advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+25)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian said:
If the electorate of the UK dislike the policies of a govt we get the chance to make a change every 5 years, and with that changes comes a different direction if an alternative party wins a majority of the democratic vote. If people dislike the direction of travel of the EU there is no alternative other than to accept it or leave the EU. It's a significant difference...
Click to expand...
... in theory.

In practice, we the UK proletariat mostly get to like it or lump it. I’d have more sympathy for your argument if ‘taking back control ‘ wasn’t simply code for ‘giving more power to people you can’t realistically evict, and who don’t have your interests at heart’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsB
MVV said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/08/france-threatens-to-veto-further-brexit-extension

So there we have it Rudd said Chonson was lying about the progress of talks and the EU have now confirmed it. Silly public schoolboys playing their stupid games. No wonder the French are considering not allowing an extension, it must be exasperating. I hope they veto it. They won't though because they are actually adults.
Click to expand...
It's a Guardian article. How does it carry any weight? It's anti-Conservative and pro-remain. It's also full of meaningless padding.

Eg:

An EU diplomat said that “given the present stance of No 10 and the apparent lack of concrete and implementable UK proposals to substitute the backstop, frustration is growing rapidly among the EU27”.

Which diplomat said this, please?

Another Eg:

“They have taken people out of these meetings so they can work on no deal, but then they have to ring round the member states begging for reports of what is being discussed,” complained one EU diplomat. “It just becomes more ridiculous by the day.”

Which diplomat said this one, please?

Third Eg:

“We have the Brits ringing up saying: ‘It’s great that we are going to work on this agrifood zone idea,’ but it just feels like a distraction from all the other problems that need solving,” a source said.

Which source said this, please?

It's tosh. Her letter is available anywhere.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49623727

Why do you need a newspaper?
 
droodzilla said:
Meanwhile, in Maidenhead:

https://www.mix96.co.uk/news/nation...rYstkXhjctmOHL57WI16_0U0OGiBV3NcVXikNQYCKdwgo

safe_image.php


Nice to see her doing something useful.
Click to expand...

That's photo looks very Photoshopped...
 
Fair enough if you are calling out Boris to name his negotiator and the people he has made great progress with over the last few weeks. You are not seeking that.
Instead an EU diplomat who has to remain unnamed is letting you in on the little secret we all know anyway. Why are you not battering down BJ's door and get him to prove this is not true.
Simon Coveney has openly said the same thing. This morning on RTE some British Brexit bloke continued the back stop theme without giving any tangible examples of how things can work.
As others have pointed out they are playing silly private school debating games were you pick a straw and then lie your way to victory in whatever idiotic debate is being played out. i.e. the wall is painted black no it is white, Q 10yrs of rigorous debate and insults and jolly ho some fine scotch and brandy afterwards to wash down the bile.

A child can see the sense of the EU position it is too late to be trying to suggest the EU are the baddies here. With exception of blind brexiteers we all know who are playing games.

richgilb said:
It's a Guardian article. How does it carry any weight? It's anti-Conservative and pro-remain. It's also full of meaningless padding.

Eg:

An EU diplomat said that “given the present stance of No 10 and the apparent lack of concrete and implementable UK proposals to substitute the backstop, frustration is growing rapidly among the EU27”.

Which diplomat said this, please?

Another Eg:

“They have taken people out of these meetings so they can work on no deal, but then they have to ring round the member states begging for reports of what is being discussed,” complained one EU diplomat. “It just becomes more ridiculous by the day.”

Which diplomat said this one, please?

Third Eg:

“We have the Brits ringing up saying: ‘It’s great that we are going to work on this agrifood zone idea,’ but it just feels like a distraction from all the other problems that need solving,” a source said.

Which source said this, please?

It's tosh. Her letter is available anywhere.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49623727

Why do you need a newspaper?
Click to expand...
 
tonerei said:
Fair enough if you are calling out Boris to name his negotiator and the people he has made great progress with over the last few weeks. You are not seeking that.
Instead an EU diplomat who has to remain unnamed is letting you in on the little secret we all know anyway. Why are you not battering down BJ's door and get him to prove this is not true.
Simon Coveney has openly said the same thing. This morning on RTE some British Brexit bloke continued the back stop theme without giving any tangible examples of how things can work.
As others have pointed out they are playing silly private school debating games were you pick a straw and then lie your way to victory in whatever idiotic debate is being played out. i.e. the wall is painted black no it is white, Q 10yrs of rigorous debate and insults and jolly ho some fine scotch and brandy afterwards to wash down the bile.

A child can see the sense of the EU position it is too late to be trying to suggest the EU are the baddies here. With exception of blind brexiteers we all know who are playing games.
Click to expand...
I am not supporting Boris. If I see shite in other rags about his aides and the like supposedly saying things, I think the same thing. But noone is posting them here. So there is nothing to say. Other than...

Boris needs pulling apart by chimpanzees. He is not to be trusted with anything. He should stop talking about a general election and start talking about a 2nd referendum.

I trust my position is clear. I do not attack Guardian articles in support of the Conservative Party or Brexit. I just wish people here would rely on the Guardian less. It does not reinforce a point.
 
