm" is your perception not a fact...

it's a direct quote of Zak's post above:

lets get the amputation done and get the bandages out.

I think there have been enough economic studies to say it's a bad idea, plus the likely terms of any trade deal with the certain nations which will not just rub salt in the wounds but vinegar filled sores and a butt wound to boot which will leave most of us worse off. The issue is not just leaving EU but what it will be leaving for. We'd leave one lot for a much harsher master and in desperation sell ourselves wholesale. No thanks.

[spacein_vader]

He's not popular in Luxembourg it seems, with the public or the man in charge.

[Saracen999]

it's a direct quote of Zak's post above:

I think there have been enough economic studies to say it's a bad idea, plus the likely terms of any trade deal with the certain nations which will not just rub salt in the wounds but vinegar filled sores and a butt wound to boot which will leave most of us worse off. The issue is not just leaving EU but what it will be leaving for. We'd leave one lot for a much harsher master and in desperation sell ourselves wholesale. No thanks.

One more lap on the merry-go-round, then.

Just about all those economic studies are based not only on the econometric modelling methodology, but on many of the same assumptions. Vary those assumptions, and there is good grounds for questioning a couple of key ones, and that harm turns to neutrality. I've detailed the issues, or at least limitations, with both gravity models, and those assumptions before.

Also, Brexit is about more than just economics, however important that is.

[TooNice]

"Serious bodily harm" is your perception not a fact...

Not my preferred terminology, however:

1. On a personal level, Brexit in the form that is pursued Farage et al. will cause measurable harm for my future. Self-harm (though not bodily harm) would be accurate as fact and not perception in my case if I was to back it. Your mileage may vary.

2. It is also the educated view of the BMA it could have damaging consequences to patient (making the term "bodily harm" not too far fetched). And whist it doesn't make it fact, I am going to trust the judgement of doctors and other professional who have made an oath to uphold certain ethical standards. They may not be infallible, but unlike many (including myself), they also need to look beyond themselves meaning that I am going to put more weight in their views.

Your crystal ball is as good as mine when it comes to predict the long term consequence of brexit, but there are objectively negative consequences in the short/medium term unless you perceive the logistic impact as being inconsequential.

[TeePee]

He's not popular in Luxembourg it seems, with the public or the man in charge.

Luxembourg was one of the founding countries of the EEC, it's no surprise that they don't like seeing it fall.

[ik9000]

Luxembourg was one of the founding countries of the EEC, it's no surprise that they don't like seeing it fall.

IRRC if it was still the EEC i think we'd (collectivley) be more happy, wasn't it the transition to the EU and the political unification that caused the issues that people seem to dislike?

[TeePee]

IRRC if it was still the EEC i think we'd (collectivley) be more happy, wasn't it the transition to the EU and the political unification that caused the issues that people seem to dislike?

Yes. European countries as trading partners were a good thing, and if we could transition back to that, all of Europe would be better off.

A surgeon inflicting an injury to remove a tumour isn't just acceptable, but necessary. The room filled with Corbynist Naturopaths arguing against the anaesthetic are achieving nothing but inflicting pain, and risking that the cancer may spread.

[Saracen999]

IRRC if it was still the EEC i think we'd (collectivley) be more happy, wasn't it the transition to the EU and the political unification that caused the issues that people seem to dislike?

For me at least, pretty much, yes.

For two main reasons.

1) Both the openly declared agenda, and just about everything that's happened since, point to a single political entity as the end-game. For lack of a better term, a United States of Europe.

2) This one is solely and exclusively the UK's fault, not the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU - our governments (multiple) made major (pun intended) changes to our constitution without bothering to get, and indeed refusing to seek, a mandate for it. The irony is, at that time, if they had sought it they may well have got it and I doubt we'd be here now.

on point 1), if the people's of other European countries want to be part of a U.S.E (a hypothesis not entirely clear) then fine, go for it. But personally, I don't, and what really does it is when our government does it without bothering to ask. They were elected to govrrn, not to give away large chunks of it to some supra-national body, whoever itvis.


There are, of course, issues with our membership of the EEC too. Firstly, again, we weren't asked if we wanted to join, only later, with the damage done, if we wanted to leave again. Secondly, that our government lued to us about what the actual agenda was, and Heath admitted it about 20 years later. And third, by joining the EEC, we effectively took a collective poop on several of our traditional historic friends and trading partners, like Australia and New Zealand, who suddenly found a major export market (us) much harder to export to.

So for me, I'd certainly be "more happy" if it were still just a fancy trade bloc, but not entirely issue-free. But it's certainly the implications of the 'single state' end-game that I really object to. Which is why, a few pists back, I said it's about more than the economy, really important though the economy (obviously) is.

[SeriousSam]

Being pedantic its not a direct quote as you you rephrased "lets get the amputation done and get the bandages out" to "the answer when facing serious bodily harm"... which to be frank was part of my point. How you perceive the question impinges upon the answer you decide upon. There is no objective measure you can apply to turn this into a write or wrong answer question. Thus I don't have a problem with people who voted to remain and understand a degree of nervousness about what will happen. What irks me, and this applies to both sides, is the moral high-ground certitude. Now I'm not suggesting that this applies to you, more that this is the frame of reference my somewhat flippant response came from...

In any case I found this podcast with David Starkey rather interesting. Now I may agree with all of his views / conclusions, but it does highlight that there is much more going on than just the question of in or out.

https://www.spiked-online.com/podcas...doing-treason/