robinph wrote: » If you were a leave voter reading that then all you are going to be seeing is that Tusk said something and therefore it must be terrible so not really sure that is the target audience for his statement. As proven by the fact that you think what he said is going to help the cause of Brexit. Whereas someone else will see that there are people in the EU who still hope that the rest of the UK will come to their senses and call the whole mad thing off, and that the remainers shouldn't give up hope yet. They are the intended audience. He's not making those comments thinking that he'll be able to change the mind of Farage.
stefanovich wrote: » Every voter has a duty to understand what they are voting for. The ballots were cast. This is the result. So curious how the Irish have turned. I remember the anger when Lisbon treaty was forced upon us. I question the result too. Shenanigans!
lawred2 wrote: » Such pious (and disingenuous) twaddle Had it been the other way - you'd never make such a statement
stefanovich wrote: » Generally when a referendum is called it is not supposed to be a repeat affair. How many times do we repeat? 3 is fair I suppose? The only reason this has not concluded sooner is because the remainers have used every tactic in the book to block it because they do not like the result. They wanted to avoid a general election because they know Parliament is not representative of the people they are supposed to represent. This is banana republic style politics. Shameful.
stefanovich wrote: » The only reason this has not concluded sooner is because the remainers have used every tactic in the book to block it because they do not like the result.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » no i doubt he's likely to have much effect one way or the other on Johnson, Swinson or Corbyn either. you may not realise this but the GE will be won or lost in those swing/marginal consitiencies, where there is a proportion of undecided voters. By alienating those crucial voters, Tusk is effectively shooting himself in the foot. It's not a simple matter of influencing party leaders. the campaign is far more nuanced and delicate than that.
Nody wrote: » Once again you're reading things the wrong way and assuming you can mind read everyone who disagrees with you. You see I'm 110% behind Farage on his EU deal position; I would love UK to leave on the hardest possible Brexit without a deal. The difference being why; in Farage's case because that's what he's paid to do while in my case it's to shut up the Brexiteers the fastest way possible by crashing their mirage into a concrete wall of reality. Once the Brexit dreams come crashing down like the fall out of Hiroshima bomb it will be to the UK economy (in case of a hard crash out scenario) we can start having an actual mature factual discussion; until then it's going to be vague statements and mumbled bendy banana laws until the cows come home.
Ihatewhahabies wrote: » IMO there will never have a mature discussion on Brexit with the vast majority of the tories. Conservatives such as Ian duncan Smith, JRMoog etc have swallowed the koolaid. They will never change their opinions as they are financially secure etc.
robinph wrote: » Why are you assuming that these swing voters are all dedicated to the leave cause and so would be turned off by the comments of Tusk? For every one person who you think that would be alienated by his comments there is another who isn't. Will his comments make the remainer more likely to turn out to vote for a remain party tactically, or a leaver to turn out to vote for a leave party? He doesn't really care if he pisses of a few leavers who were going to vote leave anyway, but if he convinces a few remainers that there is still hope and a reason for them to get out and vote then he's done what he wanted.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The topic of this thread is Brexit, not the Lisbon treaty referendum of 2011. A post has been edited and another deleted.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » there are many Leave voters who may be having 2nd thoughts on Brexit, the possible effects on the economy, jobs etc. etc. by meddling in the GE Tusk is imo likely to drive those wavering (Leave) voters back into Tory/Brexit party arms. EU interference strikes at the core of their dislike of the EU.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » you are missing the point entirely. there are many Leave voters who may be having 2nd thoughts on Brexit, the possible effects on the economy, jobs etc. etc. by meddling in the GE Tusk is imo likely to drive those wavering (Leave) voters back into Tory/Brexit party arms. EU interference strikes at the core of their dislike of the EU. Boris, Nigel etc. just have to say "look we told you so! typical EU interference in UK internal affairs. that's why we must get Brexit done." tusk thinks he's smart, but imo he is an idiot, but a useful idiot for Leavers. Remainer voters do need convincing of the downsides of Brexit, so tusk's meddling will have little/no effect on them. they will be voting Lib Dem/Lab regardless what he says.
CelticRambler wrote: » Are you seriously trying to argue that a Leave voter, who has taken the time to think about the effect of Brexit on the future economy, who has engaged their brain enough to critically evaluate the Johnson-Cummings-Farage propaganda and begun to question it, would suddenly reject their own conclusions on the back of a throw-away comment by some foreigner? We on the Brexit-is-a-stupid-idea side of the equation are often accused of treating Leavers as idiots. Aren't you doing exactly the same now?
Deleted User wrote: » and the elimination of Marxist-Scottish Nationalist Government
Deleted User wrote: » Excellent election speech from Johnson yesterday. His infectious enthusiasm and optimism in the future of the UK from 2020; his closing of this (first) gloomy chapter in Brexit history; and his doing away with the grim misery and double referendum proposed by the Labour Party; and the elimination of Marxist-Scottish Nationalist Government, is what will propel the Conservative Party to majority success.
Dytalus wrote: » Um...what? By what metric are the SNP marxist?
Deleted User wrote: » Labour-SNP is what I mean when I say Marxist-Scottish Nationalist Goverment. A Johnson Administration eliminates that very real and frightening possibility.
Deleted User wrote: » Excellent election speech from Johnson yesterday.
lawred2 wrote: » yeah terrifying altogether for goodness sake - would you ever stop engaging in soundbytes and hyperbole
robinph wrote: » However terrifying people may think Corbyn is, if he gets in and is so terrible then he'll be gone again within 5 years in the worst case scenario. More likely well before that as the rest of the party or parliament would remove him long before.
Deleted User wrote: » There's nothing hyperbolic about a potential Labour government that has sided with the enemies of the UK; that wishes to hold a second referendum of Remain v Remain Minus and deepen divisions within the populace; that power is willing to be attained at the cost of a Second Independence referendum in Scotland; that a re-nationalization program coupled with hard-left socialist policies that target business and prospective foreign inward investment; that wishes to impose layers of regulation to stymie the economic growth fostered under Tory rule; of having Diane Abbott as Home Secretary; among many other reasons why, yes, a Labour-SNP government would only destroy the economy, destroy the UK structure, and destroy the international foreign policy standing of previous UK governments. That's not hyperbole; that may actually happen - and it shouldn't.
[Deleted User] wrote: » There's nothing hyperbolic about a potential Labour government that has sided with the enemies of the UK; that wishes to hold a second referendum of Remain v Remain Minus and deepen divisions within the populace; that power is willing to be attained at the cost of a Second Independence referendum in Scotland; that a re-nationalization program coupled with hard-left socialist policies that target business and prospective foreign inward investment; that wishes to impose layers of regulation to stymie the economic growth fostered under Tory rule; of having Diane Abbott as Home Secretary; among many other reasons why, yes, a Labour-SNP government would only destroy the economy, destroy the UK structure, and destroy the international foreign policy standing held by former UK governments - including by viewing the US as a hostile force vital to NATO; and opposing the use of Trident. That's not hyperbole; that may actually happen - and it shouldn't.
Deleted User wrote: » Given the Labour membership, I would imagine that Corbyn would only be replaced with another form of Corbyn, who believes in the same kind of politics. I can't see things returning to Blair-like days of centre-left politics, though I could be wrong. Perhaps when the Brexit wave subsides, the Liberal Democrats may grow to become the new centre-left party in British politics, with Corbyn et al. / Labour becoming more and more insignificant.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