Tony L said:
At the time of the referendum those who organised it never believed for a minute the masses would be thick enough to vote for it. Cameron facilitated the idiocy in a misjudged attempt to ‘win’ against a minority of nutters in his own party and the popularist racism and xenophobia of Farage etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, at the time of the referendum, called to save the Tory party, David Cameron never believed for a minute a majority of the people that make up the UK electorate would vote leave.

Tony L said:
Everything the remain campaign predicted (crashing currency, mass manufacturing job losses, no workable solution to NI, rise of the far-right etc) has all come true and we haven’t even left yet! There was no ‘project fear’, only reality, one the Brexit nutters to this day attempt to deny in the face of all evidence.
Click to expand...
Not seeing where I mentioned project fear but I guessed someone would launch into the type of reply you posted there. It's not relevant to the reply I posted to ks. He was asking what type of leave people voted for and I offered an opinion based on how I think people were influenced by the arguments 3 years ago. In that context it doesn't matter if predictions made then have happened. Some believe predictions, others do not. Which side people fall on that will have been based on how they already intend to vote, imo. Predictions are not likely to change the voting intention of significant numbers.

The point is, basing a campaign strategy on predictions is unwise, far better to focus on achievements that people will recognise. I'm fairly sure there will have been important EU funded projects in various areas around the UK where the local community is generally unaware the EU had anything to do with it. I may be wrong, but that's my feeling on it. Highlighting these things gives a chance of winning a vote where it is otherwise lost. I see nothing controversial there though I expect you to disagree given you think millions of leave voters are racists and/or thick. In that case, nothing would change their voting intention.

By the way, as you say, we haven't even left yet so clearly any of those predictions turning out to have happened is likely to be due to uncertainty among other things. There was never any need for 3 years of uncertainty but you may disagree.
 
Brian said:
The point is, basing a campaign strategy on predictions is unwise, far better to focus on achievements that people will recognise. I'm fairly sure there will have been important EU funded projects in various areas around the UK where the local community is generally unaware the EU had anything to do with it. I may be wrong, but that's my feeling on it. Highlighting these things gives a chance of winning a vote where it is otherwise lost. I see nothing controversial there though I expect you to disagree...
Click to expand...
But that would require the UK government (the Remain campaign) to catalogue scores of regional projects and then argue, in effect, ‘we wouldn’t have given you lot this money, but the EU did’. How likely is that?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Honestly, Brian, you think the UK government (which set itself as the pro-Remain campaign) was ever likely to campaign on the basis of 'good stuff the EU has done for you lot, that we'd never have done'? Especially after 30-odd years of blaming the EU for the bad times, while taking credit for the good stuff. Seriously? You think that could ever have happened?

On your second paragraph, my expectation is that the change of mood in Scotland might well have been down to a discovery that, despite all the anti-EU rhetoric, the reality was nothing like as problematic as what was posited during the campaign, and indeed, actually, it was quite nice in here, thank you for asking.
Click to expand...

Remain did a poor job of informing the electorate of the good the EU have done with £4 billion each year they return of the £12 billion handed over. Maybe they thought it was best to stay away from the money issues, because it would open a can of worms.
 
Colin Barron said:
Leave was the key word and promise from our politicians. What was meant by leave was spelled out fully by project fear, with warnings and threats
Click to expand...
No, leave meant leave. We were told often enough. Whatever remain said, either as project fear or not, was dismissed as "leave means leave" . I think I may have missed the news bulletin as to the detail of exactly what "leave" means , still we've had 3 years to sort it out, it must be clear enough to all who voted for it, so would you mind reminding me?
 
Colin Barron said:
Remain did a poor job of informing the electorate of the good the EU have done with £4 billion each year they return of the £12 billion handed over. Maybe they thought it was best to stay away from the money issues, because it would open a can of worms.
Click to expand...

It was an understandable strategy as so many leavers are just so profoundly dumb/financially illiterate they wouldn’t factor in what the money spent actually buys. Many are so thick they actually think economies work like household budgets!
 
stevec67 said:
No, leave meant leave. We were told often enough. Whatever remain said, either as project fear or not, was dismissed as "leave means leave" . I think I may have missed the news bulletin as to the detail of exactly what "leave" means , still we've had 3 years to sort it out, it must be clear enough to all who voted for it, so would you mind reminding me?
Click to expand...
The only deal on offer was May's deal and that certainly was not leaving.
 
"The only deal on offer was Mays deal and that certainly wasn't leaving"

Well, she said that it certainly was and that leave meant leave, so her deal must have been what the leave campaign wanted, mustn't it? After all, nobody would run a political campaign without making it clear what was meant, would they?
 
Colin Barron said:
Remain did a poor job of informing the electorate of the good the EU have done with £4 billion each year they return of the £12 billion handed over. Maybe they thought it was best to stay away from the money issues, because it would open a can of worms.
Click to expand...

You could be right, though if it didn’t all fit on the side of a bus it would’ve been too much for most Leave voters
 
Tony L said:
It was an understandable strategy as so many leavers are just so profoundly dumb/financially illiterate they wouldn’t factor in what the money spent actually buys. Many are so thick they actually think economies work like household budgets!
Click to expand...

When countries overspend, take on too much debt until the banks will lend no more and they are forced to sell off the state assets they are indeed in similar position as an individual or company; except an individual can go bankrupt wheras the EU bankers keep a country on life support just allowing a country enough oxygen to allow it to screw the maximum cash and be totally dependent. Examples are Greece. ROI and heading that way is Italy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top