downcow wrote: » You’re missing the point. I am not holding the bus up as an example of brexiteer honesty. I am pointing out that both sides stretched the truth to its limit and the bus is an example of that. And you are back again quoting net, the bus referred to gross
Tell me how wrote: » One guy said that most in the area he is in (near Stoke) think that the EU are being awkward and don't want them to leave but eventually they will get their way. ?
Sam Russell wrote: » I think you are missing the fundamental question of the Brexit vote. 1. Those that voted remain voted for the status quo. That is they knew exactly what they were voting for. 2. Those that voted to leave voted against staying in the EU. Now they had no unified vision of what, if anything, they were voting FOR. The lies told by the leave side were based on: 1. A fictitious amount of money remitted to the EU, (which was about 1% of the UK Gov spending). It was deliberately inflated, with no mention of the rebate, or the compensating cost required to duplicate the pooled EU agencies to function as a state in the world. 2. The bare faced lie about immigration being under the control of the EU, despite the lion's share of immigration for non-EU countries. The lack of using any valid restrictions allowed under EU rules. 3. The emotive line about 'taking back control of our laws and our borders' which turned out to be total BS. Turns out not one Brexiteer can identify one EU law that they want to take back, and now they want an open EU border in NI. 4. The racist push showing hoards of immigrants heading towards the UK, implying that Turkey was going to join the EU, and unleash huge numbers into the UK. Any lies told by the Remain side were pointless since everyone knew what remain meant. No-one knew what Leave meant, because it meant all things to all people. It could mean whatever you wanted it to mean - pure populism. No, Brexit was driven by lies, foreign money, Russian bots, illegal spending, and very dodgy people with hidden agendas. Now we see a £14 million contract going to a £2 start up company to provide shipping services. The company was formed on 5 th April 2017, just one week after Article 50 was lodged. Wonder what is behind that? Less than 90 days to go, and no-one knows what will happen.
jochenstacker wrote: » Well, please list examples of this truth stretching. Because this just sounds like "I know you are, but what am I?" In other words empty whataboutery.
Gerry T wrote: » ... with the staggering inaccuracies in you post I think it would be more beneficial for you to go do some honest research.
downcow wrote: » This is fairly typical of the problem with the two sides in this debate and the blinkers they are wearing. You say “the hall was full of EU gold star flags”. Do me a favour and google images of it. Yeah sure there was a small group who brought Eu flags (note they are all together in a bunch and have exactly the same flag - coincidence I guess). To suggest the hall was full of Eu flags and the UK flag was missing - we’ll need I say more?
Gerry T wrote: » No, NI is a special case because of the good Friday agreement. First the UK practically removed all border infrastructure/presence and allowed republicans feel like they live in a single ireland. ROI then changed it's constitution, by referendum removing it's legitimate claim to the territory of NI and in direct response to you both the UK and ROI govts allow any citizen of NI to hold a UK or Irish passport. Why would someone living in ni, that identifies as Irish, holding a Irish passport show any loyalty to the queen of an occupying country.
Tell me how wrote: » The examples downcow was referring to (I think) included the claim that the EU economy would tank and there would be several 100,000 more unemployed within a short time after the referendum, if they voted to leave. This didn't happen.
RobMc59 wrote: » In your own post you mention that Ireland has no legitimate claim on the territory of NI so why do you mention an occupying country?In addition you mention the UK removing all border infrastructure and allowing republicans to feel like they live in a single Ireland(is`nt that a good thing?). Obviously there are republicans in NI who would`nt show loyalty to the Queen which they are entitled to do-I realised I should have acknowledged that difference as soon as I posted last night and apologise for saying it in a thoughtless way. I would like to see a UI and have discussed this before on thread V,is it reasonable to say Ireland would have to say they would like a UI and then the possibility of a referendum could be looked at?Would republican voters in the North vote and would it be an attractive proposition to the people of NI?Obviously brexit makes the future murky but there are pluses and minuses to both sides of the argument.
jochenstacker wrote: » downcow, I challenge you to reply to each of these points and refute them with evidence and sources. I know you won't, because you've got absolutely nothing. Empty vessels and all that. We are all awaiting your reply, which I bet won't be forthcoming. And the rest, I bet, will either be your usual Brexit hysteria or deafening silence. You got nothing but bluster.
downcow wrote: » Here are are a few to get you going https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_cs=BPbFPOvL3LSNm1LFEA_-Zg
murphaph wrote: » The fireworks would have been dictated by the London mayor's office I suspect and London is solidly anti Brexit.
flatty wrote: » The head of the display was interviewed on the news yesterday morning, and said specifically that they were going for an inclusive European theme (mentioned specifically) London sees itself as a European capital being dragged out by the remainder of the country. The blue rinse brigade may get their wishes (and I have not one iota of sympathy for ambro's mother in law, she can lie in the bed she helped to make), but it won't be long before the UK, or whatever its called or comprises, will be agitating for a rejoining vote. They will have done themselves irredeemable harm in the meantime, but as long as their pensions are triple locked, the brexit core vote won't give a flying fxxk. The sooner they atrophy, the better.
Seth Brundle wrote: » So you couldn't find impartial sources, only one blog post from a Brexiteer (Matthew Ellery is a Research Executive at eurosceptic campaign group Get Britain Out). Come on, please try harder!
EdgeCase wrote: » Fundementally what is happening in the UK is a democratic decision has been made but the public are under the impression that because they voted for something it cannot have consequences. Leaving the EU is possible but economically and practically it has extremely serious consequences and some of those can't be mitigated against by government or EU policies and will have significant impacts on spending power, foreign and domestic investment by business, access to markets, personal freedoms and ultimately people's day to day lives. There's nothing wrong with the concept of voting to leave. It's just that leaving isn't going to be smooth and that's just the reality of it. You are absolutely free to make that choice. The EU has facilitated it and has actually done nothing at all to prevent the UK from leaving. It has outlined the risks and it has tried to mitigate many of them, but that's all it's done. I mean it hasn't even really expressed annoyance. It's been more a "oh well. Best of luck with that. We'll still be friends!" type of message even though the UK media keeps twisting that into some kind of ridiculous notion of imagined fuming authoritarian figures plotting in Brussels. There's a sense of disappointment and bewilderment and a notion that we now need to make contingencies to mitigate the impact on the reminder of the EU, but that's about it. Meanwhile the UK has acted like a spoilt brat footballer who has just stormed off in a huff ranting about its awful teammates and how its club is the worst ever and how it will now make a career as a pop star and setup military bases in Singapore and the Caribbean to show the world how important it is.
downcow wrote: » Tell me what you guys think people of UK should do. They have had the biggest vote in history which said they want to leave the Eu. Are you guys really suggesting that is ignored.Eu are pissing off many nations with their arrogance and lack of democracy.
downcow wrote: » Tell me what you guys think people of UK should do. They have had the biggest vote in history which said they want to leave the Eu. Are you guys really suggesting that is ignored? Eu are pissing off many nations with their arrogance and lack of democracy. I will be honest. I would hate to see us stay now (given the way Eu is behaving) and then find out a few years down the line that a few other nations has had the balls to actually leave. I like European people, love visiting European countries, liked the concept of the common market, love the diversity of foreign nationals from Eu and rest of world living and working amongst us but I’m afraid I have had too much of Eu arrogance. Advise me what we should do. My thought is that we should negotiate right to the wire to get best deal possible. (I think that is maybe what we are doing).
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Did you write that blog?
EdgeCase wrote: » Fundementally what is happening in the UK is a democratic decision has been made but the public are under the impression that because they voted for something it cannot have consequences. Leaving the EU is possible but economically and practically it has extremely serious consequences and some of those can't be mitigated against by government or EU policies and will have significant impacts on spending power, foreign and domestic investment by business, access to markets, personal freedoms and ultimately people's day to day lives.There's nothing wrong with the concept of voting to leave. It's just that leaving isn't going to be smooth and that's just the reality of it. You are absolutely free to make that choice. The EU has facilitated it and has actually done nothing at all to prevent the UK from leaving. It has outlined the risks and it has tried to mitigate many of them, but that's all it's done. I mean it hasn't even really expressed annoyance. It's been more a "oh well. Best of luck with that. We'll still be friends!" type of message even though the UK media keeps twisting that into some kind of ridiculous notion of imagined fuming authoritarian figures plotting in Brussels. There's a sense of disappointment and bewilderment and a notion that we now need to make contingencies to mitigate the impact on the reminder of the EU, but that's about it. Meanwhile the UK has acted like a spoilt brat footballer who has just stormed off in a huff ranting about its awful teammates and how its club is the worst ever and how it will now make a career as a pop star and setup military bases in Singapore and the Caribbean to show the world how important it is.
Folkstonian wrote: » Versions of this post are quite frequent but I do think they miss a fundamental point. Among ardent Brexit supporters, you rarely hear of people who want to leave but do not want to accept the economic consequence of that decision. Most, for one reason or another, either they underestimate the hit to the economy as a result of Brexit or they simply see leaving as such an big thing in and of itself that any of the fallout is irrelevant, want to see this thing done without compromise. The push back is coming from the Europhiles and the people who see the practical benefits to being in the EU, and want to drop the anchors on the whole endeavour. People are very split on the issue, but mostly in my experience convinced of the virtues of their position, whichever side of the fence they are on
flatty wrote: » They will have done themselves irredeemable harm in the meantime, but as long as their pensions are triple locked, the brexit core vote won't give a flying fxxk. The sooner they atrophy, the better.
Folkstonian wrote: » ... Most, for one reason or another, either they underestimate the hit to the economy as a result of Brexit or they simply see leaving as such an big thing in and of itself that any of the fallout is irrelevant, want to see this thing done without compromise. The push back is coming from the Europhiles and the people who see the practical benefits to being in the EU, and want to drop the anchors on the whole endeavour.
Older Leave voters are significantly more willing than their younger counterparts to see the country, themselves and their families be economically compromised in order to achieve Brexit. Whereas 46% of 18-24 year old Leave voters say significant damage to the economy is a price worth paying for Brexit, this figure increases with every subsequent age group to 71% of 65+ year old Leave voters. Likewise, when the cost of Brexit would be themselves or members of their family losing their job, the proportion willing to pay that price rose each age group from 25% of 18-24 year old Leave voters to 50% of 65+ year old Leave voters.
